9058009494

40 SUKUMARI BI IATTACI1ARJ!

them; (and) ihe gcneralion of childrcn, and their rearing. Look, because of women you have a pleasant way of life’.¹⁰⁴ Here loo, ihc list comprises the mundanc, ulilitarian funclions of a conjugal life. Only Varahamihira in his BfhatsaiiihitS (around the sixlh cenlury A.D. i.e., just aflcr the finał redaction of the Mahabh&rata seems to be aware that women can be good and worlhy of respect,¹⁰⁵ he says: ⁴Those who find fault wilh women are themselves evil. Malc ego subdues women, ... evcn Manu said that they exeel men in merils, they bring forth children or how would men be there? Whal kind of pleasurc is it which comes from calumniating them?... Because of their piety women cmcr tire, embracing the dead (husbands). * This praise of women indireelly sccks to rcctify the unfair trcalmcnt meted out to them in real conjugal lilc. Their sacrifices are obligalory, bul they go completely unrecognized and unrewarded.

IV

We havc scen that the conduct and bcaring of the Mahabh&rata women in their married life and of those in the immorlal legends embedded in popular mcmory was vcry dilTcrcnl from whal the earlicr, conlcmporary and cven laler scriplurcs prcscribcd for them, whilc the women in the BhSrgava inlerpolalion and in the illustralive aneedotes there, conform to the scriptural prescriptions. Sociely was not static, so this change can be explained by ⁴⁴...lhe changing roles of husbands, wivcs, and other kin and of the relationships betwecn them, their changing attitudes towards cach other, and effects of family attitudes and roles, first on the cullure of familics and the fate of its individual members, and ullimatcly on the sociely, economy and the State. "^]06

But behind the changcd roles was a long history of prcsumably a period of matriarchy whose traccs lingered in folk mcmory. Polyandry was regionally practised wherc the woman was shared, yet because she was necded by all her husbands, she enjoycd a kind of significance within the domain of conjugalily. A faint echo of this may be delccted in Draupadl’s conjugal bchaviour wilh her spouses. As long as the woman was cąually engaged in outdoor produclive labour, she dcmandcd and received a status of cquality with her partner. But in India the scenc changed when the subjugaled pre-Aryans were mobilized for tilling, cattlc-rearing and hcavy domcslic chores. With this part of productive labour dcvolving on the slavcs and scrvanls, the wife was ⁴⁴^clicvcd^,, of much hcavy work. She did not work side by side or along with her husband, but her domain was now pushed indoors. Eąuality of a partner in produclive labour no longcr obtained; mulual depcndence gave way to the wife’s depcndence on the husband. She bccame a financial liability; the older practice of bride-price was rcplaced by bridegroom price. The latcr PurSnas bilterly condcmn parents for “selling" of sons, which was the basis of dowry i.e., bridegroom price. This itsclf, was an aclive faclor in changing the contour of the conjugal rclalionship. The groom became