In the first place, we have to inquire what the family is among the Naïrs of Malabar, whose curious polyandry I have previously described. The Naïrs of Malabar are not by any means savages; they form an aristocratic caste. We have seen how, from a very early age (ten to twelve years), the young Naïr girls, after having been solemnly deflowered by a stranger, who has been paid to perform this task, practised the widest polyandry, without any other restriction than the prohibitions relative to caste and tribe. As is usual and even natural, Naïr polyandry coexists with a system of maternal filiation. Precautions are taken in order that the free and numerous unions of the Naïr ladies should not destroy the family. The Naïr husbands are reduced to the modest rôle of progenitors; and it is to the wife that the fortune of the family belongs. It is not, however, the mother who governs the family, but her brother. To this brother belongs the duty of bringing up his nephews, of protecting them, and of mourning for them, if they happen to die; in reality, he is an avuncular father, and when he dies his nephews inherit his personal property. In the Naïr family the polyandrous mother is much respected, and the next in honour to her is her eldest daughter, who will replace her in her rôle of mother-bee, the producer of children. The Naïr husbands, the fathers, only enter the house of their common wife by turns and on certain days; they have not even the right to sit down by the side of their wife or their children; they are mere passing guests, almost strangers.[1007]
If we regard these facts on a certain side, it appears as if we may at last have found among the Naïrs, in a country where the matriarchate incontestably reigns, the legal pre-eminence of woman over man, or the materna potestas. It is, in fact, the Naïr woman who possesses; it is through her that wealth is transmitted, and, given the régime of free polyandry, it is difficult for Naïr children to know their own father. Moreover, in various polyandric countries of Malabar, the pre-eminence of the woman in the family has influenced the political organisation, and thus an entire female feudal system has arisen, the bonds of suzerainty and vassalage reposing on a fictitious polyandry. Thus, in February 1887, the English journals announced that the Sultan of the Laccadives, having become the vassal of England, had notified to his subjects his new position by means of a proclamation, in which he explained that he had ceased to be the husband and subject of his ancient suzerain, the Bibi of Cannanor; for by a special favour the government of Ceylon had consented to admit him to the number of the husbands, that is to say, of the direct vassals, of the Queen of England. We must note that for the Indians of this region the Queen of England is “the daughter” of the East India Company, and lives in a palace in London with many men. And now what is the real value of this polyandric matriarchate? It is surely more apparent than real. Among the Naïrs, as everywhere else, property assures to the man or woman who possesses it an importance in proportion to its value. The Naïr lady then, being a proprietor, is highly esteemed. But it does not follow that this esteem is equal to undisputed domination. Doubtless among the Naïrs the man, as husband, does not exist; nevertheless he is a warrior, and even a very fierce one. But military force has this in common with money, that it is nowhere despised. Therefore, in the family of his sister, the Naïr man is anything but a subordinate. We have just seen this. It is he who governs and brings up the children of his sister by her numerous husbands. He is, in reality, the chief of his sister’s family, and what he loses as husband he gains as uncle.
Reduced to their true value, the polyandry and the familial régime of the Naïrs still remain a sociological fact of the greatest interest. It is at once the most complete and the most logical of polyandric systems. In reality, the Naïr marriage does not only or specially include groups of brothers or sisters; full liberty is given to the woman, save only the restrictions of class. There is no attempt, as in Thibet, to create a masculine pseudo-filiation, by arbitrarily attributing such or such children to such or such husbands. Among the Naïrs, the maternal family is instituted in all its plenitude; and lastly, their polyandry is in no way thwarted by the proportion of the sexes, for if the woman may contract marriage with several men, each one of the latter in his turn has power to enter several conjugal associations. This matrimonial régime is therefore perfectly compatible with the maintenance of the population and the equilibrium of the sexes.
V. The Family among the Aborigines of Bengal.
If we proceed with our investigations by studying the familial and matrimonial régime of the aborigines of Bengal, we shall find, among populations having probably a common origin, systems of family and marriage which are very dissimilar.
Here and there we discover the maternal family, or customs proving that this familial fashion has formerly been in force.
According to Buchanan, among the Buntar, who are neighbours to the Naïrs, a father is free during his lifetime to make presents to his children, but at his death all that he possesses goes to his sisters and their children. The Kochh, also, have no kinship or succession except through the women. The mothers arrange the marriages; the fathers never interfere, and the husband goes to live with his wife and his mother-in-law, whom he obeys. As for widows, they choose themselves young husbands when they are rich. Among the Yerkalas of Southern India, the maternal uncle has the right to claim for his sons the two eldest daughters of his sister.[1008] Among the Khasias, it is to the son of the sister that the power of the Rajah is transmitted; but this princess (Kunwari) has not the right to marry herself; she is subject to reasons of state, and her husband is chosen by the assembled people.[1009] The Garos have established the rule, that in marriages the right of initiative belongs to the woman; it is the young girl who distinguishes the man of her choice, tells him so, and invites him to follow her. Any advance made by a man is considered as an insult to all the clan (mahari) of the girl, and in order to expiate it, libations of beer and sacrifices of pigs are required, all of them at the expense of the mahari of the man. The marriage of the Garos answers exactly to the ceremony of capture, only the actors change parts; it is here the bridegroom who pretends to refuse the bride, runs away and is conducted by force to his future wife amidst the lamentations of his relations.[1010] At the death of a man, among the Garos, the widow remains mistress of the house, but the other property passes to a collateral heir, who marries the widow and sometimes her daughter also.
If we were to confine ourselves to the consideration and interpretation of these facts only, we might naturally conclude that the familial régime of the aborigines of Bengal is maternal; but contradictory facts are not wanting. Among the Bhuiyas, although the demand in marriage is made by the girls, as with the Garos, the sons receive the names of their male ascendants; the eldest son takes the name of the grandfather; the second son takes that of the great-grandfather, and the names of collaterals are given to the other sons.[1011] Among the Muasis, it is the father who negotiates the marriage of his daughter, or who sells her, rather, for a certain number of measures of rice solemnly measured and delivered.[1012]
Among the Malers of Rajmahal, it is again the father who places his daughter’s hand in that of her future husband and exhorts him to love his wife.[1013] The Kandhs have adopted succession in the masculine line, with a division of property amongst the sons.[1014] The servitude of the women amongst the Korwas is very great; they are oppressed with work, and till the fields and gain the daily bread, whilst the men hunt or repose.[1015] The Mishmis buy their wives, have as many as they can procure, and own them like chattels, since at a man’s death all his wives, except the mother of the heir, pass to the nearest male relation.[1016] Among the Mundas, after the decease of the father of a family, the sons live together until the majority of the youngest of them; they then proceed to divide the property, including their sisters, who are exactly assimilated to cattle.[1017] The Oraons share the widows amongst the brothers and cousins in the same way as the Mundas share their sisters.[1018]
We find, therefore, no uniformity in the familial organisation of the Bengalese aborigines; and it is the same in regard to their exogamy or endogamy. Exogamy is common. Thus the Juangas are divided into exogamous tribes.[1019] The Khonds think it humiliating to marry the women of their own tribe. It is more manly, in their opinion, to go and take a wife from a distant neighbourhood.[1020] The Munniporees are divided into four clans, who do not intermarry.[1021] Among the Santals, it is forbidden to men to marry in their own clan; but their children belong to the paternal clan.[1022] The Limboos (near Darjeeling) are also exogamous, but evidently oscillate between the maternal and paternal family; for the daughters remain in the tribe or rather in the clan of their mother, whilst the sons belong to the paternal clan, but only after the father has paid a certain sum to the mother.[1023] The Garos are divided into several clans or maharis, and, amongst them, a man must not marry in his own clan, but in another appointed clan, in which from time immemorial his family has been accustomed to take wives.