History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c19.125

v2.c19.125

Even when *anuloma* marriages were allowed there is no unanimity among the sages and the smṛtis as to the status of the progeny of such unions. Three different views are found. The first view is that if a male of one varṇa married a female of the varṇa immediately after it, the progeny belonged to the varṇa of the father; e. g. Baud. Dh. S.¹³² (I. 8. 6 and I. 9. 3) says that sons born to a person of a savarṇa wife or a wife of the varṇa next to his own are savarṇa i. e. the son of a brāhmaṇa from a wife of the kṣatriya varṇa is a brāhmaṇa. The Anuśāsanaparva 48. 4, Nārada (strīpuṁsa 106) and Kauṭilya (III. 7) say the same. Gautama IV. 15 as interpreted by Haradatta appears to say that the off-spring of a brāhmaṇa from a kṣatriya wife is called savarṇa, but not the offspring of a kṣatriya male from a vaiśya wife or of a vaiśya male from a śūdra wife. Fick (pp. 54-57) shows that even according to the Bhaddasāla Jātaka 'the family of the mother does not matter; the family of the father alone is important'. The second view is that the progeny of *anuloma* unions is in status lower than the father, but higher than the mother; e. g. Manu X. 6 'sages declare the sons begotten by *dvijas* on wives of varṇas immediately next to theirs as similar (to the fathers, but not of the same varṇa with the fathers) but tainted by the inferiority of their mothers.' The third view (and this is the common view) is that the progeny of anuloma marriages is of the same varṇa as regards its privileges and obligations as the mother's; e. g. vide Viṣṇu Dh. S. 16. 2¹³³ and Śaṅkha (prose) quoted by the Mit. on Yāj I. 91 and Aparārka (p. 118). A classical echo of this view is found in the Śākuntala of Kālidāsa¹³⁴ where king Duṣyanta exclaims aside to himself 'would that this girl were born of the sage from a wife who was not savarṇa'. Medhātithi on Manu X. 6 says that Pāṇḍu, Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Vidura being kṣetraja sons took the caste of their mothers. The Mit. explains the words of Śaṅkha by saying that the offspring of *anuloma* marriages such as mūrdhāvasikta are not really different from kṣatriyas, that they have the same *saṁskāras* but they do not become kṣatriyas etc. and are dubbed by these names to indicate their mixed origin and come to form separate sub-castes. The *pratilomas*, as said above, are lower in status than any of the two parents.