In very ancient days, when society was purely matriarchal, women enjoyed full freedom and respect. A distinguished woman would be the matriarch. The members of the clan would introduce themselves using her name. The males would act according to the dictates of the clan matriarch.

Those days passed. The dominance of women ended in most regions of the world and male dominance came to the fore. Society became patriarchal. People began to use their father’s name to introduce themselves. A new system of clans and sub-clans under male dominance became the accepted norm.

Women then became treated as commodities. Their lives were absolutely dependent on the men. The rule of men was introduced in different parts of the world in various ways. Different arguments were put forward in support of the rule of men. The idea of a woman having more than one husband was laughable, yet if a man had more than one wife, that would be considered normal; because a woman was no better than a commodity.

Social disparity reached its climax when the independent identity of a woman became denied in the marriage ceremony. The custom of her father, elder brother or any other male guardian literally “giving her away” in marriage began.

Under the wedding canopy, the roles of bride and bridegroom are just opposite. The groom chants the wedding mantras during the ceremony and the bride sits lifeless as a statue, as though she is some saleable commodity such as rice, pulse, salt or oil. She is not allowed to chant mantras like her male counterpart. Her guardian offers her to her husband just as a householder offers rice and pulses to a beggar. Manu⁽¹⁾ was representative of the exploitative psychology of that age. Of course, I do not mean to say that everything that Manu thought or said was bad, but undoubtedly the custom of giving the daughter away in marriage is bad. By this custom the independent identity of the girl remains unrecognized.

Unfortunately, as a woman was no better than chattel, she had no right to inherit her ancestral property. Women were not considered heirs to the ancestral property. A widow became a burden to her own relatives in her father’s house or to her in-laws in her husband’s house.

Manu did many bad things, but he did at least one good thing. He recommended that the daughter be given away dressed in ornaments and finery. These ornaments were given to her as her personal property, they were considered her personal wealth.

When the society was semi-matriarchal, a woman had the right to inherit her maternal property. Even the court dancers⁽²⁾ were entitled to the property of their mothers.

Footnotes

(1) Manu was the author of the Manusmrti, an authoritative collection of social rules, customs and etiquette for Hindus. He lived about two thousand years ago. –Trans.

(2) The court dancers were a special class of women partially holding positions of respect for their talents and partially enslaved as courtesans. –Trans.