India worships its goddesses yet fails its daughters. It is not uncommon that women, even today, struggle to gain recognition in their households. The social dilemma where a woman is only seen as an object who derives respect out of her level of subordination still exists. By reengaging with cultural precedents of Swayamvar and Gandharva marriages, we can argue for a more inclusive understanding of Indian tradition, one that normalizes women’s agency instead of suppressing it.
“What’s Patriarchy Ya!” in the words of a woman in power.
Kongara Nagamami, a 26-year-old woman constable from Hayathnagar police station in Hyderabad, was murdered in December 2024 by her brother. She was killed for no fault of her own, but for her act of love towards a Dalit man. Her consent killed her, followed by the system that allows it.
This is patriarchy, and we live in it!
The independent opinion that patriarchy doesn’t exist is a privilege that is largely held by those who benefit from it. In reality, the contemporary world tells a different story — marked by rising cases of dowry deaths, female infanticide (especially in states like Haryana and Uttar Pradesh), and the persistent perception of women as unfit for positions of responsibility.
Also Read: Mula Gabharu: The Woman Who Fought to Avenge Her Love
Interestingly, the irony lies in the fact that Indian culture, in its original form, never sanctioned patriarchy. India was known as “Sone ki Chidiya” not merely for its resources but for its customs and traditions of respect towards its women. Historical accounts reveal that equality was not just an ideal, but a lived reality. A period when feminism truly existed and was not used as a propaganda tool to be debated on.
One of the best examples of this lies in the Rig Vedic Period, a time in ancient India that offered abundant opportunities for our women. Women during this period had a high status and stood on equal footing with men. Rig Vedic verses suggest that women married at a mature age and were probably free to select their husbands in a practice called swayamvar or even enter consensual unions such as the Gandharva marriage, akin to today’s live-in relationships. We will further portray through this article how historical wisdom can inform contemporary policy and legal thought on gender equality.
Also Read: Razia Sultan: The Only Woman Ruler of Delhi
Marriage was very different from the norm, a distinction that persisted in the coming ages. It had a sense of strength to it and was viewed as a woman’s choice, where her decisions were met with societal acceptance. Liberty and dignity in women’s consent gained priority over the hovering sense of inequality that plagued the later ages. Women were respected and seen as “ardhangini” or the better half of their husbands. The Puranas have also elaborated on this concept and have stated that husbands were considered incomplete without their wives, thereby showcasing the pedestal that women held in their households.
Also Read: Zheng Yi Sao: The Pirate Queen Who Brought British and Portuguese to Knees
The concept of live-in relationships is not a modern-day phenomenon but can be found in the practice of Gandharva vivaha. The Gandharva vivaha is described as a union arising from mutual affection. A study carried out by Bisani Legal (Advocates and Consultants) states,“The concept of Gandharva Vivaha shows that Vedic society acknowledged unions based on mutual consent and attraction, hinting at a broader view of relationships where marriage rituals were not necessary.” One such example of this type of practice includes Shakuntala and Dushyanta in the Mahabharata. Shakuntala and King Dushyanta are believed to have entered a Gandharva union, where they cohabited as a couple based on mutual affection. Although not formally married initially, their relationship was accepted as legitimate.
However, while this was accepted in ancient India, it still struggles to be accepted in modern India. The Supreme Court did, in an earlier judgement, state that live-in relationships were to be recognised as valid partnerships under Article 21. Nevertheless, in one case involving a woman who lived with her partner for 16 years, the Supreme Court stated, “a woman in a long‑term live‑in relationship may not be able to claim rape based on a promise of marriage, if the sexual relationship had been consensual over a prolonged period. The court quashed such rape charges, reasoning that consent was implied by the continuity and nature of the relationship.” This creates a paradox where live-in relationships are ‘recognized’ socially and legally, but not protected if one partner acts dishonestly or abusively.
On the contrary, the historical texts of the Dharma Sutra further permitted Brahmana women to remarry if their husbands were absent for five years. This provided a legal pathway for women to continue their lives and establish new families under specific circumstances, granting them agency in marital matters that might otherwise leave them in prolonged uncertainty.
While there was a sense of empowerment during the Rig Vedic period, it was not for long. The coming of the Mughals, followed by the British, saw a downfall in both status and legal rights of women. Women were looked down upon as second-class citizens during the period. Loss of property rights further contributed to their dependence. Interpretations of traditional laws (Smritis) progressively restricted women’s rights.
The nature of Stridhan was distorted from an absolute right to a ‘limited estate‘ or ‘woman’s estate,‘ where the property devolved upon the husband’s heirs rather than the woman’s own. Daughters were largely excluded from ancestral property inheritance, typically inheriting only in the absence of male issue.
The practice of the Purdah System and the Zenana was introduced, leading to the seclusion of women and bringing their education to a halt. The inhuman practice of ‘Sati‘ became widespread while female infanticide and girl killing emerged, plunging society into moral and social anarchy. The Devadasi Tradition practiced in Southern India, which forced young girls to “marry” trees or deities, stood as another stark example of how women were reduced to mere objects made to follow rituals devoid of consent. Polygamy remained common, especially among the richer society. A husband had every right to have more than one wife.
Although many of these practices have since been abolished, their remnants remain embedded in cultural memory. They continue to resurface directly or indirectly through debates on constitutional rights and amendments that shaped women’s status during both the colonial and modern periods.
A classic example is the landmark judgement in Shakti Vahini Vs Union of India 2018, where the Supreme Court held “When two adults choose each other as life partners consensually, it is a manifestation of their choice recognized under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.” This reflects the age-old principles of consent and freedom of choice visible in Swayamvara and Gandharva marriages reinterpreted within a modern, secular, rights-based framework.
Beyond judicial and constitutional protections enshrined in Part III and Part IV of the Constitution, significant legislative reforms have also advanced women’s rights. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, determined marriage age, provided for monogamy, guardianship of the mother, and permitted dissolution under specific circumstances. Similarly, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, empowered unmarried women, widows, or divorcees of sound mind to adopt children, breaking long-standing social barriers.
Yet despite these legal frameworks as well as various constitutional amendments, we are still left in a space of conundrum. It is not uncommon that women, even today, struggle to gain recognition in their households. The social dilemma where a woman is only seen as an object who derives respect out of her level of subordination still exists. By reengaging with cultural precedents of Swayamvar and Gandharva marriages, we can argue for a more inclusive understanding of Indian tradition, one that normalizes women’s agency instead of suppressing it.
Time is not a testament to empowerment, as evident in the practices of various forms of marriage, where autonomy holds on tightly to the shrinking forces of equality. India worships its goddesses yet fails its daughters. Our Constitution promises freedom; let us not make it a long-lost dream meant to be experienced by some.
(Edited by Sneha Yadav)
(Jessica Grace Gomes is an intern with TheRise.co.in)