________________
NOVEMBER, 1877.]
POLYANDRY IN NORTHERN HINDUSTAN.
317
rule which prevails where polyandry exists, that sisters' sons, and not sons of his own, are a man's heirs, because, of course, in the peculiar circumstances, it cannot be determined by whom the latter were really begotten. On this subject I quote a passage from Mr. Walter Hamilton's Geographical, Statistical, and Historical Descrip tion of Hindoostan, &c., vol. II. p. 280 (edition of 1820). "The Nairs marry before they are ten years of age, but the husband never cohabits with his wife. He allows her oil, clothing, ornaments, and food, but she remains in her mother's house, or after her parent's death with her brothers, and cohabits with any person she chooses of an equal or higher rank than her own. In consequence of this strange arrangement, no Nair knows his own father, and every man considers his sisters' children as his heirs.
His mother manages the family, and after her · death the eldest sister assumes the direction. A
Nair's moveable property on his decease is equally divided among the sons and daughters of all his sisters." See also Mr.J. F. M'Lennan's Studies in Ancient History, pp. 149f.
I do not go the length of asserting categori- cally that the words last quoted from the Mahabharata, as to a man's sisters' sons being his heirs among the tribes referred to prove historically the existence of polyandry in the Panjab at, or before, the period when they were written. But it is certainly remarkable, if not indeed 'un accountable, that such words should be found in that book if they do not owe their existence to the fact of such a custom being actually prevalent at the time when they were penned, or not long previously.
Salya makes (v. 2112ff.) but a brief reply to Karna's denunciation; is silent as to the truth of the charges made, but alleges that in Anga, the country of which his assailant is king, it is the custom to abandon the sick, and for men to sell their own wives and children. He says that there are everywhere Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Südras, and virtuous and devoted women, with righteous kings, who control the wicked; and, at the same time, most vicious men. People are, he remarks, quick in detecting the faults of others, but do not observe, or delude themselves in respect of,
their own, and urges that no man is necessarily bad from being the native of a particular country, but is such in consequence of his own nature.
In regard to the differences in manners between the peoples of the Panjab and those of Hindustan further to the eastward, I repeat here the words of Professor Weber, freely translated in Original Sanskrit Texts, vol. II, p. 354, from the Indische Studien, vol. I. p. 220, and said by him to be founded on data furnished by Panini:"The north-western tribes retained their ancient customs, which the other tribes who migrated to the east had at one time shared. The former kept themselves free from the influences of the hierarchy and of caste, which arose among the latter as a necessary consequence of their residence among people of alien origin (the aborigines). But the later orthodox feelings of the more eastern Aryans obliterated the recollection of their own earlier freedom, and caused them to detest the kindred tribes to the westward as renegades, instead of looking on themselves as men who had abandoned their own original institutions."T
P.S.-The learned friend who is referred to at the commencement of this paper has, after becoming acquainted with its contents, stated to me his opinion that, although the passage which I have quoted in it from the Karnaparvan of the Mahábhdrata goes far to prove that polyandry existed among the tribes of the Panjab, yet that this is a different thing from admitting it to have ever been an established institution; and remarks that the polyandry alluded to in that passage was of a purely licentious character. As this custom is not known to have been practised in the Panjab for a long time past, it will perhaps be the safest conclusion to draw provisionally from the premises furnished in this and in my preceding paper, that though polyandry, or a promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, may have prevailed more or less there in early times, yet that the former practice could not have been widely spread or recognized as a national institution. I shall be glad, however, if any student of Indian antiquity is able to throw further light on the subject.
In my former article, p. 251a, last line, I observe an erratam, rajas for rajas. In regard to note 3, page 262, I am informed by Dr. Bohtlingk that he would understand
upadrava there in the usual sense of calamity,' and would render the line in which it occurs thus : "a man without Rich, Yajus, or Saman is a calamity created by Prajapata.'
