When Satyavati had a child out of wedlock, why was Kunti’s having a child similarly so scandalous that she had to abandon that child?

Podcast:

Hare Krishna.

When Satyavati had a son out of wedlock, and it did not affect her reputation too badly, why was Kunti’s having a son such a matter of great shame that she could not even talk about it?

There are two or three points to consider here.

First, there is no clear mention that everyone knew that Vyasa was the son of Satyavati through Parashara. Maybe it was known, but how widely it was known is unclear. Also, the key point is that Satyavati was not raising the child herself. Vyasa’s birth was due to some kind of mystical union—however it happened, even if it was a physical union, there was a mystical dimension to it.

Second, the expectations and social standards were different for different people. Satyavati was a fisherwoman, and although her father was said to be the head of the fisherfolk, the social standards for fisherfolk families were quite different from those expected of a royal family, especially a royal family like the Kurus, which was the center of Brahminical culture.

There are mentions of mitigating circumstances in the Vedic literature and the Puranas, but these are not considered the standard or ideal norms. Scriptures show us that social standards were not monolithic; different people lived by different expectations.

Even today, if a prominent person does something controversial, it fills the scandal sheets. But if an unknown person does the same, it usually stays within their social circle and does not attract wider attention. Both these factors apply to Satyavati’s case—her mystical union was accepted, she did not have to raise the child, and it was told that her virginity would be restored. She lived on the fringes of mainstream society, unlike Kunti.

Kunti, being a princess, was at the center of mainstream society. For her to have a child outside of wedlock was scandalous. She could not possibly raise the child openly, which is why she had to give him up.

Further vindication of these different social standards can be seen in Satyavati’s role. She was not only born into a fisher family but was also serving as a person who ferried people across the river in a boat. It seems she was not doing this for payment but for religious piety. This meant she was often alone with many male travelers, indicating that the culture she lived in did not have very strict gender separation norms. The Mahabharata itself reflects cultural diversity in this regard.

For example, while Indian culture is often associated with dowry (where the bride brings gifts to the groom’s family), when Kunti was to be married to Pandu, her brother said their tradition was for the groom to give gifts to the bride’s family—what is culturally known as a bride price, the opposite of dowry. Bhishma acknowledged and respected these differing cultural norms.

Clearly, if Kunti felt she could not have or raise this child, her circumstances must have been extremely difficult. Within mainstream Brahminical society, there were strict social standards, and Kunti could not have raised the child openly. So she had to send him away—placing him in a basket on a boat with many precious gifts to indicate his royal or prosperous origins. She prayed to the sun god, saying, “This is your child; please take care of him.” She also prayed to the wind god to guide the boat to a caring family, and to Lord Vishnu for protection. She did what she could in her difficult situation.

In summary, royalty was held to different standards than those living on the fringes of society. Kunti’s concern was not just for her personal reputation but also for her father, her family, her dynasty, and her future progeny.

Thank you.