Class 12 History : 3 Kinship, Caste and Class

 Kinship, Caste and Class

Q1. Explain how you will prove that the text of Mahabharata was a dynamic one.

Answer : The following points prove that the text of Mahabharata was a dynamic one: 

(i) Written in Many Languages: The growth of the Mahabharata did not stop with the composition of the Sanskrit version. Over the centuries, it has been written in many languages through an ongoing process of dialogues between people, communities and those who wrote the texts. 

(ii) Several Stories: As it incorporated several stories that originated in different regions, the Mahabharata became an epic text. 

(iii) Wide Range of Themes: They also provide a wide range of themes and performing arts like plays, dance and narratives.

Q2. Explain why patriliny may have been particularly important among elite families.

Answer : Patriliny was particularly important among elite families because:

1. Inheritance of property: Under patriliny, property and wealth were generally passed from the father to his sons.
2. Continuation of family lineage: It ensured that the family name, status and lineage continued through the male descendants.
3. Political power: In ruling families, the throne and political authority were usually inherited by sons. This helped maintain control over kingdoms and territories within the same family.
4. Preservation of wealth and status: Elite families owned large amounts of land, wealth and other resources. Patrilineal inheritance helped keep these within the family.

Thus, patriliny helped elite families preserve their property, political power, social status and family lineage across generations.

Q3. In what ways was the Buddhist theory of a social contract different from the Brahmanical view of society derived from the Purusha Sukta?

Answer : The Buddhist theory of social contract differed from the Brahmanical view derived from the Purusha Sukta in the following ways:

1. Origin of society:
   According to the Buddhist tradition, society developed through a mutual agreement among human beings. People chose a ruler to maintain order and punish wrongdoers. Thus, social organisation was considered a result of human choice and agreement.
2. Brahmanical explanation:
   The Purusha Sukta explained the origin of the four varnas as divine. Brahmanas emerged from the mouth, Kshatriyas from the arms, Vaishyas from the thighs, and Shudras from the feet of Purusha.
3. Basis of social position:
   The Brahmanical system associated social position with birth and prescribed duties, whereas the Buddhist tradition placed greater emphasis on individual conduct and actions rather than birth.
4. Role of the king:
   In the Buddhist theory, people selected a ruler and agreed to give him a share of their produce in return for protection and maintenance of order. This made kingship a result of a social agreement.

Conclusion:
Thus, the Brahmanical view presented social divisions as divinely ordained, while the Buddhist theory explained social order as a human creation based on agreement, needs and actions.