CHAPTER V.
Exogamy.
1. No enquiry into the social relations of the Hindus can leave out of account the thorny subject of the origin of exogamy. By exogamy is generally understood the prohibition which exists against a man marrying within the group to which he belongs: to follow Mr. D. McLennan’s definition,[31] exogamy is prohibition of marriage between all persons recognized as being of the same blood, because of their common blood—whether they form one community or parts of several communities, and accordingly it may prevent marriage between persons who (though of the same blood) are of different local tribes, while it frequently happens that it leaves persons of the same local tribe (but who are not of the same blood) free to marry one another. “Endogamy,” on the other hand, “allows marriage only between persons who are recognised as being of the same blood connection or kindred, and if, where it occurs, it confines marriage to the tribe or community, it is because the tribe regards itself as comprising a kindred.”
Various forms of exogamy. 2. Before discussing the possible origin of exogamy it may be well to explain some of its various forms, of which numerous details, so far as it has been possible to ascertain them, are given in the subsequent pages. We have, then, first [[clxxii]]the Brâhmanical law of exogamy. Persons are forbidden according to the Sanskrit law-books, to intermarry, who are related as sapindas, that is to say, who are within five degrees of affinity on the side of the father. The person himself is counted as one of these degrees, that is to say, two persons are sapindas to each other, if their common ancestor being a male is not further removed from either of them than six degrees, or four degrees where the common ancestor is female.[32]
The gotra. 3. These prohibitions form a list of prohibited degrees in addition to the ordinary formula, which prevents a Brâhman or a member of those castes which ape the Brâhmanical organization, from marrying within his gotra or exogamous section. The word gotra means “a cow-pen,” and each bears the name of some Rishi or mythical saint, from whom each member of the group is supposed to be descended. Theoretically all the Brâhmanical gotras have eight great ancestors only—Viswamitra, Jamadagni, Bhâradvaja, Gautama, Atri, Vasishtha, Kasyapa, and Agastya. These occupy with the Brâhmans pretty much the same position as the twelve sons of Jacob with the Jews; and only he whose descent from one of these mighty Rishis was beyond all doubt could become a founder of a gotra.[33] The next point to remark is that, as Mr. Ibbetson[34] has pointed out, the names of many [[clxxiii]]of the founders of these gotras appear among the ancient genealogies of the earliest Râjput dynasties, the Râjas in question being not merely namesakes of, but distinctly stated to be the actual founders of the gotra; and it would be strange if enquiry were to show that the priestly classes, like the menials, owe their tribal divisions to the great families to whom their ancestors were attached.
All that we know at present about the evolution of the Brâhmanical tribal system tends to confirm this theory. At any rate, whatever may be the origin of these Brâhmanical gotras, it must be remembered that the system extends to all respectable Hindus. As soon as a caste rises in the social scale a compliant priest is always ready to discover an appropriate gotra for the aspirant, just as an English brewer, raised to the peerage, has little difficulty in procuring a coat-of-arms and a pedigree which links him with the Norman conquest. It is obvious in such cases that the idea of common descent from the eponymous founder of the gotra becomes little more than a pious fiction. But among many of the Râjputs who have been promoted at a later date, and in particular with more recent converts to orthodox Hinduism from the forest tribes, with a comical disregard for the theory of gotra exogamy, we find the sept enjoying only a single gotra, and this is very often that of Bhâradvaja, which is a sort of refuge for the destitute who can find no other place of rest. As has already been shown, some of the sectional titles are eponymous, like those of the gotras named after the [[clxxiv]]famous Rishis; others like the Durgbans Râjputs take their name from an historical personage; others, again, are totemistic, and others purely territorial.
Exogamy among the lower castes. 4. Passing on to the inferior castes, such as those of the agriculturists, artisans, and menials generally, we find very considerable differences in their internal structure: some are divided into regular endogamous sub-castes, which again are provided with exogamous sections, or, where these are absent, practise a special exogamous rule which bars intermarriage by reckoning as prohibited degrees seven (sometimes more or sometimes less) generations in the descending line. But it is obvious that, as in the case of Brâhmans, this rule which prohibits intermarriage within the section, is one-sided in its application, as Mr. Risley remarks:—“In no case may a man marry into his own section, but the name of the section goes by the male side, and consequently, so far as the rule of exogamy is concerned, there is nothing to prevent him from marrying his sister’s daughter, his maternal aunt, or even his maternal grandmother.” Hence came the ordinary formula which prevails generally among the inferior castes that a man cannot marry in the line of his paternal uncle, maternal uncle, paternal aunt, maternal aunt. But even this formula is not invariably observed. What the low caste villager will say if he is asked regarding his prohibited degrees, is that he will not take a bride from a family into which one of his male relations has married, until all recollection of the relationship has disappeared. And as rural memory runs hardly [[clxxv]]more than three generations, any two families may intermarry, provided they were not connected by marriage within the last sixty or seventy years. It is only when a man becomes rich and ambitious, begins to keep an astrologer and Pandit, and to live as an orthodox Hindu, that he thinks much about his gotra. To procure one and have the proper prohibited degrees regularly worked out is only a matter of money.
5. Having thus endeavoured briefly to explain the rules of exogamy which regulate the different classes of Hindus,[35] we are now in a position to examine the various explanations which have been suggested to account for this custom.
McLennan’s theory of exogamy. 6. The earliest theory was that of Mr. McLennan,[36] who began by calling attention to the fact that there are numerous survivals of marriage by capture, such as the mock struggle for the bride and so on, to which more particular reference is made in another place: that these symbols show that at one time people were accustomed to procure their wives by force. He went on to argue that among primitive nomadic groups, where the struggle for existence was intense, the girls would be a source [[clxxvi]]of weakness to the community: such children would be ill-protected and nourished, and female infanticide would occur. Hence, owing to the scarcity of brides, youths desirous of marrying would be obliged to resort to violence and capture women by force from the groups. This would in time produce the custom in favour of, or the prejudice against, (which in the case of marriage would soon have the force of tribal law) marrying women within the tribe. This theory has been criticized at length by Mr. Herbert Spencer and Dr. Westermarck[37] mainly on the following grounds:—“The custom cannot have originated from the lack of women, because the tribes that use it are mostly polygamous. It is, again, not proved to prevail among races which practise polyandry. The evidence of the widespread custom of female infanticide among groups in this assumed stage of social development is not conclusive. Primitive man does not readily abandon the instinct of love of the young which he possesses in common with all the lower animals, and women, so far from being useless to the savage, are most valuable as food providers. Further, there may be a scarcity of women in a tribe, and youths unable to find partners be forced to seek wives in another group, the difficulty remains why marriage with surviving tribal women should not only be unfashionable, but prohibited by the severest penalties; in some cases that of death. The position of such women would be nothing [[clxxvii]]short of intolerable, because they could not marry unless an outsider chose to ravish them.”