Chapter XII. The Duties of a Widow, Some Privileges of Women and the Purda System

Volume II: Part I pp. 583–598

Chapter XII. The Duties of a Widow, Some Privileges of Women and the Purda System

THE DUTIES OF A WIDOW, SOME PRIVILEGES OF WOMEN AND THE PURDA SYSTEM Vidhavādharmaḥ

So far the social position and the duties and rights of a wife during her husband's life-time have been considereḍ We shall now consider the rules laid down for a wife if she has the heavy misfortune to become a widow.¹

The word vidhavā occurs several times in the Ṛgveda (e. g. IV. 18. 12, X. 18. 7, X. 40. 2 and 8); but these passages contain very little that is indicative of their condition in society except Ṛg. X. 40. 2 (vide under niyoga). Ṛg. I. 87. 3² says 'in the rapid movements of the Maruts the earth trembles like a woman deprived of her husbanḍ' That shows that widows trembled either from sorrow or from fear of molestation and ill-treatment.

The Bauḍ Dh. S. ³ II. 2. 66–68 prescribes that the widow should give up for one year honey, meat, wine and salt and should sleep on the ground; according to Maudgalya (she should so act) for six months; after that period, if she is sonless, she may procreate a son from her brother-in-law if the elders consent.' Vaṣ Dh. S. (17. 55–56) contains similar provisionṣ Manu (V. 157–160) contains rules that have been repeated in almost all smṛtis 'a woman when her husband is dead, may, if she chooses, emaciate her body by subsisting on flowers, roots and fruits, but she should not even take the name of a stranger male. Till her death she should be forbearing, observe vows, should be celibate and should hanker for that super-eminent code of conduct that is prescribed for women devoted to their husbandṣ On her husband's death, if a virtuous woman abides by the rule of celibacy, she goes to heaven though she be sonless, as the ancient perpetual students (like Sanaka) did⁴. Kātyāyana similarly provides ‘a sonless widow preserving the bed of her husband (unsullied) and residing with her elders and being self-controlled (or forbearing) should enjoy her husband’s property till her death; after her the heirs of her husband would get it. A widow engrossed in religious observances and fasts, abiding by the vow of celibacy, always bent on restraining her senses and making gifts would go to heaven even though sonlesṣ’ Parāśara IV. 31 is almost the same as Manu V. 160. Bṛhaspati⁵ says ‘the wife is declared to be half of a man’s body, she participates equally in the husband’s merit and sin; a virtuous wife, whether she burns herself on her husband’s funeral fire or lives after him, tends to the (spiritual) benefit of her husband’. Vṛddha-Hārita (XI. 205-210) prescribes what a widow should do all her life. ‘She should give up adorning her hair, chewing betel-nut, wearing perfumes, flowers, ornaments and dyed clothes, taking food from a vessel of bronze, taking two meals a day, applying collyrium to her eyes; she should wear a white garment, should curb her senses and anger, she should not resort to deceits and tricks, should be free from laziness and sleep, should be pure and of good conduct, should always worship Hari, should sleep on the ground at night on a mat of kuśa grass, she should be intent on concentration of mind and on the company of the gooḍ’ Bāṇa in his Harṣacarita (VI, last para) indicates that widows did not apply eye-salve to their eyes nor rocanā (yellow pigment) to their face and simply tied their hair.⁶ Pracetas⁷ forbids to an ascetic and a widow the chewing of betel leaves, ceremonial bath (with oil &c.) and taking meal in a vessel of bell-metal. The Ādiparva (160. 12) says ‘just as birds flock to a piece of flesh left on the ground, so all men woo (or try to seduce) a woman whose husband is dead'; while the Śāntiparva (148. 2) remark: 'all widows are in sorrow even if they have many sons'.⁸ The Skandapurāṇa (Kāśīkhaṇḍa, chap. 4, vv. 71-106 and III Brahmāraṇya section chap. 7, vv. 67-81) has long passages on the duties of widows, many verses from which are quoted in the Madanapārijāta (pp. 202-203), the Nirṇayasindhu, Dharma- sindhu and other nibandhaṣ A few striking verses may be translated here. The Skandapurāṇa (III, Brahmāraṇya section chap. 7, verses 50-51) says 'The widow is more inauspicious than all other inauspicious things; at the sight of a widow no success can be had in any undertaking; excepting one's (widowed) mother all widows are void of auspiciousness; a wise man should avoid even their blessings like the poison of a snake'.⁹ The Kāśīkhaṇḍa of the same purāṇa, chap. 4, delivers itself thus 'the tying up into a braid of the hair by the widow leads to the bondage of the husband; therefore a widow should always shave her heaḍ She should always take one meal a day and never a second; or she may perform the observance of fast for a month or undergo the penance of cāndrā- yana. A widow who sleeps on a cot would make her husband fall (in hell). A widow should never wash her body with fragrant unguents nor should enjoy the fragrance of sweet smelling things; she should everyday perform tarpaṇa with sesame, water and kuśa grass for her husband, his father and grandfather after repeating their names and gotra; she should not sit in a bullock cart even when about to die, she should not put on a bodice, should not wear dyed garments and should observe special vows in Vaiśākha, Kārtika¹⁰ and Māgha.' The verse 'vidhavā-kabarī-bandho &c' (Skanda, Kāśīkhaṇḍa 4. 74) is the only verse on which the medieval writers rely for prescribing continual tonsure of widowṣ That chapter begins by extolling the pativratā (Bṛhaspati does it with regard to Lopāmudrā, the wife of Agastya). It passes one's understanding why when a pativratā whose husband is living is before Bṛhaspati he should wax eloquent over the duties of widows (verses 71-106). Therefore this portion appears to be an interpolation in the Skandapurāṇa itself. In Lakshmibai v. Ramchandra I. L. R. 22 Boṃ 590, it was held that the text 'vidhavā-kabarī-bandho' is of doubtful validity (p. 594). Besides 69 verses of this chapter 4 are common to chap. 7 of the Dharmāraṇya section of the Skandapurāṇa (III) which precedes it. There is no reason why they should have been repeateḍ The Nirṇayasindhu quotes a passage from the Brahmapurāṇa as cited in the Pṛthvicandrodaya to the effect that śrāddha food should not be got prepared by a widow belonging to another gotra.¹¹

The position of the Hindu widow was miserable and her lot was most unenviable. She was looked upon as inauspicious and so could take part in no festivities, such as those on marriage. She had not only to lead a life of perfect celibacy, even if she was a child widow, but she had to act like an ascetic, being poorly fed (only once a day) and poorly claḍ Her rights to property were negligible. Even if the husband died sonless she did not originally succeed as shown above (p. 582). Later on her position as an heir was improved; but even then she could ordinarily enjoy only the income of the property and could transfer it only for the legal necessities of the family (including herself) or for the spiritual benefit of her husbanḍ In a joint Hindu family a widow had only the right of maintenance (except in Bengal where she had more rights), which would be forfeited if she became unchaste and persisted in that course.¹² If she returned to a moral life then she may be entitled to bare starving maintenance (vide above p. 573). If her husband had separate property and left a son or sons, the widow was only entitled to maintenance. This was the law in British India till very recently. Recently the position of the widow of a member in a joint Hindu family and of the widow of a person who leaves separate property has been improved by Act XVIII of 1937 as amended by Act XI of 1938.

One subject that arouses bitter controversies is the practice of tonsuring widows among brāhmaṇas and certain other casteṣ A few words must be said on thiṣ It is clear from the verse (vidhavā-kabarī-bandho &c.) of the Skandapurāṇa quoted in the Madanapārijāta and other nibandhas that for some time at least before the 14th century A. D. (when the Madanapārijāta was composed) tonsure of widows was in vogue. How and exactly when this practice arose cannot be established with certainty. That it is comparatively a later innovation can, however, be demonstrateḍ Two distinct propositions have to be made out, first, that widows were tonsured on the death of their husbands, just as sons were tonsured and secondly, that widows were required by the texts to tonsure themselves continually from time to time till their death, though sons who had to tonsure themselves on their father's death are not required to do so after- wardṣ The advocates of this practice rely upon three Vedic passages, viz. Rg. X. 40. 2, Ap. M. Pāṭha I. 4. 9, and Atharvaveda 14.2. 60, Rg X. 40. 2 (cited below p. 606 ) refers to vidhavā only and probably to niyoga, but there is nothing about tonsure in that verse. Some modern orthodox Pandits ingeniously argue from the explanation of the word ‘vidhavā’ in the Nirukta (III. 15 vidhā- vanād-vā iti Carmaśīrāh ). Carmaśiras is the name of a former teacher according to all commentators of the Nirukta, but these pandits interpret it by a tour de force as a synonym of vidhavā ('having only the bare skin on her head'). About this interpretation the less said the better. Āp. M. P. I. 5. 9 contains the word ‘vikeśī’ which is translated as the appellation of a female goblin in S. B. E. vol. 30 p. 187 ‘mayst thou not be beaten at thy breast by she goblin, the rough haired ¹³ one’. Even taking ‘vikeśī’ as referring to the maiden who is being married the meaning is ‘mayst thou, with dishevelled hair, not beat thy breast (through grief)’. The word ‘vikeśī’ does not mean ‘a widow whose hair is tonsured’; it ordinarily means ‘a woman with dishevelled hair'. The third passage is Atharvaveda¹⁴ 14. 2. 60, that is a verse in a marriage hymn which means 'if this daughter of thine has bewailed with loosened hair in thy house, doing evil by her wailing, from that sin let Agni and Savity release thee'. Here it is impossible to hold that 'vikeśī' means tonsured, as this mantra is part of the marriage hymn and Agni is asked to remove the blemish due to the girl's weeping at the approaching prospect of separation from her parentṣ There is no comment of Sāyapa on this passage but elsewhere in the Atharvaveda when that word occurs as in Atharva XI. 9. 14 he paraphrases it by 'vikīrṇakeśī' which does not mean 'with tonsured hair' but only 'having dishevelled hair'. Therefore there is no reference whatever to the tonsure of widows in the Veda, much less an injunction as to it. In the Bauḍ Pitṛmedhasūtra,¹⁵ elaborate rules are laid down about the cremation of one who had kindled the sacred Vedic fireṣ In I. 4. 3 it is said 'his wives led by the youngest should follow the cortege with dishevelled hair and throwing dust on their shoulders' and this they have to repeat several times (vide I. 4. 12-13, I. 5. 7, I. 5. 12-14) on the way to the cemetery. It is also said that they go round (the corpse) thrice with their hair gathered together (I. 4. 13). Then in I. 12. 7 shaving of the hair and moustache is prescribed for the close relatives of the deceased (amātyas) who are present, his wives are not mentioned in this connection and II. 3. 17 expressly forbids tonsure of wiveṣ

Manu and Yāj. dilate on the duties of widows, but they are entirely silent about tonsure. Nor does any other ancient smṛti refer to it. On the contrary Vṛddha-Hārīta (XI. 206 quoted above p. 584) asks the widow not to deck her hair, among other things which she is not to do. This makes it clear that the widows kept their hair. The word 'keśārañjanam' is to be dissolved as 'keśānām rañjanam' and not as 'keśāśca rañjanam ca' (as Vṛddha-Hārīta XI. 103 makes it clear by employing 'keśānām rañjanārtham vā'). It can be shown that at least kṣatriya widows never tonsured their heaḍ In the Mahābhārata whenever the widows of the fallen warriors are described they are always referred to as ‘having dishevelled hair’ and there is not a single reference to tonsure¹⁶ of widowṣ In the Harṣacarita, Harṣa¹⁷ in his soliloquy on the death of his father Prabhākaravardhana says ‘may the Glory of super-eminent man-hood tie up her hair in the way in which widows tie up their hair’. In the Pehoa praśasti of king Mahendrapāla of Kanoj (E. I. vol. 1. p. 246 verse 16) the widows of his enemies are spoken of as shedding tears on their cheeks and having long (not braided) and profuse¹⁸ tresseṣ

The orthodox pandits rely on a verse in Vedavyāsa-smṛti¹⁹ II. 53 ‘a brāhmaṇa woman should enter fire, clasping the dead body of her husband; if she lives (does not become satī) she should emaciate her body by tapas’. The read-ing ‘brāhmaṇī’ for ‘jīvantī’ is not good, as the word ‘brāhmaṇī’ is redundant having occurred in the first half and as the second half refers to the fact of her surviving after her husbanḍ In this verse the injunction relates only to the emaciation of the body ( śoṣayet ), the word ‘tyaktakeśā’ being only an attribute of the subject is no part of the predicate, which alone is enjoineḍ The general rule laid down by the Mīmāṁsā is (III. 1.13–15, the grahaikatvanyāya )²⁰ that the attributes of a subject are no part of the injunctioṇ of the injunctioṇ There is no injunction about keśa (hair) in the Vedavyāsa passage. Besides the word tyaktakeśā (who has given up hair) may possibly be made to yield three meanings, viz. (1) one who has given up or is unmindful of dressing or decking her hair, (2) one whose hair is given up in accordance with the prescription of some *smṛti*s that only two finger-breadths of tresses are to be cut off when doing penance for govadha &c. in the case of women ( vide Parāśara IX. 54-55, Angiras 163, Yama 54); (3) one whose head is tonsureḍ For the first meaning vide Raghuvamśa IX. 14 (where ' analakām ' is explained by Mallinātha as 'who have given up ornamenting the hair'). For this meaning of ' tyakta ' vide Bhagavadgītā I. 33 ' tyaktajīvitāḥ '. ' Tyakta ' by itself never means tonsureḍ The third meaning will be only implied if at all, while the first two are the usual meaningṣ Further, the interpretation of the Veda-Vyāsa smṛti II. 53 given by the pandits is liable to the fault called vākyābheda (i. e. it lays down two injunctions in one and the same sentence), as they say that Veda-Vyāsa calls upon widows to tonsure themselves and to emaciate their body. Besides, if Veda-Vyāsa really meant to enjoin tonsure, the verse could easily have been made to read ' jīvantī ced vapet keśān tapasā &c. ' Lastly assuming that Veda-Vyāsa refers to tonsure, there is conflict among *smṛti*s, since Vṛddha-Hārīta (quoted above) allows her to keep her hair, and since an option results when two texts of equal authority conflict ( Gaut. I. 5 ).²¹

The Mit. on Yāj. III. 325 quotes a text of Manu ( not found in the printed Manu ) 'shaving of the hair is not desired in the case of learned men, the king and women, except in the case of one guilty of mahāpātaka or the killer of a cow and a brahma-cārī guilty of sexual intercourse.'²² The Mit. nowhere refers to tonsure as one of the obligatory matters for widowṣ

The orthodox pandits further rely upon Āp. Dh. S. I. 3. 10. 6, its explanation in the Mit. on Yāj. III. 17 and the explanation of the Mit. in the commentary, Bālambhaṭṭī. Āpastamba's sūtra is delivered when the context is about cessation of Veda study ( anadhyāya ). Āp. says '( the student ) shall cease studying Veda for 12 days if his mother, father or teacher dieṣ In the case of the death of these he must also bathe for the same number of dayṣ Persons who are younger than (the relation deceased ) must shave their hair. ²³ Some declare that students who have returned home on completion of brahmacarya shall never shave except when engaged in a śrauta sacrifice. In sattras even the top-lock must be shaved'. In this there is no reference to women, much less to widows and lesser still to the tonsure of widowṣ The reference to śrauta sacrifices, sattra, and śikhā indicates that only males are in view. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 17 explains at length Āp. Dh. S. I. 3. 10. 6. It gives two senses of ‘anubhavin’ viz. those who experience sorrow on the death of a person i. e. his sapiṇḍas (from the root ‘bhū’ with ‘anu,’ to experience) and those who are born after the deceased i. e. who are younger than the deceased ( from ‘bhū’ with ‘anu’ to be born after ). The Mit. then combines ²⁴ these and remarks ‘those sapiṇḍas of the deceased who are younger than the latter have to shave themselves on the death of a relative'. This is its own view. It then refers to the view of some that ‘anubhavin’ in Āp. means ‘son’ and those latter rely on a restrictive text ‘shaving is declared on seven occasions only, viz. on the Ganges, in the Bhāskara-kṣetra, on the death of one’s parents or teacher, at the time of consecrating śrauta fires, and at the time of a soma sacrifice'. It is clear that the Mit. does not expressly mention the wife or widow here. Supposing that she is impliedly referred to as a sapiṇḍa and as younger than her husband, this will at the most come to the requirement that on the death of the husband the wife had to undergo shaving, just as her son would have to do. But this passage cannot be used to support continual shaving of widows throughout life. Really ‘anubhavinām’ in Āp. cannot include the wife; since if women were to be included by the rule of ekāśeṣa ( vide Pāṇini I. 2. 67 ) the absurd conclusion would follow that the daughters of the deceased and his younger brother’s wives (who are all sapiṇḍas and younger) would have to be shaveḍ The Nirnayasindhu²⁵ (composed in 1612 A. D.) and the Bālambhaṭṭī (composed towards the end of the 18th century) were both familiar with the tonsure of widows and so they interpret Āp. and the Mit. as requiring shaving for the wife on the 10th day after the death of the husband and rely on a text of Vyāsa quoted in Aparārka. The Bālambhaṭṭī says “the words 'on the death of the mother and father' are only illustra- tive and so the same rule applies to the husband's death." Even conceeding all this far-fetched interpretation, there is no authority for the continual tonsure of widows throughout their lives in these passageṣ It may be noted that the Madanā- pārijāta²⁶ which contains the verse ( vidhavā-kabarī-bandho &c. quoted above ) does not include the widow among ‘anubhā- vinām', but only male sapinḍas and sonṣ

The foregoing discussion leads to the following conclusionṣ There is no express Vedic authority for the tonsure of widowṣ The gṛhya or dharma sūtras do not refer to it; nor do important smṛtis like those of Manu and Yāj. If one or two smṛti verses of doubtful import seem to refer to it, other smṛtis like Vṛddha-Hārīta are to an opposite effect. Some of the smṛti texts only refer, if at all, to one shaving on the husband's death, but there is no smṛti passage prescribing continual shaving for widowṣ There is only the Skandapurāṇa passage expressly requiring tonsure of widowṣ The Mit. and Aparārka are silent about it. It appears that the practice was gradually evolved after the 10th or 11th century. As widows were equated with yatis for several injunctions ( vide note 1367 above ) and as the latter shaved themselves, widows were gradually required to do so. By rendering them ugly it might have been intended to keep them chaste. Probably the example of Buddhist and Jaina nuns may have also suggested the cruel practice. We find from the Cullavagga²⁷ that Buddhist nuns cut off their hair and put on orange-coloured robeṣ In Mahā- rāṣṭra brāhmaṇa widows a few years ago wore a garment that was reddish (and even now a few old widows do wear it). At all events the practice is not very old and hardly any digest before the Madanapārijāta (14th century) quotes the Skanda- purāṇa text. The practice is dying out and deserves to be suppressed at once, though strange insistence on it sometimes obtains public notoriety. Recently the worshippers in the famous shrine of Vithobā at Pandharpur in Mahārāṣṭra pre- vented an untonsured brāhmaṇa widow from having darśana of the idol in the customary way i. e. by placing the head on the feet of the idol, while they were prepared to allow untonsured widows of all castes (except the so called untouchables), and even Hindu prostitutes in the keeping of Christians or Maho- means to have darśana in that way. The matter came before a civil court, where it was decided in favour of the widow that no such discrimination could be allowed to prevail, but owing to certain unforeseen circumstances the case did not come before the Bombay High Court.

It would be of interest to many to learn that among one sect (the Tengalai) of the Śrī-vaiṣṇavas (followers of Rāmā- nuja) tonsure of widows has been forbidden for centuries, though that sect is most orthodox in other matterṣ²⁹ The Śūdrakamalākara remarks that widows in Gauda keep their hair.

From very ancient times, it appears the idea was that women should not be killed on any account. The Śat. Br. (XI. 4. 3. 2, S. B. E. vol. 44, p. 62) says³⁰ ‘ people do not kill a woman, but rather take (anything) from her (leaving her ) alive’. It was only the king who was authorised, according to Viśvarūpa, to punish a woman to death for adultery with a man of a very low caste (vide Gaut. and Manu VIII. 371 quoted above on p. 572), but the king had to undergo a slight penance for doing this (vide Yaj. III. 268). Manu XI. 190 ordains that one who killed a woman was not to be associated with, even after he performed the requisite penance. Manu IX. 232 calls upon the king to punish with death those who murder women, children and brāhmaṇaṣ The Mahābhārata frequently refers to this chivalrous rule. Ādiparva ³¹ 158. 31 says ‘those who know dharma declare that women are not to be killed’. The Sabhāparva 41. 13 prescribes ‘one’s weapons should not be directed against women, cows, brāhmaṇas, against one who gave livelihood or shelter’. In the Śāntiparva (135. 14 ) even thieves are instructed not to kill womeṇ Vide also Ādi. 155. 2, 217. 4, Vanaparva 206. 46. The Rāmāyaṇa ( Bālakāṇḍa ) also breathes this sentiment, when Rāma was called upon to kill the ogress Tāṭakā.

Even for the most serious offence of adultery with a man of a low caste Yāj. II. 286 prescribes for the woman the punish- ment of cutting the ear &c. Similarly Vṛddha-Hārīta VII. 192 prescribes the cutting of the nose, ear and lip for attempt to murder the husband or her foetuṣ Vide Yāj. II. 278-279 for the sentence of death in the case of women for certain offenceṣ

It has been seen how women gradually lost the privilege of upanayana, of studying the Veda, of having all the saṁskāras performed with Vedic mantras and how they came to be regarded as entirely dependent on meṇ Their position became assimilated to that of the śūdras ³² in many matterṣ A few examples will be cited here. All dvijātis were to sip water thrice (ācamana) for purifying their body, but women and śūdras were to sip water only once for that purpose (Manu V. 139, Yāj. I. 21 ). The dvijātis were ³³ to take their bath to the accompaniment of Vedic mantras, while women and śūdras were to bathe silently. Śūdras and women were to perform what is called āmaśrāddha (i. e. śrāddha without cooked food). ³⁴ The same penance was prescribed for killing a śūdra or a woman (Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 1. 11-12, Parāśara VI. 16 ). Ordinarily women, children and very old men could not be witnesses ( Yāj. II. 70, Nārada, ṛṇādāna, vv. 178, 190, 191), but Manu VIII. 68, 70, Yāj. II. 72, and Nārada, ṛṇādāna 155 allowed women to be witnesses in disputes between women or when no other witness could be had or in the cases of theft, adultery and other offences in which force was an element. Documents taken from or transactions (particularly gift, sale and mortgage of lands or houses) made with women were ordinarily to be treated as voidable like those brought about by force or fraud (vide Nārada, ṛṇādāna 26, 137, Yāj. II. 31). But this instead of being regarded as a disability was rather a boon owing to the general illiteracy of womeṇ The Tristhālisetu (of Nārāyaṇa) quotes a passage of the Bṛhan-Nāradīya purāṇa to the effect that women, those whose upanayana has not been performed and śūdras have no right to establish the images of Viṣṇu or Śiva.³⁵

If there were many and heavy disabilities on women in certain matters, they enjoyed in certain directions more privileges than meṇ It has been already seen that women were not to be killed nor were they to be abandoned even when guilty of adultery. They also enjoyed the right of precedence on the road (vide p. 146 above). The daughter³⁶ of a patitā was not regarded as patitā, though the son of a patitā was regarded as patitā (vide Vaṣ 13. 51-53, Āp. Dh. S. II. 6. 13. 4, Yāj. III. 261). Women³⁷ had to undergo only half of the prāyaścitta that men had to undergo for the same lapse (Viṣṇu Dh. S. 54. 33, Devala 30, &c). Women received³⁸ honour according to the ages of their husbands, whatever their own ages may be (Āp. Dh. S. I. 4. 14. 18). Just as brāhmaṇas learned in the Vedas were to be free from taxes, the women of all varṇas (except those of pratiloma castes) had to pay no taxes,³⁹ according to Āp. Dh. S. II. 10. 26. 10–11). Vaṣ D². S. 19. 23 limits this exemption to women who are young or just delivered of a chilḍ Pregnant women from the third month of pregnancy, forest hermits, sānnỹāsins and brāhmaṇas and brahmacārins had to pay no tax at a ferry (Manu VIII. 407 and Viṣṇu V. 132). According to Gaut. V. 23 and Yāj. I. 105 children, the daughters and sisters who are married and yet stay with their parents or brothers, pregnant women, unmarried daughters, guests and servants are to be fed before the master and mistress of the house; while Manu III. 114 and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 67. 39 go a step further and say that freshly married girls of the family, unmarried girls, pregnant women are to be fed even before guestṣ A judicial proceeding in which a woman was a party, or which was heard at night or outside the village or inside a house (i. e. not in public) or before enemies was liable to be reviewed (Nārada ⁴⁰ I. 43). Ordinarily trial by ordeal did not apply to a woman, whether she was plaintiff or defendant, but if at all a woman had to prove her case by ordeal, only the ordeal of tulā (balance) was prescribed for her (Yāj. II. 98 and Mit. thereon). In succession to strīdhana property, daughters were preferred to sonṣ Women did not lose their strīdhana by adverse possession (Yāj. II. 25, Nārada, rn̄pādāna 82-83). Women were always to be consulted about ācāra. Āp. Dh. S. II. 11. 29. 15 cites the view that rules not stated in the sūtra are, according to some teachers, to be understood from women and from men of all casteṣ Āp. gr. II. 15 prescribes that in marriage the usages to be followed are to be learnt from womeṇ Vide also Āśv. gr. I. 14. 8, Manu II. 223, Vaik. III. 21. ⁴¹

One interesting question is whether the practice of purda now in vogue among Moslems and also among Hindus in certain provinces of India prevailed in ancient timeṣ Rg. X. 85. 33 (used in the marriage rite) expressly calls upon people to look at the bride. ‘This bride is endowed with great auspicious- ness; assemble together and see her; having given her bless- ings of good luck you may go to your house’. The Āśv. gr. I. 8. 7 prescribes that at each halting place when the bride-groom is returning to his village with his bride he should look at the spectators with the verse Rg. X. 85. 33.⁴² This shows that no veil was worn by the bride and she appeared in public without one. Though in the marriage hymn there is a blessing (Rg. X. 85. 46) that the bride was to dominate over her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law, it appears that that was only a blessing and the heart's wish, but the reality was somewhat different. The Ait. Br.⁴³ (12. 11) says that the daughter-in-law is abashed in the presence of the father-in-law and goes away concealing herself from hiṃ This indicates that there was some restraint for younger women when they were in the presence of elderṣ But in the gṛhya and dharma sūtras there is no reference to any veil for women when moving in public. Pāṇini III. 2. 36 teaches the formation of ‘asūryampaśyā’ (who do not see the sun) applied to queenṣ That only shows that royal ladies did not leave the precincts of the palace and come under public gaze. In the Ayodhyā-kāṇḍa⁴⁴ (33. 8) it is said ‘people walking on the public road see to-day Sītā who could not formerly be seen even by aerial beings’. Similarly it is stated in the same kāṇḍa (116. 28) ‘the appearance of a woman in public is not blamable in misfortunes, difficulties, in wars, in svayaṁvara, in a sacrifice, and in a marriage’. In the Sabhāparva⁴⁵ 69. 9 Draupadī exclaims ‘we have heard that ancient people did not take married women to the public assembly-hall; that ancient and long-standing practice has been contravened by the Kauravas’. She says this after referring to the fact that, since she was seen at her svayaṁvara by the kings, she was never seen again by them till the day she was brought to the assembly-hall when Yudhiṣṭhira gambled and lost everything. This shows that women, particularly high-born ladies, did not appear in public except on certain occasions, but it does not follow that they always wore the veil. When the Kauravas were routed the Śalyaparva (29. 74) laments that their ladies whom even the sun did not see in their palaces were seen by the common people who had come to the capital. Vide also Sabhāparva 97. 4–7, Śalyaparva 19. 63, Strīparva 9. 9–10, Āśrama-vāsi-parva 15. 13. In the Harṣacarita (IV) princess Rājyaśrī, whom the intended bride-groom Grahavarmā came to see just before marriage, is described as having her face covered with a veil of fine red cloth. In another place, while describing the country of Sthāṇvīśvara (modern Thanesar) Bāṇa says 'where bees drawn by the fragrance of the breaths of the ladies (and hovering round their faces) served as a charming veil for their faces and the veil actually worn by them became a mere redundancy worn because it was the practice of high-born ladies to wear one'. In the Kādambarī also (para 99) Bāṇa describes Patralekhā as covering her face with a veil of red cloth. In the Śākuntala⁴⁶ when Śakuntalā is taken to the court of Duṣyanta she is described as wearing a veil. So it must be conceded that ladies of high rank did not appear in public without a veil, but ordinarily women did not wear any veil. It is probably after the advent of the Moslems that the wearing of a veil, which was not quite unknown, became general among Hindu women in Northern and Eastern India. Vide Indian Antiquary for 1933 p. 15, where a passage is quoted from the Sāṅkhyatattva-kaumudī of Vācaspati (9th century A. D.) referring to ladies of good family not appearing in public without a veil and Pathak Commemoration vol. p. 72 for references from Buddhist works about the practice of purda.