Venets: The Belogradchik Journal for Local History, Cultural Heritage and Folk Studis

Volume 4, Number 3, 2013

Research

WHY RAJPUT PRACTICE EXOGAMY:

ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

Durrani ATIFA
Allama Iqbal Open University, PAKISTAN

Abstract. This article looks at the exogamous nature of marriage in

Rajput community of subcontinent in general. The tradition of exogamy is still
being practiced in Indo –Pakistan subcontinent within this ethnic group. This
paper tries to explore historically a number of possible assumptions that can
be employed to define the reasons for practicing the exogamous marriage
type. Exogamy is explored through its biological and socio cultural aspect in
relation to the Indian subcontinent that ultimately leads to Pakistani socio-
cultural context. Effort has been made to grip the diverse strands of exogamy
and alliance theory to see any connection if there is any between them.
Keywords: exogamy, marriage, social relations, Rajputs. Pakistan
 Introduction
The concept of exogamy has been coupled with the issue of survival
value in anthropological literature since 1877 (Morgan, 1963). Early evolu-
tionary anthropologists searched for the origin of exogamy through Darwinian
explanation of natural selection and survival of the fittest (Westermarck,
1891). Modern theories in anthropology interpret exogamy as having survival
value because it reduce conflicts not only within but also other exogamous
groups and increase social solidarity (Kang, 1979).
Modern socio-cultural theories describe exogamy in terms of survival
value, conflicting loyalties and alliance formation. The proponents of survival
value theory (Taylor, 1888; White, 1949; Murdock, 1949; Service, 1971) ar-
gue that exogamy serves two primary functions; it reduces the likelihood
of the conflict within the exogamous group; and creates cross-cutting ties
or alliances between exogamous units. Conflicting loyalties theories (Col-
son, 1953; Gluckman, 1955; Murphy, 1957; Scheffler, 1964) emphasize the
notion that exogamy establishes and solidifies cross-cutting loyalties through
affinal ties. These divided loyalties or differing allegiances are said to promote
social solidarity and cohesiveness and to lessen internal conflict. Alliance the-
ory (Mauss, 1966; Lévi-Strauss, 1969; Chagnon, 1968) views marriage as the
primary, elementary form of exchange. Exogamy relieves tension within the
exogamous unit because it eliminates competition over its own women. The
positive value of exchange ensures alliances or promotes social solidarity
among groups in the society (Kang, 1979).
In this paper attempt has been made to trace out the history and origin
of the exogamy which is common marriage pattern in Africa and South Asian
countries. In South Asian context, Rajput community is presented as case
study that practice exogamy in the form of hypergamy. This research paper
also discuses structural dynamics of hypergamy (Milner, Jr. 1988) by under-
standing the concept through the Kangra Rajputs of India (Perry, 1979) who

344
practice exogamy (hypergamy). This research study supports that marriage
through clan exogamy plays a vital part in making alliances and social solidar-
ity within a caste and sub caste. In this whole process of formation of alliances
women from one strata of the clan to another play significant role for the
members of the specific group.

Themes for exogamy

Exogamy can be better understood if the concepts of kinship, marriage
and incest taboo are discussed. Therefore for the better understanding of the
concept of exogamy it would be appropriate if key terms such as kinship, mar-
riage and incest taboo would be explained and understood first.

Kinship
We are all related to each other person through descent, marriage, or
adaptation and we use kinship terms to designate those relationships. Persons
related to us through birth or decent are consanguine or blood relative; those
related to us through marriage (in-laws) are affinal relatives. In many societies
a persons’ societal worlds includes two main categories kin and strangers.
Strangers are potential or actual enemies. Marriage is one of the primary ways
of converting strangers into kins, of creating and maintaining personal and
political alliances relationalship of affinity (affinal relationship). In every so-
ciety there are certain rules and regulations which are followed to keep society
unite and harmonized. There are certain institutions which regulate and de-
cide what is in the best interest of the society. Marriage is one of the institu-
tions which have a significant role in the functioning and keeping harmony
within family and tribes in various societies.
In anthropological literature two major kinship distinctions have been
made which are important to discuss within the paradigm of marriage. One is
the relationship through blood and other is through marriage.

345
 Kinship describes a social structure that is collective in nature but
whose fundamental unit remains individual, with the family forming the basis
for the creation of any extended kinship structures (Malinowski, 1930). An
important feature of kinship networks is that they assume a corporate structure
that performs political and economic functions (Wakil, 1970).
Morgan (1963) established kinship as a focal point in anthropological
analysis when he studied Iroquois and other Native American people. He
made comparative structural assessment about the Iroquois people which he
called “Classificatory system of relationship”. According to Parkin (1997)
kinship has featured prominently in the work of Malinowski, Radcliffe-
Brown, Fortes, Evans-Pritchard, Goody, Lévi-Strauss, Dumont, Needham and
Strathern; and in the USA: Kroeber, Lowie, Murdoch, Goodenough, Schuffler
and Schneider.
Kinship is bifurcated into the vertical relationship between genera-
tions-decent (the link between brothers and sisters-siblings and the other link
is through and by marriage- affinity. However, Red Cliffe-Brown, Fortes,
Goody and Scheffler excluded marriage from kinship by making kinship a
system of consanguinity (Milner, Jr., 1988).

Marriage
Marriage which is usually thought to be a form of domestic partner-
ship is hard to define. Marriage is important means of forming alliances be-
yond one’ own kin group. Marriage transforms relationships, conveys certain
rights and establishes legal parentage of the children. Besides, it gives spous-
es right to each other’s sexuality, labour and property. No definition of mar-
riage is broad enough to apply to all societies and situations. A commonly
quoted definition comes from Notes and Queries on Anthropology
(RAIGB&I, 1951): “Marriage is a union between man and woman such that

346
the children born to woman are recognized as legitimate offspring of both
parents.”
This definition is not universally valid for many reasons. For example
there are some societies in which same- sex marriages are recognized. Also in
many societies marriages unite more than two spouses. For example in Sudan
a Nuer woman can marry a woman if her father has only daughters but no
male heirs.
Decent or lineage basically explores the various ways in which con-
sanguine or blood relations are structures in every social system. It is focal
point of the study of kinship. Anthropologists such as Red Cliffe-Brown, Ev-
ans Prichard and Fortes viewed decent alliances as a major determinant of so-
cial structure in primitive societies. Decent plays a major role in formation of
corporate groups, domestic arrangements, transmission of property and polit-
ical authority. However this theory was criticized by Strauss as according to
him decent theory marginalized the importance and functions of marriage.
Arguments between decent and alliance theory is going on and it was very
much heated debate in 1960s.
In the literature of anthropology, three types of marriage pattern are
famously discussed which are as follows: endogamy - which tells marrying
within one’ own group; hypogamy - marrying with some one of similar back
ground and/or interest; exogamy - marrying outside one own group.
Besides kinship the issues of incest and exogamy have long been of
interest to anthropologists. Since both regulate sexual relations of certain indi-
viduals within family or kin groups (Seligman, 1950). In simple words, exog-
amy is the practice of seeking a husband or wife outside one’s own. Incest re-
fer to sexual relations with some one considered to be a close relative. All cul-
tures have taboos against it. Although the taboo is a culturally universal phe-
nomenon which every culture define differently. Most societies do not have
different words for incest and exogamy (there is usually a word for the former

347
but not latter) but a great difference is felt in the seriousness of the breach of
the prohibitions according to the nearness of the kinship (Seligman, 1950).

Incest taboo
Incest is defined as “sexual intercourse between individuals related in
certain degree of kinship” (Seligman, 1950). Like marriage, incest is found in
all the societies in various forms. It prohibits sexual relation to certain close
relatives. However what is close is defined is not same in all cultures. Such
definition some times change with course of time. Anthropologists for the last
many years have been fascinated by the explanations and reasons of incest
taboo in many societies and cultures.
Lévi-Strauss (1969) sees taboo as a code - an extension of kinship
terminology which governs and directs the movement of women between alli-
ance networks.
Anthropologists themselves have many explanations for these inhibi-
tions in different cultures. The simplest explanation is based on the idea of
“human nature” which says that our species has an “instinctive” repulsion
from incest. It has been investigated that human being raised together have
less sexual attraction for each other. The incest taboo ensures that children
and their parents who are constantly in close contact to each other avoid each
other as sexual objects (Whelehan, 1985). There are different theories which
explain this phenomenon. Some of them are: (i) Inbreeding theory of incest
taboos: Anthropologists have been curious why incest taboos are so im-
portant and have offered various explanations to account for their origin. Ac-
cording to Morgan (1963) taboo emerged because early homo noticed that ab-
normal offspring were born from incestuous unions. These theories have been
criticized and considered inadequate but still they are thought to be an expla-
nation for incest. According to this the primitive men some how discovered
that inbreeding has poisonous biological effects. The criticism of this notion is

348
that close inbreeding is not necessarily damaging unless there are harmful re-
cessive traits in the genotypes of the person. Cleopatra came of a long brother
–sister marriages. Brother-sister marriages are also practiced in ruling families
of Hawaii and by the Inca of Peru without noticeable harmful effects. This
theory has been challenged on many fronts. In contrary to this, human socio-
biology forwards the argument that natural selection mechanisms favors out
breeding because inbreeding is dangerous for the coming generations; (ii)
Childhood association theory: This theory explains that the development of
incest taboo on the grounds that people who have been brought together from
childhood like brothers and sisters, do not feel erotic attraction towards each
other. This theory was proposed by Westermarck (1891) who proposed that
children reared together, regardless of biological relationship form a senti-
mental attachment that is by its nature non-erotic. Westermarck argued that
his observations that unrelated children reared together on Israeli Kibbutzim
nevertheless avoided one another as sexual partners confirmed the Wester-
marck effect. However this theory was also criticized as bother-sister marriag-
es were also known to the anthropologists; (iii) Freud theory: Sigmund Freud
made opposite assumptions that strong erotic impulses are experienced within
the family circle, primarily by a boy to his mother. This is the basis for the
Oedipus complex postulated by him. An erotic basis attachment to the mother
accompanied by feeling of hostility towards father (in case of girl towards her
mother) these feeling and impulses are repressed and exist in the individual
unconscious. In this theory incest taboos are regarded as reactions to the ex-
istence of incestuous desires. The weakness of this theory is that among non
human primates that over long period of time there may not be any mother –
son relationship (Parker 1976); (iv) Life span considerations: Slater (1959)
explains that possibilities of incestuous relations in family groups living under
primitive conditions depended on the life span of the individuals. In hunting
and gathering societies the life span is generally short from 25-35 years and

349
puberty starts from 13 to 16 , there is not much likely that a boy may have
sexual relation with his mother. If the woman has five children and lives to
be 35 only the eldest child who lives in maturity could have sexual relation
with his mother. By the time the children get maturity their parents die and
they have to look out side for the sexual relationships. According to Slater
(1959) these patterns of mating out existed before and become the basis of the
development of incest taboos; (v) Functional interpretations: There are some
interpretations which do not suggest any particular mechanism that is why in-
cest taboos existed. If there were no incest taboo, it has been argued that there
would be such disruptive sexual rivalry and tension within the family that it
could no longer function as a family unit. Another functional argument is that
incest taboos are required to maintain roles in the family appropriate to the
socialization process (Coult, 1963).

Exogamy
Exogamy is defined as the “prohibition of marriage union within spe-
cific group” (Seligman, 1950). Further it can be defined as “the custom or
tribal law, which prohibits marriage between members of the same tribe;
marriage outside of the tribe opposed to endogamy.”1)
A comprehensive definition is proposed by Dumont (1968):

[a]ll societies prohibits marriage with certain relatives , but some so-
cieties complement this prohibition by prescribing or preferring,
marriage being prohibited between those who are children of the sib-
lings of the same sex (parallel-cousins) while it is prescribed between
children of siblings of the opposite sex (cross-cousins). This disposi-
tion is generally accompanied by exogamy (p. 19).

350
 Exogamy is the custom of marrying outside specified group of peo-
ple to which one belongs. In addition to blood relatives, marriage to members
of a specific totem or other group may be forbidden.

Origin of exogamy
In social sciences it is customary to distinguish between a person’s
family of orientation into which he/she is born and the family of procreation,
established when he/she gets married (Barnouw, 1982). Therefore, a marriage
thus brings together people from two different families in all societies. The
group is defined if one’s own immediate family alone then societies generally
prohibit or at least discouraged endogamy there be promoting exogamy (exoso
is Greek for “outside”) or marriage outside the group. In all societies there are
rules of exogamy affecting marriages.
McLennan (1970) introduced the term exogamy and endogamy. He
argued that exogamy was originated due to scarcity of women which obliged
men to seek wives outside their clans.
Anthropologists have found that marriage is governed though often
informally, by rules of exogamy (marriage between members of different
groups) and endogamy (marriage between members of the same groups.
However, a definition of a group for the purpose of exogamy and endogamy
varies in between various societies. In most stratified societies it is compulso-
ry that one must marry outside of his /her family but within own class or race,
which helps in maintaining and creating a wide social network.
Generally anthropologists prefers sociological explanation of these
prohibitions which consider sexual restriction as a function of marriage regu-
lation over biological or physiological theories in which incest taboo plays a
major role.
We can trace out origin of exogamy from the history of Christianity
which traces its origin in polygyny (the weak or less powerful members of a

351
tribe being driven to seek wives outside the tribe because the stronger, or head
men, had the women of the tribe for their harems), however, the royal people
of the tribes were not been expected to obey such restrictions. In early times
even brothers and sisters of royal blood married; and such is the custom
among certain African and Asian tribes to this day.
Explaining the origins and functions of clan exogamy is one of the
oldest (Taylor, 1888) and most extensively discussed issues in anthropology.
It is closely tied to the debate over descent and alliance theory (Kuper, 1982;
Schneider, 1965). In 1889, Taylor proposed that clan exogamy was developed
because it facilitated political alliances. This idea continues to be widely ac-
cepted, but Tylor made a broader claim and argued that clan exogamy persist-
ed because of its adaptive advantages. He further says that eexogamy was po-
litically useful to strengthen the tribe by foreign alliances.

[T]he tangential disposition of the male is expressed in the system of

exogamy so characteristic of tribal life. The movement towards exog-
amy doubtless originates in the restlessness of the male, the tendency
to make new coordination, the stimulus to seek more unfamiliar wom-
en, and the emotional interest in making unfamiliar sexual alliances.
But quite aside from its origin, exogamy is an energetic expression of
the male nature (Thomas, 1898).

Frazer, in his book, Totemism and Exogamy (1910) talked that in both
Assam (India) and Africa, the head of exogamous tribes marries within their
own tribe. However, when pretty women were brought as a captive into the
tribe, this would lead even its chiefs to get married the captured women from
out side tribe.
With an accepted method of regulating decent and the institution of the
classificatory system of kinship, exogamy as widely practiced that lead to so-

352
cial stability. Mates are chosen from family groups with whom kinship is rec-
ognized but who are outside the decent group. Thus the survival value of ex-
ogamy is seen in conjunction with the recognition of bilateral kinship, the
classificatory system and unilateral descent. Social groups which are formed
include large numbers of people over vast areas in which an individual can
find his social footing either as a member, an affine, or an acceptable mate
(Seligman, 1950).
Exogamy can be differentiated into two main definitions biological
exogamy and socio cultural exogamy that are discussed in next section.

Biological exogamy
In biology, exogamy more generally refers to the mating of individuals
who are relatively less related genetically: that is, outbreeding as opposed to
inbreeding. This benefits the offspring by avoiding the chance of the offspring
inheriting two copies of a defective gene, and also by increasing the genetic
diversity of the offspring, improving the chances that more of the offspring
will have the required adaptations to survive.

Socio-cultural exogamy
As it has been said that exogamy is the custom of marrying out side a
specified group of people to which a person belongs in additions to blood rela-
tives, exogamy may assert prohibitions to members of specific clan, totem,
class etc. Different socio cultural theories and explanations have been pro-
posed in order to explain the origin of the exogamy. Some of them are as be-
low.
Taylor (1888) wrote that savage tribes face the alternatives of marry-
ing out or being killed out and he quoted these lines from Genesis 34:16:
“then we will give our daughters unto you, and we will take your daughters to
us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one people.” This pas-

353
sage illustrates the process of establishing peace and broadening social bonds
and ties through intermarriages.
The Role theory was proposed by Malinoswki (1930) which maintains
that kinship and marriage systems are important for the visibly defined social
roles. If close kins were allowed to intermarry, they would assume a alterna-
tive sets of roles , rights and responsibilities to those who are already in
force thus the result will be confusion and conflict over roles and will un-
dermine social order.
Durkheim says that exogamy derives from totemism and says it arose
from a religious respect for the blood of a totemic clan, for the clan totem
which is a god and especially in the blood. The relationship between exogamy
and totemism has been problematic. It is a fact that in many tribes there was
a custom that a man cannot marry a woman from his own totem, but must
seek a wife from another totem clan. That is why many anthropologists argued
that totemism and exogamy existed together as different sides of the same in-
stitution.
Westermarck (1891) says that exogamy arose in the aversion to mar-
riage between blood relatives or near kin, what is known as the horror of in-
cest.
McLennan (1970) proposed that exogamy was originally due to the
scarcity of women, which obliged men to seek wives from other groups in-
cluding marriage by capture and with passage of time it became custom in
various societies.
In a classical cross-cultural study, Social Structure, Murdock (1949)
observed that every society base its marriage system on the prohibition or re-
strictions of marriage and sexual relations between nuclear members. Howev-
er, few societies allow marriage or sexual relation with close kin including
parents and siblings and sibling’s children.

354
 Lévi-Strauss (1969) introduced the Alliance theory of exogamy which
describes that small close- knit groups force their group members to marry out
side. According to Levi-Strauss men in the primitive societies brought about
alliances through marrying their daughters or sisters to other men. The result-
ing network established social cohesion by tying families and bands more
closely together. This was probably a necessary strategy in hunting gathering
days, when the use of weapons, unknown to non- human primates, heightened
the potential dangers of strange groups (Barnouw, 1982). Lévi-Strauss (1969)
also talked about reciprocal exogamy- intermarriage between members of the
distinct group which he named as the defining characteristics of human socie-
ties.
In simple words, reciprocal exogamy is a social arrangement in which
groups are bound together through marital unions and kinship. Reciprocal
exogamy is best illustrated with the simplest system described by Strauss’s
restricted exchange between two exogamous groups.
Alliance theory is about making alliances of the members of the im-
mediate circle of relationships to build alliances with other groups. Strauss
sees basis of society not in decent groups but rather in relations of marital ex-
change which exists between the groups. Kinship groups are merely units of a
system of alliance expressed in marriage (Fox, 1967).

Literature review
The phenomena of exogamy have been studied enormously across the
world. In various societies exogamy is practiced and accepted as norm and
law. Some societies also punish the people who breach the law of exogamy by
disassociation from the group, boycotting of social networking and physical
and social punishment.
An exhaustive and very clear account of Australian exogamy has been
given by Frazer (1910) in his book Totemism and Exogamy.

355
 Westermarck in his book History of human marriage (1891) discusses
many cases of exogamy in many tribes of Africa. These cases describe what
sexual restrictions were imposed and how the breaching of those restrictions is
dealt with. Some of the examples are as under
Exogamous classes with descent in maternal line are found in Ponape
and Mortlock Islands belonging to the Caroline group and in Pelew Island.
The Mortlock islander regard sexual intercourse between persons of the same
clan as incest of the most heinous sort and any member of the clan would be
ready to avenge such an outrage. In most of the tribe known to us there is not
only class exogamy but clan exogamy as well , i.e. Dieri, Wotjobalink, Howih
Class exogamy is found in Vogue among a large number of African people
The Tallensi tribe makes a clear distinction between kinship by blood
and affinal kinship. The rules of exogamy are that no woman may be married
with whom there is any genealogical kinship. Marriage with a woman of the
mother’s lineage is also excluded. There are no super natural penalties for
breaching exogamous rules but Fortes say” the Tallensi avoid infringing these
rules not for fear of super natural penalties, but for the fear of “spoiling kin-
ship” (Seligman, 1950).
Among the “Moriori” of the Chatham islands – a group of islands
situated at a distance of 480 miles in the south eastern direction from Wel-
lington” the marriage of close connection such as first cousins was disap-
proved of and even when not so closely related as in the case of second
and third cousins, the others to show their disapprobation of marriages be-
tween close relatives who sang a song by the way of contempt, calling it
Tivare (incestuous) (Seligman, 1950).
The Micronesia clan practice exogamy. The people of the Nauru of
the Marshall Islands are divided into twelve clans which strictly practice ex-
ogamous marriage. Marriage within clan is regarded as the greatest crime if

356
committed, the culprits become objects of general contempt and are expelled
from the clan and no child born of such union is allowed to live.
In Herero clans, the marriage of cousins who are the children of a
brother and of a sister respectively is favored, where as marriage or sexual in-
tercourse between the children of the two brothers or two sisters is regarded
with horror as incest and subject to the culprits to the consequences of the
blood feud (Seligman, 1950).
Eastern Bantui of South Africa define exogamy as” no man of any
coast tribe would marry a girl whose relationship by blood to himself on his
father’s side could be traced, no matter how distantly connected they might be
(Seligman, 1950).
Cis-Natalian Kafirs explain exogamy that “at any rate near relatives,
patrilineal and matrilineal avoid marriages with each other and although no
penalty is attached to such marriages, custom is to strong on this point that the
general rule is seldom broken. So according to Warner, union which are re-
garded as incestuous are not punished by law among Kafirs” but they have a
far more powerful preventative in their superstitions fears which teach them
to dared that some supernatural evil will befall the parties committing such
act; hence such crimes are seldom committed. Consanguineous marriages are
prohibited by custom rather than by law (Seligman, 1950).
Amomg the Baronga of Delagoa tribe” marriage is absolutely prohib-
ited between all the descendent of the grandfather, viz between first cousins.
Between second cousins it is permitted conditionally and between third cous-
ins it is allowed (Seligman, 1950).
The Masai of Eastern Equatorial Africa first cousin and second cousin
may not marry but there is no objection to the third cousin marrying if the
relationship is no nearer than Ol-le-Sotwe. If a man is knowingly guilty of in-
cest or has sexual intercourse with a daughter of his own sub clan, he is pun-
ished by his relatives who flog him and slaughter some of his cattles. Clan ex-

357
ogamy combined with Totemism or not is found in many other tribes of Brit-
ish East Africa such as the Mweru, the Suki, the Turkana and some of the Ka-
nasian in Baringo district.
Among the Ibo-speaking people of Nigeria a man is always forbidden
to marry in his own sept (a body of people claiming descent from a single an-
cestor and marriage into the father or mother‘s family is never allowed.
In ancient Rome marriage between persons under the same patria
potestas that is cognate related within the 6th degree (the degree of second
cousins) were considered immoral and unlawful they were nefarious et inces-
tuous nuptial (Seligman, 1950).
The Oraons of Chota Nagpur have an aversion to marriage between a
young man and a girl of the same village and such a marriage is generally be-
lieved to lode ill for one or both of the married pair. In India apart from the
restrictions based on the exogamous groups and the prohibited degree of rela-
tionship there is often a rule that a man should not marry a girl of his own vil-
lage. Thus Rajputs and Lewa Kunbis of Baroda regard all the caste people liv-
ing in the same village as related to each others and marriages must therefore
be arranged with persons living else where. A similar rule obtains amongst the
Mundas and other tribes of Chota Nagpur. It is observed in the eastern Punjab
and Himalayas (Roy, 1915).
In his study of Michigan’s Native American people’, Cleland (1992)
says that since the daughter of each band is required to marry into other fami-
lies a custom known as exogamy in which band in fact trade their daugh-
ters. As the daughters become wives of men in the families of other bands,
they transformed unrelated people into in–laws. Thus marriage bonds are very
important for economic, social and political reasons. These bonds tie family to
family and band to band through a network of mutual kin rights and obliga-
tions.

358
 History and introduction of Rajputs
The term Rajput is traditionally applied to the original Suryavanshi,
Chandravanshi and Agnivanshi clans, the ancient Hindu ruling dynasties of
South Asia. The origin of the Rajput caste is very complicated. It is interesting
to study the clans of the Rajput. There are more than a hundred clans of Raj-
put. The clans are strictly exogamous, and marriage within the clan amounts
to incest and is punished by excommunication.
Most of the Rajasthan kings belong to the Rajput caste whose tradi-
tional duties are fighting and ruling. The word Rajput means “ son of a king’
and indicate that shared Rajput assumption that all though not all caste mem-
bers have been princes, all have descended from kings and so have inherit-
ed royal blood. Despite the class difference represented by the three groups,
Rajputs maintain that they are all related to one another, however distantly
either by descent or marriage. They openly acknowledge that the genealogies
of all real Rajputs intersect some where or other. More over they consider all
Rajputs members of single, if scattered Rajputs communities. This community
is the entire Rajputs caste or Jati within which there daughter must be married
(Harlan, 1992).
Babur's son Humayun was a ruler who was forced to spend long peri-
ods in exile. His son Akbar, however, consolidated his inheritance and ex-
panded what had been the Delhi sultanate into a wide empire. Part of the rea-
son for his success was his inclusion of native Rajput chiefs into the ruling
class of his empire. The Rajput chiefs cemented the alliance with marriages,
with numerous Rajput noblewomen being wed to Mughal grandees. The Ka-
chwahas were the first to extend matrimonial alliances with Akbar; they pio-
neered a trend that soon turned pervasive and played no small role in extend-
ing Rajput influence across the Indian sub-continent. Indeed, two successive
Mughal emperors, Jahangir and Shah Jehan, were born to Rajput mothers.

359
 Rajput chiefs served as Mughal officers and administrators across the
Mughal Empire and enjoyed much influence in the government. In this period,
the aristocratic image of the Rajputs can be said to have crystallized; conse-
quently, caste divisions became rigid. The trend of political relations between
Rajput states and the central power of the Mughal emperors was the precursor
for similar relations between them and the British.
This is a strong tradition that exists amongst the most distinguished of
Rajputs of all faiths, the recording of family names and continuance of the
family tree. Muslim Rajputs of prominence hold and continue to record their
genealogical trees since their Hindu past even after their conversion to Islam,
to the present day. The less distinguished Rajputs or claimants of Rajput herit-
age will more than likely not have ancestral records of family lineage.

Institution of marriage in Rajput

The institution of marriage as found in Rajputs today has been the re-
sult of impact of forces, social, cultural, religious and political. It has evolved
through generations from Svayamvara (self-chosen husband) or Apaharna
(kidnapping), into its present form in which the parents of the bride are (sup-
posed) to make a present of their daughter, with due formality to the bride
groom the technical term being kanyadana. But the suffix” Dan” (donation)
is not palatable to the Rajputs blood, who by nature would resend to accept a
donation. Today as of the old main idea governing marriages is hypergamy.
Rajput tends to marry across long distances. Although most Mewari brides
come from other regions in Rajasthan, a few come from ore distant places like
Himachal Perdesh, Mardya Perdesh and Orrisa (Khan, 2005).
The principles governing the selection of a partner are those of exog-
amy and hypergamy. No boy or girl can marry into patrilineal clan nor would
a girl be married generally into a family of lower or say equal status. Ex-
change marriages are not favored nor have they been found to be successful

360
and hence discouraged. Further girls are not given to families from whom
girls have been taken.
Marriages to Rajput as to all Hindus is not a contact but a cultural
initiation which last a long as the female member lives but is broken with
her death even if the make member survives. The Bombay Gazetteer ex-
plains that “Rajputs are never careful about the age of the husband who is
sometimes two or three years older or younger than the girl. The important
factor is not the difference in age as much as the clan superiority or the higher
family status of bridegroom which is a natural concomitant of the hypergam-
ous attitude (Harlan, 1992).
In Rajput tribes, there are two kinds of rituals related to marriages.
One is the sword marriage and the ordinary kind of marriage in which the
bride groom proceeds to bride house. The latter is called Hathevala and for-
mer is the Khandu the sword marriage is still practiced Kutch, Suarashtra and
Gujarat .It has never existed among other Rajputs in any other part of India. It
is possible that sword marriage was an outcome of hypergamous outlook of
bridegroom who would not go into the socially lower group but would send
for his bride to come to him. It was also stated sword marriage arose out of
sense of insecurity in journeys in ancient times in banditry and clan rivalry in
old Kathiawar. Forbes states” the practice originated probably in the necessity
of scarcity in certain cases and it has been retained for convenience sake and
especially as a means of avoiding expense (Singhji, 1994).
The women in an aristocratic Rajput house tend to come from a variety
of regional and financial backgrounds. The general history of Rajput manage
alliances demonstrate that Zanana have always been more cosmopolitan than
Mardana (Singhji, 1994).

361
 Status relation in South Asia
Milner, Jr. (1988) discusses exogamy (hypergamy) in relation to gen-
eral theory of status alliances by borrowing the idea from Max Weber. Ac-
cording to him” in some social systems the possessions of wealth or political
power is almost the sole source of status. Max Weber called these groups as
‘status groups’ who have a specified life style. This life style requires substan-
tial economic and political resources. Milner, Jr. (1988) relates the source of
status to social associations which are created and maintained by the status
group people to enjoy their status. He also explains that higher status people
tend to increase their status while lower status people usually try to increase
their associations with higher status people. Whereas higher status people
carefully limit and regulate their associations.
Milner, Jr. (1988) also discusses some structural characteristics and
dynamics of exogamy as the system of marriage alliances with references to
status alliance theory. He mentions Parry’s (1979) research study among Raj-
puts of Kangra (India) who practice exogamy and hypergamy within their
clans. The Kangra Rajputs are divided into four main biradari which roughly
means brotherhood. Principally the members of the single biradari are equal
and can intermarry, that means wives should come from within the biradari or
from biradari immediately below. Daughters are given to the high status bira-
dari. He further discus the structural dynamics of hypergamy which is also
discussed in the latter part of this paper.
According to Milner, Jr. (1988) “the most obvious source of hyper-
gamy is the ideology of ‘Kanyadan or ‘the gift of the virgin’. This doctrine
specifically calls for the gift of a virgin bride to the superior and forbids ac-
ceptance of any things in return”. Trautmann (1981) has pointed out that these
notions came from the Brahmins thought which requires that daughters must
be given in higher biradari and not to the lower clan. He further added that
wife giver was not take money or other women in return for the women they

362
give. However, they are also required to provide a substantial dowry and
other gifts to bride-taker (Trautmann, 1981).Thus general theory suggests that
such exchanges are particularly characteristics of certain form of worship in
Hindu culture in which groom is considered as a deity.
While talking about structural dynamics Milner, Jr. (1988) says that
inferiority of the wife givers significantly makes asymmetrical relationships in
which explicit gifts are exchanged for acceptance by the superiors. This prac-
tice is not only culturally sanctioned attractive pattern but also limits the ex-
change marriages within Rajputs. Due to this institutionalized hypergamous
pattern of marriages as mentioned by Milner, Jr. (1988) three processes occur
as an out come.
First, the number and geographical distribution of exogamous rela-
tionships which means that those who are in one jati2) cannot marry within
their own jati which tends to be larger relative to non hypergamous regions.
This is generally rationalized in terms of four gotra3) rule and prohibition
against marrying sapinda4) (Trautmann, 1981; Parry, 1979). The major moti-
vation behind this notion is to reduce the possibility of exchange marriages
and repeated alliances. In this way the circle of those with whom marriage
alliances cannot be made is extended by with new biradari people with whom
the marriage alliances have been formed in the past. Thus, larger group of
people form alliances with each other.
Second out comes is an increase in the size of endogamous group. It
can be explained that if daughters cannot be given to the lower status the there
is a possibility that number of eligible grooms will be decreased. Moreover,
the smaller the upper strata, the fewer the potential grooms here. But this is-
sue is solved by the expansion of the boundaries of the exogenous.
Third process is an increase in the openness and formalization of the
ranking within endogenous castes. That means families and lineages within a
caste are grouped into specific named sub-categories and ranks such as the

363
biradaris of the Rajputs (Parry, 1979). The development of these sub- castes
and ranking is probably formed due to two reasons. One of them can be that it
came out as a response to the difficulties which were faced by the elders in
determining the rank of the potential marriage partner in a large and widely
dispersed caste. Secondly, through these subcategories and ranks formal au-
thority such as biradari council can mediate and impose its decisions on the
group.
It is worth mentioning here that the strata to the top face the problem
of a surplus of daughters. Among Rajputs this was frequently reduced by high
rates of female infanticide and polygyny (Plunkett, 1973) despite the fact that
these remedies produce other serious problems. However this problem is re-
solved by taking brides from the caste below. This shortage of wives has some
benefits for the lower strata; they can surreptitiously charge a bride price for
their daughters (Parry, 1979) though it is contradictory to the idea of Kanya-
dan. This creates another type of contradiction. These groups of people must
give large dowries in order to get higher group to accept their daughters as
wives and at the same time they may have to pay a high bride price to secure
brides for their sons. According to the Parry (1979) system of hypergamy are
inherently unstable or more accurately tend to be in what he calls ‘oscillating
equilibrium’ (Milner, Jr. 1988). This form of hypergamy depends upon the
inferiority of wife givers and the ideology of Kanyadan which is very much
prevalent in South Asia.

The context of marriage in Pakistani Punjab: special reference to

Rajputs
There are certain common themes regarding marriage institution which
prevail throughout South Asia and people living in Pakistani Punjab. They
also share some of the common underlying themes are patriarchal control over
recourses (Cain et al., 1979) hierarchy and significant role of women as mak-

364
ing alliances. Eglar (1960) says that the most important social group out side
the immediate household is the patriline or biradari and marriage is a critical
biradari function where group people participate more specifically within the
biradari and marriages outside this group are considered hypergamous (Ah-
mad, 1974).
Das (1973) summarized the order of the marriage preferences for the
Muslim villages and India as follows: (a) marriage to cousins is preferred to
marriage with non-relatives; (b) marriage of a set of brothers to a set of sisters
is a desirable pattern, although exchange marriage in which daughters are ex-
changed between households are low status; (c) village exogamy is preferred
to village endogamy.
Though marriage confers advantages in form of new cooperative alli-
ances (Egler, 1960); it also carries with it certain risk too. Parry (1979) sug-
gested that for the Rajputs that repetition of marriage to the same group of af-
fine for many generations is a part of risk reduction strategy. These affines are
of a known quantity and have limited ability to afford risk which is a safest
marriage prospect.

Conclusion
Controlling sexual relations among certain group of people within
one’s caste provides the opportunity to people of that group to maximize their
social networking, reduce conflicts, making their alliances within and between
exogamous groups. Therefore, marriage plays a significant role by building
alliances with others who are not related to one’ blood group. In all of this
process women play very crucial role which are given and taken within the
restricted clans. Exogamy along with hypergamy is not a recent phenomenon,
it has been very old tradition which was and is still practiced in various Afri-
can and Asian tribes. The significant feature of this marriage pattern is the ex-
change of women which are given and taken within different clans in the

365
same caste. Exogamy benefits the members of its group in terms of expend-
ing social networking, political and economic power through making allianc-
es.

NOTES
1. [Link]
2. jati, also spelled jat, caste, in Hindu society. The term is derived from the
Sanskrit jāta, “born” or “brought into existence,” and indicates a form of existence
determined by birth. In Indian philosophy jati (genus) describes any group of things
that have generic characteristics in common. Sociologically, jati has come to be used
universally to indicate a caste group among Hindus
[Link]
3. gotra, lineage segment within an Indian caste that prohibits intermarriage
by virtue of the members’ descent from a common mythical ancestor, an important
factor in determining possible Hindu marriage alliances.
4. “Sapinda” relationship with reference to any person extends as far as the
third generation (inclusive) in the line of ascent through the mother, and the fifth (in-
clusive) in the line of ascent through the father, the line being traced upwards in each
case from the person concerned, who is to be counted as the first generation.
Two persons are said to be “sapindas” of each other if one is a lineal ascendant of the
other within the limits of "sapinda" relationship, or if they have a common lineal as-
cendant that is within the limits of "sapinda" relationship with reference to each of
them [Link]

REFERENCES
Ahmad, S. (1974). A village in Pakistani Punjab (pp. 131-172). In: Maloney,
C. (Ed.). Jalpana in South Asia: Seven Community Profiles. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Barnouw, V. (1982). An introduction to anthropology: physical anthropology
and archaeology. Belmont: Dorsey Press.

366
Cain, M.S., Khanum, R. & Nahar, S. (1979). Class, patriarchy, and women's
work in Bangladesh. Population & Development Review, 5, 405-438.
Chagnon, N.A. (1968). Yanomamo: the fierce people. New York: Holt
McDougal.
Cleland, E.C. (1992). Rites of conquest: the history and culture of Michigan's
Native Americans. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Colson, E. ( 1953). Social control and vengeancein plateau Tonga society. Af-
rica, 2, 199-212.
Coult, A.D. (1963). Causality and cross-sex prohibitions. American Anthro-
pologist, 65, 266-277.
Das, V. (1973). The structure of marriage preferences: an account from Paki-
stani fiction. Man, 8, 30-45.
Dumont, L. (1968). Marriage alliance (pp. 19-23). In: Sills, D. (Ed.). Interna-
tional encyclopedia of the social sciences: vol. 10. New York: Mac-
millan & Free Press.
Eglar, Z. (1960). A Punjabi village in Pakistan. New York: Columbia Univer-
sity Press.
Fox, R. (1967). Kinship and marriage: an anthropological perspective. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fraser, J.S. (1910). Totemism and exogamy: a treatise of certain early forms
of superstition and society. London: Macmillan.
Gluckman, M. (1955). Custom and conflict in Africa. New York: Blackwell.
Harlan, L. (1992). Religion and Raputana; the ethics and protections in con-
temporary narratives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kang, E.G. (1979). Exogamy and peace relations of social units: cross-cultural
test ethnology. Ethnology, 18, 85-99.
Khan, R.M.S. (2005). The Rajputs: history, clans, culture and nobility. Delhi:
Eastern Book Corporation

367
Kuper, A. (1982). Wives for cattle: bride wealth and marriage in southern
Africa. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1969). The elementary structures of kinship. Boston: Beacon
Press.
Malinowski, B (1930). Kinship. Man, 30, 19–29.
McLennan, J.F. (1970). Primitive marriage. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Mauss, M. (1966). The gift: forms and functions of exchange in archaic socie-
ties. London: Cohen & West.
Milner, Jr., M. (1988). Status relations in marriage alliances: toward a general
theory. Indian Sociology, 22, 146-169.
Morgan, L.H. (1963). Ancient society. Cleveland: World Publ. Co.
Murdock, G.P. (1949). Social structure. New York: Macmillan.
Murphy, R.F. (I957). Inter-group hostility and social cohesion. American An-
thropologist, 59, 1018-1035.
Parker, S. (1976). The precultural basis of the incest taboo: toward a biosocial
theory. American Anthropologist, 78, 285-305.
Parkin, R (1997). Kinship: an introduction to basic concepts. New York:
Willey.
Parry, J.P. (1979). Caste and kinship in Kangra. London: Psychology Press.
Plunkett, F.T. (1973). Royal marriages in Rajasthan. Contributions Indian So-
ciology, 7, 64-80.
Roy, S.C. (1915) The Oraons of Chota Nagpur: their history, economic life
and social organization. Ranchi.
Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland [RAIGB&I].
(1951). Notes and queries on anthropology. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Scheffler, H.W. (I964). The genesis and repression of conflict: Choiseul Is-
land. American Anthropologist, 66, 789-804.

368
Seligman, B.Z. (1950). The problem of incest and exogamy: a restatement.
American Anthropologist, 52, 305-316.
Service, E.R. (1971). Primitive social organization; an evolutionary perspec-
tive. New York: Random House.
Singhji, V. (1994). The Rajputs of Saurashtra, popular prakashan. Bombay:
PVT Ltd.
Slater, M.K. (1959). Ecological factors in the origin of incest. American An-
thropologist, 61, 1042-1059.
Schneider, D. (1965). Some muddles in the models: how the system really
works (pp. 25-86). In: Banton, M. (Ed.). The relevance of models for
social anthropology. London: Tavistock.
Taylor, E.B. (1888). On a method of investigating the development of institu-
tions, applied to laws of marriage and descent. J. Royal Anthropologi-
cal Institute, 18, 245-272.
Thomas, W.I. (1898). The relation of sex to primitive social control. Amer. J.
Sociology, 3, 754-776.
Trautmann, T.R. (1981). Dravidan Kinship. Cambridge: Cambridge Universi-
ty Press.
Wakil, P.A. (1970). Explorations into the kin-networks of the Punjabi society:
a preliminary statement. J. Marriage & Family, 32, 700-707.
Westermarck, E. (1891). The history of human marriage. New York: Macmil-
lan.
Whelehan, P. (1985). Biological anthropology – incest: a biological view.
American Anthropologist, 87, 677-678.
White, L.A. (1949). The science of culture: a study of man and civilization.
New York: Grove Press.

369
  Durrani Atifa, Assistant Professor
Department of Gender & Women Studies
Block # 11,
Allama Iqbal Open University
Islamabad, PAKISTAN
E-Mail: atifadurrani@[Link]

© 2013 Venets: Author

370