Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c8.49

c8.49

an Aryan woman, he was fined an hundred paṇas.¹ Prostitution, which could not be stamped out, was subjected to minute regulations. It is not necessary to go into all the unpleasant details, but it may be pointed out here that in Kautalya’s system the Superintendent of Prostitutes classified them into grades, prescribed their fees, limited their expenditure and sternly checked all tendency to extravagance. They must present their daily budget to the authorities, one-fifteenth part of their income going to the coffers of the state. Revenue, indeed, was one of the motives which promoted the whole system of regulation. Strict rules are laid down for the inheritance of the property of prostitutes. Again, they could not mortgage their property or entrust their jewellery to any one except their mothers. Their conduct comes in for state supervision. If they hurt or defamed any one, they were heavily fined. If they murdered their paramours, they should be consigned to a watery or fiery death. If they refused to adhere to agreements which were neither “ill-considered,” nor “improper,” they were to be fined twice and, in certain cases, eight times the amount of the stipulated fee. The state is not to maintain any brothels of its own, but it could appoint prostitutes to men,—a provision with which the deplorable exigencies of barrack-life had, perhaps, something to do. If the wretched women refused, they were to be heavily fined or barbarously whipped. On the other hand, severe punishment was meted out to those who abducted, hurt, or outraged a prostitute, her mother, daughter, or maid-servant.²