Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Position of Women in Hindu Civilisation, from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day c10.s1: Section 1 : Niyoga or Levirate

The Position of Women in Hindu Civilisation, from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day c10.s1

Language
English

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.

Linked texts (10)