INFORMATION ON SOCIAL AND POLITICAL HISTORY FROM SAUPTIKAPARVAN, THE BOOK TEN OF MAHABHARATA.

https://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUAM:ISL10327_dynmc?width=3000&height=3000 

INFERENCE ABOUT SOCIETY

Firstly, there is evidence of social hierarchy based on Varnashrama dharma is present in the society. There is evidence of certain roles which are assigned particular to the people pertaining to their varna based on their birth. As evidenced from the text where Sanjaya explaining the wrong deed of Ashvatthaman due to change of his duty. As he explains that the Lord of all being on creating every creature, alloted to each his role and as distributor of qualities, he allocated to each different class a particular quality. However, there are notes to breach in this system as for example we see in case of Ashvatthaman who is Brahmin-ritual and educational expert- by birth, but Kshatriya warrior-by training and livelihood. Also as we see his father Dronacharya who is the teacher of kshatriyas, thus showing that both the varnas somewhere come equal in the social ladder in the society.

However, there is also evidence of inter-marriages in the varna system, for example Suta as class developing due to intermarriage between Brahmin and Kshatriya. Since, this mixed class was given the role of chariotter or like a bard acting as an advisor like person etc can be seen subordinate to what is called brahmin and kshatriya roles. But how far such inter marriages were accepted in the society can not defined by this but the demeaning role show some kind of reluctance on this part. However, in contrast we know krishna was a suta in the text. But we do see some kind of acceptance between marriages between upper caste men and women as for example Dhritarashtra who has one son Yuyutsu by Sughada who was a Dasi, i.e a maid but Yuyutsu still enjoyed the status of kshatriya. Also, we know from the text that Dhritarashtra himself was son from sage Vyasa who in turn is son of Satyavati a fisherwoman when young and Parashara who was a sage.

Also slavery is seen to be persistent and the evidence that they were among the lowest

ladder of society is there but what was their actual position and status probably can not

be determined as we do see existent of Dasa and Dasi also there is system of people

loosing in battle becoming a slave is evident from the text when Dhritrarashtra declares

to Sanjaya of becoming slave of Pandu sons after the death of the Duryodhana.

As far as the role of women is concerned, since the text is mainly from the point of

kshatriya and brahmin male their voice is subsumed and the text is silent on their role

and status in society. But certainly the Sauptikaparvan do not show any woman who is

directly in power in the state. Another emphasis on the low status of women in the

society can be seen from the example of marriage of Draupadi from Pandavas where

she gets divided as food among the Pandavas with hers being no say in her marriage.

But in contrast we do see some power dynamics being in their hand once they became

part of the family as it was the Kunti who divided her unintentionally but her words were

accepted by Pandavas. Also, in the later part of the story, Draupadi herself is seen with

some authority in her family when she asks Bheem to bring the blood of Duryodhana for

washing down of her hair.

Also, it can be seen that Monogamy was the desired system of marriage though no doubt

there are evidences of polygamous marriage to be common in the context of kings and

princes having more then one wives. But, how much this was true for common people

can not be analysed clearly from the text. Also polyandry is present as Draupadi

marrying the pandavas. However, how far it was accepted in the society is a point of

question as we do see as argued by Crosby, that there is an explanation in the sense of

justifying monoandry by claiming pandavas to be manifestation of Indra.

There are also some clear evidence from the text about some general notions and

practices pertaining to Indian society. Like there is a focus on discipline and divine will

for fulfillment of one’s duty and Dharma to be defined as work to be done in a pure state

of mind which we see in the narration of Sanjaya to Dritharashtra about the act of

Ashvatthaman who kills the sleeping Panchalas. Also, the practice of keeping hair loose

as sign of mourning is often presented here, evidenced from the act of Ashvatthaman

and Draupadi who loosed their on hearing the death of their dearest, former on the

death of Dronacharya and the later on the death of Panchalas.

POLITY

As far as polity is concerned we know that it is kind of monarchical state polity as even

in the same family there is a war between cousins where there treachery entails

patricide, fratricide and the murder of teachers for the throne. Also, indication of so

many war like clans like Kripa of Gotama, Kritavarman of Satvat clan etc taking part in

the fight of Pandavas and Kauravas shows that the kingdom was stretched conquering

so many warring clans.

Also there is evidence of kingdom having power accumulated at centre as the polity

seems to be large and highly prosperous and only a centralised kind of political

structure can have such kind of components as there might be a system of surplus

production as we have the evidence of land being tilled from the statement of Kripa. The

evidence of prosperity is also reflected from the use precious metals and objects of

Gold in the text. For example the weapons used by the warriors were made of precious

metals like the mace of the Duryodhana made of Gold also the statement of Kripa that

the Brahmins former attended the dead Duryodhana in hope of wealth, 3 also evidence

of Kambojan horse dressed in golden trappings and chariot encrusted with precious

stones fashioned by the crafters reflects the prosperity of the Empire which only an

Organised state structure can posses.

There is evidence of kingdom achieving excellence in developing weapons of mass

destruction as evidence of the Gandiva bow having the potential to devastate the entire

country. We know from other sections of Mahabharata that this bow was provided by

Agni God, the symbol of fire, also the science of making the bow was only with the

Brahma shows specialised people skilled in science. Also if we associate it with the

contemporary world we know the nuclear weapons having such mass scale destruction

produce fire in large amount on the nuclear reaction and we know it requires a great

deal of specialisation. Thus the existence of such type of weaponry is not possible for

small state structure.

The evidence of law books to guide the people in the society is another very important

aspect of an organised state structure. As from the statement of Sanjaya we do see that

there might be idea of punishing those who didn’t work according to whatever

prescribed in the law books. His statement that whoever disregards the injunction found

in the law books and sets out to kill in violation of them has fallen from the path of good

and is driven onto the path of evil. 4 However, this doesn’t define properly if it was only in

spiritual sense or some kind of mechanism was there in place for working of such

system like bureaucracy.

Another aspect of a well defined state structure is the evidence of dating system which

is very important for a progressive society to work. As there is evidence of new era the

kali yuga beginning with the birth of the sole male heir to the Pandava-Kaurava line

Parikshit and ending of the Dvapara yuga with the mass scale killing by Ashvatthaman

of the Panchalas. This also indicates the era being defined pertaining to birth and death

of rulers thus legitimize their authority. Also this kind of changing of yuga to kaliyuga

also somewhere indicate that such kind of patrinial and large scale war was very

uncommon for the society before moving forward to highly competitive state society.

Thus, it can be concluded from the text of Sauptikaparvan that the society and polity was

rather complexed as in comparison to what is actually presumed to be for the vedic era

which is seen as a tribal society. Since, the central theme of the story is revenge

pertaining to fight between a family for power in a major ruling clan, little reference and

that too indefinetly can be defined here. Also, the story being an epic no concrete

reference of it can be derived on contemporary society or the time period of which it is

talking about. Keeping this in mind we do resemblance of some social and political

aspect which we find in today’s society, like the presence of social differentiation, the

legitimation of varnaashrama dharma, the preference to monoandry but then reflection

of monogamy being common among upper caste, the symbols of mourning, evidence of

caste like society, some kind of centralised state structure, concept of becoming slave

after loss in battle etc. However, one thing which can be marked out is that the text is

mostly concerned about the ruling clan and the aristocracy and put very little glimpses

upon the other strata of society. Thus, it becomes looking the society and the polity from

the top down approach where a large mass of society is still unapproached and

non-discussed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Kate Crosby translated Mahabharata, Book 1 0: Dead of Night, (Sauptikaparvan), published by New York University Press and JJC Foundation, 2009.