October 20, 2012
Is the term 'jat' Sanskritic in Origin?
Is the Term ‘Jat’ Sanskritic in Origin?
Dr. S.S. Rana
The people who are called, and call themselves Jats today are, no doubt, the most ancient Aryans, generally settled in north and north-west lndia. Many writers1 have tried to prove their antiquity through the antiquity of their clan names, inseparably from the label Jat. In most cases the emphasis has been on the label, ‘Jat’ presuming it to be of sanskritic origin. It is not necessary that if the people are ancient, their current label should also be equally ancient. But the temptation of tracing the label in sources, where it does not exist on the part of several amateur Jat historians, has led to great amount of confusion. The confusion has got worse confounded, especially at the hands of those who 0ver taken by their caste (label) patriotism have thrown to winds the regard for authentic historical facts and sound principles of research and linguistic investigation. In the case of several of such writers the label became more important than the people themselves. For them, ancient Sanskrit texts, particularly those of uncertain authenticity2 came handy to yield, mixed with some imagination, the desired crop. The most favourite and sought after ally in the otherwise very uncertain field has continued to be the Paninian text jaTa, jhaTa sanghAte. The text has been erroneously described as- sUtra of ashTAdhyAyI or a shloka or a phrase in the ashTAdhAyI, by most of such writers (who do not seem to do any thing with Sanskrit), with generally faulty Roman transliteration, giving scope for miscarriage of intent. The effort of some writers in claiming to be precise by citing the reference number (3.3.19) of the text sought to be quoted from the ashTAdhyAyI, leaves one looking for the originally cited text only to land into an enigma, since the text at 3.3.19 is entirely different viz. akartari cha kArake sanjnAyAm.Let us explain things: The ashTAdhyAyI is a work of eight chapters, each having four quarters, where each quarter contains a number of sUtras arranged in a linguistically systematic and meaningful manner. The sUtras, individually and many a times in combination of several sUtras by inferencorder, explain the formation of words of the Sanskrit language, as it was in Panini’s time. The sUtras deal with the raw material in the form of verbal roots (dhAtus) by adding sufixes to obtain nominal and verbal forms of words. Panini has identified and after appropriate classification put the verbal roots (dhAtus) in a separate compilation, called the dhAtupATha. Our two dhAtus are listed at serial numbers 305 (jaTa) and 306 (jhaTa- sanghAte) in the dhAtupATha with the simple meaning that each of the two is used in the sense of a cluster or a heap. The sUtra in the ashTAdhyAyI at 3.3.19 says that the suffix ghanˆ(having net value of ‘a’) comes after verbal stems when the sense of the root is denoted as having attained the completed state, e.g. prAsah, AhArah etc. However, the condition is that the (noun) word thus formed shall not be the one which can be used as an agent in the nominative case (in kartA kAraka).But our term jATa (if we take it as a Sanskrit term) can not be explained by the sUtra under reference, as it is very much used in the nominative case (kartA kAraka). Though words like jaTA (hair locks), jaTah (one having jaTA) or jaTila (one having intertwined hair ) can be explained by other sUtras,the fact remains that Panini has nowhere in his works mentioned the word jATa as such. If we wish to manufacture it retrospectively as a Sanskrit word of ancient ages Panini’s sUtras do not warrant it, the ancient Sanskrit literature does not reflect it. It is a pity that even some people, well versed in Paninian grammar have failed to notice the true meanings of the references made. Bhim Singh Dahiya and Hukam Singh Pawar sound parochial in insisting that the term jATa has been deliberately obliterated from the ancient Sanskrit literature by the canny brahmanas for ulterior motives. Do they mean to say that the whole of sanskrit literature has come from brahmana pen? And if one were to accept Dahiya’s thesis that almost all ancient rulers of India were Jats, how come that they as patrons of learning could have been so ignored by their court poets and other contemporary writers. Paradoxically both of them go on tracing the term jATa in various ancient Sanskrit texts where it does not exist. Further, it may be pointed out that Panini leaves little scope for mixing up of the meaning of the words ‘sangha’ and ‘sanghAta’, the former meaning an association of persons working for a common purpose, a corporation, a political unit or a group of living beings (prANi samUha), while the latter standing for a heap, cluster, accumulation, grouping, collection etc., generally of inanimate things, and of living entities, only when they give a monolithic appearance (aprasRitAvayavah samUha, sanGhAtah)like a herd of sheep (avikaTah).It may also be mentioned here that Panini has listed as many as twenty dhAtus meaning sanghAta, all of which lead to the formation of nominal stems which convey the meaning of group, heap, combination or cluster of inanimate things3. We also have a long history of the use of the two words i.e. sangha and sanghAta in ancient sanskrit literature, giving two distinct meanings as explained above4. Kautilya in his ArthashAstra makes the same distinction between the meaning of sangha and sanghAta5.Therefore, the attempt on the part of several writers in first assuming the term jATa to be of sanskritic origin and then trying to derive the same from the root (dhAtu) jaTa meaning sanghAta, and there after proceeding to construe it to convey the meaning of a political republic (sangha)is far fetched and untenable. B.S.Dahiya and Hukam Singh Pawar have imagined the term jATa in the word jATya listed by Yaska (of the 8 th century B.C.E.) in his etymological treatise Nirukta (I.14) among terms which had become obsure in their meaning with the passage of time. Explaining the term under reference Yaska states: “ jATya, ATNAro i.e. the term jATya means a wanderer (mendicant, presumably having matted hair). Both the above referred writers have gone far beyond this simple meaning, giving unbridled flight to their imagination. Dahiya has (hopefully, inadvertantly!) altered the very text ATNAro into jATaNAro to instantly obtain the desired result,i.e. jATa.This kind of argumentation is unacceptable. Hukam Singh on his part laboriously wades through a wide period of history, offering arbitrary and weird etymologies of the term, getting amusing at times. For sample, consider this: “jATa is called ATNAra because he has blister folds (ATaNa in modern Khadi Boli) on his feet.” This is neither good linguistics nor good history. Hukam Singh’s suggestion that the jaTA-pATha of the vedic mantras could very well be taken as jATa-pATha (i.e.a recitation arrangement done by jats) surely will send any one having an idea of the vedic recitation system, into splits. Dahiya’s penchant for marshalling Sanskrit and Prakrit texts, especially inscriptions in support of his thesis only reveals the inadequacy of his competencies in truly interpreting them. No right thinking person would like to go with him in tracing the Jats from demons like JaTAsura and bANAsura mentioned in the Brihatsamhita of varahamihira. Another favourite text of the proponants of sanskritic connection of the term jATa is the disputable reading ‘ajayajjarto hUNAn’in the sanskrit grammar of Chandragomin of the 6th century C.E. in the context of illustrating the use of Lang LakAra to denote an incident pertaining to immediate past The alternative reading ajayat gupto hUNAn is supported by majority of scholars. However, even if we accept the former reading it does not help as the arguments advanced are based on assumptions. It is proposed by a section of scholars like K.P.Jayaswal (on whom Dahiya and Hukam Singh rely) that the jartah (=jATa)here refers to Yashodharman, the Aulikara king who is referred to have defeated the hUNas in his Mandasor Pillar Inscription. But this suggestion comes under cloud with the discovery, in 1983, of the Risthal (near Mandasor) Inscription (of 476 M.S. = 515 C.E.) of his father (?) Prakashadharman. The inscription clearly states that the latter defeated the hUNas led by Toramana (Mihirkula’s father). In any case the grammarian Chandragomin of 5th century C.E. could not have referred to a posterior event in the life of Yashodharman of the 6 th century C.E.(vide his Mandasor Stone Inscription of Malava Samvat 589 (=532 C.E.). Moreover, deriving the term jATa from jarta arbitrarily, without putting the same in a chronological frame work remains merely a wild guess. We may also refer here to the futile suggestion of some writers who try to connect the vedic term jaritA with jarta, since the former simply means the singer of praise (of a deity).Equally untenable is the perambulatary derivation of the term jATa from jnAti via jnAta and jata offered by Thakur Deshraj in his painstaking work Jat Itihas. Mere incidence of the letters ‘j’ and ‘t’( no matter hard or soft) falling together in a term have led many a novices to jump to unwarranted conclusions, and ironically, welcomed in certain circles only offer examples of caste patriotism. But it becomes difficult even for a layman to stomach the assertion (as we find in the Devasamhita) that the Jats owe their origin from the locks of hair of the mythical god Shiva, or for that matter the hair tuft of Virabhadra was the source of the Jats. Mythology should not be mixed with historical investigation. The domains of the two are entirely different. So we have to reconcile and look for the antiquity of the people we are talking about on the strength of their clan names which occur in abundance in ancient sanskrit sources including inscriptions, and for the moment, delink the label jATa for its own history and provenance to be researched separately. Panini can be of great help as he has supplied us with a big list of gotras clan names) in his gaNa-pATha and also the sUtras dealing with taddhita suffixes in the apatyAdhikAra. Having no success in tracing the term ‘jATa’ in the in the sanskritic or Indic sources, we should proceed to explore the possibility of the term having something to do with the Arabic/Persian connections of a much later period than hitherto believed. We should also ponder over the question why the term jATa has continued to carry a pejorative sense since the times we have noticed it being used for (or restricted to) a community which has ever stood for justice and truth as the saying goes, as also the fact that the term Jat transcends the meaning of a caste and is used in a general sense for describing people, language, food, colour or things, albeit in a pejorative sense.
Notes:
1. Thakur, Desh Raj (Jat Itihas-in Hindi, 1934); Joon,Ram Swrup ( History of Jats, Urdu/Hindi-1938, English-1967); Dahiya, B.S.(Jats:The Ancient Rulers-1980); Pawar,Hukam Singh (The Jats:their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations,1993);
2. DevaSamhita –in Sanskrit, written in 18th/19th century,most likely commissioned to spread the absurd theory of the origin of Jats from the hair locks of Shiva.
3. Such dhAtus are: goSTa; loSTa;jaTa; jhaTa; piTa; piDi; pUla; mRIkSa; vakSa; SUla; SroNRI; SlokRI; STyai; styai; hudi ( of bhvAdi gaNa);and musta; pUla;pidi; Dapa;Dipa;ghaTa (of churAdi gaNa) aSUnga; aSa ( of divAdi gaNa). Many words coming from these dhAtUs conveying the meaning of cluster, heap or a monolithic combination can be observed in the modern Indian languages, e.g. goSA or goSTA;lothA; piTaka; pinDi;pULI or pULA etc.
4. Use of sangha for animates in the Bhagvadgita:bhutaviSeSa-sanghAn (11.15); mahrSi-siddha-sanghAh (11.21);gandharva-yakSAsura-siddha-sanghAh (11.22);avanipAla-sanghaih (11.26); siddha-sanghAh (11.36)
Panini’s: references to Sangha can be seen in the sutras: 1.2.13; 3.3.42; 3.3.86; 4.1.1and 5.1.58. We get a sense from Panini that sangha and gaNa were synonymous terms.Yaudheya gaNa is counted among Ayudha-jIvi-sanghas.
The use of the term sanghAta for inanimates may be seen below:
upAya-sanghAta iva pravRiddha –Raghuvansha, 14.11;kshata-setu-bandhano jalasanghAta ivAsi vidrutah- Kumarasambhava, 4.6; tuSAra-sanghAta-shilAtaleShvapi- Kumarasambhava, 5.55; ….toyaugha-nikara-vrAtavAra-sanghAta-sanchayAh -Amarakosha- 5.39
Also see Mahabharata ( XII.298.17) for use of sangfhAta for a heap or cluster: sanghAtavAn martyalokah parasparamAShritah
5. i)Kautilya uses the term sangha in the sense of a corporation (sajAtAdnyah sanghah-2.1.32; deShasya-JAtyAh-sanghasya dharmo-grAmasya vA mithah-3.7.40; tena jnAti-kula-sanghAnAm-3.10.45; jAti-sanghASchhidreSu prahareyuh-9.6.72; deSha-grAma-jAti-sangha-mukhyeSu-13.5.9 and in the sense of a union of labourers (tena sangha-bhRitA vyAkhyAtAh -3.14.12.; and in the sense of a confedertacy of princes (mitra-sanghasya vA yo antasthAyI tam labhet -9.6.16; and in the sense of an oligarchy (sangha-lAbho danDa-mitra-lAbhAnAmuttamah-11.1.1; viShiSTa-balAbhAve sama-balaistulya-bala-sanghairvA balavatah sambhUya tiSThet-7.15.3; viSheSataScha sanghAnAm sangha-dharmiNAm cha rAjakulAnAm dyUta-nimitto bhedastannimitto vinASah..-8.3.64
ii) Examples of sanghAta used in the sense of cluster, heap or combination or group of inanimates in the Arthashastra: pratisargamekArtha-charyAm sanghAtam cha varjayet-5.4.10; aSTaproti sanghAtya…iti naipAlakam-2.11.100 and also`2.14.17,26,30
sanghAtavAn martyalokah parasparamAsritah (Mahabharata, XII.298.17)
B -13 IDC Aptts, Plot-8C, Sector-11, Dwarka, NewDelhi-110075 M:9868573074
September 15, 2009
Panini and Jats
Panini and Jats
The people who are called and call themselves Jats today are, no doubt, the most ancient Aryans generally settled in north and north-west India. Many writers have tried to prove their antiquity through the antiquity of their clan names, inseparably from the label Jat. It is not necessary that if the people are ancient, their label should also be most ancient. But unable to resist the temptation of tracing the same in sources, where it does not exist, has led to some amount of confusion. The confusion has got acute at the hands of those whose caste (label) patriotism scored over authentic historical facts. The label became more important than the people themselves. Ancient Sanskrit texts, particularly those of uncertain authenticity came handy to yield, mixed with some imagination, the desired crop. The most favourite alley in the otherwise very uncertain field has continued to be the Paninian text jaTa, jhaTa sanghAte. The text has been variously described as-sUtra of ashTAdhyAyI or a shloka in the ashTAdhAyI, the Roman transliteration being generally faulty, giving scope to miscarriage of intent. The effort of some persons in choosing to be precise in citing the reference number (3.3.19) from the ashTadhyAyI set one member looking for the originally cited text only to result in an enigma since the text at 3.3.19 is entirely different viz. akartari cha kArake sanjnAyAm. Let me try to explain things:
The ashTAdhyAyI (of eight chapters, each having four quarters where each quarter contains a number of sUtras arranged in a linguistically systematic manner. The sUtras, individually and many a times in combination of several sUtras by inference explain the formation of words of Sanskrit language, as it was in Panini’s time. The sUtras deal with the raw material in the form of verbal roots by adding affixes to obtain nominal forms of words.Panini has identified and after appropriate classification put the verbal stems (dhAtus) in a compilation called the dhAtupATha. Our two dhAtus are listed at serial numbers 305 (jaTa-) and 306 (jhaTa- sanghAte) with the simple meaning that each of the two are used in twe sense of a cluster. The sutra in ashTAdhyAyI at 3.3.19 simply says that the suffix ghanˆ comes after all verbal stems when the sense of root is denoted as having attained the completed state, e.g. prAsah, AhArah etc. But the condition is that such word thus formed shall not be the one which can be used as an agent in the nominative case(in kartA kAraka) e.g.our jATa if we take it as a Sanskrit term) can not be explained by the sUtra under reference. Though words like jaTA (hair locks), jaTila (intertwined (hair etc.) can be explained by the sUtra under reference. The net result is that Panini has nowhere in his works mentioned the word jATaas such. If we wish to manufacture it retrospectively as a Sanskrit word of ancient ages Panini’s sutras do not permit it. So we have to reconcile and look for the antiquity of the people we are talking about on the strength of their clan names and for the moment delink the label jATa for its own history and provenance. I would like to share that part of my findings some other time.
The people who are called and call themselves Jats today are, no doubt, the most ancient Aryans generally settled in north and north-west India. Many writers have tried to prove their antiquity through the antiquity of their clan names, inseparably from the label Jat. It is not necessary that if the people are ancient, their label should also be most ancient. But unable to resist the temptation of tracing the same in sources, where it does not exist, has led to some amount of confusion. The confusion has got acute at the hands of those whose caste (label) patriotism scored over authentic historical facts. The label became more important than the people themselves. Ancient Sanskrit texts, particularly those of uncertain authenticity came handy to yield, mixed with some imagination, the desired crop. The most favourite alley in the otherwise very uncertain field has continued to be the Paninian text jaTa, jhaTa sanghAte. The text has been variously described as-sUtra of ashTAdhyAyI or a shloka in the ashTAdhAyI, the Roman transliteration being generally faulty, giving scope to miscarriage of intent. The effort of some persons in choosing to be precise in citing the reference number (3.3.19) from the ashTadhyAyI set one member looking for the originally cited text only to result in an enigma since the text at 3.3.19 is entirely different viz. akartari cha kArake sanjnAyAm. Let me try to explain things:
The ashTAdhyAyI (of eight chapters, each having four quarters where each quarter contains a number of sUtras arranged in a linguistically systematic manner. The sUtras, individually and many a times in combination of several sUtras by inference explain the formation of words of Sanskrit language, as it was in Panini’s time. The sUtras deal with the raw material in the form of verbal roots by adding affixes to obtain nominal forms of words.Panini has identified and after appropriate classification put the verbal stems (dhAtus) in a compilation called the dhAtupATha. Our two dhAtus are listed at serial numbers 305 (jaTa-) and 306 (jhaTa- sanghAte) with the simple meaning that each of the two are used in twe sense of a cluster. The sutra in ashTAdhyAyI at 3.3.19 simply says that the suffix ghanˆ comes after all verbal stems when the sense of root is denoted as having attained the completed state, e.g. prAsah, AhArah etc. But the condition is that such word thus formed shall not be the one which can be used as an agent in the nominative case(in kartA kAraka) e.g.our jATa if we take it as a Sanskrit term) can not be explained by the sUtra under reference. Though words like jaTA (hair locks), jaTila (intertwined (hair etc.) can be explained by the sUtra under reference. The net result is that Panini has nowhere in his works mentioned the word jATaas such. If we wish to manufacture it retrospectively as a Sanskrit word of ancient ages Panini’s sutras do not permit it. So we have to reconcile and look for the antiquity of the people we are talking about on the strength of their clan names and for the moment delink the label jATa for its own history and provenance. I would like to share that part of my findings some other time.
August 15, 2009
August 14, 2009
August 06, 2009
Let us sow Seeds of Secularism to weed out the Creed of Terrorism
Let us sow Seeds of Secularism to weed out the Creed of Terrorism
Dr. S.S.RANA
Terrorism has become the greatest scourge of civil society today the world over. But in India it has assumed very complex and awesome dimensions. Awesome dimensions, not because of the magnitude and frequency of terrorist driven acts and incidents, but because of the absence of a national consensus on the diagnosis of the reasons for the prevailing phenomenon and because of the almost bipolar nature of the remedies offered to cure the malaise. Whereas there are groups, in many cases organized as cultural fora and also as political entities, who sincerely believe it to be the product of civilisational (a cover for religious?) conflict, there are others who taking a kind view of the eras of religious excesses as things of the past to be buried plead for creating a new India where different religious and cultural identities could thrive together. But unfortunately both the above approaches are found least as societal concerns and most as state concerns. State concerns, both on the part of the groups in power and the groups aspiring for power. Societal ideology has almost become subservient to state concerns, which dominate most initiatives in any walk of life. The unending electoral syndrome has come to occupy disproportionate space in our national life and as a result we find hardly any time or occasion to sit back and talk of societal concerns transcending our smaller identities.
India has had a rich tradition of disputation and argumentation on individual level covering a wide range of human life and activities. In India of the glorious past the adversary real or feigned was almost a must for any serious discussion of an issue. Even where there was none the disputant had to invent one, as the purvapaksha (the opposite view).
But alas! Those, engaged in the state sphere today are not only oblivious of the possibility of the other view being the right view but also are aghast when confronted with the other view as they claim to exclusively possess the gospel. All issues of social justice and economic equity are seen through the divisive prism emitting colours of psudo secularism, appeasement or communalism. Things get worse when legitimacy of the fake is sought by manipulation of the electoral apparatus. In such an environment half-truths, rumours, muscle power and money power rule the roost, leaving the hapless moralists of all hues falling by the wayside. In some cases the contending parties when out of power, in desperation do not hesitate to indulge in what could be easily construed as anti national and subversive activities in pursuing a perceived view of patriotism.
In the context of India, the most disheartening aspect is the utter lack of communication between communities. Leaving apart the tradition of Sikhs which many Hindus, especially Punjabis, fondly follow there is appalling ignorance about each other’s religious beliefs and practices among the Hindus and the Muslims, excepting of course, the votaries of the composite culture, a contribution of the period of the great Mughals like Akbar and the Sufi tradition in Islamic annals. The hiatus prevails today in a more pronounced form reinforced by the contemporary trend of fragmentation of identities on grounds of religion, caste, language, region and even clans. The exclusiveness becomes more poignant when most of (or all of) the terrorists apprehended or killed turn out to be members of one particular community leading to a feeling of guilt or injured innocence. Those outside the community hasten to conclude to include the community as a whole as one responsible for the unfortunate incidents of terrorism. There are very few who can maintain a balance of approach towards the guilty and the innocent. Such an attitude can be cultivated only when we are intent upon arriving at the truth avoiding hasty conclusions driven by biases.
In this connection we can profitably recall what Ashoka the great had to say for bringing about communal harmony. Representing the state, he himself did not hesitate to reveal his own religious preferences, but at the same time he did not fail to appreciate the scenario of his empire being host to several religious and cultural communities. A fair deal to all was the summum bonum of his approach. “Let all sects live their own way (sarve pashandah vaseyuh )” was his basic premise to start with. He was aware that such a climate can be created only when we develop tolerance and respect for the tenets of others. So he went on to suggest the key for the same. It was restrain of speech ( vacho gupith) when it came to talking about affairs of the sects of others. According to Ashoka at the root of all religious strife was the unbridled criticism of other religion or an exaggerated exaltation of one’s own religion out of context, which he advised should be avoided (atma-pashanda-puja va para-pashanda-garha va na bhavet aprakarane,). A great pragmatist as he was, Ashoka did not fail to recognize the hard reality of this being not always possible. So he hastens to add that if the context in a particular case demands (in an academic discussion, for example) that criticism of others’ religion is necessary, one could proceed with circumspection avoiding extreme postures (laghuka va syat tasmin tasmin prakarane). At the same time he emphasizes that one should not forget to show respect for others’ religion wherever it was due (poojayitavyah eva para-pashandah). Acting otherwise was a sure way to harming one’s own religion. Ashoka has a word of advice on how to develop tolerance in religious matters. According to him the secret lies in learning more about the tenets of other religions. Possibly, a well-informed person was less likely to indulge in irresponsible behaviour in religious matters. Millenniums have gone by since Ashoka’s time but his words are relevant to our conditions today more than ever before.
Then there is the worrisome misconception of terrorism being a product of civilisational conflict as propounded by Huntington. Amartya Sen and following him farid Zakaria, have ably refuted the view. If terrorism was the product of civilisational conflict, as some would believe, we would not have seen its heinous face in Muslim countries like, Pakistan, Morocco, Malayasia, Indonesia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and that too perpetrated by outfits constituted of local breed. In case of India our prime Minister, with some sense of self elation had in a meeting with the American President last year observed that among the terrorist groups operating all over the world including those in India there was none who was an Indian national. Ironically, it did not take long to render this pious observation untrue. We have now a gallery of names among the terrorist organizations enlisting homegrown terrorists masquerading with Indian labels. The recent revelations by Delhi police attribute the links of a large number of the young terrorists to a small place in Azamgarh in Uttar Pradesh. Similar is the latest discovery of the Bombay police. And the most disturbing aspect of the new groups is the young age and good educational background of their members professing Osama Bin Laden as their role model. To call them misguided innocent youth would be a self-defeating strategy to combat terrorism. But it would be a gross fallacy to paint the whole lot of Muslim youth with the same brush. If we consider the possible number among them engaging themselves in terror linked activities we may find its ratio to total Muslim population in India on a negligible low. Therefore, we must take utmost care in handling the phenomena. Whereas it is legitimate to apprehend, arrest and bring the terrorists to book through the process of law, we should make sure that we do not alienate our Muslim compatriots by generalizations and assumptions of guilt. If it were a religious activity we would not have seen many Muslims among the victims of the dastardly acts of terrorism. Alienation of a community does not contribute to the good health of a nation. The majority community has the onus to lessen the pain of minority syndrome in any given situation. The seize within, among the Muslim community post Gujarat massacre needs to be understood in a historical perspective. The well being of a neighhbour is a surety of our own well being.
The example of America is before us to learn a lot from. The Muslims in America are not radicalized since they are well assimilated as Americans. In a recent poll as low a percentage as 13 justified the suicide bombings. The secular, middle class moderate profile of the American Muslim was certainly a factor not to be ignored in the reckoning of the pattern. We in India therefore, must work for creating conditions for the average Muslim to be counted not merely for his vote but for his own rights as a citizen of this common wealth, that is India. And for this we have to sow the seeds of secularism through our daily ordinary acts.
It is generally alleged that the alienation of the Muslim community is self-imposed as they huddle together in almost all walks of life. They prefer to live in exclusively Muslim enclaves, especially in cities, is cited as an argument. But we conveniently overlook the spectrum of Muslims in general not accepted as tenants in non Muslim neighbourhoods. It is imperative that the syndrome of exclusivity, summed up by an Urdu poet in the lines- ham se bulaya na gaya, un se aya na gaya-needs to be broken. What right some suspect groups have to appropriate to themselves the right to represent Hinduism or Hindustan?, one may ask. Talks like- Bharat nein agar rahna hoga, vande mataram kahna hoga- are as injurious to the health of the nation as terrorism. Such attitude, unwittingly go to justify the religious excesses committed during Aurangzeb’s hey days. It has to be remembered that there need be no contradiction between the Indian identity and the Muslim identity of the Indian Muslims as they could be (or should be) both at the same time. It should not be forgotten that Hinduism has the resilience to thrive in the midst of diverse identities. It is well known but scarcely highlighted that rural India serves as a bulwark against the monster of communalism. A few lessons could be learnt from such communities. The saddest part of our national life is that the media by and large highlights the negativities, which mostly represent the urban phenomenon and white-collar attitudes.
The Muslims on their part have no less a responsibility, which I believe they are generally shouldering, to nurture the plant of communal amity. In this context the recent report (Times of India 7 October) of Bombay Police commissioner Hasan Gafoor should not go unnoticed. The report gives credit to ordinary citizens, especially those from the Muslim community, for providing key information that led to the arrest of 11 suspected ‘Indian Mujahideen’ terrorists from Pune, Mangalore and Mumbai. It will be more helpful if our Muslim brethren overlooked the religious identity of a terrorist and separated him from the community as they would any other criminal no matter what his motives are stated to be. No terrorist has a right to swear by his religious identity to harm his own country. No true Muslim would think of taking the life of innocents. Islam stands for peace. The Quran and also the Hadith amply bear this out
Similar is the Christian question hogging anxious attention in some parts of our country. The self appointed troopers parading the tribal areas for the avowed purpose of resurrecting Hinduism need to be reined in. Coercion in any form to reconvert the tribal people is as condemnable as the original act of forcible conversion. At this juncture it is for the tribal people as individuals or in groups to themselves decide how they would like to shape their religious life. The missionaries on their part must realize that charities and social service when stringed to conversions bring their own reprisals. These are not the times of creating monolithic religious communities. Hinduism has not only tolerated multiplicity of beliefs but has also created environment for the growth of variety in the manner of the Rigvedic dictum- ekam sad viprah bahudha vadanti- the same one truth has been represented by the learned in variety of ways.
The last but not the least to be emphasized is the need for building a consensus on nationalism transcending all communal oncerns. The past should be seen in the light of such a consensus and not from the coloured eyes of political partisanism. Every nation has the right and privilege to glorify its heroes and their deeds of valour and sacrifices, but if attempts are made to fix political labels of today on them with an eye on votes serious trouble is likely to arise. Discreet approach is a must in revisiting their activities, however patriotic, lest the same should provide legitimacy to the creed of terrorism, albeit retrospectively. Gandhi Ji had fought the non-violent war for India’s Independence not without a deep philosophical motive. Let us go back in history and hearken Buddha and Ashoka the Great. The secret of secularism lies at the tip of our tongue. Let us master it.
The ghastly killings by foreign terrorists –reportedly coming from Pakistan- in dastardly attacks in Bombay stating November 26 are not only unprecedented but also fall in a class apart. Mercifully the terrorists have since been eliminated. The Nation is in shock but ready to deal with the menace in the most appropriate and mature manner. The lone survivor among the terrorists, captured by our valiant forces should serve as a rich mine of information in solving many a knots in the terror tangle. It is heartening that Indian Muslim clerics have reportedly decided not to perform burial rites for the killed terrorists on Indian soil. This report should not go unnoticed. Further the fact, that among the more than 180 innocent lives lost during the terror ordeal no less than forty were Muslims, should suffice for us to say that the terrorists were not fighting for Indian Muslims or for that matter for any Muslim. One can hope that our agony and anger over the tragic happenings, though legitimately expressed in outbursts against the ruling class, would in due course of time find channels, which would go to strengthen national solidarity and nurture secularism without fighting over the semantics of the term.
Dr. S.S.RANA
Terrorism has become the greatest scourge of civil society today the world over. But in India it has assumed very complex and awesome dimensions. Awesome dimensions, not because of the magnitude and frequency of terrorist driven acts and incidents, but because of the absence of a national consensus on the diagnosis of the reasons for the prevailing phenomenon and because of the almost bipolar nature of the remedies offered to cure the malaise. Whereas there are groups, in many cases organized as cultural fora and also as political entities, who sincerely believe it to be the product of civilisational (a cover for religious?) conflict, there are others who taking a kind view of the eras of religious excesses as things of the past to be buried plead for creating a new India where different religious and cultural identities could thrive together. But unfortunately both the above approaches are found least as societal concerns and most as state concerns. State concerns, both on the part of the groups in power and the groups aspiring for power. Societal ideology has almost become subservient to state concerns, which dominate most initiatives in any walk of life. The unending electoral syndrome has come to occupy disproportionate space in our national life and as a result we find hardly any time or occasion to sit back and talk of societal concerns transcending our smaller identities.
India has had a rich tradition of disputation and argumentation on individual level covering a wide range of human life and activities. In India of the glorious past the adversary real or feigned was almost a must for any serious discussion of an issue. Even where there was none the disputant had to invent one, as the purvapaksha (the opposite view).
But alas! Those, engaged in the state sphere today are not only oblivious of the possibility of the other view being the right view but also are aghast when confronted with the other view as they claim to exclusively possess the gospel. All issues of social justice and economic equity are seen through the divisive prism emitting colours of psudo secularism, appeasement or communalism. Things get worse when legitimacy of the fake is sought by manipulation of the electoral apparatus. In such an environment half-truths, rumours, muscle power and money power rule the roost, leaving the hapless moralists of all hues falling by the wayside. In some cases the contending parties when out of power, in desperation do not hesitate to indulge in what could be easily construed as anti national and subversive activities in pursuing a perceived view of patriotism.
In the context of India, the most disheartening aspect is the utter lack of communication between communities. Leaving apart the tradition of Sikhs which many Hindus, especially Punjabis, fondly follow there is appalling ignorance about each other’s religious beliefs and practices among the Hindus and the Muslims, excepting of course, the votaries of the composite culture, a contribution of the period of the great Mughals like Akbar and the Sufi tradition in Islamic annals. The hiatus prevails today in a more pronounced form reinforced by the contemporary trend of fragmentation of identities on grounds of religion, caste, language, region and even clans. The exclusiveness becomes more poignant when most of (or all of) the terrorists apprehended or killed turn out to be members of one particular community leading to a feeling of guilt or injured innocence. Those outside the community hasten to conclude to include the community as a whole as one responsible for the unfortunate incidents of terrorism. There are very few who can maintain a balance of approach towards the guilty and the innocent. Such an attitude can be cultivated only when we are intent upon arriving at the truth avoiding hasty conclusions driven by biases.
In this connection we can profitably recall what Ashoka the great had to say for bringing about communal harmony. Representing the state, he himself did not hesitate to reveal his own religious preferences, but at the same time he did not fail to appreciate the scenario of his empire being host to several religious and cultural communities. A fair deal to all was the summum bonum of his approach. “Let all sects live their own way (sarve pashandah vaseyuh )” was his basic premise to start with. He was aware that such a climate can be created only when we develop tolerance and respect for the tenets of others. So he went on to suggest the key for the same. It was restrain of speech ( vacho gupith) when it came to talking about affairs of the sects of others. According to Ashoka at the root of all religious strife was the unbridled criticism of other religion or an exaggerated exaltation of one’s own religion out of context, which he advised should be avoided (atma-pashanda-puja va para-pashanda-garha va na bhavet aprakarane,). A great pragmatist as he was, Ashoka did not fail to recognize the hard reality of this being not always possible. So he hastens to add that if the context in a particular case demands (in an academic discussion, for example) that criticism of others’ religion is necessary, one could proceed with circumspection avoiding extreme postures (laghuka va syat tasmin tasmin prakarane). At the same time he emphasizes that one should not forget to show respect for others’ religion wherever it was due (poojayitavyah eva para-pashandah). Acting otherwise was a sure way to harming one’s own religion. Ashoka has a word of advice on how to develop tolerance in religious matters. According to him the secret lies in learning more about the tenets of other religions. Possibly, a well-informed person was less likely to indulge in irresponsible behaviour in religious matters. Millenniums have gone by since Ashoka’s time but his words are relevant to our conditions today more than ever before.
Then there is the worrisome misconception of terrorism being a product of civilisational conflict as propounded by Huntington. Amartya Sen and following him farid Zakaria, have ably refuted the view. If terrorism was the product of civilisational conflict, as some would believe, we would not have seen its heinous face in Muslim countries like, Pakistan, Morocco, Malayasia, Indonesia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and that too perpetrated by outfits constituted of local breed. In case of India our prime Minister, with some sense of self elation had in a meeting with the American President last year observed that among the terrorist groups operating all over the world including those in India there was none who was an Indian national. Ironically, it did not take long to render this pious observation untrue. We have now a gallery of names among the terrorist organizations enlisting homegrown terrorists masquerading with Indian labels. The recent revelations by Delhi police attribute the links of a large number of the young terrorists to a small place in Azamgarh in Uttar Pradesh. Similar is the latest discovery of the Bombay police. And the most disturbing aspect of the new groups is the young age and good educational background of their members professing Osama Bin Laden as their role model. To call them misguided innocent youth would be a self-defeating strategy to combat terrorism. But it would be a gross fallacy to paint the whole lot of Muslim youth with the same brush. If we consider the possible number among them engaging themselves in terror linked activities we may find its ratio to total Muslim population in India on a negligible low. Therefore, we must take utmost care in handling the phenomena. Whereas it is legitimate to apprehend, arrest and bring the terrorists to book through the process of law, we should make sure that we do not alienate our Muslim compatriots by generalizations and assumptions of guilt. If it were a religious activity we would not have seen many Muslims among the victims of the dastardly acts of terrorism. Alienation of a community does not contribute to the good health of a nation. The majority community has the onus to lessen the pain of minority syndrome in any given situation. The seize within, among the Muslim community post Gujarat massacre needs to be understood in a historical perspective. The well being of a neighhbour is a surety of our own well being.
The example of America is before us to learn a lot from. The Muslims in America are not radicalized since they are well assimilated as Americans. In a recent poll as low a percentage as 13 justified the suicide bombings. The secular, middle class moderate profile of the American Muslim was certainly a factor not to be ignored in the reckoning of the pattern. We in India therefore, must work for creating conditions for the average Muslim to be counted not merely for his vote but for his own rights as a citizen of this common wealth, that is India. And for this we have to sow the seeds of secularism through our daily ordinary acts.
It is generally alleged that the alienation of the Muslim community is self-imposed as they huddle together in almost all walks of life. They prefer to live in exclusively Muslim enclaves, especially in cities, is cited as an argument. But we conveniently overlook the spectrum of Muslims in general not accepted as tenants in non Muslim neighbourhoods. It is imperative that the syndrome of exclusivity, summed up by an Urdu poet in the lines- ham se bulaya na gaya, un se aya na gaya-needs to be broken. What right some suspect groups have to appropriate to themselves the right to represent Hinduism or Hindustan?, one may ask. Talks like- Bharat nein agar rahna hoga, vande mataram kahna hoga- are as injurious to the health of the nation as terrorism. Such attitude, unwittingly go to justify the religious excesses committed during Aurangzeb’s hey days. It has to be remembered that there need be no contradiction between the Indian identity and the Muslim identity of the Indian Muslims as they could be (or should be) both at the same time. It should not be forgotten that Hinduism has the resilience to thrive in the midst of diverse identities. It is well known but scarcely highlighted that rural India serves as a bulwark against the monster of communalism. A few lessons could be learnt from such communities. The saddest part of our national life is that the media by and large highlights the negativities, which mostly represent the urban phenomenon and white-collar attitudes.
The Muslims on their part have no less a responsibility, which I believe they are generally shouldering, to nurture the plant of communal amity. In this context the recent report (Times of India 7 October) of Bombay Police commissioner Hasan Gafoor should not go unnoticed. The report gives credit to ordinary citizens, especially those from the Muslim community, for providing key information that led to the arrest of 11 suspected ‘Indian Mujahideen’ terrorists from Pune, Mangalore and Mumbai. It will be more helpful if our Muslim brethren overlooked the religious identity of a terrorist and separated him from the community as they would any other criminal no matter what his motives are stated to be. No terrorist has a right to swear by his religious identity to harm his own country. No true Muslim would think of taking the life of innocents. Islam stands for peace. The Quran and also the Hadith amply bear this out
Similar is the Christian question hogging anxious attention in some parts of our country. The self appointed troopers parading the tribal areas for the avowed purpose of resurrecting Hinduism need to be reined in. Coercion in any form to reconvert the tribal people is as condemnable as the original act of forcible conversion. At this juncture it is for the tribal people as individuals or in groups to themselves decide how they would like to shape their religious life. The missionaries on their part must realize that charities and social service when stringed to conversions bring their own reprisals. These are not the times of creating monolithic religious communities. Hinduism has not only tolerated multiplicity of beliefs but has also created environment for the growth of variety in the manner of the Rigvedic dictum- ekam sad viprah bahudha vadanti- the same one truth has been represented by the learned in variety of ways.
The last but not the least to be emphasized is the need for building a consensus on nationalism transcending all communal oncerns. The past should be seen in the light of such a consensus and not from the coloured eyes of political partisanism. Every nation has the right and privilege to glorify its heroes and their deeds of valour and sacrifices, but if attempts are made to fix political labels of today on them with an eye on votes serious trouble is likely to arise. Discreet approach is a must in revisiting their activities, however patriotic, lest the same should provide legitimacy to the creed of terrorism, albeit retrospectively. Gandhi Ji had fought the non-violent war for India’s Independence not without a deep philosophical motive. Let us go back in history and hearken Buddha and Ashoka the Great. The secret of secularism lies at the tip of our tongue. Let us master it.
The ghastly killings by foreign terrorists –reportedly coming from Pakistan- in dastardly attacks in Bombay stating November 26 are not only unprecedented but also fall in a class apart. Mercifully the terrorists have since been eliminated. The Nation is in shock but ready to deal with the menace in the most appropriate and mature manner. The lone survivor among the terrorists, captured by our valiant forces should serve as a rich mine of information in solving many a knots in the terror tangle. It is heartening that Indian Muslim clerics have reportedly decided not to perform burial rites for the killed terrorists on Indian soil. This report should not go unnoticed. Further the fact, that among the more than 180 innocent lives lost during the terror ordeal no less than forty were Muslims, should suffice for us to say that the terrorists were not fighting for Indian Muslims or for that matter for any Muslim. One can hope that our agony and anger over the tragic happenings, though legitimately expressed in outbursts against the ruling class, would in due course of time find channels, which would go to strengthen national solidarity and nurture secularism without fighting over the semantics of the term.
Kinship and Family in Kautilya
Kinship and Family in Kautilya
Dr. S.S. Rana
Family is the basic and universal structure of human society. Every where in all peasant societies there has been a predominance of extended families. Such societies are generally-as can be said of major parts of India since early times-patrilocal and patriarchal. There women find themselves in a relatively subordinated position brought about by the circumstance of their dependency on males of the family representing physical power so vital for carrying out the responsibilities of the occupation. Interpersonal relations of all members are authoritarian based on the myth of male superiority. Marriage is governed by kinship rather than by courtship and considered an interfamilial concern and not an interpersonal concern. Personal freedom, especially of the female is foreign to this life. Where knowledge- largely confined to vocations- is transmitted orally hierarchy of age determined relative authority. The above paradigm can be said to be true in the case of the society of early feudalism that developed in India in the post vedic period- a period which witnessed great churning in terms of social, political, cultural and philosophical ideas. India was, for the first time, attacked by a foreign power-the Macedonian conqueror, Alexander the great. It was the time when the largely fragmented land was occupied by many small monarchical principalities and numerous self sufficient republics. A major happening took place when aided by the giant strategist Chanakya Chandragupta established the great Mauryan empire putting together extensive areas from the Gangetic Valley to the Indus valley after dethroning the nasty Nanda dynasty.
Chanakya, by another name Kautilya is reputed to have authored the highly secular work Arthashastra to serve as an ideal compendium on statecraft which has not forgotten to emphasise welfare of the people as the key word for the ultimate success of a ruler. We may here recall the relevant stanza from the Arthashastra(1.19.34):
Prajasukhe sukham rajnah prajanam cha hite hitam|
Natmapriyam hitam rajnah prajanam tu priyam hitam||
[ In the happiness of his subjects lies the king’s happiness; in the welfare of the subjects lies his welfare. The king should not consider good only that which pleases him but treat as beneficial to him whatever pleases his subjects.]
It is in this context of welfare that Kautilya scores by giving his own tinge of safeguards for members of the weaker sex in whatever station he finds them. It was not in his hands or of the organized imperial state, whose interests he was promoting, to make a substantial dent in the established social order so strongly built and nurtured by the monolithic Brahmanic literature. But it must go to his credit that he recognized the realities of the situation and did his best to resurrect the position of women. We may here gainfully examine his general approach in societal matters in the limited sphere of family and kinship.
It can not be said with an amount of certainty whether the Kautilyan family was extended, joint, nuclear or conjugal but we can glean from his work a fair picture of the nature of relationships and personal rights and duties of the different members of the family as also the related rules and procedures including those concerning inheritance succession and partition of wealth and property. However, we learn that there were families which had the following members: The father or the grihapait ; presumably his mother; the grihapati himself; his wife or wives; his brother/s and sister/s; his son/s; his daughter/s; grandson/s and presumably grand daughters. Possibility of the family patriarch living till he had great grand children can not be ruled out as Kautilya talks of dividing the hitherto unpartitioned property among the scions up to four generations (3.5.4, Kangle’s Vol. II,p.209). Doubt with regard to properties lying undivided for considerable length of time is unnecessary. Even today cases of holdings of land lying unpartitioned for several generations are not unknown among some agricultural communities of North India especially the Jats. Till the middle of the last century there were any number of extended families living together with common land holding. No doubt, this phenomena is throwing up problems of its own sort when joint family system has long lost its sway.
Family represents the second stage i.e. grihastha, a house holder’s life in a man’s life in the scheme of the four ashramas,. It is an important stage when one contributes to economic activity and maintenance of social order in perpetuating the family line. Kalidasa calls this stage the sarvabhogya ashrama (stage of life, sustaining all). To talk about family one has to go back to its basis i.e. marriage and the attending parameters. Kautilya declares that the aim of taking a wife is to beget sons ( I think also daughters)- putrartha hi striyah (3.2.42) Manu (9.29) says the same and a little more in the following words:
Prajanartham mahabhagah pujarha grihadiptayah|
Striyah sriyashcha geheshu na visheshosti kashchana||
In fact according to Kautilya man enters civil life with marriage- avivahad vyavaharah (3.2.1).
Though refreshingly radical and progressive thinker, Kautilya does not proceed to demolish the established cultural paradigms. He not only recognizes the Varna System and the traditional eight forms of marriage but innovates in categorising the four of them as dharmya without pronouncing the rest four by any label like adharmya or the like. He is for Varna vise endogamic marriages but fully recognizes situations where this rule would be transgressed and therefore, accordingly apportions the relative status to the progeny resulting from such marriages.
Father being the head of the family takes most decisions but there are situations when the mother also figures in decision making. The first four of the eight forms of marriage are lawful with the sanction of the father, the remaining four with the sanction of the father and the mother, both (3.2.11).
Kautilya was fully aware of the vulnerability of women before and after marriage. He therefore proceeds to provide safeguards within the prevailing social ethos and brings in the role of the state in prescribing punishment, mostly in the form of fines, for violations of the relevant law. It also served as a means of more revenue to the state. Some of his provisions appear to be ahead of the modern day concerns of the lawmakers. Thus we have Kautilya forestalling present day feminists when he expects the husband to treat the newly wed lady with utmost civility in teaching modest behaviour and not to use abusive expressions like ‘nashte’ (you are lost [beyond redemption]; ‘vinashte’ (you are thoroughly ruined); ‘nyange’ (you are a cripple); ‘apitrike’ (you do not know who your father was); ‘amatrike’ ( your mother abandoned you) [3.3.7]. However, (in case of a slow learner?) a mild strike on the back with either a split bamboo cane or a rope or hand is permitted By making the breach of the above rule a punishable offence he leaves no scope for platitudes, an area where male chauvinists of our times are past masters.
Polygamy was not unknown to Kautilya. However, he was aware of the insecurity this practice could bring about for the existing wife. He therefore provides safeguard, at least economic by making it obligatory for the husband to pay to the wife the dowry amount, the woman’s property (and) in the case of a wife without a dowry or woman’s property of her own a compensation for supersession equal in amount to that, and a suitable maintenance.(3.2.41). Kautilya would not like a polygamous husband to neglect his conjugal obligations to any of his wives and therefore, he prescribes a detailed protocol for the purpose of conjugal relations (3.2.43-47). Breach of the rules makes the husband liable to a fine of maximum of twenty four panas (3.2.40).
Kautilya, to begin with states that there is no divorce in pious (dharmya) marriages (3.3.19). In other forms of marriage divorce is permissible with mutual consent (3.3.17). It is refreshing to note that Kautilya allows breaking of a marriage and abandonment of the husband by the wife if he: has become degraded; is away from home for long time in a foreign land; is a traitor to the king; is dangerous to her life; is declared outcast; becomes impotent (3.2.48).
Kautilya does not see conjugal rights of the husband and the wife in isolation. While ensuring the realization of the respective rights of the two he takes note of situations where exceptions have to be made (3.2.45-47). He does a fine balancing act in dealing with the phenomenon of incompatibility of couples. A wife having dislike of her husband would permit him to go his own way to another woman (3.3.12). But a wife neglected by her husband was entitled to separate from him and live under the protection of a guardian, kinsmen or a mendicant woman (3.3.13). An unscrupulous husband falsely accusing an innocent wife in this respect is sought to be punished in place of being allowed to have his evil ways (3.3.14).
Physical virginity on the part of young girls before marriage and fidelity in marriage is of great importance for Kautilya. Having laid down the age of majority of twelve years for girls and sixteen tears for boys, he would not like the young people to wait endlessly before embarking on their married life. How close we find it to the thinking of the Law commission reported in the media recently! He puts the onus on a father to marry off his daughter within three years of her attaining puberty failing which she was free to marry a man of the same Varna or even of a different Varna, forfeiting in the latter case the ornaments given to her by her father (4.12.10). She would be charged of theft if she took away her father’s property, a disincentive for those planning elopement.
We find Kautilya quite stern in the matter of adulterous relationships. If the wife misbehaves when the husband is away on journey, the kinsman or his servant should put her under guard till her husband returns (4.12.30,31).If the husband tolerates, the wife as also the person committing the crime are set free (4.12.32), otherwise the wife shall be punished by cutting off of her ears and nose, the paramour meeting with death (4.12.33)-exemplary punishment indeed!. But this does not imply that Kautilya was not aware of the basic right of the wife to have her conjugal life. He provides for remarriage of a woman in case of long absence of her husband or his becoming a mendicant after the prescribed period of wait of seven months to one year (where she has borne children (3.4.37). But the fiat is that the remarriage must be contracted with one among the kinsmen of the husband in a set order of preference (3.4.38-41). A woman marrying outside the prescribed list of heirs of the husband violating the kinship boundaries she, along with the man marrying her, will be punished for adultery (3.4.42). Even the accomplish would be similarly punished.
A wife is provided sufficient economic security right from the day of her marriage .Her property (stridhana) consists of an amount for her support and her jewellery. The amount of support would be an endowment of more than two thousand panas. There is no limit to the amount of jewellery (3.2.14,15). The wife was entitled to use her property for maintaining her self and her sons and daughters-in-law in case the husband makes no provision for maintenance of the family before going on long journey. A husband could use his wife’s property for the performance of religious acts to meet emergencies such as disease, famine and unforeseen dangers. The couple together could use, by mutual consent if they beget a son and a daughter (3.2.16). If the husband has had the use of his wife’s property for three years the wife’s right lasts in varying degree only in the last four types of marriage, her claim not sustaining in the first four types (3.2.17-18). This is in consonance with the virtual contractual nature of marriage in the last four types. In case of the wife predeceasing her husband her property shall be divided as under: sons and daughters in equal shares; daughters in equal shares if there were no sons; the husband if there are no children; the dowry, the marriage gifts and any other gifts given by kinsmen shall be repatriated to the donors(3.2.36,37). Quite an unusual provision indeed! A widow, not intending to remarry gets the support endowment, her jewellery, the balance of dowry if any and whatever was given to her by her husband during his lifetime (3.2.19). Even if she remarries, but with the approval of her father- in-law, she will receive what was given to her by her father-in-law and her late husband (3.2.21).On the death of the widow her property will pass on to her sons and daughters.
In the matter of inheritance and partition of ancestral property Kautilya follows the traditional Hindu practice as given in the Dharmashastras. The basic principle is that sons inherit as the son performs ritual funeral and annual pinda ceremonies of his ancestors up to three previous generations- father, grandfather and great grand father. Among the sons, the eldest bears the primary responsibility and is therefore entitled to a special share of the ancestral property. From among the twelve types of sons the Aurasa gets precedence. The categories of sonship are: 1.Aurasa; 2.Putrikaputra; 3.Kshetraja; 4.Gudhaja; 5.Apaviddha; 6. Kanina; 7.Sahoda; 8.Paunarbhava; 9. Datta; 10. Upagata;11. Ḳṛtaka; 12 Krita. The apportioning of shares in a partition in inheritance there is an elaborate procedure settling questions of seniority in age and status derived from the circumstance of marriage of the parents, premarital Varna of the respective parent (3.6.21). Though Kautilya has not said in so many words but it would be logical to assume inclusion of daughters in the various categories of sons stated by Kautilya because it is unthinkable that only sons were born in the situations described by him for the purpose of sonships. Lest this piece should turn into a listless catalogue let me conclude by saying that Kautilya had placed himself in the role of a social and political thinker committed to the establishment and consolidation of the imperial Mauryan state. In the process he had to deal with heterogeneous social norms and practices, disparate political arrangements with cultural and ethnic diversities. For bringing such a spectrum administratively under one umbrella he had to do lot of social engineering and political wire pulling. With regard to his relevance in our times one can only say that the nature of human beings remains the same. States behave the same way as they always have done. His details on battle formations and code of penalties may sound out moded and simply having historical interest. But he is as topical as any modern expert when he discusses issues of economy, just administration, interstate relations, intelligence gathering and espionage. We can learn a lot from him.
[134 United Aptts., Plot-34, Sector-4, Dwarka, New Delhi-110 078, Phone: 28081836]
Dr. S.S. Rana
Family is the basic and universal structure of human society. Every where in all peasant societies there has been a predominance of extended families. Such societies are generally-as can be said of major parts of India since early times-patrilocal and patriarchal. There women find themselves in a relatively subordinated position brought about by the circumstance of their dependency on males of the family representing physical power so vital for carrying out the responsibilities of the occupation. Interpersonal relations of all members are authoritarian based on the myth of male superiority. Marriage is governed by kinship rather than by courtship and considered an interfamilial concern and not an interpersonal concern. Personal freedom, especially of the female is foreign to this life. Where knowledge- largely confined to vocations- is transmitted orally hierarchy of age determined relative authority. The above paradigm can be said to be true in the case of the society of early feudalism that developed in India in the post vedic period- a period which witnessed great churning in terms of social, political, cultural and philosophical ideas. India was, for the first time, attacked by a foreign power-the Macedonian conqueror, Alexander the great. It was the time when the largely fragmented land was occupied by many small monarchical principalities and numerous self sufficient republics. A major happening took place when aided by the giant strategist Chanakya Chandragupta established the great Mauryan empire putting together extensive areas from the Gangetic Valley to the Indus valley after dethroning the nasty Nanda dynasty.
Chanakya, by another name Kautilya is reputed to have authored the highly secular work Arthashastra to serve as an ideal compendium on statecraft which has not forgotten to emphasise welfare of the people as the key word for the ultimate success of a ruler. We may here recall the relevant stanza from the Arthashastra(1.19.34):
Prajasukhe sukham rajnah prajanam cha hite hitam|
Natmapriyam hitam rajnah prajanam tu priyam hitam||
[ In the happiness of his subjects lies the king’s happiness; in the welfare of the subjects lies his welfare. The king should not consider good only that which pleases him but treat as beneficial to him whatever pleases his subjects.]
It is in this context of welfare that Kautilya scores by giving his own tinge of safeguards for members of the weaker sex in whatever station he finds them. It was not in his hands or of the organized imperial state, whose interests he was promoting, to make a substantial dent in the established social order so strongly built and nurtured by the monolithic Brahmanic literature. But it must go to his credit that he recognized the realities of the situation and did his best to resurrect the position of women. We may here gainfully examine his general approach in societal matters in the limited sphere of family and kinship.
It can not be said with an amount of certainty whether the Kautilyan family was extended, joint, nuclear or conjugal but we can glean from his work a fair picture of the nature of relationships and personal rights and duties of the different members of the family as also the related rules and procedures including those concerning inheritance succession and partition of wealth and property. However, we learn that there were families which had the following members: The father or the grihapait ; presumably his mother; the grihapati himself; his wife or wives; his brother/s and sister/s; his son/s; his daughter/s; grandson/s and presumably grand daughters. Possibility of the family patriarch living till he had great grand children can not be ruled out as Kautilya talks of dividing the hitherto unpartitioned property among the scions up to four generations (3.5.4, Kangle’s Vol. II,p.209). Doubt with regard to properties lying undivided for considerable length of time is unnecessary. Even today cases of holdings of land lying unpartitioned for several generations are not unknown among some agricultural communities of North India especially the Jats. Till the middle of the last century there were any number of extended families living together with common land holding. No doubt, this phenomena is throwing up problems of its own sort when joint family system has long lost its sway.
Family represents the second stage i.e. grihastha, a house holder’s life in a man’s life in the scheme of the four ashramas,. It is an important stage when one contributes to economic activity and maintenance of social order in perpetuating the family line. Kalidasa calls this stage the sarvabhogya ashrama (stage of life, sustaining all). To talk about family one has to go back to its basis i.e. marriage and the attending parameters. Kautilya declares that the aim of taking a wife is to beget sons ( I think also daughters)- putrartha hi striyah (3.2.42) Manu (9.29) says the same and a little more in the following words:
Prajanartham mahabhagah pujarha grihadiptayah|
Striyah sriyashcha geheshu na visheshosti kashchana||
In fact according to Kautilya man enters civil life with marriage- avivahad vyavaharah (3.2.1).
Though refreshingly radical and progressive thinker, Kautilya does not proceed to demolish the established cultural paradigms. He not only recognizes the Varna System and the traditional eight forms of marriage but innovates in categorising the four of them as dharmya without pronouncing the rest four by any label like adharmya or the like. He is for Varna vise endogamic marriages but fully recognizes situations where this rule would be transgressed and therefore, accordingly apportions the relative status to the progeny resulting from such marriages.
Father being the head of the family takes most decisions but there are situations when the mother also figures in decision making. The first four of the eight forms of marriage are lawful with the sanction of the father, the remaining four with the sanction of the father and the mother, both (3.2.11).
Kautilya was fully aware of the vulnerability of women before and after marriage. He therefore proceeds to provide safeguards within the prevailing social ethos and brings in the role of the state in prescribing punishment, mostly in the form of fines, for violations of the relevant law. It also served as a means of more revenue to the state. Some of his provisions appear to be ahead of the modern day concerns of the lawmakers. Thus we have Kautilya forestalling present day feminists when he expects the husband to treat the newly wed lady with utmost civility in teaching modest behaviour and not to use abusive expressions like ‘nashte’ (you are lost [beyond redemption]; ‘vinashte’ (you are thoroughly ruined); ‘nyange’ (you are a cripple); ‘apitrike’ (you do not know who your father was); ‘amatrike’ ( your mother abandoned you) [3.3.7]. However, (in case of a slow learner?) a mild strike on the back with either a split bamboo cane or a rope or hand is permitted By making the breach of the above rule a punishable offence he leaves no scope for platitudes, an area where male chauvinists of our times are past masters.
Polygamy was not unknown to Kautilya. However, he was aware of the insecurity this practice could bring about for the existing wife. He therefore provides safeguard, at least economic by making it obligatory for the husband to pay to the wife the dowry amount, the woman’s property (and) in the case of a wife without a dowry or woman’s property of her own a compensation for supersession equal in amount to that, and a suitable maintenance.(3.2.41). Kautilya would not like a polygamous husband to neglect his conjugal obligations to any of his wives and therefore, he prescribes a detailed protocol for the purpose of conjugal relations (3.2.43-47). Breach of the rules makes the husband liable to a fine of maximum of twenty four panas (3.2.40).
Kautilya, to begin with states that there is no divorce in pious (dharmya) marriages (3.3.19). In other forms of marriage divorce is permissible with mutual consent (3.3.17). It is refreshing to note that Kautilya allows breaking of a marriage and abandonment of the husband by the wife if he: has become degraded; is away from home for long time in a foreign land; is a traitor to the king; is dangerous to her life; is declared outcast; becomes impotent (3.2.48).
Kautilya does not see conjugal rights of the husband and the wife in isolation. While ensuring the realization of the respective rights of the two he takes note of situations where exceptions have to be made (3.2.45-47). He does a fine balancing act in dealing with the phenomenon of incompatibility of couples. A wife having dislike of her husband would permit him to go his own way to another woman (3.3.12). But a wife neglected by her husband was entitled to separate from him and live under the protection of a guardian, kinsmen or a mendicant woman (3.3.13). An unscrupulous husband falsely accusing an innocent wife in this respect is sought to be punished in place of being allowed to have his evil ways (3.3.14).
Physical virginity on the part of young girls before marriage and fidelity in marriage is of great importance for Kautilya. Having laid down the age of majority of twelve years for girls and sixteen tears for boys, he would not like the young people to wait endlessly before embarking on their married life. How close we find it to the thinking of the Law commission reported in the media recently! He puts the onus on a father to marry off his daughter within three years of her attaining puberty failing which she was free to marry a man of the same Varna or even of a different Varna, forfeiting in the latter case the ornaments given to her by her father (4.12.10). She would be charged of theft if she took away her father’s property, a disincentive for those planning elopement.
We find Kautilya quite stern in the matter of adulterous relationships. If the wife misbehaves when the husband is away on journey, the kinsman or his servant should put her under guard till her husband returns (4.12.30,31).If the husband tolerates, the wife as also the person committing the crime are set free (4.12.32), otherwise the wife shall be punished by cutting off of her ears and nose, the paramour meeting with death (4.12.33)-exemplary punishment indeed!. But this does not imply that Kautilya was not aware of the basic right of the wife to have her conjugal life. He provides for remarriage of a woman in case of long absence of her husband or his becoming a mendicant after the prescribed period of wait of seven months to one year (where she has borne children (3.4.37). But the fiat is that the remarriage must be contracted with one among the kinsmen of the husband in a set order of preference (3.4.38-41). A woman marrying outside the prescribed list of heirs of the husband violating the kinship boundaries she, along with the man marrying her, will be punished for adultery (3.4.42). Even the accomplish would be similarly punished.
A wife is provided sufficient economic security right from the day of her marriage .Her property (stridhana) consists of an amount for her support and her jewellery. The amount of support would be an endowment of more than two thousand panas. There is no limit to the amount of jewellery (3.2.14,15). The wife was entitled to use her property for maintaining her self and her sons and daughters-in-law in case the husband makes no provision for maintenance of the family before going on long journey. A husband could use his wife’s property for the performance of religious acts to meet emergencies such as disease, famine and unforeseen dangers. The couple together could use, by mutual consent if they beget a son and a daughter (3.2.16). If the husband has had the use of his wife’s property for three years the wife’s right lasts in varying degree only in the last four types of marriage, her claim not sustaining in the first four types (3.2.17-18). This is in consonance with the virtual contractual nature of marriage in the last four types. In case of the wife predeceasing her husband her property shall be divided as under: sons and daughters in equal shares; daughters in equal shares if there were no sons; the husband if there are no children; the dowry, the marriage gifts and any other gifts given by kinsmen shall be repatriated to the donors(3.2.36,37). Quite an unusual provision indeed! A widow, not intending to remarry gets the support endowment, her jewellery, the balance of dowry if any and whatever was given to her by her husband during his lifetime (3.2.19). Even if she remarries, but with the approval of her father- in-law, she will receive what was given to her by her father-in-law and her late husband (3.2.21).On the death of the widow her property will pass on to her sons and daughters.
In the matter of inheritance and partition of ancestral property Kautilya follows the traditional Hindu practice as given in the Dharmashastras. The basic principle is that sons inherit as the son performs ritual funeral and annual pinda ceremonies of his ancestors up to three previous generations- father, grandfather and great grand father. Among the sons, the eldest bears the primary responsibility and is therefore entitled to a special share of the ancestral property. From among the twelve types of sons the Aurasa gets precedence. The categories of sonship are: 1.Aurasa; 2.Putrikaputra; 3.Kshetraja; 4.Gudhaja; 5.Apaviddha; 6. Kanina; 7.Sahoda; 8.Paunarbhava; 9. Datta; 10. Upagata;11. Ḳṛtaka; 12 Krita. The apportioning of shares in a partition in inheritance there is an elaborate procedure settling questions of seniority in age and status derived from the circumstance of marriage of the parents, premarital Varna of the respective parent (3.6.21). Though Kautilya has not said in so many words but it would be logical to assume inclusion of daughters in the various categories of sons stated by Kautilya because it is unthinkable that only sons were born in the situations described by him for the purpose of sonships. Lest this piece should turn into a listless catalogue let me conclude by saying that Kautilya had placed himself in the role of a social and political thinker committed to the establishment and consolidation of the imperial Mauryan state. In the process he had to deal with heterogeneous social norms and practices, disparate political arrangements with cultural and ethnic diversities. For bringing such a spectrum administratively under one umbrella he had to do lot of social engineering and political wire pulling. With regard to his relevance in our times one can only say that the nature of human beings remains the same. States behave the same way as they always have done. His details on battle formations and code of penalties may sound out moded and simply having historical interest. But he is as topical as any modern expert when he discusses issues of economy, just administration, interstate relations, intelligence gathering and espionage. We can learn a lot from him.
[134 United Aptts., Plot-34, Sector-4, Dwarka, New Delhi-110 078, Phone: 28081836]
The Veil Unveiled
The Veil Unveiled
A couple of months back an Australian Muslim cleric almost lost his job for advocating the use of veil in his own puritanical way of pointing out how women not properly clad invited potential rapists as would uncovered meat a cat. He had to run for cover in giving explanation for what he had really meant by his remark. If that would not satisfy the liberals among the Australian Muslims the cleric proceeded on indefinite leave. On the heels of the above incident the Imam of Delhi came calling Shabana Azmi by her professional name in some derogatory terms (that nachane gane wali aurat!) for her very innocent and considered observation that ‘the QurAn only says that a women should properly cover her body and that the holy book nowhere prescribes the veil in any form as a compulsory wear’. Shabana, an eminent and intellectual Muslim woman found over whelming support for her observations among all intellectual circles including Muslims. I believe in both the cases it was not so much the content of the remarks but perceived connotations that were behind the ruffled reactions in both the instances. In the first case one cleric was prescribing a crude remedy to a healthy person and in the second case another cleric felt threatened of some one trying to ‘poach’ his chickens from the yard he so zealously keeps guarding. The casualty was a serious debate on the veil, its origin, its use and relevance in a given context. The media, for obvious reasons, did stage some discussion under controlled conditions. Thus different sides of the veil remained unveiled. It is generally believed that the veil is specific to Muslim women only and that the purdah system prevalent among vast sections of non Muslim women, especially in north and northwest India has Muslim links, albeit in uncomplimentary terms. The fact that all unmarried Hindu girls did not observe purdah militates against the very argument of Hindu women resorting to purdah to escape the prancing eyes of the hakims under Muslim rule. It is therefore a compelling subject to comment upon in its historical and sociological aspects. Pronouncing sweeping judgments one way or the other is, of course, a tricky affair.
First let us take the case of the Arab world. The desert countries have their normal dress suited to the environmental conditions. The long cloak is the normal outer cover to take the onslaughts of the sandy winds. A suitable head cover is also in place. The outfit has become a national dress flaunted proudly at ceremonial occasions even in strange lands. The version meant for women is not much different. The mail version is in white alone whereas females don it in several colours including the white. So it is easy to understand that the veil has its origins in necessity. Necessity is best met when it takes the form of a custom and gets religious sanction. Therefore we have the Quranic reference regarding the need to cover the body properly. It can be argued that if environmental considerations don’t warrant the wearing of a veil why should one insist for the same. The answer is that if a Muslim woman wants to wear it then why not. Its advantages outweigh the perceived disadvantages. But beyond that the sociological aspect must also be taken into consideration. Let us admit that the Muslims for historical reasons are possessive about their women(who else is not any way?). Endogamous system of marriage among Muslims and religious sanction for polygamous marriages are important factors to be taken into account before evaluating their attitude towards their females in general. A superficial view of the Muslim attitude in general in such matters on the part of their non Muslim compatriots does not help in arriving at a correct understanding of the whole matter. Moreover, as a minority community the Muslims in India, or for that matter in any other non Muslim majority country, in order to maintain and assert their identity tend to huddle together clinging to their religious symbols and practices which their counterparts in Muslim countries hardly need or care to adhere to. We daily notice similar phenomena in many manners among caste groups of the Hindu society, of course with difference in emphasis.
Let us now try to explain the phenomena of purdah among the Hindu women of India, especially of North and North West India. It will not be entirely true to say that the custom of purdah among the Hindu women was a Muslim contribution. Though we do not have reference to purdah in the Rigveda we do have mention of the same in Indian literature much before the birth of Islam. The Aitreya Brahmana (12.11) mentions that the bride feels shy in the presence of her father-in-law and leaves hiding herself. Such behaviour, more than anything else is indicative of respect for the elders, especially in the new home of the father-in-law. Then we have Panini in his Ashtadhyayi (3.2.26) talking about asuryampashya women who remain confined indoors obviously for reasons of strict privacy. Such women perhaps belonged to the higher ruling classes and were not generally exposed to public gaze. In Ayodhya Kanda of Valmiki’s Ramayana (33.8) we find comments with lament on the turn of fate of Sita following Rama marching openly on the roads in contrast to her former status when even the celestial beings could not glance her. Such cases could hardly be taken to throw much light on the custom of veil. But Draupadi’s statement in the Mahabharata (Sabhaparva (69.9) that ‘the Kauravas have broken a time honoured tradition of not taking married women to public gatherings or meetings’ gives a clue to some dimensions of the custom of purdah. Kalidasa in his immortal drama Abhijnanashakuntalam (5.13) shows Shakuntala entering the court of her husband Dushyanta covering her face with a veil, which she removes only when compelled to talk face to face with him to establish her identity. In the Harshacharita of Banabhatta there is a reference to Harsha’s sister Rajyashri covering her face with a red cloth at the time her future husband Grahavarma came to see her for the first time. Elsewhere in the same book Bana Bhatta refers to veiled women of Sthaneshvara ( Thanesar in Haryana). In the Kadambari of the same author Patralekha is depicted wearing a veil (avagunthana) of red colour. Bhasa, a predecessor of Kalidasa in his play Svapnavasavadattam (Act VI) speaks of kalatradarshanarha jana, from whom a married woman should not hide herself, implying that there could be category of persons before whom married women did not appear. Here in we find a clue to the protocol of observing purdah among married women in North and North-West India. That the women of the nobility moved out of their homes with veil on can be inferred from a remark of Vachaspati Mishra (9th century A.D.) in his Sankhyatattvakaumudi. Following the custom for centuries all women over vast areas of north and east India irrespective of their age observe purdah/avoid appearing before male members except in the following cases:
(i) All unmarried girls living in their paternal homes or appearing elsewhere.
(ii) All married women irrespective of their status or age living in their paternal homes
or appearing before men of their father’s gotra or their mother’s father’s gotra and
other relations from the mother’s or father’s side.[ A married woman in this case
would not appear before visiting males from her in- laws’ place or gotra in whose
presence she would observe purdah. This disappearance act was resorted to
for the purpose of maintaining the exemption from the condition of observing purdah
at her father’s place.
(iii) All married women appearing before males younger in age and not higher in
relationship hierarchy on the side of the husband.
(iv) All married women irrespective of their marital status or age appearing before total
strangers far away from their marital homes in neutral areas not falling in the area of
father in-law’s gotra.
Women of many families under the influence of Arya Samaj, and by following the
example of the urban elite, and with the spread of education among women have given
up the practice of observing purdah (largely in urban areas). No social or caste
censure or sanction is entailed in such cases. But when these very women move to visit
the traditional homes of the in-laws in the remote rural areas the purdah norms come into
play in some measure.
Where ever purdah is observed it may take an appropriate form as follows:
(i) Ghungat is the lowering of the head scarf from the front so as to cover the face of the
woman completely. It is observed on formal occasions. To make the picture more
perfect the corner of one end of the head scarf passing across her front is tucked on
the opposite side of the string of the skirt.
(ii) Ohala is covering of the face on the side in an angle sufficient to cover the face so
that it is not visible from the side of the concerned male member.
(iii) Palla is a symbolical drawing of the head scarf over the face to show respect to the
concerned male member.
(iv) Dhattha is the covering of the face in the manner of a masque leaving the area over
the eyes uncovered for visibility. It is resorted to mostly during agricultural operations
to keep both the hands free and to protect the face from dust and other pollutants. In
the process the female members enable themselves to keep a veiled distance from
those whom they should avoid coming face to face.
It may be observed that the purdah is in some way related to the four gotra system
of endogamy of caste and exogamy of gotra among most communities in India,
especially the Jats. It has its use and necessity in the rural society where the joint family
still continues to be in practice and where communication among male and female
members is also governed in the manner of the purdah. A woman also trefrains from directly communicate with persons in whose presence she observes purdah. In cases of emergency if no third person as medium is available domestic animal and feigned presence of a child serves the purpose. It may however be pointed out that the above protocol is not so much of a restriction on the freedom of women as much as it is a medium of expression of condescence and regard for the seniors in age on the husband’ side sand hierarchy of relationships without the loss of female bashfulness.
Lastly we may claim to be surrounded by the use of purdah or veil in abundant
measure in our daily life and language cliché. Thus we daily hear of veiled threats
traded among men and women of all persuasions. There is no dearth of people who
would hasten to put purdah on all that was evil. The world of Hindi cinema does not
feel exhausted with an exhaustive use of the term purdah to embellish its lyrics.
Modern living can’t simply do without draping itself albeit on the gaping holes. You
call it by any name veil, purdah, naqab, sihab or chadar or curtain but you must draw
it if you wish to call it a day. There is no use of talking of its uses and abuses. So let us
live with it or live with those who observe it.
[ Dr. S.S.Rana
A couple of months back an Australian Muslim cleric almost lost his job for advocating the use of veil in his own puritanical way of pointing out how women not properly clad invited potential rapists as would uncovered meat a cat. He had to run for cover in giving explanation for what he had really meant by his remark. If that would not satisfy the liberals among the Australian Muslims the cleric proceeded on indefinite leave. On the heels of the above incident the Imam of Delhi came calling Shabana Azmi by her professional name in some derogatory terms (that nachane gane wali aurat!) for her very innocent and considered observation that ‘the QurAn only says that a women should properly cover her body and that the holy book nowhere prescribes the veil in any form as a compulsory wear’. Shabana, an eminent and intellectual Muslim woman found over whelming support for her observations among all intellectual circles including Muslims. I believe in both the cases it was not so much the content of the remarks but perceived connotations that were behind the ruffled reactions in both the instances. In the first case one cleric was prescribing a crude remedy to a healthy person and in the second case another cleric felt threatened of some one trying to ‘poach’ his chickens from the yard he so zealously keeps guarding. The casualty was a serious debate on the veil, its origin, its use and relevance in a given context. The media, for obvious reasons, did stage some discussion under controlled conditions. Thus different sides of the veil remained unveiled. It is generally believed that the veil is specific to Muslim women only and that the purdah system prevalent among vast sections of non Muslim women, especially in north and northwest India has Muslim links, albeit in uncomplimentary terms. The fact that all unmarried Hindu girls did not observe purdah militates against the very argument of Hindu women resorting to purdah to escape the prancing eyes of the hakims under Muslim rule. It is therefore a compelling subject to comment upon in its historical and sociological aspects. Pronouncing sweeping judgments one way or the other is, of course, a tricky affair.
First let us take the case of the Arab world. The desert countries have their normal dress suited to the environmental conditions. The long cloak is the normal outer cover to take the onslaughts of the sandy winds. A suitable head cover is also in place. The outfit has become a national dress flaunted proudly at ceremonial occasions even in strange lands. The version meant for women is not much different. The mail version is in white alone whereas females don it in several colours including the white. So it is easy to understand that the veil has its origins in necessity. Necessity is best met when it takes the form of a custom and gets religious sanction. Therefore we have the Quranic reference regarding the need to cover the body properly. It can be argued that if environmental considerations don’t warrant the wearing of a veil why should one insist for the same. The answer is that if a Muslim woman wants to wear it then why not. Its advantages outweigh the perceived disadvantages. But beyond that the sociological aspect must also be taken into consideration. Let us admit that the Muslims for historical reasons are possessive about their women(who else is not any way?). Endogamous system of marriage among Muslims and religious sanction for polygamous marriages are important factors to be taken into account before evaluating their attitude towards their females in general. A superficial view of the Muslim attitude in general in such matters on the part of their non Muslim compatriots does not help in arriving at a correct understanding of the whole matter. Moreover, as a minority community the Muslims in India, or for that matter in any other non Muslim majority country, in order to maintain and assert their identity tend to huddle together clinging to their religious symbols and practices which their counterparts in Muslim countries hardly need or care to adhere to. We daily notice similar phenomena in many manners among caste groups of the Hindu society, of course with difference in emphasis.
Let us now try to explain the phenomena of purdah among the Hindu women of India, especially of North and North West India. It will not be entirely true to say that the custom of purdah among the Hindu women was a Muslim contribution. Though we do not have reference to purdah in the Rigveda we do have mention of the same in Indian literature much before the birth of Islam. The Aitreya Brahmana (12.11) mentions that the bride feels shy in the presence of her father-in-law and leaves hiding herself. Such behaviour, more than anything else is indicative of respect for the elders, especially in the new home of the father-in-law. Then we have Panini in his Ashtadhyayi (3.2.26) talking about asuryampashya women who remain confined indoors obviously for reasons of strict privacy. Such women perhaps belonged to the higher ruling classes and were not generally exposed to public gaze. In Ayodhya Kanda of Valmiki’s Ramayana (33.8) we find comments with lament on the turn of fate of Sita following Rama marching openly on the roads in contrast to her former status when even the celestial beings could not glance her. Such cases could hardly be taken to throw much light on the custom of veil. But Draupadi’s statement in the Mahabharata (Sabhaparva (69.9) that ‘the Kauravas have broken a time honoured tradition of not taking married women to public gatherings or meetings’ gives a clue to some dimensions of the custom of purdah. Kalidasa in his immortal drama Abhijnanashakuntalam (5.13) shows Shakuntala entering the court of her husband Dushyanta covering her face with a veil, which she removes only when compelled to talk face to face with him to establish her identity. In the Harshacharita of Banabhatta there is a reference to Harsha’s sister Rajyashri covering her face with a red cloth at the time her future husband Grahavarma came to see her for the first time. Elsewhere in the same book Bana Bhatta refers to veiled women of Sthaneshvara ( Thanesar in Haryana). In the Kadambari of the same author Patralekha is depicted wearing a veil (avagunthana) of red colour. Bhasa, a predecessor of Kalidasa in his play Svapnavasavadattam (Act VI) speaks of kalatradarshanarha jana, from whom a married woman should not hide herself, implying that there could be category of persons before whom married women did not appear. Here in we find a clue to the protocol of observing purdah among married women in North and North-West India. That the women of the nobility moved out of their homes with veil on can be inferred from a remark of Vachaspati Mishra (9th century A.D.) in his Sankhyatattvakaumudi. Following the custom for centuries all women over vast areas of north and east India irrespective of their age observe purdah/avoid appearing before male members except in the following cases:
(i) All unmarried girls living in their paternal homes or appearing elsewhere.
(ii) All married women irrespective of their status or age living in their paternal homes
or appearing before men of their father’s gotra or their mother’s father’s gotra and
other relations from the mother’s or father’s side.[ A married woman in this case
would not appear before visiting males from her in- laws’ place or gotra in whose
presence she would observe purdah. This disappearance act was resorted to
for the purpose of maintaining the exemption from the condition of observing purdah
at her father’s place.
(iii) All married women appearing before males younger in age and not higher in
relationship hierarchy on the side of the husband.
(iv) All married women irrespective of their marital status or age appearing before total
strangers far away from their marital homes in neutral areas not falling in the area of
father in-law’s gotra.
Women of many families under the influence of Arya Samaj, and by following the
example of the urban elite, and with the spread of education among women have given
up the practice of observing purdah (largely in urban areas). No social or caste
censure or sanction is entailed in such cases. But when these very women move to visit
the traditional homes of the in-laws in the remote rural areas the purdah norms come into
play in some measure.
Where ever purdah is observed it may take an appropriate form as follows:
(i) Ghungat is the lowering of the head scarf from the front so as to cover the face of the
woman completely. It is observed on formal occasions. To make the picture more
perfect the corner of one end of the head scarf passing across her front is tucked on
the opposite side of the string of the skirt.
(ii) Ohala is covering of the face on the side in an angle sufficient to cover the face so
that it is not visible from the side of the concerned male member.
(iii) Palla is a symbolical drawing of the head scarf over the face to show respect to the
concerned male member.
(iv) Dhattha is the covering of the face in the manner of a masque leaving the area over
the eyes uncovered for visibility. It is resorted to mostly during agricultural operations
to keep both the hands free and to protect the face from dust and other pollutants. In
the process the female members enable themselves to keep a veiled distance from
those whom they should avoid coming face to face.
It may be observed that the purdah is in some way related to the four gotra system
of endogamy of caste and exogamy of gotra among most communities in India,
especially the Jats. It has its use and necessity in the rural society where the joint family
still continues to be in practice and where communication among male and female
members is also governed in the manner of the purdah. A woman also trefrains from directly communicate with persons in whose presence she observes purdah. In cases of emergency if no third person as medium is available domestic animal and feigned presence of a child serves the purpose. It may however be pointed out that the above protocol is not so much of a restriction on the freedom of women as much as it is a medium of expression of condescence and regard for the seniors in age on the husband’ side sand hierarchy of relationships without the loss of female bashfulness.
Lastly we may claim to be surrounded by the use of purdah or veil in abundant
measure in our daily life and language cliché. Thus we daily hear of veiled threats
traded among men and women of all persuasions. There is no dearth of people who
would hasten to put purdah on all that was evil. The world of Hindi cinema does not
feel exhausted with an exhaustive use of the term purdah to embellish its lyrics.
Modern living can’t simply do without draping itself albeit on the gaping holes. You
call it by any name veil, purdah, naqab, sihab or chadar or curtain but you must draw
it if you wish to call it a day. There is no use of talking of its uses and abuses. So let us
live with it or live with those who observe it.
[ Dr. S.S.Rana
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
