
NEW DELHI: Delhi University found itself in the eye of the storm after its Faculty of Law suggested teaching the ‘Manusmriti’, an ancient Sanskrit text on Hindu laws, to LLB-UG students. The department submitted a proposal to include two readings on Manusmriti – ‘Manubhasya of Medhatithi’ by GN Jha and ‘Commentary of Manu Smriti - Smritichandrika by T Krishnaswami Iyer, as part of the Jurisprudence paper in its undergraduate programme, inviting a wave of criticism from faculty and academics.
On Friday, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan addressed the controversy over teaching Manusmriti to DU law students, firmly stating that no controversial content of any script would be included in the curriculum. Pradhan noted that DU Vice-Chancellor Yogesh Singh had already dismissed the proposal. He emphasised the government’s commitment to the Constitution and clarified that no such proposal had been endorsed by the Academic Council.
Pradhan said upon receiving information about Manusmriti’s inclusion in the Law Faculty course at DU, he consulted with the Vice Chancellor. Singh assured him that some faculty members had proposed changes to the jurisprudence chapter but that the proposal was rejected immediately.
“There is no endorsement of any such proposal in the Academic Council. The Vice Chancellor rejected that proposal yesterday. We are all committed to our Constitution and to a futuristic approach. The government is committed to upholding the true spirit and letter of the Constitution. There is no question of including any controversial portions of any script,” Pradhan stated.
Amid criticism, the DU Vice-Chancellor issued a clarification on late Thursday night, saying these suggestions were rejected and would not be part of the curriculum. In a video message, Singh stated, “The Faculty of Law’s proposal included changes to the Jurisprudence paper, suggesting readings on Manusmriti. We have rejected both the suggested readings and the proposed amendments. Nothing of this sort will be taught.”
Commenting on the controversy, the Dean of the Faculty of Law, Anju Wali Tikoo, said, “The meaning that is being construed that the text is against women’s empowerment and education and against the cause of marginalised castes is incorrect. The topic is themed as ‘analytical positivism’. If we don’t understand what our ancient scriptures said, then how can we analyse and develop an understanding of studying the course?”