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
The Manusmriti, Chapter 9, Verse 225, is a significant verse that deals with the king's duty to maintain social order by banishing certain classes of individuals from the town.
The original Sanskrit text and its literal translation focus on the immediate removal of those perceived as "shatru" (enemies) or "thorn-like" elements in society. Sanskrit: manusmriti chapter 9 verse 225
द्यूतं समाह्वयं चैव राजा राष्ट्रान्निवारयेत् ।एतौ हि राष्ट्रस्य विनाशाय द्वौ दोषावभिवर्धितौ ॥ ९.२२५ ॥ English Translation:
"The King should instantly banish from his town gamblers, actors, cruel men, men belonging to heretical sects, those who do improper work, and sellers of spirituous liquor."— Translation based on the Medhatithi commentary Context and Interpretation
In the historical context of the Manava Dharmashastra, this verse is part of a larger section on "Gambling and Betting" and the preservation of the state's moral fabric.
Social Categories: The verse identifies six groups deemed disruptive:
Gamblers (Kitavan): Seen as a source of deceit and financial ruin.
Actors/Dancers (Kushilavan): Often viewed with suspicion in ancient legal texts due to their nomadic nature and perceived lack of Vedic discipline.
Cruel Men (Kruran): Those who commit violent acts or harbor malice.
Heretics (Pashandan): Individuals who follow sects that explicitly deny the authority of the Vedas (often interpreted as early Buddhist or Jain ascetics in that specific historical context).
Improper Workers (Vikarmasthan): Those who abandon their prescribed varna (duties) to perform work not assigned to them.
Liquor Sellers (Shundikan): Alcohol consumption was generally condemned for the higher castes, and its sale was seen as a catalyst for social unrest. Philosophical Objective
The overarching goal of Verse 225 is Shasana (governance) and Kantaka-shodhana (removal of thorns). The text argues that these individuals act as "hidden thieves" who do not contribute to the spiritual or material stability of the kingdom but instead actively undermine it. By banishing them, the king ensures that the "righteous" citizens are not corrupted or harassed. Modern Perspective The Manusmriti is a foundational legal text in
Today, this verse is often cited in academic discussions regarding ancient Indian social stratification and the state's role in enforcing religious orthodoxy. While these laws are not part of modern Indian civil or criminal codes, they remain vital for understanding the evolution of Hindu jurisprudence and the historical emphasis on social homogeneity.
Scholars point out that other verses in the same text offer a more complex picture:
Thus, 9.225 does not advocate cruelty or neglect. Instead, it argues for a hierarchical system of guardianship without physical abuse, which was considered progressive for its time compared to some other ancient cultures.
The "Deep Feature" of Manusmriti 9.225 is that Security is not a privilege of the virtuous, but a function of the Sovereign. It argues that the moment a society stops "making an effort" (yatnāt) to protect its most alienated members, it loses the moral and structural standing to govern the rest. It is an ancient argument for a welfare state that extends even to those who hate it—a paradox necessary for the survival of civilization.
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". Chapter 3, Verse 56: “Where women are honored,
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.
Here is the text of Manusmriti (Manu Smriti), Chapter 9, Verse 225, along with its context and meaning.
In modern interpretation, this verse is highly problematic and considered regressive for several reasons:
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."
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.
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."