Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Position of Women in Hindu Civilisation, from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day c7: Chapter II. Marriage and Divorce

The Position of Women in Hindu Civilisation, from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day c7

Language
English

Contents

Chapter II. Marriage and Divorce

c7.2

Marriage is a very important event in the life of a woman. Matrimony in course of time is followed by maternity, and its recurrence makes the woman periodically helpless and absolutely dependent on her husband for some time. Marriage, therefore, determines the fate of a woman to a much greater extent than it does the destiny of a man. A good marriage is a welcome protection for the woman, a bad one is worse than a painful chain. Marriage and the problems connected with it form an important topic in the history of woman. We shall see in this chapter how the institution of marriage was evolved in ancient India, what forms it assumed in course of time, what was the marriageable age, how the marriage was settled and celebrated, and how far it was irrevocable.

The Evolution of Marriage

c7.s1.1

Being of hoary antiquity Hindu literature has naturally preserved some traces of promiscuity existing in prehistoric times. The Mahābhārata informs us that in the land of the Uttarakurus¹ and in the city of Māhishmatī² the institution of marriage did not exist. It may be, however, added that Uttarakuru is very probably a mythical country, not existing on terrestrial globe, and that the evidence about Māhishmatī consists of an observation made by its Pāṇḍava conqueror Sahadeva during his short stay there in the course of a hurricane military campaign. It may not be worth more than the proverbial traveller’s tale. According to the Great Epic it was the sage Śvetaketu who decreed that promiscuity should be supplanted by regular marriage¹. Whether the state of promiscuity, here referred to as existing in prehistoric times, is a mere possibility intellectually conceived, or whether it actually did exist in some sections of society in certain parts of the country, we do not know. There are a few passages in the epic showing that a state of promiscuity may not have been an impossibility at an early period. They disclose an astounding laxity in sexual morality. It must, however, be noted that most of these passages have a context and are not to be taken at their face value. Thus Śarmiṣṭhā observes that there is no difference between one's own husband and the husband of a friend¹; but we must note that this is an argument advanced by a woman driven into desperation by the unnatural punishment of eternal maidenhood inflicted upon her. When eventually king Yayāti yields to Śarmishṭhā's importunities and is taken to task by Śukra, his father-in-law, he observes that duty and chivalry rendered it necessary for him to comply with Śarmishṭhā's request². The astounding proposition here advanced by him is, however, nothing but an untenable defence put forward by an accused who is at a loss to know how to defend himself. The traces of promiscuity that we get in the epic have to be referred to pre-Vedic times; for we find the institution of marriage well established in the Ṛigveda.

c7.s1.2

¹ **यत्र नार्यः कामचारा भवन्ति ।** XII, 102, 26 (B).

c7.s1.3

² **स्वैरिण्यस्तत्र नार्यो हि यथेष्टं विचरन्त्युत ।** II, 32, 40.

c7.s1.4

¹ > अनाहताः किल पुरा स्त्रिय आसन्वरानने । कामाचारविहारिण्यः स्वतंत्राश्चारुहासिनि ॥ ४ ॥ तासां व्युच्चरमाणानां कौमारात्सुभगे पतीन् । नाधर्मोऽभूद्वरारोहे स हि धर्मः पुराऽभवत् ॥ ५ ॥ प्रमाणदृष्टो धर्मोऽयं पूज्यते च महर्षिभिः । उत्तरेषु च रम्भोरु कुरुष्वद्यापि दृश्यते ॥ स्त्रीणामनुग्रहकरः स हि धर्मः सनातनः ॥ ७ ॥ अस्मिंस्तु लोके न चिरान्मर्यादेयं शुचिस्मिते ॥ स्थापिता येन यस्माच्च तन्मे विस्तरतः शृणु । बभूवोद्दालको नाम महर्षिरिति नः श्रुतम् ॥ ९ ॥ श्वेतकेतुरिति ख्यातः पुत्रस्तस्याभवन्मुनिः । मर्यादेयं कृता तेन धर्म्या वै श्वेतकेतुना ॥ १२ ॥ तदा प्रभृति मर्यादा स्थितेयमिति नः श्रुतम् । व्युच्चरन्त्याः पतिं नार्या अद्यप्रभृति पातकम् ॥ ४४ ॥ भ्रूणहत्यासमं घोरं भविष्यत्यसुखावहम् । भार्या तथा व्युच्चरतः कौमारब्रह्मचारिणीम् ॥ पतिव्रतामेतदेव भविता पातकं भुवि ॥ ४७ ॥ *Mbh.* I, 128.

c7.s1.5

¹ **समावेतौ मतौ राजन् पतिः सख्याश्च यः पतिः ॥** *Ibid*, I, 76, 28.

c7.s1.6

² **ऋतुं वै याचमानाया न ददाति पुमानृतुम् ।** **भ्रूणहेत्युच्यते ब्रह्मन्, स इह ब्रह्मवादिभिः ॥** *Ibid*, I. 77,54.

c7.s1.7

Not only was marriage well established in the Vedic age, but it was also regarded as a social and and religious duty and necessity. This was the case even in the Indo-Iranian period. According to the Avesta oblations offered unto gods or ancestors by a maiden or a bachelor are unacceptable to them (*Ashi Yashta*, c, X,54). A Vedic passage says that a person, who is unmarried, is unholy³. Marriage opened a new period of holy life which was to be led at the altar of truth and duty⁴. The couple was to take particular care in properly performing the rituals connected with the Gārhapatya fire kindled at the time of their marriage. Prescribed sacrifices to gods and manes were to be regularly offered. And finally the couple was to perpetuate the race by raising and training a numerous progeny, so that oblations may for ever continue to be offered to gods and ancestors. A later age, which had developed the system of the four Āśramas, pointed out that the whole society depends upon the houeseholder for its maintenance; the Brahmachārī, the Vānaprastha and the Saṁnyasī can hardly exist without active help from a zealous and conscientious class of householders. The householder is as necessary for society as the breath is for the body¹.

c7.s1.8

³ **अयज्ञियो वा एष योऽपत्नीकः ।** *T. Br.*, II, 2, 2, 6.

c7.s1.9

⁴ **ऋतस्य योनौ सुकृतस्य लोके ।** *R. V.*, X, 85, 24.

c7.s1.10

¹ यथा वायुं समाश्रित्य वर्तन्ते सर्वजन्तवः । तथा गृहस्थमाश्रित्य वर्तन्ते सर्व आश्रमाः ॥ *Manu*, III, 77.

c7.s1.11

Such being the views of society about marriage since very early times, it was naturally regarded as normally necessary and desirable for all. According to the Avesta bachelors are spiritually inferior to married men, and among the latter those without children to those who have them (*Fargard IV*, 130-3). The Vedic age shares the same views. It must be, however, observed that down to about 500 B. C., though marriage was regarded as highly desirable for both men and women, society did not insist that it should be performed at all cost, even if there were insuperable impediments in arranging a suitable match. The Vedic literature often refers to the spinster. *Amājūḥ*, "one who grows old in (one's parents') house" is the significant expression used to denote an old maid. The usual cause that compelled maidens to remain unmarried was some serious physical defect or disease. Such, for instance, was the case of Ghoshā, who could not marry till she was cured of her skin disease by the favour of gods Aśvins. In the age of the Upanishads hundreds of youths began to enter the monastery without caring to marry, and some maidens like Sulabhā began to follow their example with a view to achieve spiritual salvation¹. The commentary on the *Therīgāthā* shows that some women used to join Buddhist Saṅgha before their marriage; their number, however, was not very large.

c7.s1.12

¹ साहं तस्मिन्कुले जाता भर्त्रर्यसति मद्रिधे । विनीता मोक्षधर्मेषु चराम्येका मुनिव्रतम् ॥ *Mbh.*, XII, 325, 103.

c7.s1.13

By about 300 B. C. marriage came to be regarded as obligatory for girls. Several causes induced society to subscribe to this view. In the first place there was a reaction produced in society by maidens joining the Buddhist and Jain orders either without a genuine spiritual urge or without a free and spontaneous permission of their elders. Some of these were unable to live up to their high ideals, and their lapses were furiously commented upon by the public. Social thinkers began to feel that it would be better to prevent such abuses by making marriage obligatory for all girls. Secondly, the marriage of girls came to be compared to the *upanayana* of boys at about this time. If *upanayana* was obligatory for boys, marriage which was its counter-part, ought to be absolutely binding on girls. As we shall soon see, marriageable age of girls was reduced to 13 or 14 by this time ; girls found themselves already married before they attained an age when they could exercise an intelligent choice in the matter. The Mahābhārata informs us that it was the sage Dīrghatamas who laid it down that women ought never to remain unmarried in future¹. Elsewhere the epic illustrates the same principle by a naive story. Subhrū was the daughter of sage Kuṇi. Her father wanted to give her in marriage, but she would not consent. She remained unmarried for all her life, practising severe penance. At the time of her death, however, she learnt to her great surprise that she could not go to heaven because her body was not consecrated by the sacrament of marriage. With great difficulty she then induced sage Śṛṅgavat to marry her, stayed with him for one night and was then enabled to go to heaven (IX, 33).

c7.s1.14

¹ अपतीनां तु नारीणामद्यप्रभृति पातकम् । I, 114, 36.

c7.s1.15

The epic is undoubtedly right in emphasing the great necessity of marriage for girls in the above legend ; for there are more pitfalls in the path of an unmarried woman than those in the way of an unmarried man. As a consequence of the new theory which made marriage obligatory for girls, negligent parents must have become more alert in arranging the marriages of their daughters. It must, however, be admitted that this theory tended to crush the literary and spiritual ambitions of the gifted section of the fair sex. Further, it has to be pointed out that it led to grave abuses when pre-puberty marriages began to be insisted upon from about the beginning of the Christian era. Some Smṛitis like Yama began to advocate the unfortunate view that since marriage was compulsory for girls, parents should marry them even to undesirable persons, if suitable bridegrooms were not available before the time of puberty¹. This rule made the lot of a defective deformed or diseased girl very pitiable. She could not naturally get a good husband and her father had yet to marry her. He had therefore to spend heavily in marrying her to a person, who was almost certain to discard her, and contract a fresh marriage with a more suitable bride. It must, however, be added that even if a defective girl is kept unmarried, her lot is by no means happy. As years roll on and the parents die, her brothers do not care for her, and scoundrels and selfish persons in society are not few in number who delight in spreading thorns in her way.

c7.s1.16

¹ दद्याद्गुणवते कन्यां नग्निकां ब्रह्मचारिणे । अपि वा गुणहीनाय नोपरुन्ध्याद्रजस्वलाम् ॥ Quoted in *SCS*, p. 216.

c7.s1.17

It is interesting to note that marriage was made obligatory for girls in contemporary Persia as well. Matrimony however was not regarded there as necessary for the spiritual salvation of men. 'For a woman there is no offspring except by intercourse with a man and no lineage proceeds from her. But for a man without a wife, when he shall recite the Avesta as it is mentioned in the Vendīdād, there may be a lineage which proceeds onwards to the future existence.' (*Pahlvi Texts*, Part I, pp. 322-3). In India also students were regarded as the spiritual children of their teachers, and women teachers had practically disappeared from the scene by the beginning of the Christian era. But women’s incapacity to leave behind a spiritual lineage has not been advanced as an argument for making marriage obligatory for them.

c7.s1.18

In India also marriage was made obligatory for women and not for men. One of the reasons may perhaps have been the possibility of men leaving a spiritual or intellectual lineage behind them. The real reason for this differential treatment, however, seems to have been the recognition by society of the simple fact that an unmarried woman has to face greater risks in society than an unmarried man. Public opinion also is much less sympathetic to a woman who has gone astray even unwillingly, than to a man who leads a vicious life deliberately. Smṛiti writters should, however, have recognised some exceptions to the general rule. This would have avoided its abuse in an age when pre-puberty marriages became the order of the day, and given scope to talented girls to master their favourite subjects and to spiritually minded women to try seriously for the realisation of their dreams. In that case the number of lady scholars would not have dwindled down and a Mīrābāi would not have been compelled to lead a married life much to her own and to her husband’s sorrow.

Forms of Marriage

c7.s2.1

The eight forms of marriage recognised by Smṛitis are well known. There are, however, several other varieties and customs of marriage prevailing in the lower sections of Hindu society, which find no recognition in the Dharmaśāstra literature. Thus among the Levā and Kadvā Kunbis of Gujarat, the marriage season comes only once in the course of twelve years and lasts for three days only. During this short period even girls in the cradle have to be married ; for pre-puberty marriages are insisted upon. Gazetteers have recorded several other strange customs prevailing among backward tribes in different districts and provinces. These, however, are the traces of the earlier primitive practices, which exist, not on account of, but in spite of Hinduism and its culture. They are also fast disappearing at present. It is therefore not necessary for the purposes of the present work to examine and discuss them.

c7.s2.2

A critical survey of the well known eight forms of marriage is very interesting and important from the sociological point of view. We shall first consider the unapproved ones among them, for they take us back to prehistoric times. Paiśācha, Rākshasa and Āsura unquestionably belong to this group. There is a difference of opinion about the Gāndharva or love marriage ; some writers approve and praise it, while others regard it with disfavour. The parties themselves were conscious of a certain irregularity in their conduct, but they knew that they were within the law.

c7.s2.3

The Paiśācha form of marriage, which is the most condemned one, is undoubtedly of the greatest antiquity. In this marriage the bride is either duped, very often by making her overdrunk, or physically overpowered by the bridegroom in order to make her yield to his passion. Surprise has been expressed by several writers that force or fraud should thus have been legalised, and the bridegroom allowed to compel the unfortunate woman to live with him as his wife. This objection is based upon the ignorance of the simple fact that our Smṛitis preserve the relics of several prehistoric customs. They have included Paiśācha marriage in their list firstly, because old tradition knew of it, and secondly because it was sometimes resorted to by backward tribes. They wanted to stamp out this practice and have therefore mentioned it only for the purpose of its strong condemnation. There was a further reason for its legal recognition. From about the beginning of the Christian era society began to insist upon absolute virginity in the case of brides. Virgins, who had the misfortune of being criminally assaulted, had therefore hardly any chance of an honourable marriage with any other person. The only way in which law-writers could help them was by compelling the culprits to marry the parties they had wronged. This obviously is not a satisfactory arrangement, but no other alternative was available. A regard for the future prospects of the unfortunate virgin was thus a further reason for the mention of the Paiśācha marriage. Much against their wishes, Smṛiti writers were compelled to recognise it. It may, however, be added that two of the early Dharmaśāstra writers, Vasiśhṭha and Āpastamba, do not recognise Paiśācha marriage at all. They mention only three unapproved forms, Gāndharva, Rākshasa and Āsura. They seem to have subscribed to the modern view that a culprit should not be allowed to be benefited by his wrong.

c7.s2.4

The Rākshasa marriage, or as it is more appropriately described by one authority, the Kshātra marriage, takes us back to prehistoric times when women were regarded as prizes of war. In this marriage the victor carried away the bride and married her, The fight was necessary either because women offered real resistance on account of the ill-treatment which they received from their husbands in primitive society, or because parents were unwilling to lose the services of their daughters, or because it was regarded as a point of honour for a warrior that he should have for his wife a woman, whom he could point out also as a trophy of war. The last point has been emphasised by Śrīkṛishṇa, when he proceeds to appease the anger of Baladeva and justify the conduct of Arjuna in forcibly carrying away Subhadrā, who, though fallen in love with Arjuna, was about to be married to a son of Dhṛitarāshṭra. ‘Arjuna,’ says Śrīkṛishṇa, ‘did not like Brāhma marriage, because brides are treated there as objects of gift like cattle. Purchase of bride, being a disreputable procedure, was altogether out of question. Since Subhadrā had fallen in love with him, to carry her away relying upon the power of his own arms was the only honorable course left open for Arjuna¹.’ This argument gives a good glimpse of the warrior mentality, which favoured the Kshātra marriage. It is interesting to point out that Śrīkṛishṇa had himself acted upon this theory at the time of his marriage with Rukmiṇī.

c7.s2.5

¹ प्रदानमपि कन्यायाः पशुवत्कोऽनुमन्यते । विक्रयं चाप्यपत्यस्य कः कुर्यात्पुरुषो भुवि ॥ एतान्दोषांस्तु कौन्तेयो दृष्टवानिवति मे मतिः । क्षत्रियाणां तु वीर्येण प्रशस्तं हरणं बलात् । अतः प्रसह्म हृतवान्कन्यां धर्मेण पाण्डवः ॥ I, 245, 5-6.

c7.s2.6

Examples of Kshātra marriages preserved in ancient Indian tradition are not many. In Ṛigveda (I, 116) Vimada is described as having won his bride in a battle. The Mahābhārata informs us that Bhīshma defeated the king of Kāśī and carried away his daughter, Ambā, as a bride for his brother Vichitravīrya. It is, however, necessary to point out that this procedure of Bhīshma has been later condemned in the epic by Śiśupāla¹. It is clear that though the Kshātra marriage continued to be recognised by Smṛitis and epics, it had ceased to be approved even by enlightened Kshatriyas in the 3rd century B. C. It is not to be supposed, however, that even in the earlier period it was the normal or the usual form of marriage among the Kshatriyas : some warriors used to have recourse to it if need arose. Normally Kshatriya marriages too were settled otherwise than by an appeal to arms.

c7.s2.7

¹ को हि धर्मिणमात्मानं जानञ्ज्ञानविदां वरः । कुर्याद्यथा त्वया भीष्म कृतं धर्ममवेक्षता ॥ अन्यकामा हि धर्मज्ञा कन्यका प्राज्ञमानिना । अंबा नामेति भद्रं ते कथं सार्पहृता त्वया ॥ तां त्वयापहृतां भीष्म कन्यां नषितवान्नृपः । भ्राता विचित्रवीर्यंस्ते सतां धर्ममनुस्मरन् ॥ I, 64, 22 ff.

c7.s2.8

The traces of Kshātra marriage, however, still remain in the marriage customs and procedure prevailing in some parts of the country. Thus in the marriage songs of Gujarat and U. P., which are sung at the time of the departure of the bride for her new home, the bridegroom is compared to a robber and liberally showered with abuses. It is not possible to suppose that all these abuses are intended for the invisible evil spirits which are supposed to be hovering about the couple. Some of them at least are clearly intended for the bridegroom who is carrying away the bride like a conqueror. In many tribes the formality of chase is still preserved though the marriage union is previously arranged by mutual consent¹. In such cases the drama of the mock chase or fight, that is enacted, is not in honour of force, but in honour of the institution of marriage, which has superseded it.

c7.s2.9

¹ *Statistical Account of Bengal*, Vol. XVI, p. 258.

c7.s2.10

The next form of marriage that we shall now consider is the Āsura Vivāha, under which the husband used to get a bride by paying a reasonable price for her. The idea probably was that it would be disgraceful for a girl and her family if she was given in marriage for nothing. It would mean that she was not worth any price and that her family had no status and respectability. The origin of the name of this form of marriage is uncertain. Marriage by purchase was the order of the day among ancient Assyrians, and this circumstance may have been responsible for the name Āsura being given to that form of marriage where a bride-price was paid. The price paid by the bridegroom was originally a compensation to the bride's family for the loss of her service, but a portion of it soon began to be returned to the bride as a marriage gift. The bride-price was usually paid in cash or kind. In some uncivilised communities, the bridegroom agrees to serve his would-be father-in-law for a number of years in lieu of the payment of the bride-price. This custom is not referred to anywhere in the Hindu tradition or literature.

c7.s2.11

The Āsura marriage is undoubtedly better than the Kshātra one, for it presupposes a recognition by society of the fact that woman has a value and has to be paid for. It therefore helped the improvement of the lot of the wife. The average husband became naturally unwilling to ill-treat his wife out of mere frivolity; very often she used to cost him dearly and to find another substitute for her was not always an easy economic proposition.

c7.s2.12

There are a few cases of Āsura marriages recorded in ancient Indian tradition. In Vedic times, the custom of the bride purchase was known, but not held in esteem; the son-in-law in such cases was described as a *vijāmātā* or a disreputable son-in-law.¹ To Pāli literature also the custom is not unknown; the father of Isidāsī, one of the nuns of the *Therīgāthā*, had received a bride-price for her in her marriage (Vv. 120 and 153). The *Dhammapāda* also mentions the custom (v. 215 and commentary). In the epics we find that at the time of the marriages of Kaikeyī, Gāndhārī and Mādrī a heavy bride-price had to be paid to their guardians. It must be, however, pointed out that though the custom undoubtedly prevailed in some sections of the community, it was vehemently condemned by the leaders of society. Those who followed it knew that what they were doing was not commendable. This would be quite clear from the great hesitation which Śalya felt in informing Bhīshma¹ that if he wished to secure his sister Mādrī as a bride for Pāṇḍu, he would have to pay a good bride-price. He opens the topic apologetically. "There is a family custom with us which whether good or bad, I have got to follow. You also know it. Why then do you want me to say in so many words that you should pay a bride-price? It is quite clear from the tone and contents of this speech that Śalya recognised the custom as undesirable, though he had not the moral courage to give it up in order to set a better example for his successors. Perhaps the greed of money was too strong for the feeble inner voice.

c7.s2.13

¹ अश्रवं हि भूरिदावत्तरा वां विजामातुरुत वा घा स्यालात् ।\

c7.s2.14

¹ पूर्वैः प्रवर्तितं किंचित्कुलेऽस्मिन्नृपसत्तमैः । साधु वा यदि वासाधु तन्नातिक्रान्तुमुत्सहे ॥ व्यक्तं तद्भवतश्चापि विदितं नात्र संशयः । न च युक्तं तथा वक्तुं भवान्देहीति सत्तम ॥ कुलधर्मः स नो वीर प्रमाणं परमं च तत् । तेन त्वां न ब्रवीम्येतदसंदिग्धं वचोऽरिहन् ॥ तं भीष्मः प्रत्युवाचेदं मद्रराजं जनाधिपः । धर्म एषः परो राजन्स्वयमुक्तः स्वयंभुवा ॥ नात्र कश्चन दोषोऽस्ति पूर्वेर्विधिरयं कृतः । I, 122, 9 ff.

c7.s2.15

The writers of Dharmaśāstra literature almost lose their temper in condemning the custom of the bride-price. Baudhāyana warns the guardians that they will go to the most terrible hell if they sell daughters in marriage, and points out to the husband that a purchased bride would not become a legal wife at all². She continues to remain in her father's *gotra*, and sons born of her do not become entitled to offer oblations to her husband's ancestors¹. The *Padma-purāṇa* advises that even the face of a person, who has sold his daughter in marriage, should not be seen². A fifteenth century inscription from Tanjore district records an agreement among the Brahmins of that area to the effect that they would excommunicate anybody who would accept bride-price in marriage (*S. I. I.*, Vol. I, No. 56).

c7.s2.16

² क्रीता द्रव्येण या नारी सा न पत्नी विधीयते । सा न दैवे न सा पित्र्ये दासीं तां कवयो विदुः ॥ शुल्केन ये प्रयच्छन्ति स्वसुतां लोभमोहिताः । पतन्ति नरके घोरे घ्नन्ति चासप्तमात्कुलम् ॥ I, 11, 20-1.

c7.s2.17

¹ > क्रयक्रीता च या कन्या न सा पत्नी विधीयते ।

c7.s2.18

² > कन्याविक्रयिणां ब्रह्मन्न पश्येद्बदनं बुधः ।

c7.s2.19

The custom of bride-price has thus been vehemently condemned by the leaders of society almost in every age. That this should have been necessary shows, however, that the evil was very deep-rooted. The prevalence of child marriages, since the beginning of the Christian era has further helped its growth. When brides were grown up and educated, they had naturally some voice, direct or indirect, in the settlement of their marriage, and so could not be sold to the highest bidder. When, however, they began to be married at the tender age of 10 or 11, it became easy for avaricious and uncultured guardians to settle the marriage more with a view to get the highest bride-price than with the aim of finding the most suitable bridegroom. The custom of bride-price has therefore become commoner in the lower sections of society during the last fifteen hundred years as a result of the lowering of the marriage age.

c7.s2.20

तस्यां जाताः सुतास्तेषां पितृपिण्डो न विद्यते ॥ *Atri*, 384.

c7.s2.21

दृष्ट्वा चाज्ञानतो वापि कुर्यान्मार्तण्डदर्शनम् ॥
*Brahmakhaṇḍa*. 24, 26.

c7.s2.22

Its vehement denunciation has succeeded in stamping it out only from the higher classes of society. The spread of education and the raising of the marriageable age are, however, now eradicating the evil even from the lower strata of society.

c7.s2.23

The Gāndharva marriage now comes up for consideration. This was a love marriage, pure and simple. From the Vedic age, the Gandharvas were well-known for their amorous disposition, and a marriage which was consummated before the due performance of the sacred rituals, naturally came to be known after them.

c7.s2.24

Authorities are not agreed as to whether love unions should be included within the category of approved marriages. The *Baudhāyana Dharma Sūtra* refers with approval to the view of some thinkers that love unions ought to be commended as they presuppose reciprocal attachment¹. The *Kāmasūtra* regards them as ideally good². The *Mahābhārata* in one place includes the Gāndharva union within the group of the approved marriages (XIII, 44). Manu seems to be indecisive in the matter (III, 23-25). Later writers disapprove both the Gāndharva marriage and the self-choice by the bride (*svayaṁvara*). Owing to the introduction of child marriages both these had become impracticable in their days.

c7.s2.25

¹ गान्धर्वमप्येके प्रशंसन्ति सर्वेषां स्नेहानुगतत्वात् । *B. D. S.*, I. 11, 13, 7.

c7.s2.26

² सुखत्वादबहुक्लेशादपि चावरणादिह । अनुरागात्मकत्वाच्च गान्धर्वः प्रवरो मतः ॥ III, 5, 30.

c7.s2.27

In the Gāndharva marriage parties fall in love with each other and immediately proceed to consummate their contemplated marriage. Religious rituals etc. do not precede the union. A passage interpolated in the Mahābhārata in later times no doubt represents Śakuntalā as calling a priest for the performance of the religious rites before proceeding to consummate her marriage¹. This version of the story is inconsistent with the one given by Kālidāsa in his *Śākuntala*; it further contradicts the definition of the Gāndharva marriage as given in the epic itself. When Kaṇva proceeds to express his approval to his daughter of her love marriage, he incidentally defines the Gāndharva marriage as a love union brought about without any recitation of Mantras².

c7.s2.28

¹ शासनाद्विप्रमुख्यस्य कृतकौतुकमंगलः । जग्राह विधिवत्पाणिमुवास च तया सह ॥ 1, 94, 38 It may be pointed out that this passage is omitted as an interpolation in the Bhandarkar Institute edition of the epic.

c7.s2.29

² क्षत्रियस्य तु गान्धर्वो विवाहः श्रेष्ठ उच्यते । सकामायः सकामेन निर्मन्त्रः श्रेष्ठ उच्यते ॥ IV, 94, 60.

c7.s2.30

In course of time as the hold of religion increased, Gāndharva ceased to be one of the ideal forms of marriage; it was included in the list of unapproved forms. But as long as post-puberty marriages were in vogue, Gāndharva marriages could not be altogether stopped. It was, however, laid down that even in Gāndharva marriages the ritual should be performed after the union³. The possible objection that the marriage Mantras refer to a *kanyā* or a virgin and so could not be recited in such a case was met by laying down that the term *kanyā* is to be understood in a general way as referring to a bride and not necessarily to a virgin¹. The subsequent formal celebration of the marriage served the purpose of its proper announcement to society; it also gave an opportunity to relations and friends to share its joy.

c7.s2.31

³ गान्धर्वेषु विवाहेषु पुनर्वैवाहिको विधिः । कर्तव्यश्च त्रिभिर्वर्णैः समयेनाग्निसौक्षिकः ॥ Devala quoted by Kullūka on *Manu*, VIII, 226.

c7.s2.32

¹ See the commentary of Kullūka on *Manu*, VIII, 226.

c7.s2.33

Brāhma, Daiva, Prājāpatya and Ārsha are the four approved forms of marriage. Among these Ārsha ranks the last. In this marriage the father of the bride is permitted to accept a cow and a bull from his son-in-law for facilitating the performance of sacrifices, which require the cow's milk. There is, however, no reason why he should not have called upon his son, who was to inherit all his property, to make the necessary provision in this respect. The truth is that this gift, which the son-in-law gave to his father-in-law, is a relic of the bride-price, which was once very common. It would appear that some families like those of Śalya, for instance, were determined not to lose their time-honoured right of receiving the bride-price; a compromise was eventually arrived at by permitting them to receive only a pair of cow and bull, ostensibly, for the purpose of getting milk for religious sacrifices. We can now understand why Ārsha form is usually placed last in the list of approved marriages. Nay, some writers continued to regard it as a variety of Āsura marriage; they maintained that the gift of a pair of cow and bull was nothing less than a bride-price in disguise. This historically correct view is opposed by Jaimini and Śabara, who had to defend loyally the compromise that had been arrived at. The former points out that the gift given by the son-in-law, being for religious purposes, could not be regarded as bride-price. The latter observes that prices of articles vary in the market according to their quality; in Ārsha marriages all sons-in-law offer the same present to their fathers-in-law, and so it cannot be called bride-price¹. These arguments, while undoubtedly true of the character of Ārsha marriages in the days of Smritis, do not disprove the theory that they are a refined relic of Āsura marriages.

c7.s2.34

¹ **क्रयस्य धर्ममात्रत्वम् ।** *Pū. M.*, VI, 1, 15. **नासौ क्रय इति । क्रयो ह्युच्चनीचपणो भवति । नियतं त्विदं दानम् ।** Śabara on *Ibid*. Mitramiśra refutes this argument by referring to the fixed price that was paid for the Soma plant. He defends Ārsha marriage on the ground **धर्मनिमित्तो ह्यसौ संबंधो न लोभनिमित्तः ॥** *VMS.*, p. 850.

c7.s2.35

When a daughter was offered in marriage to an officiating priest by the sacrificer, the marriage was designated as a Daiva one. It was given this name, because the marriage was settled while a sacrifice to Devas was being performed. This form of marriage did not, however, receive an unstinted approval of Smṛiti writers; they felt that while a sacrifice to gods was being offered, neither the sacrificer nor any of his priests should think of secular matters like possible matrimonial alliances.

c7.s2.36

Vedic sacrifices, which were quite popular down to the 4th century B. C., often lasted for several weeks. The sacrificer had to invite a large number of priests to perform various duties in their connection. During this close and prolonged association, he would often be very favourably impressed by the culture, education and attainments of some one among the priests, and would decide to solve the marriage problem of his grown-up daughter by offering her to him. These were the days of post-puberty marriages; owing to the close association during the sacrifices, daughters also could get an opportunity to form an estimate of their future husbands and guide their parents in the choice. Daiva marriages disappeared with Vedic sacrifices. Later tradition has not preserved any instances of the earlier period. The case recorded in the *Bṛihaddaivata* is not really an instance of this marriage; for there the sage Śyāvāśva does not himself marry the sacrificer’s daughter, but selects her for his son (V, 54-55).

c7.s2.37

Brāhma and Prājāpatya are the only two forms of marriage that now remain to be considered. The distinction between the two is not very clearly explained by Smṛitis. We are told that in the Brāhma marriage, the bride, properly bedecked and ornamented, is offered to a bridegroom who is specially invited for the purpose, while in Prājāpatya, the bride is offered according to due rites, but with an injunction to the couple that they should be always inseparable companions in the discharge of their religious duties¹. These definitions do not really state the difference between the two forms. It is sometimes argued that the injunction to the couple in the Prājāpatya marriage to remain inseparable companions in the performance

c7.s2.38

¹ > आच्छाद्य चार्चयित्वा च श्रुतिशीलवते स्वयम् ।

c7.s2.39

आहूय दानं कन्याया ब्राह्मो धर्मः प्रकीर्तितः ॥
सहोभौ चरतां धर्ममिति वाचानुभाष्य च ।
कन्याप्रदानमभ्यर्च्य प्राजापत्यो विधिः स्मृतः ॥ *Manu*, III, 27,30.

c7.s2.40

of religious duties renders polygamy impossible and prohibits the husband from entering into the Vānaprastha or Sanyāsa stage without the consent and company of his wife¹. This view, however, is not correct, for the same corollaries can be drawn from the usual exhortation in the Brāhma marriage, enjoining the husband and the wife to be inseparable companions of each other in all their activities in the spheres of religion, love and wealth. Brāhma and Prājāpatya are synonymous words and it is quite possible that the Brāhma marriage was originally identical with the Prājapātya one. This conclusion is supported by the fact that two of the early writers, Vasishṭha and Āpstamba, do not mention Prājāpatya marriage at all; they refer to only three approved forms, Brāhma, Daiva and Ārsha. Prājāpatya was added later, probably to make the number of the forms of marriage eight. Smṛiti writers therefore naturally fail to bring out the difference between the two.

c7.s2.41

¹ यद्यपि ब्राह्मादिषु अपि सह धर्मचर्या भवति तथापि आ अन्तादनया सह धर्मश्चरितव्यो नाश्रमान्तरं प्रवेष्टव्यं नापि स्त्र्यन्तरमुपनेतव्यमिति मन्त्रेण समयः क्रियते । एष ब्राह्मादेः प्राजापत्यस्य विशेषः । आच्छाद्यालंकृतेति समानम् । Haradatta on *G. D. S.*, I,4,5.

c7.s2.42

In the Brāhma marriage, the father carefully selects the son-in-law, invites him to his house and offers him his daughter according to proper religious rites, along with such presents as he could conveniently give on account of natural affection. The definition of the Brāhma marriage, as given above, occurs in Smṛitis which were written when girls were married at a young age; the bride is therefore naturally seen figuring as an object of gift and not as an active agent. It should be pointed out that the gift of the bride was a mere formality ; it did not at all authorise the husband to treat his wife in any way he liked. He had to take an oath that he would be always very closely associated with his new partner in life in all its spheres. The phraseology of the bride being an object of gift was introduced in the marriage ritual simply because the word ‘*dāna*’ had very holy associations in Hindu mind. One can give a *dāna* only to a properly qualified person ; so the bridegroom-elect had to be a good and suitable husband. What one receives as a sacred gift in the presence of the Divine Fire is really a trust, for the proper discharge of which one is responsible to the Creator of the Universe. The hold and influence of religion being what they were, the conception of the bride being a sacred gift freely given to the bridegroom in the presence of gods for the proper discharge of religious and social duties and obligations was the best guarantee against any possible tendency in the husband to ill-treat his wife, or to become unfaithful to her.

c7.s2.43

It is true that to the modern mind the conception of the bride being a gift to the bridegroom given at the marriage may not appear as a high or happy one. Historically speaking, however, it may be pointed out that this conception marked a great advance over the earlier practice which freely permitted the father to sell his daughter in marriage. To give away a daughter to the best available bridegroom out of sole regard for her happiness without receiving any consideration whatsoever thus recorded a marked ethical advance. The interests of the bride were safeguarded by making the whole transaction a religious one, and by prescribing an oath for the husband to be for ever true, kind and considerate to his partner. In course of time several sacred and lyrical associations came to cluster round the Brāhma marriage, and it became most popular and sacred. If its ritual is to be amended, it should be in the direction of making the bridegroom also offer himself to the bride as a free, sacred and unconditional gift. A marriage can become happy only when each party dedicates its entire existence for promoting the happiness and welfare of the other.

c7.s2.44

The conception of marriage as a secular contract did not arise in ancient India. In the Vedic literature (*T. Br.*, II, 3, 10), we have the story of Sītā Sāvitrī, who is seen refusing to marry Soma, who had fallen in love with her, unless he accepted certain conditions of her own. This story presupposes a tendency to regard marriage as a contract, but it did not make much progress. Marriage was regarded as a sacred religious union brought about by divine dispensation; it was felt that the mutual vows which the parties took in the presence of Sacred Fire sufficiently emphasised all the points that could possibly have been included in a mariage contract. The marriage sacrament united the parties in an indissoluble union, and the husband and the wife each prayed that their love and friendship should be lasting, genuine and indissoluble. Complete unity of interest left no room for a contract.

The Age of Marriage

c7.s3.1

Girls were married at a fairly advanced age in the Vedic period. The precise age is not stated, but from the Avesta we learn that maidens were usually wedded at the age of 15 or 16 in ancient Persia (*Vendīdād*, 14, 15). The same was certainly the case in the Vedic period. The very term for marriage, *udvāha*, ‘carrying away (of the bride)’ presupposes a post-puberty marriage, for it shows that immediately after her marriage, the bride went to her husband's house to live as his wife. A perusal of the marriage hymn (X, 185) shows that the bride was fully mature and quite grown up at the time of the marriage; she is expressly described as blooming with youth and pining for a husband¹. A hope is expressed that the bride would forthwith take over the reigns of the household from her parents-in-law². This would have been possible only in the case of grown up brides, at least 16 or 18 years in age.

c7.s3.2

¹ अन्यामिच्छ प्रफर्व्यां सं जायां पत्या सृज । X, 85, 22. सूर्या यत्पत्ये शंसन्तीं मनसा सवितादात् । X, 85, 9.

c7.s3.3

² सम्राज्ञी श्वशुरे भव सम्राज्ञी श्वश्र्वां भव । X, 85, 46.

c7.s3.4

In the Vedic literature there are several references to unmarried girls growing old in their parents' houses, and the Atharvaveda is full of charms and spells intended for compelling the love of a reluctant man or woman. At least some of these spells must have been used by maidens and bachelors not succeeding in winning the affection of the party desired. There are references to lovers following their sweethearts, giving them presents and yearning for mutual company. In one case we have the reference to a maiden pining for a husband approaching a youth anxious for a wife¹. Under such circumstances, children of maidens were not unknown to society, and we get references to their occasional exposures as well. Indra is sometimes represented as rescuing them².

c7.s3.5

¹ यमगन्पतिक्रामा जनिकामोऽहमागमम् । अश्वः कनिक्रदद्यथा भगेनाहं सहागमम् ॥ *A. V.*, II, 30, 5. अभि त्वा योषणो दश जारं न कन्याऽनूषत । *R. V.*, IX, 56, 3.

c7.s3.6

² उत त्यं पुत्रमग्रुवः परावृक्तं शतक्रतो । उक्थेष्विन्द्र आभजत् । *R. V.*, IV, 30, 6. See also *R. V.*, IV, 19, 9 ; *V. S.*, XXX, 6.

c7.s3.7

Verses 27-9 and 37 of the marriage hymn describe the consummation of the marriage. The facts mentioned in the last paragraph make it clear that this event must have happened immediately after the marriage. It has been argued by some writers that the marriage hymn, which is a composite one, narrates different events that may well have taken place at widely separated intervals of time; we can therefore well assume that the consummation took place several months or years after the celebration of the marriage. There is, however, no evidence to support this conjecture; the description of the bride as blooming with youth and pining for a husband makes it altogether improbable and unacceptable.

c7.s3.8

Some other arguments advanced to prove the existence of child marriages in the Vedic age may be briefly considered here. It is true that in two passages of the Ṛigveda (1, 51, 13 and 1, 116, 1) the word *arbha* has been used to denote the bride and the bridegroom. This expression, however, denotes tenderness rather than childhood, for Vimada, who has been described as an *arbha* bridegroom is seen to be defeating his rival in battle and winning his bride. This is possible only in the case of a full grown youth. In another place we find a wife praying for hair growing at the time of puberty¹; orthodox tradition itself, however, states that the cause for this prayer was not her childhood, but a skin disease from which she was suffering. Similarly in another hymn, we find a wife asserting to her husband that she is fully developed physically and has abundant marks of complete puberty on her person. This statement is not, however, made to remove the misapprehension of an ignorant husband; the wife makes it in the privacy of the bedroom to excite the passion of her husband, who had previously expressed his exuberant appreciation of her amorous skill². There is thus no data to rebut the force and evidence of the passages and circumstances mentioned in the last two paras, which go to prove that marriages in the Vedic age took place when the parties were fully grown up.

c7.s3.9

¹ > इमानि त्रीणि विष्टपा तानीन्द्र विरोहय । शिरस्तस्योर्वरामादिवं मे उपोदरे ॥ अ्रसौ च या न उर्वरादिमां तन्वं मम । अ्रथो ततस्य यच्छिरः सर्वास्ता रोमशा कृधि ॥ VIII, 91, 5-6.

c7.s3.10

² Husband :—> आगधिता परिगधिता या कषीकेव जङ्गहे । ददाति मह्यं याकुरी याशूनां भोज्या शता ॥ Wife :—> उपोप मे परामृश मा मे दभ्राणि मन्यथाः । सर्वाहमस्मि रोमशा गान्धारीणामिवाविका ॥ I, 126, 6-7.

c7.s3.11

The case continued to be the same down to about the 5th century B. C. The Gṛihya Sūtra literature composed at about this time lays down that the consummation of the marriage should take place on the fourth succeeding day. *Chaturthīkarma*, ‘the event of the fourth day’, long continued to be the technical name for the ritual prescribed at the consummation of the marriage. Some Gṛihya Sūtras also provide for the contingency of the bride being in her monthly course during the marriage ceremony. It is true that in a few works of this class it is laid down that the bride should be a *nagnikā* at the time of her marriage. This term has been no doubt interpreted by some later commentators as denoting a girl of five or six who has no sense of bashfulness and moves about without properly covering her body¹. This, however, is not the real or original meaning of the word. The Mahābhārata describes a bride of 16 as *nagnikā*² and one Gṛihya Sūtra lays it down that the *nagnikā* bride should also be a virgin at the time of her wedding³. Such a requirement in the case of a girl of five would be superfluous. As pointed out by Matridatta, the term *nagnikā* therefore really refers to a woman who is fit to welcome her husband in privacy, immediately after her marriage⁴. When child marriages came into vogue, the meaning of the term was changed and it was maintained that it denotes a girl playing in dust without properly clothing herself⁴.

c7.s3.12

¹ यावन्न लज्जयाङ्गानि कन्या पुरुषसन्निधौ । योन्यादीन्यवगूहॆत तावद्भवति नग्निका ॥ पुराण in *SCS.*, p. 213

c7.s3.13

² त्रिंशद्वर्षः षोडशवर्षां भार्यां विन्देत नग्निकाम् । in *VMS.*, p. 766.

c7.s3.14

³ नग्निका सजाता ब्रह्मचारिणी । *H. G. S.*, I, 19, 2.

c7.s3.15

⁴ [unclear]वक्षेपणार्हा नग्निका मैथुनार्हेत्यर्थः ।[/unclear] Matridatta on the above.

c7.s3.16

The evidence from the epics and the Buddhist literature also shows that down to about 400 B. C. brides in cultured families used to be about 16 at the time of their marriage. They are often described as eagerly pining for being united with husbands¹. Nuns like Viśākhā and Kuṇḍalakeśā, who had entered the nunnery before their marriage, are represented as being either of the age of 16 or of the age of discretion when their marriages were being contemplated. Brides in the Jātakas are also usually seen to be grown up. We often come across love affairs there; in one place we find a maiden named Paṭachārā eloping with her lover, because her parents would not sanction her contemplated marriage². Sītā, Kuntī and Draupadī were fully grown up at the time of their marriages, which were consummated immediately.

c7.s3.17

¹ **राजगहे तु एका सेठिधीता सोलसवस्सुद्देसिका अभिरूपा अहॉसि दस्सनाय । तस्मि च वये थिता नारियो पुरुसझासाय होंति पुरिसलोला ।** *Commentary on Dhammapāda*, 102. A passage in *Sam. Ni.*, 37, 3, 1 points out that one of the evils to which women are subject is the necessity to go to the homes of their husbands', when they are young (*dahara*). The term *dahara*, however, does not refer to childhood, because *Vimānavatthu*, 31, 5, refers to a *dahara* wife as being pure and chaste as well.

c7.s3.18

² *Therīgāthā*, No. 47 and commentary.

c7.s3.19

There is some ambiguity in the present version of the Rāmāyaṇa about the age of Sītā at the time of her marriage. In her talk with Rāvaṇa at the time when he had come to abduct her, she informs him that she was 18 at the time of her husband's banishment, and that her marriage had taken place twelve years earlier³. This would lead to the conclusion that Sītā was a child of 6 at the time of her wedding. This passage is, however, a spurious one; that Sītā who was very anxious for her husband's safety should have discussed her history with Rāvaṇa, an absolute stranger, appears extremely improbable. The Bālakāṇāḍa, on the other hand, states that the marriages of Rāma and his brothers were consummated immediately after the return of the marriage party to Ayodhyā¹. Similarly, while narrating the story of her marriage to Anasūyā, Sītā describes to her the great anxiety of her father when she had attained an age fit for being united to a husband². It is therefore clear that Sītā was a youthful maiden when she was married, and the passage in Araṇyakāṇḍa, suggesting that she was a child of six at her marriage, is a later interpolation. It is true that Bhavabhūti also represents Sītā to have been quite a child in her marriage in several passages: herein, however, he was influenced by the practice of his age, rather than by the evidence of any earlier and genuine tradition⁴.

c7.s3.20

³ III, 47, 4 and 10.

c7.s3.21

¹ अभिवाद्याभिवाद्यांश्च सर्वा राजसुतास्तदा । रेमिरे मुदिताः सर्वा भतृभिः सहितं रहः ॥ I, 77, 14.

c7.s3.22

² पतिसंयोगसुलभं वयो दृष्ट्वा तु मे पिता । चिन्तामभ्यगमद्दीनो वित्तनाशादिवाधनः ॥ II, 119, 34.

c7.s3.23

³ आविवाहसमयाद्गृहे वने शैशवेनदनु यौवने पुनः ॥ शिशुर्वधती मुखम् । *Uttararāmacharit*, I, 37 and I, 20

c7.s3.24

Marriages at a lower age began to be advocated from about the 4th century B. C. The writers of the Dharmasūtras, who flourished from *c.* 400 B. C. to *c.* 100 A. D., begin to advise that marriages of girls should not be delayed long after their puberty. Two of them, *viz.*, Vasiṣhṭha and Baudhāyana, are prepared to recommend that girls may be kept unmarried for a period of three years after their puberty, if there are difficulties in properly settling their marriages, and Manu and Kauṭilya (IV, 12) concur with them¹. But Gautama² and Vishṇu(24,41) insist that marriages must be celebrated within three months of the time of puberty. Opinion was obviously divided at this time. Some thinkers pointed out that life was transitory, and if marriage was intended to ensure the continuance of the family, the bride should not be too young when it is performed. Others contended that absolute chastity was to be most desired, and so we should select a bride, who should not have even dreamt of sexual love³. It is, however, necessary to point out that even those, who allowed a short period of three months after the puberty, do not shower any curses upon the guardians, if they fail to perform the marriages within the ninety days period of grace. Manu, who normally contemplates a pre-puberty marriage, goes to the extent of permitting the father to keep the daughter unmarried, even to the end of her life, if a suitable husband cannot be procured¹.

c7.s3.25

¹ त्रीणि वर्षाण्युदीक्षेत कुमारीऋतुमती सती ॥ *B.D.S.*, IV, 1, 14. कुमारी ऋतुमती त्रीणि वर्षाण्युदीक्षेत । ऊध्वं त्रिभ्यो वर्षेभ्यः पतिं विन्देत्तुल्यम् । *V. D. S.*, XVII, 59. त्रीणि वर्षाण्युदीक्षेत कमारीऋतुमती सती । ऊर्ध्वं तु कालादेतस्माद्विन्देत सदृशं पतिम् । *Manu*, IX, 90.

c7.s3.26

² त्रीन्कुमारी ऋतूनतीत्य स्वयं युज्येतानिन्दितेन उत्सृज्य पित्र्यानलंकारान् । *G. D. S.*, XVIII, 20.

c7.s3.27

³ नातिबालां वहन्त्यन्ये अनित्यत्वात्प्रजार्थिनः । वहन्ति कमिणस्तस्याम्न्तःशुद्धिब्यपेक्षया ॥ अपरान्वयसंभूतां संस्वप्नादिविवर्जिताम् । कामो यस्यां निषिद्धश्च केचिदिच्छन्ति चापवि ॥ *Mbh.*, XIII, 79, 14. 15

c7.s3.28

¹ काममामरणात्तिष्ठद्गृहे न्तर्तुमतीयापे । न चैवैनां प्रयच्छेत्तु गुणहीनाय कहिंचित् । *Manu*, IX, 89.

c7.s3.29

We may therefore conclude that during the period 400 B. C. to 100 A. D. the marriageable age was being gradually lowered, and the tendency on the whole was to marry girls at about the time of puberty. There was, however, no uniformity in practice current in society. The *Kāmasūtra*, which belongs to the end of this period, presupposes the existence of both the post-puberty and pre-puberty marriages (III, 2-4). The stories in the *Kathāsaritsāgara*, which depict the social life of about this time, refer both to child marriages brought about by parents and to love marriages arranged by the parties themselves (Chaps. 24, 124).

First 92 of 215 passages. Read on

Linked texts (49)