Table of Contents
Please note: This is a sensitive topic and not shared here for any controversy. This process of sharing posts is a learning for me. While I share, I learn. If I have shared any information which is not correct or something that may hurt any sentiments, I would like apologize upfront for the same.
The Origins of Bhagiratha: Scriptural Variations
Bhagiratha is an important figure in the Hindu scriptures whose story is told in almost all texts – Puranas, Ramayana and Mahabharata. He is known as the king who got Ganga down to earth from heaven. What is unique in the Bengali Ramayana of Krittibas regarding Bhagiratha, is the story of his birth.
Before I talk about that, let me touch upon the Ramayana of Valmiki, the Sanskrit version. The Bala Kanda of the Valmiki Ramayana says Dilip appointed Bhagiratha as the king, which means Bhagiratha was born as a biological son of a living king Dilip. So why is Bhagiratha shown as a son of two women?
Regional Bengali Texts and Traditions
Bhagiratha being born to two women is not an isolated whim of Krittibas. This was present in other regional texts of Bengal. The Ramayana of Krittibas is not the only source. The first appears in a 14th-century Bengali translation of the Padma Purana. It subsequently recurred in some other texts of Bengal which were popular in the period between 15th and 17th-century Bengal.
There was a reason why I wanted to talk about this separately. The core tale brings in what was taboo at that time; it talks about same-sex intimacy. After Shiva's blessing, they engaged in "love play" with the full intention of conceiving a child to save their lineage.
The Biology of the "Boneless Child"
The child born from this union is not a "beautiful" child, but is born with a physical deformity; it has no bones in its body. Why so? For that, let me refer to a text called Sushruta Samhita. The text says that the bones, sinews and teeth came from the father’s semen and the soft parts from the mother. As there was no father here, there were no hard parts in the child, thus a boneless child or a lump of flesh.
The transformation of the "lump of flesh" into the hero Bhagiratha is mediated by Ashtavakra, who himself is deformed and named for being "bent in eight places.” This rishi transforms the lump into a healthy child.
Social Constructs of Medieval Bengal
To explore this more, let me look into the social construct of Bengal in the period when Krittibas was composing his work. As I have said before, this was not a translation of the Ramayana. This was the Ramayana being retold for the common person, incorporating contemporary social elements.
Resistance and the Status of Widows
As per the law then, a widow could lay claim to property by remarrying and having a child. To combat this, strict codes of conduct were imposed on widows—avoiding rajasic food and suppression of desires. So, showing widows coming out of that mode and having a child was a sort of resistance. They rise above and use their love to preserve their husband's lineage without the need for a new male partner, thereby protecting their kingdom and their status.
Concepts of Sexuality and "Svairini"
Was this story kept "hush-hush" only because of the divine element (Shiva) or was the society "sexually liberated” in that period? Medieval India did not have a concept of "homosexuality" as a distinct identity in the modern sense, but it did have a recognized vocabulary for "non-normative" sexual behaviors.
The Kama Sutra talks about svairini. As per the text, she is shown choosing her own partners and, in some contexts, is associated with lesbian relationships (sometimes described as tritiya-prakriti or third nature) or operating outside traditional female roles.
In this context, Shiva becomes the justification. The energy is passion (or Kama) and thus what is born is someone divinely blessed.
Conclusion: Ritual Rite or Social Practice?
In contemporary times, the story of Bhagiratha, as a son of two mothers, became popular when scholars began writing about it. Ruth Vanita wrote a notable article on this in Manushi.
After all this, I have a question. Have I been reading too much into it or over-analyzing this? One plausible explanation could be that this was a form of sanctioned surrogacy. The ritual context explicitly aims to generate an heir for Dilip’s line. Here one wife “gives birth” to the husband’s heir through the other’s womb.
So, the sex act between the queens is viewed by some not as a relationship, but as a procreative rite—a niyoga without a man. There is no historical evidence that two-woman conception was practiced; it suggests that the authors were exploring theological ideas of fertility and lineage, rather than documenting social practice.
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment