Editing Kama Sutra (section)

== Translations ==
{{multiple image
| perrow            = 2
| total_width       = 320
| align             = left
| image1            = Richard Burton's edition of Kamasutra 1883 edition.jpg
| width1            = 200
| alt1              = 
| caption1          = 
| image2            = Lamairesse - Kama Sutra.djvu
| width2            = 203
| alt2              = 
| caption2          = 
| footer            = The first English version by Richard Burton became public in 1883, but it was illegal to publish it in England and the United States until 1962.<ref name="Doniger2018p164"/> Right: a French retranslation of 1891.
}}

According to Doniger, the historical records suggest that the ''Kamasutra'' was a well-known and popular text in Indian history. This popularity through the [[Mughal Empire]] era is confirmed by its regional translations. The Mughals, states Doniger, had "commissioned lavishly illustrated Persian and Sanskrit ''Kamasutra'' manuscripts".<ref name="Doniger2016p12">{{cite book|author=Wendy Doniger|title=Redeeming the Kamasutra|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TrVjDQAAQBAJ|year=2016|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-049928-0|page=12|access-date=20 November 2018|archive-date=21 December 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191221104600/https://books.google.com/books?id=TrVjDQAAQBAJ|url-status=live}}</ref>

The first English translation of the ''Kama Sutra'' was privately printed in 1883 by the Orientalist Sir [[Richard Francis Burton]]. He did not translate it, but did edit it to suit the Victorian British attitudes. The unedited translation was produced by the Indian scholar [[Bhagwan Lal Indraji]] with the assistance of a student Shivaram Parshuram Bhide, under the guidance of Burton's friend, the Indian civil servant [[Forster Fitzgerald Arbuthnot]].<ref>McConnachie (2007), pp. 123–125.</ref> According to Doniger, the Burton version is a "flawed English translation" but influential as modern translators and abridged versions, even in the Indian languages such as in Hindi, are re-translations of the Burton version, rather than the original Sanskrit manuscript.<ref name="Doniger2018p164">[a] [https://lithub.com/redeeming-the-kamasutra/ Sir Richard Burton’s Version of the Kamasutra] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181122174537/https://lithub.com/redeeming-the-kamasutra/ |date=22 November 2018 }}, Wendy Doniger, ''Literary Hub'' (March 11, 2016);<br>[b] {{cite book|author=Wendy Doniger|title=Against Dharma: Dissent in the Ancient Indian Sciences of Sex and Politics|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XZBNDwAAQBAJ|year=2018|publisher=Yale University Press|isbn=978-0-300-21619-6|pages=164–166|access-date=22 November 2018|archive-date=25 January 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220125025942/https://books.google.com/books?id=XZBNDwAAQBAJ|url-status=live}}</ref>

The Burton version of the ''Kamasutra'' was produced in an environment where the Victorian mindset and Protestant proselytizers were busy finding faults and attacking Hinduism and its culture, rejecting as "filthy paganism" anything they found sensuous and sexual in Hindu arts and literature. The "Hindus were cowering under their scorn", states Doniger, and the open discussion of sex in the ''Kamasutra'' scandalized the 19th-century Europeans.<ref name="Doniger2018p164"/> The Burton edition of the ''Kamasutra'' was illegal to publish in England and the United States till 1962. Yet, states Doniger, it became soon after its publication in 1883, "one of the most pirated books in the English language", widely copied, reprinted and republished sometimes without Richard Burton's name.<ref name="Doniger2018p164"/>

Burton made two important contributions to the ''Kamasutra''. First, he had the courage to publish it in the colonial era against the political and cultural mores of the British elite. He creatively found a way to subvert the then prevalent censorship laws of Britain under the Obscene Publications Act of 1857.<ref>{{cite journal| title= Translating/'The' "Kama Sutra"| author= Ben Grant|journal = Third World Quarterly| volume= 26|number= 3| year= 2005| pages= 509–510| publisher= Taylor & Francis|jstor=  3993841| doi=10.1080/01436590500033867| s2cid= 145438916}}</ref><ref name="Doniger2018p164"/> Burton created a fake publishing house named ''The Kama Shastra Society of London and Benares'' (Benares = [[Varanasi]]), with the declaration that it is "for private circulation only".<ref name="Doniger2018p164"/> The second major contribution was to edit it in a major way, by changing words and rewriting sections to make it more acceptable to the general British public. For example, the original Sanskrit ''Kamasutra'' does not use the words [[lingam]] or [[yoni]] for sexual organs, and almost always uses other terms. Burton adroitly avoided being viewed as obscene to the Victorian mindset by avoiding the use of words such as penis, vulva, vagina and other direct or indirect sexual terms in the Sanskrit text to discuss sex, sexual relationships and human sexual positions. Burton used the terms lingam and yoni instead throughout the translation.<ref name=doniger2011p500/> This conscious and incorrect word substitution, states Doniger, thus served as an Orientalist means to "anthropologize sex, distance it, make it safe for English readers by assuring them, or pretending to assure them, that the text was not about real sexual organs, their sexual organs, but merely about the appendages of weird, dark people far away."<ref name=doniger2011p500>{{cite journal|author =Wendy Doniger| title= God's Body, or, The Lingam Made Flesh: Conflicts over the Representation of the Sexual Body of the Hindu God Shiva| journal= Social Research|volume =78| number=2|year= 2011|publisher=  The Johns Hopkins University Press|pages=499–505|jstor=23347187}}</ref> Though Burton used the terms [[lingam]] and [[yoni]] for human sexual organs, terms that actually mean a lot more in Sanskrit texts and its meaning depends on the context. However, Burton's ''Kamasutra'' gave a unique, specific meaning to these words in the western imagination.<ref name=doniger2011p500/>

The problems with Burton mistranslation are many, states Doniger. First, the text "simply does not say what Burton says it says".<ref name="Doniger2018p164"/> Second, it "robs women of their voices, turning direct quotes into indirect quotes, thus losing the force of the dialogue that animates the work and erasing the vivid presence of the many women who speak in the Kamasutra". Third, it changes the force of words in the original text. For example, when a woman says "Stop!" or "Let me go!" in the original text of Vatsyayana, Burton changed it to "She continually utters words expressive of prohibition, sufficiency, or desire of liberation", states Doniger, and thus misconstrues the context and intent of the original text.<ref name="Doniger2018p164"/> Similarly, while the original ''Kamasutra'' acknowledges that "women have strong privileges", Burton erased these passages and thus eroded women's agency in ancient India in the typical Orientialist manner that dehumanized the Indian culture.<ref name="Doniger2018p164"/><ref name=doniger2011p500/> David Shulman, a professor of Indian Studies and Comparative Religion, agrees with Doniger that the Burton translation is misguided and flawed.<ref name=nytimes2002kamasutra/> The Burton version was written with a different mindset, one that treated "sexual matters with Victorian squeamishness and a pornographic delight in the indirect", according to Shulman. It has led to a misunderstanding of the text and created the wrong impression of it being ancient "Hindu pornography".<ref name=nytimes2002kamasutra/>

In 1961, S. C. Upadhyaya published his translation as the ''Kamasutra of Vatsyayana: Complete Translation from the Original''.<ref>{{cite book| title= Kama sutra of Vatsyayana Complete translation from the original Sanskrit| author1=Vatsyayana| author2= SC Upadhyaya (transl)| year=1965 | publisher= DB Taraporevala (Orig publication year: 1961) | oclc=150688197}}</ref> According to [[Jyoti Puri]], it is considered among the best-known scholarly English-language translations of the ''Kamasutra'' in post-independent India.{{sfn|Jyoti Puri|2002|p=607}}

Other translations include those by [[Alain Daniélou]] (''The Complete Kama Sutra'' in 1994).<ref>[http://www.alaindanielou.org/The-Complete-Kama-Sutra.html ''The Complete Kama Sutra''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080506045738/http://www.alaindanielou.org/The-Complete-Kama-Sutra.html |date=6 May 2008 }} by Alain Daniélou.</ref> This translation, originally into French, and thence into English, featured the original text attributed to [[Vātsyāyana|Vatsyayana]], along with a medieval and a modern commentary.{{sfn|Daniélou|1993}} Unlike the 1883 version, Daniélou's new translation preserves the numbered verse divisions of the original, and does not incorporate notes in the text. He includes English translations of two important commentaries, one by Jayamangala, and a more modern commentary by Devadatta Shastri, as [[endnote]]s.{{sfn|Daniélou|1993}} Doniger questions the accuracy of Daniélou's translation, stating that he has freely reinterpreted the ''Kamasutra'' while disregarding the gender that is implicit in the Sanskrit words. He, at times, reverses the object and subject, making the woman the subject and man the object when the ''Kamasutra'' is explicitly stating the reverse. According to Doniger,  "even this cryptic text [''Kamasutra''] is not infinitely elastic" and such creative reinterpretations do not reflect the text.{{sfn|Wendy Doniger|Sudhir Kakar|2002|pp=xxxvi-xxxvii with footnotes}}

A translation by [[Indra Sinha]] was published in 1980. In the early 1990s, its chapter on sexual positions began circulating on the Internet as an independent text and today is often assumed to be the whole of the ''Kama Sutra''.<ref>Sinha, p. 33.</ref>

Doniger and Sudhir Kakar published another translation in 2002, as a part of the Oxford World's Classics series.{{sfn|Wendy Doniger|Sudhir Kakar|2002}} Along with the translation, Doniger has published numerous articles and book chapters relating to the ''Kamasutra''.<ref>{{cite book|author=Wendy Doniger|title=Redeeming the Kamasutra|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TrVjDQAAQBAJ|year=2016|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-049928-0|access-date=20 November 2018|archive-date=21 December 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191221104600/https://books.google.com/books?id=TrVjDQAAQBAJ|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=On the Kamasutra|author=Wendy Doniger| journal= Daedalus| volume= 131| number=2|year= 2002|publisher=The MIT Press|pages=   126–129|jstor=20027767}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Wendy Doniger|editor=Ariel Glucklich|title=The Sense of Adharma|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=d6bsOfvySvMC&pg=PA169|year=1994|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-802448-4|pages=169–174|access-date=3 December 2018|archive-date=25 January 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220125030006/https://books.google.com/books?id=d6bsOfvySvMC&pg=PA169|url-status=live}}</ref> The Doniger translation and ''Kamasutra''-related literature has both been praised and criticized. According to David Shulman, the Doniger translation "will change peoples' understanding of this book and of ancient India. Previous translations are hopelessly outdated, inadequate and misguided".<ref name=nytimes2002kamasutra>{{cite news|author= Dinitia Smith|title= A New Kama Sutra Without Victorian Veils|newspaper= The New York Times|date= May 4, 2002|url= https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/books/a-new-kama-sutra-without-victorian-veils.html|access-date= 3 December 2018|archive-date= 3 December 2018|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20181203202659/https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/books/a-new-kama-sutra-without-victorian-veils.html|url-status= live}}</ref> Narasingha Sil calls the Doniger's work as "another signature work of translation and exegesis of the much misunderstood and abused Hindu erotology". Her translation has the folksy, "twinkle prose", engaging style, and an original translation of the Sanskrit text. However, adds Sil, Doniger's work mixes her postmodern translation and interpretation of the text with her own "political and polemical" views. She makes sweeping generalizations and flippant insertions that are supported by neither the original text nor the weight of evidence in other related ancient and later Indian literature such as from the Bengal Renaissance movement – one of the scholarly specialty of Narasingha Sil. Doniger's presentation style titillates, yet some details misinform and parts of her interpretations are dubious, states Sil.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Narasingha P. Sil|title= Book Review: Wendy Doniger, Redeeming the Kamasutra|journal=American Journal of Indic Studies|volume=1|number=1|year=2018|pages=61–66 with footnotes|doi=10.12794/journals.ind.vol1iss1pp61-66|doi-access=free}}</ref>