Sanskrit Tidbits-28:Manusmriti and Position of Women
Chapter 9 of Manu Smriti is a difficult one. With 336 shlokas, it is long. It is about relations between a man and his wife and with the lenses we wear now, it is possible to castigate Manu Smriti for gender biases. But before being judgmental, one must remember that the text was written many years ago. पिता रक्षति कौमारे भर्ता रक्षति यौवने। रक्षन्ति स्थविरे पुत्रा न स्त्री स्वातन्त्र्यमर्हति॥ (9.3). This is often quoted. “She (the woman) is protected by her father in her childhood and by her husband in her youth. She is protected by her son in her old age. A woman does not deserve to be independent.” The word जाया means wife. 9.8 tells us why the wife has such a name. The husband enters the wife’s womb and is born again (jayate). That’s the reason behind the name. There are six reasons behind women becoming tainted – liquor, mixing with wicked people, separation from the husband, roaming around, sleeping (obviously at the wrong time) and living in other people’s houses (9.13). Women do not care for beauty, nor do they care for age. Whether the man is handsome or ugly, a woman will enjoy him (9.14). Knowing this disposition, created by Prajapati, a man must make the greatest of efforts to protect a woman (9.16). When thinking of women, Manu gave them a bed, a seat, ornaments (implying love of these), desire, anger, dishonesty, malice and bad conduct (9.17). Having said all this, if a woman has a husband who possesses good qualities, she assumes those qualities, like a river entering an ocean (9.22). Thus, immensely fortunate women who bear children should be worshipped. They light up the house. There is no difference between them and the goddess of fortune, Shri (9.26). However, if a woman is adulterous (व्यभिचार) towards her husband, she is reprimanded in this world. She is born as a jackal in her next life and suffers from evil ailments (9.30).
The sacred texts differ as to who is the lord (भर्ता) of the son (पुत्र). Some say that the biological father (उत्पादक, the producer, the generator, the one whose seed it is) owns him, others that he is owned by the owner of the field (क्षेत्र) (9.32). The woman is the field and the man is the seed (9.33). In some cases, the seed is superior. In some cases, the woman’s womb is superior. The best offspring result when both are equal (9.34). A learned and humble man, who knows about the Vedas and also desires a long life, should never cohabit with another person’s wife (9.41). The word विसर्ग means dismissal, rejection, sending away, casting away, separation. A wife cannot be separated from husband through sale or विसर्ग(9.46). But there are exceptions, such as when one cannot obtain offspring. Then, a woman may obtain offspring through a देवर (through a brother-in-law, not necessarily a younger brother-in-law) or through someone who is सपिण्ड (a kinsman) (9.59). 9.59 doesn’t mention a widow (विधवा), but the subsequent shlokas do, suggesting that this provision may have been used most often for widows. I am a bit puzzled by 9.64. There is no need to quote it. However, 9.64 seems to suggest that this provision must not be used for brahmana widows. 9.65 is another puzzling shloka. This says that in mantras connected with marriage, the system of नियोग is not mentioned. Nor in rituals connected with marriage, is there a mention of widows being remarried. On the face of it, this does not seem to imply that Manu Smriti was against नियोग, or against widows being remarried. It was merely making a factual statement. When Vidyasagar cited the sacred texts to justify the remarriage of widows, one should read up to see what his take was on this particular shloka of Manu Smriti. Having said this, in 9.68, it then argues against नियोग. 9.71 is another one you can puzzle over. That says that a father, having given his daughter to one man, must never give her to another. Is this an injunction against remarriage? Is this an injunction against a father himself encouraging remarriage, as opposed to a girl opting for remarriage on her own? Does this mean that a father, having promised to marry his daughter to one man, must not go back on his word and marry her to another? As I have said before, Manu Smriti isn’t always consistent and there is plenty that isn’t clear, plenty to puzzle over. I am not an Indologist, but this is what my reading of Manu Smriti suggests to me.
It is a father’s duty to marry his daughter at the right age to the right kind of groom (9.88). However, one she has attained marriageable age, if the father does not do this, she waits for three years. Once those three years are over, she can choose her own groom (9.90). But if a maiden marries through this method of svayamvara, she will not be entitled to any ornaments her parents or her brothers give her. If she takes these away, that will be theft (9.92). A man who is 30 should marry a girl who is 12 and a man who is 24 should marry a girl who is 8 (9.94).
When the parents die, the brothers may divide up the ancestral property among themselves (9.104), or leave it with the eldest brother, who takes care of them like a father (9.105). If the property is divided up, there is more than one rule for dividing up the property. Let’s ignore animals. That only complicates matters. For example, here is one rule for dividing up the non-animal part of the property. The eldest will get one share extra. The one who is next will get 1 ½ share extra. Everyone else will get 1 share each (9.117). But each brother will have to give 1/4th of his share and these contributions will be divided up among the sisters (9.118). A person who doesn’t have a son may formally adopt his daughter as a son (putrika) and give her funereal and other rights (9.127). Reading sections like these, it seems to me that we have accepted the anti-women segments of Manu Smriti, but not the pro-women ones. I will not spend more on Chapter 9. In all fairness to Manu Smriti, you should read all of it yourself and not depend only on selective quotes.