Status of women in rural society with special reference to
polyandry of Garhwal Himalaya
Dr, Alok Chantia
Lecturer (Anthropology)
Sri J.N.P.G.College
Lucknow.
The Indian peninsula contains a total of 437 tribal groups, out of which 40 are
polyandrous. They can be classified as 28 being fraternal polyandrous, 5 are nonfraternal
polyandrous, 7 are mixture polyandrous. But polyandry in the Himalayan region
of Garhwal is well known to every one. It is also a matter of discussion that most tribal
groups are engaged in agriculture. So tribals should be included in the rural society. Due
to heavy population, scarcity of food, unemployment, tribalization has increased. In 1967
the government declared Khasa as a tribe in the light of their queer characteristic
polyandry. After seeing the parameter –polyandry, in deciding a group as a tribe, the
people of an adjacent area of Khasa tribe declared themselves, a tribe with a strange name
‘JaunsarBawar”. While Dr. Majumdar described only one tribe in Garhwal Himalaya
(i.e. Khasa), who engaged in polyandry. So in my paper, I will discuss the use of the term
‘JaunsarBawar”, which has brought about a change in the status of woman of this region.
JaunsarBawar lies in the Chakrata tehsil of district Dehradun, Jaunpur lies in the
Dhanaulti tehsil of Tehri district and Rawain in the Purola and Barkot tehsil of Uttarkashi
district. Lying adjacent to each other, these tracts constitute a geographical-cultural chunk
of polyandry in the Garhwal Himalaya in Uttaranchal. They lie in a inaccessible
mountainous terrain, the topographical rigors of which make life exacting, and as
assumed in the academics of polyandry functional.
Here it is notable that the inhabitants of JaunsarBawar are a schedule tribe, but not those
of RawainJaunpur though like the former, they also practice polyandry and are structured
in a similar caste-stratification.
In Chakrata tehsil of Dehradun, the local caste structure is discernible into three
stratification levels, i.e. the upper (land owning castes - the Rajputs and the Brahmins),
the middle (artisan castes - the Nath, the Bajgi, the Mistri and the Lohar), and the lower
(unclean castes – the Kolta, the Chamar and the Dom). Among these, the castes of the
upper and the lower levels are more numerous, than those of the middle level. They also
show a higher incidence of polyandry. Because of these changes, this correlation between
caste-structure and polyandry is now changing, though not evenly.
JaunsarBawar claims their association with the Pandavas. Is it true? Do women normally
union with several husbands? In the Mahabharat, Draupadi is bahubhartrika, but not
Subhundra, the second wife of Arjuna. Other wives whom the Pandava brothers
individually, like Hidimba (Bhim’s wife), were also not shared. Only Draupadi was
shared by common consent.
The inhabitants of these tracts claim spiritual and mythical affinity with the Pandava of
the Mahabharat. The Pandava dance and the worship of Drapaudi in certain areas in the
biannual ritual celebration (at the time of each harvest) evidently symbolize this
relationship. But here, unlike Draupadi, the wife is not won in a competition of archery.
Nor has she the right to swayamvar as such. She is rather purchased and shared as a wife.
A comparison of the similarities and variations in the practices of polyandry in the
RawainJaunpur and JaunsarBawar throws much light on the whys of polyandry, its
dynamics and a woman’s place in it. JaunsarBawar show a higher incidence (48.3%) of
polyandry than the RawainJaunpur (30.56%).
Disparity of the sexes is wider in JaunsarBawar, here being 820 females for 1000 males,
as against 996.56 females for 1000 males in the RawainJaunpur. The correlation between
wider disparity of sexes and higher incidence of polyandry is obvious, though not casual.
Showing a wider disparity of sexes, the castes of the middle level don’t register a
corresponding higher incidence of polyandry. In RawainJaunpur, two brothers generally
born one after another, generally share one, two or three wives. In JaunsarBawar, two to
five brothers have been found sharing one to four wives.
Both in JaunsarBawar and the RawainJaunpur, a woman has to compensate her husband,
if she forces the dissolution of marriage. Even a widow has to acquire freedom to
remarry, by compensating her deceased husband’s family- in certain cases, even her son.
In JaunsarBawar, she compensates she compensates for the expenses incurred on
marrying her and in RawainJaunpur for the price paid for her. Sometimes, expenses
incurred on the wife’s maintenance and treatment may also be demanded and added to
the compensation charged. Depending on the negotiations and consequent agreement,
interest on the amount of bride price paid and /or on the expenses incurred in marriage
may also be charged.
In all these tracts, a daughter is viewed as an asset of her father, a wife of her husband
and a widowed woman of her son and the deceased husband’s family. In the exigencies
of life, to look to her father, brother and brother’s son is a woman’s privilege, which is
honored as her right. The tradition allows a woman the right to remarry, but the
traditional liability to compensate the husbands, she divorces (choot ka paisa dena) also
constraints this right. She plays a vigorous role in the local household and agricultural
economy. Yet she is viewed as impure and, like an untouchable is denied temple entry.
The worldwide view about woman is a more meaningful social reality relating to woman
in polyandry. Woman is a dependable source of labor needed for agriculture and
household work. She is needed to procreate sons, for whom there is definite preference.
She is a possession, an asset. As a daughter, she is to be given in marriage for a price. As
wife she can be fraternally shared like land, if brothers sharing her agree to do so. This
also explains sexual sharing of a set of wives by a set of brothers, though wives may be
brought and kept in the individual names of the brothers.
Why polyandry? The question is not purely academic, when examined in the perspective
of dam vivah and woman’s place in it and in polyandry. The directive principles of Indian
constitution relating to uniform civil code and the amelioration of the weaker sections (to
which women belong) lead to this question as its political undertones.
It is said “polyandry is a functional consequence of disparity of sexes, scarcity of land,
difficult mountainous terrain, labor, intensive agriculture, coupled with sheep and goat
rearing and domestication of cattle. This setting necessitates joint living at the level of
household, of which sharing of wife is the most outstanding feature. The growing politics
of being polyandrous tribal is a consequence of that, on the basis of polyandry and the
claim of not practicing Hinduism and untouchability. The elite of JaunsarBawar could
wrest for the region, the political status of scheduled tribe under an irrelevant fragile title,
the Jaunsari tribe – and the advantages of protective discrimination flowing there from
(Bhoria 1975). This smacks of a muffled political compromise on the woman’s status as
bahubhartrika.
However, this political move has been challenged since then, the status of a scheduled
tribe for all the Jaunsari, it is pointed out, promotes the interest of the elitist castes (the
Brahmin and the Rajput) at the cost of those of the middle and the lower strata, the havenots.
Since then, a bill has also been pending to exclude the Brahmin and the Rajput from
the status of scheduled tribe. To retain the status of schedule tribe, the elite in
JaunsarBawar lift arguments from the writing of academicians. They argue that the
custom of polyandry or making woman bahubhartrika is functional to the social
economy. It is need not be disturbed, meaning thereby that their status as a scheduled
tribe should be secured. Following the Jaunsaris, the inhabitants of RawainJaunpur have
also been demanding and politically lobbying for the status of scheduled tribe.
In this politics, a woman’s position as bahubhartrika and problems associated there with
get relegated to the background. It is tending to reinforce polyandry as a vested elitist
interest. The crumbling façade of polyandry has tended to become a sort of political lever
to retain or attain the status of a scheduled tribe.
In the light of status of woman of the Garhwal Himalaya in a polyandrous society,
women suffered due to the judgement of Supreme Court. In the case of Dr. Surajmani Vs.
Durgacharan 2001 (42) ALR-847, in which the honorable judge said, “Hindu Marriage
Act 1955 covers whole India, but those groups are excluded who do their marriage with
special custom”. In this regard polyandry cannot be challenged. So the whole
geographical chunk of Garhwal Himalaya for polyandry has been protected by court. But
this judgement makes worse the position of those women who are not tribal but
practicing polyandry (the Brahmin and the Rajput).
This is a real picture of rural woman in the Garhwal Himalaya, who are the victim of
customs, politics and the judiciary.
References
1. Bierreman Gerald G. 1963 Hindus of the Himalayas, Bombay, Oxford.
2. Bhatt G. S. 1981 Polyandry in Western Himalayas.
Notes and observation,
Journal of Social Science Resereach
3. Bhatt G. S. 1992 Women in Polyandry in Rawain and Jaunpur,
Jaipur, Rawat Publications.
4. Bhoria K. S. 1975 The case of Jaunsaris as a Scheduled Tribe,
Journal of Lal Bahudar Shastri National
Academy of Administration XX/2.
5. Majumdar D. N. 1944 The Fortunes of Primitive Tribes.
Lucknow, Universal Publishers.
6. Majumdar D. N. 1963 Himalayan Polyandary
Bomabay , Asia
7. Mahabharat : Swayanvar Parva and Vaiwahik Parva (Part I), Edition VI
Gita Press, Gorakhpur.
8. Dr. Surajmani Vs. Durgacharan 2001 (42) ALR-847
