Examine the articulation of hierarchy and affect in kinship relations through norms and

practices of gift giving.

Kinship works as a structure that needs to be dissected and studied according to the contextual
changes from one kind of society to another. Kin relations in India work in a specific manner but
are not structurally different always from those in other parts of the world. However, in order to
study the relations within Indian society that are projected in an overt manner, one needs to
read underneath those layers and analyse structures upholding fundamentally hierarchical basis
of ordering society. This is not to suggest that hierarchy always already denotes a unidirectional
flow. On the contrary, the point of studying these relations is precisely to understand the
intricate processes of exchange that order such an organization through marriage alliance,
descent and genealogical ties in general. The current paper aims to dissect precisely such
underlying structures (Dumont, 1957) that govern kinship relations, with major focus on
marriage rules in North and South India, through practices of gift giving and dowry.

Two contrary viewpoints come into focus as we begin to study dowry and gifts as prestations in
North India. Traditionally, a long line of criticism beginning with Srinivas traces the root of dowry
practices in hypergamy, as followed by middle and upper-middle class Hindus (Srinivas, 1984).
Such a line of criticism takes as its starting point the ritual asymmetry that percolates within
castes, and the concept of emulation of the dominant caste as propounded by Srinivas.
Marriages involving dowry represented the ideal form of marriage among Brahmins (Palriwala,
1989) but the ritual emulation of the lower castes led to a need to follow the norms of dowry as
a means of improving the brides familys status. This basic power relation led to a status
asymmetry between the bride-givers and bride-takers which continues throughout the
existence of the marriage alliance.

While bride-price was always a fixed amount within an endogamous jati, and the various prestations
that needed to be made were also specified, dowry is characterized by asymmetry, uncertainty and
unpredictability. All the expenditure might be on the bride's side only, and there are no norms as to what
the groom's kin may ask. (Srinivas, 1984: 19)

The flow of gifts in the North Indian kinship system, largely moves from bride-givers to bride-
takers because of the presence of a clear hierarchical difference. But the logic of hypergamy is
by no means uniform across the whole of North India, as this superiority comes into existence
only because of the marriage alliance, at least among the Gaur Brahmins of Western U.P. (Vatuk,
1975). Among this sub-caste, the status asymmetry becomes independent of the economic
well-being of the groups and marriage among equals is a common practice. This is not to
suggest that hypergamy does not become a consideration at all, but that it is subservient to the
ritual superiority brought with the rules of marriage alliance that become sui generis. Marriage
prestations ensure the continuity of the status asymmetry between the two groups, with the
gift of the daughter becoming the ultimate gift in a marriage alliance. This is reflected in the
norm of kanyadaan, which is the noblest duty performed by the brides father. The practice
provides flesh to Palriwalas argument that one cannot separate the bride with the dowry, when
it comes to commodification and monetization of the gift giving practices. The bride becomes
the dowry, as she correctly notes. Being patrilineal and patrilocal, exchanges as part of the
marriage alliance take place majorly among male agnates of the bride and groom, but as we
shall see there are divisive markers of gift giving between the sexes.

The process of gift giving that establishes the foundations of hierarchy within the groups begins
well before the actual marriage ceremony within the Gaur Brahmins with the practice of dan.
This category of gifts includes those given by the brides extended affinal relatives to the groom
and his family. Beginning with the ceremony that literally reserves the bride for the groom
(rokna), the brides males relatives- brothers, cousins and nephews- visit the grooms house and
present cash gifts to the groom and his agnatic kin- married sisters, fathers sisters and their
husbands. A similar amount of cash gifts are given at the sagai or lagan when the date of the
marriage is fixed by the two families. The actual gifts of dahej begin with pre-nuptial offerings of
fruits, sweets and clothing made to the grooms father on the day of the marriage ceremony
(barat). Jewels for the bride, household furniture that may become part of the newlyweds
virilocal residence, pieces of clothing for males and saris for female kin (including M, Z, FM, BW,
FZ, FBD, etc), make up for the large portion of the dowry that is transferred at the time of the
wedding. The abundance in saris is markedly important as traditionally, many of them are
stored for future by the grooms mother to be given to her daughters as part of their dowry or
other occasions. This flow of gifts keeps the chain of hierarchy continuing throughout kin groups
that are bride-givers at one moment and bride-takers at another.

Such a uniform demarcation of hierarchy, at least from the instance of particular marriage
alliance in question, takes a slightly complex form in South Indian kinship systems. Having a
largely matrilineal background, but differing in lineage, descent and residence, Dumonts
ethnography focuses on five major caste groups- viz. Kallars of Paganeri, Pramalai Kallar and
Amabalakkarar, Kodaiyam Kottai Maravar and Nangudi Vellalar- surrounding the region from
Madura to Tinnevelly. The groups in question occupy positions from strict marriage rules to
loose ones, depending on the kind of system they follow- harmonic or disharmonic (Levi-
Strauss, 1949). Dumont bases his analysis on Levi Strausss elementary structures which
classifies harmonic systems-i.e., those that follow the same rule for lineage and residence- as
having a tendency of restricted exchange, i.e. flow of women/ dowry in one direction. In the
context of South India, harmonic systems tend to follow the matrilateral cross-cousin marriage
rule, as opposed to double cross-cousin or patrilateral cross-cousin marriage preference with
groups that are disharmonic in nature. In such groups the flow of dowry takes place both ways,
as is characteristic of generalized exchange. Thus, within the Kallar clan, which makes for the
major object of inquiry, the Kallars of Paganeri are exogamous matrilineal groups following
patrilateral cross-cousin rule, Ambalakkarar are patrilocal groups shifting preference form
patrilateral to matrilateral cross-cousin rule and finally, Pramalai Kallar who are patrilineal and
patrilocal groups following matrilateral cross-cousin rule. The flow of dowry, can thus be
understood as moving in different directions within these sub-groups themselves. This is
because marriage alliance works in tandem with descent which is genealogical. Like descent,
affinity in marriage ties is reproduced through generations.

[...] the regulation determines ones marriage by reference to ones ascendants marriage: in a
patrilineal, patrilocal society, marrying the matrilateral cross-cousin means reproducing the marriage of
ones father, while in a patrilateral formula one reproduces ones grandfathers marriage and so on.
(Dumont, 1957: 24)

Marriage alliances within South India follow the general rule of marrying the closest affine by
virtue of the transmission of affinity ties from one generation to another (Dumont, 1957: 25),
thus relating to their cross-cousins as affines, is opposed to North Indian kinship system where
cross-cousins are consanguineous. Gift giving is primarily divided into two parts among these
groups. Internal prestations are those that are given after marriage either in cash (curul) or in
kind (cir). Thus, among the Pramalai Kallar, the masculine curul is a cash gift made by the
grooms side to the brides family, but it is expected to be multiplied twice or thrice by the
brides side in the form of jewels and other household items over the course of a long time with
visitations from the couple. Dumont notes that masculine gifts mostly act as provocative in
nature to initiate the exchange process, while feminine gifts are the actual substantial ones, and
are thus increased in quantity. As part of the external prestations (moy), both the brides as well
as grooms relatives are made to contribute towards the marriage expenses. This part of the gift
acts as an equalizing factor, and stands in contrast with North Indian kinship system. Among the
matrilineal matrilocal Nangudi Vellalar, all prestations are external, and dowry is treated as
brides own property in its right. There exists no competition to spend more within this group,
and the expenses of the wedding ceremony are shared by the parents of both bride and groom.
This also means that there exists no reciprocity within them. There thus exists three cycles of
reciprocity, as Dumont classifies. One, there is an equal reciprocity as between the exchange of
clothes within the Paganeri from both the sides. Two, the exchange is multiplied from the natal
home, as within the Pramali Kallar in the form of the cir paid by the brides natal kin. Three, the
initiatory gift is exchanged by a reduced or a symbolic gift in return, as in Paganeri and
Paramalai Kallar with regards to the moy paid. The hierarchy between the bride-givers and
bride-takers is constantly shifting with the ritual gifts and ceremonies among groups in South
India.
Practices of gift giving that preside in North India span across almost the lifetime of ones
marriage, with occasions like childbirth, festivals, visitations to natal kinsfolk of the woman after
a delayed duration. After the marriage, the ceremonial visit of the bride to her natal place calls
for a delay of consummation of the marriage. Post-consummation, there are specific gifts given
to the bride and her husband and his kin for personal use, called gauna. Still, the control of
these gifts accumulated over the course of a long time remains with the parents-in-law who
then allocate it further in a corporate familial manner. North Indian kinship works on the
principle of delayed reciprocity in the exchange process of the gift. Theoretically, one may fall
back on Bourdieu to understand the rule of gift exchange which necessitates the delay to
strategise and make decisions on the amount and quality of the return. The initiating party has
the power, but that doesnt dispense the receiver off of any strategies. (Bourdieu, 1994). The
practitioners of the initiatory gift also differ between North and South Indian kinship. With
hierarchy reigning in a uniform manner, bride-givers initiate the process as in Gaur Brahmins,
but act largely on the strategies formulated by the bride-takers. While reciprocity works in
relation with the natal male agnates and their wives, there is no need for presenting a counter-
gift to other bride-giver families (eg: MB, BWB) when the grooms family gifts to the bride and
her family. The same principle also applies with gift giving practices on special occasions like the
birth of the first-born son. Primary donors in this case also include MB and maternal
grandparents who gift saris, shawls and food items to the H, HM, HB, HBW as part of chuchak.
The new mother and father also gift saris and clothing to the latters sisters for washing the
breasts of the mother, and her husband by extension. Ritual ceremonies, as observed earlier,
hold an importance in strengthening kin relations through practices of gift giving.

The role of the MB or the maternal uncle is a crucial tie between both North and South Indian
kinship systems. While Vatuk constantly focuses on the MB as an essential male representative
of the bride-giving family and thus, a prime donor in all occasions, Dumont informs us of the
dominance of the role over the person performing the ritual ceremony. In keeping with the
characteristic of reproducing relations of affinity within South Indian kinship, the MB can be
studied with regards to a genealogical transference of the donor role from the father-in-law to
his son with the childbirth of the ego. The male ego marrying out of his own kin group receives
gifts from his father-in-law as investment in establishing a separate household, and when egos
son is born, he receives gifts from his maternal uncle, that is the son of the father-in-law. The
role of the MB comes into existence only when his sisters child is born. In the second situation,
with a preference for matrilateral cross-cousin marriage, the maternal uncle is also the father-
in-law of the male ego. In such a case, the MBs role during the wedding ceremonies is
performed by a classificatory brother, or a cousin, and the maternal uncle performs the more
important role of the father-in-law. In North India, the MB is a constant presence since the
beginning of the marriage negotiations of her sister and remains equally important in
contributing to his sisters childs marriage.
Among the Gaur Brahmins, the MB remains the main donor during funerary rites of either his Z
or ZH. As with other occasions, bride-giving families donate towards, or gift the family of the
deceased. These include the real and classificatory brothers of the wife, and those of her
daughter-in-law, in case of the death of male adult. The MB is in the forefront giving silver
bangles to his sister in place of the glass bangles that are broken over the husbands body. One
of the daughters husbands is chosen as the chief recipient, who is given a turban to be tied on
the head by the MB, as well. The gifts are distributed among bride-taking families including
husbands of the deceaseds daughters and sisters, ZS, DHB, DHF. The entire exchange is
exercised between male agnates of the two kin groups. In case of the death of an adult woman,
the relation of exchange remains the same, with natal kinsmen her own group, her daughter-in-
law and her HBW being the donors. Among the Pramalai Kallar, on the contrary, all donors are
in-laws of the deceased who gift turbans and food to the mourners, with no genealogical
connection with the deceased. The chief mourners include his son, and his brothers sons or any
other classificatory cousin.

Gaur Brahmins additionally classify women whom her natal kinsmen and women are supposed
to give gifts on various occasions in a special category of the dhyani (Vatuk, 1975). This
classification further works on the divide of the bride-giving and bride-taking families. from a
couples perspective, dhyani will predominantly constitute of the natal kinswomen of the
husband. Their husbands are classified as dhyana who ought to be literally treated as sons-in-
law, even when the exact relation may not be that. For the male ego, dhyani will include women
of all generations (D,Z, SD, ZD, DD, FZ, FFZ), while for a female ego the category will only include
women of the descending generation (DD, ZD, BD, SD). The principle working underneath is that
of bilateral asymmetry as the female ego is generally subservient to the male one. There is no
formal ritual occasion for a womans FZ/ FZH to gift her, apart from some visitations, contrasting
the duties of the MB. This is because the FZ/ FZH constitute the dhyane for the womans natal
kin group, who will be gifted by her own parents. In such relations, delayed reciprocity is
replaced by an immediate one, preferably. The same principle of bilateral asymmetry works
behind transmission of immovable property to sons while movable valuables are gifted to
daughters. Contemporary feminists have recognized the similar principle underlying the control
of the womans dowry by her in-laws. Ursula Sharma (1984) notes that the cash gifts that came
with the increased monetization of dowry rituals are controlled by the father-in-law (as only the
rational male thinker can), while in-kind gifts like saris, shawls, household furniture or other
items are controlled by the mother-in-law (as the domestic is her domain). This clear
demarcation is not just based on the general sexual division of labour, but also on the need for
further allocation that keeps the cyclical movement of dowry alive in this perpetual donor-
recipient relationship (Vatuk, 1875: 192).
References

Dumont, L. 1957. Hierarchy and Marriage Alliance in South Indian Kinship. London: Royal
Anthropological Institute

Basu, Srimati. 2005. Dowry and Inheritance. New Delhi: Women Unlimited, Kali for Women.
Chapters by Srinivas, Palriwala, Sharma

Vatuk, Sylvia. 1975. Gifts and Affines in North India, Contributions to Indian Sociology (N.S.)
9(2): 155-196