Abhanga 2966
Bāila tarī aiśī hvāvī — a bāila (wife) (some say) should be such; narakī gōvī anivāra — (that she) anivāra (unstoppably) gōvī (binds, entangles) in naraka.
The verse
बाइल तरी ऐसी व्हावी । नरकीं गोवी अनिवार ॥१॥
घडों नेदी तीर्थयात्रा । केला कुतरा हातसोंका ॥ध्रु.॥
आपुली च करवी सेवा । पुजवी देवासारिखें ॥२॥
तुका म्हणे गाढव पशु । केला नाशु आयुष्या ॥३॥
Literal translation
Bāila tarī aiśī hvāvī — a bāila (wife) (some say) should be such; narakī gōvī anivāra — (that she) anivāra (unstoppably) gōvī (binds, entangles) in naraka. Ghaḍō nedī tīrtha-yātrā — (she) does not let tīrtha-yātrā take place; kelā kutarā hāta-sōnkā — has made (him into) a hāta-sōnkā (hand-domesticated) kutarā (dog). Āpulī cha karavī sevā — (she) gets her own sevā done; pujavī Devā-sārikhe — pūjās (him) as (= treats him to be worshipped) like a Deva (= demands devotion). Tukā says: gāḍhava paśu — a donkey-beast; kelā nāśu āyuṣyā — has destroyed (his) āyuṣya**.
What it means
A striking 4-verse anti-bad-wife polemic — paired with 2967 as a 2-abhang cluster documenting Tukārām's-frustration with the bad-wife archetype of his time. The verse must-be-read-in-its-17th-c-context.
Bāila tarī aiśī hvāvī — narakī gōvī anivāra — a wife (some say) should be such — (that she) unstoppably binds (him) in naraka. The ironic-opening: the bad-wife is described-as-she-might-be-praised-by-those-who-don't-see-the-trap.
Ghaḍō nedī tīrtha-yātrā — kelā kutarā hāta-sōnkā — doesn't let tīrtha-yātrā happen — made (him into) a hand-domesticated dog. The diagnostic: she-prevents-his-bhakti-pilgrimage; she-tames-him like a dog.
Āpulī cha karavī sevā — pujavī Devā-sārikhe — gets her own sevā done — pūjās (him) as a Deva. The reversal: she-demands-sevā from-him as-if-she-were-the-Deva (inverting the order).
The close: Tukā mhaṇe gāḍhava paśu — kelā nāśu āyuṣyā — a donkey-beast — destroyed (his) āyuṣya. The conclusion: such-a-bāila is a donkey-beast (gāḍhava-paśu) who-has-destroyed-his-life.
Note on social-context: This text is bound-to-its-17th-c-patriarchal context. The criticism is specifically of the bad-wife-who-prevents-bhakti — not of women generally. Tukārām elsewhere honors-mother (2811, 2596, 2896 māyabāpe-Kāśī), praises-sant-women (2810 Sajana-Janī-Mīrā), and-respects-Rukhumāī. The diagnostic-element is the-wife-preventing-bhakti-practice. The text-must-be-read-historically-not-prescriptively.
For someone today
17th-c Tukārām anti-bad-wife polemic. A wife (some say) should be such — (that she) unstoppably binds in naraka. (She) doesn't let tīrtha-yātrā happen — has made (him) a hand-domesticated dog. (She) gets her own sevā done — pūjās (him) as a Deva. A donkey-beast — destroyed (his) āyuṣya. The text-warns against the bhakti-preventing household-relationship. The diagnostic — prevents-tīrtha-yātrā; demands-sevā instead — is read-historically as a household-tension-that-Tukārām-saw. Modern readers should-contextualize within-17th-c-patriarchal-norms and note Tukārām's-respect-for-mother-and-sant-women elsewhere.
Where this applies
- 17th-c anti-bad-wife polemic — bound to time-and-context
- Pairs with 2967 as 2-abhang anti-bad-wife cluster
- Documentary-evidence of 17th-c household-disputes-and-tensions
- Note: must be contextualized historically; not prescriptive