The Dasam Granth has been a controversial topic within the Sikh community, and within the Dasam Granth Charitropakhiyan is widely debated. Many charges are levelled against it, from vulgarity to misogyny. As far as vulgarity goes, it is just in the eyes of the beholder. What is vulgar to some may be incredibly artistic or avant-garde to others, and Charitropakhiyan is indeed a very artistic and stylish text. The charge of misogyny is a more serious one and needs some consideration.

The basic plot of the work

A really old king marries a very young woman. The young queen develops amorous feelings towards the prince, the king’s son and her step-son. The prince is about the same age as her. When the queen’s attempt at having a relationship fails, she, out of great anger, accuses the prince of trying to rape her. The kings, on hearing this, orders the execution of his son. The king’s minister intervenes to prevent this and starts telling short stories about deception in order to change the king’s mind about executing his son. And so begin the Chariters(short stories), one after the other, detailing deceptive practices by both women and men.

Some preliminary clarifications

The first question is, does the work have an explicit didactic or moral stance? The answer is clearly no because the seemingly didactic parts of the work are utterances of the king’s minister. These are not personal opinions of Guru Gobind Singh himself. This is asserted again and again by the refrain of “mantri-bhup sambade” at the end of each Chariter. The utterances of the minister are in accordance with the narrative requirements of the text.

Whose perspective?

Our view of right and wrong in the text completely depends on whose perspective we are looking at. The young queen is, in my view, the first victim in the narrative. She is married to an old man, obviously against her wishes. This brutalization of her leads her to brutalize another innocent, the prince. The king’s reaction and his order to kill his son is also born out of patriarchal thinking.

The text is often satirical about deep Dharmic justifications for action. It depicts them as after the fact rationalisations. No where is this more visible than in the Chariter of Noop Kaur. Both Noop Kaur and the other character in that Chariter have a natural inclination to act in a certain way. The justifications, especially religious ones, both of them offer are merely strategic rhetoric meant to achieve what they want. It is also telling that both of them can come up with religious, or at least religiously inspired, justifications for two completely contradictory actions. Latest psychological research also confirms that our reasons are often merely rationalisations.

The text, then, is a hardcore realist text. It shows the world as it is and not how we would like it to be. Along the way the text itself does not take sides. But one pattern does emerge, the men in the stories are often depicted as rather bumbling and clueless actors. The women are never depicted in this way. They are, to use today’s terminology, quite badass. This can hardly come out of sexism or misogyny.

A gem of literature

Charitropakhyan is a gem of medieval literature with deep implications. Its opponents are in error when they misconstrue its meaning or quote it selectively. It requires a deep engagement and critical reading to decipher its real message