Devdutt Pattanaik - Feudal trap: Why do Indians fear prostitutes and traders?
Shift the vowels
slightly and the Sanskrit word for trader (vaishya) becomes the Sanskrit word
for prostitute (veshya). The one sold goods and the other sold pleasure, to the
highest bidder. Neither was loyal. Naturally, feudal authorities despised them
both, and turned the word bazaru, or commercial, into an insult.
In all societies,
there are two main sources of wealth: land and the market. Feudalism depends on
the land and trade depends on the market. Land-owning communities (kshatriyas)
and trading communities (vaishyas) have always competed for control of society.
It accounts for the division between Old World Europe and New World America.
Typically, feudal societies are hierarchical and value loyalty and patronage.
Trading societies are relatively egalitarian, giving greater value to the
customer’s wallet than to his status.
In India, we have
sought to reject Old World Feudalism but we have not yet embraced New World
Free Trade. We still value loyalty, over merit. We are suspicious of
professionals, because they sell their skills for a price, and fiercely
independent, like prostitutes of yore. The traditional service-providers
(shudras) were expected to serve without expectation, accept patronage, and
never demand payment, resulting in their semi-enslavement. Only priests (brahmins)
could demand a service-fee (dakshina), and a monk (bhikku) could demand alms
(bhiskha). The rest were expected to live on charity (daan) of the feudal
master.
At the top
Further, the priests
and monks of India, consolidated their exalted status by establishing the
doctrine of pollution and purity. This ensured their position on top of the
social pyramid, even above the land-owning communities, but pacified the latter
by locating them above traders and service-providers. A land-owner could earn
legitimacy and karmic dividends by paying priests and feeding monks, while
travel was deemed as polluting, which is why many Indian traders stopped
travelling and turned to moneylending. They outsourced the once-thriving
sea-trade to Arabs and later the Portuguese, for fear of loss of caste, a fear
that prevented Indians from venturing out into the world right up to the 20th
century.
Service-providers
whose vocation brought them into contact with blood, flesh, excrement and other
bodily waste, were deemed untouchables, denied access to the village well and
human dignity, because of the doctrine of pollution and purity. Lower than men
were women who shed blood every month and who were recipients of semen,
excreted by their husbands. And lower than all women was the prostitute, who
received the bodily fluids of many men, of all castes, for a fee.
This was not the case
always. There was a time when the prostitute was celebrated. The most beautiful
woman in the city was not allowed to marry. She became the city-bride (nagar-vadhu).
She was allowed to choose a lover, but not restrict herself to one. That she
chose the most handsome, the most powerful, and often, the richest, annoyed the
less handsome, the less powerful and the less rich, who wrote poems about her
heartlessness, while praising her beauty and skill. She was known for her
singing, her dancing, her skill in conversation, her wit, her humour, and her
beauty. We hear of these courtesans in ancient Hindu, Buddhist and Jain
literature. Known as ganikas, they lived independent lives, unlike the chaste
wives who lived in the shadow of their husbands, and unlike nuns, who shunned
all pleasure.
God's wives
In time, these ganikas
came to be attached to temples. They became wives of the enshrined deities, who
never get widowed, and who loved all men as containers of the divine seed.
These were the devadasis. Their images inspired the carvings of beautiful women
on temple walls. They challenged the old monastic orders. They were part of
temple rituals. But eventually, the priests and the monks stripped the devadasi
of her independence and her agency. Slowly, she was answerable to the men in
positions of power. The men declared how pure, or impure, she was. She was
dirty because she had many lovers. She was dirtier because she went to the
highest bidder. Eventually, she was just an exploited woman, with no freedom,
her fee being claimed by a pimp and a madam.
If not attached to a
temple, the woman who sold pleasure for a fee became part of a king or nawab’s
court, or a community to entertainers, the nats. In her world, skills and
wealth were inherited from mother to daughter. She could make the money if she
had the beauty, the skill and the guile. She was invited to wedding and
coronations and festivals. But status was another matter. In a feudal society,
that looked down on trade and commerce, that created hierarchy based on purity
of vocations, and gender, she was clearly at the bottom. What little agency she
had was taken away from her, first by colonial administrators and later by
puritanical freedom fighters, who modelled themselves on monks of yore.
Today, unlike the 19th
century, no one fears loss of caste when one travels across the sea. Today, we
are comfortable talking about markets, buying, selling, trade and profits.
Today, we seek professionals. Yet, the feudal mindset persists.
We yearn for loyalty
and are afraid of the commercial: those who sell their skills and expertise to
the highest bidder. We cannot bear the thought of pleasure being a commodity
that can be bought and sold. We prefer women who submit to the decisions of
men, not women who make their own decisions. We prefer the loyal press, and are
terrified of the independent one, who like the independent ganika of yore,
believe that their dharma is to treat all customers equally, no matter how much
they paid, and be loyal to none.
That is why the press, with a mind of its own,
becomes presstitute, and a lady politician, with a mind of her own, who refuses
to submit, becomes the veshya.
