अधम ते अधम अधम अति नारी―The Woman of Tulsidas's Dream

बिधिहु न नारी हृदय गति जानी। सकल कपट अघ अवगुण खानी.

"Even Brahma himself cannot understand what lies in a woman's heart―the seat of all sorts of vices, depravities, and unscrupulous conduct!"

―Ayodhya Kanda, Ramacharitamanas.

Ramacharitmanas is a popular 16th century retelling of the Ramayana. While it draws its content primarily from the original Ramayana (probably the manuscripts that do not contain the Uttar Kandam), its emphasis on devotion to Rama as Godhead incarnate, discussion of narratives not central to the original Ramayana, and attempts at bringing closer Dvaita and Advaita Vedanta indicate that Tulsidas incorporated stories from Puranas and other existing Ramayanas—particularly the Adhyatma Ramayana. 

Given that women feature prominently in Shri Rama's life, I think it becomes pertinent to ask how Tulsidas portrays women in his Magnum Opus. After all, Shri Rama's fidelity to his wife and his zeal to rescue her at all costs is extolled as a virtue every ideal husband possess. 

Tulsidas's depiction of women can be encapsulated in an episode described in the Aranya Kanda of the Ramcharitmanas, viz

Narada finds the Lord bereaving and approaches him, offering his condolences and sincere prayers. After Rama acknowledges his presence, Narada questions him as to why he had previously discouraged the former from marrying. The Lord replies, and I quote:-

काम क्रोध लोभादि मद प्रबल मोह कै धारि।

तिन्ह महँ अति दारुन दुखद मायारूपी नारि॥43॥

Lust, anger, avarice and arrogance are amongst the most puissant soldiers of delusion; even amongst these, (O narada), the woman—herself Maya incarnate—is the harbinger of untold suffering

Tulsidas conveniently projects his views on Rama as he uncharacteristically burts into a misogynistic rant wherein he typifies women as promiscuous, unscrupulous, devoted to the vices (lust, anger, arrogance and jealousy), and hell-bent on destroying whatever merit men had accrued through the performance of sacrifices, observance of precepts and penances.

Rama continues to vilify women:—

पाप उलूक निकर सुखकारी। नारि निबिड़ रजनी अँधियारी॥

बुधि बल सील सत्य सब मीना। बनसी सम त्रिय कहहिं प्रबीना॥4॥

For the owls of sin, the woman is akin to the pleasurable darkling light; 

For the fishes of intelligence, vigour, rectitude and the truth, the woman is the fishnet;

It is funny how Tulsidas didn't seem to care how hypocritical (and obnoxious) this episode made Rama look. Why did he fall in love with and marry Sita if he viewed women so condescendingly? 

Tulsidas's ode to women doesn't end here. 

Throughout the text, women are declared to be impure and unfit for either reciting or listening to the scriptures, although it is not specified which.

As an example:

मैं नारी अपावन प्रभु जग पावन 

(Ayodhya Kanda)

I am a (characteristically) impure woman while you, Oh Lord, purify the entire world

Tulsidas's Ideal Woman: Andrew Tate's wet dream

Who is an ideal woman? Or more accurately, who is an ideal wife? 

Anasuya answers:-

1. Parents and brothers do bring happiness, but their potence is limited; however, the husband is the harbinger of eternal bliss; fie upon the woman who doesn't serve such a man!
2. A woman must not insult his husband even if he is senescent, ill, stupid, penniless, blind, voiceless, and prone to anger lest she be consigned to hell!
3. For the woman, only one and only one duty has been prescribed—loving her husband's feet unconditionally.

Anasuya concludes by boldly declaring women impure, despite being one herself:-

सहज अपावनि नारि पति सेवत सुभ गति लहइ।

जसु गावत श्रुति चारि अजहुँ तुलसिका हरिहि प्रिय॥5 क॥

The Woman of the Kali-Yuga: Tulsidas's Nightmare! 

अबला कच भूषन भूरि छुधा। धनहीन दुखी ममता बहुधा॥

सुख चाहहिं मूढ़ न धर्म रता। मति थोरि कठोरि न कोमलता॥1॥

Women's hair is their only ornament (they have no other adornments on their body) and they feel very hungry (meaning they are always unsatisfied). They are poor and due to various kinds of affection, they remain unhappy. Foolish as they are, they seek happiness; they do not have love for dharma. They are not very intelligent and are harsh; they lack tenderness.

Well, how does Tulsidas look? 

Doesn't seem very modest to me.

Tulsidas is particularly salty about Kali Yuga. Shudras have begun reciting Puranas and donning the sacred thread; men of hitherto inferior tribes have started taking to asceticism; Dalits no longer accept Brahminical hegemony as the law of the land and assert that any person who has realised Brahman is fit to be called a Brahmin. 

That said, what seems to particularly perturb our beloved Tulsidas is the fact that women have started taking recourse to independence. They've begun to control their husbands, complains the poet. They argue a lot! 

Interestingly, Tulsidas chastises Brahmins who consort with Vrisalis, an euphemism for Shudra women. This means that intercaste marriage was prevalent enough in 16th century India to have been featured in the Ramcharitmanas. It was, however, looked down upon. 

Women and the Bhakti Movement: Tulsidas's dilemma

The fossilisation of the caste system and the subsequent dehumanisation of Shudras and women catalysed a religious movement in medieval Hinduism that sought to bring religious reforms to all strata of society by adopting the path of devotion (bhakti) to achieve liberation (moksha). 

This is more popularly known as the Bhakti Movement. 

It was spearheaded by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in the East, Mirabai and Narsinh Mehta in the West, and Surdas and the Sikh Gurus in the North.

Tulsidas, born in c. 1511, grew up during a period that is considered as the zenith of the Bhakti Movement, and could not help but embrace its innate universalism. 

Despite what has been shown earlier, the Ramacharitmanas does contain verses upholding the equality of men and women in the spiritual sphere—

पुरुष नपुंसक नारी वा जीव चराचर कोई। 

सर्ब भाव भज कपट तजि मोहि परम प्रिय सोइ॥ 87 क॥ 

He who, whether male, eunuch, female, or any other living being, worships Me with sincerity, is most beloved to Me.

The path to devotion, argues the poet, is open to every human being—the considerations of caste, creed, and religion are immaterial. Rama does not discriminate amongst his devotees on the basis of caste and gender, as shown in him declaring to the dying Shabri the nine forms of bhakti (navadha bhakti) and stating that: 

जाति पाँति कुल धर्म बड़ाई। धन बल परिजन गुन चतुराई॥

भगति हीन नर सोहइ कैसा। बिनु जल बारिद देखिअ जैसा॥3॥

A person without devotion, though adorned with caste, lineage, family, religion, fame, wealth, power, knowledge, virtues, and wit, resembles a cloud without rain – bereft of beauty and purpose.

In the intricate tapestry of Tulsidas's Ramacharitmanas, the portrayal of women emerges as both complex and, at times, hypocritical. While Sita embodies strength, resilience, and virtue, other female characters often face scrutiny and constraints within societal norms. 

The dichotomy between the reverence accorded to Sita and the judgment or neglect directed towards other female characters reflects societal biases and patriarchal norms embedded within the text. Women who deviate from idealized roles are often sidelined or condemned, overshadowed by the glorification of traditional virtues.

Having said this, let us not forget that the Ramacharitmanas is a medieval text that draws inspirations from the Puranas and the Dharmashastras and is a reflection of contemporaneous social mores. That doesn't make it any better, however; I'm trying to provide context. 

The point I'm trying to raise is that this 16th century text is not authoritative at all and we as Hindus possess a fundamental right to reject those portions of this text which we believe are not in consonance with either the Vedas or contemporary social consciousness.