Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Position of Women in Hindu Civilisation, from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day c8: Chapter III. Married Life

The Position of Women in Hindu Civilisation, from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day c8

Language
English

Chapter III. Married Life

c8.2

In this chapter we shall take a comprehensive survey of the married life. After indicating the treatment which the bride received in her new home from her elders, we shall discuss her duties in the household, the relations that existed between her and her husband and the ideals that they were both expected to follow. We shall then consider the custom of polygamy and the evils that naturally resulted from it. The chapter will conclude with a note on the history and prevalence of polyandry.

c8.3

Early in the history of our civilisation brides naturally received affectionate and respectful treatment in their new homes as they were grown up and educated at the time of marriage. The Vedic marriage hymn lays down that the bride should immediately take the reins of the household from her elderly relations¹. Her views were usually to prevail in the household management². Perhaps these statements have to be taken with a grain of salt, being of the nature of the eulogy and glorification of the new bride. Probably they refer to the wife of the eldest son in the family, who has become its *de facto* head owing to the old age of his parents, his unmarried brothers and sisters being still under his guardianship. Nevertheless we may well conclude from them that the elders of the Vedic age treated the brides with very great consideration, regard and affection. They on their part used to observe proper decorum and treat their elders with utmost deference and reverence¹. They could, however, join them at the common table, and take part in conversation².

c8.4

¹ **सम्राज्ञी श्वशुरे भव संम्राज्ञी अधि देवृषु ।** *R. V.*, X, 85, 46.

c8.5

² **यथा सिन्धुर्नदीनां साम्राज्यं सुषुवे वृषा ।** **एवा त्वं सम्राज्ञ्येधि पत्युरस्तं परेत्य च ।** *A. V.*, XIV, 1, 43.

c8.6

¹ **यथैवादः स्नुषा श्वशुराल्लज्जमाना विलीयमानेति ।** *K. S.*, 31 1.

c8.7

² **तस्माज्ज्यायांश्च कनीयांश्च स्नुषा च श्वशुरश्च सुरां पीत्वा विलालपत आसते ।** *M. S.*, II, 4,2.

c8.8

Such continued to be the case down to *c.* 500 B. C. We must of course allow for individual temperaments. In the days of the Buddha, when brides were still about 16 at the time of marriage, we come across some cases of daughters-in-law seeking refuge in nunneries in order to escape from the tyranny of their mothers-in-law. We sometimes find the latter striking their daughters in-law in rage with a pestle and with fatal results³. As against these cases, however, it has to be noted that we sometimes find mothers-in-law also donning monastic robes in order to escape the ill-treatment of their daughters-in-law (*Dhp*, 115; *Thg*, XLV and comm.). There is a case on record where even a father-in-law was hounded out of his house by his four energetic daughters-in-law (*Dhp*, 324 and comm). One daughter-in-law had a resourceful brain; she cunningly led her mother-in-law into a tank haunted by crocodiles, and the expected result followed (*Jātaka*, No. 432). We also come across a son resolving not to marry because of his observation that wives usually tend to domineer over their parents-in-law instead of showing due deference to them.

c8.9

³ *Vivādavatthukathā* quoted in *J.A.S.B.* 1933, p. 59: *Thg*, XLV.

c8.10

The above cases of ill-treatment of daughters-in-law and parents-in-law are, however, abnormal ones. We may well conclude that down to *c.* 500 B. C., when brides were grown up and educated at the time of their marriage, they received good and considerate treatment from their elders. They, on their part, used to show them proper respect. A Buddhist nun, while describing her married life, says:—

c8.11

My salutations morn and eve I brought,
To both the parents of my husband, low
Bowing my head and kneeling at their feet,
According to the training given to me.
(*Therīgāthā*, English translation, p. 158.)

c8.12

The behaviour here described has been the normal one with Hindu daughters-in-law since very early days.

c8.13

When child and illiterate brides became the order of the day, the tone of the treatment which was given to them by their elders in their new homes began to change. Their legal status also had changed by this time. They had ceased to be queens in their new households; they were now regarded as pupils of their husbands, who themselves were still in the student stage. Being very young, inexperienced and nervous, they were naturally prone to commit mistakes in their household work and duties, and their mothers-in-law, who also were uneducated and narrow-minded, began to feel the temptation of showing their power and authority too strong. The daughter-in-law had not for a long time the consolation of even a glance or a word of affection of her husband. She had no opportunity to meet him in privacy, as her marriage could not for a long time be consummated on account of her being very young. The extent of the ill-treatment of the daughter-in-law is probably exaggerated, but there is no doubt that it did exist. We must, however, note that it was an age of authority; sons, daughters, daughters-in-law had all of them to bow down before the orders and decisions of their elders. The latter, however, though sometimes stern in their behaviour, had usually the welfare of their wards at their heart.

c8.14

More vital for the wife's happiness is the treatment which she receives from her husband. Since Indo-Iranian times the husband and the wife were regarded as the joint-owners of the household. The Vedic word for the couple, *dampatī*, etymologically means the joint owners of the house. The Avesta (Yashṭa, 15, 4) describes the husband and the wife as *nmāno paiti* and *nmāno pathnī*, showing thereby that they were equal partners and joint owners of the common household. In actual practice, however, joint government or dyarchy, with absolutely equal rights and privileges to either half, is an impossibility in all spheres of life. Domestic government is no exception to this rule. Discord, disorder and deadlocks will arise in domestic management on some occasions if the husband and the wife are each allowed an absolutely equal power, and happen to possess conflicting and opposing views. To resolve these deadlocks, ultimate supreme authority has to be given to one of the two parties, and in patriarchal societies it is naturally the husband who is invested with it. In India also the case was the same. In the Hindu household the husband is the senior partner and the wife is under his general guidance.

c8.15

According to the Avesta a good wife is one, who is obedient to her husband. The Vedic marriage ritual, however, does not enjoin the duty of obedience upon the wife. Both parties take the same vows. The original Christian marriage ritual, it is interesting to note, specifically enjoined the duty of obedience upon the wife. She took the oath that she would *love and obey* her husband till the death, while the latter merely averred that he would *love and cherish* her. This deliberate differentiation in oath was a natural corollary of the theory adumbrated in Paul, V, 22, that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the the head of the Church. It is interesting to note that even in 1928 A. D., the British Parliament refused to sanction the proposal to delete the reference to obedience from the wife's oath. The Church of England, however, has in a way sanctioned the new proposal by deciding to take no action against a clergyman administering the new oath, requiring both the husband and the wife to love and cherish each other. The theory of the wife's subordination is thus dying very slowly even in the west.

c8.16

Though supreme authority was clearly vested in the husband, the wife's position was one of honorable subordination. In the Vedic and epic society we find that the wife was treated with utmost courtesty and regard. It was well recognised that the wife was the ornament of the house (*R. V.*, 1, 66, 3); nay, the wife herself was the home¹. The home management was under her direct charge and ordinarily, her views were to prevail there¹. It was she who used to rouse the servants and assign them their proper duties (*R. V.*, 1, 124, 4), and thus arrange for the normal running of the household. Early Indian literature does not recognise, even theoretically, the power of physical correction in the husband. In practice also it was probably very rarely excercised in the Vedic and epic times.

c8.17

¹ **जायेदस्तं मघवन्त्सेदु योनिः।** *R. V.*, III, 53, 4.

c8.18

¹ यथा सिन्धुर्नदीनां साम्राज्यं सुषुवे वृषा । एवा त्वं सम्राज्ञ्येधि पत्युरस्तं परेत्य च ॥ *A. V.*, XIV, 1, 43.

c8.19

When the era of child and illiterate brides came, the situation naturally changed. The marriage came to be regarded as the bride's *upanayana*, the husband as her preceptor, and the stay at his place as the counterpart of the stay at the teacher's house (*gurukula*). So, like the teacher, the husband also was endowed by later writers² with a limited power of physical correction over the wife, if she were guilty of a mistake or an offence. It may be pointed out that this power was conceded to the husband in the west also almost to an unlimited extent down to recent times. The calmness with which Chaucer describes the punishments inflicted on rebellious wives by their stern husbands is startling. We see a husband going to a doctor, making arrangements for the treatment of broken bones, and then beating his wife with a pestle and breaking her legs for the offence of disobeying him by visiting a forbidden place¹. In medieval Russia, the bride's father supplied his son-in-law with a new whip as a symbol of his authority, and it was hung over the bridal bed. There was a proverb current in Germany during the 15th century to the effect, that a woman and an ass existed only to be beaten (Hall, *Women in Soviet Russia*, p. 75). In England it was as late as in 1891 A. D., that the husband's right to inflict corporal punishment on his wife was first denied by the law courts. A sessions judge in Madras presidency had recognised this right in 1936, but his view was overruled by the High Court. The above facts will show that we need not feel very much surprised if Hindu Smṛitis, written 2000 years ago, have recognised the husband's right to inflict a mild punishment on his wife, warning him at the same time that he would be liable in a court of law if he overstepped the proper limits in the matter.

c8.20

² भार्या पुत्रश्च दासश्च प्रेष्यो भ्राता च सोदरः । प्राप्तापराधास्ताड्याः स्यू रज्जवा वेणुदलेन वा ॥ पृष्ठतश्च शरीरस्य नोत्तमांगे कथंचन । अतोऽन्यथा प्रहरन्प्राप्तः स्याद्राजकिल्बिषम् ॥ *Manu*, VIII, 299, 300.

c8.21

¹ Abraham, *English Life and Manners in the later Medieval Ages*, p. 126.

c8.22

The normal relations between the husband and the wife were determined by the principle that there should be an absolute identity in their aesthetic, material and moral interests. This principle was recognised the Vedic age, and is approved by later Dharmaśāstra writers like Manu and Āpastamba². It is also emphasised in the marriage vow taken by the couple that they would invariably cooperate with each other in the realisation of their aims and ambitions in the spheres of love, wealth and spirituality. Social conscience was outraged if a couple did not honestly live up to its marriage vows.

c8.23

² जायापत्योर्न विभागो दृश्यते । पाणिग्रहणाद्धि सहत्वं कर्मसु । तथा पुण्यफलेषु । द्रव्यपरिग्रहेषु च । II, 6,14, 16-20.

c8.24

The principle of the absolute identity of the interests of the couple followed as a natural corollary from the recognition of the fact that the husband and the wife are the complements of each other. 'Man is only one half,' says a Vedic passage, 'he is not complete till he is united with a wife and gives birth to children¹. The wise have observed, says Manu, that the husband is identilcal with the wife and vice versa². It was therefore natural that the happiness of each should be regarded as depending upon the other. If there was complete harmony between the two, the house would be a heaven, if there was discord, it would be a hell³. Wife is the keystone of the arch of the husband's happiness. The house may be full of sons, daughters and daughters-in-law; but it is quite empty to a person if his wife is not there to supervise over it⁴. She is the surest solace to the husband, however trying his worries and miseries may be¹. She is the only friend, who never forsakes him in adversity. You may be in a forest, still your comfort is assured if your wife is by your side ; in fact a home without a wife is a forest². Wife alone is the husband's truest 'friend, counsel and companion³. Without her he cannot go to heaven either ; so, at the time of the symbolical ascent to heaven in the sacrificial ritual he has to wait till his wife comes to accompany him⁴.

c8.25

¹ अर्धो ह वैष आत्मनस्तस्माद्यावज्जायां न विन्दते अर्धो ह तावद्भवति अथ यदैव जायां विन्दतेऽथ प्रजायते तर्हि सर्वो भवति । *S. Br.*, V, 1, 6, 10.

c8.26

² विप्राः प्राहुस्तथा चैतद्यो भर्ता सा स्मृतांगना । IX, 45.

c8.27

³ आनुकूल्यं हि दम्पत्योस्त्रिवर्गोदयहेतवे। अनुकूलं कलत्रं चेत्त्रिदिवेन हि किं ततः ॥ प्रतिकूलं कलत्रं चेन्नरकेण हि किं ततः । गृहाश्रमः सुखार्थाय पत्नीमूलं हि तत्सुखम् ॥ *Padmapurāṇa*, *Uttarakhanda*, 223, 36-7.

c8.28

⁴ पुत्रपौत्रवधूभृत्यैराकीर्णमपि सर्वतः । भार्याहीनगृहस्थस्य शून्यमेव गृहं भवेत् ॥ *Mbh*, XII, 144, 4.

c8.29

¹ न च भार्यासमं किंचिद्विद्यते भिषजां मतम् । औषधं सर्वदुःखेषु सत्यमेतद्ब्रवीमि ते । Ibid, III, 58, 29.

c8.30

² न गृहं गृहमित्याहुर्गृहिणी गृहमुच्यते । गृहं तु गृहिणीहीनं कान्तारादतिरिच्यते ॥ *Mbh*, XII, 144, 6.

c8.31

³ गृहिणी सचिवः सखी मिथः प्रियशिष्या ललिते कलाविधौ । *Raghuvaṁśa*, VIII, 67.

c8.32

⁴ स रोक्ष्यञ्जायामामन्त्रयते, जाये एहि स्वो रोहावेति । रोहावेत्याह जाया । तस्माज्जायामामन्त्रयते । अर्धो ह वैष आत्मनो यज्जाया । *Ś. Br.*, V, 2, 1, 10.

c8.33

The husband is therefore to treat his wife as his dearest friend. The wife is the true friend of a man, says a Vedic passage, and the Mahābhārata concurs with it⁵. Buddhist thinkers also have accepted the same view⁶. Naturally therefore the husband cannot even think of pleasure, if his wife cannot participate in it⁷. Human beings are imperfect and the wife may be sometimes cross. The husband must, however, put up with her¹. To maintain and support his wife is the most sacred duty of the husband, which must be discharged at all costs; otherwise, he would have no right at all to be called a husband². Above all, he must be true to his vow of conjugal fidelity; its violation is the greatest sin he can commit³.

c8.34

⁵ सखा ह जाया । *A.Br.*, VII, 3, 13. पुत्र आत्मा मनुष्यस्य भार्या देवकृतः सखा । *Mbh.*, I, 374, 73. पुत्रः प्रियाणामधिको भार्या च सुहृदां वरा । IV, 22, 17 (B).

c8.35

⁶ पुत्ता वत्थु मुनिस्सानां भारिया च परमा सखा । *Sam. N.*, I, 6, 4.

c8.36

⁷ नाकल्पां नारीमभिरमयेत । *G. D. S.*, I, 8, 29.

c8.37

¹ अप्रियोक्तोऽपि दाराणां न ब्रूयादप्रियं बुधः ।\ रतिं प्रीतिं च धर्मं च तदायत्तमवेक्ष्य च ॥ *Mbh*, I, 98,39.

c8.38

² भरणाद्धि स्त्रियो भर्ता पालनाद्धि पतिः स्मृतः ।\ गुणस्यास्य निवृत्तौ तु न भर्ता न पुनः पतिः ॥ *Ibd*, XII, 272, 37.

c8.39

³ अन्योन्यस्याव्यभीचारो भवेदामरणान्तिकः ।\ एष धर्मः समासेन ज्ञेयः स्त्रीपुंसयोः परः ॥ *Manu*, IX, 101.

c8.40

The wife on her part had corresponding duties and obligations. She was to try her utmost to promote her husband's happiness⁴. Neither the father nor the mother, neither a son nor a friend, can do for a woman what a husband will. The help these can give is limited, the help the husband can offer is unlimited⁵. Her real happiness is centred in her husband⁶. She must therefore follow him in adversity as well as in prosperity. Above all, she must be true to him in her marriage vows and lead the life of an ideal *pativratā*. The household management is primarily her duty, to be discharged in consultation with her husband¹. She is to frame a proper annual budget and regulate the daily expenditure according to it. If the husband is spendthrift, it is her duty to put a gentle check on his extravagence. She is to make purchases when provisions are cheap, and to store them properly for consumption throughout the year. She is to be the paymaster of the household. She is to look after the general needs and comforts of the servants by giving them old clothes and articles. General supervision over cattle and agriculture comes within her jurisdiction, if the family is an agricultural one. If it is poor, she is to help her husband by taking her own share in the manual labour of the household management. Spinning, weaving and rope-making are to occupy her spare time. If the family is well-to-do, knitting, embroidery, kitchen-garden, and household decorations are to engage her leisure hours. If the husband is away, she is to shoulder the whole responsibility of the household, and discharge it with due regard to any instructions that he may have left behind. In times of difficulty, she is to be her husband’s counsellor; if he is unable or unwilling to follow the plain path of duty, she is to bring him round by sweet yet effective words². That Hindu wives could do this successfully would be clear from the example of Draupadī, who won over Dharma to her own views by her clever and persuasive eloquence. Several Rajput ladies have emulated her example in the medieval period.

c8.41

⁴ सा हि स्त्रीत्यवगन्तव्या यस्यां भार्या नु तुष्यति । *Mbh*. XII, 144, 20.

c8.42

⁵ न पिता नात्मजो नात्मा न माता न सखीजनः ।\ इह प्रेत्य च नारीणां पतिरेको गतिः सदा ॥\ मितं ददाति हि पिता मितं भ्राता मितं सुतः ।\ अमितस्य च दातारं भर्तारं का न सेवते ॥\ *Rāmāyaṇa*, II, 27, 6; II, 40, 3.

c8.43

⁶ नातंत्री वाद्यते वीणा नाचक्रो वर्तते रथः ।\ नापतिः सुखमेधेत या स्यादपि शतात्मजा ॥ *Ibid*, II, 37, 30.

c8.44

¹ The rest of this para is based on the *Kāmasūtra* IV,1.

c8.45

² काव्यं यशसेऽर्थकृते कान्तासंमिततयोपदेशयुजे । *K. P.*, I, 2.

c8.46

A wife, who discharged all these duties, was the true *pativratā*. Sanskrit literature is full of passages in her praise. The sanctity of gods, sages and holy places is all centred in her. The world is sanctified by her existence, and there is no sin that would not evaporate by her mere presence¹. A tear falling from her eye, when wronged, uproots even a mighty tyrant like Rāvaṇa².

c8.47

¹ पृथिव्यां यानि तीर्थानि सतीपादेषु तान्य पि । तेजश्च सर्वदेवानां मुनीनां च सतीषु वै ॥ सतीनां पादरजसा सद्यःपूता वसुन्धरा । *Brahmavaivarta purāṇa*, 35, 119 and 127.

c8.48

² प्रवादः सत्य एवायं त्वां प्रति प्रायशो नृप । पतिव्रतानां नाकस्मात्पतन्त्यश्रूणि भूतले ॥ VI, 114, 65.

c8.49

The ideal love and harmony between the husband the the wife have been beautifully described by Bhavabhūti. The dearest friend, the essence of all kinship, the fulfilment of all desires, a veritable treasure, the very life itself,—all these is a husband to the wife and vice versa³. Their love is uniform both in prosperity and adversity, and adjusts itself to surrounding circumstances; it affords the best solace to each other’s heart; old age does not diminish its flavour; when the veil of reserve drops down in course of time, it develops into an ever-abiding affection⁴.

c8.50

³ प्रेयो मित्रं बन्धुता वा समग्रा सर्वे कामाः शेवधिर्जीवितं वा । स्त्रीणां भर्ता धर्मदाराश्च पुंसामित्यन्योन्यं वत्सयोर्ज्ञातमस्तु ॥ *Mālatīmādhava*, Act, VI, 18.

c8.51

⁴ अद्वैतं सुखदुःखयोरनुगुणं सर्वास्ववस्थासु यत् । विश्रामो हृदयस्य यत्र जरसा यस्मिन्नहार्यो रसः ॥ कालेनावरणात्ययात्परिणते यत्स्नेहसारे स्थितं । भद्रं तस्य सुमानुषस्य कथमप्येकं हि तत्प्राप्यते ॥ *Uttararāmacharit*, Act VI, 39.

c8.52

The aim of the Hindu marriage is to help the full growth and development of the husband and the wife and to promote the preservation and progress of society and its culture by enjoining upon the couple the procreation of children and their proper education. Children, especially sons, were also indispensable for offering the monthly oblations to the manes, residing in heaven.

c8.53

Motherhood therefore has been the cherished ideal of every Hindu woman. The birth of a son immediately heightens her status. Kisā Gautamī was not well treated for some time after her marriage ; things changed for the better the moment a son was born to her (*Thg.*, 63 and comm.). Devout prayer is offered in the marriage ritual that the couple may be blessed with sons and grandsons (X, 85, 42). Childlessness was regarded as a great misfortune¹, and every effort was made to overcome it. What a childless woman looks on, gods do not accept. India then needed more and more men and women to develop the country, and so the ideal was of a large family. The Vedic father was anxious for ten sons ; the number was reduced to eight in the Smṛiti period.

c8.54

¹ या वाऽपुत्रा पत्नी सा परिवृत्ती । सा निरऋतिगृहीता तद्यदेवास्या नैऋतं रूपं तदेवैतच्छमयति । *S. Br.*, V, 3, 1, 13.

c8.55

The apotheosis of the mother has reached a greater height in India than anywhere else. The son could never abandon his mother, even if she was boycotted socially and religiously. He was to respect her more than father². Of course, there are also passages which place the father and the preceptor higher than the mother (*Manu*, II, 145-6), but these are probably due to later sacerdotal influence. Eventually Hindu culture solved the problem of the relative superiority of these three by classing them all together as *atigurus* or supreme worthies (*Vishṇu*, 31,1-2).

c8.56

² गुरूणां चैव सर्वेषां माता परमको गुरुः । *Mbh*, I, 211, 16.

c8.57

The widow could not inherit the property of her husband after his death; it passed on to her sons. Yet decorum required that they should live under the protecting care of their mother after the death of the father. They could not think of partition during her lifetime (*Manu*, IX, 104). She was in fact their *de facto* guardian. Relations between the mother and her children were very tender; people felt old not when their hair had grown gray, but when their mother was no more¹. Mothers were never more unhappy than when away from their children. Kuntī was separated from her sons, when they were banished for thirteen years. In her message to Kṛishṇa at the end of that period she observes that neither widowhood nor poverty have caused her that much affliction as her separation from her dear sons².

c8.58

¹ तदा स वृद्धो भवति तदा भवति दुःखितः । तदा शून्यं जगत्तस्य यदा मात्रा वियुज्यते ॥ *Mbh*, XIII, 268,30.

c8.59

² न मां माधव वैधव्यं नार्थनाशो न वैरिना । तथा शोकाय भवति यथा पुत्रैर्विना भवः ॥ *Ibid* V, 90,69.

c8.60

It may be pointed out that ancient Indian history knows of no matricides. In this connection an interesting anecdote is given in Amitāyurdhyāna Sūtra. Ajātaśatru, who wanted to kill his father by starvation, discovered that his plan was not succeeding because a step-mother of his was surreptitiously carrying him nourishment by smearing honey to her person. When he decided to kill this step-mother, his ministers remonstrated and said, ‘ Bad kings, 18,000 in number, have killed their fathers, but we have yet not heard of any, who has killed his mother’. Upon this, we are told, Ajātaśatru gave up his plan ( *S.B.E*, XLIX, Part ii, p. 163).

c8.61

The only matricide known to Indian tradition is Paraśurāma. In his case the legend is probably invented to emphasise the duty of obeying the father. It may be pointed out that the first boon, which Paraśurāma asks of his father after carrying out his fiendish command, is his mother's resurrection with the proviso that she should never recollect her murder¹.

c8.62

¹ स वव्रे मातुरुत्थानमस्मृतिं च वधस्य वै । *Mbh.*, III, 117,18.

c8.63

A few lines may be conveniently devoted here to the delineation of the family ideal. The words of a Vedic sage may be quoted in this connection. ‘The husband and the wife are to be of one mind : the matron is to be noted for the sweetness of speech : brothers and sisters are to be of one accord ; sons are to be smart and intelligent so as to carry on and further the work of the father’². The Vedic age required the householder to tend three sacred fires, Āhavanīya, Gārhapatya and Dākshiṇeya. Social thinkers of a later age pointed out that this can be best done only by showing proper respect to parents, by promoting the welfare and happiness of the wife, children and servants, and by offering willing and effective help to self-sacrificing public workers (*Ang. Ni.*, IV, p. 44).

c8.64

² अनुव्रतः पितुः पुत्रो मात्रा भवतु संमनाः । जाया पत्ये मधुमतीं वाचं वदतु शंतिवाम् ॥ मा भ्राता भ्रातरं द्विक्षन्मा स्वसारमुत स्वसा । संम्यञ्चः सव्रता भूत्वा वाचं वदत भद्रया ॥ *A. V.*, III, 30,2-3.

c8.65

The above picture of the ideal family life is indeed very attractive. Let us now see how far the ideal was attained in actual life in ordinary families. We shall confine ourselves here mainly to the relations between the husband and the wife.

c8.66

There is no doubt that the average Hindu wife lived up to the ideal. Sītā voluntarily exiling herself in order to share her husband's afflictions and Gāndhārī refusing to use her eyes, lest she should enjoy a pleasure denied to her consort, are but typical examples of the average devoted Hindu wife. Hundreds and thousands of others have followed similar courses, but they were too humble in society to be known to history or tradition. The conjugal fidelity of the Hindu wife is proverbial. She has stood the most trying test. She has lived up to the ideal of Sītā and Sāvitrī.

c8.67

Did husbands in ancient India carry out their conjugal duties as devotedly as their spouses? Did they live up to the high ideal laid down for them? Did they make a serious effort to carry out the obligations laid down in marriage vows? It is not easy to answer these questions confidently for the community as a whole. But it has to be admitted that the percentage of those who honoured the marriage vows more by the breach than by the observance was much greater in the case of husbands than it was in the case of wives. Of course we are not to generalise from stray cases of brutal husbands; nor are we to draw hasty conclusions from some caustic popular sayings like ‘One may save oneself even by sacrificing one's wife.’ Such sayings are cynical observations of a few persons with an abnormal mental constitution; they do not reflect the opinion or indicate the practice of the society as a whole. There are several instances to show that such theories were not followed in practice by the average husband. We have, for instance, the story of Bakāsura where the husband refuses to follow the advice of his wife, who persistently implored that she should be sacrificed in order to save the family. In the *Madhyamavyāyoga* of Bhāsa the head of the family is in a similar predicament, but he also does not think of surrendering his wife in order to save himself or his family.

c8.68

In the presence of the sacred Fire the husband promised his wife that he will never forsake her in his pursuit of pleasure, wealth and spirituality. Our complaint is that the delinquents who violated this vow were not severely dealt with by society. It tolerated polygamy; it did not for a long time give any proprietary rights to the wife; later on when renunciation of the worldly life became popular, it did not condemn the action of those persons who used to desert their wives in pursuit of their spiritual ideals. All this affected the position of the wife very adversely.

c8.69

It is true that monogamy normally prevailed in Hindu society. The word *dampatī* ‘two joint owners of the household’ excludes a third person from the conjugal life. The ritual too does not provide for the association of more than one wife in the normal sacritice. The Vedic gods also are monogamous. In practice, however, polygamy often prevailed in the rich and ruling sections of society. It was fairly common among kings and nobles, who often found it a useful instrument in strengthening their political power by contracting numerous but judicious matrimonial alliances. The rich probably regarded plurality of wives as a proof of their wealth, reputation and social position. Polygamy of course was a luxury beyond the means of the poor. A rich man can support several wives; a poor man finds it difficult to maintain even one¹. References to polygamy are fairly numerous in the Vedic literature. The Rigveda in one place compares a person attacked on all sides by his enemies to a husband troubled by his jealous wives². The Atharvaveda has numerous charms to enable a co-wife to monopolise the love of the common husband (E. g., III, 18). The coronation ritual presupposes four wives for the king, and in practice he may have had more. Father Manu is said to have had 10 wives, and king Hariśchandra had only a hundred. Even philosopher Yājñavalkya had two. There are some observations in the late Vedic literature to show that polygamy was well established in certain sections of society³.

c8.70

¹ सपत्न्यो हि भवन्तीह प्रायः श्रीमवि भर्तरि । दरिद्रो बिभृयादेकामपि कष्टं कुतो बह्वः ॥ *KSS.*, 49,208.

c8.71

² सं मां तपन्ति अभितः सपत्नीरिव पर्शवः । *R. V.*, I, 105,8.

c8.72

³ यदेकस्मिन्ग्रूपे द्वे रशने परिव्ययति तस्मादेको द्वे भार्ये विन्दते । *T. S.*, VI,6,4,3. (Continued from the last page.) view to lighten their domestic labour. When marriage means for the woman chiefly doing her husband's work, she desires to share him with others. The situation changes when a higher conception of marriage is evolved (J. L. Davies, p. 146 ).

c8.73

It has been observed that in several primitive societies, wives often urge the husbands to add to their number with a The main reason, however, for the occasional occurrence of polygamy even among ordinary classes was the great anxiety that was felt for the preservation and continuance of the family. For offering the prescribed oblations to ancestors so as to secure their continuance in heaven, a son was absolutely necessary, and so society permitted the husband to take a second wife, if the first one was barren. Nay, we find some writers laying down that it was the duty of the wife to urge her husband to contract a second marriage, if she had failed to present a son to him (*Kāmasūtra*, IV, 2).

c8.74

Sufficient time, however, had to be allowed to pass in order to make it certain that the wife was really barren. Ten years at least had to elapse before barrenness could be presumed. In case daughters alone or very short-lived children were born, a further period of waiting for three or four years was prescribed¹.

c8.75

¹ **अप्रजां दशमे वर्षे स्त्रीप्रजां द्वादशे त्यजेत् ।** **मतप्रजां पंचदशे सद्यस्त्वप्रियवादिनीम ॥** *B.D.S.*, II, 2,4,6.

c8.76

A concession that was intended to be given only in exceptional cases came soon to be regarded as the normal right of the husband. Leaders of society, however, tried to nip this tendency in the bud. One of them grows eloquent in describing the inequity of the procedure, if a husband abandons his wife with whom he has solemnly promised to live for ever¹. Another expressly prohibits a second marriage, if the first wife had already given birth to a son². A third one declares that a man who marries a second wife without a just cause, will be guilty of a sin, which can never be atoned³. A fourth one grows so indignant that he pronounces such a person as unfit even to become a witness in a court of law (*Nārada*, 1,180).

c8.77

¹ पाणिनबन्धं स्वयं कृत्वा सहधर्ममुपेत्य च । यदा यास्यंति पुरुषाः स्त्रियो नार्हन्ति याप्यताम् ॥ *Mbh.*, XII, 272,36.

c8.78

² धर्मप्रजासंपन्ने दारे नान्यां कुर्वीत । *A.D.S.*, II, 5,11,12.

c8.79

³ एवं हि त्यजतां भार्यां नराणां नास्ति निष्कृतिः । *Mbh.*, XII, 58,13.

c8.80

Unfortunately, however, this condemnation of the second marriage did not produce the result desired. Supersession of the first wife began to become commoner in well-to-do families from the beginning of the Christian era. The lowering of the marriageable age, that took place at this time, helped this undesirable tendency. Husbands would not always like to be bound down by the choices made by their parents, when they had not even entered their teens. Wives too were not cultured or educated enough to succeed in rivetting their husbands' affections and dissuading them from the contemplated second marriage. The inevitable result followed. Supersessions on flimsy grounds began to become common in some sections of society. What pains one most is that they should have been justified by some Smṛiti writers. We have seen above that some of our early thinkers tried their best to discourage this tendency by condemning it in no uncertain terms. Even when they allowed a second marriage for the continuation of the family, they laid it down that it should be performed only with the consent of the first wife¹. The husband was further required to look after her in the proper manner, and give her a suitable allowance if she desired to live separately.

c8.81

¹ या रोगिणी स्यात्तु हिता संम्पन्ना चैव शीलतः । सानुज्ञाप्याधिवेत्तव्या नावमान्या च कर्हिचित् ॥ *Manu*, IX, 88.

c8.82

Other Smṛiti writers, however, have taken quite a different stand. They have propounded the astounding doctrine that the husband has the right to discard his wife any moment she proves herself disagreeable to him². This is a monstrous principle and we feel pained to find that some of our Smṛiti writers should have ever propounded it. This principle, along with the lowering of the marriageable age of girls, produced disastrous consequences for the happiness of women. In spite of their anxiety to do everything to please their husbands, devoted wives began to be sometimes superseded, even when had given birth to sons. Smṛitis have no doubt laid down that such wives should be given a maintenance. It was not, however, easy for them to live in a kind of judicial separation; for a section of the public was

c8.83

² सद्यस्त्वप्रियवादिनी । *Manu*, IX, 81.

c8.84

It is true that we sometimes find one and the same work like *Manusmṛiti* laying down that a husband should wait for a long time in order to be sure that his wife is barren, and also permitting supersession on the flimsy ground of the wife being disagreeable. This is due to the blending of the earlier and later tradition in the same work.

c8.85

always inclined to spread baseless scandals about their character if they followed such a course¹.

c8.86

¹ सतीमपि ज्ञातिकुलैकसंश्रयां जनोऽन्यथा भर्तृमतीं विशङ्कते ।

c8.87

It is, however but fair to point out that in contemporary times almost everywhere similar license was given to the husband in the matter of discarding his wife. At Rome, a woman could be divorced because she was childless, or disagreeable, or for any other similar reason. Women were allowed divorce, but they suffered socially if they availed themselves of this permission (*Story of Women*, p. 86).

c8.88

Owing to the growing helplessness of women on account of their illiteracy and ignorance, they became easier prey to ill-treatment and tyranny. The disappearance of divorce, permitted by earlier writers under certain circumstances, further embittered their life. We have seen above (*ante*, p. 100), how one woman refused to go to live with her husband on learning that he had contracted a second marriage during her absence, and how she eventually married a different person. Now things had changed completely. Manu no doubt states that the husband should contract a second marriage only with the consent of the first wife, but this permission was merely a formal affair. If the wife refused to give it, the husband could still carry out his plan of the second marriage. If after that event a self-respecting wife found it impossible to live with her husband, and proceeded to leave his household, she was to be

c8.89

अथ तु वेत्सि शुचिव्रतमात्मनः पतिकुले तव दास्यमपि क्षमम् ।
*Śākuntala*, Act V, 19 and 27.

c8.90

compelled to stay with him. The only concession that Manu shows to her is to permit her to stay with her parents, provided she did not claim any maintenance (IX, 83). All this treatment laid down for the wife is a natural consequence of Manu's theory that marriage establishes the supremacy of the husband over the wife¹. This view soon became quite popular; we find Kālidāsa subscribing to it².

c8.91

¹ **प्रदानं स्वाम्यका णम् ।** V, 152.

c8.92

² **उपपन्ना हि दारेषु प्रभुता सर्वतोमुखी ।** *Śākuntala*, V, 26.

c8.93

It is no wonder that under such circumstances unreasonable demands should have been made on wives. The husband may be self-willed, he may be even vicious; the wife must nevertheless worship him as a god³. Such husbands of course may not have been many; what is surprising and painful is that they should have got some advocates even among Smṛiti writers. The impudence with which ludicrously absurd stories are sometimes narrated in later literature to illustrate the life of the ideal wife, who followed the above gospel, is indeed astonishing. Anasūyā was a very obedient wife and an ideal *pativratā*, says the *Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa* At her husband's bidding she once proceeded to carry him on her own shoulders to the house of a dancing girl. On the way the love-lorn husband kicked an angry sage, who was passing near him, and the latter forthwith cursed him to die before the sunrise. Anasūyā proceeded to render the curse inoperative by prohibiting the sun from rising. The luminary could not of course disobey the command of a *pativratā*. The earth was plunged into darkness and gods got alarmed and intervened. They eventually succeeded in pacifying the angry sage, who was then induced to take back his curse.

c8.94

³ **विशीलः कामवृत्तो वा गुणैर्वा परिवर्जितः ।** **उपचर्यः स्त्रिया साध्व्या सततं देववत्पतिः ॥** *Manu*, V, 154.

c8.95

It is no doubt true that such stories are intended to illustrate the power of a *pativratā* and her unswerving devotion to her husband in the most trying circumstances. They are not to be taken too literally. Nevertheless, the fact that their imaginary plots should have been conceived on these lines shows that the position of the wife *vis-a-vis* her husband had changed very greatly to her disadvantage by about the 4th century A. D¹. The situation worsened with the abuse of the very guarded permission given to the husband to take a second wife. The concession was intended only for certain specific and unusual circumstances. But soon men began to think more of the permission than of the qualifying conditions. When this tendency manifested itself in society, it was the clear duty of Smṛiti writers to condemn it in the most unqualified manner. In stead of discharging it, many of them virtually proceeded to encourage frivolous irresponsibility in men by permitting them to marry a second time, if the first wife were guilty merely of unpleasant speech. This shows a light-heartedness, which is hardly creditable to any writers who profess to guide society.

c8.96

¹ Some passages in Buddhist literature show that even in the 3rd century B. C. the slave type of wife, who would quietly bear all the ill-treatment of her husband, was regarded as the best one by some thinkers who preferred her to a wife, who would be her husband's companion (*Jātaka*, No. 269.). The available evidence shows, however, that this theory was not generally subscribed to before the Christian era. The prevalence of child marriages was responsible for its becoming popular in later times.

c8.97

The different angles of vision with which the question of the remarriage of the widow and the widower was viewed at this time also show a growing callousness to the feelings and sentiments of women, and an inordinate anxiety to avoid the least inconvenience and discomfort to men. We shall see in Chapter V how widow marriages were completely frowned out of existence by about 600 A. D. The rising tide of asceticism, which was mainly responsible for this development, did not however affect the position of the widower at all. Nay, strangely enough the prospects of his immediate remarriage brightened up. The earlier times did not hold that a widower could not discharge his religious duties except by marrying a second time. The *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* expressly states that a widower can continue his Vedic sacrifices even if he remains unmarried; his devotion (*śraddhā*) will be his figurative wife¹. Vishṇu (*c.* 100 A.D.) does not regard remarriage as a religious necessity; he points out that an image of the dead wife can well serve the sacrificial purpose². Śrī-Rāmachandra concurred with this view, for when separated from Sītā, he performed his sacrifices with an image of his wife by his side. He did not deem it necessary to marry a second time in order to have a living wife with him during the performance of his sacrifices. In course of time, however, widowers, who would spend their remaining life in nourishing the memory of their departed wives, began to become rarer and rarer. A second marriage for the widower was soon declared to be a religious necessity by some obliging Smṛiti writers. After describing the funeral of the wife, Manu immediately proceeds to inform the bereaved husband that he ought to marry again¹. How could household sacrifices be properly performed without the presence and cooperation of a wife ? The texts which permitted the performance of the sacrifices with the effigy of the dead wife were explained away with the usual ingenuity of commentators. The wife can never be represented ; she must be always present in person. She had to do personally some work in the sacrifice like the pounding of the rice etc.; obviously this could not be done by an effigy. So the second marriage was an absolute religious necessity for the widower². It would not have been difficult to show that the same would be the case for the widow as well. The son was an imperative necessity for offering oblations to the manes, and it could well have been argued that a widow should lose no time in marrying again for ensuring the continuance of the family. No Smṛiti writer, however, has cared to take this stand.

c8.98

¹ तदाहुरपत्नीकोऽप्यग्निहोत्रमाहरेदिति । आहरेदित्याहुः । यदि नाहरेदनद्धा पुरुषः । तदेषाभियज्ञगाथा गीयते । यजेत् सौत्रामण्यामपत्नीकोऽप्य-सोमपः । मातापितृणामनृण्यार्थायजेतेति वचनाच्छ्रुतिः । अपत्नीकः कथमग्निहोत्रं जुहोति । श्रद्धा पत्नी सत्यं यजमानः श्रद्धा[^उ] सत्यं तदित्युत्तमं मिथुनम् । *A. Br.*, VII. 9-10.

c8.99

² मृतायामपि भार्यायां वेदिकाग्नि न हि त्यजेत् । उपाधिनापि तत्कर्म यावज्जीवं समाचरेत् ॥ Quoted by Aparārka on *Yāj.*, I, 89.

c8.100

¹ भार्यायै पूर्वमारिण्यै दत्वार्ग्नीन विधिपूर्वकम् । पुनर्दारक्रियां कुर्यात्पुनराधानमेव च ॥ V, 168.

c8.101

² Cf. Aparārka on Yāj., I, 89.:—‘उपाधिनापि तत्कर्म’ इत्यस्यार्थः कुशमय्या कांचनमय्या वा पत्न्या कार्यसमाप्ति; कार्येति न । पत्न्या अप्रतिविधेयत्वात् । यत्पुनः “अन्ये कुशमयीं पत्नीं कृत्वा तु गृहमेधिनः । अग्निहोत्रमुपासन्ते यावज्जीवमतन्द्रिताः” इति वचनं तदग्निहोत्रस्तुत्यर्थं न स्वार्थविधायकम् ।

c8.102

We shall conclude this chapter with a few words on polyandry in ancient India. This custom was practically unknown to Hindu society. In the Vedic marriage hymn Sūryā is married to Aśvins; the latter, however, are not two persons but a twin deity. It is also true that there are some passages in Vedic literature where the wife is mentioned in connection with husbands in plural. The plurals in these cases are, however, either generic or used *majestatis causa*¹. In later Vedic literature it is pointed out in several places how polyandry is not permissible, though polygamy is legal². Smṛitis nowhere contemplate the possibility of polyandry, when they discuss the rules of marriage.

c8.103

¹ पुनः पतिभ्यो जायां दा अग्ने प्रजया सह । *R. V.*, X, 85, 38. स्योनं पतिभ्यो वहतुं कृणु त्वम् । *A. V.*, XIV, 1, 61.

c8.104

² यन्नैकां रशनां द्वयोर्यूपयोः परिव्ययति तस्मान्नैका द्वौ पती विन्दते । *T. S.*, VI, 6, 4, 3. Cf. also, *A. Br.*, III, 23; *G. Br.* II, 3, 19.

c8.105

It is only in the Mahābhārata and some Purāṇas that we come across a few stray cases of polyandry. The most well-known case is that of Draupadī, who was married to five Pāṇḍava brothers. Kuṇālaka Jātaka (No. 536) also refers to a polyandrous marriage of a princess named Kaṇhā. Kṛishṇā was another name of Draupadī and the Kaṇhā of this Jātaka is identical with her as is shown by the fact that the names of her husbands are identical with those of Pāṇḍavas. Draupadī's polyandrous marriage seems to have been a historic event; otherwise the author of the Mahābhārata, who is at his wit’s end to justify it, would have quietly kept silence over it. Polyandry, however, seems to have been rarely practised even in the days of the Mahābhārata. Kuntī was pained to find that her well-meant direction to her sons that the brothers should evenly divide what they may have obtained should result in a polyandrous marriage¹. Drupada also stood aghast at the polyandrous proposal of Yudhishṭhira². The latter could justify it only on the convenient ground of family tradition³. He no doubt refers to an earlier polyandrous marriage of Jaṭilā, but whether it was a historical event may well be doubted. The Mahābhārata proceeds to give several fantastic reasons in justification of Draupadī’s marriage; only one of them may be given by way of illustration. Draupadī got five husbands in this life because in one of her previous existences she had five times uttered the prayer to God, ‘Give me a husband’ (I, 213). Later writers were so much upset by Draupadī’s polyandry that they refused to believe in it. The *Tantravārtika*, for instance, maintains that Draupadī’s marriage with five royal brothers is to be understood only figuratively. Draupadī was not a lady in flesh and blood; she stood for royal glory (*rājya-lakshmī*), and her marriage with five brothers is only intended to show that they were jointly ruling their kingdom with absolute accord. Or, we may suppose, that the brothers were really married to five different ladies, but they were so much alike in person and character, that they came to be described under the common name Draupadī. Or, we should understand the situation in this way: Draupadī was really the wife of Arjuna who had won her by his skill in archery, but the epic describes her as the common wife of all the five brothers with a view to emphasise the extraordinarily cordial relations that existed among the brothers¹.

c8.106

¹ कुटीगता सा त्वनवेक्ष्य पुत्रान् प्रोवाच भुंक्तेति समेत्य सर्वे । पश्चाच्च कुन्ती प्रसमीक्ष्य कृष्णां कष्टं मया भाषितमित्युवाच ॥ *Mbh.*, I, 206, 2.

c8.107

² सोऽयं न लोके वेदे वा जातु धर्मः प्रशस्यते । लोकधर्मविरुद्धं त्वं नाधर्मं धर्मविच्छुचिः ॥ *Ibid*, 27.

c8.108

³ सूक्ष्मो धर्मो महाराज नास्य विद्मो वयं गतिम् । पूर्वेषामानुपूर्व्येण यातं वर्त्मानुयामहे ॥ *Ibid*, I, 210, 29.

c8.109

¹ Vol. I, pp. 191-192 (English Translation).

c8.110

The fact is that polyandry was not in vogue among the Aryans even in the Vedic age; whether it existed in any earlier period among them is also very doubtful. Its unexpected occurrence in the Mahābhārata has surprised and puzzled its readers, and so later commentators have sought to explain it away as best as they could. Polyandry is still current to some extent among a few non-Aryan tribes of Kashmir and Tibet, and it is probable that the Pāṇḍavas were following a custom which they may have borrowed from either of these provinces. This would suggest that they belonged to a stock of Aryans different from that of the Kauravas, and that they entered India via the Gilgit pass in Kashmir or through Nepal. It is of course not possible to discuss the pros and cons of this interesting theory in this work.

Linked texts (32)