CHAPTER Two Society and Women _ 2.1 MATRIARCHY OR MATRILINY It has been argued by some that male supremacism universal and there is not a shred of evidence, his temporary, that supports the existence of a single which women controlled the political and economic lives of men, This was in reaction to the nineteenth-century argument proposed by Lewis Henry Morgan and J. Bachofen that there was a time in human cultural evolution when women were all-powerful. Bachofen had based his beliefs on archaeologi indicating the importance of female goddesses ; and on the mythology of ancient civilizations in w were depicted as powerful. Morgan based his his knowledge of societies such as the Troquois, wh that women were in-charge of the economic arena, reckoned through women, and women played acr ritual and political activities. Ae To what extent can we say that women wielded | therefore, the set-up was matriarchy or rule of women? Says Power refers to the ability to act effectively on persons or secure favourable decisions which are not of right individual or their rules. Authority is defined as the Particular decision and to command obedience.! Seen in this light, how do we define matriar society in which women have publicly recogni authority which surpasses that of men. Finding no women occupy the main positions of leadershi argue that male domination is universal. Howevet is redefined to mean female economic and ritual not female rule (although they would exercise Power), then it becomes more acceptable?SOCIETY AND WOMEN 33 As far as the evidence for matriarchy in the Mahabharatais con- cerned, three cases often cited are those of Hidimba, Citrangada and strirajya. Bhima leaves his son Ghatotkaca with Hidimba so that he could be the king of raksasas under his mother’s care, Arjuna marries Citrangada only after he promises to recognize Citrangada’s father’s claim on his child. It is significant that both Hidimba’s domain and Citragada’s Manipura are onthe outskirts ofthe Aryavarta and perhapsits patriarchalnormswere, therefore, not as significant in these peripheral areas. The third example that is given for a putative matriarchy is of strirajya,> though strangely enough a king Srgala is said to be its head. The location of the strirajyais equally marginal.* Matriarchy is one where descent and inheritance is recognized as passing from mother to daughter and women also exercised a great deal of authority. By this definition we do not have any matriarchal society in the Mahabharata. The absence of a son is most unfortunate, and the daughter then has to reproduce that son. In this context, let us examine the case of Hidimba and Citrangada in detail. Hidimba was not the queen,° her brother Hidimba was the ruler of the forest realm. He was Killed by Bhima, which left Hidimba as the successor of her brother, and Bhima accepted her® on the condition that as soon as a son was born (putrasyotpadanam) of this union he would be free of any obligation towards her. Inthe case of Citrangada,’ she was a protherless maiden and, therefore, a putrika. Her father agreed to let her marry Arjuna only on the condition that her first born son would be treated as his heir and successor, and not his father’s (Arjuna’ s) son. In the case of both Hidimba and Citrangada their so-called dphesiancs seems to be only by default. If at all these two cases are a seen as evidence of matriarchy or matriliny, then one mae ces _ them by saying that in their ethos they had alrea states “ see atriarchy. There is kowtowing to the aspirations of an emerging P pea not much evidence of female economic and ritual centrality in the Mahabharata.” iti inship and inheritance on the Matriliny mSAns ee ey over children is maternal oes ae ee, but by the maternal uncle. On the exeicleeg nou sat data Godelier? concluded that women bapa oh eee to men in matrilineal societies — not to her ——34 ‘THE MAKING OF WOMANHOOD husband or father, but to her brother or mother’s brother, who » has authority over both her and her children. The children belong not to their father but to their mother’s line, and are placed under the authority of their maternal uncle. However, what seems un- deniable is that subordination of women to men is very different in matrilineal societies, and generally less harsh’? than in patrilineal societies. Women in a matrilineal society are subject to two authorities, their brother and mother’s brother on the one side, and their mother and mother’s sister on the other. In a patrilineal society by contrast, women are subject to the male authority first of their father and then of their husband. Matriliny, therefore, should not be confused with matriarchy. Matriliny meant only following the maternal line with regard to inheritance and kinship, which did not confer the rights and powers of the head of the family on the mother. For all practical purposes the maternal uncle was the functional head of the family, and after him his uterine nephew. Karna-Parvan"! refers to Arhatta and Valhika where property was passed on to the bhagineya or sister’s son. Hopkins!” has noted very carefully the gradual rising of the position of mother’s brother in ancient Hindu family and use of a separate term mdatula for him. While the term matula does not occur in the Vedic texts,'* in the Mahabharata matula is an uncle par excellence. Sakuni lives in Hastinapura while Vasudeva/ Vasudeva is a frequent visitor to the Pandava residence in Indraprastha as well as in the forest. One reason for the 7 occurrence of the term could be a simple extension in the kinship ¥ relations which made necessary the coinage of a new kinship ‘ ae But then, although the term pitrvya for the father’s brother , occurs in the Mahabharata, it is rare, and Karve is of the opinion ie on an anes Sade a What is crucial is that the easy aia ae 4 the fact that the Mahabharata ee eter wiave niece egy in which ae relations are roa Seat a ae ies re relations: : : has led some scholars to infer a é me as Ae sai es TPs It is true that there are at enue pete epee matrilocal marriage in the epic. | . See examples of Sister of Vasuki Naga and ie ai iru, a Sage, married the iis in-laws’ house until sheSOCIETY AND WOMEN 35 conceived from him, and their son Astika was brought up at his maternal uncle’s place.!” In the Adi-Parvan, a brahmana is mentioned as living with his NisAdi wife in her house.'® Hidimba, Citrangada and Ulupi too continued to live in their parental homes. In all the above cases brides belonged to same non-Aryan tribe, viz., naga, raksasa and nisada, whose social institutions apparently differed from the patriarchal model of Aryan ksatriyas.'° Furthermore, three of the Pandava children, viz., Ghatotkaca, Iravana and Babhruvahana, born of these mothers, were at no point of time part of the Pandava household. In other words, examples of matrilocal marriages do not come from the heart of the Kuru-Paficala cultural complex, but from outside. ee |, ~The importance of matula in the epic and the esteem and affection in which he is held cannot be taken as evidence of matriliny.2° In fact, had it been a matrilineal set-up, the feeling of affection for matula may not have been so great. There is an Ashanti (matrilineal set-up) proverb that ‘a sister's son.is-his mother’s brother’s enemy, waiting for him to die, so that he may inferit’2" It seems more reasonable to infer that the importance of matulawas increasing in a patrilocal/patrilineal family for his sister's children, because he was the nearest_relative of status who could safeguard their interests from their agnatic relation’s conflicting self-interest. Both Sakuni and Vasudeva are frantic in ‘Heir efforts to safeguard the share of their nephews, the Kauravas and the Pandavas, in the Kuru patrimony. The counsel of the matula in the Mahabharata is very much within the context of fraternal tensions in the Kuru family that leads to both partition and war. Evidence from Manusmrtitends to reinforce this reason for the importance of mdtula, There is reference to division of family (patriarchal) ,2° and the text also underlines the importance of maternal relations,®’ particularly that of the mother’s brother.** : Scholars like Lubbock and McLennan were of the view that in the early stages of the human race, and ina promiscuous society with no established institution of marriage, there was no way of identifying the paternity of the child. Onl motherhood was 4 fact and descent refore, reckoned throu; t chet ‘as been®” pointed out that the basis of the Ashanti (matrilineal tribe in West Africa) regard for women was due to their belief36 THE MAKING OF WOMANHOOD that lineage and the clan that incorporates general lineage js synonymous with blood and that only women can transmit blog todescendants. Similarly, matrilineal Khasi tribals of Meghalaya ‘pélieved that their tribe (Kur) was descended from a primal ancestress called Ka Iawbei, which was succinctly expressed by their saying ‘from the woman sprang the clan’. In an earlier stage children were > not identified with individual mothers, rather all the women of a. group were jointly considered 1 mothers of all the children. Words like_dvimatr sanamatr, and . Saptamdatr, are indicative of this situation.” In the Mahabharatawe have the story of Karttikeya who is the son of six mothers, and all are said to — i have Contributed towards his physical personality.*° With the creation of patriarchy patrilineal reckoning came into being. In the Mahabharata we get the description of the Prajapati institution which signifies a single husband or father figure. Marici, Angirasa, Vasistha, Pulastya, Atri, Pulaha, Rtu are mentioned as _seven Prajapatis. But unable to explain the origin of these Prajapatis, Vyasa called them Brahma’s manasaputra. We can take these manasaputras®! as representing the transitional phase from the matrilineal to the patrilineal social setarp. The transition, however, was never smooth but marked by inherent tensions. In the Vedic context, Roy? has shown that even as patrilineage was becoming..a norm there were, nonethe nonetheless, assertions of matrilineal descent princi ples. Thus, in the Baudhayana Srautasiitra, in a variation of the dasapeya ony mis prahmanas_were challenged to name their matrilineal ancestors for ten generations, denying entrance in the sacred area to 108e wi o were unable to do so, In the Mahabharata story = ie as ‘cansitional phase is clearh ‘brought out. 1a is the Oowever, ‘Or for the narrai or and thé audience of the could not be replaced by a male ancestor, and had to be retained The epic, therefore, States briefly that ‘the learned Pururava was born of lla who was both his father and his mother’.53 Such a statement is symbolic ofa society in t ; mal mi ng soug theemerging pzSOCIETY AND WOMEN 37 ‘Also, in the Mahabharata there are enough legends which tell us about the supersession of primogeniture. Yayati’s youngest son Puru succeedS him rather than the eldest Yadu,* and elaborate ‘ustification®® is invented for this seeming departure from the norm. In the Kuru family there is yet another succession of the younger brother that of Santanu, while Devapi** was the eldest. In fact, the central event in the epic, the Mahabharata war, revolves around the attempted supersession of the eldest sons — Devavrata/Bhisma, Dhrtarastra and then Yudhisthira. Schneider and Gough*” are of the view that primogeniture is necessary ina situation where there is a divergent inheritance/descent system suchas the establishmentofa patrilineal system in a matrilineal region. Tea that in a matrilineal_system, lateral succession woul acceptable and the ousting of the elder brother might carry a memory of Sicha siiccession. ‘Adi-Parvan refers to Prajapati Kasyapa who is Marici’s son and his progeny through his numerous wives. However, these children instead of being called Kasyapa (of Kasyapa) are known by their other’s name. For instance, the children of Aditi are Aditya,* of Danu Danava,’” of Vinata Vainateya,*! and so on. How does one explain this anomaly? There is no doubt of KaSyapa’s paternity, yet descent is reckoned through the mother. Perhaps this is due to the fact that prior to the Prajapati institution, descent was reckoned through the mother and this norm took a long time to erode.*? One cannot reject this explanation, because along with metronymics we also find tremendous respect for the mother figure in the Mahabharata as compared to the Greek epics. In fact, bilineal_ society, where matrilineal and patrilineal Hneages and claims co-exist, is an indication of a period of considerable eel en change. ‘ treating the metronymic as an evidence of a matrilineal social setup would, however be going too far. As Trautman‘ points out, use of metronymics does not imply the matrilineal set-up. Ethnology provides no parallel for the combination of patrilineal descent and matrilineal succession — of 187 societies that have unilineal descent and unilineal succession to the position of headman of local community, societies with matrilineal descent had matrilineal succession in 44 cases, and patrilineal descent had patrilineal succession in 135 cases and matrilineal succession38 THE MAKING OF WOMANHOOD in no case. The figures illustrate the inherent fragility of disharmonic combinations of descent and succession to office, and the fact that they are only known to occur within societies with matrilineal descent accords well with the current theory of matrilineal structures. F tH Perhaps it can be said that one function of the metronymic in a patrilineal society was to make a distinction between the children of polygynous households. KaSyapa had many wives just as Pandu had two — Kunti’s sons were called Kaunteya and Madri’s Madreya.“ Arjuna’s son Abhimanyu from Subhadra was Saubhadra“ and Draupadi’s sons were collectively referred to as Draupadeya.** Significant in this context is the fact that use of the epithet Gandhari-Putra/Gandhare for Duryodhana and his brothers is very rare.‘” At best, metronymics can be seen as symbolizing the veneration of mothers, but do not denote either a matrilineal setup or a situation where the father/man was in a subordinate position. An interesting example from the Mahabharata to illustrate this point is the Sarhvarana-Tapati episode in the Adi-Parvan.*® Citraratha Gandharva addresses Arjuna by metronymic Tapatya which surprises the hero so much that he inquires what this form of address signifies. Citraratha then reveals to Arjuna the story of his forefather Sarnvarana who had married Tapati and since Arjuna was a scion of their family he was addressed as Tapatya. What we do notice in the Mahabharata, however, is the reality of ‘matrifocality’. In a set-up like this, the mother has a great degree of control over the kin unit, its economic resources, and isalso critically involved in the decision-making process. Another i cr ee ere ea subsistence of the cdidetieedta t roamed eaten sn] : nit. The emotional bonding in such ahouschold is between the mother and siblings. The anthropological data* tells us that matrifocal households can be found in both matrilineal and patriline ieti al societies, as also in bil: S. The most significant i : cae ae Mahabharatais that of iSOCIETY AND WOMEN 39 father Mandapila is an absentee figure is another example of a matrifocal set-up. Brother-sister marriage is known to happen in societies with a matrilineal set-up. In ancient Egypt, Pharaohs united with their sisters. It was also aunion which ensured a more equal relationship between the conjugal pair, due to the ‘sameness’ of the pair — it is significant that Yami when she entreats Yama to come to her as a husband, says that God has made us dampati in the womb itself. From the Rgvedawe get copious data on the brother-sister incest. Piisana®! is called the lover of his sister, and the Sun is also called a lover of his own sister Usa.”? In the two verses from the first book®’ of the Rgveda, heaven and earth are called brother and sister, and each other’s Jami. Karve™ says that Jami was not only a reciprocal term for brother and sister,” but also connoted a mutual obligation to marry. Therefore, in the Yama-Yami dialogue when Yama refuses to oblige Yami,” she calls this an unjamélike conduct.*” That such instances were not mere exceptions and this form of union between siblings was a general custom, is evident from an incantation “He who sleeps with you becoming your brother, husband or lover and who kills your progeny, him I destroy’.°® The same incantation occurs in the Atharvaveda though with a modification. ‘He who sleeps with you in thy dream as brother or father, him I destroy’.®® Karve says that in the Atharvavedic version, the intercourse is supposed to have taken place in a dream, while the Rgvedic version leaves no doubt regarding the normality of the act. Since such unions were obviously becoming unacceptable, old incantations were given a new form.” By the time Brahmanas were composed, such unions Stood completely rejected.“! In the Mahabharata we get the story of Kaca and Devayani which is reminiscent of the Yama-Yami ‘pisode in the Rgveda. Devayani entreats Kaca to marry her, but Kaca refuses on the ground that he had lived in the same womb hi si) as her and, therefore, Devayani being his sister cia) os Could not entertain her proposal to unite in matrimony.” Itis ignificant that in both cases it is women Yami and Devayani who the initiative, and the men Yama®™ and Kaca, respectively, them down on the ground that this would be against social, Moral sanction. And yet both Yami® and Devayani® remain "Teconciled to this new morality espoused by Yama and Kaca.40 THE MAKING OF WOMANHOOD 2.2 PATRILOCAL/VIRILOCAL RESIDENCE The very thrust of this monograph has been totrace the expressions and reasons for the unequal social relations between man and woman. Murdock says in his book Social Structure,*’ that residence was more significant in the origins of stratification of gender and class than descent. In matrilocal/uxorilocal societies when males moved to their wives’ residence after marriage, they became producers within a kin corporate group in which they were not owners; and when females move (patrilocal), the same was true for them. It has been,® in fact, pointed out that without patrilocality the exploitation of women’s labour power would be impossible. They rightly ask how men could maintain a form of oppression (in matrilocality) that was sufficiently persistent and uninterrupted to culminate in a stable exploitation of their sisters, if all the time they were ‘sons’ in their mother’s matriclan? And if they move out to live with a woman from another matriclan they came as foreigners. Admittedly, such men (in both cases) might try, once in the matriclan, to gain possession of goods that belong to women. But this could not take place continnually mainly because the men would have to reckon with the combined opposition of all women of the clan, who are bound together by stronger ties than the men are, since the women are the ones who structure the group and the unit of residence. In patrilocality, on the other hand, the fluidity of relationships that exists in matrilocal set-up disappears, and the practice of male dominance begins. Patrilocality sets into motion the kind of social and psychological processes that could culminate in the full-fledged control of all women’s lives and bodies. In the Atharvaveda, a verse of a marriage hymn reads ‘Like a gourd, I pluck you from here (the father’s house) and bind you securely there (in the husband’s house), so that you will be in my power and act according to my mind’.”” One may well ask why if the earliest societies had been matrilocal, was there a transition towards patrilocality. One reason for this could be that,”! if men were exchanged or shifted and not women, there was no way to ensure their loyalty to the tribe to which they were traded. In other words, matrilocality was inherently unstable.”2 Anthropological data shows that marriage is never as central to the organizationSOCIETY AND WOMEN 4 of economic and social life in matrilineal/ matrilocal societies ast is in a patrilineal one. Anthropological evidence shows that societies move from matrilineal to patrilineal but never the other way, can be taken asan evidence of the instability” of matrilineal/ matrilocal family organization.” In matrilocal societies men’s pond to their offspring was not strong enough to ensure their submission for the sake of their children. Furthermore, men were capable of physical violence against the members of the strange tribe; with their experience in hunting they could always escape easily. Women, on the other hand, could be more easily coerced. Once mothers, they would out of their nurturing instinct give loyalty to children,” and to their children’s relatives, and thus make a potentially strong bond with the tribe of affiliation. So a woman’s biological function made her more readily adaptable for this new ‘culturally created role of pawn’.” It is only in this context that one can say that for woman anatomy became her destiny. In patrilineal /patrilocal societies, marriage becomes central and more and more at the cost of women’s individuality to eliminate the tensions in the relationship. For women. patrilocal residence is virtually akin to disappearance at marriage, from her lineage. In fact, the term used for bride (vadhit) means one who has been carried away.”” The bride is an alien in the lineage that she joins through marriage. Women are thereby atomized, and their subjection is more easily guaranteed. While there is no reason to presume that a variagated text like the Mahabharata would present only one homogeneous IAS of such a complex social institution as marriage, in fact he 8andharva and raksasa forms jostle together with others in the text. But on the whole, the social set-up of the Mahabharata is Patriarchal and patrilocal; the daughter was given away a Marriage. Anugasana-Parvan emphasizes the great significan' a of kanyadana — one who gives this danais entitled to the is, dharma.™ Trautmann says about the kanyadana gene a, of Grsa, daiva and prajapatya are the first four, pPaate caer Marriage that are characterized by kanyadana), Es aes by gift” begins by presuming the superiority of Me eaian® people vis-a-vis the bride's. The bride is given by hex SU . i e connection between into the groom’s keeping, utterly severing th er into an extension the bride and her family, and transforms a42 THE MAKING OF WOMANHOOD ofthe groom and his family. Thus, marriage by sift in the approved forms is also a rite of initiation into anoth er family for the woman, and a sacrament that creates an indissoluble ae between husband and wife, and makes any break impossible. Yet in the less approved forms like raksasa, asura and ee the possibility of divorce by mutual consent was recognized. In patriarchal marriage, alienation of a woman from her own family and, therefore, her isolation, is so complete that she is unable to turn to them at any point in her life. Thus, Kunti has to come and stay with her young children in Hastinapura after Pandu’s death though they are not welcomed in Dhrtarastra’s palace. We find Kunti lamenting in the Udyoga-Parvan about the value of her life given that she was so hurt by her father (who gave her in adoption when she was a little girl playing with a ball) and the fathers-in-law, who all made her unhappy beyond limit.* Draupadi in her humiliation (to which her husbands were silent spectators) bewails aloud ‘O Krsna for me there is no husband, sons and relations. For me there is no brother and father.’** Even Amba, who was not formally married, was unable to turn to her family once taken away from Kasi. Amba’s insecurity, humiliation and bitterness on account of it is peculiar to women under patrilocality. ‘As a result of patrilocality, women’s soul moved in two worlds’, says Karve, a halfforgotten generally happy dream-like existence at the father’s house which lived on in the memory magnified and idealized, and the more real existence among the husband’s people — an existence full of fear and hope, humiliation and. exaltation, ending: inevitably in renunciation and all the time in whichever phase of existence, it was bound up with the will of others.*5 We have referred to male dominance but this development of patriarchal companied by the maintenance over children, Multi-generational ae Wate mee sub-domina1 ‘ousehold dominance i i in thi context is the role of the ee sal air i attee tina s h in-law. She had complete author- ity pense daughter-intlaw who had to obey her abd please her in all circumstances. Draupadi says in the Virata-Paryan that ina patrilocal residence, dominance was also ac- dominance along patriarchal int roles for women framed theSOCIETY AND WOMEN ns ‘only for arya Kunti did I make sandal paste with my hands’,87 She further notes in the Aranyaka-Parvan that ‘I served her (Kunti) myself with food and remained in attendance on her. I never tried to ona with her in any way, neither did I criticise her or argue with her’.*° In the didactic Santi-Parvan® this reality of the household dynamics is given a normative colouring. It is said that Goddess Laksmi abandons those households where the daughter- in-law tries to rule the servants, commands resources in front of her in-laws and summons her husband in public to give him directives. This very explicit verse tries to bring into stark relief the gendered reality of the patrilocal household. One of the greatest fears in such a set-up was the threat posed by a non- conforming bride who subverted the carefully laid out gener- ational pecking order. Apart from the mother-in-law, the bride was also interface with the sister/s of her husband in the new household. This relationship too was fashioned by the fact of patrilocality. Nanandr is the daughter of the house who has to leave the place where she was born and finds that a complete stranger takes her place. The isolation of the girl/sister in patrilocality increases her psy- chological feeling of dependence on the brother,” which in turn is resented by his wife. Then there is the question of whom to give precedence, the sister or the wife,®! and depending on the precedence given, it ereates a sub-dominant role for the woman within the household. The kinship relations are not innocuous blood ties; rather there is an entire politics of kinship that is embedded in the household relations. One Sanskrit grammar gives a rule for compounding different words together. i ei that the names of those creatures which are known as natura enemies can be compounded together. As an example of aba gives the compound words ahi-nakula (snake-mongooS®! 2 husband’s sister — brother's wife." Seen in or cane patrilocality was all about breaking of women's So eta it greater the enmity and division among women, the caste! Te for men to dominate them. In the Sabha-Parvan eke ice all, forced to remind the exclusively male audience ae aiinghesr that as the daughter-in-law of the Kurus she was like (snusam duhitaram caiva).44 THE MAKING OF WOMANHOOD The tragedy of women’s existence ina patrilocal household is that women never tend to develop a collective class consciousness regarding their exploitation. In Marxist theory it is the alienation of the ‘have-nots’ from the ‘haves’ that tends to breed chronic antagonism between the two and acute hostility which leads to a conflict directed at change. In a family, on the other hand, there is an in-built mechanism where at some stage, i.e. on becoming mothers of son/s and particularly on becoming a mother-in-law, women get subsumed into the non-alienated class or the possess- ing class, and it is this fact which precludes any solidarity among women as a group. Women, thus, cannot work together or think collectively for their betterment. On the other hand, their strategies in a patricentric family revolves around ‘working through men’,™ either their husbands or sons. Where women’s interests do not converge, conflict and competition among them is expected. In a situation like this women very often become collaborators in the oppression of their own sex. The Mahabharata furnishes us with some instances of cross- Cousin marriages, i.e. sapinda marriages. The didactic portions, however, prescribe against them. Altekar® is of the view that such a ban did not exist earlier than 600 sce when Grhyasiitras were compiled and repeated by Smrti writers. How does one read these injunctions from a gender perspective? While the rules of gotra/ os ipa ais sca! eing on both men and women, were framed in a societ a h Sa Nea se oa ner moved but men did not % pee alse Retiloca, LE: wos pon marriage. The sapinda marriage ban for women meant that they could marry wh had a prior D ot kin tie. These deperso Kf ; ae : 1 nalized incoming women were reduced to we Sroup which derived its only identity from the husband. i eR ban, thus, ensured maximum segregation of women, ‘Spatially and conceptually. Women who were married ac- econ i 2 Ca ons men any © anthropological Gia 4 engendered female crits Supports the view that ploitation. In fact, patril F ef aeSOCIETY AND WOMEN 45 likely to be associated with sexual inequality and matrilinealit and matrilocality with sexual equality. Sanday” agrees, and Mf the basis of the study of 150 societies of both types Ene pa that atleast 52 per cent of the matrilineal societies are sexually equal. Similarly, 50 per cent of the matrilocal societies as pat pared with 21 per cent of the strictly patrilocal societies are sexually equal. She further adds that matrilineal/matrilocal societies are essentially non-hierarchical. The older women may act as organizers, but they do not exert strong authority nor do they command community resources to get special services performed. It can be safely concluded” that while matrilineal structures are accommodating” and integrative, patrilineal ones are acquisitive and internally divisive.!°° The Mahabharata as we know it reflects a patrilineal, patrilocal society, and the great fratricidal war of the epic is a symptom of such a society. Enmity was so endemic in patrilineal/patrilocal societies, that one of the ideals that is put forward is of good brotherliness (saubhratra) 1! In fact, the term bhratrvya, an abstract noun, came to denote en- mity between patrilineal kin groups. It is our submission that the aims of the two epics Mahabharata and Ramayanawas to serve as an example of the two diametrically opposite concepts of bhratrvya and saubhratra, respectively. The accommodating nature of matrilineal forms results from the dispersion of related men due to the practice of: matrilocality, apractice that promotes widespread cooperation and coordination of groups. It also encourages integrative political structures. In this context, anthropologists give an example of Ashanti and Iroquois confedracies. Among Ashanti men, the kings rule but the queen-mother has the most say in selecting the king. Troquoi women appointed men to league positions and could veto their decision, but men dominated league deliberations. "~ f Itis not that patrilineal/) patrilocal societies are not inca Without some form of integration, patriarchy could 3 lave developed into such a strong institution over a wide range ©} ate and locales. However, the principles of such an integration : different; control is exercised by senior men over junior men fa i over all women. The above discussion leaves no doubt thal i ‘ f . ‘eties is perforce both physical integration achieved in such societies is perfor ge and psychological, which leaves women with little choi46 THE MAKING OF WOMANHOOD comply. It is women’s conformity, whether willingly or grudgingly given, which ensures integration in a patrilocal set-up. 2.3 PATRIARCHY AND PROPERTY How were women placed under systematic subordination? What mechanisms were adopted for this oppression? What is the nature of the power balance postulated between men and women? Such critical questions bearing on the structure of women’s oppression have been engaging the attention of scientific historians. Power means the ability to act autonomously to command compliance from others or to control their actions. In this respect, property is a crucial indicator of the balance of power between woman and man. By placing women and property in central focus we seek to answer (a) in what ways has the relationship between women and men been structured by access to control over and transmission of property?, and (b) to what extent and in what respects do women themselves or their offspring constitute property?! In what sense are women property? Where the father/husband has appropriative power over the girl’s/wife’s reproductive use- value (reproduction of children and domestic maintenance in general) and exchange-value (her sexual services) ,!°! we can refer to women being treated as Property. Madhavi in the Mahabharata’ is a classic example of woman as property. She is not exchanged as an inalienable gift in marriage, but is treated as disposable Property by men in her life who alienate her or her reproductive capacity and sexuality at will, Her father Yayati gives her away to Galava, and is brutalh : C : ly honest about the reason which Prompted him to give Madhavi to Galava - namely, so that his pes) and grandsons are not destroyed as a result of the curse of a lissatisfied mendicant.' In order to ensure their well-being the daughter, it seems, could be sacrificed. Galava then gave Madhavi to three other i i for hones Cia for producing a son each in exchange Madhavi in this enti ion i j til object and does not hav. ire transaction is an € a subjective status, As j i a form 7 ¢ Ode of property, an instrument in social relations created by those with rights in or ov o u r over her. Continuously in the process of pe ena or disposed, Madhavi atk up being totally ‘om the male-ordered world, where froma person sheSOCIETY AND WOMEN 47 became only a womb on rent. We are told that although Yayati arranged for her svayamwara she refused to marry and eventually married the forest.!°” In other words, she preferred to marry asceticism, symbolic of her alienation. The object of men’s exchange had finally acquired subjectivity, and in the process repudiated the male world. However, Madhavi’s service role did not end with this renunciation. In the Udyoga-Parvan we find that she tries to save Yayati, her fallen (from heaven) father, by giving him half of her merit, acquired through the performance of severe austerities. °° The staking of Draupadi in the game of dice in the Sabha-Parvan is often treated as an instance of the wife being equated with wealth, and thus staked. In the Mahabharatawe do get enumeration of women along with wealth! — Yudhisthira at one place classifies Draupadi as a ratna.!.° The epic also states that both women and wealth are property that could be utilized in difficulties.'"’ But the point to be emphasized here is not that Draupadi was staked and to go into the ethics of staking, for four of the Pandava brothers were staked too and then Yudhisthira staked himself as well. The issue for us is, what did the Pandava and Kuru clan think of Draupadi’s question of the husband-wife relationship, and the rights in that relationship as they belonged to the husband? In spite of the humiliation of being forced to enter the dice hall while in the state of menstrual defilement, Draupadi showed both the presence of mind and the gumption to challenge the allnale audience of the sabh, stating that ‘These Kurus stand here in the hall, lords of their daughters and daughters-ia-law . -. answer this question of mine the proper way.’!!? By standing her ground and asking the question Draupadi is really revealing the dark side of the masculine code of both heroism and chivalary. Her questioning of her humiliating treatment ends up exposing them rather ghey her, as was the Kaurava intent. Moroever, in trying to anes Draupadi’s question the various leading lights of the — assembly are forced to put into words their biases; Bhisma me “s an explicit statement that despite the state a husband. ene a his authority over his wife does not cease.!!® Vikarna in his at P ‘ jethira had no right to to defend Draupadi, says that (a) Yudhisthir had only stake her, for she was not his wife alone and as gogh bene hi Part ownership in her, and further (b) as a bonded man, he baSOCIETY AND WOMEN 49 putrika, has the right to the inheritance.'21 However, the putrika seems to be functioning as little more than the trustee of the inheritance which is her son’s. In no ancient text, including the epic, do we get a reference to the performance of sraddha by the putrika herself, or for that matter by any woman.!2 And one who does not have the right to offer pinda has no right to inheritance either.'?> So even the putrika’s inheritance is not really her own, she comes into it by default and retains it to pass it on to the next male heir. Although apparently an heiress, the putrika’s plight in the ancient text is sorry to say the least. As pointed out, she does not inherit directly but acts as a trustee of her son’s inheritance who claims the inheritance of his maternal grandfather on the ground that he performs sraddha for him. The very reason for which the maternal grandfather claimed the son of the putrika, automatically made her ‘unattractive’! to the males of society who would like to claim the son of her womb. In the Atharvaveda,!® diseased blood vessels are compared to brotherless maidens, ie. putrika girls. Just as blood does not flow in the diseased blood vessels, similarly a brotherless maiden’s road to marriage is blocked and she is left in her father’s house. Thus, the Kuru patriarch adyises against marrying a girl who is a brotherless maiden and, therefore, a putrikd.!*° One baffling verse in the epic reads that a putrika’s son is not fit to be invited for sraddha.'?” Whose Sraddha? His father’s, or any Sraddha ceremony, is not clear, Actually the putrika-putra mode of sonship does involve the idea of property rights.!28 A puirika signifies the right of a father over his daughter/her reproduction, and his ownership right automatically devalues her for others. It is interesting to note that both Kunti and Savitri who were their father’s only child, the Suitors did not come forward to woo them.!29 Much is made of women’s property rights in the form of dowry Which is stridhana, What exactly is the nature of this dowry? At = time of Draupadi’s marriage, gifts were given not just nee Tide but to her husbands as well.!’° In fact, Pandavas TERING! eae wealth from Drupada that Draupadi was described (who has been a Laksmi for them). At the time of Subhadra’s Ae Loo, gifts were given to the Pandavas by the Vrsni- dowry. family." I both instances we can hardly describe sto borrow Goody's terminology, as an example of diverging i50 THE MAKING OF WOMANHOOD devolution (ie. women’s property complex) - Dowry in such circumstances cannot be treated as pre-mortem inheritance, but has a specific intention of linking the caughtery and hence her family, with a particularly desirable son-in-law. ‘Thus, where the girl chooses the groom herself, says Manu, she is not allowed to take with her any ornaments given to her by her parents; and if she carried them away, it will be regarded a theft.'°4 It is true that in most other forms of marriages (other than perhaps géndharvaand paisaca) brides themselves must have been given gifts exclusively for their own use. Ornaments in particular would be such gifts. Brides were given away properly bejeweled, bd and it was also enjoined on the groom’s family to welcome the bride with gifts of various kinds!*® (like ornaments). There is reference to daughters alone inheriting their mother’s stridhana'®” — the term used for dowry is yautakam, which means separate property. But did it remain an exclusive property for girls? Behind the apparent economic power that women got from dowry is the practice of depriving them of it by controlling their right to its use. Greed recognizes no religious or moral norm, and more so the greed of the mighty and the dominant — they make their own norms. Sarmistha’® tells Yayati that three categories of people have no right to wealth — wives, dasa and sons; whatever they own belongs to those under whose authority they are. Thus, a wife’s wealth belongs to her husband, a dasa’s wealth belongs to his master, and a son’s wealth belongs to his father. Vidura, in the Udyoga-Parvan,'? makes a similar statement. However, there was one crucial difference between a wife and a son. While the latter at some stage in his life came into his own inheritance, the wife being a woman remained subservient!” to different males in her life at all points of time.'*! Karna underlines this aspect of a woman’s life, as the Sabha-Parvan informs us,!42 when he sayS Pri rn women have no right to any wealth. subservience —he ie ‘ia it ike: ccctiasoiae — rae ‘ for women are not fit to be inde vices cael a ok will ie bertaS faferckartecter lependent. In such See vindrecciotn wise Hane ma conclude that women’s meneed they wele Ghansarts cnie ae unfreedom too? Even it was really the degree of controlSOCIETY AND WOMEN 51 over its disposal and enjoyment which would determine the quality of their property rights. Nowhere is this picture clearer than in the dice game episode of the Sabha-Parvan. Contrary to the dominant ideology and terminology of traditional Hindu law, stridhana is not the women’s wealth, but merely wealth that goes with the women at the time of marriage. Had this not been the case Draupadi (in her case her children) and other Pandava wives would not have left for their natal houses after the robbing of the Pandava in the game of dice.'** Yudhisthira staked his brothers and his wife (also theirs) without consulting anybody; this act was symbolic of the omnibus power of the male head of a joint patriarchal household. Bhima even accepts that Yudhisthira has this right.!* If Yudhisthira can thus stake their person, is it too much to assume that he had staked all their wealth too, stridhana or some other property. There is an interesting meta- phorical reference in the Mahabharata which states that at the time of the Arjuna-Subhadra marriage Vrsnis gave so much in dowry that the Pandava ocean (of wealth) became a cause of misery (Soka) for their enemies." Surely, all the wealth, stridhana included, was coveted by their Kaurava enemies. Thus, if all Pandava brothers were not in a position to maintain themselves, their wives and children would be dependent on the charity of the wives’ families. Wealth, in order to be perceived as wealth, must be a marker of status. By this yardstick, stridhana fails lamentably to qualify as real wealth. Yudhisthira upon becoming king of Indraprastha and subsequently Hastinapura is able to drawupon the resources to perform Rajasiiya and Asvamedha yajha, which enhances his Prestige both among his kin as well as the committee of con- temporary royals. Draupadi is in no position to use any wealth, Stridhanaor otherwise, to establish any linkages that would confer any autonomous status on her. Sometimes it is argued that women had access to their husband’s money'” which they could use. Draupadi for instance, claimed that the entire earth was hers." This grandiloquent claim of Draupadi needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. In the nyaka-Parvan we find Draupadi admitting that she went to Sreat lengths to keep her husbands well-disposed towards herself52 THE MAKING OF WOMANHOOD and this is what ensured her own well-being.! The Anusasana- Parvan states that a wife was allowed to enjoy 3,000 coins given to her by her husband." Under such circumstances it would be wrong to state that women had no scoupthic rights. However, this privilege to spend was not women's suo amatse right — it was a mere privilege that depended on the husband’s goodwill. A-woman could use the money only if her husband gave it to her.'" In the didactic portion, Uma even describes pativrata as one who has more concern for her husband and his happiness than in the enjoyment of (his) wealth.!* The analysis of bride wealth, in which women are exchanged for wealth, is seen as women being treated as objects. The epic refers to this type of marriage as Gsura\® Tambiah says,' while dowry gives property rights to women, bride wealth does not give it to women but to their kin. The bride wealth is to be treated as a compensation for the loss of the female to her family, while simultaneously transferring rights in the woman’s reproductive potential from her kin group to that of her husband.'* We get two classes of bride-price in the Mahabharata: (1) Salya takes bride- price for Madri and talks of this being the old custom;!%¢ and (2) Rcika who wants to marry a princess Satyavati, is asked by the latter’s father Gadhi to bring one thousand white horses with one black ear as bride-price.'*’ Jack Goody, !®* however, points out that while gifts from the groom sometimes first go to the girl’s father/brother who may take a cut, the bulk goes to the bride herself. Salya gives away Madrito Pandu, properly bejeweled.” Goodys therefore, concludes that the right term for this would be indirect dowry’, rather than bride-price. Interestingly, the Anusasana-Parvan at one place refers to this indirect dowry as eternal law (dharma sanatanah).!® Yet the epic tends to present SD marriage as mercenary and, therefore, not a worthy form of alliance. Thus, Krsna says to his Yadava kinsmen: ‘who would ee giving the girl away as though she were cattle? And didactic mone a —_ ~ .atspeig ail Byte sie ; ‘€ compiled, marriage requiring bride-wealth 'gement is condemned." Sons born of such union are condemned as wicked (Sathah) | Ant ical data from ‘Bride Wealth’ societi rome curl es clearly underlines the element of control _ ge aSOCIETY AND WOMEN 53 to which women are subjected to in this form of marriage. Furthermore, it leads to the conclusion that women in such a set- up are more of a prize to be achieved by men who establish claim over wives not by providing for them and their children but rather by distributing produce to senior in-laws, so as to win support and commitment from those who influence/control the wives. This transaction which occurs between a man and his wife’s kin prevents such a marriage from being perceived as egalitarian.'* However, this simplistic understanding of bride-price marriage needs to be problematized in the context of extremely conflicting data about it in ancient texts including the epics. The three most famous cases of bride-price marriages in the epics are of Satyavati, Madri, and Kaikeyi. Satyavati’s foster father agrees to give his consent to marriage with Santanu on the condition that the son born to her would occupy the throne of Hastinapura. In the Ramayana'® Rama himself, admits to Bharata that their father Dasaratha had, ina pre-nuptial agreement with his maternal grandfather, promised sucession to Bharata on the Kogala throne (rajyasulkam anuttamam). This negotiation with the groom by the bride’s guardians shows that sulkaor price, can also be seen as an attempt to safeguard the bride and her future progeny rather than simply as a mercenary deal between men. Jamison'®” is of the view that a reason for the unpopularity of the dsura marriage could be, that in this form of marriage exchange relations in the sense of a long-term alliance could not get established. However, Jamison’s argument is not substantiated by the data in the epics. The Kaikeya and the Madra kings remained in touch with their daughter’s/sister’s offspring at all times! It seems more logical to argue that the reason why bride- price marriages were treated as unacceptable by the normative Brahmanical texts could be because patriarchal family norms, i.e. sudmya of the father in giving, and that of the husband after marriage, were compromised! in this form of marriage. According to Arthasastra'” where sulkais accepted, the consent of the bride's mother also has to be taken. Manusmpti'” states that in a marriage like this the women’s séridhana was to revert to her parents if she died issueless. As the cases of both Satyavati and Kaikeyi show, there was greater negotiating space for the54 THE MAKING OF WOMANHOOD 2 ppride’s family in this form of marriage. Iewill am not be correct to treat Sulka marriage as iniquitous. Unlike be approved mar: riages the marital bond in such a marriage was not considered indissoluble, and the ‘ArthaSastra’” allows for break (moksa) on ground of aversion (dvesa). 4 » ‘ This more fluid picture of the asura marriage from the women’s perspective is compromised in the didactic Anusasana-Parvan, The later compilers of the epic treat the girl married through asura form as a piece of property of her husband and/or his family. Thus, even a putrika if married according to this form, was deemed to have forfeited her rights (her son’s) in her father’s wealth.!”3 Furthermore, a girl whose dower (bride-price) was not returned was considered to be belonging absolutely to the dower giver, and in this role she was to produce children!” for him even by niyoga.!”> Manusmrti\”® makes it even more of a commercial transaction, where the deceived bridegroom gets to marry two brides with a single bride-price. Related to the issue of women’s property rights is the institution of endogamy. It has been observed that in ancient societies where women enjoyed property rights, endogamy was practiced. Jack Goody argues that there will be an association between close- in-marriage and the extent of inherited property.'”” The Old Testament (The Book of Numbers, 36) tells us that Jewish women were enjoined to marry their cousins or marry within the clan of ‘Be EP EM, 5% pene remains within the tribe or clan, closest agnate (descendant thr h at a Halse mas was brought back to be i ee atney), ang ee, ifmarnicgs the point that women — e ene Insush oretinaapaae Women became Beep REPRO aA Ai eeds to be qualified. did not have power as ie sae Tp Retin rhe Si aa she became a ee SHS Property, ae Instead, who were related th: go-between under obligation to the men rough her. Women, thus, cannot be said to exercise power or enjo r ; Endogamy is glean Y Property rights but only transmit them. my one way of limiting thi ; ig the conse f the qapamiasion of property through women, The ae ee of ~ ewe arrangement is stricter where property is it men. It is a commentary on their lot that where womenSOCIETY AND WOMEN 55 are more propertied they are initially less free as far as marital arrangements g0- Studies based on kinship terminology of the Mahabharata!” as well as other sociological and anthropological analyses throw light on certain distinctive stages of endogamous (sapinda) marriages of cross-cousins. Trautmann believes that the structure of Sanskrit kinship terminology is not such from which practice of sapinda marriages could be inferred at all.!*! Karve too points out that no verse in the text suggests a special recognition of this relationship, nor is any special preference for such a marriage verbally evinced.!® The specific data from the epic under study is, however, somewhat mixed. The most conspicuous case of such marriage, which has even been made into a cousinly romance by the Southern Recension of the Mahabharata, is the marriage of Arjuna with Subhadra.'*° Further, from the kings’s list given in the 90th chapter of the Adi-Parvan the following appear to be cross-cousin marriages: (a) Jayatsena marrying Susruva, a princess from Vidarbha, and their son (Avacina) also marrying a Vidarbha princess named Maryada; (b) Viduratha’s marriage with Sarnpriya of Magadha, and their son (Arugyan) marrying Amrta also of Magadha; (c) Pandu’s marriage to Madri. Madri’s son Sahadeva too is said to have married a Madri; (d) Pandu’s marriage to Yadavi Kunti. Arjuna, a son of Kunti married Yadavi Subhadra; (e) Vicitravirya’s marriage to two Kasi princesses. His grandson Bhima also married a Kasi princess (second cousin?); and (f) Pariksita’s (grandson of Sahadeva) marriage to Madravati (second. cousin?). Pariksita’s grand-step-mother was also a Madri or Madravati. p Thus, from a record of over fifty marriages, one is definitely a sapinda marriage, while three others appear to be so, and ie apparently unions of cross-cousins of the second degree. | . there does not seem to be any bar against sapinda eres Be these were at the same time perhaps not 4 preferred leg é Mating. Indeed, the didactic portions even impose 4 core ban on such unions.!* Perhaps such a ban suggests ee ihe was an earlier time when such marriages were Se cen’ may then infer that there was a gradual deterioration Property rights which they had enjoyed earlier.56 ‘THE MAKING OF WOMANHOOD NOTES 1, Cited in Sanday, 1981, p. 114. 2, Ibid,, p. 117. 3. Mbh: 12.4.7. 4. Mbh; 3.48.20-21. 5. Mbh: 1,143.19; 1.156*.2-3. A tae 6. Mbh: 1.1561*.2. crnhEr” 7, Mbh: 1.207.19-22. bh 8. For discussion on this aspect ae to Chapter 6.20f this book. 9. Godelier, Maurice, 1981,p.7, - 10. Atharvaveda (2.10.1) represents the ones ont) men as a living being and it was terribly dreaded. It yet das to be a reference to a social sites elaca apa powerful situation or in any case more autonomous. carcnrongasel ei 11. Mbh: 8.392*.1. odal’, adedocmidriteiesd 12. Hopkins, 1972, p.85fm. 18. Karve, 1965, p. 37. 14. Ibid., pp. 37-8. 15, Karve, 1948-4, p, 123. 16. Mishra, 1987, a 343. 17. Mbh: 1.44:SOCIETY AND WoMEN 57 96, Mbk: 1.89.53. 37. Cited in Thapar, 1976, p, 274, 38, Ibid. 99. Mbk: 1.59.14. 40. Mok: 1.59.27. 41, Mbh: 1.59.39. 42. Rajvade, 1986, p. 99. 43, Trautmann, 1981, p. 366. 44, Mbh: 3.1.17. 45. Moh: 1.213.58. 46. Moh: 1.213.79. 47, Karna addresses Duryodhana as such as do Bhisma and Salya — Mbh: 1,194.13; 5.162.17; 8. 23, 21. 48. Mbh: 1.160.1-2 and 1.168.22. 49. Rosaldo and Lamphere (eds), 1974, pp. 154-6. 50. RV: 10.10.5. 51. RV: 6.55.4. 52. RV: 1.152.4. 53. RV. 1.159.4 and 1.185.5. 54. Karve, 1938-9, p. 110. 55. Banerjea, 1963, pp. 21, 23. 56. RV: 10.10.8. 57. RV: 10.10.9. 58. RV: 10.162.5. 59. AV: 8.6.9. 60. Karve, 1938-9, p. 220. 61. Banerjea, 1963, pp. 28-9. Mbh: 1.72.5, f : 1,72.12-14, 64. RV: 10.10.10, 12-14, 65. RV: 10.10.13, 66. Moh: 1.72.16, - Murdock, 1949, Ch. 8, Coontz and Henderson (eds.), 1986, p: 99. . Patrilocality alone could ensure subordination of reproductive power in marriage thus transforming alienated social class. . AV: 3.25.5;14.1.17. - Lerner, 1986, pp. 47-8. - Not all scholars agree, Patrilocal societies, did not emerge through continuous evolution wheaval that took place within a small ae to “Micient enough to transmit their experience actors in ae uastreatibt pagal a ruling class, of female labour and women into an - \d Leconte says Chevillard and Le< put rather through 2 violent ber of groups which were others. Men, who were access to which58 73. 74. a 76. 77. 80. . AS: 3.3.17, 19. . Although Jack Goody (1990, pp. 167-9; 221, 249) does not see gifting of 82 THE MAKING OF WOMANHOOD was subject to extremely strict rules — Coontz and Henderson (eds), 1986, p. 107. : “° Ethnological data points out that a higher rate of matrilineality occurs in horticultural societies. Scholars point out that the inability to preserve crops over several years make horticulturists more vulnerable than grain agriculturists to climatic variations. This instability of material base also makes biological reproduction more unstable. Boulding, 1976, p. 145. It must be pointed out that this nurturing instinct of women/mother is not a natural but cultural construct. However, it is also a fact that once patriarchal societies start taking shape (not necessarily for the above causal reason alone) an entire psychology is built where such a feeling on women’s part becomes a second nature to her. Lerner, 1986, pp. 47-8. - Karve, 1965, p. 31. 78. 793 Mbh: 13. App. 15.3349-3351. The terms used are dana (MS: 3.27-28) for brahmaand daiva marriages, and pradana (MS: 3.29-30) for arsa and prajapatya. Semantically while dana stands for pure gift, pradana means giving away. Manu (MS: 5.152) says pradanam svamyakaranam. bride as marking her permanent alienation, Gayle Rubin (in Reiter, (ed.), 1975, p. 174) has shown how in this form women are merely conduit ofa relationship which exist between men who give and take and she is never a partner in this. . Mbh: 5.88. 62-63, . Mb 3.13.12, . Mbh: 5.174.11. . Karve, 1965, p. 72. . Mbh: 4.19.22. . Mbh: 3.222.38-39, . Moh: 12,221.75. . Etymological meaning of bhratr is one who supports. In the Vedic literature according to some seers, the sister was the more important of the two. They advocated that while offering sacrifice the Thapati should first utter the mantra offering sacrifice to raka which is regarded as sister of the gods and not mantra which are addressed to nee patnih, i.e. the wives of the gods and accordingly, the drinking the soma juice for the sister must precede that for the wife. The Aitareya Brahmana [3.37] however, emphasizes that though the wife comes from outside still the sister though of the same womb is to live as inferior to a wife. Roy (1994, p. 249) discusses the transformation of the brother sister bond which is denoted by the replacement of the term svasy (one’sSOCIETY AND WOMEN 59 own) to mere bhagini for sister in tj ‘ , subsequently. In the Mahabharata ae Ne *radition and both the terms being employed for sister. | CVT» We find 92. Cited in Karve, 2.21) 93. Mbh: 2.62.7. 94. Rosaldo and Lamphere (eds), 1974, p. 105. 5. Altekar, 1956, pp. 73-5. 96. Cited in Sanday, 1981, pp. 177-8. 97. Ibid., p. 177. 98. Ibid. 99. Friedl (1975, pp. 70-1) lists some of the features which makes for the absence of domestic disharmony. A husband is not required to surrender his identity in his natal group to submerge himself in the new one. He faces no competition from other spouses of his wife as they are non existent. The permanent members of the uxorilocal household are not in a constant state of competition that vitiates the inter personal and and inter-family relationship. 100. In a patriarchal set-up constant rivalry between cousins as regards chieftainship, marriage and inheritance prevailed. In fact, the word bhratroya came to denote rival [Karve, 1938-39, pp. 114-15] Indra was extolled for he was without rival abhratroya in the Rgveda [8.21.13]. In the Atharvaveda there are many magical rituals for the destruction of the bhratroyas [8.10.8 and 2.18.1]. 101. Karve, 1965, p. 64. 102. Sanday, 1981, pp. 177-8. 103. Hirschon (ed), 1984, p. 1. 104. Irigaray, 1985, p. 173. 105, Mbh: 5.113.12-13. 106. Mbh: 5.13.10. 107. Mbh: 5.118.5-6. 108. Mbh: 5.119.24-25. 109. Mbh: 3.79.26. 110. Moh: 1,187.23. 11. Moh: 5.37.17 and 1.1614*.1. 112. Moh: 2.61.45. 118. Mbh: 2.60.40. 114. Moh: 2.61.23. 115, Mbh; 2.61.31, 38-39. 116. Moh: 2.61.35-36, 117. For a detailed discussion on this aspect 118. Moh; 13.45.11. 119, Mbh: 18.45.12. 120. Moh; 18.45.15. 1965, p. 72. Also see Patanjali's Mahabhasya (Iv sce Ch. 4.4 of this book.60 21, 122, 123. 124, 125. 126. 127. 128. 129, 130. 131, ieee 133, 134, 135, 136, 137. 138. 139, 140, THE MAKING OF WOMANHOOD Dharmasastra writers define two types of putrikaputra: (1) A Sonless man may appoint his daughter as his son. She then becomes putrika and is treated as a son. (2) She may be given in marriage with stipulation that son born of the daughter given becomes the son of his maternal grandfather — cited in P.V. Kane, History of Dharmasistra, vol. III, BORI, Poona, 1973, p. 647. Karve, 1965, p. 48. (i) Mbh: 13.45.14. (ii) In fact, Manusmrti makes an explicit statement that putrikaputra should offer pindato his maternal grandfather and take the latter’s wealth — MS: 9.136, 139-140 also Vasistha Smyti: 17.23 Averse in the Rgveda (RV: 4.5.5) says like brotherless (abhratar) maidens who are chasing men. It must be noted that it was not due to putrika’s lack of moral rectitude in the absence of a guarding brother that made her unattractive as some scholars have argued; rather it was because of the fact that child/son of her womb would be lost to her husband and his family. AV VT Mbh: 13.44.14, Mbh: 13.24.21, Karve, 1943-4, p. 135, Mbh: 1.1129*.1-2; 3.277.97. Mbh: 1.190.15-17. Mbh: 1,190.18. Mbh: 1.213.40-42, 46, 49, 52. Goody and Tambiah, 1973, p. 17, MS: 9,92. Mbh: 1.190.6. Mbh: 13.46.3, Mbh: 13.45.13, Mbh: 1.77.22, Mbh: 5.33.57, : P. 105) observes that while ‘class’ for men is determined x ons to the means of production; for women ‘class’ was mediated through their sexual ties to a man. It is through men that women have an access or denied an access to or control over means of production and resources, - Mbh: 13.21.19 and 13.46.13, - Mbh: 2.63.1, . Mbh: 18.21.12, . Mbh: 3.23.44, 4647. . Mbh: 2.62.39-33, . Moh: 1.213.50-51, Bhavalkar, 1964, PP. 264-5,148. 149. |. Mok: 13.47.23. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. . Mbk: 1. App. 61.24-25. . Mbh: $.115.11-12. . Goody and Tambiah, 1973, p. 2. 4 |. Mbh: 1. App. 61.38-39. SOCIETY AND WoMEN - ' 61 Moh: 4.19.20. \ Mbh: 3.222.387. Mbh: 13.47.23. Mbh: 13,134.43. Mbh: 13.44.6. Goody and Tambiah, 1973,pp. 61-2. Kathakagrhyasiitra describes @sura marriage as follows: ‘ F daughter saying the girl for peta tne has aeseanae mee : this gold for thriving of wealth’. — Jamison, 1996, p.297, n. 18. ying: ). Mbh: 13.46.1-2 and 13.44.31