Polygamy. 15. Polygamy is permitted both among Hindus and Muhammadans. As Mr. Mayne remarks[75]:—“One text of Manu seems to indicate that there was a time when a second marriage [[cxcviii]]was only allowed to a man after the death of his former wife (V., 168; IX., 101, 102). Another set of texts lays down special grounds, which justify a husband in taking a second wife, and except for such causes it appears she could not be superseded without her consent (Manu, IX., 72–82). Other passages provide for a plurality of wives, even of different classes, without any restriction (Manu, III., 12; VIII., 204; IX., 85–87). A peculiar sanctity, however, seems to have been attributed to the first marriage.… It is now quite settled that a Hindu is absolutely without restriction as to the number of his wives, and may marry again without his wife’s consent, or any justification except his own wish.” There seems no doubt that a Muhammadan may marry as many as four wives: but the question is debated by the authorities.[76] In spite of this polygamy is most infrequent. The last Census shows 11,820,598 married males to 11,873,838 married females. Similarly in the Panjâb there are 101·2 wives to 100 husbands. The proportion of husbands who have more than one wife is probably under 1 per cent.
Marriage by capture. 16. Something has already been said on the subject of marriage by capture. It may be well to consider if there are any facts which indicate that the people of Upper India in early times procured brides by force. Mr. McLennan, as we have seen, in his theory of marriage, starts with the stage of communal marriage next to polyandry, merging in the [[cxcix]]levirate. This stage attained, some tribes branched off into endogamy, some to exogamy. Exogamy was based on infanticide, and led to marriage by capture.[77] We have already seen the weakness of the evidence for the existence of a general stage of polyandry or communal marriage.
17. In describing the various forms of marriage Manu speaks of that known as Râkshasa:—“The seizure of a maiden by force from her house, while she weeps and calls for assistance, after her kinsmen and friends have been slain in the battle, or wounded, and their houses broken open, is the marriage called Râkshasa”.[78]
18. The difficulty in examining the apparent survivals of marriage by capture lies in determining which are indications of the usual maiden modesty of the bride, her grief at leaving home and her dread at entering a new family, and which are signs of violence on the part of the bridegroom and his friends.
19. From the early literature, beyond the reference in Manu, to which reference has already been made, the traces of the custom in myth are not very numerous or clear. The myth of Urvasî probably indicates the existence of some ancient rule or taboo which prevented ordinary unrestrained intercourse between husband and wife, with the inference that possibly from capture their relations were strained.[79] In the Mahâbhârata the followers of Kîchika attempted to burn Draupadî with [[cc]]his corpse, apparently because from the fact of her capture she was assumed to have been his wife. In the same epic Bhîshma declares that the Swayamvara is the best of all modes of marriage for a Kshatriya, except one, that of carrying away the bride by force. He acquired in this way the beautiful daughters of the Râja of Kâshi as wives for his brother Vichitra Vîrya. In the Sûtras it was provided that at a certain vital stage in the marriage ceremony a strong man and the bridegroom should forcibly draw the bride and make her sit down on a red ox skin.[80]
20. There are numerous examples of feigned resistance to the bridegroom. Thus among the Korwas the bridegroom and his party “halt at a short distance from the bride’s house, and there await her party. Presently emerges a troop of girls all singing, headed by the mother of the bride, bearing on her head a vessel of water surmounted by a lighted lamp. When they get near enough to the cavaliers they pelt them with balls of boiled rice, then coyly retreat, followed, of course, by the young men, but the girls make a stand at the door of the bride’s house and suffer none to enter until they have paid toll in presents to the bridesmaid.”[81] In a Gond marriage “all may be agreed between the parties beforehand, nevertheless the bride must be abducted for the fun of the thing: but the bridegroom has only to overcome the opposition of the young lady’s female friends—it is not [[cci]]etiquette for the men of her village to take any notice of the affair.”[82]
21. Numerous instances of similar practices have been recorded at the present survey. Thus, among the Ghasiyas, the bride hides in a corner of the house, and the youth goes in and drags her out into the presence of the assembled clansmen. It is etiquette that she makes some resistance. Much the same custom prevails among the Bhuiyas and Bhuiyârs. The Kanjar bridegroom comes armed to the bride’s house after the negotiations have been settled, and demands delivery of the girl in threatening tones. Similarly the bridegroom is armed with a bow and arrow.
22. There are numerous other customs which seem to be based on the same form of symbolism. Thus, the members of the bridegroom’s party are mounted on horses and armed: they, on arriving at the bride’s village, do not enter her house, but halt outside; the bridegroom on reaching her door makes a feint of cutting at the arch (toran) with a sword: there is the invariable fiction, no matter how near the houses of the bride and bridegroom are, that she must be carried in some sort of equipage. This the Mânjhis and some other Dravidian tribes call “a boat,” or jahâz; possibly a survival of the time when the bride was taken away by water.
23. We have then the etiquette by which the bride screams and wails as she is being carried away. When she reaches her new home she is lifted across the threshold [[ccii]]by her husband, or carried inside in a basket. This was an old custom on the Scotch border,[83] and may be as much a survival of the respect paid to the threshold as a reminiscence of marriage by capture. As she enters the door is barred by her husband’s sister, who will not allow her to enter until she is propitiated with a gift.
24. We have just noticed the fiction by which a bride is supposed to be brought from a distance. This is a standing rule among the Orâons and Kurmis of Bengal,[84] and more than one example of it may be found in the present survey, as among the Nâis and Pankas. This repugnance to marriage among people residing in close communities has been taken by Dr. Westermarck to be one of the causes which have led to exogamy.[85] In this connection, the system of gang exogamy, prevalent among the gypsy Kanjars and Sânsiyas, with whom it is a rule that the bride must be selected from an encampment different from that of the bridegroom, is most significant. It is possible that here we are very close to exogamy in its most primitive form.[86]