Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Social Life in Ancient India: Studies in Vatsyayana's Kamasutra c6: Chapter II. The Geography of Vātsyāyana

Social Life in Ancient India: Studies in Vātsyāyana's Kāmasūtra c6

Language
English

Chapter II. The Geography of Vātsyāyana

c6.2

Vātsyāyana in enumerating the special customs and practices in different parts of India mentions many of its countries and peoples. He appears to have been familiar with all parts of the Indian continent. Of the five great divisions of India since the Vedic times he mentions three, viz. the *Pracya* country, the *Madhyadeśa* and the *Dakṣiṇatya* or the *Dakṣiṇapatha*. In the Vedic age, as we know from a well known passage in the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* (viii. 14), the whole of India is shown to consist of five great *Diks* or divisions, the *Prācī Dik* with its *Samrāṭ* rulers, the *Dakṣiṇā Dik* with its *Bhoja* sovereigns, the *Pratīcī* and *Udīcī Diks* with their *Svarāṭ* and *Virāṭ* rulers, and the *Dhruvā Madhyamā Dik* with its kings called *Rājas*. This partition of India into five *Diks*, that is quarters or divisions, is found to be a familiar practice in the *Atharva-Veda* and both the *Kṛṣṇa* and *Śukla* recensions of the *Yajurveda Saṃhitā*.¹ In later times we find the *Dik* often changed into *Deśa*, as for example, the *Prācī Dik* and the *Madhyamā-Dik* are called the *Prācya-Deśa* and the *Madhya-Deśa* respectively. This traditional division of India into *Diks* or *Deśas* is found throughout in Indian literature : it is found in the Vedic works, the Epics and the Purāṇas, the astronomical works like those of Parāśara add Varāhamihira, and in the *Kāvyamīmāṃsā* of Rājaśekhara² written about the beginning of the tenth century we find the same five-fold division of the Indian continent. This system of general division of India was also adopted by some of the Chinese travellers.

c6.3

¹ *Atharva-veda* iii. 27; iv. 40; xii. 3; xv. 2-6 etc. *Taittirīya Saṃhitā* iv. 4 12; *Kathaka Saṃhitā* xxii. 14; *Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā* iii. 16. 4; *Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā* xv. 10-14 etc. etc. This question has been fully dealt with in my paper on "Aryan Occupation of Eastern India," pp. 46-78.

c6.4

² *Gaekwad's Oriental Series*, No. I, p 98 ff.

c6.5

A few places in the Central Division of India are referred to by Vātsyāyana in his work and the general name Madhyadeśa also has been employed by him in one passage where he says that in the Madhyadeśa, there being a preponderance of Āryas, that is, of persons of decent character who were pure in their habits, the ladies in that region disliked unclean practices like kissing, pressing the nails and biting by the other sex.¹ This Madhyadeśa is no doubt the same as the Madhyamā Dik of Vedic literature; and may be considered to have the same limits as the Madhyadeśa of Manu who defines it as the country between the Himavat and the Vindhya mountains, to the west of Prayāga and to the east of Vinaśana, that is, of the spot where the river Sarasvatī disappears²; but more probably, it is the region between the Ganges and the Jumna, that is, the land of the Āryas according to one of the views pointed out by Vasiṣṭha and Baudhāyana in their Dharmasutras.³ The commentary, Jayamaṅgalā is inclined to adopt this definition of the boundaries of the Madhyadeśa, because, as it says, this is mainly intended by the author of the Kama-Śastra.⁴

c6.6

¹ मध्यदेश्या आर्याप्रायाः शुच्युपचारप्रसन्नमनसश्च पदद्विषयः। *Kamasūtra*, ed., p, 125. 2 *Manu* II.

c6.7

The word Ārya used here by Vatsyayana is not an ethnical designation but it is applied to a person who, as Vātsyāyana says, is pure in habits (*śucyupacāra*); in the example given by him the Ārya ladies of the Madhyadeśa did not like such practices as kissing or biting, apparently because of their aversion to contamination by spittle from another's mouth, that is, to what is known as *ucchista*. It is evident, therefore, that Ārya in Vātsyāyana means the same thing as in Vasiṣṭha and Baudhāyana, that is, a Śiṣṭa or a person of decent habits and character, as will be seen from a reference to their respective *Dharmasūtras*. ¹ There can, therefore, be no doubt that the *Aryavarta* of these latter authors was not the land of the Āryans, but the land of the Śiṣṭas whose manners and customs, habits and practices were decent and pure according to the Dharma literature. In the *Mahābhāṣya* Patañjali also explains Āryāvarta as the land of the Śiṣṭas.²

c6.8

²¹ Translation, Buehler, S. B. E. XXV. p. 38. 3 Vasiṣṭha, i. 12; Baudhāyana, i. 2, 10. 4 ‘गङ्गायमुनयोर्त्येके’ इति वसिष्ठः। अयमेव शास्त्रकृतां प्राधान्येनाभिप्रेतः। *Jayamangala Tika* on Kāmasūtra, Ben. ed.. p. 125.

c6.9

¹ Vasiṣṭha, i, 6 and Baudhāyana, i, 5.

c6.10

² See *Mahābhāṣya* on Pāṇini vi. 3, 109 and ii. 4, 10. For a fuller discussion, see my *Aryan Occupation of Eastern India*, pp. 14—19.

c6.11

It is worthy of remark, however, that in Vātsyāyana's time decent conduct was more in evidence in Eastern India, among people whom he calls Pracyas than among some of the peoples of the Madhyadeśa, and these Pracyas he places among the Śiṣṭas. Thus in his chapter on *Aupariṣṭaka*, a very filthy practice, Vātsyāyana observes, "The people of Eastern India do not resort to women who practise the Aupariṣṭaka. The people of Ahicchatra resort to such women but do nothing with them, so far as the mouth is concerned. The people of Sāketa do with them every kind of mouth (abuses), while the people of Nagara do not practise this, but do every other thing. The people of Śūrasena country, on the sothern bank of the Jumna, do everything without any hesitation, for they say that women being naturally unclean, no one can be certain about their character.

c6.12

their purity, their conduct, their practices, their confidences, or their speech. They are not, however, on this account to be abandoned, because religious law, on the authority of which they are reckoned pure, lays down that the udder of a cow is clean at the time of milking. Again a dog is clean when he seizes a deer in hunting. A bird is clean when it causes a fruit to fall from a tree by pecking at it. And the mouth of a woman is clean for kissing and such like things."¹ Vātsyāyana finally sums up by saying that in all these matters connected with love, one should be guided by the custom of one's own country and one's own personal inclination in as much as while on the one hand, the holy texts (*Smṛti*) allowed some latitude in such things, on the other hand, they were against the practice of the śiṣṭas (*śiṣṭa-vipratipatteḥ*)"² Here the commentary explains that the śiṣṭas spoken of in this passage are the Prācyas, the Ahicchatrikas and the Nāgarakas,³ and the context shows that he is right.

c6.13

¹ *The Kāma-Sūtra of Vātsyāyana* translated and published by the Kāma Sāstra Society of London and Benares, reprint 1883, p. 71.

c6.14

² शिष्टविप्रतिपत्तेः स्मृतिवाक्यस्य च सावकाशत्वात् स्थितेरात्मनश्च वृत्तिप्रत्ययानु- रूपं प्रवर्ततेति वात्स्यायनः । *Kāma-Sūtra*, Ben. ed., p. 167.

c6.15

³ शिष्टविप्रतिपत्तेरिति । शिष्टानां प्राच्याहिच्छत्रिकनागरकानां विप्रतिपत्तिर्दृश्यते । *Ibid.*, p. 167.

c6.16

Of the various peoples mentioned in the above passage from the Kāmasūtra, the Ahicchatrikas and the Saurasenas were natives of the Madhyadesa and the Nāgarakas also belonged probably to that region for reasons that will be shown below. Of these, Ahicchatra, identified with modern Ramnagar in the Bareilly district,⁴ was the capital of the northern division of the Pañcala country according to the Mahābhārata which states that as the result of the defeat which Droṇācārya inflicted on Drupadā, the Pañcāla king, the country was partitioned into two, and that the Brahmin teacher of the Kurus established his capital at Ahicchatra to the north of the Ganges,¹ and that up to this place the Kaurava battalions reached when the forces of the opposing armies assembled for the Great War.² It is a significant fact that we find a Brahmin family ruling at Ahicchatra in the second century B.C. and that it had marital relations with the great Brahmin imperial family of the Śuṅgas. The names of this family of Kings of *Adhichatra* which is apparently the same as Ahicchatra are given in two inscriptions in a cave at Pabhosā (the classical hill of Prabhāsa) 3 miles to the north-west of Kosam, the ancient Kauśāmbī. The inscription inside the cave records that it was "caused to be made by Āsādhasena, son of the Vaihidarī (i.e., Vaihidara-princess, and) son of King Bhāgavata, son of the Tevanī (i.e., Traivarṇa-princess), and son of King Vangapala, son of Śonakayana (Śaunakāyana) of Adhichatra."[³] Another inscription on the rock outside

c6.17

⁴ See V. A. Smith, *Early History of India*, third edn, p. 377.

c6.18

¹ राजासि दक्षिणे कूले भागीरथ्यामुत्तरे । ७० दक्षिणांश्चापि पाञ्चालान् यावच्चर्मवती नदी । द्रोणेन चैव नृपते परिगृह्याथ पालितः ॥७४ अहिच्छत्रञ्च विषयं द्रोणः समभिपद्यत । ७६ एवं राजाहिच्छत्रा पुरी जनपदयुता । युधि निर्जित्य पार्थेन द्रोणाय प्रतिपादिता ॥७७ *Mahābhārata*, Ādiparva, Ch. 138, Vaṅgavāsī ed.

c6.19

² अहिच्छत्रं कालकूटं गङ्गाकुलञ्च भारत । ... ... ... वभूव कौरवेयाणां बलेन सुसमाकुलः । *Ibid*, *Udyoga-parva*, Ch. 19, verses 30-31.

c6.20

³ Trans. A. Fuhrer, *Epigraphia Indica*, II, p. 243.

c6.21

राजासि दक्षिणे कूले भागीरथ्यामुत्तरे । ७०
दक्षिणांश्चापि पाञ्चालान् यावच्चर्मवती नदी ।
द्रोणेन चैव नृपते परिगृह्याथ पालितः ॥७४
अहिच्छत्रञ्च विषयं द्रोणः समभिपद्यत । ७६
एवं राजाहिच्छत्रा पुरी जनपदयुता ।
युधि निर्जित्य पार्थेन द्रोणाय प्रतिपादिता ॥७७
*Mahābhārata*, Ādiparva, Ch. 138, Vaṅgavāsī ed.

c6.22

२ अहिच्छत्रं कालकूटं गङ्गाकुलञ्च भारत ।
... ... ...
वभूव कौरवेयाणां बलेन सुसमाकुलः ।
*Ibid*, *Udyoga-parva*, Ch. 19, verses 30-31.

c6.23

the cave records the further fact that this Āṣāḍhasena was the maternal uncle of King Bahasatimitra, the son of Gopālī.¹ This King Bahasatimitra has been identified with the Śuṅga Emperor, Puṣyamitra by Mr. K. P. Jayaswal² who holds that "the Ahichatra family of Āṣāḍhasena was either gubernatorial or feudatory to the Magadha throne." He further points out that "the Ahichatra family were Brahmans like the Śuṅgas, an ancestor of Āṣāḍhasena being called Śaunakāyana." In the neighbourhood of Ahicchatra have been picked up the so-called Mitra coins and among them those of a King Agnimitra who is considered to be the same as the second emperor of the Śuṅga dynasty,³ and a dedicatory inscription at Budh Gayā assigned to the earlier part of the first century B.C., records the gift of a queen of King Indramitra of Ahicchatra.⁴ We know very little of the subsequent history of Ahicchatra but by the time that Vātsyāyana wrote his book, in the third century B.C., this city must have passed like the whole of the province to which it belongs through the hands of the Kuṣan monarchs. It is significant that while Vātsyāyana speaks of the people of Ahicchatra, he has nothing to record of the king or the king's harem as he does in other cases.

c6.24

¹ *Ibid.*, p. 242.

c6.25

² *J. B. O. R. S.*, 1917, pp. 478—485

c6.26

³ Rapson, *Sources of Indian History, Coins*, p 13.

c6.27

⁴ *Cambridge History of India*, I. 526.

c6.28

The Saurasenas occupied the country about the city of Mathurā, their capital. They are located by the commentary to the south of the river Kauśāmbī⁵ which is apparently the stream flowing by the celebrated city of the same name. From the character that Vātsyāyana gives them they appear to have fallen off from the pure and ideal conduct that characterised them in ancient times according to Manu who says, "The plain of the Kurus, the (country of the) Matsyas, Pañcālas, and Sūrasenakas, these (form) indeed, the country of the Brahmarsis (Brahmanical sages, which ranks) immediately after Brahmāvarta. From a Brāhmaṇa born in that country let all men on earth learn their several usages".¹ Evidently the Śaurasenas had fallen off from this high standard of purity under foreign domination. Mathurā had been occupied by the Greeks in the early years of the second century B.C. as pointed out by Kern on the authority of the Gārgi-Saṃhitā which says, "Then the viciously valiant Greeks, after reducing Sāketa, Pañcāla country and Mathurā will reach or take Kusumadhvaja (Palibothra)".² The Gārgi-Saṃhitā further adds that sometime after the Greeks, the country was occupied by the Śakas or Scythians.³ This is fully corroborated by coins and inscriptions unearthed in Mathurā itself and the country in its neighbourhood showing that about the first century before Christ the Śaka satraps Hagamana, Hagamasha, Rañjubula, Soḍāsa etc. were ruling at Mathurā.⁴ Henceforth this city was under the domination of the Kushan monarchs for several centuries, so that in the third century after Christ when, according to our determination, Vātsyāyana wrote his work, the Śaurasenas had got much degraded by intercourse with foreigners of immensely inferior culture and had lost the ancient purity in their manners and customs that made Manu characterise them as an ideal people from whom all other peoples on earth were to imbibe good and decent behaviour.

c6.29

⁵ सौरसेनाः कौशाम्ब्या दक्षिणतः कुले ये निवसन्ति । *Kām. S.* (Benares), p.167.

c6.30

¹ Buhler, *Laws of Manu*, pp. 82-83.

c6.31

² ततः साकेतमाक्रम्य पञ्चालान् मथुरां तथा । यवना दुष्टविक्रान्ताः प्राप्स्यन्ति कुसुमध्वजम् ॥ Kern, *Brhat Samhita*, Introduction, p. 31 et seq.

c6.32

³ शकानां च ततो राजा अर्थलुब्धो महाबलः । दुष्टभावश्च पापश्च विनाशे समुपास्थिते ॥ *Ibid.*, p. 34.

c6.33

⁴ See *The Cambridge History of India*, Vol. 1, pp. 526-7.

c6.34

¹ अरुणद् यवनः साकेतम्। *Mahābhāṣya* on Pāṇini III 2, 111. See Goldstuecker, *Pāṇini*, p. 230. अयं पन्थाः साकेतमुपतिष्ठते, *Mbh.* on Pāṇini 1. 3. 2.

c6.35

The people of Sāketa who also passed through the same vicissitudes were almost as bad as those of Surasena, but the latter were worse in as much as they quoted scripture to support their vile a uses. Sāketa (otherwise known as Ayodhyā) was the capital of the Kosala country, and this name which had been coming into prominence since the Buddhist times was in the second century B.C. as we see from its mention in the *Mahābhāṣya* and later also we find it in the passage quoted above from the Garga Saṃhitā, we find, therefore, in the Kamasutra this name in use in preference to Ayodhyā. I have shown elsewhere that Sāketa was on the boundary line between the Madhyadeśa and the Prācya division of India.²

c6.36

² *Aryan Occupation of Eastern India*, pp. 12-14.

c6.37

It is noteworthy that though Vātsyāyana refers to some of the practices of the Ahicchatrikas or the people of Ahicchatra, the ancient capital of northern Pañcāla, of the Pancala people as such he has got nothing to say. He speaks of the Pañcāla country no doubt but it will be observed from the way in which he does so that it was an ancient province to the achievements of which in the past he is referring, and he does nowhere in his work make any mention of any of the living practices of the Pañcāla people at the time that he lived. Thus he refers to the great Bābhravya Pancala of old from whom he drew his materials but whose work was very little studied in his times;¹ he further points out the connection of the Pañcāla country with the division of the Ṛgveda into sixty-four chapters and draws an analogy between this fact and the invention of the sixty-four Pañcāla kalās or arts² described by Bābhravya. But he notes no peculiarity in the conduct of the Pañcālas of his day nor does he mention any contemporary practices in the relations between the sexes as he does of the other peoples of India. Evidently the Pañcāla people who occupied a prominent position among the Vedic Aryans in the period of the Brāhmaṇas and whose country made up one of the sixteen Mahājanapadas when the early works of the Theravāda school of the Buddhists were written, had lost their individuality as a separate people; at Ahicchatra, their ancient capital, the people must have been strongly influenced by foreign occupation—as at Mathurā.

c6.38

¹ बाभ्रव्याद्यश्च सूत्राथान् आगमम्य विमुच्य च । वात्स्यायनश्चकारेदं कामसूत्रं यथाविधि ॥ Kamasutra, Benares edition p. 281. महदिति च बाभ्रव्यस्य दुरध्येयत्वात् संक्षिप्य सर्वमर्थमल्पेन ग्रन्थेन कामसूत्रमिदं प्रणीतम् । Ibid., p. 7.

c6.39

² See ante, pp. 3-7.

c6.40

Of the countries of the Udīcya or northern division, Vātsyāyana speaks still less than of the Madhyadeśa or the Midland proper. He nowhere mentions the Udīcya division by name but he refers to the customs and practices of some of the countries in the Udīcya division and even beyond the northern hills. Of the people on the Himalayas he speaks in general (Haimavatanam) without mentioning any particular country or state, saying that among the Haimavatas or people of the Himalayas, "adventurous citizens combining together bribe the sentinels and enter the harem,"

c6.41

³ अथर्ते रक्षिणामुपगृहा साहसिकाः संहताः प्रविशन्ति हैमवतानाम् । Ibid., p. 281.

c6.42

great people on the Himalayas indicates that the earlier hill states like those of the Śakyas, or their neighbours, the Koliyas, were extinct or at least, decadent at the time that the *Kāmasūtra* was written.

c6.43

Of the countries included in the Udīcya division by Indian writers, Vātsyāyana mentions Bāhlīka which the commentary explains as a country in Uttarāpatha,¹ that is, in the northern region. About the ladies of the Bāhlīka country (*Bāhlīkadeśyāḥ*), the *Kāmasūtra* informs us that they, like the women of the Madhyadeśa, were of decent habits and averse to kissing and similar unclean practices.² Vātsyāyana also speaks of a very peculiar custom which the Bāhlīka country had in common with Strīrājya and the province of Grāmanārī: he avers that in these countries several young men were married to a single woman (*ekakasyāḥ parigrahabhūtāḥ*) and they were in the same position there as ladies in the harem in other countries³ Vātsyāyana does not say exactly that these male spouses were confined in a harem by their lordly wives but that they had the same character as harem-ladies (*antaḥpuradharmāṇaḥ*) that is, as the commentary explains, they had all to confine their services to the single lady who was their mistress and had to attend upon her either singly or in batches.⁴ This rather unusual custom, no doubt refers to a system of polyandry carried to a refined excess. It was perhaps on account of the corrupt practices of the Bahlīkas that they were characterised in the Great Epic as forming the very dregs of the earth.¹

c6.44

¹ बाह्लीकदेश्याः उत्तरापथिकाः। *Ibid.* p. 125.

c6.45

² मध्यदेश्या आर्याः प्रायाः शुच्युपचाराचुम्बननखदन्तपदैर्वियुक्ताः। बाह्लीकदेश्याः...श्च। *Kāmasūtra*, p. 125.

c6.46

³ ग्रामनारीविषये स्त्रीराज्ये च बाह्लीके बहवो युवानोऽन्तःपुरधर्माणा एकैकस्याः परिग्रहभूताः। *Ibid.* p. 140.

c6.47

⁴ तेषामेकैकशो युगपच्च...रञ्जयेयुः। *Com.* एकैकेन कर्मणा यौगपद्येन चेत्यथः। *Ibid.*, p. 140.

c6.48

¹ मलं पृथिव्या बाह्लीकाः । Mbh. V. 39 80. ² Camb. Hist. I. p. 124; Ved. Ind. II. p. 62 ³ See Watters, On Yuan Chwang, I. p. 109. ⁴ Ibid., p. 108. ⁵ See ante, p. 23. foot note 1.

c6.49

It is important to determine the geographical position of the country of Bahlīka. The city of Balkh in Bactria which makes the closest approach to its name seems to indicate its ancient location though some scholars are inclined to doubt it and to suggest that it was somewhere near the Kuru land.² But that ancient India extended beyond the present north-western frontier seems indisputable from many considerations. The Chinese travellers, for example, found Balkh Indian to all intents and purposes. Yuan Chwang to reach the country which he calls Fo-ho-lo (I-tsing names it Fo-ko-lo),³ travelled some hundreds of *li* from Tokhāra, crossed the Oxus and passed through some territories of small extent. He found Indian culture and civilisation predominating here, there being above hundred Buddhist monasteries with more than three thousand⁴ brethren, all adherents of the "Small Vehicle" or the Hīnayāna system. He says that it reached on the north to the Oxus, the Wakhesh of Arab geographers and the Vakṣu or Vankṣu of Kālidāsa. As we have shown before, Kālidāsa makes Raghu meet the Hūṇas on the banks of the Oxus.⁵ Kālidāsa says that Raghu's horses relieved the fatigue of their long journey by rolling about on the banks of Vankṣu and shook their shoulders to which were attached filaments

c6.50

Bahlīka the country about Balkh i.e., Bactria

c6.51

Yuan-Chwang found Indian culture in Bactria

c6.52

Kālidāsa's Vankṣu is the Oxus in Bactria of saffron¹. Amara in his lexicon speaks of the yellow variety of the saffron grown in the Bāhlīka country,² and Kṣīrasvāmin, the earliest commentator of Amara, assures us that this Bāhlīka saffron was referred to by Kālidāsa.³ Yuan Chwang also speaks of saffron (Curcuma = kuṅkuma, saffron) grown in the country about this region.⁴ There can, therefore, be no doubt that the country about Balkh and reaching up to the Oxus was known as the Bāhlīka country at the time of Kālidāsa, that is, according to our calculations, about two centuries later than Vātsyāyana⁵

c6.53

⁴ See Watters, I, p. 124.

c6.54

⁵ See ante. p. 23. foot note 1.

c6.55

The *Atharva-Veda Pariśiṣṭa* leaves no doubt that the Vedic Bāhlīka was Bactria in as much as it speaks of the Bāhlīkas in a group *Saka-yavana-Tukhara-Bāhlīkaśca*.⁶ These Tukhāras are no doubt the Tokharas (Tu-huo-lo) through whose country Yuan Chwang passed to the country of Balkh.

c6.56

⁶ 41.3.8. Ed. by Bolling and Negelein, p. 351.

c6.57

That Bāhlīka was regarded by Indians as belonging to the Udīcya division of the country is seen from Kālidāsa's verse immediately preceding the one we have referred to above where we are told that Raghu on his way to the Vaṅkṣu or the Oxus met the Udīcyas and inflicted a defeat upon them.⁷ This is also clear from a passage

c6.58

Bāhlīka an Udīcya province

c6.59

विनीताध्वश्रमास्तस्य वङ्क्षुतीरविचेष्टनैः ।
दुधुवुर्वाजिनः स्कन्धांल्लगुकुङ्कुमरूषितान् ॥ *Raghuvamśaṃ* IV. 67

c6.60

२ अथ कुङ्कुमम् । काश्मीरजन्माभिशिखं वरं बाह्लीकपीतनम् ।
*Amarakośa*, Oka's edition, p. 110

c6.61

३ बह्लीकदेशजं (बाह्लीकं), यद्रघोस्तत्तरदिग्विजय-दुधुवुर्वाजिनः स्कन्धाल्लगु-
कुङ्कुमकेसरान् । *Ibid.* p. 110, Commentary.

c6.62

७ ततः प्रतस्थे कौबेरीं भास्वानिव रघुस्तदा ।
वरेस्त्विवोदीच्यानुद्धरिष्यन् रसानिव ॥ *Raghuvamśaṃ* IV, 66.

c6.63

in the *Nāṭyaśāstra* where Bharata tells us that of the seven local dialects (*Sapta bhāṣāḥ*) of India, the *Bahlika-bhāṣā* was spoken by the Udīcyas and the Khasas and was the language of their own country (*svadeśajā*).

c6.64

The earliest mention of Bahlika in Indian literature viz., in the *Atharva-Veda* shows that it was far away in the north even beyond the Mujavants. "O fever," says a hymn of this Veda "Go to the Mūjavants or to the Bahlīkas, further off." If Mūjavant is the name of a hill in or about Kaśmīr, the Bahlika country must have been farther in the north and evidently the same region where we find it in later Indian literature, though Zimmer and the authors of the *Vedic Index* are inclined to doubt it. The points raised by Zimmer have been answered by Weber and we think, satisfactorily. We however, differ from Roth and Weber who thought that an Iranian tribe was here referred to. The Bahlikas are apparently an Indian tribe, or at least an Indo-Iranian tribe that had been under the Indian influence from very early times.

c6.65

Kautilya in his *Arthaśāstra* mentions three kinds of leather produced in the Bālhi country and in this form it is mentioned by Kātyāyana in his Vārtika to Pāṇini IV. 2,99 where he says that like Kapiśāyana which is

c6.66

māgadhyavantijā prācyā śūrasenyatha māgadhī |
bāhlīkā dākṣiṇātyā ca sapta bhāṣāḥ prakīrttitāḥ ||
*Nāṭyaśāstra* XVII 48
bāhlīkabhāṣodīcyānāṃ kasanāṃ ca svadeśajā | *Ibid.*

c6.67

¹ [Missing in text, but implied by context of footnote 1]

c6.68

² Whitney and Lanman *Atharva-Veda*, Harvard Oriental Series VII p. 260

c6.69

³ *Alt-Indisches Leben*, pp. 431-3.

c6.70

⁴ II, 69.

c6.71

⁵ *Berliner Sitzungsberichte* 1892, pp. 985-95.

c6.72

⁶ सामरं चीनसी सामली च बाह्वेयाः (or बाह्वेयाः) [Note: The text in the image is slightly obscured/cut off, but this is the transcription of the visible characters] edition, p. 79. Bāhleyah is the reading adopted by Bhaṭṭasvāmin in his Ṭīkā on Arthaśastra, p. 42 in J. B. O. R. S., Vol. XI, pt. II; he explains it as a part of the Himalayas: त्रिविधं बाह्यमाह, सामुरमित्यादि । बाहवा हिमवदेकदेशः ।

c6.73

formed by Pāṇini from Kāpiśī, Bālhāyana is formed from the word Bālhī.¹

c6.74

¹ Cf. Weber, Ind. Stud. XIII. p. 369.

c6.75

In this connection it may be noted that the word Kāpiśī in the main sūtra of Pāṇini which Katyayana supplements, refers no doubt to the country of Kapi-shih of Yuan chwang ² in the neighbourhood of Bāhlīka; it was famous for its vine-yards now as in ancient times as is shown by the example by which the Kāśikā-Vṛtti explains the rule ³ and we observe that the soldiers of Raghu also relieved themselves from their fatigue with the liquor of that country in the rich vine-yards. ⁴ The Kāśikā-Vṛtti further compares the favourite drink of the Bāhlīkas with those of other well-known Indian tribes and peoples: "The Uśīnaras drink milk (Kṣīra), while the favourite beverage of the Prācyas is Surā, that of the Bāhlīkas is Sauvīra, and that of the Gandhāras Kaṣaya"⁵

c6.76

² Watters, I, p. 122.

c6.77

³ कापिीशब्दात् ष्फक् प्रत्ययो भवति शैषिकः । फकारो ङीषर्थः । कापिीशायन मधु । कापिीशयनी द्राक्षा । Kaśikā-vṛtti on Pāṇini, iv. 2, 99.

c6.78

⁴ विनयन्तेस्म तथोथा मधुभिर्विजयश्रमम् । आस्तीर्णाजिनरत्नाश्च द्राक्षावलयभूमिषु ॥ Raghuvamśam, iv. 65.

c6.79

⁵ क्षीरपाश्च उशीनराः । क्षीरपाश्च प्राच्याः । सौवीरपाश्च बाह्लिकाः । कषायपाश्च गन्धाराः । Kāśikā-vṛtti on Pāṇini, viii. 4, 9.

c6.80

In the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa ⁶ we find mention of Bahlika-Prātipīya who is called a Kauravya King (Kauravyo rājā), and the same king apparently is the Mahārāja Bāhlīka Pratipīya⁷ of the Great Epic. We are told in the Udyogaparva that of the three sons of Pratīpa, the eldest Devāpi being rejected by the representatives of the people—the Paurajānapada—went to the forest and became an ascetic and the second Bālhīka, obtaind the very rich kingdom of his maternal uncle and abdicated the paternal throne in favour of the youngest Śāntanu.¹ He fought with his Bāhlīkas on the side of Duryodhana. This explains how a Kaurava prince came to rule over the Bāhlīka people in the distant north and shows that in ancient times the Kurus were connected by matrimonial bonds with ruling families in the North-west, even beyond the mountain-barriers; Pāṇḍu’s marriage with Mādrī and that of Dhṛtarāṣṭra with Gāndhārī shows the intimacy of the relations between the Kurus and the Kṣatriya tribes in the North-west. In fact the Great Epic shows that the kingdoms on the North-west frontier and beyond—Madra, Gandhāra, Kāmboja, Bāhlīka—were looked upon as Indian provinces and Vātsyāyana shows that this feeling continued so late as the third century A.C when the Kamasutra was written.

c6.81

⁶ तदु ह बल्हिकः प्रातिपीयः...कौरव्यो राजा । Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, XII. 9.3.3.

c6.82

⁷ महाराजो बाह्लिकः प्रातिपेयः कश्चिद्विद्वान् कुशली सूतपुत्र । Mbt, Udyogaparva, 23. 9.

c6.83

¹ बाह्लीको मातुलकुलं त्यक्त्वा राज्यं समाश्रितः । पितृन् भ्रातृन् परित्यज्य प्राप्तवान् परमर्द्धिमत् ॥ बाह्लीकेन त्यनुज्ञातः शान्तनुर्लोकविश्रुतः । पितृयु परते राजन् राजा राज्यमकारयत ॥ Mbh. V. 149. 27-8. See J.A.S. 1910 p. 59

c6.84

Greek occupation of the country as well as intermixture with other foreign peoples had considerably modified the customs and practices of the Bāhlīkas from the moral standard of the Indians thus making them hateful to the latter, so that their rulers are placed among the barbarous and sinful kings who will rule on earth on the advent of the Kaliyuga,² and the people

c6.85

² बहवो म्लेच्छराजानः पृथिव्यां मनुजाधिप । मृषानुशसिनः पापा मृषावादपरायणाः ॥ अन्ध्राः शकाः पुलिन्दाश्च यवनाश्च नराधिपाः । काम्बोजा बाह्लिकाः शरास्तथाभीरा नरोत्तम ॥ J.C. III. 188 34-36

c6.86

बाह्लीको मातुलकुलं त्यक्त्वा राज्यं समाश्रितः ।
पितृन् भ्रातृन् परित्यज्य प्राप्तवान् परमर्द्धिमत् ॥
बाह्लीकेन त्यनुज्ञातः शान्तनुर्लोकविश्रुतः ।
पितृयु परते राजन् राजा राज्यमकारयत ॥
Mbh. V. 149. 27-8. See J.A.S. 1910 p. 59

c6.87

बहवो म्लेच्छराजानः पृथिव्यां मनुजाधिप ।
मृषानुशसिनः पापा मृषावादपरायणाः ॥
अन्ध्राः शकाः पुलिन्दाश्च यवनाश्च नराधिपाः ।
काम्बोजा बाह्लिकाः शरास्तथाभीरा नरोत्तम ॥
J.C. III. 188 34-36

c6.88

are considered, as we have seen before, as the very dregs of the earth.

c6.89

In the Great Epic itself there is evidence that some of the Bāhlīkas at least were Asuras, that is, Asura-worshippers or Iranians: we are told of a very powerful king of the Bāhlīkas Darada by name who was a Mahāsura or a great Asura and this Darada, the Bāhlīka, is praised highly by Śiśupāla, an Indian sovereign with Asura tendencies.¹

c6.90

The Uttarakāṇḍa of the Ramayaṇa records a very interesting and important tradition which goes to show that one of the most powerful ruling families of India was originally derived from the Bāhlīka country.² It is a variant of the well-known myth of Ilā which is found in all the Purāṇas and both the Epics. We are told here that Ilā, a son of the Prajāpati Kardama, was the king of the Bāhlīka country.³ Then the story goes on to relate how he was turned into a woman and passed by the name of Ilā, and when in this condition, had a son Purūravas Aila, by Budha, the son

c6.91

³ श्रूयते हि पुरा सौम्य कर्दमस्य प्रजापतेः । पुत्रो बाह्लीश्वरः श्रीमानिलो नाम सुधार्मिकः ॥ *Ramayana* VII. 87, 3.

c6.92

1. असुरमान्तु यः सव्यः श्रीमांश्चैव महासुरः । दरदो नाम बाह्लीको वरः सर्वमहीक्षिताम् ॥ *Mbt.* 1. 67 58. दरदं स्तुहि बाह्लीकं इमं पार्थिवसत्तमम् । जायमानेन येनेयम् अभवद् दारिता मही ॥ *Ibid.* 11. 44, 8.

c6.93

In the Great Epic, Bāhlīka is sometimes confounded with Bāhika or the region where the sindhu flows with its five branches, including the Madra countly over which Salya ruled, and Mādrī is once called Bāhlīkā ( I. 125, 21 ) and Nīlakaṇṭha in his gloss on *Mbt.* V. 39, 80, makes the same mistake : बाह्लीकाः "पञ्चानां सिन्धुष्ठानां नदीनां यत्र सङ्गमः । बाह्लीका नाम ते देशाः ।"

c6.94

2 *Uttarakāṇḍa*, Ch 87.

c6.95

of Soma, the moon-god. He ultimately recovered his male form by virtue of an Aśvamedha sacrifice performed under the auspices of his father, Kardama. Then the story tells us that Ila gave up Bāhlīka, placing his first son, Śaśavindu on the throne of that country and himself founded a new city, Pratiṣṭhāna-pura by name in the Madhyadeśa and set up a kingdom there. After his death Pururavas Aila ascended the throne left vacant by Ila.¹ This Pratiṣṭhānapura was, as we know from the Purāṇas and Kālidāsa's *Vikramorvaśīyam*,² situated at the junction of the Ganges with the Yamunā, that is, was identical with Prayāga or Allahabad. The story as related here is virtually the same as in the other Purāṇas, but the importance of this version lies in its statement that Ila was originally a ruler of the Bāhlīka country and at last set up a kingdom in the Midland which was the centre of Vedic Aryan culture. The mythical character of the tradition tracing back the descent of some of the most important ruling families of India up to Soma, shows that it relates to the very earliest times of the Aryan settlement in India and its connection with Bahlika or Bactria may suggest that it is a reminiscence of the times when the Aryan race was dwelling in its cradle-land in Central Asia.

c6.96

¹ राजा तु बाह्लिकसुतस्य मध्यदेशे ह्यनुत्तमम् । निवेशयामास पुरं प्रतिष्ठानं यशस्करम् ॥ शशबिन्दुश्च राजर्षिर्बाह्लिकेषु परुञ्जयः । प्रतिष्ठानं इलो राजा प्रजापतिसुतो बली ॥ *Ibid.*, 11. 90, 21-24.

c6.97

² 'अथवदीए आइरहीए जडं णा-संगमविसेस-पावएस सलिलैः जोलोअन्तस्स विअ श्रत्ताएअ' पट्टठानस्स सिहाभरणाभूदं रापुलिसयो अच्चा उवदिट्ठम् । *The Vikramorvaśīyam* Edited by S. P. Pandit, 3rd edition, revised by B. R. Arte, Bombay, 1901, Act II.

c6.98

A Reminiscence of the Aryan Cradle in Central Asia Another country where, as we have seen above, men were kept in the same position as ladies in the harem, was Strīrājya. As its name indicates, here the women perhaps exercised power in state affairs and apparently polyandry was the rule here giving the women a greater preponderance than in Bāhlīka or any other country; that it was not entirely mythical is proved by the details about the character of the ladies that Vātsyāyana gives in two passages besides the one quoted above. One of them states that in Strīrājya artificial means of sexual enjoyment were resorted to by the women, and the other tells us of the character of women in the king's harem.¹ Vātsyāyana's mention of the Strīrājya along with Bāhlīka and the existence of the same sort of relations between the sexes in the two countries would seem to indicate that they were situated in the same region. The other two passages where Vātsyāyana mentions Strīrājya in his work² do not offer any clear indication of its geographical position. Nor does the Commentary help us here. The comment on one of the passages only gives a synonym for Strīrājya viz., Strīpurī, and the other tells us that the Strīrājya was to the West of the Vajravantadeśa or Vangarakta³ about whose position we know nothing. The Brhat Samhita of Varahamihira, however, supports us in the conjecture that it is about the north-western frontier of India that we have to look for this country of women, in as much as he definitely asserts that the Strīrājya belonged to the north-western quarter of India along with the Tuṣāras (Tokhāra of Yuan Chwang), the Aśmakas, the Madras and similar other tribes in that region.¹ Parāśara who belonged to a much earlier period and from whose *Siddhānta* Varāhamihira borrowed his statements, says expressly that in the north-west lived the Tusāras and other tribes, and beyond them was the Strīrājya² leaving no doubt that the Strīrājya was situated in the farthest quarter of the northwestern district. In the corresponding passage in the *Mārkaṇḍeya-Purāṇa* we have a mention, in the north-western quarter, of the country of Strī vāhya which is evidently a misreading of the name Strīrājya. In the *Mahābhārata* we are told that at the *svayamvara* of a daughter of Citrangada, the King of Kalinga, came Mahārāja Sugāla, the ruler of the Strīrājya,⁴ but nothing can be ascertained about the position of the country from this mention, we can only be so far certain that the Strīrājya was looked upon as an integral part of India.

c6.99

¹ दृढप्रहरणयोगिन्यः खरवेगा एव अपद्रव्यप्रधानाः स्त्रीराज्ये कोशलायां च। Kamasutra, p. 126. तथा प्रवेशभिरैव ज्ञातिसम्बन्धिभिरन्यै रूपयुज्यन्ते स्त्रीराजकानाम्। Ibid. p. 294.

c6.100

² Ibid. p. 126 and p. 294.

c6.101

³ स्त्रीराज्यः स्त्रीपुरी तत्र भवानाम्। Ibid. p. 295. वङ्गरक्तदेशात् पश्चिमेन स्त्रीराज्यं। Ibid. p. 126. Durgaprasad in the Jaipur edition p. 130. reads—वज्रवन्तदेशात् पश्चिमेन।

c6.102

³ कुन्यता लड़ाहारचैव स्त्रीराज्या वालिकास्तथा । *Mārkaṇḍeya-Purāṇam*, 58, 38.

c6.103

⁴ सुगालश्च महाराजः स्त्रीराज्याधिपतिश्च यः । *Śāntiparva* iv, 7.

c6.104

Yuan Chwang describes a country in the Himalayas far away to the north of the region about Gangādvāra

c6.105

1 दिशि पश्चिमोत्तरस्यां मायडव्यतुषारतालहस्रमाः । अश्मककुलसहस्रस्त्रीराज्यसिंहवनास्तथाः ॥ *Brhat-Samhitā*, XIV, 22. Edited by Kern, 1865.

c6.106

2 तथा च पराशरः । अथ पश्चिमोत्तरस्यां दिशि गिरिविवरेषुमतिरलमति- फल्गुलुकमागडव्यकनेत्रमरुकुचतुषारतालहस्रबहलातवदलीनविलीनदीर्घकेयग्रीवान्ध्रजठर- रगविधेयषष्ठिकुलगुहाः । परमतः स्त्रीराज्यमिति । *Brhat-Samhitā* Vol. I. p. 292 ; edited by Mahāmahopadhyāya Sudhākara Dvivedi with the commentary of Bhaṭṭotpala in two volumes. The Vizianagram Sanskrit Series, No. 12.

c6.107

or Hardwar. Thus he goes on, "To the north of this country (Brahmapura), and in the Great Snow Mountains, was the Suvarṇa-gotra country. The superior gold which it produced gave the country its name. This was called the 'Eastern woman's country' (that is, of the Chinese) so called because it was ruled by a succession of women. The husband of the queen was king, but he did not administer the government. The men attended only to the suppression of revolts and the cultivation of the fields. This country reached on the east to T'u-fan (Tibet), on the north to Khoten, and on the west to San-p'o-ha (Malasa)."'

c6.108

The boundaries of this country as given by the Chinese pilgrim show that it lay near to the Tibetan frontier and it is seen from his account that there was a so called king of the country who was rather the Prince consort, and probably Mahārāja Sugāla, the Strīrājyādhipati of the Mahābhārata was one such king by courtesy. We have no reason to think that this Strīrājya was entirely mythical because we find that Strīrāj or polyandry is still prevalent about these regions, specially in the higher Himalayas. Thus we read in the Census Report,² "Polyandry or the custom of a woman having more husbands than one at one time, is peculiar to the Himalayas. It exists in the Kulu sub-division, the Bashahr state (Simla Hill States) and to a smaller extent in the Nahan, Mandi and Suket states." Again we have here, "Polyandry is confined to the upper Himalayas—i.e. Spiti, Lahul and Siraj in Kulu; Chamba Lahul in Chamba, Siraj in Mandi, Rampur, Chini (including Kavawar) and the upper minor states in Bashahar (State) and the Transgiri part of the Nahan State."³ Similar customs are also prevalent among the Brahmans and Rajputs in Kumaon.¹

c6.109

¹ Watters, I, p. 330.

c6.110

² 1911, Vol. XIV, by Pandit Harakishan Kaul, R. B., C. I. E., p. 287.

c6.111

³ Ibid. p. 289.

c6.112

¹ Bhagavanlal Indraji, *Ind. Ant.* VIII, p. 88.

c6.113

The *Rājatarangiṇī* mentions Strīrājya as one of the countries conquered by King Lalitāditya (first half of the 8th century A.C.) who we are told after vanquishing the Tukhāras who lived, as we have seen from Yuan-Chwang’s account, in the immediate vicinity of Balkh or the Bāhlīka country, conquered the country of the Amazons and proceeded to the land of the Uttarakurus² which according to the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*³ and the usual tradition was on the other side of the Himalayas, so that here it is seen that Strīrājya is considered to have been in the extreme north-west so as to agree with the location assigned to it by the *Bṛhat Saṃhitā*. If Strīrājya here is purely mythical like the Uttarakurus,⁴ yet it is significant as a record of the tradition that the country is considered to have been in the far north. But the *Rājatarangiṇī* furnishes further details which would lead one to suppose that this Strīrājya of the *Rājatarangiṇī* might not have been entirely a mythical land, a product of the poet’s imagination merely. Lalitāditya is said to have placed an image of Nṛhari (Viṣṇu) in the Strīrājya.⁵ Again, Lalitāditya’s grandson, Jayapīḍa, who reigned towards the end of the eighth century, is also credited with the conquest of Strīrājya by Kalhaṇa who says “wonderful it is that after he had conquered a territory in the ‘land of the Amazons’ (Strīrājya) the [other] kings esteemed [still more] highly his victory over the group of his senses (indriyagrāma).¹ Again he tells us of Jayāpīḍa's son, the debauchee Lalitāpīḍa, that "this king who was not satisfied with a few women, and who was full of violent desires, thought Jayāpīḍa an imbecile for having left the 'land of the Amazons' (Strīrājya) after he had conquered it."²

c6.114

² Stein’s *Rājatarangiṇī*, (Trans.), Vol. I. pp. 186–188; Taranga IV. verses 165-175.

c6.115

³ परेण हिमवन्तम्। *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, VIII. 14.

c6.116

⁴ See Stein, *Rājatarangiṇī*, Vol. I, p. 187, foot note.

c6.117

⁵ *Rājatarangiṇī*, IV. 185.

c6.118

¹ Ibid. IV. 587.

c6.119

² Ibid. IV. 666.

c6.120

Bhaṭṭasvāmin, the celebrated commentator of the Arthaśāstra, quotes a verse in which Strīrājya forms one of the countries which contained mines of precious stones.³ This verse has not been located as yet but it shows at least that in India Strīrājya was looked upon as an actual country and not as a mere mythical land.

c6.121

³ विन्ध्यो विन्ध्यलो मत्यो विन्ध्योपलख्यो यः । स्त्रीराज्यञ्चेति पुनस्तस्याकरभुमयोऽभिहिता ॥ Bhaṭṭasvāmin on Arthaśāstra, p. 31 J. B. O. R. S., Vol. XI. Pt. II.

c6.122

The Strīrājya of Vātsyāyana, therefore, does not appear to have been a mythical land, but it must have been a state where polyandry was prevalent and where there was a king, apparently of the type described by Yuan-Chwang and it might have been located in the Himalayas to the north of the Panjab, but more probably in the region of the north-west beyond the Himalayas where the Bṛhat Saṃhitā and the Rājatarangiṇī place it.

c6.123

Vātsyāyana himself speaks of another country where also similar customs prevailed; He calls it the Grama-nārī-viṣaya, the 'District of village women' which appears rather to be a descriptive epithet than a proper name. The Commentary explains that this district was situated near the Strī-rājya farther away.⁴ It is nowhere else mentioned by Vātsyāyana. Most probably it formed a group of villages where polyandrous people lived and apparently they did not form an independent state like the Strīrājya.

c6.124

⁴ स्त्रीराज्यसमीप एव परतो ग्रामनारीविषयः । Kāmasūtra. p. 140.

c6.125

Another country in the north-west of India which Vātsyāyana refers to, is that through which flow the six rivers including the Sindhu or the Indus.¹ The people living in this region, says Vātsyāyana, were fond of the filthy practice of Aupariṣṭaka; that they were sexually very corrupt is borne out by the character given them by Karṇa in the *Mahābhārata*² which also describes the country almost in the very same words as Vātsyāyana³ and designates the people as Bāhikas. This Bāhika country is condemned in the strongest terms in the *Mahābhārata* and is declared as unfit for habitation by Āryas⁴ showing apparently that at the time of the Great Epic itself, the people of the Punjab were at a far lower stage of culture than that of the Vedic Indo-Aryans.

c6.126

¹ सिन्धुषष्ठानां च नदीनामन्तरालीया औपरिष्टकात्मत्वाः । *Ibid.*, p. 128.

c6.127

² *Karṇaparva*, ch. 44 ff.

c6.128

³ पञ्चानां सिन्धुषष्ठानां नदीनां येऽन्तराश्रिताः । तान् 'धर्मबाह्यानशुचीन् बाहिकान् परिवर्जयेत् ॥ *Mbh.* viii, 44, 7.

c6.129

⁴ पञ्च नद्यो वहन्त्येता यत्र निःसृत्य पर्वतात् । आरट्टा नाम बाहीका न तेष्वार्यो द्विरहं वसेत् ॥ *Ibid.*, viii, 44, 40.

c6.130

This land of the five rivers with the Indus as the sixth does not exactly belong to the Udīcya division, but to the Pratīcya or Western Division; yet we mention it here on account of its affinity with the Udīcya countries and in fact, in the *Mahābhārata*, its ancient name Bāhika is sometimes confused with Bahlika, but that they were not the same country is quite apparent both from the descriptions of the two countries in the Epic itself, as well as the separate mention by Vātsyāyana.

c6.131

of the two countries in sūtras¹ closely following each other in the same connection.

c6.132

¹ Sūtras 22 and 25, pp. 125 and 126. 2 तस्मादास्तौपरिष्ठकमाचरन्ति न ताभिः सह संसज्यन्ते प्राच्याः । *Kāmasūtra*. p. 166. 3 संहत्य नव दशेत्येकैकं युवानं प्रच्छादयन्ति प्राच्यानामित्येवं परस्त्रियः प्रकुर्वीत ।

c6.133

Of the E a s t e r n or the P r ā c y a division of India Vātsyāyana mentions several countries and usages as well the general name *Prācya* itself as a designation for the whole of the district. We have already referred to his eulogium of the Prācya people who, as we have seen, unlike the Śaurasenas and the Sāketas were free from some of the grossest forms of sexual abuse.² The Commentary here explains that the Prācyas are people to the east of the *Aṅga* country, but here it is inconsistent with its own statement elsewhere; we have seen that according to the Commentary the limits of Vātsyāyana's Madhyadeśa are the same as those of Vasiṣṭha in his *Dharmasūtra* and hence the Prācya district must lie to the east of Prayāga, or Allahabad, where that Madhyadeśa ends. As we shall show below, the Commentator's knowledge of Eastern India was far from satisfactory or reliable, and there is no reason to question that Vātsyāyana has used the word P r ā c y a in its usual sense since the Vedic times, viz., the region from Allahabad to the farthest eastern limits of India.

c6.134

In describing the abuses in the king's harem Vātsyāyana says that among the Prācyas, a number of ladies—nine or ten in number—would combine and hide a common lover against discovery;³ besides, he refers to some general customs prevalent in Prācya countries (Prācyopacarah) with respect to the conduct of the king towards his many wives¹ and also to the temporary so-called marriage of the daughter of a courtesan by a Nāgaraka.²

c6.135

¹ राजानश्च कृपाशीला विनाऽपि आवयोगादायोजितापद्रव्या यावदर्थमेकया रात्र्या यत्रोभिरपि गच्छन्ति यस्यां तु प्रीतिर्वासकस्तत्रैव तत्राभिप्रायतः प्रवर्तन्त इति प्राच्योपचाराः । *Ibid.*, pp. 289–290.

c6.136

² पाणिग्रहणश्च संवत्सरमभ्याचार्यस्ततो यथाकामिनो स्यात् । *Ibid.*, p. 365.

c6.137

Of the countries included in the Prācya division, Vātsyāyana mentions *Kośala*, but as he speaks of it only once, in describing a practice which it had in common with the Strīrājya,³ we cannot be sure whether it is the northern Kośala which was a part of the Prācya region, or the Kośala in the south. But Vātsyāyana mentions, as we have already seen, Sāketa, the capital of the northern Kośala country in his time.

c6.138

³ दृढप्रहसनयोगिन्यः खर्वेगा एव अपद्रव्यप्रधानाः स्त्रीराज्ये कोशलायां च । *Ibid.*, p. 126.

c6.139

The country of *Kāśi* is also referred to by Vātsyāyana when speaking of the Kāśi-rāja Jayatsena who was murdered by his master of the horse when out on an affair of love.⁴

c6.140

⁴ काशिराज जयत्सेनमाश्र्वध्यक्ष इति । *Ibid.*, p. 287.

c6.141

Vātsyāyana mentions three countries of the Prācya Division, *Vaṅga*, *Aṅga* and *Kaliṅga* in one passage where he refers to the love-episodes of the royal harem. He says that Brahmins of the city under the pretext of giving flowers to the ladies enter the harem with the knowledge of the king, and speak with them from behind a curtain, and from such conversations union afterwards takes place.⁵ It is in his notes on this passage that the commentator, Yaśodhara, manifests his absolute ignorance of the geography of eastern India to which we have already referred. Thus he says that the Vaṅgas lived to the east of the Lauhitya or the Brahmaputra, the Aṅgas to the east of the Mahānadī and the Kaliṅgas to the south of the Gauḍa-viṣaya, and that the Gauḍas themselves were a Prācya people living in Kāmarūpa.¹ Except with regard to the situation of Kaliṅga which may be said to be practically correct, all his other locations are absurd showing that he had no personal acquaintance with this part of India.

c6.142

⁵ See Burton's Translation. Reprint 1888. p. 235.

c6.143

¹ गौडाः कामरूपकाः प्राच्यविशेषाः । वङ्गा लौहित्यात् पूर्वेण । अङ्गा महानद्याः पूर्वेण । कलिङ्गा गौड़विषयाद्दक्षिणेन । Kāmasūtra, p. 225.

c6.144

Gauḍa is mentioned several times by Vatsyayana and appears to have been a separate kingdom from Vaṅga at the time that he wrote; thus he makes a separate mention of the love-intrigues in the king's harem in the two countries, though they are virtually of the same character, in as much as he says that among the Gauḍas these intrigues were carried on with Brahmins, relatives and servants etc.,² that is, with men who had ordinarily access to the harem as in Vaṅga. In two other passages Vātsyāyana refers to the sense of beauty of the men and the softness and delicacy of the women of Gauḍa : thus while comparing the various fashions of dressing the nails by men in different parts of India, he says, “Large nails, which give grace to the hands, and attract the heart of women from their appearance, are possessed by the Bengalees.”³ Burton here translates ‘Gauḍānām” by Bengalees. In another passage where Vātsyāyana compares the characteristics of the women of various parts of India, he speaks of the ladies of Gauḍa as soft and sweet in their speech, full of love and tender in their bodies.¹ Here the Commentary explains Gauḍyaḥ as Pūrvadeśabhavāḥ, and evidently Gauḍa of Vātsyāyana is northern Bengal. Vātsyāyana has separately mentioned Vaṅga showing that it formed a separate kingdom comprising the eastern districts of modern Bengal.

c6.145

² ब्राह्मणमित्रभृत्यैर्दासचेटैश्च गौडानाम् । Ibid., p. 294.

c6.146

³ Burton's Translation, Reprint 1883, pp. 52-3.

c6.147

¹ मृदुभाषियोऽनुरागवत्यो मृदङ्गयश्च गौडाः। Kāmasutra, p. 127

c6.148

Gauḍa as the name of a city, a country, or a people, is found from very early times in Indian literature including the works of Pāṇini and Kautilya, and almost everywhere it appears to refer to Bengal. But as some scholars have expressed a doubt about it, the question deserves to be very carefully examined. Cunningham expressed the opinion that the ancient Gauḍa was "only a sub-division of Uttara-Kosala"² as against the medieval city of Gauḍa in Bengal.³ Again, the late Mr. A. M. T. Jackson also, in connection with an inscription wherein the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king, Kṛṣṇa II, is declared to have been Gauḍānām vinaya-vratārppaṇa-guruḥ,⁴ observes "It is too often assumed that in the tenth century and earlier the name Gauḍa means Bengal. I think, however, that this is a mistake which is responsible for much misreading of Indian History. It was, I think, Professor R. G. Bhandarkar who first expressed doubts on the point, and suggested that Gauḍa meant Gonda in Oudh. The key to the riddle is to be found in Alberuni's notes on the 'Voelkertafel' of Varāhamihira (Sachau's Alberuni's India, I, 300) which informs us that Guḍa = Tāneshar. This explains why the Sārasvat Brahmans of the holy Sarasvatī are the Gauḍas *par excellence*, and why Gauḍa and Vaṅga are mentioned separately in the Baroda Grant of 812 A.D. The Gauḍas whom Kṛṣṇa II ‘humbled’ or ‘schooled’ were therefore the rulers of ‘Hindustan’ in the narrow sense, or in other words the Gurjaras themselves.”[1] Most of these opinions expressed here by Mr. Jackson can be clearly shown to be absolutely wrong. In the first place, as regards the tenth century, no serious historian now doubts that the Gauḍa emperor Devapala who was the son of Raṇṇadevi, a sister of Kṛṣṇa II,[2] belonged to Bengal and not to the Gonda district of Cunningham or Thanesar of Mr. Jackson, so that this point need not be expatiated upon.

c6.149

² Reports of the Archaeological Survey of India, Vol. 1, p. 327

c6.150

³ Ibid., p. 328.

c6.151

⁴ Epigraphia Indica, IV, p. 283.

c6.152

² See *Gauḍalekhamālā*, pp. 36-37.

c6.153

³ *Ibid.*, p. 74.

c6.154

⁴ गौडेन्द्र-वङ्गपति-निर्ज्जय-दुर्व्विदग्ध सद्-गुज्जरेस्वर-दिग्गलतां च यस्य । *Ind. Ant.* XII. p. 160, line, 9.

c6.155

Gauḍeśvara Devapala is Ruler of Bengal in the 10th Century.

c6.156

Devapāla is called *Gauḍeśvara* in Gurava Misra’s inscription on the Garuda-pillar at Bādal in the Dinajpur district in nothern Bengal,[3] and the Gauḍas whom Kṛṣṇa II could have taught a lesson were the people under this relative of his. In the Baroda Grant of 812 A.D.—no doubt he refers to the Baroda copper-plates, dated 734 Śaka-saṃvat of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Karka II—*Gauḍendra* and *Vaṅgapati* are separately mentioned,[4] because north western and eastern Bengal formed different kingdoms at the time, while the very fact that they are mentioned together shows that these kings were close neighbours. Their defeat by the Pratihāra-Gurjara king Vatsaraja had evidently been obtained before Gopala, the founder of the Pāla dynasty of Bengal, consolidated Gauḍa, Vaṅga and Magadha into one great empire.

c6.157

¹ *JRAS.* 1905, pp. 163-4.

First 156 of 331 passages. Read on

Linked texts (48)