Manusmriti Chapter 9 | Verse 225

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 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

Manusmriti Verse 9.225 mandates that the king immediately banish gamblers, deceptive individuals, cruel men, heretics, those acting against scriptures, and liquor sellers from the city to maintain public order. Commentators emphasize that this directive serves as a measure against public nuisances and threats to social morality, requiring the swift expulsion of these specific groups. For more information, visit Wisdomlib. Manusmriti Verse 9.225

16 Feb 2018 — Verse 9.225 * Medhātithi's commentary (manubhāṣya): (verses 9.220-227) (No Bāṣhya) * Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha. 'Krūrān'. Wisdom Library

Chapter 9, Verse 225 - manu-smṛtiḥ - Enjoy learning Sanskrit

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: manusmriti chapter 9 verse 225

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, 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.

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 ||"

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."

"Having become a learned Brahmana (śrotriya) and married off (his daughter), the best of twice-born should give his daughter to that man who possesses superior qualities."

(Alternate reading / interpretation by some scholars):
"Having married a person who is well-vers in the Vedas, and having become himself a high-ranking twice-born, he should give his daughter to that man who is most eminent in virtues."

The Manusmriti is an ancient legal text of Hinduism, composed roughly between the 2nd century BCE and 3rd century CE. It outlines the dharma (duties, rights, laws, conduct) for individuals in various stages of life (ashramas) and social classes (varnas). Chapter 9 primarily deals with topics related to family, inheritance, property rights, and the duties of a husband and wife, particularly in times of distress or when a husband is absent or dead. Manusmriti 9

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):

Manusmriti, Chapter 9, Verse 225 stands as a moral and historical prism. How you interpret it depends on your hermeneutic lens:

What is undeniable is this: Verse 225 has outlived its legal utility. Its continued relevance lies not in its application—which is impossible in a constitutional democracy—but in the debate it fuels about the role of ancient texts in modern religious identity. It forces us to ask a difficult question: Can a community revere a text while explicitly rejecting some of its verses? The answer, for most thoughtful practitioners of Hinduism today, is a decisive yes. The Manusmriti is a museum of Indian legal history, not a blueprint for 21st-century justice.

Final takeaway: To cite Manusmriti 9.225 without its historical context is misleading. To ignore its patriarchal violence is dishonest. The only responsible path is to study it as a document of its time—and then gratefully recognize that humanity has, slowly and painfully, moved beyond it.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational and historical analysis. It does not advocate for or against any religious belief. Laws cited are specific to India; other jurisdictions may vary.

Manusmriti Chapter 9 Verse 225 (Manu 9.225) is a foundational verse within the Dharma Shastras that outlines the King's duty to maintain public order by purging society of specific "undesirables". Found in the section of the Laws of Manu dedicated to civil and criminal administration, this verse focuses on the immediate banishment of individuals whose presence is considered a corrupting influence on the town or kingdom. Sanskrit Text and Translation The verse in its original Sanskrit is: Wisdomlib

Translation:The verse dictates that the King must instantly exile individuals such as gamblers, actors, violent persons, heretics, those engaging in forbidden acts, and liquor dealers to maintain public order. Key Categories of Persons Mentioned

The verse lists several classes deemed disruptive to the Dharma (social and moral order) of a city:

Kitavan (Gamblers): Individuals engaging in professional gambling.

Kushilavan (Dancers/Actors): Historically, wandering performers often viewed with suspicion.

Kruran (Cruel Men): Interpreted as those exhibiting habitual violence.

Pashandashthan (Heretical Sects): Those following paths outside the Vedic tradition.

Vikarmasthan (Addicted to Evil Deeds): Those neglecting prescribed duties for prohibited activities.

Shaundikan (Liquor Dealers): Manufacturers or sellers of intoxicants. Legal and Social Significance

According to commentaries, the King's role is to proactively prevent vice, not just punish crime.

Preservation of Public Order: The goal was to keep urban centers (purat) free from elements causing moral decay, riots, or religious subversion.

Immediate Action: Kshipram (instantly) implies the necessity of removing these individuals before their influence spreads. "Having become a learned Brahmana (śrotriya) and married

Banishment: Used as a high-level penalty for social or religious offenses. Comparison with Other Verses

It is crucial to distinguish this from other "225" verses, such as 2.225 (duty toward parents/teachers) and 8.225 (fines for false accusations). Manusmriti Verse 9.225

The Manusmriti, Chapter 9, Verse 225, is a legal and social directive concerning the maintenance of public order within a kingdom. It prescribes the immediate expulsion of various "antisocial" elements to protect the law-abiding citizenry. The Verse (Sanskrit & Transliteration)

कितवान् कुशीलवान् क्रूरान् पाषण्डस्थांश्च मानवान् ।विकर्मस्थान् शौण्डिकांश्च क्षिप्रं निर्वासयेत् पुरात् ॥ २२५ ॥

kitavān kuśīlavān krūrān pāṣaṇḍasthāṃśca mānavān |vikarmasthān śauṇḍikāṃśca kṣipram nirvāsayet purāt || English Translation

"Gamblers, dancers and singers, 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." Breakdown of Categories

Traditional commentaries, such as those by Ganganath Jha and Medhātithi, provide specific definitions for the groups mentioned: Kitavān: Fraudulent or habitual gamblers.

Kuśīlavān: Those who entrap others (often associated with certain types of public entertainers like actors or singers in this legal context). Krūrān: Men of cruel or crooked behaviour.

Pāṣaṇḍasthān: Members of heretical sects who do not follow Vedic traditions (sometimes identified specifically as Kṣapaṇakas in historical commentaries).

Vikarmasthān: Individuals who have abandoned their prescribed duties to follow forbidden occupations.

Śauṇḍikān: Vendors of spirituous liquor or habitual drunkards. Legal Justification (Verse 226)

The verse immediately following (9.226) explains the reasoning for such harsh measures: these individuals are considered "hidden thieves" (pracchanna-taskarāḥ) who constantly harass and disturb honest subjects (bhadrikāḥ prajāḥ) through their illicit activities. By banishing them, the King ensures the safety and moral integrity of the state. Manusmriti Verse 9.225

16 Feb 2018 — Verse 9.225 * Medhātithi's commentary (manubhāṣya): (verses 9.220-227) (No Bāṣhya) * Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha. 'Krūrān'. Wisdom Library Where is this verse about pakhandis found?

In Chapter 9, Verse 225, Manu states:

"On failure of issue (son) by her husband, a woman who has been authorized may obtain the desired offspring by cohabitation with a brother-in-law (or a close relative of the husband)."

Alternatively, more literally:

"If the husband is without a son, the wife, being authorized, may procure a son by cohabitation with a brother-in-law or a sapinda (near relative) of her husband."

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.