Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v2.c20.s1: Section I. Status in Hindu Society

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v2.c20.s1

Language
English

Section I. Status in Hindu Society

v2.c20.s1.1

SINCE the days of Manu Hindu law has assigned to woman a dependent but by no means dishonourable position in society. Thus does he declare in his code: "By a girl, by a young woman or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house. In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent. She must not seek to separate herself from her father, husband, or sons; by leaving them she would make both (her own and her husband's) families contemptible".¹ Then again: "Day and night women must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families), and, if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one's control. Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in her youth, and her (sons) protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence".² This has been implicitly followed by the later lawgivers, who are not tired of dwelling at length on the dependence of woman.³ It may be noted, however, that one or two authors of the *dharma-śāstras* qualify their statements in the following words: "A wife is not

v2.c20.s1.2

¹ *Manu*, V, 147-9, p. 195.

v2.c20.s1.3

² *Ibid.*, IX, 2-3, pp. 327-8. For further notices on the subject, see Ray, J. B. O. R. S., XIII, pp. 160-1, 169; Wilkins, Mod. Hind., pp. 327, 330, where we have the views of a Christian missionary on the subject.

v2.c20.s1.4

³ *Baudhāyana*, II, 2, 3, 44-6, p. 231; *Vasiṣṭha*, V, 1-2, p. 31.

v2.c20.s1.5

163, *seq.*, he deals with them. He says. ". . . We are not to look among them (i.e. "the Hindus") for the solid virtues, as integrity, humanity, truth or generosity... they know nothing of patriotism. India contains no Hindoo hospitals for the sick and the insane, no institutions for the relief of the poor and unfortunate, no charity schools, no benevolent societies of any kind; nor do the popular institutions, or the established superstition, contain any one operative principle capable of improving the moral condition of the people. How then can it be expected that the Hindoos should be virtuous?" pp. 286-7. Read also p. 288 *seq.* (3rd ed. 1820).

v2.c20.s1.6

independent with respect to the fulfilment of the sacred law".¹ But the verdict of Manu influenced even the writings of Śukrācārya: "Living with other persons, speaking with them even publicly, independence even for a moment, and residence in their houses should not be granted to females by the husband, father, king, son, father-in-law and relatives; nor leisure for anything besides domestic duties".²

v2.c20.s1.7

¹ Gautama, XVIII, 1, p. 270.

v2.c20.s1.8

² Sukraniti, III, II., 39-43, p. 103. How far this notion of the dependence of woman clung to the minds of men is seen in the following description by Lakshmīśa, the author of the well known (Kannada) *Jaimini-Bhārata*:

v2.c20.s1.9

The obdurate stand taken by the early canonists could not but have resulted in lowering the status of woman in purely legal matters. This explains why proprietary (and separate) rights were denied to her, why documents executed by her were declared invalid, why restrictions were imposed on her as a witness, and, finally, why she was even classed with the son and the slave. Nārada enjoins the following: "Three persons are declared to have no proprietary right: a wife, a slave and a son. Whatever property they acquire shall be made over to him to whom they belong."³ This rule held good even in the days of Śukrācārya, who says: "The wife, the son, and the slave—these three are *adhana*, *i.e.*, unpropertied (in the matter of family property). Whatever they earn is the property of those to whom they belong".⁴ In another connection Śukrācārya says: "Women have no separate right to the use of the means for the realisation of the threefold end, *e. g.*, virtue, wealth and

v2.c20.s1.10

³ Nārada, V, 41, p. 138.

v2.c20.s1.11

⁴ Sukraniti, IV, v. II., 579-80, p. 210.

v2.c20.s1.12

ಪತಿವಚನದಿಂದ ನಡೆವ ಸತಿಹುದು ಪರ |
ಗತಿಯಲ್ಲದಂಗನೆಯರತಿ ಸಾಹಸಿಗಳವರ |
ಕೃತಿಲೀಲಂಗಳಂ ನಂಬಲಾಗದು ಮೇಣ್ ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರಮಂ ಕೊಡಲಾಗದು ||
ಪಿತನಿಂದ ಬಾಲ್ಯದೊಳ್ತಿಯಿಂದ ಪ್ರಾಯದೊಳ್ |
ಸುತನಿಂದ ವೃದ್ಧಾಪ್ಯದೊಳ್ಕುಲ ಸ್ತ್ರೀಯರು |
ಕೃತಿಯೊಗದಿದೊಡದವಳಿಂದ ನಿಜವಂಶಕುಸಹತಿ ಬಾರದಿರದಿಳೆಯೊಳು ||

v2.c20.s1.13

Jaimini Bhārata, Sandhi 5, v. 52, p. 99 (Sanderson).

v2.c20.s1.14

desires".¹ As regards the invalidity of documents executed by women, we have the following in the *Institutes of Vishnu*: "Nor one executed by a woman, or a child, or a dependant person or one intoxicated or insane, or one in danger or in bodily fear".² Manu restricts woman as regards giving witness, thus: "Women should give evidence for women, and for twice-born men, twice-born men (of the) same kind, virtuous Śūdras, for Śūdras, and men of the lowest casts for the lowest".³ Vishnu clearly says: "The king cannot be (made a witness); nor a learned Brāhmaṇa nor an ascetic; nor a gamester; nor a thief, nor a person not his own master; nor a woman; nor a child. . ."⁴

v2.c20.s1.15

¹ *Sukraniti*., IV, iv, ll., 11, p. 161

v2.c20.s1.16

² *Vishnu*, VII, 10, p. 47.

v2.c20.s1.17

³ *Manu*, VIII., 68, p. 266.

v2.c20.s1.18

⁴ *Vishnu*, VIII., 2, p. 48. The illiberal views as regards women expressed even by Śukrāchārya, not to say of writers on morality and poets of the later ages, may perhaps be traced to these dogmatic assertions about the dependence of women. Thus in the *Sukraniti*: "One should not leave his place by making the young wife dependent on herself. Women are the root of evils. Can young females be left with others?" III. ll. 240-1, p. 111. This may be compared with the verse of Vēmana. "Though her husband be Cupid himself, and her home be agreeable, how shall the slippery footed woman change her nature? Though a dog be tamed and reared with milk, will it not still rove from place to place?" *Verses*, II., v. 10, p. 55; see also pp. 56-7, 69, 82. It is not surprising that under the influence of these ideas, the wife was made to walk behind her husband as depicted by Dhūrjati. *Hamsa-vimśati-Kathegalu*, p. 12, see also p. 54.

v2.c20.s1.19

Uncompromising as the attitude of the Hindu lawgivers certainly was, it is worth while to observe that their digests are not devoid of provision which definitely raised the dignity of woman in Hindu society. Manu himself has unequivocally stated the case for woman thus; "Women must be honoured and adorned by their fathers, brothers, husbands, and brothers-in-law, who desire (their own) welfare. Where women are honoured, there the gods are pleased; but where they are not honoured, no sacred rite yields reward. Where the female

v2.c20.s1.20

But we may say in the same breath that from the earliest times too in southern India, poets and moralists also spoke highly about the dignity and status of women. Read *Kural*, Ch. VI, pp. 10-11; *Nāladiyar*, Ch. XXXIX, p. 247, *seq*.

v2.c20.s1.21

relations live in grief, the family soon wholly perishes; but that family where they are not unhappy ever prospers. The houses on which female relations, not being duly honoured, pronounce a curse, perish completely, as if destroyed by magic. Hence men who seek (their own) welfare, should always honour women on holidays and festivals with (gifts of) ornaments, clothes and (dainty) food".¹

v2.c20.s1.22

¹ Manu, III., 55-9, p.

v2.c20.s1.23

Vishnu has removed certain disabilities placed on woman in the following words: "A woman (shall) not (be compelled to pay) the debt of her husband or son....”² As regards the six-fold property which a woman possesses, Manu says: "What (was given) before the (nuptial) fire, what (was given) on the bridal procession, what was given in token of love, and what was received from her brother, mother, or father, that is called the six-fold property of a woman".³ It is strange that Śukrāchārya, whose opinion we cited above, should qualify his statement in the following words: "Absolute right is given to women in the matter of wealth that is called women's wealth as regards sale and gift, even in immoveables".⁴

v2.c20.s1.24

Where one sees in unmistakable terms the latitude given to woman by the lawgivers is in the right which Manu gave her of choosing her husband, and the privilege which even the later writers allowed her of offering the piṇḍa to her deceased husband. Manu lays down the following rule as regards the choice of a husband: "Three years let a damsel wait, though she be marriageable; but after that time let her choose for herself a bride-groom (of) equal (caste and rank). If, being not given in marriage, she herself seeks a husband, she incurs no guilt, nor (does) he whom she weds".⁵

v2.c20.s1.25

In this connection we may add that Manu has also given equality to woman in religious matters. "To be mothers were women created, and to be fathers men; religious rites, therefore, are ordained in the Vedas to be performed (by the husband) together with the wife".¹

v2.c20.s1.26

⁸⁵ Cf. Yājñavalkya, I., 82, text p. 172 (V. N. Mandalik, Bombay, 1880). ² Vishnu. VI., 31, p. 45. ³ Manu, IX., 194, p. 370-1. ⁴ Sukraniti, IV., v, 595, p. 210. ⁵ Manu, IX., 90-1, p. 343.

v2.c20.s1.27

¹ Manu, IX., 96, p. 344.

v2.c20.s1.28

The importance of woman in social and legal matters is seen in the right she has of offering the piṇḍa (or funeral cake at the śrāddha to deceased ancestors). In the Dāya-vibhāga of the Vyavahāra-kāṇḍa of the commentary of the Parāśara-smṛti by Mādhavāchārya Vidyāraṇya, he seems to acknowledge the classical privilege which was given to woman as regards the offering of the piṇḍa. This may explain why Mādhava says: "the wife is a woman who has been sanctified by marriage, she takes first the wealth of her husband."² In the above words Mādhavāchārya seems to go further, to some extent, than Manu himself who has qualified, according to the former, the right of woman thus: "Vṛiddha Manu mentions difference regarding this case: 'A wife (i.e., widow) who has no son, who preserves inviolate the bed of her husband, and is steadfast in her duty, should offer the piṇḍa for him and take the whole share'".³ Whatever may be the legal aspect of the question, there cannot be a doubt that from the times of Manu down to those of Mādhava, the importance of the (legal) wife, especially as regards inheritance, was acknowledged by the lawgivers.⁴

v2.c20.s1.29

² Dāya-vibhāga, Burnell, p. 25.

v2.c20.s1.30

³ Ibid., p. 25. Cf. "(If the widow) of a man who died with-out leaving issue, raised up to him a son by a member of the family (sagōtra), she shall deliver to that (son) the whole property which belonged to (the deceased)." Manu, IX., 190, p. 369.

v2.c20.s1.31

⁴ Dāya-vibhāga, ibid., pp. 26-7.

v2.c20.s1.32

Alone among the classical canonists, Kauṭilya seems to advocate equality of women and men in legal matters, at least as regards the question of punishment. This is apparent in the following passage in the Arthaśāstra: "Women, when twelve years old, attain their majority and men when sixteen years old. If after attaining their majority, they prove disobedient to lawful authority, women shall be fined fifteen paṇas and men, twice the amount".¹

v2.c20.s1.33

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. III, Ch. III, p. 190.

v2.c20.s1.34

Domestic economy rests, according to the Hindu writers, entirely on woman. Hence Manu says: "Let the (husband) employ his (wife) in the collection and expenditure of his wealth, in keeping (everything) clean, in (the fulfilment of) religious duties, in the preparation of his food, and in looking after the household utensils".² In the detailed enumeration of the daily and occasional duties of a woman as given in his *Nīti*, Śukrāchārya reiterates, perhaps with undue vigour, the earlier notions of woman's importance in the regulation of household affairs.³

v2.c20.s1.35

² *Manu*, IX., 11, p. 329. See also *Viṣṇu* XXV., pp. 110-11.

v2.c20.s1.36

³ *Śukranīti*, IV., iv ll. 12-52, pp. 161-3 Cf. Vēmana: "The house of a virtuous young woman is orderly, she is like a light shining in a dark room. The house in which a first wedded wife dwells, is like as the place of divine worship". *Verses*, Bk. I., v. 71, p. 19. (Brown).

v2.c20.s1.37

The codes of ancient and mediaeval writers also contain provision for entertaining woman in royal service, industry, and agriculture. While dealing with the question of royal attendants, Manu says: "Well-tried females, whose toilet and ornaments have been examined, shall attentively serve him (the king) with fans, water and perfumes".⁴ Then again: "For women employed in the royal service and for menial servants, let him (the king) fix a daily maintenance in proportion to their position and to their work".⁵ Śukrāchārya extends the scope of work which women could perform. He says: "The women should be assistants in the functions of the males, *viz.*, agriculture, shopkeeping, etc."⁶

v2.c20.s1.38

⁴ *Manu*, VII., 219, p. 252 Cf. Kauṭilya's injunction cited below.

v2.c20.s1.39

⁵ *Ibid.*, VII., 125, p. 236.

v2.c20.s1.40

⁶ *Śukranīti*, IV, iv, l. 54, p. 163; Sarkar, *Pos. Back*, I, p. 181.

Linked texts (11)