Polyandry
The Todas have a completely organised and definite system of polyandry. When a woman marries a man, it is understood that she becomes the wife of his brothers at the same time. When a boy is married to a girl, not only are his brothers usually regarded as also the husbands of the girl, but any brother born later will similarly be regarded as sharing his older brothers’ rights.
In the vast majority of polyandrous marriages at the present time, the husbands are own brothers. A glance through the genealogies will show the great frequency of polyandry,[2] and that in nearly every case the husbands are own brothers. In a few cases in which the husbands are not own brothers, they are clan-brothers, i.e., they belong to the same clan and are of the same generation. Instances of such marriages are those of Toridz (65) with Kulpakh (52) and Kiladrvan (60), and of Sintharap (68) with Kuriolv (52) and Ònadj (57).
There is only one instance recorded in the genealogies in which a woman had at the same time husbands belonging to different clans, viz., the marriage of Kwelvtars (60) with Nidshtevan of Piedr (64) and Tütners of Kusharf (67), and in this case the men were half-brothers by the same mother, the fathers being of different clans. While I was on the hills, there was a project on foot that three unmarried youths belonging to three different clans should have a wife in common, but the project was frustrated and the marriage did not take place. [[516]]
It is possible that at one time the polyandry of the Todas was not so strictly ‘fraternal’ as it is at present, and it is perhaps in favour of this possibility that in the instance of polyandry given by Harkness[3] the husbands were obviously not own brothers. It must be remembered, however, that this case came to the notice of Captain Harkness because the polyandry had led to disputes, and, as we shall see shortly, it is in those cases of polyandry in which the husbands are not own brothers that disputes arise.
The arrangement of family life in the case of a polyandrous marriage differs according as the husbands are, or are not, own brothers.
In the former case it seemed that there is never any difficulty, and that disputes never arise. The brothers live together, and my informants seemed to regard it as a ridiculous idea that there should ever be disputes or jealousies of the kind that might be expected in such a household. When the wife becomes pregnant, the eldest brother performs the ceremony of giving the bow and arrow, but the brothers are all equally regarded as the fathers of the child. If one of the brothers leaves the rest and sets up an establishment of his own, it appeared, however, that he might lose his right to be regarded as the father of the children.
If a man is asked the name of his father, he usually gives the name of one man only, even when he is the offspring of a polyandrous marriage. I endeavoured to ascertain why the name of one father only should so often be given, and it seemed to me that there is no one reason for the preference. Often one of the fathers is more prominent and influential than the others, and it is natural in such cases that the son should speak of himself as the son of the more important member of the community. Again, if only one of the fathers of a man is alive, the man will always speak of the living person as his father; thus Siriar (20) always spoke of Ircheidi as his father, and even after Ircheidi is dead, it seems probable that he will so have fallen into the custom of speaking of the latter as his father that he will continue to do so, and it will only be when his attention is especially directed [[517]]to the point that he will say that Madbeithi was also his father.
In most of the genealogies, the descent is traced from some one man, but there can be no doubt whatever that this man was usually only one of several brothers, and the probable reason why one name only is remembered is that this name was that of an important member of the community, or of the last surviving of the brother-husbands.
When the husbands are not own brothers, the arrangements become more complicated. When the husbands live together as if they were own brothers there is rarely any difficulty. If, on the other hand, the husbands live at different villages, the usual rule is that the wife shall live with each husband in turn, usually for a month at a time, but there is very considerable elasticity in the arrangement.
It is in respect of the ‘fatherhood’[4] of the children in these cases of non-fraternal polyandry that we meet with the most interesting feature of Toda social regulations. When the wife of two or more husbands (not own brothers) becomes pregnant, it is arranged that one of the husbands shall perform the ceremony of giving the bow and arrow. The husband who carries out this ceremony is the father of the child for all social purposes; the child belongs to the clan of this husband if the clans of the husbands differ and to the family of this husband if the families only differ. When the wife again becomes pregnant, another husband may perform the pursütpimi ceremony, and if so, this husband becomes the father of the child; but more commonly the pursütpimi ceremony is not performed at all during the second pregnancy, and in this case the second child belongs to the first husband, i.e., to the husband who has already given the bow and arrow. Usually it is arranged that the first two or three children shall belong to the first husband, and that at a succeeding pregnancy (third or fourth), another husband shall give the bow and arrow, and, in consequence, become the father not only of that child, but of all succeeding children till some one else gives the bow and arrow. [[518]]
The fatherhood of a child depends entirely on the pursütpimi ceremony, so much so that a dead man is regarded as the father of a child if no other man has performed the essential ceremony.[5]
In the only case in the genealogies in which the husbands of a woman were of different clans, it happened there were only two children, and that one father gave the bow and arrow for the first child and the other for the second.
If the husbands separate, each husband takes with him those children who are his by virtue of the pursütpimi ceremony.
There is no doubt whatever as to the close association of the polyandry of the Todas with female infanticide. As we have seen, the Todas now profess to have completely given up the practice of killing their female children, but it is highly probable that the practice is still in vogue to some extent. It has certainly, however, diminished in frequency, and the consequent increase in the proportion of women is leading to some modification in the associated polyandry.
It has been stated by most of those who have written about the Todas that the custom of polyandry is dying out, but a glance at the genealogies will show that the institution is in full working order even in the case of the infant marriages which are being contracted at the present time. There is, however, some reason to believe that it is now less frequent for all the brothers of a family to have one wife only in common. A study of the genealogies shows that often each brother has his own wife, or that several brothers have more than one wife between them. It seemed to me, however, almost certain that in these cases the brothers have the wives in common. In compiling the genealogies, one informant would give me the names of two or more brothers each with one wife, while another would give me the name of one brother with two or three wives, and would say that the other brothers had the same wives. When I pointed out the discrepancy and asked which was the true account, they usually said it made no difference and were almost contemptuous because I seemed to think that there was any disagreement [[519]]between the two versions. I think it probable that it has become less frequent for several brothers to have only one wife in common, but I am very doubtful whether this indicates any real decrease in the prevalence of polyandry.
It seems to me that the correct way of describing the present condition of Toda society is to say that polyandry is as prevalent as ever, but that owing to the greater number of women, it is becoming associated with polygyny. When there are two brothers it does not seem that each takes a wife for himself, but rather that they take two wives in common.
It is probable that this will lead in time to a state of society in which each brother will come to regard one wife as his own; and in a few cases it seemed to me that there was already a tendency in this direction. If this forecast should be fulfilled, the custom of monogamy among the Todas will have been developed out of polyandry through a stage of combined polyandry and polygyny.
One case happened during my visit which seemed to indicate that though several brothers might be regarded as husbands of a woman, the part of husband for ceremonial purposes might be taken only by one or two of them. In this case I was told that four brothers had one wife, but when the wife died only two of the brothers acted as widowers and performed the ceremonies associated with that condition. When I asked for an explanation of this, I was then told that the other two brothers were not husbands, but I strongly suspected that this was a mere device to enable two of the brothers to avoid the disabilities attendant on the condition of widowerhood. I have very little doubt that while the woman was alive, all the four brothers were her husbands, but after her death it became convenient to assume that only two had been husbands, leaving the others free from the restrictions of widowerhood.
Many writers have believed that the widely spread custom of the Levirate is a relic of polyandry. If it were true that the custom of polyandry is dying out among the Todas, this people might have provided material for the study of the relations of polyandry and the Levirate. It will be obvious, [[520]]however, from the account already given, that polyandry is still strongly established among the Todas. Still, there are a few cases in the genealogies which seem to show that when two brothers had different wives, and one brother died, the widow might be taken by the surviving brother. Thus, in Table 34, two brothers, Matovan and Kemners, had one wife, Sargveli, while Atcharap had his own wife, Puners. When Matovan died, Sargveli was regarded as the wife of both Atcharap and Kemners.[6] Again, after the deaths of Mulpolivan and Peigvan (3), the widow of Nersveli was married by Perol, the clan-brother (first cousin) of the husband.
In other cases, the widow of one brother has not become the wife of her husband’s brothers, but has married elsewhere; and though the evidence is necessarily very unsatisfactory, it seems on the whole probable that the Todas show no special relation between polyandry and the Levirate custom.
If the widow marries a man who is not one of the brothers of her dead husband, the new husband has to pay a certain number of buffaloes. He does not, however, give these buffaloes to the brothers of the dead man, but to his children; thus, when Karnisi of Päm (37) died, his widow, Nersaveli, married Mutthuvan (34) of Kanòdrs, who paid fourteen buffaloes to Pungievan, the son of Karnisi. This payment of buffaloes is known as terkudrichti, “compensation he gives,” and it is the custom for the number of buffaloes in this case to be twice the number given by the dead man for his wife; in this case Karnisi had taken Nersaveli from another man for seven buffaloes.
In relation to the Levirate, the important point here is that the buffaloes are paid to the sons of the dead husbands, not to his brothers.
I do not think that the Todas provide any definite evidence towards the solution of the vexed question of the relation between polyandry and infanticide. It is possible that at their first arrival in the Nilgiri Hills, the Todas had few sources of food, and had a severe struggle for existence; that [[521]]they therefore adopted the practice of female infanticide, and that polyandry followed as a consequence. At the present and during recent times there has certainly been no economical motive for infanticide, and I am very doubtful whether it has ever existed. I think it far more probable that the Todas brought the practice of polyandry with them when they came to the Nilgiris; but if this view should be adopted, there is still no evidence to show whether they also brought infanticide with them, or whether this custom developed owing to the fact that polyandry diminished the need for female children.