To me, this excerpt from a memoir by an Englishman who grew up in Kashmir at the turn of the twentieth century raises more questions than it answers.
He describes the Hindu "pilgrimages to the caves of AMARNATH, the reputed source of the Holy Ganga, the great Ganges river."
A merry side-light to this pilgrimage was the traffic in temple dancing-girls or prostitutes, whom the richer pilgrims were wont to hire as their companions for the duration of the pilgrimage. To them would occasionally be born a child; and, to hush up scandal, the temple-priests would have the unwanted little creatures despatched in a secret butchery behind the temple....(T)o the honour of Amer Singh and his brother alike, be it said, means were found—in the teeth of opposition by the all-powerful priesthood—to put an end to this iniquitous butchery.
Let's assume that these "dancing-girls" were
Devadasis, possibly Dalits, who'd been dedicated to the temple. They were rented as sex workers to wealthy pilgrims. Let's say that they were far from home, that they may not have wanted their baby daughters to grow up to be devadasis or their baby sons to inherit nothing. Instead of
selling their children, or leaving them as foundlings, they practiced infanticide.
What happened to the babies once the Maharajah prevailed and the priests stopped killing them? Were the mothers forced to keep them, or were they adopted out? Did anyone benefit besides the Europeans who apparently weren't offended by prostitution, but who objected to killing the "unwanted little creatures"?
Did anyone
want them? If they had, no one would've killed them in the first place.
Wouldn't the prostitutes have been grateful for safe and affordable contraception that would at least have spared them unwanted pregnancies?
The biggest question it raises is "How could anyone call this a merry sidelight?"
