Manusmriti with the Commentary of Medhatithi

by Ganganatha Jha | 1920 | 1,381,940 words | ISBN-10: 8120811550 | ISBN-13: 9788120811553

This is the English translation of the Manusmriti, which is a collection of Sanskrit verses dealing with ‘Dharma’, a collective name for human purpose, their duties and the law. Various topics will be dealt with, but this volume of the series includes 12 discourses (adhyaya). The commentary on this text by Medhatithi elaborately explains various t...

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

वशाऽपुत्रासु चैवं स्याद् रक्षणं निष्कुलासु च ।
पतिव्रतासु च स्त्रीषु विधवास्वातुरासु च ॥ २८ ॥

vaśā'putrāsu caivaṃ syād rakṣaṇaṃ niṣkulāsu ca |
pativratāsu ca strīṣu vidhavāsvāturāsu ca || 28 ||

There shall be similar protection in the case of barren women, of son-less women, of women devoted to their husbands, and of widows faithful to their husbands,—when their family is extinct, and when they are in distress.—(28)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Whoever may be without a protector, that person’s property shall he taken care of by the king; the ‘barren’ women and the rest being mentioned only by way of illustration. It is only thus that the ‘protection of the people’ becomes accomplished. The preceding verse lays down the period of time during which the said protection of the property is necessary.

Vaśā’—barren woman.

Sonless woman’—one who has no son, or whose son is incapable, or whose son is in a bad condition.

Between vaśā and aputrā we have the copulative compound.

“The barren woman also is sonless.”

True, but both have been mentioned for the purpose of showing that even though her husband he alive, the said woman may be looked after; as on account of her being superseded (by another wife taken by her husband), her husband may neglect her.

Whose family is extinct’;—this is added with a view to indicate those who have no protector in the shape of husband’s younger brother, or paternal or maternal uncle, and being women, are themselves incapable of looking after their own property,—and whose other relations are jealous of her property. Otherwise, as a rule, the character and property of women should be looked after by her relations; as has been thus declared—‘On the husband lies the burden of supporting and protecting the woman, for which he is capable; when the husband’s family becomes extinct, and there is no man left and no standing, and there are no Sapiṇḍas even left, her father’s people become her protectors; when both families are extinct, the king is the supporter and protector of the woman’ (Nārada, 13-28 to 29).

When the woman herself is, somehow, capable of taking care of herself, then there is nothing done by the relations; it is in view of this that the text has added —‘of women in distress’;—this epithet indicating inability. Others have explained the term ‘women in distress’ to mean ‘those whose husbands are in distress’;—even a woman whose husband is alive becomes a tit object for the king’s care, if her husband is incapable of taking care of her. This applies to the case of women in whose family there are no men left to take care of them. The epithet ‘whose family is extinct’ thus means ‘those who have no family, i.e., relations.’

Others have explained the term ‘niṣkulā’ to mean the misbehaved woman; of those women also the property acquired by means of their beauty has to be protected by the king.

According to this explanation the term ‘niṣkulā’ has to be taken by itself (and not as qualifying the other terms).

Widows faithful to their husbands’;—‘vidhavā,’ ‘widow,’ is one whose husband is dead;—‘dhava’ being a synonym for ‘husband’; and she who is deprived of the dhava is ‘vidhavā,’ ‘widow.’ Till such time as she remains faithful to her husband, she deserves to have her property looked after by the king. In the event of her being unfaithful, she does not deserve to have any property at all, as we read in another Smṛti text—‘She who is bent upon doing injury, who is devoid of modesty, who wastes money, who is addicted to misconduct—such a woman does not deserve to have property.’ Such a woman is to be banished; and this ‘banishment’ shall be only in the form of being driven away from the main apartment of the home, and not in being driven away entirely; because even in the; case of such women as have become outcasts the scriptures have laid down that they shall be; provided with a separate dwelling-house, clothing and food:—‘In the case of outcast women also, this same action should be taken; clothing, food and water should be provided for them and they should live near the house.’ In view of this, wherever.we find an injunction regarding the banishment of such women,—e.g., in such texts as ‘the woman’s entire property, etc., etc.,’—the ‘banishment’ should be understood to be of the nature just explained. And she deserves to retain what she may have saved from the fond that is granted her; this the relatives shall not take away.

So far as the present treatise (of Manu) is concerned, in regard to such women what has been proscribed is supersession, and not. the confiscation of property; as has been declared (under 9.80)—She who drinks wine, misbehaves, or is disobedient, or diseased, or mischievous, or wasteful, shall always he superseded.’ Hence on the strength of Manu’s text, the above-quoted text as to the; unfaithful wife not deserving any property has to be explained as follows:

“Such a woman shall not receive that property which she should have received on account of her super-session; that is, she shall not receive what has been enjoined as to be; given to her in the following text—‘To the superseded wife shall he given a compensation for her supersession.’ But what may have been given to her before that shall not be taken away from her.”

Our opinion however is that in the case of the woman who is inimical to her husband, or addicted to misbehaviour, confiscation of property is only right, and proper; since in Manu also (9.78) it has been declared that—‘She who disregards her husband when she is maddened, or drunk, or diseased, shall be abandoned for three months, having been deprived of her ornaments and clothes’;—i.e., she shall be deprived of her ornaments and clothes before being abandoned.—(28)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

Niṣkulāsu’—‘Those women who have no brother-in-law, or uncle to take care of them’ (Medhātithi and

Rāghavānanda);—‘harlots’ (‘others’ in Medhātithi);—‘those maidens whose family is extinct’ (Govindarāja);—‘those who have no Sapiṇḍas’ (Kullūka).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 512), which adds the following notes:—‘Vaśā’, barren woman,—‘aputrā’, one who has lost her son,—‘Niṣkulā’ one who has lost all her paternal and maternal relations.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Viṣṇu (3.65).—(See under 27.)

Agnipurāṇa (Rājadharma, 222.20).—(Same as Manu.)

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: