The tribes and castes of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Volume 1 (of 4)Crooke, William
History
The tribes and castes of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Volume 1 (of 4)
Crooke, William
Caste -- India -- History; Hindus -- India; Tribes -- India -- History
[Communal marriage.] Reference has already been made to the question of
communal marriage in connection with the origin of exogamy. It has been
observed that the evidence is insufficient to justify the belief that
among any of the tribes or castes of this part of India the women are
at the common service of all the men of the group. On the authority of
a compilation entitled, “The People of India,” [52] it has been
regarded as established that “the Teehurs of Oudh live together almost
indiscriminately in large communities, and even when two people are
regarded as married the tie is but nominal.” This has been since quoted
as one of the stock examples of communal marriage in India. [53] Now of
the Tiyars we have fairly complete accounts. The Oudh people of that
name are a sept of Râjputs in the Sultânpur District, who do not appear
in the enumeration of the last census. There is another body of Tiyars
who are a sub-caste of the Mallâh, or boatman class, found to the
number of 1,865 souls in the Ghâzipur District. They are numerous in
Behâr and Bengal, and Mr. Risley has given a full account of them. [54]
There is no evidence whatever that anything like communal marriage
prevails among them. The fact seems to be that by the necessities of
their occupation the husbands leave their wives for long periods at a
time and go on voyages as far as Calcutta. That a high standard of
female morality is maintained during their absence it would be rash to
assert: but this is very different from communal marriage. A rather
better example comes from the Beriyas, one of the nomadic and criminal
gypsy tribes. The girls of the tribe are reserved, in the Central
Ganges-Jumna-Duâb, for prostitution, and if any member of the tribe
marries a girl devoted to this occupation, he has to pay a fine to the
tribal council. This is what Sir John Lubbock would term “expiation for
marriage,” the annexation of the woman by one individual man of the
group being regarded as improper. [55] Dr. Westermarck, it may be
remarked, disputes the connection of this custom with communal
marriage. [56]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account