The Art of text-book writing!

Law students in India have to study the history of evolution of criminal law both during the ancient era and the later era.

Ancient criminal law must include the laws of Manu and Kautilya. These laws were intended to protect the Chatruvarna system and were totally unjust. Manu’s law was intended to perpetuate apartheid in society to enable the Brahmins lead a cushy life at the cost of the others.  “Whatever exists in the world is, the property of the Brahmana; on account of the excellence of his origin. The Brahmana is, indeed, entitled to all”, says Manu. The Brahmins justified their tendency to covet all, through this declaration. Manu says more:

“ 379. Tonsure (of the head) is ordained for a Brahmana (instead of) capital punishment; but (men of) other castes shall suffer capital punishment.


380. Let him never slay a Brahmana, though he have committed all (possible) crimes; let him banish such an (offender), leaving all his property (to him) and (his body) unhurt.

381. No greater crime is known on earth than slaying a Brahmana; a king, therefore, must not even conceive in his mind the thought of killing a Brahmana.”

But, the law students in India are not taught the actual picture of criminal law in the ancient India. The book, “Laws of Manu - Translated by G. Buhler” is not part of their syllabus in Penology.

The abovementioned historical facts are blacked out by the Brahmin authors who write various books and the Brahmin authorities of the universities prescribe those perverted books as text books for law students. One such example is the book “Criminology and Penology” authored by N.V. Paranjape. Following is the text reproduced from Pages 158 & 159 of the said book (1998 edition):

“The efficacy of punishment, by and large, depends on impartiality. The penal policy should, therefore, be completely free from considerations as to the caste, creed, religion or status of the offender. It would be pertinent to note in this context, that the failure of criminal justice during Moghul rule in India was solely due to the discriminatory nature of Muslim law or crimes and evidence. Thus, no Mohammedan could be awarded capital punishment on the evidence of an infidel, that is, the unbeliever in the Muslim faith. Further, the evidence ofone Mohammedan was equivalent to two Hindus and evidentiary value of two female witnesses was equal to one male witness under the Muslim law. A thief could be convicted only on the evidence of two men. This amply evinces irrationality of the muslim criminal law and the bias which it carried against Hindus and women”.

But, the same author in the previous page, No. 155, writes as under:

“A well defined penal system did exist in ancient India even in the time of Manu or Kautilya”

Dear Readers, this book has been prescribed as text-book for law students in graduate and post-graduate levels in various universities. What is more? The Brahmin-dominated Ministry of Home Affairs does also recommend this book for the students of “M.A. in Criminology” in the LNJN National Institute of  Criminogy and Forensic Science”.