Did Tulsidas Ji Write Anti-Women Remarks in Ramcharitmanas?

Nowadays, regarding certain chaupais (four-line verses) of Goswami Tulsidas in the Ramcharitmanas, there is immense turmoil and finger-pointing from the earth to the sky, from India to foreign lands, and from the illiterate to great intellectuals. The sole reason for this is the attempt to understand them through the lens of novels, stories, or journalistic methods, without understanding the traditional Indian shastra (sacred scripture) methodology. Nowadays, people at most consult some Hindi-English or Sanskrit dictionary, and form a preconception based on various favorable or unfavorable meanings found there. Most people have no clear reason or methodology for choosing one particular meaning out of the many available in dictionaries. Yet, latching onto whatever meaning suits them, they begin to condemn the text, the author, or the traditionally accepted meaning.

'Hari' has ten to fifteen different meanings, such as lion, monkey, parrot, serpent, etc.; the word 'Atma' has twelve, and many other words similarly have various distinct meanings. Now, to determine what the meaning is or should be according to the context, there are tools like upakrama (commencement), upasamhara (conclusion), apurvata (novelty), and other lingas (indicatory marks), as well as various shastras and vyakarana (grammar) as angas (auxiliary sciences). But unfortunately, ignoring all of these, people merely pick up hearsay meanings and propagate erroneous interpretations.

Similarly, there is constant controversy, without proper understanding, over Goswami Tulsidas's use of the word tadan (disciplining/monitoring) claiming that Tulsidas was misogynistic, that he wrote about beating women, and so on. In such a situation, some devout people, in their defense, start insisting on changing the word 'tadan' or other similar words. Therefore, to understand this subject properly, let us look at some chaupais of the Ramcharitmanas:-

1.भ्राता पिता पुत्र उरगारी। पुरुष मनोहर निरखत नारी।।
होइ बिकल मन सकइ न रोकी। जिमि रवि मनि द्रव रविहिं विलोकी।
(O Garuda, upon seeing a handsome man, whether he be a brother, father, or son, a woman's mind becomes agitated and she cannot restrain it, just as the sun-gem melts upon beholding the sun.)
(Aranya Kanda, 16.3)

2. विधिहुँ न नारि हृदय गति जानी।
सकल कपट अघ अवगुन खानी।।
(Even the Creator knows not the ways of a woman's heart; she is a mine of all deceit, sin, and vice.)
(Ayodhya Kanda, 161.2)

3.नारि स्वभाव सत्य सब कहहीं। अवगुन आठ सदा उर रहहीं।।
साहस अनृत चपलता माया। भय अविवेक अशौच अदाया।
(All speak the truth about a woman's nature: eight defects always reside in her heart—foolhardy courage, untruthfulness, fickleness, deceit, fear, lack of discrimination, impurity, and mercilessness.)
(Lanka Kanda, 15.1-2)
Exactly the same things have been said in Chanakya Niti 2.1 as well.

4. ढोल गँवार शूद्र पशु नारी ।
सकल ताडना के अधिकारी।।
(A drum, a rustic, a Shudra , a beast, and a woman—all these are worthy of tadana .)
(Sundara Kanda, 58.3)

Various such chaupais appear in different contexts in the Ramcharitmanas. Reading them, it might initially seem that Tulsidas ji was afflicted with a patriarchal mindset, which is why he described the nature of women in such an absurd manner.

Explanation of the First Chaupai

The chaupai written in 1. appears to some people as obscene and, in fact, contrary to common experience. Even in this Kalikala (the age of Kali), even the most foolish rustic women do not become agitated with lust upon seeing their handsome brother, father, or son. In such a scenario, to say of women in the Satoguna (the quality of purity)-dominated Satyuga (the golden age) and other eras that "a woman becomes agitated upon seeing her handsome brother, son, or father" is utterly false.

Resolution --The chaupai "भ्राता पिता....विलोकी" written in the first section belongs to the context of Shurpanakha. Therefore, in accordance with the context, its true meaning is that—this has been said only for women with a corrupt heart like Shurpanakha, that they become agitated even upon seeing a handsome brother, father, or son; it is not said for all the women of the world. Therefore, Tulsidas ji's statement is not in the least wrong, malicious, or narrow-minded. For Tulsidas ji himself, while honoring other women, has said:—

डगइ न सम्भु सरासन कैसे। कामी वचन सती मन जैसे।।
(How did Shiva's bow not waver? Just as the mind of a sati is never shaken by the words of a lustful man.)
(Bala Kanda, 250.1)
How did Lord Shiva's bow not waver? Just as the mind of a sati is never shaken by the words of a lustful man.

How could Tulsidas ji, who said such a thing, ever say that a woman becomes agitated upon seeing her handsome brother, son, or father, and cannot control her mind??

Explanation of the Second Chaupai

Similarly, the second chaupai given above, "विधिहुँ न नारि..", was spoken by Bharat ji specifically to his mother Kaikeyi, and not about all women.

What kind of affection Kaikeyi had for Shri Ram, let us see in her own words:—

कौसल्या सम सब महतारी। रामहिं सहज सुभायँ पियारी।।
मो पर करहिं सनेह विसेषी। मैं करि प्रीति परीक्षा देखी।।
(To Ram, by his very nature, all mothers are as dear as Kausalya. Upon me, he bestows special affection; I have tested his love and seen it.)
(Ayodhya, 14.3)
To Ram, by his very nature, all mothers are as dear as Kausalya. Upon me, he bestows special affection; I have tested his love and seen it.

जौं विधि जनम देइ करि छोहू। होहुँ राम सिय पूत पतोहू।।
प्रान ते अधिक राम प्रिय मोरे। तिन्हके तिलक छोभ कस तोरे।।
(If the Creator graciously grants me birth again, may Shri Ramachandra be my son and Sita my daughter-in-law. Ram is dearer to me than life itself; why then does his coronation cause you distress?)
(Ayodhya, 14.4)
If the Creator graciously grants me birth, may (He also grant that) Shri Ramachandra be my son and Sita my daughter-in-law. Shri Ram is dearer to me than life itself. Why then does his coronation (hearing of his coronation) cause you distress?

Despite Kaikeyi having such a wonderful opinion of Shri Ram, she demanded a boon for him:—
तापस वेष विशेष उदासी। चौदह वरष राम वनवासी।
(In the garb of an ascetic, with a deeply sorrowful heart, Ram shall dwell in the forest for fourteen years.)
(Ayodhya, 28.2)
Fourteen years of exile in the garb of an ascetic, with deep sorrow.

Because of this, Mother Kausalya and the other mothers, Sita ji, Lakshman, and all the subjects suffered immensely. King Dasharatha breathed his last in agonizing pain. The nation was orphaned. Not only this, but Kaikeyi herself became an orphan (a widow). Yet, she did not feel the slightest shame.

Explanation of the Third Chaupai -

Even when Bharat is distressed, Kaikeyi describes her deeds with a highly delighted mind.

आदिहुँ ते सब आपन करनी
कुटिल कठोर मुदित मनबरनी
(From the very beginning, she described all her wicked and cruel deeds with a delighted mind.)

Targeting such a woman, to say that:—
बिधिहु न नारि हृदय गति जानी
सकल कपट अघ अवगुनखानी
(Even the Creator knows not the ways of a woman's heart; she is a mine of all deceit, sin, and vice.)
is entirely appropriate.

A woman of such a nature naturally possesses the defects of foolhardy courage, untruthfulness, etc., mentioned in the third chaupai. Consider:—
What immense, reckless courage it takes to bring great suffering upon loved ones and make oneself a widow. To extract the boons from the King, Kaikeyi made full use of anrita (untruth), chapalata (fickleness), and maya (deceit). She was so terrified by Manthara's words, "You will have to serve your co-wife," that she lost all discrimination. She could not understand despite anyone's counsel. Consequently, her adaya (mercilessness) also reached its peak. She even brought valkala (bark garments) for the naturally delicate Sita ji to wear.

Explanation of the Fourth Chaupai - 

गगन समीर अनल जल धरनी| इन्ह कइ नाथ सहज जड़ करनी||
(Ether, air, fire, water, and earth—O Lord, their nature is inherently inert.)
(Sundara, 58.1) was spoken by the Ocean.

Here, the context is of jadata (inertness/lack of intellect). According to the context, in sentient beings like women, jadata means low intellect or an uncontrolled intellect. Even in consumerist Western countries, after repeatedly testing men and women by providing equal educational resources and opportunities, it has been observed that women often lag behind men in intellect-dominated subjects like mathematics and science. This clearly proves that women are generally not intellect-dominated, but rather emotion-dominated. The reason for this is that without being emotion-dominated, the nurturing of children is simply impossible. Therefore, according to natural law, God has made women generally emotion-dominated, not intellect-dominated.

Those who are inert, i.e., not intellect-dominated, such as beasts, Shudras, and women, cannot be guided to their well-being without tadana (disciplining). Here, tadana means "means of control or discipline", such as staring down, scolding, or instilling fear. Only when these fail, and it becomes absolutely necessary, does physical chastisement occur. Even then, it is done with their well-being in mind, showing only outward severity—never beating them to the point of breaking limbs, etc.
(Some people offer the irrelevant interpretation of 'tarana' here. But there is no justification for this meaning here. Because in the context of subduing the Ocean, the meaning of tadan or tadana as instruction and restraint is the only appropriate one.)

In the Garuda Purana, Chanakya Niti, etc., the word tadan is used in this very sense. This automatically proves that women who are intellect-dominated and self-controlled are not subject to any kind of tadana; rather, they are worthy only of respect and love. After explicitly naming the drum, rustic, Shudra, beast, and woman, the use of the word "sakala" (all/entire) indicates that besides these, any child, elderly person, Brahmana (priestly class/varna), Kshatriya (warrior class/varna), Vaishya (merchant class/varna), or any living being who is inert—meaning unintelligent and uncontrolled—is subject to tadana.
If the word "sakala" were taken to refer only to beasts and the like, the Ocean itself would not be included. And if the Ocean is not included, then the tadana administered to the Ocean would be proven unjustified, which would contradict the context.

Here, all the trouble has arisen because the attention of the doubters/objectors is focused specifically on the words "woman" and "Shudra", and because they interpret tadan as physical beating. In reality, according to the context, the meaning is that all beings who are inert, i.e., of low intellect, are subject to tadana, meaning the means of control. Once this meaning is understood, there remains no room for any doubt or objection.

Also Read,

How did Goswami Tulsidas Ji save Hindus from converting to Islam?

These books must be read to understand Sanatan Dharma (eternal dharma)

The true, universally beloved dharma (righteousness/duty)-form of Shri Ram..

Did Ravana not touch Mata Sita? A big question!

How was Hanuman Ji's behavior towards the wicked demonesses? Hanuman Ji's feminism!!