Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c7.233

c7.233

Even if we accept Professor Sharma’s interpretation that a woman was worthy of the *sabhā*, it makes no good sense because she is referred to as “moving secretly” (*guhā carantī*), which seems to allude to a woman’s promiscuous activities.² This weakens the case for making women eligible for the *sabhā*. Furthermore, one such doubtful reference is surely not sufficient to prove that women attended the *sabhā*. With regard to Professor Sharma’s interpretation that the “woman went to the vidatha,” we do not doubt that women were members of the congregation at sacrifices on religious rites, in which sense the word *vidatha* is mainly used in Vedic literature rather than as “the earliest folk-assembly of the Indo-Āryans.” This term we discuss later.³ But Professor Sharma misinterprets the verse in question to show that women attended the *sabhā* at the time when the *Ṛg Veda* was composed. We should not forget that references to the institution of the *sabhā* in the *Ṛg Veda* are found in the main body of the text. Moreover, the *Maitrāyaṇī Saṁhitā*, as Professor Sharma himself admits, makes it more than clear that women did not attend the *sabhā*. Furthermore, *sabhāvatī* occurs in the first *maṇḍala*, which is definitely of later composition and probably not far removed from the date of composition of the *Atharva Veda* and the *Maitrāyaṇī Saṁhitā*.⁴