Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Position of Women in Hindu Civilisation, from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day c10: Chapter V. Position of the Widow, Part II: Levirate, Remarriage, Tonsure, etc.

The Position of Women in Hindu Civilisation, from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day c10

Language
English

Contents

Chapter V. Position of the Widow, Part II: Levirate, Remarriage, Tonsure, etc.

c10.1

POSITION OF THE WIDOW, PART II

Section 1 : Niyoga or Levirate

c10.s1.1

We have seen in the last chapter that widows were not permitted or required to die with their husbands on the funeral pyres down to *c.* 300 B. C. How then were they expected to lead their remaining life? There were three courses open for them. They could either pass their remaining life in widowhood, or have some children by levirate (*niyoga*), or remarry regularly. The first was of course the most honorable course, but there were many who followed the second or the third alternative. We shall consider in this section the history of the custom of Niyoga, which appears so strange and unacceptable to the modern mind.

c10.s1.2

It may be observed at the outset that the custom of levirate was quite common in ancient times in several civilisations. It was prevailing in Sparta. Among the Jews a widow would become her husband's brother's wife without any ceremony; if he refused to marry her, she would spit in his face (Spencer, *Sociology*, I, p. 661). The Old Testament also declares that if a woman becomes a widow, 'her husband's brother shall go unto her and take her to wife, and perform the duties of a husband's brother unto her' (Deuternonomy, 25, 5-10). The marriage of Hamlet's mother with Claudius and of Henry VIII with Katherine indicate an earlier custom of Niyoga, eventually developing into a regular remarriage with a brother-in-law.

c10.s1.3

The reasons for the prevalence of this custom are not difficult to make out, if we would understand the primitive ideas about women and children. The woman was everywhere regarded as a species of property, which passed into the husband's family on her marriage. She was married no doubt to a person, but also in his family. So if her husband died, his brother or any other near relation would take her to wife, or raise children on her¹. This usually happened when a person died without leaving any male issue behind. To die without a son was regarded as a great spiritual calamity, and it was the sacred duty of a brother to see that a son was raised on his sister-in-law to perpetuate his brother's memory and to ensure him a seat in heaven. If this was not done, there was also the danger of the widow marrying a stranger and being lost to the family.

c10.s1.4

¹ *G.D.S.*, II, 10, 27, expressly refers to this argument of the advocates of the Niyoga custom; Cf:—**कुलाय हि स्त्री दीयते इति उपविशन्ति।**

c10.s1.5

In early societies, a son by levirate was always preferred to a son by adoption. An adopted son presupposed a tremendous legal fiction, for which society was not yet ripe. A Vedic sage declares that an adoptive son born of another is no son at all². He was an absolute stranger; he had no blood of the family running in his veins. A son by Niyoga, on the other hand, had the blood of the mother. He had of course not the blood of his father, but he had at least that of a near relative. A son born of Niyoga therefore resembled a real son as nearly as possible. We can now well understand why in the list of subsidiary sons given in Dharmasūtras, a son by Niyoga usually occupies the second position, coming immediately next after the real or *aurasa* son. The custom was in fact fairly common in early times in India. Several heroes of the Mahābhārata and Purāṇas were born of Niyoga. ‘If a woman loses her husband’, says the great epic, ‘she marries her brother-in-law’¹.

c10.s1.6

² **न शेषो अग्ने अन्यजातमस्ति।** *R. V.*, VII, 5,7.

c10.s1.7

¹ नारी तु पत्यभावे वै देवरं कृणुते पतिम् । XIII, 12, 19.

c10.s1.8

Under the system of Niyoga if a woman's husband was dead or incapable of procreating children, she was allowed to have conjugal relations with her brother-in-law or some other near relation till she got some children. The brother-in-law of the woman was regarded as the most eligible person for this duty. In modern times we find that a brother is often very anxious to give his son in adoption to his widowed sister-in-law; for if the latter were to adopt a stranger, an undesirable person was likely to be introduced as a claimant to the family property. To prevent a similar complication, it was felt that the appointment of a widow for the purpose of Niyoga should be primarily with her brother-in-law. If it was made with a stranger, it was apprehended that he may exercise a great influence over the son born from him, and eventually manage to get the child's share in the family virtually transferred to himself. Probably such cases had happened in society; for it has been expressly laid down that property considerations should never be a motive for Niyoga¹. If the appointment was with the brother-in-law of the widow, there was likely to be as much affection between the sons born of Niyoga and other coparceners of the rising generation, as normally exists among brothers and cousins. Of course the appointment must have naturally aroused uneasiness and resentment in the mind of the first wife of the brother-in-law; but her feelings did not count for much at the time we are talking of. It was further regarded as most important that the son by Niyoga should resemble the real son as much as possible. He would have the maximum amount of the blood of the family running in his veins, only if the appointment of the widow for Niyoga was made with her husband’s brother. If the appointment was with a stranger, the son would have only half the blood of the family in his veins.

c10.s1.9

¹ लोभान्नास्ति नियोगः । *V. D. S.*, XVII, 57.

c10.s1.10

Later Smṛiti writers allow only one son to be raised by Niyoga, but the earlier practice was quite different. At her husband’s pressing entreaties, Kuntī raised three sons by Niyoga. Pāṇḍu, however, was not satisfied with that number and pressed his wife to have some more. Kuntī protested against the suggestion, pointing out that the custom permitted only three sons by Niyoga and no more². In Kshatriya circles it was regarded as vitally necessary to have a large number of sons, and in prehistoric times there seems to have existed practically no limit to the number of sons that could be raised by Niyoga. King Vyushitāśva had seven such sons and King Bali had only 17, six from his crowned queen and eleven from a Śūdra wife (*Mbh*, I, 127, 113). Three was, however, the normal number of sons usually permitted. Kuntī's sister, Śrutasenā, had, for instance, got this number of sons by Niyoga (*Ibid*, I, 126). But a woman will not always have three successive sons; some girls are likely to intervene. Permission to have three sons by Niyoga therefore practically amounted to a remarriage.

c10.s1.11

² पाण्डुस्तु पुनरेवैनां पुत्रलोभान्महायशाः । प्राविशद्ददर्शनीयार्थी कुन्ती त्वेनमथाब्रवीत् ॥ नातश्चतुर्थं प्रसवमापत्स्वपि वदन्त्युत । अतः परं स्वैरिणी स्याद्बन्धकी पञ्चमे भवेत् ॥ I, 132, 63-4.

c10.s1.12

The custom of Niyoga was fairly common down to *c.* 300 b. c. After that time it began to meet with considerable opposition, because society felt that such temporary unions were undesirable from several points of view. A school of reformers arose, which opposed this custom tooth and nail. It was led by Āpastamba, Baudhāyana and Manu. Āpastamba argued that the son by Niyoga would belong to the begetter and so would be of no spiritual benefit to the woman's husband¹. Baudhāyana concurred with him. Manu condemned the custom as beastly and declared that it was no longer permissible to follow it². It is, however, interesting to note that in spite of their vehement condemnation, these writers have laid down detailed rules about the Niyoga procedure.

c10.s1.13

¹ ^1 **रेतोधा पुत्रं नयति परेत्य यमसादने ।** II, 6, 13, 8.

c10.s1.14

² ^2 **अयं द्विजैर्हि विद्वद्भिः पशुधर्मो विगर्हितः ।** **ततः प्रभृति यो मोहात्प्रमीतपतिकां स्त्रियम् ।** **नियोजयत्यपत्यार्थं तं विगर्हन्ति साधवः ॥** IX, 66 ff.

c10.s1.15

It is therefore clear that the advocacy of the new school was for a long time ineffective. Among the Dharmasūtra writers, Vasishṭha and Gautama do not join the crusade against Niyoga started by Āpastamba and Baudhāyana; they permit Niyoga to the widow at her option, with the only proviso that she should not choose a stranger if a brother-in-law was available. Kauṭilya permits an old king to raise a new son by Niyoga, if his own son turned out to be wicked or incompetent.

c10.s1.16

If the reformers of the period 400 B. C. to 200 A.D. failed to stamp out the custom, they succeeded at least in restricting its scope. Formerly three sons were allowed; now some thinkers (referred to by *Manu*, IX, 61) allowed two, while the majority was in favour of one only. A woman, who had children, was prohibited from having recourse to Niyoga (*B. D. S.*, II, 1, 20). At least one year must elapse after the husband's death before Niyoga could be permitted. If a widow was unwilling, she was not to be compelled to submit to Niyoga. This provision seems to have been laid down to prevent an unscrupulous brother-in-law from forcing himself on an unwilling sister-in-law. Financial considerations were not to be a motive for Niyoga¹. It would appear that sometimes a person would be anxious to raise a son upon a widow in order to get a share in her family's property. No doubt the new child was to be the heir, but it was expected that it would naturally be under the influence of its real father. At present we very often find a person getting an effective control over the property of another family by giving his son in adoption to it. The same very often happened in the case of Niyoga. So the Dharma-sūtra writers warn that economic motives should be excluded from Niyoga. Niyoga was to be regarded as a matter of duty, and not as an occasion for license. The parties were not to meet after the conception had taken place. On earlier occasions too desire for a son and not any craving for carnal pleasures was to be the governing factor (*Nārada*, XII, 80-88).

c10.s1.17

¹ **लोभान्नास्ति नियोगः।** *V. D, S.*, XVII, 57.

c10.s1.18

The school which was opposing Niyoga began to grow stronger and stronger in course of time. The ascetic tendency was getting the upper hand in society. It disliked and discouraged Niyoga. Society had developed a finer sense of the marriage ideal and conjugal fidelity ; it began to feel that the Niyoga procedure was primitive and beastly. Adoptive son, it was felt, should be preferred when a real son was out of question. Adoption may involve a legal fiction, but it did not transgress recognised canons of morality. It was also realised that the Niyoga custom was detrimental to the purity and peace in family life. A brother would cultivate the habit of looking upon his sister-in-law as a prospective wife of his own. Very often this would lead to serious complications. The earlier wife would naturally not take kindly to the 'appointed' wife; there would arise interminable disputes between the two which would ruin the peace of the family. Coparceners also did not like that additional sharers in the family property should arise in this irregular manner. In the *Dūtavākya* of Bhāsa, Duryodhana refuses to recognise Paṇḍavas as heirs because they were born of Niyoga¹. The Niyoga custom was thus felt to be more and more undesirable in course of time and the public opinion became very strong against it. It therefore went out of vogue soon after *c.* 600 A. D. It is recognised by Nārada, Yama and Parāśara, who flourished at about this time. Purāṇas, however, written soon after this period, include Niyoga among the customs prohibited for the Kali age².

c10.s1.19

¹ परात्मजानां पितृतां कथं व्रजेत् ॥ v, 21.

c10.s1.20

² ऊढायाः पुनरुद्वाहं ज्येष्ठांशं गोवधस्तथा । कलौ पञ्च न कुर्वीत भ्रातृजायां कमंडलुम् ॥ *Ādityapurāṇa.*

c10.s1.21

There can be no doubt that leaders of Hindu society took a step in the right direction in stamping out the custom of Niyoga. It was a relic of barbarism and was quite incongruous and incompatible with higher ideas and ideals of marriage, that were held before society. It cannot be, however, gainsaid that Niyoga served a useful purpose in its own days. Men are disinclined to marry widows, though they expect virgins to marry widowers. The custom of Niyoga solved the widow's difficulty to some extent by permitting the brother-in-law to raise issues on his sister-in-law under certain circumstances. Niyoga served as a half-way house between a formal remarriage and an absolute celibacy, especially in earlier days when three sons were allowed to be raised under it. Of course it indirectly encouraged polygamy, but we should not forget that society was already tolerating it. It also helped in improving the economic condition of the widow. When she had no son, she could get no share in the family property. When she got a son by Niyoga, she could get a share, if not as an heiress, at least as the guardian of her minor son.

c10.s1.22

Those, who opposed the custom of Niyoga, no doubt stood for the ideal of purity and constancy in sex relations. They should have, however, realised that if Niyoga was to be forbidden, regular remarriage ought to be allowed in the case of those widows, who found the ideal of celibacy too difficult to follow. This step, however, was not taken. As we shall see in the next section, both Niyoga and remarriage were forbidden to widows at about the same time. This resulted in a great hardship, especially because by this time child marriages had come into vogue, giving rise to a large class of virgin widows. Hypnotised by the ascetic ideal, which had now become popular, leaders of society failed to afford adequate relief to the widow, when they took the undoubtedly correct step of forbidding Niyoga.

c10.s1.23

Svami Dayanand Sarasvati, the founder of the Aryasamaja, has permitted Niyoga to his followers. He took this step probably because he felt that the mentality of Hindu society being deadly opposed to remarriage, the only way to give relief to the widow was by reviving the practice of Niyoga, which had a Vedic sanction. The members of the Aryasamaja have, however, shown no inclination to revive the archaic custom. They prefer the more straightforward and refined custom of widow remarriage.

Section 2: Widow Remarriage

c10.s2.1

Side by side with Niyoga, the widow remarriage also prevailed in Vedic society. The suggestion that the proposal for a remarriage was made to the widow at the funeral of her husband is preposterous; it is based upon a wrong interpretation of a Vedic stanza¹. There is however no doubt that widow remarriages used to take place not infrequently in the Vedic age.

c10.s2.2

¹ **उदीर्ध्वं नार्यभिजीवलोकं गतासुमेतमुपशेष एहि ।** **हस्तग्राभस्य दिधिषोस्तवेदं पत्युर्जनित्वमभिसंबभूथ ॥** *R. V.*, X, 18,8. The verse seeks to dissuade the widow from burning herself on her husband's funeral pyre by following the archaic Satī custom, which had gone out of vogue. Its correct translation is as follows :—'Oh lady, get up, come back to the world of the living; you are lying by the side of a dead person. As far as thy wifehood to thy husband, who had seized thy hand (in marriage), is concerned, you have lived it out completely.' Those, who see in this verse a proposal for remarriage, translate the last line in the following way :—'Thy wifehood to me, who has seized thy hand and who is thy lover, has now commenced.' This is, however, a wrong translation. It is, however, surprising to find that Sāyaṇa should support this interpretation; cf:—**त्वं हस्तग्राभस्य पाणिग्राहवतो दिधिषोः पुनर्विवाहेच्छोः पत्युरेत्तज्जनित्वं जायात्वमभिसंबभूथ आभिमुख्येन सम्यक्प्राप्नुहि ।** On *Tai. Araṇ*, VI, 1.

c10.s2.3

In one place the Atharvaveda refers to a woman marrying a second time. It lays down a ritual to secure the union of the new couple in heaven². It is therefore clear that the author of this hymn did not regard the conduct of the widow who remarried, as in any way disreputable; had he regarded it as objectionable, he would not have recommended a ritual to facilitate her union with the second husband in heaven.

c10.s2.4

² **या पूर्वं पतिं वित्त्वा अथान्यं विन्दते पतिम् ।** **पञ्चौदनं च तौ अजं ददातो न वियोजतः ॥** **समानलोको भवति पुनर्भूवा अपरः पतिः ।** **योऽजं पञ्चौदनं दक्षिणाज्योतिषं ददाति ॥** IX, 5, 29-8.

c10.s2.5

In the passage of the Atharvaveda referred to above, there is no suggestion to the effect that the widow in question is to marry her brother-in-law. It would therefore appear that some widows in the Vedic age used to marry outside the circle of their late husbands' families. The usual procedure for the widow, however, seems to have been to marry a younger brother-in-law, who was very often unmarried at the time. It is therefore difficult to determine whether in a particular place the reference is to a regular remarriage with an unmarried brother-in-law, or to merely a Niyoga relation with him. References like those in Ṛigveda X, 40, 2 seem to contemplate Niyoga rather than a regular marriage with the brother-in-law¹. References to regular remarriages of widows in Vedic literature are few, probably because Niyoga was then more popular than remarriage. At this period, however, a widow could get as many as three sons by Niyoga ; so the Niyoga relationship practically amounted to a remarriage.

c10.s2.6

¹ को वां शयुत्रा विधवेव देवरम् । R.V., X, 40, 2.

c10.s2.7

Though actual instances of widow remarriages, that can be clearly distinguished from Niyoga are few, they must not have been infrequent in society. For the Dharmasūtras (*c.* 400 B.C. to *c.* 100 A.D.) allow remarriage even when the death of the husband was only presumed and not proved. Thus Vasishṭha says that even a Brahmana lady with living children need wait only for five years, if her husband, gone out on a journey, does not return. *If she is unwilling to go to him,* she should marry a near relative; only she should not wed outside the family, if there is an eligible person within it¹. Vasiṣṭha is not here referring to Niyoga, for he extends this permission even to women having living children. Kauṭilya (III, 4) and Nārada (XII, 88 ff.) have laid down similar rules. The former reduces the period of waiting to a few months only, and allows even women married by regular religious rites to enter into a fresh wedlock². This permission was availed of even in high class families. Uḍupī was a widow, and she practically compelled Arjuna to marry her. In Uchchaṅga Jātaka, a lady when given an option of choice between a husband, a son and a brother, choses the last mentioned one, observing that she can easily get another husband or son, but not another brother³. In Nanda Jātaka (No. 39) we come across a husband shuddering at the prospect of his youthful wife marrying again after his death, and not giving any share of his property to his son.

c10.s2.8

¹ प्रोषितपत्नी पञ्च वर्षाण्युदीक्षेत। ऊर्ध्वं पञ्चभ्यो वर्षेभ्यो भर्तृसकाशं गच्छेत्। यदि धर्मार्थाभ्यां प्रवासं प्रत्यननुकामा स्यात् यथा प्रेते एवं वर्तितव्यं स्यात्। एवं ब्राह्मणी पञ्च प्रजाता अप्रजाता चत्वारि। अत ऊर्ध्वं समानोदकपिण्डर्षिगोत्राणां पूर्वः पूर्वः गरीयान्। न तु खलु कुलीने विद्यमाने परगामिनी स्यात्। XVII, 67.

c10.s2.9

² जीवितार्थमापद्गता वा धर्मविवाहात्कुमारी परिगृहीतारमनाख्याय प्रोषितं श्रूयमाणं सप्ततीर्थान्याकांक्षेत संवत्सरं श्रूयमाणमाख्याय।

c10.s2.10

³ उत्संगे देव मे पुत्ते पथे धावंतिया पती। III, 4.

c10.s2.11

Widow remarriages were, however, gradually coming into disrepute during the period 300 B. C. to 200 A. D. When urged to make peace on the last day of the war, Duryodhana says that he is disinclined to enjoy the earth as a man is to marry a widow¹. Dharmasūtra writers usually place the son of a widow low in their scheme of succession. In *Aṅguttara Nikāya* we see a lady assuring her husband on his death bed that she would never remarry after his death, but would look after the household and children².

c10.s2.12

¹ क्षीणरत्नां च पृथिवीं हतक्षत्रियपुंगवाम् । न ह्युत्सहाम्यहं भोक्तुं विधवामिव योषितम् ॥ IX, 31, 45.

c10.s2.13

² सिया खो पन ते गहपति एवमस्स, नकुलमाता गहपतानी ममच्चयेन अञ्ञं घरं गमिस्सति । III, p. 295.

c10.s2.14

Owing to the growing influence of the ascetic ideals, the opposition to widow remarriage began to grow stronger and stronger from *c.* 200 A. D. Vishṇu recommends celibacy to the widow. Manu lays down that a widow should never even think of remarriage after her husband's death³. Nārada (*c.* 500 A. D.) can think of a girl's marriage only once (XII, 28). Elsewhere, however, he allows a woman to remarry if her husband had expired, or entered a monastery, or gone out on a long journey. Parāśara concurs with this view⁴. The contradictory provisions, that we sometimes come across in works like *Nāradasmṛiti* of this period, would show that though widow marriages were getting unpopular in Brahmana community, they were still common among the other classes. The famous emperor Chandragupta Vikramāditya, (*c.* 375-414 A. D.), who was probably a Vaiśya by caste, had married his elder brother's wife after the death of her husband. Kumāragupta, a son of this union, became an heir to the Gupta empire.

c10.s2.15

³ न तु नामापि गृह्णीयात्पत्यौ प्रेते परस्य वै । V, 157.

c10.s2.16

⁴ नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिते क्लीबे च पतिते पतौ । पञ्चस्वापत्सु नारीणां पतिरन्यो विधीयते ॥

c10.s2.17

It is important to add that the opponents of the widow remarriage of this period were not against the remarriage of child widows. The prevalence of early marriages at this time had raised the problem of the child widow, and it was at first sympathetically solved by society. Social thinkers represented in the later portion of the Mahābhārata declare that no derogation would attach to a child widow if she married again; her sons would be fully entitled to offer oblations both to gods and manes¹.

c10.s2.18

¹ पुनर्भूरपि सा कन्या सपुत्रा ऽव्यकव्यदा। XIII, 55, 7.

c10.s2.19

The earlier writers of the Dharmaśāstra also adopt a sympathetic attitude towards the child widow. Thus Vasishṭha states that if merely the marriage ritual is performed and the marriage itself is not consummated, the girl should be married again². Baudhāyana holds the same view (II, 2, 4, 7). Laghu-Śātātapa holds that such a girl is really a virgin, and she should marry again as a matter of course³.

c10.s2.20

² पाणिग्राहे मृते बाला केवलं मन्त्रसंस्कृता। सा चेदक्षतयोनिः स्यात्पुनः संस्कारमर्हति ॥ XVII, 66.

c10.s2.21

³ उद्वाहिता च या कन्या न संप्राप्ता च मैथुनम्। भर्तारं पुनरभ्येति यथा कन्या तथैव सा। v. 44.

c10.s2.22

From about 600 A. D. the prejudice against the widow remarriage began to become deeper and deeper. Smṛiti writers from this period onwards begin to condemn them vehemently. Passages in earlier works clearly permitting them began to be explained away as referring to a bygone age. The *Ādityapurāṇa* declares that widow remarriage is not to be performed in the Kali age¹. A widow’s son could not be invited for a Śrāddha. Referring to the permission for his sacred initiation given by earlier texts, Laghu-Aśvalāyana states frankly that it may have been a good and valid custom in a former age, but it can no longer be followed in the present times². Mādhava, while commenting upon the famous text in Parāśara permitting remarriage, observes that it is no longer valid in the Kali age.

c10.s2.23

¹ ऊढायाः पुनर्वाहं ज्येष्ठांशं गोवधं तथा । कलौ पंच न कुर्वीत भ्रातृजायां कमण्डलुम् ॥

c10.s2.24

² युगान्तरे स धर्मः स्यात्कलौ निन्य इति स्मृतः । XXI, 14.

c10.s2.25

From about 1000 A. D. the prohibition of remarriage began to be extended even to the cases of child widows. Devaṇabhaṭṭa (*c.* 1150 A. D.) states that the texts sanctioning remarriages in such cases have no application to the present age³. A section of the puritanical school tried to extend the denotation of the term widow. It was argued that girls betrothed verbally, nay even mentally, should be regarded as married. If perchance their husbands died before the performance of the marriage ritual, they should be regarded as widows and become ineligible for remarriage⁴. If by mistake a person married such a ‘widow,’ he was to perform a penance and abandon her. The marriage was invalid *ab initio*¹. Luckily this absurd doctrine did not appeal to society; it continued to be guided by Manu's sensible opinion that no marital tie arises before the marriage ritual is actually performed.

c10.s2.26

³ एवं च यानि संस्कारादूर्ध्वमक्षतयोन्याः पुनरुद्वाहपराणि तानि युगान्तराभिप्रायाणीति मन्तव्यम् । *SCS.*, p. 221.

c10.s2.27

⁴ सप्त पौनर्भवाः कन्यः वर्जनीयाः कुलाधमाः । वाचा दत्ता मनो दत्ता कृतकौतुकमंगला ॥ Kaśyapa in *SCS.*, p. 202.

c10.s2.28

¹ अज्ञातस्तु द्विजो यस्तु विधवामुद्वहेद्यदि । परित्यज्य च वै तां च प्रायश्चित्तं समाचरेत् ॥ Laghu-Aśvalāyana, XXI, 6.

c10.s2.29

Though this move to extend the meaning of the term widow failed, widow remarriages disappeared almost completely from society from about 1100 A. D. Even child widows could not be married. This prohibition, however, became operative only in the higher sections of Hindu society. As far as its lower strata were concerned,—and they form more than 80 per cent. of the community,—remarriages continued to be current among them. It was only in the last century that out of a desire to increase their respectability, some lower classes began to impose upon themselves the prohibition of widow marriage. The tendency has now disappeared.

c10.s2.30

Let us now examine the consequences of the prohibition of Niyoga and remarriage. The school advocating the recognition of the right of inheritance of the widow got an additional ground in its favour when they ceased to remarry. If widows were not to remarry or have any Niyoga relations, it was but fair that they should be conceded a share in the property of their husbands, to whom they were showing signal fidelity in most trying circumstances. Another consequence, and a sad one, followed the discontinuance of the widow remarriage. Many young widows found it a hard ordeal to lead a life of enforced celibacy and began to prefer to die with their husbands, rather than live behind them. The custom of Satī therefore became more general. Some widows, however, had not the courage to go through this inhuman fiery ordeal; nor had they sufficient strength of mind and character to live up to the high ascetic ideal prescribed for them. It is sad to record that they were driven to lead the life of a concubine or *avaruddhā strī*. The *Kāmasūtra* informs us that a widow, unable to lead a celibate life, used to approach a rich person, who used to accept her as wife without the formality of any religious marriage¹. If she found it difficnlt to pull on well with him, she would have recourse to another person. It is difficult to state what percentage of widows was driven to this sad life, but probably it was not large.

c10.s2.31

¹ विधवा त्विन्द्रियदौर्बल्यादा...रा भोगिनं गुणसंपन्नं विन्देत। सौख्यार्थिनी क्लान्यं विन्देत । IV, 2.

c10.s2.32

In the absence of definite data, it is difficult to state what percentage of widows used to avail themselves of the opportunity of remarriage when it was permitted to them. Probably women with children did not usually think of remarriage. Among the rest also, many had a genuine love for their departed spouses and would not therefore think of remarriage. They tried, and tried with admirable success, to wade through the dreary life of widowhood, supported by their devotion to their husbands and such consolation as religion could afford. A few welcomed escape through the dreadful door of the Satī custom, when it became popular in later times. Some, however, found the ordeal of celibacy too trying and had recourse to remarriage. When that door was closed, they were driven to concubinage. This development should have induced society to change its attitude towards widow remarriage. The ascetic ideal of life had, however, acquired a complete ascendancy over the social mind. A large number of Jain, Buddhist and Hindu monks and nuns were following that ideal, and it was felt that widows also should do the same. Leaders of society should, however, have realised that what a few men and women could do out of intense religious conviction, could not be prescribed for a whole class. They should have realised that if the average widower found it difficult to pass his life without a second marriage, the average widow could not be in a different predicament. Society had, however, ceased to be guided by reason at this time, and had come under the complete sway of authority. Smṛiti texts, and Smṛiti texts too of the most recent date, which interdicted remarriage, were its sole sources of inspiration. Ancient authorities, which clearly permitted the widow remarriage, were silently ignored or ingeniously explained away.

c10.s2.33

Leaders of thought of the Hindu society in the medieval period were the writers of law digests and the saints of the Bhakti school. The former were too much under the influence of later Smṛitis to recommend a course opposed to their injunctions. The latter could hardly have championed the cause of the widow remarriage, as they were completely under the influence of the ascetic ideal. The prejudice of Hindu society against widow remarriage began to become deeper and deeper. Nay, it could never conceive the possibility of a respectable widow embarking on a course of remarriage. Tragic cases of girls being widowed at the age of 8 or 9 were often happening in society ; but people regarded them as decrees of an unscrutable Providence and bowed down to them. Parshurambhau Patwardhan, one of the Peshwa generals, had the misfortune of his daughter being widowed at the age of 8 ; contemporary documents show that he thought it extremely unreasonble that such girl widows should not be allowed to remarry. But he could not break away from the tradition and get his daughter remarried.

c10.s2.34

It was only with the advent of western ideas during the second quarter of the last century that some leaders of thought began to realise the inequity of compelling widows to lead a life of enforced celibacy. Ishvarchandra Vidyasagar was the chief among them, and he succeeded in getting the necessary legislation passed in the Imperial Council in 1856, permitting widow remarriage under certain conditions. This legislation, however, was too much in advance of time, and did not succeed in giving any appreciable impetus to the cause of widow remarriage. Social reformers, who were championing this cause, were not all sincere in their advocacy. Many of them expressed public apology for their association with widow marriages, and some of them refused to follow the gospel they preached, when eventually occasions arose for them to to contract a second marriage. In these days social and religious boycott was a terrible weapon, which leaders of orthodox thought could use with tremendous effect. So, for a decade or two, even ardent social reformers dare not follow what they preached. More than 99 per cent. of widows also were honestly holding the view that it would be a great sacrilege for them to depart from the established custom. Women are proverbially conservative, even in matters that adversely affect their own welfare.

c10.s2.35

The cause of the widow remarriage has begun to make appreciable progress since the beginning of this century. Many sincere workers have come forward to devote themselves to it. The terrible havoc caused by the plague at the beginning of the 20th century made the problem acute. With the wider spread of western education, reason began to reassert itself; Smṛiti texts began to lose their hold, and reformers could point out earlier and more authoritative works which permitted widow remarriage. The angle of vision of society of looking to the problem is rapidly changing; the thinking section now frankly recognises that the cause of the widow marriage is a just one, deserving the sympathy and support of all humane persons. The ascetic and puritanical atmosphere, which is *a sine qua non* for the successful working of the ban on widow marriage, has now completely disappeared from society, probably never to return. The age of reason has returned which refuses to sanction a course for the widows, which widowers are unwilling and unable to follow. The authority of later Smṛitis, which prohibit the widow marrige, is being questioned in the light of the earlier Smṛitis and Śrutis, which permit it. The closer study of social data and statistics is revealing that society becomes an unconscious party to great moral inequities by refusing its sanction to remarriages.

c10.s2.36

All these factors are now operating with full force and helping the cause of the widow remarriage. There is, however, much up-hill work still to be done; the number of widows under the age of 15 was as high as 3,16,926 in the census of 1931. It cannot be denied that a large number of them may be anxious and yet unable to remarry.

Tonsure

c10.s3.1

The custom of the tonsure of widows, which is a very ugly and unfortunate one, is of recent origin and growth. The motive underlying it was to make the outward appearance of the widow in harmony with the ideal of renunciation (*saṁnyāsa*), that she was expected to follow. Monks and nuns used to shave their heads; it was felt that widows should do the same. It was hoped that this would help in creating an ascetic atmosphere around her, so necessary for her resolution to lead a celibate life. The procedure was calculated to destroy the beauty of face; it was thought that it would incidentally afford the widow a greater protection against the unwanted attentions of undesirable characters.

c10.s3.2

We have seen above that both Niyoga and remarriage were permitted to the widow down to *c.* 500 A. D. The custom of tonsure could obviously have not arisen upto that time. Among the duties of widows which are described at great length in early Smṛitis, the shaving of the head does never figure. Some authorities interdict the decoration of the hair¹; this shows that the hair was there on the head and was not shaved. The widowed daughters-in-law of Dhṛitarāshṭra are expressly described in the epic as having the hair on the head decently arranged¹. There was clearly no tonsure in vogue. Epigraphic evidence shows that during widowhood, the curly hair of women used to become straight²; this shows that only the oiling of hair was stopped. It is thus clear from the above data that widows used to keep their hair, but they were not allowed to oil, decorate or arrange them in any luxurious or fashionable manner.

c10.s3.3

¹ न कुर्यात्केशसंस्कारं गात्रसंस्कारमेव च । *Brahmavaivartapurāṇa* 83, 101.

c10.s3.4

¹ एतास्तु सीमन्तशिरोरुहा या शुक्लोत्तरीया नरराजपत्न्यः । राज्ञोऽस्य वृद्धस्य परं शतास्याः स्नुषा नृवीराहतपुत्रनाथाः ॥ XV, 27.15.

c10.s3.5

² सरलितप्रचुरालकजालकाः । Pehova inscription of Madanapāla, c. 900 A. D., *E., I.*, Vol I, p. 246.

c10.s3.6

When precisely the custom of tonsure came into vogue is not easy to determine. Epigraphic and Smṛiti evidence cited above shows that the custom was not in vogue down to the 9th century A. D. Some Smṛitis, like that of Vedavyāsa, which are probably later than this period, begin to recommend that if a widow does not become a Satī, she should tonsure her head³. The prohibition of Niyoga and remarriage, which began to be fully operative at this period, gave a further impetus to the custom. Medieval writers like Mādhava and Anantadeva recommend the custom, and it is referred to by several European merchants and travellers from the 16th century downwards. It was quite common in the kingdom of Vijayanagar. We may, therefore, conclude that the custom became general from about 1200 A. D. Probably it was first confined to the Brahmana class, and was then gradually extended to the rest of society. It was, however, more common in southern than in northern India.

c10.s3.7

³ जीवन्ती चेत्त्यक्तकेशा तपसा शोषयेद्वपुः ॥ I, 53.

c10.s3.8

Among Jains and Buddhists, nuns used to be shaved. The custom of the tonsure of widows seems to have been borrowed from this practice. At any rate it smacked of a heterodox tendency to some orthodox thinkers, and they proceeded to oppose it on that account tooth and nail. This was the case with the Śrīvaishṇavas of southern India, many of whose Saṁhitās prohibit tonsure of women in express and decisive terms¹. The prohibition extends to both maidens and widows. The question of the tonsure of maidens would arise only if they wanted to become nuns, availing themselves of the permission given in Buddhism and Jainism. The opposition of Śrīvaishṇavas to the custom was most vehement; they declare that a woman who shaved her head would go to the most terrible hell; she would become a Chaṇḍālī in a subsequent life. The most advisable course for a widow, therefore, was to continue to have her hair till her death. This opposition, however, was of no avail, for eventually the custom spread even among the Vaishṇavas of south India.

c10.s3.9

¹ जन्मरोमणि या नारी क्षुरकर्म समाचरेत् । कन्या वा विधवा वापि रौरवं नरकं व्रजेत् ।। *Śambhusarihitā*. भर्तृहीना तु या नारी मुंडयित्वा समाचरेत् । श्रौतस्मार्तानि कर्माणि चाण्डालीं योनिमाप्नुयात् ।। *Manusaṁhitā*, (different from *Manusmṛiti*). स्त्रीणां तु भर्तृहीनानां वैष्णवीनां वसुन्धरे । यावच्छरीरपातं हि प्रशस्तं केशधारणम् ।। *Hayagrīvasaṁhitā*. The above quotations are given in *I. A.*, Vol. III, pp. 136-37. The date of these works is probably *c.* 1000 A. D. Their originals have not yet been published.

c10.s3.10

The custom of tonsure was quite common till the end of the last century. A widow was regarded as impure and ineligible for association with religious rites and functions as long as she had not removed her hair. Orthodox people would not take any water or food touched by her.

c10.s3.11

Hindu reformers launched a most determined attack against the custom in the nineties of the last century. Prin. Agarkar's articles against the custom created a ferment in Maharashtra. Society began to realise that the custom, far from protecting widows, was often exposing them to the mercies of most unscrupulous persons. The custom began to disappear rapidly in the first quarter of the 20th century. At present it has practically died down in towns and cities. It still lingers in rural areas, but there also its days are numbered.

A Resume

c10.s4.1

Let us now take a general resume of the position of the widow from age to age. We find that down to *c.* 300 B. C., her position on the whole was fairly satisfactory. The prehistoric custom of Satī having died down, she was not required to immolate herself on the funeral pyre of her husband. If she was disinclined to lead a life of celibacy, she could either contract a second marriage or have recourse to Niyoga, the latter hardly differing from the former in earlier times. The custom of tonsure was absolutely unknown. Her only disability was a proprietary one; as we shall see in the chapter IX, she was not regarded as an heir to her husband's property. This was, however, more or less a theoretical disability. Niyoga and remarriage being common, it was very rare for a widow not to have a son; so what she could not claim as an heir to her husband, she could get as a guardian of her minor son.

c10.s4.2

From *c.* 300 B. C. the position of the widow began to deteriorate. Satī custom began gradually to come into vogue in Kshatriya circles. Secular and religious Hindu thinkers opposed its revival, and for some centuries they were able to check its spread. Eventually, however, their opposition proved of no avail and the custom spread to all sections of the community. Society began to come under a progressively greater influence of ascetic views and ideals, and as a result, the customs of both Niyoga and remarriage began to become gradually unpopular at about the beginning of the Christian era. Widows, not inclined to lead a celibate life, could however have recourse either to Niyoga or remarriage down to *c.* 500 A. D. Thereafter, however, the force of public opinion made it difficult for them to do so. Niyoga came to be definitely forbidden for the present age. Remarriages of child widows continued to be permitted till about 1000 A. D., but soon thereafter even this concession was withdrawn.

c10.s4.3

Widows came to be regarded as inauspicious; they could not be present at the marriages of even their own children. They had to lead a dreary life of enforced celibacy, and society did not show much sympathy to them. Many widows waded through their unwanted life, supported by such solace as religion could afford them. Some summoned the necessary fortitude and preferred to escape from life through the frightful door of the Satī custom, which consequently began to become commoner. A few found it impossible to follow either course and lapsed into a life of ignominy and immorality.

c10.s4.4

The only direction in which a change for the better took place in the condition of the widow after *c.* 200 A. D. was the question of the rights of inheritance. When a large number of widows were leading a life characterised by high moral fervour, remaining true to the memory of their departed consorts, society found it necessary to make provision for their suitable maintenance. Joint families, of which they were members, were no doubt morally bound to provide for their maintenance, but it was felt that widows should be given a life estate in the property of their late husbands in order to enable them to lead a peaceful and retired life. This concession, however, was given only to those widows, whose husbands had separated from the joint family. It was only Bengal, which extended it to all widows. This question, however, will be discussed at length in Chapter IX.

c10.s4.5

From *c.* 1000 A. D. the condition of the widow further deteriorated. The custom of tonsure came into vogue. The motives for its adoption may have been good, but its consequences were often disastrous. The custom of Satī now began to appeal more and more to all classes of society. As a consequence, sometimes even unwilling widows were driven to follow it owing to the force of public opinion. Sometimes on rare occasions even child widows were burnt, lest they should go astray and bring disgrace to their families. Society had become quite callous. It is true that a very large number of widows voluntarily ascended funeral pyres, but society had no moral right to hold up a custom for admiration, which was likely to result in the burning alive of even a few innocent and unwilling human beings. Reason, however, had ceased to weigh with Hindu society at this time, as it did before in an earlier age. Authority counted for everything, and authority too of the most recent texts.

c10.s4.6

The above survey will show that it was but natural that widowhood should have been regarded with the greatest apprehension by Hindu women. The widow did not receive much intelligent sympathy from society as a whole. She had to spend her life with her head shaven and arms bared; she was an outcaste on festive occasions,—a bad omen, her very sight being regarded as most inauspicious. A lady apprehending to be widowed observes in the Mahābhārata that a widow is pounced on all sides by the wicked like a piece of flesh by the birds of prey¹. The greatest danger that can overcome a woman is widowhood, says the Rāmāyaṇa². In the earlier period, when the Satī custom was unknown and remarriages were allowed, her lot was somewhat better ; nevertheless she was regarded as inauspicious. Later on, it became positively unbearable. It was a remarkable amount of fortitude and resignation, strengthened by the solace of religion and the belief in Karman, which enabled the Hindu widow to pass through her dreary life. A vast majority of them dedicated themselves to religious and spiritual pursuits. Service of the family and society was their motto. They were a source of inspiration to all around them on account of their self-sacrifice, disinterested service and devotion to spiritual pursuits. Some, however, found this ideal too difficult to follow, and it was a great pity that society should have failed to take proper steps to facilitate their remarriage. The spirit of the times, however, renderd such a move impossible.

c10.s4.7

¹ उत्सृष्टमामिषं भूमौ प्रार्थयन्ति यथा खगाः। प्रार्थयन्ति जनाः सर्वे पतिहीनां तथा स्त्रियम्॥ *Mbh*, I, 158,10 (B).

c10.s4.8

² न हीदृशं भयं किंचित्कुलस्त्रीणामिहोच्यते। भयानामपि सर्वेषां वैधव्यं व्यसनं महत्॥ VII, 45, 43.

Linked texts (26)