1. Upholding the authenticity of Gita or rejecting the authenticity of a text like Manusmriti based on how many Hindus have or do not have the text in their homes is an Abrahamic attitude. Why is it so?

2. It is among the Christians (perhaps more so among Protestants?) that the study of Bible (specifically new testament) by each and every person of the community is considered a fundamental religious action as well as an act that keeps the community together.

3. This is not so in Hindu tradition. The function of Shastra is that they act as 'Shabda Pramana'- a source of knowledge in form of words that reveal knowledge about a particular subject. This knowledge is usually such that it cannot be known from other sources like perception.

4. What this means is not everybody needs to study every text and hence, there is no need for everyone to keep every text at home. For ex: Arthashastra is of zero relevance in everyday life of a common man. This does not mean Arthashastra is irrelevant or unimportant in Hinduism.

5. Though Dharma & Moksha is relevant to each and every person, everyone does not have a need, nor time, nor competency to study every texts related to Dharma & Moksha.

6. The highest Pramana for Dharma & Moksha are Veda. But to study Veda is not only very difficult and time-consuming, it needs certain qualifications and hence restricted to specialists who dedicate their life for that.

7. After Sruti, it is the Smritis like Manu which form the most authentic source of knowledge for Dharma. However, even here a detailed study is a life-time engagement with the texts and requires lot of rigour and specialization- Something not necessary for everyone.

8. Then, we have Itihasa-Puranas of which Bhagavad Gita is also a part, wherein Sri Badarayana Vyasa has reformulated the Sruti-Smriti teachings in the form of stories and discourses to be consumed by everyone of the society.

9. However, even in the case of Itihasa-Puranas, contrary to modern phenomenon, before Printing press, only specialists like Vidwans, Hari-katha exponents, etc. had a copy of manuscripts of these texts.

10. How then did the teachings of Dharma & Moksha transmit to the common masses? Through oral discourses, performance arts, and spiritual initiations by Gurus.

11. Those who developed a more serious interest in Dharma & Moksha, then approached Gurus/Acharyas of a tradition and learned under them- both theory & practice (sadhana) as relevant to that Sampradaya.

12. Even a century or so ago, very few homes had a copy of Bhagavad Gita at home! Does it mean, Gita has become an authentic Hindu scripture only today & was inauthentic before 100 years? If the answer is no, then the same applies to the case of Manusmriti as well.

13. Manusmriti was never & will never be in homes of every Hindu, because that is not its purpose. Its purpose is to reveal Dharma & its primary audience are specialists whose work is to study Shastra in great detail. In doing this purpose, Manu was and will always be relevant.

14. We call ourselves Sanatana Dharma, Hindu Dharma, Vaidika Dharma, etc. but what is Dharma? What is the basis of deciding something is Dharma or not? That basis is Shastras and this primarily includes Sruti & Smriti including Manu.

15. Here is a talk by me wherein I elaborate on what exactly is the role & function of Manu & other Smritis in Hindu Dharma-

16. The gist of the argument is this: Non-presence of Manu & other smritis at homes of common Hindus does not take away their relevance, importance, or role in Hindu civilization.

17. The teachings of the Smritis have always reached each and every person in a multitude of ways: Itihasa-Purana, Performing Arts, Parables, Subhashitas etc.