Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Position of Women in Hindu Civilisation, from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day c7.s2: Forms of Marriage

The Position of Women in Hindu Civilisation, from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day c7.s2

Language
English

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.

Linked texts (13)