Chapter XI. Polygamy, Polyandry and Rights and Duties on Marriage

Volume II: Part I pp. 550–582

Chapter XI. Polygamy, Polyandry and Rights and Duties on Marriage

Polygamy: Though monogamy ¹²⁷¹ seems to have been the ideal and was probably the rule, the Vedic literature is full of references to polygamy. Rg. X. 145 (same as Atharvaveda III. 18) is a hymn meant as a charm for weaning the husband's affections from a co-wife. It occurs in the Āp. M. P. (I. 15) and Āp. gr. IX. 6-8 prescribes it for winning over the husband to oneself and for causing estrangement between him and one's co-wife. Rg. X. 159 ¹²⁷² is a hymn attributed to Sacī, wife of Indra, who claims to have vanquished and killed her co-wives and to rule supreme over Indra and all meṇ This hymn also occurs in Āp. M. P. (I. 16) and is prescribed by the Āp. gr. (IX. 9) as a charm always to be repeated by a wife for suppressing her co-wiveṣ In a verse (Rg. I. 105. 8) Trita who had fallen into a well declares 'the rib-like sides (of the well) cause me pain all round as co-wives make it too hot (for the husband or for themselves)' ¹²⁷³. The Tai. S. (VI. 6. 4. 3) gives a dogmatic and somewhat picturesque explanation of polygamy that 'on one sacrificial post he passes round two girdles, so one man secures two wives; that he does not pass one girdle round two posts, so one wife does not obtain two husbands'. The Ait. Br. (12. 11) similarly declares 'therefore one man has many wives, but one wife has not many husbands at the same⁴ time'. The Tai. Br. (III. 8. 4.) when speaking of the Aśva-medha says 'the wives anoint (the horse); wives are indeed a form of prosperity'.⁵ In the Śat. Br. (XIII. 4. 1. 9, S. B. E. vol. 44, p. 349 ) it is said, ‘four⁶ wives are in attendance viz. the consecrated queen (mahiṣī), the favourite wife (vāvatā), the discarded wife (parivṛktā or parivṛkti) and the pālāgalī (who is low-born)’. The Tai. S. I. 8. 9 refers to the mahiṣī and parivṛkti. In the Vāj. S. (23. 24, 26, 28) there are verses which are addressed to the mahiṣī, vāvatā and parivṛkti by the brahmā, udgātā and hotā priests respectively. Hariścandra is said to have had a hundred wives (Ait. Br. 33. 1). It is not to be supposed that polygamy was confined only to kings and nobleṣ The great philosopher Yājñavalkya had two wives, Kātyāyanī who was worldly-minded and Maitreyī who thirsted for the knowledge of brahma and immortality (Br. Up. IV. 5. 1-2 and II. 4. 1).

In the times of the sūtras, some sages wanted to hold up a high ideal. The Ap. Dh. S. (II. 5. 11. 12-13) declares that when a man has a wife who is endowed with dharma and progeny, he shall not marry another wife; but if any one of the two (dharma and progeny) is wanting (in the case of the wife), he may marry another before he has consecrated the sacred śrauta fireṣ In another place Āp. (I. 10. 28. 19) prescribes that one who abandons his (faultless) wife should put on the skin of an ass with the hair outside and should beg for alms at seven houses for six monthṣ⁷ Nārada (strīpuṃsa v. 95) recommends that the king should bring round to the proper path by inflicting heavy fines a husband who abandons a wife that is obedient, not harsh of tongue, vigilant (in household work), chaste and endowed with sonṣ Even Kauṭ. (III. 2) prescribes that a husband should wait for eight years (before marrying another) if his wife gives birth to no child after one delivery or is sonless or is barren; he should wait for ten if she bears only still-born children, twelve years if she gives birth to daughters only. Then if he is anxious for a son he may marry another. If he violates these rules he must pay her gratuitý, some wealth as strīdhana and money (prescribed to be given) on supersession and besides a fine (to the king) of 24 panas⁸ So far Kauṭilya appears to have only stated the ideal, because he follows up this remark by another statement which probably represented the commonly held popular view ‘a man may marry several wives after giving śulka and strīdhana to those to whom nothing had been given at the time of marriage and money on supersession (ādhivedanika) and suitable provision for livelihood; for women are (married) for procreating sonṣ’ Though Ap. and others held up the ideal of monogamy and Nārada and others prescribed a fine for marrying a second wife without sufficient cause, it is extremely doubtful whether a man was ever punished by the king for so doing. Manu V. 80 and Yāj. I. 80 both say that a husband may supersede a wife (and marry another) if she drinks wine, suffers from a disease (of long standing), is deceitful, is extravagant in expenditure, speaks harsh words, and gives birth to female children only. Manu V. 81 and Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 2. 65 allow a husband to marry another woman at once if the first is harsh of tongue. Devala⁹ quoted in the Gr. R. says that the śūdra may have only one wife, a vaiśya two, a kṣatriya three and a brāhmaṇa four, but a king may have as many as he desireṣ This only reflected the prevailing practice of kingṣ The Ādiparva¹⁰ gravely remarks ‘to have many wives is no adharma on the part of men, but to violate the duty owed to the first husband would be a great adharma in the case of womeṇ' The Mahābhārata (Mausala-parva V. 6) tells us that Vāsudeva¹¹ (Kṛṣṇa) had sixteen thousand wiveṣ Several kings had in historic times as many as a hundred wiveṣ For example, the Ceḍi king Gāngeỳadeva alias Vikramāditya is said to have obtained mukti (salvation) at Prayāga with his hundred wives¹² (vide Jabalpur plate of Yaśaḥkarṇadeva dated 1122 A.D. in E. I. vol. II. p. 4 and the Khaira plates of the same king in E. I. vol. XII. p. 205). In Bengal the evils of Kulinism are well knowṇ The reasons for this treatment of women were many, such as the great spiritual importance of sons, early marriages and consequent illiteracy of women, the spread of the idea of the ceremonial impurity of women and their being equated with śūdras and lastly the idea of the complete dependence of women on meṇ One must not be carried away, however, by the notion that marrying many wives was either very common or was not looked down upoṇ Steele (in ‘Law and Custom of Hindoo Castes,' first published in 1826) who had the most unique opportunities for observing the practices of numerous castes in the Dekhan in the first decades of the 19th century writes (p. 168, eḍ of 1868) 'a man may marry as many wives as his inclination or circumstances allow. Marriages in succession, in consequence of the death of a former wife, are very common; but polygamy is not usual except on account of the barrenness of the first wife. It is practised in the Koonbee castes'. Vide also Imperial Gazetteer of India, vol. I (eḍ of 1907) p. 482 ‘Although in theory polygamy is allowed, in practice a second wife is rarely taken while the first is alive and in India as a whole there are only 1011 wives to every 1000 husbands so that even if no husbands have more than two wives all but 11 per thousand must be monogamous'. The state of the modern case law is unsatisfactory. The Bombay High Court has held that the mere fact that the husband has married a second wife would not entitle the first wife to refuse to stay with the husbanḍ Vide Motilal v. Chanchal, 4 Boṃ L. R. 107. In Virasami v. Appasami, 1 Madras High Court Reports, p. 375, the court held that a Hindu may marry any number of wives, although he may have a wife or wives living. It is submitted with great respect that that is not the ideal or the view of the best writers, nor is such a view held by the majority of Indian jurists of ancient and medieval timeṣ Modern opinion of educated people is most favourable to making marriages monogamous and efforts are being made to secure absolute monogamy by legislative actioṇ For example, the Madras Nambudri Act ( Madras Act XXI of 1933) forbids a Nambudri brāhmaṇa from marrying a second wife when the first is living except in three cases viz. (1) when the first wife is afflicted with an incurable disease for over five years, (2) when she has not borne a child within ten years of marriage, and (3) when she becomes an outcast.

Polyandry

The passages cited above (note 1274) from the Ait. Br. and the Tai. S. that a woman cannot have several husbands at the same time make it clear that in those ancient times polyandry was unheard¹ of. Not a single Vedic passage can be cited which clearly refers to the practice of polyandry. The most glaring example of polyandry in Sanskrit literature is that of Draupadī as the wife of the five Pāṇḍavaṣ Probably the tradition was too firmly rooted to allow the author to ignore it. The Mahābhārata shows that all were shocked by the resolve of Yudhiṣṭhira to make Draupadī the wife of the five brotherṣ Dhṛṣṭadyumna (Ādiparva² 195. 27–29 ) tries vehemently to dissuade Yudhiṣṭhira, who tries to justify his action on the ground of ancient practice and the agreement of the brothers to share everything that any one of them may secure. But Yudhiṣṭhira could³ ferret out (Ādi. chap. 196 ) only two instances ( rather mythical ) in support of the practice viz. of Jaṭilā Gautamī ( who had seven sages as husbands ) and of Vārkṣī who had ten Prācetasa brothers as husbandṣ It is this fact that has led many scholars to regard the Pāṇḍus as a non-Aryan tribe somehow grafted on the Aryan stock and represented as relatives of the Kauravas by the editor of the Mahābhārata. This too also sounds somewhat far-fetcheḍ Kumārilabhaṭṭa in his Tantravārtika cuts this Gordian knot by putting forward three explanations, one of which boldly asserts that there were many Draupadīs very similar to each other and so the epic figuratively speaks of one Draupadī only.¹²⁸⁶ There were really five Draupadīs (and not one) married separately to the five Pāṇḍavaṣ In the Dharmaśāstra works there are traces of the knowledge of the practice of polyandry. Āp. Dh. S. (II. 10. 27. 2–4) refers to it ‘One shall not make over (his wife) to strangers (for a son by niyoga), but only to one who is a sagotra; for they declare that a bride is given to the family (of brothers and not to one brother alone); that (niyoga) is forbidden on account of the weakness of men’s senseṣ’ Similarly Bṛhaspati, while illustrating the proposition that the king should not disturb popular usages even though they may be improper, cites several such practices among which he mentions ‘In some other countries there is the most reprehensible practice of a brother taking (as wife) the widow of his deceased brother, and the practice of delivering a maiden to a family; similarly among the Pārasikas (Persians) matches with a mother are seen’.¹²⁸⁷ Dr. Jolly is wrong in thinking that Bṛhaspati refers to polyandry as practised in the south. Bṛhaspati first referred to the practice of marrying a maternal uncle’s daughter as prevalent amongst the southerners (dākṣiṇātyas) in his day and then adds that a practice of giving a girl to the family is in vogue in other countrieṣ So he clearly means countries other than those of the dākṣiṇātyaṣ Prof. Keith appears to follow Dr. Jolly without any independent examination of the original passage (in E. R. E. vol. 8 on marriage, p. 453). Just as Bṛhaspati refers to the Pārasikas, he speaks of polyandry as current among other countries (but not Aryan India). There are two types of polyandry,¹²⁸⁸ one matriarchal (where a woman forms simultaneous alliances with two or more men who are not necessarily relations of each other and therefore succession is traced through the female) and the other fraternal, where a woman becomes the wife of several brotherṣ The former practice once prevailed among the Nairs on the Malabar coast, but it has now died out. The latter form of polyandry is still to some extent found in Kumaon, Garhwal and among peoples in the Himalayan area up to Assaṃ⁷ Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji (I. A. vol. 8, p. 88) says that in Kumaun between the Tons and Jumna river about Kalsi, Rajputs, brāhmaṇas and śūdras all practise polyandry and the children are attributed to the eldest brother who is alive. Nīlakaṇṭha,⁸ the commentator of the Mahābhārata, raises (on Ādiparva 104. 35) the question about Draupadī’s marrying five husbands and refers to the practice among very low castes in his day of one woman having two or three husbandṣ

Mutual rights and duties of husband and wife

Manu (IX. 101–102 ) lays down in a concise form the obligations of husband and wife viz. 'they should not prove false to each other till death ( as regards dharma, artha and kāma ) and that their constant endeavour should be not to be separate from each other and not to break faith with each other ( as to those three goals of human life )'. The detailed rights and duties of the husband and wife will be unfolded as we proceeḍ

The first duty of the husband and the privilege of the wife was to require and to give respectively her co-operation in all religious actṣ This has been so from the most ancient timeṣ In Rg. I. 72. 5 it is said⁹ that 'they, accompanied by their wives, worshipped the fire who is worthy of worship'. In another place it is said 'when you make the husband and wife of one mind, they anoint thee with ghee like a well-placed friend'. In the Tai. Br. III. 7. 5 occurs a passage 'may the wife unite with her husband by means of the good deeds ( done by both ), they two became yoked like oxen to the sacrifice; may the two be of one mind and destroy their foes; may they attain non-aging light in heaven’. The same verse with slight variations occurs in the Kāṭhaka Saṃ V. 4 and is relied upon by Śabara on Jaimini VI. 1. 21. This indicates that they were supposed to enjoy the fruits of their actions together. We saw above (p. 551) how in the Aśvamedha the wife anoints the horse, how in marriage the bride offers handfuls of fried grain into fire. It has already been seen ( note 1208 ) that the Āp. Dh. S. (II. 6. 13. 17–19 ) requires that from the time of marriage the husband and wife work together in religious acts, that they share the reward of such acts together and that they both have dominion over the wealth of the family if occasion necessitateṣ The Āśv. gr. (I. 8. 5) prescribes ¹⁰ that the fire kindled at marriage is carried by the married pair to their home ( in a vessel ) and that ( I. 9. 1–8 ) since the day of marriage, the husband should worship the domestic fire himself or his wife or his son or his daughter or pupil ( may offer worship in his absence), that if fire goes out, some teachers say that the wife should observe a fast, the domestic fire should be worshipped in the evening with an āhuti and the formula ‘agnaye svāhā’ and in the morning with an āhuti and the formula ‘sūryāya svāhā’ and there is to be a second oblation each time silently (to Prajāpati). According to the commen- tator some said that the wife and daughter could not perform the homa as they had no privilege to learn mantras, that they could only kindle the fire, while others said they could do so. In the gṛhya fire kindled at marriage one was to offer the daily mahāyajñas (Gaut. 5. 6–8) and as regards baliharaṇa, Gobhila gr. (I. 4. 16–19) says that both husband and wife should offer balis, or a brāhmaṇa may offer for them, or the wife may offer in the evening and the husband in the morning ¹¹. Manu (III. 121) says that from food cooked in the evening the wife should offer balis, but without mantraṣ This shows that though gradu- ally women began to lose the right to repeat Vedic mantras (as shown by Manu), still she had a hand in the religious riteṣ She had to perform many acts in sacrifices, such as unhusking grain in sthalīpāka (vide Hir. gr. I. 23. 3), washing the slaughtered animal (compare Śat. Br. III. 8. 2 and Gobhila gr III. 10. 29), looking at the ājya in śrauta sacrificeṣ The Pūrvamīmāṁsā ¹² (VI. 1. 17–21) establishes that both husband and wife own property and should join together in performing sacrifices, but that the male sacrificer alone is ordinarily to do every act in all religious ceremonies except such matters as are expressly declared to be performed by the wife also or alone (as e. g. observing celibacy, uttering benediction &c.). It is on account of the necessity of associating the wife in all religious acts that the hero Rāma was compelled to celebrate sacrifices with a golden image of Sītā by his side. ¹³ Pāṇini (IV. 1. 33) derives the word patnī and says that it can be only applied to a wife who shares in the sacrifice (and its reward). It follows that wives who are not or cannot join with their husbands in yajñas are only jāyās or bhāryās (but not patnīs). The Mahābhāṣya says ¹⁴ that the wife of a śūdra is called patnī only by analogy (as a śūdra himself has no adhikāra for yajña, his wife can much less have it). It is on account of this close association of the wife in all sacrifices (either śrauta or smārta) that the wife if she dies before her husband is burnt with the sacred fire or fires and with the sacrificial vessels and implements (Manu V. 167–168, Yāj. I. 89). The Tai. Br. III. 7. 1 says ‘half of the sacrifice is destroyed in the case of that sacrificer whose wife is (in her monthly course and therefore) unavailable on the sacrificial day.’ ¹⁵

But the wife is not authorized to do religious acts indepen- dently of her husband or without his consent. Manu (V. 155 = Viṣṇu Dh. S. 25. 15) ordains ‘there is no separate yajña for women (independently of the husband) nor vrata (vows) nor fasts (without his consent).' Similarly Kātyāyana propounds¹⁶ ' whatever a woman does to secure spiritual benefit after death without the consent of her father (when she is unmarried), or her husband or her son, becomes fruitless for the purpose intendeḍ' Vide also Veda-Vyāsa smṛti II. 19. The Nityācārapaddhati (p. 329) quotes Manu V. 155 and remarks that Manu's words are not to be taken literally but are only meant to extol the eminence of the husbanḍ

Very detailed rules were laid down as to precedence among wives, if a man married several womeṇ Viṣṇu Dh. S. (26. 1-4) concisely gives all the ruleṣ¹⁷ If all the wives are of the same caste, then the wife whose marriage took place first was to be associated with the husband in all religious acts; if a man had wives of different varṇas (when inter-caste marriages were allowed) the wife of the same varṇa with the husband had precedence, though her marriage might have been later in date. If there is no wife of the same varṇa as himself, the husband may associate with himself in religious rites even a wife of the varṇa imme- diately next to his own; but a dvijāti should never associate a śūdra wife with himself in religious ceremonieṣ Vide Madanapārijāta p. 134 for similar ruleṣ Vaṣ Dh. S. 18. 18 expressly says ' a woman belonging to the dark varṇa (i. e. śūdra) is meant only for pleasure and not for performance of religious rites'.¹⁸ Gobhila smṛti (I. 103-104) contains rules similar to those in Viṣṇu Dh. S., Yāj. I. 88 and Veda-Vyāsa II. 12 are to the same effect. Viśvarūpa on Yāj. remarks that though the eldest wife alone is entitled to take part in religious rites, all wives (except a śūdra wife) may be cremated with the śrauta fire. Vide Sṃ C. I. p. 165. In the Pūrvamī- māṁsā (IX. 3. 20-21) Jaimini discusses the question whether the direction in the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa 'patnīm samnahya' (having girt up the wife) which employs the singular number should be modified into the dual or plural when the sacrificer (in a model sacrifice or its modifications) has two or more wives and establishes that no change is requireḍ The Trīkāṇḍamaṇḍana¹⁹ (I. 43-44) says that there were three views when a man had several wives viz. some said that all should be associated with him in religious rites, others held that only the eldest wife of the same varṇa should be associated and the third view was that the husband should never associate with himself a wife whom he married for pleasure after he kindled the sacred fireṣ Manu (IX. 86-87) lays down that the wife of the same caste with the husband should always have precedence not only in the obligatory religious rites, but also in ministering to the physical comfort of the husband and if a brāhmaṇa husband gets these done by a wife of another caste when the wife of the same caste is near, he becomes like a cāṇḍāla.

From very ancient times one of the articles of faith was that a man was born with debts, that he owed three debts to sages, gods and pitṛs and that by brahmacarya (student-hood), by performing yajñas and by procreating sons he freed himself from those three debts respectively. Vide²⁰ Tai. S. VI. 3. 10. 5, Śat. Br. I. 7.2.11, Ait. Br. 33.1. The last very succinctly states the purposes served by a son viz. payment of the debt to ancestors, the securing of immortality and heaveṇ Rg, V. 4. 10 (prajābhir-agne amṛtatvam-aśyām) prays 'may I obtain immortality through progeny.' Vaṣ Dh. S. 17. 1-4 quotes these passages of the Tai. S., Ait. Br. and Rg. The Rg. X. 85. 45 invokes the blessing of ten sons on the newly married bride and the Rg. is full of the yearning for a son at every step. Vide Rg. I. 91. 20, I. 92. 13, III. 1. 23 &c. Jaimini (VI. 2. 31)²¹ discusses the passage of the Tai S. and arrives at the conclusion that the duties laid down in it are obligatory and not left to choice and Śabara adds another explanation that these duties are obligatory on all dvijātis and the word 'brāhmaṇa' is used in the Tai. S. as illustrative only. Manu (VI. 35) enjoins upon a man that he should not think of mokṣa (release from saṁsāra) before he has paid off the three debts and (IX. 106) further says that by the very birth of the eldest son a man becomes free from the debt owed to ancestorṣ Manu (IX. 137), Vaṣ 17. 5, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 15. 46 contain the same verse proclaiming that a man attains all (heavenly) worlds by means of a son and Manu IX. 138, Ādi. 129. 14, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 15. 44 declare that a putra is so called because he saves his father from the hell called put. The Nirukta II. 11²² also derives the word putra similarly. Further the water and piṇḍas (balls of cooked rice) offered by the son to his father and other deceased ancestors were supposed to be of great efficacy for the peace of the souls of the departeḍ The Viṣṇu Dh. S. 85. 70,²³ Vanaparva 34. 97, Matsyapurāṇa 207. 39 contain a verse ‘one should desire to have many sons in the hope that one of them may repair to Gayā.’ On account of these several benefits conferred by a son, the highest importance was attached to the birth of a soṇ The wife helped a man to discharge two of his debts, to the gods by associating with him in sacrifices and to the pitṛs by procreating a son or sonṣ Therefore the goal of the life of women was declared to be to get married and procreate sonṣ This was so much the case from very ancient times that even the Śat. Br. (V. 3. 2. 2, S. B. E. vol. 41, p. 65) says that the sonless wife is possessed with Nir-ṛti (ill luck or Destruction). Manu (IX. 96) says ‘women are created for procreation and men have to propagate (the race): therefore in the Veda it is declared that the wife shares in common (with the husband) the performance of religious duties’. Nārada (stripuṁsa v. 19) also declares that women are created for (procreating) childreṇ It was on account of these ideas about the goal of woman's life and the supreme importance of a son that the smṛtis and dharma-sūtra works recommended or allowed the husband to marry a second time even when the first wife was living.

All the smṛtis, purāṇas and the digests devote a great deal of space to the duties of a wife. It would be impossible to set them out in detail. A few striking passages alone will be citeḍ All are agreed that the foremost duty of a wife is to obey her husband and to honour him as her goḍ In the Śat. Br.²⁴ princess Sukanyā when married to the old and decrepit sage Cyavana to mollify the sage who had been wronged by her brothers says ‘ I shall not forsake my husband, while he is alive, to whom my father gave me’ (IV. 1. 5. 9). Śankha-Likhita²⁵ say ‘a wife should not hate her husband even if he be impotent (or have swollen testicles), patita (guilty of mahāpātaka and so an outcast), devoid of a limb or diseased, since the husband is the god of womeṇ’ Manu declares (V. 154) ‘a virtuous wife should serve her husband as if he were a god, whether he be of evil character, or lustful (loving another woman) or devoid of good qualities’ Yāj. I. 77 enjoins upon women ‘this is the highest duty (dharma) of women that they should obey their husband’s words; if he is guilty of some mortal sin, they should wait till he is purified (and thereafter be dependent on his words)’. The Rāmāyaṇa (Ayodhyā-kāṇḍa 24. 26–27) remarks ‘the husband is the god and the master of the wife, while she is alive and she obtains the highest heaven by serving her husbanḍ’ The Mahābhārata very frequently harps upon the duties of wiveṣ²⁶ The Anuśāsana parva 146. 55 says ‘the husband is the god of a woman, her (sole) relative, her goal’; the Aśvamedhika-parva 90. 51 declares ‘the husband is the highest deity.’ ‘The father gives only what is limited, the brother and the son do the same; what woman would not worship the husband who gives what is unlimited or immeasurable!’ (Śāntiparva 148. 6–7). The Matsyapurāṇa 210. 18 contains this last verse and adds ‘the husband is the god for women and is their highest goal.’ This idea of the wife’s entire submission to the husband is voiced even by poets like Kalidasa,²⁷ who makes one of the pupils of Kanva say about Sakuntala ‘this is your wife, abandon her or accept her, since all-round domination of the husband over the wife is proper.’ Manu V. 150-156, Yaj. I. 83-87, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 25. 2 ff, Vanaparva 233. 19-58 (Draupadi as the speaker), Anusasana 123 (Sandili declares the conduct of virtuous wives), Veda-Vyasa-smṛti II. 20-32 (wife’s duties from morning till night), Vrddha-Harita XI. 84 ff (wife’s duties from morning), Sṃ C. (vyavahāra section) p. 249 ff, Madanaparijata pp. 192-195 and other nibandhas dwell at length upon the duties of the wife. A few of such duties may be indicated here.

According to Manu V. 150 ‘a wife should always present a smiling face, should be alert and clever in her domestic duties, should keep domestic vessels well burnished and clean and should not be extravagant in spending.’ Manu IX. 11 asks the husband to set to his wife the task of con- serving the wealth acquired and looking to its expenditure, of keeping things clean, of the performance of religious acts, of cooking food and of taking care of household paraphernalia. Manu (IX. 13) adds that drinking wine, company of bad people, staying away from the husband, wandering about (to tīrthas or ‘elsewhere’), sleep (by day), staying in the house of strangers—these six spoil married womeṇ Ādiparva 74. 12 gives²⁸ expression to the popular notion that people do not like married women staying with their paternal relatives for a long time away from their husbands, since such a stay leads to loss of good name and character. The same sentiment is echoed by Kalidasa in the Sakuntala (V. 17). The Markandeya-purāṇa 77. 19 is to the same effect. Yaj. (I. 83 and 87) requires the wife to keep household utensils and furniture in their proper places, to be clever, to have a smiling face, to be extravagant, to be devoted to doing what is agreeable and beneficial to the husband, to show respect to her father-in-law and mother-in-law by clasping their feet; to conduct herself decently, to restrain her senseṣ' Śaṅkha²⁹ lays down what is decent conduct for a wife 'she should not go out of the house unless she is asked (by her husband or elders) nor without putting on an upper garment; she should not walk fast; she should not speak with a male who is unrelated to her, except a trader, a saṁnyāsin, an old man or a physician; she should not allow her navel to be seen; she should wear her garment (or sari) in such a way that it may reach down to her ankles; she should not expose her breasts, she should not laugh loudly without covering her mouth (with her hand or her garment); she should not hate her husband or his relatives; she should not be in the company of dancing girls, gambling women, women who make assignments to meet lovers, female ascetics, female fortune-tellers, women who live by tricks, magical and secret rites and who are of bad character; since (the wise declare that) the character of women of good family is spoilt by the company (they keep).' The Viṣṇu Dh. S. 25. 1-6 ordains 'now then the duties of wives (are declared); they should perform the same vratas (observances and vows) which the husband undertakes; they should honour the mother-in-law, the father-in-law, other elders, gods, guests and keep the house-hold utensils well arranged; they should not be extravagant in giving to others; should keep the goods well guarded; they should have no liking for magical practices (to win love) and should be devoted to auspicious conduct.' Vide also Viṣṇu Dh. S. chap. 99 last two verses (quoted by Aparārka p. 107). Draupadī (Vanaparva chap. 233 ) states 'whatever my husband does not eat, drink or partake of, I avoiḍ I know the total wealth, the income and expenditure of the Pāṇḍavas'. The Kāmasūtra directs the wife to make expenditure that will be commensurate with the yearly income of the husbanḍ³⁰ Manu (VIII. 361) prescribes the fine of a suvarṇa for a man speaking with a woman with whom he is forbidden to speak and Yāj. II. 285 prescribes a fine of one hundred paṇas in the case of a woman who is forbidden to speak with a man (by her husband or father &c.) and a fine of two hundred paṇas in the case of the man who speaks with a woman with whom he is forbidden to speak. Bṛhaspati³¹ says that a wife should get up from bed before her husband and elders, should partake of food and condiments after they have eaten, should occupy a seat lower than that of the husband or elderṣ ‘A wife can engage in vratas, fasts, observances and worship (of god &c.) with the permission of her husband’ say Śankha-Likhita.³² The Purāṇas frequently descant on strīdharma. A few specimens may be noted here. The Bhāgavata VII. 11. 29 says that the wife who looks upon her husband as the god Hari dwells in the world of Hari and revels with her husbanḍ The Skanda Purāṇa (Brahma-khaṇḍa, Dharmāraṇya section, chap. 7) has a long description of a pativratā ‘she should not repeat the name of her husband, as such conduct leads to the increase of the husband’s life and should never take the name of another male (v. 18), even when she is loudly blamed (by the husband) she does not cry loudly, even when beaten she is smiling (v. 19). A pativratā should always use turmeric, kuṅkuma, sindūra, lamp black (for the eye), a bodice, tāmbūla, auspicious orna- ments, and should braid her hair’ (vv. 28–29). The Padma-purāṇa (Sṛṣṭi-khaṇḍa, chap. 47, v. 55) says that that wife is pativratā who in doing work is like a slave, like a hetaira in affording sexual pleasure, like a mother in offering food and like a counsellor in adversity.

Special rules of conduct were laid down for a wife whose husband was away from home on a journey. Śaṅkha-Likhita (quoted by Aparārka p. 108, Sṃ C., vyavahāra p. 253) contain a long statement about what such a wife should not do: ‘women whose husbands are away from home should avoid amusements of swing and dance, seeing pictures, applying unguents to the body, walking in parks, sleeping in open places (or uncovered). partaking of sumptuous food and drink, playing with a ball, fragrant resins and perfumes, flowers, ornamental brushing of the teeth, collyrium (in the eyes).’ Yāj. (I. 84) puts there briefly ‘a woman whose husband is gone to another country should give up play, the adornment of the body, visiting samājas (note 986 above) and festivals, laughing, going to the house of a stranger.’ The Anuśāsana-parva³³ (123. 17) indicates that a wife whose husband is gone abroad does not apply eyesalve or rocanā (yellow pigment) to her body, does not take a ceremonial bath and does not use flowers, unguents or ornamentṣ Manu (IX. 74-75) requires the husband when going abroad to make provision for the wife's maintenance, since a woman without some means of livelihood, though originally virtuous, may go astray and adds ‘when the husband goes abroad after providing for maintenance, the wife should live thereby and abide by the restrictions (laid down for such wives); if he goes away without making provision for her maintenance she should maintain herself by crafts (such as spinning) which are unblamable.’ The Viṣṇu Dh. S. (25. 9–10) contains similar ruleṣ The Veda-Vyāsa-smṛti (II. 52) enjoins upon a wife whose husband is gone abroad ‘her³⁴ face should look pale and distressed, she should not embellish her body, she should be devoted to her husband, should be without (full) meal and should emaciate her body.’ The Trikāṇḍamaṇḍana³⁵ (I. 80–81 and 85) says that when the husband is gone abroad the wife may with the help of a priest perform the daily duties of agnihotra, the obligatory iṣṭis and pitṛyajña, but should not perform soma sacrificeṣ

The rewards of the wife's single-minded devotion to her husband and her rigid observance of the rules of conduct prescribed for her are stated at great length in smṛti workṣ Manu (IX. 29-30 = Manu V. 165 and 164) says ‘that woman who does not prove faithless to her husband in thought, word and deed (lit. body) secures the (heavenly) worlds together with her husband and is spoken of as a sādhvī (a virtuous woman, a pativratā); but by proving faithless to her husband a woman incurs censure in this world, is born as a female jackal (in the next life) and is afflicted with very bad diseaseṣ' Yāj. (I. 75 and 87) declares that the woman, who does not approach another while the husband is living or after his death and who is intent on doing what is agreeable and beneficial to her husband, who is of good conduct and has restrained her senses, attains glory in this world and plays with Umā (the wife of Śiva) in heaveṇ Bṛhaspati³⁶ defines a pativratā as one who is distressed when her husband is distressed, who is delighted when her husband is in delight, who is emaciated and wears dirty clothes when her husband has gone on a journey and who dies on the death of her husbanḍ

In the Mahābhārata and the purāṇas hyperbolical descriptions of the power of the pativratā occur at every step. Vide Vana-parva 63 where we are told (vv. 38-39) that when Damayantī cursed by her faithfulness to her husband the young hunter who had evil designs on her, he fell down a dead maṇ In the Anuśāsanaparva 123 Śāṇḍilī who³⁷ had attained heavenly worlds tells Sumanā Kaikeyī how she reached that state with-out wearing kāṣāyas (dyed garments worn by samnyāsins) or bark garments and without having matted hair or without tonsuring her head (as ascetics do), but by strictly following the rules laid down for virtuous wives, such as not addressing harsh words to their husband, abandoning all food that the husband did not like. Anuśāsana (146. 4-6) names several pativratās of ancient times and the following verses dilate upon the rules of conduct for virtuous wiveṣ The story of Sāvitrī in the Vanaparva (293–299) illustrates the power of a pativratā, who wrung back even from Yama, the dread god of Death, the life of her husbanḍ³⁸ Sāvitrī and Sītā have been held by the women of India for thousands of years as the highest ideals of womanly virtue, to which they have always endeavoured to approach and one may say that Indian women generally have most successfully lived up to that high and ennobling ideal that was set before theṃ Vanaparva (205-206) tells the story of a learned brāhmaṇa, who by his mere angry look made a female crane die when the latter voided its faeces on to the head of the brāhmaṇa and who was rebuked by a pativratā that the latter was not a crane, when the brāhmaṇa tried to frighten the virtuous woman for her tardiness in welcoming him as a guest and for looking only after her husbanḍ The Śalyaparva (63) narrates how awful the power of a pati- vratā like Gāndhārī is in that she can, if she choose, burn the world, she can stop even the motions of the sun and³⁹ the mooṇ The Skanda-purāṇa III (Brahma-khaṇḍa, Brahmāraṇya section chap. 7) first names (verses 14-15) several pativratās like Arundhatī, Anasūyā, Sāvitrī, Śāṇḍilyā, Satyā, Menā and then waxes eloquent over the tremendous spiritual power of a pativratā 'just as a snake-charmer⁴⁰ forcibly draws out from a hole a snake, so a pativratā snatches away her husband's life from the messengers of Death and reaches heaven with her husband and the messengers of Death, on seeing the pativratā, beat a hasty retreat.'

As the foremost duty of the wife was to honour and serve the husband, she must always stay with him and she had a right of residence in the house. A wife was further entitled to be maintained in the house by the husbanḍ A verse quoted by Medhātithi on Manu III. 62 and IV. 251 and by the Mit. on Yāj. I. 224 and II. 175 and which occurs in some Msṣ as a spurious verse after Manu XI. 10 says ' Manu declares that one must maintain one's aged parents, a virtuous wife and a minor son by doing even a hundred bad acts'.⁴¹ Dakṣa II. 36 (= Laghu-Āśvalāyana ¹³²⁴ I. 74) defines poṣyavarga (persons whom every one, however poor, is bound to maintain) as follows: ‘the parents, the guru, the wife, children and a helpless man who has taken shelter with one, a guest and fire constitute poṣyavarga.’ Manu VIII. 389 prescribes that the man who abandons and does not maintain his parents, wife, and son, when they are not outcast, should be fined 600 paṇas by the king. Yāj. I. 74 requires the husband to maintain a wife whom he has superseded in the same way as before, otherwise he would be guilty of great siṇ Yāj. I. 76 says that if a man abandoned a wife who was obedient, diligent, the mother of a son, and agreeable in speech, he was to be made to give one-third of his property to the wife, but if he had no property he had to maintain her. Nārada (stripurṣa 95) has a similar provisioṇ The Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 163 made the husband punishable like a thief, if he abandoned his wife. The husband was required by Yāj. I. 81 to be devoted to his wife, since women are to be guarded (against falling into error). Vide Yāj. I. 78 also. Manu IV. 133 forbids adultery with another’s wife and Manu IV. 134 (= Anuśāsana 104. 21 and Mārkaṇḍeya-purāṇa 34. 62–63) observes that there is nothing that harms one’s life as much as adultery. Viśvarūpa ¹³²⁵ on Yāj. I. 80 points out that the guarding of a wife from evil can be secured only by being devoted to her and not by beating her, as, if the husband were to beat her, it might endanger her life. Manu (IX. 5–9) also calls upon men to guard women, and ( in IX. 10–12) says that they cannot be guarded by imprisonment or force, but by engaging them in looking to the income and expenditure, the furniture, beauty and purity of the house and the cooking and by inculcating on them the value of a virtuous life. In spite of this the husband possessed certain powers of physical correction over the wife which were the same as those possessed by a teacher over a pupil or a father over a son, viz. he could administer beating with a rope or a thin piece of bamboo on the back but never on the heaḍ Vide Manu VIII. 299–300 (cited above on p. 363) which are the same as Matsyapurāṇa 227. 152–154. It will be seen that about two thousand years ago Manu did not confer greater powers of correction and restraint of the wife on the husband than the Common Law of England allowed to husbands even in the 18th century.⁴⁴

As it was the husband's duty to provide residence and maintenance for the wife and as the wife was bound to stay with the husband, it follows that either party could after marriage enforce his or her rights in a court of law if the other party refused to perform her or his dutieṣ In modern times a suit for restitution of conjugal rights can be brought and the decree can be executed against the wife by the attachment and sale of her property (if she has any), but not by detention in civil jail and against the husband by the court ordering the husband to make periodical payments of money for the maintenance of the wife and securing such payments by creating a charge on his property (vide Civil Procedure Code of 1908 Order 21 rules 32 and 33). To such a suit by the husband Indian Courts have recognised certain valid defences, such as desertion, cruelty or such conduct as endangers the health of the wife, change of religion, or keeping a concubine in the house or the husband's being afflicted with a loathsome disease (like leprosy). Vide Bai Premkunvar v. Bhika 5 Boṃ H. C. R. (A. C. J.) p. 209 (leprosy), Yamunabai v. Narayan 1 Boṃ 164 (cruelty), Paigi v. Sheo Narain 8 All. 78, Dular Koer v. Dwarkanath 34 Cal. 971, Bai Jivi v. Narsingh 51 Boṃ 329. Where the courts make the husband pay maintenance, they are in principle following Yāj. I. 76 and Nārada (p. 569). Vide Binda v. Kaunsilia 13 All. 126 where many original Sanskrit texts are citeḍ

Not only was the husband bound to maintain the wife, but he was called upon to cohabit with the wife and was supposed to incur the sin of embryo-murder if he refused without good cause to do so. On the other hand the husband had a right of consortium i. e. the wife was not to refuse herself to the husband and if she did so her delinquency was to be proclaimed in the village and she was to be driven from the house ⁴⁵.

The humane character of the legislation of the Indian sages is seen by the fact that even for adultery they do not allow the husband to drive the wife out of the house and to abandon her. Gaut. 22. 35 prescribes that a wife who violates her duty of chastity must undergo a penance, but she should be kept under guard and be given fooḍ Yāj. ( I. 70, 72 ) declares ‘an adulterous woman should be deprived of her authority (over servants &c. ), should be made to wear dirty clothes, should be given food just sufficient to enable her to live, should be treated with scorn and made to lie on the ground (not on a cot); a woman becomes pure from adultery when she has her monthly period after that, but if she conceives in adulterous intercourse she may be abandoned and also when she is guilty of the murder of her foetus or of her husband or of some sin that makes her an outcast’. The Mit. on Yāj. I. 72 draws attention to the text of Vasiṣṭha XXI. 12 ‘the wives of brāhmaṇas, ⁴⁶ kṣatriyas and vaiśyas who commit adultery with a śūdra may be purified by a penance in case no child is born (of the inter-course), but not otherwise’ and remarks that the words of Yājñavalkya are to be understood in the same sense i. e. a wife is to be abandoned only if she be in adultery with a śūdra; and further that the abandonment consists in not allowing her to participate in religious rites and conjugal matters, but she is not to be cast on the streets; she is to be kept apart guarded in a room and to be given food and raiment (as stated in Yāj. III. 297). Vasiṣṭha XXI. 10 says that only four (types of) wives are to be abandoned viz. one who has intercourse with the husband’s pupil and with the husband’s guru, and especially one who attempts to kill her husband and who commits adultery with a man of degraded caste (like a leather-worker). Nārada⁴⁷ (stripumsa v. 91) says ' when a woman commits adul- very her hair shall be shaven, she shall have to lie on a low bed, shall receive bad food and clothing and her occupation will be the removal of sweepings of the husband's house'. Gaut. 23. 14, Śānti-parva 165. 64 and Manu VIII. 371 are more harsh on a woman who has intercourse with a low-caste man, i. e. she is to be punished by the king with being devoured by dogṣ Veda-Vyāsa (II. 49–50) says that ‘a wife⁴⁸ who is guilty of adultery should be kept in the house but void of her rights of associating in religious and conjugal matters and of her rights over property, and should be treated with scorn ; but when she has had monthly course after the act of adultery (and does not repeat it), the husband should allow her the usual rights of a wife as before.’ Manu XI. 177 asks the husband to confine an exceedingly corrupt wife to one room and compel her to perform the penance⁴⁹ prescribed for males in cases of adultery. Vide Atri V. 1–5, Parāśara IV. 20 and XI. 87 and Bṛhad-Yama IV. 36.

Under the English law, if the wife commits adultery the husband’s obligation to maintain her ceases altogether un- less he had connived at it or condoned it.⁵⁰

The following propositions can be deduced from the texts cited above. (1) There is no absolute right of abandonment of wife in the husband on the ground of adultery; (2) Adultery is ordinarily an upapātaka (a minor sin ) and can be atoned for by appropriate penance undergone by the wife; (3) the wife who has committed adultery but has undergone penance is to be restored to all the ordinary rights of wives ( vide Vaṣ XXI. 12, Yāj. I. 72, Mit. thereon and Aparārka p. 98); (4) as long as the adulteress has not undergone penance, she is to be given in the house itself starving maintenance and to be depriv- ed of all her rights as wife (Yāj. I. 70, Śāntiparva 165. 63) ; (5) a wife, who commits adultery with a śūdra or has had a child thereby, who is guilty of killing her foetus or of attempt to kill the husband or guilty of one of the deadly sins (mahāpātakas), is to be deprived of her right to participation in religious rites or conjugal matters and is to be kept confined in a room or in a hut near the house and to be given starving maintenance and poor apparel, even after she undergoes penance (Vaṣ XXI. 10, Manu XI. 177, Yāj. III. 297–98 and Mit. thereon); (6) that wives who are not guilty of acts mentioned in Yāj. I. 72, III. 297–298, Vaṣ 21. 10 or 28. 7 are to be given starving maintenance and residence near the house even if they do not perform penance (vide Mit. on Yāj. III. 298); (7) wives who are guilty of the acts mentioned in Yāj. I. 72, III. 297–298, if they refuse to perform penance, are to be refused even starving maintenance and residence near the husband's house (Mit. on Yāj. III. 298). The propositions about maintenance set out here are accepted as the modern Hindu Law by the courts in India.⁵¹

It has been shown above (p. 518) that Āp. postulated the identity of husband and wife in religious matters and Manu IX. 45 declares that the husband is one with his wife. But this identity of husband and wife was not accepted by the ancient sages for secular or legal purposeṣ The rights of husband and wife as to each other's property and the liability of each for the debts of the other will be dealt with later on in detail. It may suffice here to point out that the wife was not ordinarily liable for the debts contracted by the husband nor was the husband liable for the debts contracted by the wife alone, unless the debt was for family purposes (Yāj. II. 46). Similarly the husband could exercise no dominion over the wife's own property (her strīdhana or peculium) except in a famine or for a necessary religious purpose, or in disease or when he was imprisoned (Yāj. II. 147). These rules prescribed centuries ago compare in their fairness or reasonableness most favourably with the rules of the English law⁵² (as they prevailed before the Married Women's Property Act of 1882, 45 and 46 Vict. chap. 75), whereby the husband by the mere fact of marriage acquired free-hold interest, during the joint lives of himself and his wife, in all estates of inheritance and life estates of which she was seised at the marriage or became seised during coverture, and an absolute interest in all the wife’s personal chattelṣ

Nārada ⁵³ (stripumsa, v. 89) does not allow the husband or wife to lodge a complaint against one another with their relations or with the king. The Mit. on Yāj. II. 294 remarks ‘though a judicial proceeding between husband and wife as plaintiff and defendant before the king is forbidden, still, if the king comes to know personally or indirectly of wrong done by the one to the other, the king must bring round the husband or the wife to the path of duty by appropriate punishment, other- wise ⁵⁴ the king incurs sin’. There were certain matters of which the king could take cognisance without the complaint of anybody; they were called aparādhas (they are ten) among which were included the murder of a woman, varṇasamkara, adultery, pregnancy of a widow from some person other than the husband, abortion ⁵⁵ &c. We have seen (p. 569) that Yāj. I. 76, Nārada (stripumsa, v. 95) make the husband liable to pay one-third of his estate or a fine for deserting a virtuous wife and there are many such provisions about the matters affecting the husband and wife in which the king interfereḍ In England ⁵⁶ at Common Law a wife could not sue her husband in tort (till the Married Women’s Property Act) nor could a husband sue the wife in tort.

We must now turn to the position of women in general and wives in particular and the estimate of their character and worth made by ancient India. It has already been seen (p. 428) how the wife was looked upon as half of the husband, how in Vedic times women composed hymns and learnt the Vedas and how they co-operated with their husbands in all religious actṣ On the whole their social position was much better (except as to rights of property) than what it became in later timeṣ But even in the Vedic times there was an under-current of opinion which was hostile to women, sneered at them and treated them with scorṇ Some of the passages from Vedic and classical Sanskrit literature eulogising women and the wife have been set out above (pp. 428ff ). The passages noted below may be read in this connectioṇ⁵⁷ Vide Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 2. 63-64, Manu III. 55-62, Yāj. I. 71, 74, 78, 82, Vaṣ Dh. S. 28. 1-9, Atri vv. 140-141 and 193-198, Ādiparva 74. 140-152, Śāntiparva 144. 6 and 12-17, Anuśāsana 46, Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa 21. 69-76. The Kāmasūtra III. 2 says that women are like flowers ( kusuma- sadharmāṇo hi yoṣitaḥ ). It has been seen (pp. 146-147) how way was to be made by all for the bride and the pregnant woman and it will be shown that the general opinion was that no woman was to be killed on any account ( with one or two exceptions⁵⁸ in ancient writers ). Some of the smṛtikāras like Atri and Devala were so liberal as to say that women who had intercourse with one not of the same caste or who had conceived by such intercourse did not become outcasts, but only impure till delivery or next period when they became pure again and could be associated with the child born of the adulterous connection being handed over to some one else for being brought up.⁵⁹ If a woman was raped she was not to be abandoned, but she became impure only till her next period ( Atri 197-198 ) and Devala ( 48-49 ) pres- cribes purifications for a woman raped by mlecchas and conceiving thereby. In the Śāntiparva 267. 38 it is said that it is not the woman who is at fault, but it is the man who is at fault ( when the woman goes astray ). In the Varuṇapraghasa⁶⁰ (one of the cāturmāsyas) the sacrificer's wife had to confess if she had a lover and even when she confessed she was allowed to co-operate with her husband in the sacrifice. Vide Tai. Br. I. 6. 5, Śat. Br. II. 5. 2. 20, Kātyāyana Śr. V. 6–10.

As against the high eulogy and considerate treatment of women a few passages unfavourable to women may be citeḍ We have already seen (p. 503) how woman was said to be 'falsehood' incarnate (Maitrāyaṇīya S. I. 10. 11). Rg. VIII. 33. 17 says ‘the mind of woman is uncontrollable’; Rg. X. 95. 15 and Śatapatha XI. 5. 1. 9 declare ‘there is no friendship with women and they have the hearts of hyænas’ (addressed to Purūravas about Urvaśī); Rg. V. 30. 9 ‘women are the weapons and army of the dāsa’. The Tai. S. VI. 5. 8. 2 ⁶¹ says ‘therefore women are without strength, take no dāya (portion) and speak more weakly than even a wretched man’. This passage (which really refers to women not being entitled to a portion of Soma drink) is relied upon by Bauḍ Dh. S. (II. 2. 53) and ⁶² by Manu IX. 18 for prescribing the entire dependence of women on men, for depriving them of a share on partition or inheritance and of the privilege of Vedic mantraṣ The Śat. Br. (S. B. E. vol. 44. p. 446) says that woman, śūdra, a dog and a crow embody un-truth, sin and darkness (XIV. 1. 1. 31). The same Brāhmaṇa (IV. 4. 2. 13, S. B. E. vol. 26, p. 366 ) remarks ‘the wives being smitten (with ghee-the thunderbolt) and unmanned neither rule over themselves nor over dāya (share of pro-perty)’ ⁶³. Another passage of the Śatapatha (S. B. E. vol. 44, p. 300) says ‘He thereby makes women to be dependent, whence women are sure to be attendant upon man’ (XIII. 2. 2. 4). These passages establish that even in Vedic times women were often looked down upon, had no share in property and were dependent. The passages about the character of women contain no more than what male cynics and critics of all times and in all countries have attributed to women such as ‘frailty, thy name is woman!’. In the Dharmaśāstra Literature the position of women became worse and worse as time went on, except as to rights of property. Gaut. 18. 1, Vaṣ Dh. S. V. 1 and 3, Manu V. 146-148 and IX. 2-3, Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 2. 50-52, Nārada (dāyabhāga 31)– all declare ⁶⁴ that women are not independent, but dependent in all matters on men and that in childhood, after marriage and in old age they are to be guarded by the father, the husband and the son respectively. Manu (IX. 2-3) refers to rakṣā (i. e. protection against harm or calamity ), while Manu V. 146-148 declare a woman's dependence even in all domestic matters at all stages of her life on some male. Nārada (dāyabhāga vv. 28-30) adds ⁶⁵ ‘when a widow is sonless, her husband's relatives are the controlling authority as regards her maintenance, the application ( of the husband's property ) and guarding her against harm; if there be no relative or sapiṇḍas of the husband, then a woman's father's family has control of her; the creator assigned dependence to women as women even of good family fall into ruin by independence ’. It has been seen above (pp. 561-562) that a woman's only concern was to serve her husband, and that she could perform other observances or undertake fasts and pilgrimages only with her husband's permissioṇ Vide Hemādri ( Vrata-khaṇḍa, part i. p. 362 where several texts are quoted including Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa 16. 61 ).⁶⁶

In the Mahābhārata, in the Manu-smṛti, in other smṛtis and the purāṇas women are charged with serious moral lapseṣ A few typical and striking passages from the great epic are cited below.⁶⁷ 'The Sūtrakāra concludes that women are untruth' (Anuśāsana 19. 6) ; 'there is nothing more wicked than women, who are the edge of a razor, poison, snake and fire in one' (Anuśāsana 38. 12 and 29); there may be at most one pativratā in hundreds of thousands of women' (Anuśāsana 19. 93) ; 'women are really uncontrollable but remain within bounds as regards their husbands simply because other men do not woo them and because they are afraid of servants' (Anuśāsana 38. 16) ; vide also Anuśāsana chap. 38. 24–25, chap. 39. 6–7 (women have the tricks of the demons Śambara, Namuci and others). The Rāmāyaṇa is not behind the Great Epic in condemning women 'This is the character of women seen in the three worlds viz. they are renegades from Dharma, fickle, cruel and create estrangement' (Araṇyakaṇḍa⁶⁸ 45. 29–30). In an uncharitable mood Manu (IX. 14–15) gives to women the following character 'they are lascivious, fickle-minded, devoid of love and come to dislike their husbands and resort to another man, whether handsome or ugly, simply because he is a maṇ' 'It is the nature of women to tempt men; therefore the wise do not act heedlessly with young women, who are able to lead a man astray whether he be learned or not' (Manu II. 213–214 = Anuśāsana 48. 37–38). Bṛhat-Parāśara⁶⁹ (Jīvānanda’s Collection, part 2, p. 121) says that the passion of women is eightfold of that of meṇ In modern times old men, though they might not know much of the śāstras, are often in the habit of repeating a verse which contains a list of the faults of women 'falsehood, thoughtless action, trickery, folly, great greed, impurity, cruelty—these are the natural faults of womeṇ'⁷⁰

There are some writers who even in ancient times could not bear the undeserved censure of women and most vigorously protested against the injustice of these accusationṣ Varāha- mihira (6th century A. D.) in his Bṛhat-saṃhitā chap. 74 (eḍ by Kern) makes a spirited defence of women and eulogises them highly. He first says that on women depend dharma and artha and from them man derives the pleasures of sense and the blessing of sons, that they are the Lakṣmī (goddess of Prosperity) of the house and should be always given honour and wealth. He then condemns those who following the path of asceticism and other-worldliness proclaim the demerits of women and are silent about their virtues and pertinently asks ⁷⁰ 'tell me truly, what faults attributed to women have not been also practised by men? Men in their audacity treat women with contempt, but they really possess more virtues (than men).' He then cites the dicta of Manu in support (verses 7-10). "One's mother or one's wife is a woman; men owe their birth to women; O ungrateful wretches, how can happiness be your lot when you condemn them? The śāstras declare that both husband and wife are equally sinful if they prove faithless to the marriage vow; men care very little for that śāstra (while women do care); therefore women are superior to meṇ Oh! how great is the audacity of wicked

men who heap abuse on women that are pure and blameless, while themselves stealing raise a hue and cry 'stop, O thief !' Man in privacy utters words of cajolry to woman, but there are no such words after the woman dies; while women, in gratitude, clasp the corpses of their husbands and enter the fire." It may be said that, barring great poets like Kālidāsa, ⁷² Bāņa and Bhavabhūti, in the classical period Varāhamihira's was rather a solitary voice raised in defence of women and in the appreciation of their worth. In the midst of this dark picture and undeserved condemnation of woman there is one very bright spot, viz. the high eulogy of and the reverence for the mother in all smṛti workṣ Gaut. (II. 56) first says that the ācārya (one's teacher of the Veda) is the highest among gurus, while some teachers hold that the mother is the highest. The Āp. Dh. S. I. 10. 28. 9 prescribes that a son must always serve his mother even if she has been an outcast (for some great sin), since the mother undertakes for her son numerous (troublesome) actionṣ Bauḍ Dh. S. (II. 2. 48) requires the son to maintain his mother, even though an outcast, without speaking to her. Vaṣ Dh. S. 13. 47 says 'a father who is an outcast may be abandoned, but a mother (though patita) is never an outcast to the soṇ '⁷³ The ācārya exceeds by his greatness ten upādhyāyas, the father exceeds a hundred ācāryas, a mother exceeds a thousand fathers' says Manu II. 145 ( = Vaṣ Dh. S. 13.48). Śańkha-Likhita⁷⁴ give a very salutary piece of advice 'the son should not take sides (in a quarrel) between his father and mother: indeed he may (if he chooses) speak on the side of the mother alone, since the mother bore him (in her womb) and nourished him; the son, while living, would never be free from the debt he owes to his mother except by the performance of the Sautrāmaṇi sacrifice. ' Yāj. I. 35 holds that the mother is superior to the guru, ācārya and upādhyāya. The Anuśāsana parva⁷⁵ (105. 14-16) says that 'the mother excels in her greatness ten fathers or even the whole earth; there is no guru like the mother. ' Śāntiparva chap. 267 contains a very high eulogy of the mother. Atri 151 says that there is no guru higher than the mother. The great Pāṇḍava heroes pay the highest honour to their mother Kuntī. The Ādiparva chap. 37 says that one may avert the consequences of all curses, but a mother's curse can never be averted⁷⁶.

Reading all that has been said in favour of and against women in ancient Sanskrit Literature it may be said that the higher minds of Hindu Society were quite aware of the worth of women, that they insisted on chastity as the highest virtue for them, that there was no doubt an undercurrent among common people of poor opinion about women, that those who valued an ascetic life and wanted to wean people away from worldly ties and attachments looked down upon women (‘vairāgyamārgena’ as Varāhamihira happily puts it) and exaggerated their faultṣ It has to be borne in mind that many of the passages condemning women are put in the mouth of persons who were for some reason or other angry with women or wronged by them or dissatisfied with their conduct. Further in assessing passages disparaging the character of women one maxim of the Pūrvamīmāṁsā system must not be lost sight of. The maxim is stated by Śabara ( on Jaimini II. 4. 21 ) as follows: ⁷⁷ ‘the purpose of a text censuring anything is not censure pure and simple, but the purpose is to enjoin the performance of the opposite of what is censured and to praise such performance’. The object therefore of the authors that censured women was to inculcate the great value of chastity and obedience for women and not merely to paint a dark picture of theṃ

The rights of women as regards partition and inheritance will be discussed in detail later oṇ But a brief statement about them may be made here. Āp., Manu, and Nārada do not allow the widow of a sonless male to succeed as heir, while Gaut. 28. 19 appears to contemplate that she is an heir along with sapindas or sagotras. That the widow’s right to succeed as heir to her deceased husband was not recognised in ancient times is clear from the Śākuntala (Act VI) where the minister writes to the king that the estate of a merchant dying at sea will escheat to the crown and will not go to his widow. Yāj. II. 135. mentions the widow as the first heir of a sonless man dying separate; Viṣṇu, Kātyāyana and others say the same. So in medieval times the rights of widows to property were better recognized than in the times of the early sūtra writerṣ In this respect the position of women improved in medieval times, though in the religious and other spheres their position became worse, as they were equated with śūdraṣ Yāska while explaining Ṛg. I. 124. 7 states that in the southern countries the widow of a sonless man goes to an assembly hall, stands upon a stool and when the members strike her with dice she gets the property of her deceased⁷⁸ husbanḍ This implies that in Northern India widows did not succeed to their husband's property in Yāska's time.