Polyandry in Malabar* K. Raman Unni In the same manner, it is doubtful if in polyandry, all reciprocal obligations between the tharavad of each husband and that of the wife were carried out as in monogamy except when the two tharavads were formerly enangars. Between tharavads of spouses of the same sub-caste, there were reciprocal obligations carrying the force of a remote tradition. When a child was born in one tharavad, a representative from the other had to pay a visit and see the child and if the mother of one of the spouses died, the tharavad of the other had to despatch goods for a day's feasting during the period of death pollution. These and other obligations of a minor nature continue to be discharged in a major part of rural Malabar today. Although data are lacking, it is possible to believe that polyandrous marriages were nearly as durable as monogamous ones. The main reason for this might be the fact that after her first marriage, the woman at a mature age took additional husbands at her own discretion and choice and in doing so her mature psychosexual disposition must have played an important role. This was true of the man as well, since initially he posed for her to choose if desired. In this context it has to be noted that the additional husbands were usually either widowers or men not young enough to contract first marriage with young girls. Divorces, however, occurred for reasons such as the husband's repeated inability or failure to supply the essential items such as cloth, his progressively decreasing frequency of visits or a marked disinterest in and indifference towards wife exemplified in various aspects of his behaviour. In the matter of divorce, the first married husband did not merit any special consideration for his seniority. A wife would however keep a tolerant attitude towards the least liked husband if his tharavad was one of higher social status and prestige. She would be advised by her kin to do so since an alliance with such a tharavad, even by the feeble link of polyandry was regarded as desirable. A husband could divorce his polyandrous wife but such cases, in the opinion of my informants, might be much less than those of the wife divorcing one of her husbands. One of the reasons for this might be the fact that a poly- * Continued from page 78 of Vol. VII, No. 1. 124 androus woman's judgment about the qualities of her husband is comparative, and a husband who falls short of her expectations is increasingly disliked by her and in due course is discarded. In the case of a man, clandestine visits to a woman could be kept up but it was disgraceful to him to remain without a recognised sexual partner. The procedure involved in divorce was not a strictly formal or standardised one, as was the case with monogamous unions until recent years and even today it is rarely so. A husband who is to be divorced would be told by his wife not to visit her house any more. Inspite of this, if he visited her house, an elderly male member would remind him not to persist in it. In rare cases a rejected husband would not withdraw from the scene until the Karnavan commanded him out. Often the wife's consistent dislike for a husband, exhibited in diverse ways, was sufficient for the husband to sever the union. A husband could divorce his wife by the more simple procedure of stopping his visits, and the wife had to regard it as a confirmed case of divorce if she did not receive from him the customary supply of goods due at the next occasion or a few successive occasions. Divorce in all cases was not life-long and there were cases of reunion a few months or some years after divorce. One rarely comes across a reference to polygyny among the Nairs. My enquiries reveal that while polyandry was just permitted, polygyny would be tolerated. In cases of polyandry recorded, no husband was known to have an additional wife. Yet the possibility that a husband of a polyandrous woman could have another wife was not completely ruled out. This possibility was highly limited by the fact that a man has to maintain his wife at the expense of his tharavad which would not provide him with supplies for two wives. The male members of a tharavad, barring some of the wealthy thara-vads in which some allowances were given to grown males, generally had no other source of income. This allowance in kind or cash was meant for expense at their discretion and fancy. A man with such an income could afford to maintain a second wife but his tharavad would usually not accord her full recognition as a second wife. Excluding her from invitation to feasts, discouraging any initiative on her part to visit the husband's tharavad and denying her opportunities to pose herself at par with the first wife, were the methods by which the second wife would be effectively differentiated by the husband's tharavad. Rarely a second wife would tactfully manage to make the attitude of her husband's tharavad relaxed and she would succeed considerably if her husband co-operated or his first wife 125 tolerated such effort. However co-wives of a man would hardly have any acquaintance between them and under no circumstances they would ordinarily have co-residence even for a day in the husband's tharavad. The husband's conjugal bond with the second wife was no less durable than that with the first wife and to the best of the knowledge of my informants the second wife did not have other husbands. There may be a rare instance of a man having three wives but no specific case could be cited by those who spoke about its probability. Cases of a Nambutiri having more than one Nair wife, although rare, are known to elderly men in the villages. Equally well known are the cases of Brahmins (Pattar) who in addition to a Brahmin wife had a Nair wife. The case of a Nair having more than one Nair wife was, however, extremely rare. This account of polygyny leads to the necessity of distinguishing it from concubinage. A man's continued sexual intimacies with a woman which his tharavad or local sub-caste people would not rebel against and would ignore rather than give a semi-recognition may be termed as concubinage. The necessity to rebel against it would arise if the woman was distinctly of a lower caste or of a sub-caste far too below. A Sudra Nair, for instance, could have a concubinage belonging to the sub-caste of Ulladan or Vatekat Nairs, but not further below. In Malayalam the word that can in this context be equated with concubinage is 'swakaryam' which literally means 'secret' or in a loose sense 'private'. One would say, "he has two sammantham (visiting marriage relationships)" and in addition one 'swakaryam, ' or alternatively "he has two known sammantham (two wives) and one unrecognized (concubine). " Concubines with two or three masters who knew each other as sharing concubinal rights over the same woman were also not rare. Concubines of the men of the high group of Nair sub-castes belong to the middle group of sub-castes or to very poor tharavads of the high group which had for their subsistance a confirmed dependancy on tharavads of the same group for generations. A concubine would not aspire to become a recognized wife for the very fact of her being concubine was due to the restrictions barring a publicly recognised union with her. She was to be visited with some amount of professed secrecy and she was not to be the only source of gratification of sex-need of her master. An unmarried man in his thirties would not be credited with celibacy but would be accused of living a life of loose morals or condemned as being in the clutches of a concubine if he had any. A married man with a concubine would find it easier to maintain secrecy of his visits to his concubine. He could after his supper leave his tharavad 126 in his routine way to visit his wife and instead of turning to his wife's tharavad he could spend the night with the concubine. Polyandry or monogamy did not therefore repel concubinage but favoured its existence as a tolerated form of extra-marital sex gratification. An important factor which perpetuated concubinage was that the major number of tharavads of the high group of sub-castes possessed lands as the first intermediaries (kanam rights) and the middle and low subcastes were sub-tenants under them on simple lease (verumpattam). Tenancy on simple lease was the most insecure since the leaser could change the tenant every year if he liked. Each tharavad of the middle and low group of sub-castes, apart from its occupational services, depended on one or more of the tharavads of the high group of sub-castes to supplement its income by rendering occasional services of a miscellaneous nature. However, a marked degree of dependence on the part of a tharavad adversely affected the prospects of its becoming a concubinal tharavad of a member of the master tharavad on which it depended. It was repugnant if a man made a dependant servant woman the object of his sexual desire even if she belonged to the same sub-caste. A Malayalam proverb ridicules this possibility by saying that one should not make a pillow of a broom, which means that one should not make one's maid servant a target of his sexual desires.