For Daily Free Study Material Join wiredfaculty

Question

Discuss the evidence that suggests that Brahmanical prescriptions about kinship and marriage were not universally followed.

Prabhat Rajore · Accepted Answer

Although Brahmanical texts claimed of their universality but we find many instances in the history that it was not so. Here are some of the examples. When we look into the idea of kinship there are different ways to define kinship but usually it is understood in the context of family ties. The notion of relative or the idea that we are related. Usually the idea surrounding Kinship is that it is blood related and follows with certain rules and relgulations. for example marrying outside ones kinsfolk. This rules are prescribed in the bahmanical text, but we find that this prasctices varied according to a region. For example in some places marrying cousins are regarded as sin whereas other do not consider cousins to be blood related and marry among cousins.

The idea of exogamy propounded by the Brahmans of marryingoutside ones gotra, was although follwed in wide arrays of society but was it absolute, it could be debated. Because in many textswe find that this rule too was broken even by someone who called themselves Brahmanas. The Satavahanas, were from brahmana caste and claimed themselves to be the one who will break the arrogance of the Kshatriya. But we find many instances for example, the marriage in between the same gotra, or within same kinsfolk. They were also the one who strongly opposed marriages between different varnas but we find that Satavahanas married with many that were sonsidered outside or were not able to put within the fold of caste system.

Thus it is a high claim if we say that brahmanical prescriptions were universally adopted, because even within the kinship and in marriage we find discrepancies which according to the brahmanical text should not exist.