CHAPTER VI.
Forms of Hindu Marriage.
Communal marriage. Reference has already been made to the question of communal marriage in connection with the origin of exogamy. It has been observed that the evidence is insufficient to justify the belief that among any of the tribes or castes of this part of India the women are at the common service of all the men of the group. On the authority of a compilation entitled, “The People of India,”[51] it has been regarded as established that “the Teehurs of Oudh live together almost indiscriminately in large communities, and even when two people are regarded as married the tie is but nominal.” This has been since quoted as one of the stock examples of communal marriage in India.[52] Now of the Tiyars we have fairly complete accounts. The Oudh people of that name are a sept of Râjputs in the Sultânpur District, who do not appear in the enumeration of the last census. There is another body of Tiyars who are a sub-caste of the Mallâh, or boatman class, found to the number of 1,865 souls in the Ghâzipur District. They are numerous in Behâr and Bengal, and Mr. Risley has given a full account of them.[53] There is no evidence whatever that anything like communal marriage [[clxxxiv]]prevails among them. The fact seems to be that by the necessities of their occupation the husbands leave their wives for long periods at a time and go on voyages as far as Calcutta. That a high standard of female morality is maintained during their absence it would be rash to assert: but this is very different from communal marriage. A rather better example comes from the Beriyas, one of the nomadic and criminal gypsy tribes. The girls of the tribe are reserved, in the Central Ganges-Jumna-Duâb, for prostitution, and if any member of the tribe marries a girl devoted to this occupation, he has to pay a fine to the tribal council. This is what Sir John Lubbock would term “expiation for marriage,” the annexation of the woman by one individual man of the group being regarded as improper.[54] Dr. Westermarck, it may be remarked, disputes the connection of this custom with communal marriage.[55]
Laxity of female morality. 2. It is true that among many of the Dravidian tribes and those of the lower Himâlayas, like the Thârus, the standard of female morality is very low. Intrigues of unmarried girls, or even of married women, are very lightly regarded, provided the paramour is a clansman. Numerous instances of customs of this kind will be found in the following pages. The penalty on the relatives of the offenders is usually a fine in the shape of a compulsory feast to the tribesmen. On the other hand, the penalty is much more [[clxxxv]]severe if the woman’s lover belongs to a strange tribe. If he belongs to one of the higher tribes, the punishment is much less than if he belongs to one of the degraded menial races, such as the Dom, Dharkâr, or Bhangi. In such cases the woman is almost invariably permanently excommunicated. The tolerance of intertribal immorality, while significant is, however, far from actually legalised community of women.
The jus primæ noctis. 3. The custom of the jus primæ noctis has been also adduced as a proof of the existence of communal marriage. Of this the examples collected in the present survey are slight and inconclusive. The Ahîrs and many similar tribes have a custom of paying a fee to the village landlord at a marriage. This is known as mandwâna from mândo, the hut or pavilion in which the marriage is performed. This is hardly more than one of the common village manorial dues, and it is pressing the custom to an illegitimate extent to regard it as a commutation for the jus primæ noctis. There is reason to believe that in comparatively modern times some of the Râjas of Rîwa, a native state bordering on these Provinces, in their annual progresses, insisted on a supply of girls from the lower tribes, and there are still villages which are said to have been presented to the ancestors of women honoured in this way. But this is far from sufficient evidence for anything like the general prevalence of the custom, which is regarded with abhorrence by the public opinion of the country side. [[clxxxvi]]
Polyandry. 4. The same feeling prevails as regards polyandry which, according to Mr. McLennan, formed one of the regular stages in the evolution of marriage. There is certainly no ground for believing that at any time polyandry flourished as a permanent domestic institution. At the same time it seems quite certain that it has prevailed and does still prevail in Northern India, but usually among isolated communities and under exceptional circumstances.
5. To begin with the evidence from history or myth. The legend of the five Pândavas who took Draupadî as a joint wife, has been generally accepted as a proof that it existed among the people whom, for the sake of convenience, we call the early Aryans. It is true that the compilers of the Mahâbhârata clearly wish to refer to it as an exceptional case, and to whittle away its significance by representing it as a result of their misconception of their mother’s order. But there is reason to believe that it was not so exceptional as they endeavour to make out. In the discussion which followed, one of the princes quoted as a precedent the case of Jatilâ, “that most excellent of moral women who dwelt with seven saints, and Varkshî, the daughter of a Muni, who cohabited with ten brothers, all of them Prachetas, whose souls had been purified by penance.” We have next the case of the Aswins who had between them one woman, Sûryâ, the daughter of the sun. Even in the Râmâyana the giant Viradha imputes that Râma and [[clxxxvii]]Lakshmana jointly share the favours of Sîtâ.[56] Professor Lassen’s theory that the whole story of Draupadî and her five lovers is only the symbolical indication of an alliance between the king of Panchâla and the five tribes represented by the five Pândavas has met with little support.
For the fraternal form of polyandry practised by some of the Himalayan races, there is ample evidence. According to Mr. Drew, a very careful observer, it originated in the smallness of the amount of land which could be tilled and the general inelasticity of the country’s resources: while the isolation from the rest of the world, isolation of manners, language and religions, as well as geographical isolation, hindered emigration.[57] According to Dr. Wilson, polyandry in Tibet is not due to the scarcity of women, as a number of surplus women are provided for in the Lama nunneries.[58]
6. As regards the plains, we know that the prevalence of polyandry was noticed by the Greeks in the Panjâb.[59] Of the Gakkars Farishta[60] tells us that “it was the custom as soon as a female child was born to [[clxxxviii]]carry her to the door of the house and there proclaim aloud, holding the child with one hand, that any person who wanted a wife might now take her, otherwise she was immediately put to death. By this means they had more men than women, which occasioned the custom of several husbands to one wife. When the wife was visited by one of her husbands she left a mark at the door, which, being observed by any of the other husbands, he withdrew till the signal was taken away.” Similar customs prevailed among the Khokars of the Panjâb,[61] and the Panjâb Jâts.[62]
7. In all these cases it would seem that polyandry is associated with, and in fact dependent on, female infanticide. In the course of the present survey, it has been ascertained that the custom prevails among some of the pastoral tribes, such as Ahîrs, Gûjars and Jâts, chiefly in the upper valleys of the Ganges and Jumna. It has even been embodied in the current proverb:—Do khasam kî joru, Chausar ka khel,—“The wife with two lords is like a game of backgammon.” The arrangement suits these pastoral people, who graze their herds in the river valleys. The brothers take it in turn to attend the cattle, and one remains at home in charge of the house-wife.