Ancient Hindu Texts: Cultural Biases in Reinterpretation

Introduction

Ancient religious texts are like mirrors—they reflect not just their original meanings but also the biases of those who read them. In Hindu tradition, Ancient Hindu Texts like the Manusmriti and Vedantic works have been interpreted through countless lenses, shaped by cultural values, historical contexts, and personal struggles. From colonial scholars to modern reformers, each interpreter brings their own worldview, often bending sacred words to fit their narrative. This blog explores how cultural biases influence our understanding of these texts, drawing on the contrasting examples of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Adi Shankaracharya, and Mahatma Gandhi, whose readings reveal as much about their times as about the texts themselves.

The Power of Cultural Lenses

Cultural biases act as prisms, refracting the meanings of ancient Hindu texts through our societal norms, historical moments, and personal experiences. They can amplify elements that resonate with us, obscure those that don’t, or reinterpret the text entirely, leading to a tapestry of perspectives. This is vividly seen in ancient Hindu texts like the Manusmriti and Vedantic works, where interpretations shift with the cultural and temporal lens of the reader. Whether it’s a modern egalitarian softening hierarchies or a stratified society reinforcing them, our biases dictate what we see.

Historical context adds another layer. Colonial scholars, for instance, approached the Manusmriti with a Western legalistic bias, casting it as a rigid “law code” under British rule. Yet, it was originally a dharma-shastra—guidelines for righteous living—not a binding statute. This misreading elevated its modern prominence, showing how external cultural frameworks can reshape a text’s legacy.

Ambedkar’s Critique of the Manusmriti

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s engagement with the Manusmriti is a stark example of how personal and cultural biases, rooted in lived experience, drive interpretation. As detailed in the blog post Manusmriti Critique of Ambedkar and Its Modern Relevance, Ambedkar, a Dalit scholar, branded it casteist literature for entrenching inequality. He pointed to verses like 8.270, which prescribes harsh punishment for a Shudra reciting the Vedas, as evidence of its oppressive intent. His bias toward justice stemmed from his caste-oppressed upbringing, but it deepened after political setbacks.

Yet, this critique contrasts with historical perspectives, as explored in Sanatana Dharma and Caste Divide And Ramabai Killings, which argue that the caste system’s rigidity, based on birth, deviated from the original Varna system’s fluid, merit-based intent. Appointed India’s first Law Minister in 1947, Ambedkar was removed by Nehru in 1951 over disputes, notably the Hindu Code Bill. Congress—under Nehru and Gandhi’s legacy—then opposed him in the 1952 and 1954 elections, barring him from Parliament despite his stature as the Constitution’s architect. These insults spurred him to search for and escalate his criticism of ancient Hindu texts post-1951, once his constitutional work concluded, as detailed in Ambedkar’s Criticism and the Manusmriti: Insights and Impact. This journey peaked with his conversion to Buddhism on October 14, 1956, alongside lakhs of followers at Deekshabhoomi, Nagpur, rejecting Hinduism as caste-bound.

Shankaracharya’s Vedanta and Muslim Invasions

Adi Shankaracharya’s 8th-century interpretations of Vedanta offer another lens on cultural bias, tied to his era’s upheavals. Predating major Islamic conquests like Mahmud of Ghazni’s 11th-century raids, Shankaracharya lived after the Arab incursion into Sindh (711 CE) in a fragmented post-Gupta India, vulnerable to external threats. Some scholars, like Romila Thapar in her analyses of early medieval India, suggest his push to unify Hindu thought through Advaita Vedanta and establish four mathas (monastic centers) might reflect a defensive response to these pressures, including the rise of heterodox faiths like Buddhism and looming invasions.

Later hagiographies (14th-17th CE), written during Muslim rule, amplify this, claiming he militarized ascetic orders (Dashanami) to protect Hinduism—though his own works lack contemporary evidence for this. This view, suggesting Vedanta was partly a reaction to Muslim influence, is debated. Traditionalists dismiss it as anachronistic, insisting his focus was philosophical, not militaristic. Still, it reveals how later cultural biases, forged in an era of Islamic dominance, retroactively shaped perceptions of his legacy.

Gandhi’s Ahimsa and Interpretation of Ancient Hindu Texts

Mahatma Gandhi’s interpretation of ancient Hindu texts further showcases cultural bias, particularly his elevation of ahimsa paramo dharma (“non-violence is the highest duty”) as a core principle. As unpacked in my blog Mahatma Gandhi and Nonviolence drew this from the Mahabharata (Anushasana Parva, 13.117.37), where it reads: ahimsā paramo dharmaḥ, dharma-himsā tathaiva cha (“Non-violence is the highest duty, and so is violence in service of duty”). He emphasized the first half, sidelining the second, which justifies violence for righteous causes—like Arjuna’s war in the Bhagavad Gita.

Gandhi’s bias, shaped by his anti-colonial struggle and Jain influences, turned an anthill of nuance into a hill of absolute non-violence, presenting it as Hinduism’s essence. Yet, the Gita and broader Hindu tradition balance ahimsa with dharma, permitting violence when necessary (e.g., Krishna’s call to fight). This selective reading reflects Gandhi’s cultural context—prioritizing peace amid British oppression—contrasting with ancient Hindu texts’ more complex stance, showing how he molded scripture to fit his ideology.

Contrasting Biases Across Time

These cases highlight divergent biases. Ambedkar’s post-1951 critique cast the Manusmriti as oppressive, unlike Gandhi’s view of it as a moral guide. Shankaracharya’s Vedanta is seen by some as a bulwark against external threats, though others deem it purely metaphysical. Gandhi inflated ahimsa beyond its textual bounds. Precolonial Brahmins adapted texts practically, while postcolonial critics, shaped by democracy, focus on biases like gender (e.g., Manusmriti 5.147). Each interpretation mirrors its cultural moment, bending ancient wisdom to contemporary needs.

Conclusion

The stories of Ambedkar, Shankaracharya, and Gandhi reveal a truth: ancient Hindu texts are not static—they evolve with us. Ambedkar’s trajectory—removed as Law Minister by Nehru in 1951, excluded from Parliament by Congress, and driven to critique ancient Hindu texts after the Constitution—shows how political insults fueled his bias against casteist scriptures. Shankaracharya’s Vedanta, linked by some to Muslim invasions, and Gandhi’s ahimsa, stretched beyond its roots, reflect how cultural anxieties and ideals recast meaning. Our contexts—whether oppression, invasion, or resistance—indelibly shape these sacred words, proving that interpretation is as much about us as it is about the texts themselves.

Feature Image: Click here to view the image.

Glossary of Terms:

1. Advaita Vedanta: A school of Hindu philosophy and spiritual practice that teaches the fundamental unity of the individual soul (Atman) and the ultimate reality (Brahman), emphasizing non-duality.
2. Ahimsa: A Sanskrit term meaning ‘non-violence’; a core principle in Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, advocating harmlessness towards all living beings.
3. Anushasana Parva: A section of the Indian epic Mahabharata that includes discourses on law, ethics, and duties, among other topics.
4. Bhagavad Gita: A 700-verse Hindu scripture that is part of the Indian epic Mahabharata, consisting of a conversation between prince Arjuna and the god Krishna, who serves as his charioteer.
5. Cultural Biases: Prejudices or predispositions toward particular cultures, ideas, or people that affect how someone perceives and interacts with the world.
6. Dalit: A term used in India and Nepal to describe individuals who are traditionally regarded as belonging to lower castes; historically considered “untouchable” and subjected to extensive social discrimination.
7. Dharma: In Indian religions, a concept that refers to the laws, duties, and order that make life and the universe possible, or an individual’s duty fulfilled by observance of custom or law.
8. Dharma-shastra: A genre of Sanskrit theological texts, and refers to the treatises (shastras) of Hinduism on dharma. These are part of the broader category of Dharma literature.
9. Hagiographies: Biographies of saints or venerated persons, typically idealizing or idolizing their subjects.
10. Manusmriti: An ancient legal text or scripture in the Hindu tradition, sometimes referred to as the Laws of Manu, which outlines the duties and conduct expected of individuals in different roles in society.
11. Mathas: Monastic and temple complexes in the Indian religious tradition, often associated with different sects and used for the study of scriptures and meditation.
12. Shudra: The fourth and lowest varna (social order) in the traditional Hindu caste system, generally associated with roles like laboring and service.
13. Varna System: The classification of society into four groups based on function and duty in Hinduism, traditionally including the Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (traders), and Shudras (servants).
14. Vedantic Works: Ancient Hindu texts based on the teachings of the Upanishads, which form the basis of Vedanta, a philosophical school that discusses the nature of reality and the self.

#VedicWisdom #DharmaLife #HinduPhilosophy #GeopoliticalHistory #SpiritualIndia