Mirabai’s life as a Krishna devotee unfolded in sharp tension with the expectations placed upon a royal woman. As a Rajput princess and later a widow in a powerful household, she was expected to embody seclusion, modesty, and strict adherence to domestic and dynastic duties. Her public singing and dancing in praise of Krishna, her visits to temples, and her mingling with sadhus and common devotees were all seen as grave breaches of aristocratic decorum. In a milieu where upper-caste women were to remain veiled and largely confined to the inner quarters, her open, ecstatic devotion appeared scandalous and invited censure and stigma.

Family opposition formed a central axis of her struggle. Her in‑laws, particularly the ruling members of the Mewar household, regarded her devotional practices as a threat to family honor and political reputation. They tried to restrict her movements, forbid her from visiting temples, and press her into the conventional roles of wife and daughter‑in‑law. After her husband’s death, the pressure intensified, as she was expected to conform to ideals of widowhood and live in seclusion, whereas she instead deepened her self-understanding as “Krishna’s bride,” implicitly refusing to let her identity be defined solely by marital ties.

Mirabai’s devotion also confronted the broader patriarchal and religious order of her time. Women’s religious expression was generally expected to be private, mediated by male priests and family heads, and subordinate to household obligations. By composing her own songs, choosing her own spiritual company, and claiming a direct, unmediated relationship with Krishna, she quietly undermined these hierarchies. Her association with devotees from varied social backgrounds and her willingness to cross caste and class boundaries further unsettled those invested in preserving rigid social stratification, contributing to her social isolation within her own elite circle.

Traditional accounts of her life speak of more severe forms of persecution, including attempts to poison or otherwise harm her, symbolizing how threatening her spiritual autonomy appeared to entrenched authority. Whether read literally or symbolically, such narratives point to the intensity of the efforts to silence or discipline a woman who placed divine love above family, caste, and royal duty. In this sense, the challenges she faced were not merely personal hardships but manifestations of a larger conflict between inward devotion and outward social control, between a woman’s inner call to God and the structures that sought to confine it.