Religious Laws and the Constitution

 Religious Laws and the Constitution 

The Manusmriti (Laws of Manu) is an ancient Hindu legal and ethical text that is part of the Dharmaśāstra tradition. Unlike the Bhagavad Gita, which is primarily a spiritual and philosophical scripture, Manusmriti is a socio-legal text that deals with laws, duties, caste regulations, and moral conduct. It is not considered a "holy book" like the Vedas or Bhagavad Gita, but it has historically influenced Hindu society, particularly in terms of social order and law.

 

Position in Hindu Tradition

1.   Manusmriti is one of the earliest texts that outline Hindu law (Dharma), but it is not universally followed today.

2.   It was traditionally regarded as a guideline for law and social conduct, but its relevance has been debated over time.

3.   Some of its controversial verses, especially on caste and gender roles, have been criticized for being discriminatory.

4.   Hindu reformers, including social activists and modern scholars, have challenged its authority, leading to its decline in legal influence.

5.   While it was used as a reference for legal codes in ancient and medieval India, it is not a binding religious scripture in contemporary Hindu practice.

 

10 Comments on Manusmriti by Prominent Personalities

1.   Mahatma Gandhi – "There are many things in Manusmriti which are good and just, but there are other things which I reject as being against the principles of justice."

2.   B.R. Ambedkar – "The Manusmriti is the root cause of social inequality in India. It must be burned." (He famously burned a copy of the text in 1927 as a protest against caste discrimination.)

3.   Swami Vivekananda – "The Manusmriti and other law books have been a great stumbling block in the path of progress. Much of it is out of harmony with the spirit of the times."

4.   Dr. S. Radhakrishnan – "Hindu lawgivers like Manu tried to regulate society in a hierarchical manner, which may not be acceptable in modern times."

5.   Periyar E.V. Ramasamy – "The Manusmriti is the symbol of Brahminical oppression. It must be opposed to achieve true equality."

6.   Bal Gangadhar Tilak – "While the Manusmriti contains wisdom, it must be interpreted in light of changing social conditions."

7.   Rabindranath Tagore – "A text like Manusmriti may have had its place in history, but it cannot dictate modern human values and ethics."

8.   Sri Aurobindo – "It is a historical document of Hindu society, not a divine revelation."

9.   Jawaharlal Nehru – "Hindu society must move beyond the rigidities of texts like Manusmriti to achieve social justice and democracy."

10.               Annie Besant – "Some parts of Manusmriti contain noble ideals, but its caste laws are incompatible with modern principles of equality."

 

Here are 10 more quotations on Manusmriti from prominent personalities:

 

1. Dayananda Saraswati (Arya Samaj founder)

"Manusmriti contains many valuable teachings, but it has also been corrupted over time. The original Manu’s wisdom has been misrepresented."

2. Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak

"Manusmriti is an ancient legal text, but we must accept only those parts that align with justice and modern ideals."

3. Dr. Rajendra Prasad (First President of India)

"A society must progress with time. Laws should be dynamic, not bound by outdated texts like Manusmriti."

4. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru

"Texts like Manusmriti reflect the thinking of a certain period. They cannot and should not dictate the future of a progressive society."

5. Swami Dayananda Saraswati (Modern Hindu Thinker)

"We should not blindly follow Manusmriti; we must filter out what does not suit the ideals of equality and justice."

6. Bhagat Singh

"Manusmriti is a text that has been used to uphold discrimination. A just society must reject such outdated notions."

7. Justice K. Chandru (Retired Madras HC Judge)

"The Manusmriti, which is often quoted for its legal wisdom, is also a tool that has historically justified inequality."

8. Dr. M. Karunanidhi (Former CM of Tamil Nadu)

"The Manusmriti must be discarded if we wish to build a truly equal and just society."

9. Justice B.R. Gavai (Supreme Court Judge)

"Manusmriti has historical significance, but it must not be considered a foundation for modern law or social ethics."

10. Ram Manohar Lohia (Socialist Leader)

"Any text that divides people and denies dignity to sections of society must be questioned and, if necessary, rejected."

 

M.S. Golwalkar

M.S. Golwalkar, the second Sarsanghchalak (chief) of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), spoke about Manusmriti in a positive light, emphasizing its historical role in shaping Hindu society. Here are some notable statements attributed to him regarding Manusmriti:

 

M.S. Golwalkar's Quotes on Manusmriti

1.        “To this day, the Hindu society is following the laws prescribed by Manu. Even today, his laws inspire us. Manu’s prescriptions are universally relevant.” (Bunch of Thoughts)

2.        “Manu’s laws were the first and the greatest social code that the world has ever known. They established a cohesive social order that lasted for centuries.”

3.        “Manusmriti has always been held in high esteem as the law book for the Hindu way of life. It laid the foundation for an organized, stable, and disciplined society.”

4.        “In Hindu society, Dharma is supreme, and Manu is the ancient lawgiver who codified Dharma into a set of rules that sustained our civilization for millennia.”

5.        “Manu’s code represents the fundamental principles of social order and justice, making it an essential part of our cultural heritage.”

6.        “The British imposed their own legal system, disregarding the wisdom of our ancient lawgivers like Manu. This was one of the greatest injustices to our society.”

7.        “Manu’s laws did not aim at oppression but at maintaining order and discipline in society. Those who criticize them must understand their historical context.”

8.        “Unlike the changing legal systems of the West, Manusmriti provided a framework that was stable and deeply rooted in Dharma.”

9.        “Western critics have misunderstood Manu’s laws. They were not meant to suppress but to sustain a well-ordered social system.”

10.    “The greatness of Hindu society lies in its resilience, and much of that resilience comes from the principles laid down by Manu.”

 

Golwalkar saw Manusmriti as an essential foundation for Hindu social organization. However, his views have been widely debated, especially in the context of modern values of equality and social justice.

 

Manusmriti, an ancient Hindu legal text, has been a subject of discussion among various political leaders in India. While there have been allegations and criticisms suggesting that some leaders from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) advocate for Manusmriti to replace or influence the Indian Constitution, direct quotations from current RSS and BJP leaders proposing such changes are not readily available in the provided sources. However, the discourse includes:

 

1.   Mohan Bhagwat (RSS Chief):

o    During the consecration event of the proposed Grand Ram Temple at Ayodhya, RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat recited from Manusmriti, highlighting its significance in Hindu tradition.

reddit.com

 

2.   Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (Hindutva Ideologue):

o    Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, quoting Savarkar, stated: "The worst thing about the Constitution is that there is nothing Indian about it. Manusmriti is the scripture most worshipable after the Vedas of our Hindu nation… For centuries, this book has codified our nation’s spiritual and divine march."

newindianexpress.com

 

3.   Rahul Gandhi (Congress Leader):

o    Criticizing the BJP, Rahul Gandhi remarked: "Congress follows the Indian Constitution; BJP's book is Manusmriti."

Hindustan Times

 

4.   Mallikarjun Kharge (Congress Leader):

o    In the Rajya Sabha, Kharge emphasized: "The Constitution gave us the right to speak, not Manusmriti."

Economic Times

 

5.   Janata Dal (United) [JD(U)]:

o    The JD(U) alleged that the BJP aims to govern the country and its social system based on Manusmriti rather than the Constitution framed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

 

While these references indicate that Manusmriti has been a point of reference in political debates, explicit proposals from current RSS and BJP leaders to adopt Manusmriti as the Constitution of India are not documented in the provided sources.

Sources

 

 

The discussions around Manusmriti often emerge in political debates, with opposition leaders expressing concerns about its ideological influence. For example, Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge highlighted the significance of the Constitution over Manusmriti during a parliamentary debate, stating:

 

"It is because of the Constitution the Finance Minister got the opportunity to present the Budget, not because of Manusmriti. We have got the right to speak because of the Constitution. Don't listen to Manuwadi."

Economic Times

 

Additionally, historical critiques from RSS-affiliated publications have expressed reservations about the Indian Constitution. The RSS mouthpiece, Organiser, in its November 30, 1949 issue, remarked:

"The worst about the new Constitution of Bharat is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it."

m.thewire.in

 

Furthermore, diaspora groups have voiced concerns about potential shifts towards Manusmriti-inspired governance. In a joint statement, 22 South Asian diaspora organizations expressed apprehension over Prime Minister Narendra Modi's participation in the inauguration of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, interpreting it as:

 

"An attempt to replace India's secular constitution and make the country a Hindu rashtra (state)."

thenewsminute.com

 

However, these perspectives do not constitute direct endorsements or proposals by BJP MPs or ministers to adopt Manusmriti as the nation's constitution. It's essential to distinguish between critiques, ideological debates, and official policy positions. As of now, there is no verifiable evidence of BJP legislators advocating for such a constitutional replacement.

 

Mahatma Gandhi acknowledged that while Manusmriti contains some good teachings, parts of it contradict justice and fairness. The Indian Constitution, based on justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity, directly opposes many principles of Manusmriti. Here are 10 principles from Manusmriti that conflict with modern constitutional values:

 

1. Caste-Based Discrimination (Varna System) – Against Equality

Verse: Manusmriti 1.91

"For the prosperity of the world, He (Brahma) created Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras from His mouth, arms, thighs, and feet respectively."

• Why unjust? It establishes caste-based hierarchy, contradicting Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution.
•  

2. Denial of Education to Shudras – Against Liberty & Equality

Verse: Manusmriti 2.31

"A Shudra who tries to learn the Vedas should be punished by pouring molten lead into his ears."

• Why unjust? It denies education to lower castes, opposing Article 21A (Right to Education).
•  

3. Denial of Property Rights to Shudras – Against Economic Justice

Verse: Manusmriti 10.129

"No wealth must be given to a Shudra. Even if he is in distress, a king should never grant him land or property."

• Why unjust? It contradicts Article 19(1)(f) (Right to Property, before it was repealed) and economic justice.
•  

4. Women’s Subjugation – Against Gender Equality

Verse: Manusmriti 9.3

"A woman must never be independent. In childhood, she depends on her father, in youth on her husband, and after her husband's death on her sons."

• Why unjust? It violates Article 15 (No discrimination based on gender) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity).
•  

5. Justification of Child Marriage – Against Right to Childhood

Verse: Manusmriti 9.94

"A man of thirty may marry a girl of twelve, or a man of twenty-four a girl of eight."

• Why unjust? It supports child marriage, violating laws like the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
•  

6. Justification of Untouchability – Against Fraternity

Verse: Manusmriti 10.51-56

"An untouchable must live outside the village, use broken utensils, and wear the clothes of the dead."

• Why unjust? It promotes untouchability, abolished by Article 17 of the Constitution.
•  

7. Extreme Punishment for Lower Castes – Against Legal Justice

Verse: Manusmriti 8.270

"If a Shudra insults a Brahmin, his tongue should be cut off."

• Why unjust? It promotes cruel punishments, violating Article 21 (Right to Life).
•  

8. No Divorce Rights for Women – Against Gender Justice

Verse: Manusmriti 9.45

"A woman cannot divorce her husband, even if he is wicked or neglectful."

• Why unjust? It contradicts Article 14 (Equality) and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
•  

9. Women Cannot Perform Rituals – Against Religious Freedom

Verse: Manusmriti 9.18

"A woman has no right to perform sacrifices or religious rituals without her husband."

• Why unjust? It contradicts Article 25 (Freedom of Religion) and promotes discrimination.
•  

10. No Punishment for Brahmins – Against Equality Before Law

Verse: Manusmriti 8.37

"A Brahmin must never be executed, no matter how great his crime."

• Why unjust? It violates Article 14 (Equality before the law).
•  

Conclusion:

Many teachings of Manusmriti directly contradict justice, equality, liberty, and fraternity, which are the foundation of modern India. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar burned Manusmriti in 1927, rejecting its discriminatory laws. The Indian Constitution upholds equal rights for all, irrespective of caste, gender, or religion, making Manusmriti obsolete in the legal system.

 

 

Quran, Hadid and Sharia List 10 hard principles from Quran, Hadid and Sharia that are most against the principles of Indian Constitution like justice, liberty, equality and Fraternity.

 

ChatGPT said:

Critically analyzing any religious text requires a nuanced approach, as interpretations vary widely across cultures, sects, and legal systems. The Indian Constitution is built on justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity, ensuring that laws are secular and inclusive. Some principles in Islamic jurisprudence (Sharia), as derived from the Quran and Hadith, have been debated in the context of constitutional principles. Below are 10 points that some critics argue may conflict with modern constitutional values, particularly in a secular and democratic system like India:

 

1. Apostasy (Leaving Islam) – Against Religious Liberty

Source: Hadith (Sahih Bukhari 6922)

"Whoever changes his religion, kill him."

• Why unjust? This contradicts Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom.

 

2. Gender-Based Inheritance – Against Equality

Source: Quran 4:11

"A male shall have the equal of the portion of two females."

• Why unjust? It goes against Article 14 (Right to Equality), as modern laws promote equal inheritance for men and women.

 

3. Testimony of Women in Court – Against Equal Justice

Source: Quran 2:282

"Get two witnesses from among your men. If two men are not available, then a man and two women."

• Why unjust? This undermines Article 15 (No gender discrimination) and Article 14 (Equality before the law).

 

4. Death for Blasphemy – Against Freedom of Speech

Source: Hadith (Abu Dawood 4361, Sahih Bukhari 6922)

"Whoever insults the Prophet, kill him."

• Why unjust? It contradicts Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech).

 

5. Triple Talaq – Against Women's Rights

Source: Hadith (Sunan Abu Dawood 2194, Ibn Majah 2018)

"A man can divorce his wife by saying 'Talaq' three times."

• Why unjust? Violates Article 15 (Gender Equality). The Supreme Court of India banned Triple Talaq in 2019.

 

6. Forced Veiling (Hijab/Niqab) – Against Individual Liberty

Source: Quran 24:31

"Tell the believing women to lower their gaze and draw their veils over their bosoms."

• Why unjust? Enforced veiling contradicts Article 21 (Right to Personal Liberty).

 

7. Polygamy for Men – Against Gender Equality

Source: Quran 4:3

"Marry women of your choice, two, three, or four."

• Why unjust? Indian laws prohibit polygamy for Hindus but allow it for Muslims, violating Article 14 (Equality).

 

8. Stoning for Adultery – Against Human Rights

Source: Hadith (Sahih Muslim 1690, Abu Dawood 4413)

"The adulterer must be stoned to death."

• Why unjust? It violates Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity).

 

9. Dhimmi System (Non-Muslim Tax) – Against Secularism

Source: Quran 9:29

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah... until they pay the Jizya tax with willing submission."

• Why unjust? Imposing a tax on religious minorities contradicts Article 14 (Equality) and Article 15 (No Discrimination).

 

10. LGBTQ+ Criminalization – Against Individual Rights

Source: Hadith (Abu Dawood 4462, Tirmidhi 1456)

"If you find anyone committing the act of the people of Lot, execute both."

• Why unjust? This contradicts Article 21 (Right to Life and Privacy). The Supreme Court of India decriminalized homosexuality in 2018.

 

Conclusion

Many of these principles from Sharia law have been modified, reinterpreted, or abolished in modern Muslim-majority countries. India's secular democracy ensures that personal laws (like Muslim Personal Law) are subject to constitutional review. The Indian Constitution guarantees equal rights for all, making many of these medieval laws incompatible with modern justice and human rights.

 

Here are 10 more principles from Sharia, the Quran, and Hadith that conflict with the core values of the Indian Constitution—justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. These principles have been debated in the context of modern democracy and secular governance.

 

11. Beating Wives – Against Gender Equality

Source: Quran 4:34

"Men are in charge of women... As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, forsake them in bed, and strike them."

• Why unjust? Encouraging domestic violence contradicts Article 15 (No gender discrimination) and Article 21 (Right to dignity).

---

12. No Marriage Without a Guardian (Wali) for Women – Against Personal Liberty

Source: Hadith (Tirmidhi 1101, Abu Dawood 2085)

"A woman may not marry herself off; a guardian must do it for her."

• Why unjust? Violates Article 21 (Right to personal liberty) and Article 16 (Right to marriage choice).

 

13. Forced Conversion – Against Religious Freedom

Source: Hadith (Sahih Muslim 6903, Abu Dawood 2683)

"The Prophet said: I have been commanded to fight until they testify that there is no god but Allah."

• Why unjust? Violates Article 25 (Freedom of Religion) and Article 14 (Equality).

 

14. Slavery and Concubinage – Against Human Dignity

Source: Quran 33:50

"Prophet, you may have as many wives as you like and those whom your right hand possesses."

• Why unjust? Allows slavery and concubinage, violating Article 23 (Prohibition of human trafficking).

 

15. Honor Killing for Family’s ‘Honor’ – Against Right to Life

Source: Hadith (Abu Dawood 4353, Ibn Majah 2565)

"If a man finds his wife committing adultery, he may kill her without punishment."

• Why unjust? Encourages honor killings, violating Article 21 (Right to Life).

 

16. Non-Muslims as Inferior Citizens – Against Fraternity & Secularism

Source: Quran 3:110-112

"You (Muslims) are the best of people... while the disbelievers are the worst of creatures."

• Why unjust? Promotes religious supremacy, contradicting Article 14 (Equality) and Article 15 (No discrimination).

 

17. Child Marriage for Girls – Against Protection of Minors

Source: Hadith (Sahih Bukhari 5133, Muslim 1422)

"The Prophet married Aisha when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was nine."

• Why unjust? Supports child marriage, violating POCSO Act and Article 21 (Right to dignity).

 

18. No Divorce Rights for Women Without Husband’s Permission – Against Gender Equality

Source: Hadith (Tirmidhi 1181, Ibn Majah 2055)

"A woman may not seek divorce except in cases of extreme hardship, with the husband's approval."

• Why unjust? Discriminates against women, violating Article 14 and Article 15.

 

19. Discrimination in Blood Money (Diyya) – Against Equal Justice

Source: Hadith (Sunan Abu Dawood 4530)

"The blood money for a woman is half that of a man, and for a non-Muslim, it is even lower."

• Why unjust? Violates Article 14 (Equality before law).

 

20. Jihad Against Non-Muslims – Against Peace & Fraternity

Source: Quran 9:5

"When the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them."

• Why unjust? Encourages violence, contradicting Article 51 (Promotion of international peace and harmony).

 

Conclusion:

Many Sharia-based laws contradict Indian constitutional values like gender equality, freedom of speech, secularism, and the right to life. While modern Muslim societies interpret Islamic teachings in different ways, India's secular framework ensures that all religions follow constitutional principles rather than outdated religious laws.

Would you like an analysis of how different Muslim-majority countries have reformed such laws?

 

The Indian Constitution is based on justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity, ensuring that all citizens are treated equally regardless of religion, caste, or gender. While Christian personal laws in India have evolved over time, some principles from the Bible and historical Christian laws may conflict with modern constitutional values. Here are 10 principles from Biblical teachings and Christian personal laws that could be seen as problematic from a constitutional perspective:

 

1. Death Penalty for Blasphemy – Against Freedom of Speech

Source: Leviticus 24:16

"Anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord must be put to death; the entire assembly must stone them."

• Why unjust? This contradicts Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech).

2. Subjugation of Women – Against Gender Equality

Source: 1 Timothy 2:12

"I do not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

• Why unjust? It violates Article 14 (Equality) and Article 15 (No discrimination based on gender).

 

3. Wives Must Obey Husbands – Against Personal Liberty

Source: Ephesians 5:22-24

"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife."

• Why unjust? It contradicts Article 21 (Right to dignity and personal liberty).

 

4. Death for Homosexuality – Against LGBTQ+ Rights

Source: Leviticus 20:13

"If a man has sexual relations with another man, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death."

• Why unjust? It opposes Article 21 (Right to Life) and LGBTQ+ rights.

 

5. Child Marriage Allowed – Against Protection of Minors

Source: Numbers 31:17-18

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

• Why unjust? This could be used to justify child marriage, violating Article 21 and the POCSO Act.

 

6. Slavery and Bondage Allowed – Against Human Rights

Source: Exodus 21:2-6

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But if he does not want to leave, his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve for life."

• Why unjust? It violates Article 23 (Prohibition of forced labor and human trafficking).

 

7. Adultery Punishable by Death – Against Right to Life

Source: John 8:3-7, Deuteronomy 22:22

"If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both must die."

• Why unjust? Encouraging capital punishment for adultery contradicts Article 21.

 

8. No Divorce Except for Adultery – Against Right to Marriage Choice

Source: Matthew 5:32

"Anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery."

• Why unjust? It restricts divorce rights, violating Article 14 (Equality) and Article 21.

 

9. Women Cannot Hold Religious Leadership – Against Gender Equality

Source: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission."

• Why unjust? It promotes gender discrimination, violating Articles 14 & 15.

 

10. Religious Supremacy – Against Secularism & Fraternity

Source: John 14:6

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

• Why unjust? It excludes non-Christians, contradicting Article 25 (Freedom of Religion) and Article 51 (Promotion of international peace and harmony).

 

Conclusion:

Many Biblical principles conflict with modern human rights and constitutional values. However, Christianity has evolved, and most Christian-majority nations have reformed laws to align with democracy and equality. In India, Christian personal laws (such as divorce laws) have been challenged and reformed to be more inclusive.

Would you like a comparison of how different Christian-majority countries have adapted their religious laws?

 

Buddhism, as a philosophical and ethical system, is generally known for its non-violence, compassion, and inclusivity, making it one of the least controversial traditions when it comes to conflicts with modern constitutional principles. However, in historical and doctrinal contexts, certain Buddhist teachings and practices—especially as interpreted in various Buddhist societies—have been criticized for being rigid, hierarchical, or discriminatory. Below are 10 aspects of Buddhist teachings or historical Buddhist practices that could be seen as conflicting with Indian constitutional values like justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity:

 

1. Gender Inequality in Monastic Rules – Against Gender Equality

Source: Vinaya Pitaka (Bhikkhuni Patimokkha, Eight Garudhammas)

"A fully ordained nun must bow to even the most junior monk."

• Why unjust? The Bhikkhuni Sangha (female monastic order) is treated as inferior to the Bhikkhu Sangha (male monastic order), violating Articles 14 & 15 (Gender Equality).

 

2. Caste Distinctions in Early Buddhism – Against Social Equality

Source: Sutta Nipata 3.9 (Vasala Sutta)

"Though I say that all castes can attain enlightenment, some are born with greater merit than others."

• Why unjust? Though Buddhism rejects caste-based oppression, some interpretations emphasize karma-based hierarchy, conflicting with Article 15 (No discrimination based on birth).

 

3. Karma-Based Justification for Suffering – Against Social Justice

Source: Majjhima Nikaya 135 (Cula-Kammavibhanga Sutta)

"People are born poor, sick, or disabled due to their past karma."

• Why unjust? Suggesting that poverty, disability, or suffering is a result of past actions contradicts Article 21 (Right to Dignity) and social justice principles.

 

4. Denial of Individual Free Will – Against Liberty

Source: Samyutta Nikaya 22.59

"There is no permanent self; all is dependent origination."

• Why unjust? The rejection of personal autonomy may contradict the constitutional focus on individual rights under Article 21 (Right to Personal Liberty).

 

5. Extreme Asceticism – Against Right to Health & Life

Source: Majjhima Nikaya 36 (The Great Renunciation)

"Buddha practiced extreme fasting until he nearly died, to gain enlightenment."

• Why unjust? Encouraging severe self-denial can contradict Article 21 (Right to Life) and public health principles.

 

6. Monasticism Over Family Life – Against Fraternity & Social Responsibility

Source: Digha Nikaya 16 (Mahaparinibbana Sutta)

"A householder's life is full of suffering; the path to enlightenment is in renunciation."

• Why unjust? This devalues family and societal roles, which contradicts Article 39 (Protection of family and children).

 

7. Non-Resistance to Injustice – Against Social Activism & Justice

Source: Dhammapada 5:201

"Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love."

• Why unjust? While noble, this doctrine can lead to passivity in the face of oppression, contradicting Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies).

 

8. Justification for Monastic Wealth & Hierarchy – Against Economic Equality

Source: Vinaya Pitaka

"The laity should give generously to the monks for merit."

• Why unjust? The monastic system accumulated wealth and power in some Buddhist societies, which can be seen as contradicting Article 39 (Equitable distribution of resources).

 

9. Prohibition on Women Becoming Buddhas – Against Gender Equality

Source: Therigatha, Anguttara Nikaya 1.14

"A woman cannot become a Buddha, only a Bodhisattva."

• Why unjust? This denies women the highest spiritual role, conflicting with Articles 14 & 15 (Gender Equality).

 

10. Silence on Political Participation – Against Democratic Rights

Source: Majjhima Nikaya 58

"The Buddha remained silent on governance, focusing only on individual enlightenment."

• Why unjust? Buddhism does not explicitly promote democracy, which some critics argue leaves room for authoritarian rule, contradicting Articles 19 & 21 (Democratic Rights).

 

Conclusion:

Buddhism is one of the least oppressive religions in terms of conflicting with constitutional values. However, certain monastic rules, gender hierarchies, karma-based justifications, and passive resistance to injustice may contradict modern democratic principles. While Buddhist societies have reformed, historical Buddhist laws have sometimes been used to justify social hierarchies.

 

Buddhist Nations and Their Legal Evolution: Democracy & Human Rights

Buddhism, unlike other religions, does not explicitly lay down legal systems. However, in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Thailand, Buddhist principles have historically influenced governance, sometimes clashing with modern democratic and human rights values. Below is an analysis of how these countries have modified their laws to align (or conflict) with democracy and human rights.

 

1. Sri Lanka: From Buddhist Influence to Ethno-Religious Nationalism

Buddhism in Law & Politics:

• Sri Lanka’s Constitution (Article 9) gives Buddhism the “foremost place”, though it guarantees religious freedom for all.
• Sinhala Buddhist nationalism has influenced policies, sometimes leading to discrimination against minorities (Tamils, Muslims, and Christians).
• Buddhist clergy (monks) play a role in politics, influencing laws related to culture, identity, and governance.

Legal Conflicts with Democracy & Human Rights:

✅ Legal Reforms:

• LGBTQ+ Rights: In recent years, there have been efforts to decriminalize same-sex relationships, though they remain technically illegal under Section 365 of the Penal Code (a colonial-era law).
• War Crimes & Justice: After the civil war (1983–2009), the Sri Lankan government faced pressure to ensure justice for Tamil minorities.

Challenges:

• Militarization & Buddhist Extremism: Some monastic groups (like Bodu Bala Sena) have pushed anti-Muslim and anti-Christian laws.
• Ethnic Discrimination: Land rights and Tamil autonomy remain key issues.

 

2. Myanmar: Buddhist Rule & Military Dictatorship

Buddhism in Law & Politics:

• Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution (Article 361) recognizes Buddhism as the state religion, influencing governance and education.
• Buddhist nationalist groups (like Ma Ba Tha) have supported laws against religious minorities, particularly Rohingya Muslims.
• The military junta has used Buddhism to justify its rule, claiming to be the "protector of the faith."

Legal Conflicts with Democracy & Human Rights:

✅ Legal Reforms:

• Political Reforms (2011–2015): Brief democratic opening under Aung San Suu Kyi, though later reversed by a military coup in 2021.
• Press Freedoms: Some improvements were made in media laws (before 2021) allowing criticism of the government.

Challenges:

• Rohingya Genocide (2017): The government refused to grant citizenship rights to Rohingya Muslims, violating international human rights laws.
• Religious Conversion Laws: In 2015, laws were passed requiring government approval for religious conversions and interfaith marriages, restricting religious freedom.
• Military Rule & Suppression of Protesters (Post-2021): The military coup led to widespread arrests of activists and journalists.

 

3. Thailand: A Buddhist Monarchy with Controlled Democracy

Buddhism in Law & Politics:

• Thailand’s Constitution (Article 67) designates Buddhism as the country’s official religion, with the King as its defender.
• The Sangha (Buddhist Monastic Order) plays a role in policymaking, though monks are officially banned from voting or running for office.

Legal Conflicts with Democracy & Human Rights:

✅ Legal Reforms:

• Gender & LGBTQ+ Rights: Thailand has made progress, with same-sex civil partnerships recognized in 2022, though full marriage equality is still debated.
• Freedom of Religion: Unlike Sri Lanka and Myanmar, Thailand does not enforce religious conversion laws.

❌ Challenges:

• Lèse Majesté Law (Article 112): Criticizing the monarchy (even slightly) can lead to long prison sentences, suppressing freedom of speech.
• Military Influence in Politics: The 2014 coup resulted in military-backed governments, restricting democratic reforms.

 

Comparative Overview of Buddhist Nations & Legal Evolution

Aspect	Sri Lanka	Myanmar	Thailand
Official Religion	Buddhism has foremost place (Article 9)	Buddhism is state religion (Article 361)	Buddhism is protected by the King (Article 67)
Religious Freedom	Technically guaranteed, but minorities face discrimination	Restricted; Muslim Rohingya denied citizenship	More open, but Buddhism is favored
Role of Monks in Politics	Strong political influence (monks support parties)	Buddhist nationalist groups support government	Monks officially banned from politics
Freedom of Speech	Limited; criticism of Buddhist nationalism is suppressed	Highly restricted under military rule	Lèse majesté law (royal criticism) restricts speech
Women’s Rights	Improving, but Buddhist laws favor men	Gender discrimination in law	Better gender equality
LGBTQ+ Rights	Still criminalized, but debates for reform	Illegal and punished harshly	Civil partnerships allowed (2022)
Democracy	Democracy exists, but military & Buddhist groups influence politics	Military dictatorship (since 2021 coup)	Military-backed democracy
Violence Against Minorities	Targeted attacks on Tamils & Muslims	Rohingya genocide (2017)	No major religious violence

 

Conclusion: Buddhism, Law & Human Rights in the Modern Era

• Thailand has been the most progressive in adapting its laws to modern democracy.
• Sri Lanka has struggled with ethno-religious nationalism, restricting minority rights.
• Myanmar remains the most oppressive, with genocide, military rule, and religious persecution.

Would you like a deeper analysis of how Buddhist principles were historically used to support or resist authoritarianism?