Page 77 - DSOC201_SOCIAL_STRUCTURE_AND_SOCIAL_CHANGE_ENGLISH

Social Structure and Social Change

Notes order of our religious scriptures has been described as Vedas, Brahmanas, Upnishads,
Grahsutras, Dharmasutras, Smritis, Epics and Puranas, it is no wonder that Manu in his
Smriti denounced cousin marriages.
According to Richards, origin of mamera (maternal uncle’s child) type of cross-cousin marriage
lies in the system of inheritance. In matriarchal societies, daughters inherited mother’s
property and son inherited maternal uncle’s property.

Diagram Showing Cousin Marriages
Man+Wi
(A) (B)

So+Wi Da+Hu
(C) (D) (E) (F)

So Da Da So
(G) (H) (J) (K)

In the above diagram, ‘B’s’ property, goes to ‘E’and ’E’s’ property, goes to ‘J’ but ‘C’s’ property
goes to ‘K’ (sister’s son). He, therefore, marries ‘K’ with his daughter ‘H’. Similarly, ‘G’ is
married with ‘J’ because ‘F’s’ property goes to his sister’s son ‘G’. It is, thus, the system of
inheritance of the property which led to the practice of cross-cousin marriage. This explanation
has not been accepted by scholars because Krishna, Arjuna, etc. did not belong to matrilineal
society. According to Rivers and Ghurye, the origin of cross-cousin marriage lies in the practice
of dual organization, that is, dichotomous division of population into two exogamous groups,
according to which a boy of one group has to marry a girl of the other group. For example,
Kathis (a caste) of Kathiawar in Saurashtra, Gujarat are divided into two exogamous groups
of Sakhayat and Auratiya. Families belonging to Sakhayat division do not marry among
themselves but seek a bride from or give a daughter to the members of other division. Similarly,
Maria Gonds of Bastar (Madhya Pradesh) who practice cross-cousin marriage, are also divided
into two exogamous divisions, one consisting of ninety septs and other sixty-nine septs. All
the septs of one division regard themselves as dadabhai (brothers) or parallel cousins and
marriage between them is prohibited. But they regard the members of the other division as
mamabhai, that is, maternal cross-cousins. Therefore, people of one division marry with persons
of other division. In South India also, there are many castes which have dual organization
and practice cross-cousin marriage.
Does this mean that only those castes practice cross-cousin marriages which have dual
organization? It is not so. For example, it is said that the Garasias in Gujarat and the Rajputs
in Rajasthan at one time practised cross-cousin marriages, though they had no dual
organization. Dual organization is generally followed among the Dravidians. Does it follow
that the Dravidians originally practised cross-cousin marriages and the Aryans imitated them?
According to Kapadia (1947: 65) the answer is ‘No’. Had Aryans imitated marriage with
maternal uncle’s (mama’s) daughter, why did they not imitate marriage with father’s sister’s
(bhua’s) daughter? Also, why did not Aryans outrightly condemn parallel cousin marriage
as it was condemned by the Dravidian society? Therefore, cousin marriage must be looked
upon as a natural result of the Aryan’s own emphasis on unilateral agnatic counting. A
theory has been propounded that cousin marriage was practised to increase affection between
brother and sister. Iravati Karve (1953: 219) has said that marriage in the south is not arranged
with a view to widen kin-group but each marriage strengthens already existing bonds and
makes doubly near those people who were already very near him. But it will be irrational
and illogical to link the practise of cousin marriage with strengthening of kinship bonds.

72 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY