All twelve exercise questions from NCERT Themes in Indian History Part I, Chapter 3 “Kinship, Caste and Class”, in the English edition’s own wording, each with a complete model answer. The book splits them into four parts: five “Answer in 100-150 words” questions, four “write a short essay” questions (about 500 words), one map-work question, and two project questions of which you attempt any one. After them come the twenty questions the chapter asks inside the text, beside its sources and figures and in its Discuss boxes. Write your own answer first, then check it against this one.
The Hindi edition asks these same twelve questions in the same order, but its wording is not a literal translation of the English. Students writing the paper in English should answer from this, the English edition’s own phrasing.
How to write: Questions 1-5 need about 100-150 words, so four to six solid points are enough. Questions 6-9 are short essays, so give them sub-headings and a conclusion. This chapter’s examples come from the stories and inscriptions of the Mahabharata, so name the source (the Mahabharata, the Manusmriti, the Mandasor inscription, and so on) wherever you can.
1 Answer in 100-150 words
Q. Explain why patriliny may have been particularly important among elite families.
Answer:
A clean transfer of resources. Patriliny (descent traced from father to son to grandson) ensured a clear, undisputed transfer of resources, especially the throne and land.
The Mahabharata is itself a warning of what happens without it. The conflict between the Kauravas and Pandavas over land and power shows the destruction that could follow when succession was left unclear; the proclamation of patrilineal succession after the war was an attempt to end exactly this kind of uncertainty for good.
It carried lineage pride and identity. The system also reinforced a family’s identity, resting as it did on the continuity of male descendants.
It had religious sanction too. Rigvedic marriage mantras (Source 1, the wish for “fine sons”) show this ideal was also embedded in religion and culture.
There were exceptions. A brother could succeed when there was no son, and women such as Prabhavati Gupta held power in exceptional circumstances: but the general rule remained patrilineal.
Q. Discuss whether kings in early states were invariably Kshatriyas.
Answer:
The classical ideal. According to the Dharmasutras and Dharmashastras, only Kshatriyas could be kings.
The debate over the Mauryas. Buddhist texts describe the Mauryas as Kshatriyas, while Brahmanical texts call them of “low” birth. The Mauryas’ successors, the Shungas and Kanvas, were themselves Brahmanas.
The example of the Shaka rulers. Brahmanas dismissed the Shakas, who came from Central Asia, as mlechchhas, barbarians; yet the Shaka king Rudradaman’s inscription on rebuilding the Sudarshana lake shows he was thoroughly familiar with Sanskritic tradition.
The example of the Satavahanas. Gotami-puta Siri-Satakani described himself as a Brahmana, even though the classical ideal required a king to be a Kshatriya.
Conclusion. Real political power depended more on the ability to gather support and resources than on birth; kings often constructed and revised their own varna claims to suit their circumstances.
Q. Compare and contrast the dharma or norms mentioned in the stories of Drona, Hidimba and Matanga.
Answer:
Drona: dharma protects varna. Drona refuses to accept Ekalavya, a nishada, as a disciple, then, on the pretext of a teacher’s fee, asks for his thumb to make sure he never surpasses his Kshatriya student Arjuna: here dharma is used as a tool to protect privilege.
Hidimba: dharma shows some flexibility. The epic accepts the marriage of the rakshasa Hidimba and the human Bhima, though on limited terms (with Hidimba by day, the Pandavas at night): unusual by ordinary Brahmanical marriage norms, but not rejected outright.
Matanga: dharma is turned on its head. Matanga, born the son of a chandala, rises so high through penance and wisdom that he teaches his own Brahmana-educated son Mandavya that a person truly worthy of gifts is defined by conduct free of fault, not by birth.
The contrast. Drona upholds the varna order, Hidimba’s story shows flexibility at its margins, and Matanga directly rejects it: together, the three stories show that “dharma” depended on whose point of view was defining it.
Q. 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 Brahmanical view: divine and permanent. The view based on the Purusha Sukta held that the division into varnas was fixed from the very beginning of creation, a permanent, birth-based divine order that could not be changed.
The Buddhist view: human-made and historical. According to a myth in the Sutta Pitaka, human beings originally lived in an idyllic state of peace, taking from nature only what they needed; as they became greedy, vindictive and deceitful, they themselves chose a ruler (mahasammata) by consent, giving him tax (a share of the rice they grew) in return.
The core difference. In the Buddhist view, society and government were formed by human action and collective decision, not divine will: so they were, in principle, changeable too, unlike the Brahmanical view, in which the varna order was an unchangeable divine arrangement.
Q. 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:
By age. “The young Kuru warriors” are set apart from “the old king” and “the elderly women”.
By gender. Men (Brahmanas, priests, warriors) and women (mothers, wives, daughters-in-law, daughters, courtesans, female slaves) receive separate greetings.
By social standing / varna and learning. The Brahmanas and the chief priest are greeted first, then the teachers Drona and Kripa, then the Kuru chief Bhishma and the old king Dhritarashtra; Vidura, “born of a slave woman”, is still greeted “above all” as one who is “like father and mother”: wisdom and closeness could outweigh birth.
By kinship closeness. The relationship is spelled out directly: “our brothers, sons and grandsons”.
Conclusion. The list ends with the least-honoured groups (courtesans, female slaves, the old, sick and handicapped): the list itself becomes a glimpse of a whole social hierarchy.
2 Write a short essay (about 500 words) on the following
Q. 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 part of the statement that holds up. The Mahabharata brings together narrative content (heroism, love, war, family conflict) and didactic content (philosophical teaching such as the Bhagavad Gita, dharmashastra-like codes of conduct) all in one text.
Its sheer scale supports this too. It was composed over roughly a thousand years (c. 500 BCE to 400 CE), in stages, absorbing stories and values from many periods and regions along the way.
Continuous retelling. Across generations, the Mahabharata has reflected Indian society’s changing moral questions through different languages, plays, paintings and modern retellings (such as Mahashweta Devi’s “Kunti O Nishadi”).
The limit of the statement. The Mahabharata was composed mainly in Sanskrit from a Brahmanical point of view, so it represents the outlook of the classes (Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, urban elites) who composed and preserved it, more than the “entire” soul of every Indian.
Marginalised voices. The experiences of marginalised groups such as nishadas, chandalas and women appear in it mainly through others’ eyes, chiefly Brahmana authors’.
Q. Discuss whether the Mahabharata could have been the work of a single author.
Answer:
Diversity of style. The narrative sections (a simple storytelling style) and the didactic sections (a philosophical style, as in the Bhagavad Gita) are stylistically quite distinct, pointing to different authors.
A thousand-year gap in composition. The original story was probably first composed orally by the sutas; from around the fifth century BCE, Brahmanas gave it written form; between roughly 200 BCE and 400 CE, first Vaishnava devotion and then Manusmriti-like sections were added in turn.
Its size is evidence too. It began at perhaps less than 10,000 verses and grew to about 100,000: impossible for one person to have composed in a single lifetime.
The evidence of the Critical Edition. The 1919-66 project found extensive regional variation across manuscripts, showing that authors from different regions made their own changes to their own versions.
Conclusion. Tradition credits the sage Vyasa as author, but this looks more like a symbolic attribution than a historical fact.
Q. How important were gender differences in early societies? Give reasons for your answer.
Answer:
Inequality in property. The Manusmriti lists seven means of acquiring wealth for men, but only six for women, and these were mostly gift-based; land, cattle and money were generally controlled by men (stridhana was a limited exception).
The dice-game episode. Yudhisthira staking Draupadi after losing himself, and the dispute this raised, shows that a wife could also be regarded as a kind of “property” of her husband.
Inequality in marriage rules. Daughters were controlled through the rule of exogamy, and kanyadana was made the father’s religious duty; sons carried no equivalent obligation.
Even lineage was patrilineal. Despite Satavahana kings being identified by their mothers’ names, succession itself remained patrilineal.
Conclusion. Gender was a central structural element that shaped property, marriage, lineage and social status all together.
Q. Discuss the evidence that suggests that Brahmanical prescriptions about kinship and marriage were not universally followed.
Answer:
The gotra of the Satavahana queens. Many women who married Satavahana rulers had names derived from their fathers’ gotras (Gotama, Vasistha) instead of their husband’s, against the Brahmanical rule; and some of these women belonged to the same gotra, which ran counter to the ideal of exogamy and points to an alternative practice of endogamy, marriage within the kin group, prevalent in south India.
Draupadi’s polyandrous marriage. Marriage to all five Pandavas is entirely at odds with the classical ideal; the author(s) offered three explanations for it (Kunti’s command, and Vyasa’s two stories about Indra and about the woman who prayed to Shiva five times), which suggests that polyandry gradually fell into disfavour; yet it may have been prevalent amongst ruling elites, and it was (and is) prevalent in the Himalayan region.
The marriage of Bhima and Hidimba. A relationship crossing varna/community boundaries altogether.
The contradiction in Gotami-puta Siri-Satakani. He claimed to have stopped intermarriage between varnas, yet himself married into the family of Rudradaman, a Shaka ruler regarded by Brahmanas as a mlechchha.
Conclusion. Actual social practice was often different from, and more complex than, the classical ideals.
3 Map work
Q. Compare the map in this chapter with Map 1 in Chapter 2. List the mahajanapadas and cities located near the Kuru-Panchala lands.
This is a map exercise to do on the textbook maps; the answer is given here as a list.
Answer:
Mahajanapadas (as named on this chapter’s map). Kuru and its neighbours Shurasena, Matsya, Vatsa and Koshala; a little further away, Avanti, Malla and Sakya. (Panchala, the Kurus’ partner, lies to the east of Kuru; see Map 1 of Chapter 2.)
Cities. Closest to the Kuru-Panchala lands: Hastinapura, Indraprastha, Mathura and Virata; further east and south: Kaushambi, Ayodhya, Shravasti, Varanasi, Sarnath, Kapilavastu, Lumbini, Pava, Kushinagara, Vaishali, Pataliputra, Bodh Gaya and Ujjayini.
Conclusion. The Kuru-Panchala lands lay in the upper Ganga-Yamuna region, with several other mahajanapadas and cities close by.
4 Project (attempt either one)
Q. Find out about retellings of the Mahabharata in other languages. Discuss how they handle any two of the episodes of the text described in this chapter, explaining any similarities or differences that you notice.
Answer (approach for this project):
Choose two episodes from this chapter. For example: the house of lac, Ekalavya and Drona, Hidimba and Bhima, Draupadi’s marriage, or the game of dice.
An example from the chapter itself. In the Sanskrit text, Kunti arranges a feast before the Pandavas escape from the house of lac; a nishada woman and her five sons fall asleep after drinking, and their bodies make people think the Pandavas are dead. In her Bengali short story “Kunti O Nishadi”, Mahashweta Devi takes up the story after the war: a nishadi reminds Kunti that the woman who died was her mother-in-law, and that Kunti never once remembered the six innocent lives lost. The events are the same, but the retelling shifts the point of view to the nishadas and raises a question on which the Sanskrit text is silent.
For your second episode, find a retelling in another language (a book, play or TV version you can actually consult) and compare it with the chapter’s account in the same way: what stays the same, what is added or left out, and whose point of view is given.
Conclusion. As the chapter says, versions of the epic were written in many languages through a dialogue between peoples and communities, and each retelling reflects the concerns of those who made it.
Q. Imagine that you are an author and rewrite the story of Ekalavya from a perspective of your choice.
Answer (suggested, a creative first-person rewriting):
“I shaped an image of Guru Drona out of clay, because he had refused to accept me as his student, only because I was a forest-dwelling nishada, not a Kshatriya. Years of solitary practice shaped me into a master of an art no one had taught me. When Drona finally asked for my thumb as his teacher’s fee, I cut it off without hesitation: not because it was right, but because I had already accepted him as my guru, even though he had never accepted me as his student. Today I ask: is dharma only what one class decides, in order to protect its own privilege?”
Note. This is a creative answer: students should present their own original writing, while touching on the story’s key elements (Ekalavya’s nishada identity, Drona’s refusal, and the demand for his thumb).
5 In-text questions
The questions the chapter asks inside the text, beside its sources and figures and in its Discuss boxes, in the order the book prints them.
Q. In the context of the mantra, discuss the implications of marriage from the point of view of the bride and groom. Are the implications identical, or are there differences?
Answer: The implications are not identical. For the bride: the priest says “I free her from here, but not from there”, where “here” is her father’s house and “there” her husband’s. Marriage means leaving her father’s house and being “bound firmly” to her husband’s family; her purpose is to have “fine sons”, and her good fortune depends on her husband’s love. Under the Brahmanical gotra rule she was also expected to give up her father’s gotra and adopt her husband’s. For the groom: he does not leave his home or lose anything; he gains a wife who will bear sons to continue his patrilineage, which the chapter says was valued by ruling families, wealthy men and those who claimed high status. So marriage changed the bride’s whole life and identity, while for the groom it secured the continuity of his own line.
Q. Read the passage and list the different criteria suggested for becoming king. Of these, how important was birth in a particular family? Which of these criteria seem justified? Are there any that strike you as unjust?
Answer: Criteria in the passage: (i) birth in the ruling family and descent from father to son: Duryodhana argues that if the Pandavas get Pandu’s patrimony, it will pass to their sons and grandsons; (ii) seniority: the throne “fell to” Dhritarashtra as the elder brother; (iii) physical fitness: he did not receive it “because of your defect”, his blindness; (iv) age: after Pandu’s death Dhritarashtra became king because the princes were still very young; (v) ability and virtue, with the people’s support: the citizens of Hastinapura preferred the Pandavas as “more capable and virtuous”.
Importance of birth: very great. Every claimant belongs to the one Kuru family, and Duryodhana’s whole fear is that his line will be “excluded from the royal succession”.
Justified: ability, virtue, maturity and the support of the people seem fair grounds for choosing a ruler.
Unjust: deciding only by birth, which leaves out capable people from other families and all daughters; and excluding a person only for a physical disability such as blindness, regardless of his other qualities. As the chapter notes, the passage contains conflicting ideas.
Q. For each of the forms, discuss whether the decision about the marriage was taken by (a) the bride, (b) the bridegroom, (c) the father of the bride, (d) the father of the bridegroom, (e) any other person.
Answer:
First form: (c) the father of the bride. He himself invites a man learned in the Veda and gives his daughter, dressed in costly clothes and jewels; the bride has no say.
Fourth form: (c) the father of the bride. He gives his daughter after addressing the couple (“May both of you perform your duties together”) and honouring the bridegroom.
Fifth form: (b) the bridegroom, who receives the maiden after giving as much wealth as he can afford “according to his own will”; (e) the bride’s kinsmen also take part, since they accept the wealth.
Sixth form: (a) the bride and (b) the bridegroom together: it is a voluntary union of a maiden and her lover, springing from desire.
Father of the bridegroom (d): he decides in none of these four forms. Note that the first four forms were considered “good” while the remaining ones (including the fifth and sixth) were condemned in the Dharmasutras and Dharmashastras.
Q. How many Gotami-putas and how many Vasithi (alternative spelling Vasathi)-putas are there?
Answer: In the list printed in the English edition there are three Gotami-putas (raja Gotami-puta Siri-Satakani, raja Gotami-puta sami-Siri-Yana-Satakani and raja Gotami-puta Siri-Vijaya-Satakani) and two Vasithi/Vasathi-putas (raja Vasithi-puta (sami-) Siri-Pulumayi and raja Vasathi-puta Chatarapana-Satakani). The other kings are a Madhari-puta and a Hariti-puta. These names come from the mothers’ gotras (Gotama and Vasistha), which shows that the queens kept their fathers’ gotra names instead of adopting their husbands’.
Q. Does this passage give you an idea about the way in which mothers were viewed in early Indian societies?
Answer: Yes, partly. Gandhari, a mother, gives her eldest son Duryodhana serious political and moral advice: making peace would honour his father and her, a wise king controls his senses, greed and anger must be defeated, and war brings neither dharma, nor artha, nor happiness. This suggests mothers were respected and could advise even a king on matters of state. But Duryodhana did not listen to her, fought and lost the war, which suggests that a mother’s advice could be ignored and that real power lay with men. The chapter warns us to be cautious: even the Satavahanas, who used metronymics, followed patrilineal succession.
Q. How are children named today? Are these ways of naming similar to or different from those described in this section?
Answer: Today: most children get a personal name plus a family name or surname that usually comes from the father; in some regions the father’s name or the village name is used as an initial or middle name; in some communities a gotra or caste name is used; and many women adopt their husband’s surname after marriage, while others keep their own. Increasingly, official documents also record the mother’s name, and some people use it in their own name. Similarities: names still show the family line and, as with gotra names, often the father’s side; the custom of women taking the husband’s surname is like the rule that women should adopt the husband’s gotra. Differences: the Satavahana kings were known by metronymics, names derived from their mothers (Gotami-puta, Vasithi-puta), which is rare today; and their queens kept their fathers’ gotra names instead of adopting their husbands’.
Q. What message do you think this story was meant to convey to the nishadas? What message would it convey to Kshatriyas? Do you think that Drona, as a Brahmana, was acting according to the Dharmasutras when he was teaching archery?
Answer: To the nishadas: that they should not try to acquire skills such as archery that belonged to the Kshatriyas, and should stay in the role laid down for them. Even when Ekalavya, a forest-dwelling nishada, became a superb archer on his own, he had to give up his right thumb as the teacher’s fee, and lost his speed. The story also teaches them to obey a Brahmana teacher without question. To the Kshatriyas: that their position as the best warriors would be protected, by Brahmanas if necessary, as Drona kept his word that no one would be better than Arjuna. Drona and the Dharmasutras: no. The Dharmasutras say Brahmanas should study and teach the Vedas and scriptures, perform and get sacrifices performed, and give and receive gifts. Teaching archery, a skill of warfare, was not among these duties, so Drona was not following the occupation prescribed for a Brahmana.
Q. Do you think the silk weavers were following the occupation laid down for them in the Shastras?
Answer: No, not entirely. The Mandasor inscription shows that although membership of the guild was based on the craft of silk weaving, some members took up quite different occupations: some were attached to music, some were proud of writing a hundred excellent biographies, some were absorbed in religious discourses, some excelled in religious rites, some mastered (Vedic) astronomy, and some were valorous in battle. The weavers had also migrated from Lata (Gujarat) to Dashapura (Mandasor) and collectively used their wealth to build a temple to the sun god. So the inscription shows that real occupations were more flexible than the Shastras prescribed.
Q. Identify the practices described in this passage which seem non-Brahmanical.
Answer: (i) Hidimba, a woman, chose her own husband and proposed marriage to Bhima herself, instead of being given in marriage by her father. (ii) She said she had forsaken her friends, her dharma and her kin for him. (iii) A Kshatriya Pandava married a rakshasa woman, someone outside the varna order. (iv) The couple lived together only by day and Bhima returned to his family every night, an unusual arrangement. (v) After Ghatotkacha was born, the mother and son left the Pandavas and lived on their own, so the child grew up with his mother’s people. (vi) The rakshasas themselves are described as man-eating; the chapter notes that some historians think the term rakshasa was used for people whose practices differed from those laid down in Brahmanical texts.
Q. Identify elements in the story that suggest that it was written from the perspective of Matanga.
Answer: (i) The hero is Matanga, a chandala, who is the Bodhisattva himself, the Buddha in a previous birth. (ii) Dittha Mangalika’s reaction (“I have seen something inauspicious”) and the beating by her hangers-on are shown as unjust, and his suffering (a “starving Matanga”) is told with sympathy. (iii) His protest succeeds: after he lies at her father’s door for seven days, the girl is given to him. (iv) He gains spiritual powers, rises in the air and disappears, showing he is superior to those who insult him. (v) The moral of the story is spoken by him: “Those who are proud of their birth and are ignorant do not deserve gifts… those who are free from vices are worthy of offerings.” (vi) His son Mandavya, who follows Brahmanical ideas of purity, is shown to be wrong, Dittha begs Matanga’s forgiveness, and the leftover from his bowl is given to Mandavya and the Brahmanas, reversing the rules of purity.
Q. Which of the sources mentioned in this section suggest that people followed the occupations laid down by Brahmanas? Which sources suggest other possibilities?
Answer: Sources suggesting the rules were followed: the Dharmasutras and Dharmashastras themselves, with the Manusmriti’s “duties” of chandalas (living outside the village, disposing of unclaimed bodies, serving as executioners); the accounts of Fa Xian (untouchables sounding a clapper in the streets) and Xuan Zang (executioners and scavengers forced to live outside the city), which show these rules were enforced; and the Ekalavya story (Source 7), meant to keep the nishada in his place.
Sources suggesting other possibilities: the Rigvedic hymn in Source 6 (a poet whose father was a physician and mother a grinder of corn); Drona, a Brahmana, teaching archery; non-Kshatriya kings such as the Mauryas, the Brahmana Shungas and Kanvas, the Shakas, and the Satavahana Gotami-puta Siri-Satakani who claimed to be a Brahmana; merchants described as Brahmana and sarthavaha (Charudatta in the Mrichchhakatika) or as kshatriya-vaniks; the Mandasor inscription of the silk weavers (Source 8); the Hidimba story (Source 9); and the Matanga Jataka (Source 10).
Q. Do you think that this episode suggests that wives could be treated as the property of their husbands?
Answer: To some extent, yes. Yudhisthira staked Draupadi after his gold, elephants, chariots, slaves, army, treasury, kingdom and brothers, as if she were one more possession, and the first opinion held that even after losing himself he could stake her because his wife “remained under his control”. But the idea was not accepted by all: the second opinion argued that an unfree man could not stake another person, Draupadi herself questioned the act, the matter remained unresolved, and Dhritarashtra finally restored the personal freedom of the Pandavas and Draupadi. The Dharmashastras also allowed women to keep their stridhana, on which the husband had no claim. So the episode shows that some regarded wives as their husbands’ property, but this view was contested.
Q. Compare and contrast the ways in which men and women could acquire wealth.
Answer: Men (seven means, Manusmriti): inheritance, finding, purchase, conquest, investment, work, and acceptance of gifts from good people. Women (six means): what was given in front of the fire (marriage) or at the bridal procession, what was given as a token of affection, what she got from her brother, mother or father, any subsequent gift, and whatever her “affectionate” husband might give her.
Similarity: both could acquire wealth through gifts.
Differences: men could acquire wealth actively, by their own effort and choice (work, investment, purchase, conquest) and by inheritance; women’s means were almost entirely gifts from their family or husband, so they depended on the goodwill of others. Inheritance, work and investment are not on the women’s list. This fits the chapter’s conclusion that land, cattle and money were generally controlled by men, which sharpened social differences between men and women.
Q. Read Avantiputta’s first statement again. What are the ideas in it that are derived from Brahmanical texts/traditions? Can you identify the source of any of these? What, according to this text, explains social difference?
Answer: Brahmanical ideas: that Brahmanas were the best caste and all others low; that Brahmanas were a “fair” caste and others “dark”; that only Brahmanas were pure; and that Brahmanas were sons of Brahma, born of his mouth, formed by Brahma and heirs to Brahma. Source: the idea of the Brahmana being born from the mouth of the creator comes from the Purusha sukta of the Rigveda (referred to in the chapter’s exercises), and the ranking of varnas, with Brahmanas at the top and ideas of purity, comes from the Dharmasutras and Dharmashastras such as the Manusmriti. What explains social difference in this text: wealth, not birth. Kachchana and Avantiputta agree that a Shudra with wealth, corn, gold or silver could have another Shudra, or even a Kshatriya, a Brahmana or a Vaishya, as his obedient servant, so the four varnas are “exactly the same”. This reflects the Buddhist rejection of claims to status based on birth.
Q. What are the strategies which the bard uses to try and persuade the chief to be generous? What is the chief expected to do to acquire wealth in order to give some to the bards?
Answer: Strategies: (i) he praises the chief in public, before other poets, as generous and “an enemy to the hunger of bards”; (ii) he admits the chief does not have wealth to lavish every day, but says he is not petty enough to refuse, so the chief’s reputation is at stake; (iii) he invites other bards to come along to cure their poverty, spreading the chief’s fame; (iv) he plans to show “our ribs thin with hunger” to move the chief to pity. How the chief gets wealth: by going to war. The chief will ask the village blacksmith to “Shape me a long spear for war, one that has a straight blade!”, which means he was expected to acquire wealth through raids and warfare and then share it with the bards.
Q. How do social relationships operate in present-day societies? Are there any similarities or differences with patterns of the past?
Answer: Similarities: wealth and power still bring status and followers, as in the story of the wealthy Shudra; patrons still support artists, writers and performers, and leaders still expect praise and loyalty in return for favours, much like the Tamil chiefs and their bards; generosity in charity and gifts at weddings and festivals earns respect; and inequalities of caste, class and gender still shape relationships in many places. Differences: the Constitution makes all citizens equal before the law and untouchability is abolished; people can choose their occupations instead of following one fixed by birth; women have rights to property and inheritance; work is paid by wages or salaries instead of depending on a patron’s gifts; and the state provides welfare, so people depend less on the generosity of a chief.
Q. How has the sculptor shown the difference between the chief and his follower?
Answer: In this stone sculpture from Amaravati (c. second century CE): (i) size: the chief is shown much larger and taller, the follower small, reaching only up to his waist; (ii) dress and ornaments: the chief wears a tall, elaborate headdress, heavy necklaces, earrings and armbands and a richly carved lower garment, while the follower’s dress and ornaments are much simpler; (iii) gesture: the chief rests one hand on the follower’s head, a sign of authority and protection, and holds an object in his raised other hand; the follower stands below him, looking up. Through size, dress and posture the sculptor shows the chief’s higher status.
Q. Do you think Lal’s finds match the description of Hastinapura in the epic?
Answer: No, not really. The epic describes a city “bursting like the ocean, packed with hundreds of mansions”, with gateways, arches and turrets like massing clouds, as splendid as Indra’s city. B.B. Lal’s excavation (1951-52) at Hastinapura found something far more modest. In the second phase (c. twelfth-seventh centuries BCE) there were no definite house plans, only walls of mud and mud-bricks, and mud-plaster with reed-marks showing reed walls plastered with mud. In the third phase (c. sixth-third centuries BCE) houses were of mud-brick and burnt bricks, with soakage jars, brick drains and terracotta ring-wells. There is no evidence of mansions, gateways or turrets. Only a limited area was excavated, but the chapter suggests the description may have been added after the main narrative, when urban centres flourished in the region after the sixth century BCE, or may simply be poetic fancy.
Q. Why do you think the author(s) offered three explanations for a single episode?
Answer: The three explanations are: (i) Kunti, without seeing Draupadi, asked her sons to share whatever they had got, and her command could not be violated; (ii) Vyasa said the Pandavas were incarnations of Indra, whose wife had been reborn as Draupadi, so they were destined for each other; (iii) Vyasa added that a young woman had prayed to Shiva for a husband five times instead of once and had been reborn as Draupadi. Possible reasons: polyandry seemed unusual or even undesirable from the Brahmanical point of view, so the authors needed strong justifications, including divine ones, to make the marriage of the central characters acceptable; one explanation alone might not have convinced all listeners; and since the epic was composed and added to over centuries, different authors may have added their own explanations. Historians suggest that the very number of explanations shows polyandry was gradually falling into disfavour.
Q. Read the excerpts from the Mahabharata included in this chapter once more. For each of these, discuss whether they could have been literally true. What do these excerpts tell us about those who composed the text? What do they tell us about those who must have read or heard the epic?
Answer: Could they be literally true?
(1) Why kinfolk quarrelled (Source 2): a dispute over succession in a ruling family is quite possible, though the exact words are not a record. (2) A mother’s advice (Source 5): a mother pleading for peace is believable, but the speech is a literary composition. (3) Ekalavya (Source 7): shooting seven arrows into a dog’s mouth and giving up a thumb are exaggerated; the story is a lesson on “proper” social roles. (4) Hidimba (Source 9): a rakshasa who changes her form is not literal, though it may remember contact with people outside the varna order. (5) Draupadi’s question (Source 11): the game of dice may be a story, but the debate over property in a wife reflects real questions. (6) Hastinapura (Source 15): the description does not match Lal’s finds. (7) Draupadi’s marriage (Source 16): divine explanations such as incarnations of Indra and Shiva’s boon cannot be literally true.
About the composers: the original story was probably composed by sutas, charioteer-bards who celebrated Kshatriya warriors; from the fifth century BCE Brahmanas took it over and wrote it down. The excerpts show their concern with patriliny and succession, the varna order and “proper” roles, and their need to explain practices like polyandry that they found uncomfortable.
About the readers and listeners: the audience included Kshatriya elites interested in kingship, war and succession, but because its Sanskrit is simpler than that of the Vedas it was probably widely understood, so ordinary people also heard and retold the stories. The listeners enjoyed dramatic stories, had to be persuaded by explanations, and were being taught the norms the composers wanted them to follow.