Status of Women in Manusmriti

 

Status of Women in Manusmriti

SR Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)

“The Manusmriti” (Laws of Manu) presents a patriarchal framework for women’s status, emphasizing lifelong dependence on male guardians, control of sexuality for lineage purity, domestic roles, and limited autonomy, while also including verses that stress honouring women within the family.” This dual aspect—protective honour alongside subordination—has made the text highly debated.

Lifelong Dependence and Lack of Independence

The most frequently cited provisions deny women independent agency:

- A woman is to be guarded by her father in childhood (‘kaumāra’), her husband in youth (‘yauvana’), and her sons in old age (‘sthavira’). The text states that “a woman does not deserve independence” or “is never fit for independence” (‘na strī svātantryam arhati’ — typically 9.3; parallel at 5.148).

- Day and night, women must be kept without independence by the males of their families. Because they are portrayed as clinging to sensual pleasures, they should be kept under control (9.2).

- Nothing is to be done independently by a girl, young woman, or aged woman, even in her own house (related verses such as 5.147).

These rules frame “protection” (‘rakṣati’) as continuous male oversight rather than optional support.

 Nature of Women and Control of Sexuality

The text attributes to women a nature prone to seduction and impurity of desire:

- “It is the nature of women to seduce men in this world; for that reason the wise are never unguarded in the company of females” (2.213). Women can lead astray even learned men (2.214).

- At creation, women were allotted love of bed, seat, and ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct (9.17).

- Guarding wives is a high duty for all castes, primarily to ensure purity of offspring (e.g., 9.6, 9.9). Unrestrained female sexuality is treated as a threat to legitimate lineage and caste boundaries.

This links gender control tightly to the maintenance of *varṇa* hierarchy through endogamy and chastity.

Religious and Educational Status

Women are generally excluded from full Vedic learning and independent ritual:

- Women have no right to study the Vedas; their sacraments (‘saṃskāras’) are performed without Vedic mantras. They are described as destitute of the knowledge of Vedic texts and, in that sense, “as impure as falsehood” (9.18 and related).

- A wife’s religious merit is largely achieved through serving her husband rather than independent rites or fasts.

 Property and Economic Position

Economic independence is restricted:

- A wife, a son, and a slave are declared to have no independent property; the wealth they earn is acquired for the person to whom they belong (9.416).

- Women could hold ‘strīdhana’ (personal property from gifts before the nuptial fire, on the bridal procession, tokens of love, or from relatives). This was inheritable by offspring in certain cases, and maternal property could be divided among uterine siblings. However, overall rights to ancestral property were more limited than men’s, and independence in managing wealth was constrained.

Honour and Domestic Centrality

Alongside restrictions, the text contains verses that elevate women’s place within the household:

- “Where women are honoured, there the gods rejoice; where they are not honoured, no sacred rite yields rewards” (3.56). Fathers, brothers, husbands, and brothers-in-law should honour and adorn women for the family’s welfare and prosperity (3.55, 3.59).

- Where female relations live in grief, the family perishes; where they are happy, it prospers (3.57).

- Women are essential for progeny, household management, religious duties performed jointly with the husband, and family fortune. A contented wife brings felicity to the whole family (3.62).

These passages present honour as conditional on women’s fulfilment of domestic and wifely roles, and as a means to familial and ritual success.

 Overall Picture and Later Critique

The ‘Manusmriti reflects a social ideal in which women’s primary duties centre on marriage, household, childbearing (especially sons), chastity, and obedience. Independence (‘svātantrya’) is explicitly rejected in favour of sequential male guardianship. Positive language about honour coexists with rules that subordinate women legally, ritually, educationally, and economically.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and later feminist and anti-caste scholars highlighted these provisions as codifying the subordination of women, linking it to the control of sexuality for caste purity, and contrasting it with evidence of higher status or greater agency for some women in earlier Vedic literature. Ambedkar cited verses denying Vedic study and independence, viewing the text as part of a broader system that degraded both Shudras/Ati-Shudras and women.

The text is a Dharmashastra (normative legal-ethical treatise) composed roughly between 200 BCE and 200 CE (with scholarly debate on exact dating). It does not describe uniform historical practice across all regions and periods; actual status of women varied, and later commentators sometimes softened or reinterpreted rules. Modern readings remain sharply divided between those who emphasise the honour verses as protective and those who see the dependence rules as foundational patriarchal and hierarchical ideology.

PROPERTY AND THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND TRIBES IN INDIA

 

PROPERTY AND THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND TRIBES IN INDIA

 Bhagwan Das,  July 20,1985.

Property gives security, power and prestige. Desire to own property has become one of the most powerful motivating urges of human-kind. So long as man remains master of 'property' it does not prove to be harmful; it is when property becomes the master of man that the problems begin to arise. Buddha the greatest teacher of man was not in favour of accumulating property and yet like most saints of medieval India he did not glorify property. He advocated the middle path and because of his teachings in the countries which follow Buddhism, the disparity between rich and poor is not as wide as it is in countries where theistic religions are followed.

Concentration of property in few hands leads to or results in exploitation and impoverishment of a large number of people. To perpetuate their hold, the propertied classes use all means at their command especially religion, education, and laws. Disparities in all spheres of life give birth to conflicts culminating in violent upheavals. This is inevitable because changes cannot be brought about through peaceful means. Although political revolutions eat up their own children yet there is a kind of romance attached to the word revolution.

India is one of the poorest countries of the world where fifty to sixty percent people live below poverty line and a large majority of the people own no property. Yet in India we have a small number of people who own most of the property in the form of land, industry and real estate.

Most modern economists and historians attribute this to colonial rule which lasted barely 150 to 200 years but poverty of India goes back to thousands of years. According to ancient Brahminic laws, framed in the name of God or gods, a large number of people  who created wealth were not allowed to own property. They had to be kept perpetually in want and dependent in the name of religion. They were not allowed any leisure so that they may have no time and energy to think. They were not allowed to bear arms so that they may not revolt. Inspite of modern laws, independence of the country situation has not changed very much in the 568, 000 of villages where nearly 80 percent of people live.

Property in the form of land is owned by the upper land- holding castes. During the British regime India was divided into two groups, namely British India and princely states.

Princely states followed different land and property laws according to the laws of the rulers and the tradition of different states. British in the territories directly under their control introduced land reforms and property laws keeping in view their needs and interests. While originally it was collection of revenue in subsequent decades it was the desire to protect the interest of classes which provided the soldiers.

Scheduled Tribes people in certain areas rebelled against the new system introduced by the British and enforced through the members of exploiting classes. A compromise was reached and laws banning transfer of property to non-tribals were enacted. But enactment of law is one thing and its implementation is quite different. Tribals continue to be exploited by the 'plains people' whom they contemptuously call 'Dikko!

Scheduled Castes people in many states, provinces in India were not allowed to own property, land etc. In Punjab (Punjab, Delhi, Haryana included) their duties and responsibilities as 'menials’ were recorded. They could not purchase land so long as they remained within the Hindu-fold, by embracing Islam, Christianity or Sikhism they could get rid of this stigma. After the advent of independence these restrictions were removed but Scheduled Castes people did not even then have any right on the land on which they had built their huts while legal restrictions have been removed, majority of the Scheduled Castes still own no property.

When Constitution was being drafted Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was against inclusion of 'Right to Property' in the Constitution. But Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel and Mr. K.M.Munshi were vehemently opposed to this suggestion. They belong to the propertied class. Majority of the members in the Constituent Assembly belonged to this class and no class can be expected to commit harakiri jeopardising its own interests, or sources of power and prestige.

Land reforms and introduction of new taxes and enhancement of taxes have been introduced as measures to control the fast-growing power of propertied classes but like all good laws these have not been properly implemented. Taking advantages of loop holes deliberately left by the law makers, the purpose of land-reform laws has been defeated.

To defeat the Laws landlords in some states have divorced their wives while they still continue to live with them. Some have got the land mutated in the names of fictitious persons or even in the names of dogs and cats owned by them.  In Punjab one can find names like 'Potato’ son of 'Tomato’ recorded in land revenue papers.

On the other hand, where land has been allotted with great pomp and show to the members of the Scheduled Castes what was given was 'patta! and useless sheet of paper and no the actual land. Himachal made an announcement that land shall be granted to all Untouchables but what was given was barren land where nothing could be grown.

Dr. Ambedkar in his famous book 'States and minorities had dealt with this problem. He had criticised Pundit Jawahar Nehru for in the resolution moved by him in 1946 there was mention of 'Socialism'. After his bitter experience in 1937 when mere mention of the word socialism had angered many of the Congressmen, Pundit Nehru did not want to antagonize his colleagues while he wanted time to consolidate his position after freedom of India.

Dr. Ambedkar’s remedy was 'nationalization of land' and allotment to landless people. He was not in favour of creating peasant proprietors with small patches of land which did not solve any problem at all. On the contrary fragmentation of land into small non-viable parcels created more problems and led to pauperisation of the farmers. He was in favour of allotment to 'collectives'. After the failure of collectives in Soviet Russia many people appear to be afraid of repeating the mistake but Dr. Ambedkar thought in the Indian circumstances this was the best solution. Besides this he desired creation of separate villages of Untouchables so that they may live in peace and security. Migration to the cities is the other alternative.

Untouchables were not allowed to own property. Now they have the right to own property but do not have the means to own property. Since India is now a socialist state the right way to make it socialist is not to encourage the growth of private property but to distribute it equitably and enforce laws which were framed to reduce the disparities. Peaceful and constitutional means have not produced the desired results. Socialism it appears cannot be brought about through peaceful and constitutional means. The classes which have no property and have no hope of security or end of exploitation cannot but think of violent means which is the only way through which socialism has been brought in countries where it is being practiced. By strengthening the propertied classes and weakening the landless and property-less people socialism can never be brought about in any country.