Page 76 - DSOC201_SOCIAL_STRUCTURE_AND_SOCIAL_CHANGE_ENGLISH

Unit 3: Marriage

(i) Gotra Exogamy Notes
Gotra is a group whose members are believed to have descended from a common mythical
ancestor of a rishi. Initially, there were only eight gotras but gradually their number increased
to thousands. The gotra exogamy prohibits marriage between members of the same gotra.
According to Altekar, there were no restrictions on gotra marriage up to 600 B.C. Kapadia
(1972: 127) has also referred to non-existence of gotra exogamy in the Vedic period. His
arguments are: (i) among the Aryans, not only svayambar but ‘Gandharva’ marriage was also
practised, and (ii) the Aryans came to India from Iran, and no restrictions are found in Iran
on gotra marriage. This means that after settling in Punjab, the Aryans must have practised
gotra marriage for some time. It was Manu who imposed restrictions on marriage in one’s
own gotra. The restrictions on gotra marriage were removed in 1946 by the Hindu Marriage
Disabilities Removal Act. Today, people do not give much importance to this restriction.
(ii) Sapinda Exogamy
Sapinda means one who carries the particles of the same body. Sapinda relationship arises
from being connected by having particles of the same ancestor. Marriage with such persons
has been prohibited. But since there is no limit of persons related by blood, some limit is
prescribed for avoiding persons for marriage related to each other within certain generations
on the father’s and the mother’s side. Gautam has recommended to avoid seven generations
from father’s side and five generations from mother’s side (cf. Kapadia, 1947: 126). Vasistha
wanted to avoid only five generations from the father’s side. Manu though has condemned
marriage in the third generation but has not prescribed the exact number of generations on
each side to be avoided in mate selection. Yajnavalkya like Gautam has suggested seven
generations from father’s side and five generations from mother’s side to be avoided. But in
practice and according to law, five generations from father’s side and three generations from
mother’s side are avoided. However, breach of sapinda exogamy was never penalized, though
breach of gotra exogamy was considered henious practice.
Kapadia (1966: 127) has said that the rule of sapinda exogamy was of the nature of a pious
recommendation and remained so till the end of the eighth century. Today, though this rule
is followed by and large by all Hindus yet cases of cousin marriages are also not unknown.
(iii) Cousin Marriage
There are four types of cousins: chachera (father’s brother’s son/ daughter), mamera (mother’s
brother’s son/daughter), phuphera (father’s sister’s son/daughter), and mausera (mother’s
sister’s son/ daughter). Of these, chachera and mausera cousins (where the two sibling parents
of the child belong to the same sex) are called ‘parallel’ cousins, and mamema and phuphera
cousins (where the two sibling parents of the child are of opposite sex) are called ‘cross’
cousins.
Of these two forms of cousins, cross cousin marriage was practised in ancient Hindu society
as shown by Hindu mythology records, though according to Macdonell and Keith (cf. Kapadia,
1947: 63) parallel cousin marriage was also sanctioned. Kapadia is, however, of the opinion
that parallel cousin marriage was not practised by the Vedic Aryans and all examples of
cousin marriages cited (for example, of Krishna, his son Pradyuman, Arjuna, his son
Abhimanyu, Sahadeva— Arjuna’s brother—marrying their cousin sisters) are of cross-cousin
marriage, specifically mamera (maternal uncle’s child) type of cross-cousin marriage.
Manu has condemned cousin marriages. He has said: “He who approaches the daughter of
his father’s sister (bhua) or of his mother’s sister (mausi) or of his mother’s brother (mama)
shall perform a penance. A wise man should not take as his wife any of these three because
they are near relatives. He who approaches them sinks low” (see Kapadia, 1947: 125).
Baudhayana, however, permitted cross-cousin marriage beyond ‘Narmada’ as a peculiar
cultural trait of the people of that region. Kapadia (Ibid: 125) has maintained that it is quite
clear that in the Dharmsutras, the marriage of cross-cousins, which was allowed in the time of
Brahmanas had come to be discredited and upheld as proper only in those parts of the country
where it could be justified because of the peculiar social conditions. Since the chronological

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 71