This article is written by a Muslim polemicist Sulaiman Razvi whose agenda is to denigrate Hinduism, so he does what’s called “atrocity archeology” - which is digging around in ancient and obscure texts to find negative verses to bring to light to deprecate Hinduism.
The word vidhavā occurs several times in the Rig Veda (e.g. IV.18.12, X.18.7, X.40.2 and 8); but these passages contain very little that is indicative of their condition in society except Rig. X.40.2 (vide under niyoga). Rig. I.87.3 says:—
‘in the rapid movements of the Maruts the earth trembles like a woman deprived of her husband’.
That shows that widows trembled either from sorrow or from fear of molestation and ill-treatment.
There were indeed very negative and regrettable developments in the Dharma Shastras regarding the position and treatment of widows.
The major point that he misses is the influence of the caste system. All the rules in the Dharma Shastras which he quotes apply primarily to the first three varnas they are not obligatory for Sudras who form the bulk of society. Sudras are governed by Custom and Tradition. There are many predominantly matriarchal castes who have always allowed widow remarriage.
IN general one may confess that widows have been mistreated in Hindu society and there are many texts which prescribe a life of austerity for widows, but there are also texts which prescribe remarriage, which the scholarly Sulaiman Razvi has neglected to mention while exhaustively giving the negative view.
yā pūrvam pati vittvāthānya vindate’param | Pañcaudanaṃ ca tāvajaṃ dadāto na vi yoṣataḥ || AtharvaVeda 9:5:27
A woman who having realised the Primordial Lord of the Universe takes another man as her husband, is never separated from the Divine, along with her [new] husband if they surrender to gods.
Samāna loko bhavati punarbhuvāparaḥ patiḥ | Yojaṃ pañaudanaṃ dakṣiṇājyotiṣaṃ dadāti || AtharvaVeda 9:5:28
He who surrenders to God, and is adorned with generosity to all, being the second husband of the re-married woman attains to the beautiful Lord as does his wife
And the most famous verse regarding remarriage is:–
naṣṭe mṛte pravrajite klībe ca patite patau | pañcasvāpatsu nārīṇāṃ patir-anyo vidhīyate ||
Having disappeared, Dead, having gone forth to a mendicant life, having become impotent, having fallen from social status, in all these five cases remarriage is ordained for women. (Paraśara Smṛti 4:30.)
The term PUNARBHU - or remarried woman is frequently mentioned in the texts which indicate that this was a common occurrence but not universally approved of.
There are also wedding ceremonies prescribed in the PRAYOGAS for the remarriage of widows.
And since these are all rulings of male legislators of 2500 years ago there is no need to even consider them and they can be rejected and widows should be treated with respect and honour like all other women and remarriage is now becoming a regular affair as is divorce - also not enthusiastically promoted by Shastra.
COMMON SENSE SHOULD OVERRIDE UNJUST AND DISCRIMINATORY CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS.
What the zealous Razvi should understand is that Hinduism is constantly undergoing transformation and reformation, improving and adapting to the progress of the modern world, while retaining the unshakeable philosophical core of VEDANTA.
All the Hindu priests I know perform remarriage of widows and divorcees and not a single priest refers to, or has any interest in the ancient texts that Razvi quotes in his atrocity archeology. They all belong to the 1st century and should be kept in the archives where they belong - we should all keep progressing in the 21st century.
When one trawls back through the laws of England 300 years ago it will make your blood freeze at the atrocities that were committed - you will not believe that civilised humans were capable of such legal cruelty but today the Laws are different the legal system has undergone and is continuing to undergo transformation and every moving towards of equitable justice for all. The British legal system is highly complimented today.
Why is this acknowledgement of progress credited to the European legal systems but denied to the Hindus? Just wondering.