Mahabharata, the illustrious
book that speaks of our times of yore, reflects greatly upon the society that lived
then, their social institutions, norms and customs. While reading the
Mahabharata, one realizes that these three aspects of the society are very
closely intertwined. However, what is
most intriguing are the changes that take place in the society. Some norms
become more rigid with time while some may just fade away. Social change
doesn’t just happen all of a sudden; it is a slow and gradual process which
takes place with the changes in the ideas and beliefs of people that take long
to alter.
What we know about
the ancient, pre-Vedic times is what archaeologists tell us. They say that
people lived in small groups; they hunted animals for their fur, for their horns
or bones and for meat. Apart from eating the meat, they also ate wild-berries. Slowly, from the Paleolithic-Age came the
Neolithic and Chalcolithic Age where a lot changed. They stopped living like
nomads and settled in houses. This can be seen in the Harappan civilization
where people settled in great numbers on hills and banks of the river. The
people during the Rig-Vedic times were semi-nomadic and cattle rearers; their
principle possessions were cattle and horses. Cow was considered to be tantamount
with wealth. Wars were fought over cows and cows were stolen. A house that
didn’t have a cow was said to be poor.
Even this kind of society, we see a chief who was said to be the head of
a tribe (like the Kshatriya kings in later society). During wars, if one tribe
lost to other they had to pay tributes.
Most of this wealth went to the priests and princes of the tribe
suggesting unequal distribution of wealth even then. The ordinary people were
barely given a share. After the pre-Vedic came the Vedic age. The main
occupation of the people was agriculture. The people were no longer
semi-nomadic. They were settlers; hence this gave rise to territorial chiefdom.
From the tributes obtained by peasants, and others the princes performed
rituals and rewarded their priests.
We observe that the
society during the times of the Mahabharata is almost similar to the ancient
societies but just more established. Ancient society had a caste-system too. Caste
could be defined as a fairly well marked, separate community, whose individual
members are bound to each other endogamy (and hypergamy), and very often also
by a common hereditary profession or duty, actual or supposed.
However, according to Dumont, the caste system must be understood in terms of
its essentially religious (‘Hindu’) ideology, which pervades all the immense
varieties that it displays. It is reflected in the endless, complex, even
conflicting, arrangements of rank, the highest belonging always to the
Brahmanas, who are the ‘purest’ and command much of its ritual.
The ranking does not originate in, or correspond to, the actual distribution of
power or wealth, but arises, so to speak, out of the elaboration of the basic
principle of purity or pollution. Thus neither are caste’ an extreme’ form of
classes
nor is the caste system a system of social stratification: it need not, and
does not, correspond to the distribution of wealth or power.Dumont
insists that caste must be understood as ‘part of the whole’, which means that
the entire society must be divided up among castes, and there must be no
significant residue. Thus, in effect, caste must exist as the sole or dominant
form of social organization, or not exist at all.
The Caste System in the Mahabharata
is such that the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas were portrayed to have been
hegemonic. While the Mahabharata elaborately reflects majorly on the Brahmins
and Kshatriyas, the Vedas however, clearly speaks about the four varnas.
Brahmins, Kshatriyas, , Vaisyas and Shudras. The Brahmins were said to be calm,
knowledgeable and not only imparted but also practiced the scriptures and
conducted the rituals. The Kshatriyas comprised of the warrior class which
included the royals. The Vaisyas were the business class; it consisted of
tradesmen, the artisans and other skilled workers. The Shudras were the lowest
in the caste system. They were mainly slaves and were given no importance in
the society. Even in the Mahabharata the Shudras were regarded to be nobody’s
and their children that were born of Kings were given no importance whatsoever.
They were not even considered as legitimate heirs to the throne. Their mother’s
have been referred to as ‘maids’. The ancient texts hardly refer to the
marginal societies. Hence, ‘it is hard to form a “homogenous picture”.
This holds true even in the Mahabharata. . The very incident when Kunti and the
Pandavas let the Nishada woman and her five sons take the blow and watch them
reduce to ashes just proves further how unimportant their value was. To the
Kshatriyas, there life held no value at all. Like I mentioned earlier, the
Mahabharata clearly reflects on the situation of the Brahmanas and the Kshatriyas
but hardly speaks about the marginal sections of society, probably because they
had no caste. One’s caste is determined based on birth, so if your parents were
Kshatriyas your caste was Kshatriya. Every caste had its place in the social
hierarchy and every person of a particular caste was supposed to fulfill their
‘Dharma’ but the marginal sections were never made part of this entire caste
system. Probably because the authoritative figures feared their authority would
be questioned and they would no longer hold such important positions in the
society as they did.
However, one cannot help
but question this caste-system. What makes you of a specific caste, birth or
behavior? The Mahabharata clearly speaks about how your birth defines your
caste but there have been several instances where a Kshatriya behaves more like
a Brahmin and vice-versa. Yudhishtra was a Kshatriya, his duty as a Kshatriya
was to fight but his behavior was more like a Brahmin. He preferred reading
scriptures over war; he would send his brothers to fight but as a Kshatriya
never really took part in one. He was calm like Brahmins are supposed to be.
Drona was a Brahmin by birth but his actions were like that of a Kshatriya. He
was vengeful and was not calm. In cases like this who is to say who the real
Brahmin is or who the real Kshatriya is. It’s quite unfortunate that your caste
is determined by your birth when one’s actions speak louder. Even when Nahusha
asks Yudhishtra, ‘how can we recognize a true Brahmin?’ Yudhishtra answers by
saying that a Brahman is characterized by the qualities of forgiveness, purity,
honesty, self-control and ascetism. Nahusha further asks him about the
qualities being found in non-Brahmins. Yudhishtra answers that by saying that
if the above qualities were observed in a non-Brahmin then that person
irrespective of his birth, should be known as Brahmin. This very statement
though mentioned in the Mahabharata is never followed. Neither Vidura nor
Yuyutsu were even considered as legitimate heirs only because of their caste,
they were not of pure Kshatriya blood. They were sons of petty
maid-servants.Their actions however, were worthy of a Kshatriya.
Even though the Brahmins
were said to be at the apex of the social hierarchy, one comes across various
conflicts between the two castes over supremacy and power. This constant
struggle symbolizes the insecurity the two castes had. The Mahabharata
illustrates this clash in several occasions. The clash between Drona and King
Drupada is elaborately spoken about. Drona feels humiliated by the harsh words
of King Drupada and decides to even the. He learns the art of war and teaches
is to the Kuru princes. As fee he asks them to capture the King of Panchala
alive. The Kuru princes keep their promise and capture Drupada alive. Drona asks
Drupada to pay a ransom in the form of half his kingdom. Drupada is compelled
to do so and parts with half his kingdom only to gain freedom and avenge his
humiliation.
The Mahabharata reflects on the society
there was at that point of time. The caste-system was certainly a very
important institution of the society and the rigidity of this system has been
criticized by many humanitarians like Gautama Buddha, Mahavira, Kabir, Raja Ram Mohan
Roy, Swami Dayananad, Vivekanand, and Mahatma Gandhi led many crusades against
discriminations based on caste in Indian society. Even though the caste-system has become a
little flexible in some parts of the country because of globalization, the
rigid caste-system still pervades in most parts of the country and continues to
shape people’s lives. The effects of the caste-system can be seen even today in
the form of reservations for the lower classes, employment privileges, quota
etc. Even though discriminating by caste and creed is considered to be a legal
offence, it still occurs in some parts of the country, inter-caste marriages
are considered a taboo and a lot of honor killings that take place or have
taken place are more often than not because of caste.
Not a lot of
cultures have elucidated the specific roles of people based on age and their
responsibilities bestowed upon them at particular age groups. The Asrama system
of Hinduism is well defined and has been an institution that has been long
followed. These are divided into four stages of twenty- five years each,
considering a man lives for hundred years. The first twenty-five years of a
man’s life was known as ‘Brahmacharya’. This stage of life was mainly to get
educated and was essential for the development of the mind and the body . The
student was to live with the teacher. During
this period the student had to lead a life of simplicity and chastity. He had
to maintain strict control over all his organs and to avoid all pleasures and
luxuries. The second stage or ‘Grihastha
Ashrama’ was to be followed from the age of twenty five till the age of
fifty. During this stage of life a man
was supposed to settle down, get married and have children. . This stage of
life was considered to be the hardest stage because the person had also to devote
attention to sacrifices, worship, charity etc.
The second last stage was known as ‘Vanaprastha Ashrama’. This lasted from fifty years till seventy
years. This was the time to sacrifice all the worldly comforts and retire from
the world. It was time for his children to look after the house, while he was
expected to leave home and live in the forests castigate the body to purify the
soul. The last stage which lasted from seventy-five years till hundred years
was known as ‘Sanyasa’. This was considerd to be the last stage in the journey
of a man’s life. These twenty-five years were spent in acquiring the right and
absolute knowledge. The aim of this stage was to break free from the circle of
life. Throughout the asrama system, the conflict between ‘loka-samgraha’
(worldly existence) and ‘moksa’ (spiritual release) is waged, to be finally won
as an ascetic. This system is followed in the Mahabharata. The young Kuru
princes learn the art of war from their teacher Drona (Brahmacharya stage) and
once they were done learning all that there was to learn in the art of warfare,
got graduated and later got married to Drupadi and have children with her thus
marking the ‘Vanaprastha Ashrama’. The Brahmins and the Kshatriya males were
expected to follow these four stages of life while the women were not really
considered part of this system. The Ashrama system is slightly flawed and
modified in today’s world, but is applicable to most people. However, the last
two stages, that is the ‘Vanaprastha Ashrama’ and ‘Sanyasi’ is not followed by
all.
Marriage is considered to be one of the most
sacred social institutions, which marks the union of a man and a woman. In the Mahabharata one sees that marriage was
considered to be a duty (Dharma), marriage to have lawful heirs, some sort of
political alliance, love and obedience. There are eight different types of
marriages that were acceptable to the society then. ‘Brahma’ was that kind of marriage where the
father of the bride decks her up with expensive garments and jewels and gives
her hand in marriage to a man who was well versed with the Vedas and had a good
conduct. This man is invited by the father himself. The second kind of marriage
is known as ‘Daiva’. This is where the father gives his hand to a priest who
duly presides at a sacrice during the time of its performance of this rite. The
daughter is groomed with ornaments. ’Arsha” is another type of marriage where
the father gives away his daughter after receiving a cow and a bull from the
bridegroom. The fourth kind of marriage is known as ’Prajapatya’. When the
father after giving his daughter’s hand and blesses his daughter and the groom
by saying, ‘may both of you perform together your duties.’ When the father
receives wealth of any sort, this type of marriage is known to be ’Asuras’. It
is more like an economic contract (Madhavi). ‘Gandharva’ is a voluntary union
of two willing lovers. Neither the consent of the parents nor dowry was
essential in this form of marriage. The main purpose of this type of marriage
was sexual gratification and desire (Dusshyanta and Shakuntala) . The
‘Rakshasa’ form of marriage was marriage by forcefully abducting a maiden and
if her kinsmen came to her rescue they were killed. The last is the ‘Pisaka’
type of marriage which is when a man marries a woman by stealth or seduction by
sexually violating her while she was asleep, intoxicated, and helpless or
unconscious. In the Mahbharata the two most common types of marriages was the
Brahma and the Gandharva form which was actually considered apt for a
Kshatriya. Even a swayamvara is spoken about in the Mahabharata where a girl
chooses her husband from many suitors. (Arjuna and Draupadi). Marriage was
regulated by the rigid caste-system and the caste laws. There has been a
mention of ‘anuloma’( a higher caste man could marry a lower caste woman; Bhima
and Hidambi) and ‘pratiloma’(when a woman of higher caste marries a man of
lower caste) was not permitted. The
Mahabharata also reveals about the existence of monogamy. This is an ideal form
of marriage where one man is married to only one woman for the rest of his life
(Savitri and Satyavan). It also speaks of polygamy, in which a man has many
wives. This form of marriage was common amongst the Kings (Pandu had two wives,
Kunti and Madri). Polyandry is mentioned, where a woman has many husbands
(Draupadi and the Pandavas). However, this wasn’t accepted to well by the
people. However, Yudhishtra justifies his actions by stating that he was merely
obeying his mother’s words. The society then was completely against incest. A
man could not marry a woman that shared the same bloodline. This type of
marriage was and is still considered to be a social taboo.
One other important system was kingship.
A king was required to be educated. ‘Command of armies, royal authority,
the office of a judge, and sovereignty over the whole world he alone deserves
who knows the Veda science’, says Manu elsewhere.
‘Let him act with justice in his own domains-Punishment (danda) strikes down a
king who swerves from his duty-with rigor chastise his enemies, behave without
duplicity towards his friends, and be lenient towards Brahmans‘.
From the Mahabharata we learn that only a Kshatriya could be eligible to be a
King. Vidura and Yuyutsu were both worthy of becoming kings but the rigid caste
system disapproved. A Brahmin was
forbidden to accept any gifts from kings that were not from proper
lineage. Kingship during the
Mahabharata, displays the importance of the ‘Brahmanical’ religion in the
society then. It revolves around doing the rightful duties that one ought to
do. Duty towards oneself, one’s family, towards religion, society and the
kingdom. If the King did not carry out his rightful duties the cosmic and moral
order would be disturbed. The kings performed yagnas or sacrificial rituals to
demonstrate their power, authority and strength. Mahabharata clearly mentions
two of these yagnas the Rajsuya yagna and Ashwamedha yagna. Both of these were
sacrifices that were performed with great grandeur. Both these were done by
inviting all the kings, after not only defeating but also by taking tribute
from them. This was done to become the emperor. The Rajsuya yagna were rarer
than Ashwamedha yagna because they were costlier and held great risk. These
yagnas were a way to not only claim the title of ‘chakravarti’ but also expand
the kingdom. Apart from yagnas the kings sought to different means in order to
expand their kingdom. They would marry a
princess of another kingdom, they would indulge in polygamy and some marriages
were done only to gain political alliances. They wouldn’t only just marry but
also produce male heirs with their ‘numerous’ wives to strengthen their
alliances. This means of expansion is the most common and this continued way
after the Mahabharata too. Apart from Hindu kings even the Mughal emperors and
the British resort to this means to expand their territory. Another way is by
clearing forests. The lands then were mainly covered with dense, deep jungles.
In order to establish more land the Kings would burn the forests down in order
to claim that land. The kings were well
aware of their duty, however on reading
the Mahabharata one realizes that the rights to the throne is not well
explained and flawed. While it should be ones worthy actions that chooses
whether or not you are king, the Mahabharata supports birth. The Mahabharata
also speaks about how a son with any physical defect cannot be an heir to the
throne but doesn’t say whose children, whether the current kings or the eldest
child would be the heir to the throne. Earlier we see not too many questions
arising about the right to the throne, but gradually, we see differences
between brothers, this constant insecurity, manipulation, competition and
finally war over the rights to the throne.
Alongside, these
social institutions were customs and norms. ‘Niyoga’ was one such ancient Hindu
custom in which a woman was allowed to bear a child with another man if her
husband was either incapable of fathering a child or died without having a
child only then was she allowed to be with another man for reproducible
purposes. A highly respected man was
appointed by the elders of her family incase her husband had died or by her
husband, in case he was incapable of being a father. However this custom had various clauses, the
woman would agree for this not for pleasure but to bear a child. Even the
appointed man would follow this custom as ‘dharma’ or duty to help a woman bear
a child and not for sexual gratification. The child that she bears with the
appointed man would carry the name and caste of his/her mothers husband and not
his/her birth father. The birth father must completely detach himself from the
child and seek no paternal relationship with his child in his complete
lifetime. To avoid misuse, a man was allowed to be appointed only three times
in a complete lifetime. While doing the act neither the appointed man nor the
woman could think of lust or sexual gratification. Even while doing the act the
mind should only have ‘dharma’ running in it. It is believed that before
getting physically intimate with the man they were asked to apply ghee on
themselves so that they could abstain from the feeling of lust. The most
suitable example occurred in the Mahabharata. Dhritarashtra, Pandu and Vidura
were all born of this custom. This
system was only for the women. If the woman was incapable of bearing a child
her husband was allowed to remarry or even have an extra-marital affair if
required with no permission needed from his wife or family. This custom just
shows how patriarchal the society was even then.
Guru-dakshina
was another prevalent custom that has been mentioned in the Mahabharata. Guru
Dakshina is a repayment of certain kind in exchange of what he has taught you.
It is done to express gratitude and to pay respect. Eklavya was asked to
sacrifice his right-hand thumb as ‘guru-dakshina’ to Drona. Drona asked the
Kuru princes to capture the King of Panchala alive, as guru-dakshina. This just
shows the immense respect and gratitude people had for their teacher then. A
teacher was never refused a guru-dakshina nor questioned for his demand.
The yagnas
were performed by the priests and the kings. The kings performed certain yagnas
which could be sacrificial in nature in order to gain power, land and greater
authority. Yagnas were considered to be the link between humans and the cosmos.
It was also considered to be a path that helped in attaining liberation. Yagnas
usually have sacrificial fires. This was also done by certain tribes to please
the nature Gods. Rajsuya yagna and Ashwamedha Yagna have been mentioned in the
Mahabharata. These sacrificial rituals are still carried out today by several people
in the society for various reason hoping to please the Gods so that the Gods
can fulfill their desires.
Dana was a
humble custom carried out in ancient India. Dana was originally a term used for
distribution. Earlier in the tribal kind of society, one person (chief of the
tribe) did not give away his wealth to another but distributed his wealth among
his clan. This wealth was either winnings of a war or wealth given during
festivities or special occasions. Gradually the society changed and so did the
ideas, beliefs and customs. Dana was now considered to be charity. Dana was carried
out by the Kshatriyas only. The King would give some wealth to poor people.
However, it is said that the Kshatriyas cannot deny dana to a Brahmin. It is
their duty to do so. A classic example of this was when Krishna changes into a
sage, he asks Karna for his ‘kundal and kavach’. Karna could not deny this as
he was dressed like a sage and denying a sage was against his dharma.
Sati is
said to be ‘the product of a strong patriarchal society’. The sati system is
connected with the cremation of the wife with the dead husband. It indicates so
much of patriarchal dominance that the wife was compelled to accompany her
husband even after death. However,
there is no compelling nature in the Mahabharata as such. In fact, Madri
voluntarily jumps into her husband’s burning pyre because she believed that she
was the cause of his death. Even after a lot of people tried persuading her
into not jumping into the burning pyre, she did. This is probably the most
important thing that has been mentioned about sati, in the Mahabharata. Later
on, this system became much more rigid, where women were compelled to jump into
the burning pyre and turn into ashes along with the death of their husbands. The
women who refused or got away were considered to be social outcastes. The practice of Sati also spread among the
Sikhs and Marathas and some other militant communities in the South. Contrary
to most people’s belief Sati as a custom was never forced upon at least in the
Mahabharata. It was voluntary. Because Sati became such a ruthless, inflexible
and unjust custom was abolished in 1829. Sati as a custom has faded away
because it gradually lost the essence of its true nature. It became a forceful
practice while the meaning was just lost in time. Sati now is an illegal
practice and anyone forced to do so would be charged by the Indian Penal Code
and would be behind bars.
The society comprised of
certain people whose values were considered to be idealistic. Mahabharata speaks of an ideal son, Bhishma
who took the fall for his father. He chose to give up the throne and never have
a family or get physically intimate with any woman only so that his father
could marry the woman he loved. He took the curse instead of his father. Like
an ideal son you have an ideal daughter, Madhavi who was sold off like a
commodity by her father to four different men. Even after being treated like
that she did not once question her father’s actions. When her father’s money
was over and he needed more money to stay in heaven he asks her to ask his
grandchildren to help him out. At first they refuse but Madhavi teaches her
sons the power of forgiveness and helps her father. An ideal wife was one that carried out her
duties towards her husband so faithfully. Gandhari, blind-folded herself, only
so that she could share her blind husband’s pain. Savitri followed Yama, the
God of Death to get her husband back, Madri voluntarily jumped into her
husband’s burning pyre because she believed that she was the reason for his
death. Eklavya was an ideal student who was never taught the art of archery
because of his caste. Even though Drona declined to teach him, he watched Drona
and learnt the art all by himself. When Drona finds out he asks him for his
right thumb as Guru-dakshina. Drona did this only to be an ideal teacher as he
had promised Arjuna that he would make him the greatest archer in the world. By
asking for Eklavya’s thumb he stopped Eklavya from claiming that he was far
more skilled than Arjuna. Bhishma and
Karna were considered to be the ideal warriors. While Bhishma was one of the
best warriors, he never left the side of Hastina-Puri. He fought the war not on
the side of the Kauravas but his loyalties lied with the throne of
Hastina-Puri. He fought valiantly. Karna, was an ideal friend. Even after
knowing that he was fighting his real brothers in the war chose not to change
sides. His loyalties lied with Duryodhana right from the beginning. He also the
plight he’d have to face himself and see it in his mother’s eyes. These were the values that some characters
were depicted with. With characters like these comes the word ‘ideal’ or
‘perfect’, where every father hopes to have son like Bhishma and every Friend
would hope to have a friend like Karna. They were potryed as ordinary beings
but just did extra ordinary things.
Devotion, as a
value is ornately spoken about in the Mahabharata. Devotion was however very subjective. For the
Pandavas devotion was more of a spiritualistic term. They were great devotees
of the Lord Krishna. Savitri, Damyanti and Gandhari were so devoted to their
husbands that they came to be known as ideal wives. One was willing to fight
death for husband, while the other chose to be blindfolded like her blind
husband. Bhishma’s devotion lay with the throne of Hastina-Puri. Nothing
changed his devotion or his loyalty towards the throne, not even the fact that he
was facing his own nephews who he played with on his own lap as children.
To draw a
conclusion I can now say that society then was multifaceted and filled with paradox.
The Mahabharata however tries to portray both the black and the white and
everything in between. It not only has selfish but also has selfless
characters, it doesn’t only depict the disobedient but also the extremely
obedient, it doesn’t only speak of treachery but also of great friendships, not
only of hatred but true love, not only of falls but also the rise, not only the
orthodox but also the unorthodox. The Mahabharata doesn’t only speak about
immense peace but of a gallant war. The social institutions, customs and norms
are bound to change as change is inevitable. As the world changes, as the ideas
and beliefs of people change so do these institutions and customs. We may not
know for sure if the Mahabharata was truly realistic or merely a fiction of the
writer’s imagination but what we can sure know or at least draw conclusions
from is the way it has portrayed and reflected upon on the society then. Some customs and norms may continue, some may
become even more rigid or flexible, some may just fade away with time and some
may just lose the ‘real’ essence of it and may just be practiced because we see
our ancestors preach and practice it.
.
Ibid.,pp.262,274.
Accordingly, to Dumont, ‘Hindus and Muslims Form Two Distinct Societies’
(p.257)
