Stree 〈CONFIRMED〉

The concept of Stree (woman) in the Indian cultural imagination occupies a unique, paradoxical space. She is venerated as Devi (goddess) yet subjugated as a subordinate in the domestic sphere. This paper examines the construction of Stree through ancient texts, colonial legal reforms, and contemporary popular culture. It argues that the idealization of the “good woman” (Savitri, Sita) functions as a mechanism of patriarchal control, while the lived reality of Stree is a continuous negotiation between traditional dharma and modern agency. The paper concludes by analyzing how contemporary feminist movements in India are dismantling the monolithic definition of Stree to embrace plurality, autonomy, and resistance. 1. Introduction The term Stree in Sanskrit derives from the root √stu (to praise) or is alternatively linked to √stri (to spread or extend). Etymologically, it suggests a being of expansion and nurture. However, the socio-legal and religious history of India reveals a stark contrast: the Stree is simultaneously the source of life ( Prakriti ) and the subject of life-long discipline. This paper explores two central questions: (1) How did ancient and medieval discourses construct the ideal Stree ? (2) How is the contemporary Stree challenging and redefining these constructs? 2. The Classical Construction: Dharma, Pativrata, and the Double Bind The foundational texts—the Manusmriti (c. 200 BCE–200 CE), the Dharma-shastras , and later the Niti-shastras —provide the blueprint for the ideal Stree .

Manu’s infamous decree, “pitā rakshati kaumāre, bhartā rakshati yauvane, putrah rakshati vārdhakye” (In childhood, the father protects; in youth, the husband; in old age, the sons—a woman is never fit for independence), codified perpetual guardianship. This rakshana (protection) is ideologically framed as care but functionally operates as control over mobility, sexuality, and property. The concept of Stree (woman) in the Indian

Stree: The Dialectic of Veneration and Subjugation in Indian Society It argues that the idealization of the “good