Comments on: Rajesh Kochhar : The Vedic People, reviewed by S. Muralidharan (2000) http://rajeshkochhar.com/2008/12/rajesh-kochhar-the-vedic-people-reviewed-by-s-muralidharan-2000/ CV, career profile, printed articles,lecture texts, blogs, etc. Sat, 19 May 2012 11:25:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: admin http://rajeshkochhar.com/2008/12/rajesh-kochhar-the-vedic-people-reviewed-by-s-muralidharan-2000/#comment-13 admin Sat, 13 Dec 2008 08:47:41 +0000 http://rajeshkochhar.com/?p=70#comment-13 Susahant , We agree on the important point that the Bharata battle epoch was a time of social fusions and assimilations.Our discussion is on finer points within this framework. We must however not be mixing the modes. If we assume that Kunti and Madri got their sons thanks to divine boons , nothing more need be son. But if we are talking of the Pandavas' biological fathers, we can certainly address the question of the significance of the phenomenon. Susahant , We agree on the important point that the Bharata battle epoch was a time of social fusions and assimilations.Our discussion is on finer points within this framework. We must however not be mixing the modes. If we assume that Kunti and Madri got their sons thanks to divine boons , nothing more need be son. But if we are talking of the Pandavas’ biological fathers, we can certainly address the question of the significance of the phenomenon.

]]> By: Sushant Kumar http://rajeshkochhar.com/2008/12/rajesh-kochhar-the-vedic-people-reviewed-by-s-muralidharan-2000/#comment-11 Sushant Kumar Sat, 13 Dec 2008 05:21:42 +0000 http://rajeshkochhar.com/?p=70#comment-11 Kunti who got the boon that she could call any god to get offspring and the birth of Pandavas by that is also an instance that reflects polyandry in the contemporary society. Further, if Draupadi had been an isolated example, this could not be taken in a normal way among the Pandavas. In a patriarchal society, a mother's command could not be that much influential that she could command them to divide their wife. They followed the command as this was a normal case for them. While we find that in the dicing game the Kaurava side sees this custom with contempt as it was not a general case for them. Polyandry can be traced from the Rigveda in cases of Rodasi and Usha. Sushant Kumar. Kunti who got the boon that she could call any god to get offspring and the birth of Pandavas by that is also an instance that reflects polyandry in the contemporary society. Further, if Draupadi had been an isolated example, this could not be taken in a normal way among the Pandavas. In a patriarchal society, a mother’s command could not be that much influential that she could command them to divide their wife. They followed the command as this was a normal case for them. While we find that in the dicing game the Kaurava side sees this custom with contempt as it was not a general case for them. Polyandry can be traced from the Rigveda in cases of Rodasi and Usha.

Sushant Kumar.

]]> By: admin http://rajeshkochhar.com/2008/12/rajesh-kochhar-the-vedic-people-reviewed-by-s-muralidharan-2000/#comment-7 admin Fri, 12 Dec 2008 04:52:43 +0000 http://rajeshkochhar.com/?p=70#comment-7 You are of course right that there is artificiality in tracing various royal dynasties to a common ancestor. The question is at what stage was this exercise carried out.My own assessment is that this happened at the level of Manu Vaivasvat and Ila. I am inclined to believe that various tribal and clan kinship have a bloodline basis. Puru is a common ancestor of a number of clans which subsequently became famous. Bharata and kuru are his descendants on the main line.The eldest son retained the family name ( like Kuru) while the junior branches took on separate names.Even if lineage is concocted, the fact remains that some clans were inter-related by blood or through marriage. Pandavas do not constitute a separate clan. Since there was a dispute between sons of Dhritrashtra and Pandu on the question of the latter's legitimacy, they were called Pandavas. Once the question was answered through war nominal descendants of Pandu . become entitled to the Puru-Bharata-Kuru heritage. The five Pandava's marriage to Draupadi is more or less an isolated example of polyandry. Can a generalized conclusion be drawn from it? You are of course right that there is artificiality in tracing various royal dynasties to a common ancestor. The question is at what stage was this exercise carried out.My own assessment is that this happened at the level of Manu Vaivasvat and Ila. I am inclined to believe that various tribal and clan kinship have a bloodline basis.

Puru is a common ancestor of a number of clans which subsequently became famous. Bharata and kuru are his descendants on the main line.The eldest son retained the family name ( like Kuru) while the junior branches took on separate names.Even if lineage is concocted, the fact remains that some clans were inter-related by blood or through marriage.

Pandavas do not constitute a separate clan. Since there was a dispute between sons of Dhritrashtra and Pandu on the question of the latter’s legitimacy, they were called Pandavas. Once the question was answered through war nominal descendants of Pandu . become entitled to the Puru-Bharata-Kuru heritage.

The five Pandava’s marriage to Draupadi is more or less an isolated example of polyandry. Can a generalized conclusion be drawn from it?

]]> By: Sushant Kumar http://rajeshkochhar.com/2008/12/rajesh-kochhar-the-vedic-people-reviewed-by-s-muralidharan-2000/#comment-6 Sushant Kumar Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:18:07 +0000 http://rajeshkochhar.com/?p=70#comment-6 The Kurus and the Panchalas were fusions of various tribes. The Purus and the Tritsus fused to form the Kurus. Amakas, Kesins, Turvashas, Krivis and Shrinjayas fused to form the Panchalas. How far is it convincing that all these tribes were descendents of a common ancestor? As we see the interaction of different races through marriage alliance, it is possible that the authors of those texts assumed a common ancestor to show that all of them belonged to the same lineage so that they could legitimate their kinship relations and extend their influence in the Ganga valley as has been discussed in my book “Tribal Fusion and Social Evolution” www.strategicbookpublishing.com/SocialFusionAndSocialEvolution.html. The Pandavas followed polyandry that was obnoxious for the Kauravas. These radically different social institutions must have been rooted in different social backgrounds and the growing intensity of demography in the Ganga valley generated the circumstances of conflicts as is reflected in the Mahabharata. As K.M Kapadia suggests, the Pandavas must had been the Khasa tribe of Dehradun who have been following polyandry till recently. Sushant Kumar The Kurus and the Panchalas were fusions of various tribes. The Purus and the Tritsus fused to form the Kurus. Amakas, Kesins, Turvashas, Krivis and Shrinjayas fused to form the Panchalas. How far is it convincing that all these tribes were descendents of a common ancestor? As we see the interaction of different races through marriage alliance, it is possible that the authors of those texts assumed a common ancestor to show that all of them belonged to the same lineage so that they could legitimate their kinship relations and extend their influence in the Ganga valley as has been discussed in my book “Tribal Fusion and Social Evolution” http://www.strategicbookpublishing.com/SocialFusionAndSocialEvolution.html. The Pandavas followed polyandry that was obnoxious for the Kauravas. These radically different social institutions must have been rooted in different social backgrounds and the growing intensity of demography in the Ganga valley generated the circumstances of conflicts as is reflected in the Mahabharata. As K.M Kapadia suggests, the Pandavas must had been the Khasa tribe of Dehradun who have been following polyandry till recently.

Sushant Kumar

]]>