12 Duties of Widows

The Duties of a Widow, Some Privileges of Women and the Purdah System

Vidhavādharmaḥ

So far the social position and the duties and rights of a wife during her husband’s [[life-time|lifetime]] have been considered. We shall now consider the rules laid down for a wife if she has the heavy misfortune to become a widow.¹

The word vidhavā occurs several times in the [[.8.|e.g.,]] Ṛgveda (e.g., IV.18.12, X.18.7, X.40.2 and 8); but these passages contain very little that is indicative of their condition in society except Ṛs. X.40.2 (vide under niyoga). Ṛg. I.87.3 [²] says ‘in the rapid movements of the Maruts the earth trembles like a woman deprived of her husband,’ That shows that widows trembled either from sorrow or from fear of molestation and ill-treatment.

The Baud. Dh. S. ³] II.2.66-68 prescribes that ’the widow of the departed should give up for one year honey, meat, wine and salt and should sleep on the ground; according to [[Maud. galya|Maudgalya]] (she should so act) for six months; after that period, if she is [[Bonless|sonless]], she may procreate [[& son|a son]] from her [[brother in-law|brother-in-law]] if the elders consent.’ Vas. Dh. S. (17.55-56) contains similar provisions. Manu (V.157-160) contains rules that have been repeated in almost all smṛtis: ‘a woman when her husband is dead, may, if she chooses, emaciate her body by subsisting on flowers, roots and fruits, but she should not even take the name of a stranger male. Till her death she should be forbearing, observe vows, should be celibate and should hanker after that super-eminent code of conduct that is [[presoribed|prescribed]] for women devoted to their husbands. On her husband’s death, if a virtuous woman abides by the rule of [[celibaoy|celibacy]], she goes to heaven though she be sonless, as the ancient perpetual [[P584]] students (like Sanaka) did. Kātyāyana [⁴] similarly provides ‘a [[gonless|sonless]] widow preserving the bed of her husband (unsullied) and residing with her elders and being self-controlled (or forbearing) should enjoy her husband’s property till her death; after her the heirs of her husband would get it. A widow engrossed in religious observances and fasts, abiding by the vow of celibacy, always bent on restraining her senses and making gifts would go to heaven [[oven|even]] though sonless,’ Parāsara IV.31 is almost the same as Manu V.160. Bṛhaspati [⁵] says ’the wife is declared to be half of a man’s body, she participates equally in the husband’s merit and sin; [[&|a]] virtuous wife, whether she burns herself on her husband’s funeral fire or lives after [[bim|him]], tends to the [[spiritual)|spiritual]] benefit of her husband’. Vṛddha-Hārīta (XI.205-210) prescribes what a widow should do all her life, ‘She should give up adorning her hair, chewing betel-nut, wearing perfumes, flowers, ornaments and dyed [[olothes|clothes]], taking food from a vessel of bronze, taking two meals a day, applying collyrium to her eyes; she should wear a white garment, should curb her senses and anger, she should not resort to deceits and tricks, should be free from laziness and sleep, should be pure and of good conduct, should always worship Hari, should sleep on the ground at night on a mat of [[kusa|kuśa]] grass, she should be intent on concentration of mind and on the company of the good.’ Bāṇa in his Harṣacarita (VI, last para) indicates that widows did not apply [[eye-galve|eye-salve]] to their eyes nor rocana (yellow pigment) to their face and simply tied their hair.⁶ Pracetas [⁷] forbids to an ascetic and a widow the chewing of betel leaves, ceremonial bath (with oil &c.) and taking meal in a vessel of bell-metal. The Adiparva (160.12) says ‘just as birds flock to a piece of flesh left on the ground, so all men woo (or try to seduce) a woman whose [[P585]] husband is dead’: while the [[Santiparva|Śāntiparva]] (148.2) remarks ‘all widows are in sorrow even if they have many sons.⁸ The Skandapurāṇa ([[Kasikhanda|Kāśikhaṇḍa]], chap. 4, vv. 71-106 and III Brahmaranya section chap. 7, vv. 67-81) has long passages on the duties of widows, many verses from which [[ara|are]] quoted in the [[Madanaparijata|Madanapārijāta]] (pp. 202-203), the Nirnayasindhu, [[Dharma sindhu|Dharmasindhu]] and other [[nibandbas|nibandhas]]. A few striking verses may be translated here. The Skandapurāṇa (III, Brahmaranya [[seotion|section]] chap. 7, verses 50-51) says ‘The widow is more inauspicious than all other inauspicious things; at the sight of a widow no success [[oan|can]] be had in any undertaking; excepting one’s (widowed) mother all widows are void of [[auspiciousness%3|auspiciousness;]] [[&|a]] wise man should avoid even their blessings like the poison of a snake.⁹ The Kāśikhaṇḍa of the [[game|same]] purāṇa, chap. 4, delivers itself thus: ’the tying up into a braid of the hair by the widow leads to the bondage of the husband; therefore a widow should always [[abave|shave]] her head. She should always take one meal a day and never [[&|a]] second; or she may perform the observance of fast for a month or undergo the penance of [[cāndrā yaṇa|cāndrāyaṇa]]. A widow who sleeps on [[&|a]] cot would make her husband fall (in hell). A widow should never wash her body with fragrant unguents nor should enjoy the fragrance of sweet smelling things; she should everyday perform tarpana with sesame, water and [[kusa|kuśa]] grass for her husband, his father and grandfather after repeating their names and gotra; she should not sit in [[&|a]] bullock cart even when about to die, she should not put on a bodice, should not wear dyed garments and should observe special vows in Vaisakha, [[Kartikaro|Kārtika]] and Māgha.’ The verse ‘vidhavā-kabarī-bandho &c.’ (Skanda, [¹⁰

[[P586]]

The Duties of a Widow

Kāśikhaṇḍa 4.74) is the only verse on [[wbich|which]] the medieval writers rely for prescribing continual tonsure of widows. That [[ohapter|chapter]] begins by extolling the pativratā ([[Bphaspati|Bṛhaspati]] does it with regard to Lopamudrā, the wife of Agastya). It passes one’s [[under standing|understanding]] why when a pativratā whose husband is living is before [[Bphaspati|Bṛhaspati]] he should wax eloquent over the duties of widows (verses 71-106). Therefore this portion appears to be an interpolation in the Skandapurāṇa itself. In Lakshmibai v. Ramchandra I. L. R. 22 Bom. 590, it was held that the text ‘[[vidhara-kabarl-bandho|vidhavā-kabarī-bandho]]’ is of doubtful validity (p. 594). Besides 69 verses of this chapter 4 are common to chap. 7 of the Dharmāranya section of the Skandapurāṇa (III) which precedes it. There is no reason why they should have been repeated. The Nirnayasindhu quotes [[&|a]] passage from the [[Brabmapurāṇa|Brahmāpurāṇa]] as cited in the [[Pșthvioandrodaya|Pṛthvīcandrodāya]] to the [[effeot|effect]] that śrāddha food should not be got prepared by a widow belonging to another gotra.¹¹

The position of the Hindu widow was miserable and her lot was most unenviable. She was looked upon as inauspicious and so could take part in no festivities, such as those on marriage. She had not only to lead a life of [[perfeot|perfect]] celibacy, even if she was a child widow, but she had to act like an ascetic, being poorly fed (only once a day) and poorly [[olad|clad]]. Her rights to property were negligible. Even if the husband died sonless she did not originally succeed as shown above (p. 582). Later on her position as an [[beir|heir]] was improved; but even then she could ordinarily enjoy only the income of the [[pro perty|property]] and could transfer it only for the legal necessities of the family (including herself) or for the spiritual benefit of her husband. In a joint Hindu family a widow had only the right of maintenance (except in [[Bongal|Bengal]] where she had more rights), which would be forfeited if she became [[unohaste|unchaste]] and persisted in that course.¹² If she returned to a moral life then she may be entitled to bare starving maintenance (vide above p. 573). If her husband had separate property and left a son or sons, the widow was only entitled to maintenance. This was the law [[P587]] in British India till very recently. Recently the position of the widow of a member in a joint Hindu family and of the widow of a person who leaves separate property has been improved by Act XVIII of 1937 as amended by Act XI of 1938.

The Tonsure of Widows

One subject that arouses bitter controversies is the practice of tonsuring widows among brāhmaṇas and certain other castes. A few words must be said on this. It is clear from the [[verso|verse]] (’[[vidhavā-kabari.bandho|vidhavā-kabarī-bandho]]’ &c.) of the Skandapurāṇa quoted in the Madanapārijāta and other [[nibandhas|nibandhas]] that for some time at least before the 14th century A. D. (when the Madanapārijāta was composed) tonsure of widows was in [[yogue|vogue]]. How and exactly when this practice arose cannot be established with certainty. That it is comparatively [[&|a]] later innovation can, however, be demonstrated. Two distinct propositions have to be made out, first, that widows were tonsured on the death of their husbands, just as sons were tonsured and secondly, that widows were required by the texts to tonsure themselves continually from time to time till their death, though sons who had to tonsure themselves on their father’s death are not required to do so [[after wards|afterwards]]. [[Tbe|The]] advocates of this practice rely upon three Vedic passages, viz. Ṛg. X.40.2, Ap.M.P. I.4.9, and Atharvaveda 14.2.60. Ṛg. X.40.2 (cited below p. 606) refers to vidhavā only and probably to niyoga, but there is nothing about tonsure in that [[Verse|verse]]. Some modern orthodox [[Pandita|Paṇḍita]] ingeniously argue from the explanation of the word ‘vidhava’ in the Nirukta (III.15 vidh-vanād-vā iti Carmaśirāḥ). Carmaśiras is the name of a former teacher according to all commentators of the Nirukta, but these pandits interpret it by a tour de force as [[&|a]] synonym of [[vidhavi|vidhavī]] (‘having only the bare skin on her head’). About this interpretation the less said the better. Ap.M.P. I.5.9 contains the word ‘[[vikesil|vikeśī]]’ which is translated as the appellation of a female goblin in S.B.E. vol. 30 p. 187 ‘mayst thou not be beaten at thy breast by she goblin, the [[rough haired|rough-haired]]’ one’.[¹³] Even taking ‘[[vikesi|vikeśī]]’ [[As|as]] referring to the maiden who is being married the meaning is ‘mayst thou, with dishevelled hair, not beat thy breast (through grief)’. The word ‘vikeśī’ does not mean ‘a widow whose hair is tonsured’; it ordinarily means ‘[[&|a]] woman [[P588]] with dishevelled hair’. The third passage is Atharvaveda [¹⁴] 14.2.60, that is a verse in a marriage hymn which means ‘if this [[daugbter|daughter]] of thine has bewailed with loosened hair in thy house, doing evil by her wailing, from that sin let Agni and Savitr release [[thes’.|thee.’]] Here it is impossible to hold that ‘vikesi’ means tonsured, as this mantra is part of the marriage hymn and Agni is asked to remove the blemish due to the girl’s weeping at the approaching prospect of separation from her parents. There is no comment of Sāyaṇa on this passage but elsewhere in the Atharvaveda when that word [[oocurs|occurs]] as in Atharva XI.9.14 he paraphrases it by ‘vikirṇakeśī’ which does not mean ‘with tonsured hair’ but only ‘[[baving|having]] dishevelled hair’. Therefore there is no reference whatever to the tonsure of widows in the Veda, much less an [[inju notion|injunction]] as to it. In the Baud. Pitṛmedhasūtra, [¹⁵] elaborate rules are laid down about the cremation of one who had kindled the sacred Vedic fires. In I.4.3 it is said ‘his wives led by the youngest should follow the cortege with dishevelled hair and throwing dust on their shoulders’ and this they have to repeat several times (vide I.4.12-13, I.5.5-7, I.5.12-14) on the way to the cemetery. It is also said that they go round the [[corpse)|corpse]] thrice with their hair gathered [[togetber|together]] (I.4.13). Then in I.12.7 shaving of the hair and moustache is prescribed for the close relatives of the deceased (amātyas) who are present, his wives are not mentioned in this connection and II.3.17 expressly forbids tonsure of wives.

Manu and [[Yāj, dilate|Yāj. dilate]] on the duties of [[widowe|widows]], but they are entirely silent about tonsure. Nor does any other ancient smṛti refer to it. On the contrary Vṛddha-Hārīta (XI.206 quoted above p. 584) asks the widow not to deck her hair, among other things which, she is not to do. This makes it clear that the widows kept their hair. The word ‘keśarañjanam’ is to be dissolved as ‘[[kesanām rañjanam|keśānām rañjanam]]’ and not as ‘[[kesasoa rañjanam 08|keśāśca rañjanam ca]]’ (as [[Vžddha-Harita|Vṛddha-Hārīta]] XI.103 makes it clear by employing ‘[[kegānāṁ raśjanartham|keśānāṁ rañjanārtham]] vā). It can be shown that [[P589]] at least kṣatriya widows never tonsured their head. In the Mahābhārata whenever the widows of the fallen warriors are described they are always referred to as ‘having dishevelled hair’ and there is not a single reference to tonsure [¹⁶] of widows. In the Harṣacarita, [[Harga|Harṣa]] [¹⁷] in his soliloquy on the death of his father Prabhākaravardhana says ‘may the Glory of super-eminent [[man-hood|manhood]] tie up her hair in the way in which widows tie up their hair’. In the Pehoa praśasti of king Mahendrapala of [[Kanoj|Kānoj]] (E.I. Vol. I p. 246 [[vorge|verse]] 16) the widows of his enemies are spoken of as shedding tears on their cheeks and having long (not braided) and profuse [¹⁸] tresses.

The orthodox pandits rely on a verse in [[Vedavyasa-smṛti|Vedavyāsa-smṛti]] ¹⁹] II.53 ‘a brāhmaṇa woman should enter fire, clasping the dead body of her husband; if she lives (does not become satī) she being [[tyaktakesā|tyaktakeśā]] should emaciate her body by tapas’. The reading ‘[[brāhmaṇi|brāhmaṇī]]’ for ‘jivanti’ is not good, as the word ‘brāhmaṇī’ is redundant having occurred in the first half and as the second half refers to the fact of her surviving after her husband. In this verse the injunction relates only to the emaciation of the body (śoṣayet), the word ’tyaktakeśā’ being only an attribute of the subject is no part of the predicate, which alone is enjoined. The general rule laid down by the Mimāṁsā is (III.1.13-15, the grahaikatvanyāya) [²⁰] that the attributes of a subject are no part [[P590]] of the injunction. There is no injunction about keśa (hair) in the Vedavyāsa passage. Besides the word tyaktakeśā (who has given up hair) may possibly be made to yield three meanings, viz. (1) one who has given up or is unmindful of dressing or decking her hair, (2) one whose hair is given up in accordance with the prescription of some smṛtis that only two finger-breadths of tresses are to be cut off when doing penance for [[govadba|govadha]] &c. in the case of women (vide Parāśara IX.54-55, Angiras 163, Yama 54); (3) one whose head is tonsured. For the first meaning vide [[Raghuvamāa|Raghuvamśa]] IX.14 (where ‘[[analakām|analaṅkārāḥ]]’ is explained by Mallinātha as ‘who have given up ornamenting the hair’). For this meaning of ’tyakta’ vide [[Bhagavadgitā|Bhagavadgītā]] I.33 ‘[[tyaktajivitāḥ’.|tyaktajīvitāḥ’.]] ‘Tyakta’ by itself never means tonsured. The third meaning will be only implied if at all, while the first two are the usual meanings. Further, the interpretation of the Veda-Vyāsa smṛti II.53 given by the pandits is liable to the fault called vākyabheda (i.e. it lays down two injunctions in one and the same sentence), as they say that Veda-Vyasa calls upon widows to [[tongure|tonsure]] themselves and to emaciate their body. Besides, if Veda-Vyasa really meant to enjoin tonsure, the [[verge|verse]] could easily have been made to read ‘[[jivanti ced vapet kesān tapasā &o|jīvantī ced vapet keśān tapasā &c]].’ Lastly assuming that [[Veda-Vyāga|Veda-Vyāsa]] refers to tonsure, there is conflict among smṛtis, since [[Vrddha-Harita|Vṛddha-Hārīta]] (quoted above) allows her to keep her hair, and since an option results when two texts of equal authority conflict (Gaut. I.5). [²¹

The Mit. on Yāj. III.325 quotes a text of Manu (not found in the printed Manu) ‘shaving of the hair is not desired in the case of learned men, the king and women, except in the case of one guilty of [[mahāpātaks|mahāpātaka]] or the killer of a cow and a [[brahma. carl|brahmacārī]] guilty of sexual intercourse.’[²²] The Mit. nowhere refers to tonsure as one of the obligatory matters for widows.

The orthodox pandits further rely upon Ap. Dh. S. I.3.10.6, its explanation in the Mit. on Yāj. III.17 and the explanation of the [[Mit,|Mit.]] in the commentary, [[Balambhatti|Bālambhaṭṭī]]. Apastamba’s [[kūtra|sūtra]] is delivered when the context is about cessation of Veda study (anadhyāya). Āp. [[gays|says]] ‘(the student) shall cease studying Veda for 12 days if his mother, father or teacher dies. In the [[P591]] case of the death of these he must also bathe for the same number of days. Persons who are younger than (the relation deceased) must shave their hair.²³ Some declare that students who have returned home on completion of brahmacarya [[sball|shall]] never shave except when engaged in a [[frauta|śrauta]] sacrifice. In sattras even the top-lock must be shaved’. In this there is no reference to women, much less to widows and lesser still to the tonsure of widows. The reference to [[srauta|śrauta]] sacrifices, sattra, [[and-sikha|and śikha]] indicates that only males are in view. The Mit. on Yāj. III.17 explains at length Ap. Dh. S. I.3.10.6. It gives two [[Benses|senses]] of ‘anubhavin’ viz. those who experience sorrow on the death of a person i.e. his [[gapiṇdas|sapiṇḍas]] (from the root ‘[[bhủ|bhū]]’ with ‘[[anu,’|anu,]]’ to experience) and those who are born after the deceased i.e. who are younger than the deceased (from ‘[[bhu’|bhū]]’ with ‘[[anu ’to|anu’ to]] be born after). The Mit. then combines [²⁴] these and remarks ’those sapiṇḍas of the deceased who are younger than the latter have to [[save|shave]] themselves on the death of a relative’. This is its own view. It then refers to the view of some that ‘anubhāvin’ In Ap. means ‘son’ and those latter rely on a restrictive text ‘*shaving is declared on seven occasions only, [[vix.|viz.]] on the Ganges, in the Bhaskara-kṣetra, on the death of one’s parents or teacher, at the time of consecrating [[srauta|śrauta]] fires, and at the time of a soma sacrifice’. It is clear that the Mit. does not expressly mention the wife or widow here. Supposing that she is impliedly referred to as [[&|a]] sapiṇḍa and as younger than her husband, this will at the most come to the requirement that on the death of the husband the wife had to undergo shaving, just as her son would have to do. But this passage cannot be used to support continual shaving of widows throughout life. Really ‘anubhāvinām’ in Ap. cannot include the wife; since if women were to be included by the rule of [[ekaśega|ekaśeṣa]] (vide [[Panini|Pāṇini]] I.2.67) the absurd conclusion would follow that the daughters of the deceased and his younger brother’s wives (who are all sapiṇḍas and younger) would have [[P592]] to be shaved. The [[Nirnayasindhu|Nirṇayasindhu]] [²⁵] (composed in 1612 A.D.) and the [[Bālambhatti|Bālambhaṭṭī]] (composed towards the end of the 18th century) were both familiar with the tonsure of widows and so they interpret Ap. and the Mit. as requiring shaving for the wife on the 10th day after the death of the husband and rely on a text of Vyāsa quoted in Aparārka. The [[Balambhatti|Bālambhaṭṭī]] says “the words ‘on the death of the mother and father’ are only [[illustra tive|illustrative]] and so the same rule applies to the husband’s death.” Even conceding all this far-fetched interpretation, there is no authority for the continual tonsure of widows [[tbronghout|throughout]] their lives in these passages. It may be noted that the [[Madana pārijāta|Madanapārijāta]] [²⁶] which contains the verse (’[[vidbavā-kabarl-bandho|vidhavā-kabarī-bandho]]’ &c. quoted above) does not include the widow among ‘anubhāvinām’, but only male [[sapiṇdas|sapiṇḍas]] and sons.

The foregoing discussion leads to the following conclusions. There is no express Vedic authority for the tonsure of widows. The gṛhya or dharma sūtras do not refer to it; nor do important smṛtis like those of Manu and Yāj. If one or two smṛti verses of doubtful import seem to refer to it, other smṛtis. Like [[Vžddha-Harita|Vṛddha-Hārīta]] are to an opposite effect. Some of the smṛti texts only refer, if at all, to one shaving on the husband’s death, but there is no smṛti passage prescribing continual shaving for widows. There is only the Skandapurāṇa passage expressly requiring tonsure of widows. The Mit. and [[Aparārks|Aparārka]] are silent about it. It appears that the practice [[Was|was]] gradually evolved after the 10th or 11th century. As widows were equated with yatis for several injunctions (vide note 1367 above) and as the latter shaved themselves, widows were gradually required to do so. By rendering them ugly it might have been intended to keep them [[ohaste|chaste]]. Probably the example of Buddhist and Jaina nuns may have also suggested the cruel practice. We find from the [[Oullavagga|Cullavagga]] [²⁷] that Buddhist nuns [[P593]] cut off their hair and put on orange-coloured robes. In [[Maha rāṣtra|Mahārāṣṭra]] brāhmaṇa widows a few years ago wore a garment that [[wag|was]] reddish (and even now a few old widows do wear it). At all events the practice is not very old and hardly any digest before the Madanapārijāta (14th century) quotes the [[Skanda. purāṇa|Skandapurāṇa]] text. The practice is dying out and deserves to be suppressed at once, though strange insistence on it sometimes obtains [[publio|public]] notoriety. Recently the worshippers in the famous shrine of Vithobā at Pandharpur in [[Mahārāṣtra|Mahārāṣṭra]] [[pre yented|prevented]] an untonsured brāhmaṇa widow from [[baving darśana|having darśana]] of the idol in the customary way i.e. by placing the head on the feet of the idol, while they were prepared to allow [[untongured|untonsured]] widows of all castes (except the so called untouchables), and even Hindu prostitutes in the keeping of Christians or [[Maho medans|Mohammedans]] to have darśana in that way. The matter came before a civil court, where it was decided in favour of the widow that no such [[disorimination|discrimination]] could be allowed to [[pravail|prevail]], but owing to certain unforeseen circumstances the case did not come before the Bombay High Court.

It would be of interest to many to learn that among one sect (the [[Tengalai|Teṅkalai]]) of the [[Sri-vaiṣnavas|Śrīvaiṣṇavas]] (followers of [[Rāmā. nuja|Rāmānuja]]) tonsure of widows has been forbidden for centuries, though [[tbat|that]] sect is most orthodox in other matters.²⁸ The Śūdrakamalakara [[romarks|remarks]] that widows in [[Gouda|Gauda]] keep their hair.²⁹

From very ancient times, it appears the idea was that women should not be killed on any account. The Sat. Br. (XI.4.3.2, S.B.E. vol. 44, p. 62) says [³⁰] ‘people do not kill a woman, but rather take (anything) from her (leaving her) alive’. It was only the king who was authorised, according to Viśvarūpa, to punish a woman to death for adultery with a man of very low caste (vide Gaut. and Manu VIII.371 quoted above on p. 572), but the king had to undergo a slight penance for doing this (vide Yāj. III.268). Manu XI.190 ordains that one who killed a woman was not to be associated with, even after he performed the requisite penance. Manu IX.232 calls [[P594]] upon the king to punish with death those who murder women, children and brāhmaṇas. The Mahābhārata frequently refers to this chivalrous rule. Adiparva [³¹] 158.31 says ’those who know dharma declare that women are not to be killed’. The Sabhāparva 41.13 prescribes ‘one’s weapons should not be directed against women, cows, brāhmaṇas, against one who gave livelihood or shelter’. In the [[Santiparva|Śāntiparva]] (135.14) even thieves are instructed not to kill women. Vide also Ādi. 153.2, 217.4, Vanaparva 206.46. The Rāmāyaṇa ([[Balakānda|Bālakāṇḍa]]) also breathes this sentiment, when Rāma was called upon to kill the ogress [[Tataka|Tāṭakā]].

Even for the most serious offence of adultery with a man of a low caste Yāj. II.286 prescribes for the woman the [[punish ment|punishment]] of cutting the ear &c. Similarly [[Vṛddha-Hārsta|Vṛddha-Hārīta]] VII.192 prescribes the cutting of the nose, ear and lip for attempt to murder the husband or her foetus. Vide Yāj. II.278-279 for the sentence of death in the case of women for certain offences.

It has been seen how women gradually lost the privilege of upanayana, of [[studyiog|studying]] the Veda, of having all the [[samskāras|saṃskāras]] performed with Vedic mantras and how they came to be regarded as entirely dependent on men. Their position became assimilated to that of the [[sūdras|śūdras]] ³²] in many matters. A few examples will be cited here. All dvijātis were to sip water thrice ([[acamana|ācamana]]) for purifying their body, but women and śūdras were to sip water only once for that purpose (Manu V.139, Yāj. I.21). The dvijātis were [³³] to take their bath to the accompaniment of Vedic mantras, while women and śūdras were to bathe silently. [[Sūdras|Śūdras]] and women were to perform what is called [[amaśrāddba|amaśrāddha]] (i.e. [[śrāddba|śrāddha]] without cooked food).[³⁴] The same penance was prescribed for killing a śūdra or a woman (Baud. Dh. S. II.1.11-12, Parāśara VI.16). Ordinarily women, children and very old men could not be witnesses (Yāj. [[P595]] II.70, Nārada, [[rnādāna|ṛṇādāna]], vv. 178, 190, 191), but Manu VIII.68, 70, Yāj. II.72, and Nārada, ṛṇādāna 155 allowed women to be witnesses in disputes between women or when no other witness could be had or in the cases of theft, adultery and other offences in which force was an element. Documents taken from or transactions ([[partioularly|particularly]] gift, sale and mortgage of lands or houses) made with women were ordinarily to be treated as voidable like those brought about by force or fraud (vide Nārada, [[ļṇadana|ṛṇādāna]] 26, 137, [[Yāj,|Yāj.]] II.31). But this instead of being regarded as a disability was rather a boon owing to the general illiteracy of women. The [[Tristhalssetu|Tristhalīsetu]] (of [[Nārāyana|Nārāyaṇa]]) quotes a passage of the [[Brhan-Nāradiya|Bṛhan-Nāradīya]] purāṇa to the effect that women, those whose upanayana has not been performed and [[sūdras|śūdras]] [[bave|have]] no right to establish the images of Viṣṇu or Śiva. [³⁵

If there were many and heavy disabilities on women in certain matters, they enjoyed in certain directions more [[privi. leges|privileges]] than men. It has been already seen that women were not to be killed nor were they to be abandoned even when guilty of adultery. They also enjoyed the right of precedence on the road (vide p. 146 above). The daughter ³⁶] of a patita was not regarded as patita, though the son of a patita was regarded as patita (vide Vas. 13.51-53, Ap. Dh. S. II.6.13.4, Yāj. III.261). Women [³⁷] had to undergo only half of the prāyascitta that men had to undergo for the same lapse (Viṣṇu Dh. S. 54.33, Devala 30, &c.). Women received [³⁸] honour according to the ages of their husbands, whatever their own ages may be (Ap. Dh. S. I.4.14.18). Just as brāhmaṇas learned in the Vedas were to be free from taxes, the women of all varṇas (except those of pratiloma castes) had to pay no taxes, [³⁹] according to Āp. Dh. [[P596]] S. II.10.26.10-11). Vas. Dh. S. 19.23 limits this exemption to women who are young or just delivered of a child. Pregnant women from the third month of pregnancy, forest hermits, [[samnyāsins|saṃnyāsins]] and brāhmaṇas and brahmacārins had to pay no tax at a ferry (Manu VIII.407 and Viṣṇu V.132). According to Gaut. V.23 and Yāj. I.105 children, the daughters and sisters who are married and yet stay with their parents or brothers, pregnant women, unmarried daughters, guests and servants are to be fed before the master and mistress of the house; [[wbile|while]] Manu III.114 and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 67.39 go a step further and say that freshly married girls of the [[fanily|family]], unmarried girls, pregnant women are to be fed even before guests. A judicial proceeding in which a woman was a party, or which was heard at night or outside the village or inside a house (i.e. not in public) or before [[enoinies|enemies]] was liable to be reviewed (Nārada [⁴⁰] I.43). Ordinarily trial by ordeal did not apply to a woman, whether she was plaintiff or defendant, but if at all a woman had to prove her case by ordeal, only the ordeal of tulā (balance) was prescribed for her (Yāj. II.98 and Mit. thereon). In succession to strīdhana property, daughters were preferred to sons. Women did not lose their stridhana by adverse [[possossion|possession]] (Yāj. II.25, Nārada, [[ṣṇādāna|ṛṇādāna]] 82-83). Women were always to be consulted about ācāra, Ap. Dh. S. II.11.29.15 cites the view that rules not stated in the sūtra are, according to some teachers, to be understood from women and from men of all castes. Āp. Gṛ. II.15 prescribes that in marriage the usages to be followed are to be learnt from women. Vide also Aśv. Gṛ. I.14.8, Manu II.223, [[Vaik,|Vaikh.]] III.21. [⁴¹

The Usage of Observing Purdah

One interesting question is whether the practice of purda now in vogue among [[Moslems|Muslims]] and also among Hindus in certain provinces of India prevailed in ancient times. Ṛg. X.85.33 (used in the marriage rite) expressly calls upon people to look at the bride. “This bride is endowed with great auspiciousness; assemble together and see her; having given her blessings of good luck you may go to your house.” The Aśv. Gṛ. I.8.7 prescribes that at each halting place when the [[bride-groom|bridegroom]] is returning to his village with his bride he should [[P597]] look at the spectators with the [[verge|verse]] Ṛg. X.85.33.⁴² This shows that no veil was worn by the bride and she appeared in public without one. Though in the marriage hymn there is a blessing (Ṛg. X.85.46) that the bride was to dominate over her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law, it appears that that was only a blessing and the heart’s wish, but the reality was somewhat different. The Ait. Br. [⁴³] (12.11) [[gays|says]] that the daughter-in-law is abashed in the presence of the father-in-law and goes away concealing herself from him. This indicates that there was some restraint for younger women when they were in the presence of elders. But in the [[gļhya|gṛhya]] and dharma sūtras there is no reference to any veil for women when moving in public. Pāṇini III.2.36 teaches the formation of ‘asūryampaśyā’ (who do not see the sun) applied to queens. That only shows that royal ladies did not leave the precincts of the palace and come under [[publio|public]] gaze. In the [[Ayodhya-kāṇda|Ayodhyā-kāṇḍa]] [⁴⁴] (33.8) it is said ‘people walking on the [[publio|public]] road see to-day Sītā who could not formerly be seen even by aerial beings’. Similarly it is stated in the same [[kāṇda|kāṇḍa]] (116.28) ’the appearance of a woman in [[publio|public]] is not blamable in misfortunes, [[diffioulties|difficulties]], in wars, in svayamvara, in [[&|a]] sacrifice, and in a marriage’. In the Sabhāparva [⁴⁵] 69.9 Draupadī [[exolaims|exclaims]] ‘we have heard that ancient people did not take married women to the public assembly-hall; that ancient and long-standing practice has been contravened by the Kauravas.’ She says this after referring to the fact that, since she was seen at her svayamvara by the kings, she was never seen again by them till the day she [[P598]] was brought to the assembly-hall when [[Yudhisthira|Yudhiṣṭhira]] gambled and lost everything. This shows that women, particularly [[high born|high-born]] ladies, did not appear in public except on certain occasions, but it does not follow that they always wore the veil. When the Kauravas were routed the [[Salyaparva|Śalyaparva]] (29.74) laments that their ladies whom even the sun did not see in their palaces were seen by the common people who had come to the capital. Vide also Sabhāparva 97.4-7, [[Salyaparva|Śalyaparva]] 19.63, [[StrIparva|Strīparva]] 9.9-10, [[Aśrama-vāsi-parva|Āśrama-vāsī-parva]] 15.13. In the Harṣacarita (IV) princess [[Rājyasri|Rājyaśrī]], whom the intended [[bride-groom|bridegroom]] Grahavarmā came to see just before marriage, is described as having her face covered with a veil of fine red cloth. In another place, while describing the country of [[Sthāṇvisvara|Sthāṇvīśvara]] (modern [[Thanesar)|Thanesar]]) Bāṇa says “where bees drawn by the fragrance of the breaths of the ladies (and hovering round their faces) served as a charming veil for their faces and the veil actually worn by them became a mere redundancy worn because it was the practice of high-born ladies to wear one.” In the [[Kādambari|Kādambarī]] also (para 99) Bāṇa describes Patralekha as covering her face with a veil of red cloth. In the [[sakuntala|Śakuntalā]] when [[Sakuntalā|Śakuntalā]] is taken to the court of [[Duṣyanta|Duṣyanta]] she is described as wearing [[&|a]] veil. [⁴⁶] So it must be conceded that ladies of high rank did not appear in public without a veil, but ordinarily women did not wear any veil. It is probably after the advent of the Moslems that the wearing of a veil, which was not quite unknown, became general among Hindu women in Northern and Eastern India. Vide Indian Antiquary for 1933 p. 15, where [[&|a]] passage is quoted from the [[Saṅkhyatattva-kaumudi|Sāṅkhyatattva-kaumudī]] of [[Vacaspati|Vācaspati]] (9th century A.D.) referring to ladies of good family not appearing in public without a veil and Pathak Commemoration vol. p. 72 for references from Buddhist works about the practice of [[purda|purdah]].