Chapter:#12ofTheHindus,anAlternativeHistorybyWendyDoniger

ChapterTitle:EscapeClausesintheShastras100BCEto400CE

CONTENTS:
1. Introduction.1 2. SomeErrorsinChapter123

1. Introduction:
Liketherestofthebook,thischapteralsoaboundsintyposandwrongreferencestoHinduscriptures.Inmanycases,wediscoverDonigersclaimstobe totallyfalse.WegiveafewexamplesoftheseinSection2. Andworst,thischapterisbesetwithnumerousmethodologicalflaws. First, she restricts the term shastra to texts produced supposedly in this period (100 BCE to 400 CE) alone. One can dispute whether Manusmriti and Athashastra belong to this period. But even if they do, there were many other texts in the category shastra that were produced before and after this period.InthefieldofDharmaitself,wehaveseveralDharmasutras(Donigerreferstothemverycursorily)whichdefinitelyprecedethisperiod.Likewise, Kautilyas Arthashastra itself quotes numerous predecessors who definitely lived before this period, but whose works do not survive. Even the Kamasutrareferstomoreancientworks. Second,sherestrictsthechaptertoacomparisonandcontrastofprimarilythreetexts:ManusmritiforDharma,AthashastraforArthaandKamasutrafor Kama.Therewerenumerousothertextsinthecategoryshastra(e.g.,DharmaworksofApastamba,Gautama,Yajnavalkyaarequiteimportanttoo)but she uses them very sparingly, if at all. As a result, her chapter is very deficient in the diversity of perspectives reflected in the tradition, and ignores the importanceofintertextualityinthiscase. Third, Doniger thoroughly misuses Manusmriti to weave her yarns. She acknowledges that the shastras, including Manusmriti, refer to a multiplicity of opinions and she also acknowledges that this scripture probably does not reflect social reality accurately or that it was even the law of the land. Therefore, it defies our understanding why she uses Manusmriti alone and ignores numerous other works of the period to create a historiographically navepictureoftheroleofwomenandlowercastesintheIndiansociety. 1

 Fourth, even while referring to Manus opinions on different topics, she cherrypicks verses that suit her narrative, ignoring contradictory verses. And she projects Manusmriti as a confused scripture, ignoring her own statement that Manu provides an array of diverse opinions in the spirit of inclusiveness. The Indian shastric etiquette requires that while listing different opinions, the author narrates them in the increasing order of his own acceptance of these opinions, and then give his own conclusion if at all. In other words, he first lists the opinions that are less acceptable to him, and then those which are more acceptable. The last of the various opinions represent the authors own opinion (or the one acceptable to him). Doniger ignores this elementary understanding about how Hindu Shastras deal with multivalent topics and therefore, lands up misrepresenting the purport of theseShastras. Fifth, Doniger portrays the period as the age of chaos in India due to constant invasions from the northwest. In reality, large parts of India, at any time during the given period, remained free of foreign rule. The Kushana rule was restricted to what is now Pakistan, and a few parts of northern India. CentralandpeninsularIndiawerewhollyfreeofforeignrule. Theseconsiderationsapart,itisnotoutofplacetomentionherethatDonigerstranslationofManusmritihascomeinforseverecriticism. Donigers book is witty, but very misleading, and demeaning to the Hindus. Projecting the Hindus as The Erotic Other seems to be the new form of racisminIndologythesedays!

2. Some Errors in Chapter 12:

Someexamplesoferrorsinthischapterarelistedbelowwithcomments # Page Para# Erroneousstatementinthebook # onthe page 150CERudramanpublishesthefirstSanskrit 1 304 1 inscriptionatJunagadh. Himselfofuncertainclass,Rudramanleanedover 307 3 backwardtopraisedharma.Hisisthefirst substantialinscriptioninclassicalSanskrit(Ashoka andKanishkahadwritteninvariousPrakrits, Comments

This is outdated information! It is apparent that Doniger has relied on outdated Marxist historians like D D Kosambi to spin a historicalyarn.Butsheisnotaloneinthisregardtheoutdated fact of Rudramans inscription being the first one in Sanskrit is repeated ad nauseum in numerous other books of Indian MarxisthistorianslikeRomilaThaparandDNJha. A recent work1 cites archaeological reports from 1980s to the

1 Quintanilla,SonyaRhie.2007.HistoryofEarlyStoneSculptureatMathuraca.150BCE100CE.Leiden;Boston:Brill,2007 2

usuallyMagadhiorPali).Rudramanschoiceof Sanskritunderlinedbythefactthathewroteright ontopofthePrakritofAshoka,mayhavebeen designedtoestablishhislegitimacyasaforeign ruler,tomitigate,thelamentablechoiceof parents,asthehistorianDDKosambisuggested.

effect Yavanarajya inscription found at Mathura was inscribed to record the donation of a Brahmana and is in chaste Sanskrit. Thedateofthisinscriptionis7069BCE.(p.254256).Twoother Mathura inscriptions from the period 150 BCE to 100 CE found in Mathura, and recording Brahmana donors are also in chaste Sanskrit. Of these, the Jamalpur Tila stele inscription is from a mound whose remains are dated to as early as 150 BCE (p. 19, 100, 260) but the inscription itself may be a century younger. The other, the Mirajpur Stele inscription (p. 100, 259) also predates Rudraman and is probably from the Mahakshatrapa period (75 BCE 50 CE). The point to note is that all of these inscriptions are due to Brahmana patrons, who had no need to prove their orthodoxy to other Hindus. In other words, chaste Sanskrit inscriptions are found that are almost 250300 years olderthanwhatDonigersupposes. Donigersfactsarethereforeoutdatedby3decades.And therefore,herpseudohistoryfollowingantiquatedMarxists historianslikeDDKosambiislamentable.

TheBrahminimaginaryhasnocanon,butifitdid, Incorrect claim. If there is any canon that Hindus admit, it is the thatcanonwouldbethebodyofshastras,which Shruti which incorporates the Vedic Samhitas, the Brahmanas, spelledoutthedominantparadigmwithregardto the Aranyakas, the Upanishads; and sometimes also the women,animals,andcastes,themarkatwhichall BhagavadGitaandtheTantras(Agamas). subsequentantinomianorresistantstrainsof Hinduismaimed. Note(fromVishal):Wendyusestheword shastrasfortextslikeManusmriti,Athashastraof Kautilya,KamasutraofVatsyayanaand AshvashastraofNakula. 2 305 2

305

305

SomeIndiannationalisthistoriansregardeditas theAgeofInvasions,thedecadentageofnon Indiandynasties,whenbarbarians(mlecchas) continuedtoslipintoIndia.Butitlookstousnow rathermorelikeapreimperialAgeofDiversity,a timeofrichculturalintegration,acreativechaos thatinspiredthescholarsofthetimetobring togetheralltheirknowledge,asintoafortified city,topreserveitforwhateverposteritythere mightbe. Theartandliteratureofthisperiodarefarricher thanthoseofeitherofthetwoempiresthatframe it,theMauryasandtheGuptas.5 5 Keay,India,102

Misleadingremark.ItwastheGuptaperiodfollowingthisera, thatweseeagreatefflorescenceintheliteratureandartof Hindus.MostoftheancientPuranas,ancientAgamas,Kavyas etc.weregiventheirfinalformsduringtheGuptaera. ItisfashionableamongMarxisthistoriansandtheirwestern collaboratorslikePatrickOlivelletodemeananythingthatis HinduorIndian,andexaltanythingthatisforeigntoIndia. Donigerscommentsfallintothesamecategoryofglorifyingthe earlycenturiesofthecommonerabecausepartsofIndiawere besetwithinvasionsatthattime. Comment: Doniger copies Keay, who has relied on the thesis of Indias Marxist historians. The latter cannot accept that major advances in Indian art, literature and science could have happened in India without a foreign impetus. The reason for this is their phobia for Hindu fundamentalism. The Marxist historians, and their followers Keay and Doniger worry that if major advances in Hindu culture, literature etc., are attributed totheGuptaera,itwouldfuelHindufundamentalism! Comment: This is the sixth place in the book, where without ANY context, Doniger is writing an apologia for large scale destructionofHinduandJaintemplesandBuddhistmonasteries anduniversitiesbyfanaticalMuslimrulers. If the Hindus destroyed many Buddhist shrines, where is the literaryevidenceforthat?WherearetheruinsoftheseBuddhist shrines? Which Hindu scripture asks for destroying the shrines ofotherfaiths? Inchapter21,DonigerclaimsthatHinduismisaBritishconstruct and did not exist before the 19th century. So how can she claim thatHindusdestroyedBuddhistshrinesintheancientperiod? In other words, Doniger repeats this lie chapter after chapter in her book that Hindus destroyed Buddhist stupas in the

307

In150CE,Rudraman,aShakakingwhoruled fromUjjain,publishedalongSanskritinscriptionin Junagadh,inGujarat;hecarvedit,inthe palimpsestfashionfavoredbymanyIndianrulers (templesonstupas,mosquesontemples),ona rockthatalreadyheldasetofAshokasPrakrit MajorRockEdicts.

308

308

Goebbelsian hope that a lie repeated a 100 times comes to be takenastruth. Comment:FollowingMarxisthistorians,Donigerunnecessarily They[theSatavahanarulers]wereorthodoxin theiradherencetoVedicsacrificeandVedicgods, attributeseconomicmotivesbehindtheSatavahanapatronage andtheymadelandgrantstoBrahmins,butthey ofBuddhists,soastodepictHindusinanegativelight.First, alsopatronizedBuddhism,inpartbecauseitwas whereistheproofthatsignificantamountoffundswere moresupportiveofeconomicexpansionthan channeledintosacrificebytheBrahmins?Second,itignoresthe Hinduismwas:Itchanneledfundsintotrade factthatHindudynastiesingeneralalwayssupportedavariety insteadofsacrificeandwaivedthecastetabooson ofreligioustraditionswithintheirrealm,inkeepingwiththe foodandtradethatmadeitdifficultforpious proverbialHindutolerance.NotonlytheSatavahana,butmany Hindustotravel. earlieraswellaslaterHindurulerspatronizedBuddhists,Jains andHinduswhofollowedtraditionsdifferentfromtheirown whetherwelookattheSungas,GuptasoranyotherHindu dynasty.TheSatavahanaswerenotanexceptioninthisregard. WhereistheproofthatancientHindutradersweremore BuddhistthanHindus?EveninthelatertimeswhenIndiawas overwhelmedwithIslamicrule,theHindutradersretainedtheir controlovertrade(bothdomesticaswellasinternational)toa greatextent,despitethescripturaltaboos.Inotherwords, DonigerhasmerelyregurgitatedsimplistictheoriesofMarxist historianslikeRomilaThapar.WhentheSatavahanasruled,it wasnotjustBuddhismbutalsoHinduismthatwastransplanted byIndiantradersinSEAsia.Thisclearlyshowsthatthe scripturaltabooswerefloutedinpracticeandHindutraders werepresentinlargenumbersinSEAsia. Comment: Again, a totally false statement. The Dharmasutras TheHinduresponsetotheBuddhistchallenge wasnotonlytoreclaimdharmafromdhammaand are a part of the ritual sutras (Kalpasutras) and are seemingly uninfluenced by Buddhism. Except for the idiosyncratic views of buttoextendit.Dharmaintheritualsutrashad Patrick Olivelle who postdates them after King Ashok, all beenmostlyabouthowtodothesacrifice;the dharmashastrasnowappliedittotherestoflife, scholars place them in the time period of 600400 BCE roughly. And these Dharmasutras do talk a lot about what to eat, whom dictatingwhattoeat,whomtomarry.Sotoo, whilekarmaintheritualtextsusuallydesignateda to marry, the moral consequences of our Karma, rebirth, ritualact,inthedharmashastras,asin Moksha and so on. The Apastamba Dharmasutra for instance as Mahabharata,itcametobeunderstoodmore an entire section called the Adhytma Patala that has a broadlyasanymoralconsequentialactbinding commentaryonitbynoneotherthanShankaracharya.

309

311

onetothecycleofdeathandrebirth. Shastrameansatext,orateaching,ora science;ashvashastraingeneralisthescienceof horses,whiletheAshvashastraisaparticular text*aboutthescienceofhorses. *AttributedtoNakula,thePandavasonofoneof thetwinequinegods,theAshvins. Theriseofmyriadsocialgroupsatthistime createdproblemsforthetaxonomistsofthesocial order.Someonehadtoputallthistogetherinto somethinglikeageneraltheoryofhuman relativity.ThatsomeoneisknowntotheHindu traditionasManu.

Misleadingremark.Donigerseemstobeunawarethatthereare atleastfiveAshvashastrasthatexisteventodayandonlyoneof themisattributedtoNakula.

10

314

11

315

ManuregardsthePariahsastheKaliAgeofthe body. InacontemporaryIndianClassicComicversionof Comment: A wrong statement because Kunti bore the children theMahabharata,PanducitesManutojustifyhis of three gods. It was the second wife Madri who bore children decisiontoallowKuntitobeimpregnatedbyfive fromtheAshwiniKumaratwins. gods.31 31 AmarChitraKatha,Mahabharata#3,The AdventoftheKuruPrinces,13,paraphrasingthe Sanskrittext,Mahabharata1.111.31,whichin turnparaphrases,andindeedreversesthepointof Manu9.15860

Again, a wrong statement because the supposed origin of mixed castes (=myriad social groups) is discussed in the Dharmasutras that are regarded as older to Manusmriti by Indologists. For example, we can cite the following passages of Dharmasutras thatdiscussedthesemyriadsocialgroups: ApastambaDharmasutra2.2.67 GautamaDharmasutra4.1628 Baudhayana Dharmasutra 1.16.616; 1.17.115; 2.3.2930; 1.2.13 VasishthaDharmasutra18.110 Donigers obsession with Manusmriti makes her unable to see similar material in older works and therefore she lands up makingfalseassertions. False assertion. Manusmriti does not equate or regard the PariahasastheKaliAgeofthebodyoranything.

12

316 317

DonigerdevotesanentiresectiontoManus opinionsonmeateatingversusvegetarianism. Inoneverse,Manuseemsactuallytopunisha personfornoteatingmeatatthepropertime: Butwhenamanwhoisproperlyengagedina ritualdoesnoteatmeat,afterhewillbecomea sacrificialanimalduringtwentyonerebirths (5.35)Thusheencouragespeopletoeatmeatif theyfollowtherules.Elsewherehedescribesmeat eatingtooasanaddictionthatsomepeople cannotgiveupentirely:Ifhehasanaddiction(to meat),lethimmakeasacrificialanimaloutof clarifiedbutterorlethimmakeasacrificialanimal outofflour;butheshouldneverwishtokilla sacrificialanimalforno(religious)purpose(5.37). ClearlyManuhassympathyforthevegetarian withhisveggiecutlets,butalsofortheaddicted carnivore.

Comment: Donigers hurried conclusion sacrifices intellectual rigor at the altar of literary cutisms. Manu is not confused as Doniger portrays him to be. Rather, Manusmriti refers to a multiplicityofviewsonthequestionofmeateating:Thatwecan eat in an unbridled manner (Manusmriti 5.2830), that we can eatitonlyundercertainrestrictionslikeonlyduringYajnas(ibid. 5.315.44), that we must not eat meat at all (ibid. 5.4555). Each succeeding views is more acceptable to Manu than the preceding ones (if we follow the Shastric conventions that Doniger seems not to understand). Given the highly contentious nature of this issue, Manu then concludes with a compromised viewthatbestreflectshisownposition: There is no fault in eating meat, in drinking liquor or in having sex, for these are the natural tendencies of creatures. But he who abstains from these attains great rewards. Manu Smriti 5.56 This last verse in fact reflects the nuanced attitude towards meat eating that the Hindu society (when seen as a whole) seems to have. Most Hindus eat meat, but most of them also believe that being vegetarian is morally and spiritually better. The same goes for the average Hindu attitude towards sex and liquor most Hindus indulge in these but transcending them is theirdesiredgoal. Donigers crude interpretation does no justice either to the Manusmriti,nottothesocialmoresoftheHindus. Donigers citation is wrong, because she has quoted only verses 5.38, 4849 and not Manusmriti 5.38. 4853. This is just anotheroneofthenumerouscarelesstyposinthischapter. Funnily, Donigers own translation of these verses proves that it is not only verse 5.53 (= 5.49) that shows sympathy for the

13

317

24

DonigercitesManusmriti5.38.4853andclaims thatThelastlinealoneexpressesactual sympathyforthesufferingoftheslaughtered animals.

animal that is being slaughtered, but also the previous verse 5.52(=5.48).Letusquotethatverse5.48: Meat cannot be obtained by causing injury to living creatures, and killing living creatures prevents one from reaching heaven. Therefore, one should completely abstain from eating meat. ManuSmriti5.48(=VishnuDharmaSutra5.71) Doniger implies that Manu lacked sympathy for the suffering of animals.IfManusmritiisexaminedcarefully,whatweseeisthat Manusmriti is often light years ahead in the matter of animal rights when compared to texts of many other religions. For example, it prescribes atonements and penances for even accidental killing of animals, birds, insects and aquatic creatures (e.g., Manu Smriti 11.69, 71). These penances are required to atone for killing not just domesticated creatures, but even for wild creatures (Manu Smriti 11.132142). Animals also have legal rights in Manusmriti, and the state can punish a person who assaults not just a human being, but also an animal. For e.g.,
If someone hits a human being or an animal in order to cause them pain, the King shall impose a punishment on the perpetrator of the assault in proportion to the severity of the pain caused. Manu Smriti8.286

Likewise, if a vehicle driver kills or injures animals by running over them, he is punished by the state his carelessness (Manu Smriti8.295298). Manusmritialsoforbidsariderfromwhippingthehorseherides too hard, and asks farmers not to yoke bulls and other draught animals beyond their comfort and capacity. Similar verses are found in many other Dharmashastras. It is only Doniger who sees a lack of sympathy that Hindu Rishis had for animals becauseofherownprejudicedviewsaboutHinduism. 8

14

318

15

319

16

320

Comment: Her characterization that Vedic sacrifices necessarily ManutransformsfiveoftheearlierVedic sacrifices(animalsacrificesinwhichviolenceis involve animals sacrifices is wrong. Only a small fraction of the assumed)intofiveHinduvegetariansacrificesthat Shrauta Yajnas require animal sacrifice (and many sacrificers avoidviolence(3.7074). actuallydonotsacrificeanyanimaleveninthese). Inanycase, claimthat thesedomesticvegetariansacrifices(Five Mahayajnas) are transformations of more ancient Vedic animal sacrifices is entirely questionable because many scholars like Hermann Oldenberg were of the view that the domestic rites (Grhyayajnas) might actually predate the Vedic sacrifices (Shrautayajnas). The domestic and Vedic sacrifices are not substitutes in which one transformed to another; rather they arecomplementaryandbelongtodifferentspheresoflife. Comment: This is a grossly simplistic interpretation, and a very Finally,Manuinvokestheargumentfrom equivalence:Themanwhooffersahorse juvenileoneatthat.TheAshwamedhaisconsideredtheacmeof sacrificeeveryyearforahundredyears,andthe all Vedic Yajnas and he who performs a 100 of them in his manwhodoesnoteatmeat,thetwoofthemreap lifetime becomes fit to become Indra in heaven in the Hindu thesamefruitofgooddeeds(5.54).Thatis,to sacrifice(tokill)ornotto(killand)eatananimalis tradition. Therefore, the verse is not equating killing of animals to not killing them. Rather, it exalts vegetarianism and says that thesamething. the mere vow of not eating meat equals the supreme feat of ritualistic Dharma that one could perform. So once again, we question Donigers skills of interpretation which are often sacrificedinfavorofliterarycutisms. TheBrahminsemittedtheshastras,asfrightened Comment: Donigers claim, often repeated ad nauseum by squidemitquantitiesofink,todisciplinethe Indias Marxist historians and now by some western Indologists addictionthatcouldinvadetherationalfaculties, like Olivelle is simply devoid of any cogent evidence. Donigers asthebarbariansfromthenorthwouldinvade claim is tantamount to saying that these shastras (Manusmriti, IndiaintheKaliAge. Arthashastra, Kamasutra) are the first texts in their respective genres. In fact, they are one of the last surviving specimens or redactions of older shastras or shastric traditions. For instance, boththeArthashastraaswellastheKamasutraquotenumerous older authorities from whose works they have drawn (and

17

323

Manusentiretextisanintricateregimenforthe controlofthesenses,essentialforanyoneonthe pathtoreleasebutalsoadesideratumforpeople onthepathofrebirth.Kautilya,bycontrast,tosses offtheneedforcontrolofthesenseswithjusta few,ratherunhelpfullines:Theconquestofthe sensesarisesoutoftraininginthesciences (vidyas)andisaccomplishedbyrenouncingdesire, anger,greed,pride,drunkenness,andexhilaration (1.6.1). Sexistheonlyinbornaddiction:Weareall,inthis Hinduview,naturallyinclinedtoit,exposedtoit allthetime,inherentlylascivious.

18

324

Doniger herself acknowledges that Kamasutra refers to Shvetaketu and other older authorities). Then, Manusmriti is quoted by the older Dharmasutras which were clearly created before the invasions of Scythians or Greeks. If is possible that the Smriti underwent a redaction during the period 100 BCE 400 BCE (considered in this chapter) but the available evidence is sufficient to prove that these Shastric traditions predate these foreign invasions. Even otherwise, the Dharmasutras are Shastras which predate the period in question (100 BCE 400 BCE) and they are similar in style to Manusmriti. Therefore, Donigersclaimisnaveandinaccurate. Comment: Donigers complaint against Manusmriti is like complaining that she did not find penguins in Sahara or that she did not find camels in Antarctica. Manusmriti is a Dharmashastra, and so obviously, it will focus more on matters of Dharma like control of ones senses than the Arthashastra. The Arthashastra deals with matters like economics and politics and therefore obviously moral and spiritual matters will be mentioned only when they relate to its main topic. The entire book is similarly filled with inane comparisons and useless complaints. Comment: Doniger is very fond of the word addiction because it goes well with her obsession with drugs, sex, booze, rapes, incest and similar topics that her book is all about. Perhaps, it is proper to point here the difference between attachment (which is what the Hindu scriptures refer to) and addiction (the incorrect word used by Doniger) Addiction is something more
than just being overcome by lust: addiction is a compulsive need for

10

and use of a habit-forming substancecharacterized by tolerance and 2 by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal."

19

325 328 E.g.1 Page 326 E.g.2 Page 327

ALL 2 4

ThesepagesdealwithDonigerspresentationof whatManusaysonwomen. ThislackofindependencemeantthatinManus idealworld,awomanhadverylittlespaceto maneuverwithinamarriage,notshecouldgetout ofit. Afterciting(orratherMisciting)Manu5.149that womenshouldremainunderthecontroloftheir father,husbandandthentheirsonintheir childhood,marriedlifeandintheoldage respectively,DonigerthenquotesManu9.1011

Comment: Doniger of course does not state that these various verses represent different opinions of men about women that Manu cites in his characteristic style. But worse, she cleverly omits all verses that Manu says in praise of women. In other words, she has cherrypicked data and has indulged in propaganda.Letustaketwoexamplesofhermisinterpretations: As an example of her extreme claim that we have cited from these pages, let us see whether Manu totally traps a woman in her marriage. For example, a wife can abandon a husband who has gone abroad without providing for her.3 She also cannot be forsakenifshehatesherhusbandforbeingimportant,losinghis caste, having become sick with a deadly disease etc.4 Note that Doniger miscites Manusmriti 5.147147 as 4.147149. Typos of this kind litter the book page after page (see more below) and reflectverypoorlyontheauthorandthereviewershiredbythe publisher. LetuscitetheseversesthatDonigerrefersto: No man can completely guard women by force; but they can be guarded by the employment of the following expedients; Manusmriti9.10

2 See the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction as quoted by Aditi Banerjee at

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262511 <checked on 23rd Feb 2014> in another critique of Donigers book.

3 4

Manusmriti9.7476 Manusmriti9.79

11

buttermstheseversesascynicalbecausethey reflectwellonManusconcernaboutforcible oppressionofwomenbymenfolk.

Let the husband employ his wife in the collection and expenditure of his wealth, in keeping everything clean, in the fulfillment of religious duties, in the preparation of food, and in lookingafterthehouseholdutensils.Manusmriti9.11 NowitisunclearwhyDonigerskipstheconcludingverse: Women, confined in the house under trustworthy and obedient servants, are not well guarded; but those who of their own accord keep guard over themselves are well guarded. Manusmriti9.12 We fail to understand what is so cynical about these verses as Doniger interprets. In fact, Manusmriti 9.1012 gives the agency to women themselves for their protection and warns men that protecting or guarding women does not mean that they should be confined forcibly within their homes. It was a very practical advice in an age when women did not work out of home much incertainsectionsofthesociety(butitdoesnotapplytoday). In fact, a question that arises is, What does Manu really mean by saying that men should guard women? The purport can be understood by look at other Dharmashastras that deal with this issue and it becomes clear that it does not mean controlling women5 but rather providing for them and protecting them fromworldlyharm: In the beginning, Brahm cleaved one body into two halves.VyasaSmriti2.12 From one half became a woman, and from the other half became man. The Vedas themselves say that a man does notbecomecompletetillhemarries.VyasaSmriti2.13 From one half, no progeny is born. Procreate such is the command of the Vedas. Indeed, the wife is as great as

AsPatrickOlivelletranslatesinhisrecentandoftentendentious/idiosyncratictranslationofManusmriti.

12

theentireearth,forsheplaysavitalroleintheattainment of Dharma, Artha and Kma, and only her husband can marryher.VyasaSmriti2.14 Therefore, the husband should always take care of his wife, lest she abandon him and find another protector. VyasaSmriti2.15a If a husband abandons his wife who is obedient, skillful in her tasks, mother of brave sons and a polite speaker, the King should confiscate 1/3 of that mans wealth and hand itovertotheabandonedwife.Ifthehusbandispoor,then the King should instead ensure that the wife is given food and clothes by her errant husband. Yjnavalkya Smriti 1.76 It is no ones case that Manusmriti advocates equal rights for men and women, because perfect gender equality was not present in any ancient society and is absent in practically all countries even today. However, a careful scholar looks at all the pieces of evidence to paint a nuanced picture, instead of the nave and stereotypical narration given by Wendy Doniger who seemstobepursuinganagendainherbook. DonigerlamentsthatManudoesnotpermit Comment: Doniger completely ignores the worldview of Manu widowstoremarry,andthensaysThemanof which requires a twiceborn man to carefully maintain the Vedic coursecanandindeedmustremarry(4.167169). fires in his home, but which he cannot, if he does not have a wife. Manus prescription for a widower to remarry is meant for the man who wishes to rekindle his domestic Vedic fires, because hedoesnotallowamantolivealifestylethatisoutsidethefour Ashramas. A widower who does not remarry cannot kindle the domestic fires in his home because he does not have a wife. Let

20

326

13

us quote the relevant verses of Manusmriti (note that Doniger gets the chapter in her citation wrong! The verses are in chapter 5 and not in chapter 4) along with a parallel verse from alaterDharmashastrawhichexplainsthecontextfurther Atwicebornman,versedinthesacredlaw,shallcremateadead wife of equal caste, who conducts herself according to the Dharma of a virtuous wife, and dies before him, with the sacred fires used for the Agnihotra, and with the Yajna implements. Manusmriti5.167 Havingthus,atthefuneral,giventhesacredfirestohiswifewho dies before him, he may marry again, and again kind the fires. Manusmriti5.168 Living according to the rules, he must never neglect the five great Yajnas and, having taken a wife, he must dwell in his own houseduringthesecondperiodofhislife.Manusmriti5.169 A son becomes entitled to take over his fathers duty of performing the daily Agnihotra if his fathers wife dies, or if his father travels to a distant location, or if his father gets tainted withasin.AtriSamhita1.106 In other sections, Doniger contrasts Manu with Vatsyayana (the author of Kamasutra) and Chanakya to show how the latter two hadmoreliberalviews.Soitissomewhatapuzzleastowhyshe does not cite them on their views about widow remarriage. The omission is understandable in the obsessively negative view of Hindu scriptures that Doniger wants to project. After all, Arthashastraclearlyacceptswidowremarriage. If only Doniger has not restricted herself to three scriptures, she would have learned that other Hindu scriptures, some of them 14

even more authoritative than Manusmriti, clearly allow the remarriageofwidows. The Vedic texts6 indicate that widow remarriage was allowed. The Dharmasutras appended to various Vedic schools also permit widow remarriage.7 This general permission for remarriage of widows was maintained in some texts of classical Hinduism8. In certain cases, if the husband went abroad for longer than a particular period of time, the woman was permittedtoremarryaswell.9 Donigerseemstoimplythatwiththepassageoftime,thestatus of women only degraded. But even later scriptures seem to allowremarriage.Forinstance,aPuranasays If the husband is untraceable, dead, or has renounced the world, is impotent or degraded in these cases of emergency a woman canremarry.GarudaPura1.107.28 21 330 3 Manuinsiststhatthemarriagesoftheghoulsand theantigodsshouldneverbeperformedandthat allclassesbutBrahmins,thebestmarriageiswhen thecoupledesireeachother.* *HeaddsthatthefirstsixarerightforaBrahmin, thelastfourforaKshatriya,andthesesamefour, withtheexceptionoftheogremarriage,fora VaishyaorShudra.Otherpeoplesaythatonlyone, theogremarriage,isfortheKshatriya,andonly theantigodmarriageforaVaishnyaandShudra, Comment: Again, she has quoted Manusmriti selectively, because at the conclusion of this section, the final verses seem to give what seems to be his siddhnta, viz. the first four are goodmarriages.See#22belowfortheseverses.

6 7

E.g.,Atharavaveda9.5.27;Rigveda10.40.2 BaudhayanaDharmasutra4.1.16;VasishthaDharmasutra17.1920etc. 8 ParasharaSmriti4.30;GarudaPurana1.107.28;AgniPurana154.5

9

Manusmriti9.76

15

22

331

whilestillotherssaythatonlythemarriagesofthe centaursandogresarerightforrulers.UNQUOTE AdharmasutrainthethirdcenturyBCElistsonly sixformsofmarriages;itwasleftforallthreeof thelatershastrastoaddthelasttwoandworst forms,rapeanddrugging,achangethatsignalsa significantlossforwomen.Byregardingthesetwo asworsethantheotherformsofmarriage,but nottoberuledout,theshastrassimultaneously legitimizedrapeasaformofmarriageandgave somedegreeoflegalsanction,retroactively,to womenwhohadbeenraped. TheDharmasutracitedbyDonigerisApastamba Dharmasutra2.11.1720,2.12.1

Comment: Wendy Doniger is completely wrong in saying that onlyManu,KautilyaandVatsyayanaintroducethelasttwotypes of marriages. The Baudhayana Dharmasutra 1.20.116 and Gautama Dharmasutra 4.615 are both Dharmasutras that list all the eight types of marriages. But a mere listing of them does notmeanthattheyapprovetheseorevenacknowledgethemas legitimate marriages! The list of Manu merely reflected social practicesthathappeneventodayforwedoseeHinduwomenin Sindh being abducted and married off to Muslim men against their will! Even Gautama Dharmasutra says that the first six or according to some only the first four are legitimate kinds of marriage. Far from what Doniger seems to imply, even Manu explicitly rejects the Dharmic legitimacy of these obnoxious marriages andsays Fromthefourmarriages,(enumerated)successively,whichbegin with the Brhma rite spring sons, radiant with knowledge of the VedaandhonoredbytheShishtas(goodmen).Manusmriti3.39 Endowed with the qualities of beauty and goodness, possessing wealth and fame, obtaining as many enjoyments as they desire and being most righteous, they will live a hundred years. Manusmriti3.40 But from the remaining (four) blamable marriages spring sons who are cruel and speakers of untruth, who hate the Veda and thesacredlaw.Manusmriti3.41 In the blameless marriages, blameless children are born to men, in blamable (marriages) honorable (offspring) are born. Therefore one should avoid the blamable forms of marriage. Manusmriti3.42

16

Soitisquiteclearthatafterlistingwhathappenedinhissociety, Manu clearly advocated the first four types of marriage. To conclude, Doniger lacks elementary skills of interpreting religioustexts.

17