Changes

''<nowiki/>''

''<nowiki/>''

== स्त्रीरक्षणम् ॥ Protection of Women ==

== स्त्रीरक्षणम् ॥ Protection of Women ==

Manusmrti says,  <blockquote>पिता रक्षति कौमारे भर्ता रक्षति यौवने । रक्षन्ति स्थविरे पुत्रा न स्त्री स्वातन्त्र्यं अर्हति । । ९.३ । ।<ref name=":1" /></blockquote><blockquote>''pitā rakṣati kaumāre bhartā rakṣati yauvane । rakṣanti sthavire putrā na strī svātantryaṁ arhati । । 9.3 । ।''</blockquote>Meaning: Father protects the girl in her childhood, husband protects her after marriage and her sons protect her in old age. At no stage should a woman be left free.

Manusmrti says,  <blockquote>पिता रक्षति कौमारे भर्ता रक्षति यौवने । रक्षन्ति स्थविरे पुत्रा न स्त्री स्वातन्त्र्यं अर्हति । । ९.३ । ।<ref name=":1" /></blockquote><blockquote>''pitā rakṣati kaumāre bhartā rakṣati yauvane । rakṣanti sthavire putrā na strī svātantryaṁ arhati । । 9.3 । ।''</blockquote>Meaning: Father protects the girl in her childhood, husband protects her after [[Vivaha (विवाहः)|marriage]] and her sons protect her in old age. At no stage should a woman be left free.

The last part of the above verse has become the basis for the criticism levelled against Manusmrti that it necessitates women to live like slaves of men throughout their life. However, in the earlier section of the article, the respect and regard extended to women in Manusmrti, that precede the above mentioned verse in the text of Manusmrti, has already been referenced. Therefore, it is imperative to revisit the meaning and purpose of the above verse which is 'a woman requires and is entitled to protection in every stage of life'. Correspondingly, it is the duty of the father, the husband and the sons to look after the daughter, the wife and the mother respectively.  

The last part of the above verse has become the basis for the criticism levelled against Manusmrti that it necessitates women to live like slaves of men throughout their life. By nature womanhood is tender. There are many situations in which women/girls require greater care, protection and security. They are vulnerable to various kinds of onslaughts when left unprotected. And that is the basis for the above verse of Manusmrti. It does not mean that woman must be kept without freedom. Such an interpretation runs counter to the verse, which says that the house in which women are insulted and shed tears gets destroyed.  

It is the duty of the father to look after his daughter with all care, educate her by giving due regard to her aptitude in arts, crafts and music and celebrate her marriage. Thereafter, the fundamental duty and responsibility to maintain and protect her stands shifted to her husband. And when her sons come of age that duty gets shifted to them. In fact, protection and care is essential to male children and aged fathers as well. Just, a special provision is made for women. Therefore, the real intention of the verse is to declare the obligation of the father, the husband and the sons to maintain and protect their daughter, their wife and their mother respectively. It is not a directive to subjugate or dominate them. Therefore, to interpret the verse to the effect that a woman must be treated as a slave by her father during her childhood, by her husband after her marriage and by her sons in old age, that she should be deprived of freedom throughout her life and thereby, criticize and condemn Mausmrti  as being against women is wholly erroneous. More so because, it is being quoted and interpreted without reference to the earlier parts and other verses in Manusmrti.<ref name=":2" />

In fact, in the earlier section of the article, the respect and regard extended to women in Manusmrti, that precede the above mentioned verse in the text of Manusmrti, has already been referenced. Therefore, it is imperative to revisit the meaning and purpose of the above verse which rather is 'a woman requires and is entitled to protection in every stage of life'. Correspondingly, it is the duty of the father, the husband and the sons to look after the daughter, the wife and the mother respectively.  

By nature womanhood is tender and requires protection. For instance, one can afford to send a boy to the house of a teacher or another person for education and ask him to stay with him for ten or twelve years, i.e., until he completes his education. Ordinarily this cannot be done in the case of a girl. Doing so would be a dereliction of duty. She requires special care, protection and arrangement for her education.

It is the duty of the father to look after his daughter with all care, educate her by giving due regard to her aptitude in [[64 Kalas (चतुःषष्टिः कलाः)|arts]], crafts and [[Bharatiya Sangita Shastra (भारतीयसङ्गीतशास्त्रम्)|music]] and celebrate her marriage. Thereafter, the fundamental duty and responsibility to maintain and protect her stands shifted to her husband. And when her sons come of age that duty gets shifted to them. In fact, protection and care is essential to male children and aged fathers as well. Just, a special provision is made for women. Therefore, the real intention of the verse is to declare the obligation of the father, the husband and the sons to maintain and protect their daughter, their wife and their mother respectively. It is not a directive to subjugate or dominate them. Therefore, to interpret the verse to the effect that a woman must be treated as a slave by her father during her childhood, by her husband after her marriage and by her sons in old age, that she should be deprived of freedom throughout her life and thereby, criticize and condemn Mausmrti  as being against women is wholly erroneous. More so because, it is being quoted and interpreted without reference to the earlier parts and other verses in Manusmrti.<ref name=":2" />

If the parents desire to send their son to a far off place for higher studies, it would be sufficient for them to give an introductory letter to a person known to them or to get a letter from a friend of theirs to a person known to him and ask the boy to go and get in touch with the said person and secure the necessary help from him and to continue his higher education at such a distinct place. But, can this be done in the case of a daughter? Certainly not. Even with the advancement of civilization, most of the parents will be unwilling to send their daughters alone to a distant place for higher education with an introductory letter to anyone and asking her to contact some one and make her own arrangements. In the nature of things, it is impossible, and improper as also dereliction of duty. Therefore, whenever, a girl is to be sent for higher education to a distant place, the parents also accompany her and only after making proper arrangements for her stay and ensuring full protection to her, they come back. This is the essential difference between man and woman.

The meaning of the verse becomes clearer when it is read with another provision in Manu wherein the highest respect is accorded to women. It says,<blockquote>उपाध्यायान्दशाचार्य आचार्याणां शतं पिता । सहस्रं तु पितॄन्माता गौरवेणातिरिच्यते । । २.१४५ । ।<ref>Manusmrti, [https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%83%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%83/%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%83 Adhyaya 2]</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''upādhyāyāndaśācārya ācāryāṇāṁ śataṁ pitā । sahasraṁ tu pitr̥̄nmātā gauraveṇātiricyate । । 2.145 । ।''</blockquote>Meaning : The acharya is more venerable than an Upadhyaya (teacher); the father is more venerable than an acharya. But the mother is more venerable than the father.

This verse indicates that while the teacher is to be placed at a higher level, the father is to be respected more than the teacher and no place, no status which is higher than that of the mother is given to any one. A combined reading of the verses quoted above indicate that women were placed at a high pedestal. Read along with the verses quoted in the earlier sections of the article, it is revealed that any meaning given to the verse to the effect that women should be denied freedom at every stage would be inconsistent with the other verses. For, if women are denied freedom and kept under subjugation, they are bound to be in grief and tears. And as a consequence, the happiness of the family disappears. Hence, a meaning consistent with the verses quoted alone is appropriate. And that is, 'women should be honoured and protected. It is a humane and a duty-oriented provision, the mandate to provide security and should not be misunderstood as making her life insecure.<ref name=":2" />

 

 

 

A combined reading of the verses quoted above indicate that women were placed at a higher position. The above verse in Manu indicates that while the teacher is to be placed at a higher level, the father is to be respected more than the teacher and no place, no status which is higher than that of the mother is given to any one. These verses should be read with the earlier verse. ''So the real meaning is, the women should be honoured and protected.'' It is a humane and a duty-oriented provision, the mandate to provide security. This should not be misunderstood as making her life insecure. Any meaning given to the verse to the effect that women should be denied freedom at every stage is perverse as it would be totally inconsistent with the other verses. For, if women are denied freedom and they are kept under subjugation they are bound to be in grief and tears, and as a consequence the happiness of the family disappears. Hence, a meaning consistent with the above verses alone is appropriate.

An analysis of many other provisions concerning women in the Smritis indicate that except that, on account of the social system under which a daughter, after marriage, was to become a member of her husband's family, no share in the ancestral property of the father was provided for her by birth, in every other respect special provisions had been made in favour of women. They are:

An analysis of many other provisions concerning women in the Smritis indicate that except that, on account of the social system under which a daughter, after marriage, was to become a member of her husband's family, no share in the ancestral property of the father was provided for her by birth, in every other respect special provisions had been made in favour of women. They are:

Though women were not admitted to the membership of coparcenary, they were members of the joint family and the law gave them the right to a share equal to one fourth of the share of the brothers at partition though they were not given the right to compel partition.<ref name=":2">Justice Mandagadde Rama Jois (1997), [https://www.vhp-america.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DHARMA_Ram_Jois.pdf Dharma: The Global Ethic], Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.</ref>

Though women were not admitted to the membership of coparcenary, they were members of the joint family and the law gave them the right to a share equal to one fourth of the share of the brothers at partition though they were not given the right to compel partition.<ref name=":2">Justice Mandagadde Rama Jois (1997), [https://www.vhp-america.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DHARMA_Ram_Jois.pdf Dharma: The Global Ethic], Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.</ref>