Should Manusmriti Be Accepted? A Debate from the Design Office

Location: The break room of Apex Design Solutions, a U.S.-focused construction and fabrication design firm.

It all started over coffee in the break room. Kiran, our structural design lead, was scrolling through his phone, muttering about ancient texts, when Karthik, the fabrication specialist, chimed in. What followed was a heated debate about the Manusmriti – that old Hindu law book everyone’s heard of but few have actually read. Here’s how it went down.

Kiran: Alright, Karthik, I’ve been thinking. There’s no way the Manusmriti can be accepted today. It’s outdated, rigid, and honestly, it doesn’t fit with how we operate – not here in the office, not in the U.S. construction world, nowhere.

Karthik: Whoa, slow down, Kiran. I get it’s old – like, 2,000 years old – but it’s not about “accepting” it wholesale. It’s a historical document, a foundation for some cultural ideas. Why throw it out entirely?

Kiran: Because it’s a relic, man! Look at the caste stuff – it’s baked into the text. It says people are born into rigid roles: Brahmins at the top, Shudras at the bottom, and don’t even get me started on what it says about women. We’re sitting here designing steel beams for skyscrapers in New York, and you think a book that justifies hierarchy like that has any relevance?

Karthik: Fair point on the caste bit. It’s tough to defend that today. But hear me out – the Manusmriti isn’t just about caste. It’s got rules on governance, property, even contracts. We’re in an office that lives and breathes contracts with U.S. clients. Some of those ideas could still spark a discussion, no?

Kiran: Spark a discussion, sure, but apply it? No chance. Take the women thing – it says they’re supposed to be under someone’s control their whole lives: father, husband, son. Meanwhile, half our team here is women, including Priya, who’s basically running the show on the fabrication timelines. You think she’d sign off on that?

Karthik: Okay, yeah, that’s a hard sell in 2021. I’m not saying we adopt it like a company handbook. But it’s not black-and-white. The text evolved over centuries – scholars say parts were added later, reflecting the biases of the time. Can’t we just take the good and ditch the bad?

Kiran: That’s the problem, Karthik – the “good” is buried under so much bad it’s not worth the effort. Property laws? Sure, it’s got some. But the U.S. legal system we work with is light-years ahead – based on equality, not some divine hierarchy. And don’t forget the punishments – chopping off hands for theft? We’d lose half the crew if someone swiped a pen!

Karthik: (laughs) True, the penalties are brutal. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) would have a field day with that on a construction site. But I still think you’re missing the bigger picture. It’s not about literal adoption – it’s about understanding where ideas came from. Like how we study old bridge designs to improve modern ones.

Kiran: I get the history angle, but there’s a line. Studying it as a museum piece is fine. Accepting it as a guide? Nope. Look at our office – we’re all about collaboration, merit, innovation. Manusmriti’s worldview is the opposite: fixed roles, no mobility. Imagine telling our U.S. clients, “Sorry, this guy can’t lead the project, he wasn’t born a Kshatriya.” They’d drop us faster than a bad weld.

Karthik: Alright, you’ve got a point there. The meritocracy thing is non-negotiable, especially with how cutthroat the U.S. market is. But I still think there’s value in the ethical bits – like duties to family, community, environment. That could vibe with sustainable design trends we’re pitching to clients.

Kiran: Ethical bits? Sure, but you don’t need Manusmriti for that. Every culture has those ideas without the baggage. We’re in a globalized world – our designs go up in Chicago, not ancient Magadha. The text’s too tied to a specific time and place. It’s like using a chisel to draft blueprints when we’ve got AutoCAD.

Karthik: (grinning) AutoCAD wins, no contest. Fine, you’ve sold me – it’s not practical. But I’m still not burning my copy. It’s a window into the past, even if it’s not our playbook.

Kiran: Keep your copy, just don’t bring it to the next team meeting. Priya’s already got enough on her plate without debating ancient patriarchy.

And that’s where it ended – with Karthik conceding the practical point but holding onto his historical curiosity, and Kiran standing firm on modernity. Back to work they went, designing steel frameworks for a U.S. high-rise, leaving the Manusmriti on the shelf where it belongs (at least according to Kiran).

What do you think – could an ancient text like that ever find a place in today’s world, even in a construction design office?

PS: This was real story, I have changed the name of the office where I have seen this debate.