History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c26.307

v2.c26.307

A few words must be said about the sale of girls in marriage. We read in the Maitrāyaṇīya S. I. 10. 11 'she indeed commits falsehood (or sin) who being purchased by her husband roams about with other males.'¹¹⁷² There is another passage of the Veda relied upon along with the above by the *pūrvapakṣa* (the plausible view-point) in Jaimini (VI. 1. 10-11) which denies that women have a right to take part in Vedic sacrifices, viz. 'one should give to the daughter's father a hundred (cows) plus a chariot.' Jaimini replies (VI. 1. 15) that the giving of a hundred with a chariot is not for purchasing a bride, but it is only a duty and a hundred must be offered as a present (whether the girl is beautiful or not).¹¹⁷³ This shows that, even if some girls were purchased for marriage in the times of the Maitrāyaṇīya S., there was a popular revulsion of sentiment about this practice and the sale of girls was severely condemned by the time of the sūtrakāras. The Āp. Dh. S. (II. 6. 13. 10-11) also makes interesting remarks on this point¹¹⁷⁴ "there is no gift and the incidents of purchase about one's children; in marriage the gift ordained by Veda to be made to the daughter's father in the words 'therefore one should give a hundred (cows) besides a chariot to the girl's father and that (gift) should be made to belong to the (married) couple' is due to the desire (of the father to give a status to the daughter and her sons) and is meant as a fulfilment of duty (and not as a sale transaction). The word 'purchase' applied to such a transaction is merely figurative, since the relationship (as husband and wife) arises (not from the so called purchase but) from *dharma*." Vas. Dh. S. (I. 36-37) quotes the two passages of the Veda (from Mait. S. and the other about the gift of one hundred cows) in support of the Mānusa (i. e. Āsura) form of marriage. The Nirukta VI. 9¹¹⁷⁵ while explaining Ṛg. I. 109. 2 ('O Indra and Agni, I have heard you to be greater donors than a partially fit son-in-law or a brother-in-law') remarks that "the word 'vijāmātā' means among the southerners the husband of a woman who is purchased; what is meant is that he is a bridegroom who is deficient and not endowed with all good qualities." So Yāska implies that in the south girls were sold for substantial sums of money to persons who (either because they were old or wanting in some qualities desirable in a good bridegroom) were therefore really deficient as bridegrooms. In the Nirukta (III. 4) while discussing the several views about the obscure verse of the Ṛgveda III. 31. 1 (śāsad-vahnir &c.) one of the reasons assigned for the view that women do not inherit is that gift, sale and abandonment in the case of women exist, but not in the case of men, to which some reply that these (gift, sale &c.) can be made of males also as is seen in the story of Śunaḥśepa (in the Ait. Br. 33, Tai S. V. 2. 1. 3, Tai. Br. I. 7. 10.).