Today, when people speak of Hindu law, they understand nothing except the Manusmriti, which is plainly wrong. The way Manusmriti has been enthroned today, it never had such a status in the past. Although ancient Hindu law was to a large extent based on the Yajnavalkya Smriti, along with Yajnavalkya Smriti many other Smritis were also consulted. Along with the Smriti literature, verses from the Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranas, Upapuranas, Grihya Sutras, Shrauta Sutras, Dharma Sutras and various Parisisthas were also cited. The number of Puranas is considered to be around 18 or 20; Dr. Rajendrachandra Hazra in his book Studies in the Upapuranas has written that the number of Upapuranas was approximately more than a hundred. Similarly, Mahamahopadhyaya Pandurang Vaman Kane in his History of Dharmashastra has stated that the number of Smritis was also around one hundred. (For information on Sutras and Parisisthas, see A History of Indian Literature Vol. 1.2 edited by Jan Gonda.) Apart from these authoritative texts, the opinions of the commentators and compilers were also extremely important, because in many cases they attempted to solve complex problems by applying the theories of Nyaya and Mimamsa philosophy. To understand the identities of these “living libraries”, History of Dharmashastra is essential reading. Only a tiny fraction of this vast and unique knowledge repository has been printed; most of it is lost, and whatever little survives is confined within manuscripts preserved in various libraries in India and abroad. In this context, one more factor must be mentioned — namely local custom (deshachara), which developed on the basis of the decisions of these learned scholars. In the pre-printing age, the authority of local custom was inviolable. Even today, in remote rural areas people give more importance to custom than to what is written in books. Thus it should now be clear how enormous a historical mistake it is to attempt to replace this profound knowledge tradition with just a single book.

In its verdict on the Collector of Madura v. Moottoo Ramalinga Sethupathi case (1869), the Privy Council (the highest court of British India) mentioned in its judgment that there was no uniformity among Hindus in the observance of Hindu law, and that if there was a conflict among scriptures, custom would prevail. In this judgment, the concept of “schools of law” was constructed for the first time, to give a rough idea of the variations in customary law and theor sources of jurisprudence. 

Experts found through research that Hindu law could be divided into two parts on the basis of rules of inheritance — the Mitakshara system and the Dayabhaga system. The Mitakshara system is based on the commentary called Mitakshara on the Yajnavalkya Smriti. This system was prevalent in almost the whole of India. It describes agnatic inheritance. The Mitakshara system has five sub-schools.

Benaras school - The Benares school was observed in regions speaking Hindi, Garhwali, Kumaoni, Brajbhasha, Awadhi, Kannauji, Bundelkhandi, Baghelkhandi, Chhattisgarhi, Rajasthani, Marwari, Malvi, Nepali, Newari and Bhojpuri. They followed the works of Kamalakara Bhatta, Mitra Mishra, Nanda Pandita, Vishveshvara Bhatta (author of the Subodhini sub-commentary on Mitakshara) and Vaidyanatha Payagunda (author of the Balambhatti sub-commentary on Mitakshara). In addition to these, the Odiya Hindus also follow the works of Gadadhara Rajaguru, Vidyakara Bajapeyi and Narsingha Bajapeyi. Varanasi was the principal center of learning of this school.

Mithilia school - This school extends over Maithili-speaking regions. They follow the works of Vachaspati Mishra, Chandesvara Thakura, Misrumishra, Sridharacharya and Vishveshvara Bhatta. Under the patronage of the feudal rulers of Mithila, Darbhanga became the main center of learning of this school.

Dravida school - This school influences Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada and Tulu speaking regions. They follow the works of Devannabhatta, Madhavacharya, Prataparudra, Kamalakara Bhatta, Varadaraja, Kubera Bhatta and Nanda Pandita. Kanchipuram was the principal center of learning of this school. The main characteristic of this school is acceptance of marriage with one's own maternal cousin. 

Maratha school - This school was prevalent in the Marathi, Konkani, Gujarati and Sindhi speaking regions. They follow the works of Kamalakara Bhatta, Mitra Mishra, Nilakantha Bhatta (cousin of Kamalakara Bhatta), Anantadeva and Madhavacharya. Along with these, Marathi Hindus also cite the opinions of Kashinatha Upadhyaya. With the rise of the Peshwas, Pune emerged as the center of this school. 

Punjab school - This school extended over Punjabi, Haryanvi, Pahari, Kashmiri and Dogri speaking regions. Although Punjabis marginally accepted the opinions of Kamalakara Bhatta and Mitra Mishra, they mainly followed their own unwritten customs (later recorded as riwaj-i-am). For example, marriage rules among the same clan were so strict that if necessary, a Hindu of a clan would marry a Sikh of the same clan, but not a Hindu of another clan. In Kashmir, along with these, the Apararkachandrika commentary on Yajnavalkya Smriti was also followed. The courts of the Hindu rulers of Himachal and the Kashmir valley were the main centers.

The Dayabhaga system is based on Jimutavahana’s Dayabhaga. It describes cognatic inheritance. Along with this, the opinions of Mitra Mishra and Kubera Bhatta are also followed. This system has two sub-schools.

Bengal school - This school is confined to Bengal. Here the works of Raghunandana, Halayudha, Bhavadeva Bhatta and Shulapani (author of the Dipakalika commentary on Yajnavalkya Smriti) are followed. Navadvipa was the principal center of learning.

Kamarupa school - This school is confined to Assam. Here the works of Pitambara Siddhantavagisha, Shambhunatha Siddhantavagisha and Damodara Mishra are followed. Nalbari was the principal center of learning.

Under Muslim rule, the application of Hindu law was confined only to the realm of personal law (that is, social regulation, religious rituals and inheritance). The systems of administration, judicial procedure and criminal law described in Hindu scriptures remained unused on the official level. Although sharia was the formal rule of land, Hindu personal law continued to thrive, studied & implemented within the Hindu society as the judicial authority of Hindu kings in societal matters was transferred to the local Hindu feaudatory-landlord and popular assemblies of the elders, who (given their decentralised and fragmented nature, proved difficult to be destroyed without using excessive force) thrived under the indifference & neglect of their Muslim overlords. A large number of the names cited above belong to the Muslim period. 2 personalities that enjoyed pan-India authority among medieval Hindus (which is exceptionally rare) - Kamalakara Bhatta and Mitra Mishra, thrived under Mughal rule. Kamalakara Bhatta's grandfather Narayana Bhatta was the officiating priest for the reconsecration of Kashi Vishwanath temple erected by Todarmal, while his grand-nephew Gaga Bhatta officiated Shivaji's coronation. Mitra Mishra was a courtier of the Bundela king Virsinghdeo of Orccha, who was a feudatory of Akbar. 

In the early British period, Warren Hastings declared that the British would govern Muslims according  to sharia and Hindus according to their customary laws. Accordingly, Jagannatha Tarkapanchanana composed Vivadabhangarnava for Henry Thomas Colebrooke. At the same time in Bengal, under the leadership of Baneshwara Vidyalankara, chief pandit of Raja Krishnachandra Ray of Nadia, eleven scholars composed Vivadarṇavasetu. For William Jones, Sarvorumishra wrote Vivadasararnava. British understanding of Hindu law was initially formed from these texts. But when the British expanded beyond Bengal, they saw the disorder of Hindu law. They then appointed judge-pandits to interpret Hindu law and judge-maulvis to interpret Sharia. (Incidentally, Vidyasagar began his career as such a judge-pandit.) To train such scholars, the Sanskrit College and the Calcutta Madrasa (now Aliah University) were established. However, disagreements arose among the pandits themselves. For example, Bengali pandits believed that testimony was invalid unless one touched Ganga water before testifying, whereas pandits from regions without the Ganga held that this was never mandatory. Meanwhile, the first generation of English-educated urban Hindus sought British help for social reform. At this juncture, the British authorities started to shift away from customary law codified in texts like Nirnayasindhu, Viramitrodaya towards Manusmriti. Although Manu was respected among scholars, he was only primus inter pares (first among equals), meaning his rules could be contradicted by other Smritis. But the British mistakenly treated Manu as the supreme authority, whose rules could not be contradicted.

The British attitude was partly influenced by their own Anglican understanding of prima scriptura, which prioritizes scripture over custom, and ultimately the Bible over all scriptures. The British applied this theological framework to Hindu law & they saw the demands of social reform among Hindus analogous to the Protestant Reformation (i.e an attempt to go back to the original orthodoxy that has been corrupted by popular tradition). We can say that while the British were able to fromulate Anglo-Muslim law from the ready-made materials like al-Hidaya and Fatawa-i-Alamgiri translated by Charles Hamilton, that satisfied all Muslims, no such universally accepted material existed in the case of Anglo-Hindu law. Thus, relying on their own cultural assumptions and William Jones’s translation of Manusmriti with Kulluka Bhatta’s commentary, they permanently transformed Hindu law from a living, decentralised, layered system to an ossified, bookish tradition centered around Manu.

The question arises: why did Hindus accept such a massive change? The answer lies in British chauvinism and the “white man’s burden” mentality — they saw no need to deeply research native societies beyond what was necessary to rule them.

The period of William Bentinck was a crucial milestone in this regard. Sati was abolished in 1829, though supporters of sati far outnumbered opponents. The same occurred with widow remarriage. In 1834, Macaulay expressed racist views on Indian culture and advocated creating an Anglicised intermediary class through Western education. This led to the decline of Sanskrit education. Brahmins shifted from shastras to English for livelihood. Traditional learning collapsed. After 1857, British legal codes replaced indigenous systems entirely. Classical Hindu law was further discredited as being reactionary & outdated following the rise of social reform, caste activism (notable being Dalit activism) & women's liberation movements in the first half of the 20th century. As a result of this long process, today we see Manusmriti and “Hindu law” treated as synonymous.

Hindu law doesn't mean Manuvad.