REMARRIAGE, ADULTERY AND REPRODUCTION IN ANCIENT NEPAL | 269

REMARRIAGE, ADULTERY AND REPRODUCTION

IN ANCIENT NEPAL
Diwakar Acharya

Introduction
The Maligaun edict of King Viṣṇugupta dated Licchavi Saṃvat 57
(equivalent to 634 AD) addresses concerns of young and married women,
who are childless and have lost their husband one way or the other. These
women also include some who are in sexual relationship or cohabiting with a
man after their husband has died or disappeared. The edict sanctions that such
women may enter into a string of physical relationships. This inscription is
exceptional in South Asia in dealing directly with the socio-ethical issues of
remarriage and adultery that are otherwise minimally treated by the medieval
Dharmaśāstras. It sheds some light on the jurisdiction of the Māpcoka, one
of the four centrally managed offices of Licchavi administration. It is also
held as supporting the Sanskritisation theory.1 A careful analysis of this edict
is therefore bound to touch upon all these aspects.
The term saṃgrahaṇa, used both in the edict and in the relevant passages
of the Dharma texts, has been normally translated as adultery (Lariviere
2003: 391–392; Olivelle 2005: 186). Technically speaking, it covers a wide
range of acts committed with amorous intentions: from trivial flirting, such
as sending food and drink, garments, flowers, or perfumers, up to illicit
sexual intercourse (viz. Nāradasmṛti 12.62–68; Manusmṛti 8.356–358).
The reference in Viṣṇugupta’s edict is more specific. The subject there is a
young wife whose husband is either missing with no hope of return dead. If
the wife enters into a physical relation as a way to start her life again, one

1
Apart from the village and city administrative offices, the Licchavis in Nepal governed
their kingdom through four interrelated offices. These authorities bear obscure non-Sanskrit
names: Kuthera, Śolla/Śullī, Liṅvala, Māpcoka. Analyzing their contexts in the Lichhavi
inscriptions, Dh. Vajracharya (1973: 124-131) has suggested that the first collected taxes and
approved transactions, the second controlled crimes, and the third probably managed irrigation
and water supply. As for the fourth, one inscription mentions that the rules of Māpcoka were
severe (cf. Narendradeva’s Bhansarchok Inscription: Dh. Vajracharya 1973[CHECK], inscription
no. 130), two other inscriptions simply mention it. The Maligaun inscription to be discussed
here sheds more light on this office as well.
Studies in Nepali History and Society 19(2): 269–288 December 2014
© Mandala Book Point
270 | DIWAKAR ACHARYA

could not possibly charge her with adultery or infidelity. Saṃgrahaṇa may
be interpreted in this context as sexual attraction and cohabitation.2
A reading of the Maligaun inscription was first published in 1955 by
Yogi Naraharinath and J. L. Dhakal (2012 v.s.) in the first volume of Itihāsa
Prakāśa. Another reading was published in 1956 by Raniero Gnoli. In 1968,
Dh. Vajracharya published an improved version with an introductory note
in Pūrṇimā, the journal of the Saṃśodhan Maṇḍal. He also translated the
Sanskrit text into Nepali in his magnum opus Licchavikālkā Abhilekh.3

Flawed Historiography
Dh. Vajracharya took Maligaun inscription as the evidence for prevailing
remarriage and widow marriage in the seventh century Nepali society.
According to Vajracharya, while widows belonging to the ruling upper
class followed the custom of Satī or adopted lifelong vow of celibacy and
other prescribed rules, widows in the other classes remarried and in general,
remarriage was common. His reading implies that the inscription legalizes
remarriage and widow marriage, it also condemns these prevalent practices
in local society. Dh. Vajracharya concludes that the Licchavi rulers were
unhappy about these practices but were unable to stop them (Dh. Vajracharya
1973: 441).
G. Vajracharya, another Saṃśodhan Maṇḍal historian, offered a new
interpretation of the regulations and their socio-religious relevance in his
English translation of a substantial portion of this inscription in 1992.
According to him, “the regulations of divorce, remarriage of women, and
women’s share of property after a change of marital status” were of “Nīpa
origin” but “continued even in the Licchavi period when they were codified
in” the Maligaun edict (G. Vajracharya 1992:58). He ended up claiming that

2
While the meaning of saṃgrahaṇa is context-specific, it is literally close to the word
cohabitation: the prefix “co-” reflects “saṃ” and one meaning of “grahaṇa” is dwelling/
habitation as it is derived from gṛha (home/habitation). Saṃgrahaṇa can also be interpreted
in the sense of mutual (saṃ) consent (grahaṇa). Thus, saṃgrahaṇa parallels a live-in relation.
In Nepali society, the woman in such a relation is referred to as a wife ‘brought home’ (lyāite)
or ‘kept’ (rākheko) by the husband (see below, Postscript). Unlike the modern idea of live-in
relation, the couple in cohabitation cannot possibly marry in future.
3
Dh. Vajracharya compiled all available Licchavi inscriptions, provided Nepali translations
and reflected elaborately on their contents (Dh. Vajracharya 1973). Subsequent compilations
have by and large borrowed his readings and interpretations of these inscriptions.
 REMARRIAGE, ADULTERY AND REPRODUCTION IN ANCIENT NEPAL | 271

“the king allowed women to divorce and remarry freely” (G. Vajracharya
1992: 65). Concluding, he wrote:

[J]ust like other parts of Nepal, the Kathmandu Valley was originally inhabited by non-
Aryan ethnic groups. Sanskritization of their culture began after the arrival of Indian
tribes in the valley. The members of elite society quickly adopted the Indian life style
and ideas, but the common people accepted modifications very slowly. Because of
Sanskritization, some of the indigenous people began to think that the change of marital
status by women was immoral, although it remained legal. (G. Vajracharya 1992: 67)

G. Vajracharya forwards the hypothesis that the Nīpas were non-Aryan

cowherds and constituted the indigenous inhabitants of the Kathmandu
Valley. He further calls them proto-Newars and also identifies them with
the Ābhīra Guptas (cf. G. Vajracharya 1992: 56). In his opinion, “[t]he
Ābhīras were none other than the Nīpas, the cowherds, and [...] even after the
Licchavi conquest of Nepal the Nīpas never disappeared from the political
scene. During the Licchavi period, the Nīpas often reigned over Nepal as
de facto rulers, but sometimes they even claimed to be sole rulers.” But by
the time of King Viṣṇugupta, “the Ābhīra Guptas were so Sanskritized that
Viṣṇugupta openly condemned the remarriage and divorce system which was
prevalent in the indigenous Nepalese society to which he himself belonged”
(G. Vajracharya 1992: 64-65).
Without a proper discussion and analysis, his claims seem to stand on
many dubious ideas. Among them is the notion that the indigenous Nepali
communities had lax sexual mores unlike the ruling Licchavis. The Licchavis
themselves were, however, most likely an Indianized tribe of Iranian
descent and their orthodoxy vis-à-vis the indigenous population is unclear
(Vidyabhusan 1908).4 While Dh. Vajracharya made customary distinctions
based on class, G. Vajracharya hazarded many dubious ideas including
the Aryan/non-Aryan dichotomy, the Nīpa – Ābhīra Gupta identity, and
introduction of the Nīpas as the proto-Newar cowherds.
G. Vajracharya does not substantiate his claim that King Viṣṇugupta, the
issuer of the edict, belonged to the Nīpas, except by equating the Ābhīras with
the Nīpas. If the Ābhīras were the original inhabitants, their king Viṣṇugupta
would have boldly asserted his identity to legitimize their right to rule the
land. Further, G. Vajracharya seems to follow traditional lexicographers,

4
For a renewed discussion on the origin of the Licchavis, see Acharya (Forthcoming).
272 | DIWAKAR ACHARYA

modern dictionaries, and also some Puranic texts in assuming the Ābhīra
Guptas as cowherds. While these sources do suggest the same, they also
depict the Ābhīras as a tribe. Manu classifies Ābhīra as a mixed caste: a
son of a Brahman and an Ambaṣṭha woman (Manusmṛti 10.15). In modern
vernacular languages, Ahīr, a derivative of the Sanskrit Ābhīra, designates
a certain caste traditionally associated with cattle-rearing. But these usages
hardly prove G. Vajracharya’s claim. For instance, Mahīdhara, a sixteenth
century commentator on the Vedic texts, knew the Ābhīras as a class of
inferior Brahmans.5 In general, the authors in Āryāvarta viewed the entire
population living outside their heartland, even those living in the ancient
Brahmāvarta, as vile and degenerated (vrātya), or mixed caste. To believe
such statements means to accept the Khasas, Orias, and Tamils as degenerated
Kṣatriyas (Manusmṛti 10.21-27, 43-44).6
G. Vajracharya has postulated that the Nīpa/Ābhīra cowherd rulers
remained politically active and competed for power even after their defeat
in the hands of the Licchavis. His postulate contradicts the traditional view,
as the 14th-century chronicle Gopālarājavaṃśāvalī attests, on the successive
dynasties of the Gopālas/Mahiṣapālas before the Kirātas, who reigned prior
to the Licchavis. To fit into the schema, he further conflates “the prehistoric
non-Aryan tribes of the Kathmandu Valley” as “Kirātas in the texts” (G.
Vajracharya 1992: 56). Thus, according to G. Vajracharya, cultural features in
the Kathmandu Valley before the alleged arrival of the Lichhavis in the third
century AD must have originated from the customs of the non-Aryan Nīpas.
G. Vajracharya bases his argument on linguistics. Referring to an article
by K. P. Malla (1981), he says that “nīpa is cognate to the Tibeto-Burmese
word nhet.pa (nepa) which means ‘cowherd’. This is probably the reason
that the Nīpas were also called Gopāla or Gvala both meaning cowherd” (G.
Vajracharya 1992: 55). He was unaware that the same linguist had already
reduced his earlier claim to a mere hypothesis. To quote Malla:

Ne is cattle, cow, buffalo in some Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal and pa is a

suffix for man, very widespread in Tibeto-Burman area. On the basis of these scanty
linguistic and ethno-historical evidence, some tentative hypotheses may be hazarded:
a. nepa is a Tibeto-Burman stem consisting of the roots ne (cow, buffalo, cattle) and
pa (man, keeper);

5
Mahīdhara’s commentary on Caraṇavyūha, p. 38.
6
For further details, see Acharya 2000: 43-46.
 REMARRIAGE, ADULTERY AND REPRODUCTION IN ANCIENT NEPAL | 273

b. nepa was sanskritised as Nepāla/nevāla, possibly on the analogy of gopāla

(cowherd). Tibeto-Burman pa can elegantly be transformed into Indo-Aryan pāla/
vāla (keeper). (Malla 2015[1983]: 279. My emphasis)

These “tentative hypotheses” are themselves built on a shaky ground.

The quote shows that Malla arbitrarily combines ‘ne’ and ‘pa,’ and does not
even identify the source Tibeto-Burman languages for his meanings.7 For
instance, if the name Nīpa, which refers both to a certain people and their
land, had Tibeto-Burman roots, we would expect this term or something close
would be found in Sino-Tibetan sources while referring to Nepal. Instead,
we find that the seventh century traveler Hwen Ts’ang uses Nī-po-lo, a direct
phonetic transcription of the Sanskrit term Nepāla. Tibetan sources from
other periods also use the term Bal-po, Bal-po’i yul or Bal-yul.8
To contrast, there is ample evidence that Nīpa already features as the
first member of a compound name of an ancient sage and leader of a certain
people as far back as in the Ṛgveda (VIII.49.9, VIII.51.1). Even if this scanty
but important evidence is set aside, there is a plenty of evidence in the
Mahābhārata and some Purāṇas that speak of the Nīpa kings, their prosperity,
and their subsequent decline due to an internal feud, and their exodus from
the Indian heartland. These narratives are presented as the memories of those
participating in the Mahābhārata war (Acharya 1999: 70).9 Patañjali (circa
second century BC) was aware that the term Nīpa—mostly used in plural—
referred to a certain people as well as their country/habitat. He also tells that
naipa, a derivative of Nīpa, refers to their king. These designations were
clearly known to him as established terms in Sanskrit language.10 Indeed, as
an Indo-Aryan word, nīpa literally means ‘lying deep/low,’ ‘lying/reaching
down to water,’ and designates ‘the bottom of a mountain, a number of plants
or trees, and also a certain people.’11 Both the plants and people in question
are named so because of their presence at the bottom of the mountains and

7
Carried away by Malla’s hypotheses, Gyanmani Nepal too has sought to prove that the
Nīpas were the tribal people, who raised cattle and maintained a kind of republican order. For
a rejection of such fanciful ideas, see Acharya 2000.
8
See, Beal 1906: II.80-81 for Hwen Ts’ang’s account, and for a discussion on Tibetan
references to Nepal, see Richardson 1983.
9
I am planning to discuss this matter in greater detail in the near future in a Nepali language
monograph (Acharya Forthcoming).
10
Acharya 2000: 45.
11
Mayrhofer 1992[CHECK]: s.v. nīpa. Monier-Williams 1960[1899]: s.v. nīpa.
274 | DIWAKAR ACHARYA

in the foothills. The term nīpa is not a Tibeto-Burman word. Nor can we
identify the Nīpas as a “non-Aryan ethnic group” from which the present
day Newars, themselves naively defined as a non-Aryan ethnic group,
originated.12 Additionally, the term Newaḥ/Newar is derived from the term
Nepal, and certainly not from Nīpa. It is clear that the identification of the
Nīpas with the non-Aryan natives is incorrect.
Once the identification turns problematic, G. Vajracharya’s hypothesis
flattens down into Dh. Vajracharya’s theory about the regulations in the
Viṣṇugupta’s edict. Their view can be summarized as follows: a majority
of people in the Kathmandu valley followed more flexible customs than
those of the elite. These included a liberal attitude towards remarriage,
divorce, and widows’ marriage. While Viṣṇugupta accommodated and
legalized these customs in the edict, he also sought to discourage the local
popular practices. Both authors also agree that the edict does not follow the
Dharmaśāstras. In order to examine this view, I will critically read, translate,
and analyze the contents of Viṣṇugupta’s edict in Maligaun, and tally them
with Dharmaśāstric recommendations on the issues.

Reading, translation, and analysis of the edict

The Maligaun inscription contains an edict issued from the Kailāsakūṭa
palace, the seat of power since Aṃśuvarman’s time. Except the name of
the palace and a few fragmented syllables, the entire text from lines 1 to 10
is damaged. Nevertheless, we know that the issuer was the then de facto
ruler, King Viṣṇugupta, since his son, the Crown Prince Śrīdharagupta, is
named as the witness-cum-representative (dūtaka) at the end of the charter
(Dh. Vajracharya 1973: 440). It is also certain that the jurisdiction of this
comprehensive edict (samājñāpana), as it was issued directly from the throne,
was the whole kingdom and not a particular locality. The Crown Prince

12
The Nīpas were perhaps the prehistoric people in Nepal. Available sources do not help
identify them with one or the other ethnic groups. If they are present today, they are quite
diffused among the populations. Until before the formation of present-day Nepal, the Kathmandu
valley served as a melting pot. Streams of different people arrived here and, shunning their
distinct identities, became the Nepālas/Naipālas and finally the Newars. For instance, see the
inscriptions of Vasantadeva and Aṃśuvarman. See Dh. Vajracharya 1973: 110-111, 309-314.
None of the peoples featuring in the Licchavi inscriptions such as the Licchavis, Ābhīras, Vṛjis,
Kolis can now be traced anywhere in Nepal or even within wider South Asia. They have been
integrated into the Newar community, and through migration, into other communities. For more
discussions on the topic, see Acharya (Forthcoming).
 REMARRIAGE, ADULTERY AND REPRODUCTION IN ANCIENT NEPAL | 275

implemented the edict. From the line 11 onward, we can make sense of the
core content of the edict. In line 11, for instance, the edict quotes a verse from
some Dharmaśāstra text that declares that a new husband is sought for those
young women who have lost their husband in certain unfortunate situations.
Let me first read this section with my translation and analysis:13

(line 1) ([siddham sign]14svasti) kailāsakūṭabha (vanād) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(line 2) - - - - - - vaya - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Lines 3-8 are completely illegible.)
(line 9) - - mā - - - kāreṇa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(line 10) - - - va kevalam i- - bhiḥ - -hita - - - - - - - - - -
(śā)(line 11)(stre)ṇa15vyavastheyamupada[ttā]
ta(smin) patyāv16uparate naṣṭe pravrajite pi vā[|]
patitepi (pra)(line 12)dṛṣṭe[bhy]o17yoṣitām aparaḥ patir [||] ity
eva(mupara)mādibhiḥ 18kāraṇair aparair api kā(line 13)raṇāntarair vivāhāt
patanakālaṃsaṅgrahaṇenāparaṃ patim upayātā ni(line 14)rapatyā yoṣito jñātibhi[re]
va (v)i(ne)yā(s)19

(Success! Well-being!) From the Kailāsakūṭa palace … // … [the scripture] has

provided this regulation:

In case the [married] husband has died, disappeared, or else, renounced the world, and
also, in case he has fallen [from his class], young women can have another husband
from among the [candidates] sanctioned [by the scripture].20

13
At the broken edge, some lines in the inscription have a few partially visible akṣaras.
Their reading is almost certain. I have placed these akṣaras inside square brackets [ ]. Where
I have guessed a word with its initial akṣaras and I am confident about the interpretation on
contextual grounds, I have supplied the missing akṣaras inside the parenthesis ( ). If these were
already suggested by Dh. Vajracharya, they are referred to. In footnotes, I have used G and V
to abbreviate the names of Gnoli and Vajracharya respectively.
14
On the siddham sign, see, e.g., Pant 1997: 163, fn. 20; Roth 1986 and Sander 1986. See
also Sircar 1996[1965]: 92.
15
This conjecture, (śāstre)ṇa, is tentative. One may also conjecture śāstrakāreṇa or
smṛtikāreṇa. The passive construction of the sentence demands an agent in instrumental singular,
and the context tells that this agent should be an authority capable of providing a regulation.
16
upada[ttā] ta(smin) patyāv]upadā- ta - patyāv V; upadā - ta - ripa . ya G.
17
(pra)dṛṣṭe[bhy]o] - dṛṣṭebhyo G; - dṛṣṭe - V.
18
eva(mupara)mādibhiḥ] eva .. mādibhiḥ V; a - - mādi - ḥ G.
19
jñātibhi[re]va (v)i(ne)yā(s) ] conjecture; jñātibhi - - va .i .iyā - - - G; jñātibhiḥ -va .. yā ... V.
20
The verse suffers from surface damage in pādas A and C. I have conjectured akṣaras
on syntactical and contextual grounds. There is ta - patyāv with one syllable missing after ta;
I have supplied that syllable and read tasminpatyāv. Similarly, there is patitepi - dṛṣṭe[bhyo]; I
276 | DIWAKAR ACHARYA

Thus, due to [death] and other reasons and even due to the reasons other than these,
as they fall from their marital status, some childless ladies approach another husband
through cohabitation (saṃgrahaṇa). Those ladies should be disciplined by their
relatives [themselves].

A close parallel to this verse can be found in the Nāradasmṛti, numbered

as 12.97 in Lariviere’s critical edition, which reads:

naṣṭe mṛte pravrajite klībe ca patite patau |

pañcasv āpatsu nārīṇāṃ patir anyo vidhīyate ||21

Dh. Vajracharya has cited this verse and also a verse with the same purport
from Kauṭalya’s Arthaśāstra22 to tally śāstric recommendations with the
statement in our inscription, but he has not noticed that the inscription itself
cites the verse from some classical text.23
The Nāradasmṛti prescription includes impotency of the husband in a
class of unfortunate ‘five calamities’ that could lead to the dissolution of a
marriage and the search for a new husband. The verse quoted above tends
to enumerate all permissible reasons for such a search. But this might not be
the original intention for the issue of impotency is discussed in detail earlier
in the same chapter (12.10cd-19). It is therefore probable that readings of the
available recensions of Nāradasmṛti are secondary, and that the verse cited

have supplied the missing syllable and read patite pi (pra)dṛṣṭe[bhyo]. While my conjectures
may be ignored, one can hardly deny, due to the syntactical and prosodial structure of the verse,
that it is a quote with clear overall meaning.
While interpreting the verse, I take (pra)dṛṣṭe[bhyo] to be the ablative plural and interpret
it in relation to yoṣitām aparaḥ patiḥ. The word pradṛṣṭa can mean anything shown, indicated,
or sanctioned. I see two possible ways of interpretation: first, the term refers to the rules in
the scriptures that allow specific women to choose another husband; second, the term refers
to the people among whom such women can find their husband. I have opted for the second
meaning. For an example of a list of such people sanctioned by the scriptures, see paragraph
below ending with footnote 26.
21
In a fourteenth century manuscript of the text and its Newari translation, gate replaces
naṣṭe and klībetha replaces klībe ca (NGMPP microfilm no. A 1160/6, folio 80 verso, line 1).
22
Kauṭalya’s Arthaśāstra 3.2, as cited by Dh. Vajracharya (1973: 441):
nīcatvaṃ paradeśaṃ vā prasthito rājakilbiṣī |
prāṇābhihantā patitas tyājyaḥ klībo ‘pi vā patiḥ||
23
Gnoli’s reading of this verse was preliminary. He had no chance to notice the fact. He
has, however, marked the other verse cited after a few lines in the same inscription by supplying
a set of two daṇḍas after even pādas.
 REMARRIAGE, ADULTERY AND REPRODUCTION IN ANCIENT NEPAL | 277

in this inscription is part of an older recension of the same text. It is equally

possible that the quotation has been lifted from some other Dharmaśāstra
text known to the Licchavi elite but now lost to us.24 In any case, “the other
reasons” the inscription intends to cover therefore include impotency and
other sexual abnormalities not cited verse.
G. Vajracharya (1992: 65) writes that “[w]ith the sole exception of the
Nāradasmṛti, nowhere in a Smṛti text is divorce or remarriage approved
for women, not even for widows.” But, as I show below, we find evidence
for the sanctioning of remarriage in a number of dharmasūtras of Vasiṣṭha,
Baudhāyana, and Gautama, and also in the Smṛti texts of Manu and Viṣṇu.
These texts, including the Nāradasmṛti, belong to different regions and
periods but bear witness to the provisions of remarriage of widows and other
women in specified conditions.25
The Gautamadharmasūtra (18.4-6) tells that when a woman does not
have her husband and yet is desirous of offspring, she may produce them with
one of her husband’s brothers or a relative belonging to the same ancestry,
lineage, or line of seers, or else just a relative (Olivelle 2000: 166-167). The
Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra (17.19-20) tells that a woman who leaves the husband
in her youth for another man but subsequently rejoins the household of her
husband is known as a remarried woman (Olivelle 2000: 416-417). Or else,
a woman is also considered as remarried if she takes another husband after
abandoning an impotent, outcast or mad husband, or after his death. Vasiṣṭha
“even permits a woman whose husband is abroad to go to a male relative of
her husband or possibly even a stranger” (17.75-80).26
The Viṣṇusmṛti (15.8-9) talks of two types of remarried woman: first,
a woman who is still a virgin, even though she was married, but has
lost her husband and now joins another man after performing the rite
of marriage again. The second type is the woman who was married to a
man before, and now simply joins the second man without any rite. The
Baudhāyanadharmasūtra (II.3.27) enjoins that when a woman abandons
an impotent or outcast husband and finds another husband, a son born to

24
We know from the Handigaun inscription of Viṣṇugupta’s great-grandfather Anuparama
that several Dharmaśāstra texts were known to the Licchavi elite already in the fifth century;
see Acharya 2007: 41, 47 (verse 23 and its translation).
25
That early Dharmaśāstra texts have a liberal approach towards remarriage is noticed in
some well-known secondary works such as Basham (1967: 187–188).
26
Olivelle 2000: 6, see also pp. 422–423.
278 | DIWAKAR ACHARYA

that remarried woman is called a paunarbhava (Olivelle 2000: 252-253).

Further, the Manusmṛti (9.175) prescribes, “When a woman who has been
abandoned by her husband or is a widow marries again and begets a son of
her own will, he is called son of a remarried woman” (Olivelle 2005: 199).
Likewise, the Yājñavalkyasmṛti (1.67) defines that if a woman, either her
virginity intact or violated, is married again having performed the marriage
rite, she is called a remarried woman; but if a woman simply abandons her
husband and finds another man of the same class at her own will, then she
is called a self-motivated woman. The text also sanctions (1.68-69) widow
marriage, but with the specification that this may only be performed for the
sake of children.
These provisions are made for those married women who are in
calamitous situations, not for everybody. The allowances assume that the
main motivation of a deserted or bereft woman or of her elders for seeking
another man for her is to produce a child. The status of the remarried woman
in this manner is closely related to such a limited purpose. The Dharmaśāstras
reveal that such a woman, even if her elders formally give her to a new
man in marriage, will not enjoy the normal status. She will be treated as an
inferior, classified among ‘the other’ types of wives.
Clearly, the provisions for remarriage in earlier texts are more liberal
than those in the later texts. Except for the Yājñavalkyasmṛti and the
Nāradasmṛti, no text makes a distinction between a formally remarried
woman (punarbhū) and a self-motivated one (svairiṇī). In the Nāradasmṛti, it
even appears that the possibility of remarriage was open to all young women
in specified conditions, and being childless was not a precondition. Verses,
as the one cited in our inscription or found in other available recensions, do
not specify that a young woman who has lost her husband can only remarry
if she is childless. A young woman can seek a new husband if she has lost
her husband in specific ways. Following the quote above, the Nāradasmṛti
(12.98-102), for instance, immediately stipulate that if a husband in foreign
lands does not return, his wife should wait for him for a certain amount
of years, the longer if she is of the higher status. The text further specifies
that she has to wait longer if she has offspring, and shorter if she has none.
For instance, a brahmin woman with children should wait for eight years,
but the same woman should wait for four years only if she is childless.
Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra (17.78) also makes similar prescriptions. Nevertheless,
the major reason for remarriage is the production of heirs.
 REMARRIAGE, ADULTERY AND REPRODUCTION IN ANCIENT NEPAL | 279

The Maligaun inscription presumes that the married women who leave
their homes to find a new husband are childless. Commentators of the
Nāradasmṛti also interpret the verse naṣṭe mṛte pravrajite in the same
manner. From this perspective, King Viṣṇugupta’s edict is more orthodox
than the early law books and matches with the texts of Yājñavalkya and
Nārada and their commentaries. For example, Nāradasmṛti (12.48) enjoins
that the elders of a young married woman should arrange her remarriage if she
has no children and has lost her husband in any of the enumerated situations.
If any of her husband’s brothers is available, she should be appointed to him
temporarily until she bears up to two sons. If he is not available, then she
is given to a man of the same caste in a marriage ceremony. The edict of
Viṣṇugupta does not address these particular situations, probably because
there is no need for a royal intervention in family matters. The author of the
edict, however, knows such provisions as he quotes a Dharmaśāstra verse
to enlist permissible grounds for seeking a new husband.
If the elders do not arrange her remarriage, it is likely that a young
childless woman bereft of her husband becomes motivated to find a new
husband on her own. Therefore, on the one hand, Nāradasmṛti enjoins that
if a man approaches such a wife without husband, it is regarded as adultery
and he is to be punished accordingly (12.60-61, also 12.77). On the other, if
the bereft woman approaches a man to have relations with, she is regarded
as a self-motivated woman (svairiṇī) and neither of them is to be punished.
The Maligaun edict is concerned with this kind of self-motivated woman.27
Thus, the edict begins with a simple situation where a young woman,
who has lost her husband and has no child, finds herself cohabiting with a
man. The decree then leaves the issue of disciplining to her relatives. There

27
The class of woman mentioned in the edict can be identified as type (b) among the four
types of self-motivated women in the Nāradasmṛti (12.49-52), given as follows (from the
lowest status to the highest):
(a) A wife who starts a relation with another man while her husband is alive, regardless
of whether she has a child.
(b) A widow who rejects her brother-in-law though he is suitable for her, but rather
chooses another man out of passion.
(c) An alien purchased as slave, or a lady that submits herself to a man due to hunger
and thirst.
(d) A victim of rape who gets eventually married in accord with local customs.
These four together with the three types of remarried women constitute the class of ‘other
types’ of wives.
280 | DIWAKAR ACHARYA

seems an agreement on the reasonability of her motive as she is allowed to

remain with the select man. If that woman abandons her second husband
attained through the adulterous relation, and seeks another man but still bears
no child, her case then falls under the jurisdiction of the Māpcoka office. If
she bears a child, the royal administration will remain tolerant. This is stated
in the next section of the edict:

(tāś ca) yadi paribhraśyānyat patyantara(line 15)m upādadata evaṃ dvitīyaṃ

saṅgraha[m upa]yātā ni[ṣpu]travatyo 28bhaviṣyanti tāsu mā(line 16)pcokā-
dhikāro‘yaṃyathāvyavastham pravartayitavyas tāsv apy atītāsu yatīsā-rūpya(line 17)
kan29 tannāmnā paribhāṣitañ ca dhanaṃ tam māpcoka-vṛttibhujā grāhyaṃ

But if they fall from [that relation] and take another husband and [even] after
approaching a man through an adulterous affair for the second time still remain
childless, upon them the authority of Māpcoka should be exercised in accordance with
the established rules. When they too pass away, the yatīsārūpyaka, [which is] but the
amount of money defined by that name, should be collected by an officer enjoying
the office of the Māpcoka authority.

The edict describes the worst scenario in the next section. The description
starts with the phrase tato ’pi puruṣaparitoṣam abhāvayitvā bahuśo ’pi,
followed by a passage in verse. A sudden versification at the middle of a
sentence means that the verse, though not known from any other source, is
a citation. Further, if this was composed for the occasion, the subordinate
clause would not have been left outside the verse. The author of the edict
apparently selected a verse that to him effectively describes, through the
range of adjectives, a bad woman. But to contextualize the citation, it was
necessary to foreword the subordinate clause tato ’pi puruṣaparitoṣam
abhāvayitvā and the phrase, bahuśo ’pi. The translations by both G.
Vajracharya and Dh. Vajracharya are therefore not appropriate. The former
interprets tato’pi in the subordinate clause as a conjunction and translates
it as “furthermore” (G. Vajracharya 1992: 58), whereas the latter translates
the phrase as “nevertheless” (Nep. taipani) [Dh. Vajracharya 1973: 439].30
They both take the section as unrelated to the preceding text, and interpret
it to explain the case of women who remarry because they were unsatisfied
28
Gnoli supplied the akṣaras in brackets.
29
yatīsārūpyakan] V; yūnīsārūpyakan G.
30
The phrase tato‘pi, in general, can mean either ‘for that reason too’ or ‘even/also from
that,’ and the referent of ‘that’ should be found in the immediate or broader context.
 REMARRIAGE, ADULTERY AND REPRODUCTION IN ANCIENT NEPAL | 281

with their husband. In my view, tato ’pi puruṣaparitoṣam abhāvayitvā rather

means ‘being unable to cherish the satisfaction [of having] a man even from
that [latest relation],’ and bahuśo‘pi means ‘even repeatedly.’ Let me now
present this section with my proposed translation:

tato pi puruṣapa(line 18)ritoṣam abhāvayitvā bahuśo pi

vyapetalajjāḥ prakhalasvabhāvāś
cāritradharmā(paga(line 19)tā)31yuvatyaḥ
santoṣahīnāḥ prathame viraktā
rāgānuṣaktāḥ puruṣam bhajante
(line 20) tā api32yadi putravatyo bhaviṣyanti naiva māpcokādhikāra-bhāgadheyā33

Being unable to cherish the satisfaction [of having] a man even from that [latest
relation], even repeatedly, [some]
Young women, shameless and ill-natured,
Moved away from good conduct and righteousness,
Discontented and disinterested in the first man
But being hooked to passion, resort to [another] man.
Even those [women], if they get children, are not subjected to the authority of Māpcoka.

After stating this, the king mentions that the edict conforms to the edicts
issued by previous monarchs. He does not claim that the edict is based on
Dharmaśāstric grounds, but rather states that it is based on the principle of
dispelling troubles in the country. It reads:

(line 21) yas tv etām atītānekanarapatikṛtavyavasthānugāminīm asmad-vyavasthām

a(line 22)nyathākuryāt taṃ vayam atyarthaṃ na marṣayiṣyāmo bhāvibhir api
bhūpatibhir idam asma(line 23)tkṛtaṃdeśapīḍāparihāra-niṣṭhaṃ śāsanam ātmīyam
iva pūrvvarājagurutayā(line 24)samyaganu-pālanīyam iti samājñāpanā saṃvat 57
phālgunaśukla(line 25)saptamyāṃdūtakaś cātra śrīyuvarājaśrīdharaguptaḥ || ||

However, we will never tolerate a man who would violate our edict that conforms to
the edicts promulgated by many past kings. The future kings, too, should maintain this
edict of mine, an edict founded on [the principle of] dispelling troubles in the country,
as if it is their own [edict], with respect to the kings of the past.

31
Dh. Vajracharya supplied these akṣaras in brackets.
32
tā api ] G; tāpi V (typo), but Dh. Vajracharya (1968) reads it correctly.
33
Since yas in the next portion of the text is following it, the visarga has disappeared
according to a grammatical rule.
282 | DIWAKAR ACHARYA

This is a comprehensive edict (samājñāpanā). [Issued] on the seventh day of the

bright half of Phālguna in [Licchavi] Year 57. And the witness in this [edict] is the
Prosperous Crown Prince Śrīdharagupta.

Obviously, Viṣṇugupta believed that childless women could find a

husband for bearing a child but they should be disciplined through the office
of Māpcoka if they were driven merely by passion. The disciplining took
the form of a fine levied upon the death of these women. Nevertheless, it
does appear that should they succeed in giving birth to a child, even the self-
motivated women were not penalized. This was regardless of the number of
times they changed their husbands. The Lichhavi administration took the birth
of a child as a proof for the fact that the remarried woman in the first two
cases was not motivated by passion. Once this provision was made, it was
extended to the third case of those women who might have been motivated
by passion, but were not punished if they bore a child.
The entire endeavor is significant. It seems that only on this issue,
Viṣṇugupta might have been influenced by local customs. Perhaps the
seventh century Nepal, like other kingdoms in the ancient period, needed a
steady growth in population. In the absence of a demographic analysis of
the Licchavi period, it cannot be said with any certainty.

Conclusion
G. Vajracharya (1992: 58) states that the Maligaun inscription contains “the
regulations of divorce, remarriage of women, and women’s share of property
after a change of marital status.” There is clearly no mention of women’s share
of property after or before the change of marital status. His conclusion follows
a misinterpretation of the line in the edict: tāsv apy atītāsu yatīsārūpyakan
tannāmnā paribhāṣitañ ca dhanaṃ tam māpcokavṛttibhujā grāhyaṃ, which
he translates as: “[a]fter her death an officer of Māpcoka should confiscate
[her] property designated as yatīsārūpyaka.” But the Sanskrit sentence
explains yatīsārūpyakam as tannāmnāparibhāṣitañcadhanaṃ. So, the
sentence should be translated, following Dh. Vajracharya (1973: 439), as
‘When they, too, have passed away, the yatīsārūpyaka, [which is] but the
amount of money defined by that name, that should be collected by a man
enjoying as an officer of the Māpcoka authority.’
This yatīsārūpyaka cannot refer to the ‘women’s property’ (strīdhana).
G. Vajracharya claims that yatīsārūpyaka “is an interesting non-Sanskritic
 REMARRIAGE, ADULTERY AND REPRODUCTION IN ANCIENT NEPAL | 283

word,” but it is obviously a Sanskrit word with a minor orthographical

mistake.34 As a bahuvrīhi compound, it can be interpreted as “the fee
charged to declare that one has a status similar to an ascetic or a widow.”
This literal meaning also fits well in the context. Having left her home long
ago and enjoyed the company of one or more men, if a woman dies without
producing a child, it is likely that nobody comes forth to perform her last
rite. No one will perhaps perform the post-mortuary rites either. Even if
someone wants to offer a śrāddha, to which husband she would be attached
to? Therefore, it might be necessary to declare her status, for the sake of
rituals, to be comparable to that of an ascetic.35 In any case, it is not possible
to conclude from the edict that the property of such a self-motivated woman
is confiscated when she dies without offspring.
The regulation of remarriage in this edict cannot be said to be of non-
Brahmanical origin. As we have seen, similar conditions for remarriage are
listed in the Dharmasūtras and Smṛtis, and are commonly applied. According
to Nārada (12.77), a man can have intercourse with a self-motivated woman
conforming to the hierarchy, and neither is to be punished. The same text
says (12.19) that “women are created for the sake of offspring” (12.19), and
that “Prajāpati made creatures so that they might have offspring; therefore
if a woman goes to another man under [the specified] circumstances, there
is no sin entailed” (12.102).36 The new feature in this edict is the mention
of a fine for such self-motivated woman. The Dharmaśāstra texts do not
normally prescribe that the king should fine or confine a woman.37 This was

34
The only mistake in this Sanskrit compound is the long ī of yatī-. The Śabdakalpadruma
lists yatī with the feminine suffix –ī in the sense of ‘widow,’ and justifies the entry by referring to
the 17th century lexicon Śabdaratnāvalī of Mathureśa. The Vācaspatya refers to the same authority
but reads yati itself in feminine with no suffix. Since a widow is generally expected to live an
ascetic, she might be figuratively called yatinī and yati. There seems no need to lengthen the end
vowel, however. In fact, the Śabdaratnāvalī verse quoted in the Śabdakalpadruma includes yatinī
and yati, but not yatī among the synonyms of vidhavā, ‘widow’. Even if the form is attested in
a late-mediaeval text, we should be careful in finding the form in a text a thousand years older.
35
It is not clear from whom this fee is collected. Since the woman is already dead and has
no offspring, the person in question can be her immediate husband, namely, the man with whom
she was lately living together, and if he is not alive, perhaps someone amongst the people who
were present at the time of her death.
36
Lariviere 2003: 383, 397.
37
Manu (8.371) generalizes Gautama’s prescription (23.14) for the woman who has sex
with a low caste man and says, “when a woman, arrogant because of her relatives and her own
feminine qualities, becomes unfaithful to her husband, the king should have her devoured by dogs
284 | DIWAKAR ACHARYA

true even in case of adultery. If the wife is found unfaithful, her husband is to
punish her by shaving her head and giving her bad food, bad clothes, and bad
duties, or in the most extreme case, he may expel her from the household.38
In short, the Dharmaśāstras do not typically instruct the king to punish a
woman for her sexual misbehavior. There are some exceptions as well. For
instance, Nārada himself states (12.88) that “either the man or the woman,
if being motivated by passion they should conduct themselves otherwise,
they should be very strictly disciplined (subhṛśaṃvineyau) by the king. The
king will share the sin (kilbiṣīsyāt) if he does not restrain them.”39 Following
this instruction, a king can issue decrees to control adultery and wantonly
behavior. King Viṣṇugupta followed this spirit of the Dharmaśāstras, but he
did so in a very relaxed manner. He took the production of heir as a criterion
to judge the sexual behavior of a self-motivated woman.
Further, this edict does not address a likely case of a woman putting
herself in one of these or similar situations when she already has children.
It is not possible to generalize and relate this edict to today’s concepts of
divorce and marital freedom. Likewise, this edict does not hint on the alleged
Sanskritization of non-Aryan society, even though Nepali society might have
been undergoing such transformations in various degrees in different periods.

Postscript
The Muluki Ain of 1854 also deals with the problem of women forming new
relationships repeatedly in quest of men. But the code is not concerned with
the motive behind such actions and does not consider whether such women
eventually produce an heir or not. It only tells what status these women would

in a public square frequented by many” (Olivelle 2005: 187). Baudhāyana prescribes penances
for an unfaithful woman (II.3.47–48), and shows a very liberal attitude towards chastity of
women (II.4.4-5). Vasiṣṭha (21.6-10) prescribes a set of penances for an adulterous woman, but
in two exceptional cases of adultery with an elder and one’s pupil he recommends her expulsion.
38
Nāradasmṛti 12.91-92: “If a woman is unfaithful she should be shaved, made to sleep on
the ground, and be given bad food and worn out garments, and assigned the task of removing
waste. A woman who squanders away the family’s wealth as if it were her own, who has an
abortion, or who wishes death for her husband should be banished from the house” (Lariviere
2003: 396). See also Yājñavalkyasmṛti 1.70-72.
39
Lariviere (2003: 395) translates the verse somewhat differently: “If the man or the woman
should conduct themselves otherwise, because they are motivated by passion, they both should
be severely punished by the king. He sins if he fails to restrain them.” His interpretation of
subhṛśaṃ vineyau is contentious.
 REMARRIAGE, ADULTERY AND REPRODUCTION IN ANCIENT NEPAL | 285

have in society in terms of commensality and contact. Obviously, the social

concerns in the two different periods are different. The Muluki Ain does not
seem to be as liberal as King Viṣṇugupta’s edict or the early Dharma texts.
For instance, the code enjoins that until the third husband such a woman is
regarded as an inferior type of wife ‘kept’ or ‘brought home’ by the husband,
but beyond the third she would be treated as a whore (cf. Höfer 2004: 41).
It is interesting to note that all these three sources, the Muluki Ain, the
Mailgaun edict and the Dharma texts, make statements not in connection
with an ethnic group but about women in general.
Many sociologists and anthropologists specializing on the Newars in
the Kathmandu Valley generally assert that marital practices of the Newars
are different from the orthodox Hindu practices of the Parbatiyās and
other Indian groups, because the Newars allow and acknowledge divorce,
elopement, widow remarriage, and so on.40 But in recent years, a number of
scholars have questioned the general applicability of the claim (Ishii 1995:
118ff, Gellner 1991: 120). The so-called orthodox Hindu practices, too,
have a long history with regional and communal variations. As the analysis
of the edict shows above, older Dharma texts are comparatively flexible in
their prescriptions on marital affairs than the newer ones. Late medieval
compendia and commentarial works are generally stricter.
Some anthropologists even venture to state that the Muluki Ain of 1854
allegedly attempts “to regulate Newar marriage and make divorce less easy”
by stipulating a number of conditions on divorce (Gellner 1991:111-112)
and indicate the prevalence of such liberal practices among the Newars,
else “the Muluki Ain would not have attempted to prevent something which
never occurred” (1991:112). It cannot be, however, meant that the Newars
indulged in these practices unconditionally. Since, Muluki Ain reiterates
the conditions stipulated in the 14th century copy of the Nāradasaṃhitā and
other early medieval Dharma texts, the conditions are not set forth by the
biased ruling elite. King Viṣṇugupta’s edict provides a testimony for the
fact that the people in the Kathmandu Valley knew about these provisions
already in the seventh century.
Cherishing a taste for archaism, I suppose, the Newars followed old rules
or they might have revived them in the 14th century. The Parbatiyās and
other footloose Indian groups regularly updated the stricter rules heralded by
late medieval compendia and commentaries according to the circumstances
40
See Ishii 1995: 117-118 for the references and discussion.
286 | DIWAKAR ACHARYA

they were in. In all likelihood, the Parbatiyās had no access to the old texts
and were unable to be conservative. Since scholars have not investigated the
marital practices of the Parbatiyās as rigorously as they have investigated the
Newar practices, only a future research can reveal how far the Dharmaśāstric
prescriptions were followed in practice, with the Muluki Ain already talking
about the mixed caste of the Jaisis (Höfer 2004: 42) and how diverse were
regional and socio-economic variations. The myth of lax sexual mores
and greater freedom for women among the Newars, and that of orthodoxy
among the Parbatiyās can only be tested against rigorous historical and
ethnographical research. The analysis of the Maligaun inscription above
has shown the problem of applying the Aryan/non-Aryan and Hindu/tribal
dichotomies in the ancient history of Nepal. Historians riding the horse of
a theory may end up reading theories instead of the documents themselves.

Acknowledgement
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Nina Mirnig, Dr. Mahes
Raj Pant, and one anonymous reviewer for their suggestions and critical
comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

Acharya, Diwakar, 1999. Nepal śabdako vyutpattikā sambandhamā. Garima 199:
67–76.
Acharya, Diwakar. 2000. Nīp paśupālak saṃghaśāsak gaṇajāti hoina. Ancient Nepal
146: 42–51.
Acharya, Diwakar. 2007. Anuparama’s Dvaipāyanastorta Inscription from the Early
6th Century: Text, Translation, and Comments. Journal of Indological Studies
19: 29–52.
Acharya, Diwakar. Forthcoming. Nepalko âdya-itihàsko Ek Jhalak: Nãpdekhi
Licchavisamma.
Basham, A.L. 1967. The Wonder that was India: A Survey of the History and Culture
of the Indian Sub-continent before the Coming of the Muslims. Third revised
edition. London: Sidgwick and Jackson.
Beal, Samuel. 1906. Si-yu-ki: Buddhist records of the western world. Translated
from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629). Two volumes. London: Kegan
Paul, Trench, Trübner.
Baudhāyanadharmasūtra. See Olivelle 2000.
Caraṇavyūha.The Caraṇavyūha Sūtra of Śaunaka, with the commentary of Mahidāsa.
ed. Anantarām Dogārā. Kashi Sanskrit Series 132. Benares: The Chowkhambā
Sanskrit Series Office, 1938.
 REMARRIAGE, ADULTERY AND REPRODUCTION IN ANCIENT NEPAL | 287

Gautamadharmasūtra. See Olivelle 2000.

Gellner, David. 1991. Hinduism, Tribalism and the Position of Women: The Problem
of Newar Identity. Man (N.S.) 26(1): 105–125.
Gnoli, Raniero. 1956. Nepalese Inscriptions in Gupta Characters. Rome: IsMEO.

Höfer, András. 2004. The Caste Hierarchy and the State in Nepal: A Study of the
Muluki Ain 1854. Second edition. Kathmandu: Himal Books.
Ishii, Hiroshi. 1995. Caste and Kinship in a Newar Village. In Contested Heirarchies.
A Collaborative Ethnography of Caste among the Newars of the Kathmandu
Valley, Nepal. David N. Gellner and Declan Quigley, eds., pp. 109–157. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Lariviere, Richard W. 2003. The Nāradasmṛti: Critical Edition and Translation.
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Malla, K.P. 1981. Linguistic Archaeology of the Nepal Valley: A Preliminary Report.
Kailash 8(1-2): 5–23.
Malla, K.P. 2015[1983]. Nepāla: Archaeology of the Word. In From Literature
to Culture: Selected Writings on Nepalese Studies,1980-2010, pp. 270–281.
Kathmandu: Himal Books.
Manusmṛti. See Olivelle 2005.
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1996[CHECK]. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des
Altindoarischen. Volume II. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Monier-Williams, Sir Monier. 1960[1899]. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass.
Nāradasmṛti. See Lariviere 2003.
Olivelle, Patrick. 2000. Dharmasūtras: the law codes of Āpastamba, Gautama,
Baudhāyana, and Vasiṣṭha. Annotated text and translation. Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass.
Olivelle, Patrick, 2005. Manu’s Code of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of
the Mānavadharmaśāstra. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pant, Mahes Raj. 1997. Six 15th- and 16th-Century Deeds from Tirhut Recording
the Purchase of Slaves. In Recht, Staat und Verwaltung in klassischen Indien /
The State, The Law, and Administration in Classical India. Bernhard Kölver,
ed., pp. 159–194. Muenchen: R. Oldenbourg Verlag.
Richardson, Hugh. 1983. Notes and Communications: Bal-po and Lho-bal. Bulletin
of the School of Oriental and African Studies 46(1): 136–138.
Roth, G. 1986. Maṅgala-Symbols in Buddhist Sanskrit Manuscripts and Inscriptions.
In Deyadharma: Studies in Memory of Dr. D.C. Sircar. Gouriswar Bhattacharya,
ed., pp. 239–250. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.
Sander, L. 1986. Remarks on the Openings of Buddhist Manuscripts and Inscriptions
from Central Asia. In Deyadharma: Studies in Memory of Dr. D.C. Sircar.
Gouriswar Bhattacharya, ed., pp. 251–263. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.
288 | DIWAKAR ACHARYA

Śabdakalpadruma. Shabdakalpadrum oran Encyclopedic Dictionary of Sankrit Words

arranged in Alphabetical Order giving the Etymological Origin of the Words
according to Panini. Compiled by Raja Radha Kanta Deva and Enriched by
Varada Prasad Vasu and Hari Charan Vasu. Five volumes. Chowkhamba Sanskrit
Series 93. Third edition. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office. 1967.
Śabdaratnāvalī (An Early Seventeen Century Kośa Work Compiled in the name of
Musā Khān) by Mathureśa. Ed. Manindra Mohan Chaudhury. Bibliotheca Indica
292. Calcutta: Asiatic Society, 1970.
Sircar, D.C. 1965. Indian Epigraphy. 1996[1965]. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Vācaspatya. Vāchaspatyam (A Comprehensive Sanskrit Dictionary). Compiled
by Taranath Tarkavachaspati. Six volumes. Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series 92.
Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office. Reprint 1962.
Vajracharya, Dhanavajra. 1968. Licchavikālkā kehī abhilekhharu. Pūrṇimā 16:
356–364.
Vajracharya, Dhanavajra. 1973. Licchavikālkā Abhilekh. Kathmandu: Centre for
Nepal and Asian Studies.
Vajracharya, Gautam. 1992. She is Bad: A Study of Change and Continuity in the
Lifestyle of Women in Ancient Nepal Due to Sanskritization. In Bridging Worlds.
Studies on Women in South Asia. Sally J.M. Sutherland, ed., pp. 53–69. Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra. See Olivelle 2000.
Vidyabhusan, S.C. 1908. Persian Affinities of the Licchavis. Indian Antiquary 37:
78–80.
Viṣṇusmṛti. The Institutes of Vishnu together with Extracts from the Sanskrit
Commentary of Nanda Paṇḍit called Vaijayanti. Critically ed. Julius Jolly.
Calcutta: The Asiatic Society, 1881.
Yājñavalkyasmṛti of Yogīśvara Yājñavalkya with the commentary (Mitākṣarā) of
Vijñāneśvara. ed. Narayan Ram Acharya. 5th edition. Bombay: Nirnaya Sagar
Press, 1949.
Yogi, Naraharināth and Janak Lal Dhakal.2012 v.s. Itihāsa Prakāśa,Volume1.
Kathmandu.

Biographical Note
Diwakar Acharya is an associate professor at the Department of Indological
Studies, Kyoto University, Japan. His research covers a wide range of
topics in epigraphy, early history of Nepal, Sanskrit literature, and Indian
religious and philosophical traditions. He has published Vācaspatimiśra’s
Tattvasamīkṣā: The Earliest Commentary on Maṇḍanamiśra’s Brahmasiddhi
(2006), The Little Clay Cart (2009), and Early Tantric Vaiṣṇavism: Three
Newly Discovered Works of the Pañcarātra (2015) as well as a number of
articles in journals and anthologies. Email: acharyadiwakar@gmail.com.