For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/innovation.php#8

This paper would cover only the Mauryan India and present the social behaviors of men towards women as reflected in the Mauryan traditions. To do justice to the problem or to claim something new is a bit difficult task. This problem has been raised by historians, sociologists and anthropologists from time to time but is becoming more problematic. The analyses of literary traditions reveal the fact that the authorities on both general and legal traditions were not unanimous as to what should be the precise position of women in early India.

Many questions regarding the social status of women linger in the minds of scholars. Such as (a) Was woman merely a slave (b) Why did women were reduced to the level of slaves and Śūdras? Was women's social standing constant or did it fluctuate along with changes in politics and society? What fault do women have which has not been shown in their behavior by men?   The current approach looks to early Indian literary traditions for the answer to these questions. This paper would cover only the Mauryan India and present the social behaviors of men towards women as reflected in the Mauryan traditions. Doing justice to the problem or claiming to reconstruct something new is a somewhat difficult job. This problem has been undertaken time and again by historians, sociologists and anthropologist but becoming more problematic day by day.

 However, the Ṛgveda refers twenty women scholars, some of them appear to be mythical personages but many of them must be real persons,[3] In any case accepting women as writers of sacred traditions is indicative of a high status but the question of the fully liberated state is questionable. Among the earlier setters the position of women was not very low. Among this early Ṛgveda Aryans too the status of women was not as low as it became later. But, as soon as Aryans settled in north-western of India, they took women from the subjugated people as their wives, the picture altogether changed. The Vedic orthodoxy was questioned by the women scholars of Upanisdic times where women participated in metaphysical discourses. We observed that Gargi raised so many queries of a profound and esoteric nature that Yajnavalkya lost his patience and warned Gargi of dire consequences. Here, we find only reference to a ritual for having the birth of a learned daughter.[4] We notice a systematic effort of the priestly elites to revive the Vedic traditions. The feeling of suspicion towards the wife finds an even stronger expression in Grhya sūtras traditions.[5]

Interestingly, we observed contradictory mentalities and attitudes towards women in Arthaśāstra of Kautilya to enable us to argue in favour of both the higher and lower status of women. But generally, were placed in a position of utter subjection, and are idealized as Devi,[6] placed on a high pedestal, and worshiped, but worshiping is one thing and giving freedom is quite another. For example, we do worship the cow, but we do not leave it free. It was expected that the wife should submerge her personality into that of her husband, reduced to perpetual subjugation.

However, Arthaśāstra of Kautilya refers woman time and again in many of its chapters, the piecing together of which will give us a picture of women and would enable us to determine their status during the Mauryan times. The Arthaśāstra talks very little about the girlhood or the period before marriage. Kautilya simply states that a woman attains maturity at the age of 12 and that on reaching that age, if she proves to be disobedient to her lawful guardians, she shall be punished.

In fact the marriage system in the Arthaśāstra is in agreement with that of the Manusmtiti. Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra however, does not provide any reference to related the marriageable age of the girls. But from the classical authors we learn that the seventh year was usually regarded as the marriageable age. Indica of Megasthenes reveals that the “females bear children at the age of seven and are old at forty.” The Arthaśāstra states that the woman attains majority at the age of twelve. It is rather probable that the women were generally married at a proper age, i.e., after they had reached the age of puberty. The Arthaśāstra tells about the obligatory marriage of both the males and females, as Kautilya definitely states that the foremost duty of a man is to marry and to lead the householder’s life. We are told that there were marriage contracts before the performance of the sacred ceremonies. Whatever is to be settled before marriage is to be kept intact at the time of the sacred ceremony. Kautilya, further put down that any person desirous of giving his daughter in marriage must speak to the bridegroom’s party about all the drawbacks of the bride, otherwise he shall not only be fined but would also return the Strīdhana. Again, the substitution of bride is also severely dealt with.

 Interestingly, the general rules of marriage in the Arthaśāstra are the “marriage, among equals, of different ancestral Rshis.” In this respect Kautilya is in agreement with the Dharmaśāstras and the classical authors. Megasthenes says that “no one is allowed to marry out of his own caste.” According to Strabo an exception is made in favour of the philosophers. Arrian says that the “custom of the country prohibits inter-marriage between the castes. For instance, the husbandman cannot take a wife from the artisan caste or the artisan from the husbandman caste.

Nevertheless, both Kautilya and Manu are indignant towards inter caste marriages yet they accept such marriages. Kautilya probably accepts the theory o cross-marriages in order to explain away the infusion of new elements into the Hindu society. The existence of inter-marriage in the Arthaśāstra is proved by the mention of the names of the issues of such marriages.[7] Kautilya like Manu describes the various castes to which the issues of the cross marriages are to be assigned. We have the mention of Savaṇnas and Asavarṇas; the former is those who are begotten by a Brāhmaṇa or a Kṣatriya on a woman of next lower caste, while the latter are those who are begotten on women of castes lower by two grades. In general, the sons begotten by men of higher castes on women of lower castes are called anuloma. But sons produced by a Śūdra on women of higher castes are Āyogava, Ksattā and Candāla; by a Vaiśya, Magadha and Vaidehaka; and by a Kṣatriya, Sūta. The son of a Brāhmaṇa by a Vaiśya woman is called Ambashtha, by a Śūdra woman, Niṣādas, of a Kśhatriya by a Śūdra woman, Ugra; of a Vaiśya by a Śūdra woman, Śūdra. The son of Ugra by a Niṣāda woman is Kukkuta, but in the reverse case the issue is called Pukkasa. The an Ambashtha by a Vaidehaka woman is Varṇa, but the issue of an Ambashtha woman by a Vaidehaka is called Kusilava; and a Švapāka is one begotten on a Kshatta woman by an Ugra. All these references clearly indicate that inter –castes marriages were prevalent in the age of the Mauryan

However, Kautilya Arthaśāstra refers eight forms of marriages and defines each of them, but differs from the law-giver in respect of the order in which these names are placed. Kautilya, however, unlike Manu, enumerates the first four forms in the same order as Vatsyayana. The giving of a maiden well-adorned is called Brahma marriage. This form is highly praised by the law-givers, and is still prevalent among the Hindus.

The second is the Prājāpatya marriage which mainly requires the observation of some sacred duties. Generally, in this form of marriage the God Prājāpatya is invoked to shower his blessings upon the pair. According to the Dharmaśāstras writers, in this form of marriage, the father gives away the bride with due honors saying distinctly, “may both of you perform together your duties.” The third is the Ārsha form of marriage in which the father gives her daughter after having received from the bridegroom a couple of cows. This form is also recognized by the Greek writer Megasthenes who says that “they marry many wives whom they buy from their parents, giving in exchange a yoke of oxen.”

The fourth is the Daiva marriage in which the daughter is given to an officiating priest in a sacrifice. The fifth is the Gāndharva marriage which is voluntary union of a girl with her lover. This is the most usual form of marriage, highly appreciated by the Sanskrit classical writers. The sixth is the Āsura marriage. When the bridegroom gives as much wealth to the father and the paternal kinsmen and to the damsel herself, takes her voluntarily as his bride, that marriage is called Āsura. The seventh is the Rākṣasa marriage which is performed after abducting the maiden. The eighth and the last is the Paisācha marriage in which the maiden is abducted while she is asleep and intoxicated.

Besides these, Arrian mentions a peculiar form of marriage when he says that “the women, as soon as they are marriageable, are brought forward by their fathers and exposed in public to be selected by the victor in wrestling or boxing or running or by someone who excels in any other manly exercises.” Kautilya, however, does not condemn any one of these forms of marriage, but he approves the first four kinds which are regarded by him as old custom. Vatsyayana also regards the first four forms of marriage as approved by society. Thus, he permits any kind of marriage provided it pleases the parties concerned.

The Arthaśāstra talks of remarriages of both the males and females during the Mauryan times,[8] but a man can only marry in the case of the barrenness of the wife or if the wife does not produce any male child. In this respect Kautilya is in agreement with Vatsyayana and Manu. Vatsyayana says that, in the case of barrenness, the wife herself would induce her husband to marry again. Kautilya, further, says that as the girls are married for progeny, a man can marry as many wives as he likes on condition that he must provide his previous wives with adequate subsistence and compensation. Regarding the remarriage of women, Kautilya emphasizes the principle that the marriage of the first four kinds cannot be dissolved, and the wives from these forms of marriage cannot remarry. In spite of this general rule the remarriage of the females is recognized in the Arthaśāstra of Kautilya lays down elaborate rules by which he imposes certain conditions under which a woman can remarry. Before marrying, a childless wife whose husband is a “hrasvapravasin” should wait only for a year, but more than a year, if she is mother of children.

She should wait twice as long if she be provided by her husband; if not, she is likely to be maintained by her relatives for four or eight years after which she is allowed to remarry. If the husband is a Brāhmaṇa studying abroad, his childless wife should wait for ten years and if mother of children, twelve years. The wife of a Kṣatriya, however, is not allowed to remarry. But if she bears children to a Savarṇa husband in order to keep her race, she shall not be disgraced or degraded.

Again, a Kumāri engaged in any of the first four kinds of marriage must wait for seven months for her husband who has gone abroad but is heard of, provided his name is not published, otherwise for one year. But in case the absent husband is not heard of the wife shall wait for five months; if he has been heard of, ten months. The wife who receives the śulka from her absent husband, who is not heard of, shall wait for three months, but seven months, if he is heard of. But the wife who has received the whole amount of śulka shall wait for five months, and ten months, if the husband is heard of. Further a woman whose husband is dead is also allowed to remarry. Under all these circumstances a woman is allowed to marry any one of the brothers of her former husband.

But if there be a number of brothers, she may marry the brother who is next in age to her former husband or one who is virtuous and capable of maintaining the widow or the youngest brother who is still celibate. These are the rules regarding remarriage of the woman, and these laws are obligatory as Kautilya distinctly lays down that “if a woman violates the above rules by remarrying one who is not a kinsman of her husband, she, her husband and those who have given her in marriage shall be liable to the punishment for elopement”[9].

Another institution of marriage was polygamy. Like many ancient writers, Kautilya allows unlimited polygamy. In this scenario he is in agreement with the Greek writers and the Indian writers. For Instance, Vatsyayana says that the upper-class people had generally a plurality of wives. Megasthenes also says, The wealthy people marry as many wives as they please. Though, the divorce between husband and wife has been clearly indicated in the Arthaśāstra and Manusmriti. Manu argues that the wife is praised as equal to the husband in honors, only if she bears children, otherwise she may be divorced. Kautilya also endorses the rules   lays down by Manu by which he empowers both the husband and the wife to divorce each other.[10] He discusses the rejection of brides and a bride can be rejected before the proper marriage rites. The rejection of a bride before the rite of Pānigrahaṇa, clasping of hands, is valid. A bride can also be rejected if she is proved to be guilty of indecorous conduct with another man. But these rules are not applicable to the brides and the bridegrooms of high family and of pure character. The general rule laid down in the Arthaśāstra, however, is that “from mutual enmity, divorce may be obtained. Neither the husband nor the wife can dissolve the marriage against the will of one and the other.[11]

From above description it is clear that both the wife and the husband are able to dissolve the marriage and to leave each other on condition that the husband desiring divorce shall return to his wife whatever he had given to her, while the wife desiring divorce shall be deprive d of her claim to her property. But this rule is not be applied to the husband and wife who have been married according to the first four kinds of marriages, because Kautilya says that these marriages cannot be dissolved.[12] However, Kautilya was in favour of worldly life. He is very annoyed towards the theory of accepting asceticism by women whose foremost duty is to serve their husbands.  Disobedience on the part of the woman is a great crime in the eyes of Kautilya and beating is prescribed for this sort of offence. Further, numerous punishments are prescribed for indecorous conduct and for leading independent life by the women.

A wife is allowed, neither at day nor at night, to get out of the husband’s house to attend to any sports or amusements or to see other women.  Holding conversation in suspicious places is a serious offence and Kautilya prescribes whipping by a Candala.[13] But this whipping may be remitted on payment of fine at the rate of one paṇa for each stroke. Generally, men and women were forbidden to carry on mutual transactions. For treason and indecorous conduct Kautilya lays down the rules. Thus, the undignified conduct leading of independent and unlawful life would deprive a woman of her Strīdhana and also the śulka which her father had obtained from the bridegroom.

During the Mauryan times a woman under no excuse than danger shall get out of the house of her husband. She was not even allowed to take into her house any known or unknown person or woman against the order of her husband. Kautilya teacher, however, finds no fault on the part of a woman who gets out of her house for avoiding danger and takes shelter in the house of the headman of the village. He however, finds no fault if the woman leaves the house and takes shelter with her relatives in the cases of death, disease, calamities and confinement of women. He, further, informs us of the fact that under such circumstances neither any woman nor any one of her relatives can conceal or prevent her from going, and if so, they were to be punished. It is further argued that a wife is not allowed to leave the village of her husband except in cases of receiving subsistence or on pilgrimage. The husband was also forbidden to allow his wife to take any unlawful journey.

Kautilya, further, discusses the enmity between the husband and the wife. He lays down a rule that the wife hating her husband shall allow him to marry another woman and also shall return to him whatever she had obtained from him. On the other hand, the husband who hates her wife must keep her in the house of a female mendicant or of her guardians or of her kinsmen. But a man falsely accusing his wife of immorality shall be fined. But on severe quarrel between the husband and the wife Kautilya prescribes divorce on mutual consent.

The notion of Antahpura or harem is a special feature of ancient Indian society and polity. About the harem of the King, Kautilya gives us a little information Antahpura or harem,[14] which was chiefly concerned with the regulations for the King’s safety giving instances of the monarchs who were assassinated by their queens. The queens are, no doubt, necessary for successors to the throne, but they are also a source of trouble and danger. Therefore, Kautilya was very careful against this sort of danger when he says that the Kings shall be careful in the harem because many kings were killed in the harem.

Regarding the construction and the management of the harem Kautilya was in conformity with Vatsyayana and other thinkers of ancient India. The Arthaśāstra lays down that on a selected and protected site the King shall construct his harem which shall consist of many compartments provided with doors. The officer in charge of the harem shall be stationed in the intervening places of two compartments. Everything that goes into and comes out of the harem was to be carefully inspected. The inmates of the harem were to be watched by the aged men and women in the guise mothers and fathers and eunuchs. The members are also forbidden to maintain any communication with the wandering ascetics, female slaves and other outsiders. The regular attendance on the harem is entrusted on the Rūpājīvās who are neat and clean. In short Kautilya says that all kinds of precautions are to be taken for the protection and the welfare of the husband.

 Interestingly, in India where the mother is an object of worship and veneration widow-marriage is unthinkable. In spite of this we learn from the sacred literature that widow-marriage was prevalent in ancient India. The general rule in the Arthaśāstra as well as in the Manusmriti was that a woman after the death of her husband must remain pure and virtuous and would lead the life of a brāhmachāriṇi. Kautilya also, accepts the Vedic custom of producing sons by the brothers of the dead-husband when he ways that a widow may remarry any one of the brothers of the dead husband. In the absence of brothers, she may marry any one of the Sapindās of her husband, and the selection of the bridegroom is entrusted to her father-in-law. And a widow not marrying one according to the selection of her father-in-law had to be deprived of her property; otherwise, she should receive her due maintenance. But generally, the widows used to remain pure and virtuous by maintaining themselves by various sorts of industries such as weaving, spinning, etc.

During Mauryan times there was no dearth of female ascetics in spite of his severe condemnation. Kautilya is very indignant towards the women accepting asceticism, their supreme duty being to serve their husbands and to lead the household life. A female must never be permitted to embrace asceticism. It is against the law to convert any woman to asceticism, and those who do so shall be punished. In spite of all these we find references of parivrājikās and bhikshuṇis in the Arthaśāstra which is also testified to by the celebrated Greek writer Megasthenes who says that woman pursues philosophy but abstains from sexual enjoyment.  By this Megasthenes probably meant woman-ascetics. According to Kautilya a woman ascetic is one who is a poor widow of the Brāhmaṇa caste, very clever and desirous to earn her livelihood.

They are allowed to travel whenever they like without any restriction and obligation. And a Bhikshuki held an honorable and respectable position not only in the society but also in the palace. They also acquired respect as they were entrusted to uncover political secrets. A parivrājikās shall frequent the house of the prime-minister, and Kautilya enjoins that no one should prevent them from entering into the palace.

 However, we would like to presents an analytical account of women’s economic rights in ancient India. The study's main thesis is that women's ownership rights in ancient India gradually changed in ancient time. In it an attempt has also been made to co-relate the changes in their economic rights with social factors and forces. It should however, be borne in mind that the views of Indian law-givers were influenced by the changes that crept in the social and political realms from time to time and influenced the pattern of women’s right of inheritance in different ages. Often attempts have been made to depict women’s condition out of context. The nature of social values in ancient India, within which the status of women is to be valued, is an important point to be emphasized. She was never, however, poor or vulnerable. Additionally, as time went on, she came to have official, autonomous property rights.

Besides, we have the Arthaśāstra of Kautilya which is considered to be an authoritative exposition of the post-Buddha Indian law of inheritance. It is strange that the Arthaśāstra has not been referred to by the early medieval law givers in spite of the fact that it deals with, in a very comprehensive manner, the various legal and judicial subjects which constitute, to a large extent, the theme of the Smṛiti writings. As to the age of the Arthaśāstra, it is usually assigned to the 4th century B.C. assuredly this work is anterior to that of Manu. It contains elaborate rules relating to the division of property also.[15] Kautilya says, sons, whose father and mothers or ancestors are alive, cannot be independent.[16] He also says, self-acquired property of any of the sons, with the exception of that kind of property which is earned with the help of paternal property is not divisible.[17] Further, he states, a father distributing his property while he is alive, shall make no distinction in dividing it among sons of his share.[18] He does not speak of common ownership of the father and the son in the ancestral property.[19] If there are sons by many wives, he says it is by birth that primogeniture is decided[20] regarding anuloma marriages, his code gives preferential shares to the sons of the wives of superior varṇas.[21]

 However, Strīdhana gave the wife certain rights which were not of the nature of usufruct only; for she could use this property in any manner she liked for her own maintenance or the maintenance of her son or daughter-in-law.[22] Kautilya states, the son-less widow, faithful to her husband’s bed and living with her elders, shall enjoy her Strīdhana till the end of her life, as Strīdhana is meant for times of distress.[23] The widow remarrying shall be deprived of what she may have inherited from her former husband. But she shall enjoy it if she is desirous of fulfilling her religious obligations.[24]

Kautilya[25] has also mentioned certain rules regarding the husband’s right over Strīdhana. The property enjoyed by the husband in the case of the Gāndharva and the Āsura forms of marriages, shall be restored together with interest. In the case of the Rākṣasa and Paisācha forms of marriages, the use of this property by the husband shall be dealt with as a case of theft.[26] Kautilya has dealt with the use of Strīdhana by the husband on the basis of the forms of marriages. The husband could use his wife’s property if their marriage was according to one of the first four forms. The latter four forms of marriages were looked down upon with contempt. In such a case, the husband could desert his wife any time and so Kautilya has put certain restrictions and restraints on the husband for the use of Strīdhana. It is certainly a remarkable thing that Strīdhana seems to have developed among the Hindus at a period relatively much earlier than the roman’s.[27] Kautilya uses the term Strīdhana in the sense of separate property of a woman over which she has complete right of enjoyment and disposal. According to him, means of subsistence or jewellery constitute what is called the property of a woman.[28] He adds that means of subsistence valued at about two thousand paṇas should be endowed in her name;[29] Kautilya mentions a few more items like the second śulka, avarna, anvadheya, bandhudātta, anyat, etc.

Kautilya states, “If a woman dies during her husband’s life-time her sons and daughters shall divide her Strīdhana among themselves. If she has no sons, her daughters will take it; if she has no daughter, her husband will take it.”[30] The sonless widow faithful to her husband’s bed and living with her elders shall enjoy her Strīdhana till the end of her life as Strīdhana is meant for times of distress. After her it shall go to heirs.[31] According to him, if the woman has been married under the Āsura or other inferior forms of marriage, and dies childless, her relations shall take her nuptial fee, the gifts received by her after marriage and whatever else she may have received from her relations.[32] Besides, if a woman who had married several times and had sons by those marriages, her Strīdhana shall be divided among the sons on the principle that each shall receive that part of it which may have been given to the woman by his own father.[33] He adds that if a widow remarried according to the law, her husband shall only protect (not enjoy) her Strīdhana.[34]

Kautilya allows a brother less daughter to inherit without any restrictions. He states that the unmarried daughters (kanyā) together with the brothers of the deceased received his personal assets (dravya) and the married daughters (duhita) inherited the property in succession (riktha), provided their parents had married according to one of the approved forms of marriages.[35] In the opinion of Manu, sons have no right of partition during the life-time of their parents,[36] and so were the daughters. We notice that none of the Sutrakaras assigns any share to a daughter with brothers. Baudhayana, in particular, held the view that females are generally incompetent to inherit. Kautilya in his Arthaśāstra,[37] clearly mentions that daughters are entitled to maintenance and marriage expenses only. He mentions that unmarried daughters shall be paid sufficient dowry on their marriage.[38]

Kautilya[39] and Manu also allowed niyoga, although the latter was quite reluctant. Kautilya also thinks that the widow has no claim to the property left by the husband. She is only entitled to maintenance from it[40] and even if the state had taken over the property of the deceased husband, the king had to give some maintenance to the widow.[41]

 The maintenance of women is discussed in the chapters on maintenance of woman. A married man is under the obligation of providing the female members of the family with adequate subsistence. A capable person neglecting to provide his daughter, mother, wife, sisters, etc., shall be duly punished. On the other hand a wife is eligible to receive her due maintenance as long as she is devoted and obedient to her husband or to other lawful guardians. Every wife shall be given as much food and clothing as required. But the wife who parts with her husband and lives independently or places herself under the protection of another person shall be deprived of her claim to maintenance from her husband. On the death of the husband the widow is to be provided by her own property and also by her sons, if she remains pure, but in the case of remarriage she shall be maintained by her protector or second husband. Moreover, as already observed, Kautilya is very indignant towards the acceptance of asceticism as he definitely states that it is a bounden duty on the part of a man adopting asceticism to make adequate provision for the maintenance of his family.

The State is also required to look after the helpless and diseased women who have none to look after them. As already observed, the State maintains the cripple, widows and other poor women by providing them with employment in the State factories. Moreover, Kautilya enjoins upon the king himself that he shall provide subsistence to helpless women and also to the children they give birth to.

This research paper shall be validated through qualitative methodology, an interpretive analysis of the status of women in Mauryan period as reflected in Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra with the help of primary sources. As these sources are mainly in Sanskrit but the translation has been made in different languages. So, the translated version will be studied along with a working knowledge of Sanskrit.

Thus, it can be surmised that Kautilya was born in an age when morality was to a great extent degraded. Due to this moral decay, Kautilya enacted rigorous laws that severely limited the woman's independence and freedom, which she had previously enjoyed. As regards the position, power and influence of the women the Arthaśāstra proves that these did not differ essentially from those described in the Manusmṛiti. In both these works the women are regarded not as equals of men but rather inferior to the latter. The general rule laid down in both the treatises is that a woman must never be independent and must remain ever devoted and obedient to her husband. Manu says, though destitute of virtue, seeking pleasures or devoid of good qualities yet a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by a faithful wife. If a wife obeys her husband, she will for that reason alone be exalted in heaven. It is also laid down in the Arthaśāstra that a woman can claim maintenance from her husband as long as she remains devoted to him. But notwithstanding the restrictions imposed by Kautilya, it appears from his work that the women were given a certain measure of independence in domestic affairs. As an unhappy union between a man and woman may lead to chaos in the domestic life, Kautilya prescribes divorce with mutual consent. The women are also given the right to remarry on certain conditions imposed by him. The widows, not desirous of leading the life of a Brahmāchariṇi, are also allowed to marry any one of the brothers of the dead husband. By this legislation Kautilya recognizes the Vedic custom of producing sons by the brothers of the dead husband. Even the women of the lower classes, such as the slaves, laborers’, and the Gaṇikas, did not suffer in the least in the hands of Kautilya who has framed rigid rules for the preservation of their chastity and honour. The Dāsīs and the Gaṇikas were also given a certain measure of freedom and respect. Though, Kautilya is very indignant towards the theory of accepting asceticism by women yet it is clear from the Arthaśāstra that in his age there was no dearth of the Bhikshuki as parivrājikās who occupied an honorable position not only in the society but also in the palace. But the special feature of the women in Kautilya is that they were largely employed in the Government and palace services, and that they were regarded as more trustworthy than men in the personal services of the king. The position attached to the women is also proved by the legislation that the King will personally attend to the business of the women along with others. Another rule enjoins upon the King to provide the helpless women along with their children. Similar other legislation designed with the sole object of protecting the chastity and the honour of the women certainly indicates the place occupied by women in the age of Kautilya. From a critical study of the Arthaśāstra, it appears, no doubt, that the women lost much of the liberty and freedom but the honour and the prestige which they enjoyed from the earliest times did not suffer in the hands of Kautilya. In other words, women in Kautilya were placed in high regard and esteem, though their liberty was to a great extent curtailed. But liberty is not the sole consideration by which the status of the woman would be judged in a particular period. The aspects which should be given proper consideration are the position and honour in which they are placed in the society. With regard to these aspects, it can be said that Kautilya is careful enough to grant them their legitimate claims and rights allowing them to occupy an honourable position in the society. Overall, Kautilya's attitude towards the woman is kind and wise. All these considerations will naturally lead us to the conclusion that the women, in the age of Kautilya, occupied no inferior position in the Hindu society.

1. Kautilya Arthasastra, ed., and trans., R. shamasastry, Mysore, 1960-61. 2. Kangle, R.P., TheKautilyaArthasastra, Parts I-III, Delhi, Rep. 1986. 3. Rangarajan, L.N. Kautilya, the Arthasashstra, Delhi, 1992. 4. T. Ga- napati Sastri, The Arthasastra of Kautilya, Pts.3, Trivandrum, 1924-25. 5. Duradatta Sastri, Kautilya Arthasastra, (Hindi) Allahabad, 1957. 6. Aiyangar, K.V.R., Some Aspects of the Hindu View of Life According to Dharamsutra., Baroda, 1952. 7. Basham, A.L.: The Wonder that was India, Rep. Delhi, 1982. 8. Basu, Jogiraj: India is the Age of Brahmana, Calcutta, 1969. 9. Bhandarkar, D.R.:: Some Aspect of Ancient India Culture, Madras,1940. 10. Bhargava,P.L. Chandragupta Maurya,Delhi,2002 11. Bhattacharya, J.N.: Hindu Castes and Sects, rep. Calcutta, 1968. 12. Julia Lesile, ed. Role and Ritual for Hindu Women, Delhi, 1992. 13. Kohli, Ritu; Kautilya’s Political Theory, Delhi, 1995. 14. Kosambi, D.D., An Introduction to the Study of Indian History, Mum- bai, 1956. 15. Sarkar, B.K.: The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology, Allahabad, 1937. 16. Saraswati, B.N.: Brahmanic Ritual Traditions in the Crucible of Time, Shimla, 1977.

1. R.V. VIII; 31, 5 X, VIII, 277.
2. Taitt. Br. III. 7.1.9.
3. R.V.V.28, 1. A.S. Altekar, The Position of Women in Hindu Civilization, Delhi, Rep. 1983, p. 198-99.
4. Brha. Up. VI, 4.17
5. Sankhayana Grhyasutra, 1.3.
6. Manu, S.111, 57.
7. Arthaśāstra. III. 7.
8. Arthaśāstra. III, II, IV.
9. Arthaśāstra. III. 6.
10. Arthaśāstra. III. 15.
11. Arthaśāstra. III. 3.
12. Arthaśāstra. III. 2.
13. Arthaśāstra. III. 3.
14. Arthaśāstra.I. 20.
15. Arthaśāstra of Kautilya ed. by R. Kangle, Bombay, 1960, pp. 161-63.
16. Arthaśāstra of Kautilya ed. by R. Kangle, p. 160.
17. Arthaśāstra of Kautilya ed. by R. Kangle.
18. Arthaśāstra of Kautilya ed. by R. Kangle, p. 161.
19. Arthaśāstra of Kautilya ed. by R. Kangle.
20. Arthaśāstra of Kautilya ed. by R. Kangle, p. 163.
21. Arthaśāstra of Kautilya ed. by R. Kangle.
22. Arthaśāstra, II. 15.2.
23. Arthaśāstra, II. 16.
24. Arthaśāstra, II. 15.
25. Arthaśāstra, III. 2.
26. Arthaśāstra, II. 2.14.
27. H.S. Maine, The Early History of Institutions, London, 1890, p. 231.
28. Arthaśāstra of Kautilya, III. 2.
29. Arthaśāstra of Kautilya, III, 15. 92; IV. 12.173.
30. Arthaśāstra, II. 16.
31. Arthaśāstra.
32. Arthaśāstra.
33. Arthaśāstra.
34. Arthaśāstra.
35. Arthaśāstra, 160.
36. Manusmrti, IX. 104.
37. Arthaśāstra, III. 5.18.27.33.
38. Arthaśāstra, IV. Baudhayana Dharma sutra, 2.4.46.
39. Arthaśāstra, II, p. 40.
40. Arthaśāstra, III. 59.
41. Arthaśāstra, III. 5.