Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c9.s4: Debates on Rights of Women

Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c9.s4

Language
English

Debates on Rights of Women

c9.s4.1

Kātyāyana prescribes death sentence for committing rape of a woman,¹⁸ while Āpastamba differs with him and suggests that a śūdra molesting an Āryan lady be hanged.¹⁹ There are differences and debatable issues on punishments for adultery. Manu recommends that an adulteress should be thrown to dogs for being eaten,²⁰ whereas Kātyāyana is again much more human and generous here also. He directs the king to see that such a woman is freed after the declaration of her act of adultery.

c9.s4.2

It is commonly believed that the authors of Dharmaśāstras have not made any provision of divorce in marriage.²¹ Dharmavir goes to the extent of alleging that the Sanskrit language does not have any word for divorce.²² The authors of Dharmaśāstras, *Arthaśāstra* and *Kāmasūtra* do discuss the issue of separation in marriage and the term *mokṣa* has been used by them for divorce between married persons. Both man and woman are allowed to seek *mokṣa* in marriage. R.C. Majumdar rightly understands Kauṭilya when he says that “Kauṭilya permitted divorce to both husband and wife on the ground of mutual enmity”.²³ Manu even recommends that a man may seek *mokṣa* from a woman who speaks harshly.²⁴ Kauṭilya would recommend *mokṣa* in marriage in exceptional circumstances only. Yājñavalkya, Kauṭilya and Vātsyāyana recommend re-marriage for the lady who has obtained *mokṣa* from her husband. Such a lady is called *punarbhūḥ* (remarried). Such a marriage was not solemnized by Vedic rights in all cases. But then Yājñavalkya specifically prescribed that the son of a *punarbhūḥ* lady will be entitled for the property of his father. Nārada enumerates seven kinds of women who are allowed to remarry — three types of *punarbhūs* and four types of *svairiṇīs* (wanton women). The first type of *punarbhū* is a virgin, who was married but is *akṣatayoni*, i.e. never had a “penetration” with the first husband. She should be married with *saṁskāra* (Vedic rites). Second one leaves her husband for another man, but returns back to the first husband. The third one is remarried with a *savarṇa* and *sapiṇḍa* in the absence of a *devara* (husband’s brother). The four *svairiṇīs* are:

c9.s4.3

1. When her husband is alive, she goes to some other man out of desire,
2. husband having died, she rejects his brother (*devara*) and chooses to live with an outsider,
3. a woman in dire circumstances sells herself for food and cloths and then accepts her buyer, and
4. a courageous lady who is given to someone in accordance with the local customs and times.²⁵

c9.s4.4

Kauṭilya makes provisions for the lady choosing a second husband, when her first husband being alive or dead.²⁶

c9.s4.5

These law givers prescribe divorce and remarriage in case of a lady married to an impotent person. A woman is like a field — says Nārada — “and the agricultural field cannot be handed over to a man who has no seed”. Both Parāśara and Nārada make a provision for remarriage of women in five situations:

c9.s4.6

1. The husband has disappeared and his whereabouts are not known for a long time,
2. he has died,
3. he has become an ascetic,
4. he is impotent, and 5. he has committed adultery.²⁷

c9.s4.7

If the husband has gone away and there is no news of him, a brāhmaṇa lady should wait for him for eight years in case she has born children from him; if she has no children then she should wait only for four years and then remarry. The time limit for the women of other castes is still lower.²⁸ Kauṭilya’s follows Nārada in general; but he specifically instructs a lady to leave a man who has committed a sin, is convicted, is impotent, suffers from an incurable desease or is cruel.²⁹ He also prescribes divorce if both the husband and the wife do not like each other; but divorce is to be provided neither to the wife if she hates him for not liking her. In case both of them do not like each other, then they should be divorced. A man seeking divorce from a woman going against him may be obliged but not the woman. There is, however, no provision for a formal divorce in the marriages performed through Vedic rites.³⁰ But then, all law givers, cited above, make provision of going to another man in exceptional circumstances like the husband being impotent, etc. This only means that a lady having entered into a sacred bond of marriage, sanctified by Vedic rites, can leave her husband in these circumstances and start another life in a partnership. This living in partnership is in fact nothing less than marriage, as the lady gets all the benefits under the law.

c9.s4.8

There are sharp differences of opinion amongst the authors of Dharmaśāstras with regard to the rights of women, especially widows.³¹ The views of Bṛhaspati, Kātyāyana and Parāśara are quite different from the others. Bṛhaspati would like to see that a widow lives with all the dignity of a lady. He says:

c9.s4.9

A wife forms the half of her husband. No man can be said to have died if his wife is living.³²

c9.s4.10

Yājñavalkya, Kātyāyana, Bṛhaspati and the author of *Viṣṇusmṛti* authorize the widow to inherit the property of her husband if he has no son.³³ If a man is not survived by his wife or sons, then the daughters would inherit his property.³⁴ On the other hand, there are law givers who will see that the *sapiṇḍa* relatives of the diseased person get his property. Bṛhaspati vehemently protests this practice. He goes to the extent of prescribing that the king should punish the relatives treating them as thieves, if at all they make any attempt of grabbing the property legally inherited by a widow.³⁵

c9.s4.11

The laws of Viṣṇu, Bṛhaspati and Yājñavalkya must have made revolutionary effect on the social fabric, leading to sharp reactions from the supporters of patriarchy. *Nāradasmṛti* stoutly opposed the reformist and liberal views of the Smṛtis of Viṣṇu, Bṛhaspati and Yājñavalkya providing that the property of an issueless person will be confiscated by the state and the widow will be provided a bare maintenance.

c9.s4.12

Vijñāneśvara in ᴄᴇ 1100 further enlarged the scope of *strīdhana*, providing for inclusion of all property inherited by a woman in it. It is unfortunate that the Smṛtis of Prajāpati and Kātyāyana were lost, the male-dominated society did not care to preserve them, as they were fairly liberal to the other sex. Barring a few, the kings generally did not care to promulgate the laws of Viṣṇu, Yājñavalkya or Kātyāyana making the womenfolk more powerful. Kings like Kumārapāla of Gujarat were exceptions. Kumārapāla declared the right of a widow over the property of her husband in ᴄᴇ 1150. His court-poet praised him as more magnanimous than the illustrious kings like Raghu, Nahuṣa or Nābhāga.³⁶

c9.s4.13

Manu appears to be rather insensitive in allowing liberty to women. If a woman leaves the house of her husband in a rage, she should be tied with ropes and put in the house, otherwise the husband should leave her to her father’s house.³⁷ He levies a fine of six golden coins upon a lady going to night shows in *prekṣās* or *samājas*.³⁸ On the other hand, he is strictly against marrying a virgin to a man not fit for her. “It is better that a girl lives unwedded till her death, than be married to a man not suitable for her”, he says. He also allows a young girl to seek a suitable match herself if the parents are unable to marry her.³⁹ On one hand, he deprives a married lady and a daughter from inheriting the property of her husband or father, on the other he directs the brothers of a lady to provide a share of the property inherited by them to their sister; if they do not do so they are condemned.⁴⁰ But *Viṣṇusmṛti* declares in most unequivocal terms that the property of a man having died without any son will be inherited by his wife, and if he is not survived by his wife, then the property will go to his daughters.⁴¹ Nandapaṇḍita in his commentary on *Viṣṇusmṛti* on this passage quotes Bṛhaspati’s instructions to the king to punish the kin who makes an attempt to grab the property thus inherited by a widow.⁴² Yājñavalkya directs that the father-in-law should provide equal part of his property for the wives of his sons if they have not inherited *strīdhana* (the money given to the bride by the parents). Even if they have been given *strīdhana*, they are to be provided with one half of the part given to the sons.⁴³ A widow will inherit the property equal to the share for her sons.⁴⁴

c9.s4.14

The concept of *putrikā* — the only daughter of a man having no son is unique in this tradition. The *putrikā* is allowed to perform the last rites of her father and also to inherit his property. “Just as a son is the very soul of a man, so is the daughter” says Manu in the context of a *putrikā* — “how can any other person be allowed to take away a man’s property if she is there?”⁴⁵ Most of the authors of Dharmaśāstras agree that the woman’s property (*strīdhana*) will be inherited by the daughter/daughters only and not by her sons.⁴⁶

c9.s4.15

The diversity of the opinions and concern for values of these law givers have gone a long way to sustain the Hindu society for centuries. Raja Rammohun Roy produced before Lord William Bentinck the relevant portions from the text of *Manusmṛti* describing the conduct of a widow when he was campaigning for the eradication of the practice of *satī*.⁴⁷ Swami Vivekananda and Lala Lajpat Rai also referred to these authors of Dharmaśāstras, to substantiate of their views on the rights of women.⁴⁸

Linked texts (7)