Manu’s Law Intended To Enslave Woman & Free man Even To sell her

Here are instances of non-Aryans being naturalized and enfranchised. Why was an opposite attitude taken against the shudra? Why was the shudra fully naturalized and fully enfranchised, denaturalized and disfranchised? (p. 426). Chapter 17: The Woman and the Counter-Revolution: Manu’s law of divorce they keep on idolizing it by comforting their conscience by holding out the view that Manu regarded marriage as sacrament and, therefore, did not allow divorce. This of course far from the truth. His law against divorce had a very different motive. It was not to tie up a man to a woman but it was to tie up the woman to a man and to leave the man free. For Manu does not prevent a man from giving up his wife. Indeed, he not only allows him to abandon his wife but he also permits him to sell her. But what he does is to prevent the wife from becoming free. He wanted to deprive woman of the freedom she had under the Buddhistic regime. (.430). That women in Pre-Manu days were highly respected cannot be disputed. (p.432). Unlike Manu, Kautilya”‘s idea is monogamy. (p.433). In short in pre-Manu days, a woman was free from and equal partner of man. (p.437). Part IV: Buddha or Karl Marx. A comparison between Karl Marx and Buddha may be regarded as a joke. There need be no surprise in this. Manu and Buddha are divided by 2381 years. Hardly any one knows that what the Buddha taught is something very vast; far beyond Ahimsa. It is therefore necessary to set out in detail his tenets. (p.441). Much of the ideological structure raised by Karl Marx has broken to pieces. (p. 444). It is now clear what are the similarities and difference between Buddha and Karl Marx. The differences are about the means. The end is common to both. The Buddha was against violence. But he was also in favour of justice and where justice required, he permitted the use of force. (p.450). The Communists have given no answer. At any rate no satisfactory answer to the question what would take the place of the State when it withers away, though this question is more important than the question when the State will wither away. (.459). But to the Communists Religion is anathema. Their hatred to Religion is so deep seated that they will not even discriminate between religions which are helpful to Communism and religions which are not. The Communists have carried their hatred of Christianity to Buddhism without waiting to examine the difference between the two. The charge against Christianity levelled by the Communists was two-fold. Their first charge against Christianity was that they made people other worldliness and made them suffer poverty in this world. As can be seen from quotations from Buddhism in the earlier part of this tract such a charge cannot be levelled against Buddhism. His teaching is to acquire wealth (p.460). It has been claimed that the Communist Dictatorship in Russia has wonderful achievements to its credit. There can be no denial of it. (WITH THIS WE COME TO THE END OF THIS BOOK). (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings & Speeches, Volume III 1987, Rs.40, Gout. of Maharashtra, Bombay). The book may be had from Director, Government Printing, Stationery and Publications, Netaji Subhash Road, Bombay – 400 004.