‘NĪYOGA’, (LEVIRATE) AND SEXUAL POLITICS IN ANCIENT INDIA;
REFLECTION ON THE INDIAN EPIC MAHĀBHĀRATA
-Dr.
Ravi Khangai, Assistant Professor,
Department
of History,
Rashtrasant
Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University,
Amravati
Road, Nagpur, India- 440033.
E
mail- ravikhangai@gmail.com
Abstract-
Indian epic, the Mahābhārata
is like a reservoir of information about the Indian society. The epic have
acquired written form during the period 800B.C. to 200
A.D.1 However before acquiring written form, it was handed
down from generation to generation in oral form and had gone through log
process of interpolation and extrapolation. During this long process it had
acquired eternal relevance and more so for the Indian society, which is
considerably rooted in the past. The epic narrates number of episodes where a
male child is produced by a woman from a man other than her husband. Apart from
the Mahābhārata, Manu Smṛiti also
refers to this kind of practice, which was called ‘Nīyoga’.This paper will make analysis of some of the episodes of Nīyoga narrated in the Mahābhārata. The
‘Nīyoga’ episodes in the Mahābhārata
were not a simple union of a man and women for procreation (as it was supposed
to be), but involves emotions and politics. After all human life is too
complicated to be compartmentalized in water tight compartments.
Key
words- Widow, Offspring, Begotten, Lust, Premarital,
Heir, Attitude.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Introduction-
Though the social
customs goes on changing, the basic human emotions like love, hate and desires
remains the same. The Mahābhārata captures this interplay of human emotions
very effectively. There are many things in the Mahābhārata which are quite
explicit, but there are many things which can be deciphered by reading between
the lines. Iravati Karve writes,
“During
the Mahābhārata times, the ideal of women’s loyalty to her husband differed
slightly from that of later times. It was customary then to acquire a son
begotten by another man on one’s own wife, if one happened not to have an heir.
This was called Nīyoga…………In the Mahābhārata times a women was the ‘field’ and
she had to produce children from any man when her husband demanded.” (Karve,
2008, P.189)
The prevalence of ‘Nīyoga’ in Ancient India is also referred
by A.L. Basham,
“If
the husband was sterile or impotent he had to take further measures. In the
last resort he would appoint a close relative, usually a brother, to produce
offspring on his behalf. From several stories in the epics and elsewhere it
appears that a holy men of special sanctity were also in demand for this
purpose………..Similarly if the husband died without producing male issue his
brother might act on his behalf. This practice of levirate (Nīyoga) was well known in many ancient
societies, and references to it are common in early Indian legal literature.
Before the beginning of the Christian era, however, it began to be disapproved
of, and medieval writers include it among the forbidden Kalivarjya customs,
which were permitted in earlier ages.” (Basham, 2004, P. 176)
This type of practice
was also followed among the Jews and it was known as ‘levirate’. However, in case of
levirate, dead husband’s brother has to cohabit or marry the widow. In case of
‘Nīyoga’, the brother of the dead
husband is preferable but not necessary. Some learned Brahmin can also serve
the purpose. This paper examines the different issues involved in the episodes
of ‘Nīyoga’ narrated in the Mahābhārata.
Patriarchal Indian society
is obsessed with son. It is considered that parents will not be emancipated if
they do not have son. As a result the society tries to find different ways of
obtaining sons in case the natural way of union between husband and wife fails.
The Mahābhārata (Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008,
Section CXX) refers to the different kind of sons as;
·
The son begotten by one’s self upon his
wedded wife.
·
The son begotten upon one’s wife by an
accomplished person from motives of kindness
·
The son begotten upon one’s wife by a
person for pecuniary consideration.
·
The son begotten upon the wife after the
husband’s death
·
The maiden-born son
·
The son born of unchaste wife.
The Mahābhārata narrates
some episodes of children being produced by women from men other than their
husband. It does not give systematic information about the procedure of ‘Nīyoga’. The circumstances during which
‘Nīyoga’ can be carried out and the
procedure of ‘Nīyoga’ is given in the
Manu Smṛiti .
“If
the line is about to die out, a wife who is duly appointed may obtain the
desired progeny through a brother-in-law or a relative belonging to the same
ancestry. The appointed man should smear himself with ghee, approach the widow
at night in silence, and beget a single son, never a second………….When the
purpose of his appointment to the widow has been fulfilled according to rule,
however, they should behave towards each other as an elder and a
daughter-in-law. If, on the contrary, the appointed couple disregard the rules
and behave lustfully with one another, both become outcastes, he is a molester
of a daughter-in-law, and she as a violator of an elder’s bed.” (Olivelle, 2004,
p.159)
In the process of ‘Nīyoga’, a man has to smear himself with
ghee, so that he should not look attractive to the woman.
However, the practice
is condemned by Manu in the next paragraph itself who says that since the time
of Vena2 the practice of acquiring
son by widow is done away with,
“Since
that time, good people denounce anyone who is senseless enough to appoint a
woman to have children after her husband dies” (Olivelle, 2004, p.159)
The dictates of Manu
was known to the author/interpolators of the Mahābhārata is clear from the
episode in Adi Parva. Pāṇḍu tells his wife Kuntī,
“The
self-born Manu hath said that men failing to have legitimate offspring of their
own may have offspring begotten upon their wives by others” (Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008,Section CXX)
So the obvious purpose
of ‘Nīyoga’ was to have male
offspring and there should not be a lust in the relationship. Manu Smṛiti does not mention the
appointment of Brahmin as a seed giver during ‘Nīyoga’ but only a brother-in-law or a relative belonging to the
same ancestry.
However the practices of
‘Nīyoga’ that we come across in the Mahābhārata
do not subscribe to the theoretical description given by Manu. One of the most
well known episodes of ‘Nīyoga’ was
the union between sage Vyāsa and the widows of Vicitravīrya; Ambikā and Ambālikā.
Vyāsa’s
desire-
King Vicitravīrya of
Kuru dynasty ruling over Hāstinapur died without an issue and his two wives Ambikā
and Ambālikā became widows. Vicitravīrya’s mother, Satyavatī was desirous of
having a male offspring on the widows of the Vicitravīrya so as to continue the
linage of her son. First she approached Bhīṣhma, the elder half-brother of Vicitravīrya.
As Bhīṣhma was an elder brother of Vicitravīrya, he was suitable for having ‘Nīyoga’ with the widows of Vicitravīrya.
However, Bhīṣhma refused to compromise on his vow of celibacy. He suggested
that some Brahmin may be called for ‘Nīyoga’,
Satyavatī revealed that she had a son, who was born to her from sage Parāçara,
before her marriage to king Śaṃtanu and if he can be asked to produce an offspring
on the widows of Vicitravīrya? Bhīṣhma agreed to this and Vyāsa was called. Satyavatī asked Vyāsa to produce a son on Ambikā.
Vyāsa says that this practice i.e. producing children on the wives of the dead
husband is conformable to the true and eternal religion. He also says that the
ladies should observe the rigid vow for one year. What the vow is not described
by the Vyāsa. (Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008, Section CV)
But Satyavatī was in a
hurry. She was more worried about the anarchy that may arise in the kingdom in
the absence of king. She urges Vyāsa,
“Take
such steps that the ladies may conceive immediately. In a kingdom where there
is no king, the people perish from want of protection…….” (Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008, Section CV).
Vyāsa says that in case
the act of union is to be performed immediately, the ladies will have to bear
his ugliness. He says,
“If
I am to give to my brother children so unseasonably, then let the ladies bear
my ugliness. That in itself shall, in their case, be the austerest of penances”
(Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008, Section
CV)
So theoretically the
act of ‘Nīyoga’ was like a penance
for Ambikā. But the penance was also flexible. Vyāsa readily agreed to by pass
one year penance and got ready to have ‘Nīyoga’
immediately.
The main concern of Satyavatī
was to have male offspring on her daughter-in-law, so that the kingdom can be
saved. But she tells Vyāsa that the widows of Vicitravīrya have become desirous
of offspring,
“Thy
younger brother hath left two widows like unto the daughters of the celestials
themselves, endued with youth and great beauty. For the sake of virtue and
religion, they have become desirous of offspring” (Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008, Section CV)
If it was a union only
for producing an heir, why did Satyavatī described the youth and beauty of the
widows? Was it to entice Vyāsa? This goes against the process of Nīyoga! Secondly she says that ‘they’
have become desirous of offspring. If Nīyoga
was for saving the linage, then Nīyoga with
one widow would have been enough to begin with. In case it fails then one can
think about the second option. But Satyavatī seems to be planning for Nīyoga with two widows since beginning.
Neither Bhīṣhma nor Vyāsa raised any objection to it, indicating that this was
not considered objectionable.
Ambikā was convinced to
go for union. In fact she was deceived. She was not informed that the person
that she is going to have union is a unwashed, smelly sage. However the
description indicates that the ‘Nīyoga’
was celebrated like a ceremony,
“Satyavatī
having succeeded with great difficulty in procuring the assent of her virtuous
daughter-in-law to her proposal which was not inconsistent with virtue, then
fed Brahmanas and Rishis and numberless guests who arrived on the occasion” (Ganguli,
Adi Parva, 2008, Section CVI)
The description also
gives information that Satyavatī had great difficulty in persuading Ambikā to
agree for the union, which contradicts her earlier statement that the widows of
Vicitravīrya had become desirous of offspring. The episode gives a hint of the
cunning politics played by Satyavatī. On the one hand it is narrated in the Mahābhārata,
that Satyavatī had to procure the assent of her daughter-in-law with great
difficulty. On the other hand she tells Vyāsa that her daughter-in-laws had
became desirous of offspring.
Vyāsa enters the bed
chamber of Ambikā. Ambikā, who was waiting for some relative of the dead king,
suddenly encounters Vyāsa, who was dark-skinned as he is
often referred as Kṛṣṇa -Dvaipāyana. The Mahābhārata says,
“The
princess, seeing his dark visage, his matted locks of copper hue, blazing eyes,
his grim beard, closed her eye in fear” (Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008, Section CVI)
The Mahābhārata is
obviously silent about what happened in the bed-chamber of Ambikā. It only
says,
“….the
latter, struck with fear, opened not her eyes even once to look at him” (Ganguli,
Adi Parva, 2008, Section CVI)
As she did not receive Vyāsa
properly, Vyāsa cursed that a child born to her will be blind. There is one
more incident narrated in the Mahābhārata about punishing the innocent child in
the womb by dissatisfied man, the incident of Dīrghatamas, which will come subsequently.
If the purpose was procreation only, then why did Vyāsa curse her?
As a blind person
cannot become the king, after the birth of Dhṛtarāṣţra, Satyavatī asked Vyāsa
to go to Ambālikā, the other widowed queen of Vicitrvirya. She also did not felt
comfortable and became pale out of fear of Vyāsa, as a result she was also
cursed by Vyāsa that her son will be pale. (Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008,
Section
CVI)
Satyavatī was not
satisfied with the result and desired healthy boy to as a successor to the
throne of Hāstinapur. She asked Vyāsa once again to go to Ambikā. This time
however, Ambikā played a trick and she sent her maid instead of going herself.
The maid received Vyāsa happily and pleased, Vyāsa gave a boon to her that the
child born to her will be healthy and wise. (Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008,
Section
CVI)
The curses and boon
given by Vyāsa goes against the theory of ‘Nīyoga’.
As per theory the man and woman having ‘Nīyoga’
should have union only with the intention of producing an offspring. (Olivelle,
2004, p.159) There should not be any lust
involved. If the feelings are not involved then there is no question of anger
and pleasure. Why did Vyāsa became pleased with the maid and granted a boon to
her and cursed Ambikā and Ambālikā? Obviously the union with the maid had
satisfied Vyāsa and so he granted a boon to her. The union with Ambikā and Ambālikā
did not satisfy him and annoyed, he cursed them.
Vyāsa’s
love for the maid-
Vyāsa already had one
sexual union with Ambikā, obviously he knew her very well. However when he was
called third time and sent to Ambikā again. Ambikā sent her maid instead. As Vyāsa
already knew Ambikā, why did he choose to impregnate the maid? As maids were
considered as property, the maid of Vicitravīrya’s wife Ambikā also belonged to
Vicitravīrya. But the purpose of ‘Nīyoga’
here was to produce an heir to royal throne. The son of a maid could not become
the king as is proved later. It was unlikely that Vyāsa, the learned sage did
not know about this. Vidura who was born out of union of Vyāsa and the unknown
maid was very capable but he was never thought to be suitable to be king on
account of his birth. So the whole purpose of ‘Nīyoga’ is defeated in case of the union between Vyāsa and the
unknown maid. So the question remains unanswered ‘why did Vyāsa do it?’. Probably
Vyāsa lusted after her. The Mahābhārata
describe the beauty of the maid,
“….a
maid of hers, endued with the beauty of an Apsarā”
(Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008, Section
CVI).
The maid was not only
beautiful as Apsarā, but behaved very
well towards Vyāsa,
“When
the Vyāsa arrived, the maid rose up and saluted him. And she waited upon him
respectfully and took her seat near him when asked” (Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008, Section CVI).
No wonder that it was
difficult for Vyāsa to get away even if he wanted to!
Vyāsa was so pleased
with her that he freed her from slavery and also granted a boon that a child
will be born to her who will be fortunate, virtuous and intelligent.
Ambikā sending her maid
instead of herself is also rather intriguing. She already had one union with Vyāsa,
so obviously Vyāsa knew her very well. Sending a maid was risky. What if Vyāsa
finds out? But by her earlier experience, Ambikā seem to be sure that Vyāsa
will not let the chance of having a union with a beautiful maid go! Having
united with him once, she was aware of the lusty nature of Vyāsa! The maid also
seems to be well trained so as to entice the sage by her behavior.
The whole episode of
the ‘Nīyoga’of Vyāsa with Ambikā and Ambālikā
can be reconstructed. It is not necessary that one union between man and women
will result in conception. Manu Smṛiti recommend repeated union between a widow and
her brother in law.
“…..he
should have sex with her once every time she is in season until she bears a
child” (Olivelle, 2004, p.160)
It is likely that Vyāsa stayed in the royal
house and cohabited with Ambikā first and with Ambālikā later and during his
stay also had relation with the maid.
Nīyoga; without pleasure?
The Mahābhārata tries
to bring out the earthly nature of human being in a very subtle way. Sexual behavior
is a very complex. Is segregation of sex for procreation and sex for pleasure
possible? Vyāsa who had sexual union with Ambikā and Ambālikā and supposed to
be composer of the Mahābhārata writes,
“…..
both Ambikā and Ambālikā were of tall stature, and of complexion of molten
gold, and their heads were covered with black curly hair…..their hips were fat
and round, and their breast full and deep……..” ( Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008, Section CII)
Sexuality is a part of
all living being, but humans are rather hypocrite about it and try to hide it. The authors/interpolators of the Mahābhārata makes repeated references to the
beauty of Ambikā and Ambālikā. The references to the description of the body of
Ambikā and Ambālikā like ‘fat and round hips’ and ‘full and deep breast’ have
sexual connotations. Presuming Vyāsa is the author of that portion of the Mahābhārata,
it can be stated that he very closely observed these ladies. If he had narrated
the whole of Mahābhārata much later, still the memories of the body of the
women that he had physical relations with remained in his mind for long. This
goes contrary to the theory of the ‘Nīyoga’
which insist on the sex for procreation only, underlining that there should not
be pleasure involved in it. In fact, the
sexual union between a man and women is impossible unless at least the man is sexually
aroused. The fact is acknowledged by the Manu
Smṛiti itself,
“…..if
the husband is not aroused, there will be no offspring.” (Olivelle, 2004, p.48)
It is anticipation of
pleasure that led to arousal. Then how a Nīyoga
can be union without pleasure?
Vyāsa obviously got
carried away by anger arising out of denial of pleasure resulting into curse. The
Bhagavad Gitā which is part of the Mahābhārata says,
“When
a man dwells in his mind on the objects of sense, attachment to them is
produced. From attachment a spring desire and from desire comes anger.
From
anger arises bewilderment, from bewilderment loss of memory; from loss of
memory, the destruction of intelligence” (Radhakrishnan, 2004, p.126)
It is due to anger that
had arisen as a result of denial of pleasure that Vyāsa forgot that he came
here to produce an heir and not for pleasure.
Was
Vyāsa the most suitable person for Nīyoga?-
As per the ‘Nīyoga’ practice described in Manu Smṛiti, a relative of husband should
perform ‘Nīyoga’. Though Bhīṣhma was
not willing to compromise on his vow of celibacy, but was there nobody else
related to the family of Vicitravīrya?
The Mahābhārata gives
information that the King Śaṃtanu had an elder brother named Vāhlika. In fact, Śaṃtanu’s
father king Pratipa had three sons. Devāpi was the eldest, Vāhlika the next and
Śaṃtanu was the youngest. (Ganguli, Udyoga
Parva, 2008, Section
CXLIX). However Devāpi could not become the king as he was having skin disease.
Vāhalika obtained the wealthy kingdom of his maternal grandfather. The Mahābhārata
states that it was with the permission of Vāhalika that Śaṃtanu became the
king. Vāhalika’s
son Somdatta and grandsons Śalya and Bhūriśrava
also finds mention in the Mahābhārata. Bhūriśrava was a great warrior and was
highly respected by Yudhiṣṭhira.
(Ganguli, Udyoga Parva, 2008, Section XXX) All four of them (Vāhlika, Somdatta, Bhūriśrava
and Śalya) fought in the Mahābhārata war on the side of Duryodhana. Vāhlika is
mentioned as Atiratha i.e. one of the
foremost expert chariot warrior. (Ganguli, Udyoga
Parva, 2008, Section CLXVIII )
Vāhlika was Śaṃtanu’s brother, so, Vicitravīrya and Vāhlika’s son Somdatta were
first cousin and his son Bhūriśrava belonged to the next generation, i.e.
generation of Pāṇḍu. So if we have to draw the genealogical tree of the
house of Pratapi (Śaṃtanu’s father), it will be as follow;
Bhūriśrava Śalya
Dhṛtarāṣţra Pāṇḍu Vidura
Genological
tree of the Kuru family from Pratipa to Pāṇḍu .
The ‘Nīyoga’ between Vyāsa and the widows of Vicitravīrya
reflects that it was not a simple act of procreation but had some power
politics behind it. If Bhīṣhma had refused to compromise on the vow of
celibacy, Somdatta being the cousin of Vicitravīrya should have been next
choice for ‘Nīyoga’. Somdatta,
was having two sons indicates that he was not impotent. He also got into deadly
conflict with Shīnī for the possession of
princess Devakī, during her Svyaṃvara.
(Ganguli, Drona Parva, 2008, Section
CXLIII) Vāhlika was killed by Bhīma. Somdatta and his son Bhūriśrava, both were
killed by Sātyaki. Arjuna shows great respect
for Bhūriśrava.(Ganguli, Drona Parva,
2008, SectionCXLII)
This shows that these Kuru princess were
respected. Then why Somdatta was not considered to sit on the throne after the
death of Vicitravīrya? Neither he was called to perform ‘Nīyoga’ on the widows of Vicitravīrya. There could be different
reasons behind this.
Vāhlika was shown to be present in the Kuru kingdom on
number of occasion. He was present at the time of the episode of disrobing of Draupadī3. He along with his son Somdatta
and grandsons Śalya and Bhūriśrava were present during the Rājsŭyā Yajňa of Yudhiṣṭhira. (Ganguli, Sabha Parva, 2008,
XXXIII)
Even if Vāhlika and his son Somdatta and
grandson Bhūriśrava were staying outside the Kuru kingdom, their presence on
number of occasion indicates that they had maintained relations with the Kuru
ruling house of Hāstinapur. Even if they were staying away, Somdatta, who was
cousin of Vicitravīrya could have been summoned to perform Nīyoga on the widows of Vicitravīrya. As Bhīṣhma had refused, the
next logical option would have been Somdatta. The author of the Mahābhārata
gives an explanation about the refusal of Bhīṣhma. But it is silent about why
Somdatta was not called! Even when first Nīyoga
between Vyāsa and Ambikā failed to bring out desired result as the child was
blind and not suitable to become king. Still during second attempt of producing
heir to the throne, Somdatta was not called. The second ‘Nīyoga’ was done after the birth of blind Dhṛtarāṣţra. After the
first ‘Nīyoga’, Vyāsa had already
given warning to Satyavatī that the child that will be born will be blind. As
the first widow did not receive Vyāsa properly, there was less possibility of
other widow receiving him properly, yet Satyavatī was eager to have an heir produced from Vyāsa.
Even the result of the second ‘Nīyoga’
was also not satisfactory. It gave birth to sickly Pāṇḍu. Still Satyavatī and Bhīṣhma did
not think about any other alternative. Even though the third attempt also
failed to give heir, as the son of a maid could not become the king, still Satyavatī
and Bhīṣhma agreed to make sickly Pāṇḍu as
the king but did not considered calling Somdatta to perform ‘Nīyoga’.
One speculation could
be that his age was not suitable. He being the son of Vāhlika, who was the
elder brother of Śaṃtanu, he belonged to the generation of Bhīṣhma. Bhīṣhma was
not described as showing any respect to him throughout the narration of the Mahābhārata,
so it is likely that he was younger to Bhīṣhma. The children of Satyavatī; Citrāngada
and Vicitravīrya, must be quit younger to Bhīṣhma, as Śaṃtanu married Satyavatī
when Bhīṣhma was a grown up prince. So one can speculate that Somdatta’s age
must be somewhere in between the age of Bhīṣhma and Vicitravīrya. As Satyavatī tells
Bhīṣhma to produce sons on the widows of Vicitravīrya, it implies that an
elderly person can perform ‘Nīyoga’,
so why not Somdatta, who belonged to the Kuru linage as well. Somdatta fighting
in the great war, which took place much after this episode of Nīyoga, indicates that he was
maintaining good health.
It is likely that Satyavatī
and Bhīṣhma were not willing to let the reins of power go out form their hand.
If Somdatta is called, he may claim the throne for himself as being from the
linage of the Kuru. If the children are produced from the seed of Somdatta, he
may lay claim to the children and his influence in the politics of Hāstinapur
will also rise. It was also possible that as Vāhlika is mentioned to have
inherited some other kingdom, in future Vāhlika or his son Somdatta will unify the kingdom of Hāstinapur
with the kingdom that he had inherited. This was not acceptable to Satyavatī
and Bhīṣhma both. Throughout the infancy of Citrāngada and Vicitravīrya, the
kingdom was looked after by Bhīṣhma. Did he go attach to power and position?
The most likely answer is; yes! We see that in the later phase of his life also,
he is not willing to let the reins of power go from his hands. When Duryodhana
grew up, and the power passes in his hands, Karṇa becomes his important
counselor and we find Bhīṣhma repeatedly getting into ego clashes with Karṇa.
Probably he was not able to tolerate another power center in the politics of Hāstinapur.
So probably he, along with Satyavatī decided to keep Somdatta out from the
politics of Hāstinapur and not to let his influence grow. Vyāsa was safe card!
Vyāsa, being a sage was
no threat to the position of Bhīṣhma and Satyavatī. Vyāsa could be satisfied
just by some respect and comfort during his periodical visit to Hāstinapur. The
arrangement also suited Vyāsa. Being a seed giver to the royal house of Hāstinapur
had increased his prestige. In fact he was brought to light by Satyavatī by
this episode. His oblivion is over. He got one comfortable royal house where he
can go and have some refreshing rest, when the austerities of the forest
becomes too much to bear! His repeated visit to Hāstinapur and treatment he
received at the royal house of the Kuru indicates this. Satyavatī also trusted him as being her own
son, he will not turn against her, and he had no political ambition. The ‘Nīyoga’ of rich and famous was a very
complicated issue!
Whose
children?-
The children born out
of ‘Nīyoga’ are considered as
children of husband of women weather dead or alive. Women were considered as
field and the husband as the owner of the field and the harvest i.e. children
are considered as property of the owner of the field.
“……when
men without fields sow their seed in someone else’s field, they create profits
for the owner of the field; the owner of the seed reaps no fruit” (Olivelle, 2004,
p.158)
However the Manu Smṛiti also says that,
“When
a field is handed over by contractual agreement to someone for sowing the seed,
however, we see in the world that both the owner of the seed and the owner of
the field receive shares from it” (Olivelle, 2004, p.158)
The arrangement of the Nīyoga between Vyāsa and the widows of
the Vicitravīrya seems to fall in the second category. Vyāsa not only keeps
coming in the Mahābhārata time and again, but his visit to Hāstinapur is also
very frequent. Like a loving grandfather he is also eager to protect his
linage. On hearing the birth of the child of Kuntī in
the forest, Gāndhāri hit upon her pregnant belly and as a result delivered a
ball of flesh. The ball was thrown out, but Vyāsa intervenes. He asks the ball
to brought in and dividing it into hundred and one parts preserves them. Out of
theses pieces hundred sons and one daughter were born.(Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008, Section
CXV)
Vidura, the son of a
maid (whose name is not mentioned) of Ambikā is also regarded as a son of Vicitravīrya,
indicating that the body of the maid was also owned by the king. And as the
king was her owner, the child born to her, even from other man is considered as
a child of the king.
However, it may be
mentioned that the child born to the maid was not regarded as a prince. Among
the children of Vicitravīrya (born out of Nīyoga),
Vidura was probably the most suitable. But he was not considered as suitable to
sit on the throne. He was often called as brother by the king Dhṛtarāṣţra. He
was sometimes given respect and sometimes scolded not only by Dhṛtarāṣţra but by Duryodhana as well. This indicates that it is not only the
father, but position of mother also determined the position of children in the
society.
The
authors/interpolators of the Mahābhārata, acknowledges Vyāsa as the grandfather
of the Pāṇḍavas and also says that he begot Pāṇḍu, Dhṛtarāṣţra and Vidura in order
to continue the line of Śaṃtanu.(Ganguli, Adi
Parva, 2008, Section
LX). Recognizing the two people as father was probably the accepted norms
during those days. One is recognized as a biological father and one on whose
name the linage continues. Pāṇḍu himself was aware of the fact that Vyāsa was
his biological father.(Ganguli, Adi Parva,
2008, Section
CXXII)
The Mahābhārata says that son born to a maiden as well as son
in the womb of a pregnant girl belongs to the man who marries her. (Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008, Section
CXX). According to this, Vyāsa, though born to Satyavatī before her marriage should have been considered as son of Śaṃtanu.
Similarly, Karṇa can be called son of Pāṇḍu as Pāṇḍu married Kuntī and Karṇa was
born to her before her marriage. But both Satyavatī and Kuntī kept the birth of
their pre-marital children secret. Satyavatī kept it secret till the time of
the death of her son Vicitravīrya and revealed it when the Kuru kingdom was
plunged in the crises due to the absence of king. Similarly Kuntī also kept the
secret of the birth of Karṇa and only reveled it to Yudhiṣţhira after the death
of Karṇa in the great war. This signifies the changes in the attitude and
values in the society towards the sexual morality. Obviously, Satyavatī and Kuntī
kept it hidden in due to the fear of being stigmatized or to avoid the hurting
of the ego of their respective husband. So there must have been a time when a
premarital son was accepted. As the life was uncertain and the wars were
frequent, the sons were more important, apart from serving the purpose of
ensuring heaven for the parents.
Sexual
morality in the Mahābhārata-
After the death of Vicitravīrya,
when Satyavatī and Bhīṣhma were discussing about the feasibility of ‘Nīyoga’, Bhīṣhma narrated a story of a
sage Dīrghatamas. The episode of the birth of Dīrghatamas indicates the
practice sexual relation between a women and her brother-in-law (Brother of
husband). Bhīṣhma says,
“There
was in olden days a wise Rishi of the
name of Utathya. He had a wife of the name of Mamata whom he dearly loved. One
day Utathya’s younger brother Vrihaspati, the priest of the celestials, endued
with great energy, approached Mamta. The latter, however told her husband’s
younger brother……….that she had conceived from her connection with his elder
brother and that, therefore, he should not then seek for the consummation of
his wishes” (Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008,
Section CIV)
In the narration of
this story, Mamata tells Vrihaspati (Bṛhaspati) that he should not desire to
have physical relation with her because her womb cannot accommodate two
children at a time. The child in the womb also addresses Vrihaspati (Bṛhaspati)
and says,
“O
father, cease from thy attempt. There is no space here for two. O illustrious
one, the room is small. I have occupied it first. It behoveth thee not to
afflict me” (Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008,
Section CIV)
The child in the womb
addresses Vrihaspati (Bṛhaspati) as father. Though Mamata and the child in her
womb tell Bṛhaspati to refrain from intercourse with Mamata, the rejection does
not say that the act is immoral. The rejection is for the protection of the
child in the womb.
Mamata is mentioned as
a wife of sage Utathya and not as a combine wife of both the brother. Bṛhaspati
is mentioned as the priest of celestials. So he is a same Bṛhaspati, the priest
of the Gods famous through Indian mythology. The story is told by Bhīṣhma to
his step mother Satyavatī. Bhīṣhma telling this story to Satyavatī is also
having certain implications. Bhīṣhma’s character in the Mahābhārata is
considered as an exemplary from moral standard. Moreover he is narrating the
story to his step-mother. The relation between Bhīṣhma and Satyavatī was always
regulated by moderation and mutual respect. It is very unlikely that he will
say anything to Satyavatī that goes contrary to morally accepted standard.
Celestial Sage Bṛhaspati desiring to have sexual relation with the wife of his
elder brother, even when his elder brother is alive and his sister-in-law is pregnant,
indicates that probably when the Mahābhārata was in its initial stage of
development, these kind of relations were accepted by the society.
Bṛhaspati gets angry at
the denial of pleasure of sex and curses the child in the womb,
“…..thou
hast spoken to me in the way thou hast at a time of pleasure that is sought
after by all creatures, perpetual darkness shall overtake thee” (Ganguli, Adi
Parva, 2008, Section CIV)
Due to this curse the child
was born blind and was called Dīrghatamas (enveloped in perpetual darkness).
Later on Vyāsa, dissatisfied with the reception received from Ambikā also
curses that the child born to Ambikā will be blind. (Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008, Section
CVI)
It is strange that in
both these episodes, the innocent children in the womb are punished for no
fault of theirs. The union between Vyāsa and Ambikā also strengthens the notion
that mood of the parents at the time of copulation affects the child to be
conceived. However, in case of Dīrghatamas,
the union between Bṛhaspati and Mamata is not mentioned. The child was already
conceived from the seed of sage Utathya
when Bṛhaspati sought union with Mamata.
However the blind child,
Dīrghatamas, turned out to be greatly talented. It was he, who angry with the
behavior of his wife, later laid down the rule that every woman shall have to
adhere to one husband for her life. (Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008, Section
CIV)
However, it was same
sage Dīrghatamas who produced eleven children on Shūdra women and also five
sons on queen Sudeshnā, the wife of king Vāli,
apart from several children on his own wife. (Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008,
Section
CIV)
So the rule of adhering
to one husband was made by Dīrghatamas for women, but the rule is not
applicable to him neither to the women that he had produced children upon. The
linage of king Vali continued further by sage Dīrghatamas. The Mahābhārata
says,
“…..it
was thus also that mighty bowmen and great car-warriors wedded to virtue,
sprung in the Kshatriya race from the seed of Bramanas.” (Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008, Section CIV)
The Mahābhārata gives very
varied information about the sexual morality that was practiced at different
places and different times. Pāṇḍu tells Kuntī,
“Women
formally were not immured within houses and dependent on husband and other
relatives. They used to go about freely, enjoying themselves as best as they
liked………,they did not then adhere to their husbands faithfully, and yet…….they
were not regarded sinful, for that was the sanctioned usage of the times. ……the
practice is yet regarded with respect among the Nortern Kuru” (Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008, Section CXXII)
However this kind of
promiscuous relations went out of usage in the course of time and the Mahābhārata
says it was sage Śvetaketu who laid down the rules regarding the regulation of
the man-women relations and made it a rule that a woman should adhere to her
husband alone. (Adi Parva, 2008, Section
CXXII). Dīrghatamas, as already referred is also mentioned to have laid down
the rule for women to adhere to one husband.
The Mahābhārata also
indicates that the patriarchal society was more worried about the women being
conceived from other man’s seed than the act of sexual relation itself.
“….a
wife when her monthly season cometh4,
must ever seek her husband, though at other times she deserveth liberty” (Ganguli,
Adi Parva, 2008, Section CXXII)
However a woman was under
obligation to raise offspring from another man if commended by her husband.
Brahminization
of the Mahābhārata-
In the Mahābhārata we
come across many incidents of Brahamana producing children on other’s wives.
These are clearly attempts of elevating the status of the Brahmins in the
society. The Mahābhārata seems to be percolating the idea that the women of
other people can also be made available to the Brahman. In the episode of the
king Vāli and Dīrghatamas, the king was alive when Dīrghatamas produced
children on his (king’s) wife. There is no mention of king being impotent. (Ganguli,
Adi Parva, 2008, Section
CIV)
Even at the time of union between sage Parāçara
and Satyavatī, the sage soliciting the union
says,
“Thou
shall remain a virgin even if thou grandest my wish” (Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008, Section LXIII)
How strange! A sage may
have union with a girl, but her virginity will not be lost.
According to the ‘Nīyoga’(Lavirate) described in ‘Manu Smṛiti ’ the male who will impregnate the widow has to be ‘a
brother-in-law or relative belonging to same ancestry’ (Olivelle, 2004, p.159).
It does not mention that a Brahmin can be appointed for ‘Nīyoga’. But the Mahābhārata repeatedly gives evidences that the
Brahmins can be appointed for ‘Nīyoga’.
When Paraśurāma annihilated the Kṣtriyas,
the Kṣtriya women were conceived from
the Brahmins and their offspring became Kṣtriyas
(Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008, Section
LXIV). Pāṇḍu also tells his wife Kuntī that we should call some Brahmins to
produce offspring. (Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008, Section CXX)
This kind of stories
helped the Brahmin interpolators of the Mahābhārata, to enhance their prestige
of the Brahmins in the society. As the writers/ interpolators of the Mahābhārata
were Brahmins, the idea of Brahminical superiority was systematically propagated
through the Mahābhārata. Even in ‘Nīyoga’
also it is a Brahmin who is supposed to be called to have union with a women.
Though theoretically it was supposed to be union with the sole desire of
producing an offspring, but having sexual relation and not driving pleasure
from it is a very difficult aim to achieve, as Vyāsa’s boon and curse proves.
There are certain
Brahmin communities in India whose surname is ‘Niyogi’. The meaning of the Sanskrit word ‘Niyogi’ means employed. It is quit probable that they are the
decedents of those Brahmins who were employed to perform ‘Nīyoga’.
Who
were the Pāṇḍava’s biological father?-
The Pāṇḍava’s were born
in the forest, away from the gaze of the people of Hāstinapur. According to the
description given in the Mahābhārata, Kuntī was given boon by sage Durvāsas. As
per this boon she can call any celestial and have offspring through his grace.
If Kuntī was given a boon by sage Durvāsas to call upon the God for union, what
was the need to go to forest? She could have just summoned a God and had a son
from him. In case she wanted to hide the impotency of Pāṇḍu, she could have
just pretended that those were his sons.
It is likely that Kuntī
had children in the forest by union with the different male from the forest
dwelling people. The situation that led to the birth of the Pāṇḍavas is very
complex and threw up many questions.
There was an urgency of
child birth, because if Gandhari gives birth to a male child first, that child
will be king in future and Gandhari will be mother queen. Women, deprived of
independent existence, had no option but to use the position of father, husband
and sons to gain respectability in the society. No wonder that she may use any
of them as a weapon. Sons are more likely to be used by mothers as she can lay
more claim on him as she takes more responsibility in his upbringing.
But if ‘Nīyoga’ was a accepted practice, then
what was the need to hide it? Having ‘Nīyoga’
in the forest served different purpose. The impotency of Pāṇḍu can be hidden
from the eyes of the world. There was also better chance of mytholizing the
birth of the Pāṇḍava. As nobody would have became aware that the children are
born out of ‘ Nīyoga’. It is most
likely that the attitude of society towards ‘Nīyoga’
had undergone changes. It was now looked down upon. It is also possible that ‘Nīyoga’ with the widows was more
acceptable but ‘Nīyoga’ with the
wives of impotent husband was not considered as acceptable as this. The obvious
reason was that it exposed the impotency of man. The another reason could be
that probably Kuntī and Pāṇḍu thought that the children born out of ‘Nīyoga’ may not get the support of the
people as the children of royal blood i.e. the children of Dhṛtarāṣţra will be
available. As per Manu Smṛiti , ‘Nīyoga’ is to be performed if the linage
is about to become extinct. That was not the case in Kuru ruling house. If Pāṇḍu
was impotent, Dhṛtarāṣţra can produce children. But if Dhṛtarāṣţra ’s son becomes king, then what
will be the condition of Kuntī? Kuntī wanted her son to succeed to the throne
of Hāstinapur and so in a hurry Pāṇḍu, Kuntī and Mādrī left for the forest to
have ‘Nīyoga’ with some forest
dwelling man.
The primitive instinct
displayed by Bhīma, like drinking of blood of Duḥśāsana, his fights with the Rākṣasa
also indicates that probably he inherited some wild traits from his forest
dwelling biological father, who was mytholised as God ‘Vyau’, the powerful wind God.
In the case of the
birth of the Pāṇḍava, it was the king Pāṇḍu who convinced Kuntī about the need
for child. He says,
“For
the childless there is no regions hereafter”(Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008, Section XCV)
As the epic underwent
transformation and expansion, probably the attitude of society towards Nīyoga
had undergone change. It was now looked down upon. The Pāṇḍava’s were
stigmatized in the epic for that, when Bhīma insults Karṇa by calling him as
‘Son of a charioteer’ Duryodhana makes a sarcastic remarks to the Pāṇḍavas and
says,
“Your
own births ya Pāṇḍava princes, are known to me” (Ganguli, Adi Parva, 2008, Section CXXXIX)
To minimize the stigma,
the episodes of Nīyoga of Kuntī were mythologized.
Conclusion-
The Mahābhārata is a
very complex epic, reflecting the complexities of human life. The canvas of
human life can not be painted as black and white. It has many gray, intricate
shades, which are difficult to express. The Nīyoga
episodes analyzed above indicates that dichotomy
exist between theory and practice, between what we ‘are’ and what we ‘project’.
The moral values of
society go on changing. These changes are reflected in the narration of the Mahābhārata.
Certain social practices which were accepted norms during certain time went out
of use, and we find attempts on the parts of the interpolators of the Mahābhārata
to camouflage the attempts. We find the narrators of the Mahābhārata trying to
hide the sexuality of the characters, especially of those who are considered to
be respectable, as if respectability and sexuality cannot go together.
Philosophy of
withdrawal and renunciation dominates Indian intellectual tradition. We find
same attitude dominant in our literature. Denial of desire is considered as
virtue and assertion of it as evil.
The women characters
like Ambikā and Ambālikā never speaks throughout the narration of the epic.
They had no say when they were asked to unite with the smelly sage. Thus the
episodes of Nīyoga mentioned in the epic treats royal women as objects to be
used for producing sons. In contrast the women from the community like Rākṣasa,
Nāgas are portrayed as free in selecting their mate. Rākṣasi princess Hidimbā (
Ganguly, Adi Parva, 2008, Section CLV) and Naga princess Ulupi (Ganguly, Adi Parva, 2008, Section CCXVI)
freely assert their carnal desires. This is not done by any woman characters
from the mainstream Brahminical society like Kuntī or Draupadī. Thus the
patriarchal attitude of the authors/interpolators of the epic is obvious in
this two different stereotyping. Probably men wants to have a sexually subdued,
coy, homely wife at home, who can be used to produce progenies (specially male)
and also wants to have an option open to go out and have tempestuous relation
with sexually assertive woman coming from the ‘other’ section of the society.
The docile women of the
mainstream patriarchal society have no control over their bodies is also
reflected in the episode when Kṛṣṇa offers Draupadī to Karṇa as one of the
benefit he may get if he switches side from the Kauravas to the Pāṇḍavas. (Ganguli,
Udyoga Parva, 2008, Section
CXL)
About Nīyoga, the Manu Smṛiti and the Mahābhārata seem to
have different perceptions. Former is a book of behavioral code that people
were expected to follow and thus present an ideal view about society from the
perspective of the law makers. In contrast, the Mahābhārata seems to be a reflection
of how a society is!
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Explanatory
Notes-
1.
The Mahābhārata was composed and
interpolated with many passages from 800 B.C. to A.D.200.This period is given
by Pande G.C. in his essay ‘Socio-Cultural Milieu of the Mahābhārata: An age of
change’ in ‘Reflections and Variations on the Mahābhārata’ Sahitya Akademi, New
Delhi, 2009. However the period of composition and development of the Mahābhārata
still remains a contentious issue.
2.
Vena is described as a pre-eminent royal
sage, who once ruled entire earth. (Olivelle, p.159)
3.
Vāhlika’s presence is mentioned in the Mahābhārata
published by Gita press, Gorakhpur. The book is in six volume and have Sanskrit
verse along with Hindi translation. However this verse is omitted in the
English translation of the Mahābhārata by K.M. Ganguli. Ganguli in his
introduction writes that he used Bengal text and Bombay edition. Gita press
edition relay on Nilkanthi and South Indian version of the Mahābhārata. Mahābhārata
have many variations, a successful attempt was made to bring together different
versions and prepare a critical edition of the Mahābhārata at Bhandarkar
Oriental Research Institue, Pune. 1259 manuscripts were consulted and the
critical edition was published in 1966. However the Edition is in Sanskrit and
so far complete English translation is not available.
4.
Season is mentioned as a time when a
woman is likely to be conceived if she has an intercourse.
References-
1.
Basham A. L., “The wonder that was
India”, Picador, London, 2004.
2.
Ganguli K.M. ‘The Mahābhārata’,
Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, 2008.
3.
Karve Irawati, ‘ Yuganta’, Orient
Blackswan, Hyderabad, 2008.
4.
Olivelle Patrick, ‘The law code of
Manu’,OUP, New York, 2004.
5.
Radhakrishnan S., “The Bhagavadgita”
HarperCollins, New Delhi, 2004.
-----------------------
