Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Position of Women in Hindu Civilisation, from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day c16: Chapter XI. General Attitude towards Women

The Position of Women in Hindu Civilisation, from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day c16

Language
English

Chapter XI. General Attitude towards Women

c16.2

In the course of the last ten chapter, we have surveyed different sides and activities of women's life. We are now in a position to ascertain and understand the general attitude of Hindu society towards the fair sex. The problem is, however, a complicated one. We have seen already that the general position and status of women were changing from age to age, and so naturally the attitude of society towards them could not remain the same in different periods. We have therefore to note and account for the vicissitudes in the attitude of society. A further difficulty of a more serious type arises from the nature of the data on which we have to rely. In the same century and in the same province, we sometimes come across diametrically opposite views about the worth, nature and importance of women. One school is seen declaring that the woman is the highest gift of God to man, while the other is seen asserting that the best way to reach God is to avoid woman. It is not an easy task to determine which of these contending views represented the opinion of the community. And we cannot exclude the possibility of the views of the average man not being adequately expressed in the din of this wordy warfare between the extremists of the opposite camps.

c16.3

Perhaps one of the best ways to ascertain the attitude of society in this matter would be to find out its angle of vision towards women overtaken by the misfortune of falling in the hands of ruffians or enemies. Such a situation is the real touch stone to test the genuineness of society's sympathy towards the weaker sex; it enables us to find out how far man is prepared to rise above the prejudices of his sex and judge the woman by an equitable standard. The present attitude of Hindu society in this matter is very stiff and unsympathetic; if a woman has the misfortune of falling into captivity even for a short time, she finds it impossible to get readmission into her family and society. In this respect we are following the example of Śrī-Rāmachandra, who refused to accept back Sītādevī after the overthrow of Rāvaṇa. He informed her that all his efforts to kill Rāvaṇa were only for the purpose of avenging, the wrong done to him; he had no idea whatsoever of accepting back a wife, who had stayed so long in the house of the enemy¹. Sītā points out in reply that being in captivity, she was no longer the master of her person; she could command only her mind and that was always

c16.4

¹ विदितश्चास्तु ते भद्रे योऽयं रणपरिश्रमः ।

c16.5

स तीर्णः सुहृदां वीर्यान्न त्वदर्थं मया कृतः ॥१५॥
रक्षता तु मया वृत्तमपवादं च सर्वशः ।
प्रख्यातस्यात्मवंशस्य न्यङ्गञ्च परिरक्षता ॥ १६ ॥
कः पुमान् हि कुले जातः स्त्रियं परगृहोविताम् ।
तेजस्वी पुनरादद्यात्सुहृल्लेख्येन चेतसा ॥ १७ ॥
रावणांकपरिभ्रष्टां दृष्टां दुष्टेन चक्षुषा ।
कथं त्वां पुनरादद्यां कुलं व्यपदिशन्महत् ॥ २० ॥
*Rāmāyaṇa*, VI, 118, 15 ff.

c16.6

faithful to her husband¹. This explanation did not satisfy Śrī-Rāma; he accepted Sītā only when a super-human agency vouchsafed her continuous chastity.

c16.7

A critical student of the Rāmāyaṇa, however, finds it difficult to believe that the sentiments above expressed really represented the views of Śrī-Rāma. He knew from Jaṭāyu within an hour of Sītā's abduction that she was taken into captivity by Rāvaṇa. There are several passages in the epic to show that Śrī-Rāma wanted to recover Sītā not so much to avenge a wrong done to him, as to restore to happiness a cherished wife, whom he continued to love intensely and respect very highly for her voluntary resolution to share his miseries of the forest life¹. Later on when Śrī-Rāma reaches the ocean along with his army, and the bridge is being built, he is once again overpowered by the thoughts about his beloved. He regrets very much that he could not reach in time to respond to his wife's pathetic call for help when she was being carried away by force, and shows an intense anxiety to be once more united in her loving arms¹. There is not the slightest indication in any of these passages that Śrī-Rāma intended to spurn away his wife, because she was remaining in the captivity of Rāvaṇa. His cruel address to Sītā, when she is actually brought before him after the victory over Rāvaṇa, therefore comes as a great surprise to the reader. It is very probably a later interpolation, introduced to facilitate the incorporation of the superhuman proof of Sītā's unbroken chastity.

c16.8

¹ न तथास्मि महाबाहो यथा त्वमवगच्छसि । प्रत्ययं गच्छ मे येन चारित्रेणैव ते शपे ॥ ६ ॥ यद्यहं गात्रसंस्पर्शं गतास्मि विवशा प्रभो । कामकारो न मे तत्र दैवं तत्रापराध्यति ॥ ७ ॥ मदधीनं तु यत्तन्मे हृदयं त्वयि वर्तते । पराधीनेषु गात्रेषु किं करिष्याम्यनीश्वरा ॥ ८ ॥ *Ibid*, VI, 119,6-8

c16.9

² श्यामा पद्मपलाशाक्षी प्रिया विरहिता मया । कथं धारयति प्राणान्विवशा जनकात्मजा ॥ १०३ ॥ किं नु वक्ष्यामि राजानं धर्मज्ञं सत्यवादिनम् । सीताया जनकं पृष्टः कुशलं जनसंसदि ॥ १०८ या मामनुगता मन्दं पित्रा प्रव्राजितं वनम् । सीता सत्यथमास्थाय क्व नु सा वर्तते प्रिया ॥ १०३ ॥ गत्वा लक्ष्मण पश्य त्वं भरतं भ्रातृवत्सलम् । न ह्यहं जीवितुं शक्तस्तामृते जनकात्मजाम् ॥ १११ ॥ IV, 1, 103 ff.

c16.10

¹ तन्मे दहति गात्राणि विषं पीतमिवाशये । हा नाथेति प्रिया सा मां ह्रियमाणा यदब्रवीत् ॥ ७ ॥ कदा नु चारुबिम्बोष्ठं तस्याः पद्ममिवाननम् । ईषदुन्नम्य पास्यामि रसायनमिवातुरः ।[^]* १३ ॥ कदा नु खलु मां साध्वी सीता सुरसुतोपमा । सोत्कण्ठा कण्ठमालम्ब्य मोक्ष्यत्यानन्दजं पयः ॥ २० ॥ VI, 5, 7 ff.

c16.11

Whether the passage in question is a genuine one or not, one thing is quite clear; our Smṛiti writers have refused to prescribe for average women the unreasonable standard of purity attributed in it to Śrī-Rāma. They perhaps thought that it was a good ideal, but too high to be followed in actual life. They felt that it was necessary and equitable to treat women in Sītā's plight with much greater sympathy and reasonableness than what is shown in the present version of the Rāmāyaṇa. With a broadmindedness that is indeed admirable, a number of Smṛitis and Purāṇas declare that women, who had the misfortune of being made prisoners, or of being assaulted criminally, should be treated with sympathy, and not with contempt, and be accepted back by their families after they had performed certain purificatory rituals.

c16.12

Thus Vasiṣṭha declares that if a woman is taken into captivity by an enemy, or spirited away by thieves, or ravished against her will, she ought not to be abandoned by her family¹. The same is the view of Atri, who points out that one such misfortune ought not to be allowed to ruin the whole life of a woman². An ordinary penance ought to be quite sufficient. Parāśara advocates a similar considerate treatment³. The *Matsyapurāṇa* points out that it would be absurd to condemn a woman, because she is overpowered and ravished ; in such a case the assaulter alone is guilty and ought to be punished with death⁴.

c16.13

¹ स्वयं विप्रतिपन्ना वा यदि वा विप्रवासिता । बलात्कारोपभुक्ता वा चोरहस्तगतापि वा ॥ न त्याज्या दूषिता नारी नास्यास्त्यागो विधीयते । पुष्पकालमुपासीत ऋतुकालेन शुध्यति ॥ *V.D.S.*, XXVIII., 2-3.

c16.14

² सकृद्भुक्ता तु या नारी म्लेच्छैर्वा पापकर्मभिः । प्राजापत्येन शुध्येत ऋतुप्रस्रवणेन च ॥ v. 35.

c16.15

³ बन्दिग्राहेण या भुक्ता हत्वा बद्ध्वा बलाद्भयात् । कृत्वा सान्तपनं कृच्छ्रं प्राजापत्येन शुध्यति ॥ सकृद्भुक्ता तु या नारी नेच्छन्ती पापकर्मभिः । प्राजापत्येन शुध्येत ऋतुप्रस्रवणेन च ॥ X, 26-7.

c16.16

⁴ बलात्संदूषयेद्यस्तु परभार्यां नरः क्वचित् । वधो दण्डो भवेत्तस्य नापराधो भवेत्स्त्रियः ॥ 227, 126.

c16.17

What is to be done if the criminal assault is unfortunately followed by a conception ? Our Smṛitis recognised that in the case of criminal assault, conception was an accidental circumstance, and it would not be equitable to refuse to readmit its victim merely on that score. They have therefore laid down that such a woman should be admitted to her former position as soon as she had delivered the child. The child was to be given to somebody else for rearing up, and was not to be admitted as a member of the family. Atri and Devala are typical advocates of this view; the latter avers that once the child is delivered, the woman becomes as pure and flawless as ever before¹.

c16.18

¹ > असवर्णेन यो गर्भः स्त्रीणां योनौ निषिच्यते । अशुद्धा सा भवेन्नारी यावच्छल्यं न मुञ्चति ॥ विनिसृते ततः शल्ये रजसो वापि दर्शने । तदा सा शुध्यते नारी विमलं काञ्चनं यथा ॥ स गर्भो दीयतेऽन्यस्मै स्वयं ग्राह्यो न कर्हिचित् । स्वजातौ वर्जयेद्यस्मात्संकरः स्याद्यतोऽन्यथा ॥ 50-2.

c16.19

The liberal views of Atri and Devala were accepted by Hindu society down to about the 9th century a. d. During the first half of the 8th century thousands of men and women were taken into captivity by the Muslim invaders of Sindh; those of them who could effect their escape were accepted back in their families and society (Elliot and Dowson, I, p. 126).

c16.20

From about the 13th century society began to change its attitude towards these unfortunate women and refused to admit them back. Women carried into captivity by force could no longer entertain any hope of regaining their old position in Hindu society. The advice of the Smṛitis, which recommended a contrary course, was silently brushed aside and the door of Hinduism was once for all closed to such women. The establishment of the Muslim rule in the country may have been partially responsible for this development. Under the Islamic law apostacy was punishable with death, certainly in the case of men and probably in the case of women (*E.R.E.*, Vol. I, p. 625). Under Muslim rule it was thus not an easy proposition to reclaim to Hinduism women who had been once captured and married by Muslims. It may be, however, pointed out that large parts of Rajputana and the Deccan were under nominal Muslim rule; but there is no evidence to show that Hindu society there was willing to readmit violated women. New notions of purity were mainly responsible for the refusal of society to admit back such women, though the course was clearly recommended by earlier Smṛitis.

c16.21

This changed attitude produced a disastrous consequence on the strength and solidarity of Hindu society. Out of the thousands of women that were forcibly carried into captivity by Muslim invaders from the 11th century onwards, almost all would certainly have liked to come back to their old homes and society. But they knew that their fate was sealed once for ever, the moment they had fallen into the hands of the enemy. No return was possible; they had to adjust themselves to their captors and new surroundings. It was because of this consciousness that Kamalādevī, the queen of king Bhīma of Gujarat, when captured and forcibly married by Alla-ud-din Khilji, eventually not only reconciled herself to her lot, but urged her new husband to capture and bring her daughter to Delhi, so that she should be married to the Crown Prince. Had this unfortunate lady known that she would be accepted back in her family, she would have tried to effect her escape or avenge her wrong. We have seen already (*ante*, p. 25) how spirited Kshatriya ladies used to take revenge for the wrongs done to themselves or their families by having recourse to the sword. Not a single Rajput princess, however, among those who were forced into Muslim harems against their wish, is known to have followed their example. They did not lack in courage or military spirit ; but they knew that even if they took revenge and effected their escape, they could hope to have no honorable position in their own families and society. They had to reconcile themselves to the inevitable.

c16.22

Down to the 9th century, however, Hindu society was keeping its door open to women taken prisoners in war. They had always the hope that they would be taken back in their families, if they escaped from their captivity ; so they would usually try to effect their escape or wreak their vengeance on their captors. Well known is the strategem by which princesses Sūryadevī and Pramalādevī, daughters of king Dahir of Sindh, took their revenge upon General Kasim for the miserable plight to which he had reduced them and their mother, along with thousands of their sisters in Sindh. They were sent by the general to Baghdad for being presented to the Khalifa. The princesses were very young, for they had not yet reached their teens ; but the fortitude and ingenuity which they showed in very trying circumstances were very remarkable. When eventually produced before the Khalifa, they declared that though intended for him, Kasim had kept them with him for three days. This enraged the Khalifa, who immediately sent orders to Kasim to put himself, wherever he may be, in raw leather immediately and come back to him. When as a result of the execution of this order, the corpse of Kasim reached Baghdad, it was proudly shown to the princesses by the Khalifa. When they found that their plan to wreak vengeance had succeeded, they declared that they had not been even touched by Kasim and that they had told a lie in order to encompass the ruin of one, who had brought slavery and dishonour to thousands of their sisters in their kingdom. The Khalifa was exasperated and he ordered them to be immured in a wall. The princesses gladly welcomed this escape from life and dishonour¹. It is to be noted that in later times no princesses even of the Rajput stock sought to wreak vengeance on their captors. They knew that they had no place in their society, even if they escaped back after wreaking their vengeance. They had to reconcile themselves to the inevitable. Had the views of Atri and Devala ultimately prevailed, were the doors always kept open for women overtaken by misfortune to return to their families and society, the present day Muslim population would not have risen to eight crores. Hindu society has paid heavily for its narrow 'orthodoxy; it is high time that we should now take a rational view of the whole situation and cease to penalise women for their misfortune. After all honour or virtue can be lost only by a distinct act of volition, and not by an accident or misfortune. There is a distinct tendency at present to accept this rational view; it must be strengthened and made quite universal.

c16.23

¹ Al Bilaudari in Elliot and Dowson, Vol. I, pp. 210-2.

c16.24

Generally speaking in all climes and times men have laid down a much higher standard of sexual morality for women than what they were themselves prepared to accept. Hindu society has been no exception to this rule. Men found guilty of the breach of the marriage vow have been treated with a relative leniency. It is no doubt true that some authorities lay down that a husband, who becomes unfaithful to his wife, commits a sin for which there is no adequate penance¹. Āpastamba declares that such a husband should be compelled to wear donkey's skin with hair turned outside, and made to beg alms in that uniform for six months. At every door he was first to announce his crime and then accept alms if offered². There is no doubt that this punishment must have exposed the delinquent to a terrible humiliation, but it may be well doubted if an appreciable percentage of guilty husbands ever received it in actual practice. Had the punishment been a reality, the crime would have become very rare. The deterrent effect of the rule was nullified by the dictum of later Smṛitis, that a wife ought to revere as God even that husband, who has repeatedly transgressed his marriage vows (*ante*, pp. 128-9).

c16.25

¹ एवं भार्यास्त्यजतां नराणां नास्ति निष्कृतिः । *Mbh.*, XIII, 58, 18.

c16.26

² दारव्यतिक्रमी खराभिनं बहिर्लोम परिधाय दारव्यतिक्रमिणे भिक्षामिति सप्तागाराणि चरेत् । सा वृत्तिः षष्मासान् । I, 9, 18.

c16.27

The early Hindu thinkers recognised that the phrase, it is human to err, is as much applicable to women as to men, and they were prepared to treat lapses of women from the marriage vow with a fair amount of sympathy and commiseration. In the Vedic period we find that women who had gone astray, were allowed to take part even in religious service, provided they confessed their error³. Early Dharmaśāstra writers also were fairly lenient; Vasishṭha, for instance, has no objection to the readmission of a woman who had voluntarily gone astray, provided she really repented and submitted to a proper penance (*ante*, p. 370 n. 1). Parāśara recommends that a woman should be abandoned, only if she is a confirmed sinner (X, 35). Yājñāvalkya would advise this step only if adultery had resulted in conception (I, 72). The same is the view of the Mahābhārata, which further points out that man is usually more to blame in such offenes than woman¹. Other writers have suggested that a woman should be driven out of the house only if her associate were a person of very low caste². Otherwise she was to be segregated in the house and excluded from religious functions and privileges³.

c16.28

³ प्रतिप्रस्थाता पत्नीमुदानेष्यन् पृच्छति केन चरसीति । . . . . . । निरुक्तं वेनः कनीयो भवति सहृधं भवति । *S. Br.*, II. 5, 2, 20.

c16.29

¹ तस्मात् पुरुषे दोषो ह्यधिको नात्र संशयः । विना गर्भं सवर्णेषु न त्याज्या गमनात्स्त्रियः ॥ XIII, 58. 5.

c16.30

² चतस्र एव संत्याज्या पतने सत्यपि स्त्रियः । श्वपाकोपहता या तु भर्तृघ्नी पतिपुत्रगा ॥ *Chaturviṁśatimatam* in *Par. Mād.*, on X, 28.

c16.31

³ Cf. *Mitāksharā* on Yāj., I. 72; त्यागश्चोपभोगधर्मकार्ययोर्न तु निष्कासनं गृहात्तस्याः ।

c16.32

After about the 9th century A.D. lapses of women began to be treated with greater sternness. The earlier authorities, which had permitted the readmission of women who had casually gone astray, were taken to be referring to the cases of mental and not physical adultery⁴. This was an altogether unjustifiable procedure, as the context and wording of the passages concerned clearly show. A few medieval thinkers like Mādhavāchārya¹ continued to advocate a humane treatment of women, who had happened to go astray for a while; they realised that to drive out such women from their homes was to compel them to lead a life of sin and shame for ever. Society, however, would not follow their lead and began to insist upon a much higher standard of sex morality in the case of women, than what it was prepared to tolerate in the case of men. A single lapse came to be regarded as fatal for the woman, while even a moral wreck was to be revered as God by his dutiful wife. This last statement is no doubt hyperbolic and is not to be literally interpreted. Nevertheless, it clearly shows that lapses of men were very leniently treated, while women had no chance if they had committed a single mistake. This was highly inequitable, and it has made reclamation work next to impossible at present. Hundreds of women, who once in a while become guilty of misdemeanour, are being eternally lost to Hindu society, because it refuses to treat them with human sympathy. This again has led to a considerable swelling of the non-Hindu and low class population in India. We must once more begin to follow the liberal lead of Vasishṭha, who has recommended the acceptance of such women, provided they show genuine repentance.

c16.33

⁴ Aparārka, while commenting on Yāj. I, 72 ‘व्यभिचारे ऋतौ शुद्धेर्गर्भे त्यागो विधीयते’ । says, एतच्च मानसे व्यभिचारे ।

c16.34

¹ *On Parāśarasmṛiti*, V, 2.

c16.35

The concern which a society feels for the welfare of its women is also shown by the rules that are laid down for the conqueror about the treatment of women captured in war. In early times these unfortunate women had very often to enter the harem of the conqueror, as is clearly shown by the recognition of the Rākshasa or Kshātra form of marriage. When Manu allows each soldier to retain such women as he may have himself captured, he is obviously referring to this old barbarous practice (VII, 70). Society's sense of morality and fairplay was getting refined, and it began to be felt in course of time that such barbarism should be no longer tolerated. We accordingly find social thinkers coming forward to declare that the conqueror ought to treat honorably all women captured in war, and set them at liberty. It was left for the Paurānic age to enunciate this liberal doctrine; we find it specifically advocated by the *Agnipurāṇa*¹. The great Shivaji was following this meritorious tradition when he honorably sent back to her relatives the beautiful wife of the commander of the fort of Kalyan, who was presented to him by his soldiers, who had taken her a captive.

c16.36

¹ संप्राप्य विजयं युद्धे देवान्विप्रांश्च संपूजेत् । रत्नानि राजगार्मीनि अमात्येन कृते रणे ॥ तस्य स्त्रियो न कस्यापि रक्ष्यास्ताश्च परस्य च ॥ Ch. 235, 62-3.

c16.37

The historian is, however, compelled to observe that in a large number of cases this rule about the chivalrous treatment of women was disregarded by Hindu commanders and soldiers long before the advent of Islamic armies. When the Maukhari king Grahavarman was defeated and killed in war in 605 A. D., his wife Rājyaśrī was put in prison with heavy fetters on her feet. Medieval inscriptions often refer to several cases of the ill-treatment of women seized in war. A Chola king of the 11th century had taken captive the mother of his Ceylonese contemporary;

c16.38

he cut her nose because her son had invaded his country and laid it waste¹. In the heat of the struggle when every one was crying for vengeance, it is clear that the rules of chivalrous treatment were often completely ignored. Medieval inscriptions from south India contain several other cases of the ill-treatment of women; we very often come across the victor carrying away the treasures and wives of his enemies into his own harem². It is however somewhat consoling to find that persons guilty in this respect were often realising that their conduct was sinful and would sometimes proceed to perform a penance (*S. I. E. R.*, 1918, No. 73).

c16.39

¹ *E. C.*, IX, Devanhalli, No. 75.

c16.40

² Khajuraho inscription, *E. I.*, I, p. 145; *E. C.*, VI, Chikkamanglur, No. 160; *Ibid*, XII, Chikkanayakanhalli No, 565,

c16.41

In the later medieval period warfare became more inhuman as a consequence of the contact with the barbarous hordes that came pouring into India almost every century. In Rajputana interminable internecine warfare was going on during this period; but Rajputs failed to observe a code of warfare, which would respect the honour of captive women. Conquerors often carried the wives of the conquered to their harems³. This, however, was inevitable, for the practice had become universal in India since the advent of Islamic armies. We cannot therefore sufficiently admire Shivaji for rising above the morals of his age and treating captured women with great respect and consideration.

c16.42

³ Tod, *Annals*, II p, 741 (Crooke's edition).

c16.43

We have so far considered the attitude of society towards women in abnormal circumstances. Let us now see what its attitude towards them was in ordinary daily life.

c16.44

During the brighter period of Hindu culture, society used to show its concern for women in a variety of ways. Its chivalrous feeling secured them several privileges and concessions for the fair sex. The killing of a woman was regarded as a very disgraceful offence since very early times. In the Vedic literature it is pointed out that a woman ought not to be killed¹. Rāma very reluctantly killed Taṭikā, only when he was convinced that there was no other alternative open for him; he had to protect the sages, hundreds of whom had been already killed by the ogress². It is interesting to note that even in spite of the universally accepted divinity of Rāma, there were critics like Bhavabhūti in later times who ventured to fearlessly censure his conduct in killing Tāṭikā³. Bhīshma allowed himself to be killed, because he did not want to fight with one, who had been born as a woman, though subsequently changed into a man. Rāvaṇa thought of killing Sītā on more than one occasion, but he was dissuaded from his plan by the thought that it is unchivalrous to kill a woman (VI, 93, 60). When the goddess of Laṅkā proceeded to stop the entry of Hanumān, he merely gave her a blow ; he had realised that the excercise of a more than minimum force would be blameworthy, as his opponent was a woman¹. The Mahābhārata has declared in several places that like Brahmanas and cows, women also ought not to be killed. In the famous story of the demon Baka the house-wife presses her husband to send her to the demon for being devoured; she fondly hopes that though a demon, Baka would never think of killing a woman².

c16.45

¹ स्त्री वैषा यच्छ्रीर्न वै स्त्रियं घ्नन्ति । *S. Br.*, XI, 4, 3, 2.

c16.46

² न ह्येनामुत्सहे हन्तुं स्त्रीस्वभावेन रक्षिताम् । वीर्यं चास्या गतिं चापि हनिष्यामीति मे मतिः ॥ I, 27, 3.

c16.47

³ वृद्धास्ते दृधविचारणीयचरितास्तिष्ठन्तु किं वर्ण्यते । सुन्दस्त्रीदमनेऽप्यकुण्ठयशसो लोके महान्तो हि ते ॥ *Uttararāmacharit*, Act V, 34.

c16.48

¹ स्त्री चेति मन्यमानेन नातिक्रोधः स्वयं कृतः । V, 3, 39.

c16.49

² अवध्याः स्त्रिय इत्याहुर्धर्मज्ञा धर्मनिश्चये । धर्मज्ञांश्चाक्षसान्प्राहुर्न हन्यात्स च मामिह ॥ I, 172. 41.

c16.50

For the offence of killing a woman Manu has prescribed the capital punishment³. To die in the defence of a woman is declared to be the surest way of ensuring a seat in heaven⁴. In some of the Smṛitis it is no doubt stated that the sin of killing a woman is equal to that of killing a Śūdra ; this however does not refer to the gravity of the crime, but to the theological dogma that the status of women was equal to that of the Śūdras, both not being entitled to the privilege of the sacred initiation (*upanayana*). This little incident will make it clear how great and far-reaching were the consequences of losing religious privileges in ancient times.

c16.51

³ स्त्रीबालब्राह्मणघ्नांश्च हन्याद्दिट्सेविनस्तथा । IX, 232.

c16.52

⁴ ब्राह्मणार्थे गवामर्थे स्वाम्यर्थे स्त्रीकृतेऽथवा । स्थानार्थे यस्त्यजेत्प्राणांस्तस्य लोकाः समाहिताः ॥ Panchatantra, Mitrabheda, 5th story.

c16.53

Hindu society has sought to show its concern for the woman in a variety of ways. On crowded streets way was to be made for her. If she was in difficulties in her journey, it was the duty of every cultured person to help her in overcoming them. She was to be exempted from the ferry tax. If she had no proper guardians, the state was to look after her interest and property. To accept a bride-price was a very great sin. The marriage expenses of a daughter were a charge on her father’s property, and brothers were expected to meet them, even if there were no ancestral assets. For the same offence law courts were usually to impose a lighter punishment upon women than upon men (*Arthaśāstra*, IV, 12). Merit was to be always honoured, whether it was found in men or in women¹.

c16.54

¹ गुणाः पूजास्थानं गुणिषु न च लिंगं न च वयः। *Uttararāmacharit*, Act, II, 2.

c16.55

Within the house every one was to show the highest solicitude for the woman. She was to be honoured like the Goddess of Prosperity. The patriarch was warned that his family would prosper only if the ladies under his charge were cheerful; it would surely come to grief if the women folk were in sorrow. Women have their own innocent fancies and hobbies; they ought to be respected. Women are the support of the universe; it exists on account of and through them. One can therefore never do too much for them. Woman and prosperity are not two different things; woman brings prosperity when she is properly treated and respected. The holiest object in the world is a good woman; a tear of sorrow rolling down from her eye will be a great portent even for a mighty tyrant¹.

c16.56

¹ The following texts are the authorities for this para:—

c16.57

The above passages no doubt express very fine and chivalrous ideas about women. There are, how-ever, a large number of passages in Sanskrit litera-ture, both religious and secular, which are of an opposite nature, and cast serious reflections upon women and their character. We shall now proceed to consider them, and try to find out what is their precise implication.

c16.58

The context clearly shows that many of the passages, where women in general have been decried, merely express the views of men in the throes of bitter disappointment. The exigencies of the situation are often responsible for such opinions, and they ought not to be taken at their face value. Thus a passage in the Ṛigveda declares that women are very fickle²; the speaker, however, is Purūravas, who was bitterly disappointed to find that his beloved Urvaśī had left him, because he was unable to keep the terms of the

c16.59

² न वै स्त्रैणानि सख्यानि सन्ति सालावृकाणां हृदयान्येता । X, 95, 15.

c16.60

श्रिय एताः स्त्रियो नाम सत्कार्या भूतिमिच्छता ।
लालितानुगृहीता च श्रीः स्त्रीर्भवति भारत ॥ *Mbh.*, XIII, 81, 15.
शोचन्ति जामयो यत्र विनश्यत्याशु तत्कुलम् ।
न शोचन्ति तु यत्रैता वर्द्धते तद्धि सर्वदा ॥ *Manu*, III, 57.
स्त्रियः साध्व्यो महाभागाः संमता लोकमातरः ।
धारयन्ति महीं राजन्निमां ऽऽऽऽऽऽऽऽम् । *Mbh*, XIII, 78, 23.
पृथिव्यां यानि तीर्थानि सतीपादेषु तान्यपि ।
*Brahmavaivartapurāṇa*, 83, 119.
प्रवादः सत्य एवायं त्वां प्रति प्रायशो, नृप ।
पतिव्रतानां नाकस्मात्पतन्त्यश्रूणि भूतले ॥ *Rāmāyaṇa*, VI, 114, 65.

c16.61

agreed contract. Another passage in a later Saṁhitā observes that women are falsehood incarnate; the context, however, shows that the reference is to women of bad character¹. In the Rāmāyaṇa Lakshmaṇa observes that women are cruel and malicious by nature, but that was because he was quite unjustly rebuked by Sītā, who compelled him to go in search of Rāma against his better judgment². In another passage in the same epic, it is stated that women are wicked and selfish, but it is immediately added that the remark is intended to apply only to Kaikeyī (II, 12, 99). In a third place in the same work the sage Agastya says that women combine the fickleness of the lightning, the sharpness of the weapon and the swiftness of the eagle³; the sage makes this observation, not because he genuinely believed in its truth, but because he wanted to emphasise that Sītā, whom he was praising,, had none of these defects and drawbacks. The Buddha in one place holds up for admiration the wife of the slave type; we must however remember that he is there giving advice to a recalcitrant daughter-in-law (*Aṅg. Nik.* IV, p. 91).

c16.62

¹ अनृतं स्त्री अनृतं वैषा करोति या पत्युः क्रीता सती अथान्यैश्चरति । *M.S.*, I, 10, 11.

c16.63

² उत्तरं नोत्सहे वक्तुं दैवतं भवती मम । वाक्यमप्रतिरूपं तु न चित्रं स्त्रीषु मैथिलि ॥२७ ॥ स्वभावस्त्वेष नारीणामेवं लोकेषु दृश्यते । विमुक्तधर्माश्चपलास्तीक्ष्णा भेदकराः स्त्रियः । ॥२८ ॥ स्त्रीत्वं दुष्टं स्वभावेन गुरुवाक्ये व्यवस्थितम् ॥ ३१ ॥ III, 45.

c16.64

³ शतह्रदानां लोलत्वं शस्त्राणां तीक्ष्णता तथा । गरुडानिलयोः शैघ्यमनुगच्छन्ति योषितः ॥ इयं तु भवतो भार्या दोषैरेतैर्विवर्जिता । श्लाघ्या च व्यपदेश्या च यथा देवी ह्यरुन्धती ॥ II, 13, 6-7.

c16.65

Some of the uncomplimentary remarks about women are further due rather to a light-hearted cynicism than to a deep-rooted conviction. ‘Even Indra has observed,’ says the Ṛigveda in one place, ‘that women cannot control themselves¹.’ One of the later Saṁhitās observes that women can be easily won over by one who is fair in form and expert in singing and dancing². In some of the writings of modern feminists, we come across similar semi-frivolous and semi-cynical observations about men. They are not intended to be taken seriously. In one Jātaka story a woman of 120 is represented as falling in love with a youth of 20. This is frivolity and nothing else. It has its counterpart in many of the present day magazine stories, where we often find old men of seventy marrying tender girls of seven..

c16.66

¹ इन्द्रश्चिद्ध तदब्रवीत् स्त्रिया अशास्यं मनः । IV, 33, 17.

c16.67

² तस्माद्य एव नृत्यति यो गायति तस्मिन्नेवैता निम्लिष्टतमा इव । *S. Br.*, III, 2, 3, 6. Compare also सुलापा वै दर्शनीयेन स्त्रियः ।

c16.68

From about the beginning of the Christian era we begin to come across passages, which were deliberately written for the purpose of blackening the character of women. In one place in the Mahābhārata we are told that sensual enjoyment is the sole aim of woman’s existence³. In another place a woman herself is made to narrate a story illustrating how her sex is fickle and faithless by its very innate nature (XIII, 73-8). We are gravely informed that the sex urge in women is so great that they will eagerly unite with the meanest of men¹. Nearest consanguinity would be no effective bar. If a woman has remained virtuous, it is simply because she could not get a proper lover, place and opportunity². A man with a hundred tongues would die before finishing the task of lecturing upon the vices and defects of women, even if he were to do nothing else throughout a long life of hundred years³.

c16.69

³ असंभोगो जरा स्त्रीणाम् । *Mbh.*, IV, 39, 78 (B).

c16.70

¹ नासां कश्चिदगम्योऽस्ति नासां वयसि संस्थितिः । विरूपं वा सरूपं वा पुमानित्येव भुञ्जते ॥ *Ibid*, XIII, 73, 17,

c16.71

² स्थलं नास्ति क्षणं नास्ति नास्ति प्रार्थयिता नरः । तेन नारद नारीणां सतीत्वमुपजायते ॥ *Padmapurāṇa*, Sṛishṭikhaṇḍa, 49, 20.

c16.72

³ यदि जिह्वासहस्रं स्याज्जीवेच्च शरदां शतम् । अनन्यकर्मा स्त्रीदोषाननुक्त्वा निधनं व्रजेत् ॥ *Mbh*, XIII, 74, 8.

c16.73

The above passages are no doubt written deliberately with a view to blacken the character of women. But it is not to be assumed that the sentiments they express found general acceptance in society. Yudhishṭhira, for instance, refused to accept the theory that women are by their very nature vicious and wicked; he pointedly enquired from Bhīshma that if such were really the case, how could scriptures have laid down that religious duties should be performed only in association with the wife? Bhīshma, unable to give a rational reply, contented himself by narrating a cock and bull story, wherein he made a woman herself declare that her sex was vice incarnate (*Mbh*, XIII, 73-8). Such fantastic stories can, however, carry no conviction to any reasonable person. Varāhamihira has subjected the case of the misogynist to a very critical and searching analysis and crossexamination. He at the outset points out that all the defects that have been attributed to women exist in men as well. Women however try to remove them, while men are supremely indifferent in the matter. Marriage vows are equally binding on the couple. Men treat them lightly, while women act up to them. Who suffers more from the sex urge, men who marry even in their old age, or women who lead a chaste life, even if widowed in the prime of their youth? Men no doubt go on talking of their love to their wives while they are alive, but contract second marriages soon after their death; women, on the other hand, feel grateful to their husbands and decide to follow them on the funeral pyre, urged by the promptings of their conjugal love. Who then is more sincere in his love, man or woman? For men to say that women are fickle, frail and faithless is the height of impudence and ingratitude; it reminds one of the audacity of clever thieves who first send away their loot and then challenge innocent persons demanding from them the stolen articles¹.

c16.74

¹ प्रब्रूत सत्यं कतमोऽपराधः दोषोस्ति यो नाचरितो मनुष्यैः ॥ 6 ॥ दंपत्योर्व्युत्क्रमे दोषः समः शास्त्रे प्रतिष्ठितः । नरा न तमवेक्षन्ते तेनात्र वरमंगनाः ॥ 12 ॥ न शतेनापि वर्षाणामपैति मदनाशयः । तत्राशक्त्या निवर्तन्ते नरा धैर्येण योषितः ॥ 14 ॥ पुरुषश्चटुलानि कामिनीनां कुरुते यानि रहो न तानि पश्चात् । सुकृतज्ञतयांगना गतासूनवगूह्य प्रविशन्ति सप्तजिह्वम् ॥ 16 ॥ अहो धाष्टर्यमसाधूनां निन्दतामनघाः स्त्रियः । मुष्णतामिव चोराणां तिष्ठ चोरेति जल्पताम् ॥ 17 ॥ *Bṛihatsaṁhitā*, Ch. 76, 4ff.

c16.75

The above masterly and just indictment of Varāhamihira shows clearly that the case of the misogynist is very weak; how is it then that it ever came to be advanced? It appears that some Hindu writers have painted the woman in very black colours, not so much because they believed in what they said, but because they were anxious to dissuade men from marriage and family life. Varāhamihira expressly states that the Renunciation (Saṁnyāsa) School was accustomed to decry women with the above end in view¹. Of course there were a few writers in this school too, who have taken a balanced view of the whole situation and given due praise to women for the invaluable assistance which they give to their husbands in the realisation of temporal and spiritual goals of life. This, for instance, is the case with the author of the *Yogavāsiṣṭha*². Such thinkers were, however, in a small minority. As a rule, in order to induce men to adopt a life of renunciation, which they honestly believed to be essential for salvation, the writers of the Saṁnyāsa School felt that they might indulge in hyperbolic language in describing the faults, drawbacks and vices of woman, who is the centre and attraction of family life for man.

c16.76

¹ > येऽप्यंगनानां प्रवदन्ति दोषान् वैराग्यमार्गेण गुणान्विहाय ।।

c16.77

² > यथैताः स्नेहशालिन्यो भर्तृणां कुलयोषितः ।

c16.78

ते दुर्जना मे मनसो वितर्कः सद्भाववाक्यानि न तानि तेषाम् ।।
*Ibid*, 74, 5.

c16.79

सखा भ्राता सुहृद् भृत्यो गुरुर्मित्रं धनं सुखम् ।।
शास्त्रमायतनं वासः सर्वं भर्तुः कुलांगनाः ।
सर्वदा सर्वयत्नेन पूजनीयाः कुलांगनाः ।।
लोकद्वयसुखं सम्यक्सर्वं यासु प्रतिष्ठितम् ।
निरिच्छायाः प्रयातायाः पारं संसारवारिधेः ।।
VI A, 109, 26-29.

c16.80

Varāhamihira’s theory is indeed true to a very great extent. The monastic life was a very difficult one ; a person could lead it honorably only if he could control his passions effectively. One way of enabling him to do so was to emphasise that the pleasures of the home life were ephemeral and worthless, and the woman who formed the centre thereof, was the most detestable object in the world. In the *Yogavāsiṣṭha* for instance, Rāma when anxious to renounce the world is made to observe that the woman is the mine of all imperfections and the cause of all sorrows. His arguments advanẹd in this connection are very interesting. ‘Desire for enjoyment will arise only when one has a wife, otherwise one would be free from it. If a man renounces the wife, he renounces the world ; if he renounces the world, he would surely be happy¹.’ One can hardly think of a more fallacions argument. The Mahābhārata observes that prosperity and women would never be steady and faithful, howsoever assiduously one may work for them, simply because it desires its readers to turn to Dharma in preference to Artha and Kamā². We learn from I-tsing that there was a monk at Nālandā, named Rāhulamitra, who would never see any women except his mother and sister. He told I-tsing, ‘I am naturally full of worldly attachment.. Without doing this, I cannot stop its source.' A person somewhat weaker than Reverend Rāhulamitra would have agreed with Manu and declared that one should be careful about oneself even when one is in the company of one's own mother, sister or daughter¹. Persons brought up with such notions will naturally regard women merely as snares for the temptation of men². They have not the fairness to recognise that women so appear to men, not because they are really 'the seed of the tree of existence', or 'the living torch illuminating the way to Hell³' (as the Jain saint Hemachandra describes them to be), but because men themselves are unable to control their passions. Men are as a matter of fact a greater snare to weak women than women are to weak men. To attribute one's weakness to the wickedness of the other sex is hardly fair. It is interesting to note that this fallacy has not been committed by Jain and Buddhist nuns. Several psalms of the latter have come down to us ; nowhere therein do we find them accusing man for being a snare to woman. Women have in this respect undoubtedly shown a greater fairness, chivalry and balanced judgment than men.

c16.81

¹ सर्वेषां दोषरत्नानां सुसामुद्रिकयानया । दुःखशृंखलया नित्यमलमास्तु मम स्त्रिया ॥ यस्य स्त्री तस्य भोगेच्छा निस्त्रीकस्य क्व भोगभूः । स्त्रियं त्यक्त्वा जगत्त्यक्तं जगत्त्यक्त्वा सुखी भवेत् ॥ I, Ch. 21, vv. 23, and 35.

c16.82

² धर्मे मतिर्भवतु वः सततोत्थितानां स ह्येक एव परलोकगतस्य बन्धुः । अर्थाः स्त्रियश्च निपुणैरपि सेव्यमाना नैवाप्तभावमुपयन्ति न च स्थिरत्वम् ॥ *Mbh.*, I, 2, 392.

c16.83

¹ मात्रा स्वस्रा दुहित्रा वा न विविक्तासनोभवेत् । बलवानिन्द्रियग्रामो विद्वांसमपि कर्षति ॥ II, 215.

c16.84

² न हि स्त्रीभ्यः परं पुत्र पापीयस्तरमस्ति वै । मानवानां प्रमोहार्थं कृत्या नार्योऽसृजत्प्रभुः ॥ *Mbh*, XIII, 40, 4(B)

c16.85

³ बीजं भवस्य नरकमार्ग प्ररस्य दीपिका । शुभां कस्यः कलेर्मूलं दुःखानां खनिरंगना ॥ *Yogaśāstra*, II, 87.

c16.86

It may be pointed out that this tendency to attribute all real and imaginary faults to women is not confined to the Renunciation School of India alone. The case was the same in ancient Greece. Socrates says, ‘Woman is the source of all evil; her love is to be dreaded more than the hatred of man; the poor young men who seek women in matrimony are like fish who go to meet the hook.’ Similar sentiments have been expressed by Christian saints. It is true that Christ himself has not indulged in any tirade against women. The Apostles and early Fathers, however, have painted the woman in the blackest colours. St. Paul says, ‘It is good for a man not to touch a woman; marriage was a concession, a degradation to avoid fornication’ (I Cor. VII, 1). Tertullian says, ‘Woman is the gate of Hell, mother of all ills. She should blush with shame at the thought of her womanhood and live in perpetual penance for the sins of Eve.’ Another Father has declared, ‘I have not felt any calamity more hurtful to man than woman. Oh assembly of women, verily you are mostly of the hell on the day of Resurrection. You are the Devil’s gateway. You destroy God’s image, Man.’ Marbod, a Bishop of Rennes who lived in the 11th century, delivers himself in the same strain. ‘Of the numberless snares that the crafty enemy spreads for us over all the hills and fields of the world, the worst and the one which one cannot avoid is Woman; sad stem, evil root, vicious fount,.... Who persuaded our first parent to taste the forbidden fruit? A woman. Who forced the father to defile his daughter? A woman’¹.

c16.87

¹ The above quotations have been taken from Chapter IV of ‘*A short History of Women*’ by J. L. Davies (1927).

c16.88

Most of the faults and vices that have been attributed to women by the Renunciation School are not to be taken seriously. Their aim was more to divert man from woman, than to paint the latter in her true character. Varāhamihira, who points out the patent absurdity of these charges, may be taken to represent the view of the cultured Hindu society.

c16.89

It is however true that more writers should have come forward to defend women against such unfair attacks. The absurdity of the charges levelled against them should have been exposed in numerous works. This, however, did not happen. *Pari passu* with the growing popularity of the Renunciation School, education of women declined. Their *upanayana* disappeared and they began to be married at a very early age. Denied the advantages of a liberal education, suddenly transferred to the rather unsympathetic atmosphere of the mother-in-law's house at a very young age, often called upon to bear the unwelcome company of a cowife, frequently forced to drag on a miserable existence in an unterminable widowhood, the character of women as a whole showed some inevitable deterioration after about 200 A. D. Many of them naturally began to show pettiness, narrowmindedness, jealousy and peevishness, as a result of forced repression in some directions and unnatural stimulation in others. So Manu's description of the woman's character as possessing the above defects began to appear as partly true¹. The average man began to feel that there was some truth in some of the charges levelled against women. He therefore began to assume a rather patronising attitude towards them. It cannot be denied that even some of the best writers of the first millennium of the Christian era have often expressed very unfair views about women. Thus Kālidāsa, for instance, while no doubt declaring in one place the wife to be the best companion and counsellor of her husband, proceeds to describe her as merely an instrument of physical pleasure on another occasion¹. Had these authors lived in an age when female education was general and adequate, when lady scholars were making important contributions to the progress of knowledge, when lady poets and authors were not rare in society, when women had not been reduced to the status of Śūdras by their being declared ineligible for *upanayana* and other religious privileges, they would not have made some of their caustic and disparaging remarks about the weaker sex. The illiteracy of women and their general backwardness made the temptation to pass patronising remarks too strong. This tendency will disappear as soon as women take their natural place by the side of men as their honoured, valued and well equipped coworkers.

c16.90

¹ शय्यासनमलंका कामं क्रोधमनार्जवम् । द्रोहभावं कुचर्यां च स्त्रीभ्यो मनुरकल्पयत् ॥ IX, 17.

c16.91

¹ गृहिणी सचिवः सखी मिथः प्रियशिष्या ललिते कलाविधौ । अपि स्वदेहात्किमुतेन्द्रियार्थाद्यशोधनानां हि यशो गरीयः ॥ *Raghuvaṁśa*, VIII, 67 and XIV, 35.

c16.92

One of the natural consequences of the general deterioration in the position of women was the theory of their perpetual tutelage. Let us now examine the precise implications of this famous adage.

c16.93

It may be observed at the outset that no such theory is ever advanced by any authority down to about 300 B. C., when women were being properly educated in cultured families and married after they had become fairly well equipped for the family life. The decisive part which ladies like Sītā, Kaikeyī, Kuntī, and Draupadī played in the determination of momentous issues makes it quite clear that women had an effective voice even in matters of moment in earlier days. It was only when education of women declined and girls began to be married at an immature age, that the theory of the prepetual tutelage of women appeared in the field.

c16.94

The original idea of those who were responsible for the above theory was not so much to deny freedom to women,—they undoubtedly were for its curtailment,—as to afford them additional protection. The disability that was imposed was primarily intended for the benefit of women. As a woman herself has observed in the Mahābhārata, to be without a proper protector is a great calamity for the fair sex in this world, which is full of wickedness¹. Manu therefore ordains that the father ought to *protect* a woman while she is a maiden, the husband when she has married, and the sons when the husband is no more; a woman ought not to remain independent. In the immediately next verse Manu points out that the father would be to blame if he does not marry his daughter in proper time, the husband, if he does not look after his wife properly, and the son, if he does not *protect* his mother during her old age¹. It is thus clear that Manu's aim was not so much to deny all freedom to women as to ensure for them an adequate and continuous protection throughout the life. It cannot be gainsaid that the world being what it is, society cannot take too much care in the matter. Yājñavalkya also enunciates the doctrine of the dependence of women, but with him also it is a natural corollary of the continuous protection that has to be afforded to them throughout their life².

c16.95

¹ अनायत्वं स्त्रियो द्वारं कुब्जानां विवृतं हि तत् ॥ 1,172,12.

c16.96

¹ पिता रक्षति कौमारे भर्ता रक्षति यौवने । रक्षन्ति स्थविरे पुत्रा न भजेत्स्त्री स्वतन्त्रताम् ॥ कालेऽदाता पिता वाच्यो वाच्यश्चानुपयन्पतिः । मृते भर्तरि पुत्रस्तु वाच्यो मातुररक्षिता ॥ IX, 3-4.

c16.97

² रक्षेत्कन्यां पिता विन्नां पतिः पुत्रश्च वार्धके । अभावे ज्ञातयस्तेषां न स्वातंत्र्यं क्वचित्स्त्रियः ॥ 1,85. Cf. also *Smṛityantara* in Aparārka on Yāj., 1,109 :— पक्षः यावसाने तु राजा भर्ता प्रभुः स्त्रियः । स तस्या भरणं कुर्याद्गृह्णीयाच्च पथश्च्युतम् ॥

c16.98

In course of time, however, the phrase began to be taken out of its context, and people began to interpret it literally. A woman deserves no independence; therfore it follows that she ought not to do anything on her own responsibility and initiative in childhood, youth and even in old age. She must obey the father in childhood, the husband in youth, and sons in old age³.

c16.99

³ बाल्ये पितुर्वशे तिष्ठेत्पाणिग्राहस्य यौवने । पुत्राणां भर्तरि प्रेते न भजेत्स्त्री स्वातंत्र्यम् ॥ Manu, V,147.

c16.100

Unfortunately cirumstances favoured the further curtailment of the freedom of women, as was inevitable under the influence of the above adage. From about the beginning of the Christian era, as we have shown already, women ceased to receive proper education and began to be married at an early age. As a rule, therefore, they were inferior to men in intelligence, grasping power and the experience of the world. It was therefore natural that some social thinkers should have come forward to emphasise that women have to be protected, not so much because it is the chivalrous duty of the stronger sex to do so, but because they are incapable of standing on their own legs. They must be always under the leading strings of men ; they deserve no independence.

c16.101

It must be, however, pointed out that the maxim ‘ Women deserve no independence ’ was not literally interpreted even by those who neglected the protection aspect of the doctrine. Manu, for instance, allows the wife large powers in the management of the household. It was she who was to control its expenditure and supervise the general arrangements of the kitchen, furniture, and periodical religious and secular functions¹. Nārada, who has emphasised on the perpetual tutelage of women, lays down that at the death of the father, the mother was to be preferred as the guardian of the minor children to any other male relation (I, 37); her perpetual tutelage did not disqualify her for the task. The view that mothers in their old age should be under the control and guidance of their sons, though expressed in some Smṛitis, never found general acceptance in society. As a matter of fact writers like Manu, who have advocated this view, have themselves abandoned it later on. Thus Manu does not allow sons to excercise even their legal right to claim a partition, as long as their mother is alive. It was thus the major sons and not the aged mother, who suffered from want of independence. After the death of the father, even when sons were majors, it was the mother who, in practice if not in theory, guided and controlled the household. We have already seen in chapter VI (*ante*, pp. 220–2) how queen regents used to excercise considerable influence over the general administration of their kingdoms by taking the reins of government in their own hands. The influence continued even when sons used to attain majority. This would be quite clear from the prominent part which Kuntī, for instance, played in shaping the policy of her sons. Every one who knows anything of Hindu society is well aware of the important position which the mother usually occupies in the counsels of the family. The juridical doctrine of dependence of women vanished before the great reverence that was instinctively shown to the mother by her sons. Hence she occupied an honoured and exalted position in the family. Even foreigners were very often struck by it. Thus Dr. Leitner, the Educational Commissioner in the Punjab during the 3rd quarter of the last century, has observed that the difficult task of mediation in family disputes was best performed by the elderly women of the household.

First 100 of 112 passages. Read on

Linked texts (26)