Should a woman never be independent? How can we explain this point from Prabhupāda to modern audiences?

One aspect of the teachings of Śrīla Prabhupāda that often raises objections among modern audiences is the idea that women should not have independence at any stage. How to explain that?

You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.

One aspect of the teachings of Śrīla Prabhupāda that often raises objections among modern audiences is the idea that women should not have independence at any stage of their lives, remaining under the protection of their fathers when young, under their husbands in adulthood, and under the protection of their grown-up sons in old age. This is at odds with what many believe nowadays, to put it mildly.

Imagine, for example, that you are speaking in a room full of university students, scholars, feminists, etc., speaking about the practical application of Vaiṣṇavism in modern times, and this passage comes up in the discussion. Let’s put it on a slide on the screen:

“According to Vedic civilization, a woman is never independent. She has three stages of life: in childhood a woman should live under the protection of her father, a youthful woman should live under the protection of her young husband, and in the event of the death of her husband she should live under the protection of her grown-up sons, or if she has no grown-up sons she must go back to her father and live as a widow under his protection.” (Kṛṣṇa Book, Chapter 50)

How to explain it without being apologetic?

Of course, there are many ways to do that, and different devotees could take different approaches. Here is one:

The first point is the idea of protection. At first, this passage may suggest forced submission, but this is an incorrect reading.

The central point here is care. No one will protest the idea that a woman should be cared for. No one will argue that a young girl should grow up without a father. No adult woman will choose to be alone if she has the opportunity of living with an affectionate husband. No old lady should be abandoned by her children. The passage put these three together.

When we say “protection,” we don’t mean infantilizing women or denying their intelligence or spiritual agency. Some may go in this direction, but that’s their interpretation, not what Prabhupada was teaching.

Protection means safety, emotional care, and material stability, not a cover for exploitation. Often, neglect and abuse come precisely from men who call themselves protectors. That’s not what we are speaking about here.

We then have the concept of rights. A young girl should have the care of an affectionate father, an adult woman should be cared for by a husband, and an old woman should be able to count on the care and support of her adult children. Care is not a forced imposition; it is a privilege, or a right. Not many ladies have this nowadays. Prabhupāda argues that every woman should have this right. Even critics would agree with the ideal of reliable care and responsibility.

A second point is independence. Independence conflicts with the idea of care. To be cared for by a wife, a husband has to renounce part of his independence. Now he has to stay at home with her, eat what she cooks, put things in the right places, etc. The same applies to a wife. If we want to be completely free, then we need to be on our own. Practically speaking, no one can be independent in any organized society. We always need to live under rules and restrictions. Complete freedom is possible only in the jungle. Vedic societies understood this point and offered different role models based on duties and rights. To have our rights, we always depend on others performing their duties, and vice versa.

There is also another point, which is the concept of Vedic civilization. Different cultures should be respected. The idea of a civilization that flourished for thousands of years should, by itself, inspire respect, different as its social and moral aspects may be. Nowadays, we speak about sustainability and fear that pollution, social tensions, and other problems may undermine our civilization. Here we hear about a civilization that existed for thousands of years; this shows they were doing some things right. Certainly, we can learn something from them.

We then have the question of families. Nowadays, we are seeing the social and economic implications of weakening families by a combination of economic pressures, delayed marriage, and weakening family structures arising from the expectations that both parents must work full-time.

Countries like South Korea and China have now birth rates of less than one child per woman, and most developed countries are not much better. Such birth rates mean that, if nothing is done to counterbalance them, the population would halve with each generation. This is certainly not a sustainable path. Many countries try to offset this with immigration, but this works only because they can attract population from poorer countries where the birth rates are still higher. Mass immigration, however, causes other problems and is also not a sustainable option long-term. No country can absorb so many migrants without causing massive social issues in the process.

How to bring back the birth rate to replacement levels? How to educate all these children? The answer is as old as humanity itself: families. This is something that is very much part of Vedic culture. That’s something people knew how to do in a sustainable way in such ancient societies, and that’s a technology we desperately need, especially in developed countries. Framed in this way, we can see that the points made by Prabhupāda are not only coherent but also relevant, necessary, and even urgent.

When we speak about families, however, we come to a problem: when it comes to growing children, women are the weak side, because a man can walk away and leave the woman alone caring for the children. There must be some social system that force men to not only stay in the family but also properly perform their duties of protecting and maintaining.

One can try to do that by passing laws, but they will be only partially effective. A law may force a man to give money monthly, but it will never be able to force him to be affectionate. It will solve only part of the problem.

Vedic societies found another solution: create a system where men are happy performing their duties, even without police supervision. What kind of advanced technology is that? It is called love. See it described on ŚB 6.18.27-28, for example:

“Thinking in this way [with a desire for a son to kill Indra], Diti began constantly acting to satisfy Kaśyapa by her pleasing behavior. O King, Diti always carried out Kaśyapa’s orders very faithfully, as he desired. With service, love, humility, and control, with words spoken very sweetly to satisfy her husband, and with smiles and glances at him, Diti attracted his mind and brought it under her control.

Purport: When a woman wants to endear herself to her husband and make him very faithful, she must try to please him in all respects. When the husband is pleased with his wife, the wife can receive all necessities, ornaments and full satisfaction for her senses. Herein, this is indicated by the behavior of Diti.”

Women from these societies would know how to keep their husbands under control, not through threats and legal battles, but by their love and intentional submission. When we are attentive to the desires of the partner, and we agree to submit ourselves to them, this makes the relationship deeper. We may choose to ignore it and just do what we want, but this will create tension in other areas. This shows how these women had something we often lack today: emotional control. They knew how to control themselves and do what would bring them long-term success instead of just shouting and demanding. By acting in such ways, with a combination of affection, humility, and service, they would keep their husbands devoted to them and obtain everything they needed.

The most interesting part is that it would not come from cold, calculated strategic thinking, but from the culture itself. Love fosters love. A girl who grew up in a loving environment would also be prone to love her husband and children, passing the culture forward. Such a level of dedication may appear impossible nowadays, but in this environment, it would become natural, benefiting everyone. Again, that’s certainly something we can learn from.

Nowadays, we lack this restraint and emotional control. We want to receive everything without giving anything away, and as a result, we end up with nothing.

There is a point, however: women were not supposed to blindly follow the men. This balances the point of potential abuse. The men would have to deserve such devotion. They would need to show the proper qualifications.

The point is thus that men must be trained to be worthy protectors: self-controlled, faithful, stable, and spiritually responsible. Without that, the whole system becomes hypocritical. A woman is not supposed to follow an unqualified husband blindly. This is something Prabhupāda also emphasizes in his teachings:

“If a person is not in Kṛṣṇa consciousness and is bereft of spiritual power, he cannot protect his wife from the path of repeated birth and death. Consequently, such a person cannot be accepted as a husband. A wife should dedicate her life and everything to Kṛṣṇa for further advancement in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. If her husband abandons Kṛṣṇa consciousness and she gives up her connection with him, she follows in the footsteps of the dvija-patnīs, the wives of the brāhmaṇas who were engaged in performing sacrifices.” (Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā 15.264)

Qualified men are nowadays rare, and this is part of the problem. However, it becomes clear when we examine where qualified men come from. Professional skills can be taught at school, but the main qualifications of a man as husband and father are connected with something else, which can’t be learned in school: emotional stability, maturity, kindness, and balance. These are things learned at home, from properly grounded parents. A stable household produces stable children, who in turn become qualified men who, in combination with qualified women, will produce stable households, which will in turn produce more qualified children.

In other words, Vedic societies identified the necessity of stable families, identified the challenges of the problem, and came up with their solutions for a problem we now struggle with. We may disagree, but the fact is that these solutions have worked for thousands of years. Perhaps we could learn something.

---

This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can also choose a paid subscription to support this work.

You can also receive the updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.