Women Are Weak in HINDUSIM?

Описание: Is Hinduism anti-women?
#women #sanatandharma #hindu

This accusation is everywhere social media, debates, comment sections. But is it based on full context, or selective quoting?

In this video, we examine Manusmriti properly. Manusmriti is not the Vedas and not a divine revelation. It is a Dharmashastra (social law code) written around 200 BCE–200 CE. It was one among many Smritis, not a universal constitution for all Hindus. Yes, some verses sound harsh today. But it also says: “Yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra devataah”where women are honored, there the gods rejoice.

We then look at female Rishikas mentioned in the Rigveda:

Lopamudra (RV 1.179),
Ghosha (RV 10.39–40),
Apala Atreyi (RV 8.91),
Vishvavara (RV 5.28),
Vak Ambhrini (RV 10.125 – Devi Sukta),
Romasha (RV 1.126 – traditional attribution),
Shashvati (traditional attribution),
Indrani (RV 10.86),
Urvashi (RV 10.95),
Yami (RV 10.10),
Shraddha (RV 10.151),
Dakshina (RV 10.107),
Aditi (multiple hymns),
Sarasvati (multiple hymns).

We also discuss women philosophers:

Gargi Vachaknavi,
Maitreyi,
Sulabha.

And later respected women in tradition:

Anasuya,
Arundhati,
Shabari,
Madalsa.

We highlight powerful ruling queens across Indian history:

Rani Nayanika,
Queen Didda,
Prabhavati Gupta,
Queen Rudramadevi,
Rani Durgavati,
Rani Abbakka Chowta,
Rani Chennabhairadevi,
Rani Mangammal,
Velu Nachiyar,
Rani Lakshmibai,
Rani Chennamma (Kittur),
Rani Avantibai Lodhi,
Ahilyabai Holkar,
Tarabai,
Razia Sultan,
Chand Bibi,
Rani Karnavati,
Rani Padmini (historicity debated),
Rani Rasmani,
Rani Gaidinliu,
Rani Krishnadevi,
Rani Janaki Devi,
Rani Sembiyan Mahadevi,
Rani Tribhuwana Mahadevi,
Rani Jindan Kaur,
Rani Hadi Rani,
Rani Bhima Bai Holkar,
Rani Tapasvini,
Rani Draupadi Bai,
Rani Shiro Mani,
Rani Phool Kunwar,
Rani Chennamma of Keladi.

This video separates Vedas from Smritis, philosophy from later social customs, and history from propaganda.
Here’s a strong but balanced section you can add to your description or script:

---
Manusmriti – Why It Is Often Misunderstood

Manusmriti is probably one of the most controversial Hindu texts today. But most people criticizing it have never read it fully, never studied its historical context, and often rely on English translations made during the colonial period.

First, Manusmriti is not the Vedas. It is not Shruti (revealed scripture). It belongs to Smriti literature meaning “remembered tradition.” Smritis were social and legal guidelines meant for specific times and social structures. They were not eternal, unchangeable divine commandments.

Second, there are multiple manuscripts of Manusmriti. Different versions exist with variations in verses. Scholars have noted interpolations meaning additions and edits over centuries. So the idea that there is one fixed, perfectly preserved version is incorrect.

Third, most modern debates rely heavily on translations done by British Indologists in the 18th–19th centuries, such as Sir William Jones. These translations were shaped by Victorian morality and colonial understanding. Sanskrit words often have layered meanings. A single English word cannot always capture the original nuance.

For example, terms translated as “obedience” or “control” may carry social or protective connotations in ancient context, but sound oppressive in modern English framing. That doesn’t mean everything is defensible but it does mean translation and interpretation matter.

Fourth, Manusmriti itself was never uniformly enforced across India. Different regions followed different Smritis. In fact, many historical kingdoms did not strictly apply Manusmriti as state law. Even other Smritis disagreed with parts of it.

Yes, Manusmriti contains verses that reflect a patriarchal social order. That cannot be denied. But it also contains verses praising women and emphasizing their protection and honor. The text is internally complex not a simple anti-women manifesto.

So the real issue is not blind defense or blind attack. The issue is context, manuscript history, translation accuracy, and historical application.

Reducing a multi-layered Dharmashastra to a few viral screenshots does not represent serious scholarship.