Eunuchs, Hijras &  Transgendered Presence  in Mughal Harem By Nirav Sachan

TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:
Sachan, Nirav. “Eunuchs, Hijras & Transgendered Presence in Mughal Harem: Power, Proximity & Exploitation.” The Repertoire, Issue 01, June 2026, pp. 1–4. Relearning the Nautch (RTN).

Click the Link to Download the Paper 

The Mughal harem is one of those things everyone thinks they understand, but mostly through half-imagined versions. It shows up as this sealed-off world: indulgent, dramatic, full of women and secrets. Colonial writers turned it into something decadent and strange[1]. Later histories kind of push it to the side, like it’s just a private, domestic corner of the empire. And pop culture… just makes it aesthetic.

But what keeps slipping out of focus are the people who don’t fit neatly into any of those versions, eunuchs, hijras, gender-variant bodies moving through that space in ways that weren’t accidental. If you ignore them, you miss something important. Power here doesn’t stay distant and abstract. It works up close. Almost uncomfortably close. Because the harem wasn’t just about seclusion. It was structured. Controlled. Watched. It held wives, yes, but also mothers of emperors, wet nurses, servants, enslaved people, musicians, guards. It was less a “private space” and more like a compressed version of the empire itself, just indoors. All the same hierarchies, just tighter.

Eunuchs sat right at the center of that system, but in a way that’s hard to pin down. They were made, through enslavement, through castration, through being slotted into administrative roles that defined them before they could define themselves. Cut off from lineage, from reproduction, from what counted as masculinity. That absence is exactly what made them useful.

They were seen as “safe.” Not in any moral sense. Just… manageable.

That’s why they could go where other men couldn’t. Why they could move between spaces, carry information, watch, speak. But none of that meant freedom. Their position depended entirely on the court’s approval. It could disappear just as quickly as it appeared. Being close to power didn’t protect them, it exposed them. Constantly.

And it’s hard to talk about all this without calling it what it was: exploitation. Castration[2] wasn’t some cultural side note. It was a method. A way of turning bodies into something the state could use more efficiently. The Mughal court didn’t invent this, but it definitely refined it, building on older imperial systems where eunuchs already played similar roles.

Later accounts soften this with language about loyalty, trust, service. But that doesn’t erase what’s underneath. If anything, it hides it better. Still, it’s not as simple as saying eunuchs were only victims. Some of them gained real influence. Wealth. Authority. They could shape decisions, control access, hold power in ways that mattered. But even then, it wasn’t theirs in any full sense. It was borrowed. Conditional. It existed because the system allowed it, and only as long as it was useful.

So there’s this tension you can’t really resolve. They had power, but not freedom. Presence, but not full recognition. Hijras make this even more complicated. They weren’t just “court figures” in the same way. Many were part of larger communities, with their own kinship systems, rituals, cultural roles. Their identities weren’t created by the court, they existed before it, outside it.

So when the Mughal system encountered hijras, it wasn’t encountering blank bodies. It was interacting with people who already carried meaning, already belonged somewhere. Some were drawn into court life. Others stayed outside, navigating visibility differently. And collapsing eunuchs and hijras into the same category, just “gender variance”, kind of erases all of that. There’s also the question of language. It’s tempting to map modern terms like “transgender[3]” onto these histories. Sometimes that helps. Sometimes it completely distorts things. The way we understand identity now comes from very different conditions. Different ideas of selfhood, rights, recognition.

But at the same time, you can’t pretend there’s no connection at all. What carries across time isn’t identity in a clean, continuous way. It's a vulnerability. The way certain bodies keep getting positioned is useful because they don’t fit neatly. Because they can be placed in between.

That’s really what the harem shows. Difference wasn’t excluded, it was absorbed. Controlled. Put to work. The eunuch becomes this strange figure, guard and captive at the same time. Inside and outside. Necessary, but never secure. And when hijras were brought into that space, they often lost the protections they had in their own communities. What looks like inclusion starts to look more like capture.Then colonial historians come in and twist all of this into something else entirely. The harem becomes proof of “Oriental excess,” moral decline. Eunuchs turn into symbols of degeneration. It says more about colonial anxiety than anything else, honestly. And in doing that, it erases the violence of the empire itself.

Later, nationalist histories [4]react by going in the opposite direction, cleaning things up, focusing on rational governance, masculine authority. The harem fades out again. And with it, the people who complicated it.

So coming back to these figures now eunuchs, hijras aren't just filling in a gap. It shifts the whole frame. It forces you to see how power actually works. Not from a distance, but through intimacy. Through access. Through control disguised as proximity.

Being close doesn’t soften power. If anything, it sharpens it.

And writing about this now… it doesn’t stay in the past. It leaks into the present pretty quickly. We talk a lot about visibility today, about recognition, inclusion, representation. And those things matter. But they’re not automatically liberating.

Because being seen, being needed, being allowed close, those can also be ways of being contained.

The harem makes that uncomfortable to ignore. It shows how systems can depend most on the people they’ve already taken the most from. And how that dependence doesn’t translate into justice.

If anything, it just makes the arrangement harder to see.

[1] Colonial accounts frequently portrayed the harem as a site of oriental excess, sensuality, and despotism. Such representations often reveal more about European fantasies and anxieties than the historical realities of Mughal court life. See Edward Said, Orientalism (1978).

[2] Many court eunuchs entered imperial service through systems of enslavement and forced castration. Historians caution against romanticized depictions of their status, emphasizing the violence that enabled their incorporation into court structures.

[3] Scholars have warned against the uncritical application of modern categories such as "transgender" to premodern societies, arguing that historical experiences of gender variance emerged within different conceptual frameworks.

[4] Twentieth-century nationalist histories frequently emphasized administrative efficiency, military achievement, and masculine political authority, often marginalizing figures whose presence complicated such narratives.