Kinship, caste and class

Important questions

1. Critical edition of the Mahabharata

 In 1919, a team of dozens of scholars, under the leadership of V.S. Sukthankar, a
noted Indian Sanskritist, began the task to prepare a critical edition of the
Mahabharata.
 Elements involved in preparation
o It meant collecting Sanskrit manuscripts of the text, written in a variety of
scripts, from different parts of the country.
o Method of comparing verses from each manuscript. Then they selected
verses that appeared common to most versions and published these in
several volumes, running into over 13,000 pages.
o There were several common elements in Sanskrit versions of the story from
all over India and enormous regional variations in ways in which the text had
been transmitted. These variations were recorded in footnotes and
appendices to the main text (more than half of 13,000 pages were devoted to
variations.)
 They are reflective of the way complex processes shaped early social
histories.
 Differences in understandings
o Our understanding is primarily derived from Sanskrit texts written by and for
Brahmanas.
o In 19th and 20th centuries, historians used to take these texts at face value-
believing everything that was written used to be practiced. However, when
scholars began studying other traditions (Pali, Prakrit and Tamil), they
indicated that ideas contained in normative Sanskrit texts was often
questioned and sometime even rejected.

2. Kinship and marriage: rules and varied practices

 Finding out about families
o Not all families are identical, they vary in number, relationship with one
another, etc. families are usually part of larger networks of people defined as
relatives or kinfolk.
o Familial ties are usually defined by blood and sometime by other ways too.
For example, in some societies, cousins are considered kinfolk while in others
they are not.
o Information about elite families can be easily found but information regarding
families of common people is difficult to reconstruct. Historians also
investigate and analyze attitudes towards families which give them an insight
into people’s thinking and what shapes their actions.
 Ideal of patriliny
o Mahabharata- describes a feud over land and power between two groups of
cousins, the Kauravas and Pandavas, who belonged to a single ruling family,
that of the Kurus, a lineage dominating one of the Janapadas, which
ultimately ended in war with Pandavas winning and restoring patrilineal
succession.
 o Under patriliny, sons could claim resources (including throne in case of
kings) of their fathers when the latter died.
o Most ruling dynasties followed this practice, with some exceptions such as in
absence of sons, when brothers succeeded one another, other kinsmen
claimed throne and in very exceptional circumstances, women such as
Prabhavati Gupta exercised power.
 Rules of marriage
o While sons were important for continuity of patrilineage, daughters were
viewed differently.
 No claims over resources of household.
 Marrying them outside kin was considered desirable. This system was
called exogamy. Marriages of daughters were often contracts of
profits.
 This gave rise to belief that kanyadan (gift of daughter) in marriage
was an imp religious duty of father.
o With emergence of towns, social life became more complex. Different people
met, which might have given rise to questioning of earlier beliefs and
practices.
o Faced with this challenge, the Brahmanas responded by laying down codes of
social behaviour in great detail.
 Meant to be followed by Brahmanas and rest of society in general.
 They were compiled in Sanskrit texts called Dharmasutras and
Dharmashastras.
 The most imp of these works was Manusmriti.
 They recognised almost 8 forms of marriage out of which the first four
were good and the rest were condemned.
o Brahmana authors claimed that these texts had universal validity and that
what they prescribed had to be followed by everybody. However, given
regional diversity, the influence of Brahmanas was by no means all-pervasive.
 The gotra of women
o It is evident that in those times, people were classified in terms of gotras.
o Each gotra was named after a Vedic seer, and all those who belonged to the
same gotra were regarded as descendants of that seer.
o Two rules about gotras: women were expected to give up their fathers gotra
and adopt that of her husband on marriage + members of same gotra could
not marry.
o This is also evident from the names of many people. Example, the
Satvahanas, who ruled over parts of western India and the Deccan. Several of
their inscriptions have been recovered.
 Some of them were polygamous (had more than one wife).
 By examining names of women who married the Satvahanas, they
evidently retained their fathers gotra instead of adopting their
husbands’. Also some of these women belonged to the same gotra.
 This exemplifies an alternative practice to exogamy called endogamy
or marriage between people from same kin group, which was
prevalent in South India.
 Such marriages ensured a close-knit society.
3. Social differences
 The term “caste” refers to a set of hierarchically ordered social categories. The ideal
order was laid down in Dharmasutras and Dharmashastras. Positions were decided
based on birth, which the Brahmanas claimed to be divinely ordained.
 The “right occupation”
o Dharmasutras or Dharmashastras contained rules about ideal occupations
about the four varnas or categories.
 Brahmanas were supposed to study and teach the Vedas, perform
sacrifices and get sacrifices performed, give and receive gifts.
 The Kshatriyas were to engage in warfare, protect people and
administer justice, study the Vedas, get sacrifices performed and make
gifts.
 Vaishyas in addition these were also expected to engage in agriculture,
pastoralism and trade.
 Shudras were assigned only one occupation that was to serve the
three “higher” castes.
o Brahmanas evolved the following strategies to enforce these varnas
 Assert that the varna order was of divine origin.
 They advised kings to ensure that these norms were followed within
their kingdoms.
 They attempted to persuade people that their status was determined
by birth. However, this wasn’t always easy. Hence, they took help of
stories like the Mahabharata.
 Non-Kshatriya Kings
o There were some exceptions to the norm that only Kshatriyas could be kings
 Social background of the Mauryas was hotly debated. While later
Buddhist texts claim that they were Kshatriyas, Brahmanical texts
described them as being “low” origin.
 The Shungas and Kanvas, immediate successors of Mauryas, were
Brahmanas.
o This meant that political power was open to anyone who could muster
support and resources, and rarely depended on birth as a Kshatriya.
 The Shakas were regarded as mlechchhas (barbarians or outsides) by
the Brahmanas. However, Rudradaman, best known Shaka ruler,
rebuilt Sudarshana lake.
 The Satvahana dynasty, the ruler Gotami-puta Siri-Satakani, claimed
to be born a unique Brahmana and a destroyer of the pride of
Kshatriyas. He also claimed to have ensured exogamy and entered into
marriage alliance with kin of Rudradaman.
 Jatis and social mobility
o In Brahmanical theory, “jati” like varna, was based on birth. However, while
the number of varnas was fixed at 4, there was no restriction on number of
jatis.
o Whenever Brahmanical authorities encountered new groups, which did on
easily fit into the fourfold varna system, they classified them as a jati.
 Example, forest-dwellers such as the nishadas, or occupational
categories such as goldsmith or swarnakara.
 o Jatis which shared a common occupation or profession were sometimes
organised into shrenis or guilds.
o One interesting inscription, found in Mandasor (Madhya Pradesh) records the
history of a guild of silk weavers who originally lived in Lata (Gujarat), from
where they migrated.
o Membership of a guild/shreni was based on shared craft specialisation, some
members adopted other occupations.
 Beyond the four varnas-
o Integration
 There were some populations whose social practices were not
influenced by Brahmanical ideas. In Sanskrit texts, they are described
as odd, uncivilized, or even animal-like. Examples:
 Forest dwellers, for whom hunting and gathering remained an
imp means of subsistence.
 Categories such as the nishada, to which Eklavya belonged.
 Nomadic pastoralists, who could not be easily accommodated
in the varna system.
 Sometimes those who spoke non-Sanskritic languages were labelled
as mlechachhas and looked down upon.
o Subordination and control
 Brahmanas also developed sharper social divide by classifying certain
social categories as “untouchables”
 This was connected to the notion that certain activities, like the
performance of rituals, were scared and by extension “pure”. Those
who considered themselves as pure avoided taking food from those
considered “untouchable”
 Some activities were considered “polluting” such as handling of
corpses and dead animals. Those who performed such tasks were
designated as chandalas, and were at the very bottom of the varna
system.
 Manusmriti laid down duties of chandalas. For example: they had to
live outside the village, use discarded utensils, wear clothes of dead
and ornaments of iron.
 Chinese Buddhist monk Fa Xian wrote that “untouchables” had to
sound a clapper in the streets so that people could avoid seeing them.
Another Chinese pilgrim, Xuan Zang observed that executioners and
scavengers were forced to live outside the city.
4. Beyond birth: resources and status
