|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
SOCIAL HISTORY Indian custom of a married girl being taken into the gōtra of her husband. Thus the Laghu- Hārīta-smṛiti says: ...................vivāh-ādīni karmāṇi smaraṇāt pitṛi-gōtrataḥ / From this it is clear that at the time of the marriage of a girl her father’s gōtra counts, but after the lapse of a year that gōtra is replaced by that of her husband’s and that all the subsequent rites such as offering of piṇḍa etc., were performed with reference to the latter. The Likita-smṛiti is more drastic and has the following: ...................vivāhē ch=aiva nirvṛittē chaturthē=’ hani rātrishu / What the passage means is that, as soon as the marriage saptapadī is over, a girl loses her father’s gōtra and on the fourth night therefrom is at one with the piṇḍa, gōtra and sūtaka of her husband’s family and that consequently all gifts, obsequial rice-balls and libation waters are to be offered in her case in conformity with her husband’s gōtra. This state of things must have come into vogue after the Gupta period. For, of this period, are the two Smṛitis, Nārada and Vishṇu, and the latter (24.9) says: na sa-gōtrāṁ na samān-ārsha-pravarāṁ bhāryāṁ vindēta, “No one shall marry a woman who is of the same gōtra, or the same gōtra-originating sage-ancestor.â
We now turn to an entirely different question connected with the social life of the Gupta period. While treating of Kāchagupta in a chapter on the Political History above, we had occasion to narrate that it was he who succeeded Samudragupta, that then came off a war where Kāchagupta was forced to agree to surrender to a Śaka ruler his queen Dhruvasvāminī, that Chandragupta II put on the garb of the queen, went to the hostile camp and put the enemy to death, that he thereby incurred the violent jealousy of his elder brother who was now trying to assasinate him and that this concatenation of events ended in Chandragupta II putting Kāchagupta to death, occupying the Gupta throne and marrying his wife. This narrative is based upon a drama called Dēvī-Chandraguptam by Viśākhadatta who was the author of another historical play entitled Mudrā-Rākshasa. Grounds have been adduced elsewhere to show how far we may take the drama as furnishing history. Supposing that our point of view is correct, supposing, therefore, that Chandragupta II married the wife of his elder brother whom he killed, the question arises: how was it looked upon from the social and legal point of view? When Chandragupta II married Dhruvasvāminī, she was a widow, moreover a widow who was his own brother’s wife. Such a thing was not tolerated in the mediaeval and the modern periods. But was it allowed in the Gupta period? This is the question which we have now to consider. Every student of Smṛiti literature is conversant with the text: ...................nashṭē mṛitē pravrajitē klībē cha patitē patau / It occurs not only in the Parāśara but also in the Nārada-smṛiti (XII. 97). It allows a woman to marry another man in five kinds of adversity, that is, when the husband is untraceable, or dead, has become a religious ascetic, or when he is impotent or is expelled from caste. Other texts may also be quoted, but they are unnecessary. What we have further to note here is that the Nārada-smṛiti has been referred by Jolly to the fifth or sixth century A.D. It is thus of the early Gupta period, and must, therefore, be considered as reflecting the practices of the age. Though widow marriage was thus allowable in the Gupta period, this action of Chandragupta II in killing his brother and marrying his wife was not approved by the public as it is con-
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|