Subsidi ongkir minimal belanja 75 Ribu.
Manusmriti Chapter 9, Verse 225, is a legal injunction concerning the maintenance of social order within a kingdom. It prescribes the immediate banishment of individuals who engage in activities deemed subversive or morally corrupting to the "town" or state Wisdom Library Sanskrit Text & Translation
कितवान् कुशीलवान् क्रूरान् पाषण्डस्थांश्च मानवान् । विकर्मस्थान् शौण्डिकांश्च क्षिप्रं निर्वासयेत् पुरात् ॥ २२५ ॥ Transliteration:
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, dealers in wine,—these the King shall instantly banish from his town." Wisdom Library Key Groups Subject to Banishment According to the Manusmriti with Medhātithi's commentary , the verse targets specific "anti-social" elements: Kitavān (Gamblers):
Specifically fraudulent gamblers or those who use deceit in games of chance. Kuśīlavān (Dancers/Performers):
Interpreted by commentators as those who might entrap others or lead them away from their duties. Krūrān (Cruel Men): Men of "crooked behavior" or those who act with malice. Pāṣaṇḍasthān (Heretics):
Individuals belonging to sects that reject the authority of the Vedas. Vikarmasthān (Wrongdoers):
Those who abandon their prescribed duties (varna-dharma) to engage in forbidden occupations. Śauṇḍikān (Wine Dealers/Drunkards): manusmriti chapter 9 verse 225
Either those who sell liquor or those habitually addicted to intoxication. Wisdom Library Legal Context and Purpose
This verse is part of a larger section (9.221–228) dealing with gambling, betting, and public morality. The primary objective is to protect the stability and moral fabric of the kingdom. By "instantly banishing" these groups, the text suggests that their presence is a contagion that could distract virtuous citizens and lead to a breakdown in law and order. Wisdom Library Scholarly Commentary Ganganath Jha translation
notes variations in interpretation among ancient commentators like Medhātithi, Nārāyaṇa, and Nandana. For instance, while some see Kuśīlavān
as professional dancers, others view them as "go-betweens" or panderers for "strange couples". The verse is also cited in the Vivādaratnākara
, a late medieval legal digest, reinforcing its status as a recognized precept in traditional Hindu law. Wisdom Library other verses
from this chapter related to the duties of a king, or perhaps see how modern scholars critique these ancient legal codes? AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more Manusmriti Verse 9.225
This verse falls under the section of Manusmriti dealing with duties of a father regarding kanyādāna (giving away the daughter in marriage). It emphasizes: Manusmriti Chapter 9, Verse 225, is a legal
Qualities over ritual status alone – The primary criterion for a groom is guṇavattara (possessing superior character, learning, and virtues), not merely birth or wealth.
The father’s responsibility – Before arranging a daughter’s marriage, the father should himself be learned (śrotriya) and virtuous. He sets an example.
Śrotriya – Refers to a Brahmana who has mastered the Vedas and lives according to dharma. The verse links personal spiritual attainment with proper performance of family duties.
Interplay with other verses – This verse is often compared with Manu 9.88–9.90, which discuss exceptions for choosing a groom based on character even if the family background is less known. Verse 225 reinforces the idea that virtue outweighs pedigree.
To understand verse 225, one must read it within the broader framework of Chapter 9 of the Manusmriti. Chapter 9 deals primarily with:
Verses immediately surrounding 225 (223–226):
In preceding verses, Manu discusses the concept of a husband’s power over his wife and sons. In ancient law, a husband had the right to "sell" or "abandon" his wife and children only under extreme duress—such as famine or threat of death—and even then, only as a last resort.
Verse 225 is the penal provision attached to this power. It establishes two distinct categories of crime: Meaning and Context This verse falls under the
Udvāhayitvā śrotriyaṁ bhūtvā caiva dvijottamaḥ। Prayacched duhitaraṁ tasmai yastu syād guṇavattaraḥ॥ 225 ॥
To understand this verse, one must consider the social realities of ancient India (c. 200 BCE – 200 CE):
Economic Dependence: Women rarely owned property or had independent incomes. The verse reflects a practical reality of the time—women relied on male kin for food, shelter, and security in a largely agrarian, patrilineal society.
Protection in a Dangerous World: Ancient societies faced constant threats from raids, bandits, and warfare. The verse frames male guardianship as a form of protection, not merely subjugation.
Legal Status: In Manu’s legal framework, women could not sue, contract, or inherit independently. However, they had rights to maintenance, jewelry, and gifts (stridhana). The verse reinforces their legal minority.
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.
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.