ADVERTISEMENTS:
In this article we will discuss about the pattern of kinship in India.
Kinship system is essentially a ‘cultural system.’ There is no universal kinship pattern in the world. It varies according to varying cultural systems. By way of illustration, we may refer to differences in kinship patterns obtaining in European and Indian societies.
In the former a very clear-cut distinction is drawn between consanguineous kin and affinal kin—the two are poles apart. Kinship terminologies used in these societies bring out the distinction very boldly. A married man and a married woman refer to the relatives of their spouses as in-laws. Usage determines the relationships with in-laws.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The very use of the term “in-law” sets them apart from blood kins. Again, in Western society a married woman has the status of an affinal kin in her husband’s family. In Indian society, on the other hand, the distinction between blood kins and affinal kins is not so sharply drawn.
Sometimes the distinction is so blurred that it is difficult to tell one from the other. After marriage, the wife enjoys the status of a blood kin in her husband’s family, enjoying all the rights and discharging all the obligations of her husband’s blood kins.
In Indian society, apart from blood kins and affinal kins, even the Active kins are looked upon as .one’s own people. That is, among one’s own people are included persons related by blood, by marriage, by living together in the same house, neighbourhood and village, by being members of the same class in school, by working together in the same office, by being initiated by the same Guru, and so forth.
Inden and Nicholas have brought out the basic difference in cultural values in this regard among Westerners and Indians by saying that “because of the dualistic assumption” in Western culture, they “emphasise the distinction within the larger class” between persons related by natural substance and the others who are ‘merely’ related by a code for conduct”.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
“Under the monistic postulate” of Indian culture, by contrast, all of one’s own people are seen as related both by substance and by a code for conduct.
The difference in kinship patterns obtaining in Western society and Indian society owes its origin to a deep and basic difference in the underlying principles of social organisation in these two types of societies. Our society extends beyond family only to the limits of a village, and no farther.
The defining characteristics of such a narrow society, including rights and obligations of all groups of people in such a society, are shaped by the demands of the collective life of the family and the village.
Naturally, a very close-knit relationship among members of a village develops. On the other hand, a Western society extends far beyond family and village. As a result, formal ties replace informal ties of relationship, and a sharp distinction between blood kins and affinal kins is the natural off-shoot.
We cannot also speak of a uniform kinship pattern for the whole of India so long as different social conditions continue to persist in different parts of the country and influence norms and institutions in those regions. But we may broadly delineate a picture of kinship pattern which prevails all over India with minor variations from region to region.
Wider ties of kinship in India:
Outside his family, a villager spends much of his time with his other kinsmen. In the village a family depends on them in an emergency or on ritual or festive occasions of in connection with work in the field and sometimes even in settlement of disputes. We may take into account various classes of kinsmen outside his immediate family with whom he interacts.
We may, in the first place, consider those, families which are closest to him in terms of residence as well as in terms of patrilineal descent. Such a group has been characterised by Mandelbaum as a localized lineage. These men are brothers who have set up separate households or the sons of brothers or patrilateral cousins.
All the persons who reside in such households, including wives, adopted children and resident sons-in-law, are considered to be part of the lineage even though they are of different partrilineai descent.
The families who belong to one lineage usually perform formal ritual functions together, particularly observance of mourning rites. Such joint observance helps to define the boundaries of the group. They also participate jointly in many other activities. The lineage is regarded as an extension of the family and, as such, it is an exogamous unit.Secondly, a larger exogamous category is known in many jatis, though not in all.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It is called gotra or clan.. “It is usually a grouping rather than a group, a taxonomic category rather than the basis for joint action.” Each person inherits the gotra of his father. Marriage within the gotra is forbidden because persons bearing the same gotra are considered to be descended s from the same progenitor.
The members having the same gotra tend to be too dispersed and their kin ties too remote to be able to share much in the way of common interests or joint action. Gotra grouping is, however, mainly used “to classify jati fellows into eligible and ineligible spouses.”
Thirdly, there is a class of kinsmen who provide a basis for some joint action. In this category are the families of the jati group, i.e. those belonging to the same jati, who live in one village. They are looked upon as kinsmen in the sense that they are “either actual or potential relatives with the added bond of village residence”.
Finally, there is a class of fictive kin. Since villagers consider kinship bonds to be the best basis for reciprocity and allegiance, people who are not actually related by blood or marriage can establish fictional bonds of kinship with one another.” In this way a person can secure for himself the benefits of a wider circle of kin than biology can provide for him”.
Kinship Bonds in North and in South India:
Marriage alliances are the principal means by which new kinship bonds can be forged. There is, however, a fundamental difference in this regard between North and South India. In the first place, broadly speaking, in the South a family tries to strengthen existing kin ties through marriage. In the North, on the other hand, a family tends to affiliate with a separate, set of people to whom it is not already linked.
The system of kinship terms used by most Dravidian-speaking people of South India is connected with closer marriage. All descent lines are divided into two categories: those with whom one may marry and those with whom one may not.
According to Mandelbaum, the structure of Dravidian kinship terminology “can be derived from a few postulates, a principal one being that the children of brother and sister should marry. The term used for cross-cousin of the opposite sex (a man’s mother’s brother’s daughter and usually also his father’s sister’s daughter) has the connotation of prospective or possible spouse. By extension all potential mates are called cross-cousin”.
Co-operation among kins is periodically strengthened by marriages within that circle.
In his analysis of South Indian kinship, Nur Yalman says:
“Brother and sister must be separated but their offspring must also be united”.
In view of this, Mandelbaum observes:
“In most of North India, by contrast, there is a centrifugal rather than a centripetal tendency in making marriage alliances. A prospective match is seen more as an opportunity to ally two different sets of kin than- as a way of strengthening an existing set”.
Secondly, in Northern India “unilineal kin are often linked to a particular locality either in fact or by implication, so that village exogamy is common. In the Southern usage, the emphasis is more on bi-lateral connections, and there is little or no territorial exogamy”.
Thirdly, “affines in the south may co-operate and are involved in each other’s affairs in a way that is not tolerated in northern jatis”.