SOCIAL SCIENTIST face of such a woman was a punishable offence. These were the women who had been marginalized due to circumstances, widows (vidhava), maidens or unmarried spinsters (kanyaka), women with some physical defect (or disgraced, nyangah) and prositas, that is, women who had left home and were living separately (II.23.11-14). It is noteworthy that Kautilya allowed divorce by mutual consent, if both husband and wife were disaffected with each other (III.3.16). However, a little later he asserted by way of explanation that there was no divorce in pious marriages, that is, in the approved forms of marriage. Hence, prositas were apparently not divorced but deserted or disaffected wives of upper caste men living on their own. The spinning of yarn could provide livelihood even to such helpless women as old female slaves of the royalty (vrddha-rajadasibhi), devadasis (female slaves of the temple), whose services to gods were no longer required, and the mothers or matrons (matrka) of prostitutes (rupajiva). Women who had committed some offence and were fined could pay it off in the form of personal labour by spinning yarn (II.23.2). Thus spinning was a major industry providing livelihood to needy women. References to women of lower orders are more frequent in the Arthasastra of Kautilya as they could be easily pressed into the service of the state for spying and doing menial jobs. Moreover, as they constituted a significant labour force, Kautilya had to provide rules concerning them. Perhaps, Kautilya is the only author who speaks of the ardhasitikas, women tenants tilling for half the produce (III.13.9). It is well known that even today the largest section of rural women are directly involved in field agriculture, animal husbandry, forestry, etc. As they belong to landless rural households, they are hardly visible not only in ancient sources but even in present day census reports and are seldom taken into consideration by our social and economic historians. However, field studies have shown that these women are primarily responsible for their families' subsistence and survival, and it is for this reason that Kautilya lays down (III. 11.23-24) that normally a wife shall not be liable for the debt incurred by her husband, unless she had assented to it, but in the case of cowherds (gopala) and cultivators tilling for half the produce (ardhasitakas), this rule does not apply; their wives will be held responsible for the debt incurred by their husbands whether it was taken with their assent or not. In our opinion this evidence should be interpreted not in terms of greater subordination of these women but with reference to their economic role.