Devdutt Pattanaik works with gods and demons who churn nectar from the ocean of Indian, Chinese, Islamic, Christian, even secular mythologies.
Generally speaking, Leftists (LW) talk of wealth distribution. Rightists (RW) talk about wealth generation. LW sees the elite as fascists. RW sees the poor as lazy alm-seekers. LW reject tradition and call themselves progressives, which makes RW the conservatives who prefer the old ways. This manipulative binary nomenclature, where you define yourself and your opponent, originated in the French Revolution and evolved into the communist-capitalist binary.
Where does Manu fit into all this? It all starts in the 19th century, when LW intellectuals turned Manu into a RW icon. Influenced by Protestant missionaries, LW sought a textual basis of India’s caste system. It was traced to Manusmriti, a 3rd century Sanskrit text where Brahma tells Manu to divide humanity into four categories and give each of them a role and responsibility. Manu privileges the first three elite groups who control knowledge, power and resources. Service-providers are the lowest rung. What could be more RW than that? Since then, LW uses the word Manu-vadi (follower of Manu) as a slur. RW use Marxist as a slur.
But over 12 centuries years earlier, before 1,000 BC, there was another Manu. The Manu of the Rig Veda, that few talk about. The reason for this ignorance is that most Brahmins memorise the Rig Veda, focussing on its vibrations, rather than its meaning. Thanks to the British, the Veda was translated in the 19th century and it revealed a Manu who believed in wealth distribution and fairness. This Manu spoke of feeding the hungry long before Jesus said “blessed are the meek” or before Marx divided the world into “haves and have-nots”.
In Rig Veda, Manu is considered the father of humans (II.33), or rather Aryas. He is the leader, the kindler of fire, the performer of yagna. Most importantly, he receives the Soma herb from the falcon who fetches it from a citadel where it has been locked up (4.26). Thus obtaining what is otherwise deprived, thanks to this bird, Manu gives the Soma juice to Indra, who then smashes 99 forts of Sambhara, and releases waters from the clutches of Vritra (VII.21), and cows from the dark caves of Vala (III.30).
Since British colonists were invaders, they wanted to portray Indra as an invader, too. LW agreed with this interpretation and so made Indra a RW icon. Yet, Indra is attacking the citadel, the fortress, the cave of those who do not share their wealth -- those who do not pay taxes, and feed the hungry. The enemy, locked in his gated community, is the one who enjoys resources while the rest are suffering in the cold, without water, without milk, without light. Indra seems more like the champion of the helpless, enabled by Manu’s offering of Soma.
In Vedic prose, i.e., Brahmana literature, this idea is further elaborated. Manu saves a small fish from big fish. Big fish eating small fish or matsya-nyaya (fish justice) is Vedic metaphor for jungle law. The ‘big fish’ is the symbol of those who exploit and extract wealth from the ‘small fish’. By protecting the small fish in a pot, Manu declares that culture (as man-made as a pot) is where the meek are provided for and protected by the mighty. Is this LW or RW ideology? In later retellings, the fish is identified as Vishnu.
The story continues. The fish is released when it becomes big -- capable of feeding itself. This big fish then helps Manu from the flood of doom, towing his ship to safety. Thus a debt is repaid. When meek, he was protected by Manu. When mighty, he protected Manu. Dharma is not just about helping the helpless (LW ideology), it is also about repaying debts (RW ideology). When we defend dharma, dharma defends us. When we protect the weak, we are protected by the strong. Hence, the Sanskrit line, which is also found in Manusmriti (VIII.15): dharmo rakshati rakshitah. Very cleverly, dharma is mistranslated as ‘righteousness’ and ‘justice’ and ‘religion’ -- which are all biblical concepts!
The Bible is linear, focussed on obedience. The Veda is cyclical, debit is balanced by credit. Eaters have to be eaten. Feeders have to be fed. RW wants only the poor to repay debts. LW wants only the rich to repay debts. Manu wants everyone to be accountable. That is the principle of the yagna, translated in Yajur Veda as ‘dehi ma dadami te’, give me as I give you. Why do academicians and intellectuals not highlight this translation? Clearly they want to propagate the idea that all things Manu are traditional and since tradition must be RW, modernity becomes LW.