MARRIAGES IN ANCIENT INDIA

In Hindu religion and philosophy, the Vivaha or marriage Samskara considered the most
important of all the Samskaras. Hindu marriage is based primarily on spirituality; it is
regarded as a creation. Within the structure of the Hindu religion, the institution of the
Samskaras, of which Vivaha is considered of utmost importance. In the Hindu law i.e., the
Dharma-sastra marriage was one of the ten samskara necessary for men of the twice born
classes and the only vedic sacrament form women. The Sacraments (Samskaras) are the
ritualistic prescriptions enjoined by the religious texts upon each individual of society at
different stages in life.

Marriage is considered sacred because it is said to be complete only on the performance of

the sacred rites attended with sacred procedures (Kane, 1941, p. 620). The sastric concept of
marriage would seem to be as a union between man and a woman which arises at the time
when the ceremony of marriage has been completed, the bridegroom having the requisite
qualifications for taking a girl in marriage and the bride the qualifications for being given in
marriage, and this procedure having been completed before the nuptial fire (Derrett, 1957, p.
86).

Hindu marriage joins two individuals for life, so that they can pursue dharma (duty), artha
(possessions), and kama (physical desires). Marriage is seen as a means of spiritual growth;
the husband and wife are co-partners in religious life and function, the wife is not a mere
pleasure companion of her husband for the temporal life. Manu (9.26) states: "The husband is
said to be one with the wife.' The idea of the designation of the wife as ardhangini i.e. the half
part of the body of the husband as constituted by the wife, is further attested to in the
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (1.4.3) :

Women are created, by the Atman, as equal halves of man, thereby completing them,
like halves of a shell completing the whole

In ancient India, we find that all events in the life of human beings are clearly marked out and
defined. To examine and define all matters gave intense delight to the writers of Ancient
Indian scientific literature. For that reason we find in the sources eight forms of marriage.
The difference between these forms of marriage is frequently very slight and the marriage
concluded according to any one of these forms generally produces the same legal effects
(Sternbach, 1941, p. 210). According to the law- books all the forms of marriage existed
simultaneously and side by side.
 Page |1

THE 8 FORMS OF MARRIAGES IN ANCIENT INDIA

In ancient India, the law-giver Manu mentioned the eight forms of marriage -

1. Brahma Vivaha
2. Daiva Vivaha
3. Arsha Vivaha
4. Prajapatya Vivaha
5. Asura Vivaha
6. Gandharva Vivaha
7. Rakshasa Vivaha
8. Paisacha Vivaha

These types of marriages are in the decreasing order of merit as mentioned by Manu. Manu
also mentioned the merit or demerit earned by entering marriage via each of these types of
methods.

THE ACCEPTABLE (PRATISTHITA) FORMS OF MARRIAGE

Out of the above mentioned 8 forms of marriages, only 4 of them are considered to be
acceptable or pratisthita forms of marriage. These acceptable marriages are :

 Brahma Vivaha
 Daiva Vivaha
 Arsha Vivaha
 Prajapatya Vivaha

BRAHMA VIVAHA

In Brahma marriage, the father of the bride gives her away to a knower of the Vedas –invited
by the father himself– after decorating the bride with jewellery and fine clothes. It is the
marriage of one’s daughter, after endowing her with costly garments and with presents of
jewels, to a man of good conduct learned in the Vedas, and invited by oneself. It is
considered as the best form of marriage. Manu laid so much importance on this form of
marriage that he placed it even above divine marriage. He described this Brahma form of
 Page |2

marriage as “the gift of a maiden spontaneously after clothing and reverencing her, to one
learned in the Vedas and of good character.”

The girl is given no part in the choice of the man because this choice depended on the will of
the father or guardian only. The initiative for the marriage lay with the father or guardian and
not with the suitor (Sternbach, 1941, p. 215). In this form, social decency was fully
maintained and the religious rites were fully observed.

DAIVA VIVAHA

The Daiva form of marriage was slightly different from the Brahma form of marriage in the
sense that the suitor was an official priest. Special qualities like good character, scholarship in
the Vedas or good family background of the bridegroom were not emphasized in selection.
“The rite which sages call ‘Daiva’ is the gift of a daughter whom her father has decked in gay
attire when the sacrifice is already begin, to the officiating priest, who performs the act of
religion. The Daiva form of marriage was described by Manu as “the gift of a daughter, after
having adorned her, to a sacrificial present rightly doing his work in a sacrifice begun.” This
from of marriage is exclusively for the Brahmins, because the Brahmins can only officiate in
the sacrifices, as priests. But this form of marriage was rated lower than the Brahma form of
marriage because here the father or other guardians of the bride took into account the services
of the bridegroom (Nitisha, n.d.).

ARSHA VIVAHA

An Arsha marriage is where the girl is given in marriage to a sage. In this type of marriage,
the family of the groom pays bride-price (kanya-shulkam) to the parents of the bride.
According to certain texts, the prescribed bride-price is a cow with a calf and a pair of bulls.
The price paid for the girl bears no relation to her value i.e. the price paid is only symbolical
and is always the same such as an ox and a cow, which have to be given to the father or to the
guardian (Sternbach, 1941, p. 211). On the face of, it appears that the taking of consideration
from the bridegroom renders this form inferior to the above two and the Prajapatya form
below. But Medhatithi on Manu III, 29 commented that such receiving of the cattle by the
father was done in obedience to the law, and not with the idea of receiving it in exchange for
 Page |3

the price of the girl (Virdi, 1972, p. 9). This form of marriage was also peculiar to the
Brahmins. The marriage of sage Agastya with Lopamudra was a Arsha Vivaha.

PRAJAPATYA VIVAHA

Prajapatya is when a father gives away his daughter in marriage to the bridegroom, treating
him with respect, and addresses them: 'May both of you perform together your duties'. The
father or guardian gives the girl to the wooer, who came in person and who is judged to be
worthy (Sternbach, 1941, p. 216). The very name Prajapatya indicates that the pair enters the
solemn bond for repayment of debts or rinas to Prajapati for procreation and upbringing of
children. The basic condition in this form of marriage is that the bridegroom is to treat the
bride as a partner for secular and religious purposes and the proposal comes from the
bridegroom (Nitisha, n.d.). Unlike in Brahma marriage, here the bridegroom is the suitor, i.e.,
he has solicited the girl, and is not invited by the father of the bride. He is an applicant for the
bride’s hand, and this makes it inferior to the Brahma form, where the bridegroom is
voluntarily and respectfully invited by the father of the bride to accept his daughter (Virdi,
1972, p. 10) Also, unlike Arsha marriage, monetary transactions are not a part of the

Prajapatya marriage.

The Prajapatya form of marriage is construed to be inferior to the first three forms because
here the gift is not free but it loses its dignity due to conditions which should not have been
imposed according to the religious concept of a gift. This form of marriage may have fallen
into disuse due to the practice of child marriage. This form of marriage was also peculiar to
the Brahmans only.

THE UNACCEPTABLE (APRATISTHITA) FORMS OF MARRIAGE

Out of the 8 forms of marriages, the other 4 are considered to be unacceptable or apratisthita
forms of marriage. Namely, they are :

 Asura Vivaha
 Gandharva Vivaha
 Rakshasa Vivaha
 Paisacha Vivaha
 Page |4

ASURA VIVAHA

The bridegroom having given as much wealth as he could afford to the father, paternal
kinsman and to the girl herself takes her as his bride (Virdi, 1972, p. 11). This form of
marriage depends on an agreement to purchase made between the suitor and the person who
exercises actual power over the girl. As long as the suitor was prepared to pay the price that is
agreed upon to the other party, the latter was willing to give its consent to the contract
(Sternbach, 1941, p. 213). In the marriage carried out according to this form of marriage the
first stage was the choice executed by the suitor and the next stage was the supplementary
consent on the part of the father or guardian. The Asura or Manusha (human) maariage or
marriage by purchase was the most common form of marriage in very ancient times. But with
the growth of religious ideal of life among Hindus by which the wife became a necessary
partner for performance of sacrifices. Thus, this practice was forbidden. “A purchased girl is
a slave and cannot be a wife” says Kasyapa “nor can she be associated in sacrifices.”
Marriage by purchase, however, was allowable in the case of Vaisyas. Religious ceremonies
were of course necessary in this form (Ghose, 1903, p. 592).

GANDHARVA VIVAHA

According to the Gandharva vivaha, the persons of different sexes who love one another
make a joint union by their own choice. In other words this form of marriage depends on the
understanding, between a man and a woman who love each other, concerning the marriage.
This form of marriage was effected without the agreement of the parents, especially in the
case where the girl was robbed with her original consent but without the consent of her
parents (as in the Raksasa vivaha) and afterwards of her own will commenced a married life
with the person who had robbed her (Sternbach, 1941, p. 217). This was a marriage arising
out of mutual desire of a man and a woman and can be compared to the modern love
marriage. According to Vedic texts, this is one of earliest and common forms of marriage in
Rig Vedic times (Pandey, 1969).

In Mahabharata (iv:94.60), one of two major epics of Hindus, Rishi Kanva, the foster father
of Shakuntala, recommends Gandharva marriage with the statement “The marriage of a
desiring woman with a desiring man, without religious ceremonies, is the best
 Page |5

marriage.” Elsewhere in Mahabharata (iii:190.36), the epic says “No man any longer asks for
the daughter, nor does a father give away his daughter, they (women) find the man for
themselves.” (Meyer, 1989, p. 89)

Gandharva marriage over time became controversial, disputed and debated. Majority of
ancient scholars discouraged it on religious and moral grounds (Pandey, 1969, p. 163).
Manu argued that Gandharva marriage may be suited for some, but not for most; he argues
Gandharva marriage is best suited for males who are warriors, serving in the military,
administrators, nobility and rulers i.e. Kshatriyas (Meyer, 1989, p. 90).

RAKSHASA VIVAHA

The definition of Raksha marriagr , called also Kshatra marriage, is given in Manusmriti as
follows :

Hatva chittva ca bhittva ca krosantim rudatim grhat prasahya kanya-haranam raksaso

vidhir ucyate (3.33) "The forcible abduction of a maiden from her home, while she
cries out and weeps, after having slain and wounded (her kinsmen) and broken (their
houses), is called the Rakshasa rite."

As is evident from this definition, this form of marriage is the forcible abduction of a girl. It
also implies the use of violence entailing even the murder of her guardian (Hara, 1974, p.
296).

This marriage by force of arms was allowable only to Kshatriyas, and we find that marriage
by capturing remarkably beautiful girls by wars, sometimes attended with the most disastrous
consequences, were not uncommon. But it was illegal in the case of all other castes. It does
not seem to have been allowed, except in the case of mighty princes (Ghose, 1903, p. 592).
Arjuna's marriage to Subhadra was made to look like Rakshasa Marriage but in reality it was
a Gandharva Marriage because both of them were in love a priori and they had the consent of
Subhadra's brother Sri Krishna who actually suggested this subterfuge to pre-
empt Balarama from dissent. The Gonds of Berar and Betul also practiced this form of
marriage.

PAISACHA VIVAHA
 Page |6

Where the suitor secretly seduced the girl while she was asleep or drunk or disordered in
intellect that sinful marriage was called Paisacha Vivaha. It is the worst form of marriage
among all the 8 forms of Hindu marriage. In this form, marriage takes place either by
seduction with intoxicants, where the woman is in no position anymore to give or withhold
her consent, or by violent abduction and rape, where she knows very well what is happening
but doesn’t want it (Elst, 2018). A marriage concluded according to this form was always
effected without the participation of the father or of the guardian of the girl. This form of
marriage had no pecuniary sequel, because the father or the guardian did not have to give a
dowry or endowment to the girl and the suitor did not have to make any payment to the father
or to the guardian for the girl (Sternbach, 1941, p. 213). This form of marriage was the most
abominable and reprehensible, originating from a sort of rape committed by man upon a
damsel either when asleep or when made drunk by administering intoxicating drug. P.V.
Kane thinks that this marriage is called paisacha because in it there is action like that of
pisachas (goblins) that are supposed to act stealthily at night. According to Sir G.D. Banerjee
the paisacha form of marriage has been enumerated as a form of marriage only out of regard
for the honour of the unfortunate damsel (Nitisha, n.d.).

In modern times, during the Partition there were numerous cases of Hindu women abducted
and raped by Muslims. After a semblance of peace had returned, a lot of them rejoined their
families, but many others preferred to stay with their abductors (where they would at least be
honoured as the women who gave their parents-in-law grandchildren) rather than to go back
to their families and to a life of being reviled as carrying the stain of defilement.
 Page |7

REFERENCES

Derrett, J. (1957). Hindu Law : Past and Present . Calcutta .

Elst, K. (2018, January 27). Pragyata. Retrieved from Pishacha Vivaha - Reparation
Marriage: http://www.pragyata.com/mag/pishacha-vivaha-reparation-marriage-454

Ghose, J. C. (1903). The Principles of Hindu Law. Calcutta: S.C. Auddy & Co., Booksellers
and Publishers.

Hara, M. (1974). A Note on the Rākṣasa Form of Marriage. Journal of the American Oriental
Society, Vol. 94, No. 3, 296.

Kane, P. (1941). History of Dharmasastra. Poona.

Meyer, J. J. (1989). Sexual life in ancient India: a study in the comparative history of Indian
culture. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Nitisha. (n.d.). yourarticlelibrary.com. Retrieved from

http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/marriage/8-traditional-forms-of-hindu-marriage-in-
india/47455

Pandey, R. (1969). The Vivaha (Marriage Ceremonies). In R. Pandey, Hindu Saṁskāras:

Socio-religious Study of the Hindu Sacraments (pp. 153 - 233). Delhi: Motilal
Banarasidas Publishers Private Limited.

Sternbach, L. (1941). A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE FORMS OF MARRIAGE IN

ANCIENT INDIA (A Résumé). Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research
Institute, Vol. 22, No. 3/4, 215.

Virdi, P. (1972). The Grounds for Divorce in Hindu and English Law. Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass Publishers.