discuss the evidence which shows that the brahminical prescriptions related to 1 system and kingship were not followed everywhere
Answers
Although brahmical texts claimed to their universality but we find many instances in the history that it was not so. Here are some of the examples. When we look in the idea of kinship there are different ways to define kinship but usually it is understood in the context of family tities. The notion of relarelative or the idea that we are related. Usually the idea surrounding kinship is that is blood related and follows with certain rules and regulationsregulations. For example marrying outside ones kinsfolk. These rules are prescribed in the brahmical text, but we find that this practices varies according to a region. For example marrying cousins are regarded as sin whereas others don't consider to be blood related and marry among cousins.
The idea of exogamy propounded by the brahmins of marrying outside ones gotra, was also followed in wide array of society but was it absolute, it could be debated because in many texts we find that this rule too was broken even by someone who called themselves brahmanas. The satavahanas, were from brahmana caste and claimed themselves to be the one who will break the arrogance of kshatriyas. But we find many instances for example, the marrying in between the same gotra, or within same kinsfolk. They were also the one who strongly opposed marriages between different varnas but we find that satavahanas married with many that were considered outside or were not be able to put within the fold of caste system.
Thus it is a high claim if we say that brahmical prescriptions were universally adopted, because even within the kinship and in marriage we find discrepancies which according to the brahmical text should not exist.
HOPE IT'S HELFUL FOR YOU
PLEASE MARK ME AS BRAINLIEST