( 1,

i ,· , r __,
, 11;) ,/111 t,· •i , ~1,J c· Uu

I Se lf Is, Nol ('J en d ered·

S lw
T
, u abha'.s De ba te with IC.
111g Jan aka
IUJTH VAN JTA

'/'/if s r:ss (/y h (e, hl1,v,h ls r h e de b . .

II'\/~
..
N,,,·,11er rl JC /J0/1u 1o r at
.
el onwom . enond
. gendeTrnan
. . cie, ntJndi{/ 11
l iri,cl ,·,,ff'.· . 11 0 1
t 1e sch olarly de bote 111 m o dern Tndia h a,

l e''{ / ~·
'
1
l/ ,Ji! IIL O/( C II L 10 /l l
, . .
·
°
. · .
unmarn ed l e o rn e d wom en m anc.ie nt Hindu
, ·'

.. ·.
(Ill 1·111C JICCl// , I
O · /'CIJ
. · . j n, 1gu1 e of. S 1..1 1_{/0J. J,a, o. srnglc~
i:,>.n 1n1 11e I 1Je rc c urre t f' ,. . . ·woman ur1d
. uncw nL ; focus on .h er d ebote w1th philoso1Jher-/cin o
I t1 1I 11 I,.r1 111 t 1.1r,: eJJtc· 'f\1\ a- lla bl Ja rn ta . ·w h. en Jan ol<a us es anti-women aro - .uo-
0
ll l <rnl s t u cn 11ciu e Su l bl • . .
f u llv e s Lo h} I - ' . . ll 10 s_un conventwnal ?ehav1~r, Sulobh a success -
. .\ h e.~ , un l h e has,s of Hrn d u pl11losoph1cal pi-inciples, thctt
·rr
. 1 c1I eren ce bel w een a nwn ancl a wonwn ; she also
I / /(' I e' I ·<; /1 () e,.', •<; t,7 ll I 10
d c 111u n sl rnli", ,. hv , /Jc' t o wn . exomJJIe l lml o w on10n moy {IChieve . .
hhern -
/ ·1()1 1 ! 1)1 the ·o:; 11 11 1£'· I1I r,-· ' 1·n s· o.~• o mo n · 1n I J1e s om e ep1·c, a nwrnecl · womo n
\·V 111 8 li e, dd )( 1/ e:: 1, 11 lJ o rno le sage , prn v1.·n g ilwt even o 1voma11 followin g 1

llu • C07 /\ 't-:ll 1Wn d l jJ(!t h of 'Ni(e]y devution rntl y equol or uulclo o sage in
1v 1.,1 / ()J11 t1 nd v irtu e c

Key wonb : a m1q u1t y / ge n der / Hi1idu is rn / lndia / Mohczblwwla / l\!Ianu-

wo m en
S/7111t1 /

W I\() 1s S u] ;1b h ,1? N u t m any people, n ot e ven many S2nsk-1it scholms,

1 e c ng ni z e th e n :4111 c ;it on ce . She is cl single wo1n,111, a learned renun -
c i,1 11t . wl10, 1J1 rl1 e ,1 11 c icm epic, the Afolwblwrntn, wins a debate with
i•h I lu sopher-k1ng l,1 n a k ,1 in the presence of eminent Brahman scholars .
[ 11 t lrn; d e bat e, Sul a blrn log.ic;,1lly establishes that there is no essential dif -
kit ·nce be twee n ,1 rn ;in ,111d a woman; sh e ::i lso dernonstrntes by her own
cx .1 rnp k ch ,H a woma n m ,1y achieve lib e ration hy the same m eans as a
, n . i\.'lod crn sc lrnl. 1r s of th e 1ViahalJh orc1Lo h,1ve not paid much attention
111 1
LU th is episo d e n o1 h ,1ve fem inist studi es oi a ncient Ind ia give n il th e
1
i 11 \I 1 l)rLH1Ct i L 1lt. Sl'. I VL'.S .

I\'1 odern Deb at es an<l Ancient Debates on VI/omen

1.., ·n lnt! · , 1 c, •,. · s 11otb ,1 scboLnlv a nd ;.1 popu lc1r debate on ,,.,,rom en
l n n 1o ct" 1 1,1 , . 1 1 , 1- L - - _, . . ,
·ll l ,.111l .·. l (L
,t 1 1
11 l 1,..
, ·- he
. 1101 , u hn wing ot
.
th1 s d ebate suftcrs trorn an ovn
. . . .
. rll . 1 ,., ]1t ii> l< 1','lr1novm lh r1rm o c;ho strr1 or l \ll(mu s m rr L1 \cn c1
t_• 1111 \ I1 ; \:, 1S () l 1 C 1• .. • , • • . •

11·, 1-. c1· 11 l u 1v < rl, -·

·,-1,
, . ,
1• L'i llJ'l1·1c,
, .
·1s IS [;J rl',. e lv. t he lel', , ;) (:,\.' (,1 B11L1.s l1
.
col on .wl
.
, · i ·< ii· ._ \,·!·(' 1 1t ' 1 t) Ll '_' ]1 th ey th e m selve s were iJm1h ,11 wi t h Bnusb
ch Illll.11l~l li l .., · c' J ,'O . • .
,, ] 1,· ; "l>l1l C ,N,rys rn t h e r,kthorn o l regrn n ;.1.\ a nd com-
e_o 11-11-,, 1• u 1.1 1• ,.11 ,..;, ,.
., . 1, , 1 , 1. 1 . .

, () , '- "' \ '( \ / '1 .'.. :--,) , ,. ' ) ( ) l ) J\1 , l i 1, )

\\ ) /. ( I ) i " ,· ; _) / ( )I ' I ' ' l • \' ( ) I '

r
 T!l E SHF Is No-r GENDER ED
77

. .
nwnit y cu stoma ry laws prevai lina amona st H . d . ~ec1dc cl_to simpli fy
. ~n us,
then admin istrati ve tasks in I d~ b a
ot Hindu law
based on transl ations of ancien ;t:e~1t i~e~~; ~o1~n g a digest
.. the Bengal govern -
ment p ublish ed Sir Willia m Jones's t , 1-at1on t 1\encl,
o Mnnu smnti in 1794
Th , B .. h . .fi d . . r<1ns
nt1s JUSt1 e then rule part_ l y by attac kina Ind ia . .· l .
.. c , _o . n_sou,i and
polJt1 ca J struct ures as iniqui tous. This attacl< was pnma n ly focu sed
13 ·· l h
?~11 1_<11~n~ns, encehadt;hemagni lvianu smriti , 1.-vhich the Jones school of Brn-
1::;h ad1111 n1stra tors fied as syn1 bolJ·c of r d· 1. a ,s giemn .
css, W c1S
d ] d .1 - ~ ' - n
,ec ~r~ ~ B ~hma mcal ~~de ,\11~ critiqu ed by the Macau
lay school of
s. .
adm1~~1strat-01_s as ~ym bolic of Indian societ y:s backw_arclfles
sides in this popul ar debate that s~ill
In_c ,ian nat10 nahsts also took
of so111e of Manu' s dicta : su ch :ic:;
c?n ~inue s today. By se lectiv e quotat ion
1
h s .r:::i n 1ous s tate1n ent that the gods reside where wome n are hon~r ed
y sele;ti ve
01~~
group ~rg ues that the i"v1anusmriti exalts wome n. By equall
ent that
quorn t.1011 of others of his dicta, such as his famou s prono uncem
~1 ,vom an sh~ul d never be :indep enden
t but should be under the protec tion
the other
· of her father m youth , husba nd in adulth ood, and son in old age,
gender oppre ssion in
gro'.1p ,u~ue s that the Manu sniriti js the sourc e of·
of Hindu Lnv.
Jnch ,J. Both group s agree i-n prnjec ting Manu as the source
preci nets of
Thus, when admir ers of Manu install ed a statue of him in the
his detrac tors protes t ed, and
th e high collrt in Raia s than, weste rn India,
(Kishw ar 2000, 3) .
burnt copie s of the J\fo zmsm rJt i on 25 March 2000
(c.
Schol ars agree that wome n's st::1tus declin ed from the Vedic period
They differ,
l S0D BCE ) to the period begin ning c1bout the first centur y CL
rs, while agreei ng
howe ver, as to the exten t ef the declin e . Some schola
t ex ts clecli-
that ·wome n in the epics and Purnn as (the Purnn as are sacred
y BCE and
c1te d tu v,niou s deiti es1 co111posed betwe en th e second centur
d to men, nevert hele ss
th e thirte enth centu ry CE) are genera ]ly subor dinate
men in some
cL-1in1 th;.~t 1-vo1nen arc usual ly honor ed, have equal status to 3
sp here s, ,1nd even more power than men in c.1 few sphere s.
in this
On the other hand, many Marxi st and femin ist critics argue tbat
bc:en a chatte l
period vvom,111 "total ly lost her hum ,111 Jignit y" and "has
12, 89), and
in Indi,1 ever since th e later Vedic times " (Blrnt tachar ji 1994,
protes t or
intern alized her subor dinati on to the exten t that she did not
tic rise of god-
quest ion it (Shah 1995, 72). These schoL us view the drnma
dess worsh ip and godde ss theolo gy from the Puran ic period
onw,irds ,1s
insofa r ,1s goddesses
irrele vant to or even detrim ent;,1} to worne11's status
hy" with
"do not suffrr '' and huma n wome n theref ore canno t "feel empat
1gree with this
them (Blrnt tachar ji 1994, 36). Some femin ist schot ns cJis ~
as residi ng
viev,., ;:1 rnl argue thnt to the exten t that godde sses are seen
they clo
in v,;;m1cn ,11~d gjrJs, espec ially jn T;rntr n ,rnd Shakt a tr;:idition s,
_
empo v.;cr huma n wome n (Kinsley 19KA; GupU.! 2000) .
foct
Jn my view, mode rn dcbJt es do not suffic iently rccogrn zc th e
t h,n there was an ·ongo ing debate about \-vorn
cn in ;mcjen t Hindu text~ .
 RUTH VA NITA
7 ,,
, ::,

The often seemingly sc l!-cnn lr.1Ji ctory pronouncements about worr~en

found in Jccrctive ,m.cicnt texts ITWY reflect that de~ate, as do the vary1~g
interrrcu ti on s of or:11 c1s we l.l JS written law. Both in pr~-moclern and rn
modern Ind ia, Lnv·s 1 especicilly written law s 1 are a:ccess1b1e to very few
pcc,plc an(i .tul lowed by even fewer 1 while most ~eoplc are mure 1i keJy to
fol lov,J pr~1coccs th at are cu s tomary with in the1 r local_castes and co_m -
muni ti es. Howevcr1 these customary laws that vary widely from regwn
to region ancl even village to village1 are themselves always in dispute 8nd
open to varying interpretations, just as arc ~ritten law codes_ Hindu writ-
tcnhw codes, from (he Mnnnsmriti through the British law cocles-t_o L:1ws
passed in inde~1endent Ind .ia, c:ilways recognize the legal force and vc1lidity
of custom . It is the bewildering plethora of interpretations of customary
la1,-v that constitute the ongoing debate in the legal arena_
The v,uying versions and interpretations of the epic and Puranic stories
that emerged at different times and places across the country .and were
accessible to most people through regular oral retellings and dramatic
enactments also represent that debate. The Sulabha-Janaka debate in the
canonical Sanskrit ]\11ahabharata is an important example oi that ongoing
discussion. Jan aka argues in favor of women's su bordina_tion, projecting
a view found both in the Mc1imsmriti and in many other texts, including
the epics.' Sulabha contests this view, basing her arguments on standard
philosophical propositions.
Finally, I compare and contrast the Sulabha-Janaka debate with another
sirnibr debate in the l\1ahobharata-that between a married woman and
the great sage Kaushika. Once again, the \voman w.ins the debate and
proves that vvhile following the conventional path of wifelv devotion sJ1 e
is jn foct morevirtuous th,rn he is . ·while many women, could ho ;e to
1
1I11JU1tc thi s model, fewer could aspire to be like Sulabha.

The Single Wo1nan as Intellectual

I am intc~·cstcd in the figure of the single woman i:lS intellectual -renun-

Clant . Th1s _figur~ defies the dictum that a won1an should always be under
the
•
protection
~ - . .. :
11
.. · £
ot a man
.
. How. do the texts in which
·
a fio- ,-e 11·,<e
-'-o 11 .. ,
s 1, 1 '
,. lli,:1.Jl:a
c1p1Je,._s ;usu1y her existence rnclependent of men~ How do they v;:due her
contnbutwn to knowledge7 · ·
Beh •intith•Po ·., o f·+-1
, 1e... . ·
f] -- e 10u1e c1L1ton01nous 1e,1n1eci. 'No -- 1~11·"1' s~L-~na's t'i-- -. fi~
0 ~11 c 9u tonomous goddess ·who presides ove1: le;.nni·no p. l ··:• !Ll"LlfC <ll (.

J , · :1·1 ,
whJ,, +: • Il f .. ...,..,· aL,UL.X lC,. , \. _
. ill ~ Lite goc. ( ess o speech 3:nd o± leuning ,me! the ans Saras\\'"t1· u ·, ~:
CJ·1 vreJ11' 'S ' t I . h / ,, :--,1..LCl I

l·.; ~-,· cuh_,,.,

: · c - en cc., w1t out c.1 consort, is verv nrorr inen· iJ) 1 •1··
f ·, · . . · ,. -- ~ " - . rh 1~1n ricy;_,u ' -
,.. ' .,c, cmm1st sc 110Lus, both in the 'vVcst ·~ml;,.., 1·11 ! · . '~. · •. J
SCcFCtl" .. r ·1 . .. . --, " ,. ,,1 <..!Ll, 11,lVe p~llU
• ,v .i. iy ,.ttentrnn to lier. I hey have focused :~1ost oi th, - , . ~: .
on \v ·1r r,c r -- l l] _.1 , ,Cll dttcnu(111
' .. ) l1iot lCr gocc.esses s11ch as DUP''l K c•·,1r11 - ,._,,. , .1.
-,n.,1
-<.!I,.-1
("·•11 . ,.
__ 11111a 111~1st~1. --
 Tt! E S EL F Is NoT Gnmrnw
79

Concomit antly, feminist study of women's agency an<l resistance in the

epics bas focused not on single women but on the angry protests of wives,
such as Draupadi's protest against her husband Yudhishth ira's gamblino
h er a way, or Sit,1's protest against her husband Rama's unjust and harsh
t reatmen t of her after he rescues her from her abductor: Ravana. Less
ntt cntion has been p,1icl to women's participat ion in intellectu al and
b phi losophical conversati on, even though both Sita and Draupadi engage
in s uch conversati ons. Conversely , within mainstrea m Hindu tradition
Sa raswa ti, who is widely worshiped in education al institution s and b~
those cng~1ged in the arts, has been a symbol for. education in gener!11, a·nd
wom en's educ,ition in particular .
It .is noteworth y that in the earliest Hindu sacred text1 the Rigve.da
Samhita /c. 1500 BCE), the goddess Vak has no consort, and Saraswati too
is ,,vorshiped without a consort in most traditions . On the other hand, the
warrior goddesses are mostly incarnatio ns of Parvati, consort of Shiva.
lbdha, vvho has received,-! lot of attention from scholars of Vaishnavi sm,
is usuc1l1y ,,vorshjped along with Krishna (Hawley and Wulff 1982) .. Femi-
nist schobrs' neglect of Saraswati is related to their focus on wives and
mothers t0 the neglect of sing.1e women in ancient Indian texts .
Subbha is a female "1scetic or Rishika who is not a Brahman but a
Ksh,rtriy,1. Like the philosoph er-king, Janaka, she belongs to the ruler-
w~nrior commlmi ty1 not the priestly anc1 scholarly communit y. Whereas
Janaka is a husband and a king even while he pursues ph1losoph ical truth,
Snlabh;:1, by becoming an ascetic, opts out of soci,11 institution s like mar-
-rjage, caste, and commi_mj ty.
It is jmportcrnt that neither Sulabha nor Janaka is just a character
in a panjcuJar story, as is, for ex;:imple, the Pandava hero Bhima. Both
SubbhJ and Janaka ;1re symbolic figures who appear in different texts, in
the Vedic as well as in the epjc ancl Puranic periods. She represents the
£ernc1le scholar par excellence ,mcl he the scholar who is also a king . Thus
the Saulobha Slwldw (now lost) of the R.igvedo Samhita is attributed to
SuL.ibh~1. She appe ,irs again in Lhe Kcmshitc1 ld Brnhmcma, in the list of
revered te;1chers to \vhorn salutation s must be offered. Her most important
appear,mc e as c1 cha meter is in the Shanti Porva of the epic Malrnbharntc1,
where she enters into ,J debate with King Janaka.
The Nlolwbhor nla, ,m accretive text whose date is disputed, ·was proba-
b]y composed and compiled over ,1 period of 800 years, between the fourth
ccnturv JlCE ;rnd the fourth century CE. Often termed the fifth Veda, it is
the lon,ge~t epic in the world, aml tells the story of a battle between two
sets of cm1sins. This story is submerge d in ,1 plethorn of other stories,
debates, and discussion s. Even though few Hindus ·have read the entire
epic, the stories of the A1olwblw mtn are ,,videly dissemina ted throug)1
song d ram::i, and now cnH:'1118 and tc lcYision. Figures and events irorn
1

these stories have become both idiomatic and figurative in Indian hm-
 RUTH Vi\NITA
80

guagcs. The iV1ohobJwrato ~onL1ins the Bhngvod<?itn, the dia~og between

Krishn a and _A r ju na th at 1s ~1rn ong the mos t ·w idel y read Hindu s::icred
texts .

Debate and Dialog in Hindu Tex ts

DcbdtC is the si nglc 111ost important org,111 izi ng principle in anc ient Hindu
texts . Tt may take t h e form of stru c tured question a nd an sw er, fr iendly
disu1ssion and dialog, pr formal s.lwstrm thn (deb;ne) b etwee n rival scr1ool s
of thought. In· th e J\,1nhabhan-ita it occurs most often a s conversation.
In foc t, the whole epic is structured as a series of conversations encased
one within the other. These conversations take place between ancestors
and descendants, 1nale friends (Krishna and ArjunaL male and female
friends (Krishna and DraupadiL fema le friends (Draupadi and Satyabha1na ),
enemies, siblings, parents and children, husbands and wives, go<ls and
humans, hu1nan ;:md non-human anirna.J s, servants c:1 nd masters, teachers
2nd pupils, and strangers ~ho encounter one another by chance .
A wide spectrum of issues, 'ranging fro m veget.:nianisrn to jus tjce to
gender to the 111eans of attaining liberation from rebirth, are discussed
2t length, and pO\verf u l arguments are Jdvanced on several sides of each
question. vVhile n1any different answers arc presented, one of then1 usu-
ally, but not always, emerges as the correct answer. This does not mean,
hovvever, that the other answers are completely invalid<lted.
Pw1aps the most famous debate-~envee n a \VOm ,=m and a n1an in an
dncient Hindu text is that benveen Gargi and Yainavalky;.:1, which takes
place in tl1e presence of Ring Janaka , in th e Biihadnranycdrn Uponislwd .
Feminist scholars nsuc.:lly cjte this d eb-1te as an ex,11111")Je of the silencincr0
of women jn patri,:nchal society because the debc1te ends with Yajnavalkya
silencing G2.rgi by telling her that if she Jsks any more quest ions her head
wi 11 fa]] off.
Co!1versely, both the debates here cxan:iincd-bet ween King Jd.naka
and t11e fc111ale ascetic Sulabha, and between the rn~uried wmnan ;ind
the sage Kaushika-end with the silencing oi the 1nale part icipant. The
S1~l?bl;a-J,1naka debate takes pt1cc in the Shonti Pnrvo section of the epic
lv10J~aohawtc1. The Shanti Parva was composed laLer th,111 manv other
sec:10ns _of the e_p ic, but is philosophjc,dly well integrated vvith {he rest
of tnc ep1c.
The Sulab~1,1-Janaka debate rnc.1y reflect c.l debat e berwcen different
?:l,~ools ?f Hrndu_pl~ilosc:phy. \i\lhile it is framed as a deh,lt e reganUn o
tl1_c ~e\at~ve supcnonty ot _action and re1wnciJtion ,'\S p,H hs to liber,:Jtjo~~
\~~~J K S w 1 fron-1 the cycle o! rebirth, t h is is ;1lso ;1 dch ,Ht~ c.1huut oendei· C )' "' -
1

c 1 l7 c ., 11v w h ·,t 1 - - 1- ,--,

1
' ..., ' t:
_,l. , , t . _wi ,l wo11ian con uc :1ut :rnornous can be c1 in- 111 ,s ;nt•'lle r·t u - ·il
I' lj I ] '1 1 ( · ~
1
· · . J . < , l '-- ,.
- - ' Jl supe nor, c1nu can ,lttm n cm :'.nc1pc1 tion indep 1_·ndcritly.
T,'H St:u l s NcT GFNn1- k1:.1J
81

A lth o ugh the text may be jnfh1cnc ed by Buddhi~ m nml/or ma y be

respo ndrng to Buddhis m, Sulabba is not represen ted as a Bude.lb fat. Whi k
Buddhis m introduc ed organize d female asceticis m (despite th e 1niti fi!
reluctan ce o[ Buddha to aJlow women into Lhe monasti c order), J hnd u
fcma le ascetics do appear in many ancient texts . Sulabha is of particu la r
intere st bec!1use her asceticis m is not underta ken in the capacity of a
herrn it 's wire, as is that of other female hermits in the Mahabh arata. She
is a single 1·wman who is an ascetic in her own right. Nor is she p,irt of any
organ i zed o~der or monaste ry, as Buddhis t nuns were. We are explicitl y
to1d that she w,mders over the eart~. As such, she reprC$en ts one t ype or
idea] of H indu asceticis m, here embodie d in a female. This is importa nt:
beca use many modern commen tators who see Buddhis m as ·m ore bber[1-
tory for ,vomen than Hinduis m tend to think that renuncia tion was avai 1-
ablc to Buddhis t but not to Hindu women.
J--1 i ndu texts in general tend to represen t ·women as ernbodi men t s
of action, and to reserve renuncia tion for men. In the Vedic texts, the
primal principle of action or nature, Prakriti, is gendered female, while
Purush ~1,· or the consciou sness that witnesse s action while remaini ng
detache d from it, is gendered 111ale. This genderin g of primal principl es
is of course not cotermi nous with hum.an n1ales and females, since e,1ch
human individu al partakes of both Purusha ;:1nd Prakriti. Neverth eless,
that genderin g does influenc e Hindu ideas of gender roles, with the .man
being perceive d as more incbned to spiritu::11 knmvled ge and the \VOJ11i:1J1
as more inclined to e,nthly action. Both scholarl y and popular wisdom
subscrib e ro the idea thi:1t the primary path to emancip' -1tion for a Hindu
woman is devotion to her husband . Several normati ve characte rs in the
JV[ olwblwT iJ t11 2ctually state this to be the e:1se.
The Gc,uure of Sufabha , hm-vevcr, shows that the ivJo iwbhonn o, 1ike
Hindu thought in general 1 is by no mec:rns unified on this issue. The
equatio n of women with action is not a necess~i ry one . It is possible and
clesir,1b k for a Hindu woman to attain emancip atio_n by renunci;, 1tion .
The Atman (Self/Spi rit) is gendered neuter in S,mskrit , and is the same
in al] beings. This premise is basic to Sulabh,1's sophisti cated argumen t
regardin g the irrelevan ce of gender to emc:1ncip;;1tion or to the particui ar
path uken by an individu al.

Contex t of the Dehate · .

The Slwr1 i Pm-va is, <1s its 1jarne indi~ate s, ,1bout_- _p_e,1ce _in its widt.>st
sense. 1\,1ore sp~cific,1lly, this long section of the J\tJahablwrnta occur~
;:1s ;, convcrs2 tion bctwt'cn the eldest of the five Pandrrvc:1 brothers , KjnP,
Yudhish thir2 1 and his great-un cle Rh ishm,1. The conversn tion
the b,Htlc h.;is been won b:y the Pancbv..1_s.
 R,n 1-1 Vl\l'd ·1 A

13hisl1ma is the son of the river go ddess G ,mga . His name litera ll y
means " tb e terri ble" be cause of the awe-i nspi ring vow of lifelong ccli -
b,1cy he took as a young man to please his father, and he is the epitome
of th e vi.i·rn ous and wise person . He participa tes in the battle in a selness
m a nne r beca u se hi s vovv· of celibacy was accom panied b y renuncia tion oi
the k i ngship in fav or of his younger broth er. Tho ugh ch ildles s, he fun c -
tions in the text ,ls ;:1 fa th er figure to all his n epl1ew s . Fc1t_c1lly wounded
during the battle, he does not die becau se he h as the p o v-ier to die only
when he cl1ooses . He l ies on ,1 bed of arrows that 11e consider s the only fit
·bed -for a warrior. .
After th e battle, t he Pandavas , King Yc1dhish thira, and their alli es go·
to visit Bhishm,1 _ Yudhisht hira , \vho througho ut the text represen ts the
vi rtuous \o.1 isdom -sccker, gu estions 13hishma about how to rule as a king
;1nd how to achieve 1iberation from the cycle of rebirth . His question s and
Bhishma' s answers co mp ose the Shanti Parva. The title suggests that the
a nsw ers, if acted upon, es t a blisb peace after war, in the indiv idual and in
society. After Bhishrna h rrs spoken ,1bout tb e various aspects of kingship
cind rnle, Yuclh1 shthir8 asks Bhishma how to attain liberMio n froi11 the
cycle of de a th ,rnd r ebirth. This secti on withii1 th e Shcrnti Porva is known
::1s lv1ok shadh anno Porva.
At one pojnr in this sec tion, Yudhish thira asks how one c:rn avoid old
age and death . Bhis hm ,1 tells him that King Janak.a had once asked bis
guru, the Rishi (,1scetic) named Panchash ikha , tb is question ,rnd was toid
that old age a nd clc,1th c::rnnot be avoided. A ll hum,rn rcL:it ion sbips a re
tr:msi ent like li fe it se lf . The only way t o escape de ,lth is to es ecrpe birth
as w ell, tlrnt is, to be fr-eed from the cycle of rebirth . Yu clhishthi ra, him-
self ,1 hu s band , Lith er, Jml king, t hen asks whether it is possible to attain
c1rnmcip ation frum the cy c le of re birth \Vithout ab,mdon ing the dom cs nc
way of life . ·
Jn response, Bhishm:1 recounts the story of Jan.:i1u nnc1 Sulabh,1 . King
Janaka, in ancient Hi ndu text s, is the ep itom e of the phil osupher krng, a
perfectly wise ruler w h u is ,il so s.~ge. Bhishm ;3 s ays t11 ,1t ;:i female men -
,1

(bcont and ,vu,v,ini, S1.1Li hha, wh il e w;rndcri ng over th e eart h, hears frn 111
man y ,1scct ics th,1t Janaka is d evotee! lo th e religion of emancip ation so
she decides to nwt·t him . Usrng li er Yog::i powers, sb e ,1ssu rn cs the form
of ;:1 f..iu]tlcssl y hL·,,utift il young wum,rn ,rncl presents herself to Janak ::i as
3 mcmlicrnL.
It is sign 1.fi c,l!lL t h,n sh e ,1.-;sum es both forms !of" ,-v om ..111 and ;-1 rnendi
c111t), that is, nc irhcr torm is intcgr.:d to or insepJr,1ble rrurn hl'r seif Thi s
con nects to the: rhi Jos ophic~il point she m,-,kes hire 1, 1.h;1t ,ill form s ,He
t rc1r1sir0ry Jnd .1pp,ucm , 1wt pe rm ;rncnt or in nz1Le rn th e 111 mr1 n. T he: k ll1"
i:; filLcl with ._,,1 1:1d1·r ~, r her dcliurc form.. He \.\'Clcc,rn c!', h1~1 ;1 s .111 honore<l
gues t, ~t'Jts her •lll ,l!l cx cc llc:m Sl' n l, ;1m: uffcr::- h c t w.1tcr to \\',i'> h her rec:!
.tri'.'.~()( Jd fo()d ~() 1c :·! c :-i 11 h l'rsc lf. i~h ish:11,1 cont i ntLLS :
 GE ND EH n
TH SELF Is N o, 8.3

c ce ed ed . . .
he th er Ja na k a ha d su in111 g to Em an
ci pa tio n ' .. .
Do ub rin g w y rn ~t ta
d h
d] '"1 .th nd in g of
Su la bh ;i, en d uecl /en do we R .. .,
•• j oo a- po we en tc re t e un de rs ta of lig ht
r
k . , de rs ta nd th e ra ys
h
t e. rn g oy
he r ow n un m g, by m ea ns1 of
.l. es trn mjs<
d fro m he r ow n e yeng ra ys :uino f . ye so ft he ki ng
t hM c nM na rc
rt ·· ·
1 ·n
111
s,
or
t
h
1e h b~o db 1or{m· t1 ee na ka wi th Yoga'
h 1acly, d es iro us of as ce c• o e tru t ' un up m g Ja
le
1 1 . (C a n gu ly 19 73, X: 57 )
,)o nu s
. .. ...
an ch od ay is hy an ti " us d . ac t1 0n , rnd1catcs th at
T he w or d ''s ex a m in es h . ' . e to r he 1
t . . na }, b y h er Yoga
in te r 11
11 n no t lTI w or ds bu..
s he qu es tio ns o r ·- d
.
Ja n; :ik a re ac ts w ith ho sf"-iJ1"t)-, t 0 t l1J;--. ex an 11 na t1 0n · As a sage an a
pow ers. _ , _
],, ·in g, Jan a ]<a ha s. re 2 ch cd th e pi . 1;ac1.e _o1crt:_o t~ pe s of n:iale ac hi ev em en t:·
qu cs tio ni no ~; er Yoga po w er s eq ua l
Su la bh a' s in te rn al ,sulog ~s ts Lh2b,1ltlh
or s urp::3ss Ii is ow
n . tm
1
ak a is
jr
~1
-

ks
rn1~~ 1d11
- 0 ~P 1n u r
en
is tl ;; t ~c:,.;~man da ~
- - - - -- -

hi m
•
u- cJ
re
or
,
t"
to
'
":
.-
;~ ~7n~,-~:
d. 1-,·
t
· C.
)

wJ 1.: 1t pa rt ic ul ar ly
way, ) Ut j
J n cq ua .

io na l .View of \i\7om en
Ja na ka 's C on ve nt
le ng th . A ft er -
tio ni ng , J,m ak ,1 ad dr es se s he r at
ib ha 's qu es ou o- hl v
In t e_r n1 pt in g Sl lh ha an d de si re s to kn ow he r th or
re sp e ct s Sulc1b is, w he re sh e ha s
~~ 11;~
~Ult rn g ~lrnt h e e. is, w ho se sh e
to kn ow 1,vho sh the v, m itv
J:111 ;-1k:-1 de m ·,r nd s g. H e de cl ar es th at h e is fr ee fr om
em an
1

sh e is go in sc ou rs e to he r on
-

fr om , ;-1ncl w he re rs on w ho ca n di
he is the. on ly pe in g ou t ch at
of k1ng s h1p, ~m d s hi gh sp ir itu al linc,1ge by. po im
as iz es hi ra sa ra 's
cipatio11. H e em ph hi s gu rn , Pa nc ha sh ik ha of Pa
kn ow le dg e fr om ar ri ed , he hc1s
h e ,l et_l ui re cl hi s en th ou gh he is a ki ng an d is m
ms th at ev e' s A tm an
rncc . /;1nak;.J c L.1i an (k no w le dg e of on en es s of on
e of th e A tm ents. Th ou gh
;ltt,.1inecl kn ow le dg an d is fre e fr om al l cltt.:ichm
1 A lm an ), tr ed of hi s
w itl, th e univers,1 fr ee fr om lo ve for hi s w ife or ha
pa te d . H e is in th e·
;-1 Jive, he is em an ci th os e of K ri sh na 's in st ru ct io ns
s ve ry cl os e to p of go ld ;me! a cl
od of ea rt h
en em ie s . In te rm he vi ew s n lu m
at es th at to a pe rs on ~vho
ho no rs
W w gv ad C ito , be st s hi m as cq u, il
rs on w ho ·w ou nd
.JS equ,1], an d ,1 pe
s w ho ·
hi m . th at he is su pe ri or to al l as ce tic
th e bo ld cl ai m an as ce tic 's
H e th en m ak es is ;a rg um en t in th is rc ga rd is th at
th e w or ld . H le co n-
ha ve re no un ce d on ly ap pa re nt , not. ge nu in e, w hi
th e worJd m Jy be t of th e w or ld m ay
be ap pa r-
rc nu nc iJ ti on of c1 nd en jo vm en
;:ittachment to th at Sulabhc.1
ve rs cl v a ki na 's re ss iv e] y {r ies to de m un str,ltc
en t n~~ gcm1~1c.
H e th en .:igg ca l fo r it
is ,.i rg um cn t is no t en tir el y lo gi
re nu nc ia nt . H re nu n -
is t~ot ;-1 ge nu in e ;rn nc r: 1 .Jm su pe rio r to ,ill rcnunci,mts;
win g m :1y be un at ta ch ed to
procee ds in th e follo ld w hi le ki ng s m;
c ia nt s m:iy he ;:i
tt ,1chcd to the w or ;1 W(li11,111),
.ire ;1cnwlly .n t m;lic
d
se yo u ;1n :
the world . You, Su
l,1bh ;1 (b ct.:;:iu nrld . T hi..' nnl y
no t .ll t.i c he d 1( 1 tl1t: \\'
to th 1..: wurld I whi
le JI th t kw ~I 1• ,11 11
nd ~ 111w ,t pcoµl e wnu ld ,l ~f ('( '
n here 1:; tb e sc c:0
11111 110 /o ne t rnc propu~ir w
 n 1· ,H VA .' llTA

~md m a ny tcx ls clemons tra t c that som e 3Sce tics m,1y be fak e w h il e s o m e
house hold ers m ay be e ma n cipa ted. However, J::makc1 th e n p roc.c c cls rn
demonstrat e h is th i rd propos ition by c1ppealin g to co nvc ntj ona I n o t ion s
of gender roles, w b i l e his first proposition rem 8ins unp rove d . His bullyi ng
tone a n d hi s m ascu lin is t attitude to Subbha see m qu it e in appropr iacc fu r
a pe rs on 'dho c lcJims to be .detached from tl·ie world cllld th erefo re from
soc:i ,1 l p re judices .
He begins h is arglnnent regarding Sul a bha by telling h er tbat h t r be h av -
io r doe s not correspond to the ascetic way of life. She is delicate, s h J p el y,
and y(;rnthful, and he therefore doubts that sli.e h as s ubJu ed -h r1 sc 1:isc s..
Th e implication Ii. e re i s that a young and beautiful wnrn,rn i s i nc ap::ibl~ of
overc 01ning her desires for sensual and scx uc1l ple asure .
He then goes on to say tbat her act of entering into him by Yogrl powers
is s inful. He equate s this act with sexual union, anJ in fact, a typ e of rape,
as he hc1d not made any gesture inviting her to enter in to h im . Assum -
ing that this is a physical union betwe en a woman anci a n1 an , he points
out that it is wrong in at least four w ays .First, since. she is a Brahm crn
(h e assumes that since she is an ascetic, s he must belong to the Br;1hmc1n
co mmunity) 'Nhile he is a Kshatriya, a union bet\veen them v.:o u kl caus e
c1 n .i n;:ippropriat e mixture of two vnrnas (1 iternlly, co lors ; figln~H iv ely, th e
four groups into which soc.iety is broadly divided) . Second , sinc e she is Jn
Jscctic and he is a householde r, a union between them would cc1usc c:111
i n :1p rro pric1te mixture of two ways of life. Third, smce neither of t hem
knows to which goLrn (exogamous clans, marriage bctvv cc n m embers of
v;hich is forbidden as incestuous} the other belongs, it is possible t '.1at t11c
un io n is Jn unnatural one between members of the same gotro. r ourth , if
she is rnarried, the union is sinful (interestingl y, hi s being rn ~nri cd wmilLl
nu t rn;1k c his union with her sinful, a s a man may hc1vc rn ,1ny scxu ;1] reL1 -
ticrns hips, but a woman only one). Finally, s ince b e does not de s ire h er,
her union ·w ith him is like poison .
He th en goe s on to speculnte that she may hc1 ve perpetrated :dl these
.<-. ;n r1tl ;-1c t s bec;1t1.se of "ig norc:incc or perverted inte lli genc e" (C:mguly
J 973, X: 61), but in any c;;1se, by trying to display her sup erio rit y LO m.e n ,
slic 1ws s hovvn herself to be ,:1 wicked woma:n . He wonders wh -~.t h er s he i s
the c.igem of some rival king. This speculation indicate s th 2t h e 1s; u 11,1b\c
t L' c o nce ive of a n ;:iutonornou s female agent 2nd so thin k s slw n n st be 1

merely ..rn instrument , acting at the behest of ,1 rn;1 le. J,rn ,du c- 011 cl ud cs
this diat ribc by stating that the power of k ings cons is ts in suvnc 1gn \ Y, the
ptw. ~:r of .Brc.1hmans in th e Vedas, and the pm,ver of \\'Om en iD th cii hL;rnt y,
1

\'Oll
,,;
i h I and lll ,Hit;il blessedness , therefore one shoul d 11L' VC'J' UV tu l1CC ~'ivc ;1
• ~

k1n ,l:; , ;1 Br<1hm[ln, or ,1 gomi wife. He then rcitcrc1 tcsh is qu escon~ rc ~.1,·di 1~.~
v.!~(1 , he is_. -whose sh e is, ~nd where she has con-ie f ru:n .
 TH F. Su1- Js No,- G E\ID ERH>
85

Sulabha's Philosophic al Response

1 0 1
: ~ : ~ :: ~ ~- ~~ ~~~:s bt;:t S~la_b~1a rep] ies . i_n words more beautiful than
. . oms e1 J espon.se with a discourse on s eech Sh
~:ves a lea~·necl account of the verbal faults and the faults of jud%rnent. tha~
n occur m speech, and says that _her reply wil1 be rational cle l
prompted by emotions like desire·' wrath 1 fe·1r o1· sl1a111e s'1 ar, anc nhot
] ] I • .1e argues t at
:v ' , •

on ~la spfe.ah<er 10 is able to comrnunic::1t e his meaning to the hearer is

,-v-01 t 1y o t e title of speaker. · •
Sulalta. then ·proceeds to address the king s questi~ns-w h~ sl~e is
1

1
~v ~~c- s le 15, and where she cmnes from . Her answer .is: "As lac and wood:
1

as brnrns of dust and drops of water, exist commincrled when brouoht 0

t ogethe_r, _even so are the existences of all creatures"1:,(G anguly 1973, X:

6.5). This is a statement of the philosophica l posit ion that the primal ele-
ments are th~ same in all bodies and beings, and the s;:1me consciousnes s
pervades all existents, there.fore if Janaka were truly knowledgeabl e, he
would not :ask her who she is, as he would ]~now that she and he are essen-
ti,11ly the same. To regard his own self as different from the self of other
beings is to lack wisdom.
· Sulabha then prnceecls to elaborate on the nature of the senses the
consciousnes s, and the principles of exjstence. Her erudition is evident
both in this disquisition and in her earlier one; on the nature of speech .
She describes how the fetus is formed from the process of insemination
and develops in the womb where it a-e-c1uires ,1 sex . She emphasizes-t he
fact th;1t at every stage, "the constituent elements of the body .. . undergo
tlrnnge every i11oment in every creature (Gtrngu]y 1973, X :66). Particles
11

uf cbe body are consrnntly born and constantly die, but tl1ese changes are
so minute th,n they cannot be observed, just as one cmrnot perceive the
ch ..rnges in the flame of a lamp. Given this stntc of constant change and
flux in individual identity, //who tben has come whence or not whence,
or wbosc is it or v✓hose is it not" IX :67)? Identity, being in flux, cannot be
fixed or posscsscd. 6 ·

This argument den1onstrate s that sex difference is not an essential dif-

ference. To consider it essential is to be deluded. The king's emphasis on
sex difference shows th;H he is not libernted, ,1s he claims t0 be. If he were,
he woi.dd see ~o difference bet ween himself and others: //If it is true thou
l-lc:1st, O ki11g, been freed from the knmvlcdge of drn1lity that says---this
is mine and this other is not mine-then ·wh;lt use js there with such 1

questions ,1s, Who ::ut thou, whose art thou and whence does thou come'
(Ga1iguly 197:-3, X:67) . .
She points out tb.:1t a king who acts tc:nvard otl·icrs as enemies or allies
is not cm,mcipatcd . Herc she _gesi. ures toward llls hostility to her. A king
\.vho- does not look with ,111 equal eye on the ,ve,1 k ,mcl the strong is not
 J', I/ I II ·/ A' • I I·
/<6

emancipated. J :n1;ti<;1 Vl,'. \NS lw 1, ;1 w c1111 r1n , ;1s JILi I 1' t)IJ ;1 I I r1 I 1l l ' I 1 'l 'II, ,., ',I,, J I/ ' '. ,
his L~ck of e rn ,1rHjp;1t .iun .
Su L,bh a proceeds to point ollt how l tt tl e power rir co nt m l ;1 k In /~ ;]{.; I 11
aliy h as. Despite ,ill h is w c,llth a nd propert y, 11 c ca n 1_ 1sc unl > ;1 l1rn1 tc<I 1

number of th in gs and co nsum e ,1 limit ed numb e r of obJ cc ts . I le 1s ;il w; ,:;•,

dependent on o thei·s, such as hi s counselors, and hi.~ life is circ um ~u il wd
by the demands of oth ers . H e c:rn s leep and e;;lt on ly w l1 en pcrrn 1l~c cl ,,11 J
of t'en cannot gratify hi s desires b eca use h e h c-1s to tr:m s:1ct th e hu s rn css uf
th e suite. She also shows that a king cannot be tru ly <.kL ac hcd f rrlln t h(~
world. He is mistrustful of others, ;;u1<l a prey t9 fea r, gr ief, ,1Lmn1 in so!n
nia, and unsubstantial h~ppiness·. The kin g sh ares the atta chme nt s ;J n d
problems of all householders. Other men are kings in their own J1 omts
and suffer similar losses and victories on a smaller sca le.
Fina1ly, Sulabha demonstrates that her intel1 ec tu al un ion with the kin g
is not sinful. She has not touched him physic,dly cmJ it 1s a misinterpre t;1 -
tion to consider this a sexual union . It was improper for him to proclaim
before his court that she had entered into uni on wi th h im . The intellec -
tual communion between them was a privat e matter and by makin g it
public and describing it in sext1._1h.erms, he has disre specte d himself, her 1
and bis courtjers .
Sulabhc1 declares that her body is different from J;.mak a 's bu t th ere 1s
no difference between her Self or Spirit (Atman) and hi s Self or any other
person's Self. Jan aka confused body and Self/Spirit wben h e considered
the union of selves to be a bodily union. A wise person knows that th e
Self ha.s_no real connection with his/h_e.r own body, let alone the bodies of
others. Her assessment is that while Janaka is not fully immersed in th e
domestic mode of life, he has not yet attained crn,mcipation. He is rniclvv,w
between tbe two, pretending to be emancipated. ,
She tells Janaka that she belongs to a royal family and no husband could
be found Bt for her. She wanders over the earth alone, practicing ;:iscetj .
~1!?'l'·--=~?~~¼ J~~~.~UJ~~l ~~y~M j,!l;;lru~e,.,~e~.sw tC&dW '®'* ib•r il na
ag;1111, Ja?aka has betrayed h1s pre1uchccd c1ssumptwn s by ,1ssun1.ing th :H
all as ~ct1cs are Brahmans or that only a Brnhm ,rn can he .rn ,3 s ceti c. She
says that she came t0 meet him only to dj s cu ss e m,mcipation witb him .
She 1:o_mts out that nothing she has saiJ is meant to glorify herself or t o
h urn1lrnre opponents, since an cmancip,1tcd pcrs(J n, being tranquil, sp e::1k s
o~ly to_expr_e~s the tnu_h and never to engage in int ell eccua1 competition
01 to \V1~1 a dispute. Bh1shmo comments that Jan,1ka is unable to ai ,s ,,v ei
Su labh,1 s reasoDed words. This indicJtes that her J rr'urnei 1 ts .,r·e l .
11 I d . ,-:o · , u Lnc1 n -
sw era J e . At t 1e en of this debate, Jan,1kc1 is silenced by trut] 1·1, ,
1 ,. l l, 1n I1 e 1· <ll · 1y· 1
C·1
·" ro
,..,., v·], e 1at e wn 1 a1nav,ilkv' ·1 is -;ile ('e · l l , . .
, u n· i ,c
,. , - ,. , 11 - L .Jy tCIIOf tc1 ct1cs .
 THE SEL F Is NoT GE N D ERED
87

Janaka Versus Sulahha: Arroga nce Versus Dignit y

M ost modern discussi o~s of th~ Mahabh arnta do not mention Sulabha .
0~1c s cholar, who ment10n s her m passing dismisse s l"'eY~ a~ .,.;; ·u t lTI a V -
11

1 . ( J S d
d
en c < an not11mg more"
I .,
·.
Shah 1995 68) • Vvh 1·Je the re 1s d l
s ] bh . ' ' <..: no ou Jt that
u a _ a, as a le arned single woman, is an exceptio n in the lvfohabh amta
neve1 the~ess t~e recurren t presence of this figure in several t ext s c1nd he~
tn _u mph _rn ~th 1~ tcx \ do show that celibacy and learning \Vere con ceived
of as op t1?1:..:i fo1 th e Lew ·vvomen who n?-ight manage to de:A.ne thems elves
2s exccpt10 nal. ·

Much mor~ impor~a nt, however; is the content of the debn e, ~Nherein
Sulab]:a p rovides philosop hical justi:6cat io11 fo r equality ,1nd non-dif-
fere nt~ a t10n ~et:ween women and men . Similar stateme nts regardin g
non- d1ffcrcr:t~~t10n 1nacle elsewhe re in the lVI.ahnbhornt(l, for example , in
t h e Bhag v(la c;.1ta (the man of steady wi s dom sees no differen ce between
a Bn:ihma n and an elephan t, a cow and a cow-eate r), are not transpos ed
from percepti on (what the 1.vise man sees ) to socic1l action [how the wise
m a n tre a ts these beings, although , many stories in the e pic s do suggest
th a t the wise man would treat all bejngs vvith respect) . SuL1bh a, ho-wever,
t c l]s Janaka not j11 s t that he was wrong to see her and himself .,1s differ-
ent because of gender, but also that he acted ,vrongly 'Nhcn he followed
s ocj,d convent ions regcndin g gender and reproach ed her for ignoring those
con ventjon s.
J~1 na ka and his argume nts regardin g gender are easi.ly recogni z2 ble ,md
c onvcnti on,d ones. First, he defines a woman by her ties to men, and if
h e c,rnnot do so, h e b e comes very uncomfortc.1b1e. Henc e hi s anxie ty to
know "whose " Sufahh c.1 is. As in the oft-quot ed dictum of M ,urn , Janakc:1
li clicves LhJl ;J wom2n 2Jways belongs to some man·- -fother, husb2nd ,
or s on. ri sh e cJ o cs not belon g to one man, she is then a ,,v ickcd or loose
woman who cannot be trusted as she may unite with any man, activ_;::ited
by lu st, or m ,1y c.l Ct J S J spy for c.1 kin g and deceive other kings.
Second, }c1 1L1 k..1 doubts that a beautifu l young woman is capable of sub -
Jui ng her s enses- this misogyn.ist uoubt is in consona nce with the m;:rny
pronoun cement s regardin g the uncontr ollable narnrc of wmr.en 's sexu2]
d esires found in ~rncient and med ieval texts, both Indian and Europe ..m .
Since he uefine s w01nen as sexual, not intellcc~ nal or
~piritua l, h~jn gs (he
cL1ims th ,1t ,1 worn~.m 's power c·onsists only in youth, be':1uty, ;1nJ marital
hlcssedn ess), it folfows that he c,mnot conceiv e of ~ny commu nion or
unjon between a \VOman and a man that is not sexuaL _I-knee his ,1lkga-
tion thd.t by cntcri;1g into'inner union with him thrDl1gb Yoga, Suh1bh,1
h~1s in foct entered into physical trnion ·w ith him. Here, his t 11 in kjng is_
in c onson;rn ce with that of the many stories in the epics ;ind Puronus of
temptre sses ~edn ci ng rn._;n who h,1ve renomlCed desire.
 88 Run -1 VAN !T.',

Janaka arrogantly im;-1gi n es Llrnt s ince he h as cichi evc cl e rn a n c ipa tio11 1

but Sulabha ,1s 1:111 unmarrie d yo un g wom an is inc apabl e of doing so 1 her
on ly ai m could b e to destroy h i m by seducin g him. J~nak a cannot con -
ceive of even a seduc tress ;;1et in g e nti re ly o n h er own in it iat ive. Indeed,
t he temptresses in the ep ic and Purnni c srurics rare ly act o n t h eir ow n
1
injtiat ivei th ey arc us ually sen t by th e ascetic s rivals (ofte n th e gods ) to
divest a man of his Yoga powers . Hen ce Janaka suspe c ts t.l1 ~1t <1 ri v<il ki n 6
has sent Sulabha to ruin him . .·
Third, Janaka dis play s throughout an arrogance that is unb cco.m i n g to
an emancipated.or \vise person and also to a good king. He shows none uf
t h e humility ·of good Icings like. Rama and Yuclh_ishthira, and makes th e
outrageous claim t hat he is superior to c11l ascetics, a type of claim usually
made by demons such as Bak:1sura just before their fa l l. The hosti1ity he
displays towards Sqlabha represents the specificalJy male dimension of
his arrogance. Even though she is his guest, he insults hcr1 accu sing her
0£ wickedness and evildoing. .
Sulabha's response is remarkable for its dignity. Her an;,:ilysis of th e
faults of speech dern.onstrates (without stating it) that Janaka's speech i.s
faulty because it is impelled by anger1 not reason. She also indirectly cri -
tiques his hostility to her when she points out that an emancipated king
would view the we,llz and the strong with an equal eye .
Her reasoned response to Janaka s argument is very important, becaus e
1

here the text provides an answer to the popular view that gender a lto -
gether defines a \•vornan 's role and her clhanna . Sulabh a s argum ent is 1

grnunded in basic Hindu philosophical premises, with which fe,..v orth0=-

dox Hindus would disagree, and this is its strength. Her primary argu -
men ts may be summ<:1rized thus:
L T he body is gendered bm the A tnwn (universc-,1 Self/Spirit ) is not gen-
deJe<l.
l. The body acquires its gender at ,~ ccn:1in st::ige in the womb . and the bodv
c hanges consunrly so even the bo dy 1s not a lw·:,ys gender~d in the s,1m~
1

w 2y, that is, even bodily gender js nor ;1 Hxcd or static thing .
3. The A.tmcm is one and the same rn ,i] 1 bei ngs, regardless of the body's
gender.
4. The Atman is neith er the property of ,rn yone nor undn the control of
anyone 1 and the Atnwn d0es nnt re,illy c'tct .

-Follo,,v ing from these philosophicul premise s are her important secondarv
,irguments that h~1ve practical irnpl ic,1t.ion s for wome1ls socicll status : ·

1. Si nce the same lj.tmrm anim;.itc s hcJth ,.-.;onwn and men, women ;;H e capabl 1:
cf -pursurng the s ame p,1i.hs el s mtTJ. ·
2. 1\ truly \vise pe rson, v,1 bo h,, s rc ,, )i zcd thl' cineness of th e Atmt'.ln, ,.vill n o:
n y tn im1ge ,rnyrnH:: 1 inclu d ing cln;' wc 1 m:1 n _ hy c;1stc' ur nLHi r,d s tmu s.
 Gr no rnw 89
Tl!c Sr.1 F ls N1 ,T

. , 1·-
•vi''" j)"r s on IC: ~
the pro pe rty of an yo ne so a t r ulv, v ·" · '- •
,
L,. e:;
3. Th e Al ma n is noL om sh e be lon gs is me an ing le ss .
n to wh
h at t o ask a wo ma co mm un ion /un ion
ell ec tua l or sp iri tua l
t _
is on e, int e
·1. Sr nc e th e At ma n a ·w om an , is no t the.: sam
e~1 an y t:-''O pe rso ns , inc lud ing a ma n an d
berwe d is no t wr on g.
.1s ph ys1c.1 J un ion , an

nc y
vVifely D ev ot io n as A ge
in th e JVlahab -
ee n th e m ,u rie d wo ma n an d Ka us hi.k a
Th e d~ ba te be tw r ·tl: es is .
d.o f th e sp ec tru ri1 bu t es tab lis he s a -s irn ila
ba rn ta is c1t th e ot he t en
hi ka go es on hi s ro un
ds as kin g for alm s,
ce tic Ka us
In th is sto ry , .th e as wa iti ng wh i 1e
en a de vo ted ho us ew ife ke ep s hi m
an d ge ts a nn oy ed wh gy , sh e
d. W he n he rep ro ac he s lie r de sp ite he r ap olo
sh e sci-ves he r hu sb an hi m an ex ten de d sc ho lar ly le
cn nc wh ere in
dig nit y, an d giv es y kn ow s th e
re ph es wi th ah ma n is no t on e wh o me rel
th at a tru e Br up on
sh e de mo ns tra tes s ov erc om e an ge r ,m d wh o lo ok eth
11

e wh o h;,1
sc rip tu re s bu t ra th er on ly 1973, II:4.24) . Th is po in
t is th e s,1me as
hi ms elf '' /G ,m gu 11 an d a
all eq ua l un to rso n se es no dif fer en ce be tw ee n ;1 m,1
wi se pe
· Su J~ bh a's -a tru ly
-w om an . de vo tio n
at th e pa th of vi rtu e sh e fo llo ws is th at of
Sh e als o cla im s th \N hil e· th is m ay 1-Je
m sh e reg ,u- ds as the hi gh es t go d .
d .-v ho th e cl em en t of
1
to he r hu sb an
ca tio n of su hs er vj en ce , it is v,•orth no tin g ic h
rcacl as J g] or ifi en sh e sa
11
ys 1 pr ac tis e th at vi rtu e wh
n c] air ns wh
ag en cy th at th e wo ma lik e Su lab ha ,
g m y hu sb an d" (Ga ng ul y 1973, Il: 42 4). Un
co ns ist s in se rv in s led
na l p,1 th of mo st wo me n, ye t th is pa th ha
tio
sh e fo Jlo ws th e co nv en
gr ea ter vi rtu e th an th e s,1ge . ho ly
he r to ac qu ire e gr ea t Br ,1h n1an sa ge , "I th in k, 0
to tel l th
Th e housevvife da re s vi rtu e in re ali ty is" (IJ:42
5) . Sh e th en
st no t kn ow wh at th at
on e, th~H th ou do in str uc i:i on . Th e Br ah ma n re ali ze s
fo r fu rth er
se nd s hi m to a fo wl er m te an d th at he r rep ro of v,;ill
be advant::1-
fa ili ng s is ac cu
he r ;rn,1lysis of hi s lon gs to a ve ry lo w ca
ste crnd is en ga ge d
. Th e fow ]er , wh o be rn s ou t
ge ou s to hi m tu re s) reg ard ed as despic,1ble, tu
g Jiv in g cr ea
in a pr of es sio n (k ill in "w ith se ns es un de r co
mp let e co nl ro l,"
me rit or io us pe rso n nt s
to be a hj gh ]y
to hi s pa re nt s (II :42 5). He co ns ide rs hj s pa re
ted
wh o is co mp let ely de vo th em ni gh t an d day. Th e
ne xt sevcr;-;d
de iti es an d se rv es ch es
to be hi s hi gh es t wl er' s le, irn ed di sc ou rse , as he tea
wi th th e fo
ch ap ter s ,ne oc cu pi ed ,mu Je ta ch m en t,
.1hm an th e na tu re of tru e vi rtu e rta nt way
th e Brc
er ge s is th at ,m ap pa re nt ly ]owly an d un im po s
Th e id ea th at em
fo r se lf- re ali za tio n. Li ke J,m ak a 1 K,rn~hika h:1
e
of lif e m,1y als o be ,1 sit d ot he r sc rip tu re s liut ha s :1ot
,1cqu .ir1..d
Vr cL 1s ,rn
ac qu ire d kn mv led ge of
th e
ht prnctic.e m;1y be th ,,t
m rig ht pr ac tic e. Th is rig
the vi rtu e th,lt comes fro n's ~t·Hk ss life, ,1:s
~1s in Su lab ha )s c1se_. or thilt of . 1 layperso
of ,1scctici~m
se of th e ho us cw jfo
..rnd the fowler.
in th e cc1

I
 RUTH VAN!T,\
90

The hou ~e'vvi (e's suit cmen t 0£ l1 cr ow n p rac tice i~ s_uggestive of ag~ncy1
· Jt' · - pr-ac ti·ce 1 and the Jj·o,,.nity ansrng th erefr om , This
c l101ce sc - consc1ol 1~
pr 8 c:tic;e puts her 111 a position t o cri t ique and reprove a powerful man w?o
is ,:1 mc:1jor ph ilosoph ica l fig ure. As compared to Sulabha, the ho1u ~~w1fc
is not independent, and, fro m ou r pomt of vi ew to~ay, appears to De rn _an
unfornm ;it c position . Ye t, the tex t attempts to cult1vate an understand1~g
of a ll s o c icd positions-\·v hether that of l.::ing 1 sage or f~wler, house,,:1fe
or asce ti c mal e or fem "d e-as ephemeral 1 and the pursuit of sclf-r e ahz a -
' . .
tio n-v,rhethe r by t he p c:ith of devo tion 1 action 1 or ascet1c1s111----as perma-
nent ly valw1bl e.. -

Hindu Philosophy and Won1en's Choices

Sulahha's victorv in the debate (demonstrated by Janaka's inability to

;;111S\".'er h er) just/fies her own choices in life (not to marry, to wander the
world alone, to st:ek em ancipation by the same path as n1enL and her
,1ctions (to enter into public debate with a fa111ous man, to enter into Yogic
union v-rith him) . Although she is an exception in the l\1ahabharatc1 1 it
is i1nportant to note that she is a recurrent figure in several texts vvidely ·
sep,uated by timc and is thus a:q. cmblem.atic figure, like Janaka. Her
1

choices ::1ct ~ls a model and her arguments provide a philosophical justifica-
tion1 \Vithin Hinduism, for any woman to make unconventional c11oices.
Her arguments arc not restricted to women of any particular caste or classi
since they are based on the oneness of the universal Atman, they apply to
~my woman anyv.;here .
!Vledieval women mystics, like the farnolls pon and fifteenth-century
pri nc css 1 l\1irJba i, ~dso J Kshatriya re1rnnci~1nt, thus emerge in the context
of medieval devotion ,rnd also in the context of an older tradition that
mak es space fo:r ,vorn en . Before the modern period, soci;:11 conditions pre-
vented \VOrnen in most societies throughout the world (not i·ust in lndia\
from sr~rying sing le ,rnd pursujng intellectua I and spirituai pi:1ths in an
auto11ornous m,rnneri it is imponant that when exceptional women have
made such choices in Incli;1 1 they have usually found some acceptu1ce, not
ju st on the fringes, hut even in the mainst.rean1 of society. Hinclu philoso-
phy e,:1 s ily 1enc1s itsc1£ to arguments s uch as those of Sulabh;:1 .
. VVh ile m_any H inc.lu texts, especially law books, and Hindu philosophy
itself ;nc otten used to 1ustify ine quality and rn:m-frcedon1, Hindu texts
'.rnd Hindu philosophical ,1rgurnents hc:rve also frequently be~n used, both
\11 PH>~nol!crn ~rn_d iJ: mc'. ckr11 Incli 2 to kgitirnize egalitarianism and fret - 1

uOJn. hi r l'Xi:1mr)l e. • .. ,
ninctcentb cepn11•·,:1 , ·R:1n:
1n tl1c -~-- · 1·•\b
a ... a•J1· /lQC..l'-lOJ'7)
... 1 .. t.J ...J C.J ·1 1 ..... ./--1-, c::

V1)
, , t\n ,"\v
:-, .1dow 'l1t ,• ·1 " _,l·1, - 1 r · ' ' -i·
c , -L < tt.t ,y 1Wr L,Hne r , ocmun '.) trateu her Know cc,gc ot San- 1 1 I , ••

') J<. l"l ~ ; l[ ) l:

·
l,, (:(1,., , l 11 '.
- ' i \ 'I.
- l. - ' -~ -1 . - '
011,
f
LlJ ec.uccil._: \v tm1t::n. /-.,_ ccmcrave
1
o f Brahn1ans
.. gJ.ve
 T HE Sa r- I s N oT G EN D ER ED
91

olar
h er t!J e ~itle "P~nd ~ta" (femin ine versio n of Amdit , 111 e;1ni.ng a sch
1 sion
S} e __1e ~a11:e d this _ot1~ throug hout her life, even af Ler her conver
t~
ati .
C hust1a mty, and 1~ still known today as Pandit a Rr.1mabai Sarasw
Th e repres cntat1 0n of a femal e fi bcrure winni o <1no - del)ate \"hi · c' ·
l f d , ·• n 1s a
b rcp -
. att c _o. wor s, arrguab ly ':·?rl~s as a more imitab le mod el than th e
1 csenta t10n of a remale 1-vmn mg a bc1ttle with weapo ns . Both in t t
ex s
d · ]'f th an
~n m 1 e, many more female s eng?g e in debate and conver sation
m w2rfar e. Kali'~ or _Du~·ga 's mirac ulous victori es in battle may inspire
a's
,vo~11en to fight tor Justice or to take reveng e on oppres sors; Suhibh
logic al victon1 in debate has the pnte 1-.-i-ia· 1 tn 1-.-.,,l.•e +b ,,. ,..,.,....,h,..,;,- 501- see Lj1
.L
L .J. \....
eV J:-'_r'.l.'-..- ..._"') ,J ~ -
'-" ..1.~..a.. .1 '-J ..&..1ai,
_ _ ,

tolly of hjs think in '-·g.

.. ..,
·

Focu sing on Deba te

flouris h
Wh e n we focus_ on the dynam ic debate s regard ing gende r that
in ancien t Hindu texts we help comba t the stereo type of these texts as
either mono lithica lly justify ing the subord inatio n of wome n or.as
mono-
these
lithica lly honor ing wome n. This endea vor. enable s us to study how·
pre-m odern textua l debate s have reflect ed and enable d ongoin g non -tex-
es in
t u~l debate s as wel] .1s many differ ent societ al trends c"md practic
Indian societ ies throug h the ages . Finall y, it also helps us unders tand that
le
mode rn Indian debate s about gende r have a history that is not traceab
ons
to Euro- Amer ican femin ism ,:1]one, a histor y that define s the questi
the-
and poses the answe rs both simila rly to -ai-1d differe ntly from the w::1y
questi ons <md answe rs have been posite d in Euro-A meric,m debate s about
.t'; ender. ·

J woL1ld hl<e to thonk the anony mous NWSA Journa l reader

s 1A.1hose
rcporl s helped nw to i-efine my ai-gum ent and impro ve Lhis essay

Roth Vanit~ is Profess01· of Libera l Studie s ond Wome n's Studie s at the
Unive rsity of Nlont mw . She tmzgh t ot Delhi U11ive rsjty /m many yeal's,
und vvos found ing co-ed itm of l\!Lmushi: A Journ~ d About Wome n and
Sex
Sncict v. She is the autho r of Sapph o cind the Virgin Mary: Sarne-
Love a~1ci the Englis h Litera ry ln1agi nation , co-au thor of Same-Sex Love
in India:· Readi ngs in Lite1:a tnre and Histor y, co-ed itm of In Se,-nch
of
Answe l's: Indj;1n vVomen's Voices from Jvla111.1shi , ond editor of Queer
ing
lndia . She has receiv ed an ACLS fellor.vship to work townn fs c1
book on
_lung-l_etm same ~sex union s and nwtiia ges in pre-m odern nncl moder n
lndu1·,; soc:io-politi col, religious. legnl, and liternr y contex ts.
Correspon-
dence slwnld LJe senL LO Vonito m Libera l Stiiclics Progrn ·
/1-1ontana . l\!lissoula, l\,JT 59812;. rvun ito@se.hvoy.u m t .ed
 RUTH V J\N n A
92

.Notes
1. Even \'icl y:i bnkrn (19 84 ) fo ils to di scu ss Subbha in her study specifically
oi the ShrrntJ Po rl'n, rhe c.:ec t iun nf rhe Nlalwbhnroto in which the debate
occurs

2 Ki shwar (1 000) 111: ,kes a s11niLu point, but takes it much furth.\!J than I
am wi ll in g to t,1kc it. Sbe argues, for example, that Manu, the putative author
of rh c iviannsm rit i (who m;iy well be an arrrnlgam of many authors), w ould
h ave ~uppon ed K ishvvo1r 's right lO co mp ose her own Srnrili (sacred remem -
bered t ext ) if ·' he: " lived w<l;,1v. . .

3. Th is is broadly t·hc appro;1c]1 taken by Alteka r in his pioneering work, Th e

Posjtion o( tVomcn in Hrndu CivihzoUon (1 956) and also by Bader (1925).
Bhavalkar (1999 ) be longs to tbe s :ime school.

4. For cxarnp:c, :he Sfwnll Porva, in which the Sulabh ,1-Jan.1ka debate occurs,
a lso contciins :ihnut one third of the precepts of the l\/I111ms1nriti1 repe;ited in
n ear-id ent 1c:d fo 1111 .

S. Pintchm ..111 (1994) argues that l ndi,m women· h ave been unable to drav1
on th ese go ddL·sses ;1s modds . She suggests, though , that Kali could be an
emp owering mod el (2. 13). McDermott (1996) shows how Kali is the mo s t con-
genial of c1 ll Hin d u goci dcsses both t o scholars and ro feminists in the \t\1est.
In H,1wle y .rncl \A/u l fi's ant hology, Devi: The Goddesses of Inclia (1996), there
are essays on conson goddesses like Radlia and warrior goddesses like Kali,
but no es~ay on S:nt:5,..\.,1/,H i . Kinsley (1986) is an exceptiQ.J:½ a s he studies each
in d ividu al goddc~s, includrng Sarasw:iti, in some cleu1il. Interestingly, major
m,1instre,1m I n ci i;1 n publ i s h ing houses have chosen th e nam e s of the goddess
of learning, Sar~1sw,!i 1 :rnd Sh,nacb, as n ames for their ent e rprises, while th e
Tn dian lcm : n 1s t pub11sbi;1g hou s e: is called Kali.

6. t ;JOint rn,1de 1:1difft:rcnt ways by rn,rny Western philosophers as well ,

!rom Her.1c l it ·u s t o JVlont.11gne and O,wid Hume, and most recently by post -
·11r, dernh t.":-

References

1\ltek.:;1 _ A.S 10:-, <:. J'/1r· /JrJ.-.1fio11 of \Vome n rn Hindu Civilizntio11. DeU1i , InJ.ia:
Mnti l.1 I IL1 :·i. r::. 1d. ,s"
P,1d:r,_CLiri •, ;e rJtn ;, ; :moo. 1. V•)mcn JJ] A ncimt Indio. Reprint . London : Rom-
1eU!-,;c .

nn,,r~ ,·::!1.'';1 1, Stikt•:-r:,_; . 1 . Jl)t)J \Vunh'li Ont-I Suuei;: rn Anc1elll Jnclio. Calcut la,
. J1, , , .' ;1 .1 '.1, _1 • r ,t, J ( , :_ i-..- ,r ,1; 1(11 , Ltd
l ; .~j , V,, ; .\, 1 ) , ,1 . ,,) ;:: , 1 , 1') ')
,,
\ •
,,· r, •,, 1 i:. , :1 Ill/'
I\ • j J '
1:;i l,! i l; ;-J>;ii;!
1
l)( ' J
j i, lnd1u:
-i ShJr;.1d.'.l
l' ·1:,Jish ·,. ;..:< ,,.., .