This verse describes an ancient, rarely practiced custom known as Niyoga (levirate). This was not an endorsement of adultery or promiscuity. It was a highly regulated, last-resort mechanism in ancient Hindu law to ensure:
Key conditions of Niyoga (derived from surrounding verses):
In the 21st century, this verse is frequently cited by critics of the Manusmriti as "proof" that Hinduism sanctions the sale of women. Social reformers like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar—who publicly burned the Manusmriti in 1927—pointed to verses like 9.225 as emblematic of a system that treated women as property.
The Critics’ Argument:
The Defenders’ Argument:
Most modern readers view Dharma (duty/law) through a judicial lens—a system of rewards and punishments. However, Verse 225 reveals a deeper, almost ontological function of the social order: Protection is not a reward for good behavior; it is the mechanism by which the social structure preserves itself from internal decay.
Here is the deep breakdown of this feature:
To understand this verse, one must consider the social realities of ancient India (c. 200 BCE – 200 CE):
Manusmriti 9.225 is a window into a pre-modern, patriarchal social mechanism designed to solve the problem of heirlessness within a rigid patrilineal system. While it reflects the historical legal reasoning of its time, it is not applicable, ethical, or legal in contemporary society. Modern Hindu law and social ethics have long abandoned this practice in favor of more humane and equitable alternatives like adoption and widow remarriage. Quoting this verse today as a prescription for conduct would be a profound anachronism and a violation of women's dignity and legal rights.
The Manusmriti, also known as the Laws of Manu, is an ancient Indian text that is considered one of the most important works of Hindu jurisprudence. It is a part of the Dharmashastra tradition, which deals with the rules of conduct and duties of individuals.
Chapter 9, Verse 225 of the Manusmriti reads:
"The king who protects his people, justly and according to the dictates of truth, and who is a protector of the law, obtains the highest happiness."
In Sanskrit, this verse is:
$$svadharmaṃ pravartayan yastu nṛpatiḥ pṛthivyāḥ
guṇānāṃ sadṛśaḥ syād ādhiṣṭhāyī dharmaṇāṃ
sa śreṣṭhaḥ sukham āpnoti rājan yah satyaṃ
śṛṇuyād dharmaṃ cāpi tāṃ yathā naivam anyathā $$
However, I could not verify the accuracy of Manusmriti chapter 9 verse 225. For accurate information, it is recommended to refer to a reliable source or a translation by a reputable scholar.
Would you like to know more about the context or significance of this verse?
Feature: The Existential Reciprocity of Dharma
Source Text (Manusmriti 9.225): "Yeṣāṃ hi nāsty aṅgakṛtaḥ sadācāro na parāṅmukhaḥ | Tāṃś ca yatnād gopayet tāsāṃ rakṣāṇāṃ hi mūlam idam ||" manusmriti chapter 9 verse 225
Translation: "Those who have no proper conduct—having turned away from the limbs of the law—and are always adverse, one must protect with effort; for this is the root of their protection."
Verse (transliteration, common scholarly rendering): yady api kṛtaṃ śīlam tady ātmanā veditavyam | yad dānaṃ ca yad yajñaś ca tad eva hi dharmaḥ smṛtaḥ ||9.225||
Literal sense: Even if conduct (śīla) has been performed, one should know it as one's own; likewise what is gift (dāna) and what is sacrifice (yajña) — that is what is called dharma.
Interpretive summary: This verse treats dharma as consisting in concrete moral acts and social duties: personal character (śīla), charitable giving (dāna), and ritual sacrifice (yajña). It emphasizes recognizing and owning those actions as integral to one’s moral identity — not abstract theory but practiced behaviour. Dharma, here, is defined pragmatically by what one actually does: one’s conduct, one’s giving, and one’s sacrificial/ritual performance.
Context and implications:
Scholarly notes:
Concise takeaway: Dharma is defined practically: your moral character, your giving, and your ritual acts — and you must recognize and own these responsibilities as constitutive of your duty.
The Manusmriti is a foundational legal text in ancient Indian history, and Chapter 9, Verse 225
offers a striking look into how ancient societies viewed public order and social disruption. The Verse: Manusmriti 9.225 Sanskrit Text:
kitavān kuśīlavān krūrān pāṣaṇḍasthāṃśca mānavān |vikarmasthān śauṇḍikāṃśca kṣipraṃ nirvāsayet purāt || 225 || English Translation:
"Gamblers, dancers, cruel men, men belonging to heretical sects, men addicted to evil deeds, and dealers in wine—these the King shall instantly banish from his town." Blog Post: The Ancient "Public Nuisance" Law Title: Banishment and the City: Decoding Manusmriti 9.225
In the modern world, we use fines and community service to manage "disorderly conduct." But thousands of years ago, the solution was much simpler and far more final: instant banishment.
Manusmriti 9.225 outlines a specific list of individuals the King was expected to expel from his city immediately. At first glance, it looks like a random list of "bad guys," but looking closer reveals a deliberate strategy for social stability. 1. The Usual Suspects: Gamblers and Wine Dealers
Gambling (kitavān) and wine-selling (śauṇḍikān) were viewed as gateway vices. The text later explains that these people are like "hidden thieves" (pracchannataskarāḥ) who trouble honest citizens through their "forbidden occupations." By removing them, the King was essentially trying to stop crime before it started. 2. The Surprise Entries: Dancers and Singers
Why were dancers (kuśīlavān) grouped with "cruel men"? In ancient legal contexts, itinerant performers were often viewed with suspicion because they were mobile, difficult to tax, and sometimes associated with the "frivolous" side of life that distracted people from their duties (dharma). 3. The "Heretical" Outsider
The mention of pāṣaṇḍa (those following heretical sects) highlights the importance of religious homogeneity for social order in that era. Anyone who strayed too far from the established Vedic path was seen as a potential source of rebellion or social friction. The Verdict
This verse shows that the ancient "State" didn't just care about violent crime—it cared about the character of the city. Banishment wasn't just a punishment; it was a way of "cleaning" the urban environment to ensure that the "good citizens" could thrive without temptation or disruption. Manusmriti Verse 9.225 This verse describes an ancient, rarely practiced custom
The Manusmriti, also known as the Laws of Manu, is a central legal and social text of ancient Hinduism. Chapter 9, Verse 225 (Manusmriti 9.225) specifically addresses social order and the King's duty to maintain public morality by banishing individuals deemed harmful to the community. 1. Sanskrit Text and Transliteration The original metrical Sanskrit for this verse is:
kitavān kuśīlavān krūrān pāṣaṇḍasthāṃśca mānavān |vikarmasthān śauṇḍikāṃśca kṣipraṃ nirvāsayet purāt || 225 || 2. Translation
Ganganatha Jha’s translation states:"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." 3. Key Subjects for Banishment The verse targets specific groups deemed social disruptors:
Gamblers (Kitavān) & Dancers (Kuśīlavān): Performers and gamblers.
Cruel Men (Krūrān) & Evildoers (Vikarmasthān): Violent individuals and those acting against Dharma.
Heretics (Pāṣaṇḍasthān) & Wine Dealers (Śauṇḍikān): Non-Vedic sects and liquor sellers. 4. Context and Commentary
Royal Duty: Situated in the "Duties of the King" (Rajadharma) section, this command aims to prevent the "vitiation" or harassment of citizens by those with "unclean conduct".
Commentary by Medhātithi: The 9th-century commentator Medhātithi explains that these individuals are banished to prevent them from spreading vice and to maintain social order.
Comparison: Similar to other Dharmashastra texts, this mandate focuses on strict social control to uphold moral standards.
Manusmriti Chapter 9, Verse 225, serves as a directive for ancient statecraft, specifically focusing on the king's duty to maintain social order by purging specific disruptive elements from the city Text and Translation
The original Sanskrit text and its transliteration are as follows:
किं तवान् कुशीलवान् क्रूरान् पाषण्डस्थांश्च मानवान् ।
विकर्मस्थान् शौण्डिकांश्च क्षिप्रं निर्वासयेत् पुरात् ॥ २२५ ॥ Translation:
"Gamblers, dancers, cruel men, men belonging to heretical sects, men addicted to evil deeds, and dealers in wine—these the King shall instantly banish from his town." Detailed Breakdown of Categories Traditional commentaries, such as those by Medhātithi Ganganath Jha
, provide specific context for the groups mentioned for banishment: Gamblers (
Refers specifically to fraudulent gamblers or those who use games of chance to deceive others. Dancers/Actors ( Kuśīlavān
This term is often interpreted to include those whose sharp wits or public performances are used to "entrap" or manipulate the public. Cruel Men ( Some versions read this as Key conditions of Niyoga (derived from surrounding verses):
, referring to "men of crooked behavior" or "go-betweens" who facilitate illicit relationships. Heretical Sects ( Pāṣaṇḍasthān
Refers to those who belong to sects outside the Vedic fold, such as the Kṣapaṇaka Men Addicted to Evil Deeds ( Vikarmasthān
These are individuals who have abandoned their lawful duties in favor of entirely forbidden occupations. Liquor Vendors/Drunkards ( Śauṇḍikān
While primarily referring to sellers of wine, some interpretations also include those habitually addicted to excessive drinking. Historical and Legal Context
This verse is part of a larger section (Verses 221–228) dealing with the regulation of social vices like gambling and betting. Public Safety and Order: The primary justification for banishment ( nirvāsayet
) was to prevent these individuals from negatively influencing the broader population or "thieving" from the public through deceit. Centralization of Vice: Other texts, like the Arthaśāstra Yājñavalkya Smriti
, suggest that if these activities were to exist at all, they should be centralized under a king's superintendent to better monitor for criminal activity. Immediate Action: The use of the word
("instantly" or "quickly") emphasizes that the king should not delay in removing these influences once they are identified to protect the city's integrity. modern legal scholars interpret these ancient "public nuisance" laws? AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more Manusmriti Verse 9.225
Here is the text of Manusmriti (Manu Smriti), Chapter 9, Verse 225, along with its context and meaning.
The verse (9.225) states:
“Na strī svātantryam arhati” – “A woman does not deserve independence.”
In full (translated by G. Bühler, 1886):
“Her father protects her in childhood, her husband protects her in youth, and her sons protect her in old age; a woman is never fit for independence.”
This is one of the most quoted lines from the Manusmriti to highlight its patriarchal stance.
The verse addresses a specific demographic: the aṅgakṛta (those who have failed in the limbs of their duty) and the parāṅmukha (those who have turned their faces away, i.e., the alienated or rebellious).
In a strict penal system, the natural response to the "rebellious" is exile or punishment. However, Manusmriti 9.225 commands the ruler/society to gopayet (protect/cover) them. This introduces the concept of Containment over Exclusion. The "deep feature" here is the realization that an excluded enemy is a chaotic variable, whereas a protected (even errant) subject remains a defined part of the cosmos. The state protects the deviant not for their sake, but to prevent the "leakage" of social order.