Manava Dharmashastra 3.14

3.14

yadyapyatyantarūpavatī śūdrā, viprarājanyau ca vīraprakṛtī daśamīmapi daśāmaśnuvīyātāṃ tathāpi śūdrāṃ nādhivoḍhārau | atrārthavādaḥ | kasmiṃścidapi vṛttānte na kvaciditihāsopākhyāne'pyupadiśyate varṇyate | āpadi garīyasyāmadhikāyāmāpadi | pūrvatrānujñātā'nena pratiṣiddhā ato vikalpaḥ | "nanu ca śāstralakṣaṇayorekaviṣayasannipāte ṣoḍaśigrahaṇāmahaṇavadvikalpo yukto na tu rāgalakṣaṇāyāḥ pravṛtterniṣedhena |" na ca śūdrā śāstralakṣaṇā | kevalaṃ rāgatastatra pravṛttirapratiṣiddheti pūrvaśāstrasyārthaḥ | niṣedhastu śāstralakṣaṇa ityavivāhyaiva śūdrā | etadevābhipretya yājñavalkyena paṭhitam ( ācāre 56 ) "yaducyate dvijātīnāṃ śūdrāddāropasaṃgrahaḥ na tanmama matamiti" | atrocyate | sarvatropadeśānarthakyatayaiva vikalpa āśrīyate | yadi cātyantameva śūdrāpratiṣedhaḥ syāttadā kṣatriyavaiśye eva pratiprasūyeyātām āpadyabhyanujñāne | pratiprasavaśāstram (śloka 13) ayaṃ ca pratiṣedhaḥ-dvayamapi vyarthaṃ syātsavarṇāyā niyamena siddhatvāt | tadidamanujñātaṃ pratiṣedhaśca svaṃ svaṃ virudhyamāne vikalpyete | "nanu ca vikalpe kāmacāraḥ | tasya ca pratiprasava eva siddheḥ pratiṣedho vaktavyo naiva" | na yathākāmataḥ kṣatriyāvaiśyayorvivāha iva śūdrāyāḥ, anyatrāpado garīyasyāḥ | idaṃ tu pratipattuṃ yuktaṃ yatsavarṇīniyamenāsavarṇīnivṛtterarthataḥ kṛtāyāḥ punaḥ śūdrānivṛttirasavarṇīnivṛtteranityatvaṃ jñāpayati | anityatve cāpadi savarṇīyā alābhe vā bhavati cāyamavagamaḥ 'śūdrā na voḍhavyā itare tu voḍhavye' |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
Even when the Śūdra girl is extremely handsome, and the Brāhmaṇa or Kṣatriya bridegroom is in the ‘tenth stage’ of his life,—he should never marry the Śūdra girl.

On this point, a descriptive phrase is added—‘under no circumstance whatsoever’—i.e., in no story at all—‘has been ordained’— described.

‘In peril’—Even in the greatest distress.

In the preceding verse, the Śūdra wife has been permitted, and here she is prohibited. Hence there should be option.

“Option is permissible only when there is possibility of the two courses being adopted at one and the same time, and both courses are equally sanctioned by scriptural injunctions; and it cannot be permitted when a course of action is open to one only under the influence of passion, while it is prohibited by scripture. In the case in question, the taking of a Śūdra wife is not sanctioned by scripture, it is possible only under the influence of passion; and all that the foregoing verse means is that the marriage of a Śūdra girl under the influence of passion is not entirely prohibited; the prohibition, on the other hand (contained in the present verse), is purely scriptural. Hence the conclusion is that the Śūdra girl should not be married at all. It is in view of this that Yājñavalkya (Ācāra, 56) has declared.—‘It is said that twice-born persons may take Śūdra wives; but that is not my opinion.”’

Our answer to the above is as follows:—In all cases, option is admitted only in view of the likely futility of the injunction (of one or the other coarse of action). If the Śūdra-wife were absolutely prohibited, then the Kṣatriya and Vaiśya girls alone would have been mentioned as permitted (to the Brāhmaṇa) in times of peril; and in that case, the counter-exception (mentioned in 13), as also the prohibition (contained in 14), would both be superfluous; as the marrying of the girl of one’s own caste would have been already secured by the restrictive rule. Thus, then, since there is a clear incompatibility between the sanction (in 13) and the prohibition (in 14), the two should be regarded as optional alternatives.

“The presence of an option means that the agent may do what he likes; and, as the marrying of the Śūdra girl (if one wishes to do so) would be already secured by the counter-exception (in 13), there would be no need for putting forward the prohibition (in 14) [as the not-marrying of the Śūdra girl is already deduced, from the general rule of marrying within one’s own caste].”

But the marrying of the Śūdra girl has not been left entirely to the wish of the agent, in the way in which the marrying of Kṣatriya and Vaiśya girls has been; in fact, it has not been permitted, except in times of very great distress.

From all this the following conclusion appears the right one to adopt:—The general rule regarding marrying a girl of one’s own caste having already indicated, by implication, the impropriety of marrying girls of other castes,—that the Śūdra girl should have been prohibited again (in 14), already shows that the rule regarding not marrying girls of other castes is not absolute; and since this rule is not absolute, it follows that in times of difficulty, or in the event of not finding a girl of his own caste, while the Śūdra girl shall never be married, those of the other two castes may be married.—(14).