Abstract
W
The Indian edition of the book under review is titled Beyond Dharma: Dissent in the Ancient Indian Sciences of Sex and Politics, which is different from the title of the Yale University Press’s edition, Against Dharma: Dissent in the Ancient Indian Sciences of Sex and Politics. The title is changed for the Indian edition possibly to avoid right-wing backlash, which had earlier succeeded in forcing Penguin India to withdraw another book of Wendy Doniger (The Hindu: An Alternative History) from Indian markets in 2014.
The book comprises seven chapters, which are based on lectures delivered by the author on different occasions. However, they display an underlying unity of approach. The chapters revolve around three human aims (purusharthas or the Triad/Trio or tri-varga), namely dharma, artha and kāma, which have been elaborately defined in the Dharmashastras (this book mainly focuses on Manu), the Arthashastra of Kautilya and the Kāmasøtra of Vatsyāyana, all achieving their final forms in early centuries
The author studies the textual traditions on these three given categories by keeping the elements of intertextuality in the foreground to highlight the different ways, in which ‘the same cultural conventions were manipulated in the shāstras’ (pp. 19–20). Different shāstras that had been confined to a limited circle of Brahmins and some people from royalty as well as mercantile classes, construct the message of dharma (or ‘public transcript’), which on the surface appears to be common or homogenised in nature. But, underneath the ‘surface text’ lies a ‘hidden transcript’. This ‘hidden transcript’, in the author’s view, not only subverts the dharma but also shatters the myth of a ‘monolithic’ Brahmin tradition. The dharma tradition is associated with a dominant branch of Brahmins. On the other hand, Kauṭilya and Vatsyāyana are projected as the spokespersons of another branch of Brahmins that devised a purva-paksha (opponent’s view) literary technique. The purva-paksha was employed in such a way that the dominating ‘message of dharma’ put forth by Manu and others like him, was discussed by citing frequently these same dominating Brahmin scholars in texts like the Arthashāstra and the Kāmasøtra ‘only in order to disagree with them’, and ‘often to mock them’ (p. 22). The author argues that often in the Kāmasutra and the Arthashāstra earlier scholars or ideologues (real or imaginary, for instance, Charvakas or Lokayatikas) are quoted ‘to state rather extreme ideas that they may really believe themselves but do not want [themselves] to challenge ideas (of dharma) with which they do not agree’ (p. 119). The purva-paksha thus was a convenient literary technique, which was employed to put forth statements against dharma by authors outside the Manu tradition. By employing purva-paksha technique in their texts, ‘Indian philosophers kept the Charvakas alive because the viewpoints attributed to them, satirically or not, disclosed hidden questions upon which much of the Indian philosophical edifice reposed’ (p. 154).
The book, by taking into account the divergent views on adultery and homosexuality in Brahmin traditions, further shows the way Vatsyāyana particularly transgressed the dharma of Manu. Manu strongly objects a man’s association with women other than his wife and recommends sex only for procreation. On the other hand, the Kāmasøtra associates sex with pleasure, and it does not pay much attention to the aspect of procreation (p. 90). Adultery, in the Dharmashāstra and the Arthashāstra appears to be a crime; but in the Kāmasøtra it is considered as an act of expertise on the part of a nagaraka (townsman). The Kāmasøtra thus ‘boldly undermined the very foundation of the social system’ (p. 93). So is the case with homosexuality, which in the Dharmashāstra and the Arthashāstra is considered a crime (subjected to mild punishment or fine). Contrarily, in the Kāmasøtra it is conceptualised as trittiya-prakriti or third gender or sexuality ‘in the sense of behaviour rather than anatomy’. In fact, as the book rightly points out, the Kāmasøtra endorses it by laying down norms for the sexual enjoyment with a male of trittiya-prakriti (pp. 100–01).
The author in ‘Epilogue’ underlines the continuity found in Shāstric traditions. While the Nitisara follows the Arthashāstric view, texts such as the Nagara-sarvasva and the Rati-rahasya kept the Kāmasøtra tradition alive in early medieval and medieval times. But in colonial India, the book argues, a catharsis happened and the Shastric tradition was sanitised by giving primacy to dharma over kāma and artha. Subsequently, a sanitised version of Hinduism (sanātana-dharma) developed, in which the Kāmasøtra was seen as an aberration or deviation. The Indian middle class not only accepted this sanitised (as well as homogenised) version of dharma, but also became its main promoter and follower. However, the Kāmasøtra tradition did not die out. Rather, as the author argues, it was reformulated and even appropriated to fulfil market demands (e.g., Kāmasøtra brand of condoms; pp. 167–68). The Arthashastra, on the other hand, after its discovery in 1905 and subsequent translation into Hindi (1909) and English (1915), found a large fan following, and in the writings of Jawaharlal Nehru, Henry Kissinger, Sunil Khilnani and Arvind Gupta among others, it is cherished as a commendable text on realpolitik.
A critical overview of mytho-science by the author in ‘Epilogue’ highlights the ways modern Hindutva leaders including Prime Minister Narendra Modi are ‘seeking scientific authenticity in [Hindu] religious rather than scientific texts from the past’ (p. 174). In the author’s view, reliance on religious texts to justify the mytho-scientific claims (e.g., presence of the knowledge of nuclear bomb, aeroplanes, plastic surgery and genetic science in ancient India) means a shift from an age-old scientific tradition, which ‘managed to keep alive a subversive attack on religion’, to religion that is now being ‘invoked in the subversion of science’ (p. 183). The author argues a case that needed to be made, though one may not necessarily agree with every point that she makes. For example, the use of the word ‘class’ for varna (pp. 8, 81, 82, 91) surely overlooks the complexity of varna-jati social framework.