Women and Independence

(3/25/2024)

Clarification, I am NOT from ISKCON. I do have mixed feelings about the organisation though. I have nothing against Prabhupada, and I appreciate the good he did for spreading Sanatana Dharma and also advocating against the birth based caste system. However, ISCKON has the potential to be more open minded while maintaing a traditionalist feel, so here me out.

If you read blogs made by ISKCON or read Prabhupada’s words, you may hear them say that women shouldn’t be given independence and then go on to criticise western societies for giving women independence. Some ISKCON people will tell you that Prabhupada meant that women must be protected, however we see a notable amount of ISKCON people advocating for women not having independence in its literal sense. We have advocates against women in leadership positions on these grounds, passing off the fact that Prabhupada gave women some leadership roles in ISKCON as incidental exceptions.

Maybe I am misrepresenting things, but I can’t stand the people who criticise Hinduism based on statements from Dharmashastras without understanding them, and I equally abhor the staunch traditionalists who refuse to recontextualise the Dharmasastra statements. Hence, I will go through the Manusmriti to get a better understanding of the statement regarding women and independence, and see if there is some hope left for us Hindus.

This time however, we shall be using the knew Hermeneutical Principles I developed in a previous blog: https://bharatasamskriti.blogspot.com/2024/03/new-hermeneutical-principles-for.html

For the sake of argument, I am going to pretend that these texts weren’t written in the Gupta period and pretend that they were truly revealed by a personage named Svayambhuva Manu. For sake of argument, I will also not resort to the Manusmriti-is-interpolated argument, though even Medhatithi has arrived at such a conclusion regarding one verse (Manu 5.71).

Also, I will be referring to Medhatithi’s commentary frequently, though that doesn;t mean I am going to agree with him on everything. I will offer my own commentary at times.

Lastly, just to avoid accusations of using colonial translations, I shall be retranslating the relevant portions of the text from the original Sanskrit. Yes, I do have some knowledge of Sanskrit despite being a 19 year old at the time of writing this.

I will also want to point out that this isn't an attack against a perticular denomination or such, just the belief that some conservative Hindus hold, irrespective of sect. I bring u ISKCON as many critics of Hinduism know the religon through ISKCON.

Straightforeward Reading of Manusmriti 9.1-9.25

In Sanskrit:

puruṣasya striyāścaiva dharme vartmani tiṣṭhatoḥ |
saṃyoge viprayoge ca dharmānvakṣyāmi śāśvatān || 1 ||

asvatantrāḥ striyaḥ kāryāḥ puruṣaiḥ svairdivāniśam |
viṣayeṣu ca sajjantyaḥ saṃsthāpyā ātmano vaśe || 2 ||

pitā rakṣati kaumāre bhartā rakṣati yauvane |
rakṣanti sthavire putrā na strī svātantryamarhati || 3 ||

kāle'dātā pitā vācyo vācyaścānupayanpatiḥ |
mṛte bhartari putrastu vācyo māturarakṣitā || 4 ||

sūkṣmebhyo'pi prasaṅgebhyaḥ striyo rakṣyā viśeṣataḥ |
dvayorhi kulayoḥ śokamāvaheyurarakṣitāḥ || 5 ||

imaṃ hi sarvavarṇānāṃ paśyanto dharmamuttamam |
yatante rakṣituṃ bhāryāṃ bhartāro durbalā api || 6 ||

svāṃ prasūtiṃ caritraṃ ca kulamātmānameva ca |
svaṃ ca dharmaṃ prayatnena jāyāṃ rakṣan hi rakṣati || 7 ||

patirbhāryāṃ sampraviśya garbho bhūtvaiha jāyate |
jāyāyāstad hi jāyātvaṃ yadasyāṃ jāyate punaḥ || 8 ||

yādṛśaṃ bhajate hi strī sutaṃ sūte tathāvidham |
tasmātprajāviśuddhyarthaṃ striyaṃ rakṣetprayatnataḥ || 9 ||

na kaścidyoṣitaḥ śaktaḥ prasahya parirakṣitum |
etairupāyayogaistu śakyāstāḥ parirakṣitum || 10 ||

arthasya saṅgrahe caināṃ vyaye caiva niyojayet |
śauce dharme'nnapaktyāṃ ca pāriṇāhyasya vekṣaṇe || 11 ||

arakṣitā gṛhe ruddhāḥ puruṣairāptakāribhiḥ |
ātmānamātmanā yāstu rakṣeyustāḥ surakṣitāḥ || 12 ||

pānaṃ durjanasaṃsargaḥ patyā ca viraho'ṭanam |
svapno'nyagehavāsaśca nārīsandūṣaṇāni ṣaṭ || 13 ||

naitā rūpaṃ parīkṣante nāsāṃ vayasi saṃsthitiḥ |
surūpaṃ vā virūpaṃ vā pumānityeva bhuñjate || 14 ||

pauṃścalyāccalacittācca naisnehyācca svabhāvataḥ |
rakṣitā yatnato'pīha bhartṛṣvetā vikurvate || 15 ||

evaṃ svabhāvaṃ jñātvā'sāṃ prajāpatinisargajam |
paramaṃ yatnamātiṣṭhetpuruṣo rakṣaṇaṃ prati || 16 ||
[Analyze grammar]

śayyā'sanamalaṅkāraṃ kāmaṃ krodhamanārjavam |
drohabhāvaṃ kucaryāṃ ca strībhyo manurakalpayat || 17 ||

nāsti strīṇāṃ kriyā mantrairiti dharme vyavasthitiḥ |
nirindriyā hyamantrāśca strībhyo anṛtamiti sthitiḥ || 18 ||

tathā ca śrutayo bahvyo nigītā nigameṣvapi |
svālakṣaṇyaparīkṣārthaṃ tāsāṃ śṛṇuta niṣkṛtīḥ || 19 ||

yanme mātā pralulubhe vicarantyapativratā |
tanme retaḥ pitā vṛṅktāmityasyaitannidarśanam || 20 ||

dhyāyatyaniṣṭaṃ yatkiṃ citpāṇigrāhasya cetasā |
tasyaiṣa vyabhicārasya nihnavaḥ samyagucyate || 21 ||

yādṛgguṇena bhartrā strī saṃyujyeta yathāvidhi |
tādṛgguṇā sā bhavati samudreṇaiva nimnagā || 22 ||

akṣamālā vasiṣṭhena saṃyuktā'dhamayonijā |
śāraṅgī mandapālena jagāmābhyarhaṇīyatām || 23 ||

etāścānyāśca loke'sminnapakṛṣṭaprasūtayaḥ |
utkarṣaṃ yoṣitaḥ prāptāḥ svaiḥ svairbhartṛguṇaiḥ śubhaiḥ || 24 ||

eṣoditā lokayātrā nityaṃ strīpuṃsayoḥ śubhā |

pretyaiha ca sukhodarkān prajādharmānnibodhata || 25 ||

In English

1) Of the man and of the women, the two of whom stand on the path in Dharma, I will speak the perpetual Dharmas in the case of union and quarrel.

2)Women must be made un-independent by their own men day and night. Women who go into matters must be kept under one’s control.

3) The father protects her in her childhood, the husband in her womanhood, and the sons protect her in old age. Women shouldn’t be independent.

4) During the time (when the girl is ready to be married), the non-giving father is blamable, the un-approaching husband (for conjugal union) is blameable, yet the sons who are non-protects of the mother upon the husband’s death are blameable.

5) Women must especially be protected even from tiny associations/attachments. She who is unprotected may bring grief amidst both families.

6) Even the not strong husbands who are observing this great Dharma of all Varnas try to protect their wives.

7) One protecting the wife with effort protects his own offspring, charecter, family, one’s self, and ones’ dharma.

8) The husband having entered the wife (conjugal union) and having become the embryo (symbolically) he is born. That quality of begetting of the wife is born in her.

9)Like the man whom the woman partakes, so is the child she begets. Therefore, for the purpose of pure progeny, out of effort he should protect the womanfolk.

10) Of a woman, no one can protect her by force, but by these means, they (women) can be protected.

11) He may employ her in the amassing of wealth and in expenditure, in cleanliness, in dharma, in the cooking of food, and in tending of the furniture.

12) She is unprotected who is restricted in the house by dependable men. But those women who may guard themselves by themselves, they are well protected.

13) Drinking, association with bad people, separating/deserting from the husband, sleeping (excessively), and living in another’s house, are the six women corrupting things.

14) The women don’t observe the form (of a man), and they have no stance regarding the age (of the man). Good form or no-form, they enjoy thus, a man.

15) From craving men, from a fickle mind, from frigidity (lack of love) out of innateness, she who is protected even with effort, those white to the husbands destroy.

16) Indeed having known their character which was issued from Prajapati, man must maintain maximum effort regarding protection (of women).

17) Manu construed for women, the beds, the chair, ornaments, lust, anger, insincerity, deceitful nature, ill-conduct.

18) Women have no actions with mantras is thus the accordance in Dharma (women can’t recite expiatory texts as they aren’t learned in the Vedas). Lacking the sense organ (strength, resolve) and lacking mantras, the position is thus: to women there is falseness (inconsistency in character).

19) Thus even in the nigamas, many of the Shrutis are sung for the purpose of inquiring/testing of their own characteristics of them (women). Let you all here the expiations.

20) That which my wandering mother unfaithful to her husband, became lustful to, let the fluid (either egg or sperm, opinions vary) of my father remove it thus in an illustration of this.

30) Anything of her husband which is undesired that she contemplates on with her mind, this expiation of transgression is properly said.

31) Whatever qualities of a man with whom a women is united with as per injunction, she becomes with those qualities like rivers to with the ocean.

32) Akshamala born of a lower birth was united with Vasishta, and Sharangi with Mandapala went to honourableness.

33) These women and others in this realm who were progeny of inferior ones by the auspicious qualities of their own husband were obtained in upliftment upon themsleves.

34) Verily is said this auspicious worldly affair (common practice) between man and women. Hence, understand the Dharmas regarding progeny resulting in happiness in the next-life.

Women must be Protected

The verses Manu 9.2 and Manu 9.3 read in isolation will make it seem misogynistic. I can;t blame the critics, the word for independence is svatantra, which means on one’s “own accord”. However, if you read them in its context, that is-- reading the entire chapter, you will see what Manu means by svatantra.

Refer to Manu 9.1-6:

1) Of the man and of the women, the two of whom stand on the path in Dharma, I will speak the perpetual Dharmas in the case of union and quarrel.

2) Women must be made un-independent by their own men day and night. Women who go into matters must be kept under one’s control.

3) The father protects her in her childhood, the husband in her womanhood, and the sons protect her in old age. Women shouldn’t be independent.

5) Women must especially be protected even from tiny associations/attachments. She who is unprotected may bring grief amidst both families.

6) Even the not strong husbands who are observing this great Dharma of all Varnas try to protect their wives.

What Manu is talking about is protection. Look at the first half of Manu 9.2: Women must be made un-independent by their own men day and night“. The injunction is not on the women, but on the man. The man must protect the womenfolk in his life. What is wrong with that?

As much as we don’t like it, we can’t tell a girl that she can go out and do whatever she wants, the way we can with a boy. Now obviously we shouldn’t encourage boys to be without supervision, but there is more emphasis for girls. When people speak about whether a neighbourhood is safe, they usually cite women being allowed to walk outside at night as evidence. Why, because it is women who are prone to dangers.

On a similar note, Manu is saying that men should also make sure that the womenfolk in his life are not taking up bad behaviour. Manu is worried that women are prone to certain bad habits and that a man must make sure that they are taken care of such that they don;t develop bad habits. There is nothing wrong with this attitude, and in fact I would say it is benevolent.

In any case, the word svatantra or by one’s “own accord” must be interpreted in light of protecting women. And the best interpretation of “independence” (svatantra) is therefore “fending for oneself”. If you go back to the text and replace the word “independence” with “fend for herself”, things will start to make more sense.

What Manu doesn’t say is that women must be restricted in free will and can;t make her own decisions. Manu is not saying that women must be kept like slaves (to paraphrase Prabhupada. In fact Medhatithi precludes this view under Manu 9.3:

“...Our answer to this is that the present text does not lay down that she shall not be independent in regard to anything at all; all that it means is that her mind being not quite under her control, she is not capable of guarding herself, specially as she does not possess the requisite strength. ”

Now if you read Medhatithi’s entire commentary under this verse, and the commentary under the previous verse, you can see that Medhatithi seemingly contradicts himself when he restricts women’s rights in expenditure of her wealth and alike. This is true, but it warrants its own separate article to talk about, so save your criticism.

Furthermore, Manu mentions under Manu 9.10-12:

10) Of a woman, no one can protect her by force, but by these means, they (women) can be protected.

11) He may employ her in the amassing of wealth and in expenditure, in cleanliness, in dharma, in the cooking of food, and in tending of the furniture.

12) She is unprotected, who is restricted in the house by trustable men. But those women who may guard themselves by themselves, they are well protected.

What does this mean? Put simply, whatever picture you have in your mind about women not being independent, i.e. confined to the house like in a woman in Ancient Greece, is not what Manu recommends.

If it still asked why Manu placed a great emphasis on women being protected from falling into bad conduct, we have clues from his text.

Refer to Manu 9.7-9:

7) One protecting the wife with effort protects his own offspring, character, family, one’s self, and ones’ dharma.

8) The husband having entered the wife (conjugal union) and having become the embryo (symbolically) he is born. That quality of begetting of the wife is born in her.

9)Like the man whom the woman partakes, so is the child she begets. Therefore, for the purpose of pure progeny, out of effort he should protect the womanfolk.

Regarding Verse 7, Medhatithi explains that Manu meant that by protecting his wife and guarding her, she won’t have children with other men (especially of another caste), he won’t have his good name stained. Furthermore, an unchaste wife will cause the entire family to unjustly be ridiculed and as for protecting “one’s self”, sometimes a man is prone to being killed by women or their lovers (looks like this was an ongoing phenomenon), Regarding preserving Dharna, if man’s wife is unchaste, the man is not fit to perform certain required rituals. As for Verses 8-9, they are declamatory verses supplementing Verse 7, elaborating on the preservation of one’s offspring. If a man’s wife has an affair and produces a child, not only is the child not his biologically, but he won’t have the good qualities of the family.

Objection! The reasons Manu gives are rather shallow and selfish, if a man must protect women it must be out of chivalry, not for offspring or family honour!

This objection is valid. However, my response is that these verses are Arthavada, or supplemental words, often flowery, to encourage the performance of an act or discourage it. Not everyone is altruistic, and some people need some sort of enticement to follow the rules. For children we give stickers for good behaviour and threaten to take away their toys for bad behaviour. Similarly, Manu brings up these shallow reasons to entice the non-altruistic men to act chivalrous. Here chivalry is not about opening doors for someone, but rather it is something more benevolent, i.e. protecting those who are deemed vulnerable.

Now, I anticipate that people will take issue to Manu making misogynistic comments regarding the disposition of women. Let us explore them.

Refer to Manu 9.13-17:

13) Drinking, association with bad people, separating/deserting from the husband, sleeping (excessively), and living in another’s house, are the six women corrupting things.

14) The women don’t observe the form (of a man), and they have no stance regarding the age (of the man). Good form or no-form, they enjoy thus, a man.

14) From craving men, from a fickle mind, from frigidity (lack of love) out of innateness, she who is protected even with effort, those white to the husbands destroy.

15) Indeed having known their character which was issued from Prajapati, man must maintain maximum effort regarding protection (of women).

16) Manu construed for women, the beds, the chair, ornaments, lust, anger, insincerity, deceitful nature, ill-conduct.

Basically, these statements are Arthavada and Hyperexpectations (See my article on my Hermeneutical Principles). Odds are that it is only some women that are like this, but despite being less than 50%, there are enough ill-conducted women that grasped Manu’s attention. Manu then wanted to caution men about what bad habits or bad conduct women are prone to take up, and to create a sense of caution he used Hyperexpectation.

We make Hyperexpectatiions too. When we tell kids not to talk to strangers as they could be kidnappers or drug dealers even though odds are only 10% of strangers are like that. However, strangers who kidnap children or sell drugs to them are enough in number that it is worth cautioning our kids from an early age.

A lot of times, the authors of Dharmasahstras pretend that their audiences are like children who need to be enticed with shallow reasoning or scared with Hyperexpectations. They do this because the people who are expounding the Dharma to people want to make sure that they are likely to follow them. In other words these verses are Promotions of Order. It doesn’t matter if it is because they are enticed or if they do it out of altruism, the important goal is that people act orderly.

Like that, Manu resorts to Arthavada and Hyperexpectation regarding women of bad conduct. He isn’t saying that men should always mistrust their women or have low expectations of them, but they should just keep an eye out just in case.

Objection! Bad habits like drinking, association with bad people, or deceitful nature are found in men as much as they are in women, and perhaps more so. How can Manu be so hypocritical?

Manu is no hypocrite here because he goes both ways.

Refer to Manu 9.22-24:

22) Whatever qualities of a man with whom a woman is united with as per injunction, she becomes with those qualities like rivers to with the ocean.

23) Akshamala born of a lower birth was united with Vasishta, and Sharangi with Mandapala went to honourableness.

24) These women and others in this realm who were progeny of inferior ones by the auspicious qualities of their own husband were obtained in upliftment upon themselves.

Now refer to what Medhatithi has to say under Manu 9.22:

“If a man wishes to guard his wife, he should guard himself also against evil habits; and it is not the woman that should preserve her chastity. Since if the man has a bad character, his wife also becomes the same; just as the wife of a man possessed of good character becomes good. For instance the river, though herself sweet-watered, becomes saline like the Ocean, when she joins this latter.—(22)”

People rightly argue that why is it that men are not condemned if they sleep with multiple women but women are. They rightly believe that it is unfair for a man to get away with sleeping with multiple women but not a women with multiple men. It is unfair. A man shouldn't be sleeping with multiple women like an animal. And I wager that modern women are going around sleeping with a bunch of men because they see men acting like that and think if those people who we look up too act like that, so should they.

It is wrong to force women to behave good if the men who are supposed to be their protectors are acting like animals. For such reasons, Manu thankfully has made it clear that a man must be of good charecter if he wants to expect good charecter from his wife.

So rest assured, Manu has no double standards here.

Also if you are wondering about Manu 9.18, this is not prohibiting women from Upanayanam or learning the Vedas (Preclusion of the Effect doesn’t Preclude the Cause), and all that is meant is that most women are not learned in the Veda, as a statement of common occurrence (Presumption of Normality and Statement of Common Occurrence). I will tackle the issue on women’s right to the Vedic study in a later article so I beg you tosave your criticisms.

Statement of Common Practice

Refer to Manu 9.25:

Verily is said this auspicious worldly affair (common practice) between man and women. Hence, understand the Dharmas regarding progeny resulting in happiness in the next-life.

It looks like all those 25 verses of Manu were Statements of Common Occurrence. Meaning that all this is not a forceful injunction on the man, but rather a suggestion or a recommendation that a man should pay heed to.

Medhatithi is of the same opinion:

“‘Commonpractice’— ordinary usage; what has been stated here is the ‘common practice’ obtaining in the world; and when it is said that ‘women are to be guarded in such and such a manner, and not otherwise’, or ‘if women are not guarded, the progeny becomes defiled,’—it is not by way of injunction.”

Let us also use Reality Based Contextualization. We also have to understand that back then there were no CCTV cameras or cellphones to call the cops. Back then, it was likely that a woman was going to easily get assaulted by a man while walking on the road (no cars to be safe in). Such were the times that these scriptures expounded in. Nowadays we have luxuries that can better protect women without their husband or brother being always with them. While our society is not perfect, we are better off in terms of public safety than before. As such, we should relax the zeal we have regarding the protection of women.

And to be honoest, because Manu is basing these rules or guidelines on an existing practice in his time, the Manu's statment that women shouldn't be forcefully confined but rather tasked with chores (for peace of mind on the man) is a step up from the atitude of his time.

Women and leadership Roles

Prabhupada and his followers have claimed that women shouldn’t be in leadership roles. They cite Chanakya pandit who said that one shouldn’t put trust in women and politicians. Regarding the latter, Arthashastra 2.21 mentions how the king should be greeted by an army of females who carry bows that guard the king, meaning Chanakya did give women roles that involve immense trust. Also, Chanakya was a pragmatist who was giving advice on statecraft; the verse he gave on women (and politicians) was likely a cautionary proverb (basically a Hyperexpectation).

Also, Manu meant the protection of women, not denying them leadership roles or alike.

And again, Manu’s statements on women and independence have no force behind them and therefore we are not obliged to follow them with the same zeal as other statements of Manu. In other words, we can interpret Manu 9.1-25 more flexibly.

Objection! Even if Manu meant that women should be protected, we still shouldn’t give women leadership positions as that is not intune with their innate femininity. God has allotted duties to various classes of people based on their Svabhava or innate dispositions. Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita 18.47 that it is better to do one's duty imperfectly than someone else’s perfectly.

There is some validity to such an objection in that being a housewife or child rearer does conflict many times with being a CEO or governess. A woman can be a great CEO but not find true happiness because she is neglecting her dream to have children. Indeed, it may be true that most women are disposed to more traditional feminine roles like housekeeper and as such they aren’t going to gravitate to leadership roles. However, it is foolish to say that dispositions of femininity and leadership are mutually exclusive. One need not be masculine or imitate a man to be a leader; one truly be a feminine girl with strong maternal instincts and yet take up leadership roles. Queen Velu-Nachiyar proved to be a great leader while raising a daughter, even as a single mother.

Furthermore, not all women are predisposed to feminine roles. Perhaps due to past samskaras, some women’s svabhava might be more suited to business or academia than housework and child rearing. If we are to judge people based on what is harmonious with their inner dispositions, we ought to give such women jobs as CEOs or Scientists.

Admittedly, women who fit any of the above two cases are not the majority, but people aren’t a mean, median, or mode or any statistic, and we must judge accordingly a woman who is not like the mean, median, or mode.

What will be more convincing is perhaps good examples of women in leadership roles, that to positions of power, in Indian history.

Now some members of ISKCON cite Indira Gandhi as an example of how bad a woman leader is, but they chose one shallow example. I can name many great women in Indian history who took up leadership roles and were far from being damsels in distress.

We have:

Rani Durgavati, Queen of Gondwana
Rani Rudramadevi, Queen of the Kakatiyas
Rani Velu Nachiyar, Queen of Sivaganga (fought with an army of women against the British)
Rani Tarabai, Queen of the Maratha Empire (valiantly fought against Aurengzeb)

More good came from these true girl bosses than bad. I could go on, but the list is exhaustive. I will probably dedicate a separate article on the warrior queens of Indian History, but for now read the following sources:

Conclusion

I will conclude this article with a message to my readers. Dear Pseudo-Femenists, read and properly analyse the texts you quote before you claim Hinduism to be misogynistic, bigoted, etc. Understand that not everything is anti-women or supporting the patriarchy. Dear Staunch Traditionalists, be more open minded and for some of you, properly interpret the texts. This conservative attitude will be a hurdle for the preservation of Hinduism. If you want people to stay in Hinduism, be more open in the interpretation of the texts. The beauty of Hinduism is that it is diverse and allows free thinking, it can evolve and adapt. The western faiths can't do this so easily, but we can.

Search This Blog

BharataSamskriti