Ranade, Gandhi, Jinnah (1943), pp. 24–25.
It [Hindu religion] is Nietzschean in its form and essence. Long before Nietzsche was born Manu had proclaimed the gospel which Nietzsche sought to preach. It is a religion which is not intended to establish liberty, equality and fraternity. It is a gospel which proclaims the worship of the superman: the Brahmin by the rest of the Hindu society. It propounds that the superman and his class alone are born to live and to rule. Others are born to serve them, and to nothing more. They have no life of their own to live, and no right to develop their own personality. This has been the gospel of the Hindu Religion.
Philosophy of Hinduism, BAWS 3, pp. 72, 74–76.
The centre of the [the religious ideal of Hinduism for divine governance of human society] is neither individual nor society. It is a class — the class of Supermen called Brahmins. Those who will bear the dominant and devastating fact in mind will understand why the philosophy of Hinduism is not founded on individual justice or social utility. The philosophy of Hinduism is founded on a totally different principle.
To the question what is right and what is good the answer which the philosophy of Hinduism gives is remarkable. It holds that to be right and good the act must serve the interest of this class of supermen, namely, the Brahmins. Oscar Wilde said that to be intelligible is to be found out. Manu is neither afraid nor ashamed of being found out. Indeed Manu does not leave it to be found out. He expresses his view in resonent and majestic notes as who are the Supermen and anything which serves the interest of the Supermen is alone entitled to be called right and good.
Hinduism is the gospel of the superman and it teaches that what is right for the superman is the only thing which is called morally right and morally good.
…
Is there any parallel to this philosophy ? I hate to suggest it. But it is so obvious. The parallel to this philosophy of Hinduism is to be found in Nietzsche. The Hindus will be angry at this suggestion. It is quite natural. For the philosophy of Nietzsche stands in great odium. It never took roots. In his own words he was “sometimes deified as the philosopher of the aristrocracy and squirearchy, sometimes hooted at, sometimes pitied and sometimes boycotted as an inhuman being”.
…
To identify Nietzsche, whose name and whose philosophy excites so much horror and so much loathing; with Manu is sure to cause astonishment and resentment in the mind of the Hindus. But of the fact itself there can be no doubt. Nietszche himself has openly declared that in his philosophy he is only following the scheme of Manu. In his Anti-Christ this is what Nietzsche says
After all, the question is, to what end are falsehoods perpetrated? The fact that, in Christianity, ‘holy’ ends are entirely absent, constitutes my objection to the means it employs. Its ends are only bad ends; the poisoning, the calumniation and the denial of life, the contempt of the body, the degradation and self pollution of man by virtue of the concept of sin, — consequently its means are bad as well. My feelings are quite the reverse when I read the law book of Manu, an incomparably intellectual and superior work, it would be a sin against the spirit even to mention in the same breath with the Bible. You will guess immediately why; it has a genuine philosophy behind it, in it, not merely an evil-smelling Jewish distillation of Rabbinism and superstition — it gives something to chew even to the most fastidious psychologist. And, not to forget the most important point of all, it is fundamentally different from every kind of Bible: by means of it the noble classes, the philosophers and the warriors guard and guide the masses; it is replete with noble values, it is filled with a feeling of perfection, with saying yea to life, and triumphant sense of well-being in regard to itself and to life, — the Sun shines upon the whole book. All those things which Christianity smothers with its bottomless vulgarity; procreation, woman, marriage, are here treated with earnestness, with reverence, with love and confidence. How can one possibly place in the hands of children and women, a book that contains those vile words: “to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband ……… it is better to marry than to burn”.11 Corinthians 7.1–9 (New Testament). And is it decent to be a Christian so long as the very origin of man is Christianised, — that is to say, befouled, by the idea of the immaculate conception?… I know of no book in which so many delicate and kindly things are said to woman, as in the Law Book of Manu; these old grey-beards and saints have a manner of being gallant to woman which, perhaps, cannot be surpassed. “The mouth of a woman”, says Manu on one occasion, “the breast of a maiden, the prayer of a child, and the smoke of the sacrifice, are always pure”. Elsewhere he says: “there is nothing purer than the light of the Sun, the shadow cast by a cow, air water, fire and the breath of a Maiden”. And finally — perhaps this is also a holy lie: — “all the openings of the body above the navel are pure, all those below the navel are impure. Only in a maiden is the whole body pure”2See Manusmriti 5.130–33. Nietzsche is grossly misreading Manusmriti..3The Anti-Christ (1895), trans. Anthony D. Ludovici (1911), in The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche, ed. Oscar Levy, vol. 16 (1911), pp. 214–16.
This leaves no doubt that Zarathustra is a new name for Manu and that Thus Spake Zarathustra4Also Sprach Zarathustra, originally published in four volumes between 1883–85. is a new edition of Manu Smriti. If there is any difference between Manu and Nietzsche it lies in this. Nietzsche was genuinely interested in creating a new race of men which will be a race of supermen as compared with the existing race of men. Manu on the other hand was interested in maintaining the privileges of a class who had come to arrogate to itself the claim of being supermen. Nietzsche’s supermen were supermen by reason of their worth. Manu’s supermen were supermen by reason of their birth. Nietzsche was a genuine disinterested philosopher. Manu on the contrary was an hireling engaged to propound a philosophy which served the interests of a class born in a group and whose title to being supermen was not to be lost even if they lost their virtue.