BJP MP Anurag Thakur on Thursday submitted a privilege motion and breach of privilege notice against Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla.
Thakur alleged that Rahul Gandhi used unparliamentary and derogatory language against Union Home Minister Amit Shah and levelled serious, baseless allegations against him.
The notice follows Rahul Gandhi’s speech on Wednesday during the debate on the Anti-Paper Leak Amendment Bill, in which he made several serious allegations against Amit Shah. Speaker Om Birla later expunged a portion of Rahul’s speech from the House proceedings.
Meanwhile, after being passed by the Lok Sabha, the Anti-Paper Leak Amendment Bill was also cleared by the Rajya Sabha on Thursday. Union Minister Jitendra Singh introduced the Bill, following which the House held a seven-hour debate.
During the discussion, Mallikarjun Kharge’s remarks on the Manusmriti triggered an uproar. He said that those who follow the Manusmriti have increased in educational institutions, resulting in Shudras being deprived of their right to education. His remarks led to protests and disruptions in the House.
Vande Mataram Bill passes Lok Sabha amid uproar
The Vande Mataram Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha after clearing the Rajya Sabha. The House witnessed massive uproar during the proceedings. Following the disruption, the Speaker adjourned the Lok Sabha for the rest of the day.
Why did the Manusmriti remarks trigger an uproar? Claims and fact-check
Fact Check: The punishments cited by Mallikarjun Kharge are not mentioned in the original Manusmriti. They are found in the Gautama Dharmasutra (Chapter 12, Verses 4–6). Kharge later clarified that they were written by Sage Gautama.
Responding to Kharge, Sudhanshu Trivedi said that Sir William Jones was a judge of the Calcutta High Court who translated the Manusmriti in 1794. He argued that there is no direct connection between modern Scheduled Castes and the Vedic-era Shudras mentioned during Manu’s time. He also claimed that no versions of the Manusmriti predating William Jones’ translation are available.
Trivedi further said that texts such as Maasir-i-Alamgiri, Shahnama, Jahangirnama, Tuzuk-i-Baburi, Futuhat-i-Firozshahi and Tahqiq-i-Hind are available in their earlier forms. Therefore, he demanded proof for Kharge’s claims, alleging that the version referred to by Kharge was created by the British and that no pre-William Jones text is available.
Fact Check: Sir William Jones published the first English translation of the Manusmriti in 1794 under the title Institutes of Hindu Law, or the Ordinances of Menu. The book remains in the public domain and can be accessed free of charge on Google Books, the Internet Archive and the British Library website.
Trivedi also cited Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s book Who Were the Shudras?, saying that the opening pages of one chapter state there is no direct relationship between modern Scheduled Castes and the Shudras of the ancient Vedic period.
Fact Check: Ambedkar wrote that the modern Shudras and the Shudras of the Vedic period were not the same social group. According to him, the ancient Shudras were originally Kshatriyas who, after a conflict with Brahmins, were denied the Upanayana (sacred thread) ceremony and consequently came to be placed in the fourth varna. He distinguished them from present-day Scheduled Castes.
Congress MP Pramod Tiwari displayed a copy of the book in the House and said it had been published during the current government’s tenure, continues to be in circulation, and has not been banned. He argued that if the government itself acknowledges the book’s existence, the error lies with its own position after being in power for 12 years.
JP Nadda demanded that the Opposition produce the original text of the Manusmriti from before the British period and provide evidence to support its claims.
