☰
Kinship, Caste And Class
“According to the Shastras only Kshatriyas could be kings.” Do you agree with this or not? Support your answer with evidences.
According to the Shastras, only Kshatriyas could be kings. However, several important ruling lineages probably had different origins.
1. The social background of the Mauryas, who ruled over a large empire, has been hotly debated. While Later Buddhist texts suggested they were Kshatriyas, Brahmanical texts described them as being of 'low' origin.
2. The Shungas and Kanvas, the immediate successors of the Mauryas, were Brahmanas. In fact, political power was effectively open to anyone who could muster support and resources, and rarely depended on birth as a Kshatriya.
3. Satavahanas considered themselves to be Brahmanas.
Thus we can find that it was not so, it was basically anyone with talentm, support or resources could have been rulers.
Sponsor Area
Define the term patriliny. Give one example.
How was Buddha’s presence shown through symbols? Give two examples.
Describe the position of women with regard to ownership of property in ancient times.
Discuss how access to property sharpened social differences between men and women in ancient times.
What, according to the Dharmashastras, were the ideal occupations for the four varnas? Give one way in which the Brahmanas tried to enforce these norms.
“Brahmanical norms regarding marriage and occupations were not always followed in ancient times.” Give arguments in support of this statement.
Explain why patriliny may have been particularly important among elite families.
Discuss whether kings in early states were invariably Kshatriyas.
Compare and contrast the dharma or norms mentioned in the stories of Drona, Hidimba and Matanga.
In what ways was the Buddhist theory of a social contract different from the Brahmanical view of society derived from the Purusha Sukta?
Sponsor Area
Sponsor Area