Exploring Prostitution in Ancient India: A Subversion of Contraries

In an age when sex work and prostitution are still tarnished as one of indignity, servility, and obscenity, it is worth tracing their position in the ancient Indian period. While prostitutes in ancient India are often seen as threatening the patriarchal structure through their image as the patriarchal whore or as being victimized by patriarchal oppression, one can make newer inroads and observations into its portrayal. Such a reexamination will obliviate this conventional patriarchal disposition towards a more nuanced perception of the prostitute as a social agent with relative autonomy premised on their conscious commodification of kama to assert their control over both artha and dharma as well as explore the spaces for love and pleasure in their work. Further, it is astonishing to find the subversive realities within the vesya household where existing norms of hierarchy are diluted in favour of a matrilocal and matrilineal setup where the wifely devotions of thrift and docility are rejected over the adoption of a more assertive role in the decision-making process. One can just marvel at the kaleidoscopic reversals in the gender ascriptions of the prostitute when newer perceptions of dominations are created while the dynamics of masculinity and femininity keep evolving.

         The earliest references to prostitution are found in Rigveda, the most ancient literary account of India where jara and jatini are depicted as male and female lovers of a married spouse. The regular payment of favours received either in cash or in gifts as in the barter system distinguished the profession of prostitution from other illegitimate relationships. These relationships are referred to in Books II-VII of the Rigveda and in the later texts of the eighth to fifth centuries BC too. The Pali term muhutta and its Sanskrit equivalent muhurtika symbolised purely temporary unions with no lasting relationship. With time, a section of women arose who were forced to take up prostitution as a profession because of circumstances like the unavailability of suitable husbands, early widowhood, unsatisfactory married life, or other social pressures like abduction, violation, or being given away gifts. These were women who took on the role of breadwinners and secured themselves an independent livelihood in an otherwise highly patriarchal society.

         Household is the arena where gender relations are structured and maintained. The vesavasa or the household of the prostitute shows stark subversions of the patriarchal households as strictly matrifocal institutions. Firstly, daughters were highly prized above sons as is reflected in the Kuttanimatam as well in the Mrchhakatika where the disregard for sons is reflected when Maitreya asks on his visit to a vesavasa who they were while the boys addressed themselves as bandhulas who enjoyed other’s riches. Moreover, children in the vesavasa belonged to their mother’s lineage vis-à-vis their father’s and were not claimed by the latter in the ritual of udakakriya, i.e. the ritual offering of water to dead persons. This was reflected in Medatithi’s commentary on the Manusmriti.

         Further, there was greater fluidity of domestic arrangements in such households. Within the vesavasa, there was no marginalisation of sex work within the category of housework and hence it was designated as ‘work.’ Here, Veena Oldenberg also holds that prostitutes are able to avoid the drudgery of housework which was designated as the unpaid work of the ‘respectable household women’. Besides ownership and recognition of her work, the vesyas could claim the space of the prostitute household as their own.  Shah describes the alienation of women in the private sphere of a patriarchal household as having “room for women at every level” though there was “no room of her own.” Contrarily, vesyas commanded her own space in the vesavasa while all relations were determined in relation to the mistress(arya) of the household as is the case for Vasantasena. This subversive nature of the vesavasa acted as a threat to the patriarchal household.

         As the vesavasa structure threatened the patriarchal domain, the transgression of boundaries between them was heavily condemned. Prostitutes were located in the realm of the erotic and were denied familial spaces which used the mechanism of purity and pollution. Obversely, prostitutes created their own counter-culture while being ostracised with their own value systems subverting patriarchal ethics.  They led independent lives(svadhina), overpowered men, and thus defied authority. This was manifested in the contrasting locations of the man’s wife in the inner apartment or antahpura vis-à-vis the vesya’s life outside. While the former was totally closed, where the wives complying with the pativrata ideology, owed complete fidelity to the husband, thereby being the asuryasprsya; the ganikas called the prakasanari were women par excellence of the public sphere. For instance, in Dasakumaracarita, vesya kamamanjari was described as an ornament of the city of Champa. They met their paramours in open spaces which indicated their freedom of choice. This is directly linked to their articulation of voice in public spaces.

         Within the vesavasa, the will of the mother was law. The old bawd or the mother, referred to as the kuttani, was the real authority and manager of the vesya household. It was her indispensable presence and role that the prostitutes were prevented from exploitation, being ensured of their wealth. For instance, in the Samayamatrka, the bawd Kankali was adopted as mother by vesya Kalavati while in the Dhurt-vita-samhita,  a  vesya protected by mother is equated as a river filled with crocodiles. The taikkizhavi(old mother) was the senior most female member in charge of the dasi establishment who exercised extensive control over the private and professional lives of her relatives, her control over income, pooling, and expenditure, thereby unifying the dasi household. She was the symbol of the prestige and status of the establishment.

         Thus we see that prostitutes in ancient India were not just subjects of a patriarchal society but were entities who could exercise agency and autonomy within their households. This matrifocality, agency, and breadwinning role not only elevated their social position but also enabled them to assert themselves in a masculine space where they could have freedom in financial affairs and voice articulation. Far from the bounds of a constraining pativrata ideology, they could thus create a safe recluse where extant orders got subverted and female voices were reversed. This thus renders the current rhetoric of equal dignity for the prostitutes and the contestation over recognising their sex work as work in a regressive light! It’s time to unveil the voices muted over centuries and use them to reverberate and empower them even today, here and now.

References:-

• Bhattacharji, Sukumari. “Prostitution in Ancient India.” Roy, Kumkum. Readings in Early Indian History. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers and Distributors, 1999. 196-228.
• Shah, Shalini. “In the Business of Kama: Prostitution in Classical Sanskrit Literature from the Seventh to the Thirteenth Centuries.” The Medieval History Journal 5.1 (2002): 121-156.

Shreya Ghosh

+ posts

This author does not have any more posts.