Manusmriti Chapter 9 Verse 225 «4K 2027»
To be fair, laws allowing the sale or pledge of family members in times of extreme distress existed across ancient civilizations:
Thus, while repugnant to modern ethics, Manusmriti 9.225 was not an outlier. It was part of a global ancient legal framework where family members were, to some degree, economic assets.
First, let us establish the exact text. The most widely cited translation of the Manusmriti in the academic world is by George Bühler (1886), published as part of the Sacred Books of the East series.
Sanskrit (approximate):
“Trivargaṃ nāvaśeṣayet, mokṣam ekaṃ na karhicit; striyaṃ vā pitarau vā api, hanyād yadi na kiṃcana.”
Note: The actual verse numbering can vary slightly between manuscripts. Bühler’s translation for 9.225 is often cross-referenced as 9.224 in some editions.
Bühler’s English Translation:
“For selling or mortgaging (a wife or child) by a person who has no power (to do so), the purchaser shall be punished like a thief; but if (a husband) has power (to sell or mortgage, he shall be punished like a usurer.”
Alternative Translation (by Ganganath Jha, 1920):
“The purchaser, who buys a woman or child from a person not authorized to sell, shall be punished like a thief; but if he buys from one who has the authority, he shall be punished like a usurer.”
Manusmriti 9.225 reflects the socio-legal realities of ancient India—not a divine, eternal command. While historically significant for understanding past gender roles, it holds no legal or moral authority today. Modern Hindu practice, law, and ethics affirm women’s full autonomy, equality, and freedom. As the great reformer Dr. B.R. Ambedkar argued, “Manusmriti is a legal code of an ancient society; it is not the gospel of the Hindus.” Contemporary believers are free to honor the text’s philosophical portions while discarding verses that violate fundamental human dignity.
Key takeaway: Verse 9.225 is best studied as a historical artifact, not a living law. Its literal meaning is rejected by modern legal systems, Hindu reform movements, and mainstream ethics.
The Manusmriti Chapter 9, Verse 225 , serves as a directive for maintaining public order by identifying and expelling individuals perceived as socially disruptive or "shady." The Verse (Translation)
"Gamblers, actors, cruel men, men belonging to heretical sects, those addicted to forbidden occupations, and liquor-vendors—all these the King shall immediately banish from his town." Context & Review
This verse appears in the section of Chapter 9 dealing with Civil and Criminal Law (specifically the suppression of public nuisances).
Public Morality: The list targets professions and behaviors that the text's authors viewed as corrosive to the social fabric. It groups "gamblers" and "liquor-vendors" with "cruel men" and "heretics," reflecting a legal philosophy that prioritizes religious and moral homogeneity.
Preventative Governance: The instruction for the King to "immediately banish" these individuals suggests that the mere presence of these groups was considered a risk to the stability of a city.
Cultural Nuance: Different commentators offer variations on the identities of these groups. For example, some interpret "cruel men" (kruran) as those with "crooked behavior," while others identify "actors" (kusilavan) as individuals sharp enough to entrap others. Modern Perspective
In a contemporary context, this verse is often cited in discussions regarding the rigid and exclusionary nature of the Manusmriti. While it historically aimed to create a "purified" urban environment, its broad categorization of "heretics" and "actors" as criminals clashes with modern values of religious freedom and professional liberty. The Manusmriti: The Laws of Manu - Amazon.in
Manusmriti Chapter 9, Verse 225 (often cited as Manu 9.225) is a significant verse within the ninth discourse of the Manava Dharmashastra, or the Laws of Manu. This chapter primarily focuses on the duties of husbands and wives, the laws of inheritance, and the administrative duties of a king in maintaining civil order. The Translation
The verse provides a directive to the King regarding individuals who are considered a threat to social stability and public morality. According to the translation by Ganganath Jha, the verse reads: manusmriti chapter 9 verse 225
"Gamblers, dancers, cruel men, men belonging to heretical sects, men addicted to evil deeds, dealers in wine,—these the King shall instantly banish from his town." Detailed Breakdown of the Verse
The verse lists specific categories of people that a righteous ruler is encouraged to exile to prevent the "contamination" of the well-behaved populace.
Gamblers (Kitavān): Ancient law viewed professional gamblers as sources of dispute and financial ruin for families.
Dancers/Performers (Kuśīlavān): In the context of the strict social hierarchy of the time, certain wandering performers were often viewed with suspicion as potential instigators of public disorder.
Cruel Men (Krūrān): Individuals with a history of violence or those who take pleasure in causing harm to others.
Heretical Sects (Pāṣaṇḍasthāṃ): This refers to those who openly reject the authority of the Vedas or follow "unorthodox" paths that were seen as undermining the religious and social fabric of the kingdom.
Dealers in Wine (Śauṇḍikāṃ): Those who profit from the sale of intoxicants were frequently targeted in ancient texts as contributors to moral decay. Historical and Social Context
The 225th verse sits within a section that describes "disguised thieves" (pracchanna-taskara). The subsequent verse, 9.226, explains the rationale for these banishments: these individuals constantly harass "well-behaved people" through their "evil deeds" while living within the protection of the King’s realm.
In the eyes of Manu, the King is the guardian of Dharma. Banishment was a tool used for maintaining a kingdom where religious rites could be performed without interruption and where the "purity" of the social classes was preserved. Comparison with Other Chapters
It is important to note that the numbering of verses can sometimes vary between editions.
Manusmriti 2.225: Focuses on the respect due to parents and preceptors, stating they should never be treated with disrespect, even if one is distressed.
Manusmriti 8.225: Concerns legal penalties for defamation, specifically regarding the false accusation of a maiden's loss of virginity. Modern Significance and Critique Full 9th Chapter of Manusmriti
You're referring to a specific verse from the Manusmriti, an ancient Indian text on Hindu law and social norms. Here's the verse:
Manusmriti Chapter 9, Verse 225:
"For a woman, her husband is the lord; her well-wishers are her father and her brother; when she has no husband, her son is her lord; when she has no son, her relative (or brother) is her lord; when she has no relative, her king is her lord; in the absence of a king, the learned (or a good) Brahmana is her lord; if there is no learned Brahmana, she should strive to be virtuous."
Translation and Interpretation:
This verse outlines the sequence of male authorities or lords ( pati) in a woman's life, emphasizing her dependence on male relatives or guardians for protection, support, and guidance. The verse suggests that a woman's relationships and responsibilities change over her lifetime:
Critical Perspectives:
The Manusmriti's views on women's roles and status have been subjects of extensive debate. Traditional interpretations have often emphasized women's subordinate positions and their roles within a patriarchal framework. However, contemporary perspectives seek to reinterpret these texts within their historical contexts, exploring their implications for modern society.
It's essential to consider the diverse historical, cultural, and philosophical contexts in which such texts were written and how they continue to influence contemporary discussions on gender roles, rights, and responsibilities.
The Manusmriti, Chapter 9, Verse 225, is a significant verse that deals with the king's duty to maintain social order by banishing certain classes of individuals from the town.
The original Sanskrit text and its literal translation focus on the immediate removal of those perceived as "shatru" (enemies) or "thorn-like" elements in society. Sanskrit:
द्यूतं समाह्वयं चैव राजा राष्ट्रान्निवारयेत् ।एतौ हि राष्ट्रस्य विनाशाय द्वौ दोषावभिवर्धितौ ॥ ९.२२५ ॥ English Translation:
"The King should instantly banish from his town gamblers, actors, cruel men, men belonging to heretical sects, those who do improper work, and sellers of spirituous liquor."— Translation based on the Medhatithi commentary Context and Interpretation
In the historical context of the Manava Dharmashastra, this verse is part of a larger section on "Gambling and Betting" and the preservation of the state's moral fabric.
Social Categories: The verse identifies six groups deemed disruptive:
Gamblers (Kitavan): Seen as a source of deceit and financial ruin.
Actors/Dancers (Kushilavan): Often viewed with suspicion in ancient legal texts due to their nomadic nature and perceived lack of Vedic discipline.
Cruel Men (Kruran): Those who commit violent acts or harbor malice.
Heretics (Pashandan): Individuals who follow sects that explicitly deny the authority of the Vedas (often interpreted as early Buddhist or Jain ascetics in that specific historical context).
Improper Workers (Vikarmasthan): Those who abandon their prescribed varna (duties) to perform work not assigned to them.
Liquor Sellers (Shundikan): Alcohol consumption was generally condemned for the higher castes, and its sale was seen as a catalyst for social unrest. Philosophical Objective
The overarching goal of Verse 225 is Shasana (governance) and Kantaka-shodhana (removal of thorns). The text argues that these individuals act as "hidden thieves" who do not contribute to the spiritual or material stability of the kingdom but instead actively undermine it. By banishing them, the king ensures that the "righteous" citizens are not corrupted or harassed. Modern Perspective
Today, this verse is often cited in academic discussions regarding ancient Indian social stratification and the state's role in enforcing religious orthodoxy. While these laws are not part of modern Indian civil or criminal codes, they remain vital for understanding the evolution of Hindu jurisprudence and the historical emphasis on social homogeneity.
The King’s Purge: Understanding Manusmriti 9.225 Manusmriti
, an ancient and influential Sanskrit legal text dated between the 2nd century BCE and 2nd century CE, offers a complex blueprint for societal conduct ( To be fair, laws allowing the sale or
). Within Chapter 9, which primarily focuses on the duties of kings and family laws, stands out as
a directive for preserving the moral and social order of a kingdom through the immediate removal of specific "undesirable" elements The Sanskrit Text and Translation
The verse, as translated by scholars like Ganganath Jha and G. Bühler, reads:
कितवान् कुशीलवान् क्रूरान् पाषण्डस्थांश्च मानवान् ।
विकर्मस्थान् शौण्डिकांश्च क्षिप्रं निर्वासयेत् पुरात् ॥ २२५ ॥
"Gamblers, dancers, cruel men, men belonging to heretical sects, men addicted to evil deeds, dealers in wine—these the King shall instantly banish from his town." Key Groups Subject to Banishment
The verse lists six specific categories of individuals whom the king is advised to exile "instantly" from the city ( Gamblers (
Those who engage in games of chance, viewed as a source of social instability and personal ruin. Dancers/Actors ( Kuśīlavān
Performers and those associated with public entertainment, which the text often links to distraction from duty or loose morality. Cruel Men (
Individuals who display persistent malevolence or violent tendencies toward others. Heretical Sects ( Pāṣaṇḍas
Traditionally interpreted as followers of non-Vedic religions (such as early Buddhists or Jains) who did not adhere to the Brahminical social order. Doers of Evil Deeds ( Vikarmasthān Those who abandon their prescribed duties ( ) to engage in forbidden or unethical occupations. Dealers in Wine ( Śauṇḍikāṃśca Sellers of intoxicants, which the Manusmriti
generally condemns as a major source of sin and social disorder. The Role of the King In the context of the Manusmriti
, the king’s primary duty is to protect his subjects and uphold
. Verse 225 functions as a preemptive legal measure. By banishing these groups, the king is thought to be "pruning" the city of influences that could lead to the moral decay of the population. Historical and Modern Context
Historically, this verse reflects the rigid social structures and moral codes of ancient Brahminical society. In modern times, verses like 9.225 are often analyzed by scholars to understand ancient perspectives on social exclusion, religious pluralism (or the lack thereof), and the state's role in enforcing private morality. or punishments for other crimes? Manusmriti Verse 9.2
The Manusmriti (The Laws of Manu) is one of the most ancient and debated legal texts in the history of the Indian subcontinent. Composed roughly between the 2nd century BCE and the 3rd century CE, it is a Dharmaśāstra—a treatise on righteous living, social duties, and legal procedures. For centuries, it served as a reference point for Hindu jurisprudence, particularly concerning the varna (caste) system and the roles of women.
However, in the modern era, the Manusmriti is a focal point of intense ideological conflict. To some, it is an invaluable historical record of ancient social evolution. To others, it is a patriarchal and casteist document whose verses justify systemic oppression. No verse exemplifies this tension more starkly than Chapter 9, Verse 225.
In this article, we will dissect this controversial verse: its literal translation, its contextual meaning within ancient law, its intended legal function, and why it remains a lightning rod in contemporary social discourse. Thus, while repugnant to modern ethics, Manusmriti 9
The Sanskrit word used is gopayet, derived from the root gup (to guard, but also to conceal or cover).
This suggests a psychological depth to the feature. "Protecting" the rebellious may also imply "covering" their shame or minimizing their influence to prevent contagion. It suggests that the most effective way to deal with the "adverse" is not public shaming (which fuels their rebellion), but a form of guardianship that limits their capacity to harm while keeping them within the fold. It is a sophisticated form of conflict resolution that prioritizes the stability of the whole over the satisfaction of punishing the part.