13 Niyoga

Niyoga (appointment of a wife or widow to procreate a son from intercourse with an appointed male). Great divergence of views prevails about the origin and purpose of this practice. It will be best first to begin by examining the most ancient [[smṛtis|smṛtis]] that permitted this practice. [[Gaut. 1407 18. 4-14|Gaut. 18. 4-14]] have great bearing on this point, Gaut. 18. 4-8 are: ‘[[A woman|& woman]] whose husband is dead and who desires offspring may [[secure|socure]] [[a son|& son]] from her brother-in-law. She should obtain the permission of the elders ¹ and have intercourse only during the menstrual period ([[excluding|exoluding]] the first four days). She may obtain a son from a [[sapiṇḍa|sapiṇda]], [[a|&]] [[sagotra|sagotra]], [[a|&]] [[sapravara|sapravara]] or one who belongs to the same caste (when there is no brother-in-law). Some (hold that this practice is allowed) with nobody except a brother-in-law. She shall not bear more than two sons (by this practice). Gaut. 18. 11 says that a child begotten at the request of a living husband on his wife belongs to the husband. Gaut. (28. 32) says that such a son is called [[kṣetraja|kṣetraja]]. The wife is called [[kṣetra|kṣetra]] ² (field), the husband of the wife or widow is called [[kṣetrin|kṣetrin]] or [[kṣetrika|kṣetrika]] (to whom the wife or widow belongs) and the person appointed to produce offspring is called [[bījin|bijin]] (one who [[sows|Bows]] the seed) or [[niyogin|niyogin]] (Vas. 17. 64, one who is appointed).

[[P600]]

The Vas. Dh. S. (17. 56-65) similarly [[prescribes|presoribes]] ³ ’the father or brother of the widow (or widow’s husband) shall assemble the gurus who taught or sacrificed for the deceased husband and his relatives and shall appoint her (to raise issue for the deceased husband). Let him not appoint a widow who is mad, not master of herself (through grief [[etc.|&c.]]) or is diseased or is very old. (Up to) sixteen years (after puberty is the period for appointing a widow) nor shall an appointment be made if the person who is to approach her is [[sickly|siokly]]. Let him approach the widow in the [[muhūrta|muhurta]] sacred ⁴ to Prajapati like a husband, without dallying with her and without abusing or ill-treating her. No [[appointment|appointinent]] shall be made through [[a desire|& desire]] to obtain ⁵ the estate.’ Baud. Dh. S. II. 2. 17 (S. B. E. vol. 14, p. 226) defines a [[kṣetraja|kṣelraja]] son as one who is begotten by another man after permission on the wife of a deceased person or of [[a eunuch|8 eunuch]] or of one who is suffering from (an incurable disease). Manu (IX. 59-61) says that a widow who is properly appointed may obtain offspring, in case there is total failure of issue, from her brother-in-law or [[a sapiṇḍa|& sapinda]] of her husband, that the person appointed should approach her in the dark and should be anointed with ghee and should [[procreate|procroate]] only one son and never two, while some say that he may procreate two. Baud. Dh. [[S.|.]] II. 2. 68-70, [[Yāj.|Yaj.]] I. 68-69 and Nārada ([[strīpuṃsa|strīpumsa]], 80-83) lay down similar rules. Kautilya (I. 17, p. 35) says that [[a king|& king]] who is old or suffering from (incurable) disease should procreate [[a son|& son]] on his queen through [[a mātsbandhu|& mātsbandhu]] or a feudatory chief endowed with qualities similar to his. In another place he says that if a [[brāhmaṇa|brāhmana]] dies without leaving a near heir, then [[a sagotra|& sagotra]] or [[mātsbandhu|mātsbandhu]]

Niyoga

[[P801]] may be appointed to procreate a [[kṣetraja|kṣetraja]] son, who should get the inheritance. ⁶ The conditions necessary to allow [[niyoga|niyoga]] were: (1) the husband, whether living or dead, must have no son; (2) the gurus in [[a|&]] family council should decide to appoint the widow to raise issue for the husband; (3) the person appointed must be either the [[husband’s|busband’s]] brother, or a [[sapiṇḍa|sapiṇda]] or [[sagotra|sagotra]] of the husband or (according to Gautama, a [[sapravara|sapravara]] or a person of the same caste); (4) the person appointed and the widow must be actuated by no lust but only by a sense of duty; (5) the person appointed must be anointed with ghee or oil (Nārada, ⁷ [[strīpuṃsa|strīpumsa]], 82), must not speak with or kiss her or engage in sportive dalliance with the woman; (6) this relationship was to last till one son was born (or two according to some); (7) the widow must be comparatively young, she should not be old or sterile or past child-bearing or sickly or unwilling or pregnant (Baud. Dh. S. II. 2.70, Nārada, [[strīpuṃsa|stripuīsa]] 83-84); (8) after the birth of a son they were to [[regard|rogard]] themselves as father-in-law and daughter-in-law (Manu IX. 62). It is further made clear by the texts that if a brother-in-law has intercourse with his sister-in-law without appointment by elders or if he does so even when appointed by elders but the other circumstances do not exist (e. g. if the husband has a son), he would be guilty of the sin of incest (vide Menu IX. 58, 63, 143, 144 and Nārada, [[strīpuṃsa|stripumsa]] 85-86) and a son, born of such [[intercourse|interoourse]], would be a bastard and not entitled to any wealth (Nārada, [[strīpuṃsa|stripumsa]] 84-85) and that he would ⁸ belong to the begetter (Vas. Dh. S. 17. 63). Nārada says that if a widow or [[a male|& male]] acts contrary to the stringent provisions about [[niyoga|niyoga]], he or she should be severely punished by the king or [[otherwise|ortherwise]] there would be confusion. [[Yāj.|Yaj.]] II. 234 makes such a person liable to be sentenced to a fine of one hundred [[paṇas|paṇas]]. It will be seen from the above that even in the times of the [[Dharmasūtras|Dharmasūtras]], the practice of [[niyoga|niyoga]] was hedged round with so many [[restrictions|restric]]

[[P802]] tions that it must not have been very much prevalent and instances must have been rather rare.

While ancient [[Dharmasūtras|Dharmasutras]] like Gautama allowed [[niyoga|niyoga]], there were other [[dharmasūtras|dharmasūtras]] and writers almost as old as Gautama that condemned the practice and forbade it. Ap. Dh. S. ⁹ II. 10. 27. 5-7 after referring to the view of some that a girl is given to a family in marriage and declaring that that practice (of polyandry) is forbidden [[adds a condemnation|adds & condemnation]] of [[niyoga|niyoga]] ’the hand (of a [[sagotra|sagotra]] is considered to be) that of a stranger; that if (the marriage vow) is transgressed, both (husband and wife) certainly go to hell and that the reward obtained from observing the restrictions of the law is preferable to offspring obtained in this manner (by [[niyoga|niyoga]]).’ Baud. Dh. S. II. 2.38 [[refers|refers]] ¹⁰ to the view of [[Aupajaṅghani|Aupajanghani]] that it is only the [[aurasa|aurasa]] son that is to be recognized as [[a son|& son]] and then quotes three verses (probably of the same ancient sage), which are also [[cited|oited]] as quotations by Ap. [[Dh. S.|Db, S.]] (II. 6. 13. 6) and which call upon husbands to guard their wives and not allow others to procreate sons on the latter, as the sons so procreated will benefit only the begetter. Manu, though at first he [[describes|desoribes]] [[niyoga|niyoga]], ultimately condemns it in the strongest terms possible (IX, 64-68). He says that among [[dvijātis|dvijātis]] a widow should never be appointed to raise issue from another, for by doing so ancient dharma would be violated, that in the mantras relating to marriage there is no reference to [[niyoga|niyoga]] nor is the remarriage of a widow spoken of in the procedure about marriage, that [[niyoga|niyoga]] is a beastly way and was first brought into vogue by king Vena who thereby caused [[varṇasaṃkara|varra-samkara]], and that since that time good men condemn him who through ignorance appoints [[a widow|& widow]] to produce offspring. Manu (IX. 69-70) explains the meaning of [[niyoga|niyoga]] by saying that the rules and the ancient texts about [[niyoga|niyoga]] apply or refer to that case only where, after a girl is promised as a bride, the intended bridegroom dies, the

Niyoga

[[P603]] brother of the latter is called upon to marry the girl and to have intercourse with her only once during each period till she gives birth to a son who would be the son of the deceased. Though Manu condemned the ancient practice of [[niyoga|niyoga]], he had to make provision for the [[kṣetraja|kṣetraja]] son as regards partition (IX. 120-121, 145). It should be noticed that if the [[interpretation|inter pretation]] of Manu IX, 69-70 be accepted, the word ‘[[vidhavā|vidhayā]]’ would have to be taken in two different senses in Manu and other texts e. g. in IX. 60 where Manu speaks of [[niyoga|niyoga]], the word means [[a girl|& girl]] promised to a bridegroom who died before the marriage ceremony was gone through, while in Manu IX. 64 ‘[[vidhavā|vidhava]]’ means ‘[[a widow|& widow]] whose husband died after marriage was completed.’ To say the least, this contravenes the canon of [[Mīmāṃsā|Mimāṁsā]] interpretation that the same word in the same passage or context should have only one meaning. [[Bṛhaspati|Bphaspati]] ¹¹ refers to the fact that the [[Manusmṛti|Manuemrti]] first [[described|des oribed]] the ancient [[niyoga|niyoga]] and then forbade it and adds that in former ages men possessed [[tapas|tapas]] and knowledge and could strictly carry out the rules while in [[Dvāpara|dvāpara]] and [[Kali|kali]] ages there is great deterioration of power and so men of these times cannot now practise [[niyoga|niyoga]]. The several kinds of [[sons|sops]] will be dealt with under [[vyavahāra|vyavahūra]].

The [[Viṣṇu|Viṣṇu]] Dh. S. (15,3) contains an [[innovation|innovation]] [[which|wbich]] is not found in the [[sūtras|sūtras]] of Gautama and [[Vasiṣṭha|Vasiṣthe]] [[viz.,|viz,]] the [[kṣetraja|kṣetraja]] is one ¹² who is procreated on an appointed wife or widow by a [[sapiṇḍa|sapinda]] of the husband or by a [[brāhmaṇa|brābmana]],’ The [[Mahābhārata|Mahābhārata]] is replete with cases of [[niyoga|niyoga]]. [[Ādiparva|Adiparva]] (95 and 103) narrates how [[Satyavatī|Satyavati]] pressed [[Bhīṣma|Bhiṣma]] to procreate sons for [[his|bis]] younger brother [[Vicitravīrya|Vicitravirya]] (who was dead) from his queens and how ([[Ādi|Adi]], 105) when [[Bhīṣma|Bhiṣma]] refused [[Vyāsa|Vyāsa]] [[ultimately|ulti mately]] was appointed by [[Vyāsa’s|Vyasa’s]] mother [[Satyavatī|Satyavati]] and [[procreated|pro created]] [[Dhṛtarāṣṭra|Dbptarāṣṭra]] and [[Pāṇḍu|Pandu]]. [[Kumārilabhaṭṭa|Kumārilabhatta]] ¹³ replies to

[[P604]] the objector finding fault with [[Vyāsa|Vyasa]] by saying that [[Vyāsa|Vyasa]] followed Gaut. (18.4-5) and the urgent request of his mother and besides [[his|bis]] [[tapas|tapas]] saved him from the effects of violation of dharma. [[Pāṇḍu|Pandu]] himself is said to have asked [[Kuntī|Kunti]] to procreate sons for him by [[niyoga|niyog&]] from a [[brāhmaṇa|brābmana]] endowed with great [[tapas|tapas]] ([[Ādi|Ādi]], 120) and tells her certain stories of [[niyoga|niyoga]] ([[Ādi|Ādi]]. 120-123) and winds up by saying that three sons is ¹⁴ the limit and that if a fourth or [[a fifth|& fifth]] were procreated the woman would be [[svairiṇī|svairini]] (a wanton woman) and [[bandhakī|bandhaki]] ([[harlot|liarlot]]). [[Ādiparva|Adiparva]] (chap. 64 and 104) states that when [[Paraśurāma|Parasurāına]] tried to exterminate the [[kṣatriyas|kṣatriyas]] thousands of [[kṣatriya|kṣatriya]] widows approached [[brāhmaṇas|brāhmaṇas]] for the procreation of sons. ¹⁵ Vide [[Ādiparva|Adiparva]], chap. 104 and 177, [[Anuśāsana|Anuśāsana]], chap. 44.52-53, [[Śānti|Santi]] 72. 12 for other references and examples of [[niyoga|niyogs]]. ¹⁶

Owing to the bewildering and often conflicting rules about [[niyoga|niyoga]] in the [[smṛtis|smrtis]], commentators like [[Viśvarūpa|Viśvarūpa]], [[Medhātithi|Medhātithi]], who wrote at a time when [[niyoga|niyoga]] was almost unheard of, made [[heroic|heroio]] though unsatisfactory efforts to bring order out of chaos. [[Viśvarūpa|Viśvarūpa]] on [[Yāj.|Yaj.]] I. 69 states several views on the point. The first is that [[niyoga|niyoga]] is bad in the present age as opposed to [[smṛti|smrti]] texts (like Manu IX, 64 and 68) and to the usage of the [[śiṣṭas|śiṣṭas]] (respectable people). The second view was the same as Manu IX, 69 set out above. A third view was that there was an option (as [[niyoga|niyoga]] was both forbidden and allowed). A fourth view (which seems to be the view of [[Viśvarūpa|Viśvarūpa]] himself) was that the [[smṛti|smsti]] texts about [[niyoga|niyoga]] refer to [[śūdras|śūdras]] ¹⁷ (Manu IX. 64 uses the word ‘[[dvijāti|dvijāti]]’) and it was also allowed to royal families, when there was no male to succeed (and only a [[brāhmaṇa|brāh maṇa]] was to be appointed) and [[Viśvarūpa|Visvārūpā]] relies upon two

[[P605]] verses of [[Vṛddhamanu|Vṛddhamanu]] ¹⁸ and a [[gāthā|gātha]] of [[Vāyu|Vāyu]]. [[Viśvarūpa|Viśvarūpa]] further says that the procreation of sons by [[Vyāsa|Vyasa]] from the queens of [[Vicitravīrya|Vicitravirya]] should be paid no heed (i. e. is not to be relied on) like the marriage of [[Draupadī|Draupadi]] (to the five [[Pāṇḍavas|Pandavas]]). The [[Mahābhārata|Mahābhārata]] probably reflects what happened owing to the incessant internecine wars among the princes of India. Whole princely houses must have been slaughtered. If [[niyoga|niyoga]] was prevalent among them, the males appointed, when they had to be of the same caste, would have been ordinary soldiers ([[kṣatriyas|kṣatri yas]]). The proud princely families very likely thought it below their dignity to associate widowed queens with ordinary [[kṣatriyas|kṣatriyas]]. It is possible to hold that they chose [[brāhmaṇas|brāhmaṇas]] for appointment, as the latter were deemed to be higher than even kings in the spiritual domain. It is impossible to believe that [[Brāhmaṇas|Brāhmaṇas]], who had no temporal power, could coerce the proud and warlike [[caste|oaste]] into choosing [[brāhmaṇas|brāhmaṇas]] for [[niyoga|niyoga]], unless the teaching of the [[smṛtis|smṛtis]] fell in with the notions of the ruling houses themselves to some extent at least.

There was difference of opinion as to whom the [[child|obild]] of [[niyoga|niyogs]] belonged. Vas. Dh. [[S.|s.]] 17. 6 expressly refers to this divergence. The first view was that the child belonged to the begetter; this view would cut at the very root of the purpose for which [[niyoga|niyoga]] was recommended. [[Nirukta|Nirukta]] ¹⁹ III. 1-3 supports this view and relies on [[Ṛg.|Rg.]] VII. 4. 7-8, Gaut. 18. 9 and Manu IX. 181 state the same rule. Ap. [[Dh. S.|Db.8.]] II. 6. 13. 5 says that [[according|acoording]] to [[a Brāhmaṇa|& Brāhmaṇa]] text the son belongs to the begetter. The second view was that if there was an agreement between the elders of a widow and the person appointed or between the husband himself and the begetter that the child should belong to the husband, then the son belonged to the latter. Vide Gaut. 18. 10-11, Vas. 17. 8, [[Ādiparva|Adiparva]] 104. 6. ²⁰ A third view was that the son belonged to both the begetter and the owner of the wife. This is the view of Nārada ([[strīpuṃsa|stripumaa]] 58), [[Yāj.|Yaj.]] II. 127, Manu IX. 53, Gaut. 18. 13.

[[P606]] As shown above (in note 1418) [[niyoga|niyoga]] was forbidden in the [[Kali|Kali]] age by [[Bṛhaspati|Bșhaspati]] and it was included among practices forbidden in the [[Kali|Kali]] age by several works. Vide the [[Mitākṣarā|Mit.]] on [[Yāj.|Yaj.]] II. 117 and [[Aparārka|Aparārka]] p. 97 quoting [[Brahmapurāṇa|Brahmapurāṇa]]. ²¹

The practice of raising issue from the widow of one’s brother or marrying her was a widespread one. Vide [[Westermarck’s|Wester marck’s]] ‘History of Human Marriage’ (1921) vol. III. pp. 207-220. In the [[Ṛgveda|Rgveda]] ²² X. 40.2 we read ‘what sacrificer invites you ([[Aśvins|Aśvins]]) in his house as a widow invites [[a brother-in-law|& brother-in-law]] to her bed or as a young [[damsel|damgel]] her lover’. But it is not clear whether this refers to marrying the widow of a deceased brother or to the practice of [[niyoga|niyoga]]. [[Viśvarūpa|Viśvarūpa]] (on [[Yāj.|Yaj.]] I. 69) thinks that this refers to [[niyoga|niyoga]]. The [[Nirukta|Nirukta]] (III. 15) explains [[Ṛg.|Rg.]] X. 40.[[2|%]], where in some mss. the word ‘[[devara|devara]]’ is explained as ‘a second husband’ ([[dvitīyo varaḥ|dvitiyo yaraḥ]]). [[Medhātithi|Medhātithi]] on Manu IX. 66 explains [[Ṛg.|Rg.]] X. 40.2 as applying to [[niyoga|niyoga]]. According to the [[sūtras|sutras]] and [[smṛtis|smrtis]] [[niyoga|niyoga]] was entirely different from marriage. In many ancient societies, women were inherited like property. On the death of the eldest brother, his younger brother took the family property as well as his widow. But the [[Ṛgveda|Rgveda]] had reached a stage much beyond that. [[MacLennan|Mac Lennan]] thought that the practice of [[niyoga|niyoga]] was due to polyandry. Westermarck combats this view and [[rightly so|rightlyso]]. When [[niyoga|wag allowed]] in the [[sūtras|sūtras]], polyandry had been either unheard of or forbidden. Jolly in [[Recht und Sitte|Recht und Sitte]] (English translation, pp. 156-157) thinks that apart from the religious importance of a son [[economic|economic]] motives were at the bottom of the long list of secondary [[sons|song]], including the [[kṣetraja|kṣetraja]]. This appears to be quite wrong. The practice of [[niyoga|niyoga]] was a [[relic|relio]] from the past and probably owed its origin to several causes, which are now obscure, but one of which was the great hankering for [[a son|& son]] evinced by all in [[Vedic|Vedic]] times. Vas. Dh. S. (17.1-6) lends support to this view, since after quoting [[Vedic|Vedic]] passages about the importance of a son for paying off the debt to ancestors and for [[securing|seouring]] heavenly worlds, he at once proceeds to the description of the [[kṣetraja|kṣeiraja]]. But the [[economic|economio]] motive was never put forward by any of the sages, nor could it possibly have been the reason

[[P607]] and [[mainspring|main-spring]] of the practice. If many secondary sons were desired for [[economic|economio]] reasons, then the same man could have had any number of secondary sons. But the [[dharmaśāstra|dharmaśāstra]] texts do not allow this. A man who has an [[aurasa|aurasa]] son can have no [[kṣetraja|kṣetraja]] or adopted son. If one kind of son was adopted, then another kind of son could not be adopted. So [[economic motives|economio motives]] did not at all form the origin of this practice. [[Winternitz|Winternitz]] in [[JRAS|J. R. A. S,]] for 1897 at p. 758 puts forward poverty, paucity of women and the joint family system as the causes of [[niyoga|niyoga]]. There are no data to prove that there was paucity of women in India during historic times. There might have been a paucity of men owing to wars. Nor do the other two reasons bear [[close|cloge]] examination. It is better to say that [[niyoga|niyog&]] was a survival from the remote past, that gradually it became rarer and rarer till in the first centuries of the Christian era it came to be totally prohibited.