The Social Structure of the Mahábhárata period

A solid social structure, a social system, did not exist then.

Society was yet to evolve one. Even the present Sanatana social system was not yet fully developed.

The Aryans were living in huts built on hillocks. There was a lady in each group named “Gośt́hii Mátá.”

People would introduce themselves with the name of that lady.

Later on, this matrilinear order got changed into a patrilinear order, as explained in the book The Human Society Part Two.

• According to the matrilinear order the mother’s name was asked.
• According to the patrilinear order the father’s name was asked.
• Property in the matrilinear order was inherited from the mother’s side.
• in the patrilinear order from the father’s side.

In the patrilinear order, introductions were made according to the hillock a man was living on.

In the Vaedika language one name for a hillock is “gotra.”

So “gotra” came to mean the inhabitants of a particular hillock.

People used to introduce themselves using the name of the headman of their particular hillock.

For instance, if one introduced oneself as belonging to Kashyapa Gotra, he or she meant that Kashyapa was the headman of the particular hillock he or she belonged to.

The same with Bharadvaja Gotra, whose leader was Bharadvaja.

Hence in the Mahábhárata period, the gotra system was used, especially around Delhi and in North-west India.

But in South and in West India (Bengal), the matrilinear order alone was used.

Today, this system is still used in some parts of Kerala, Bengal and Assam.

The portions of India wherein the matrilinear system was prevalent during the Mahábhárata period were known as “Pramiila Rajya.”

• This means “The Reign of Women.”

In some portions of India there was patrilinear order, while there was matrilinear order in other portions; i.e., there was no fixed order.

Even in the patrilinear order, a solid social structure had not come about.

Children would introduce themselves by the name of their mother’s current husband, regardless of who their actual father was.

This system was not considered bad, then.

Such children were known as “niyoga putra”.

The fathers were known as “niyoga pati”.

There were also legally married fathers.

Today this system is considered to be bad.

As the social system changes, so changes the mentality of man.

For instance, the married husband of Kunti was Pandu, but the Pandavas were not the sons of Pandu.

But the influence of the matrilinear order was there also.

One of the names of Arjuna is Kaonteya, which means “the son of Kunti” – so people were known by their mother’s name also.

The Pandavas, when introducing themselves, would say that they were the sons of Pandu though Pandu was not their actual father.

But since he was married to Kunti, they would say he was their father.

The mother of Karna was Kunti, but his father was someone named Suda.

People did not condemn Kunti due to this.

Karna was accepted by society as niyoga putra.

This niyoga putra system formally disappeared from Indian Hindu society some 700-800 years ago.

But it disappeared only 200 years ago at most.

It was not considered bad in the Mahábhárata period.

The social order is dynamic. It will change gradually.

That which is considered to be bad today may not be so tomorrow. This is the law of society.

Draopadii had 5 husbands, which was not considered to be bad because in the Mongolian race of Northern India there was polyandry.

Even today, in Tibet and in Laddakh, India, this system is prevalent.

For instance, with the Aryans, one husband could have 5-6 wives.

Even today, in Hindu society, that is found in some measure or the other.

Hence, in the Mahábhárata age, there was no solid social system.

Only the Mongolians, known as Pisháca in old Saḿskrta, had the system of one wife and many husbands.

But among Aryans one man might have many wives.

In East India (Bengal) and in South India, there was the matrilinear order.

With the Aryans, there was a blending of matrilinear order and patrilinear order. There was a social relationship with the mother, but the social order was patrilinear or patriarchal.

The caused a clash among the matrilinear and patrilinear systems in the Post-Buddhist era, i.e., later Hinduism (Brahmanism).

This led to the present social system.

In the post-Buddhistic era, Manu created the Sanatana social system which blended the two systems together.

This means that Manu was 100% influenced by the Mahábhárata social system.

But Manu accepted the Aryan social system, and avoided the social system of the Mongolians, South Indians and East Indians as much as possible.

Because of this avoidance, a perfect system could not be made.