Indian History Congress Prize Essay: POLYANDRY WITHIN PATRIARCHY; REITERATION OF

MALE HEGEMONY IN THE SOCIO-SEXUAL CONTEXTS OF EARLY INDIA

Author(s): Smita Sahgal
Source: Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 66 (2005-2006), pp. 199-214
Published by: Indian History Congress
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/44145838
Accessed: 23-07-2018 06:18 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44145838?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Indian History Congress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Proceedings of the Indian History Congress

This content downloaded from 14.139.227.82 on Mon, 23 Jul 2018 06:18:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Indian History Congress Prize Essay

POLYANDRY WITHIN PATRIARCHY;

REITERATION OF MALE HEGEMONY IN
THE SOCIO-SEXUAL CONTEXTS OF
EARLY INDIA
Smita Sahgal

Polyandry has fascinated and challenged a range of social sc

and each of them whether an anthropologist, a sociologist or a h
has attempted to unravel its logic apart from documenting its
occurrences. What is puzzling, indeed, is that its mirror image
polygyny has attracted little attention and generated the most casual
explanation. Do we detect an androcentric bias since most of the
trained scholars or ancient commentators have been men and have
been seeking rationale in a way acceptable to their psyche? The paper
is largely confined to early India though some comparisons with
contemporary societies may creep in by way of evaluating reasons of
genesis as well as patterns of commonality and distinction.
The genesis of the term polyandry lay in the Greek language and
is composed of ' poly+ander ' referring to the condition [of a woman]
having many men. Its antonym 'polygyny' composed of poly and gynia,
signifies 'the condition [of a man] having many women'. Neither of
the two words contains any etymological connotation of marriage.
Today, however, polyandry is generally associated with a condition of
wife having many husbands. Generally, the marital status constitutes
by far the most important element of identity in most known societies.
Yet marriage was by no means an unitary institution in Early India. In
this paper we are not confining ourselves strictly to polyandrous
marriage but bring within the ambit various polyandrous relationships
which may be perceived as problematic.
The purpose of the paper is not just to record the incidences of
this phenomenon which in course of time may have receded but to
study it within larger socio-economic setting. A host of questions
need to be confronted. We need to begin our probe by dwelling on the
issue whether polyandry has a matriarchal genesis or is it largely located
within patriarchy? Are some socio-economic environments more
conducive to the origin and growth of this phenomenon than others?

This content downloaded from 14.139.227.82 on Mon, 23 Jul 2018 06:18:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
200 IHC: Proceedings , 66th Session , 2005-06

Can polyandry be comprehended from the perspective of familial

physical and economic resources, the dearth of which may imply a
compulsive sharing of these resources? This in turn necessitates
rationalizing productive and reproductive functions of women in a
given society. Scarcity of wealth or fear of division of property
especially landed property may then require sharing of wife and
collective responsibility of progeny. In such circumstances does a
woman really have social or sexual choice to make?
Alternatively it can be argued that polyandry might be a means of
maintaining fraternal solidarity and constitute a unique symbol of group
identity. One wonders if a polyandrous woman was/is better equipped
to negotiate her position both in domestic and public domains than
her counterpart in monogamous or polygamous alliances. But there
may still be an uncertainty about her economic security. Does it grant
her equal or superior property rights or is that the wife was still kept
out of the sphere of inheritance especially the landed property?
Historically speaking what occasioned the recessioni of polyandry to
the margins? Conversely what ensured its continuity wherever it did?
Were the polyandrous unions free of familial frictions? I do not purport
to answer all the issues in the paper but would like to use this
opportunity to raise problems that can open up avenues for further
research.

The temporal frame of the paper is expansive; from early Vedic

period to early centuries of the Common Era. A very rigourous and
meticulous research may not have been possible. I would just like to
highlight certain instances and acknowledge that a research more
thorough would follow. There are some problems with sources. Most
of our literary sources have been a part of oral tradition and have been
stratified in layers of myths and traditions. There is need to decode
those layers and locate elements that have historical value. Moreover,
most of these texts are brahmanical in their perspective in the sense
that they were composed by brahmanas and intended for their own
consumption. But on a closer study one is actually able to sift even the
views of the populace which may have been decried or proscribed or
grudgingly accommodated in the texts. The Rksamhita [1600-
1000BCE] for instance, took centuries to get compiled.1 In the process
even the most learned of the societies seemed to have forgotten the
real meaning of the composition. Not only does the language seem
terse but even compilation at times appears without any logic in
description of action or myth. There are many disjointed allusions to
facts well known to contemporary listeners. Many hymns contain only
portions of myths which a historian can build only tentatively. Similarly

This content downloaded from 14.139.227.82 on Mon, 23 Jul 2018 06:18:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient India 201

the other Vedas also have been hande

and though these have not been tam
a formal shape around the 5th BCE, t
open to a variety of influences. The
post-Vedic corpus including the Dharmasutras such as those of
Apastamba, Baudhayana, Vasistha and Gautuma and later
Dharmasastras like the Manava, Yajnavalkaya and Narada not only
have a vast geographical and temporal spread but are largely normative
in nature. However, the prescriptions that have been recorded were to
become vehicles of upward mobility in course of time. The epics and
Puranas also have an expansive compilatory phase from 4lh BCE to
4th CE and are well conversant with the exercise of annotation and

deletion. In the case of epics, for example, the kernel of the story ma
be traced to the Vedic times though its final shape does not appear
before the early centuries of the Common Era. The genesis of thes
texts have been shown to have emanated from popular sources and
despite their appropriation by the brahmanical class contain a plethor
of elements that give us the other historical view.2
The Rksamhita reveals a range of sexual unions, not all of which
may have been explicitly polyandrous. These may include the attemp
to achieve a brother sister alliance between Yama and Yami.3 Similar
there is a clear indication of Pusan as his mother's lover.4 However,
some mythical references are obviously polyandrous. Maruts were
collectively called the husbands of Rodasi. A verse states, Go ye
heroes, far away, ye bridegrooms with a lovely spouse'.5 Rodasi was
called their common wife more than once.6 She was their beloved7
and their young radiant wife.8 The Visvadevas also followed suit.
'Two with one dame ride on the winged steeds and journey forth like
travelers on their way9 Similarly Prithvi has some times been called
the wife of Dyaus10 and some times that of his son Parjanya.11 In
Vaitana Sutra interestingly she was the wife of Agni.12 We are also
informed that sage Vasistha was born of Urvasi, the celestial nymph,
and the fathers were Mitra and Varuna.13 The Rksamhita also describes
how Asvins, the young handsome twins of Dyaus and swift horsemen,
won the hand of refulgent Surya, daughter of Sun god who was also
wooed by Soma.14 There are repeated references to wooing Surya or
competing in divine race for her hand15 or driving her home
triumphantly. 16Elsewhere it is also mentioned that she elected [vrinita]
Asvins as her husbands.17 Though the Asvins were her husbands, the
gods elsewhere gave her to Pusan.18 Surya was the archetypal bride in
the Vedic hymn [RS X.85] which refers to divine
husbands of the human bride, including Soma, the

This content downloaded from 14.139.227.82 on Mon, 23 Jul 2018 06:18:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
202 IHC: Proceedings , 66th Session , 2005-06

gandharvas and Agni. The fact that the verses from this hymn are
actually incorporated in marriage rituals is very telling. They seem to
bridge the gap between the mythical and human realms and do a routine
acknowledgement of polyandrous unions. However, we still mange
to get an occasional peep into the mind of women too. For instance
Asvins were Surya's own choice and Yami's insistence on choosing
Yama as her lover also indicates an ability to articulate her individuality.
But these are examples far and few between. As mentioned earlier
Rksamhita does not really reveal the details of the hymns and all we
can state with some confidence is that polyandrous alliances were not
really looked down upon.
We still have to work out if the greater level of acceptability of
such unions happened because of their being a relic of the Indo-
European past for which there seem to be many examples from Greek
and Roman literature19 or because of the social necessities of the day.
Even then the issue is who decided the resolution to the problem. This
brings us to the other issue of polyandrous unions achieved through
niyoga [levirate] practice. Interestingly this issue gets intertwined
with the origins of kinship terms such as devr. In his seminal study on
Polyandry in Ancient India Sarva Daman Singh has drawn our attention
to this term which is a reference to the brother of the bridegroom.20
The devr was evidently invested with the role of a surrogate husband,
especially but not for the childless widow. In this context, Singh
focuses on the institution of niyoga or levirate, whereby the childless
widow was expected to produce an heir for her husband's lineage
through intercourse with her surviving brother-in law or a specially
appointed male, preferably a kinsman of her husband There are two
verses one in Rksamhita ( RS),X 18.8 and the other
Atharvaveda.X. VIII. 3.1 where a woman willing to die on her husba
pyre was urged to get up and hold the outstretched hand of her broth
-in-law, acknowledge him as her spouse [didhisu] and re-enter the wor
of living. We find reference to these practices in other Vedic and
Vedic texts as well.21 One may argue that niyoga constituted a for
serial monogamy for the woman and was not synonymous w
polyandry22 but it does give us an idea of plurality of sexual relat
for women. In fact, we also get other instances from RS where a wom
of an impotent man is allowed to have son through niyoga practi
The logic involved was that the womb of the wife is the kshetr
territory of the husband and whatever was reproduced from there wo
belong to him. Two issues have to be dealt with. One what re
prompted these unions and secondly was the consent of the wom
concerned really sought. Singh has attempted to explain the exist

This content downloaded from 14.139.227.82 on Mon, 23 Jul 2018 06:18:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient India 203

of polyandry and polyandrous union

prevalence of warfare and aggressio
is that the need for warriors as well
polyandry. He also marshals evidenc
'where several brothers often had one wife between them and the
children were brought up in common'.24 But it has to be reiterated
that in both these societies polyandry was not the only or even the
most important marital practice and militaristic tendencies alone cannot
be invoked to explain all forms of marriage. We need to guard agains
homogenizing polyandrous societies and look for the rationale of this
practice in the context specific.25
In ancient societies as well the issue is whether such polyandrous
[niyoga included] alliances emerged out of woman's volition.
Moreover, can we locate it within a matriarchal structure? Within
matriarchy not only do the family name and property get passed in the
mother's line but that the control of property and political decision
making also rests with women. In other words it is a social system
where familial and political authority is wielded by women. Nineteenth
century evolutionist anthropologists such as J.J. Bachofen26opined that
matriarchy followed a stage of general promiscuity and preceded the
ascendancy of patriarchy. J.F. Mclennan,27 taking his clue from
Bachofen, asserted that polyandry was a modification of promiscuity
that endorsed the mother right. The view of matriarchy as constituting
a stage of cultural development is now generally discredited. There is
a consensus among modern anthropologists and sociologists that a
strictly matriarchal society never existed. Anyway, plurality of sexual
unions may not be a feature of a particular type of social structure.
The vital issue is whether the multiple alliances have emerged from
personal choice of a woman or have been in accordance with some
social prescription? The imagery of women with numerous husbands/
partners that we construct from the above instances in the early and
later Vedic texts need not imply that they were really able to make real
choices. The one most important function of these unions was to beget
children especially sons. Patriarchy was much in operation though its
character in tribal setting may have been different form that of a well
settled state society with greater access to resources. It may be true
that in such settings women also had definite productive functions,
and therefore may have had greater negotiating power. For instance
while men captured cattle, their maintenance was a function of the
women folk. No wonder a daughter is called a duhtr [one who milks
the cow]. We also get references of women fighting in battles. RS
informs us of a woman Vispala who lost her leg in a battle which was

This content downloaded from 14.139.227.82 on Mon, 23 Jul 2018 06:18:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
204 IHC: Proceedings , 66th Session , 2005-06

then restored by Asvins.28 The possibility of women, in such a scenario,

of asserting their sexual desires or preferences may have been more
likely even as they were largely a part of a patriarchal structure.
However, the fact remained that women still did not have much political
voice or a claim to equal share in property. In the Rgvedic period
tribal bond of kinship and largely the absence of landed form of
property precluded the concept of individual ownership. On the other
hand there are many more references to common wealth or collective
ownership.29 By the later Vedic period the picture becomes clearer.
The misogynist passages in the later Vedic texts give away a trend
towards consolidation of patriarchy. In the Satapatha Brahmano (SB)
it is stated that women owned neither themselves nor an inheritance.30
Altekar's simplistic explanation is rooted in biological determinism.
He said that landed property could not be owned by women [not just
in this period, even later] as women did not have physical prowess to
defend it against actual and potential enemies.31 Attempts to control
female sexuality come out clearly in srauta sacrifices as well as can
be inferred from the Asvamedha where the chief queen mahisi had to
simulate sexual intercourse with the dead horse.32 The idea was-clear
that even in the tribal context and in the realm of symbols, the chief
function of a woman was visualized as procreative.
The custom of levirate and polyandrous marriages continued in
the post-Vedic periods. Apastamba33 was also familiar with the
existence of the institutions, though he did not approve of it. He stated
that 4 a wife is given away to the family [of brothers and not to one
alone], and the practice need not continue. Gautama34 endorsed the
levirate for a widow provided it was only with the brother-in-low or a
relative approved by the family. Similarly Vasistha35 also laid some
preconditions for levirate of which the family consensus was most
essential. However, these were normative texts and it may be difficult
to assess how women viewed such unions. For that we may have to
turn to the epics.
The Mahabharata tells us the story of the princess Madhavi,
daughter of king Yayati who assisted Galava, a disciple of Visvamitra
to pay off his teacher's dakshina demand of a certain type of horses,
by willingly entering into polyandrous relations with many men for
whom she produced sons and who in turn provided a part of the fee.36
When Yayati gave his daughter to Galava, he knew what she was in
for. When Galava took her to king Haryasva, she showed willingness
to marry him even when she knew that she may have to marry others
to secure more horses for Visvamitra. She told Galava the secret of
her maidenhood and neither she nor Galava saw anything objectionable

This content downloaded from 14.139.227.82 on Mon, 23 Jul 2018 06:18:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient India 205

in her polyandrous relationships. O

monogamy but what seems interestin
of the commoditization of her procre
set up. Interestingly while polyand
and economic validity in the age w
the notion of virginity was also ga
Draupadi, the leading heroine of th
example of polyandrous existence in
each time she enters in sexual rela
This seems to be a contrast from t
many other mythical characters could have a plurality of sexual
relationships without virginity becoming a part of their moral discourse.
It was growing patriarchy that necessitated the assertion of father's
individual right on the progeny. The collective identity of the progeny
now gave way to singular identity on the father's side that in course of
time would get ritual sanction as well. Manu not only made virginity
mandatory for a girl at the time of marriage,37 he also stated that a son
could inherit the caste of his father only if his mother was a maiden
before marriage.38 There was now a growing need to rationalize
existence of practices such as polyandry, which may have continued
in the late centuries of the Common Era both among the brahmanized
sections of the society or those beyond the pale of it.
We may now turn our attention to some other cases of niyoga
practice and try to locate women's voices or the lack of these therein.
We have the case of a devr [brother-in-law] cohabiting with his sisters-
in-law in the Mahabharata as well, After Satyavati's son Vichitravirya
expired she urged another son by a previous liaison, Vyasa to cohabit
with his daughters-in-law Ambika and Ambalika39as this could ensure
the continuity of the lineage. Both the widows continued to hold the
kshetra [territory or womb] of their husbands and any issue produced
of these would by the logic of niyoga , be that of the dead husband.
This arrangement was definitely a part of patriarchal logic of a society
in transition from pastoral to state society. However, the women
resisted this imposition. They may not have articulated their protest
especially after Bhishma and Satyavati used tradition to ratify the need
and correctness of this custom, but their unwillingness in acceptance
comes through when Ambika shut her eyes at the sight of Vyasa and
thus produced a blind Dhritrashatra while Ambalika turned pale in his
presence and produced a weak Pandu.
Similarly Kunti had resisted uniting outside marriage with different
beings [mythical] to produce sons for Pandu In fact, the latter had to
once again take recourse to tradition, enunciate the ancient dharma40

This content downloaded from 14.139.227.82 on Mon, 23 Jul 2018 06:18:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
206 IHC: Proceedings, 66th Session, 2005-06

and convince her that 'great spirited law minded seers' of the yore
designed it for the welfare of the society. He further said that this law
still prevailed among the northern Kurus and favoured the women.41
In a bid to persuade her further he even explained how and by whom
the present rule [regarding monogamy for women] was laid down. It
was Svetaketu,42 who laid the law in a fit of rage when his mother was
taken away by a brahmana in full view of his father. The father was
unperturbed and requested his son not to get angry as this was an
eternal law and cut across classes. The women, he said were
uncloistered on earth and compared them to cows that cannot be
confined to one partner. Svetaketu, was not convinced by the argument
and thereafter laid down the rule of monogamy for women. Further he
stressed that a woman who was enjoined by her husband to conceive
child but if refused would also be committing a sin. In another conte
Kunti had been convinced by Surya to cohabit with him if she desire
to as the law of nature gave freedom to men and women in matters
sex and restrictions were artificial.43 Again, interestingly in the nex
verse he reassured her that after the birth of the child as a result of this
union her virginity would be restored.4''
Before we comment on the complexities of the social process we
may also analyze the most outstanding case of polyandry in
Mahabharata, that of Draupadi. The intent here is to focus on
Draupadi's perception of this practice and its rationalization in the
context of changing mores of society. As the myth runs king Drupada
of Pancalas organized a Swayamvara45 for his daughter, Draupadi
which was actually a competition of sorts and where Arjuna excelled
and won her hand. He along with his brothers took her to his mother
and told her of the prize they won. 'Look what we have got', they tell
her; She was inside the house, without seeing them, says, 'Now you
share that together'. But little later on seeing the girl she cried out,
'what have I said'.46 She turned to Yudhisthira and apologized for the
adharama she had committed and asked him to redress the situation.
Yudhishthira, in turn requested Arjuna to marry her as he had won
her. Arjuna pleaded he could not do that because dharma did not allow
a younger brother to marry when the elder was still unwed.47
Yudhisthira gauged that all the brothers had fallen in love with the
peerless beauty and fearing a breach declared that she would belong
to all of them.48 When Drupada got to know of it he pleaded against it
stating that while polygamy was acceptable, the sacred law did not
permit a woman to have many husbands.49 Yudhisthira insisted that
following mothers command was in line with dharma. Draupadi's
brother Dhrstadyumna also found the situation confounding as the elder

This content downloaded from 14.139.227.82 on Mon, 23 Jul 2018 06:18:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient India 207

brother sought to marry a woman won

followed his own logic and cited the
woman Gautami Jati la who, served her seven husbands who were
learned seers.50

Draupadi's reaction to the marriage drama may seem incredulous

to begin with. She who has otherwise been shown to be quite articulate
on different issues in the text was totally silent on this. She was neither
appalled not outraged by the prospect of polyandry. S. D. Singh seems
right in pointing out that the idea of five husbands did not seem to
suggest any moral atrocity to her.51 What could really explain this
silence? The only acceptable argument is that she was already
conversant with the institution of fraternal polyandry. This may also
explain why other Pandava brothers did not participate in the
swayamvara competition. They knew that if Arjuna won they would,
any way, have an access to Draupadi by the norm of fraternal polyandry.
Even Karna remarked at a point that Draupdai would never leave her
husbands 'because women deem it a desirable attribute to have more
than one husband. Krsna (Draupdai) having managed to secure them,
would not be easily alienated'.52 Kunti's horror at her mistake and
Drupada's resistance all seem to be later interpolations. At the time of
the origin of the myth, fraternal polyandry may have been a common
practice among many people.
Incidentally fraternal polyandry as a marital institution has been
in existence in many pockets of the subcontinent. A Aiyappan53 has
shown that among Iravas of central Kerala fraternal polyandry seemed
to be the only from of the domestic group. Himalyan polyandry is
well documented by sociologists like D. N. Majumdar54 and Gerald
D. Berreman55 and they have shown that though other forms of marriage
have continued this seemed to be the most congenial one is areas where
there is a resource crunch or little scope for division of property. Among
some of the Himalayan tribes like the Loharis in Jaunsan Bawar area,
polyandry may actually extend into what Majumdar terms
polygynandry, which is the marital union involving a multiplicity of
both husbands and wives.56 In this village polyandry is more common
among upper castes. Foer instance Koltas who do not own land, and
live as agrestic serfs, have a lower incidence of polyandry than do the
land owning brahmans and Khasas or Rajputs.57 Interestingly the
Khasas justify the existence of polyandry by stating that they are the
descendants of Pandavas.58 Berreman informs us that in the absence
of land there is little for the brothers to share and little work that can
be done in common. The result is that family size is smaller among
the landless, and multiple marriage is somewhat less common.59

This content downloaded from 14.139.227.82 on Mon, 23 Jul 2018 06:18:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
208 IHC: Proceedings, 66th Session, 2005-06

Incidentally polyandry and polygynandry are common in

contemporary Punjab as well. A recent article in a national daily60
unfolded recurring incidents of polyandry and group marriages in
villages like Boha and Gandukala where the size of average
landholding has shrunk to just two acres.
The situation in the context of Draupadi's polyandry is shown to
be a little different. She may have married five men but there was a
pattern in her cohabitation. All of them did not have indiscriminate
access to her. It was decided that if one of them entered while she was
with an other then the former would be exiled to the forest for next
twelve years.61 Moreover, she was divinely blessed that after her
cohabitation with each of the husbands, she would turn into a virgin
again.62 Draupadi gave birth to five sons sired by her five husbands
who were born a year apart from each other. Here no room was left for
confusion about the paternity of the sons, unlike in case of fraternal
polyandry elsewhere where the children belong to the family and are
known by the name of the eldest brother, irrespective of biological
paternity. Moreover, the Pandava brothers were polygynist as well,
each of them has other 'individual' wives besides the common wife,
Draupadi, who was called 'mahisi'. Draupadi, by the virtue of being
mahist or chief queen kept a vigilant eye on other wives [and slave
women] and 'every one of them she knew by face and features'.63 There
were occasional incidents of envy but she also shared a sense of
comradeship with them and 'indulged in drunken, voluptuous,
merriment, in the royal summer resorts on the Yamuna.64
The instances sited above reflect the growing complexity in the
social processes. There was co-existence of polyandry, polygyny,
monogamy and other sexual arrangements in the same household. But
all these were operating within the ambit of patriarchy. We have a
plethora of views on the issue of sexual freedom of women but
interestingly these were largely pronounced by men. It is worth
dwelling upon the fact that while Draupadi's polyandrous marriage
was being intellectually and mythically justified in the course of
compilation of the story, her voice was the only one kept out of debate.
We have a situation where her prospective husbands argued on the
issue of righteousness of polyandry, Kunti picked up logic from
tradition, Drupada protested and then consented to an institution he
was clearly wary of, Drshtidyumna sought an explanation of confused
situation and Vyasa provided fantastic tales of her previous birth as a
way of rationalizing her polyandrous destiny. It seemed that the
brahamna mediators were almost apologetic for this transgression. But
Draudapadi's own voice was conspicuous by its absences. No one

This content downloaded from 14.139.227.82 on Mon, 23 Jul 2018 06:18:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient India 209

deemed it fit to enquire her of views

not seem to be an oversight. As she in
fraternal polyandry in the kernel of t
accept the later modifications that w
monogamy. It is important to reiterat
need to stratify the verses in the text
changes in a given society or societies.
for the moment, we can still locate th
control of female sexuality and reducti
vehicles of reproduction. We are given
when women did have multiple sexual
This may have actually been an allusio
which belongs the core of the story. How
of the text happened, which may have coincided with greater
brahmanization of the society and more stable forms of resource
generation, the rules within patriarchy may have also changed. The
vestiges of the old system would have continued to surface occasionally
and would have been utilized by brahaman mediators to either ratify
some exceptions to their norms or those practices which actually existed
on the margins. There is a sociological logic to the exercise. The
process of territorial and political expansion of the believers of
brahamanical traditions would have also necessitated social and
cultural assimilation of the vanquished tribes. This in turn may
led to grudging accommodation of some customs and norms of
people through mythical mechanisms. However, care would have
taken to gloss these myths in such way that these would also
simultaneously send signals of changed rules of brahmanical patriarchy.
So while sexual freedom of a woman may have been acknowledged
within certain contexts, care could also be taken to simultaneously
endorse virginity and chastity as a general norm.
In some cases such open sexual practices were overtly condemned
by the mediators. For instance Karna called Salya, the ruler of Madra's
Papdesaja ,65 that is, a person born in a country of sin, and described
the people thereof: 'fathers, mothers, sons, mother's-in-law, maternal
uncles, sons-in-law brothers, grandsons and other relations, guests,
slaves males and females mix freely without constraint; and women,
according to their will, enjoy the company of men known or unknown66
and indulge in acts of sex without any inhibition. In the same vein
Karna also decried Sindu-Suvira, Gandhra, and Bhalika regions as
notorious for their laxity of their sexual codes.67 Karna actually called
the region between the Indus and five rivers, where Bhalikas,
Gandharvas and Madrakas resided beyond the bounds of dharma.

This content downloaded from 14.139.227.82 on Mon, 23 Jul 2018 06:18:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
210 IHC: Proceedings , 66th Session , 2005-06

Incidentally Mahabharata makes a reference to a distinct system of

inheritance among Arattas and Bahlikas [Bhahikas?] where the sister's
son could claim property of mother's brother. This has been
comprehended by scholars as a transitory phase between matrilineal
to patrilineal forms of inheritance.68 What is important from our point
is the covert reference to the co-existence of matriliny with greater
sexual freedom for women in at least some regions (Bhalika] known
to the Mahabahrata. Once again this may not be a common occurrence
but even by the way of exception we get to know that some societies
did approve of greater social and sexual maneouvring by women.
From about post Mauryan period the issue regarding social sanction
of polyandrous liaisons became more confounding. We get evidence
both of attempts to push these to the periphery especially within the
shastric literature as well as of tolerating these. Manusmriti reflected
both these strains. On the one hand Manu recognized the concept of
wife's womb being kshetra of the husband, hence whoever the wife
may have relations with, the sons belong to the husband.69 On the
other hand he70 disapproved of niyoga as violation of eternal law, as
not being sanctioned by Vedic verses about marriage. He also
condemned widow remarriage, equating it to animal custom [pasu
dharma].
How does one reconcile the existence of these conflicting strains
both within a text and among contemporary texts? One must not forget
that most of these normative texts though attributed to a single author,
were actually composite works spanning centuries. The mediators, in
reality, must have confronted numerous and variegated societies and
this may account for the presence of plethora of views on the subjects
like polyandry and levirate. Having said that one can state that from
the early centuries of the Common Era there may have been a growing
trend towards containment of polyandry alliances at least within the
realm of social laws. Not that it implied the end of such polyandrous
relationship though their occurrence even within the texts became
limited. From the Puranas, we do get occasional reference to the
continuation of polyandry. Matsya Purana 71 informs us that Ahuki
was married to Avanti princes [Avantighyah] . The text also has a
reference of Marisa, the daughter of Chandrama, who married the ten
Prachetas to become their wife72 and gave birth of Prajapati Daksa.
The ten Prachetas were ascetics credited with 'establishing a thick
forest of vast latitudes'.73 Here we get an idea of the context of its
social base. Polyandry continued in the forest areas.
A trend towards confining polyandry would have come with
consolidation of patriarchy in areas where resource generation was

This content downloaded from 14.139.227.82 on Mon, 23 Jul 2018 06:18:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient India 21 1

relatively easy and immense. These would als

stratification would be more pronounced. In
visualize this trend from post- Vedic times as t
texts came to occupy the fertile plains of mi
potential for grain production. With stabilit
and the possibility of division of land, one
sustaining polyandry may lose significance,
by agriculture. Therefore, we start witness
brahmanical stance on polyandrous institutio
and shastras or even the itihas tradition reflects this trend towards
qualified accommodation of these practices. We cannot, however, deny
that in some areas such as the hilly regions of Gandhara, Bhalika and
Madra the institutions may have thrived and actually cut across familial
and class boundaries as can be gathered from Kama's statement. At
the same time Puranic reference to Maricha and her marriage to ten
ascetics also give us an indication of the continuation of polyandrous
traditions among forest tribes that the authors of brahmanical texts
encountered in the process of brahmanical acculturation.
We must also acknowledge the complexities of familial politics in
such polyandrous associations. On the one hand tension may be
revealed in intricacies of multiple and complicated relationship that a
wife would have with different husbands. On the other hand familial
conflict may arise from reworking of equations amongst brothers as
well. The possibility of wife being partial to one of them cannot be
ruled out. Draupadi was never forgiven for being partial to Arjuna
and had to atone for it at the great departure for heaven.74 The
intersection of polyandry with polygyny or group marriages would
have led to contestation of domestic space and familial frictions. In
the Mahabharata Draupadi was offended with Arjuna for marrying
Subhadra but she finally reconciled to the situation. The strain between
the wives eased out only after Subhadra, on Arjuna's suggestion overtly
subordinated herself to Draupadi.
Finally, we need to deliberate on the issue whether polyandry
allowed greater public space to women. This may only be partially
true. It is possible that in states like the Strirajya or the Garwal and
Tibetan societies to which Huien Tsang75 has referred there may have
been scope of political power being wielded by women but this may
not be true of all polyandrous societies. Even in the modern
polyandrous societies like the Bhotiyas of Sikkim women have little
voice in community decision making.76 The community council is
constituted of males only. It is during the absence of adult male
members that a female would represent her family unit at the general

This content downloaded from 14.139.227.82 on Mon, 23 Jul 2018 06:18:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
212 IHC: Proceedings , 66th Session, 2005-06

meetings of the community to avoid penalization. By and large,

polyandrous societies work within the framework of patriarchy. The
difference, compared to a polygenous or monogamous set up is that
there may be greater probability of the woman's voice being heard.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1 . For a discussion on the problem of dating the Veda, see Edwin Bryan
for the origin ofVedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate , pp
2. For details on the process of inflation of texts and their appropriation by
class, see J.L.Brockington, The Sanskrit Epics , Lieden, 1998
3. RSX. 10.

4. Ibid. VI. 55

5. Ibid 1 167.4

6. Ibid, V. 61.4
7. Ibid, I. 64.9
8. Ibid I. 101.7

9. Ibid, VIII. 29.4

10. Ibid, 1.159.2, VII.53.2,X.65.8
11. Ibid, VII. 102.1
12. XV. 3

13. RS, VII. 33. 11

14. Ibid, X. 85.9
15. Ibid, X. 39. 11
16. Ibid, 1. 116.17, 1, 117. 13, 1. 118.5,1. 119.5
17. Ibid, I. 119.5
18. Ibid, VI. 58.4 Griffith points to the fact that elsewhere [VI. 55.4] Surya is also the
sister with whom Pusan was united.

19. Plutarch's Lives, with English trans. The Leob Classical Library, 1 1 vols., Polybius,l
The Histories , Leob edn

20. Sarva Daman Singh, Polyandry in Ancient India, p. 54, 64

21. TS, VI. 13, Kausikasutra 80.45, Asvalayana Sutra IV. 2.18
22. K, K.Roy ed., Women in Early Indian Societies , p. 22
23. RS, 1.116.13, 1.117.24

24. op cit, p.71.

25. K.K Roy has drawn our attention to Prem Choudhary's Study, The Veiled Women:
Shifting Gender Equations in Rural Haryana, .located in the context of
contemporary Haryana where an equivalent of niyoga is practiced. The custom
ensured that the sexuality of the wife was controlled by her husband's lineage even
after his death and was not necessarily unprobiematic from the point of the woman.
26. J.J. Bacofen, Das Mutterrect: Eine Untersuchung uber die Gynaikikritie der alten
Welt nach ihrer religiösen und rechtlichen Natur , 1861.

This content downloaded from 14.139.227.82 on Mon, 23 Jul 2018 06:18:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient India 213

27. J. F, McLennan, Primitive Marriage , An In

Form of Capture in Marriage Ceremonies
28. ÄS.L116.15

29. Ibid, I.14L1, III. 2. 12, VIL 76.5,VIII.99.8

30. SB IV.4.2.3

31. AS. Altekar, The Position of Women in Hindu Civilization, 1943, 1987, [repr
p339
32. SBE, XLIV, 3 1 ff

33. A Dhs, II. 27. 2-7

34. G Dhs, 18.4-8

35. VaDhs 17.55-56.

36. Mbh, V. 104.26

37. Manu, VII. 226
38. Ibid, X.5

39. Mbh, I.lOOff

40. Ibid, I, 113.3

41. Ibid, I, 113.7

42. Ibid, I. 113. llff

43. Ibid, 111.291. 5

44. Ibid, III. 291. 16

45. Swayamvara technically is a practice by which a woman is allowed to choose her

husband. But by the time of the story becomes popular it actually was reduced to an
occasion were the father of the bride could display his wealth and strength and
contrive her union with the match of his choice.

46. Mbh, 1.182.1-2

47. Ibid, 1.182.8

48. Ibid, 1.182.15
49. Ibid. 1.187.26-27

50. Ibid, 1. 188. 13-. 14

51 . S.D. Singh, op cit, p. 93

52. Mbh. 1.194.6-8

53. A.Aiyyapan, 'Fraternal Polyandry in Malabar', Man in India , Vol 14, 1935,
ppl08.18.
54. D. N. Mujamdar, Himalayan Polyandry, 1962
55. Gerald. D. Berreman, 'Himalayan Polyandry and Domestic Cycle', American
Ethnologist, Vol.2, 1975, pp 127-38.
56. D. N. Majumdar, op cit, p. 73
57. D. N. Majumdar, 'The Domestic Structures in a Polyandrous Village', Eastern
Anthropologist, Vol. 8, 1955, 161-172
58. D. N. Majumdar, Himalyan Polyandry, p. 77
59. Gerald D, Berreman' Himalyan Polyandry and the Domestic Cycle' . in ed Patricia
Oberoi, Family Kinship and Marriage in India, 1994, pp. 264-265.

This content downloaded from 14.139.227.82 on Mon, 23 Jul 2018 06:18:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
214 ÏHC: Proceedings , 66th Session, 2005-06

60. Neelam Raaj, 'Modern Draupdais', Sunday Times of India, New Delhi, August 7,
2005, p. 6
61. Mbh. 1.204.25

62. Ibid, 1.198. 1 1 ff

63. Ibid, III.233-235

64. Ibid, 1.224

65. Ibid, VIII. 27.68

66. Ibid, VIII. 27.75-76

67. Ibid, VIII.27. 80-91, VIII.30.68

68. N. N. Bhattacharya, 'Proprietary rights of women in Ancient India', in Kum Kum

Roy ed. Women in Early Indian Societies , p.l 16
69. Manu, 1X48-51

70. Ibid, IX. 65-67

71. Mat P. XLIV, 60-66, Brahmanda, III. 7 1 . 1 2 1 - 1 28

72. Ibid, IV. 49

73. Ibid, IV.46-48

74. MM. XIV. 87. 10

75. Thomas Watters, On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India, ed, Rhys Davids, Vol. 1 ,p330
76. S. B. Nandi, 'Status of Women in Polyandrous Society', in M. K. Raha and P.
C.Coomar ed., Polyandry in India, p. 429

This content downloaded from 14.139.227.82 on Mon, 23 Jul 2018 06:18:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms