Get summaries, questions, answers, solutions, notes, extras, PDF and guide of Class 12 (second year) History textbook, chapter 3 Kinship, Caste and Class which is part of the syllabus of students studying under AHSEC/ASSEB (Assam Board). These solutions, however, should only be treated as references and can be modified/changed.
If you notice any errors in the notes, please mention them in the comments
Summary
The chapter explores social structures in early Indian history, particularly the significance of kinship, caste, and class. It explains how historians use texts and inscriptions to understand social changes between 600 BCE and 600 CE. The Mahabharata, a long epic composed over centuries, is used to examine social norms, including those related to family, marriage, and social hierarchy.
Family structures varied, and kinship ties were central to social organisation. The epic reinforces the idea of patriliny, where property and power were passed through the male line. Sons were considered heirs, and daughters were often married outside their kin group. However, exceptions existed, such as rulers without sons or rare instances of women holding power, like Prabhavati Gupta. Ritual texts like the Rigveda promoted the importance of producing sons, reflecting societal expectations.
Marriage customs were complex. Brahmanical texts outlined rules, with exogamy (marrying outside one’s kin) encouraged among the elite. Eight forms of marriage were classified in the Manusmriti, some viewed as acceptable while others were condemned. Despite these prescriptions, historical evidence suggests variations in marriage practices. The Satavahana rulers, for instance, followed different traditions, with some women retaining their birth gotras instead of adopting their husband’s lineage.
Caste and social differences were strictly defined in Brahmanical texts, which claimed divine sanction for a hierarchical order. The four varnas were assigned specific roles: Brahmanas were priests and scholars, Kshatriyas were rulers and warriors, Vaishyas were traders and farmers, and Shudras were supposed to serve the upper classes. However, historical records show that caste identities were not always rigid. Some ruling dynasties did not belong to the Kshatriya varna, and wealth often influenced social status more than birth. The Buddhist tradition challenged caste-based discrimination, promoting the idea that a person’s worth was determined by their actions rather than birth.
Jatis, or sub-castes, emerged as more occupational groups were recognised. Some jatis formed guilds to protect their economic interests. Migration also influenced social structures, as seen in the case of silk weavers moving from Gujarat to Madhya Pradesh. These shifts suggest that social mobility was possible, though caste restrictions remained influential.
Some groups, such as forest dwellers and nomadic communities, existed outside the Brahmanical system. They were often viewed as impure or outsiders. Certain professions, like handling corpses, were considered polluting, leading to the social exclusion of certain groups. Chandalas, who performed such tasks, were forced to live on the margins of society. Buddhist texts sometimes depicted them differently, questioning their social status.
Wealth played a key role in determining social status. Gender also influenced access to resources. Women had limited property rights, though they could inherit stridhana, or personal wealth. The Manusmriti restricted women’s control over family wealth. The Mahabharata presents dramatic instances, such as Draupadi being staked in a dice game, showing how women were treated as dependent on male authority.
The chapter also examines the Mahabharata’s composition. Initially transmitted orally by bards, it was later written down by Brahmanas. Over time, it expanded with additional stories and didactic sections. While its narrative preserves memories of social conflicts, historians debate whether it describes actual events. Archaeological findings at sites like Hastinapura provide some evidence, but many aspects remain uncertain.
The epic continued evolving through regional adaptations, with different languages and cultures shaping its retellings. Writers like Mahashweta Devi reinterpreted its stories, highlighting overlooked perspectives, such as the fate of a Nishada family killed in the burning of the house of lac. This shows how historical texts remain dynamic, reflecting changing values and viewpoints.
Video tutorial
Textbook solutions
Answer in 100-150 words
1. Explain why patriliny may have been particularly important among elite families.
Answer: Patriliny, or tracing descent from father to son, was particularly important among elite families because it ensured the continuity of lineage and inheritance, particularly in ruling dynasties. Under patriliny, sons could claim the resources, including the throne in the case of kings, of their fathers when the latter died. Most ruling dynasties from the sixth century BCE onwards claimed to follow this system, reinforcing the idea that patrilineal succession was valuable. However, there were variations in practice—sometimes brothers succeeded one another, sometimes other kinsmen claimed the throne, and in very exceptional circumstances, women such as Prabhavati Gupta exercised power. The concern with patriliny was not limited to ruling families; it was evident in ritual texts such as the Rigveda, suggesting that these attitudes were shared by wealthy men and those who claimed high status, including Brahmanas.
2. Discuss whether kings in early states were invariably Kshatriyas.
Answer: According to the Shastras, only Kshatriyas could be kings. However, several important ruling lineages probably had different origins. The social background of the Mauryas, who ruled over a large empire, has been hotly debated. While later Buddhist texts suggested they were Kshatriyas, Brahmanical texts described them as being of “low” origin. The Shungas and Kanvas, the immediate successors of the Mauryas, were Brahmanas. In fact, political power was effectively open to anyone who could muster support and resources, and rarely depended on birth as a Kshatriya. Other rulers, such as the Shakas who came from Central Asia, were regarded as mlechchhas, barbarians or outsiders by the Brahmanas. The best-known ruler of the Satavahana dynasty, Gotami-puta Siri-Satakani, claimed to be both a unique Brahmana (eka bamhana) and a destroyer of the pride of Kshatriyas.
3. Compare and contrast the dharma or norms mentioned in the stories of Drona, Hidimba, and Matanga.
Answer: The dharma in the stories of Drona, Hidimba, and Matanga reflects different social norms and values. In the story of Drona, dharma is associated with social hierarchy and caste-based discrimination. Drona, a Brahmana and teacher of archery, refuses to teach Ekalavya, a Nishada, as he upholds the varna-based system of exclusion. Hidimba’s story presents an alternative view of dharma, where love and individual choice prevail over societal norms. Despite being a Rakshasi, Hidimba chooses Bhima as her husband, forsaking her own kin and traditions. The story of Matanga, a Chandala, challenges social discrimination. Although born outside the caste hierarchy, Matanga attains spiritual power, demonstrating that virtue and wisdom can transcend social barriers. These stories highlight different aspects of dharma—one enforcing rigid social structures, another prioritizing personal relationships, and the third questioning caste-based prejudices.
4. In what ways was the Buddhist theory of a social contract different from the Brahmanical view of society derived from the Purusha Sukta?
Answer: The Buddhist theory of a social contract suggested that human society initially existed in an ideal state where beings lived in harmony, taking only what was needed from nature. However, as greed and conflict arose, people collectively decided to appoint a ruler (mahasammata) to maintain order, in return for a share of resources. This view emphasized human agency in creating social structures and allowed for the possibility of change. In contrast, the Brahmanical view, as derived from the Purusha Sukta, presented society as divinely ordained, with social hierarchy stemming from the cosmic sacrifice of Purusha. This hierarchical order placed Brahmanas at the top (from his mouth), Kshatriyas from his arms, Vaishyas from his thighs, and Shudras from his feet, reinforcing a rigid, birth-based caste system that was considered unchangeable.
5. The following is an excerpt from the Mahabharata, in which Yudhisthira, the eldest Pandava, speaks to Sanjaya, a messenger:
Sanjaya, convey my respectful greetings to all the Brahmanas and the chief priest of the house of Dhritarashtra. I bow respectfully to teacher Drona … I hold the feet of our preceptor Kripa … (and) the chief of the Kurus, the great Bhishma. I bow respectfully to the old king (Dhritarashtra). I greet and ask after the health of his son Duryodhana and his younger brother … Also greet all the young Kuru warriors who are our brothers, sons and grandsons … Greet above all him, who is to us like father and mother, the wise Vidura (born of a slave woman) … I bow to the elderly ladies who are known as our mothers. To those who are our wives you say this, “I hope they are well-protected”… Our daughters-in-law born of good families and mothers of children greet on my behalf. Embrace for me those who are our daughters … The beautiful, fragrant, well-dressed courtesans of ours you should also greet. Greet the slave women and their children, greet the aged, the maimed (and) the helpless …
Try and identify the criteria used to make this list – in terms of age, gender, kinship ties. Are there any other criteria? For each category, explain why they are placed in a particular position in the list.
Answer: The list follows a hierarchical structure based on age, gender, kinship ties, and social status. The Brahmanas and the chief priest are mentioned first, signifying their high religious and social standing. Teacher Drona, preceptor Kripa, and Bhishma are included due to their roles as respected elders and warriors. Dhritarashtra, the old king, is addressed with respect, followed by his sons, emphasizing kinship and political hierarchy. Younger Kuru warriors are included as part of the extended family. Vidura, despite being born of a slave woman, is honored for his wisdom. Elderly women, referred to as mothers, are respected next, followed by wives, daughters-in-law, and daughters, emphasizing familial obligations. Courtesans are mentioned, recognizing their presence in the royal household. Lastly, slave women, children, the aged, maimed, and helpless are acknowledged, showing social responsibility towards dependents. The order reflects a blend of reverence, kinship, and social structure.
Short essay-type answers
6. This is what a famous historian of Indian literature, Maurice Winternitz, wrote about the Mahabharata: “just because the Mahabharata represents more of an entire literature … and contains so much and so many kinds of things, … (it) gives(s) us an insight into the most profound depths of the soul of the Indian folk.” Discuss.
Answer: The Mahabharata is a colossal epic running in its present form into over 100,000 verses with depictions of a wide range of social categories and situations. It was composed over a period of about 1,000 years (c. 500 BCE onwards), and some of the stories it contains may have been in circulation even earlier. The central story is about two sets of warring cousins. The text also contains sections laying down norms of behavior for various social groups. Occasionally (though not always), the principal characters seem to follow these norms. The Mahabharata includes vivid descriptions of battles, forests, palaces, and settlements, providing insights into early Indian societies.
One of the most ambitious projects of scholarship began in 1919 under the leadership of V.S. Sukthankar, who initiated the task of preparing a critical edition of the Mahabharata. This involved collecting Sanskrit manuscripts of the text, written in a variety of scripts, from different parts of the country. The team worked out a method of comparing verses from each manuscript, ultimately selecting those that appeared common to most versions. The project took 47 years to complete. It revealed both common elements in the Sanskrit versions and enormous regional variations in the ways in which the text had been transmitted over the centuries.
The text is described as an itihasa, meaning “thus it was,” generally translated as “history.” While some historians think that the memory of an actual conflict amongst kinfolk was preserved in the narrative, others point out that there is no corroborative evidence of the battle. The original story was likely composed by charioteer-bards known as sutas, who accompanied Kshatriya warriors to the battlefield and composed poems celebrating their victories. Over time, Brahmanas took over the story and began to commit it to writing, expanding and adding didactic elements.
The Mahabharata includes not only a grand narrative but also numerous discussions on kinship, caste, class, gender relations, and social norms. It provides accounts of rules of marriage, inheritance, and governance. The text conveys how patriarchal norms were reinforced and sometimes challenged. The presence of characters like Draupadi, who questions her humiliation in the Kaurava court, and Kunti, who reflects on past decisions, highlights different perspectives on gender roles.
The epic’s inclusion of multiple viewpoints and extensive detailing of social structures, family conflicts, and moral dilemmas makes it a unique text that reflects the complexities of Indian society. Its dynamic evolution through centuries, with numerous retellings in different regions and languages, also suggests how it continued to resonate with people. It contains poetic, philosophical, and didactic elements, offering insights into the cultural ethos of ancient India. This is why Maurice Winternitz describes the Mahabharata as representing “more of an entire literature” and providing insight into “the most profound depths of the soul of the Indian folk.”
7. Discuss whether the Mahabharata could have been the work of a single author.
Answer: The Mahabharata, in its present form, runs into over 100,000 verses and was composed over a period of about 1,000 years, starting from c. 500 BCE onwards. Some of the stories it contains may have been in circulation even earlier. The text was not the work of a single author but evolved over centuries through oral traditions before being written down.
One of the most ambitious scholarly projects was undertaken in 1919 by V.S. Sukthankar and his team, which prepared a critical edition of the Mahabharata. This involved collecting and comparing Sanskrit manuscripts from different parts of the country. The findings revealed common elements in the story across various versions, yet also showed significant regional variations. These variations reflected the complex processes that shaped early and later social histories through dialogues between dominant traditions and local ideas and practices.
The text itself underwent multiple phases of composition. Initially, it was probably composed by charioteer-bards known as sutas who celebrated the victories of Kshatriya warriors. Later, around the fifth century BCE, Brahmanas began to write down and expand the story, incorporating social norms and religious teachings. Between c. 200 BCE and 200 CE, the influence of the Bhakti tradition led to the inclusion of Krishna as a central divine figure. Additionally, large didactic sections resembling the Manusmriti were added between c. 200 and 400 CE. The final version of the text, traditionally attributed to Vyasa, had expanded significantly from an original composition of less than 10,000 verses to around 100,000 verses.
The language and content of the Mahabharata also suggest multiple layers of composition. The Sanskrit used in the epic is simpler than that of the Vedas and was probably widely understood. Scholars categorize its content into narrative sections containing stories and didactic sections containing prescriptions about social norms. The latter were likely later additions to the original dramatic and moving storyline.
8. How important were gender differences in early societies? Give reasons for your answer.
Answer: Gender differences played a crucial role in shaping early societies, influencing social norms, family structures, and economic roles. Patriliny, or tracing descent through the male line, was an important principle among ruling families, ensuring that sons inherited resources and power. Women, on the other hand, had limited rights to property and were often viewed as instruments of alliances through marriage.
Marriage was regulated through exogamy, where women were married outside their kin group, reinforcing their dependence on their husband’s family. The practice of kanyadana, or the gift of a daughter in marriage, was considered a religious duty of the father. Women were also expected to follow certain norms regarding gotra, where they had to give up their father’s gotra and adopt that of their husband.
The Manusmriti prescribed different rules for men and women regarding property ownership. While men could inherit wealth, engage in trade, and accumulate resources, women were primarily dependent on gifts received at marriage, known as stridhana. Even this property was under some degree of male control, as women were discouraged from hoarding it without their husband’s consent.
The Mahabharata highlights gender disparities through the story of Draupadi, who was gambled away by her husband Yudhisthira, demonstrating that women could be treated as possessions. However, certain historical figures like Prabhavati Gupta exercised power in exceptional cases, showing that gender roles could sometimes be flexible.
Despite these restrictions, some women retained their father’s gotra, as seen in the case of Satavahana queens, and endogamy was practiced in certain regions. While Brahmanical texts prescribed rigid gender roles, actual practices varied, with some societies allowing women greater agency in kinship and inheritance matters.
9. Discuss the evidence that suggests that Brahmanical prescriptions about kinship and marriage were not universally followed.
Answer: The evidence from historical texts and inscriptions suggests that Brahmanical prescriptions regarding kinship and marriage were not universally followed.
The Brahmanas laid down rules regarding kinship and marriage, particularly emphasizing patriliny and exogamy. However, real social practices often deviated from these norms. The Mahabharata, for example, reinforces the value of patriliny, yet there were exceptions where brothers succeeded one another, kinsmen claimed the throne, or women such as Prabhavati Gupta exercised power.
While Brahmanical texts insisted that daughters had no claims to household resources and should be married outside their kin group (exogamy), evidence from the Satavahana dynasty contradicts this. Inscriptions show that Satavahana rulers practiced endogamy, marrying within their own gotra, which went against Brahmanical norms that prohibited marriage within the same gotra. Women from ruling families, instead of taking their husband’s gotra as prescribed, often retained their father’s gotra.
Similarly, Brahmanical texts recognized eight forms of marriage, categorizing some as good and others as condemned. However, the very presence of these variations suggests that not all communities adhered to Brahmanical ideals. Some marriages, such as those based on mutual desire, were contrary to the controlled marriage system endorsed by Brahmanical texts.
The Dharmasutras and Dharmashastras aimed to enforce Brahmanical codes, but due to regional diversity and difficulties in communication, these texts did not exert universal influence. The fact that they recognized multiple marriage customs suggests that alternative practices existed, challenging the idea of a uniform Brahmanical prescription.
Extras
Additional questions and answers
Coming soon
Additional MCQs
Coming soon
Get notes of other boards, classes, and subjects