Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan (1200–1550 A.D.) c7.s4.86

c7.s4.86

Our treatment of this subject would not be complete without referring to unhealthy sexual practices and perversions for which ample evidence exists. The love of male sweetheart which figures so prominently in contemporary Persian poetry and literature, does show an unhealthy sex-complex, even though it may imply nothing more. Due probably to the prevalence of slavery and Purdah, and to the segregation of a part of the population in military camps away from the operation of normal family influences, the handsome appearance of a youth had become an object of undue admiration, if not of carnal desire². Outside India, the Persians, the Turks, and the Moors in general were familiar with the ‘abominable sinne’ of sodomy.³ The same influence was strongly felt in Hindustan, only Hindu society was comparatively free from this evil.⁴ The public morals were degraded to an extraordinary degree, in this respect. The relations of Mu‘izz-ud-din Kaiqubad with his male ‘sweethearts’, of Sultan ‘Ala-ud-din Khalji with Malik Kafur and of his son and successor Mubarak Shah with Khusrau Khan are too well known to need any amplification. Curiously enough, these open perversities do not call for any comment from historians or religious saints on moral or religious grounds, although the same persons were not slow to cast slurs on Raziyya Sultana for no greater crime than that of throwing the veil and of raising talented Abyssinian to the office formerly reserved for Turks. In fact, a book on royal manners definitely recommends sodomy to a nobleman.¹ We have even one reference to unnatural sexual relations with women, but it is not borne out by other evidence. The existence of the evil is by no means improbable.² Some pasaages of Amir Khusrau in particular reflect the extremely low manners prevalent in this particular respect.³