Kinship, Caste and Class (Early Societies) (c. 600 BCE-600 CE)

Patriliny was especially important among elite families because property, power and status had to pass on in an orderly way from one generation to the next. Under patrilineal succession, sons inherited the resources of their fathers, including the throne in the case of kings. This helped ruling families keep control over land, wealth and political authority within the same lineage. It also reduced disputes over succession, because the rule preferred descent through males. The *Mahabharata* reinforced this ideal through the conflict of the Kauravas and Pandavas and the victory of the Pandavas, after which patrilineal succession was proclaimed. For elites, then, patriliny was a way to preserve dynasty, patrimony and legitimacy.

No, early kings were not invariably Kshatriyas. The texts say that the Shastras prescribed kingship for Kshatriyas, but actual political power was more flexible. The Mauryas were later described in different ways: Buddhist texts called them Kshatriyas, while Brahmanical texts described them as of “low” origin. The Shungas and Kanvas were Brahmanas. The Shakas were regarded as *mlechchhas*, yet one of them, Rudradaman, was powerful and used Sanskrit. The Satavahana ruler Gotami-puta Siri-Satakani even called himself both a Brahmana and a destroyer of Kshatriya pride. So kingship depended more on support and resources than on birth alone.

The three stories show different ideas of dharma or proper conduct. In the story of Drona and Ekalavya, dharma is presented as a rigid social order: a Brahmana teacher refuses to teach a forest-dweller, and Ekalavya must surrender his thumb so that Arjuna remains superior. This reflects obedience to authority and the restriction of knowledge by status. In the story of Hidimba, the woman crosses social boundaries by choosing Bhima as husband; the union is accepted only after conditions are set by Yudhishtira. Here the norm is about marriage, kinship and controlled acceptance of a non-Brahmanical union. In Matanga, the story reverses Brahmanical prejudice: a chandala is shown as spiritually superior to the arrogant Brahmana and his son. The norm here is that moral worth, not birth, should matter. Thus, the stories both reflect and question social norms.