Manusmriti Chapter 9 Verse 225 [hot] May 2026

Here is the text of Manusmriti (Manu Smriti), Chapter 9, Verse 225, along with its context and meaning.

Legal Override in India and Elsewhere

Modern Hindu law (e.g., Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) explicitly grants women equal rights in inheritance, divorce, adoption, and guardianship. The Indian Constitution, under Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), and 21 (liberty), renders any enforcement of Manusmriti 9.225 null and void.

Original Sanskrit (Devanagari)

उद्वाहयित्वा श्रोत्रियं भूत्वा चैव द्विजोत्तमः। प्रयच्छेद्दुहितरं तस्मै यस्तु स्याद्गुणवत्तरः॥ २२५ ॥

Conclusion: A Verse of Its Time, Not for All Time

Manusmriti 9.225 reflects the socio-legal realities of ancient India—not a divine, eternal command. While historically significant for understanding past gender roles, it holds no legal or moral authority today. Modern Hindu practice, law, and ethics affirm women’s full autonomy, equality, and freedom. As the great reformer Dr. B.R. Ambedkar argued, “Manusmriti is a legal code of an ancient society; it is not the gospel of the Hindus.” Contemporary believers are free to honor the text’s philosophical portions while discarding verses that violate fundamental human dignity.

Key takeaway: Verse 9.225 is best studied as a historical artifact, not a living law. Its literal meaning is rejected by modern legal systems, Hindu reform movements, and mainstream ethics.

The Manusmriti, also known as the Laws of Manu, is an ancient Indian text that is considered one of the most important works of Hindu jurisprudence. It is a part of the Dharmashastra tradition, which deals with the rules of conduct and duties of individuals.

Chapter 9, Verse 225 of the Manusmriti reads:

"The king who protects his people, justly and according to the dictates of truth, and who is a protector of the law, obtains the highest happiness."

In Sanskrit, this verse is:

$$svadharmaṃ pravartayan yastu nṛpatiḥ pṛthivyāḥ
guṇānāṃ sadṛśaḥ syād ādhiṣṭhāyī dharmaṇāṃ
sa śreṣṭhaḥ sukham āpnoti rājan yah satyaṃ
śṛṇuyād dharmaṃ cāpi tāṃ yathā naivam anyathā $$

However, I could not verify the accuracy of Manusmriti chapter 9 verse 225. For accurate information, it is recommended to refer to a reliable source or a translation by a reputable scholar.

Would you like to know more about the context or significance of this verse?

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. manusmriti chapter 9 verse 225

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?

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: Here is the text of Manusmriti (Manu Smriti),

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

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.

Manusmriti Chapter 9, Verse 225, serves as a directive for ancient statecraft, specifically focusing on the king's duty to maintain social order by purging specific disruptive elements from the city Text and Translation

The original Sanskrit text and its transliteration are as follows:

किं तवान् कुशीलवान् क्रूरान् पाषण्डस्थांश्च मानवान् ।

विकर्मस्थान् शौण्डिकांश्च क्षिप्रं निर्वासयेत् पुरात् ॥ २२५ ॥ 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." Detailed Breakdown of Categories Traditional commentaries, such as those by Medhātithi Ganganath Jha Legal Override in India and Elsewhere Modern Hindu law (e

, provide specific context for the groups mentioned for banishment: Gamblers (

Refers specifically to fraudulent gamblers or those who use games of chance to deceive others. Dancers/Actors ( Kuśīlavān

This term is often interpreted to include those whose sharp wits or public performances are used to "entrap" or manipulate the public. Cruel Men ( Some versions read this as

, referring to "men of crooked behavior" or "go-betweens" who facilitate illicit relationships. Heretical Sects ( Pāṣaṇḍasthān

Refers to those who belong to sects outside the Vedic fold, such as the Kṣapaṇaka Men Addicted to Evil Deeds ( Vikarmasthān

These are individuals who have abandoned their lawful duties in favor of entirely forbidden occupations. Liquor Vendors/Drunkards ( Śauṇḍikān

While primarily referring to sellers of wine, some interpretations also include those habitually addicted to excessive drinking. Historical and Legal Context

This verse is part of a larger section (Verses 221–228) dealing with the regulation of social vices like gambling and betting. Public Safety and Order: The primary justification for banishment ( nirvāsayet

) was to prevent these individuals from negatively influencing the broader population or "thieving" from the public through deceit. Centralization of Vice: Other texts, like the Arthaśāstra Yājñavalkya Smriti

, suggest that if these activities were to exist at all, they should be centralized under a king's superintendent to better monitor for criminal activity. Immediate Action: The use of the word

("instantly" or "quickly") emphasizes that the king should not delay in removing these influences once they are identified to protect the city's integrity. modern legal scholars interpret these ancient "public nuisance" laws? AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more Manusmriti Verse 9.225

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."

The Curious Punishment: Why "Like a Usurer"?

This is the most puzzling part of the verse for modern readers. Today, "usurer" implies an exploitative moneylender. But in ancient Hindu legal texts, usury (charging interest on loans) was not entirely forbidden; it was regulated but considered a morally inferior profession.

Punishing the buyer "like a usurer" likely meant:

Why the distinction?
Manu’s logic appears to be one of intentionality and necessity: