Indian Antiquary Vol 61

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 162

148
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ AUGUST, 1932
the levir did not marry his brother's widow, but simply had intercourse with her. 19 Levirate might have been a right of succession to be enjoyed by the heir when he came to his inheritance, but the Hindu lawgivers regarded it as an unpleasant obligation and a duty towards the dead. One form of polygyny, however, was expressly permitted by the ancient texts. The Smrtis allowed concubinage, that is those who were not married in due form, but were still entitled to maintenance and so on 20; and carnal knowledge of the concubines by any one else was considered as adultery.21
As to the actual prevalence of polygyny in modern India some interesting facts may be gathered from the latest statistics. In the Census Report for 1921-the 1931 census is not yet finished-for the whole of India, including Hindus, Muhammadans and others, the number of married females per 1,000 males is given as 1,008, or exactly 0.8 per cent of the whole population. In certain typically Hindu or Hinduized sections, such as Bengal and Bombay, there is no evidence of polygyny; and Madras and Bihar and Orissa, where the figures are 1,061 and 1,034 respectively, have a very much mixed population consisting of Aryan, Dravidian and Australoid peoples. 22 Polygyny among the Hindus then is more imaginary than real.
Now coming to the actual position of women in Hindu society we find that in theory the husband is the absolute owner of the wife, whom, in ancient times, he could even put to death, the only penalty being the fine of a leathern bag, a bow, a goat or a sheep according to her caste. 23 And in another text it is mentioned clearly that "by a girl, a young woman, or even an aged one nothing must be done independently, even in her own house. In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent." And only in one case Manu recognized the free will of a maiden in the matter of her own marriage: if her father failed to provide her with a husband within three years after her attaining majority she might marry whom she pleased;24 but by her marriage she passed from the absolute control of her father into the absolute control of her husband, whom she was required to worship as a god.25 Cânakya, who according to the Greek historians lived about 2250 years ago, has nothing very good to say about the qualities of women. In one of his slokas he admonishes, saying: "Never put your trust on those with claws [meaning tigers, lions and so on], those with horns [such as bulls, buffaloes, etc.], rivers, women and the royalty; for if you do, you will come to grief in the end."26 And in another place he says that a woman is "adorned" only if she has a husband. 27 The reason for this marked inequality of women was, accord. ing to Manu, because the qualities attributed to women were laziness, vanity, impurity, dishonesty, malice and evil conduct. 28 So inferior were women to men that even a male child was regarded as more deserving of honour than they, and if there were a number of women walking along and there was a male child among them, the child was to walk in front and the women were to follow him.29 The Hindu family being patriarchal, men had
19 J. Jolly, Recht und Sitte, 47.
20 Nárada, xiii, 26, tr. by J. Jolly [S.B.E., xxxiii, Oxford, 1889].
21 Narada, xii, 79; J. Jolly, Recht und Sitte, 64 f.
22 Census of India, 1921, vol. I, India, part i, "Report" by J. A. Marten [Calcutta, 1924], p. 152, § 126. 23 Laws of Manu, xi, 139.
24 Laws of Manu, ix, 90 f.
25 Laws of Manu, v, 154.
26"Nakhinám ca nadindm ca, bringindm sastra-dhdrinám.
Visvdeo naiva kartavyaḥ strishu rdjakuleshu ca."
27"Narinam bhashanam patiḥ."
28 Laws of Manu, ix, 13-18.
29 Satapatha Brahmana, 1, 3, 1, 9; Sylvain Lévi, La doctrine du sacrifice dans les Brahmanas, 157.