Kinship Principles and the Pattern of Marriage

Alliance: The Meos of Mewat1

Abha Chauhan

This paper deals with the kinship principles which determine

the pattern of marriage alliance among the Meos of Mewat. It
focuses on the changes in these principles and their implications for the people, specially women. It elucidates the strains
on the Meos and the adjustments that they make and live with
by virtue of being a Muslim community and following the
kinship rules and marriage practices that are essentially
similar to the Hindus.
The Meo is a patrilineal and patrilocal community comprising of 20 lakh
people residing in about 1,200 villages in the Mewat region across
Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. Ninety-two percent of the Meo
population is rural. Agriculture is the main occupation of the Meos: 60
percent of the Meo families own land and most of them belong to the
category of small and middle peasants. The Meos enjoyed high social
prestige as well as economic and political power in the past. Not only
were they called the zamindars, but were also jajmans to the several
Hindu and Muslim servicing castes of the region (Jamous 1996:182-83).
The pattern of marriage alliance among the Meos is based on
kinship rules similar to many neighbouring Hindu castes, whereas
several of their marriage practices exhibit Islamic features. As among the
Muslims, nikah and the payment of mehr are important and essential
components of every Meo marriage. The Hindu elements in the Meo
marriage include, among others, the engagement or sagai, the ritual
preparation of the bridal couple, the ritual service by the paternal aunt,
the ceremonial presentation of gifts or bhat by the maternal uncle and
the performance of gauna after marriage. All these occasions are
accompanied by gift giving, mainly by the brides side. The rules for
arranging marriage among the Meos, such as village or clan exogamy,
are also similar to those of the Hindu castes of the region.
Abha Chauhan is Reader in Sociology at the University of Jammu.
E-mail: <acju@rediffmail.com>
SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 52 (1), March 2003

72

Sociological Bulletin

In this way, the two influences - the Hindu and the Muslim coalesce and impinge upon the institution of Meo marriage in a way
unique to the area. As these rules follow a set pattern and are more or
less immutable and repeated over generations, they result in the
formation of what is called a pattern of marriage alliance. In this sense
affinity is transmitted from one generation to another acquiring a
diachronic dimension, and is permanent and stable (Dumont
1983:Preface). This transmission persists not only in marriage rules, but
also in terms of the rights and duties of the affinal relations and the
nature of marriage transaction and the gift giving. 2
The kinship rules have remained intact among the Meos partly for
reasons of their conversion to Islam about a thousand years ago 3 on
community-plane and partly because of their ties of mechanical
solidarity. Their conversion on community-plane enabled them to retain
the distinctive entities of their structural arrangement, whereas the fact
of mechanical solidarity aided in the continuity of their practices
(Sharma 1969:183). In the recent years certain distinct changes have
come about in these arrangements and practices.
This paper attempts to understand the structural principles of
kinship system of the Meos, the recent changes in them, and their impact
on the lives of the people. The analysis is based on the fieldwork in the
Nagina and Jaitaka villages of Nagina block and Ghata village in
Firozepur Jhirka block of Gurgaon district in Haryana.
Community/Caste Endogamy
The first and the most basic principle that the Meos follow is the
commu-nity or caste endogamy. Though endogamy is described as a
caste, rather than a kinship feature, kinship is maintained within the
caste, which sustains itself through kinship. As a rule, all marriages are
arranged within the Meo community and those that are not are either
condemned or not accorded the same status. The Meos are described as
caste group having essential characteristics such as endogamy,
hereditary membership and hierarchical position in relation to other
castes of the region.
In his study of Chavandi-kalan village in Mewat region of
Rajasthan, Aggarwal (1978:149-50) notes that, with a few exceptions,
rules prohibit-ing inter-caste marriage, are stringently enforced by all
castes. The village has 16 castes arranged in a hierarchical order with the
Meo being the only Muslim caste placed in the higher caste category just
after the Brahmins. Similarly, among the castes in the three villages in

Kinship Principles and the Pattern of Marriage Alliance

73

this study - 16 in Nagina, six in Jaitaka, and five in Ghata - the Meos
occupy the highest place in the social hierarchy among the Muslim
castes with whom they do not have any marriage ties.
Despite the emphasis on caste endogamy, marriage between a Meo
man and a non-Meo Muslim woman from within or outside Mewat is
recognised, though it is not a preferred form. This is because such
marriages take place as secondary unions contemplated by men who are
divorced, widowed or bachelors of advanced age by Meo standards or
are extremely poor. According to scholars like Shams (1983), this
practice can be seen as the extension of ther or bride-price marriages
practised by majority of the people earlier, but has since declined as the
dowry marriages became the norm with the improved economic
conditions of the people. The bride-price custom among the Meos has a
negative conno-tation signifying the poor status of the bridegrooms
family and sale and purchase of brides.
As bride-price marriages required payment of money and articles to
the bride and her family, so does the marriage of Meo men to women
from outside Mewat who are also from a low socio-economic stratum.
The data show that of the 32 men who married women from outside
Mewat, all except one were illiterate and from poor families. Thus, there
appears to be a positive correlation between the bride-price form of
marriage or its extension and poverty or the economic condition of the
people in this region.4 Though the Meos refuse to accept the prevalence
of bride-price marriages, the incidence of their marrying non-Meo
women from outside the Mewat region has increased. In the 1990s, of
the 32 men who got married, 23 of them did so, while there was no such
marriage till 1970.
However, though the second marriage or even the first marriage
with a woman from outside the Mewat region does not follow the same
rituals as the first marriage, it is nevertheless equally legal. The children
born of such wedlock take on the name and clan of their Meo fathers,
and their marriages are arranged according to the local customs. The
child of such an union is like any other Meo and nobody will object to
her/his having a non-Meo mother. The rules of succession and
ownership of property will apply to their children in the same way as to
the children born to a Meo woman. Customarily, the Meo men did not
marry women of inferior castes, but their Muslim status has provided
justification to the economic necessity of such a marriage. Most of the
Meo women feel that non-Meo women from outside do not have the
same status; they are, however, much more vocal and articulate than the

74

Sociological Bulletin

local women and have a distinct influence on their husbands, children

and other family members.
One can delineate several reasons for the practice of bride price and
its continuance among the Meos. First, the important role women played
in the subsistence agrarian economy led to their demand and acceptance
of bride price, especially among the poor people. There are graphic
descrip-tions of womens work all over colonial Haryana that included
work related to agriculture, animal husbandry, and arranging for fuel,
fodder and water, besides other household chores (Chowdhry 1989:30410). The indispensability of women in the agrarian economy together
with their lesser number (883 women per 1000 men in Mewat, according
to the Census 1991) made marriage an economic asset and necessity
with more emphasis laid on the work qualities of women rather than
their physical features or even age and height. It is said that among the
Meos of Mewat, even today, in 30 percent of all marriages the wife is
older than her husband.
Second, since the overall economic condition of the Meos
improved, the poor men found it more difficult to marry Meo girls.
Hence, they had to look for brides from outside. As bride price was
accepted and approved, though not preferred, such marriages began to
be arranged and performed more commonly. The reason for Meo men
seeking brides from outside has also to do with their kinship rules
which provide very limited choice of mates, not allowing for instance,
exchange or cousin marriages, like other Muslims. The widening of this
choice was facilitated by the external factors where women from poor
families were available. Islam stimulated and accepted all such intercaste marriages between Meo men and women of other Muslim
communities on the ground that they were valid in the Islamic law.
However, not all marriages between a Meo man and a non-Meo
Muslim woman are accorded un-preferential status. Education, employment and better economic condition have made exogamous marriages
possible.5 Such marriages are usually not opposed. In fact, an educated
woman is given much respect, especially if she mixes easily with the
local people. One hears frequently of an educated Meo man marrying a
non-Meo woman of equal status out of his own choice, but the opposite
does not usually take place. Thus, the change witnessed regarding the
breaking of caste barriers seems to be much more favourable to men.
However, generally, marriage with members of other religious
communities is highly discouraged and opposed.
Our data convey that educated and well-employed people tend to be
more religious, though they do not necessarily believe in following

Kinship Principles and the Pattern of Marriage Alliance

75

custo-mary rules.6 Even otherwise, education and employment are

proving to be important factors affecting the overall lives of the people.
Education and better-paid jobs for women in Mewat could make more
difference than religion, but this could be slow owing to the very low
level of literacy and even lower rate of employment of women. Hence,
for Meo women to have a choice in the selection of mate is yet a long
march, especially with the modern catalyst forces lying low and
customary and religious forces playing a dominant role.
Clan or Gotra Exogamy
The second rule or principle that the Meos follow in establishing a
marriage alliance is the clan or gotra exogamy. The Meos are divided
into many patrilineal clans and the mythical founding ancestor of each
clan is considered to be the descendant of a Hindu divinity. The details
regarding the ancestors are kept updated by a Brahman genealogist or
the Jagga, while the Mirasi performers sing in praise or Jas of the clan
ancestor during marriage and other ceremonies. Mayaram (1997a:255)
has given an account of the Meo myth and rituals to show that the theme
of the descent of Meo clans from Hindu gods or heroes appears
repeatedly in their oral tradition.
There are thirteen prominent patriclans among the Meos. These
clans are clubbed into five groups, each bearing a Rajput clan name. The
Meos claim that the members of these groups have descended from the
Rajput clans with whose name they are associated. In local parlance, the
term used for these clans is vansh. The thirteen patriclans are locally
called gotra and are attached to and give their names to the thirteen
territorial divisions or pals spread over more than a thousand villages in
Mewat (see Table 1).
Gotra is called pal gotra when the territorial dimension is added to
the social unit. However, the territorial principle need not always go
with the social unit. This is so because members of different gotras as
well as other castes live in the territorial boundary integrated into a Meo
pal system. Also, members of a particular pal gotra can be found in
different territories or pals. Due to the increasing shift in population in
the recent years, the boundaries of pal territories have become fuzzy and
ambiguous. Nevertheless, the change in territory (pal) has not resulted
in a change of gotra associated with that territory. That is, a person is
still identified with her or his pal gotra: a Dehngal, even if he or she
does not stay in one of the 360 villages of the Dehngal pal, remains a
Dehngal.

76

Sociological Bulletin
Table 1: Clans and gotras of Meos in different villages
Clan/Vansh
Tomar
(Chandravansh
- Arjun)
Jadaun
(Chandravansh
- Lord Krishna)

Kachhwaha
(Suryavansh
- Lord Rama)
Rathore
(Suryavansh)
Chauhan
(Agnivansh)

Pal gotra
Balot
Dairwal
Landavat
Rataval
Chhiraklot
Demrot
Duhlot
Nai
Pundlot
Dehngal
Singhal

No. of
villages
12
82
355
12
386
757
352
210
84
360
210

Kalesa

12

Pahat

360

Source: Compiled on the basis of information provided by the local Mirasi and
Saddique (1997).

Besides the 13 pal gotras, there are also non-territorial gotras called
nepaliya (that is, without pal) gotra whose members are spread across
one or several pal territories. It is said that the number of nepaliya
gotras is 52, though, according to Aggarwal (1976:268-69), there are 67
nepa-liya gotras. All the pal and nepaliya gotras are exogamous units
and have a similar function of regulating marriage and formulating
marriage alliances. The marriages between the pal gotra and nepaliya
gotra occur frequently and there is no status difference between the two
categories. At this level, marriage units are equal and marriage alliance is
isogamous. The two types of gotra schemes relate to their social
differentiation and not stratification (Sharma 1969:179).
Each pal gotra is divided into sub-clans or lineages, which are also
sub-territorial units called thamba. Each thamba has its first village or
pabha. Their units comprise an original village called Chaudhari ka
Gaon established by the common ancestor known as dada (forefather)
from whom they trace their descent. The pal gotras and their thamba
divisions in the Mewat region of Haryana are shown in Table 2.
In actual practice, as will be explained later, the role of thamba in
arranging marriage alliance is more significant in comparison to gotra.

Kinship Principles and the Pattern of Marriage Alliance

77

However, both these divisions have been territorially important,

especially
Table 2: The pal and thamba divisions of the Meos
Pal gotra
Balot
Dairwal
Landavat/Baghoria
Rataval
Chhiraklot
Demrot
Duhlot
Nai
Pundlot
Dehngal
Singhal
Kalesa
Pahat

Thamba divisions
Akata, Semla Khurd, and Govind Garh
Mevali
Musaskhera
Sahori
Bichhore, Luhinga, Kot, Uttavar, Ruparka, Maluke,
and Sital Khera
Kachola, Ghata, and Bisru
Milakpur, Burgi, Ladanika, Sikri, and Khera
Neekanch, Karoli, Raibka, and Dhanera
Desola, Malva, and Bahalh
Gwalda, Raisena, Ghasera, Chandalia, Sondhia,
Rehania, and Barakia
Chandoli, and Ismailpur
Dadar
Mevkhera

Source: Saddique (1997).

in times of war. Each pal and each thamba had a chief, the Chaudhari,
who was chosen from specific families within the dominant clan. His
authority came under the control of the clan assembly or panchayat. He
played a significant role in all social and political matters of the group
concerned and, during war, he was the most important leader organising
his pal or thamba as a territorial unit against units at the same level.
Today, the importance of Chaudharis has declined, but they are still
con-sulted in all matters related to marriage, remarriage, divorce or any
other similar issue. The Chaudhari of Nagina thamba of the Gorval
gotra who stays in Nagina village is still an important figure in the
community.
Similarly, the kinship rule of exogamy regarding pal gotra (or
nepa-liya gotra) and thamba sub-clans or lineages is always
maintained. There-fore, it is possible (though rare) that a marriage is
arranged within a pal area, but never within the pal gotra. Thus, the
territorial concept of pal/ thamba may have declined to an extent, but as
a basic unit of kinship, its norms are almost absolutely followed. To put
it simply, the rule is that one can not marry within her/his gotra or pal,
or sub-clan or lineage (thamba). This is corroborated by the saying in

78

Sociological Bulletin

Mewat that goti so bhai, baki ke asnai (all gotra members are
brothers, affinal relation can be established with all others).
The Meos observe one-gotra rule. This is unlike their neighbouring
communities, like the Jats and Yadavs, who have a four-gotra rule.
According to the four-gotra rule, a man or a woman avoids marrying in
his or her own gotra, mothers gotra, mothers mothers and fathers
mothers gotra. Even among the Meos, in the olden days, it was the
norm to avoid marrying into ones own, ones mothers and ones
mothers mothers gotra (Aggarwal 1971:119). According to Riwaz-i-Am
of the Meos, a man could not marry a woman of his own gotra or pal, a
woman of the village his mother belonged to, a woman of the village his
fathers mother belonged to, and a woman whose relation is traced
through con-sanguineal kin. A Meo could not also marry a woman of
inferior caste, a woman undergoing iddat and a woman of different
religion (Wilson 1882: 151).
Some Meos would also disapprove of matrimony in which any pair
of the following eight clans (gotras) is common: the boys and the girls
natal clans, their mothers natal clans, and both their maternal and
paternal grandmothers natal clans. The clan of the sisters daughter was
also avoided (Sharma 1969:180). It is stated that the Meos never married
in their mothers gotra except after removing four generations (Crooke
1975:490).
It seems that the rule of multiple gotra avoidance existed among the
Meos till the turn of the century but declined subsequently and is now
reduced to one-gotra rule. None of the respondents remembers anything
beyond this. In Jaitaka village, of the 14 male respondents, 10 said that
their wives and mothers came from the same village. Similarly, in two
cases each wives and grandmothers, and mothers and grandmothers
came from the same village. A similar picture was observed in other
villages, too.
Thus, it is clear that the Meos now follow one-gotra rule and stick
to it quite rigidly. Attempts to bring about any change in this have often
led to fights, and even killings. In the early 1960s, the Maulvis of
Uttavar, Ruparka and Ghasera villages had sponsored three cases of
patrilateral parallel-cousin marriage, that is, marriage between the
children of two brothers. The Meos not only boycotted these marriages,
but also attacked the Maulvis and butchered one of them (Sharma
1969:183). In 1998, a boy and a girl of two brothers were done to death
in a village in Firozepur Jhirka block for the same reason.
So far, I have come across two cases of intra-gotra marriage. In one
case both the bride and the bridegroom belonged to Chhiraklot gotra

Kinship Principles and the Pattern of Marriage Alliance

79

and also resided in the same village in Firozepur Jhirka block. There
was vigorous opposition to this marriage, and the couple had to leave
their homes and settle in Jhunjunu in Rajasthan. Another case was in
Jaitaka village in Nagina block, where both the boy and girl belonged to
Dhairval gotra. They did not meet with stiff resistance, as people did
not come to know about the boys gotra and family as he stayed in
Delhi. However, when they came to know about it, the villagers
expressed their general disapproval of this union.
The change in the rule of gotra exogamy has set in, but so far the
community has not accepted this. Marriage in the same family and gotra
is regarded as incestuous and tantamount to a criminal activity in Mewat.
It can be said with confidence that even today not more than one percent
of all Meo marriages are intra-gotra unions.
Prohibition of Marriage between Cousins
It is not enough to say that gotra exogamy is the rule, as marriage prohibition extends beyond ones gotra. Besides ones patrilateral parallel
cousins (of the same gotra), one cannot also marry ones matrilateral
parallel cousins and both patrilateral and matrilateral cross-cousins, that
is, the Ego cannot marry his fathers sisters daughter, mothers sisters
daughter and mothers brothers daughter. All these three forms of
cousin marriages are outside the Egos gotra, yet prohibited. Thus,
among the Meos, the rule for forming marriage alliance is No marriage
between cousins - cross or parallel, even if they belong to different
gotras.
According to Riwaz-i-Am, a Meo cannot marry any woman whose
relationship with him is close enough to be traceable, and a woman
whose relation is traced through consanguineal kin (Wilson 1882:151). It
was noticed in the mid-1970s that the Meos avoided both cross-cousin
and parallel-cousin marriages. Their kinship terminology is of the
Hawaiian type, that is, the same terms being used for siblings and
cousins. There is no definite rule regarding the degree of removal of the
cousin whom one must avoid marrying. Any person with whom a
cousin relationship can be traced cannot be married to (Aggarwal
1976:278).
In the 1980s, Jamous (1996:189) observed that no one could marry
any parallel cousin, any patrilateral or a matrilateral first cross-cousin.
He mentions that a niece following her paternal aunt (fufi) in a marriage
alliance is a preferential marriage. Since her own son cannot marry his

80

Sociological Bulletin

matrilateral cross-cousin, the aunt finds a boy from her husbands

agnates, for example, her husbands brothers son.
However, over the last decade, a significant change is witnessed in
this rule. The Meos have started accepting the matrilateral cross-cousin
marriage as valid and some of them have also started this practice. In
Mewat today, no one will oppose the marriage between fathers sisters
son (FZS) and mothers brothers daughter (MBD). Indeed, it is not
difficult to find cases where a womans own fufi is her mother-in-law.
In this study, in all seven cases of matrilateral cross-cousin marriage
were recorded - three in Nagina, three in Jaitaka, and one in Ghata. All
these marriages took place in the 1990s. This shows that the matrilateral
cross-cousin marriage is an extremely recent phenomenon, and though
people have accepted and started arranging it, it has not become a
common practice. Thus, cross-cousin marriage of only one type has
started taking place in Mewat: a boy can marry his MBD and not vice
versa. Con-versely, a girl cannot marry her MBS but can marry her FZS.
Several reasons were stated by the respondents for allowing such
marriages: strengthening of brother-sister relationship, if they are
already good, or improving it, if not so good; impact of Islam, which
does not object to such unions; and, most important, the increasing
demand for dowry. That Islamic law does not favour this restriction,
which has no basis in Shariat, and that such marriages (between
cousins) tend to reduce the extravagant and unnecessary expenses
incurred by the Meos by way of dowry were also emphasised by the
local people.
The implications of this change for women are seen in lessening of
burden felt by the parents to look for bridegrooms for their daughters,
reduction in expenditure on marriage, a sense of security, better
treatment of the daughter and the cordial relations between kin. It was
also observed during fieldwork that sometimes in order to bring her
own brothers daughter for her married son, a woman would start
mistreating her first daughter-in-law or the husband would leave his first
wife at her natal place and refuse to take her back. In some cases it was
also seen that he would neither take her back nor divorce and free her to
remarry. This is done to avoid the payment of mehr (if not already
given) or a compen-sation amount or simply to harass her.
The Meos, by and large, do not go in for matrilateral parallel-cousin
marriages (between children of two sisters). Though people do not
oppose such an union per se, such marriages are difficult to contract as
other kinship rules, like the rule of gotra exogamy, are also to be
observed.7 None but two of the 225 respondents have heard of this kind

Kinship Principles and the Pattern of Marriage Alliance

81

of marriage. One case of such a marriage is reported from Ghata village

and another from Nagina. The Meos generally overlook such
possibilities, even if they exist. Peoples disposition to this type of
marriage is described thus: kar sakte hain, par karte nahin hain (we can
arrange such marriages, but we do not). The fact that people accept that
such a marriage is possible is by itself a sign of change.
Nevertheless, what the Meos do not and are not willing to accept
and follow is the patrilateral cross-cousin marriage, that is, marriage
between mamas son (MBS) and fufis daughter (FZD). The reason for
this lies in the wife-giver/wife-taker kinship rule of the Meos discussed
later.
Village Exogamy
According to Riwaz-i-Am of the Meos, besides from ones own village, a
Meo man cannot marry a woman of the village of his mother and of his
fathers mother (Wilson 1882). However, as noted earlier, the Meos do
not follow or stick to this rule. With changes in the demographic
structure of Mewat and shifting of population, it is difficult for the Meos
to avoid territorial units of pal and thamba. However, as social units,
the rule of village exogamy is adhered to. Ninety-two percent of the
respondents in the sample said that they followed the rule of village
exogamy strictly. None of the Meo households in the three villages
recorded any case of intra-village marriage. Though all villages are
usually one-gotra villages, it is possible that the members of other
gotras with whom the marriage alliance is possible live in the same
village. Yet no marriage will be arranged and performed once they are a
part of the same village. Such a configuration is possible when, for
example, a son-in-law comes to his wifes village and settles there and
the number of his family members grows in a few years time. If he has
to seek a groom for his daughter, then he must look for alliance in
another village.
In his study of Chavandi-kalan village in Alwar, Aggarwal (1971)
mentions four gotras of the Meos: Landavat, Demrot, Dehngal and
Balot. No marriage was possible between the families of these gotras
within the village. Each of the three villages in our study also has a main
gotra, though members of some other gotras too stay there. However,
marriages between them are no longer arranged, even if the kinship rule
favours such an alliance. For instance, Nagina is predominantly a Gorval
village. How-ever, members of other gotras like Chhiraklot, Dehngal
and Bagoria also stay there, and there is a feeling of absolute bhaichara

82

Sociological Bulletin

among them.8 Thus, though gotra exogamy is usually village exogamy,

the two are not synonymous, and are maintained exclusive of each
other. Fictive kinship relations exist among the inhabitants of a village,
and a woman will be either a daughter or a daughter-in-law of the
village. All relations, irres-pective of caste and community, would be
maintained accordingly even when people make visits to other villages.
Since the rule of wife-givers and wife-takers exists among the Meos,
it is not possible for a brother and a sister to be married in the same
village, but two sisters or female cousins or even a girl and her fathers
sister (as shown earlier) can be and are often married in the same
village. In this sense, women are transferred in one direction, further
inhibiting marriage possibilities by giving rise to what Mayer (1960:210)
calls marriage chain.
The Meos also follow the rule of not taking girls in marriage from
the village to which they give girls in marriage. Though this rule could
be synonymous with the gotra rule of wife-givers and wife-takers, it is
followed even if this synonymy does not occur. For example, if gotra A
in village I gives girls in marriage to gotra B in village II, it cannot take
girls of gotra B (from any where). However, if there are girls of other
gotras, for example, C or D in village II from whom, as a rule, gotra A
can take girls, it will not do so in this case. The entire village II would
have acqui-red the status of wife-givers. Members of gotra B can
nevertheless take girls from gotras C and D from other villages.
Even as late as in the 1960s it was noticed that father and son do not
marry in the same village (Aggarwal 1971:118). Sharma (1969:183)
observed thus in the late 1960s: permitted to marry in his mothers natal
clan, the boy must not look for a mate from his mothers village. In a
later study, Jamous (1996:189) found that no man could take a spouse
from the natal village of the mother, which means that no one can repeat
the fathers marriage, though it is possible to repeat the paternal grandfathers marriage.
In recent years, there has been a distinct change in this rule, the
genesis of which lies in the earlier changes. The first change was the
lifting of the restriction on father and son marrying from the same
village. Very few old people remember that such a rule existed. Almost
all the respondents replied yes to the question whether they take girls
from the Egos mothers and grandmothers villages. This is a change
from the earlier practice according to the Riwaz-i-Am that did not allow
such marriages. The data from Nagina village show that 50 percent of
Gorval mens wives, mothers and (paternal) grandmothers are from
Demrot and Chhiraklot gotras. It was also seen that nearly 38 percent of

Kinship Principles and the Pattern of Marriage Alliance

83

the women as wives, mothers and grandmothers came from the same
village. This shows the overlap between social groups - the village and
the gotra. Since the sample includes men of all age groups, it is clear
that a consistent trend is observed where brides are taken from the same
gotras over generations and usually also from the same villages.
A different kind of change has been noticed in the 1990s. Now it is
not only possible to repeat ones fathers marriage but one can also take
a girl from the same family. Earlier, the marriage of a boy with the
daughter of his chachis (fathers brothers wife) brother was preferred,
but now he can marry his own mothers brothers daughter. A woman
also prefers to get her brothers daughter for her son, which shows that
matrilateral cross-cousin marriages are accepted and arranged among the
Meos in Mewat today.
Though marriages are arranged in different villages and even in
different thambas and pals, which could be far-off territorially, the Meo
customs and rituals provide space to women to negotiate their choice
and freedom. Since all members belonging to a village are related,
women do not observe purdah in their natal village, unlike Muslim
women else-where. There is no concept of burqa in the region.
Moreover, all women cover their heads, even a girl of five or six years
of age, wherever they may be. In their sasural (in-laws house) as
wives/daughters-in-law they observe purdah from all the male elders of
the patrilineal family and maintain avoidance, while as sisters and
daughters they mix freely with men of their natal villages. Interestingly,
purdah, even if it means avoiding direct contact, does not prevent
women from talking to men or arguing with them if the need arises.
Behind purdah, it is noticed, that father-in-law and daughter-in-law
often discuss as well as take decisions about various matters.
The people in the village trust each other and women considered
related by blood do not fear venturing out to the fields or forests which
is almost necessary for them. The hold of social norms is strong and is
main-tained by the village panchayat. Any breach of these norms is met
with stringent punishment. The male folk also guard the women of their
village against external threats and, even if girls move out to different
and far-off villages, it is not easy for members of their conjugal
household to ill-treat them. The Meos are known to punish the groom
severely if their daughters and sisters are ill-treated or harassed.9 This
does not mean that there are no cases of the grooms people harassing or
torturing women for bringing an inadequate dowry. However, the
principle of village exogamy provides an inbuilt protective mechanism
safeguarding women in different situa-tions.

84

Sociological Bulletin

Another supporting feature is that women visit their natal villages

quite frequently throughout their lives and are also visited by their natal
family members on various occasions. This was true in the 1960s when
Aggarwal (1971:113) noticed that throughout her life, a married Meo
woman frequently visits her natal family renewing her ties with her
brother and nephew, and it is equally true today.
Thus, in Mewat, a womans ties with her natal home are not severed
on her marriage; using various occasions and opportunities she
maintains the link with her natal home. Besides her regular visits to the
natal village and to the homes of her other patrilineal and matrilineal
kin, she is visited by these kin. A woman visiting her natal home during
the harvest season, specially during the initial years of her marriage, to
help in the agricul-tural work, or later of her daughter visiting her
maternal grandmothers house, is not uncommon in Mewat.
For people from her village, no matter how far away they may live
from her, a woman is like a daughter or sister or mother, depending on
her age and the age of the man visiting her. Accordingly, gifts are
exchanged. Women look forward to such opportunities, and they also
create such opportunities by sending messages through people who also
have links in their natal villages. In fact, many a time, women not only
maintain exist-ing relationships but help create new ones and construct
them to their advantages. This can be explained through another very
significant kinship principle of the marriage alliance of the Meos,
namely, the wife-givers cannot be the wife-takers.
Wife-givers as Different from Wife-takers
This principle, though based on gotra and sub-clan or lineage, corresponds largely, but not always, to the territorial divisions. Therefore,
women on marriage not only move from some specific villages to other
specific ones, but also from some particular gotras to other equally
parti-cular ones. For example, Duhlot will take girls in marriage from
Chhi-raklot, Singhal and Dehngal gotras and give girls in marriage to
Demrot, Bagoria, Pahat, Dehngal as well as Chhiraklot (same thamba)
gotras. Similarly, Demrot, Balot, Singhal, Gorval will take girls in
marriage from Chhiraklot and Demrot gotras and give girls in marriage
to Bagoria, Demrot and Dehngal gotras.
Thus, though, the rule of gotra exogamy prevails where a Meo can
find her/his marriage partner in any other gotra than her/his own, the
choice is quite restricted. The rise of these inter-pal clusters is explicable
with reference to the demographic fact of the distribution of pals and

Kinship Principles and the Pattern of Marriage Alliance

85

the social fact of contacts with the affines of ones local friends. All the
pals and gotras have their respective concentration areas and it is the
consi-deration of adjacency, which plays a vital role in effecting these
inter-pal linkages. Ones contacts with the affines of neighbours and
friends further facilitate the development of this pattern of marriage
links (Sharma 1969:183).
The rule that wife-givers are not wife-takers - the fact that they are
altogether different groups of people - does not end here. In the above
example, it is seen that the Duhlots give and take girls from Chhiraklot,
whereas Gorval take and give girls to Dehngal. Here it would seem that
the wife-givers and wife-takers are the same set of people, but this is not
so due to the concept of thamba division. All Meo pals are divided into
a number of divisions called thamba (see Table 2), which is similar to
lineage and which forms the basic unit for maintaining gotra exogamy.
To understand how this kinship rule works, we may discuss one
example: Gorval gotra is divided into two thambas: Malbia and
Naginia, and Dehngal gotra is divided into seven thambas: Gwalda,
Raisenia, Ghaseria, Chandalia, Sondhia, Rehania and Barakia. The
Malbia thamba of Gorval gotra can take brides from all thambas of
Dehngal gotra but Chandalia, and Naginia thamba of Gorval gotra can
give daughters to all members of Dehngal gotra except Chandalia. With
Chandalia thamba, Gorval gotra has a relationship of bhaichara.
Between the two gotras which have bhaichara relationship, there is
no possibility of forming marriage alliance, as their members are
considered related by blood or as brothers and sisters. 10 A 50-year-old
person of Shahpur village in Nuh block informed that members of
Gwalda thamba of Dehngal gotra (to which he himself belonged) do
not give their daughters where Ghaseria, Chandalia and Barakia (the
other thambas of Dehngal) give, but take from them. Another person of
the same thamba and gotra from Banarasi village in Nagina block said
that they take girls from all the thambas of Chhiraklot gotra except
Daag with whom they have a bhaichara relationship.
That this thamba rule is quite commonly practised in Mewat can be
discerned from the following examples, taken mainly from the Mewat
area in Rajasthan. Dholia thamba of Bagoria pal acquire girls from
Adapota thamba of Demrot pal and give its girls to other thambas of
Demrot pal. Similarly, the Bodiyan and Godhulia thambas of Pahat
offer their girls to Palan thamba of Chhiraklot pal and, in turn, accept
brides from the remaining thambas of Chhiraklot pal. Again, Baliyana
of Naugainya marry its girls in Godhulia thamba of Pahat and, in effect,
secures brides for its wards from other thambas of Pahat. In this sense,

86

Sociological Bulletin

similar to inter-pal alliances, inter-thamba alliances are formed

(Sharma 1969:182) and there are innumerable such alliances among the
Meos. The complexity of these configurations makes it very difficult for
the Meos to accept change in their kinship system.
However, some change in this rule of the wife-givers and the wifetakers can be seen in Mewat. According to local people, approximately
4-5 percent of all marriages today do not observe this rule. The reason
for this is that there were already restrictions in the choice of mates to
which some more were added later. 11 There was not much status
difference earlier and it was not difficult to find brides or grooms within
the commu-nity. Even if the number of villages and gotras from which
one could take or give girls was fixed, options were still very wide.
However, today, the Meos not only try to follow the traditional rules but
also want the prospec-tive brides/grooms to possess certain qualities and
qualifications - physical, social and economic. Such pressures in
arranging marriages force a traditional rule or two to be broken and the
one that suggests minimal blood relation becomes the most vulnerable.
One can cite several instances where this rule has been broken.
How-ever, it is necessary to emphasise that these marriages are still
regarded as aberrations and are usually opposed, though the intensity of
opposition has reduced. About 12 years ago, an advocate in Nuh
married a graduate girl who is now a school teacher. Though the girls
father arranged the marriage, there was much opposition by the
community and clan members. The advocate belonged to Bagoria gotra
and his wife was Magaria (the two are not pal gotras). The Magarias
take girls in marriage from Bagoria, but do not give them girls. Since the
advocate was Bagoria, and marrying him meant reversal of alliance, this
relationship was opposed. Yet the girls father was adamant, and today
no one has any complaint.
In Nuh itself, an advocate, a Dehngal gave his not-so-well-educated
daughter in marriage to a highly educated boy of Singaria gotra, the
gotra from which the Dehngals take girls. But the marriage arranged
between a girl (12th Pass) of Mubarakpur village in Punhana block to a
well educated and employed boy was cancelled due to opposition from
the village and gotra members. The girl was from Bisru thamba of
Demrot gotra from which the Nai Meo gotra, to which the boy
belonged, take girls but do not give them. The reversal of alliance was
not acceptable to the people of Mubarakpur village and the girls father
succumbed to their pressure and cancelled it.
However, even the advocate in the earlier example and his wife,
both of whom are educated and are married late by Meo standards,

Kinship Principles and the Pattern of Marriage Alliance

87

believe, like most others in Mewat, that though one cannot strictly
follow the rule of wife-givers and wife-takers, the rule of gotra and
village exogamy must be maintained. This could be because the
members of the same gotra are considered more closely related
consanguineously, whereas the rule of wife-givers and wife-takers not
only does not involve such closely related kin but it also includes
members of several gotras.
The rule that the wife-givers cannot be wife-takers is the reason why
the patrilateral cross-cousin marriage (between MBS and FZD) is not
accepted by the Meos, though the matrilateral cross-cousin marriage
(between MBD and FZS) is allowed. As shown earlier, the former type
of marriage would result in the reversal of alliance and break the rule of
wife-givers and wife-takers as different sets of people. In this sense,
marriages among the Meos are repeated through generations and never
reversed. The paternal aunt and niece can go in one direction but the
opposite is not possible. This rule is expressed in their maxim bhanji ko
got bachaye, phuphi gail bhatiji jaye (a girl can be married in the same
direction as her fathers sister, but not in her mothers brothers group).
This rule, which suggests that the wife-givers and wife-takers are
altogether different sets of people, compels us to think that a girl on
marriage moves to an entirely different environment severing her ties
with the members of her natal home and village, and perhaps suffering
conti-nuously because of this. Despite the constraints of the patriarchal
social structure, the wife-givers and wife-takers rule, by implication,
induces women to establish and construct relationships with the women
of their natal family and village in their sasural. There are several
examples where marriages are initiated and settled at the instance of
women between a man (mainly from husbands agnatic family) of their
sasural and a girl (usually the sister or the cousin) of their pihar (natal
home).
In this manner females of all age-groups and related differently are
brought together in a strange place. Since the village and gotra from
where the girls come are more or less fixed, many girls from the same or
nearby village, if not the family, are found together in their sasural. This
also facilitates their visits to their natal homes or, at least, helps them in
sending messages and keeping themselves updated on the well-being of
parents and other family members. Thus, despite the structural
constraints and limitations, Meo women in Mewat are able to carve out
space for their existence and identity.
Conclusion

88

Sociological Bulletin

The Meo society today is facing pressures from various directions and in
different forms in relation to its rules of kinship and marriage. In this
regard, the religious and the economic factors are having a distinct
impact. The spread of religious education through a number of
madarsas, sprung up lately in this area, and the participation of many
Meo girls (unlike their mothers and grandmothers) in them show the
increasing importance of religion in the lives of the Meos.
The changes in the Meo customary practices of marriage are hence
justified and accepted in the name of religion. The principle of
matrilateral cross-cousin marriage was adopted only by the Meos and
not by any other Hindu community of the region to whom the Meos
were close in matters of marriage and kinship rules. The pressure on
them to leave the custo-mary practices and adopt the religious ones,
especially with the increasing role of Tabliqui Jamaat, whose influence
began in the mid-1930s but became significant after 1947, is felt largely
by the Meos. Under its impact the Meos abandoned many Hindu rituals,
ceremonies and festivals, even if they stuck to their kinship rules in
arranging marriages.
We may identify three main reasons for Islamic revivalism in
Mewat: First, large-scale violence following Partition, because of which
Meos suffered; second, the decline of the caste system, particularly the
jajmani system and correspondingly of the Meos higher social status;
and third, forging links with Muslim communities outside Mewat,
facilitated by the improvement in communication and development
(Weekes 1984:520). This has gone hand in hand with the erosion of the
cordial relations between Hindus and Muslims over the years. The
situation changed even more since the mid-1980s, and after the incident
at Ayodhya in 1992, the animosity between the Muslim community and
some of the other Hindu groups has grown dangerously (Jamous
1996:194-95).
Added to the religious factor, the modern factors of change such as
higher education, new job opportunities and exposure to the outside
world along with the new pressures of mate selection are influencing the
Meos to leave their customary practices. Acceptance of change in the
wife-givers and wife-takers rule by the educated people and of the
matrilateral cross-cousin marriage by the others in the 1990s are the
examples of the struc-tural change, not witnessed by the Meos before.
Although such changes are quite limited today, it was seen during the
study that the educated people were more religious and could convince

Kinship Principles and the Pattern of Marriage Alliance

89

the uneducated, especially the women, about the uselessness of the

customary kinship and marriage rules.
What new forms of constraints are going to envelope the Meo
society further in the context of these changing principles of kinship and
marriage, and what implications they will have for women will be seen
in the due course. Nevertheless, the trends show that new forms of
inequalities are going to engulf the Meo society in the future. The
women, given the low level of their literacy (about 2 percent) and
awareness, would find ever more difficult to create spaces for
themselves. It is amidst these dynamic processes related to kinship and
marriage systems that the present paper situates the position of the Meos,
and of the Meo women.

Notes
1. I am thankful to the Centre for Womens Development Studies, New Delhi, for giving
me the opportunity to work on this project and to all the colleagues and associates for
their useful suggestions.
2. The nature of marriage transaction and gift giving requires a separate discussion and is
beyond the scope of this paper.
3. The Meos were originally Hindus, mainly Rajputs, who adopted Islam at different
periods: probably in the 11th century by Salar Masud, during Balbans rule in the 13th
century, and during Aurangzebs reign in the 17th century.
4. There seems to be some correlation between the type of marriage on the one hand and
poverty and the level of literacy on the other. Of the 32 men, 30 were illiterate, though
28 of them were below 49 years and 16 below 39 years of age.
5. During fieldwork I came across two women from Kashmir, who were better educated
and from well off families, married to Meo men. There is a clear-cut difference in the
status of these women and those mentioned earlier.
6. In interior villages, which are less exposed to the outside influences, people follow the
customary laws more closely.
7. For example, it is possible that children of two sisters belong to the same gotra, or
one may belong to the group from which it either takes or gives brides or neither gives
nor takes brides.
8. The predominant gotras in Jaitaka and Ghata villages are Dairwal and Ghata respectively.
9. In 1997, in Firozepur Namak of Nuh block, as a punishment for not treating the bride
well, the grooms male relatives were made to dress like women and paraded in the
village. This case was widely debated and covered in the press.
10. Each thamba has its own legend or myth to substantiate its rule of bhaichara.
11. Although education and employment should have widened the choice, they have, in
fact, reduced it because very few men and even fewer women in Mewat are educated
or well employed.

90

Sociological Bulletin

References
Aggarwal, P.C. 1971.Caste, religion and power. New Delhi: Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations.
----- 1976. Kinship and marriage among the Meos of Rajasthan, in Imtiaz Ahmad (ed.):
Family, kinship and marriage among Muslims in India (265-96). New Delhi:
Manohar.
----- 1978. Caste hierarchy in a Meo village in Rajasthan, in Imtiaz Ahmad (ed.): Social
stratification among Muslims in India (141-57). New Delhi: Manohar.
Chowdhry, P. 1989. Customs in a peasant economy: Women in colonial Haryana, in
Kumkum Sangri and Sudesh Vaid (eds..): Recasting women: Essays in colonial
history (302-36). New Delhi: Kali for Women.
Crooke, W. 1975. The native races of India (Vol III). Delhi: Cosmo Publications.
Dumont, L. 1983, Affinity as a value: Marriage alliance in south India with compara tive essays on Australia. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Jamous, R. 1996. The Meo as a Rajput caste and a Muslim Community, in C.J. Fuller
(ed.): Caste today (180-201). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Mayaram, S. 1997a. Resisting regimes: Myth, memory and shaping of a Muslim identity.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
----- 1997b. Meos of Mewat: Synthesising Hindu-Muslim identities, Manushi, No. 103,
November-December:
Mayer, A.C. 1960. Caste and kinship in central India: A village and its region. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Saddique, A. 1997. Mewat ek khoj (in Hindi). Doha, Gurgaon: Doha Taleem Samiti.
Shams, S. 1983. Meos of Mewat: Their customs and laws. New Delhi: Deep and Deep
Publications.
Sharma, S.L. 1969. Structural continuity in the face of cultural change, The eastern
anthropologist, 24 (2): 177-86.
Weekes, R.V. (ed.). 1984. Muslim peoples: A world ethnographic survey. London:
Aldwych Press.
Wilson, J. 1882. Codes of tribal customs of twenty-one tribes. Lahore.