Ranjan Kumar Singh

Rahul Gandhi’s remarks at Chhatron Ki Gooj in Pune have stirred a conversation as old as Indian history itself: how do we reconcile reverence for women in our scriptures with the social codes that bind them? His intervention is timely, but whether it is relevant or not should best be judged by women themselves, not by their male counterparts.

The Manusmriti, often criticized for its patriarchal injunctions, is a text of contradictions. On one hand, it declares in stark terms: “Day and night women must be kept in dependence by the males of their families, and if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one’s control” (Manusmriti 9.2). On the other, it affirms metaphysical equality: “Having divided his body into two halves, with one half the Lord became Male, and with the other half Female” (Manusmriti 1.32).

It even elevates women as bearers of divine presence: “Where women are honored, there the gods rejoice; but where they are not honored, no sacred rite yields rewards” (Manusmriti 3.56). Yet this reverence is conditional. The text insists: “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” (Manusmriti 9.3). Worship, yes. But only under male guardianship. Independence, no. For that is equated with immorality.

The Egalitarian Counterpoint

Remarkably, in the Western tradition, woman is said to be created from man’s rib — separated, but never equal. By contrast, the Shatapatha Brahmana, associated with the Yajurveda, offers a more egalitarian metaphor: “Prajapati divided himself, just as one divides kneaded flour into two equal parts; from these halves man and woman were created” (Shatapatha Brahmana 14.4.2). Here, neither is inferior.

This vision finds its most powerful expression in Ardhanarishvara — the deity who is half male and half female, depicted in perfect proportion. Indian iconography reinforces this balance, often portraying avatars like Rama and Krishna with feminine attributes. Unlike Roman sculpture, which celebrates muscular physiques in gods such as Apollo or Poseidon, Hindu sculpture presents deities as non-muscular, even beardless, emphasizing a different aesthetic of divinity.

Reformist Challenges

And yet, despite these egalitarian metaphors, the Manusmriti insists on subordination. This tension has haunted Indian society for centuries. Reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy challenged it when they fought against practices like sati. B.R. Ambedkar went further, publicly burning the Manusmriti in 1927, calling it a symbol of oppression. Gandhi, while less confrontational, reminded society that spiritual equality must translate into social practice.

Rahul Gandhi’s remarks revive this centuries-old debate. By highlighting the contradiction within the Manusmriti — equality in origin, reverence in ritual, but dependence in social life — he forces us to ask whether reverence without independence can ever amount to genuine equality. For a society that prides itself on the ideals of Ardhanarishvara and the egalitarian metaphors of the Shatapatha Brahmana, the persistence of patriarchal codes is indeed striking.

The Democratic Imperative

The radical Hindus have often advocated for the adoption of the Manusmriti as the constitution of India. But given that India is a secular republic, this remains a far cry. Moreover, just as Indian laws had to be amended to safeguard the civil rights of Muslim women where Sharia provisions conflicted with constitutional guarantees, so too must the Manusmriti be abandoned when it comes to the civil rights of Hindu women. There can surely be no place for inequality and injustice in a democracy.

The Question Before India

The question before India today is not whether women should be worshipped, but whether they should be free. Worship without autonomy is hollow. Independence, not dependence, is the true measure of equality. Rahul Gandhi has brought this contradiction to the fore; it is now for Indian women to decide whether the reverence offered by tradition can be reconciled with the freedom demanded by modernity.