Contextualising the Debate

Women in contemporary India are achieving new heights in their educational and career prospects, with women accounting for 43 per cent of STEM graduates (UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2022), a percentage higher than that of most European nations like France, Germany and the United Kingdom. According to the Periodic Labour Force Survey, women’s participation in the labour force has increased from 32.8 per cent in 2021-22 to 41.7 per cent in 2023-24. Despite attaining significant success and advances in educational prospects and professional life, women continue to conform to traditional gender roles by juggling both household work and professional responsibilities. American sociologist Arlie Hochschild, in her work The Second Shift (1989), sheds light on the predicament of working women who perform paid labour in their first shift, followed by unpaid labour in their second shift. The second shift here refers to the household tasks and familial responsibilities that remain unequally distributed between the genders. Today, women are earning the bread and baking it too, all by themselves, whereas we rarely see men coming home from work and accommodating themselves in the second shift. The issue becomes intricate when it intersects with social institutions like marriage, which occupies a significant position in Indian society. Marriage in Indian society is not built around the idea of companionship or union of two individuals; rather, it is seen as a union of two families. Familial interference remains evident in all types of marriage prospects, be it arranged marriages or love marriages.

For many Indian families, marriages consist of some sets of expectations entrusted to and imposed on daughters-in-law regarding the management of the household, serving the husband and the family, bearing and raising the children and maintaining familial harmony. The responsibilities entrusted to the daughter in laws become problematic when it legitimises sacrifices and adjustments as virtues of womanhood. Gendered division of labour within a household creates two distinct domains, comprising one associated with women, which is domestic, unpaid and socially invisible, whereas another domain associated with men, which is public, paid and economically and socially recognised. This division of labour is not based on an individual’s ability, interest or qualification but is a social construct rooted in our history and cultural belief. Gendered division of labour turns contestable when it justifies unequal responsibilities in a relationship, curtailing women’s agency and bodily autonomy and subsequently legitimising women’s sacrifices, adjustments and compromises in the guise of “Pativrata”.

The Making of Pativrata

To understand the concept of “Pativrata”, we must delve deeper into the history of our nation, which has shaped the cultural belief systems and consciousness of the society. In India, control over women’s bodily autonomy was evident since the Rig Vedic period and was further institutionalised during the later Vedic period when hierarchical structures of caste and class gained wide currency following the consolidation of patrilineal succession. Women’s subjugation or submission to their husbands remained very pronounced during the period of Smritis, Sutras and Purans. The religious texts attempted to legitimise the subordination of women through the practice of several religious vratassuch as “Pativratas”. Uma Chakravarti, in her work, Brahminical Patriarchy (1993), argues that the subordination of women took place through control of their sexuality, which was rendered as a way to preserve caste purity and strengthen the Brahminical patriarchy. Puranas like the Vishnupuran condemn women who abandon their poor husbands in pursuit of comfort and enjoyment. Controlling the sexuality of women is one of the dominant themes in most of the Puranas. Much of the emphasis has been exerted into the notion of women’s chastity because it is a medium through which patrilineal succession and caste purity thrive in society. Therefore, the chastity of women has been constructed as an essential element of “Pativrata Dharma”.

Etymologically, the word “Pativrata” is derived from the Sanskrit word “Pati” meaning “Husband” and “Vrat” meaning “Vows”. The historical narratives have revealed that women who deviated from the norms of “Pativrata Dharma” have been subjected to retribution. For example, Parsuram’s father, Jamadagni, ordered Parsuram to execute his mother, Renuka Devi, because her chastity was violated when she was distracted by the sight of a group of Gandharvas. Epics like the Ramayana mention that a wife’s loyalty to her husband is the central tenet of “Pativrata”, and a wife conforming to ideals of “Pativrata” will not see another man other than her husband, not even in her dreams. “Pativrata” is also based on the ideology which believes that women live to serve their husbands and his family in every way possible and are obligated to produce male offspring for the sustenance of the patrilineal system. “Pativrata” expects a wife to prioritise her husband’s needs over her own by being completely obedient and servile. Some of the widely celebrated historical female figures who have been the embodiment of “Pativrata” are Sita and Padmini. Sita is seen as one of the most dutiful women in the historical narratives, who, being a princess, renounced palace life and accompanied her husband to the forest to live there for fourteen years. Another important aspect of “Pativrata” is to trivialise the life of a wife after the death of her husband. Such beliefs are manifested through the practice of the age-old tradition of “Sati Pratha”, where the widow immolates herself on the cremation pyre of her deceased husband. Sati is considered an expression of “Pativrata” because the practice of self-immolation is associated with the preservation of “Satitva” (Purity).  This is why the queen of Chittorgarh, Rani Padmini, is a widely revered and celebrated female figure from the historical archives. Rani Padmini is the embodiment of “Pativrata”, who performed Jauhar (self-immolation) with several thousand females of the kingdom after the defeat of the Rajput king. The act of Jauhar was construed as a demonstration of preserving and protecting the chastity of women from the invading forces.

 Questioning Pativrata in Modern Times

Despite growing resistance towards gender inequality, the nuances of age-old “Pativrata” remain intact in the social lives of many Indian families. Several expectations, such as prioritising household chores, bearing and raising children at the expense of women’s agency and bodily autonomy, continue to remain deeply normalised in our society. However, with the advent of feminist movements, rise in female literacy rates and soaring women’s economic empowerment, women today are closely scrutinising the status quo. Both married and unmarried women of contemporary India are questioning the legitimacy of “Pativrata”, making it a subject of contestation. Lately, there is a considerable amount of social disgruntlement towards women who refuse to embody the ideals of “Pativrata”. Most women refuse to be self-sacrificing, accommodating, tolerating and servile towards their husbands and his family members. Such women, who are simply exercising their agency, are condemned by society for violating morality, dismantling the social order and traditional family values. Women’s non-conformity to socially constructed gendered norms turns into deviance, drawing societal disapproval and harsh criticism. For example, when a woman prioritises her career, she is termed a woman with no family values, or when a woman does not want to bear children, she is termed selfish.

But what makes the gender norms and socially sanctioned expectations so deeply entrenched in our collective consciousness and social lives? American sociologist Judith Butler, in her seminal work Gender Trouble (1990), explains that “gender is a set of repeated acts and practices performed by individuals within a regulatory frame” and the performances enacted by individuals with iteration construct identities like “Masculine” and “Feminine”. For instance, most women in Indian society since time immemorial have been engaged in work within the domestic sphere, making domestic labour the sole responsibility of women. Such practices, when repeatedly enacted by women over time, have led to the construction of a gendered division of labour where femininity and womanhood are defined through women’s participation in domestic labour. Drawing from the above theoretical analysis, the concept of “Pativrata” and its legitimacy in our society could similarly be understood through the gendered construction of femininity and womanhood. Historically, numerous female figures, be it Sita, Padmini, Gandhari or Draupadi, have enacted certain practices glorifying sacrifices, compromises and servitude in the interest of their husband’s and his family’s contentment. Such practice, when repeatedly enacted by influential historical female figures, not only constructs gendered norms but also legitimises the gendered norms centred around self-sacrifice, compromises and relinquishment of women’s agency and bodily autonomy. Therefore, questioning “Pativrata” is equivalent to an offence for most people because it does not just challenge the centuries-old tradition and belief of the society but also threatens to dismantle and exterminate a long-established practice of the society, which is perceived as a foundation upon which the entire social order is constructed.

References:

Bharadwaj, R. M. (1999). The Brahminical Patriarchy and the Religious Vratas (Vows) during the Early Medieval India. Indian History Congress, 60, 137-142.

Bhattacharya, S., & Roy, A. (2018). A Sociological Study of Women’s ‘expected Virtues’ and sufferings with reference to Mahabharata. Colloquium: A Journal of the Arts Department, 5, 1-5.

Manupriya. (2014). An Insight into the Concept of Pativrata in Hindu Dharma. Hubpages. Retrieved on 22.08.2026 https://discover.hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Pativrata

Milkie, M. A., Raley, S. B., & Bianchi, S. M. (2009). Taking on the Second Shift: Time Allocations and Time Pressures of U.S. Parents with Preschoolers. Social Forces, 88(2), 487–517.

Mukundcharandas, S. (2006). The Pativrata. BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha. Retrieved on 22.08.2026  https://www.baps.org/Article/2011/The-Pativrata-2153.aspx

Kasad, A. (2026). Breaking the code: The rise of women in India’s STEM landscape. Retrieved on 22.08.2026 https://www.ey.com/en_in/insights/diversity-equity-inclusiveness/breaking-the-code-the-rise-of-women-in-india-s-stem-landscape

Salih, Sara. (2007). On Judith Butler and performativity. Sexualities and communication in everyday life: A Reader, 55-68.

***

Udeepta Borah is a Research Scholar at the Department of Sociology, North Eastern Hill University (NEHU), Shillong.