Canto 1 - Boyhood
Bāla-kāṇḍa
Chapter 1: Contents of the Rāmāyaṇa Summarized
Text 1.1.21

तस्याभिषेकसम्भारान्दृष्त्वा भार्याथ कैकयी।
पूर्वं दत्तवरा देवी वरमेनमयाचत।
विवासनं च रामस्य भरतस्याभिषेचनम्॥

tasyābhiṣeka-sambhārān dṛṣtvā bhāryātha kaikayī
pūrvaṁ datta-varā devī varam enam ayācata
vivāsanaṁ ca rāmasya bharatasyābhiṣecanam

tasya = His; abhiṣeka-sambhārān = the ingredients for the coronation; dṛṣtvā = noticing; bhāryā = his wife; atha kaikayī = Kaikeyī; pūrvam = in the past; datta-varā = who had been granted a boon [by King Daśaratha]; devī = devi; varam enam = that boon; ayācata = requested him to grant it now; vivāsanam = [the boon was] to exile; ca = and; rāmasya = Rāma; bharatasya = Bharata; abhiṣecanam = to coronate.

Noticing the ingredients for His coronation, his wife Kaikeyī Devī, who had been granted a boon [by King Daśaratha], requested him to grant that boon now. [The boon was] to exile Rāma and to coronate Bharata.

The king was about to give the kingdom to Śrī Rāmacandra with no desire to take it back from Him. Yet, the kingdom was taken away by Kaikeyī’s pleas. This is stated in this verse.

After Daśaratha became desirous of giving his kingdom to Rāma, he began to prepare for appointing Rāma as the heir apparent. Kaikeyī learnt of the preparation from Mantharā, her nurse, who had noticed the ingredients gathered for the ceremony. These ingredients are noted in the Aitareya-brāhmaṇa 8.5 of the Ṛg Veda.

Kaikeyī was Daśaratha’s bhāryā, wife fit to be maintained, that is, not deserving of independence. Previously, at the time of Daśaratha’s conquest of Śambarāsura, she had been his charioteer and [pleased with her,] he had gifted her a boon [which she had chosen to take advantage of at a later point in time]. This was the reason for Kaikeyī’s seeking a boon from Daśaratha, requesting him to fulfil his former promise. The boon was to exile Śrī Rāma to the forest and to coronate her son Bharata as the heir apparent.

Kaikeyī is also sometimes referred to as Kaikayī, as in this verse.

NOTE. Regarding a woman’s lack of independence, Manu-smṛti 5.147-149 states as follows:

bālayā yuvatyā vṛddhayā vāpi yoṣitā
na svātantryeṇa kartavyaṁ kiñcit kāryaṁ gṛheṣv api

bālye pitur vaśe tiṣṭhet pāṇigrāhasya yauvane
putrāṇāṁ bhartari prete na bhajeta svatantratām

pitrā bhartrā sutair vāpi necched viraham ātmanaḥ
eṣāṁ hi viraheṇa strī garhye kuryād ubhe kule

“Whether as a child, a young woman or an old lady, a female should never carry out any task independently, even in their own homes. In childhood, she must remain under her father’s control. As a young woman, she should remain under her husband’s [control]. After the death of her husband, she should remain under her sons’ [control]. She must never seek to live independently. She should not desire separation from her father, husband or sons, for by separating herself [from them], a woman brings disgrace on both families.”

These injunctions should not be divorced from the social context within which they are meant to be applied. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (7.11.8-12) clarifies that in the system of varṇāśrama, every man and woman [irrespective of varṇa or āśrama] is expected to carry out the following thirty common duties:

satyaṁ dayā tapaḥ śaucaṁ titikṣekṣā śamo damaḥ
ahiṁsā brahmacaryaṁ ca tyāgaḥ svādhyāya ārjavam

santoṣaḥ samadṛk-sevā grāmyehoparamaḥ śanaiḥ
nṛṇāṁ viparyayehekṣā maunam ātma-vimarśanam

annādyādeḥ saṁvibhāgo bhūtebhyaś ca yathārhataḥ
teṣv ātma-devatā-buddhiḥ sutarāṁ nṛṣu pāṇḍava

śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ cāsya smaraṇaṁ mahatāṁ gateḥ
sevejyāvanatir dāsyaṁ sakhyam ātma-samarpaṇam

nṛṇām ayaṁ paro dharmaḥ sarveṣāṁ samudāhṛtaḥ
triṁśal-lakṣaṇavān rājan sarvātmā yena tuṣyati

“These are the general principles to be followed by all human beings: truthfulness, mercy, austerity (observing fasts on certain days of the month), bathing twice a day, tolerance, discrimination between right and wrong, control of the mind, control of the senses, nonviolence, celibacy, charity, reading of scripture, simplicity, satisfaction, rendering service to saintly persons, gradually taking leave of unnecessary engagements, observing the futility of the unnecessary activities of human society, remaining silent and grave and avoiding unnecessary talk, considering whether one is the body or the soul, distributing food equally to all living entities (both men and animals), seeing every soul (especially in the human form) as a part of the Supreme Lord, hearing about the activities and instructions given by the Supreme Personality of Godhead (who is the shelter of the saintly persons), chanting about these activities and instructions, always remembering these activities and instructions, trying to render service, performing worship, offering obeisances, becoming a servant, becoming a friend, and surrendering one’s whole self. O King Yudhiṣṭhira, these thirty qualifications must be acquired in the human form of life. Simply by acquiring these qualifications, one can satisfy the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”

So, the rules and restrictions for women as presented in the Manu-smṛti and other Dharma-śāstras are meant to be applied within a community that adheres to the above mentioned thirty principles.

And it is in this context that Śrīla Prabhupāda writes: “In the Manu-saṁhitā it is clearly stated that a woman should not be given freedom. That does not mean that women are to be kept as slaves, but they are like children. Children are not given freedom, but that does not mean that they are kept as slaves.” (Bhagavad-gītā 16.7 purport)1

1 Interestingly, regarding Manu-smṛti 5.147-148 quoted above, Patrick Olivelle, an academic scholar on the Dharma-śāstras from the University of Texas, has commented in his annotated translation of the Manu-smṛti that these verses “have become cause celebre in anti-Manu rhetoric,” even though these or similar provisions appear in numerous other Dharma-śāstras. He also notes that positive depictions of the role of women and their relationship to men are found in Manu-smṛti, “but are mostly ignored by modern critics... The term svatantra (“independent”) has specifically legal connotations. In [Nārada-smṛti 1.29-30], for example, the term is taken to indicate a person who can undertake actions that are legally binding, such as sales and contracts. He says specifically that a king is independent (svatantra) and his subjects non-independent (asvatantra); a teacher is independent, and his pupil is not; a head of a household is independent, and the women, children, and servants are not.”