North Indian Inscriptions

SOCIAL HISTORY

according as she is a Hāḍī-jī, Rāṇāvat-jī and so forth. Such must have been the case in ancient India also. Kings certainly married more than one princess who were therefore known by the clan names of their fathers. But it is worthy of note that this polygamy was prevalent in ancient India not only among the Kshatriyas but also among the Brāhmaṇas, as the instances adduced above clearly show. There can thus be no doubt that up till circa 400 A.D., the Brāhmaṇa mothers, whether they were married in the Brāhmaṇa or Kshatriya community, retained their original gōtras, that is, the gōtras of their fathers. What then becomes of the present day social custom that a girl as soon as she is married, is merged into the gōtra or family of her husband? This is the third question that we have to consider. What we have exactly to consider here is whether it is prevalent even now in all parts of India and also up till what period it was not adopted in ancient India. As regards the first part of the question, we have already pointed out that even to this day the queens of the native princes of Rājputānā, or, for the matter of that, of all Rājpūt princes, are known by the feminine form of the clan names of their fathers. In respect of the second part of the question we find this practice preserved among the Kshatriyas from early times up till the Gupta period. Thus Ajātaśatru of Rājagṛiha and Udayana of Kauśāmbī who were both contemporaries of the Buddha and belonged to the earlier epoch have been styled Vaidēhīputra in early Pāli literature. Evidently their mothers belonged to Vidēha, which was one of the eight confederate clans constituting the Vajjī tribe.¹ An instance of the later period is supplied by the Imperial Gupta dynasty, who, in spite of their being brahmanised, allowed their queens to retain the names of the clan from which they descended. Thus, whereas the daughter of Chandragupta II styles herself Prabhāvatiguptā, her mother is called Kubēra-Nāgā. Each of the queens has retained the clan name of her father even after her marriage, nay even after she is the mother of several children. This is all the more significant as the Guptas were becoming more and more steeped in Brahmanism.

>

Their brahmanisation even in the sphere of kingship is traceable in the fact that the Guptas adopted the Brāhmaṇa gōtra, Dhāraṇa, to keep themselves on the same social footing as the Vākāṭakas who were of the Brāhmaṇa caste and of the Vishṇuvṛiddha gōtra. We have already mentioned and repudiated the view of Bühler that the ruling classes adopted the gōtras of their Purōhitas as prescribed by the Śrautasūtras and that metronymics were formed out of them to distinguish between the princes born of their various Kshatriya mothers. We have shown in the first place that what the Śrautasūtras ordain is that the Kshatriyas should adopt not the gōtras, but the pravaras, of their Purōhitas and, this, for religious purposes only, and secondly that there is nothing to show that these pravaras were binding on the whole of the family to which the Kshatriyas belonged. But when, from the second century A.D., Brahmanism began to be in the ascendant, a new social order began to arise. And the ruling classes, as a matter of fact, commenced adopting Brāhmaṇa gōtras, apparently those of their Purōhitas. Thus Aśvaghōsha’s Saundarānanḍa (I. 22) informs us that when certain Ikshvāku princes went to the hermitage of Gōtama Kapila, they became his pupils. And although they were originally Kautsas, they now became Gautamas in consequence of the gōtra of their Guru. The verse following is of great importance as it explains this change of gōtras. It runs thus:

.............................Eka-pitrōr=yathā bhrātrōḥ
............................................pṛithag-guru-parigrahāt |
.............................Rāma ēv=ābhavad=Gārgyō
............................................Vāsubhadrō=pi Gō(au)tamaḥ || (23)

       â€œJust as of the two brothers from one father, Rāma (Balarāma) became Gārgya and Vāsubhadra (Vāsudēva), Gautama, through their accepting different Gurus.”
_____________________

¹ Rhys Davids in Buddhist India, pp. 25-26, and Camb. Hist. Ind., Vol. I, p. 313.