Niyoga in the Manusmṛti

 Arguments Justifying Niyoga (Permission and Rules)

Certain sections of the Manusmriti accept Niyoga as a legitimate 'Aapaddharma' (emergency option) for the preservation of the lineage in the absence of offspring:

Permission: If the husband is unable to produce offspring or has died, the wife can conceive a child with her devar (husband's younger brother) or a sapinda (a close relative of the husband). (ms 9.59)

The specific conditions in which Niyoga is permissible include:

• Absence of Offspring: The primary requirement is the "failure of issue" or lack of a son to carry on the family name and perform funeral rites.
• Death of the Husband: If a husband dies without leaving a son, his widow may be authorized to obtain offspring through this practice.
• Physical Incapacity of the Husband: Procreation through Niyoga is allowed if the husband is still alive but is impotent (klib) or suffering from a disease (vyadhita) that makes him incapable of begetting children.
• Death of a Betrothed Husband: If a maiden’s intended husband dies after the verbal agreement (vagdana) has been made but before the marriage is finalized, her brother-in-law may wed her through a regulated form of Niyoga to procreate on behalf of the deceased
• Prolonged Absence of the Husband: If a woman’s husband has gone abroad and does not return within the prescribed period, she is permitted to have a child through Niyoga. If he went abroad for the purpose of performing religious duties and does not return within eight years, if he went abroad seeking fame or recognition and does not return within six years, or if he went abroad to earn wealth and does not return within three years, the woman has the permission to conceive a child through Niyoga. (ms 9.73)
• Proper Authorization: A woman cannot act on her own; she must be "duly authorized" (samyan-niyukta) by her gurus, elders, or relatives to approach another man for this purpose.

Strict Rules: Extremely strict rules are given for Niyoga, such as the man being allowed to produce only one (or in special circumstances, two) sons, anointing his body with ghee and remaining silent. (ms 9.60/9.61)

Purity: After conception, the man and woman are instructed to behave with each other with the same purity as 'guru and daughter-in-law'.

Arguments Denouncing Niyoga (Censure and Prohibition)

Immediately after stating the rules, the Manusmriti also severely condemns it:

• Animalistic Behavior: Niyoga is criticized as "Pashudharma" (animalistic behavior) and it is stated that learned Brahmins should not do it. (ms 9.66)
• Reference to King Vena: This practice is linked to the reign of King Vena, who, due to corrupted intellect, promoted it to produce 'Varna-sankar' (mixture of castes) offspring.
• Scriptural Opposition: The Manusmriti then further demonstrates its opposition to the Vedas, stating that nowhere in the Vedas is widow remarriage supported, nor is there any mantra in the Vedas that supports Niyoga. According to the Dharma Shastras, the Vedas are the ultimate authority in injunctive legal statements. (ms 9.65)

Kullukabhatta viewpoint

Conclusion of Scholars and Commentators Commentators (like Kullukabhatta and Brihaspati) have resolved this contradiction through 'Yuga-dharma': System according to the Yuga: It is believed that Niyoga might have been acceptable in previous eras (like Treta or Dvapara) due to religious compulsion. Prohibition in Kaliyuga: Scholars believe that in the modern era (Kaliyuga), due to the decline in human strength and morality, it has been completely prohibited as being against propriety.

He said –‘The practice that had been followed since the time of Vena (or ancient times), in which learned men prescribed the practice of Niyoga through a devara (brother-in-law) and others for the purpose of obtaining a son, was always regarded as reprehensible by righteous people. In the Kali Yuga, such Niyoga is specifically prohibited.

In this regard, Brihaspati says: “The eminent and righteous sages themselves have prohibited Niyoga in the Kali Yuga. People lacking austerity and knowledge may misuse this practice. This would give rise to numerous faults and lead to the destruction of the ancient religious order. Therefore, Niyoga should not be practiced in the Kali Yuga.”

Thus, keeping the rules applicable to different Yugas in mind, learned scholars have regarded the prohibition of Niyoga for the purpose of obtaining offspring in the Kali Yuga as the preferable course. This, they maintain, is the intention of the sages.’ (ms 9.68)

Medhatithi (vidhi vs anuvada)

In the Manusmriti, on the one hand, rules regarding Niyoga are laid down in 9.59–63, while on the other hand, the practice is condemned as “the law of animals” (paśudharma) in 9.64–68. The great commentator Medhatithi reconciles these two passages on the basis of the principles of Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā.

The details of Medhatithi’s reconciliation and arguments, based on the sources, are given below:

The Principle of ‘Vidhi’ versus ‘Anuvada’

Medhatithi is regarded as one of the earliest commentators on the Manusmriti, and his commentary is deeply influenced by Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā. He resolves this apparent contradiction by employing the concepts of Vidhi (injunction/prescriptive rule) and Anuvada (restatement or reference to an existing tradition).

• Anuvada: According to Medhatithi, the verses permitting Niyoga, particularly Manusmriti 9.59, merely restate an old tradition or the view found in other Smritis. Manu included these verses in order to clarify the limits of the practice, rather than to establish it as a mandatory rule.
• The Prohibition as Vidhi: Medhatithi argues that the later verses (9.64–68), which prohibit Niyoga, constitute Manu’s final decision or Vidhi. According to this interpretation, when two statements appear to conflict, the later statement—the prohibition—is given precedence.

The Argument of ‘Apaddharma’ and Restraint

In reconciling the passages, Medhatithi argues that Niyoga should be understood only as a form of Apaddharma—an exceptional practice permitted in a situation of distress or necessity.

• Strict Regulation: The rules governing Niyoga—such as applying ghee to the body, maintaining silence, and limiting the practice to the begetting of a single child—were intended to restrict and regulate the practice, so that it would not degenerate into an expression of sexual desire or lust.
• Purpose of Restraint: According to Medhatithi, Manu first lays down these regulations so that, if someone were to resort to this practice, it would remain within prescribed boundaries. Ultimately, however, Manu condemns it as “the law of animals” (paśudharma) and prohibits it for a morally superior or properly regulated society.

Conclusion

Āpaddharma or Institutional Constraint?

What needs to be understood here is that the Manusmriti appears to treat Niyoga as an emergency or exceptional arrangement (āpaddharma).

However, there is an important distinction between what the text prescribes and whether that prescription is ethically justified. If a woman’s husband has died, one could argue that she should simply have the freedom to remarry, rather than being restricted to Niyoga. In that sense, calling Niyoga an “emergency arrangement” does not necessarily make it an emergency arrangement in reality; it may instead be viewed as a system that places pressure on widows to enter Niyoga rather than giving them an unrestricted choice of remarriage.

So the argument can be framed as: the Manusmriti presents Niyoga as a restricted, exceptional institution, but that does not by itself establish that it was a genuine necessity; from a modern perspective, it can instead be criticized as limiting a widow’s autonomy and choice.

Taking Medhatithi as the basis, almost all scholars of Hinduism have condemned Niyoga. This is not necessarily because traditional scholars were influenced by the modern age or by modern moral values. Rather, traditional scholars have accepted several positions that are consistent with the traditional scriptures but conflict with modern values—for example, the caste system, animal sacrifice in Vedic rituals, and the denial of women and Shudras’ eligibility to study the Vedas.

Niyoga is initially presented as an option in Manusmriti, but ultimately, it is deemed morally corrupt and "Pashudharma," and thus denounced. In modern interpretations, it is seen only as a historical practice that is to be rejected for a superior society.

---