Social Life in Ancient India: Studies in Vatsyayana's Kamasutra c8.20

c8.20

Marriage only with a Girl of the same Caste virgin who belongs to the same caste and who has been won in accordance with the prescriptions of the sacred laws, then it provides the means of getting lawful progeny, secures a good name in the world and besides, obtains the approval of the public. The contrary practice, he goes on, of *Kāma* or love directed towards women of the higher castes, or towards those that have been married to others, even though belonging to the same caste, is prohibited.¹ Love only, and not marriage, may be offered to a woman of a higher caste, when she is a *svairiṇī*, that is, of unrestrained movements—a woman who has had many lovers before,² and in such a case, Vātsyāyana assures us, there will be no violation of *Dharma* or Law. Love with women of a caste lower than one’s own, but even then not excommunicated from their own castes, with public women or with the *Punar-bhūs*, that is, widows who, unable to lead a life of continence and restraint, sought for a lover, was neither approved of as decent conduct (*śiṣṭa*), nor was it prohibited, as the object in these cases was pleasure only.³ In this last case, Vātsyāyana means to say that while such practice was not favoured by the better section of the community, it was not absolutely condemned by the public as the object of such union was simply pleasure and the woman was not expected to partake with him, like the lawful wife (*patnī*), in the ceremonial rites, nor was she expected to give birth to lawful progeny as the Commentary explains¹. This is an important point to bear in mind as it serves to explain the mentality of the Indian law-givers. Offerings made by the progeny begot on such women would not be acceptable to the gods or the manes, therefore to take them to wife for having sons from them was unthinkable. Manu, though permitting *anuloma* marriage with a woman of a lower caste, including the Śūdra, proceeds, in the very same breath, most emphatically to condemn such marriage with a Śūdra woman and quotes a number of ancient authorities of whom even the most liberal would not permit a person of the twice born castes to have a son on a Śūdra woman. Thus says Manu, "According to A t r i and to (G a u t a m a ) the son of Utathya, he who weds a Śūdra woman, becomes an outcast, according to Ś a u n a k a, on the birth of a son and according to B h r g u, he who has ( male ) offspring from a (Śūdra female, alone). A Brāhmaṇa who takes a Śūdra wife to his bed, will ( after death) sink into hell; if he begets a child by her, he will lose the rank of a Brāhmaṇa. The manes and the gods will not eat the (offerings) of that man who performs the rites in honour of the gods, of the manes, and of guests chiefly with a (Śūdra wife's) assistance and such (a man) will not go to heaven."² Yājñavalkya condemns such marriage categorically : "What is said about the acquisition of a wife from the Śūdra caste, does not commend itself to me, for the reason that one's own self is born in her.”¹ At the present day, intermarriage between castes is not permitted by Hindu India under any circumstances, whether with superior or inferior castes, and we already notice a stiffness growing towards the question during the few centuries that intervened between Manu and Vātsyāyana. While Manu permits *anuloma* marriage, and that even with a Śūdra girl, though under protest, Yājñavalkya would exclude the Śūdra absolutely from its scope. Vātsyāyana who gives a nearer view of the actual condition of society, would not countenance anything but marriage inside one’s own caste, all connection with a woman of an inferior caste (*avaravarṇā*) is placed by him in the same category as love with public women, and he would not consider it as serious marriage at all.