Dr Surendra Kumar, a Sanskrit scholar affiliated with the Ārya Samaj is one of the contemporary commentators on Manusmṛti who has brought out what can be called as a revisionist edition of the text which he calls as “The Vishuddha Manusmriti” (Kumar, The Vishuddha Manusmriti 1996) which professes to be a “purified” version of the Manusmṛti created after identifying and omitting what Dr Kumar considers as later-day interpolations from the available text. He has also brought out “The Manusmriti (Sampuran Edition)” (Kumar 2018) [along with a Hindi commentary titled ‘Anuśīlan’] which includes the entire text of Manu including what Dr Kumar designates as interpolations. For the purpose of this essay, we will use (Kumar 2018)[1].

In his Anuśīlan commentary, Dr Kumar has often differed with the interpretations of Manusmṛti by traditional Sanskrit commentators and instead has provided revisionist interpretation, especially with respect to controversial topics such as meat-eating, caste, etc.

In this essay, we will examine only one such instance of revisionist interpretation: the interpretation of the phrase ‘Antaraprabhava’ in verse 1.2:

भगवन् सर्ववर्णानां यथावदनुपूर्वशः । अन्तरप्रभवानां च धर्मान्नो वक्तुमर्हसि ॥

May Thou, O blessed One, explain to us, in due form and in proper order, the duties of all castes (varṇa-s) and intermediate castes (antaraprabhava)! (Tr. by Ganganath Jha)

The context of the verse is that Manusmṛti begins with a group of Sages approaching Svāyambhuva Manu requesting instructions regarding dharma (duties) as applicable to different categories of people. In this regard, the sages explicitly request for duties ‘of all the (four) varṇas’ (sarvavarṇānāṃ) and ‘of antaraprabhavas’. While all the major Sanskrit commentators starting from Bhāruci[2] and Medhātithi[3] to Govindarāja[4] and Kullūka-Bhaṭṭa[5] have interpreted the phrase as a reference to those born from a mixture of varṇas (and hence, have a mixed varṇa-svabhāva), i.e. the varṇasaṅkara-jātis or saṅkīrṇa-jātis, Dr Kumar (2018, 2-5) indicates that this interpretation is born out of prejudice and the correct meaning to be adopted is that it is a reference to ‘āśramas’ or stages in life.

Dr Kumar offers six arguments to defend his position (2018, 2-4). Each of them will be scrutinised below.

• Argument 1: A phrase similar to ‘antaraprabhava’ namely ‘sāntarālānāṃ’ appears in verse 2.18 wherein it refers to ‘āśramas’, and hence, antaraprabhava must also refer to āśramas (Kumar 2018, 2-3).

Manu 2.18 says that “That practice, which has come down through an unbroken line of tradition (paramparā) among the several varṇas and those of mixed varṇas (sāntarālānāṃ) in that country (i.e. Brahmāvarta), is called the Sadācāra or the practice of good men (Jha 1920)[6].” While all traditional commentators including Medhātithi and Kullūka-Bhaṭṭa have taken ‘sāntarāla’ as a reference to those belonging to mixed varṇas, Dr Kumar argues that ‘sāntarāla’ instead refers to ‘āśrama’. The reason he gives for his reading is that the practices of saṅkīrṇa-jātis i.e. those with mixed varṇa-svabhāva cannot be designated as ‘sadācāra’ or practices of the good people because, in Chapter 10, Manu has described those belonging to saṅkīrṇa-jātis in a negative way.

The examples he cites include descriptions such as “tainted by defect of the mothers” in the context of those begotten by twice-born men on wives of the next lower castes in verse 10.6; “cruel in his deeds and dealings” in the context ‘Ugras’ who are born from Kṣatriya father and Śūdra mother in verse 10.9; “lowest of men” with reference to Caṇḍālas born from Śūdra father and Brāhmaṇa mother in verse 10.16; “Vrātya” as the designation for Dvijas who have fallen from their duties in verse 10.20; “evil-natured” in the context of ‘Bhṛjjakaṇṭaka’ who are born from Vrātya-Dvija parents in verse 10.21; and “greatly tainted and despised” in the context of those born from inter-mixing of Āyogava, etc. who were themselves born from intermixing of four varṇas in pratiloma or inverse order in verse 10.29. Dr Kumar writes that due to negative descriptions such as above with respect to people of mixed varṇas, the hereditary ācāras or practices done by such families cannot be designated as ‘sadācāra’ (good practices) and hence, the phrase ‘sāntarāla’ in verse 2.18 cannot refer to those belonging to mixed varṇas.

While a detailed analysis of Chapter 10 is beyond the scope of this exposition, it should be recognized that Dr Kumar’s argument is flawed. The negative descriptions given in the above-cited verses are neither a reference to ethical values nor a reference to the ability to live an ethical life by mixed-varṇa people. That is, it is not a moral judgement per se. Instead, the descriptions are part of an analysis of the svabhāva of those belonging to different mixed-varṇa categories and their respective svadharma. It is in this context, Manusmṛti undertakes a detailed examination of how when there is varṇasaṅkara, different kinds of varṇa-svabhāvas of parents become mixed and integrated into the children that are born of them giving rise to such children having a svabhāva distinct from those of their fathers and mothers.

As a result of this, such children become ineligible to perform fully the varṇa-dharma of the parents i.e. the svadharma of the children deviates from the svadharma of the parents and hence, a separate exposition is taken up regarding the svadharma of such mixed-varṇa people. This we see clearly brought out in verse 10.41 which lists who among the mixed-varṇa people can be designated dvija and can perform svadharma as applicable to dvijas and who among them is eligible to take up the duties of Śūdra. Further in verse 10.63, Manu speaks about ethical tenets such as non-injury, truth, abstention from unlawful appropriation, purity and control of the sense-organs, as dharma common to everyone and hence, must be practised by everyone. Though the verse uses the phrase “dharma common to four varṇas” it is a reference to entire humanity including those belonging to mixed-varṇa categories since it appears in the context of the discussion related to duties of mixed-varṇa people, a point noted by both Medhātithi and Kullūka-Bhaṭṭa.

Therefore, the negative descriptions must be seen not as moral judgements upon the inability of certain people or communities to perform sadācāra as taken by Dr Kumar, but instead as a reference to the alienation of the mixed-varṇa people from the svadharma of their respective parents as a consequence of their having mixed-varṇa svabhāva. If mixed-varṇa people are incapable of performing sadācāra, or if none of the practices of such people (be it hereditary or not) can be considered as sadācāra, then why would Manu consider some of them as being eligible to practice dvija dharma and some others as being eligible for Śūdra dharma and all of them as being eligible for the practice of sāmānya dharma, such as Ahimsa, etc.? Would the performance of such practices such as sāmānya dharma which can be understood as ‘good’ practice in the context of four varṇas become ‘bad’ when it is practised by those of mixed-varṇas?

More importantly, the sadācāra mentioned in verses 2.6 & 2.18 refers to various customs and practices, often hereditary, practised in different families and communities, with great diversity from location to location. Medhātithi in his commentary on verse 2.6 gives the following examples of sadācāra “To this category belong such acts as the following—(a) the tying of the bracelet and such other auspicious rites performed during the marriage, etc., (b) the worshipping of famous trees, Yakṣas, road-crossings and such things, varying in various countries, done by the girl on her day of marriage, (c) the number of hair-locks kept on the head, varying with different countries; (d) the exact manner of attending on guests, teachers and other respectable persons, consisting in the addressing of sweet and agreeable words, saluting, rising to receive and so forth; for instance, it is customary with some people to recite the Pṛṣṇi-sūkta with grass in hand, when banding over the horse consecrated for the Aśvamedha sacrifice (Jha 1920).”

What distinguishes these customary practices from ritualistic practices are that ritualistic practices have their basis in Veda and Smṛtis, whereas these customs are inherited in one’s family or are specific to one’s community. As long as they do not contradict dharma as enunciated in Veda and Smṛtis, these practices are also considered auspicious and constitute dharma. Therefore, to restrict sadācāra to only four varṇas and consider rest of the society as being incapable of leading good, healthy, and auspicious life goes against the teachings of śāstras which uphold that everyone is eligible to puṇya and mokṣa, though their paths could be different. Hence, the correct reading of verse 2.18 would be ‘sadācāra’ as good practices inherited by tradition among people belonging to both varṇa and mixed-varṇa categories.

Given the preceding explanation, we must reject Dr Kumar’s claim that the phrase ‘sāntarāla’ in verse 2.18 and by extension the phrase ‘antaraprabhava’ in the present verse (i.e. verse 1.2) cannot be a reference to mixed-varṇa people as none of their practices can be called sadācāra.

 

• Argument 2: Since along with a description of varṇa-dharma, Manusmṛti gives a detailed description of āśrama-dharma and not of the dharma of varṇasaṅkara people, the phrase ‘antaraprabhava’ must refer to āśramas and not saṅkīrṇa-jātis(Kumar 2018, 3).

This second argument put forward by Dr Kumar is with respect to the structure of the text of Manusmṛti. He notes that just as the dharma of different varṇas and of āśramas are given together in the present verse, in the same order, varṇa and āśramas have been discussed side by side in chapters 2-6. He asks: “If antaraprabhavas were to mean ‘varṇasaṅkara’ and not ‘āśrama’, then how come while in the present verse no question has been raised about āśramas, Manu discusses about āśrama dharma at such length and detail? Also, if the question is about varṇasaṅkara, then why is it that a discussion of varṇasaṅkara not found side-by-side with discussion on Varṇas in all the chapters? (Kumar 2018, 3)” Dr Kumar concludes that since varṇa and āśrama have been discussed together and āśrama dharma have been given a prominent place in the discussion, the phrase antaraprabhava in the present verse must refer to āśramas and not varṇasaṅkara.

However, this argument is again flawed because it is based on a faulty understanding of the structure of the text of manusmṛti.

First, the assertion that the discussion about varṇa and antaraprabhava must necessarily happen side-by-side because they have been mentioned together in the present verse is unreasonable because there is no causal connection between their appearance together in verse 1.2 and their enunciation in rest of the text. If there was such a causal connection, then why is not the discourse of dharma of four varṇas not appearing side-by-side in all chapters but instead appearing sequentially? The chapters 2-6 discusses dharma of Brāhmaṇas, the chapters 7-9 discusses the duties of Kṣatriya, and after the conclusion of duties of Kṣatriya, chapter 9 discusses sequentially, the duties of Vaiśya and Śūdra, and finally, chapter 10 discusses the duties of different categories of varṇasaṅkara.

If Dr Kumar’s argument is to be accepted then, all the duties of all groups of people should have been clubbed together side by side in one mammoth chapter perhaps, but thankfully that is not the case. More importantly, in the present verse, the Ṛṣis explicitly request Manu that the duties of all the varṇas and antaraprabhava must be expounded in due form and proper sequence. And the structure of the text reflects this sequential and ordered exposition.

Second, regarding the question “If antaraprabhavas were to mean ‘varṇasaṅkara’ and not ‘āśrama’, then how come while in the present verse no question has been raised about āśramas, Manu discusses āśrama dharma at such length and detail?”, the answer is found within the text itself. In verse 2.25, Manu says “Now learn the dharmas of different varṇas (Jha 1920)” and from verse 2.27 begins the description of duties of brāhmaṇa varṇa starting from saṃskāras. This then is followed by the description of brahmachārya, grihasta–āśrama, vanaprastha and sannyasa–āśrama which concludes in chapter 6. The concluding verse 6.97 says “Thus has the fourfold duty of the Brāhmaṇa been expounded to you, which is conducive to imperishable rewards after death (Jha 1920).” This shows that for Manu, the four āśrama–dharmas constitute the ‘four-fold dharmas of brāhmaṇa varṇa’ and hence the āśrama–dharma is integral to varṇa dharma. Further, while commenting on verse 2.15 of Parasharasmriti in Parashara Madhava (Ācāra Khanda), Śrī Mādhavācārya (Svāmī Vidyāraṇya) quotes Yogi–Yājñavalkya and Vāmana Purāṇa which says that for Brāhmaṇas there are four āśramas, for Kṣatriyas only three āśramas, for Vaiśyas only two āśrama, and for Śūdras only one āśrama (Tripati 2021, 511-512), i.e. āśrama–dharmas are considered as integral and embedded aspects of varṇa–dharma itself across Hindu textual tradition. Hence, it is neither out of place nor inconsistent in any way that in answer to the question by Ṛṣis about the dharma of all varṇas, Manu enunciates in great depth about different āśrama dharmas as well.

This argument of Dr Kumar must as well be rejected on the grounds of it being untenable and based on a faulty understanding of the textual structure.

 

• Argument 3: The compositional style of the text is such that varṇa and āśrama are always mentioned together. Hence, antaraprabhavas mentioned along with varṇas in the present verse must also refer to āśramas(Kumar 2018, 3-4).

Dr Kumar provides two examples to substantiate his claim that āśramas are always mentioned together with varṇas: verses 12.97 & 7.35. While we can straight away discard 12.97 from our consideration as the verse does not mention varṇa and āśrama in a way that could show their inter-connectedness. Instead, it merely states “The four varṇas, the three worlds, the four āśramas, the past, the present and the future are each learnt from the Veda (Jha 1920).” In the case of verse 7.35, while it does use varṇa and āśrama in an inter-connected manner, and this inter-connectedness, as noted before, is due to the fact that āśrama dharma is integral and embedded within varṇa dharma, this in itself cannot serve as satisfactory evidence to conclude that phrases varṇa and āśrama must necessarily always appear together. We have plenty of instances (as in verses 1.91, 1.107, 2.25, 2.132, 2.210, 9.336, etc.) where the phrase varṇa appears alone in a verse without any reference to āśrama. Thus, the statement of Dr Kumar that the compositional style of Manusmṛti is such that the phrase varṇa is always accompanied by the phrase āśrama is incorrect.

However, even if we were to accept the contention that phrases varṇa and āśrama have been used together in several instances, even then it cannot be concluded that the phrase varṇa has to be necessarily used only in conjunction with the phrase āśrama and it cannot be used in conjunction with any other phrases as such a contention is not only speculative in nature, it is simply logically untenable. What authors or teachers chose to use in their expositions primarily depends upon the matter they want to convey, rather than merely compositional elements. Therefore, compositional styles and patterns cannot override the content of the exposition.

Therefore, in light of these considerations shown above, we must reject Dr Kumar’s third argument as well.

 

• Argument 4: The antaraprabhava in the present verse cannot refer to varṇasaṅkara since the only place a discussion on varṇasaṅkara happens in the text is in chapter 10 and this discussion is a later-day interpolation which goes against the context of the overall text(Kumar 2018, 4).

While it is outside the scope of this review to examine thoroughly the reasons that Dr Kumar advances to prove that the verses enunciating varṇasaṅkara in chapter 10 are all later-day interpolations, and will be taken up in future in an appropriate place and format. For the present purpose, it is sufficient to evaluate what Dr Kumar states in his remarks on the present verse under consideration. To substantiate his position, he presents three arguments:

1. The only place where there is a discussion on varṇasaṅkara in the entire text of Manu is in chapter 10. Except for this chapter, there is absolutely no discussion of varṇasaṅkara either independently or in conjunction with some other topic such as nāmakaraṇa (naming sacrament), vivāha (marriage sacrament), punishments, etc.
2. The way the discussion on varṇasaṅkara has been embedded in chapter 10, goes against the larger context of the text and hence, can be considered as a later-day addition. The discussion on dharma starts at verse 2.25 wherein it mentions “learn now the duties of the several varṇas” and this discussion finally concludes in verse 10.131 where it mentions “thus has the entire law relating to the duties or the four varṇas been described”. In both places, there is only a mention of duties of varṇa and not of varṇasaṅkara and hence, the inclusion of a discussion on varṇasaṅkara in chapter 10 is neither according to the larger context (as established by verses 2.25 and 10.131) nor is it desirable. Hence, the verses with respect to varṇasaṅkara must have been interpolated at a later day when society had accepted the notion of varṇasaṅkara due to casteism.
3. Manu himself notes in verse 10.4 that there are only four varṇas and there is no fifth varṇa and then again in 10.45 that all those who are other than the four varṇas are called as ‘Dasyu’ be they be speaking Mleccha language or Ārya language. Even here there is no mention of varṇasaṅkara. Therefore, verses 10.5-73 must be considered as interpolation.

Let us first take up the argument (1). For a particular topic to be authentic, it is not necessary that the topic has to be mentioned in every context and every chapter. For example, the discussion on prāyaścitta is taken up for detailed treatment only in chapter 11. Likewise, treatment of civil and criminal law is taken up mainly in chapter 8. Does it mean they are also interpolations? The occurrence of a debate about a specific issue in one place and its absence in another does not imply that it is an interpolation. In Chapters 2-6 where a discussion of various saṃskāras including nāmakaraṇa and vivāha are taken up, they are specifically mentioned in the context of dvijas who alone are entitled to these saṃskāras which are conducted with mantras. And it is only in chapter 10, verse 127 that we find an explicit mention in the context of Śūdras that “If those who, knowing their duty, and wishing to acquire merit, imitate the practices of righteous men, with the exception of reciting the sacred texts, they incur no guilt; they obtain praise (Jha 1920).” That is, Śūdras can perform saṃskāras but without using mantras. Though mentioned in the context of Śūdras, it is equally applicable to all non- dvijas including saṅkīrṇa-jātis. As long as any ritual or activity is not explicitly prohibited for a particular non-dvija group and the activity in itself is not mandated to be done only with mantras (as in yajñas), then, such activities can be undertaken by non-dvijas and attain overall wellbeing by such practice. Further, one of the purposes behind Manu taking up the discussion on varṇasaṅkara in chapter 10 is to enunciate upon and provide clarity about what tenets of dharma and ācāra (for example, verses 10.6-7, 10.41-42), and what forms of livelihood options (verses 10.46-56) are available for which category of saṅkīrṇa-jātis. Therefore, the argument put forward by Dr Kumar that varṇasaṅkara is discussed only in chapter 10 and hence must be interpolated is untenable.

Now, let us take up the argument (2). We can straightaway reject his claim that the verses on varṇasaṅkara were interpolated at a later time because the society was afflicted with casteism as mere speculation as he offers no evidence to substantiate the same. Further, his argument that since verses 2.25 and 10.131 that mark the beginning and conclusion of the discussion on varṇa mention only varṇa and not varṇasaṅkara and hence embedding a discussion on varṇasaṅkara in chapter 10 is beyond the context of the text and hence, interpolated is also untenable. First, there is no compulsion that an introductory half verse and a concluding half verse of a section must necessarily and explicitly list every topic that particular section expounds upon. Such an expectation is laughable. Second, if this were to be the case, then the said verses do not mention ‘āśrama’ as well, so does it mean the discussion regarding āśramas found in chapter 2-6 is interpolated as well? Third, the statement that there is no context for Manu to discuss varṇasaṅkara under the heading of varṇa is incorrect as the text itself provides context. Verse 9.336 says: “Thus has the excellent law for the conduct of the varṇas in normal times (anāpad) been expounded; now listen in due order to what forms their duty in abnormal times (āpad) (Jha 1920).” That is, the enunciation of the duties of four-varṇas taken up from 2.25 till 9.335 was in the context of ‘anāpad’ i.e. normal or ideal times. From verse 10.1 onwards till verse 10.130, the discussion is about duties of varṇas in ‘āpad’ or abnormal times or times of calamity. Verse 10.130 says “The duties of the four varṇas in times of distress have thus been expounded; by properly carrying out which they attain the highest state (Jha 1920).” Therefore, the discussion of varṇasaṅkara is taken up in the context of a society which is abnormal, in distress, and great disharmony as a result of varṇasaṅkara. It is to provide clarity on how to perform one’s dharma during such confusing and challenging condition that Manu includes a detailed discussion about the genesis and causes of varṇasaṅkara, what categories of varṇasaṅkaras are eligible for what dharmas, what could be their means of livelihood, what ethical tenets they have to practice, and how they can attain material and spiritual wellbeing. Āpad–dharma or the way of life to be adopted during an emergency and/or abnormal times is an important aspect of Dharmaśāstra and one which is most helpful in practically wading through challenges of everyday life. The description of varṇasaṅkara as a great calamity is found in other texts as well. For example, in Bhagavadgītā 1.40-43, Arjuna describes how varṇasaṅkara causes the ruin of families and complete destruction of kula–dharma and jāti–dharma. Further, in verse 3.24, Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa himself says: “These worlds will be ruined if I do not perform action. And I shall become the agent of intermingling (i.e. varṇasaṅkara) and shall be destroying these beings (Gambhirananda 1998).” In Mahābhārata Vanaparva chapter 179, Yudhiṣṭhira notes that due to varṇasaṅkara in the form of the intermingling of various varṇas, it has become difficult to correctly identify varṇa of a person (Ganguli 1883-1896). In Bṛhaddharma Purāṇa, a minor purāṇa, entire chapter 57 is dedicated to the genesis of varṇasaṅkara and describes how varṇasaṅkara leads to destruction (Banerji 1915). It is to address concerns like the above, namely, confusion regarding the practice of dharma and ācāra that arises from varṇasaṅkara that Manusmṛti takes up a detailed discussion of the same in chapter 10 under the heading ‘dharma for abnormal times’. Therefore, to term such an important discussion as being “without context”, “a latter day interpolation”, “having casteist motives”, etc. on the part of Dr Kumar is unfortunate and is a result of preconceived bias and a misreading of the structure and purpose of Manusmṛti.

Now let us take up the argument (3). It is difficult to understand what Dr Kumar is trying to establish here. According to him, verses 10.4 and 10.45 are connected and all the verses in between them i.e. verses 10.5-10.44 are interpolated and a further majority of the verses that appear between 10.45 and 10.73 are interpolated. He designates all the verses that discuss varṇasaṅkara as interpolated and then states that verse 10.4 and 10.45 which as per him does not mention varṇasaṅkara are connected and are original verses. While it is beyond the scope here to carefully examine his arguments for designating only a few verses as authentic and branding the rest as interpolation, it must be stated that to the present writer prima facie it appears that Dr Kumar has a tendency to discard any verse that does not conform to his revisionist objective as an interpolation. The study of verses 10.4-10.45 using traditional commentators shows how all of them are connected and are an intrinsic part of the same discourse about varṇasaṅkara. Further, under verse 10.45, Dr Kumar himself notes that the Dasyus are those who have fallen from the duties of four varṇas due to non-practice or those who are uninitiated into the duties of four varṇas. What Dr Kumar ignores is that this precisely is one of the definitions or causes of varṇasaṅkara as noted in verse 10.24 which says “Varṇasaṅkaras are produced by infidelity among the varṇas, by the marrying of women unfit for marriage, and by the neglect of one’s duties (Jha 1920).” This last criterion causing varṇasaṅkara is how Dr Kumar defines Dasyu (but designates the said verse i.e. 10.24 as interpolation!). Moreover, when 10.45 is taken along with the previous two verses, then the context of the verse becomes very clear. Verse 10.43-44 says: “But by the omission of the sacred rites, and also by their neglect of Brāhmaṇas, the following Kṣatriya castes have gradually sunk to the position of the low-born. The Puṇḍrakas, the Coḍas, the Draviḍas, the Kāmbojas, the Yavanas, the Śākas, the Pāradas, the Pahlavas, the Cīnas, the Kirātas, the Daradas and the Khaśas (Jha 1920).” This provides the context for whom Manu is designating as Dasyu in 10.45. Further, verse 10.44 which mentions different communities like Yavanas, Śākas, Cīnas, etc. which are present outside the geographical boundaries of Āryavarta also provides the context for the use of the phrase ‘be one a speaker of Mleccha language or Ārya language’. If verses 10.4 and 10.45 were really directly connected with verses in-between being interpolation, why would 10.45 suddenly bring up the issue of those who speak ‘Mleccha language’? From all these, we must conclude that the designation of Dasyu in verse 10.45 is with respect to varṇasaṅkara itself and not otherwise, though it specifically refers to the aspect of giving up one’s svadharma. Therefore, merely stating that verse 10.4 & 10.45 does not mention varṇasaṅkara and hence, varṇasaṅkara is not part of authentic Manusmṛti is an untenable position.

• Argument 5: In the concise introduction provided in chapter 1, Manu mentions only four varṇas and their duties in verses 1.87-91. From this, we can know that Manu accepts the presence of only four varṇas and hence, the enunciation of the dharma of only these four varṇas are in the text are authentic and not those portions that mention varṇasaṅkara. Hence, antaraprabhava cannot mean varṇasaṅkara and must be taken as āśrama(Kumar 2018, 4). 

This is again another speculative argument. If it is the case that since verses 1.87-91 speaks about only dharma of four varṇas in concise form and not of varṇasaṅkara categories and hence, antaraprabhava cannot refer to varṇasaṅkara, then we have to accept that antaraprabhava cannot be āśrama as well since the said verses do not mention four-fold āśramas or āśrama dharma as well. This argument is of course untenable. More importantly, towards the end of chapter 1 itself, Manusmṛti provides a detailed overview of all the major themes that the text will be dealing with. In verse 1.116, it explicitly states the genesis of varṇasaṅkara and the duties of varṇas during abnormal (āpad) times as one of the topics the text will be dealing with.

As a result of the preceding reasoning, we must also reject the fifth argument.

• Argument 6: Various Purāṇas describe Manu as a teacher of varṇāśrama dharma and not as an enunciator of the dharma of varṇasaṅkara. Hence, antaraprabhava cannot mean varṇasaṅkara but should mean āśrama(Kumar 2018, 4).

This argument constitutes neither a necessary condition nor a sufficient condition to designate the discussion of varṇasaṅkara in Manusmṛti as inauthentic. If this argument were to be accepted, then we would have to designate chapters dealing with cosmogony, prāyaścitta (expiation), vyavahāra (civil and criminal laws) as inauthentic as well since, in the said Purāṇas cited by Dr Kumar, Manu has not been described an enunciator of cosmogony, expiation, civil and criminal laws, etc. An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, therefore, the absence of explicit mention of Manu as an expounder of varṇasaṅkara dharma does not constitute evidence for the discussion on varṇasaṅkara in Manusmṛti being inauthentic and a later addition.

In the light of the above discussion, we will have to reject the sixth argument as inadmissible and untenable.

Conclusion

From the above discussion, it is very clear that Dr Kumar’s interpretation of the phrase ‘antaraprabhava ’ is not only based on speculation, but it also suffers from the fallacy of petitio principia i.e. presuming as true the conclusion that needs to be demonstrated without demonstrating it. Therefore, his interpretation is untenable as it is speculative, forced, and with a revisionist agenda.

On the other hand, the interpretation of antaraprabhava of the present verse as a reference to varṇasaṅkara is meaningful in the light of the following elements from the text:

• In the present verse, the Ṛṣis by explicitly requesting for the enunciation of the dharma of antaraprabhavas in addition to the dharmas of four varṇas distinguishes the duties of antaraprabhavas from those of four varṇas. Therefore, āśramas cannot be the meaning of antaraprabhava as āśrama-dharma has been described in verse 6.97 as being an integral aspect of varṇa-dharma itself. Hence, antaraprabhavas must be a reference to varṇasaṅkara groups whose dharma would be distinct from those of four varṇas (though with considerable areas of overlapping).
• Chapter one explicitly lists varṇasaṅkara as one of the topics the text will enunciate upon in verse 116.
• The entire discussion of varṇasaṅkara is placed within the discussion of duties of varṇa in abnormal or emergency times and hence, without it, the discussion of varṇa-dharma would be incomplete.
• The notion of varṇasaṅkara as a condition of emergency and danger, a sign of Kaliyuga is well known from Itihāsa-Purāṇas as well and hence, a concept well-established in Hindu worldview.
• The structure of the text places the discussion of varṇa-dharma first followed by a discussion of the dharma of varṇasaṅkara groups. This sequence follows the sequence provided in the current verse (i.e. verse 1.2) wherein sages explicitly request an enunciation of the dharma of all varṇas and antaraprabhavas in “due form and proper sequence”.
• There is a consensus among all traditional commentators regarding antaraprabhava being a reference to varṇasaṅkara and hence, this interpretation has the stamp of authenticity of the dharmaśāstra tradition and its achāryas spanning more than 1200 years at the least.
• The great sages by stressing that they want to know not only about the dharmas of all varṇas but also of those born by the mixture of varṇas are including the entirety of humanity under the purview of dharma. It also shows that they have an unselfish interest in posing this question. They are not asking the question for personal benefit, but for the benefit of the whole world.

References 

Banerji, Syama Charan, trans. 1915. The Brihaddharma Purana. Lucknow: “n.p”. https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/brihaddharma-purana-abridged.

Dave, Jayantakrishna Harikrishna, ed. 1972. Manu-smrti : with nine commentaries by Medhatithi, Sarvajñanarayana, Kulluka, Raghvananda, Nandana, Ramacandra, Manirama, Govindaraja and Bharuci. Vol. 1. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.

Gambhirananda, Swami, trans. 1998. Bhagavad Gita with the annotation Gudhartha-Dipika by Madhusudana Sarasvati. Mayavati: Advaita Ashrama.

Ganguli, K M (tr.). 1883-1896. The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa Translated into English Prose from original Sanskrit text. Calcutta: Pratap Chandra Roy. Accessed December 18, 2018. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/maha/index.htm.

Jha, Ganganath (tr.). 1920. Manusmriti with the ‘Manubhashya’ of Medatithi, Volume 3, English Translation, Part 1, Discourses I & II. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited.

Kumar, Surendra. 2018. The Manusmriti. Eighth Edition. Delhi: Arsh Sahitya Prachar Trust.

—. 1996. The Vishuddha Manusmriti. Fourth Edition. Delhi: Arsh Sahitya Prachar Trust.

S, Shivarajappa, and Jagannatha S, . 2020. Manu-Sastra-Vivaranam: a commentary on Manusmrti by Bharuci. Mysore: Oriental Research Institute UoM.

Tripati, Kamalakanta, ed. 2021. Parashara Madhava: Parashara Samhita With Commentary by Sri Madhavacharya. Vol. Acharakhandam. Varanasi: Chaukhamba Bhavan.