NCERT Solutions for Class 12 History Themes in Indian History I Chapter 3: Kinship, Caste and Class: Early Societies

Chapter at a glance

Exercises – Answer in 100–150 words

Answer

Patriliny means tracing descent from father to son, grandson and so on. Most ruling dynasties (c. 6th century BCE onwards) claimed to follow this system.

Why it was important for elite families: 1. Succession to the throne – in ruling families, patriliny decided who would inherit the throne; sons (usually the eldest) succeeded fathers. This helped ensure orderly succession and continuity of the dynasty. (Sometimes, in the absence of sons, brothers succeeded; very rarely women, e.g. Prabhavati Gupta, exercised power.) 2. Inheritance of resources – elite families controlled land, wealth, cattle and other resources. Patriliny ensured that these were passed on within the family and not dispersed — e.g. the Mahabharata war was fought over land and the throne between the Kauravas and Pandavas, who were cousins of the same patrilineage. 3. Status and identity – lineage and descent from famous ancestors (e.g. Kuru lineage, Ikshvaku dynasty) gave prestige and legitimacy. 4. Brahmanical norms – the Dharmasutras and Dharmashastras emphasised sons for performing rituals (the Rigveda has mantras praying for sons), and laid down rules to ensure patriliny.

Hence, patriliny was crucial to maintain political power, property and social status for elite families, though it was not universally followed.

Patriliny (descent from father to son) mattered to elite families because it determined succession to the throne, kept land, wealth and other resources within the family, gave status through descent from famous ancestors, and was supported by Brahmanical norms emphasising sons — the Mahabharata itself being a conflict over land and power within a patrilineage.

Answer

According to the Dharmasutras and Dharmashastras, only Kshatriyas were supposed to be kings. However, many important ruling lineages had different origins:

1. Mauryas – their origins are debated. Later Buddhist texts suggested they were Kshatriyas, but Brahmanical texts described them as being of “low” origin.
2. Shungas and Kanvas – the immediate successors of the Mauryas, were Brahmanas.
3. Shakas – came from Central Asia and were regarded as mlechchhas (barbarians or outsiders) by the Brahmanas. Yet the best-known Shaka ruler, Rudradaman, rebuilt the Sudarshana lake, and was a patron of Sanskrit.
4. Satavahanas – the best-known ruler, Gotami-puta Siri-Satakani, claimed to be a unique Brahmana (eka bamhana) and also a destroyer of the pride of Kshatriyas. He claimed to have ensured that there was no intermarriage among members of the four varnas, but at the same time he entered into a marriage alliance with the kin of Rudradaman (a Shaka).
5. Guptas – sometimes regarded as Vaishyas by origin.

Conclusion: Kings were not invariably Kshatriyas. Political power was effectively open to anyone who could muster support and resources. Rulers often claimed Kshatriya status or sought Brahmanical legitimacy, but birth in a Kshatriya family was not essential.

No. Although Brahmanical texts said only Kshatriyas should be kings, the Mauryas were described as of “low” origin, the Shungas and Kanvas were Brahmanas, the Shakas were outsiders (mlechchhas), and the Satavahana ruler Gotami-puta Siri-Satakani claimed to be a unique Brahmana. Political power depended on support and resources, not birth.

Answer

Similarities: all three show the existence of varna-based norms and hierarchy.

Differences: Drona’s story shows enforcement of varna norms by a Brahmana (though he himself deviated); Hidimba’s story shows flexibility and acceptance of marriage across groups; Matanga’s story (Buddhist) criticises and rejects caste pride and untouchability.

All three stories show varna norms. In Drona’s story, a Brahmana teacher (himself in a Kshatriya occupation) enforced varna norms by refusing to teach Ekalavya and demanding his thumb; in Hidimba’s story, norms were relaxed as a rakshasa woman married Bhima; in the Buddhist Matanga story, a chandala Bodhisatta challenged caste pride and taught that worth depends on conduct, not birth.

Answer

Brahmanical view (Purusha sukta of the Rigveda): - Society was created by the gods: the four varnas emerged from the body of Purusha, the primeval man — Brahmanas from his mouth, Kshatriyas from his arms, Vaishyas from his thighs and Shudras from his feet. - Hence the varna order was presented as divinely ordained, natural and unchangeable, with a fixed hierarchy; occupations were determined by birth.

Buddhist theory of social contract (Sutta Pitaka): - Originally, human beings did not have fully evolved bodily forms, and the world of plants was not fully developed; all beings lived in an idyllic state of peace, taking from nature only what they needed for each meal. - Gradually this state deteriorated as human beings became greedy, vindictive and deceitful; they began to store food, and conflicts arose. - So they decided to choose a person who would be “wrathful when indignation is right, who would censure that which should rightly be censured and banish him who deserves to be banished” — in return, they would give him a portion of the rice. This person, chosen by the whole people (mahasammata), became the king. - Thus kingship was based on human choice and agreement, with taxes as payment for services.

Differences

The Purusha sukta presented the four varnas as created from the body of the primeval Purusha — a divinely ordained, fixed hierarchy. The Buddhist theory held that kingship arose from a social contract: when people became greedy and conflicts arose, they chose a person (mahasammata) as king to maintain order in return for a share of rice. Society was thus a human, changeable institution, and the king was chosen by and answerable to the people.

Answer

Criteria used: 1. Varna/ritual status – Brahmanas and the chief priest come first, reflecting the highest ritual status of Brahmanas in the varna order. 2. Teachers (gurus) – Drona and Kripa, who were teachers of the princes, come next — respect for the guru. 3. Age and seniority – elders come before the young: Bhishma (the grand-uncle and chief of the Kurus), then the old king Dhritarashtra, then Duryodhana and his younger brother, then the young Kuru warriors (brothers, sons, grandsons). 4. Kinship ties – members of the Kuru lineage are greeted according to their relationship; Vidura, though born of a slave woman, is honoured as being “like father and mother” because of his wisdom and closeness. 5. Gender – men are mentioned before women. Among women, the order is by age and kinship: elderly ladies (mothers), wives (asked whether they are well protected), daughters-in-law “born of good families and mothers of children”, and daughters (to be embraced). 6. Social and economic status – courtesans, slave women and their children come near the end. 7. Dependence and compassion – finally, the aged, the maimed and the helpless are greeted, showing concern for the vulnerable.

Other criteria: wisdom and personal qualities (Vidura), occupation (priest, teacher, warrior), and marital/reproductive status of women (daughters-in-law as mothers of children).

Why this order: it reflects the Brahmanical social hierarchy of varna, the importance of teachers, seniority of age, patriarchal norms giving men precedence over women, and the low position of slaves and courtesans, while also expressing the moral duty to care for the weak.

The list is ordered by ritual status (Brahmanas and chief priest first), respect for teachers (Drona, Kripa), age and seniority (Bhishma, Dhritarashtra, then Duryodhana and the young warriors), kinship (Vidura honoured despite being born of a slave woman), gender (men before women; women ranked as mothers, wives, daughters-in-law, daughters), social status (courtesans and slaves near the end) and compassion (the aged, maimed and helpless last) — reflecting Brahmanical and patriarchal hierarchy.

Exercises – Short essay (about 500 words)

Answer

The Mahabharata as “an entire literature”: 1. It is one of the most voluminous texts in the world — with over 100,000 verses, composed over about 1,000 years (c. 500 BCE onwards). 2. Its content is classified as narrative (stories) and didactic (prescriptive sections on social norms, dharma). It is described as an itihasa (history), and contains the Bhagavad Gita, discussions of dharma, statecraft, philosophy and ethics. 3. It includes many stories, legends, folk tales and sub-stories (e.g. Ekalavya, Hidimba, Shakuntala, Nala-Damayanti, Savitri-Satyavan), from different regions and communities. 4. The Critical Edition (Sukthankar, 1919–1966) studied manuscripts from all over the subcontinent in different scripts and found both a common core and enormous regional variations — showing that the text was retold and modified by different people in different places.

Why it gives insight into “the soul of the Indian folk”: 1. Social norms and practices – kinship and patriliny, marriage rules (polyandry — Draupadi’s marriage; marriages with rakshasas — Hidimba), varna hierarchy, gender relations (Draupadi’s question whether Yudhisthira could stake her; Gandhari’s advice to Duryodhana; Kunti). 2. Values and dilemmas – debates on dharma, duty, justice, righteousness, war and peace, the moral complexity of characters (Yudhisthira’s truthfulness, Karna’s loyalty, Arjuna’s dilemma in the Gita). 3. Popular traditions – the epic was originally composed by sutas (charioteers-bards) who sang about warriors; it incorporated folk tales and local deities; it continues to be retold in many languages, dramatised in folk theatre (e.g. Pandavani of Chhattisgarh by Teejan Bai), dance, painting, TV and film. 4. Living tradition – its stories are part of everyday life, providing models of behaviour and moral lessons.

Limitations/qualifications: 1. It was given its present form largely by Brahmanas, so it reflects Brahmanical ideas and may not represent all sections; the views of women, slaves, Shudras and forest people appear through the lens of the elite. 2. It is not a single unified expression but a multi-layered text with contradictions. 3. Historians must use it critically with other sources.

Conclusion: Winternitz’s statement captures the vast range and popularity of the Mahabharata, which reflects the beliefs, values and practices of many people over centuries; however, it is a dynamic, contested text shaped by its authors.

The Mahabharata is like an entire literature — over 100,000 verses composed over about a thousand years, with narrative and didactic sections, the Gita, and countless folk stories with regional variations (Critical Edition). It reflects social norms (kinship, marriage, varna, gender), moral dilemmas and popular traditions, and remains a living tradition. But it was largely shaped by Brahmanas, so it reflects elite views and must be read critically.

Answer

Traditional view: According to tradition, the Mahabharata was composed by the sage Vyasa, who dictated it to the deity Ganesha.

Why it could not have been the work of a single author: 1. Long period of composition – the text was composed over about 1,000 years (c. 500 BCE onwards); no single person could have composed it over such a long span. 2. Many authors – the original story was probably composed by charioteer-bards (sutas) who accompanied Kshatriya warriors to the battlefield and composed poems celebrating their victories. These compositions circulated orally. 3. Brahmanical additions – from the 5th century BCE, Brahmanas took over the story and began to commit it to writing; they added didactic sections on dharma and social norms. Between c. 200 BCE and 200 CE, when the worship of Vishnu was growing, Krishna came to be identified with Vishnu, and the Bhagavad Gita and related sections were added. 4. Later additions – between c. 200 and 400 CE, large didactic sections resembling the Manusmriti were added. The text grew from perhaps less than 10,000 verses to about 100,000 verses. 5. Variety of content and styles – the text has narrative and didactic sections, different styles of language and different views on the same subjects (e.g. on marriage, varna), suggesting multiple authors. 6. Regional variations – the Critical Edition project (1919–1966) collected manuscripts from all over the subcontinent and found many regional variations, showing that the text was retold and modified by local communities. 7. Oral tradition – stories and folk tales from different groups were incorporated.

Conclusion: The Mahabharata is best understood as a dynamic, composite text created by many authors — bards, Brahmanas, and local storytellers — over many centuries, though it is attributed to Vyasa.

No. Although tradition attributes it to Vyasa, the Mahabharata was composed over about a thousand years: first as oral poems by sutas (bards), then written down and expanded by Brahmanas with didactic sections, the Gita and Vishnu-related material, growing from under 10,000 to about 100,000 verses, with varied styles and many regional versions. It is the work of many authors.

Answer

Gender differences were very important in early societies (c. 600 BCE – 600 CE), and generally placed women in a subordinate position, though there were variations.

Evidence of the importance of gender differences: 1. Patriliny – descent was traced through the male line; sons inherited property and the throne; the Rigveda has prayers for sons. Daughters had no claims to the family’s resources. 2. Marriage and kanyadana – daughters were married outside the family (exogamy); kanyadana (gift of a daughter in marriage) was considered an important religious duty of the father. Women were expected to give up their father’s gotra and adopt the husband’s (though the Satavahana queens retained their fathers’ gotra names). 3. Property – according to the Manusmriti, the paternal estate was to be divided equally among sons after the death of parents; women could not claim a share. However, women could retain the gifts they received at marriage as stridhana (woman’s wealth), which could be inherited by their children; husbands had no claim to it. Yet the Manusmriti warned women against hoarding family property without the husband’s permission. 4. Draupadi’s question – when Yudhisthira staked Draupadi in the game of dice, she asked whether he had lost himself before staking her; the answer was ambiguous, showing that wives were seen as property of husbands. 5. Control of resources – most land, cattle and money were controlled by men. Upper-class women may have had access to resources, but land, cattle and money were generally controlled by men. 6. Occupations – women were largely restricted to household roles; Brahmanical texts prescribed subordinate roles.

Exceptions and variations: 1. Prabhavati Gupta (daughter of Chandragupta II, Vakataka queen) granted land, showing that some royal women had access to land and power. 2. Satavahana rulers used metronymics (names derived from the mother, e.g. Gotami-puta Siri-Satakani), and some queens retained their fathers’ gotras — but succession was still patrilineal. 3. Gandhari advised Duryodhana; Kunti guided her sons; women participated in Buddhist and Jaina orders (bhikkhunis). 4. Polyandry (Draupadi) and marriages with forest communities show variations in norms. 5. Women in some communities (e.g. Buddhist) had greater freedom.

Conclusion: Gender was a crucial axis of social difference, shaping access to property, kinship and power, generally to women’s disadvantage, though elite women and some communities show exceptions.

Gender differences were very important: patriliny, kanyadana, exogamy and the adoption of the husband’s gotra, the denial of a share in paternal property (except stridhana), Draupadi being staked as property, and men’s control of land and cattle placed women in a subordinate position. There were exceptions — Prabhavati Gupta’s land grants, Satavahana metronymics and gotras, Gandhari’s advice, Buddhist nuns — but overall gender shaped access to resources and power.

Answer

Brahmanical texts (Dharmasutras, Dharmashastras, Manusmriti) laid down norms: patriliny, exogamy within the varna but outside the gotra, eight forms of marriage (only the first four “good”), the wife adopting the husband’s gotra, and kings being Kshatriyas. Evidence shows these were not universally followed:

1. Satavahana kings and gotras – Satavahana rulers were identified through metronymics (names derived from the mother’s name, e.g. Gotami-puta — son of Gotami). Several Satavahana queens retained names derived from their fathers’ gotras (e.g. Gotami, Vasithi) instead of adopting the husbands’ gotra, contrary to Brahmanical norms. Some queens also belonged to the same gotra as their husbands, which violated the rule of gotra exogamy.
2. Endogamy among kin in the south – some Satavahana and southern families practised marriage within the kin group (e.g. cross-cousin marriage — marrying the mother’s brother’s daughter or father’s sister’s son), which Brahmanical texts disapproved of; this was common in south India.
3. Polyandry – Draupadi’s marriage to the five Pandavas, which Brahmanical texts generally discouraged; polyandry existed among some communities (especially in the Himalayan region).
4. Hidimba and Bhima – marriage between a Kshatriya prince and a rakshasa (forest-dwelling) woman.
5. Marriage alliances across varnas – the Satavahana ruler Gotami-puta Siri-Satakani claimed to be a Brahmana and to have prevented intermarriage among varnas, but himself entered into a marriage alliance with the family of the Shaka ruler Rudradaman.
6. Polygyny among kings and chiefs.
7. Matanga’s marriage with a merchant’s daughter (Jataka).
8. Kings not always Kshatriyas (Shakas, Satavahanas, Shungas), showing norms about varna and kingship were not followed.

Conclusion: The variety of practices shows that Brahmanical norms were ideals, contested and adapted, and many communities followed their own customs.

Brahmanical norms were not universally followed: Satavahana rulers used metronymics, their queens kept their fathers’ gotra names (some even sharing the husband’s gotra), southern families practised marriage within kin groups, Draupadi’s polyandry and Bhima’s marriage to Hidimba broke norms, Gotami-puta Siri-Satakani allied by marriage with the Shakas, Matanga married a merchant’s daughter, and many kings were not Kshatriyas.

Exercises – Map work and Projects

Answer

The Kuru-Panchala lands lay in the upper Ganga–Yamuna doab (present-day western Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Delhi region), with cities like Hastinapura (Kuru capital), Indraprastha and Ahichchhatra/Kampilya (Panchala).

Mahajanapadas near the Kuru-Panchala lands: - Shurasena (capital Mathura) – to the south. - Matsya (capital Viratanagara/Bairat) – to the south-west. - Kosala (capitals Shravasti, Ayodhya/Saketa) – to the east. - Vatsa (capital Kaushambi) – to the south-east. - Kashi (capital Varanasi) – further east. - Gandhara (capital Taxila) and Kamboja – to the north-west, further away. - Chedi – to the south.

Cities near the Kuru-Panchala lands: Hastinapura, Indraprastha, Mathura, Ahichchhatra, Kampilya, Kaushambi, Shravasti, Ayodhya, Bairat.

Near the Kuru-Panchala lands lay the mahajanapadas of Shurasena (Mathura), Matsya (Bairat), Kosala (Shravasti, Ayodhya), Vatsa (Kaushambi), Kashi (Varanasi) and Chedi, with Gandhara further north-west; cities include Hastinapura, Indraprastha, Ahichchhatra, Kampilya, Mathura, Kaushambi and Shravasti.

Answer

Retellings of the Mahabharata (examples): - Tamil: Villiputturar Bharatam (14th century); Pandavani is a folk retelling in Chhattisgarh (performed by Teejan Bai). - Kannada: Pampa’s Vikramarjuna Vijaya (10th century), Kumaravyasa’s Karnata Bharata Kathamanjari. - Telugu: Andhra Mahabharatam by Nannaya, Tikkana and Errana. - Bengali: Kashiram Das’s Mahabharata (17th century). - Malayalam: Ezhuthachan’s Mahabharatam Kilippattu. - Modern: Shivaji Sawant’s Mrityunjaya (Marathi, from Karna’s perspective), S.L. Bhyrappa’s Parva (Kannada, realistic), Pratibha Ray’s Yajnaseni (Odia, from Draupadi’s perspective), Mahasweta Devi’s short story “Kunti and the Nishadin”; TV serials (B.R. Chopra’s Mahabharat, 1988).

Comparing two episodes (sample): 1. Draupadi’s marriage and disrobing – in the Sanskrit text, the polyandrous marriage is explained by Kunti’s command and divine reasons; in Pratibha Ray’s Yajnaseni, Draupadi narrates her pain and humiliation, questioning the men’s actions — a feminist perspective. Folk versions often depict Draupadi as a goddess (Draupadi Amman cult in Tamil Nadu). 2. Ekalavya – the Sanskrit text presents Ekalavya’s sacrifice as an example of devotion to the guru; modern Dalit and tribal retellings (and many plays and poems) present it as an example of caste discrimination and injustice, with Ekalavya as a hero who was cheated; some folk versions of the Bhils say Ekalavya used his other fingers to shoot.

Similarities: the core story and characters are retained. Differences: perspective (women, marginalised groups), emphasis, moral judgments, local deities and customs added.

Retellings exist in many languages — Villiputturar (Tamil), Pampa and Kumaravyasa (Kannada), Nannaya–Tikkana (Telugu), Kashiram Das (Bengali), Pandavani (Chhattisgarh), and modern works like Mrityunjaya, Parva and Yajnaseni. They keep the core story but change perspective: e.g. Yajnaseni tells Draupadi’s story as a woman’s protest, and Dalit and tribal versions present Ekalavya as a victim of caste injustice rather than a model of devotion.

Answer

(A sample creative answer — students may write from any perspective: Ekalavya, his mother, Drona, Arjuna, or the dog.)

“The Thumb” – told by Ekalavya

I was born in the forest among the Nishadas, where the trees taught me patience and the river taught me speed. Every evening I watched the hawks, and I wanted to be an archer as steady as their flight.

When I heard of Dronacharya, the great teacher of the princes of Hastinapura, I walked many days to reach him. I bowed and asked to be his pupil. He looked at my bare feet and dark skin. “I teach only the princes,” he said. “Go back to your forest.”

I went back, but I did not give up. I made a clay image of Drona and practised before it every day, as if he were watching me. I practised until my arrows could find a leaf trembling in the wind.

One day, a dog barked while I practised. Without thinking, I shot seven arrows into its mouth, so quickly that it was silenced but not hurt. The princes, who were hunting, found the dog and wondered who could be such an archer. Arjuna’s face darkened — he had been promised he would be the greatest archer in the world.

Drona came to me. “Who is your teacher?” he asked. “You, Gurudev,” I said, pointing to the clay image. He asked for his guru dakshina — my right thumb. I did not hesitate; I thought a pupil must obey. I cut it and laid it at his feet.

Now, as an old man, I think about that day. I was not given a chance because of my birth, and yet I was asked to pay a teacher who never taught me. Was it devotion, or was it injustice? I learnt to shoot with my fingers, and my people still sing about me. Perhaps a skill that is truly yours cannot be taken away by cutting off a thumb.

Point to note: this version highlights the themes of caste exclusion, injustice and resilience, discussed in the chapter (the norm that Brahmanas teach only Kshatriyas; the Nishadas as forest people outside the varna order).

A sample retelling from Ekalavya’s own viewpoint: a Nishada boy refused by Drona because of his birth practises before a clay image of Drona, becomes a master archer, and gives his thumb as guru dakshina when Drona demands it to protect Arjuna’s status — later reflecting on whether this was devotion or injustice, highlighting caste exclusion and resilience.

Topic checklist

• ☒ Kinship, patriliny and marriage norms (Q 1, 9)
• ☒ Varna, kingship and norms (Q 2, 3, 4)
• ☒ Gender and social hierarchy (Q 5, 8)
• ☒ The Mahabharata as a source (Q 6, 7, 11, 12)
• ☒ Map work (Q 10)

Total questions answered: 12 of 12