Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Source Material Publication Committee

D:\AMBEDKAR\VOL-07\CONTENT Mk S.K.—26-09-2013>DK>9-11-2013\M 1

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Source Material Publication

Committee, Maharashtra State

EDITORIAL BOARD

1 SHRI KAMALKISHOR KADAM .. .. .. PRESIDENT

MINISTER FOR EDUCATION

2 PROF. JAVED KHAN .. .. .. VICE-PRESIDENT

EDUCATION MINISTER FOR STATE

3 SHRI R. S. GAVAI .. .. .. VICE-PRESIDENT

4 SHRI DADASAHEB RUPAVATE .. .. .. EXECUTIVE

PRESIDENT

5 SHRI B. C. KAMBLE .. .. .. MEMBER

6 DR. P. T. BORALE .. .. .. MEMBER

7 SHRI GHANSHYAM TALVATKAR .. .. .. MEMBER

8 SHRI SHANKARRAO KHARAT .. .. .. MEMBER

9 SHRIMATI SHANTABAI DANI .. .. .. MEMBER

10 SHRI WAMAN NIMBALKAR .. .. .. MEMBER

11 SHRI PRAKASH AMBEDKAR .. .. .. MEMBER

12 SHRI R. R. BHOLE .. .. .. MEMBER

13 SHRI S. S. REGE .. .. .. MEMBER

14 DR. BHALCHANDRA PHADKE .. .. .. MEMBER

15 SHRI DAYA PAWAR .. .. .. MEMBER

16 SHRI LAXMAN MANE .. .. .. MEMBER

17 PROF. N. D. PATIL .. .. .. MEMBER

18 PROF. MORESHWAR VANMALI .. .. .. MEMBER

19 PROF. JANARDAN WAGHMARE .. .. .. MEMBER

20 BARRISTER P. G. PATIL .. .. .. MEMBER

21 DR. M. P. MANGUDKAR .. .. .. MEMBER

22 PROF. G. P. PRADHAN .. .. .. MEMBER

23 SHRI B. M. AMBHAIKAR .. .. .. MEMBER

24 SHRI N. M. KAMBLE .. .. .. MEMBER

25 PROF. J. C. CHANDURKAR .. .. .. MEMBER

26 SHRI GIRISH KHOBRAGADE .. .. .. MEMBER

27 SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT .. .. MEMBER

28 DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION .. .. .. MEMBER-SECRETARY

29 SHRI V. W. MOON, O.S.D. .. .. .. MEMBER

D:\AMBEDKAR\VOL-07\CONTENT Mk S.K.—26-09-2013>DK>9-11-2013\S 2

BLANK


FOREWORD

The seventh volume of the Writings and Speeches of Dr. Babasaheb

Ambedkar contains two of his most memorable contributions to the

sociological literature of the modern India, viz. (1) ‘Who were the

Shudras?- How they came to be the Fourth Varna in the Indo-Aryan

Society;’ and (2) ‘The Untouchables- Who Were They and Why They

Became Untouchables?’ Both these works have influenced the thinking

of the present century which has witnessed emergence of the

individual as the autonomous unit in the constitutional jurisprudence

of equality and liberty. They mark the inauguration of the age of

reason in our history and impress upon us the need to rearrange

our social institutions in harmony with the dynamics of technological

changes which have made it possible for masses to enjoy freedom.

The age of reason was the effect of technologies of freedom and

mobility inherent in the Railways, Roads, Telegraphs, mass educa-

tion movements and greater contacts with the liberal culture of the

West.

Both the works have a historical orientation and throw a critical

light on the problem of the caste as the inhibitory and controlling

element in the social organisation and structure. The defect of the

Indian social structure was immobility which was institutionalised

as the divine dispensation, leading to decay and atrophy.

Dr. Ambedkar examines the problem in the light of historical

evidence and shows how the caste became the fundamental criterion

of social action.

The work ‘Who were the Shudras?’ is inscribed to the memory of

Mahatma Jotiba Fule whom Dr. Ambedkar esteems “as the greatest

Shudra of Modern India who made the lower classes of Hindus

conscious of their slavery to the higher classes and who preached the

gospel that for India social democracy was more vital than


independence from foreign rule.” The history of India is a tally of

events of caste-discrimination preached and practised in the name

of God. It is fair to conclude in retrospect that the caste as the

institution is the survival of pre-jural society and the early juris-

prudence of India like the jurisprudence of many other countries, was

sustained by the belief in supernatural agencies which punish

transgression of usages and can be assuaged by the magic charms

and rituals. It is due to the role of religion in the early laws that

the priest became the most potent instrument of the stability and

the status quo. In Europe the priest and the supremacy of the Church

was challenged by intellectuals but in India the challenge to the

priestly class and the tradition came much later when the British

Rule for the first time introduced masses to the democratic values

which find expression in the Proclamation of 1858 which states: “And

it is our further Will that, so far as may be, our subjects of whatever

Race or creed, be freely and impartially admitted to offices in our

service, the duties of which they may be qualified by their education,

ability and integrity to discharge.” In a society of institutionalised

gradation and hierarchy, this was a revolution in ideas and ideals

of equality which Dr. Ambedkar has advocated in a spirit of social

democracy. The present constitutional mandate for equality is trace-

able to this accident of history which brought with the British rule

the philosophy of social change that whatever may be birth-mark,

education would qualify an individual for a public office or employ-

ment. This was the first blow to the doctrine of the caste followed

by the Railways which made the static society mobile. The caste is

replaced by the ethics of classification which must be reasonable.

Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits class legislation but does not

forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation as held

by the Supreme Court in ‘Budhan Vs State of Bihar, 1955– Supreme

Court 1045.’

In a sense, ‘Who were the Shudras’ may be said to be an invitation

by Dr. Ambedkar to a fresh historical research on this subject to know

the reality of human nature which is not harmonious: it has two sides:

an aggressive self-assertive side which leads to ignoring the expec-

tations of others in the satisfaction of one’s own expectations and

a co-operative social side which leads to working with others in

association and groups of all sorts in recognition of common purposes.

The individual needs the force of social control to keep these two

sides in balance. Undoubtedly, the struggle for existence, the com-

petition in satisfying expectations or desires whenever acute

(ii)


because of the limited goods of existence, out of which they can be

satisfied, disturbs this balance. In order to maintain the balance men

have relied upon religion and upon reason.” (Pound - jurisprudence

Vol. III). For the Indian historical content Dr. Ambedkar shows how

the desire for monopoly of social control made the priest the most

powerful factor in social control. The caste as a sociological insti-

tution resembles a Corporation in which the Board of Directors never

changed. It was the law of status which classified men according

to their birth and it was fixed and static; ability was not recognised

as the means to cross the class-barriers. In theory and in practice

the caste is the opposite of liberty, anti-thesis of equality and

negation of humanity as it postulates the capacity for thinking

incidental to the gift of reason for the chosen few distinguished by

the marks of their pedigrees and not by the degrees of excellence

evidenced in the free exercise of reason or conscience. The philosophy

of the sacred texts in general discouraged the free exercise of reason

with the result that the authority of the sacred texts became

unquestioned and Truth became a datum and not a problem. This

was the cause of intellectual atrophy and social stagnation. One is

reminded of the words of Milton :

“Well knows he who uses to consider, that our faith and knowledge

thrives by exercise, as well as our limbs and complexion. Truth is

compared in Scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not

in perpetual succession, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity

and tradition. A man may be heretic in the truth and if he believes

things only because his Pastor says so, or the Assembly so determines,

without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very

truth he holds becomes his heresy.”

It is in this context that the works of Dr. Ambedkar will prove

to be a frank assessment and a candid critique of the societal norms

requiring revision and reformulation which he himself did when the

opportunity presented in the Constituent Assembly which framed the

noble Constitution in which fundamental rights protect the indi-

vidual against despotism whether it comes from the State or Society.

‘The Untouchables’ is a sequel to the work on Shudras. Dr. Ambedkar

has in his usual critical style assessed the Indian social system. He

is critical of the Indian social system because it did not foster the

spirit of critical inquiry. It is, indeed, a matter of regret that Indians

could not produce a Voltaire or Milton or Victor Hugo because

as a class they did not approve of it. The spirit of inquiry is the

sine-qua-non of progress. The larger the area of inquiry, the

(iii)


greater the scope of investigation, the greater are the chances that

liberty will thrive and prosper along with tolerance and the existence

of dissent. It is in this context that both the works which are brought

together in the present volume provide enough material for reflection

and action to the layman and will prove to be the source of inspiration

to the scholar. The works have to be adjudged in the context in which

they were written to shake the average Indian out of his complacency.

Today the caste has become irrelevant in the light of modern

technological developments. However, social sciences lag behind the

technology. It is in this area that our efforts must be concentrated

to improve the mind of man, so as to bring it in harmony with the

technological progress. Dr. Ambedkar has shown that the caste has

become out of place and is a barrier to social progress and individual

advancement of freedom. The basic message of his work is that control

of minds of men by some powerful individuals is bad as such control

retards movement. The best source of practical instruction in the art

of life is the opportunity to commit errors and this means respon-

sibility for one’s actions and their consequences. That India did not

wake to the need to rearrange its social institutions for centuries

and it produced Mahatma Fule and Dr. Ambedkar only under the

British rule because of its democratic culture of public instruction

shows the old truth which has been succinctly expressed by G. B. Shaw

in, ‘Man, and Superman’ that “liberty means responsibility. That’s

why most men dread it.” Modern psychoanalysts and existentialist

philosophers have not been able to add to or detract from this

statement. In the context of the march of technology, there is a chance

of abuse of powers by those in authority and experts or priests of

science who control masses by techniques of electronic media. Mind

control by mass media and drugs is the awesome reality. Just consider

what F. A. Hayek says: (The Constitution of Liberty) :

“The day may not be far off when authority by adding appropriate drugs

to our water supply or by some other similar device, will be able to elate

or depress, stimulate or paralyse, the minds of whole population.”

Today the priesthood is replaced by experts and it is a new class

or caste that has emerged. The remedy lies in making knowledge free

and in widening the frontiers of practical social wisdom. It is in this

context that the rationalism of Dr. Ambedkar is relevant to all of

us who prize the liberty to know, to utter and to argue freely

according to conscience, above all liberties.

(iv)


This slightly long Foreword has become necessary to elucidate and

emphasise the social context in which they came to be written and

with which the post-independence generation of Indians may not be

adequately acquainted. The Editorial Board has no doubt that these

works will prove to be an invitation to renew our faith in our noble

Constitution.

The Editorial Board thanks the Secretary, Education Department

for his interest in the project. The Board places on record its

appreciation of the assistance it has received from the Officer on

Special Duty and his staff as well as Shri P. S. More, Director of

Government Printing and Stationery, M.S., Bombay; Shri P. L. Purkar,

Manager, Government Photozinco Press, Pune and the staff under

them in bringing out the present volume on time.

(Kamalkishor Kadam)

Education Minister and

President of the

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar

Source Material Publication Committee,

M.S., Bombay.

(v)


BLANK


1

SHUDRAS


BLANK


WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS ?


Inscribed to theMemory of

MAHATMA JOTIBA FULE

(1827—1890)

The Greatest Shudra of Modern India whomade the lower classes of Hindus consciousof their slavery to the higher classes andwho preached the gospel that for Indiasocial democracy was more vital thanindependence from foreign rule.


WHO WERE

THE

SHUDRAS?

How they came to be the

Fourth Varna in the

Indo-Aryan Society

By

B. R. Ambedkar

[Reprint of the Edition of 1947]


Thacker and Co.’s editions :–

First Edition 1946

Second Edition 1947

Third Edition 1970

Government of Maharashtra’sFirst Edition January 26, 1990


CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE .. .. 9

Chapter

I. THE RIDDLE OF THE SHUDRAS .. .. 21

II. THE BRAHMANIC THEORY OF THE ORIGIN

OF THE SHUDRAS .. .. 37

III. THE BRAHMANIC THEORY OF THE STATUS

OF THE SHUDRAS .. .. 42

IV. SHUDRAS VERSUS ARYANS .. .. 65

V. ARYANS AGAINST ARYANS .. .. 86

VI. SHUDRAS AND DASAS .. .. 101

VII. THE SHUDRAS WERE KSHATRIYAS .. .. 114

VIII. THE NUMBER OF VARNAS, THREE OR FOUR? .. .. 132

IX. BRAHMINS VERSUS SHUDRAS .. .. 140

X. THE DEGRADATION OF THE SHUDRAS .. .. 156

XI. THE STORY OF RECONCILIATION .. .. 186

XII. THE THEORY IN THE CRUCIBLE .. .. 204


APPENDICES

I. References to the word ‘Arya’ (v;Z) in the

Rig Veda

II. References to the word ‘Arya (vk;Z) in the

Rig Veda, Yajur Veda and Atharva Veda

III. Different meanings of the word (v;Z) found in

the Rig Veda

IV. References to ‘Dasa’ in the Rig Veda

V. References to ‘Dasyu’ in the Rig Veda

VI. References to the word ‘Varna’ in the Rig Veda

MAPS

I. People of India according to Cephalic Index

II. Expansion of the Pre-Teutonic Nordics

III. Maximum Expansion of Alpines

IV. Expansion of the Teutonic Nordics and Slavic Alpines

NOTES : (1) Appendices I to VI are based upon the information contained

in the Maharashtra Dyankosh, Vol. III.

(2) Map I is taken from the Census Report by Mr. Das. Maps

II, III and IV are from Mr. Grant’s Book, The passing of the

Great Race, published by Bell & Sons.

D:\AMBEDKAR\VOL-07\PREFACE Mk S.K.—26-09-2013>DK>9-11-2013\S 9

9

PREFACE

IN the present stage of the literature on the subject, a book on the

Shudras cannot be regarded as a superfluity. Nor can it be said to

deal with a trivial problem. The general proposition that the social

organization of the Indo-Aryans was based on the theory of

Chaturvarnya and that Chaturvarnya means division of society into

four classes—Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (soldiers),Vaishyas (trad-

ers) and Shudras (menials) does not convey any idea of the real

nature of the problem of the Shudras nor of its magnitude.

Chaturvarnya would have been a very innocent principle if it meant

no more than mere division of society into four classes. Unfortunately,

more than this is involved in the theory of Chaturvarnya. Besides

dividing society into four orders, the theory goes further and makes

the principle of graded inequality the basis for determining the terms

of associated life as between the four Varnas. Again, the system of

graded inequality is not merely notional. It is legal and penal. Under

the system of Chaturvarnya, the Shudra is not only placed at the

bottom of the gradation but he is subjected to innumerable ignominies

and disabilities so as to prevent him from rising above the condition

fixed for him by law. Indeed until the fifth Varna of the Untouchables

came into being, the Shudras were in the eyes of the Hindus the

lowest of the low. This shows the nature of what might be called

the problem of the Shudras. If people have no idea of the magnitude

of the problem it is because they have not cared to know what the

population of the Shudras is. Unfortunately, the census does not show

their population separately. But there is no doubt that excluding the

Untouchables the Shudras form about 75 to 80 per cent of the

population of Hindus. A treatise which deals with so vast a population

cannot be considered to be dealing with a trivial problem.

The book deals with the Shudras in the Indo-Aryan Society. There

is a view that an inquiry into these questions is of no present-day

moment. It is said by no less a person than Mr. Sherring in his Hindu

Tribes and Castes1 that :

“Whether the Shudras were Aryans, or aboriginal inhabitants of India, or

tribes produced by the union of the one with the other, is of little practical

1 Vol. I, Introduction, P. xxi.


10

moment. They were at an early period placed in a class by themselves,

and received the fourth or last degree of rank, yet at a considerable

distance from the three superior castes. Even though it be admitted that

at the outset they were not Aryans, still, from their extensive intermar-

riages with the three Aryan Castes, they have become so far Aryanized

that, in some instances as already shown, they have gained more than

they have lost, and certain tribes now designated as Shudras are in reality

more Brahmins and Kshatriyas than anything else. In short, they have

become as much absorbed in other races as the Celtic tribes of England

have become absorbed in the Anglo-Saxon race; and their own separate

individuality, if they ever had any, has completely vanished.”

This view is based on two errors. Firstly, the prsent-day Shudras are

a collection of castes drawn from heterogeneous stocks and are racially

different from the original Shudras of the Indo-Aryan society. Secondly,

in the case of Shudras the centre of interest is not the Shudras as a

people but the legal system of pains and penalties to which they are

subjected. The system of pains and penalties was no doubt originally

devised by the Brahmins to deal with the Shudras of the Indo-Aryan

society, who have ceased to exist as a distinct, separate, identifiable

community. But strange as it may seem the Code intended to deal with

them has remained in operation and is now applied to all low-class

Hindus, who have no lock stock with the original Shudras. How this

happened must be a matter of curiosity to all. My explanation is that

the Shudras of the Indo-Aryan Society in course of time became so

degraded as a consequence of the severity of the Brahmanical laws that

they really came to occupy a very low state in public life. Two

consequences followed from this. One consequence was a change in the

connotation of the word Shudra. The word Shudra lost its original

meaning of being the name of a particular community and became a

general name for a low-class people without civilization, without culture,

without respect and without position. The second consequence was that

the widening of the meaning of the word Shudra brought in its train

the widening of the application of the Code. It is in this way that the

so-called Shudras of the present-day have become subject to the Code,

though they are not Shudras in the original sense of the word. Be that

as it may, the fact remains that the Code intended for the original

culprits has come to be applied to the innocents. If the Hindu law-givers

had enough historical sense to realize that the original Shudras were

different from the present-day low-class people, this tragedy—this

massacre of the innocents—would have been avoided. The fact, however

unfortunate it may be, is that the Code is applied to the present-day


11

Shudras in the same rigorous manner in which it was applied to the

original Shudras. How such a Code came into being cannot therefore

be regarded as of mere antiquarian interest to the Shudras of to-

day.

While it may be admitted that a study of the origin of the Shudras

is welcome, some may question my competence to handle the theme.

I have already been warned that while I may have a right to speak

on Indian politics, religion and religious history of India are not my

field and that I must not enter it. I do not know why my critics have

thought it necessary to give me this warning. If it is an antidote

to any extravagant claim made by me as a thinker or a writer, then

it is unnecessary. For, I am ready to admit that I am not competent

to speak even on Indian politics. If the warning is for the reason

that I cannot claim mastery over the Sanskrit language, ‘I admit this

deficiency. But I do not see why it should disqualify me altogether

from operating in this field. There is very little of literature in the

Sanskrit language which is not available in English. The want of

knowledge of Sanskrit need not therefore be a bar to my handling

a theme such as the present. For I venture to say that a study of

the relevant literature, albeit in English translations, for 15 years

ought to be enough to invest even a person endowed with such

moderate intelligence like myself, with sufficient degree of compe-

tence for the task. As to the exact measure of my competence to speak

on the subject, this book will furnish the best testimony. It may well

turn out that this attempt of mine is only an illustration of the

proverbial fool rushing in where the angels fear to tread. But I take

refuge in the belief that even the fool has a duty to perform, namely,

to do his bit if the angel has gone to sleep or is unwilling to proclaim

the truth. This is my justification for entering the prohibited field.

What is it that is noteworthy about this book? Undoubtedly the

conclusions which I have reached as a result of my investigations.

Two questions are raised in this book: (1) Who were the Shudras?

and (2) How they came to be the fourth Varna of the Indo-Aryan

society? My answers to them are summarised below :

(1) The Shudras were one of the Aryan communities of the Solar

race.

(2) There was a time when the Aryan society recognized only three

Varnas, namely, Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas.

(3) The Shudras did not form a separate Varna. They ranked as

part of the Kshatriya Varna in the Indo-Aryan society.


12

(4) There was a continuous feud betwen the Shudra kings and

the Brahmins in which the Brahmins were subjected to many

tyrannies and indignities.

(5) As a result of the hatred towards the Shudras generated by

their tyrannies and oppressions, the Brahmins refused to

perform the Upanayana of the Shudras.

(6) Owing to the denial of Upanayana, the Shudras who were

Kshatriyas became socially degraded, fell below the rank of

the Vaishyas and thus came to form the fourth Varna.

I must of course await the verdict of scholars on these conclusions.

That these conclusions are not merely original but they are violently

opposed to those that are current is of course evident. Whether these

conclusions will be accepted or not will depend upon the mentality

of a person claiming to have a right to sit in judgement over the

issue. Of course, if he is attached to a particular thesis he will reject

mine. I would not however bother about his judgement for he would

be an adversary from whom nothing can be expected except oppo-

sition. But if a person is an honest critic, howsoever cautious, however

conservative he may be, provided that he has an open mind and a

readiness to accept facts, I do not despair of converting him to my

view. This expectation may fail to materialize, but about one thing

I am quite certain. My critics will have to admit that the book is

rich in fresh insights and new visions.

Apart from scholars, how the Hindu public will react may be an

interesting speculation. The Hindus of to-day fall into five definite

classes. There is a class of Hindus, who are known as orthodox and

who will not admit that there is anything wrong with the Hindu social

system. To talk of reforming it is to them rank blasphemy. There

is a class of Hindus who are known as Arya Samajists. They believe

in the Vedas and only in the Vedas. They differ from the orthodox

inasmuch as they discard everything which is not in the Vedas. Their

gospel is that of return to the Vedas. There is a class of Hindus who

will admit that the Hindu social system is all wrong, but who hold

that there is no necessity to attack it. Their argument is that since

law does not recognize it, it is a dying, if not a dead system. There

is a class of Hindus, who are politically minded. They are indifferent

to such questions. To them Swaraj is more important than social

reform. The fifth class of Hindus are those who are rationalists and

who regard social reforms as of primary importance, even more

important than Swaraj.


13

With the Hindus, who fall into the second category, those who are

likely to regard the book as unnecessary, I cannot agree. In a way,

they are right when they say that the existing law in British India

does not recognize the caste system prevalent in the Hindu society.

It is true that, having regard to section 11 of the Civil Procedure

Code, it would not be possible for a Hindu to obtain a declaration

from a civil court that he belongs to a particular Varna. If courts

in British India have to consider the question whether a person

belongs to a particular Varna, it is only in cases of marriage,

inheritance and adoption, the rules of which vary according to the

Varna to which the party belongs. While it is true that the Law in

British India does not recognize the four Varnas of the Hindus, one

must be careful not to misunderstand what this means. To put it

precisely: (1) it does not mean that the observance of the Varna

system is a crime; (2) it does not mean that the Varna system has

disappeared; (3) it does not mean that the Varna system is not given

effect to in cases where the observance of its rules are necessary to

acquiring civil rights; (4) it only means that the general legal sanction

behind the Varna system has been withdrawn. Now, law is not the

only sanction which goes to sustain social institutions. Institutions

are sustained by other sanctions also. Of these, religious sanction

and social sanction are the most important. The Varna system has

a religious sanction. Because it has a religious sanction, the Varna

system has the fullest social sanction from the Hindu society. With

no legal prohibition, this religious sanction has been more than

enough to keep the Varna system in full bloom. The best evidence

to show that the Varna system is alive notwithstanding there is no

law to enforce it, is to be found in the fact that the status of the

Shudras and the Untouchables in the Hindu society has remained

just what it has been. It cannot therefore be said that a study such

as this is unnecessary.

As to the politically-minded Hindu, he need not be taken seriously.

His line of approach is generally governed by a short-term view more

than by long-range considerations. He is willing to follow the line

of least resistance and postpone a matter, however urgent, if it is

likely to make him unpopular. It is therefore quite natural if the

politically-minded Hindu regards this book as a nuisance.

The book treads heavily on the toes of the Arya Samajists. My

conclusions have come in sharp conflict with their ideology at two

most important points. The Arya Samajists believe that the four


14

Varnas of the Indo-Aryan society have been in existence from the

very beginning. The book shows that there was a time when there

were only three Varnas in the Indo-Aryan society. The Arya Samajists

believe that the Vedas are eternal and sacrosanct. The book shows

that portions of the Vedas at any rate, particularly the Purusha

Sukta, which is the mainstay of the Arya Samajists, are fabrications

by Brahmins intended to serve their own purposes. Both these

conclusions are bound to act like atomic bombs on the dogmas of the

Arya Samajists.

I am not sorry for this clash with Arya Samajists. The Arya

Samajists have done great mischief in making the Hindu society a

stationary society by preaching that the Vedas are eternal, without

beginning, without end, and infallible, and that the social institutions

of the Hindus being based on the Vedas are also eternal, without

beginning, without end, infallible and therefore requiring no change.

To be permeated with such a belief is the worst thing that can happen

to a community. I am convinced that the Hindu society will not accept

the necessity of reforming itself unless and until this Arya Samajists’

ideology is completely destroyed. The book does render this service,

if no other.

What the Orthodox Hindu will say about this book I can well

imagine for I have been battling with him all these years. The only

thing I did not know was how the meek “and non-violent looking

Hindu can be violent when anybody attacks his Sacred Books. I

became aware of it as never before when last year I received a shower

of letters from angry Hindus, who became quite unbalanced by my

speech on the subject delivered in Madras. The letters were full of

filthy abuse, unmentionable and unprintable, and full of dire threats

to my life. Last time they treated me as a first offender and let me

off with mere threats. I don’t know what they will do this time. For

on reading the book they are sure to find more cause for anger at

what in their eyes is a repetition of the offence in an aggravated

form for having brought forth chapter and verse to show that what

goes by the name of Sacred Books contains fabrications which are

political in their motive, partisan in their composition and fraudulent

in their purpose. I do not propose to take any notice of their

vilifications or their threats. For I know very well that they are a

base crew who, professing to defend their religion, have made religion

a matter of trade. They are more selfish than any other set of beings

in the world, and are prostituting their intelligence to support the vested


15

interests of their class. It is a matter of no small surprise that when

the mad dogs of orthodoxy are let loose against a person who has

the courage to raise his voice against the so-called Sacred Books of

the Hindus, eminent Hindus occupying lofty places, claiming them-

selves to be highly educated and who could be expected to have no

interest and to have a free and open mind become partisans and join

the outcry. Even Hindu Judges of High Courts and Hindu Prime

Ministers of Indian States do not hesitate to join their kind. They

go further. They not only lead the howl against him but even join

in the hunt. What is outrageous is that they do so because they

believe that their high stations in life would invest their words with

an amount of terror which would be sufficient enough to cow down

any and every opponent of orthodoxy. What I would like to tell these

amiable gentlemen is that they will not be able to stop me by their

imprecations. They do not seem to be aware of the profound and

telling words of Dr. Johnson who when confronted with analogous

situation said, ‘I am not goint to be deterred from catching a cheat

by the menaces of a ruffian.’ I do not wish to be rude to these high-

placed critics, much less do I want to say that they are playing the

part of a ruffian interested in the escape of a cheat. But I do want

to tell them two things: firstly that I propose, no matter what

happens, to follow the determination of Dr. Johnson in the pursuit

of historical truth by the exposure of the Sacred Books so that the

Hindus may know that it is the doctrines contained in their Sacred

Books which are responsible for the decline and fall of their country

and their society; secondly, if the Hindus of this generation do not

take notice of what I have to say I am sure the future generation

will. I do not despair of success. For I take consolation in the words

of the poet Bhavabhuti who said, “Time is infinite and earth is vast,

some day there will be born a man who will appreciate what I have

said.” Whatever that be the book is a challenge to orthodoxy.

The only class of Hindus, who are likely to welcome the book are

those who believe in the necessity and urgency of social reform. The

fact that it is a problem which will certainly take a long time to

solve and will call the efforts of many generations to come, is in their

opinion, no justification for postponing the study of that problem.

Even an ardent Hindu politician, if he is honest, will admit that the

problems arising out of the malignant form of communalism, which

is inherent in the Hindu social organization and which the politically

minded Hindus desire to ignore or postpone, invariably return to


16

plague those very politicians at every turn. These problems are not

the difficulties of the moment. They are our permanent difficulties,

that is to say, difficulties of every moment. I am glad to know that

such a class of Hindus exists. Small though they be, they are my

mainstay and it is to them that I have addressed my argument.

It will be said that I have shown no respect for the sacred

literature of the Hindus which every sacred literature deserves. If

the charge be true, I can plead two circumstances in justification

of myself. Firstly I claim that in my research I have been guided

by the best tradition of the historian who treats all literature as

vulgar—I am using the word in its original sense of belonging to

the people—to be examined and tested by accepted rules of evidence

without recognizing any distinction between the sacred and the

profane and with the sole object of finding the truth. If in following

this tradition I am found wanting in respect and reverence for the

sacred literature of the Hindus my duty as a scholar must serve

as my excuse. Secondly, respect and reverence for the sacred

literature cannot be made to order. They are the results of social

factors which make such sentiments natural in one case and quite

unnatural in another. Respect and reverence for the sacred literature

of the Hindus is natural to a Brahmin scholar. But it is quite

unnatural in a non-Brahmin scholar. The explanation of this

difference is quite simple. That a Brahmin scholar should treat this

sacred literature with uncritical reverence and forbear laying on it

the heavy hands which the detachment of an intellectual as

distinguished from the merely educated is what is to be expected.

For what is this sacred literature? It is a literature which is almost

entirely the creation of the Brahmins. Secondly, its whole object is

to sustain the superiority and privileges of the Brahmins as against

the non-Brahmins. Why should not the Brahmins uphold the sanctity

of such a literature? The very reason that leads the Brahmin to

uphold it makes the non-Brahmin hate it. Knowing that what is

called the sacred literature contains an abominable social philosophy

which is responsible for their social degradation, the non-Brahmin

reacts to it in a manner quite opposite to that of the Brahmin. That

I should be wanting in respect and reverence for the sacred literature

of the Hindus should not surprise any one if it is borne in mind

that I am a non-Brahmin, not even a non-Brahmin but an Untouch-

able. My antipathy to the sacred literature could not naturally be

less than that of the non-Brahmin. As Prof. Thorndyke says: that

a man thinks is a biological fact what he thinks is a sociological

fact.


17

I am aware that this difference in the attitude of a Brahmin

scholar and a non-Brahmin scholar towards this sacred literature—

literature which is the main source of the material for the study

of the problems of the social history of the Hindus— the former with

his attitude of uncritical commendation and the latter with his

attitude of unsparing condemnation is most harmful to historical

research.

The mischief done by the Brahmin scholars to historical research

is obvious. The Brahmin scholar has a two-fold interest in the

maintenance of the sanctity of this literature. In the first place being

the production of his forefathers his filial duty leads him to defend

it even at the cost of truth. In the second place as it supports the

privileges of the Brahmins, he is careful not to do anything which

would undermine its authority. The necessity of upholding the

system by which he knows he stands to profit, as well as of upholding

the prestige of his forefathers as the founders of the system, acts

as a silent immaculate premise which is ever present in the mind

of the Brahmin scholar and prevents him from reaching or preaching

the truth. That is why one finds so little that is original in the field

of historical research by Brahmin scholars unless it be a matter of

fixing dates or tracing genealogies. The non-Brahmin scholar has

none of these limitations and is therefore free to engage himself in

a relentless pursuit of truth. That such a difference exists between

the two classes of students is not a mere matter of speculation. This

very book is an illustraton in point. It contains an exposure of the

real character of the conspiracy against the Shudras, which no

Brahmin scholar could have had the courage to present.

While it is true that a non-Brahmin scholar is free from the

inhibitions of the Brahmin scholar he is likely to go to the other extreme

and treat the whole literature as a collection of fables and fictions fit

to be thrown on the dung heap not worthy of serious study. This is

not the spirit of an historian. As has been well said, an historian ought

to be exact, sincere, and impartial; free from passion, unbiased by

interest, fear, resentment or affection; and faithful to the truth, which

is the mother of history, the preserver of great actions, the enemy of

oblivion, the witness of the past, the director of the future. In

short he must have an open mind, though it may not be an empty

mind, and readiness to examine all evidence even though it be

spurious. The non-Brahmin scholar may find it difficult to remain true

to this spirit of the historian. He is likely to import the spirit of non-

Brahmin politics in the examination of the truth or falsity of the


18

ancient literature which is not justifiable. I feel certain that in my

research I have kept myself free from such prejudice. In writing about

the Shudras I have had present in my mind no other consideration

except that of pure history. It is well-known that there is a non-

Brahmin movement in this country which is a political movement of

the Shudras. It is also well-known that I have been connected with

it. But I am sure that the reader will find that I have not made

this book a preface to non-Brahmin politics.

I am sensible of the many faults in the presentation of the matter.

The book is loaded with quotations, too long and too many. The book

is not a work of art and it is possible that readers will find it tedious

to go through it. But this fault is not altogether mine. Left to myself,

I would have very willingly applied the pruning knife. But the book

is written for the ignorant and the uninformed Shudras, who do not

know how they came to be what they are. They do not care how

artistically the theme is handled. All they desire is a full harvest

of material—the bigger the better. Those of them to whom I have

shown the manuscript have insisted upon retaining the quotations.

Indeed, their avidity for such material was so great that some of them

went to the length of insisting that besides giving translations in

English in the body of the book I should also add the original Sanskrit

texts in an Appendix. While I had to deny their request for the

reproduction of the original Sanskrit texts, I could not deny their

request for retaining the translations on the ground that the material

is not readily available to them. When one remembers that it is the

Shudras, who have largely been instrumental in sustaining the

infamous system of Chaturvarnya, though it has been the primary

cause of their degradation and that only the Shudras can destroy

the Chaturvarnya, it would be easy to realize why I allowed the

necessity of educating and thereby preparing the Shudra fully for

such a sacred task to outweigh all other considerations which

favoured the deletion or if not deletion the abridgement of the

quotations.

There are three persons to whom I owe my thanks. Firstly to the

writer of Adhyaya LX of the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata.

Whether it is Vyasa, Vaishampayana, Suta, Lomaharshana or Bhrigu

it is difficult to say. But whoever he was, he has rendered great

service by giving a full description of Paijavana. If he had not

described Paijavana as a Shudra, the clue to the origin of the Shudra

would have been completely lost. I express my gratitude to the writer


19

for having preserved so important a piece of information for posterity.

Without it, this book could not have been written. Secondly, I must

thank Prof. Kangle of Ismail Yusuf College, Andheri, Bombay. He

has come to my rescue and has checked the translation of Sanskrit

shlokas which occur in the book. As I am not a Sanskrit scholar,

his help has been to me a sort of an assurance that I have not bungled

badly in dealing with the material which is in Sanskrit. The fact that

he has helped me does not mean that he is responsible for such faults

and errors as may be discovered by my critics. Thanks are also due

to Prof. Manohar Chitnis of the Siddharth College, Bombay, who has

been good enough to prepare the Index.

I am grateful to Messrs. Charles Scribner’s Sons Publishers, New

York for their kind permission to reproduce the three maps from

Mr. Madison Grant’s Passing of the Great Race and which form

Appendices II, III and IV of this book.

10th October 1946 B. R. AMBEDKAR

“RAJGRIHA,”

DADAR,

BOMBAY 14.


20

BLANK

D:\AMBEDKAR\VOL-07\VOL7-01 Mk S.K.—26-09-2013>DK>9-11-2013 21

THE SHUDRAS : THE RIDDLE OF THE SHUDRAS 21

CHAPTER I

THE RIDDLE OF THE SHUDRAS

EVERYBODY knows that the Shudras formed the fourth Varna

of the Indo-Aryan society. But very few have cared to inquire who

were these Shudras and how they came to be the fourth Varna. That

such an enquiry is of first-rate importance is beyond question. For,

it is worth knowing how the Shudras came to occupy the fourth place,

whether it was the result of evolution or it was brought about by

revolution.

Any attempt to discover who the Shudras were and how they came

to be the fourth Varna must begin with the origin of the Chaturvarnya

in the Indo-Aryan society. A study of the Chaturvarnya must in its

turn start with a study of the ninetieth Hymn of the Tenth Mandala

of the Rig Veda—a Hymn, which is known by the famous name of

Purusha Sukta.

What does the Hymn say? It says1 :

“1. Purusha has a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet.

On every side enveloping the earth he overpassed (it) by a space

of ten fingers.

2. Purusha himself is this whole (universe), whatever has been and

whatever shall be. He is the Lord of immortality, since (or when)

by food he expands.

3. Such is his greatness, and Purusha is superior to this. All

existences are a quarter to him; and three-fourths of him are that

which is immortal in the sky.

4. With three-quarters, Purusha mounted upwards. A quarter of him

was again produced here. He was then diffused everywhere over

things which eat and things which do not eat.

5. From him was born Viraj, and from Viraj, Purusha. When born,

he extended beyond the earth, both behind and before.

6. When the gods performed a sacrifice with Purusha as the oblation,

the spring was its butter, the summer its fuel, and the autumn

its (accompanying) offering.

1 Muir’s, Original Sanskrit Texts, Vol. I, P. 9.


DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES22

7. This victim, Purusha, born in the beginning, they immolated on thesacrificial grass. With him the gods, the Sadhyas, and the rishissacrificed.

8. From that universal sacrifice were provided curds and butter. It formedthose aerial (creatures) and animals both wild and tame.

9. From that universal sacrifice sprang the rik and saman verses, themetres and the yajus.

10. From it sprang horses, and all animals with two rows of teeth; kinesprang from it; from it goats and sheep.

11. When (the gods) divided Purusha, into how many parts did they cuthim up? What was his mouth? What arms (had he)? What (two objects)are said (to have been) his thighs and feet?

12. The Brahmana was his mouth, the Rajanya was made his arms; thebeing called the Vaishya, he was his thighs; the Shudra sprang fromhis feet.

13. The moon sprang from his soul (manas), the sun from the eye, Indraand Agni from his mouth and Vayu from his breath.

14. From his navel arose the air, from his head the sky, from his feet theearth, from his ear the (four) quarters; in this manner (the gods) formedthe worlds.

15. When the gods, performing sacrifices, bound Purusha as a victim, therewere seven sticks (stuck up) for it (around the fire), and thrice sevenpieces of fuel were made.

16. With sacrifices the gods performed the sacrifice. These were the earliestrites. These great powers have sought the sky, where are the former

Sadhyas, gods.”

The Purusha Sukta is a theory of the origin of the Universe. In otherwords, it is a cosmogony. No nation which has reached an advanced degreeof thought has failed to develop some sort of cosmogony. The Egyptianshad a cosmogony somewhat analogous with that set out in the PurushaSukta. According to it,1 it was god Khnumu, ‘the shaper,’ who shaped livingthings on the potter’s wheel, “created all that is, he formed all that exists,he is the father of fathers, the mother of mothers... he fashioned men, hemade the gods, he was the father from the beginning... he is the creatorof the heaven, the earth, the underworld, the water, the mountains... heformed a male and a female of all birds, fishes, wild beasts, cattle and ofall worms.” A very, similar cosmogony is found in Chapter I of the Genesisin the Old Testament.

Cosmogonies have never been more than matters of academic interestand have served no other purpose than to satisfy the curiosity of thestudent and to help to amuse children. This may be true of some partsof the Purusha Sukta. But it certainly cannot be true of the wholeof it. That is because all verses of the Purusha Sukta are not of thesame importance and do not have the same significance. Verses

1 Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. IV, p. 145.



11 and 12 fall in one category and the rest of the verses fall in another

category. Verses other than 11 and 12 may be regarded as of academic

interest. Nobody relies upon them. No Hindu even remembers them.

But it is quite different with regard to verses 11 and 12. Prima facie

these verses do no more than explain how the four classes, namely,

(1) Brahmins or priests, (2) Kshatriyas or soldiers, (3) Vaishyas or

traders, and (4) Shudras or menials, arose from the body of the

Creator. But the fact is that these verses are not understood as being

merely explanatory of a cosmic phenomenon. It would be a grave

mistake to suppose that they were regarded by the Indo-Aryans as

an innocent piece of a poet’s idle imagination. They are treated as

containing a mandatory injunction from the Creator to the effect that

Society must be constituted on the basis of four classes mentioned

in the Sukta. Such a construction of the verses in question may not

be warranted by their language. But there is no doubt that according

to tradition this is how the verses are construed, and it would indeed

be difficult to say that this traditional construction is not in

consonance with the intention of the author of the Sukta. Verses 11

and 12 of the Purusha Sukta are, therefore, not a mere cosmogony.

They contain a divine injunction prescribing a particular form of the

constitution of society.

The constitution of society prescribed by the Purusha Sukta is

known as Chaturvarnya. As a divine injunction, it naturally became

the ideal of the Indo-Aryan society. This ideal of Chaturvarnya was

the mould in which the life of the Indo-Aryan community in its early

or liquid state was cast. It is this mould, which gave the Indo-Aryan

community its peculiar shape and structure.

This reverence, which the Indo-Aryan Society had for this ideal

mould of Chaturvarnya, is not only beyond question, but it is also

beyond description. Its influence on the Indo-Aryan society has been

profound and indelible. The social order prescribed by the Purusha

Sukta has never been questioned by anyone except Buddha. Even

Buddha was not able to shake it, for the simple reason that both

after the fall of Buddhism and even during the period of Buddhism

there were enough law-givers, who made it their business not only

to defend the ideal of the Purusha Sukta but to propagate it and

to elaborate it.

To take a few illustrations of this propaganda in support of the

Purusha Sukta, reference may be made to the Apastamba Dharma

Sutra and the Vasishtha Dharma Sutra. The Apastamba Dharma



Sutra states:

“There are four castes—Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras.

Among these, each preceding (caste) is superior by birth to the onefollowing.1

For all these excepting Shudras and those who have committed badactions are ordained (1) the initiation (Upanayan or the wearing of thesacred thread), (2) the study of the Veda and (3) the kindling of the sacredfire (i.e., the right to perform sacrifice).2

This is repeated by Vasishtha Dharma Sutra which says :

“There are four castes (Varnas), Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas andShudras. Three castes, Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas (are called)twice-born.

Their first birth is from their mother; the second from the investiturewith the sacred girdle. In that (second birth) the Savitri is the mother,but the teacher is said to be, the father.

They call the teacher father, because he gives instruction in the Veda.3

The four castes are distinguished by their origin and by particularsacraments.

There is also the following passage of the Veda : “The Brahmana washis mouth, the Kshatriya formed his arms, the Vaishya his thighs; theShudra was born from his feet.”

It has been declared in the following passage that a Shudra shall notreceive the sacraments.”

Many other law-givers have in parrot-like manner repeated the themeof the Purusha Sukta and have reiterated its sanctity. It is unnecessaryto repeat their version of it. All those, who had raised any oppositionto the sanctity of the ideal set out in the Purusha Sukta, were finallylaid low by Manu, the architect of the Hindu society. For Manu didtwo things. In the first place, he enunciated afresh the ideal of thePurusha Sukta as a part of divine injunction. He said :

“For the prosperity of the worlds, he (the creator) from his mouth, arms,thighs and feet created the Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya and theShudra.4

The Brahmin, Kshatriya (and) Vaishya (constitute) the three twice-borncastes; but the fourth the shudra has only one birth.5"

In this he was no doubt merely following his predecessors. But hewent a step further and enunciated another proposition in which hesaid :

“Veda is the only and ultimate sanction for Dharma.6”

Bearing in mind that the Purusha Sukta is a part of the Veda, itcannot be difficult to realize that Manu invested the social ideal of

1 Prasna 1. Patala 1, Khanda 1, Sutras 4-5. 4 Manu, Chapter I, Verse 31.

2 Prasna 1, Patala 1, Khanda 1, Sutra 6. 5 Ibid., Chapter X, Verse 4.

3 Chapter II, Verses 1-4. 6 Ibid., Chapter II, Verse 6.



Chaturvarnya contained in the Purusha Sukta, with a degree of

divinity and infallibility which it did not have before.

II

A critical examination of the Purusha Sukta therefore becomes very

essential.

It is claimed by the Hindus that the Purusha Sukta is unique. This

is no doubt a tall claim for an idea which came to birth when the

mind of man was primitive and was without the rich endowment of

varied thought available in modern times. But there need not be much

difficulty in admitting this claim provided it is understood in what

respect the Purusha Sukta is unique.

The principal ground for regarding the Purusha Sukta as unique

is that the ideal of social organization, namely, the ideal of

Chaturvarnya which it upholds, is unique. Is this a sufficient ground

for holding the Purusha Sukta as unique? The Purusha Sukta would

really have been unique if it had preached a classless society as an

ideal form of society. But what does the Purusha Sukta do? It

preaches a class-composed society as its ideal. Can this be regarded

as unique? Only a nationalist and a patriot can give an affirmative

answer to this question. The existence of classes has been the

de facto condition of every society, which is not altogether primitive.

It is a normal state of society all over the world where society is

in a comparatively advanced state. Looking at it from this point of

view, what uniqueness can there be in the Purusha Sukta, when

it does no more than recognize the sort of class composition that

existed in the Indo-Aryan society?

Notwithstanding this, the Purusha Sukta must be admitted to be

unique, though for quite different reasons. The unfortunate part of

the matter is that many people do not know the true reasons why

the Purusha Sukta should be regarded as unique. But once the true

reasons are known, people will not only have no hesitation in

accepting that the Purusha Sukta is a unique production of the human

intellect but will perhaps be shocked to know what an extraordinary

production of human ingenuity it is.

What are the features of the social ideal of the Purusha Sukta,

which give it the hall mark of being unique? Though the existence



of classes is the de facto condition of every society, nevertheless no

society has converted this de facto state of affairs into a de jure

connotation of an ideal society. The scheme of the Purusha Sukta

is the only instance in which the real is elevated to the dignity of

an ideal. This is the first unique feature of the scheme set forth in

the Purusha Sukta. Secondly, no community has given the de facto

state of class composition a legal effect by accepting it as a de jure

connotation of an ideal society. The case of the Greeks is a case in

point. Class composition was put forth as an ideal social structure

by no less an advocate than Plato. But the Greeks never thought

of making it real by giving it the sanction of law. The Purusha Sukta

is the only instance in which an attempt was made to give reality

to the ideal by invoking the sanction of law. Thirdly, no society has

accepted that the class composition is an ideal. At the most they have

accepted it as being natural. The Purusha Sukta goes further. It not

only regards class composition as natural and ideal, but also regards

it as sacred and divine. Fourthly, the number of the classes has never

been a matter of dogma in any society known to history. The Romans

had two classes. The Egyptians thought three were enough. The Indo-

Iranians also had no more than three classes:1 (1) The Athravans

(priests) (2) Rathaeshtar (warriors) and (3) the Vastrya-fshuyat

(peasantry). The scheme of the Purusha Sukta makes the division

of society into four classes a matter of dogma. According to it, there

can be neither more nor less. Fifthly, every society leaves a class

to find its place vis-a-vis other classes according to its importance

in society as may be determined by the forces operating from time

to time. No society has an official gradation laid down, fixed and

permanent, with an ascending scale of reverence and a descending

scale of contempt. The scheme of the Purusha Sukta is unique,

inasmuch as it fixes a permanent warrant of precedence among the

different classes, which neither time nor circumstances can alter. The

warrant of precedence is based on the principle of graded inequality

among the four classes, whereby it recognizes the Brahmin to be

above all, the Kshatriya below the Brahmin but above the Vaishya

and the Shudra, the Vaishya below the Kshatriya but above the

Shudra and the Shudra below all.

1 Geiger : Civilization of the Eastern Iranians in Ancient Times, Vol. II, P.64



III

These are the real reasons why the Purusha Sukta is unique. Butthe Purusha Sukta is not merely unique, it is also extraordinary. Itis extraordinary because it is so full of riddles. Few seem to be awareof these riddles. But anyone who cares to inquire will learn how realin their nature and how strange in their complexion these riddlesare. The cosmogony set out in the Purusha Sukta is not the onlycosmogony one comes across in the Rig Veda. There is anothercosmogony which is expounded in the 72nd Hymn of the TenthMandala of the Rig Veda. It reads as follows :1

“1. Let us proclaim with a clear voice of the generation of the gods(the divine company), who, when their praises are recited, look(favourably on the worshipper) in this latter age.

2. Brahmanaspati filled these (generations of the gods) with breathas a blacksmith (his bellows); in the first age of the gods theexistent was born of the non-existent.

3. In the first age of the gods the existent was born of the non-existent; after that the quarters (of the horizon) were born, andafter them the upward-growing (trees).

4. The earth was born from the upward growing (tree), the quarterswere born from the earth; Daksha was born from Aditi andafterwards Aditi from Daksha.

5. Aditi, who was thy daughter, Daksha, was born; after her, thegods were born, adorable, freed from the bonds of death.

6. When, gods, you abode in this pool well-arranged, then a pungentdust went forth from you as if you were dancing.

7. When, gods, you filled the worlds (with your radiance) as clouds(fill the earth with rain) then you brought fourth the sun hiddenin the ocean.

8. Eight sons (there were) of Aditi who were born from her body;she approached the gods with seven, she sent forth Martanda onhigh.

9. With seven sons Aditi went to a former generation, but she boreMartanda for the birth and death (of human beings).

The two cosmologies are fundamentally different in principle aswell as in detail. The former explains creation ex nihilo ‘being wasborn of non-being’. The latter ascribes creation to a being which itcalls Purusha. Why in one and the same book two such oppositecosmologies should have come to be propounded? Why did the authorof the Purusha Sukta think it necessary to posit a Purusha and makeall creation emanate from him?

Any one who reads the Purusha Sukta will find that it starts withthe creation of donkyes, horses, goats, etc., but does not say anything

1 Wilson’s, Rig Veda, Vol. VI, p. 129



about the creation of man. At a point when it would have beennatural to speak of the creation of man, it breaks off the chain andproceeds to explain the origin of the classes in the Aryan society.Indeed, the Purusha Sukta appears to make the explaining of thefour classes of the Aryan society to be its primary concern. In doingthis, the Purusha Sukta stands in complete contrast not only withother theologies but with the other parts of the Rig Veda also.

No theology has made it its purpose to explain the origin of classes

in society. Chapter I of the Genesis in the Old Testament, which

can be said to be analogous in intention and purpose to the Purusha

Sukta, does nothing more than explain how man was created. It is

not that social classes did not exist in the old Jewish society. Social

classes existed in all societies. The Indo-Aryans were no exception.

Nevertheless, no theology has ever thought it necessary to explain

how classes arise. Why then did the Purusha Sukta make the

explanation of the origin of the social classes its primary concern?

The Purusha Sukta is not the only place in the Rig Veda where

a discussion of the origin of creation occurs. There are other places

in the Rig Veda where the same subject is referred to. In this

connection, one may refer to the following passage in the Rig Veda

which reads as follows :1

Rig Veda, i.96.2: “By the first nivid, by the wisdom of Ayu, he (Agni)

created these children of men; by his gleaming light the earth and the

waters, the gods sustained Agni the giver of the riches.”

In this, there is no reference at all to the separate creation ofclasses, though there is no doubt that even at the time of theRig Veda, the Indo-Aryan Society had become differentiated intoclasses; yet the above passage in the Rig Veda ignores the classesand refers to the creation of men only. Why did the Purusha Suktathink it necessary to go further and speak of the origin of the classes?

The Purusha Sukta contradicts the Rig Veda in another respect.The Rig Veda propounds a secular theory regarding the origin ofthe Indo-Aryans as will be seen from the following texts:

(1) Rig Veda, i.80.16: “Prayers and hymns were formerly congre-

gated in that Indra, in the ceremony which Atharvan, father Manu,

and Dadhyanch celebrated.”2

(2) Rig Veda, i.114.2 : “Whatever prosperity or succour father Manu

obtained by sacrifice, may we gain all that under thy guidance, O Rudra.”3

1 Muir, Vol. I. p. 180

2 Muir, Ibid., Vol. I, p. 162.

3 Ibid., p. 163.



(3) Rig Veda, ii.33.13 : “Those pure remedies of yours, O Maruts, thosewhich are most auspicious, ye vigorous gods, those which are beneficent,those which our father Manu chose, those and the blessing and succourof Rudra, I desire.”1

(4) Rig Veda, viii.52.1 : “The ancient friend hath been equipped withthe powers of the mighty (gods). Father Manu has prepared hymns tohim, as portals of access to the gods.”2

(5) Rig Veda, iii.3.6 : “Agni, together with the gods, and the children(jantubhih) of Manush, celebrating a multiform sacrifice with hymns.”3

(6) Rig Veda, iv. 37.1 : “Ye gods, Vajas, and Ribhukshana, come to oursacrifice by the path travelled by the gods, that ye, pleasing deities, mayinstitute a sacrifice among these people of Manush (Manusho vikshu) onauspicious days.”4

(7) Rig Veda, vi.14.2 : “The people of Manush praise in the sacrificeAgni the invoker.”5

From these texts it is beyond question that the rishis who were theauthors of the hymns of the Rig Veda regarded Manu as the progenitor ofthe Indo-Aryans. This theory about Manu being the progenitor of the Indo-Aryans had such deep foundation that it was carried forward by theBrahmanas as well as the Puranas. It is propounded in the AitareyaBrahmana,6 in the Vishnu Purana 7 and the Matsya Purana.8. It is true thatthey have made Brahma the progenitor of Manu; but the Rig Veda theoryof Manu being the progenitor has been accepted and maintained by them.9

Why does the Purusha Sukta make no mention of Manu ? This is strangebecause the author of the Purusha Sukta seems to be aware of the fact thatManu Svayambhuva is called Viraj and Viraj is called Adi Purusha, 10 sincehe too speaks of Virajo adhi Purushah in verse five of the Sukta.

There is a third point in which the Purush Sukta has gone beyond the RigVeda. The Vedic Aryans were sufficiently advanced in their

1 Muir, Vol. I. p. 163.

2 Ibid., p. 163.

3 Ibid., p. 165.

4 Ibid., p. 165.

5 Ibid., p. 165.

6 Quoted by Muir, Vol. I, p. 108.

7 Quoted by Muir, Vol. I pp. 105-107.

8 Quoted by Muir, Vol. I. p. 110-112.

9 There is however a great deal of confusion when one comes to details. The VishnuPurana says that Brahma divided his person into two parts: with the one half he becamea male, with the other half a female. The female was called Satarupa who by incessantlypractising austere fervour of a highly arduous description acquired for herself as a husbanda Male called Manu Svayambhuva. There is no suggestion in the Vishnu Purana of incestby Brahma with his daughter. The Aitareya Brahmana and the Matsya Purana on theother hand speak of Brahma having begotten Manu by committing incest with his daughterSatarupa; the Matsya Purana adds that Manu by his austerity obtained a beautiful wifenamed Ananta. According to the Ramayana (see Muir, I, p. 117) Manu was not a malebut a female and was a daughter of Daksha Prajapati and the wife of Kasyapa.

10 Matsya Purana- Muir, Vol., 1 p. 111 f.n.



civilization to give rise to division of labour. Different persons amongthe Vedic Aryans followed different occupations. That they wereconscious of it is evidenced by the following verse:

Rig Veda, 1.113.6 : “That some may go in pursuit of power, some in

pursuit of fame, some in pursuit of wealth, some in pursuit of work, Ushas

has awakened people so that each may go in pursuit of his special and

different way of earning his livelihood.”

This is as far as the Rig Veda had gone. The Purusha Sukta goes beyond.It follows up the notion of division of labour and converts the scheme ofdivision of work into a scheme of division of workers into fixed andpermanent occupational categories. Why does the Purusha Sukta commititself to such a perversity?

There is another point in which the Purusha Sukta departs from theRig Veda. It is not that the Rig Veda speaks only of man. It speaks alsoof the Indo-Aryan nation. This nation was made up of the five tribes, whichhad become assimilated into one common Indo-Aryan people. The followinghymns refer to these five tribes as moulded into a nation:

(1) Rig Veda, vi.11.4 : “Agni, whom, abounding in oblations, the five

tribes, bringing offerings, honour with prostrations, as if he were a man.”1

(2) Rig Veda, vii.15.2 : “The wise and youthful master of the house (Agni)

who has taken up his abode among the five tribes in every house.”2

There is some difference of opinion as to who these five tribes are. Yaskain his Nirukta says that it denotes Gandharvas, Pitris, Devas, Asuras andRakshasas. Aupamanyava says that it denotes the four Varnas and theNishadas. Both these explanations seem to be absurd. Firstly, because thefive tribes are praised collectively as in the following hymns:

(1) Rig Veda, ii.2.10 : “May our glory shine aloft among the five tribes,

like the heaven unsurpassable.”3

(2) Rig Veda, vi.46.7 : “Indra, whatever force or vigour exists in the tribe

of Nashusa or whatever glory belongs to the five races bring (for us).”4

Such laudatory statements could not have been made if the fivetribes included the Shudras. Besides, the word used is not Varnas. Theword used is Janah. That it refers to the five tribes and not to the four

Varnas and Nishadas is quite clear from the following verse of theRig Veda :

1 Muir. Vol. I, p. 177.

2 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 178.

3 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 178.

4 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 180.



Rig Veda, i.108.8: “If, O Indra and Agni, ye are abiding among

the Yadus, Turvasas, Druhyus, Anus, Purus, come hither, vigorous

heroes from all quarters, and drink the Soma which has been poured

out.1

That these five tribes had been moulded into one Aryan people

is clear from the Atharva Veda (iii.24.2) which says :

“these five regions, the five tribes springing from Manu.”

A sense of unity and a consciousness of kind can alone explain

why the Rishis of the Rig Vedic hymns came to refer to the five

tribes in such manner. The questions are: why did the Purusha Sukta

not recognize this unity of the five tribes and give a mythic

explanation of their origin? Why instead did it recognize the

communal divisions within the tribes? Why did the Purusha Sukta

regard communalism more important than nationalism?

These are some of the riddles of the Purusha Sukta , which come

to light when one compares it with the Rig Veda. There are others,

which emerge when one proceeds to examine the Purusha Sukta from

a sociological point of view.

Ideals as norms are good and are necessary. Neither a society nor

an individual can do without a norm. But a norm must change with

changes in time and circumstances. No norm can be permanently

fixed. There must always be room for revaluation of the values of

our norm. The possibility of revaluing values remains open only when

the institution is not invested with sacredness. Sacredness prevents

revaluation of its values. Once sacred, always sacred. The Purusha

Sukta makes the Chaturvarnya a sacred institution, a divine ordi-

nation. Why did the Purusha Sukta make a particular form of social

order so sacred as to be beyond criticism and beyond change? Why

did it want to make it a permanent ideal beyond change and even

beyond criticism? This is the first riddle of the Purusha Sukta which

strikes a student of sociology.

In propounding the doctrine of Chaturvarnya, the Purusha Sukta

plays a double game. It proceeds first to raise the real, namely, the

existence of the four classes in the Indo-Aryan Society, to the status

of an ideal. This is a deception because the ideal is in no way

different from facts as they exist. After raising the real to the status

of the ideal, it proceeds to make a show of giving effect to what

it regards as an ideal. This again is a deception because the ideal

already exists in fact. This attempt of the Purusha Sukta to idealize1 Muir. I. p. 179.



the real and to realize the ideal, is a kind of political jugglery,

the like of which, I am sure, is not to be found in any other book

of religion. What else is it if not a fraud and a deception? To idealize

the real, which more often than not is full of inequities, is a very

selfish thing to do. Only when a person finds a personal advantage

in things as they are that he tries to idealize the real. To proceed

to make such an ideal real is nothing short of criminal. It means

perpetuating inequity on the ground that whatever is once settled

is settled for all times. Such a view is opposed to all morality. No

society with a social conscience has ever accepted it. On the contrary,

whatever progress in improving the terms of associated life between

individuals and classes has been made in the course of history, is

due entirely to the recognition of the ethical doctrine that what is

wrongly settled is never settled and must be resettled. The principle

underlying the Purusha Sukta is, therefore, criminal in intent and

anti-social in its results. For, it aims to perpetuate an illegal gain

obtained by one class and an unjust wrong inflicted upon another.

What can be the motive behind this jugglery of the Purusha Sukta?

This is the second riddle.

The last and the greatest of all these riddles, which emerges out

of a sociological scrutiny of the Purusha Sukta, is the one relating

to the position of the Shudra. The Purusha Sukta concerns itself with

the origin of the classes, and says they were created by God—a

doctrine which no theology has thought it wise to propound. This in

itself is a strange thing. But what is astonishing is the plan of

equating different classes to different parts of the body of the Creator.

The equation of the different classes to different parts of the body is

not a matter of accident. It is deliberate. The idea behind this plan

seems to be to discover a formula which will solve two problems, one

of fixing the functions of the four classes and the other of fixing the

gradation of the four classes after a preconceived plan. The formula

of equating different classes to the different parts of the body of the

Creator has this advantage. The part fixes the gradation of the class

and the gradation in its turn fixes the function of the class. The Brahmin

is equated to the mouth of the Creator. Mouth being the noblest part

of the anatomy, the Brahmin becomes the noblest of the four classes.

As he is the noblest in the scale, he is given the noblest function,

that of custodian of knowledge and learning. The Kshatriya is equated

to the arms of the Creator. Among the limbs of a person, arms

are next below the mouth. Consequently, the Kshatriya is given

an order of precedence next below the Brahmin and is given



a function which is second only to knowledge, namely, fighting. The

Vaishya is equated to the thighs of the Creator. In the gradation of

limbs the thighs are next below the arms. Consequently, the Vaishya

is given an order of precedence next below the Kshatriya and is

assigned a function of industry and trade which in name and fame

ranks or rather did rank in ancient times below that of a warrior.

The Shudra is equated to the feet of the Creator. The feet form the

lowest and the most ignoble part of the human frame. Accordingly,

the Shudra is placed last in the social order and is given the filthiest

function, namely, to serve as a menial.

Why did the Purusha Sukta choose such a method of illustratingthe creation of the four classes? Why did it equate the Shudras tothe feet? Why did it not take some other illustration to show howthe four classes were created. It is not that Purusha is the only stocksimile used to explain creation. Compare the explanation of the originof the Vedas contained in the Chhandogya Upanishad. It says:1

“Prajapati infused warmth into the worlds, and from them so heated

he drew forth their essences, viz., Agni (fire) from the earth, Vayu (wind)

from the air, and Surya (the sun) from the sky. He infused warmth into

these three deities, and from them so heated he drew forth their essences,—

from Agni the ric verses, from Vayu the yajus verses and from Surya the

soman verses. He then infused heat into this triple science, and from it

so heated he drew forth its essences—from ric verses the syllable bhuh,

from yajus verses bhuvah, and from Saman verses svar.”

Here is an explanation of the origin of the Vedas from different

deities. So far as the Indo-Aryans are concerned, there was no dearthof them. There were thirty crores of them. An explanation of the originof the four Varnas from four gods would have maintained equalityof dignity by birth of all the four classes. Why did the Purusha Suktanot adopt this line of explanation?

Again, would it not have been possible for the author of the PurushaSukta to say that the different classes were born from the differentmouths of the Purusha. Such a conception could not have beendifficult because the Purusha of the Purusha Sukta has one thousandheads, enough to assign one species of creation to one of his heads.Such a method of explaining creation could not have been unknownto the author of the Purusha Sukta. For we find it used by the VishnuPurana to explain the origin of the different Vedas as may be seenfrom the following extract:2

1 Muir, Vol. m. p.5

2 Ibid., p. 11.



“From his eastern mouth Brahma formed the Gayatri, the ric verses,

the trivrit, the sama-rathantara and of sacrifices, the agnistoma. From his

southern mouth he created the yajus verses, the trishtubh metre, the

panchadasa stoma, the brihatsaman, and the ukthya. From his western

mouth he formed the saman verses, the jagati metre, the saptadasa stoma,

the Vairupa, and the atiratra. From his northern mouth he formed the

ekavimsa, the atharvan, the aptoryaman with the anushtubh and viraj

metres.”

The Harivamsa has another way of explanining the origin of theVedas. According to it:1

“The god fashioned the Rig Veda with the Yajus from his eyes, the Sama

Veda from the tip of his tongue, and the Atharvan from his head.”

Assuming that for some reason the author of the Purusha Suktacould not avoid using the body of the Creator and its different partsfor explaining the origin and the relation of the four classes, the question

still remains as to why he chose to equate the different parts of thePurusha to the different classes in the manner in which he does.

The importance of this question is considerably heightened whenone realizes that the Purusha Sukta is not the only instance in which

the different parts of the body of the Creator are used as illustrationsto explain the origin of the different classes in society. The sameexplanation is given by the sage Vaishampayana to explain the originof the various classes of priests employed in the performance ofsacrifices. But what a difference is there between the two! Theexplanation of Vaishampayana which is reported in the Harivamsareads as follows :2

“Thus the glorious Lord Hari Narayana, covering the entire waters, slept

on the world which had become one sea, in the midst of the vast expanse

of fluid (rajas), resembling a mighty ocean, himself free from passion

(virajaskah), with mighty arms; Brahmans know him as the undecaying.

Invested through austere fervour with the light of his own form and clothed

with triple time (past, present and future) the lord then slept. Purushottama

(Vishnu) is whatever is declared to be the highest. Purusha the sacrifice, and

everything else which is known by the name of Purusha. Here how the

Brahmins devoted to sacrifice, and called ritvijas, were formerly produced by

him from his own body for offering sacrifices. The Lord created from his

mouth the Brahman, who is the chief, and the udgatri, who chants the Saman,

from his arms the hotri and the adhvaryu . He then... created the prastotri,

the maitravaruna, and the pratishthatri, from his belly the pratiharti

and the potri, from his thighs the achhavaka and the neshtri, from his

hands the agnidhra and the sacrificial brahmanya, from his arms the

gravan and the sacrificial unnetri. Thus did the divine Lord of the

1 Muir, Vol. ID, p. 13.

2 Muir, Vol. I, pp. 154-155



world create the sixteen excellent ritvijas, the utterers of all sacrifices.

Therefore this Purusha is formed of sacrifice and is called the Veda; and

all the Vedas with the Vedangas, Upanishads and ceremonies are formed

of his essence.”

There were altoghether seventeen different classes of priests

required for the performance of a sacrifice. It could never be possible

for anyone attempting to explain the origin of each by reference to

a distinct part of the body of the Creator to avoid using the feet

of the Purusha as the origin of a class, the limbs of the Purusha

being so few and the number of priests being so many. Yet what

does Vaishampayana do? He does not mind using the same part of

the Creator’s body to explain the origin of more than one class of

priests. He most studiously avoids using the feet as the origin of

anyone of them.

The situation becomes completely intriguing when one compares

the levity with which the Shudras are treated in the Purusha Sukta

with the respect with which the Brahmins are treated in the

Harivamsa in the matter of their respective origins. Is it because

of malice that the Purusha Sukta did not hesitate to say that the

Shudra was born from the feet of the Purusha and that his duty

was to serve? If so what is the cause of this malice?

IV

The riddles about the Shudras mentioned above are those which arise

out of a sociological scrutiny of the Purusha Sukta. There are other

riddles regarding the position of the Shudra which arise out of later

developments of the ideal of Chaturvarnya. To appreciate these

results it is necessary first to take note of these later developments.

The later developments of Chaturvarnya are mainly two. First is the

creation of the fifth class next below the Shudras. The second is the

separation of the Shudras from the first three Varnas. These changes

have become so integrated with the original scheme of the Purusha

Sukta that they have given rise to peculiar terms and expressions

so well-known that everybody understands what they stand for. These

terms are : Savarnas, Avarnas, Dvijas, non-Dvijas, and Traivarnikas.

They stand to indicate the sub-divisions of the original four classes

and the degree of separation between them. It is necessary to take

note of the relative position of these classes because they disclose a

new riddle. If this riddle has not caught the eye of the people, it is

because of two reasons. Firstly, because students have not cared to



note that these names are not mere names but that they stand for

definite rights and privileges, and secondly, because they have not

cared to find out whether the groupings made under these names

are logical having regard to the rights and privileges they connote.

Let us therefore see what is the de jure connotation of these terms.

Savarna is generally contrasted with Avarna. Savarna means one who

belongs to one of the four Varnas. Avarna means one who does not

belong to any one of the four Varnas. The Brahmins, Kshatriyas,

Vaishyas and Shudras are Savarnas. The Untouchables or Ati-

Shudras are called Avarnas, those who have no Varna. Logically, the

Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras are within the

Chaturvarnya. Logically, the Untouchables or the Ati-Shudras are

outside the Chaturvarnya. Dvija is generally contrasted with non-

Dvija. Dvija literally means twice-born and non-Dvija means one who

is born only once. The distinction is based on the right to have

Upanayana. The Upanayana is treated as a second birth. Those who

have the right to wear the sacred thread are called Dvijas. Those

who have no right to wear it are called non-Dvijas. The Brahmins,

Kshatriyas and Vaishyas have the right to wear the sacred thread.

Logically, they are Dvijas. The Shudras and the Ati-Shudras have

no right to wear the sacred thread. Logically, they are both non-

Dvijas. The Traivarnika is contrasted with the Shudra. But there is

nothing special in this contrast. It conveys the same distinction which

is conveyed by the distinction between the Dvijas and the non-Dvijas

except the fact that the contrast is limited to the Shudra and does

not extend to the Ati-Shudra. This is probably because this termi-

nology came into being before the rise of the Ati-Shudras as a

separate class.

Bearing in mind that both the Shudra and the Ati-Shudra are non-

Dvijas, why then is the Shudra regarded as Savarna and the Ati-

Shudra as Avarna ? Why is the former within and why is the latter

outside the Chaturvarnya ? The Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and

Shudras are all within the four corners of the Chaturvarnya. They

are all Savarnas. Why then is the Shudra denied the right of the

Traivarnikas ?

Can there be a greater riddle than the riddle of the Shudras ?

Surely, it calls for investigation and explanation as to who they were

and how they came to be the fourth Varna in the Aryan Society.


THE SHUDRAS : THE BRAHMANIC .... ORIGIN OF THE SHUDRAS 37

CHAPTER II

THE BRAHMANIC THEORY OF THE

ORIGIN OF THE SHUDRAS

HAS the Brahmanic literature any explanation to offer which can

account for the origin of the Shudras? There is no doubt that the

Brahmanic literature is full of legends regarding creation which

touch upon the creation of the universe, of man and of the different

Varnas. Whether or not they furnish any clue to discover the origin

of the Shudras, there can be no doubt that all such theories should

find a place in a book which is concerned with the problem of the

Shudras if for no other reason than that of assembling all material

relating to the Shudras in one place and making their story complete.

It would be better to take each piece of the Brahmanic literature

separately, and note what contribution it has to make to the subject.

I

To begin with the Vedas. As to the Rig Veda, the legend about

creation to be found in its Sukta known as the Purusha Sukta has

already been set out in the previous chapter. It now remains to take

note of the legends contained in the other Vedas.

There are two recensions of the Yajur Veda : (1) the White Yajur

Veda and (2) the Black Yajur Veda. To take the White Yajur Veda

first. The Vajasaneyi Samhita of the White Yajur Veda sponsors two

theories. One is a mere reproduction of the Purusha Sukta of the

Rig Veda with this difference that it has 22 verses, while the original

as it occurs in the Rig Veda has only 16 verses. The six additional

verses in the White Yajur Veda read as follows :

17. Brought forth from the waters and from the essence of the

earth, he was produced by Vishvakarman in the beginning. Tvashta

gives him form; that is the Universe of Purusha on all sides in the

beginning.

18. I know this great Purusha, of the colour of the sun, beyond

darkness. Only by knowing him does one go beyond death; there

is no other path for going.



19. Prajapati moves in the interior of the womb; though unborn, he

is born in many forms. Wise men see his source; wise men desire the

place of the Marichis.

20. He who shines for the gods, he who is the priest of the gods, he

who was born before the gods,—salutation to that shining offspring of

Brahma.

21. The gods, generating the shining offspring of Brahma, said in the

beginning: “That Brahmin who knows thus,— the gods will be under his

control.”

22. Sri and Laxmi are his wives; the day and night his sides; the stars

his ornament; the Ashwins his bright face. Grant me my desires; grant

me that; grant me everything.

The second explanation contained in the Vajasaneyi Samhita is quitedifferent from the Purusha Sukta. It reads as follows :

V.S., xiv.28.1—“He lauded with one. Living beings were formed. He laudedwith three: the Brahman was created; Brahmanaspati was the ruler. He laudedwith five: existing things were created; Bhutanampati was the ruler. He laudedwith seven: the seven rishis were created: Dhatri was the ruler. He lauded withnine: the Fathers were created: Aditi was the ruler. He lauded with eleven: theseasons were created: the Artavas were the rulers. He lauded with thirteen: themonths were created: the year was the ruler. He lauded with fifteen: the Kshatra(the Kshatriya) was created: Indra was the ruler. He lauded with seventeen:animals were created: Brihaspati was the ruler. He lauded with nineteen: theShudra and the Arya (Vaishya) were created: day and night were the rulers.He lauded with twenty-one: animals with undivided hoofs were created: Varunawas the ruler. He lauded with twenty-three: small animals were created: Pushanwas the ruler. He lauded with twenty-five: wild animals were created: Vayu wasthe ruler (compare R.V., x.90.8). He lauded with twenty-seven: heaven and earthseparated: Vasus, Rudras and Adityas separated after them: they were the rulers.He lauded with twenty-nine: living beings were created: the first and secondhalves of the month were the rulers. He lauded with thirty one: existing thingswere tranquillized: Prajapati Parameshthin was the ruler.”

Now to turn to the Black Yajur Veda. The Taittiriya Samhita of theBlack Yajur Veda gives altogether five explanations. The one at iv. 3,10 is the same as has been put forth by the Vajasaneyi Samhita of theWhite Yajur Veda at (xiv.28) and which has been reproduced earlier. Ofthe rest those which narrate the origin of the Shudra are set out below:

T.S., ii.4.13.1" “The gods were afraid of the Rajanya when he was in the

womb. They bound him with bonds when he was in the womb. Consequently,

this Rajanya is born bound. If he were born unbound he would go on slaying

his enemies. In regard to whatever Rajanya any one desires that he should be

born unbound, and should go on slaying his enemies, let him offer for him

this Aindra-Barhaspatya oblation. A Rajanya has the character of Indra, and

1 Muir, Vol. I, p. 18.




a Brahman is Brihaspati. It is through the Brahman that anyone releasesthe Rajanya from his bond. The golden bond, a gift, manifestly releasesfrom the bond that fetters him.”

(2) T.S., vii. 1.1.4.1—Prajapati desired, ‘may I propagate.’ He formedthe Trivrit (stoma) from his mouth. After it were produced the deity Agni,the metre Gayatri, the Saman (called) Rathantara, of men the Brahmin,of beasts the goats. Hence they are the chief (mukhyah) because they werecreated from the mouth (mukhatah). From (his) breast, from his arms,he formed the Panchadasa (stoma). After it were created the god, the Indra,the Trishtubh metre, the Saman (called) Brihat, of men the Rajanya, ofbeasts the sheep. Hence they are vigorous, because they were created fromvigour. From (his) middle he formed the Saptadasa (stoma). After it werecreated the gods (called) the Vishvedevas, the Jagati metre, the Samancalled the Vairupa of men the Vaishya, of beasts kine. Hence they areto be eaten, because they were created from the receptacle of food.Wherefore they are more numerous than others, for the most numerousdeities were created after (the Saptadasa). From his foot he formed theEkavimsa (Stoma). After it were created the Anushtubh metre, the Samancalled Vairaja, of men the Shudra, of beasts the horse. Hence these two,born the horse and the Shudra, are transporters of (other) creatures. Hence(too) the Shudra is incapacitated for sacrifice, because no deities werecreated after (the Ekavimsa). Hence (too) these two subsist by their feet,for they were created from the foot.

Coming to the Atharva Veda, there are altogether four explanations.One of these is the same as the Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda. It occursat xix.6. The others are as stated below :

(1) A.V.,2 iv.6.1.—The Brahman was born the first with ten heads andten faces. He first drank the soma; he made poison powerless.

(2) A.V.,3 xv.8.1.—He (the Vratya) became filled with passion thencesprang the Rajanya.

(3) A.V., 4Vxv.9.1.—Let the king to whose house the Vratya who knowsthis, comes as a guest, cause him to be respected as superior to himself.So doing he does no injury to his royal rank, or to his realm. From himarose the Brahman (Brahmin) and the Kshattra (Kshatriya). They said‘Into whom shall we enter,’ etc.

II

To proceed to the Brahmanas. The Satapatha Brahmana contains sixexplanations. There are two which concern themselves with the creationof the Varnas. Of the two, the one which speaks of the origin of the Shudrasis given below :

S.B.5 xiv.4.2.23.—”Brahma (here, according to the commentator, existing

in the form of Agni and representing the Brahmana caste) was formerly this

1 Muir, Vol. I, p. 16. 4. Muir, Vol I, p. 22

2. Muir, Vol. I, p. 21 5. Muir Vol I, p. 20

3. Muir, Vol. I, p. 22



(universe), one only. Being one, it did not develope. It energetically created

an excellent form, the Kshattra, viz., those among the gods who are powers

(Kshattrani), Indra, Varuna, Soma, Rudra, Parjanya, Yama, Mrityu, Isana.

Hence nothing is superior to the Kshatra. Therefore, the Brahmana sits

below the Kshatriya at the Rajasuya sacrifice; he confers that glory on

the Kshattra (the royal power). This, the Brahma, is the source of the

Kshattra. Hence although the king attains supremacy, he at the end

resorts to the Brahman as his source. Whoever destroys him (the

Brahman) destroys his own source. He becomes most miserable, as one

who has injured a superior. He did not develope. He created the Vis, viz.,

those classes of gods who are designated by troops, Vasus, Rudras, Adityas,

Visvedevas, Maruts. He did not develope. He created the Shudra class

Pushan. This earth is Pushani; for she nourishes all that exists. He did

not develope. He energetically created an excellent form, Justice (Dharma).

This is the ruler (Kshattra) of, the ruler (Kshattra), namely, Justice. Hence

nothing is superior to Justice. Therefore the weaker seeks (to overcome)

the stronger by Justice, as by a king. This justice is truth. In conseqence

they say of a man who speaks truth, ‘he speaks justice.’ For this is both

of these. This is the Brahma, Kshattra, Vis and Shudra. Through Agni

it became Brahma among the gods, the Brahmana among men, through

the (divine) Kshatriya a (human) Kshatriya, through the (divine) Vaishya

a (human) Vaishya, through the (divine) Shudra a (human) Shudra.

Wherefore it is in Agni among the gods and in a Brahman among men

that they seek after an abode.

The Taittiriya Brahman is responsible for the following explanation :

(1) T.B.,1 i.2.6.7.—“The Brahmana caste is sprung from the gods; theShudras from the Asuras.”

(2) T.B.,2 iii. 2.3.9.—“This Shudra has sprung from non-existence.”

III

Here is a complete collection of all the Brahmanic speculations on theorigin of the four classes and of the Shudras. The ancient Brahmins wereevidently conscious of the fact that the origin of the four classes was anunusual and uncommon social phenomenon and that the place of theShudra in it was very unnatural and that this called for some explanation.Otherwise, it would be impossible to account for these innumerableattempts to explain the origin of the Chaturvarnya and of the Shudra.

But what is one to say of these explanations? The variety of themis simply bewildering. Some allege that Purusha was the origin of

1 Muir, Vol. I, p. 21




the four Varnas, and some attribute their origin to Brahma, some

to Prajapati and some to Vratya. The same source gives differing

explanations. The White Yajur Veda has two explanations, one in

terms of Purusha, the other in terms of Prajapati. The Black Yajur

Veda has three explanations to offer. Two are in terms of Prajapati,

the third in terms of Brahman. The Atharva Veda has four

explanations, one in terms of Purusha, second in terms of Brahman,

third in terms of Vratya and fourth quite different from the first

three. Even when the theory is the same, the details are not the

same. Some explanations such as those in terms of Prajapati, or

Brahma are theological. Others in terms of Manu or Kasyapa are

in humanistic terms. It is imagination running riot. There is in them

neither history nor sense. Prof. Max Muller commenting on the

Brahmanas has said :

“The Brahmanas represent no doubt a most interesting phase in the

history of the Indian mind, but judged by themselves, as literary produc-

tions, they are most disappointing. No one would have supposed that at

so early a period, and in so primitive a state of society, there could have

risen up a literature which for pedantry and downright absurdity can

hardly be matched anywhere. There is no lack of striking thoughts, of bold

expressions, of sound reasoning, and curious traditions in these collections.

But these are only like the fragments of a torso, like precious gems set

in brass and lead. The general character of these works is marked by

shallow and insipid grandiloquence, by priestly conceit, and antiquarian

pedantry. It is most important to the historian that he should know how

soon the fresh and healthy growth of a nation can be blighted by priestcraft

and superstition. It is most important that we should know that nations

are liable to these epidemics in their youth as well as in their dotage.

These works deserve to be studied as the physician studies the twaddle

of idiots, and the raving of madmen.”1

On reading these Brahmanic speculations on the origin of the four

Varnas and particularly of the Shudras one is very much reminded

of these words of Prof. Max Muller. All these speculations are really

the twaddles of idiots and ravings of madmen and as such they are

of no use to the student of history who is in search of a natural

explanation of a human problem.

1 Max Muller, Ancient Sanskrit Literature (Panini office edition), p. 200.

D:\AMBEDKAR\VOL-07\VOL7-03 Mk S.K.—26-09-2013 42


CHAPTER III

THE BRAHMANIC THEORY OF

THE STATUS OF THE SHUDRAS

SO much for the Brahmanic view of the origin of the Shudra. Turning

to the Brahmanic view of the civil status of the Shudra, what strikes

one is the long list of disabilities, accompanied by a most dire system

of pains and penalties to which the Shudra is subjected by the

Brahmanic law-givers.

The disabilities and penalties of the Shudra found in the Samhitas

and the Brahmanas were few, as may be seen from the following

extracts:

I. According to the Kathaka Samhita (xxxi.2) and the Maitrayani

Samhita (iv.1.3; i.8.3)

“A shudra should not be allowed to milk the cow whose milk is used

for Agnihotra.”

II. The Satapatha Brahmana (iii.1.1.10), the Maitrayani Samita

(vii.1.1.6) and also the Panchavimsa Brahmana (vi.1.11) say:

“The Shudra must not be spoken to when performing a sacrifice and

a Shudra must not be present when a sacrifice is being performed.”

III. The Satapatha Brahmana (xiv.1.31) and the Kathaka Samhita

(xi.10) further provide that :

“The Shudra must not be admitted to Soma drink.”

IV. The Aitareya Brahmana (vii.29.4) and the Panchavimsa

Brahmana (vi.1.11) reached the culminating point when they say:

“Shudra is a servant of another (and cannot be anything else).”

But what in the beginning was a cloud no bigger than a man’s

hand, seems to have developed into a storm, which has literally

overwhelmed the Shudras. For, as will be seen from the extracts given

from later penal legislation by the Sutrakaras like Apastamba,

Baudhayana, etc. and the Smritikaras like Manu and others, the

growth of the disabilities of the Shudras has been at a maddening

speed and to an extent which is quite unthinkable.


THE SHUDRAS : THE BRAHMANIC .... STATUS OF THE SHUDRAS 43

The disabilities are so deadening that it would be impossible tobelieve them unless one sees them in cold print. They are, however,so numerous that it is impossible to present them in their fullness.To enable those, who do not know them, to have some idea of thesedisabilities, I have assembled below in one place illustrative state-ments by the different Sutrakaras and Smritikaras relating to thedisabilities of the Shudras scattered in their Law Books.

II

(i)

(A) The Apastamba Dharma Sutra says :

“There are four castes—Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras.

Amongst these, each preceding (caste) is superior by birth to the one

following1 :

For all these, excepting Shudras and those who have committed bad

actions are ordained (1) the initiation (Upanayana or the wearing of the

sacred thread), (2) the study of the Veda and (3) the kindling of the sacred

fire (i.e., the right to perform sacrifices).2"

(B) This is what the Vasishtha Dharma Sutra says:

“There are four castes (Varna) Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and

Shudras.

Three castes, Brahmanas, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas (are called) twice-

born.

Their first-birth is from the mother; the second from the investiture

with the sacred girdle. In that (second birth) the Savitri is the mother,

but the teacher is said to be the father.

They call the teacher father, because he gives instruction in the Veda.3

The four castes are distinguished by their origin and by particular

sacraments.

There is also the following passage of the Veda: ‘ The Brahmana was

his mouth, the Kshatriya formed his arms: the Vaishya his thighs; the

Shudra was born from his feet.1

It has been declared in the following passage of the Veda that a Shudra

shall not receive the sacraments. ‘He created the Brahmana with the

Gayatri (metre), the Kshatriya with the Trishtubh, the Vaishya with the

Jagati, the Shudra without any metre.”4

(C) The Manu Smriti propounds the following view on the subject :

1. Prasna 1, Patala 1, Khanda 1, Sutras 4-5.

2. Ibid., Sutra 6.

3. Chapter H, Verses 1-4.

4 Chapter IV, Verse 3



“For the prosperity of the worlds, he (the creator) from his mouth, arms,

thighs and feet created the Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra.1

The Brahmans, Kshatriya (and) Vaishya constitute the three twice-born

castes, but the fourth, the Shudra has only one birth.”2

(ii)

(A) The Apastamba Dharma Sutra says:

“(A Traivarnika) shall never study (the Veda) in a burial ground nor

anywhere near it within the throw of a Samya.

If a village has been built over a burial ground or its surface has been

cultivated as a field, the recitation of the Veda in such a place is not

prohibited.

But if that place is known to have been a burial ground, he shall not

study (there).

A Shudra and an outcaste are (included by the term) burial-ground, (and

the rule given, Sutra 6 applies to them).

Some declare, that (one ought to avoid only to study) in the same house

(where they dwell).

But if (a student and) a Shudra woman merely look at each other, the

recitation of the Veda must be interrupted.3

Food touched by a (Brahmana or other high-caste person) who is impure,

becomes impure but not unfit for eating.

But what has been brought (be it touched or not) by an impure Shudra

must not be eaten.

A Shudra touches him, (then he shall leave off eating).”4

(B) The Vishnu Smriti says :

“He must not cause a member of a twice born caste to be carried out bya Shudra (even though he be a kinsman of the deceased). Nor a Shudra bya member of a twice-born caste.

A father and a mother shall be carried out by their sons; (who are equalin caste to their parents).

But Shudras must never carry out a member of a twice-born caste, eventhough he be their father.”5

(C) The Vasishtha Dharma Sutra prescribes :

“Now therefore, we will declare what may be eaten and what may not

be eaten.

1 Chapter I, Verse 31.

2 Chapter X, Verse 4

3 Prasna 1, Patala 3, Khanda 9, Sutras 6-11.

4 Prasna 1, Patala 5, Khanda 16, Sutras 21-22.

5 Chapter XIX, Sutras 1-4



Food given by a physician, a hunter, a woman of bad character, a mace-

bearer, a thief, an Abhisasta, and eunuch, (or) an outcaste must not be

eaten.

Nor that given by a miser, one who has performed the initiatory

ceremony of a Srauta-sacrifice, a prisoner, a sick person, a seller of the

Soma plant, a carpenter, a washerman, a dealer in spirituous liquor, a

spy, an usurer, (or) a cobbler.

Nor that given by a Shudra.1

Some call that Shudra race a burial-ground.

Therefore the Veda must not be recited in the presence of a Shudra.”

Now they quote also the (following) verses which Yama proclaimed :

The wicked Shudra-race is manifestly a burial-ground. Therefore (the

Veda) must never be recited in the presence of a Shudra.2

Some become worthy receptacles of gifts through sacred learning, and

some through the practice of austerities. But that Brahmana whose

stomach does not contain the food of a Shudra, is even the worthiest

receptacle of all.3

If a Brahmana dies with the food of a Shudra in his stomach, he will

become a village pig (in his next life) or be born in the family of that

Shudra.

For though a (Brahmana) whose body is nourished by the essence of

a Shudra’s food may daily recite the Veda, though he may offer (an

Agnihotra) or mutter (prayers, nevertheless) he will not find the path that

leads upwards.

But if, after eating the food of a Shudra, he has conjugal intercourse,

(even) his sons (begotten on a wife of his own caste) will belong to the

giver of the food (i.e., to the Shudra) and he shall not ascend to heaven.4

(D) The Manu Smriti says :

“He (Brahmin) may not dwell in the kingdom of a Shudra nor in one

full of unrighteous people, nor in one invaded by hosts of heretics nor in

one possessed by low-born men.5

A Brahmin who performs a sacrifice for a Shudra should not be invited

to dine with other Brahmins at a Shraddha ceremony. His company will

destroy all merit that which may otherwise be obtained from such a

dinner.6

One should carry out by the southern town-gate a dead Shudra, but

the twice-born by the western, northern and eastern (gates) respectively.7

1 Chapter XIV, Verses 1-4

2 Chapter XVIII, Verses 11-15

3 Chapter VI, Verses 26.

4 Chapter VI, Verses 27-29

5 Chapter IV, Verse 61

6 Chapter III, Verse 178

7 Chapter V Verse 92.



(iii)


“A Brahmana shall salute stretching forward his right arm on a level

with his ear, a Kshatriya holding it on a level with the breast, a Vaishya

holding it on a level with the waist, a Shudra holding it low (and)

stretching forward the joined hands.1

And when returning the salute of (a man belonging) to the first (three)

castes, the last syllable of the name of the person addressed is produced

to the length of three moras.2

If a Shudra comes as a guest (to a Brahmana) he shall give him some

work to do. He may feed him, after (that has been performed. To feed

him without asking him first to do some work is to do him honour.)

Or the slaves (of the Brahmana householder) shall fetch (rice) from the

royal stores, and honour the Shudra as a guest.”3

(B) The Vishnu Smriti prescribes :

“The same punishment (payment of hundred Panas) is also ordained

for hospitably entertaining a Shudra or religious ascetic at an oblation

to the gods or to the manes.”4

(C) The Manu Smriti enjoins that :

One should consider a Brahmana ten years old and a Kshatriya a

hundred years old as father and son; but of them the Brahman (is) the

father.

Wealth, kindred, age, sects (and) knowledge as the fifth; those are the

causes of respect, the most important (is) the last (mentioned).

In whom among the three (higher) castes the most and the best of (those)

five may be he is here worthy of respect; a Shudra (is not worthy of respect

on the ground of his wealth or knowledge no matter how high they are.

It is only on the ground of his age and that too only if) he has attained

the tenth (decade of his life that he becomes worthy of respect and not

before.)5

1 Prasna 1, Patala 2, Khanda 5, Sutra 16.

2 Ibid, Sutra 17.

3 Prasna II, Patala 2, Khanda 4, Sutras 19-20

4 Chapter V. Sutra 115.

5 Chapter II, Verses 135-137.



For not by years, nor by grey hair, not by wealth, nor kindred (is

superiority); the seers made the rule—Who knows the Veda completely,

he is great among us.

Of Brahmins, superiority (is) by knowledge, but of Kshatriyas by valour,

of Vaishyas by reason of property (and) wealth, and of Shudras by age.

One is not, therefore, aged because his head is grey; whoever, although

a youth, has perused (the Vedas), him the gods consider an elder.1

Now a Kshatriya is not called a guest in a Brahmin’s house, nor a

Vaishya nor a Shudra; neither is a friend, the kinsman, nor a Guru (of

the householder). (That is, a Brahmin has alone the right to have the

honour of being treated as a guest in a Brahmin’s house).

But if a Kshatriya come as a guest to the house after the said Brahmins

have eaten one should give him food (if) he wishes.

If a Vaishya (or) Shudra come to the house as guests, the Brahmin

should give them food but with the servants, using kindness.”2

(iv)

(A) According to the Apastamba Dharma Sutra :

He who has killed a Kshatriya shall give a thousand cows (to Brahmins

for the expiation of the act).

He shall give, a hundred cows for the killing of a Vaishya, (only) ten

for a Shudra.3

(B) According to the Gautama Dharma Sutra :

“A Kshatriya (shall be fined) one hundred (Karshapanas) if he abuses

a Brahmana.

In case of an assault (on a Brahmana) twice as much.

A Vaishya (who abuses a Brahmana, shall pay) one and a half (times

as much as a Kshatriya).

But a Brahmana (who abuses) a Kshatriya (shall pay) fifty (Karshapanas).

1 Chapter II, Verses 154-156.

2 Chapter III, Verses 110-112.

3 Prasna I, Patala 9, Khanda 24, Sutras 1-3.



One half of that amount (if he abuses) a Vaishya.

And if he abuses a Shudra nothing.”1

(C) According to Brihaspati’s Dharma Shastra :

“For a Brahmin abusing a Kshatriya, the fine shall be half of a hundred

(fifty) Panas; for abusing a Vaisya, half of fifty (twenty-five) Panas, for

abusing a Shudra twelve and a half.

This punishment has been declared for abusing a virtuous Shudra (i.e.,

a Shudra who accepts his low status and does willingly the duties attached

to that status) who has committed no wrong; no offence is imputable to

a Brahmin for abusing a Shudra devoid of virtue.

A Vaishya shall be fined a hundred (Panas) for reviling a Kshatriya;

a Kshatriya reviling a Vaishya shall have to pay half of that amount as

a fine.

In the case of a Kshatriya reviling a Shudra the fine shall be twenty

Panas; in the case of a Vaishya, the double amount is declared to be the

proper fine by persons learned in law.

A Shudra shall be compelled to pay the first fine for abusing a Vaishya;

the middling fine for abusing a Kshatriya; and the highest fine for abusing

a Brahmin.”2

(D) According to the Manu Smruti:

A Kshatriya who reviles a Brahmin ought to be fined one hundred

(Panas); a Vaishya one hundred and fifty or two hundred, but a Shudra

ought to receive corporal punishment.

A Brahmin should be fined fifty if he has thrown insult on a Kshatriya,

but the fine shall be a half of fifty if on a Vaishya and twelve if on a

Shudra.”3

In the murder of a Kshatriya, one fourth (part) of the penance for slaying

a Brahman is declared to be the proper penance; an eighth part in the

case of a Vaishya; and in (the case of) a Shudra (who) lives virtuously,

one sixteenth part must be admitted (as the proper penance).

But if one of the highest of the twice-born (a Brahmin) slay a Kshatriya

involuntarily he may, in order to cleanse himself give a thousand cows

and a bull.

Or let him for three years (with senses) subdued and locks braided,

follow the observances of one who has slain a Brahmin, living in a place

rather far from the town, his dwelling place the foot of a tree.

1 Chapter XII, Sutras 8-13.

2 Chapter XX, Verses 7-11.

3 Chapter VIII, Verses 267-268



The highest of a twice-born (the Brahmin) should practise just this

expiation for a year on having slain a Vaishya who lives virtuously and

give one hundred and one (heads) of cattle.

The slayer of a Shudra should practise exactly all these observances

for six months; or he may give to a priest ten white cows and a bull.1"

(E) According to the Vishnu Smriti:

“With whatever limb an inferior insults or hurts his superior in caste,

of that limb the king shall cause him to be deprived.

If he places himself on the same seat with his superior, he shall be

banished with a mark on his buttocks.

If he spits on him he shall lose both lips.

If he breaks wind against him, he shall lose his hind parts.

If he uses abusive language, his tongue.

If a low-born man through pride give instruction (to a member of the

highest caste) concerning his duty, let the king order hot oil to be dropped

into his mouth.

If a Shudra man mentions the name or caste of a superior revilingly,

an iron pin ten inches long shall be thrust into his mouth (red hot).”2

(v)

(A) According to the Brihaspati Smriti :

“A Shudra teaching the precepts of religion or uttering the words of

the Veda, or insulting a Brahmin shall be punished by cutting out his

tongue.”3

(B) According to the Gautama Dharma Sutra :

“Now if he listens intentionally to (a recitation of) the Veda, his ears

shall be filled with (molten) tin or lac.

If he recites (Vedic texts), his tongue shall be cut out. If he remembers

them, his body shall be split in twain.”4

(C) According to the Manu Smriti:

One who teaches for hire, also one who learns by paying hire (a Shudra)

teacher and one who learns from him are unfit for being invited at the

performance in honour of the Devas and Pitris.5

1 Chapter XI, Verses 127-131

2 Chapter V, Sutras 19-25

3 Chapter XII, Verse 12.

4 Chapter XX, Sutras 4-6.

5 Chapter III, Verse 156.



One may not give advice to a Shudra, nor (give him) the remains (of

food) or of butter that has been offered.

And one may not teach him the law or enjoin upon him religious

observances.

For he who tells him the law and he who enjoins upon him (religious)

observances, he indeed together with that (Shudra) sinks into the darkness

of the hell called Asamvrita.1

One should never recite (the Vedas) indistinctly or in the presence of

a Shudra; nor having recited the Veda at the end of the night, (though)

fatigued may one sleep again.”2

(vi)

This is what the Manu Smriti says :

“A Brahmin may take possession of the goods of a Shudra with perfect

peace of mind, for, since nothing at all belongs to this Shudra as his own,

he is one whose property may be taken away by his master.3

Indeed, an accumulation of wealth should not be made by a Shudra

even if he is able to do so, for the sight of mere possession of wealth

by a Shudra injures the Brahmin.”4

(vii)

Here is the advice of the Manu Smriti to the king :

“He who can claim to be a Brahmin merely on account of his birth,

or he who only calls himself a Brahmin, may be, if desired, the declarer

of law for the king, but a Shudra never.

If a king looks on while a Shudra gives a judicial decision, his realm

sinks into misfortune, like a cow in a quagmire.

A realm which consists chiefly of Shudras and is overrun by unbelievers

and destitute of twice-born men is soon totally destroyed, oppressed by

famine and disease.”5

(viii)

(A) The Apastamba Dharma Sutra says:

“And those who perform austerities, being intent on fulfilling the sacred

laws. And a Shudra who lives by washing the feet (of the Brahmin).

1 Chapter IV, Verses 78-81. 4 Chapter X, Verse 129.

2 Chapter IV, Verse 99. 5 Chapter VIII, Verses 20-22.

3 Chapter VIII, Verse 417.



Also blind, dumb, deaf and diseased persons (as long as their infirmities

last) are exempt from taxes.1

To serve the other three castes is ordained for the Shudra.

The higher the caste which he serves the greater is the merit.”2

(B) The Manu Smriti has the following:

“Now, for the sake of preserving all this creation, the most glorious

(being) ordained separate duties for those who sprang from (his) mouth,

arm, thigh and feet.

For Brahmins he ordered teaching, study, sacrifices and sacrificing (as

priests) for others, also giving and receiving gifts.

Defence of the people, giving (alms), sacrifice, also study, and absence

of attachment to objects of sense, in short for a Kshatriya.

Tending of cattle, giving (alms), sacrifice, study, trade, usury, and also

agriculture for a Vaishya.

One duty the Lord assigned to a Shudra—service to those (before-

mentioned) classes without grudging.”3

(ix)


“A man of one of the first three castes (who commits adultery) with

a woman of the Shudra caste shall be banished.

A Shudra (who commits adultery) with a woman of one of the first three

castes shall suffer capital punishment.”4

(B) The Gautama Dharma Sutra says :

If (the Shudra) has criminal intercourse with an Aryan woman, his organ

shall be cut off and all his property be confiscated.

If (the woman had) a protector (i.e., she was under the guaradian-ship

of some person) he (the Shudra) shall be executed after having undergone

the punishments prescribed above.5

(C) The Manu Smriti says :

If a man (of the Shudra caste) makes love to a girl of the highest caste

he deserves corporal punishment.6

A Shudra cohabiting with a woman of twice-born castes, whether she

be guarded or not guarded, is (to be) deprived of his member and of all

his property if she be not guarded and of everything if she is guarded.7

1. Prasna II, Patala 10, Khanda 26, Sutras 14-16. 5 Chapter XII, Sutras 2-3.

2. Prasna I, Patala I, Khanda I, Sutras 7-8. 6 Chapter VIII, Verse 366.

3. Chapter I, Verses 87-91. 7 Chapter VIII, Verse 374.

4. Prasna II, Patala 10, Khanda 27, Sutras 8-9.



For twice-born men, at first, a woman of the same caste is approved

for marrying; but of those who act from lust, those of lower caste may

in order (be wives).

A Shudra woman alone (is) a wife for a Shudra; both she and a woman

of his own caste (are) legally (wives) of a Vaishya; they two and also a

woman of his own caste (are wives) of a Kshatriya, both they and a woman

of his own caste(are wives) of a Brahmin.

A Shudra wife is not indicated in any history for a Brahmin and

Kshatriya, even though they be in distress.

Twice-born men marrying a (Shudra) woman out of infatuation will

surely bring quickly (their) families and descendants to the condition of

Shudras.1

A Brahmin having taken a Shudra woman to his bed goes the lower

course; having begotten on her a son, he is surely deprived of his

Brahminhood.

Now of (a man) whose offerings towards gods, manes, and guests depend

on her, the manes and gods eat not that offering nor does he go to heaven.

An expiation is not prescribed for him who has drunk the moisture on

a Shudra woman’s lips, who has been reached by her breath, and who

has also begotten a son on her.2

(x)

(A) The Vasishtha Dharma Sutra says :

“One may know that bearing grudges, envy, speaking untruths, speaking

evil of Brahmins, backbiting and cruelty are the characteristics of a

Shudra.”3

(B) The Vishnu Smriti prescribes that :

(The name to be chosen should be) auspicious in the case of a Brahmin.

Indicating power in the case of a Kshatriya.

Indicating wealth in the case of a Vaishya.

And indicating contempt in the case of a Shudra.4

(C) The Gautama Dharma Sutra says :

“The Shudra belongs to the fourth caste, which has one birth (only).

1. Chapter III, Verses 12-15.

2. Ibid, Verses 17-19.

3. Chapter VI, Verse 24.

4. Chapter XXVII, Sutras 6-9.



And serves the higher (castes).

From them he shall seek to obtain his livelihood.

He shall use their cast-off shoes.

And eat the remnants of their food.

A Shudra who intentionally reviles twice-bom men by Criminal abuse,

or criminally assaults them with blows, shall be deprived of the limb with

which he offends.

If he assumes a position equal to that of twice-born men in sitting,

in lying down, in conversation or on the road, he shall undergo (corporal

punishment)”1

(D) The Manu Smriti follows suit and says :

“But if a Brahmin through avarice, and because he possesses the power,

compel twice-born men, who have received the initiation (into the caste

order), to do the work of a slave when they do not wish it, he shall be

fined six hundred panas by the king.

But a Shudra, whether bought or not bought (by the Brahmin) may be

compelled to practise servitude, for that Shudra was created by the self-

existent merely for the service of the Brahmin.

Even if freed by his master, the Shudra is not released from servitude;

for this (servitude) is innate in him; who then can take it from him.2

Just in proportion as one pursues without complaining the mode of life

(practised) by the good, so free from blame, he gains both this and the

otherworld.3

Now the supreme duty of a Shudra and that which ensures his bliss

is merely obedience toward clelebrated priests who understand the Veda

and live as householders.

If he be pure, obedient to the higher (castes), mild in speech, without

conceit, and always submissive to the Brahmin, he attains (in the next

transmigration) a high birth.4

Now a Shudra desiring some means of subsistence may serve a

Kshatriya, so(is the rule); or the Shudra (if) anxious to support life, (may

do so by) serving a wealthy Vaishya.

But he should serve the Brahmins for the sake of heaven, or for the sake

of both (heaven and livelihood); for by him (for whom) the word Brahmin (is

always) uttered is thus attained the state of completing all he ought to do.

1. Chapter X. Sutras 50, 56-59 and Chapter XII, Sutras 1,7.

2. Chapter VIII, Verses 412-414.

3. Chapter X, Verse 128.

4. Chapter IX, Verses 334-335.



Merely to serve the Brahmins is declared to be the most excellent

occupation of a Shudra; for if he does anything other than this it profits

him nothing.

His means of life should be arranged by those Brahmins out of their

own household (goods) in accordance with what is fitting after examining

his ability, cleverness, and (the amount) the dependents embrace.

The leaving of food should be given (to him) and the old clothes, so

too the blighted part of the grain, so too the old furniture.1

Let a Brahmin’s name be auspicious, a Kshatriya’s full of power, let

a Vaishya’s mean wealth, a Shudra’s however be contemptible.

Let a Brahmin’s (distinctive title) imply prosperity, a Kshatriya’s

safeguard, a Vaishya’s wealth, a Shudra’s service.2

If (a man) of one birth assault one of the twice-born castes with virulent

words, he ought to have his tongue cut, for he is of the lowest origin.

If he makes mention in an insulting manner of their name and caste,

a red-hot iron rod, ten fingers long, should be thrust into his mouth.

If this man through insolence gives instruction to the priests in regard

to their duty, the king should cause boiling hot oil to be poured into his

mouth and ear.3

If a man of the lowest birth should with any member injure one of the

highest station, even that member of this man shall be cut (off); this is

an ordinance of Manu.

If he lift up his hand or his staff (against him), he ought to have his

hand cut off; and if he smites him with his feet in anger, he ought to

have his feet cut off.

If a low-born man endeavours to sit down by the side of a high-born

man, he should be banished after being branded on the hip, or (the king)

may cause his backside to be cut off.

If through insolence he spit upon him, the king should cause his two

lips to be cut off; and if he makes water upon him, his penis, and if he

breaks wind upon him, his anus.

If he seize him by the locks, let the king without hesitation cause both

his hands to be cut off, (also if he seize him) by the feet, the beard, the

neck or the testicles.

1. Chapter X, Verses 121-125.

2. Chapter II, Verses 31-32.




A man who tears (another’s) skin and one who causes blood to be seen

ought to be fined five hundred (Panas), if he tears the flesh (he should

be fined) six niskas, but if he breaks a bone he should be banished.1

(D) The Narada Smriti says:

Men of the Shudra caste, who prefer a false accusation against a member

of a twice-born Aryan caste, shall have their tongue split by the officers

of the king, and he shall cause them to be put on stakes.

A once-born man (or Shudra) who insults members of a twice-born caste

with gross invectives, shall have his tongue cut off; for he is of low origin.

If he refers to their name or caste in terms indicating contempt, an

iron-rod, ten angulas long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth.

If he is insolent enough to give lessons regarding their duty to Brahmins,

the king shall order hot oil to be poured into his mouth and ears.

With whatever limb a man of low caste offends against a Brahmin, that

very limb of him shall be cut off, such shall be the atonement for his

crime.

A low-born man, who tries to place himself on the same seat with his

superior in caste, shall be branded on his hip and banished, or (the king)

shall cause his backside to be gashed.

If through arrogance he spits on a superior, the king shall cause both

his lips to be cut off; if he makes water on him, the penis; if he breaks

wind against him, the buttocks.”2

III

Such were the laws made against the Shudras by the Brahmanic

lawgivers. The gist of them may be summarized under the following

heads :

(1) That the Shudra was to take the last place in the social order.

(2) That the Shudra was impure and therefore no sacred act should

be done within his sight and within his hearing.

(3) That the Shudra is not to be respected in the same way as

the other classes.

(4) That the life of a Shudra is of no value and anybody may kill

him without having to pay compensation and if at all of small value


2. Chapter XV, Verses 22-27.



as compared with that of the Brahmana, Kshatriya and Vaishya.

(5) That the Shudra must not acquire knowledge and it is a sinand a crime to give him education.

(6) That a Shudra must not acquire property. A Brahmin can takehis property at his pleasure.

(7) That a Shudra cannot hold office under the State.

(8) That the duty and salvation of the Shudra lies in his servingthe higher classes.

(9) That the higher Classes must not inter-marry with the Shudra.They can however keep a Shudra woman as a concubine. But if theShudra touches a woman of the higher classes he will be liable todire punishment.

(10) That the Shudra is born in servility and must be kept inservility for ever.

Anyone who reads this summary will be struck by two consider-ations. He will be struck by the consideration that Shudra alone hasbeen selected by the Brahmanic law-givers as a victim for their law-making authority. The wonder must be all the greater when it isrecalled that in the ancient Brahmanic literature the oppressed classin the ancient Indo-Aryan society was the Vaishya and not theShudra. In this connection a reference may be made to the AitareyaBrahmana. The Aitareya Brahmana in telling the story of KingVishvantara and the Shyaparna Brahmanas refers to the sacrificial

drink to which the different classes are entitled. In the course of thestory, it speaks of the Vaishya in the following terms :

“Next, if (the priest brings) curds, that is the Vaishya’s draught with

it thou shalt satisfy the Vaishyas. One like a Vaishya shall be born in

thy line, one who is tributary to another, who is to be used (lit. eaten)

by another, and who maybe oppressed at will.1

The question is: why was the Vaishya let off and why the fury

directed towards the Shudras ?

He will also be struck by the close connection of the disabilities

of the Shudra with the privileges of the Brahmin. The Shudra is

below the Traivarnikas and is contrasted with the Traivarnikas. That

being so, one would expect all the Traivarnikas to have the same rights

against the Shudras. But what are the facts? The facts are that the

Kshatriyas and Vaishyas have no rights worth speaking of against the

Shudras. The only Traivarnika who has special rights and privileges

1 Muir, Vol. 1, p. 436-40.

42 Chapter XII, Sutras 2-3.



is the Brahmin. For instance, if the Shudra is guilty of an offence

against the Brahmin, the Brahmin has the privilege of demanding

a higher punishment than what a Kshatriya or a Vaishya could. A

Brahmin could take the property of the Shudra without being guilty

of an offence if he needed it for the purpose of performing a sacrifice.

A Shudra should not accumulate property because he thereby hurts

the Brahmin. A Brahmin should not live in a country where the king

is a Shudra. Why is this so? Had the Brahmin any cause to regard

the Shudra as his special enemy?

There is one other consideration more important than these. It is,

what does the average Brahmin think of these disabilities of the

Shudras? That they are extraordinary in their conception and

shameful in their nature will be admitted by all. Will the Brahmin

admit it? It would not be unnatural if this catalogue of disabilities

may not make any impression upon him. In the first place, by long

habit and usage his moral sense has become so dulled that he has

ceased to bother about the how and why of these disabilities of the

Shudras. In the second place, those of them who are conscious of them

feel that similar disabilities have been imposed on particular classes

in other countries and there is therefore nothing extraordinary nor

shameful in the disabilities of the Shudras. It is the second attitude

that needs to be exposed.

This attitude is a very facile one and is cherished bacause it helps

to save reputation and slave conscience. It is, however, no use leaving

things as they are. It is absolutely essential to show that these

disabilities have no parallel anywhere in the world. It is impossible

to compare the Brahmanic Law with every other legal system on the

point of rights and disabilities. A comparison of the Brahmanic Law

with the Roman Law ought to suffice.

IV

It will be well to begin this comparison by noting the classes which

under the Roman Law had rights and those which suffered from

disabilities. The Roman jurists divided men into five categories: (1)

Patricians and Plebians; (2) Freemen and Slaves; (3) Citizens and

Foreigners; (4) Persons who were sui juris and persons who were

alieni juris and (5) Chirstians and Pagans.

Under the Roman Law; persons who were privileged were:

(1) Patricians; (2) Freemen; (3) Citizens; (4) Sui juris and



(5) Christians. As compared to these, persons who suffered disabilities

under the Roman Law were: (1) the Plebians; (2) Slaves;

(3) Foreigners; (4) Persons who were alieni juris and (5) Pagans.

A Freeman, who was a citizen under the Roman Law, possessed

civil rights as well as political rights. The civil rights of a citizen

comprised rights of connubium and commercium. In virtue of the

connubium, the citizen could contract a valid marriage according to

the jus civile, and acquire the rights resulting from it, and particularly

the paternal power and the civil relationship called agnation, which

was absolutely necessary to enable him in law to succeed to the

property of persons who died intestate. In virtue of the commercium

he could acquire and dispose of property of all kinds, according to

the forms and with the peculiar privileges of the Roman Law. The

political rights of the Roman citizen included jus suffragii and jus

honorum, the right to vote in public elections and the right to hold

office.

The slave differred from the Freeman in as much as he was ownedby the master and as such had no capacity to acquire rights.

Foreigners, who were called Peregrine, were not citizens and hadnone of the political or civil rights which went with citizenship. AForeigner could obtain no protection unless he was under theprotection of a citizen.

The alieni juris differed from sui juris in as much as the formerwere subject to the authority of another person, while the latter werefree from it. This authority was variously called (1) Potestas, (2)Manus and (3) Mancipium, though they had the same effect. Potestasunder the Roman Law fell into two classes. Persons subject toPotestas were (1) slaves, (2) children, (3) wife in Manus,

(4) debtor assigned to the creditor by the Court and (5) a hiredgladiator. Potestas gave to one in whom it was vested rights toexclusive possession of those to whom it extended and to vindicateany wrong done to them by anyone else.

The correlative disabilities which persons alieni juris suffered as

a result of being subject to Potestas were: (1) they were not free,

(2) they could not acquire property and (3) they could not directly

vindicate any wrong or injury done to them.

The disabilities of the Pagans began with the advent of

Christianity. Originally, when all the Romans followed the same

Pagan worship, religion could occasion no difference in the

enjoyment of civil rights. Under the Christian Emperors, heretics and



apostates as well as Pagans and Jews, were subjected to vexatious

restrictions, particularly as regards their capacity to succeed to

property and to act as witnesses. Only orthodox Christians who

recognised the decisions of the four oecumenical councils had the full

enjoyment of civil rights.

This survey of rights and disabilities of the Roman Law may well

give comfort to Hindus that the Brahmanic Law was not the only

law which was guilty of putting certain classes under disabilities,

although the disabilities imposed by the Roman Law have nothing

of the cruelty which characterizes the disabilities imposed by the

Brahmanic Law. But when one compares the principles of the Roman

Law with those of the Brahmanic Law underlying these disabilities,

the baseness of the Brahmanic Law becomes apparent.

Let us first ask: What was the basis of rights and disabilities under

the Roman Law. Even a superficial student of Roman Law knows

that they were based upon (1) Caput and (2) Existimatio.

Caput meant the civil status of a person. Civil status among the

Romans had reference chiefly to three things; liberty, citizenship and

family. The status libertatis consisted of being a freeman and not

a slave. If a freeman was also a Roman citizen, he enjoyed the status

civitatis. Upon this quality depended not only the enjoyment of

political rights, but the capacity of participating in the jus civile.

Finally, the status familice consisted in a citizen belonging to a

particular family, and being capable of enjoying certain rights in

which the members of that family, in their quality of agnates, could

alone take part.

If an existing status came to be lost or changed, the person suffered

what was called a capitis diminutio, which extinguished either

entirely or to some extent his former legal capacity. There were three

changes of state or condition attended with different consequences,

called maxima, media, and minima. The greatest involves the loss

of liberty, citizenship, and family; and this happened when a Roman

citizen was taken prisoner in war, or condemned to slavery for his

crimes. But a citizen who was captured by the enemy, on returning

from captivity, was restored to all his civil rights jure postliminii.

The next change of status, consisted of the loss of citizenship and

family rights, without any forfeiture of personal liberty; and this

occurred when a citizen became a member of another state. He was

then forbidden the use of fire and water, so as to be forced to quit the

Roman territory, or was sentenced to deportation under the empire.



Finally, when a person ceased to belong to a particular family,

without losing his liberty or citizenship, he was said to suffer the

least change of state, as for instance, where one sui juris came under

the power of another by arrogation, or a son who had been under

the patria potestas was legally emancipated by his father.

Citizenship was acquired first by birth. In a lawful marriage the

child followed the condition of the father, and became a citizen, if

the father was so at the time of conception. If the child was not the

issue of justoe nuptioe, it followed the condition of the mother at the

time of its birth. Secondly, by manumission, according to the

formalities prescribed by law, the slave of a Roman citizen became

a citizen. This rule was modified by the laws. Elia Sentia and Junia

Norbana, according to which, in certain cases, the freedman acquired

only the status of a foreigner, peregrinus dedititius or of a Latin,

Latinus Junianus. Justinian restored the ancient principle, according

to which every slave, regularly enfranchised, became in full right a

Roman citizen. Thirdly, the right of citizenship was often granted as

a favour, either to a whole community or to an individual, by the

people or the senate during the republic, and by the reigning prince

during the empire; and this was equivalent to what the moderns call

naturalisation.

Citizenship was lost—Firstly, by the loss of liberty—as, for

instance, when a Roman became a prisoner of war; secondly, by

renouncing the character of Roman citizen, which took place when

anyone was admitted a citizen of another state; thirdly, by a sentence

of deportation or exile, as a punishment for crime.

The civil status of a person under the Roman Law may or may

not be civis optimo jure. Civis optimo jure included not only capacity

for civil rights but also capacity for political rights such as jus

suffragii et honorum, i.e., the right to vote and the capacity to hold

a public office. Capacity for political rights depended upon existimatio.

Existimatio means reputation in the eye of the law. A Roman citizen

may have caput as well as existimatio. On the other hand, a Roman

may have caput but may not have existimatio. Whoever had caput

as well as existimatio had civil rights as well as political rights.

Whoever had caput but had no existimatio could claim civil rights

only. He could not claim political rights.

A person’s existimatio was lost in two ways. It was lost by loss

of freedom or by conviction for an offence. If a person lost his freedom

his existimatio was completely extinguished. Loss of existimatio by



conviction for offence varied according to the gravity of theoffence.1 If the offence was serious the diminution of his existimatiowas called infamia. If the offence was less grave it was calledturpitudo. Infamia resulted in the extinguishment of existimatio.Under the Roman Law a defendant, in addition to ordinary damages,was subjected to infamia. Condemnation for theft, robbery, injuriaor fraud, entailed infamy. So a partner, a mandatarius, a depositarins,tutor, a mortgagee (in contractus fiducioe) if condemned for wilfulbreach of duty, was held to be infamous.

The consequence of infamia was exclusion from political rights,2

not merely from office (honours), but even from the right to vote inelections (suffragium).

From this brief survey of the basis of rights and disabilities inRoman Law, it will be clear that the basis was the same for all. Theydid not differ from community to community. Rights and disabilitiesaccording to Roman Law were regulated by general considerations,such as caput and existimatio. Whoever had caput and existimatiohad rights. Whoever lost his caput and his existimatio suffereddisabilities. What is the position under the Brahmanic Law? Thereagain, it is quite clear that rights and disabilities were not basedon general uniform considerations. They were based on communalconsiderations. All rights for the first three Varnas and all disabili-ties for the Shudras was the principle on which the Brahmanic Lawwas based.

The protagonists of Brahmanic Laws may urge that this compari-son is too favourable to Roman Law and that the statement thatRoman Law did not distribute rights and liabilities on communalbasis is not true. This may be conceded. For so far as the relationbetween the Patricians and Plebians was concerned the distributionof rights and liabilities was communal. But in this connection thefollowing facts must be noted.

1. Such as robbery, theft, perjury, fraud, appearing on the public stage as anactor or gladiator, ignominious expulsion from the army, gaining a living by aidingin prostitution and other disreputable occupations and other variety of acts involvinggross moral turpitude.

2. There were other consequences of infamia such as exclusion from the office ofattorney, disability to act on behalf of another in a law suit or giving evidence. Infamiawas inflicted in two ways, either by the censors or by the judgement of a Court ofLaw. It was in the power of the censors, in superintending public morality, to deprivesenators of their dignity, to remove knights from the equestrian order and even tostrip a citizen of all his political rights by classing him among the aerarii. The censorsalso put a nota censoria opposite to a man’s name in the roll of citizens; and thismight be done upon their own responsibility; without special inquiry, though theygenerally acted in accordance with public opinion. The nota censoria produced no effectexcept during the magistracy of the censor who imposed it. In this respect it differedessentially from infamy, which was perpetual, unless the stigma was removed by theprerogative of the people or the Emperor.



In the first place, it must be noted that Plebians were not slaves.

They were freemen in as much as they enjoyed jus commercii or the

right to acquire, hold and transfer property. Their disabilities

consisted in the denial of political and social rights. In the second

place, it must be noted that their disabilities were not permanent.

There were two social disabilities from which they suffered. One arose

from the interdict on intermarriage between them and the Patricians

imposed by the Twelve Tables.1 This disability was removed in B.C.

445 by the passing of the Canulenian Law which legalized intermar-

riage between Patricians and Plebians. The other disability was their

ineligibility to hold the office of Pontiffs and Augurs in the Public

Temples of Rome. This disability was removed by the Ogulnian Law

passed in B.C. 300.

As to the political disabilities of the Plebians they had secured

the right to vote in popular assemblies (jus suffragii) under the

Constitution of Servius Tullius the Sixth King of Rome. The political

disabilities which had remained unredressed were those which related

to the holding of office. This too was removed in course of time after

the Republic was established in B.C. 509. The first step taken in this

direction was the appointment of Plebian Tribunes in B.C. 494; the

Questorship was opened to them, formally in B.C. 421; actually in

B.C. 409; the Consulship in B.C. 367; the curule-aedileship in B.C.

366; the dictatorship in B.C. 356; the Censorship in B.C 351; and

the Praetorship in B.C. 336. The Hortensian Law enacted in B.C.

287 marked a complete triumph for the Plebians. By that law the

resolutions of the Assembly of the tribes were to be directly and

without modification, control or delay, binding upon the whole of the

Roman people.

This marks a complete political fusion of Patricians and Plebians

on terms of equality.

Not only were the Plebians placed on the same footing as to

political capacity and social status with the Patricians but the road to

nobility was also thrown open to them. In Roman society, birth and

fortune were the two great sources of rank and personal distinction.

But in addition to this, the office of Curule Magistracy was also a

source of ennoblement to the holder thereof. Every citizen, whether

Patrician or Plebian, who won his way to a Curule Magistracy, from

that Edile upwards, acquired personal distinction, which was trans-

mitted to his descendants, who formed a class called Nobiles, or

1. It was older than the Twelve Tables. The Twelve Tables only recognized it.



men known, to distinguish them from the ignobiles, or people who

were not known. As the office was thrown open to the Plebians, many

Plebians1 had become nobles and had even surpassed the Patricians

in point of nobility.

It may be that the Roman Law did recognise communal distinction

in distributing rights and disabilities. The point is that the disabili-

ties of the Plebians were not regarded as permanent. Although they

existed they were in course of time removed. That being so, the

protagonists of Brahmanic Law cannot merely take solace in having

found a parallel in the Roman Law but have to answer why the

Brahmanic Law did not abolish the distinction between the

Traivarnikas and the Shudras as the Roman Law did by equating

the Plebians with the Patricians? One can therefore contend that the

Roman Law of rights and disabilities was not communal while the

Brahmanic Law was.

This is not the only difference between the Roman Law and the

Brahmanic Law. There are two others. One is equality before law

in criminal matters. The Roman Law may not have recognized

equality in matters of civil and political rights. But in matters of

criminal law it made no distinction between one citizen and another,

not even between Patrician and Plebian. The same offence the same

punishment, no matter who the complainant and who the accused

was. Once an offence was proved, the punishment was the same. What

do the Dharma Sutras and the Smritis do? They follow an entirely

different principle. For the same offence the punishment varies

according to the community of the accused and the community of the

complainant. If the complainant is a Shudra and the accused belonged

to any one of the three classes the punishment is less than what

it would be if the relations were reversed. On the other hand, if the

complainant was Traivarnika and the accused a Shudra, the punish-

ment is far heavier than in the first case. This is another barbarity

which distinguishes the Brahmanic Law from the Roman Law.

The next feature of the Roman Law which distinguishes it from

the Brahmanic Law is most noteworthy. It relates to the extinction

of disabilities. Two points need be borne in mind. First is that the

disabilities under the Roman Law were only contingent. So long as

certain conditions lasted, they gave rise to certain disabilities. The

1. A Plebian who first attained a Curule office and became the founder of a noble

family was called by the Remans a novus homo or new man.



moment the conditions changed, the disabilities vanished and a step

in the direction of equality before law was taken. The second point

is that the Roman Law never attempted to fix the conditions for ever

and thereby perpetuate the disabilities. On the other hand, it was

always ready to remove the conditions to which these disabilities were

attached as is evident in the case of the Plebians, the Slaves, the

Foreigners and the Pagans.

If these two points about the disabilities under the Roman Law

are borne in mind, one can at once see what mischief the Dharma

Sutras and the Smritis have done in imposing the disabilities upon

the Shudras. The imposition of disabilities would not have been so

atrocious if the disabilities were dependent upon conditions and if

the disabled had the freedom to outgrow those conditions. But what

the Brahmanic Law does is not merely to impose disabilities but it

tries to fix the conditions by making an act which amounts to a breach

of those conditions to be a crime involving dire punishment. Thus,

the Brahmanic Law not only seeks to impose disabilities but it

endeavours to make them permanent. One illustration will suffice.

A Shudra is not entitled to perform Vedic sacrifices as he is not able

to repeat the Vedic Mantras. Nobody would quarrel with such a

disability. But the Dharma Sutras do not stop here. They go further

and say that it will be a crime for a Shudra to study the Vedas or

hear it being pronounced and if he does commit such a crime his

tongue should be cut or molten lead should be poured into his ear.

Can anything be more barbarous than preventing a man to grow out

of his disability? What is the explanation of these disabilities? Why

did the Brahmanic Law-givers take such a cruel attitude towards the

Shudras? The Brahmanic Law books merely state the disabilities.

They say that the Shudras have no right to Upanayana. They say

that the Shudras shall hold no office. They say that the Shudras shall

not have property. But they do not say why. The whole thing is

arbitrary. The disabilities of the Shudra have no relation to his

personal conduct. It is not the result of infamy. The Shudra is

punished just because he was a Shudra. This is a mystery which

requires to be solved. As the Brahmanic Law books do not help us

to solve it, it is necessary to look for explanation elsewhere.


THE SHUDRAS : SHUDRAS VERSUS ARYANS 65

CHAPTER IV

SHUDRAS VERSUS ARYANS

I

FROM what has been said before, it is clear that the Brahmanic

writers do not give us any clue as to who the Shudras were and how

they came to be the fourth Varna. It is, therefore, necessary to turn

to the Western writers and to see what they have to say about the

subject. The Western writers have a definite theory about the origin

of the Shudras. Though all of them are hot agreed upon every aspect

of the theory, there are points on which there seems to be a certain

amount of unity among them. They comprise the following :

(1) The people who created the Vedic literature belonged to the

Aryan race.

(2) This Aryan race came from outside India and invaded India.

(3) The natives of India were known as Dasas and Dasyus who

were racially different from the Aryans.

(4) The Aryans were a white race. The Dasas and Dasyus were

a dark race.

(5) The Aryans conquered the Dasas and Dasyus.

(6) The Dasas and Dasyus after they were conquered and enslaved

were called Shudras.

(7) The Aryans cherished colour prejudice and therefore formed the

Chaturvarnya whereby they separated the white race from the black

race such as the Dasas and the Dasyus.

These are the principal elements in the Western theory about the

origin and position of the Shudras in the Indo-Aryan society.

Whether it is valid or not is another matter. But this much must

certainly be said about it that after reading the Brahmanic theories

with their long and tedious explanations attempting to treat a social

fact as a divine dispensation, one cannot but feel a certain amount

of relief in having before oneself a theory, which proceeds to give



1. Ripley W. E., The Races of Europe, p. 400.

a natural explanation of a social fact. One can do nothing with the

Brahmanic theories except to call them senseless ebullitions of a silly

mind. They leave the problem as it is. With the modern theory, one

is at least on the road to recover one’s way.

To test the validity of the theory, the best thing to do is to examine

it piece by piece and see how far each is supported by evidence.

The foundation on which the whole fabric of the theory rests is

the proposition that there lived a people who were Aryan by race.

It is in the fitness of things therefore to grapple with this question

first.

What is this Aryan race? Before we consider the question of Aryan

race we must be sure as to what we mean by the word “race”. It

is necessary to raise this question because it is not impossible to

mistake a people for a race. The best illustration of such a mistake

is the Jews. Most people believe that the Jews are a race. To the

naked eye, they appear to be so. But what is the verdict of the

experts ? This is what Prof. Ripley1 has to say about the Jews :

“Our final conclusion, then, is this: This is paradoxical yet true, we

affirm. The Jews are not a race, but only a people after all. In their faces

we read its confirmation; while in respect of their other traits, we are

convinced that such individuality as they possess—by no means inconsid-

erable—is of their own making from one generation to the next, rather

than a product of an unprecedented purity of physical descent.”

What is a race? A race may be defined as a body of people

possessing certain typical traits which are hereditary. There was a

time when it was believed that the traits which constitute a race

are: (1) the form of the head, (2) the colour of the hair and eyes,

(3) the colour of the skin, and (4) the stature. To-day the general

view is that pigmentation and stature are traits, which vary according

to climate and habitat, and consequently they must be ruled out as

tests for determining the race of the people. The only stable trait

is the shape of the human head—by which is meant the general

proportions of length, breadth and height and that is why anthro-

pologists and ethnologists regard it as the best available test of race.

The use of head-forms for determining the race to which an

individual belongs has been developed by anthropologists into an

exact science. It is called anthropometry. This science of anthropom-

etry has devised two ways of measuring the head form: (1) cephalic

index, and (2) facial index. The index is the mark of the race.



1. Ripley, Races of Europe, p. 121.

2. Ibid Vol. I, p. 121

Cephalic index is the breadth of the head above the ears expressed

in percentage of its length from forehead to back. Assuming that this

length is 100, the width is expressed as a fraction of it. As the head

becomes proportionately broader— that is more fully rounded, viewed

from the top down—this cephalic index increases. When it rises above

80, the head is called brachycephalic. When it falls below 75, the

term dolichocephalic is applied to it. Indices between 75 and 80 are

characterized as mesocephalic. These are technical terms. They

constantly crop up in literature dealing with questions of race and

if one does not know what they denote it obviously becomes very

difficult to follow the discussion intelligently. It would not therefore

be without advantage if I were to stop to give their popular

equivalents. The popular equivalent of mesocephalic is medium-

headed, having a medium cephalic Index, the breadth of the cranium

being between three-fourths and four-fifths of the length. Doli-

chocephalic means long-headed, having a low cephalic index, the

breadth of the cranium being below four-fifths of the length.

Facial index is the correlation between the proportions of the head

and the form of the face. In the majority of cases, it has been found

that a relatively broad head is accompanied by a rounded face, in

which the breadth back of the cheek bones is considerable as

compared with the height from forehead to chin. Lack of uniformity

in the mode of taking measurements has so far prevented extended

observations fit for exact comparison. All the same, it has been found

safe to adopt the rule, long head, oval face: short-head and round

face.

Applying these measures of anthropometry, Prof. Ripley, an

authority on the question of race, has come to the conclusion that

the European people belong to three different races in terms of

cephalic and facial index. His conclusions are summarized in the

table on the next page.1

Is there an Aryan race in the physical sense of the term? There

seem to be two views on the subject. One view is in favour of the

existence of the Aryan race. According to it :2

The Aryan type.. is marked by a relatively long (dolichocephalic) head;

a straight finely-cut (leptorrhine) nose; a long symmetrically narrow face;

well developed regular features and a high facial angle. The stature is

fairly high— and the general build of the figure well-proportioned and

slender rather than massive.



EU

RO

PE

AN

R

AC

IAL

T

YP

ES

Hea

dF

ace

Ha

irE

yes

Sta

ture

Nose

1.

Teu

ton

icL

on

gL

on

gV

ery

Blu

eT

all

Na

rrow

lig

ht

acq

uil

ine

2.

Alp

ine (C

elt

ic)

Rou

nd

Bro

ad

Lig

ht

Ha

zel

Med

ium

Va

ria

ble

:

Ch

estn

ut

Gre

ysto

cky

rath

er

bro

ad

hea

vy

3.

Med

iterr

an

ea

nL

on

gL

on

gD

ark

Da

rkM

ed

ium

Ra

ther

bro

wn

sle

nd

er

bro

ad

or b

lack



The other view is that of Prof. Max Muller. According to him, the

word is used in three different senses. This is what he, in his lectures

on the Science of Language, says :

In ar or ara, I recognise one of the oldest names of the earth, as the

ploughed land, lost in Sanskrit but preserved in Greek as (era) so that

Arya would have conveyed originally the meaning of landholder, cultivator

of the land, while Vaishya from Vis meant householder, Ida the daughter

of Manu is another name of the cultivated earth and probably a modi-

fication of Ara.

The second sense in which it was used was to convey the idea ofploughing or tilling the soil. As to this, Prof. Max Muller makes thefollowing observations :

I can only state that the etymological signification of Arya seems to

be: One who ploughs or tills. The Aryans would seem to have chosen this

name for themselves as opposed to the nomadic races, the Turanians,

whose original name Tura implies the swiftness of the horsemen.

In the third sense, the word was used as a general name for theVaishyas, i.e., the general body of the people, who formed the wholemass of the people. For this, Prof. Max Muller relies on Panini (iii.1,103) for his authority. Then, there is the fourth sense, which theword got only towards the later period, in which sense it means ‘ofnoble origin’.

What is however of particular importance is the opinion ofProf. Max Muller on the question of the Aryan race. This is whathe says on the subject:1

There is no Aryan race in blood; Aryan, in scientific language is utterlyinapplicable to race. It means language and nothing but language; andif we speak of Aryan race at all, we should know that it means no morethan... Aryan speech.

* * *

I have declared again and again that if I say Aryas, I mean neitherblood nor bones, nor hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak anAryan language. The same applies to Hindus, Greeks, Romans, Germans,Celts, and Slavs. When I speak of them I commit myself to no anatomicalcharacteristics. The blue-eyed and fair-haired Scandinavians may have beenconquerors or conquered, they may have adopted the language of their darkerlords or their subjects, or vice versa. I assert nothing beyond their language,when I call them Hindus, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Celts and Slavs; andin that sense, and in that sense only, do I say that even the blackest Hindusrepresent an earlier stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairestScandinavians. This may seem strong language, but in matters of suchimportance we cannot be too decided in our language. To me, an ethnologistwho speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as greata sinner as linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a

1 Biography of Words, pp. 89 and 120-21.



brachycephalic grammar. It is worse than a Babylonian confusion of

tongues— it is down-right theft. We have made our own terminology for

the classification of language; let ethnologists make their own for the

classification of skulls, and hair and blood.

The value of this view of Prof. Max Muller will be appreciated by

those who know that he was at one time a believer in the theory

of Aryan race and was largely responsible for the propagation of

it.

The two views are obviously not in harmony. According to one

view, the Aryan race existed in a physiological sense with typical

hereditary traits with a fixed cephalic and facial index. According

to Prof. Max Muller, the Aryan race existed in a philological sense,

as a people speaking a common language.

In this conflict of views one may well ask: what is the testimony

of the Vedic literature? As examination of the Vedic literature shows

that there occur two words in the Rig Veda—one is Arya (vk;Z) with

a short ‘a’ and the other is Arya (vk;Z) with a long ‘a’. The word

Arya (vk;Z) with a short ‘a’ is used in the Rig Veda1 in 88 places.

In what sense is it used? The word2 is used in four different senses;

as (1) enemy, (2) respectable person, (3) name for India, and (4)

owner, Vaishya or citizen.

The word (vk;Z) with a long ‘a’ is used in the Rig Veda in 31 places.3

But in none of these is the word used in the sense of race.

From the foregoing discussion, the one indisputable conclusion

which follows is that the terms ‘Arya’ and ‘Arya’ which occur in the

Vedas have not been used in the racial sense at all.

One may also ask: what is the evidence of anthropometry? the

Aryan race is described as long-headed. This description is not

enough. For as will be seen from the table given by Prof. Ripley,

there are two races which are long-headed. The question which of

the two is the Aryan race still remains open.

II

Let us take the next premise—namely, that the Aryans came from

outside India, invaded India, and conquered the native tribes. It

would be better to take these questions separately.

1. For a list of the references in the Rig Veda, see Apendix 1.

2. For a list of references showing in which place the word is used and in what

sense, see Appendix II

3. For a list of references, see Appendix III.



From where did the Aryan race come into India? On the questionof locating the original home of the Aryan race, there is a bewilderingvariety of views and options. According to Benfey, the original homeof the Aryan race must be determined by reference to the commonvocabulary. His views on the subject have been well summarized byProf. Isaac Taylor1 in the following words :

“The investigation of the vocabulary common to the whole of the Aryanlanguages might yield a clue to the region inhabited by the Aryans beforethe linguistic separation. He contended that certain animals, such as thebear and the wolf, and certain trees, such as the beech and the birch withwhich the primitive Aryans must have been acquainted, are all indigenousto the temperate zone, and above all, to Europe, whereas the characteristicanimals and trees of Southern Asia, such as the lion, the tiger and thepalm were known only to the Indians and the Iranians. He urged thatthe absence from the primitive Aryan vocabulary of common names forthe two great Asiatic beasts of prey, the lion and the tiger, or for thechief Asiatic beast of transport, the camel, is difficult to explain on thetheory of the migration of the Aryans from the region eastward of theCaspian. That the Greeks called the lion by its Semitic name, and theIndians by a name which cannot be referred to any Aryan root, arguesthat the lion was unknown in the common home of Greeks and Indians.

* * *

Benfey’s declaration speedily bore fruit, and Geiger forthwith rangedhimself in the same camp, but placing the cradle of the Aryans, not as Benfeyhad done in the region to the North of the Black Sea, but more to the north-west, in Central and Western Germany. Geiger’s contribution to the argumentwas not without its value. He bases his conclusions largely on the tree nameswhich belong to the primitive Aryan vocabulary. In addition to the fir, thewillow, the ash, the alder, and the hazel, he thinks the names of the birch,the beech and the oak are specially decisive. Since the Greek (phegos) whichdenotes the oak is the linguistic equivalent of the Teutonic beech and of theLatin fague he draws the conclusion that the Greeks migrated from a landof beeches to a land of oaks, transferring the name which denoted the treewith ‘edible’ fruit from the one tree to the other.”

Another school holds that the original home of the Aryan race wasin Caucasia, because the Caucasians like the Aryans are blonds, havea straight, a sharp nose and a handsome face. On this point, theview of Prof. Ripley is worth quoting. This is what Prof. Ripley2 hasto say on the subject :

The utter absurdity of the misnomer Caucasian, as applied to the blue-eyed and fair-headed ‘Aryan’ (?) race of Western Europe, is revealed bytwo indisputable facts. In the first place, this ideal blond type does notoccur within many hundred miles of Caucasia; and, secondly, nowherealong the great Caucasian chain is there a single native tribe making useof a purely inflectional or Aryan language.

* * *

1 Issac Taylor, The Origin of the Aryans, pp. 24-26.

2 Ripley : Races of Europe, pp. 436-437.



Even the Ossetes, whose language alone is possibly inflectional, havenot had their claims to the honour of Aryan made positively clear as yet.And even if Ossetian be Aryan, there is every reason to regard the peopleas immigrants from the direction of Iran, not indigenous Caucasians atall. Their head form, together with their occupation of territory along theonly highway—the Pass of Darriel—across the chain from the South, givetenability to the hypothesis. At all events, whether the Ossetes be Aryanor not, they little deserve pre-eminence among the other peoples aboutthem. They are lacking both in the physical beauty for which this regionis justly famous, and in courage as well, if we may judge by their reputation

in yielding abjectly and without shadow of resistance to the Russians.

* * *

It is not true that any of these Caucasians are even ‘somewhat typical’.As a matter of fact they could never be typical of anything. The namecovers nearly every physical type and family of language of the Eur-Asiancontinent except, as we have said, that blond, tall, ‘Aryan’ speaking oneto which the name has been specifically applied. It is all false; not onlyimprobable but absurd. The Caucasus is not a cradle—it is rather a grave—of peoples, of languages, of customs and of physical types. Let us be assuredof that point at the outset. Nowhere else in the world probably is soheterogeneous a lot of people, languages and religions gathered together

in one place as along the chain of the Caucasus mountains.”

Mr. Tilak has suggested that the original home of the Aryan racewas in the Arctic region. His theory may be summarized in his ownwords. He begins by taking note of the astronomical and climaticphenomenon in the region round about the North Pole. He finds1 thatthere are :

“Two sets of characteristics, or differentia; one for an observer stationed

exactly at the terrestrial North Pole, and the other for an observer located

in the Circum-Polar regions, or tracts of land between the North Pole and

the Arctic circle.”

Mr. Tilak calls these two sets of differentia; as Polar and

CircumPolar, and sums them up as follows :

I. The Polar Characteristics

(1) The sun rises in the south.

(2) The stars do not rise and set; but revolve or spin round and round,in horizontal planes, completing one round in 24 hours. The northerncelestia hemisphere is alone overhead and visible during the whole year;and the souther or lower celestial world is always invisible.

(3) The year consists only of one long day and one long night of sixmonths each.

(4) There is only one morning and one evening, or the sun rises and sets onlyonce a year. But the twilight, whether of the morning or of the evening, lastscontinuously for about two months, or 60 periods of 24 hours each. The ruddy light

1 Tilak B. G., The Arctic Home in the Vedas, 58-60.



of the morn, or the evening twilight, is not again confined to a particularpart of the horizon (eastern or western) as with us; but moves, like the starsat the place, round and round along the horizon, like a potter’s wheel,completing one round in every 24 hours. These rounds of the morning lightcontinue to take place, until the orb of the sun comes above the horizon;and then the sun follows the same course for six months, that is, moves,without setting, round and round the observer, completing one round every24 hours.

II. The Circum-Polar Characteristics

(1) The sun will always be to the south of the zenith of the observer, butas this happens even in the case of an observer stationed in the temperatezone, it cannot be regarded as a special characteristic.

(2) A large number of stars are circum-polor, that is, they are above thehorizon during the entire period of their revolution and hence always visible.The remaining stars rise and set as in the temperate zone, but revolve inmore oblique circles.

(3) The year is made up of three parts: (i) one long continuous night,occurring at the time of the winter solstice, and lasting for a period, greaterthan 24 hours and less than six months, according to the latitude of the place;(ii) one long continuous day to match, occurring at the time of the summersolstice; and (iii) a succession of ordinary days and nights during the restof the year, a nycthemeron, or a day and a night together, never exceedinga period of 24 hours. The day, after the long continuous night, is at firstshorter than the night, but goes on increasing until it develops into the longcontinuous day. At the end of the long day, the night is, at first, shorterthan the day, but, in its turn, it begins to gain over the day, until thecommencement of the long continuous night, with which the year ends.

(4) The dawn, at the close of the long continuous night, lasts for severaldays, but its duration and magnificence is proportionally less than at theNorth Pole, according to the latitude of the place. For places, within a fewdegrees of the North Pole, the phenomenon of revolving morning light willstill be observable during the greater part of the duration of the dawn. Theother dawns viz., those between ordinary days and nights, will, like the dawnsin the temperate zone, only last for a few hours. The sun, when he is abovethe horizon during the continuous day, will be seen revolving, without setting,round the observer, as at the Pole, but in oblique and not horizontal circles,and during the long night he will be entirely below the horizon, while duringthe rest of the year he will rise and set, remaining above the horizon fora part of 24 hours, varying according to the position of the sun in the ecliptic.

Summing up the position as analysed by him, Mr. Tilak concludesby saying :

“Here we have two distinct sets of differentiae or special characteristicsof the Polar and Circum-Polar regions—characteristics which are not foundanywhere else on the surface of the globe. Again as the Poles of the earthare the same to-day as they were millions of years ago, the above astronomicalcharacteristics will hold good for all times, though the Polar climate mayhave undergone violent changes in the Pleistocene period.”

Having noted the phenomenon in the Arctic region, Mr. Tilakproceeds to argue that :



“If a Vedic description or tradition discloses any of the characteristics

mentioned above, we may safely infer that the tradition is Polar or

Circumi-Polar in origin, and the phenomenon, if not actually witnessed

by the poet, was at least known to him by tradition faithfully handed down

from generation to generation. Fortunately there are many such passages

or references in the Vedic literature, and, for convenience, these may be

divided into two parts; the first comprising those passages which directly

describe or refer to the long night, or the long dawn; and the second

consisting of myths and legends which corroborate and indirectly support

the first.”

Mr. Tilak is satisfied that the description of natural phenomenon

and the myths and legends contained in the Vedas tally with the

natural phenomenon as it exists near the North Pole and concludes

that the Vedic poets i.e., the Vedic Aryans must have had the Arctic

region as their home.

This is of course a very original theory. There is only one point

which seems to have been overlooked. The horse is a favourite animal

of the Vedic Aryans. It was most intimately connected with their life

and their religion. That the queens vied with one another to copulate

with the horse in the Ashvamedha Yajna 1 shows what place the horse

had acquired in the life of the Vedic Aryans. Question is : was the

horse to be found in the Arctic region? If the answer is in the negative,

the Arctic home theory becomes very precarious.

III

What evidence is there of the invasion of India by the Aryan race

and the subjugation by it of the native tribes? So far as the Rig Veda

is concerned, there is not a particle of evidence suggesting the

invasion of India by the Aryans from outside India. As Mr. P. T.

Srinivasa Iyengar2 points out:

“A careful examination of the Mantras where the words Arya, Dasa and

Dasyu occur, indicates that they refer not to race but to cult. These words

occur mostly in Rig Veda Samhita where Arya occurs about 33 times in

mantras which contain 153,972 words on the whole. The rare occurrence

is itself a proof that the tribes that called themselves Aryas were not

invaders that conquered the country and exterminated the people. For an

invading tribe would naturally boast of its achievements constantly.”

So far the testimony of the Vedic literature is concerned, it is

against the theory that the original home of the Aryans was outside

India. The language in which reference to the seven rivers is made in

1 See Yajur Veda with Madhavachiya’s Bhashya.

2 Life in Ancient India in the Age of the Mantras, pp. 11-12.



the Rig Veda (x.75.5) is very significant. As Prof. D. S. Triveda says1—

the rivers are addressed as ‘my Ganges, my Yamuna, my Saraswati’

and so on. No foreigner would ever address a river in such familiar

and endearing terms unless by long association he had developed an

emotion about it.

As to the question of conquest and subjugation, references can

undoubtedly be found in the Rig Veda where Dasas and Dasyus are

described as enemies of the Aryas and there are many hymns in which

the Vedic rishis have invited their gods to kill and annihilate them.

But before drawing any conclusion from it in favour of conquest and

subjugation by the Aryans, the following points must be taken into

consideration.

First is the paucity of references in the Rig Veda to wars between

the Aryans on the one hand and the Dasas or Dasyus on the other.

Out of the 33 places in which the word occurs in the Rig Veda only

in 8 places is it used in opposition to Dasas and only in 7 places

is it used in opposition to the word Dasyus. This may show the

occurrence of sporadic riots between the two. It is certainly not

evidence of a conquest or subjugation.

The second point about the Dasas is that whatever conflict there

was between them and the Aryans, the two seem to have arrived

at a mutual settlement, based on peace with honour. This is borne

out by references in the Rig Veda showing how the Dasas and Aryans

have stood as one united people against a common enemy. Note the

following verses from the Rig Veda :

Rig Veda — vi. 33.3;

vii. 83.1;

viii 51.9;

X 102.3.

The third point to note is that whatever the degree of conflict, it

was not a conflict of race. It was a conflict which had arisen on

account of difference of religions. That this conflict was religious and

not racial is evidenced by the Rig Veda itself. Speaking of the Dasyus,

it2 says :

“They are avrata, without (the Arya) rites (R.V., i. 51.8, 9; i.132. 4; iv.41.

2; vi. 14, 3); apavrata (R.V., v.42,2), anyavrata of different rites (R.V., viii.59,

11; x.22, 8), Anagnitra fireless (R.V., v. 189, 3), ayajyu, ayajvan, non-sacrifices

(R.V., i.131, 44; i.33, 4; viii.59, 11), abrambha, without prayers (or also not

1 The Original Home of the Aryans’ by D. S. Triveda, Annals of the BhandarkarOriental Research Institute, Vol. XX, p. 62.

2 Iyengar, Ibid,, p. 13.



having Brahmana priest (R.V., iv. 15,9; x.105,8). anrichah, without Riks

(R.V., x.105, 8), Brahmadvisha, haters of prayer (or Brahmans) R.V.,

v.42,9), and anindra, without Indra, despisers of Indra, (R.V., i.133,1: v.2,3;

vii 18; 6; x 27, 6; x.48, 7). ‘They pour no milky draughts they heat no

cauldron’ (R.V., iii.53, 4). They give no gifts to the Brahmana (R.V., v.7,

10).”

Attention may also be drawn to the Rig Veda x.22.8 which says :

“We live in the midst of the Dasyu tribes, who do not perform sacrifices

nor believe in anything. They have their own rites and are not entitled

to be called men. O! thou, destroyer of enemies, annihilate them and injure

the Dasas.”

In the face of these statements from the Rig Veda, there is

obviously no room for a theory of a military conquest by the Aryan

race of the non-Aryan races of Dasas and Dasyus.

IV

So much about the Aryans, their invasion of India and theirsubjugation of the Dasas and Dasyus. The consideration so farbestowed upon the question has been from the Aryan side of the issue.It might be useful to discuss it from the side of the Dasas and theDasyus. In what sense are the names Dasa and Dasyu used? Arethey used in a racial sense?

Those who hold that the terms Dasa and Dasyu are used in theracial sense rely upon the following circumstances: (1) The use inthe Rig Veda of the terms Mridhravak and Anasa as epithets ofDasyus. (2) The description in the Rig Veda of the Dasas as beingof Krishna Varna

The term Mridhravak occurs in the following places in the RigVeda :

(1) Rig Veda, i. 174.2;

(2) Rig Veda, v. 32.8;

(3) Rig Veda, vii. 6.3;

(4) Rig Veda, vii. 18.3.

What does the adjective Mridhravak mean? Mridhravak means onewho speaks crude, unpolished language. Can crude unpolished lan-guage be regarded as evidence of difference of race? It would bechildish to rely upon this as a basis of consciousness of race difference.

The term Anasa occurs in Rig Veda v.29.10. What does the wordmean? There are two interpretations. One is by Prof. Max Muller.The other is by Sayanacharya. According to Prof.. Max Muller, it



means ‘one without nose ‘or’ one with a flat nose’ and has as such

been relied upon as a piece of evidence in support of the view that

the Aryans were a separate race from the Dasyus. Sayanacharya says

that it means ‘mouthless,’ i.e., devoid of good speech. This difference

of meaning is due to difference in the correct reading of the word

Anasa.. Sayanacharya reads it as an-asa while Prof. Max Muller reads

it as a-nasa. As read by Prof. Max Muller, it means without nose.

Question is : which of the two readings is the correct one? There

is no reason to hold that Sayana’s reading is wrong. On the other

hand there is every thing to suggest that it is right. In the first place,

it does not make non-sense of the word. Secondly, as there is no other

place where the Dasyus are described as noseless, there is no reason

why the word should be read in such a manner as to give it an

altogether new sense. It is only fair to read it as a synonym of

Mridhravak. There is therefore no evidence in support of the

conclusion that the Dasyus belonged to a different race.

Turning to Dasas, it is true that they are described as Krishna

Yoni, in Rig Veda vi.47.21. But there are various points to be

considered before one can accept the inference which is sought to be

drawn from it. First is that this is the only place in the Rig Veda

where the phrase Krishna Yoni is applied to the Dasas. Secondly,

there is no certainty as to whether the phrase is used in the literal

sense or in a figurative sense. Thirdly, we do not know whether it

is a statement of fact or a word of abuse. Unless these points are

clarified, it is not possible to accept the view that because the Dasas

are spoken of as Krishna Yoni, they therefore, belonged to a dark

race.

In this connection, attention may be drawn to the following verses

from the Rig Veda:

1. Rig Veda, vi.22.10.—“Oh, Vajri, thou hast made Aryas of Dasas, good

men out of bad by your power. Give us the same power so that with it

we may overcome our enemies.”

2. Rig Veda, x.49.3, (says Indra).—“I have deprived the Dasyus of the

title of Aryas.”

3. Rig Veda, i. 151.8—“Oh, Indra, find out who is an Arya and who

is a Dasyu and separate them.”

What do these verses indicate? They indicate that the distinction

between the Aryans on the one hand and the Dasas and Dasyus on

the other was not a racial distinction of colour or physiognomy. That

is why a Dasa or Dasyu could become an Arya. That is why Indra

was given the task to separate them from the Arya.



That the theory of the Aryan race set up by Western writers falls

to the ground at every point, goes without saying. This is somewhat

surprising since Western scholarship is usually associated with

thorough research and careful analysis. Why has the theory failed?

It is important to know the reasons why it has failed. Anyone who

cares to scrutinize the theory will find that it suffers from a double

infection. In the first place, the theory is based on nothing but

pleasing assumptions and inferences based on such assumptions. In

the second place, the theory is a perversion of scientific investigation.

It is not allowed to evolve out of facts. On the contrary the theory

is preconceived and facts are selected to prove it.

The theory of the Aryan race is just an assumption and no more.

It is based on a philological proposition put forth by Dr. Bopp in

his epoch-making book called Comparative Grammar which appeared

in 1835. In this book, Dr. Bopp demonstrated that a greater number

of languages of Europe and some languages of Asia must be referred

to a common ancestral speech. The European languages and Asiatic

languages to which Bopp’s proposition applied are called Indo-

Germanic. Collectively, they have come to be called the Aryan

languages largely because Vedic language refer to the Aryas and is

also of the same family as the Indo-Germanic. This assumption is

the major premise on which the theory of the Aryan race is based.

From this assumption are drawn two inferences: (1) unity of race,

and (2) that race being the Aryan race. The argument is that if the

languages are descended from a common ancestral speech then there

must have existed a race whose mother tongue it was and since the

mother tongue was known as the Aryan tongue the race who spoke

it was the Aryan race. The existence of a separate and a distinct

Aryan race is thus an inference only. From this inference, is drawn

another inference which is that of a common original habitat. It is

argued that there could be no community of language unless people

had a common habitat permitting close communion. Common original

habitat is thus an inference from an inference.

The theory of invasion is an invention. This invention is necessary

because of a gratuitous assumption which underlies the Western

theory. The assumption is that the Indo-Germanic people are the

purest of the modern representatives of the original Aryan race. Its

first home is assumed to have been somewhere in Europe. These



assumptions raise a question: How could the Aryan speech have come

to India: This question can be answered only by the supposition that

the Aryans must have come into India from outside. Hence the

necessity for inventing the theory of invasion.

The third assumption is that the Aryans were a superior race.

This theory has its origin in the belief that the Aryans are a

European race and as a European race it is presumed to be superior

to the Asiatic races. Having assumed its superiority, the next logical

step one is driven to take is to establish the fact of superiority.

Knowing that nothing can prove the superiority of the Aryan race

better than invasion and conquest of native races, the Western

writers have proceeded to invent the story of the invasion of India

by the Aryans and the conquest by them of the Dasas and Dasyus.

The fourth assumption is that the European races were white1

and had a colour prejudice against the dark races. The Aryans being

a European race, it is assumed that it must have had colour

prejudice. The theory proceeds to find evidence for colour prejudice

in the Aryans who came into India. This it finds in the Chaturvarnya—

an institution by the established Indo-Aryans after they came to

India and which according to these scholars is based upon Varna

which is taken by them to mean colour.

Not one of these assumptions is borne out by facts. Take the

premise about the Aryan race. The theory does not take account of

the possibility that the Aryan race in the physiological sense is one

thing and an Aryan race in the philological sense quite different, and

that it is perfectly possible that the Aryan race, if there is one, in

the physiological sense may have its habitat in one place and that

the Aryan race, in the philological sense, in quite a different place.

The theory of the Aryan race is based on the premise of a common

language and it is supposed to be common because it has a structural

affinity. The assertion that the Aryans came from outside and invaded

India is not proved and the premise that the Dasas and Dasyus are

aboriginal tribes2 of India is demonstrably false.

Again to say that the institution of Chaturvarnya is a reflexion

of the innate colour prejudice of the Aryans is really to assert too

much. If colour is the origin of class distinction, there must be four

different colours to account for the different classes which comprise

Chaturvarnya. Nobody has said what those four colours are and who

1. For a discussion as to who the Dasas and Dasyus were, see Chapter 6.

2. For a discussion whether in their origin the European races were white or

dark see the observations of Prof. Ripley, infra, p. 76.



were the four coloured races who were welded together in

Chaturvarnya. As it is, the theory starts with only two opposing

people, Aryas and Dasas—one assumed to be white and the other

assumed to be dark.

The originators of the Aryan race theory are so eager to establish

their case that they have no patience to see what absurdities they

land themselves in. They start on a mission to prove what they want

to prove and do not hesitate to pick such evidence from the Vedas

as they think is good for them.

Prof. Michael Foster has somewhere said that ‘hypothesis is the

salt of science.’ Without hypothesis there is no possibility of fruitful

investigation. But it is equally true that where the desire to prove

a particular hypothesis is dominant, hypothesis becomes the poison

of science. The Aryan race theory of Western scholars is as good an

illustration of how hypothesis can be the poison of science as one

can think of.

The Aryan race theory is so absurd that it ought to have been

dead long ago. But far from being dead, the theory has a cosiderable

hold upon the people. There are two explanations which account for

this phenomenon. The first explanation is to be found in the support

which the theory receives from Brahmin scholars. This is a very

strange phenomenon. As Hindus, they should ordinarily show a

dislike for the Aryan theory with its express avowal of the superiority

of the European races over the Asiatic races. But the Brahmin scholar

has not only no such aversion but he most willingly hails it. The

reasons are obvious. The Brahmin believes in the two-nation theory.

He claims to be the representative of the Aryan race and he regards

the rest of the Hindus as descendants of the non-Aryans. The theory

helps him to establish his kinship with the European races and share

their arrogance and their superiority. He likes particularly that part

of the theory which makes the Aryan an invader and a conqueror

of the non-Aryan native races. For it helps him to maintain and justify

his overlordship over the non-Brahmins.

The second explanation why the Aryan race theory is not dead is

because of the general insistence by European scholars that the word

Varna means colour and the acceptance of that view by a majority

of the Brahmin scholars. Indeed, this is the mainstay of the Aryan

theory. There is no doubt that as long as this interpretation of the

Varna continues to be accepted, the Aryan theory will continue to

live. This part of the Aryan theory is therefore very important and



calls for fuller examination. It needs to be examined from three

different points of view: (1) Were the European races fair or dark?

(2) Were the Indo-Aryans fair? and (3) What is the original meaning

of the word Varna ?

On the question of the colour of the earliest Europeans Prof. Ripleyis quite definite that they were of dark complexion. Prof. Ripley goeson to say:1

“We are strengthened in this assumption that the earliest Europeans

were not only long-headed but also dark complexioned, by various points

in our enquiry thus far. We have proved the prehistoric antiquity of the

living Cro-Magnon type in Southern France; and we saw that among these

peasants, the prevalence of black hair and eyes is very striking. And

comparing types in the British Isles we saw that everything tended to show

that the brunet populations of Wales, Ireland and Scotland constituted the

most primitive stratum of population in Britain. Furthermore, in that

curious spot in Garfagnana, where a survival of the ancient Ligurian

population of Northern Italy is indicated, there also are the people

characteristically dark. Judged, therefore, either in the light of general

principles or of local details, it would seem as if this earliest race in Europe

must have been very dark.... It was Mediterranean in its pigmental

affinities, and not Scandinavian.”

Turning to the Vedas for any indication whether the Aryans hadany colour prejudice, reference may be made to the following passagesin the Rig Veda :

In Rig Veda, i. 117.8, there is a reference to Ashvins having broughtabout the marriage between Shyavya and Rushati. Shyavya is blackand Rushati is fair.

In Rig Veda, i. 117.5, there is a prayer addressed to Ashvins forhaving saved Vandana who is spoken as of golden colour.

In Rig Veda, ii.3.9, there is a prayer by an Aryan invoking theDevas to bless him with a son with certain virtues but of (pishanga)tawny (reddish brown) complexion.

These instances show that the Vedic Aryans had no colour

prejudice. How could they have? The Vedic Aryans were not of onecolour. Their complexion varied; some were of copper complexion,some white, and some black. Rama the son of Dasharatha has beendescribed as Shyama i.e., dark in complexion, so is Krishna thedescendant of the Yadus, another Aryan clan. The Rishi Dirghatamas,who is the author of many mantras of the Rig Veda must have beenof dark colour if his name was given to him after his complexion.Kanva is an Aryan rishi of great repute. But according to thedescription given in Rig Veda—x.31.11—he was of dark colour.

1 Prof. Ripley : Races of Europe, p. 466



To take up the third and the last point, namely, the meaning of

the word Varna1 Let us first see in what sense it is used in the Rig

Veda. The word Varna is used2 in the Rig Veda in 22 places. Of these,

in about 17 places the word is used in reference to deities such as

Ushas, Agni, Soma, etc., and means lustre, features or colour. Being

used in connection with deities, it would be unsafe to use them for

ascertaining what meaning the word Varna had in the Rig Veda when

applied to human beings. There are four and at the most five places

in the Rig Veda where the word is used in reference to human beings.

They are :

1) i.104.2;

2) i.179.6;

3) ii.12.4;

4) iii.34.5;

5) ix.71.2.

Do these references prove that the word Varna is used in the RigVeda in the sense of colour and complexion?

Rig veda, iii.34.5 seems to be of doubtful import. The expression‘caused Shukla Varna to increase’ is capable of double interpretation.It may mean Indra made Ushas throw her light and thereby increasethe white colour, or it may mean that the hymn-maker being of whitecomplexion, people of his i.e., of white colour increased. The second

meaning would be quite far-fetched for the simple reason that theexpansion of the white colour is the effect and lightening of Ushasis the cause.

Rig Veda, ix.71.2 the expression ‘abandons Asura Varna’ is not

clear, reading it in the light of the other stanzas in the Sukta. TheSukta belongs to Soma Pavamana. Bearing this in mind, the expres-sion ‘abandons Asura Varna’ must be regarded as a description ofSoma. The word Varna as used here is indicative of roopa. The secondhalf of the stanza says: ‘he throws away his black or dark coveringand takes on lustrous covering.’ From this it is clear that the wordVarna is used as indicative of darkness.

Rig Veda, i.179.6 is very helpful. The stanza explains that RishiAgastya cohabitated with Lopamudra in order to obtain praja, childrenand strength and says that as a result two Varnas prospered. It isnot clear from the stanza, which are the two Varnas referred to inthe stanzas, although the intention is to refer to Aryas and Dasas.

1 On what follows, see Maharashtra Dnyanakosha, Vol. III pp. 39-42.

2 See Appendix VI, p. 216.



Be that as it may, there is no doubt that the Varna in the stanza

means class and not colour.

In Rig Veda, i.104.2 and Rig Veda, ii.12.4 are the two stanzas in

which the word Varna is applied to Dasa. The question is: What does

the word Varna mean when applied to Dasa? Does it refer to the

colour and complexion of the Dasa, or does it indicate that Dasas

formed a separate class? There is no way of arriving at a positive

conclusion as to which of the two meanings is correct.

The evidence of the Rig Veda is quite inconclusive. In this

connection, it will be of great help to know if the word occurs in

the literature of the Indo-Iranians and if so, in what sense.1

Fortunately, the word Varna does occur in the Zend Avesta. It takes

the form of Varana or Varena. It is used specifically in the sense

of “Faith, Religious doctrine, Choice of creed or belief.” It is derived

from the root Var which means to put faith in, to believe in. One

comes across the word Varana or Varena in the Gathas about six

times used in the sense of faith, doctrine, creed or belief.

It occurs in Gatha Ahunavaiti—Yasna Ha 30 Stanza 2 which when

translated in English reads as follows :

“Give heed with your ears and contemplate the highest Truth I proclaim;

with your illumined mind introspect. Each man for himself must determine

his (Avarenao) faith. Before the Great Event, let each individually be

awake to the Truth we teach.”

This is one of the most famous strophes of the Gatha where

Zarathushtra exhorts each one individually to use reasoning faculty

and freedom of choice in the selection of his or her faith. The words

occurring here are ‘Avarenao vichithahya,’ Avarenao meaning faith,

belief and vichithahya meaning ‘of discriminating, of selecting of

determining’.

It occurs in Gatha Ahunavati—Yasna Ha 31 Stanza 11. The word

used is Vareneng accusative plural of Varena meaning ‘belief, faith.’

In this stanza, Zarathushtra propounds the theory of the creation of

man. After speaking about man’s creation being completed, in the

last half line Zarathushtra says “voluntary beliefs are given (to man)”

It occurs in Gatha Ushtavaiti— Yasna Ha 45 Stanza 1 in the form

of Varena. In the last line of this strophe, Zarathushtra says ‘owing

to sinful belief (or evil faith) the wicked is of evil tongue (or invested

tongue)’.

1 The information relating to the meaning of the word ‘Varna’ in the Indo-Iranian

literature, I owe to my friend Dastur Bode, who is well-versed in it.



It occurs in Gatha Ushtavaiti—Yasna Ha 45 Stanza 2 in the same

form as above Varena in the clear sense of faith, religion, belief, etc.

In this stanza, Zarathushtra is propounding his philosophy of good

and evil and speaking of dual aspects of human mind. In this stanza,

the two mentalities—the good mentality and the evil mentality—are

speaking to each other saying “Neither in thought, word, intelligence,

faith (or religion or creed) utterance, deed, conscience nor soul do

we agree.”

It occurs in Gatha Spenta Mainyu,—Yasna Ha 48 Stanza 4 in the

form of Vareneng meaning religion, faith (root Vere Persian gervidan

= to have faith in). In this stanza Zarathushtra says that “Whosoever

will make his mind pure and holy and thus keep his conscience pure

by deed and word, such man’s desire is in accordance with his faith

(religion, belief).”

It occurs in Gatha Spenta Mainyu,—Yasna Ha 49 Stanza 3 as

Varenai in dative case meaning ‘religion’. In the same stanza occurs

the word Thaeshai which also means religion, creed, religious law.

These two words Varenai and Tkaesha occurring in the same stanza

strengthens our argument, as the word Tkaesha clearly means

religion as is found in the compound Ahuratkaesha meaning ‘The

Ahurian religion’. This word Tkaesha is translated in Pahlavi as Kish

which means religion.

In Vendidad (a book of Zarathushtrian sanitary law written in

Avesta language) we come across a word Anyo Varena. Here Anyo

means other and Varena means religion, thus a man of different

religion, faith, belief is spoken of as Anyo-Varena. Similarly, we come

across in Vendidad the word Anyo-Tkaesha also meaning a man of

different religion.

We come across many verbal forms in the Gatha derived from this

root, e.g., Ahunavaiti Gatha Yasna Ha, 31, Stanza 3. Zarathushtra

declares Ya jvanto vispeng vauraya; here the verb vauraya means I

may cause to induce belief, faith (in God) (in all the living ones).

In Yasna Ha, 28: Stanza 5, we come across the verb vauroimaidi,

‘We may give faith to.’ We come across another interesting form of

this word in Gatha Vahishtaishtish, Yasna Ha, 53, Stanza 9 Duz-

Varenaish. It is instrumental plural. The first part Duz means wicked,

false and Varenai means believer. Thus the word means “A man

belonging to false or wicked religion or a false or wicked believer.”

In the Zarathushtrian Confession of Faith, which forms Yasna Ha,

we come across the word Fravarane meaning ‘I confess my faith,



my belief in Mazdayasno Zarathushtrish ‘Mazda worshipping Zara-

thushtrian Religion’. This phrase occurs in almost all the Zara-

thushtrian prayers. There is yet another form in the Zarathushtrian

Confession Yasna, 12, Ya-Varena. Here Ya is relative pronoun

meaning which and Varena—faith, religion. Thus, the word means

‘the religion to which’. This form Ya Varena is used nine times in

Yasna 12, and it is used in the clear sense of faith or religion. Here

again the word Varena is placed along with the word Tkaesha which

means religion.

A very interesting reference is found in Yasna 16 Zarathushtrahe

varenemcha tkaeshemcha yazamaide. Here the Varena and Tkaesha

of Zarathushtra is worshipped. It is quite clear from the use of these

corresponding and correlative words that the faith and religion of

Zarthushtra is meant. The translation of the above line is ‘We worhsip

the faith and religion of Zarathushtra.’

This evidence from the Zend Avesta as to the meaning of the word

Varna leaves no doubt that it originally meant a class holding to

a particular faith and it had nothing to do with colour or complextion.

The conclusions that follow from the examination of the Western

theory may now be summarized. They are:

(1) The Vedas do not know any such race as the Aryan race.

(2) There is no evidence in the Vedas of any invasion of India

by the Aryan race and its having conquered the Dasas and Dasyus

supposed to be natives of India.

(3) There is no evidence to show that the distinction between

Aryans, Dasas and Dasyus was a racial distinction.

(4) The Vedas do not support the contention that the Aryas were

different in colour from the Dasas and Dasyus.

D:\AMBEDKAR\VOL-07\VOL7-05 Mk S.K.—26-09-2013>9-11-2013 86


CHAPTER V

ARYANS AGAINST ARYANS

ENOUGH has been said to show how leaky is the Aryan theory

expounded by Western scholars and glibly accepted by their Brahmin

fellows. Yet, the theory has such a hold on the generality of people

that what has been said against it may mean no more than scotching

it. Like the snake it must be killed. It is therefore necessary to pursue

the examination of the theory further with a view to expose its

hollowness completely.

Those who uphold the theory of an Aryan race invading India and

conquering the Dasas and Dasyus fail to take note of certain verses

in the Rig Veda. These verses are of crucial importance. To build

up a theory of an Aryan race marching into India from outside and

conquering the non-Aryan native tribes without reference to these

verses is an utter futility. I reproduce below the verses I have in

mind :

(1) Rig Veda, vi. 33.3.—“Oh, Indra, Thou hast killed both of our

opponents, the Dasas and the Aryas.”

(2) Rig Veda, vi.60.3.—“Indra and Agni—these protectors of the good

and righteous suppress the Dasas and Aryas who hurt us.”

(3) Rig Veda, vii.81.1.—“Indra and Varuna killed the Dasas and Aryas

who were the enemies of Sudas and thus protected Sudas from them.”

(4) Rig Veda, viii.24.27.—“Oh you, Indra, who saved us from the hands

of the cruel Rakshasas and from the Aryas living on the banks of the Indus,

do thou deprive the Dasas of their weapons.”

(5) Rig Veda, x.38.3.—“Oh you much revered Indra, those Dasas and

Aryas who are irreligious and who are our enemies, make it easy for us

with your blessings to subdue them. With your help we shall kill them.”

(6) Rig Veda, x.86.19.—Oh, You Mameyu, you give him all powers who

prays you. With your help we will destroy our Arya and our Dasyu enemies.

Anyone who reads these verses, notes what they say calmly and

coolly and considers them against the postulates of the Western

theory will be taken aback by them. If the authors of these verses

of the Rig Veda were Aryas then the idea which these verses convey


THE SHUDRAS : ARYANS AGAINST ARYANS 87

is that there were two different communites of Aryas who were not

only different but oppose and inimical to each other. The existence

of two Aryas is not a mere matter of conjecture or interpretation.

It is a fact in support of which there is abundant evidence.

II

The first piece of such evidence to which attention may be invited,is the discrimination which existed for a long time in the matter ofthe recognition of the sacred character of the different Vedas. All

students of the Vedas know that there are really two Vedas: (1) theRig Veda and (2) the Atharva Veda. The Sama Veda and the YajurVeda are merely different forms of the Rig Veda. All students of theVedas know that the Atharva Veda was not recognised by theBrahmins as sacred as the Rig Veda for a long time. Why was sucha distinction made? Why was the Rig Veda regarded as sacred? Whywas the Atharva Veda treated as vulgar? The answer, I like tosuggest, is that the two belonged to two different races of Aryansand it is only when they had become one that the Atharva Veda cameto be regarded on a par with the Rig Veda.

Besides this, there is enough evidence, scattered through the wholeof the Brahmanic literature, of the existence of two different ideolo-gies, particularly relating to creation, which again points to theexistence of two different Aryan races. Reference to one of these hasalready been made in Chapter 2. It remains to draw attention to thesecond type of ideology.

To begin with the Vedas. The following ideology is to be found inthe Taittiriya Samhita :

T.S.,1 vi.5.6.1.—“Aditi, desirous of sons, cooked, a Brahmaudana oblation

for the gods, the Sadhyas. They gave her the remnant of it. This she ate.

She conceived seed. Four Adityas were born to her. She cooked a second

(oblation). She reflected, ‘from the remains of the oblation these sons have

been born to me. If I shall eat (the oblation) first, more brilliant (sons)

will be born to me.’ She ate it first; she conceived seed; an imperfect egg

was produced from her. She cooked a third (oblation) for the Adityas,

repeating the formula ‘may this religious toil have been undergone for my

enjoyment.’ The Adityas said, ‘Let us choose a boon; let anyone who is

produced from this be ours only; let anyone of his progeny who is

prosperous be for us a source of enjoyment.’ In consequence the Aditya

Vivasvat was born. This is his progeny, namely, men. Among them he alone

who sacrifices is prosperous, and becomes a cause of enjoyment to the

gods.”




Turning to the Brahmanas. The stories of creation contained in

the Satapatha Brahmanas are set out below :

S.B.,1 i.8.1. 1.—In the morning they brought to Manu water for washing,

as men are in the habit of bringing it to wash with the hands. As he was

thus washing, a fish came into his hands (which spake to him) ‘preserve me;

I shall save thee.’ (Manu enquired) ‘From what wilt thou save me?’ (The fish

replied) ‘A flood shall sweep away all these creatures; from it will I rescue

thee.’ (Manu asked) ‘How (shall) thy preservation (be effected)?’ The fish said

: ‘So long as we are small, we are in great peril, for fish devours fish; thou

shalt preserve me first in a jar. When I grow too large for the jar, then thou

shalt dig a trench, and preserve me in that. When I grow too large for the

trench, then thou shalt carry me away to the ocean. I shall then be beyond

the reach of danger. Straight, away he became a large fish; for he waxes

to the utmost. (He said) ‘Now in such and such a year, then the flood will

come; thou shalt embark in the ship when the flood rises, and I shall deliver

thee from it.’ Having thus preserved the fish, Manu carried him away to the

sea. Then in the same year which the fish had enjoined, he constructed a

ship and resorted to him. When the flood rose, Manu embarked in the ship.

The fish swam towards him. He fastened the cable of the ship to the fish’s

horn. By this means he passed over this northern mountain. The fish said,

‘I have delivered thee; fasten the ship to a tree. But lest the water should

cut thee off whilst thou art on the mountain, as much as the water subsides

so much shalt thou descend after it.’ He accordingly descended after it as

much (as it subsided). Wherefore also this, viz., ‘Manu’s descent’ is (the name)

of the northern mountain. Now the flood had swept away all these creatures,

so Manu alone was left here. Desirous of offspring, he lived worshipping and

toiling in arduous religious rites. Among these he also sacrificed with the

paka offering. He cast clarified butter, thickened milk, whey and curds as

an oblation into the waters. Thence in a year a woman was produced. She

rose up as it were unctuous. Clarified butter adheres to her steps. Mitra and

Varuna met her. They said to her ‘who art thou?’ ‘Manu’s daughter’ (she

replied). Say (thou art) ours’ (they rejoined). ‘No’, she said, ‘I am his who

begot me.’ They desired a share in her. She promised that, or she did not

promise that; but passed onward. She came to Manu. Manu said to her, ‘who

art thou?’ ‘Thy daughter’ she replied. ‘How, glorious one ‘asked Manu,’ (art

thou) my daughter?’ ‘Thou hast generated me,’ she said,’ from those oblations,

butter, thick milk, whey and curds, which thou didst cast into the waters.

I am a benediction. Apply me in the sacrifice. If thou wilt employ me in

the sacrifice, thou shalt abound in offspring and cattle. Whatever benediction

thou will ask through me, shall accrue to thee.’ He (accordingly) introduced

her (as) that (which comes in) the middle of the sacrifice; for that is the middle

of the sacrifice which (comes) between the introductory and concluding forms.

With her he lived worshipping and toiling in arduous religious rites, desirous

of offspring. With her he begot this offspring which is this offspring of Manu.

Whatever benediction he asked with her, was all vouchsafed to him. This is

essentially that which is Ida. Whosoever, knowing this, lives with Ida, begets

1 Muir, Vol. I, pp. 181-184.



this offspring which Manu begot. Whatever benediction he asks with her,

is all vouchsafed to him.”

(2) S.B.,1 vi.1.2.11.— “Wherefore they say, ‘Prajapati having created thoseworlds was supported upon the earth. For him these herbs were cookedas food. That (food) he ate. He became pregnant He created the gods fromhis upper vital airs, and mortal offspring from his lower vital airs. Inwhatever way he created, so he created. But Prajapati created all this,whatever exists.”

(3) S.B.,2 vii.5.2.6.— Prajapati was formerly this (universe), one only. Hedesired.’ Let me create food, and be propagated.’ He formed animals fromhis breath, a man from his soul, a horse from his eye, a bull from hisbreath, a sheep from his ear, a goat from his voice. Since he formed animalsfrom his breaths, therefore men say,’ the breaths are animals.’ The soulis the first of the breaths. Since he formed a man from his ‘soul’ thereforethey say ‘man is the first of the animals, and the strongest.’ The soulis all the breaths; for all the breaths depend upon the soul. Since he formedman from his soul, therefore they say,’ man is all the animals;’ for allthese are man’s.”

(4) S.B.,3 x.1.3.1.— “Prajapati created living beings. From his upper vital airshe created the gods: from his lower vital airs mortal creatures. Afterwardshe created death a devourer of creatures.”

(5) S.B.,4 xiv.4.2.1.— “This universe was formerly soul only, in the form ofPurusha. Looking closely, he saw nothing but himself (or soul). He first said,’This is I.’ Then he became one having the name of I. Hence even now aman, when called, first says, ‘this is I, ‘and then declares the other namewhen he has. In as much as he, before (purvah) all this, burnt up (aushat)all sins, he (is called), purusha. The man who knows this burns up the personwho wishes to be before him. He was afraid. Hence a man when alone isafraid. This (being) considered that ‘there is no other thing but myself; ofwhat am I afraid?’ Then his fear departed. For why should he have feared?It is of a second person that people are afraid. He did not enjoy happiness.Hence a person when alone does not enjoy happiness. He desired a second.He was so much as a man and a woman when locked in embrace. He causedthis same self to fall as under into two parts. Thence arose a husband andwife. Hence Yajnavalkya has said that ‘this one’s self is like the half of asplit pea.’ Hence the void is filled up by woman. He cohabited with her. Fromthem Men were born. She reflected ‘how does he, after having produced mefrom himself, cohabit with me? Ah! let me disappear’; she became a cow,and the other a bull; and he cohabited with her. From them kine wereproduced. The one became a mare, the other a stallion, the one a she-ass,the other a male-ass. He cohabited with her. From them the class of animalswith undivided hoofs were produced. The one became a she-goat, the othera he-goat, the one a ewe, the other a ram. He cohabited with her. From themgoats and sheep were produced. In this manner pairs of all creatureswhatsoever down to ants, were produced.

1 Muir. Vol. I, p. 30.

2 Muir. Vol. I. p. 24.


4 Muir. Vol. I, p. 25.



The Taittiriya Brahmana has the following :

T.B.,1 ii.2.9.1.—“At first this (universe) was not anything. There was neithersky, nor earth, nor air. Being non-existent, it resolved ‘let me be.’ It becamefervent. From that fervour smoke was produced. It again became fervent. Fromthat fervour fire was produced. It again became fervent. From that fervourlight was produced. It again became fervent. From that fervour flame wasproduced. It again became fervent. From that fervour rays were produced.It again became fervent. From that fervour blazes were produced. It againbecame fervent. It became condensed like a cloud. It clove its bladder. Thatbecame the sea. Hence men do not drink of the sea. For they regard it aslike the place of generation. Hence water issues forth before an animal whenit is being born. After that the Dasahotri (a particular formula) was created.Prajapati is the Dasahotri. That man succeeds, who thus knowing the powerof austere abstraction (or fervour) practises it. This was then water, fluid.Prajapati wept (exclaiming). ‘For what purpose have I been born, if (I havebeen born) from this which forms no support.’ That which fell into the watersbecame the earth. That which he wiped away, became the air. That whichhe wiped away, upward, became the sky. From the circumstance that he wept(arodit), these two regions have the name of rodasi, (words). They do notweep in the house of the man who knows this. This was the birth of theseworlds. He who thus knows the birth of these worlds, incurs no sufferingin these worlds. He obtained this (earth as a) basis. Having obtained (thisearth as a) basis, he desired. ‘May I be propagated.’ He practised austerefervour. He became pregnant. He created Asuras from his abdomen. To themhe milked out food in an earthen dish. He cast off that body of his. It becamedarkness. He desired ‘May I be propagated.’ He practised austere fervour.He became pregnant. He created living beings (prajah) from his organ ofgeneration. Hence they are the most numerous because he created them fromhis generative organ. To them he milked out milk in a wooden dish. He castoff that body of his. It became moonlight. He desired ‘May I be propagated.’He practised austere fervour. He became pregnant. He created the seasonsfrom his armpits. To them he milked out butter in a silver dish. He castoff that body of his. It became the period which connects day and night. Hedesired ‘May I be propagated.’ He practised austere fervour. He becamepregnant. He created the gods from his mouth. To them he milked out Somain a golden dish. He cast off that body of his. It became day. These arePrajapati’s milkings. He who thus knows, milks out offspring. ‘Day (diva) hascome to us:’ this (exclamation expresses) the godhead of the gods. He whothus knows the godhead of the gods, obtains the gods. This is the birth ofdays and nights. He who thus knows the birth of days and nights, incursno suffering in the days and nights. Mind (or soul, manas) was created fromthe non-existent. Mind created Prajapati. Prajapati created offspring. All this,whatever exists, rests absolutely on mind. This is that Brahma calledSvovasyasa. For the man who thus knows, (Ushas), dawning, dawns moreand more bright; he becomes prolific in offspring, and (rich) in cattle; heobtains the rank of Parameshthin.”

(3) T.B.,2 ii.3.8.1.— “Prajapati desired, ‘May I propagate.’ He practisedausterity. He became pregnant. He became yellow brown. Hence a woman when

1 Muir, Vol. I, pp. 28-29.




pregnant, being yellow, becomes brown. Being pregnant with a foetus, hebecame exhausted. Being exhausted he became blackish-brown. Hence anexhausted person becomes blackish-brown. His breath became alive. Withthat breath (asu) he created Asuras. Therein consists the Asura-natureof Asuras. He who thus knows this Asura-nature of Asuras becomes a manpossessing breath. Breath does not forsake him. Having created the Asurashe regarded himself as a father. After that he created the Fathers (Pitris).That constitutes the fatherhood of the Fathers. He who thus knows thefatherhood of the Fathers, becomes as a father of his own; the Fathersresort to his oblation. Having created the Fathers, he reflected. After thathe created men. That constitutes the manhood of men. He who knows themanhood of men, becomes intelligent. Mind does not forsake him. To him,when he was creating men, day appeared in the heaven. After that hecreated the gods. This constitutes the godhead of the gods. To him whothus knows the godhead of the gods, day appears in the heavens. Theseare the four streams, viz; gods, men, fathers and Asuras. In all of thesewater is like the air.”

(4) T.B.,1 iii.2.3.9.—“This Shudra has sprung from non-existence.”

The following explanation of the origin of creation is given by the

Taittiriya Aranyaka :

T.A.,2 i.12.3.1.— “This is water, fluid. Prajapati alone was produced on alotus leaf. Within, in his mind, desire arose, ‘Let me create this.’ Hencewhatever a man aims at in his mind, he declares by speech, and performsby act. Hence this verse has been uttered, ‘Desire formerly arose in it, whichwas the primal germ of mind, (and which) sages, searching with their intellect,have discovered in the heart as the bond between the existent and the non-existent’ (Rig Veda x.129.4). That of which he is desirous comes to the manwho thus knows. He practised austere fervour. Having practised austerefervour, he shook his body. From its flesh the rishis (called) Arunas, Ketusand Vatarasanas arose. His nails became the Vaikhanasas, his hairs theValakhilyas. The fluid (of his body became) a tortoise moving amid the waters.He said to him ‘ Thou hast sprung from my skin and flesh.’ ‘No,’ replied thetortoise,’ I was here before.’ In that (in his having been ‘before’ purvam)consists the manhood of a man (purusha). Becoming a man Purusha with athousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet (R.V.x.90.1) he arose. Prajapatisaid to him, ‘thou wert produced before me; do thou first make this.’ He tookwater from this in the cavity of his two hands and placed it on the east,repeating the text, ‘so be it, O Sun.’ From thence the sun arose. That wasthe eastern quarter. Then Aruna Ketu placed (the water) to the south, saying‘so be it, O Agni.’ Thence Agni arose. That was the southern quarter. Then ArunaKetu placed (the water) to the west, saying ‘so be it, O Vayu.’ Thence aroseVayu. That was the western quarter. Then Aruna Ketu placed (the water)to the north, saying ‘so be it, O Indra.’ Then arose Indra. That is the northernquarter. Then Aruna Ketu placed (the water) in the centre, saying ‘so be it,O Pushan.’ Thence arose Pushan. That is this quarter. The Aruna Ketu placed(the water) above saying ‘so be it, gods.’ Thence arose gods, men,





Fathers, Gandharvas and Apsaras. That is the upper quarter. From the dropswhich fell apart arose the Asuras, Rakshasas, and Pisachas. Therefore theyperished, because they were produced from drops. Hence this text has beenuttered; ‘when the great waters became pregnant, containing wisdom, andgenerating Svayambhu, from them were created these creations. All this wasproduced from the waters. Therefore all this is Brahma Svayambhu.’ Henceall this was as it were loose, as it were unsteady. Prajapati was that. Havingmade himself through himself, he entered into that. Wherefore this verse hasbeen uttered; ‘Having formed the world, having formed existing things andall intermediate quarters, Prajapati the first born of the ceremonial enteredinto himself with himself.’ ”

VI

The Mahabharata has its own contribution to make to the subject.

It propounds the theory of creation by Manu.

The Vanaparvan1 says:

“There was a great rishi, Manu, son of Vivasvat, majestic, in lustre equalto Prajapati. In energy, fiery vigour, prosperity and austere fervour hesurpassed both his father and his grand father. Standing with uplifted arm,on one foot, on the spacious Badari, he practised intense austere fervour.This direful exercise he performed with his head downwards, and withunwinking eyes, for 10,000 years. Once, when, clad in dripping rags, withmatted hair, he was so engaged, a fish came to him on the banks of theChirini, and spake:’ Lord, I am a small fish; I dread the stronger ones,and from them you must save me. For the stronger fish devour the weaker;this has been immemorially ordained as our means of subsistence. Deliverme from this flood of apprehension in which I am sinking, and I will requitethe deed.’ Hearing this, Manu filled with compassion, took the fish in hishand, and bringing him to the water threw him into a jar bright as amoonbeam. In it the fish, being excellently tended, grew; for Manu treatedhim like a son. After a long time he became very large and could not becontained in the jar. Then, seeing Manu he said again:’ In order that Imay thrive, remove me elsewhere.’ Manu then took him out of the jar,brought him to a large pond, and threw him in. There he continued togrow for very many years. Although the pond was two yojanas long andone yojana broad, the lotus-eyed fish found in it no room to move; andagain said to Manu.’ Take me to Ganga, the dear queen of the ocean-monarch; in her I shall dwell; or do as thou thinkest best, for I mustcontentedly submit to thy authority, as through thee I have exceedinglyincreased.’ Manu accordingly took the fish and threw him into the riverGanga. There he waxed for some time, when he again said to Manu, Frommy great bulk I cannot move in the Ganga; be gracious and remove me quicklyto the ocean.’ Manu took him out of the Ganga; and cast him into the sea.Although so huge, the fish was easily borne, and pleasant to touch and smell,as Manu carried him. When he had been thrown into the ocean he saidto Manu:’ Great Lord, thou hast in every way preserved me; now hear

1 Muir, Vol. I, pp. 199-201.



from me what thou must do when the time arrives. Soon shall all theseterrestrial objects, both fixed and moving, be dissolved. The time for thepurification of the worlds has now arrived. I therefore inform thee what isfor thy greatest good. The period dreadful for the universe, moving and fixed,has come. Make for thyself a strong ship, with a cable attached; embark init with the seven rishis and stow in it, carefully preserved and assorted, allthe seeds which have been described of old by Brahmins. When embarkedin the ship, look out for me. I shall come recognizable by my horn. So shaltthou do; I greet thee and depart. These great waters cannot be crossed overwithout me. Distrust not my word. ‘Manu replied,’ I shall do as thou hastsaid. ‘After taking mutual leave they departed each on his own way. Manuthen, as enjoined, taking with him the seeds’ floated on the billowy oceanin the beautiful ship. He then thought on the fish, which knowing his desire,arrived with all speed, distinguished by a horn. When Manu saw the hornedleviathan, lofty as a mountain, he fastened the ship’s cable to the horn. Beingthus attached the fish dragged the ship with great rapidity transporting itacross the briny ocean which seemed to dance with its waves and thunderwith its waters. Tossed by the tempests, the ship whirled like a reeling andintoxicated woman. Neither the earth nor the quarter of the world appeared;there was nothing but water, air, and sky. In the world thus confounded,the seven rishis, Manu and the fish were beheld. So, for very many years,the fish, unwearied, drew the ship over the waters; and brought it at lengthto the highest peak of Himavat. He then, smiling gently, said to the rishis,’Bind the ship without delay to this peak.’ They did so accordingly. And thathighest peak of Himavat is still known by the name of Naubandhana (‘theBinding of the Ship’.} The friendly fish (or god, animisha) then said to therishis,’ I am the Prajapati Brahma, than whom nothing higher can be reached.In the form of a fish I have delivered you from this great danger. Manushall create all living beings, gods, asuras, men, with all worlds, and all thingsmoving and fixed. By my favour and through severe austere fervour he shallattain perfect insight into his creative work, and shall not become bewildered.’Having thus spoken, the fish in an instant disappeared. Manu, desirous tocall creatures into existence and bewildered in his work, performed a greatact of austere fervour; and then began visibly to create all living beings.”

The Adi Parvan of the Mahabharata gives a somewhat different

version of the story of creation:1

“Vaishampayana said : I shall, after making obeisance to Svayambhu relate

to thee exactly the production and destruction of the gods and other beings.

Six great rishis are known as the mind-born sons of Brahma, viz., Marichi,

Atri, Angiras, Pulastya, Pulaha and Kratu. Kasyapa was the son of Marichi:

and from Kasyapa sprang these creatures. There were born to Daksha thirteen

daughters of eminent rank, Adili, Diti, Danu, Kala, Danayu, Simuka, Krodha,

Pradha, Visva, Vinata, Kapila and Muni. Kadru also was of the number. These

daughters had valorous sons and grandsons innumerable.

Daksha, the glorious rishi, tranquil in spirit, and great in austere fervour,

sprang from the right thumb of Brahma. From the left thumb sprang that great

Muni’s wife on whom he begot fifty daughters. Of these he gave ten to Dharma,

1 Muir, Vol. I, pp. 122-126.



twentyseven to Indu (Soma), and according to the celestial system, thirteento Kasyapa. Pitamaha’s descendant Manu, the god and the lord of creatures,was his (it does not clearly appear whose) son. The eight Vasus, whom Ishall detail, were his sons. Dividing the right breast of Brahma, the gloriousDharma (Righteousness), issued in a human form, bringing happiness to allpeople. He had three eminent sons, Sama, Kama, and Harsha (Tranquillity,Love, and Joy), who are the delight of all creatures, and by their might supportthe world .... Arushi, the daughter of Manu, was the wife of that sage(Chyavana, son of Bhrigu)... There are two other sons of Brahma, whose markremains in the world, Dhatri, and Vidhatri, who remained with Manu. Theirsister was the beautiful goddess Lakshmi, whose home is the lotus. Her mind-born sons are the steeds who move in the sky... When the creatures whowere desirous of food, had devoured one another, Adharma (Uprighteousness)was produced, the destroyer of all beings. His wife was Nirriti, and hencethe Rakshasas are called Nairritas, or the offspring of Nirriti. She had threedreadful sons, continually addicted to evil deeds, Bhaya, Mahabhaya (Fearand Terror) and Mrityu (Death) the ender of beings. He has neither wife,nor any son, for he is the ender.”

“Born all with splendour, like that of great rishis, the ten sons of Prachetasare reputed to have been virtuous and holy; and by them the glorious beingswere formerly burnt up by the fire springing from their mouths. From themwas born Daksha Prachetasa; and from Daksha, the Parent of the world (wereproduced) these creatures. Cohabiting with Virini, the Muni Daksha begota thousand sons like himself, famous for their religious observances, to whomNarada taught the doctrine of final liberation, the unequalled knowledge ofthe Sankhya. Desirous of creating offspring, the Prajapati Daksha next formedfifty daughters, of whom he gave ten to Dharma, thirteen to Kasyapa, andtwenty-seven devoted to the regulation of time to Indu (Soma)... On Dakshayani,the most excellent of his thirteen wives, Kasyapa, the son of Marichi, begotthe Adityas, headed by Indra and distinguished by their energy, and alsoVivasvat. To Vivasvat was born a son, the mighty Yama Vaivasvata. ToMartanda (i.e., Vivasvat, the Sun) was born the wise and mighty Manu, andalso the renowned Yama, his (Manu’s) younger brother. Righteous was thiswise Manu, on whom a race was founded. Hence this (family) of men becameknown as the race of Manu. Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and other men sprangfrom this Manu. From him, O king, came the Brahmin conjoined with theKshatriya. Among them the Brahmins, children of Manu, held the Veda withthe Vedangas. The children of Manu are said to have been Vena, Dhrishnu,Narishyanta, Nabhaga, Ikshvaku, Karusha, Saryati, IIa the eighth, Prishadrathe ninth, who was addicted to the duties of a Kshatriya, and Nabhagarishta,the tenth. Manu had also fifty other sons; but they all, as we have heard,perished in consequence of mutual dissensions. Subsequently, the wisePururavas was born of IIa, who, we heard, was both his mother and hisfather.”

VII

The Ramayana also deals with the subject of creation. One account

of it will be found in the second Kanda.1 It says :

1 Muir, Vol. I, p. 115.



“Perceiving Rama to be incensed, Vasishtha replied: ‘Jabali also knowsthe destruction and renovation of this world. But he spoke as he did froma desire to induce you to return. Learn from me, lord of the earth, this(account of) the origin of the world. The universe was nothing but water.In it the earth was fashioned. Then Brahma Svayambhu came intoexistence, with the deities. He next, becoming a boar, raised up the earth,and created the entire world, with the saints, his sons, Brahma, theeternal, unchanging, and undecaying, was produced from the ether (akasa).From him sprang Marichi, of whom Kasyapa was the son. From Kasyapasprang Vivasvat: and from him was descended Manu, who was formerlythe lord of creatures (Prajapati). Ikshvaku was the son of Manu, and tohim this prosperous earth was formerly given by his father. Know thatthis Ikshvaku was the former king in Ayodhya.”

There is besides this another story of creation. It occurs in thethird Kanda and is in the following terms :1

“Having heard the words of Rama, the bird (Jatayu) made known tohim his own race, and himself, and the origin of all beings. ‘Listen whileI declare to you from the commencement all the Prajapatis (lords ofcreatures) who came into existence in the earliest time. Kardama was thefirst, then Vikrita, Sesha, Samsraya, the energetic Bahuputra, Sthanu,Marichi, Atri, the strong Kratu, Pulastya, Angiras, Prachetas, Pulaha,Daksha, then Vivasvat, Arishtanemi, and the glorious Kasyapa, who wasthe last. The Prajapati Daksha is famed to have had sixty daughters. Ofthese Kasyapa took in marriage eight elegant maidens, Aditi, Diti, Danu,Kalaka, Tamra, Krodhavasa, Manu and Anala. Kasyapa, pleased, then, saidto these maids:’ ye shall bring forth sons like me, preservers of the threeworlds.’ Aditi, Dili, Danu and Kalaka assented; but the others did notagree. Thirty-three gods were borne by Aditi, the Adityas, Vasus, Rudras,and the two Asvins. ‘Manu, (wife) of Kasyapa, produced men, Brahmins,Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras. ‘Brahmins were born from the mouth,Kshatriyas from the breast, Vaishyas from the thighs, and Shudras fromthe feet’ so says the Veda. Anala gave birth to all trees with pure fruits.”

VIII

As an illustration of what the Puranas have to say, I extract the

following passages from the Vishnu Purana :2

“Before the mundane egg existed the divine Brahma Hiranyagarbha the

eternal originator of all worlds, who was the form and essence of Brahma, who

consists of the divine Vishnu, who again is identical with the Rik, Yajus, Saman

and Atharva-Vedas. From Brahma’s right thumb was born the Prajapati Daksha;

Daksha had a daughter Aditi; from her was born Vivasvat; and from him sprang

Manu. Manu had sons called Ikshvaku, Nriga, Dhrishta, Saryati, Narishyanta,

Pramsu, Nabhaganedishta, Karusha, and Prishadhra. Desirous of a son, Manu

sacrificed to Mitra and Varuna. but in consequence of a wrong invocation

1 Muir, I, p. 116.

2 Muir, Vol. I, pp. 220-221.



through an irregularity of the hotri-priest a daughter called Ila was born.Then through the favour of Mitra and Varuna she became to Manu a soncalled Sudyumna. But being again changed into a female through the wrathof Isvara (Mahadeva) she wandered near the hermitage of Budha the sonof Soma (the Moon); who becoming enamoured of her had by her a son calledPururavas. After his birth, the god who is formed of sacrifice, of the Rik,Yajus, Saman, and Atharva Vedas, of all things, of mind, of nothing, he whois in the form of the sacrificial Male, was worshipped by the rishis of infinitesplendour who desired that Sudyumna should recover his manhood. Throughthe favour of this god Ila became again Sudyumna.”

The Vishnu Purana then proceeds to give the following particularsregarding the sons of Manu :

“(i) Prishadhra became a Shudra in consequence of his having killedhis religious preceptor’s cow.

(ii) From Karusha the Karushas, Kshatriyas of great power weredescended.

(iii) Nabhaga, the son of Nedishta became a Vaishya.”

The above is the story of the Solar race. The Vishnu Purana1 hasalso a parallel story relating to the Lunar race which according toit sprang from Atri just as the Solar race from Manu :

“Atri was the son of Brahma, and the father of Soma (the moon), whomBrahma installed as the sovereign of plants, Brahmins and stars. Aftercelebrating the rajasuya sacrifice, Soma became intoxicated with pride, andcarried off Tara (Star), the wife of Brihaspati, the preceptor of the gods, whom,although admonished and entreated by Brahma, the gods, and rishis, Somarefused to restore. Soma’s part was taken by Usanas; and Rudra, who hadstudied under Angiras, aided Brihaspati. A fierce conflict ensued between thetwo sides supported respectively by the gods and the Daityas, etc., Brahmainterposed, and compelled Soma to restore Tara to her husband. She had,however, in the meantime become pregnant, and bore a son Budha (the planetMercury), of whom when strongly urged, she acknowledged Soma to be thefather. Pururavas 2 was the son of this Budha by Ila, the daughter of Manu.Pururavas 3 had six sons, of whom the eldest was Ayus. Ayus had five sons;Nahusha, Kshattravriddha, Rambha, Raji and Anenas.

Kshattravriddha had a son Sunahotra who had three sons, Kasa, Lesaand Gritsamada. From the last sprang Saunaka, who originated the systemof four castes. Kasa had a son, Kasiraja, of whom again Dirghatamas wasthe son, as Dhanvantari was of Dirghatamas.”

Compare these ideologies of creation with those set out in Chapter

2 and what do we find? I think the result of comparison may be set

down in the following propositions: (1) one is sacerdotal in

1 Muir, Vol. I, pp. 225-226.

2 The loves of Pururavas and the Apsara Urvasi, are related in the SatapathaBrahmanas, xi. 5.1.11; in the Vishnu Purana, vi. 6.19. ff; in the Bhagavata Purana, ix.14; and in the Harivamsa, section 26. The Manabharata, Adip, section 75, alludes toPururavas as having been engaged in a contest with the Brahmins. This passage willbe quoted hereafter.

3 Vishnu Purana, iv.7.1.



colour and character, the other is secular; (2) one refers to a human

being Manu as the progenitor, the other refers to God Brahma or

Prajapati as the originator; (3) one is historical in its drift, the other

is supernatural; (4) one speaks of the deluge, the other is completely

silent about it; (5) one aims at explaining the four Varnas, the other

aims at explaining the origin of society only.

These differences are many and fundamental. Particularly funda-

mental seems to be the difference in regard to Chaturvarnya. The

sacerdotal ideology recognizes it, but the secular ideology does not.

It is true that an attempt is made to combine the two by explaining,

as is done in the Ramayana and the Puranas, how Manu’s progeny

developed into four Varnas. But obviously this is an attempt to mould

the two ideologies into one. This attempt is deliberate and calculated.

But the difference between the two ideologies is so fundamental that

inspite of this attempt they persist as two separate ideologies. All

that has happened is that instead of one we have two explanations

of Chaturvarnya, supernatural Chaturvarnya produced by Purusha,

and natural Chaturvarnya as developed among Manu’s sons. That the

result should be so clumsy shows that the two ideologies are

fundamentally different and irreconcilable. It is a pity that the

existence of two such ideologies recorded in the Brahmanic literature

has not been noticed by scholars who have dealt with the subject.

But the fact of their existence and their significance cannot be

ignored. What is the significance of the existence of two such

ideologies fundamentally different and irreconcilable? To me, it seems

that they are the ideologies of two different Aryan races—one

believing in Chaturvarnya and the other not believing in

Chaturvarnya—who at a later stage became merged into one. If this

reasoning is well-founded then this difference in ideologies disclosed

by the Brahmanic literature furnishes further evidence in support

of the new theory.

IX

The third and the most unimpeachable evidence in support of my

view comes from the anthropometrical survey of the Indian people.

Such a survey was first made by Sir Herbert Risley in 1901. On the

basis of cephalic index, he came to the conclusion that the people of

India were a mixture of four different races: (1) Aryan, (2) Dravidian,

(3) Mongolian, and (4) Scythian. He even went to the length of

defining the areas where they were massed. The survey was a very



rough one. His conclusions have been tested by Dr. Guha in 1936.

His Report on the subject forms a very valuable document in the field

of Indian anthropology. The map1 prepared by Dr. Guha on which

he has plotted so to say the distribution of the Indian people according

to their head measurements throws a flood of light on the racial

composition of the people of India. Dr. Guha’s conclusion is that the

Indian people are composed’of two racial stocks: (1) longheaded, and

short-headed, and that the long-headed are in the interior of India

and the short-headed are on the outskirts.

The evidence of skulls found in different parts of India also goes

to confirm this. This is how Dr. Guha sums up the evidence on this

point :

“The accounts of the human remains from prehistoric sites given above,

though extremely meagre, with the exception of those of the Indus Valley,

enable us nevertheless to visualise the broad outlines of the racial history

of India in these times. From the beginning of the 4th Millennium B.C.

North-western India seems to have been in the occupation of a long-headed

race with a narrow prominent nose. Side by side with them we find the

existence of another very powerfully built race also long-headed, but with

lower cranial vault, and equally long-faced and narrow nose, though the

latter was not so high pitched as that of the former.

A third type with broader head and apparently Armenoid affinities also

existed, but its advent occurred probably somewhat later judged by the

age of the site as Harappa from which most of these latter type of skulls

came.”

Speaking in terms of the Alpine and the Mediterranean race, one

can say that the Indian people are composed of two stocks: (1) The

Mediterranean or the long-headed race, and (2) the Alpine or the

short-headed race.

About the Mediterranean race, certain facts are admitted. It is

admitted that it is a race which spoke the Aryan language. It is

admited that its home was in Europe round about the Mediterranean

basin and from thence it migrated to India. From its localization,

it is clear that it must have come to India before the entry of the

Alpine race.

Similar facts about the Alpine race remain to be ascertained. First

is about the home of the Alpine race and second is about its native

speech. According to Prof. Ripley, the home of the Alpine race was

in Asia somewhere in the Himalayas. His reasons may be given in

his own words. Says Prof. Ripley :2

1 See Appendix V

2 Races of Europe, pp. 473-74



“What right have we for the assertion that this infiltration of population

from the East1 it was not a conquest, everything points to it as a gradual

peaceful immigration, often merely the settlement of unoccupied territory—

marks the advent of an overflow from the direction of Asia? The proof

of this rests largely upon our knowledge of the people of that continent,

especially of the Pamir region, the Western Himalayan highlands. Just

here on the ‘ roof of the world,’ where Max Muller and the early philologists

placed the primitive home of Aryan civilization, a human type prevails

which tallies almost exactly with our ideal Alpine or Celtic European race.

The researches of De Ujfalvy, Topinard, and others localize its peculiar

traits over a vast territory hereabouts. The Galchas, mountain Tadjiks,

and their fellows are grey-eyed, dark-haired, stocky in build, with cephalic

indexes ranging above 86 for the most part. From this region a long chain

of peoples of a similar physical type extends, uninterruptedly westward

over Asia Minor and into Europe. The only point which the discovery of

a broad area in Western Asia occupied by an ideal Alphine type settles,

is that it emphasises the affinities of this peculiar race. It is no proof

of direct immigration from Asia at all, as Tappeiner observes. It does,

however, lead us to turn our eyes eastward when we seek for the origin

of the broad-headed type. Things vaguely point to an original ethnic base

of supplies somewhere in this direction. It could not lie westward, for

everywhere along the Atlantic the race slowly disappears, so to speak. That

the Alpine type approaches all the other human millions on the Asiatic

continent, in the head form especially, but in hair, colour and stature as

well, also prejudices us in the matter; just as the increasing long-

headedness and extreme brunetness of our Mediterranean race led us

previously to derive it from some type parent to that of the African Negro.

These points are then fixed; the roots of the Alpine race run eastward;

those of the Mediterranean type towards the south.”

On the question of its language there is a certain amount of

dispute1 as to who introduced the Aryan language in Europe, whether

the Nordics (the purest of the Indo-Germans) or the Alpines. But there

is no dispute that the language of the Alpine race was Aryan and

therefore it is entitled to be called Aryan race in philological sense.

X

From the foregoing statement of facts, it will be seen that there is

a solid foundation in anthropometry and history, in support of the

Rig Veda that there were in India two Aryan races and not one. Having

regard to this, one cannot refuse to admit that here there is a direct

conflict between the Western theory and the testimony of the Rig

Veda. Whereas the Western theory speaks of one Aryan race, the Rig

1 Madison Grant, ‘The Passing of the Great Race’ (1922), pp. 238-239.



Veda speaks of two Aryan races. The Western theory is thus in

conflict with the Rig Veda on a major issue. The Rig Veda being the

best evidence on the subject the theory which is in conflict with it

must be rejected. There is no escape.

This conflict on the major issue also creates a conflict on the issue

of invasion and conquest. We do not know which of the two Aryan

races came to India first. But if they belonged to the Alpine race

then its home being near the Himalayas, there is no room for the

theory of invasion from outside. As to the conquest of the native

tribes, assuming it to be a fact, the matter is not quite so simple

as Western writers have supposed. On the footing that the Dasas

and Dasyus were racially different from the Aryans, the theory of

conquest must take account not merely of a possible conquest of Dasas

and Dasyus by Aryans but also of a possible conquest of Aryans by

Aryans. It must also explain which of the two Aryans conquered the

Dasas and Dasyus if they conquered them at all.

The Western theory, it is clear, is only a hurried conclusion drawn

from insufficient examination of facts and believed to be correct

because it tallied with certain pre-conceived notions about the

mentality of the ancient Aryans which they were supposed to have

possessed on no other grounds except that their alleged modern

descendants, namely, the Indo Germanic races are known to possess.

It is built on certain selected facts which are assumed to be the only

facts. It is extraordinary that a theory with such a slender and

insecure foundation in fact should have been propounded by Western

scholars for serious scholars and should have held the field for such

a long time. In the face of the discovery of new facts set out in this

Chapter the theory can no longer stand and must be thrown on the

scrap heap.


THE SHUDRAS : SHUDRAS AND DASAS 101

CHAPTER VI

SHUDRAS AND DASAS

IT has been shown how untenable the Western theory is. The only

part of the theory that remains to be considered is : who are the

Shudras? Mr. A. C. Das1 says :

“The Dasas and the Dasyus were either savages or non-Vedic Aryan

tribes. Those of them that were captured in war were probably made slaves

and formed the Shudra caste.”

Mr. Kane,2 another Vedic scholar and upholder of the Western

theory, holds the view that :

“The word ‘Dasa’ in later literature means a ‘serf or a slave’. It follows

that the Dasa tribes that we see opposed to the Aryas in the Rig Veda

were gradually vanquished and were then made to serve the Aryas. In

the Manusmriti (VIII, 413) the Shudra is said to have been created by

God for service (dasya) of the Brahmana. We find in the Tai. Samhita,

the Tai. Brahmana and other Brahmana works that the Shudra occupied

the same position that he does in the Smritis. Therefore it is reasonable

to infer that the Dasas or Dasyus conquered by the Aryans were gradually

transformed into the Shudras.”

According to this view the Shudras are the same as Dasas and

Dasyus and further the Shudras were the non-Aryan original

inhabitants of India and were in a primitive and a savage state of

civilization. It is these propositions which we must now proceed to

examine.

To begin with the first proposition. It is not one proposition but

is really two propositions rolled in one. One is that the Dasas and

Dasyus are one and the same people. The other is that they and the

Shudras are one and the same people.

That the Dasas and Dasyus are one and the same people is a

proposition of doubtful validity. Such references to them as are to

be found in the Rig Veda are not decisive. In some places the terms

Dasa and Dasyu are used in a way as though there was no

1 Rig Vidic Culture, p. 133.

2 Dharma Shastra, II (I). P. 33.



difference between the two. Shambara, Shushna, Vritra and Pipru

are described both as Dasas and Dasyus. Both Dasas and Dasyus

are described as the enemies of Indra and Devas and specially the

Ashvins. The cities of both Dasas as well as of the Dasyus are

described to have been levelled down by Indra and Devas. The defeat

of both Dasas as well as Dasyus is described as producing the same

effect, namely, release of water and the emergence of light. In

describing the release of Dabhiti both are referred to, at one place

he is said to have been released from the Dasas and at another place

he, is said to have been released from the Dasyus.

While these references suggest that the Dasas and Dasyus were

the same, there are other references which suggest that they were

different. This is clear from the fact that the Dasas are referred to

separately in 54 places and Dasyus are referred to separately in

78 places. Why should there be so many separate references if they

did not form two distinct entities? The probability is that they refer

to two different communities.

About the second proposition that the Shudras are the same as

the Dasas and Dasyus, one can definitely say that it is without any

foundation whatsoever.

To make out a case that the Shudras are the same as the Dasas

and Dasyus an attempt is made to treat the word Shudra as a

derivative word. The word is said to be derived from Shuc (sorrow)

and dru (overcome) and means one overcome by sorrow. In this

connection reliance is placed on the story told in the Vedanta Sutra

(i.3.34) of Janasruti who is said to have been overcome by sorrow

on hearing the contemptuous talk of the flamingoes about himself.1

The same derivation is given by the Vishnu Purana.2

How far are these statements well-founded? To say that Shudra

is not a proper name but is a derivative word is too silly for words.

The Brahmanic writers excel everybody in the art of inventing false

etymologies. There is no word for which they will not design some

sort of etymology. Speaking of the different etymologies of the word

Upanishad given by Brahmanic writers, Prof. Max Muller3 said :

“These explanations seem so wilfully perverse that it is difficult to understand

the unanimity of native scholars. We ought to take into account, however, that

very general tendency among half-educated people, to acquiesce in any

1 Referred to in Kane’s Dharma Shastra, II (I), p. 155.

2 Muir, Vol. 1. p. 97.

3 Upanishads, Introduction, pp. lxxix-lxxxi.



etymology which accounts for the most prevalent meaning of a word. The

Aranyakas abound in such etymologies, which probably were never in-

tended as real etymologies, in our sense of the word, but simply as plays

on words, helping to account somehow for their meaning.”

This warning equally well applies to the attempt of the Vedanta

Sutra and of the Vayu Purana to make the word Shudra a derivative

word suggesting that it meant a ‘sorrowful people’ and we must

therefore reject it as being absurd and senseless.

We have, however, direct evidence in support of the proposition

that Shudra is a proper name of a tribe or a clan and is not a

derivative word as is sought to be made out.

Various pieces of evidence can be adduced in favour of this

proposition. The historians of Alexander’s invasion of India have

described a number of republics as free, independent and autonomous

whom Alexander encountered. These are, no doubt, formed of different

tribes and were known by the name borne by those tribes. Among

these is mentioned a people called Sodari. They were a fairly

important tribe, being one of those which fought Alexander though

it suffered a defeat at his hands. Lassen identified them with the

ancient Shudras. Patanjali at 1.2.3 of his Mahabhasya mentions

Shudras and associates them with the Abhiras. The Mahabharata in

Chapter XXXII of the Sabha parvan speaks of the republic of the

Shudras-. The Vishnu Purana as well as the Markandeya Purana and

the Brahma Purana refer to the Shudras as a separate tribe among

many other tribes and fix their location in the Western part of the

country above the Vindhyas.1

II

Let us now turn to the second proposition and examine the various

elements of which it is composed. There are two elements in the

proposition. First is : Are the words Dasyus and Dasas used in the

racial sense indicative of their being non-Aryan tribes? The second

element is that assuming they were, is there anything to indicate

that they were the native tribes of India? Unless and until these two

questions are answered in the affirmative, there is no possibility of

identifying the Dasyus and Dasas with the Shudras.

About the Dasyus, there is no evidence to show that the term is

used in a racial sense indicative of a non-Aryan people. On the other

1 See References in Tribes in Ancient India by B. C. Law, p. 350



hand, there is positive evidence in support of the conclusion that

it was used to denote persons who did not observe the Aryan form

of religion. In this connection, reference may be made to Verse 23

of Adhyaya 65 of the Shantiparvan of the Mahabharata. It reads

as follows :

n`';Urs ekuq"ks Çhds loZo.ksZ"kq nL;o%A

fyaxkUrjs orZekuk vkJes"kqprq"oZfi AA

The verse says : “In all the Varnas and in all the Ashramas, one

finds the existence of Dasyus.”

What is the origin of the word Dasyu it is difficult to say. But

a suggestion1 has been put forth that it was the word of abuse used

by the Indo-Aryans to the Indo-Iranians. There is nothing unnatural

or far-fetched in this suggestion. That the two had come into conflict

is borne out by history. It is therefore quite possible for the Indo-

Aryans to have coined such a contemptuous name for their enemies.

If this is true, then Dasyus cannot be regarded as the natives of India.

Regarding the Dasas, the question is whether there is any

connection between them and the Azhi-Dahaka of the Zend Avesta.

The name Azhi-Dahaka is a compound name which consists of two

parts. Azhi means serpent, dragon and Dahaka comes from root Dah

meaning ‘ to sting, to do harm’. Thus Azhi-Dahaka meaning a stinging

dragon. It is a proper name of a person commonly known in Indo-

Iranian traditions as Zohak. He is mentioned in Yasht literature

many a time. He is credited to have lived in Babylon where he had

built a palace. He is also credited to have built a great observatory

in Babylon. This mighty devil Azhi-Dahaka was created by the Arch-

demon Angra Mainyu in order to destroy the kingdom of holiness

of the corporeal world. This Azhi-Dahaka went to war against Yima

the renowned king of the Indo-Iranians and not only vanquished him,

but killed him in battle.

Yima is always spoken of in Avesta as Kshaeta meaning shining

or ruling. Root Kshi has two meanings, to shine or to rule. There

is another ephithet commonly used for Yima and that is Hvanthwa

meaning ‘possessing good flock’. This Avesta Yima Khshaita became

in later Persian language Jamshid. According to traditions, king

Jamshid son of Vivanghvant was the great hero of the Iranian history,

the founder of a great Persian civilization. He was a king of the

Peshdiadyan dynasty. In Yasna 9 and 5 (Koema Yashi) it is stated

1 I am sorry, I have lost the reference.



that ‘Vivanshas’ was the first man who unceremoniously pounded

Hasma (Sk. Sasma) in this corporeal world and the boon he received

was: to him was born a son nobly who was Yima the shining and

of good flock, who was most glorious amongst the living ones, who

was like a glowing sun amongst mankind, during whose kingship he

made noblemen and cattle (animals) immortal, made waters and trees

undrying. He possessed undiminishing (ever fresh) divine glory.

During the kingship of famous Yima there was neither extreme cold

nor extreme heat, there was no old age, death and envy.

Is Dahaka of the Zenda Aveshta the same as Dasa of the Rig Veda?

If similarity in name can be relied upon as evidence, then obviously

it points to their being the names of one and the same person. Dasa

in Sanskrit can easily be Daha in Aveshta since sa in the former

is natural conversion to ha in the latter. If this were the only evidence

the suggestion that Dasa of the Rig Veda and Dahaka of the Zenda

Avesta are the same could have been no better than a conjecture.

But there is other and more cogent evidence which leaves no doubt

about their identity. In Yasna Ha 9 (which is the same as Horn Yashe)

Azhi-Dahaka is spoken of as ‘three mouthed, three-headed and six-

eyed’. What is striking is that this physical description of Dahaka

in Aveshta is exactly similar to the description of Dasa in Rig Veda

(x.99.6) where he is also described as having three heads and six

eyes1 If the suggestion that the Dasa in the Rig Veda is the same

as Dahaka in the Aveshta, is accepted, then obviously the Dasas were

not native tribes aboriginal to India.

III

Were they savages? The Dasas and Dasyus were not a primitive

people. They were as civilized as the Aryans and in fact more powerful

than the Aryans. Such is the testimony of the Rig Veda. It is well

epitomized by Mr. Iyengar when he says that :

“The Dasyus lived in cities (R.V., i.53.8; i.103.3) and under kings the names

of many of whom are mentioned. They possessed ‘accumulated wealth’ (R.V.,

viii.40.6) in the form of cows, horses and chariots (R.V., ii.15.4) which though

kept in ‘hundred-gated cities’ (R.V., x.99.3), Indra seized and gave away to his

worshippers, the Aryas (R.V., i.176.4). The Dasyus were wealthy (R.V., i.33.4)

and owned property ‘in the plains and on the hills’ (R.V., x.69.6).They were

‘adorned with their array of gold and jewels’ (R.V., i.33.8). They owned many

1 For the identification of Dasa with Dahaka I am indebted to the Maharashtra

Dnyana Kosha, Vol. III. p. 53.



castles (R.V., i.33.13; viii.17.14). The Dasyu demons and the Arya gods

alike lived in gold, silver and iron castles (SS.S., vi.23; A.V., v.28.9; R.V.,

ii.20.8). Indra overthrew for his worshipper, Divodasa, frequently men-

tioned in the hymns, a ‘hundred stone castles’ (R.V., iv.30.20) of the

Dasyus. Agni, worshipped by the Arya, gleaming in behalf of him, tore

and burnt the cities of the fireless Dasyus. (R.V., vii.5.3).Brihaspati broke

the stone prisons in which they kept the cattle raided from the Aryas (R.V.,

iv.67.3). The Dasyus owned chariots and used them in war like the Aryas

and had the same weapons as the Aryas (R.V., viii.24.27; iii.30.5; ii.15.4)”

That the Dasas and Dasyus were the same as the Shudras is a

pure figment of imagination. It is only a wild guess. It is tolerated

because persons who make it are respectable scholars. So far as

evidence is concerned, there is no particle of it, which can be cited

in support of it. As has been said before, the word Dasa occurs in

the Rig Veda 54 times and Dasyu 78 times. The Dasas and the Dasyus

are sometimes spoken together. The word Shudra occurs only once

and that too in a context in which the Dasas and Dasyus have no

place. In the light of these considerations, it is difficult to say how

anyone in his senses can say that Shudras are the same as the Dasas

and Dasyus. Another fact which is to be noted is that the names

Dasas and Dasyus completely disappear from the later Vedic litera-

ture. It means they were completely absorbed by the Vedic Aryans.

But it is quite different with the Shudras. The early Vedic literature

is very silent about them. But the later Vedic literature is full of

them. This shows that the Shudras were different from the Dasas

and Dasyus.

IV

Were the Shudras non-Aryans? Mr. Kane says:1

“A clear line of demarcation was kept between the Arya and the Shudra

in the times of the Brahmana works and even in the Dharmasutras. The

Tandya Brahmana speaks of a mock fight: ‘the Shudra and Arya fight on

a hide; out of the two they so arrange that the Arya colour becomes the

victor.’ The Ap. Dh. S. (I, i.3.40-41) says that a brahmachari if he cannot

himself eat all the food he has brought by begging, may keep it near an

Arya (for his use) or he may give it to a Shudra who is a Dasa (of his

teacher). Similarly, Gautama x.69 used the word ‘anarya’ for Shudra.”

On the question of the line of demarcation; between the Shudras

and Aryans, the matter needs to be carefully examined.

1 Kane, Dharma Shastra, II (I), p. 35.



The strength of the argument that the Shudras were non-Aryans

is to be found in the following statements :

A.V., iv.20.4. — “The thousand-eyed god shall put this plant into my

right hand; with that do I see everyone, the Shudra as well as the Arya.”

Kathaka Samhita, xxxiv.5— “The Shudra and the Arya quarrel about

the skin. The gods and the demons quarrelled about the sun; the gods

won it (the sun). (By this act of quarrelling with Shudras) the Arya makes

the Arya Varna win, makes himself successful. The Arya shall be inside

the altar, the Shudra outside the altar. The skin shall be white, circular-

the form of the sun.”

Vajasaneyi Samhita, xxiii.30-31—“When a deer eats the barley in the

field, the (owner of the field) is not pleased with the nourished animal;

when a Shudra woman has an Arya as a lover, (the husband) does not

long for (the consequent) prosperity.”

When a deer eats barley, the (owner of the field) does not approve of

the nourished animal. When a Shudra is the lover of an Arya woman, the

(husband) does not consent to the prosperity.

These stanzas, which speak of the Shudra and the Arya asseparate and opposed form the foundation of the theory that theShudras are non-Aryans. To say the least, such a conclusion wouldbe a very hasty one. Two considerations must be borne in mind beforeany conclusion is drawn from the aforementioned statements. In thefirst place, it must be borne in mind that according to what hasbeen said before and according to the evidence of the Rig Veda, thereare two categories of Aryans, the Vedic and the non-Vedic. Giventhis fact, it would be quite easy for an Arya of one class to speakof an Arya of another class, as though the two were separate and

opposed. Interpreted in this way, the above statements, in whichShudras are set against the Aryans, do not mean that they werenot Aryas. They were Aryas of a different sect or class.

That this is possible can be seen from the following statements

in the sacred literature of the Hindus:

(1) A.V., xix.32.8.— “Make me, Oh, Darbha (grass), dear to the Brahmin,and the Rajanya (i.e., Kshatriya), to the Shudra and to the Arya and tohim whom we love and to everyone who is able to see.”

(2) A.V., xix.62.1.— “Make me beloved among the gods, make me belovedamong the princes; make me dear to everyone who sees, to the Shudraand to the Arya”

(3) Vajasaneyi Samhita, xviii.48.— “(Oh, Agni), give to us lustre amongBrahmins, give us lustre among kings; lustre among Vaishyas and amongShudras; give to me lustre added to lustre.”

(4) Vajasaneyi Samhita, xx.17.— “Whatever sin we have committed in thevillage, in the forest, in the assembly, with our senses, against the Shudra oragainst the Arya, whatever sin one of us (two, the sacrificer and his wife) has



committed in the matter of his duty (towards the other),— of that sin,

you are the destroyer.”

(5) Vajasaneyi Samhita, xviii.48.—“As I speak these auspicious words to

the people, to the Brahmin and the Rajanya, to the Shudra and to the

Arya and to my own enemy, may I be dear to the gods and to the giver

of dakshinas here in this world. May this desire of mine be granted. May

that (enemy of mine) be subjected to me.”

What do these statements show? The first one makes a distinction

between the Brahmins and the Aryas. Can it be said that the

Brahmins were non-Aryans? The other statements pray for the love

and goodwill of the Shudras. If the Shudra was a primitive aboriginal

non-Aryan, is such a prayer conceivable? The statements on which

reliance is placed do not prove that the Shudras were non-Aryans.

That the Dharma Sutras call the Shudra Anarya and the state-

ments in the Vajasaneyi Samhita pouring scorn on the Shudra

woman, do not mean anything. There are two arguments against

accepting the testimony of the Dharma Sutra. In the first place, as

will be shown later, the Dharma Sutras and other treatises are books

written by the enemies of the Shudra. As such, they have no

evidentiary value. It is also doubtful whether such anti-Shudra

statements are mere imprecations or statements of facts as they

existed. They seem to contradict facts reported in other works.

The Dharma Sutras say that a Shudra is not entitled to the

Upanayana ceremony and the wearing of the sacred thread. But in

Samskara Ganapati there is an express provision declaring the

Shudra to be eligible for Upanayana.1

The Dharma Sutras say that a Shudra has no right to study the

Vedas. But the Chhandogya Upanishad (iv:l-2) relates the story of

one Janasruti to whom Veda Vidya was taught by the preceptor

Raikva. This Janasruti was a Shudra. What is more is that Kavasha

Ailusha,2 was a Shudra. He was a Rishi and the author of several

hymns of the Tenth Book of the Rig Veda.

The Dharma Sutras say that a Shudra has no right to perform

Vedic ceremonies and sacrifices. But Jaimini, the author of the Purva

Mimamsa3 mentions an ancient teacher by name Badari— whose work

is lost— as an exponent of the contrary view that even Shudras could

perform Vedic sacrifices. The Bharadvaja Srauta Sutra (v.28) admits

that there exists another school of thought which holds that

1 Referred to by Max Muller, in Ancient Sanskrit Literature (1860). p. 207.

2 Ibid, p. 58.

3 Adhyaya 6, Pada I, Sutra 27.



a Shudra can consecrate the three sacred fires necessary for the

performance of a Vedic sacrifice. Similarly, the commentator of the

Katyayana Srauta Sutra (1.4.16) admits that there are certain Vedic

texts which lead to the inference that the Shudra was eligible to

perform Vedic rites.

The Dharma Sutras say that a Shudra is not entitled to the sacred

drink of Soma. But in the story of the Ashvins, there is definite

evidence that the Shudra had a right to the divine drink of Soma.

The Ashvins, as the story goes, once happened to behold Sukanya

when she had just bathed and when her person was bare. She was

a young girl married to a Rishi by name Chyavana who at the time

of marriage was so old as to be dying almost any day. The Ashvins

were captivated by the beauty of Sukanya and said “Accept one of

us for your husband. It behoveth thee not to spend thy youth

fruitlessly.” She refused, saying “I am devoted to my husband.” They

again spoke to her and this time proposed a bargain: “We two are

the celestial physicians of note. We will make thy husband young

and graceful. Do thou then select one of us as thy husband.” She

went to her husband and communicated to him the terms of the

bargain. Chyavana said to Sukanya “Do thou so”; and the bargain

was carried out and Chyavana was made a young man by the Ashvins.

Subsequently, a question arose whether the Ashvins were entitled

to Soma, which was the drink of the Gods. Indra objected saying that

the Ashvins were Shudras and therefore not entitled to Soma.

Chyavana, who had received perpetual youth from the Ashvins, set

aside the contention and compelled Indra to give them Soma.1

There is another reason why the evidence of the Dharma Sutras

that the Shudras are non-Aryans should not be accepted. In the first

place, it is contrary to the view taken by Manu. In the decision of

the issue whether the Shudra was an Aryan or a non-Aryan, the

following verses from Manu require to be carefully considered :

“If a female of the caste sprung from a Brahmana and a Shudra female,

bear (children) to one of the highest castes, the inferior (tribe) attains the

highest caste within the seventh generation.”

“(Thus) a Shudra attains the rank of a Brahmana and (in a similar

manner) a Brahmana sinks to the level of a Shudra; but know that it

is the same with the offspring of a Kshatriya or of a Vaishya.”

“If (a doubt) should arise, with whom the pre-eminence (is, whether) with him

whom an Aryan by chance begot on a non-Aryan female, or (with the son) of

1 V. Fausboll, Indian Mythology, pp. 128-134.



a Brahmana woman by a non-Aryan;”

The decision is as follows : ‘He who was begotten by an Aryan ona non-Aryan female, may become (like to) an Aryan by his virtues; hewhom an Aryan (mother) bore to a non Aryan father (is and remains)unlike to an Aryan.’”1

Verse 64 from Manu is also to be found in Gautama Dharma Sutra(uv.22). There seems to be some controversy as to the correct inter-pretation of this verse. In summing up the different interpretations,Buhler says :

“According to Medh., Gov., Kull., and Ragh., the meaning is that, if thedaughter of a Brahmana and of a Shudra female and her descendants allmarry Brahmanas, the offspring of the sixth female descendant of theoriginal couple will be a Brahmana. While this explanation agrees withHaradatta’s comment on the parallel passage of Gautama, Nar. and Nan.take the verse very differently. They say that if a Parasava, the son ofa Brahmana and of a Shudra female, marries a most excellent Parasavafemale, who possesses a good moral character and other virtues, and ifhis descendants do the same, the child born in the sixth generation willbe a Brahmana. Nandana quotes in support of his view, Baudhayanai.16.13-14 (left out in my translation of the Sacred Books of the East, ii,p.197)... ‘(offspring) begotten by a Nishada on a Nishadi, removes withinfive generations the Shudrahood; one may initiate him (the fifth descen-dant); one may sacrifice for the sixth.’ This passage of Baudhayana thereading of which is supported by a new MS from Madras clearly showsthat Baudhayana allowed the male offspring of Brahmanas and Shudrafemales to be raised to the level of Aryans. It is also not impossible thatthe meaning of Manu’s verse may be the same, and that the translationshould be, ‘if the offspring of a Brahmana and of a Shudra female begetschildren with a most excellent (male of the Brahmana caste or female ofthe Parasava tribe), the inferior (tribe) attains the highest caste in theseventh generation.”

Whatever be the interpretation, the fact remains that in the seventhgeneration2 a Shudra under certain circumstances could become aBrahmin. Such a conception would have been impossible if the Shudrawas not an Aryan.

That the Shudra is a non-Aryan is contrary to the view taken bythe school of Arthashastra. As a representative of that school, theopinion of Kautilya on that question is of great value. In laying downthe law of slavery, Kautilya says:3

The selling or mortgaging by kinsmen of the life of a Shudra who is not a

born slave, and has not attained majority, but is Arya in birth shall be punished

1 Chapter X, verses 64-67.

2 The rule which requires that for establishing his nobility a man must be ableto trace his six uninterrupted degrees of unsullied lineage of not merely free-born,but full-born, appears to be a universal rule in ancient times.—See W. E. Hearn,The Aryan Household, Chapter VIII.

3 Book HI, Chapter 13.



with a fine of 12 panas.

Deceiving a slave of his money or depriving him of the privileges hecan exercise as an Arya (Aryabhava) shall be punished with half the fine(levied for enslaving the life of an Arya).

Failure to set a slave at liberty on the receipt of a required amountof ransom shall be punished with a fine of 12 panas; putting a slave underconfinement for no reason (samrodhaschakaranat) shall likewise be pun-ished.

The offspring of a man who has sold himself off as a slave shall bean Arya. A slave shall be entitled not only to what he has earned himselfwithout prejudice to his master’s work but also to the inheritance he hasreceived from his father.

Here is Kautilya, who calls the Shudra an Aryan in the mostemphatic and express terms possible.

V

Coming to the question of Shudras having been made slaves, it

is nonsense, if not mendacious. It is founded on two assumptions.

First is that the Dasas are described as slaves in the Rig Veda. The

second is that the Dasas are the same as Shudras.

It is true that the word Dasa is used in the Rig Veda in the sense

of slave or servant. But the word in this sense occurs in only 5 places

and no more. But even if it did occur more than five times, would

it prove that the Shudras were made slaves? Unless and until it is

proved that the two were the same people, the suggestion is absurd.

It is contrary to known facts.

Shudras participated in the coronation of kings. In the post-vedic

or the period of the Brahmanas, the coronation of a king was in reality

an offer of sovereignty by the people to the king. This was done by

the representatives of the people called Ratnis who played a very

important part in the investiture of the king. The Ratnis were so-

called because they held the Ratna (jewel), which was a symbol of

sovereignty. The king received his sovereignty only when the Ratnis

handed over to him the jewel of sovereignty, and on receiving his

sovereignty the king went to the house of each of the Ratnis and

made an offering to him. It is a significant fact that one of the Ratnis

was always a Shudra.1

Nilakantha, the author of Nitimayukha, describes the coronation

ceremony of a later time. According to him, the four chief ministers,

Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra, consecrated the new king.

1 On this point see Jayasswal, Hindu Polity (1943), pp. 200-201.



Then the leaders of each Varna and of the castes lower still,

consecrated him with holy water. Then followed acclamation by the

twice-born.1

That the Shudras were invited to be present at the coronationof the king along with Brahmins is evidenced by the description ofthe coronation of Yudhishthira, the eldest brother of the Pandavas,which is given in the Mahabharata.2

Shudras were members of the two political assemblies of ancienttimes, namely, the Janapada and Paura and as a member of thesethe Shudra was entitled to special respect even from a Brahmin.3

This was so even according to the Manusmriti (vi.61) as well asto the Vishnu Smriti (xxi.64). Otherwise there is no meaning in Manusaying that a Brahmin should not live in a country where the kingis a Shudra. That means Shudras were kings.

In the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata,4 Bhishma in his lessonson Politics to Yudhishthira says :

“I shall, however, tell thee what kinds of ministers should be appointed

by thee. Four Brahmins learned in the Vedas, possessed of a sense of

dignity, belonging to the Snataka order, and of pure behaviour, and eight

Kshatriyas, all of whom should be possessed of physical strength and

capable of weilding weapons, and one and twenty Vaishyas, all of whom

should be possessed of wealth, and three Shudras, everyone of whom should

be humble and of pure conduct and devoted to his daily duties, and one

man of the Suta caste, possessed of a knowledge of the Puranas and the

eight cardinal virtues should be thy ministers.”

This proves that the Shudras were ministers and that they werealmost equal to the Brahmins in number.5

The Shudras were not poor and lowly. They were rich. This factis testified by the Maitrayani Samhita (iv.2.7.10) and the PanchavimsaBrahmana (vi.1.11).6

There are two other aspects to this question. What significance canthere be to the enslavement of the Shudras, assuming it was a fact?There would be some significance if the Aryans did not know slaveryor were not prepared to turn the Aryans into slaves. But the factis that the Aryans knew slavery and permitted the Aryans to be madeslaves. This is clear from Rig Veda, (vii.86.7;viii. 19.36 and viii.56.3).

1 See Jayaswal, Hindu Polity (1943), p. 223.

2 Mahabharata, Sabha Parvan, Chapter XXXIII, Verses 41-42.

3 See Jayaswal, -Hindu Polity, p. 248.

4 Roy’s Translation, Vol. II, p. 197

5 Bhishma believed in communal representation.

6 Referred to in the Vedic Index, Vol. II, p. 390.



That being so, why should they particularly want to make slaves

of the Shudras? What is more important is why should they make

different laws for the Shudra slaves?

In short, the Western theory does not help us to answer our

questions, who were the Shudras and how did they become the fourth

Varna?



CHAPTER VII

WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS ?

WHO were the Shudras if they were not a non-Aryan aboriginal

race? This question must now be faced. The theory I venture to

advance may be stated in the following three propositions:

(1) The Shudras were Aryans.

(2) The Shudras belonged to the Kshatriya class.

(3) The Shudras were so important a class of Kshatriyas that

some of the most eminent and powerful kings of the ancient

Aryan communities were Shudras.

This thesis regarding the origin of the Shudras is a startling if

not a revolutionary thesis. So startling it is that not many people

will be ready to accept it, even though there may be enough evidence

to support it. My obligation is to produce the evidence, leaving the

people to judge its worth.

The primary piece of evidence on which this thesis rests is a

passage which occurs in Verses 38-40 of Chapter 60 of the Shanti

Parvan of the Mahabharata. It reads as follows :

“It has been heard by us that in the days of old a Shudra of the name

of Paijavana gave a Dakshina (in his own sacrifice) consisting of a hundred

thousand Purnapatras according to the ordinance called Aindragni.”

The important statements contained in this passage are three :

(1) that Paijavana was a Shudra, (2) that this Shudra Paijavana

performed sacrifices, and (3) the Brahmins performed sacrifices for

him and accepted Dakshina from him.

The passage quoted above is taken from Mr. Roy’s edition of the

Mahabharata. The first thing is to ascertain whether the text is

accurate or whether there are any variant readings. As regards the

authenticity of his text, this is what Mr. Roy1 says :

1 Quoted in Sukthankar Memorial Edition, Vol. I, pp. 43-44.


THE SHUDRAS : WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS ? 115

“As far as my edition is concerned it is substantially based on that of

Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, published about forty-five years ago under

the superintendence of a few learned Pandits of Bengal aided, as I believe,

by an English Orientalist of repute. Manuscripts had been procured from

all parts of India (the South unexcepted) and these were carefully collated.

Although edited with such care, I have not, however, slavishly followed

the Society’s edition. I have compared it carefully with the Maharajah of

Burdwan’s text in the Bengalee character which was edited with still

greater care. About 18 manuscripts procured from different parts of India

(the South not excepted) were carefully collated by the Burdwan Pandits

before they admitted a single sloka as genuine.”

Prof. Sukthankar, the erudite editor of the critical edition of the

Mahabharata, after examining many editions of the Mahabharata,

concluded by saying that :l

“The editio princeps (Calcutta—1856) remains the best edition of the

Vulgate, after the lapse of nearly a century.”

Although the authenticity of Mr.Roy’s edition of the Mahabharata

cannot be doubted, it would not be unreasonable if critics were to

say that they would like to know what other manuscript support there

is behind this text, which is made the basis of this new theory of

the origin of the Shudras. In undertaking such an inquiry it is

necessary to point to two considerations. One2 is that there is no such

thing as a Mahabharata manuscript in the sense of complete sets

of manuscripts covering all the eighteen Parvans. Each Parvan is

treated as a separate unit with the result that the number of copies

of the different Parvans to be found differ by a vast margin.

Consequently, the number of manuscripts to be taken as a basis for

deciding which is the correct text must vary with each Parvan.

The second3 consideration to which attention must be drawn is the

fact that the text of the Mahabharata has been handed down in two

divergent forms; a Northern and a Southern recension, texts, typical

of the Aryavarta and the Dakshinapatha.

It is obvious that an examination of manuscript support must be

based upon collation from a fair number of manuscripts and a fair

distribution of the manuscripts between the Northern and the

Southern recensions. Bearing these considerations in mind, the results

1 Quoted in Sukthankar Memorial Edition, Vol. I, p. 131.

2 Sukthankar, op. cit., p. 14.

3 Ibid., pp. 9-42.



of the collation1 of the text of Shloka 38 of the 60th chapter of the

Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata with which we are primarily

concerned from different manuscripts is presented below :

1. 'kwnz% iStouks uke (K) S

Shudrah Paijavano nama

2. 'kwnz% iSyouks uke (M/1:M/2) S

Shudrah Pailavano nama

3. 'kwnz% ;Syuuks uke (M/3 : M/4) S

Shudrah Yailanano nama

4. 'kwnz% ;Stuuks uke (F)

Shudrah Yaijanano nama

5. 'kwnzksfi ;tus uke (L)

Shudropi Yajane nama

6. 'kwnz% ikSatyd uke (TC) S

Shudrah Paunjalka nama

7. 'kw¼ks oSHkouks uke (G) N

Shuddho Vaibhavano nama

8. iqjk oStouks uke (A, D/2)

Pura Vaijavano nama

9. iqjk oStuuks uke (M) N

Pura Vaijanano nama

Here is the result of the collation of nine manuscripts. Are nine

manuscripts enough for constituting a text which has a number of

variant readings? It is true that the number of manuscripts taken

for the critical edition of the different Parvans of the Mahabharata

exceeds nine. For the entire Mahabharata the minimum number of

manuscripts taken for constituting the text is only ten.2 It cannot

therefore be contended that nine is an insufficient number. The nine

manuscripts fall into two geographical divisions, Northern and Southern.

M1, M2, M3, M4 and TC belong to the Southern recension. A, M, G,

D2 belong to the Northern recension. The selections of the manuscripts

therefore satisfy the two tests which experts have laid down.

1 I am grateful to the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute for allowing me

to use their collation sheet. Letters in brackets indicate the index number given by

the Institute to the manuscript. N or S indicate whether the manuscript comes from

the North or South. K is Kumbhakonam.

2 Sukthankar, Vol. I, p. 14.



A scrutiny of the readings shows that :

(1) there is a variation in the description of Paijavana;

(2) there is a variation in the name of Paijavana;

(3) of the nine texts, six agree in describing him as a Shudra.

One describes him as Shuddha and two instead of speaking

of the class to which he belonged refer to the time when

he lived and use the word ‘Pura’;

(4) with regard to the name, there is no agreement between

any two of the nine manuscripts. Each gives a different

reading.

Given this result, the question is what is the real text? Taking

first the texts relating to the name, it is obvious that this is not

a matter in which the question of meaning is involved. It does not

raise any questions such as interpretation versus emendation or of

giving preference to a reading which suggests how other readings

might have arisen. The question is which is the correct name and

which readings are scriptoral blunders committed by the scribes.

There seems to be no doubt that the correct text is Paijavana. It

is supported by both the recensions, Southern as well as Northern.

For Vaijavano in No.8 is the same as Paijavano. All the rest are

variations which are due to the ignorance of the scribes in not being

able to read the original copy correctly and then trying to constitute

the text in their own way.

Turning to the description of Paijavana, the change from Shudrah

to Pura, it must be granted, is not accidental. It appears to be

deliberate. Why this change has occurred it is difficult to say

categorically. Two things apear to be quite clear. In the first place,

the change appears to be quite natural. In the second place, the

change does not militate against the conclusion that Paijavana was

a Shudra. The above conclusion will be obvious if the context, in which

verses 38-40 occur, is borne in mind. The context will be clear from

the following verses which precede them:

“The Shudra should never abandon his master whatever the nature ordegree of the distress into which the latter may fall. If the master loses hiswealth, he should with excessive zeal be supported by the Shudra servantA Shudra cannot have any wealth that is his own. Whatever he possessesbelongs to his master. Sacrifice has been laid down as a duty of the threeother orders. It has been ordained for the Shudra also, O.! Bharata. A Shudrahowever is not competent to utter swaha and svadha or any other mantra.For this reason, the Shudra, without observing the vows laid down in theVedas, should worship the gods in minor sacrifices called Pakayajnas. Thegift called Purnapatra is declared to be the Dakshina of such sacrifices.”



Taking the verses 38 to 40 in the context of these verses preceding

them, it becomes clear that the whole passage deals with the Shudra.

The story of Paijavana is a mere illustration. Against this background,

it is unnecessary to repeat the word ‘Shudra’ before Paijavana. This

explains why the word Shudra does not occur before Paijavana in

the two manuscripts. As to the reason for the use of the word pura

in place of Shudra it must be remembered that the case of Paijavana

had occurred in very ancient times. It was therefore quite natural

for the scribe to feel that it was desirable to put this fact in express

terms. The writer being aware that there was no necessity for

describing Paijavana as Shudra since that was made clear from the

context, it was not necessary to emphasize it. On the other hand,

knowing that Paijavana had lived in very ancient times and that

that fact was not made very clear from the context, the writer

thought it more appropriate to add the word Pura which was

necessary and omit the word Shudrah which having regard to the

context was unnecessary.

If this explanation is well-founded, we may take it as well

established that the person referred to in the passage in the Shanti

Parvan of the Mahabharata is Paijavana and that this Paijavana

was a Shudra.

II

The next question that falls due for consideration is the

identification of Paijavana. Who is this Paijavana?

Yaska’s Nirukta seems to give us a clue. In Nirukta ii. 241 Yaska

Says:

“The seer Vishvamitra was the purohita of Sudas, the son of Pijavana,

Vishvamitra, friend of all. All, moving together. Sudas a bountiful giver.

Paijavana, son of Pijavana. Again Pi-javana one whose speed is enviable

or whose gait is inimitable.”

From Yaska’s Nirukta we get two very important facts :

(1) Paijavana means son of Pijavana, and (2) the person who is

the son of Paijavana is Sudas. With the help of Yaska, we are able

to answer the question: who is Paijavana referred to in the passage

in the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata? The answer is that

Paijavana is simply another name for Sudas.

The next question is who is this Sudas and what do we know about

him? A search in the Brahmanic literature discloses three persons

1 Lakshman Sarup, The Nighantu and Nirukta, pp. 35-36.



with the name Sudas. One Sudas is mentioned in the Rig Veda. His

family particulars are given in the following stanzas of the Rig Veda :1

1. Rig Veda, vii.18.21.—“Parashara, the destroyer of hundreds (ofRakshasas), and Vasishtha, they who, devoted to thee, have glorified theein every dwelling, neglect not the friendship of thee (their) benefactor;therefore prosperous days dawn upon the pious.”

2. Rig Veda, vii. 18.22.— “Praising the liberality of Sudas, the grandsonof Devavata, the son of Paijavana, the donor of two hundred cows, andof two chariots with two wives, I, worthy (of the gift), circumambulate thee,Agni, like the ministrant priest in the chamber (of sacrifice)”

3. Rig Veda, vii.18.23.— “Four (horses), having golden trappings, goingsteadily on a difficult road, celebrated on the earth, the excellent andacceptable gifts (made) to me by Sudas, the son of Pijavana; bear me asa son (to obtain) food and progeny.”

4. Rig Veda, vii.18.24.— “The seven worlds praise (Sudas) as if he wereIndra; him whose fame (spreads) through the spacious heaven and earth;who, munificent, has distributed (wealth) on every eminent person, and(for whom) the flowing (rivers) have destroyed Yudhyamadhi in war.”

5. Rig Veda, vii. 18.25.— “Maruts, leaders (of rites), attend upon this(prince) as you did upon Divodasa, the father of Sudas: favour the prayersof the devout son of Pijavana, and may his strength be unimpaired,undecaying.”

The two others are mentioned by the Vishnu Purana. One Sudas

is mentioned in Chapter IV as the descendant of Sagara. The

genealogical tree connecting this Sudas with Sagara is as follows:2

“Sumati, the daughter of Kasyapa and Kesini, the daughter of RajaVidarbha, were the two wives of Sagara. Being without progeny, the kingsolicited the aid of the sage Aurva with great earnestness, and the Munipronounced this boon, that one wife should bear one son, the upholderof his race, and the other should give birth to sixty thousand sons; andhe left it to them to make their election. Kesini chose to have the singleson; Sumati the multitude; and it came to pass in a short time that theformer bore Asamanjas, a prince through whom the dynasty continued;and the daughter of Vinata (Sumati) had sixty thousand sons. The sonof Asamanjas was Ansumat.

* * *

The son of Ansumat was Dilipa; his son was Bhagiratha, who broughtGanga down to earth, whence she is called Bhagirathi. The son ofBhagiratha was Sruta; his son was Nabhaga; his son was Ambarisha; hisson was Sindhudvipa; his son was Ayutashva; his son was Rituparna, thefriend of Nala, skilled profoundly in dice. The son of Rituparna wasSarvakama; his son was Sudasa; his son was Saudasa, named alsoMitrasaha.”

1 Wilson’s Rig Veda, Vol. IV (Poona Reprint), p. 146.

2 Wilson’s Vishnu Purana, pp. 377-380.



Another Sudas is mentioned in Chapter XIX as a descendant of

Puru. The genealogical tree connecting this Sudas with Puru is as

follows :1

“The son of Puru was Janamejaya; his son was Prachinvat; his son wasPravira, his son was Manasyu; his son was Bhayada; his son was Sudhumna;his son was Bahugava; his son was Samyati; his son was Bhamyati; his sonwas Raudrashva, who had ten sons, Riteyu, Kaksheyu, Sthandileyu, Ghriteyu,Jaleyu, Sthaleyu, Dhaneyu, Vaneyu, and Vrateyu. The son of Riteyu wasRantinara whose sons were Tansu, Aprtiratha, and Dhruva. The son of thesecond of these was Kanva, and his son was Medhatithi, from whom theKanvayana Brahmans are descended. Anila was the son of Tansu, and hehad four sons, of whom Dushyanta was the elder. The son of Dushyanta wasthe emperor Bharata;...

Bharata had by different wives nine sons, but they were put to death bytheir own mothers, because Bharata remarked that they bore no resemblanceto him, and the women were afraid that he would therefore desert them.The birth of his sons being thus unavailing, Bharata sacrificed to the Maruts,and they gave him Bharadvaja, the son of Brihaspati by Mamata the wifeof Utathya,...

* * *

He was also termed Vitatha, in allusion to the unprofitable (vitatha) birthof the sons of Bharata. The son of Vitatha was Bhavanmanyu; his sons weremany, and amongst them the chief were Brihatkshatra, Mahavirya, Nara andGarga. The son of Nara was Sankriti; his sons were Ruchiradhi and Rantideva.The son of Garga was Sini; and their descendants called Gargyas and Sainyas,although Kshatriyas by birth, became Brahmins. The son of Mahavirya wasUrukshaya, who had three sons, Trayyaruna, Pushkarin and Kapi, the lastof whom became a Brahmin. The son of Brihatkshatra was Suhotra, whoseson was Hastin, who founded the city of Hastinapur. The sons of Hastin wereAjamidha, Dvimidha and Purumidha. One son of Ajamidha was Kanva, whoseson was Medhatithi, his other son was Brihadishu, whose son was Brihadvasu;his son was Brihatkarman; his son was Jayadratha, his son was Vishvajit,his son was Senajit, whose sons were Ruchirashva, Kasya, Dridhadhanush,and Vasahanu. The son of Ruchiraswa was Prithusena; his son was Para;his son was Nipa; he had a hundred sons, of whom Samara, the principal,was the ruler of Kampilya. Samara had three sons, Para, Sampara, Sadashva.The son of Para was Prithu; his son was Sukriti; his son was Vibhratra;his son was Anuha, who married Kritvi, the daughter of Shuka (the son ofVyasa), and had by her Brahmadatta; his son was Vishvaksena; his son wasUdaksena; and his son was Bhallata.

The son of Dvimidha was Yavinara; his son was Dhritimat; his son wasSatyadhriti; his son was Dridhanemi; his son was Suparshva; his son wasSumati; his son was Sannatimat; his son was Krita, to whom Hiranyanabhataught the philosophy of the Yoga, and he compiled twenty-four Sanhitas (orcompendia) for the use of the eastern Brahmins, who study the Sama-Veda.The son of Krita was Ugrayudha, by whose prowess the Nipa race ofKshatriyas was destroyed; his son was Kshemya; his son was Suvira; his sonwas Nripanjaya; his son was Bahuratha. These were all called Pauravas.

1 Wilson’s Vishnu Purana, pp. 447-456.



Ajamidha had a wife called Nilini, and by her he had a son named Nila;his son was Santi; his son was Susanti; his son was Purujanu; his son wasChakshu; his son was Haryashva, who had five sons Mudgala, Srinjaya,Brihadishu, Pravira, and Kampilya. Their father said, ‘These my five (pancha)sons are able (alam) to protect the countries’; and hence they were termedthe Panchalas. From Mudgala descended the Maudgalya Brahmins; he hadalso a son named Bahvashva, who had two children, twins, a son anddaughter, Divodasa and Ahalya.

* * *

The son of Divodasa was Mitrayu; his son was Chyavana; his son wasSudasa; his son was Saudasa, also called Sahadeva; his son was Somaka;he had a hundred sons, of whom Jantu was the eldest, and Prishata theyoungest. The son of Prishata was Drupada; his son was Dhrishtadyumna;his son was Drishtaketu.

Another son of Ajamidha was named Riksha; his son was Samvarana; hisson was Kuru, who gave his name to the holy district Kurukshetra; his sonswere Sudhanush, Parikshit, and many others. The son of Sudhanush wasSuhotra; his son was Chyavana; his son was Kritaka; his son was Uparicharathe Vasu, who had seven children Brihadratha, Pratyagra, Kushamba,Mavella, Matsya, and others. The son of Brihadratha was Kusagra; his sonwas Rishabha; his son was Pushpavat; his son was Satyadhrita; his son wasSudhanvan; and his son was Jantu. Brihadratha had another son, who beingborn in two parts, which were put together (sandhita) by a female friendnamed Jara, he was denominated Jarasandha; his son was Sahadeva; hisson was Somapi; his son was Srutasravas, These were kings of Magadha.”

The immediate ancestry of the three Sudasas is put below in

parallel columns to facilitate the settlement of the question whetherthey are one or three different persons:

Status in Rig Veda Sudas in Vishnu Purana

VII, 18:22 VII, 18:23 VII, 18:25 In the Sagar In the Puru

Family Family

Devavata Pijavana Divodasa= Ritupama Bahvashva

Pijavana

Pijavana Sudas Sarvakama Divodasa

Sudas Sudas Sudas Milrayu

Saudasa = Chyavana

Mitrasaha

Sudas

Saudasa

Somaka



From the table two things are as clear as day-light. First is thatneither Sudas mentioned in the Vishnu Purana has anything to do withthe Sudas mentioned in the Rig Veda. The second point which is clearis that if the Paijavana mentioned in the Mahabharata can be identifiedwith anybody who lived in ancient times it can only be with Sudasmentioned in Rig Veda who was called Paijavana because he was theson of Pijavana which was another name of Divodasa.1

Fortunately for me my conclusion is the same as that of Prof. Weber.In commenting upon the passage in the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharataon which my thesis is based Prof. Weber2 says :

“Here the remarkable tradition is recorded that Paijavana, i.e., Sudas whowas so famous for his sacrifices and who is celebrated in the Rig Veda asthe patron of Vishvamitra and enemy of Vasishtha, was a Shudra.”

Prof.Weber unfortunately did not realize the full significance of thispassage. This is another matter. It is enough for my purpose to findthat he too thinks that the Paijavana of the Mahabharata is no otherthan Sudas of the Rig Veda.

III

What do we know about Sudas, the Paijavana?

The following particulars are available about him:

I. Sudas was neither Dasa nor Arya. Both the Dasas as well as

the Aryas were his enemies.3 This means that he was a Vedic Aryan.

II. The father of Sudas was Divodasa. He seems to be the adopted

son of Vadhryashva.4 Divodasa was a king. He fought many battles

against Turvasas and Yadus,5 Shambara,6 Parava, and Karanja 7 and

1 Some difficulty is felt about the genealogy of this Sudas in the Rig Veda, whichis sought to be got over by identifying Devavata with Divodasa. This difficulty hasmainly arisen because of the diffirent texts of Stanzas 22, 23 and 25 which nobodyseems to have cared to collect properly. Chitrava Shastri’s edition of Rig Veda hasPijavana throughout. Satavalekar’s edition has Paijavana throughout. Wilson hasPaijavana in 22 and 23 and Pijavana in 25. Wilson’s text seems to be accurate. Foreven Yaska has noticed the existence of the name Paijavana in his Nirukta whichhe endeavours to explain. If Wilson’s text in 25 is taken as correct no difficulty canarise. Pijavana would then appear to be another name of Divodasa and Paijavana wouldbe another name of Sudas.

2 Muir, Vol. 1, p. 366

3 Rig Veda, VII, 83. 1.

4 Rig Veda, IX, 61.2.

5 Rig Veda,VI. 61. 1; VII 19.8

6 Rig Veda, I. 130. 7

7 Rig Veda, I. 53. 10



Gungu.1 There was a war between Turyavana and Divodasa and hisallies Ayu and Kutsa. The victory went to Turyavana.2

It seems that at one time Indra was against him particularly inthe battle of Turyavana. His purohita was Bharadvaja,3 to whomDivodasa gave many gifts.4 Bharadvaja seems to have played the partof a traitor by joining Turyavana against Divodasa.5

There is no reference to the mother of Sudas. But there is a referenceto the wife of Sudas. His wife’s name is given as Sudevi.6 It is saidthat the Ashvins procured her for Sudas.

III. Sudas was a king and his coronation ceremony was performedby the Brahma-rishi, Vasistha.

The Aitareya Brahmana gives the following list of the kings who hadthe Mahabhisheka ceremony performed and the name of the Purohitawho officiated at it.7

“With this ceremony Sharyata, the son of Manu, was inaugurated byChyavana, the son of Bhrigu. Thence Sharyata went conquering all over theearth, and sacrificed the sacrificial horse, and was even at the sacrificialsession held by the gods, the house-father.”

“With this ceremony Samasushama, the son of Vajaratna, inauguratedShatanika, the son of Satrajit. Thence Shatanika went conquering everywhereover the whole earth up to its ends, and sacrificed the sacrificial horse.”

“With this ceremony Parvata and Narada inaugurated Ambashthya. ThenceAmbashthya went conquering everywhere over the whole earth up to its ends,and sacrificed the sacrificial horse.”

“With this ceremony Parvata and Narada inaugurated Yudhamasraushti,the son of Ugrasena. Thence Yudhamasraushti went conquering everywhereover the whole earth up to its ends, and sacrificed the sacrificial horse.”

“With this inauguration ceremony Kashyapa inaugurated Vishva-karma,the son of Bhuvana. Thence Vishvakarma went conquering everywhere overthe whole earth up to its ends, and sacrificed the sacrificial horse.”

“They say that the earth sang to Vishvakarma the following stanza:

‘No mortal is allowed to give me away (as donation).8 O, Vishva-karma,thou hast given me, (therefore) I shall plunge into the midst of the sea. Invain was thy promise made to Kashyapa.’”

“With this ceremony Vasishtha inaugurated Sudas, the son of Pijavana.Thence Sudas went conquering everywhere over the whole earth up to itsends, and sacrificed the sacrificial horse.”

1 Rig Veda, X. 48

2 Rig Veda, I. 53, 8; VI. 18. 13

3 Rig Veda, I. 116. 18.

4 Rig Veda,VI. 16. 5.

5 Rig Veda, VI. 18. 13.

6 Rig Veda, 1. 112. 19.

7 Martin Haug, Vol. II, pp. 523-524.

8 The king had promised the whole earth as gift to his officiating priest.



“With this inauguration ceremony Samvarta, the son of Angiras, inaugu-rated Maruta, the son of Avikshit. Thence Maruta went conquering every-where over the whole earth up to its ends, and sacrificed the sacrificial horse.”

In this list there is a specific mention of Sudas and of his coronationhaving been performed by Vasishtha.

Sudas was the hero in the famous Dasharajna Yuddha or the battleof the ten kings described in the Rig Veda. References to this famousbattle occur in the various Suktas of the Seventh Mandala of the RigVeda.

Sukta 83 says:

4. “Indra and Varuna, you protected Sudas, overwhelming the yet unassailedBheda with your fatal weapons; hear the prayers of these Tritsus in timeof battle, so that my ministration may have borne them fruit.”

6. “Both (Sudas and the Tritsus) call upon you two, (Indra and Varuna),in combats for the acquirement of wealth, when you defend Sudas, togetherwith the Tritsus, when attacked by the ten Rajas.”

7. “The ten confederated irreligious Rajas did not prevail, Indra andVaruna, against Sudas; the praise of the leaders (of rites), the offerers ofsacrificial food, was fruitful; the gods were present at their sacrifices.”

9. “One of you destroys enemies in battle, the other ever protects religiousobservances; we invoke you, showerers (of benefits), with praises; bestow uponus, Indra and Varuna, felicity.”

Sukta 33 says :

2. “Disgracing (Pashadyumna), they brought from afar the fierce Indra,when drinking the ladle of Soma at his sacrifice, to (receive) the libation(of Sudas); Indra hastened from the effused Soma of Pashadyumna, the sonof Vayata, to the Vasishthas.”

3. “In the same manner was he, (Sudas), enabled by them easily to crossthe Sindhu river; in the same manner, through them he easily slew his foes;so in like manner, Vasishthas, through your prayers, did Indra defend Sudasin the war with the ten kings.”

“Suffering from thirst, soliciting (rain), supported (by the Tritsus) in thewar with the ten Rajas, (the Vasishthas) made Indra radiant as the sun;Indra heard (the praises) of Vasishtha glorifying him, and bestowed a spaciousregion on the Tritsus.”

Sukta 19 says :

3. “Undaunted (Indra), thou hast protected with all thy protections Sudas,the offerer of oblations; thou hast protected, in battles with enemies for thepossession of the earth, TRASADASYU, the son of PURUKUTSA, and PURU.”

6. “Thy favours, Indra, to Sudas, the donor (of offerings), the presenterof oblations, arc infinite;showerer (of benefits)I yoke for thee (thy vigorous)steeds; may our prayers, reach thee who art mighty, to whom many ritesare addressed.”

Sukta 18 of the Seventh Mandala says :

5. “The adorable Indra made the well-known deep waters (of the Parushni)



fordable for Sudas, and converted the vehement awakening imprecation ofthe sacrificer into the calumniation of the rivers.”

6. “TURVASHA, who was preceding (at solen rites), diligent in sacrifice,(went to Sudas) for wealth; but like fishes restricted (to the element of water),the Bhrigus and Druhyus quickly assailed them; of these two everywheregoing, the friend (of Sudas, Indra) rescued his friend.”

7. “Those who dress the oblation, those who pronounce auspicious words,those who abstain from penance, those who bear horns (in their hands), thosewho bestow happiness (on the world by sacrifice), glorify that Indra, whorecovered the cattle of the Arya from the plunderers, who slew the enemiesin battle.”

8. “The evil-disposed and stupid (enemies of Sudas), crossing the humbleParushni river, have broken down its banks;but he by his greatness pervadesthe earth, and KAVI, the son of CHAYAMANA, like a falling victim, sleeps(in death).”

9. “The waters followed their regular course to the Parushni, nor (wan-dered) beyond it; the quick course (of the king) came to the accessible places,and INDRA made the idly-talking enemies, with their numerous progeny,subject among them (to Sudas).”

10. “They who ride on parti-coloured cattle, (the Maruts), despatched byPRISHNI, and recalling the engagement made by them with their friend(Indra), came like cattle from the pasturage, when left without a herdsman;the exulting Niyut steeds brought them quickly (against the foe).”

11. “The hero INDRA created the Maruts (for the assistance of the Raja),who, ambitious of fame, slew one and twenty of the men on the two banks(of the Parushni), as a well looking priest lops the sacred grass in the chamberof sacrifice.”

12. “Thou, the bearer of the thunderbolt, didst drown SHRUTA, KAVASHA,VRIDDHA, and afterwards DRUHYU in the waters; for they, Indra, who aredevoted to thee, and glorify thee, preferring thy friendship, enjoy it.”

13. “Indra, in his might, quickly demolished all their strongholds, and theirseven (kinds of) cities; he has given the dwelling of the son of ANU to TRITSU;may we, (by propitiating), (Indra) conquer in battle the ill-speaking man.”

14. “The warriors of the ANUS and DRUHYUS, intending (to carry offthe) cattle, (hostile) to the pious (SUDAS), perished to the number of sixty-six thousand six hundred and sixty; such are all the glorious acts of INDRA.”

15. “These hostile Tritsus, ignorantly contending with INDRA, fled, routedas rapidly as rivers on a downward course, and being discomfited abandonedall their possessions to SUDAS.”

16. “INDRA has scattered over the earth the hostile rival of the hero(SUDAS), the senior of INDRA, the appropriator of the oblation; INDRA hasbaffled the wrath of the wrathful enemy, and the (foe) advancing on the way(against SUDAS) has taken the path of flight.”

17. “INDRA has effected a valuable (donation) by a pauper; he has slainan old lion by a goat; he has cut the angles of the sacrificial post with aneedle; he has given all the spoils (of the enemy) to SUDAS.”

18. “Thy numerous enemies, INDRA, have been reduced to subjugation; effectat some time or other the subjugation of the turbulent BHEDA, who holds men



praising thee as guilty of wickedness; hurl, INDRA, thy sharp thunderboltagainst him.”

19. “The dwellers on the Yamuna and Tritsus glorified INDRA whenhe killed BHEDA in battle; the Ajas, the Shigrus, the Yakshas. offeredto him as a sacrifice the heads of the horses killed in the combat.”

20. “Thy favours, INDRA, and thy bounties, whether old or new, cannotbe counted like the (recurring) dawns; thou hast slain DEVAKA, the sonof MANYAMANA and of thine own will hast cast down SHAMBARA fromthe vast (mountain).”

In this batte the kings who fought against Sudas were:1 (1) Shinyu,

(2) Turvasha, (3) Druhyu, (4) Kavasha, (5) Puru, (6) Anu, (7) Bheda,

(8) Shambara, (9) Vaikarna, (10) another Vaikarna, (11) Yadu,

(12) Matsya, (13) Paktha, (14) Bhalanas, (15) Aleena, (16) Vishanin,

(17) Aja, (18) Shiva, (19) Shigru, (20) Yakshu, (21) Yudhyamadhi,

(22) Yadva, (23) Devaka Manyamana, (24) Chayamana Kavi,

(25) Sutuka, (26) Uchatha, (27) Shmta, (28) Vriddha, (29) Manyu,

and (30) Prithu.

Obviously, the war was a much bigger war than its name indicates.

The war must have been a very great event in the history of the

Indo-Aryans. No wonder the victorious Sudas became a great hero

of his time.2 We do not know what exactly led to this war. Some

indication is given by Rig Veda, vii.83.7, where the kings arrayed

against Sudas are described as irreligious which suggests that it was

probably a religious war.

IV. Sayanacharya, as well as tradition, declare the following

hymns of the Rig Veda to have had the under-mentioned kings for

their rishis :

“Vitahavya (or Bharadvaja) x.9, Sindhudvipa, son of Ambarisha (or

Trisiras, son of Tvashtri) x.75,Sindhukshit, son of Priyamedha; x.133,

Sudas, son of Pijavana; x.134, Mandhatri, son of Yuvanasa; x.179, Sibi,

son of Usinara, Pratardana, son of Divodasa and king of Kasi, and

Vasumanas, son of Rohidasva; and x.148 is declared to have had Prithi

Vainya.”

It will be noticed that in this list there occurs the name of Sudas

as a composer of Vedic hymns.

V. Sudas performed Ashvamedha Yajna. There is reference to this

in Rig Veda, iii.53.

9. “The great RISHI, the generator of the gods, attracted by the deities, the

1 The list is taken from Chitrava Shastri’s Prachin Charitra Kosh, p. 624. There

is no unanimity whether all the names are of kings. Sayanacharya says that 13-

16 are names of the Purohitas. There is also doubt about 27-29.

2 The name of Sudas occurs in the Rig Veda in 27 places. It shows what a great

hero he must have been regarded by the Vedic people.



overlooker of the leaders (at holy rites), VISHVA-MITRA arrested the waterystream when he sacrificed for SUDAS; INDRA with the Kushikas, waspleased.”

11. “Approach, Kushikas, the steed of SUDAS; animate (him), and let himloose to (win) riches (for the raja); for the king (of the gods), has slain VRITRAin the East, in the West, in the North, therefore let (SUDAS) worship himin the best (regions) of the earth.”

VI. Sudas was known for charity to the Brahmins who called himAtithigva (the doyen) of Philanthrophists. How the Brahmins havepraised him for his philanthrophy appears from the following refer-ences in the Rig Veda:

i.47.6. “0, impetuous Ashvins, possessing wealth in your car, bringsustenance to Sudas. Send to us from the (aerial) ocean, or the sky, the richeswhich are much coveted.”

i.63.7. “Thou didst then, O,thundering Indra, war against, and shatter, theseven cities for Purukutsa, when thou, O king, didst without effort hurl awaydistress from Sudas like a bunch of grass, and bestow wealth on Puru.”

i. 112.19. “Come, O Ashvins, with those succours whereby ye broughtglorious power to Sudas.”

vii.19.3. “Though, O fierce Indra, hast impetuously protected Sudas, whooffered oblations, with every kind of succour. Thou hast preserved Trasadasyuthe son of Purukutsa, and Puru in his conquest of land and in his slaughterof enemies.”

vii.20.2 “Indra growing in force slays Vritra; the hero protects him whopraises him; he makes room for Sudas (or the liberal sacrificer- Sayana); hegives riches repeatedly to his worshippers.”

vii.25.3. “Let a hundred succours come to Sudas, a thousand desirable (gifts)and prosperity. Destroy the weapon of the murderous. Confer renown andwealth on us.”

vii.32.10. “No one can oppose or stop the chariot of Sudas. He whom Indra,whom the Marutas, protect, walks in a pasture filled with cattle.”

vii.53.3. “And ye, O, Heaven and Earth, have many gifts of wealth for Sudas.”

vii.60.8. “Since Aditi, Mitra, and Varuna, afford secure protection to Sudas(or the liberal man), bestowing on him offspring—may we not, O mightydeities, commit any offence against the gods ... May Aryaman rid us of ourenemies. (Grant) ye vigorous gods, a wide space to Sudas.”

These are the biographical bits regarding Paijavana referred to inthe Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata gleaned from the most authenticsource, namely, the Rig Veda. From the Rig Veda, we know that hisreal name was Sudas, that he was a Kshatriya. He was more than aKshatriya. He was a king and a mighty king. To this, the Mahabharataadds a fresh and a new detail, namely that he was a Shudra. A Shudrato be an Aryan, a Shudra to be a Kshatriya and a Shudra to be a king!!Can there be a greater revelation? Can there be anything morerevolutionary?



This search for biographical details may be closed with a discus-

sion of three important questions: Was Sudas an Aryan? If Sudas

is an Aryan what is the tribe to which he belonged? If Sudas is

a Shudra, what does Shudra signify?

It might be well to begin with the second. For the determination

of this question it is possible to derive some assistance from certain

reference in the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda mentions many tribes, most

important of which are Tritsus, Bharatas, Turvasas, Durhyus, Yadus,

Purus and Anus. But according to the references in the Rig Veda

there are only three with whom Sudas was connected. They are

Purus, Tritsus and the Bharatas. It is enough to confine ourselves

to these three and to find out if possible to which of these tribes

he belonged. The most important stanzas bearing on the relation

between Tritsus and Sudas are the Rig Veda, i.63.7; i. 130.7;

vii.18.15; vii.33.5; vii.33.6; vii.83:4, 6.

In i.63,7,Divodasa is spoken of as the king of the Purus and in

i. 130.7, Divodasa is spoken of as Paurve, i.e., belonging to the Purus.

Rig Veda,vii.l8.15 and vii.83.6, suggest that Sudas was not a

Tritsu. The first suggests that Sudas raided the camp of Tritsus who

ran away and Sudas took possession of their wealth. The second

suggests that Tritsus and Sudas were on one side in the war against

the ten kings, but they are shown as separate. But in vii.35.5 and

in vii.83.4, Sudas becomes fully identified with Tritsus; indeed, in

the former Sudas becomes a king of the Tritsus.

On this question of the relation between the Tritsus and the

Bharatas and between them and Sudas, we have as our evidence

Rig Veda, vii.33.6 and v. 16.4, 6, 19. According to the first, Tritsus

are the same as the Bharatas. According to the second, Divodasa

the father of Sudas is spoken of as belonging to the Bharatas.

From these references one thing is certain that the Purus, Tritsus

and Bharatas were either different branches of one and the same

folk or that they were different tribes, who in the course of time

became one people, folk. This is not impossible. The only question

is: assuming they were different, to whom did Sudas originally

belong? To the Purus, the Tritsus or to the Bharatas? Having regard

to the connection of the Purus and the Bharatas with Divodasa, his

father, it seems natural to suppose that Sudas originally belonged

either to the Purus or to the Bharatas—which, it is difficult to say.

Whether he belonged to the Purus or not, there is no doubt that

Sudas belonged to the Bharatas if regard is had to the fact that his



father Divodasa is spoken of as belonging to the Bharatas. The next

question, is: who were these Bharatas and whether they are the people

after whom India got the name Bharata Bhumi or the land of the

Bharatas. This question is important because most people are not aware

of the true facts. When Hindus talk of the Bharatas they have in mind

the Daushyanti Bharatas, Bharatas descended from Dushyanta and

Shakuntala and who fought the war which is described in the

Mahabharata. Not only are they not aware of any other Bharatas but

they believe that the name Bharata Bhumi which was given to India

was given after the Daushyanti Bharatas.

There are two Bharatas quite distinct from each other. One tribe

of the Bharatas are the Bharatas of the Rig Veda, who were descended

from Manu and to whom Sudas belonged. The other tribe of Bharatas

are the Daushyanti Bharatas. What is more important is that if India

has been named Bharata Bhumi it is after the Bharatas of the Rig

Veda and not after the Daushyanti Bharatas. This is made clear by

the following stanzas from the Bhagavata Purana:1

fIkz;aonks uke lqrks euks% Lok;aHkqoL; g A

rL;kXuh?kzLrrks ukfHk½Z"kHk Üp lqrLrr% AA

vorh.kZ iq=k'kra rL;klhnzgÔikjxe~ A

rs"kka oS Hkjrks T;s"Bks ukjk;.kijk;.k% A

fo[;kra o"kZesr|UukEuk HkkjreqÙkize~ AA

“Manu, the son of Syavambhu, had a son named Priyamvada; his son

was Agnidhra; his son was Nabhi; he had a son Rishabha. He had a

hundred sons born to him, all learned in the Veda; of them, Bharata was

the eldest, devoted to Narayana, by whose name this excellent land is

known as Bharata.”

This shows to what illustratious line of kings this Shudra Sudas

belonged.

The next thing to find out is whether Sudas was an Aryan. The

Bharatas were of course Aryans and therefore Sudas must have been

an Aryan. If reference is had to Rig Veda, vii. 18.7, this connection

with the Tritsus to the Aryans seems to throw some doubt on his

Aryan origin. This stanza says that Indra rescued the cows of the

Aryas from the Tritsus and killed the Tritsus, thereby suggesting that

the Tritsus were the enemies of the Aryas. Griffiths is very much

perturbed by the Tritsus being shown as non-Aryans which is the

result of a literal translation of the stanza, and to avoid it he

1 Quoted by Vaidya in Mahabharatacha Upasamhara, p. 200.



understands cows to mean comrade.1 This of course is unnecessary

if one bears in mind that the Rig Veda Contains the story of two

sorts of Aryas, whether differing in race or religion, it is difficult

to say. Interpreted in the light of this fact, all that the stanza means

is that at the time when it was written the Tritsus had not become

Aryans by religion. It does not mean that they were not Aryans by

race. It is therefore indisputable that Sudas, whether taken as a

Bharata or as a Tritsu was an Aryan.

And now to the last question, though it is by no means the least.

What does Shudra signify? In the light of this new discovery that

Sudas was a Shudra, the word now stands in a totally different light.

To old scholars to whom the word was just the name of a servile

and aboriginal class this new discovery must come as a surprise for

which their past researches cannot possibly furnish an answer. As

for myself, I am in no better position. The reason is that the social

organization of the Vedic Aryans has yet to be studied. We know from

the study of primitive societies that they are organized in groups and

they act as groups. The groups are of various sorts. There are clans,

phratries, moieties and tribes. In some cases, the tribe is the primary

unit, in others it is the clan, in others the phratry. In some cases

tribes are sub-divided into clans. In other cases there are no clans.

It is a single clanless tribe.

The clan embraces the descendants of a single ancestor held

together by a sense of common descent. Clans often become associated

through common social and ceremonial interests into major units,

called phratries or brotherhoods of clans. The bond within the phratry

may be relatively loose, that is, the association may not imply more

than an informal feeling of preferential friendship. The phratry may

become a moiety in which each clan is recognized as part of one of

two major units. But moieties may occur without any sub-division,

that is, the entire clan may consist of two clans. All these organi-

zations whether it is a clan, a phratry, a moiety or a tribe, are all

based on the tie of kinship.

The Vedic Aryans had no doubt some such forms of social

organization. That is clear from the nomenclature. As pointed out

by Prof. Senart :2

1 His rendering is “yet to the Tritsus come the Aryu’s comrade, through love

of spoil and heros’ war, to lead them.”

2 ‘Castes in India” by Emile Senart, p. 192.



“The Vedic hymns arc all too indefinite concerning the details of external

and social life. We at least sec from them that the Aryan population was

divided into a number of tribes or small peoples (janas), subdivided into

clans united by the ties of kinship (visas), which in their turn were split

up into families. The terminology of the Rig Veda, is in this respect

somewhat indecisive, but the general fact is clear. Sajata, that is to say,

‘kinsman’ or ‘fellow in Jati,’ of race, seems in the Atharva-Veda to denote

fellow in clan (vis), Jana, which assumes a wider significance, recalls the

Avestic equivalent of the clan, the zantu, and the jati or caste. A series

of terms, vra, vrijana, vraja, vrata, appear to be synonyms or subdivisions

either of the clan or of the tribes. The Aryan population then lived, at

the epoch to which the hymns refer, under the rule of an organization

dominated by the traditions of the tribe and the lower or similar groupings.

The very variety of names indicates that this organization was somewhat

unsettled.”

We have, however, no information to determine which of these

corresponds to the clan, which to the phratry and which to the tribe.1

That being so, it is difficult to say whether Shudra was the name

of a clan, a phratry or a tribe. It is, however, interesting to refer

to the view of Prof. Weber when he comments on the passage from

the Satapatha Brahmana (i. 1.4.12) where it says that different modes

of address should be adopted inviting the sacrificer to proceed with

the sacrifice, addressing him as ‘come’ if he is a Brahmin, ‘hasten

hither’ if he is a Kshatriya, ‘hasten hither’ if he is a Vaishya and

‘run hither’ if he is a Shudra. Prof. Weber says :2

“The entire passage is of great importance, as it shows (in opposition

to what Roth says in the first Volume of this Journal, p.83) that the

Shudras were then admitted to the holy sacrifices of the Aryans, and

understood their speech, even if they did not speak it. The latter point

cannot certainly be assumed as a necessary consequence, but it is highly

probable and I consequently incline to the view of those who regard the

Shudras as an Aryan tribe which immigrated into India before the others.”

His conclusion that the Shudras were Aryans hits the nail squarely

on the head. The only point of doubt is whether the Shudras were

a tribe. That they were Aryans and Kshatriyas is beyond doubt.

1 What we called Aryan tribes appear to be a phratry in view of their changing

alliances.

2 Muir. Vol. I, p. 366.

D:\AMBEDKAR\VOL-07\VOL7-08 Mk S.K.—26-09-2013\10-11-2013 132


CHAPTER VIII

THE NUMBER OF VARNAS,

THREE OR FOUR ?

I

THAT there were from the very beginning four Varnas in the Indo-

Aryan society is a view which is universally accepted by all classes

of Hindus, and also by European scholars. If the thesis advanced

in the last chapter, namely, that the Shudras were Kshatriyas is

accepted, then it follows that this theory is wrong and that there

was a time when there were only three Varnas in the Indo-Aryan

society, viz., Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. Thus, the thesis,

while it solves one problem, at the same time creates another.

Whether anybody else sees the importance of this problem or not,

I do. Indeed, I am aware of the fact that unless I succeed in proving

that there were originally only three Varnas, my thesis that the

Shudras were Kshatriyas may not be said to be proved beyond the

shadow of a doubt.

While it is unfortunate that I should have landed on a thesis,

which, while holding out a promise of solving the problem, creates

another, I feel fortunate in having strong and cogent evidence to

show that there were originally only three Varnas among the Indo-

Aryans.

The first piece of evidence I rely upon is that of the Rig Veda

itself. There are some scholars who maintain that the Varna system

did not exist in the age of the Rig Veda. This statement is based

on the view that the Purusha Sukta is an interpolation which has

taken place long after the Rig Veda was closed. Even accepting that

the Purusha Sukta is a later interpolation, it is not possible to accept

the statement that the Varna system did not exist in the time of


THE SHUDRAS : THE NUMBER OF VARNAS, THREE OR FOUR ? 133

the Rig Veda. Such a system is in open conflict with the text of

the Rig Veda. For, the Rig Veda, apart from the Purusha Sukta,

does mention Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas not once but many

times. The Brahmins are mentioned as a separate Varna fifteen

times, Kshatriyas nine times. What is important is that the Rig Veda

does not mention Shudra as a separate Varna. If Shudras were a

separate Varna there is no reason why the Rig Veda should not have

mentioned them. The true conclusion to be drawn from the Rig Veda

is not that the Varna system did not exist, but that there were only

three Varnas and that Shudras were not regarded as a fourth and

a separate Varna.

The second piece of evidence I rely on is the testimony of the two

Brahmanas, the Satapatha and the Taittiriya. Both speak of the

creation of three Varnas only. They do not speak of the creation

of the Shudras as a separate.

The Satapatha Brahmana says :l

II. 1.4.11.— “(Uttering), ‘bhuh’, Prajapati generated this earth. (Uttering)

‘bhuvah’ he generated the air, and (Uttering) ‘svah’ he generated the sky.

This universe is co-extensive with these worlds. (The fire) is placed with

the whole. Saying ‘bhuh’, Prajapati generated the Brahman; saying

‘bhuvah’’ he generated the Kshattra; (and saying) ‘svah’, he generated the

Vis. The fire is placed with the whole. (Saying) ‘bhuh’, Prajapati generated

himself; (saying) ‘bhuvah’, he generated offspring : saying ‘svah’, he

generated animals. This world is so much as self, offspring, and animals.

(The fire) is placed with the whole.”

The Taittirya Brahmana says2

III. 12.9.2.— “This entire (universe) has been created by Brahma. Men

say that the Vaishya class was produced from ric verses. They say that

the Yajur Veda is the womb from which the Kshattriya was born. The

Sama Veda is the source from which the Brahmins sprang. This word the

ancients declared to the ancients.”

Here is my evidence. It consists of an inference from the Rig Veda

and two statements from two Brahmanas which in point of authority

are co-equal with the Vedas. For both are Shruti both say in definite

and precise terms that there were only three Varnas. Both agree that

the Shudras did not form a separate and a distinct Varna, much less

the fourth Varna. There cannot, therefore, be better evidence in support

of my contention that there were originally only three Varnas

1 Muir, Vol. 1, p. 17.




and that the Shudras were only a part of the second Varna.

II

Such is my evidence. On the other side, there is, of course, the

evidence contained in the Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda, which

maintains that there were four Varnas from the very beginning. The

question now is : which of the two should be accepted as the correct?

How is this question to be decided? It cannot be decided by applying

the rules of Mimamsa. If we did apply it, we will have to admit that

both the statements, one in the Purusha Sukta that there were four

Varnas and the statement in the two Brahmanas that there were

three Varnas, are true. This is an absurd position. We must decide

this matter in the light of the canons of historical criticism, such

as sequence of time and intrinsic criticism, etc. The main question

is whether the Purusha Sukta is a later composition added to the

original Rig Veda. The question has been dealt with on the basis

of the language of the Sukta as compared with the language of the

rest of the Rig Veda. That it is a late production is the opinion of

all scholars. This is what Colebrooke says :1

“That remarkable hymn (the Purusha Sukta) is in language, metre, and

style, very different from the rest of the prayers with which it is associated.

It has a decidedly more modern tone; and must have been composed after

the Sanskrit language had been refined, and its grammar and rhythm

perfected. The internal evidence which it furnishes serves to demonstrate

the important fact that the compilation of the Vedas, in their present

arrangement, took place after the Sanskrit tongue had advanced from the

rustic and irregular dialect in which the multitude of hymns and prayers

of the Veda was composed, to the polished and sonorous language in which

the mythological poems, sacred and profane (puranas and kavyas), have

been written.”

In the opinion of Prof.Max Muller :2

“There can belittle doubt, for instance, that the 90th hymn of the 10th book...

is modern both in its character and in its diction. It is full of allusions to the

sacrificial ceremonials, it uses technically philosophical terms, it mentions the

three seasons in the order of Vasanta, spring, Grishma, summer and Sharad,

autumn; it contains the only passsage in the Rig Veda where the four castes

arc enumerated. The evidence of language for the modern date of this composition

is equally strong. Grishma, for instance, the name for the hot season, docs not

occur in any other hymn of the Rig Veda; and Vasanta also, the name

1 Quoted in Muir, Vol, I, p. 13,

2 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 13.



of spring docs not belong to the earliest vocabulary of the Vedic poets.

It occurs but once more in the Rig Veda (x.161.4), in a passage where

the three seasons are mentioned in the order of Sharad, autumn; Hemanta,

winter; and Vasanta, spring.”

Prof.Weber observes :1

“That the Purusha Sukta, considered as a hymn of the Rig Veda, is

among the latest portions of that collection, is clearly perceptible from its

contents. The fact that the Sama Samhita has not adopted any verse from

it, is not without importance (compare what I have remarked in my

Academical Prelections). The Naigeya school, indeed, appears (although it

is not quite certain) to have extracted the first five verses in the seventh

prapathaka of the first Archika, which is peculiar to it.”

III

This is one line of argument. There is also another line of argument

which also helps us to determine whether the Purusha Sukta is an

earlier or later production. For this it is necessary to find out how

many Samhitas of the Vedas have adopted the Purusha Sukta.

Examining the different Vedas and the Samhitas, the position is as

follows :

The Sama Veda produces only 5 verses from the Purusha Sukta.

As to the White Yajur Veda, the Vajasaneyi Samhita includes it but

the difference between the two is great. The Purusha Sukta, as it

stands, in the Rig Veda, has only 16 verses. But the Purusha Sukta

in the Vajasaneyi Samhita has 22 verses. Of the Black Yajur Veda

there are three Samhitas available at present. But none of the three

Samhitas, the Taittiriya, the Katha and the Maitrayani, gives any

place to the Purusha Sukta. The Atharva Veda is the only Veda which

contains a more or less exact reproduction of the Purusha Sukta of

the Rig Veda.

The text of the Purusha Sukta, as it occurs in the different Vedas,

is not uniform. The six additional verses of the Vajasaneyi Samhita

are special to it and are not to be found in the text as it occurs in

the Rig Veda, the Sama Veda or the Atharva Veda. There is another

difference which relates to verse 16. The 16th verse of the Rig Veda

is to be found neither in the Atharva Veda nor in the Sama Veda nor

in the Yajur Veda. Similary, the 16th verse of the Atharva Veda is to

be found neither in the Rig Veda nor in the Yajur Veda. Of the fifteen




verses, which are common to the three Vedas, their texts are not,

identical. Nor is the order in which the verses stand in the three

Vedas the same as may be seen from the following table :

Yajur Veda Rig Veda Sama Veda Atharva Veda

1 1 3 1

2 2 5 4

3 3 6 3

4 4 4 2

5 5 7 9

6 8 * 10

7 9 * 11

8 10 * 14

9 7 * 13

10 11 * 12

11 12 * 5

12 13 * 6

13 14 * 7

14 6 * 8

15 15 * 15

16† 16 * 16†

17 * * *

18 * * *

19 * * *

20 * * *

21 * * *

22 * * *

The point is that if the Purusha Sukta had been an old, hoary

text, sanctified by ancient tradition, could the other Vedas have taken

such a liberty with it? Could they have changed it and chopped it

as they have done?

The place of the Purusha Sukta in the hymns of the different Vedas

is also very significant. In the Rig Veda it occurs in the miscellaneous

part and in the Atharva Veda it occurs in what is known as the

supplementary part. If it was the earliest composition of the Rig

Veda, why should it have been placed in such inconsequential

*Means that these Verses are not to be found.

†Means that they are not identical.



collection? What do these points suggest? They suggest that :

(1) If the Purusha Sukta was not incorporated in the Taittiriya,

Kathaka and Maitrayani Samhitas of the Black Yajur Veda,

it follows, that the Purusha Sukta was added to the Rig Veda

after the Taittiriya Samhita, the Kathaka Samhita, the

Maitrayani Samhita of the Black Yajur Veda.

(2) That it had to be put in the miscellaneous and supplemen-

tary portions of the Vedas shows that it was composed at

a later stage.

(3) That the freedom which the authors of the different Samhitas

took in adding, omitting and recording the verses shows that

they did not regard it as an ancient hymn, which they were

bound to reproduce in its exact original form.

These points go a long way in furnishing corroborative evidence

in support of the views held by Prof. Max Muller and others that

the Purusha Sukta is a later interpolation.

IV

The difference in the form of the stanzas in the Purusha Suktais also very noteworthy. Anyone who reads the Purusha Sukta willfind that except for these two verses, viz., 11 and 12, the whole ofit is in the narrative form. But the two verses, which explain theorigin of the four Varnas, are in the form of question and answer.The point is : Why should these verses be introduced in a questionform breaking the narrative form? The only explanation is that the

writer wanted to introduce a new matter and in a pointed manner.This means that not only the Purusha Sukta is a later addition tothe Rig Veda, but these particular verses are much later than eventhe Purusha Sukta.

Some critics have gone to the length of saying that the PurushaSukta is a forgery by the Brahmins to bolster up their claim tosuperiority. Priests are known to have committed many forgeries. TheDonations of Constantine and Pseudo-Isidore Decretals are wellknown forgeries in the history of the Papacy. The Brahmins ofIndia were not free from such machinations. How they changed theoriginal word ‘Agre’ into ‘Agne’ to make Rig Veda give support tothe burning of widows has been pointed out by no less an authoritythan Prof.Max Muller. It is well-known how in the time of the EastIndia Company a whole Smriti was fabricated to support the caseof a plaintiff. There is, therefore, nothing surprising if the Brahmins did



forge the Purusha Sukta, if not the whole, at least the two verses

11 and 12, at some later stage, long after the fourth Varna had come

into being, with a view to give the system of Chaturvarnya the

sanction of the Veda.

V

Is the Purusha Sukta earlier than the Brahmanas? This question

is distinct and separate from the first. It may be that the Purusha

Sukta belongs to the later part of the Rig Veda. Yet, if the Rig Veda

as a whole is earlier than the Brahmanas, the Purusha Sukta would

still be earlier than the Brahmanas. The question, therefore, needs

to be separately considered.

It is Prof. Max Muller’s view that in the growth of the Vedic

literature the order was Vedas, then Brahmanas and thereafter the

Sutras. If this proposition was adopted, it would mean that the

Purusha Sukta must be earlier than the Brahmanas. Question is :

Can Prof. Max Muller’s proposition be accepted as absolute? If it was

accepted as absolute, the proposition would lead to two conclusions:

(1) That in the time of the Rig Veda there were four Varnas

and at the time of the Satapatha Brahmana they became

three; or

(2) that the tradition is not completely recorded in the Satapatha

Brahmana.

It is obvious that both these conclusions are absurd and must be

rejected. The first is absurd on the face of it. The second is untenable

because the theory of the evolution of Varnas by the two Brahmanas

is different from that set out in the Purusha Sukta and is complete

in itself. The absurdity of the result is inevitable if one were to take

Max Muller’s proposition as absolute. The proposition cannot be taken

as absolute to mean that no Brahmana was composed until all the

Samhitas had come into being. On the other hand, it is quite possible

as pointed out by Professors Belvalkar and Ranade that most of these

compositions are composite and synchronous and, therefore, one part

of the Vedas can be earlier than another part and that a part of

the Brahmanas can be earlier than parts of the Vedas. If this is a

correct view then there is nothing inherently improbable in holding

that the parts of the Satapatha Brahmana and of the Taittiriya

Brahmana, which record the legend that there were at one time only

three Varnas, are earlier than the Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda.



What is the conclusion which follows from this examination of the

Purusha Sukta? There is only one conclusion, that the Sukta is an

addition to the Rig Veda made at a later stage and is, therefore,

no argument that there were four Varnas from the very beginning

of the Aryan Society.

For the reasons given above, it will be seen that my thesis about

the origin of the Shudras creates no problem such as the one

mentioned in the beginning of this Chapter. If it did appear to create

a problem, it was because of the assumption that the Purusha Sukta

was an authentic and genuine record of what it purports to say. That

assumption has now been shown to be quite baseless. I, therefore,

see no difficulty in concluding that there was a time when the Aryan

Society had only three Varnas and the Shudras belonged to the second

or the Kshatriya Varna.

D:\AMBEDKAR\VOL-07\VOL7-09 Mk S.K.—26-09-2013 10-11-2013 140


CHAPTER IX

BRAHMINS VERSUS SHUDRAS

THE thesis that the Shudras were Kshatriyas and that if they became

the fourth Varna it was because they were degraded to that position

does not wholly solve the problem. It only raises another problem.

This problem is why were the Shudras degraded?

The problem is new. It has never been raised before. The existing

literature on the subject cannot, therefore, be expected to contain an

answer. The question is raised by me for the first time. As it is a

question on which my theory of the Shudras rests, the burden of

giving a satisfactory answer must rest on me. I believe, I can give

a satisfactory answer to this question. My answer is that the

degradation of the Shudras is the result of a violent conflict between

the Shudras and the Brahmins. Fortunately for me, there is abundant

evidence of it.

I

There is direct evidence of a violent conflict between the Shudra

king, Sudas and Vasishtha, the Brahmin rishi. The facts relating to

this conflict however are stated in a very confused manner. In the

narration which follows, I have made an attempt to state them in

a neat and an orderly fashion.

To understand the nature of the conflict, it is necessary first to

understand the relations between Vasishtha and Vishvamitra.

Vasishtha and Vishvamitra were enemies and were enemies first

and enemies last. There was no incident to which one of them was

a party in which the other did not know himself as an opponent.

As evidence of their enmity, I will refer to some of the episodes. The

first one is that of Satyavrata otherwise called Trishanku. The story


THE SHUDRAS : BRAHMINS VERSUS SHUDRAS 141

as told in the Harivamsha1 is as follows:

“Meanwhile Vasishtha, from the relation subsisting between the king

(Satyavrata’s father) and himself, as disciple and spiritual preceptor, governed

the city of Ayodhya, the country, and the interior apartments of the royal

palace. But Satyavrata, whether thorough folly or the force of destiny,

cherished constantly an increased indignation against Vasishtha, who for a

(proper) reason had not interposed to prevent his exclusion from the royal

power by his father. ‘The formulae of the marriage ceremonial are only

binding,’ said Satyavrata, ‘when the seventh step has been taken, and this

had not been done when I seized the damsel; still Vasishtha, who knows

the precepts of the law, does not come to my aid.’ Thus Satyavrata was

incensed in his mind against Vasishtha, who, however had acted from a sense

of what was right. Nor did Satyavrata understand (the propriety of) that silent

penance imposed upon him by his father... When he had supported this

arduous rite, (he supposed that) he had redeemed his family position. The

venerable muni Vasishtha did not, however, (as has been said), prevent his

father from setting him aside, but resolved to install his son as king. When

the powerful prince Satyavrata had endured the penance for twelve years,

he beheld, when he was without flesh to eat, the milch cow of Vasishtha

which yielded all objects of desire, and under the influence of anger, delusion,

and exhaustion, distressed by hunger, and failing in the ten duties he slew...

and both partook of her flesh himself, and gave it to Vishvamitra’s sons to

eat. Vasishtha hearing of this, became incensed against him and imposed

on him the name of Trishanku as he had committed three sins. On his return

home, Vishvamitra was gratified2 by the support which his wife had received,

and offered Trishanku the choice of a boon. When this proposal was made,

Trishanku chose his boon of ascending bodily to heaven. All apprehension

from the twelve years’ drought being now at an end, the muni (Vishvamitra)

installed Trishanku in his father’s kingdom and offered sacrifice on his behalf.

The mighty Kaushika then, in spite of the resistance of the gods and of

Vasishtha exalted the king alive to heaven.”

The next episode in which they appear on opposite sides is thatof Harishchandra, the son of Trishanku. The story is told in the VishnuPurana and in the Markandeya Purana. The following account is

1 Quoted by Muir, Vol. I, pp. 377-378..

2 It is stated in the Harivamsha :

“In consequence of the wickedness which had been committed, Indra did not rainfor a period of twelve yean, At that time Vishvamitra had left his wife and childrenand gone to practise austerities on the seashore. His wife, driven to extremity by want,was on the point of selling her second son for a hundred cows, in order to supportthe others; but this arrangement was stopped by the intervention of Satyavrata wholiberated the son when bound, and maintained the family by providing them with theflesh of wild animals and according to his father’s injunction, consterated himself forthe performance of a silent penance for twelve years.”

As stated in another place in the Harivamsha, Trishanku had been expelled fromhis home by his father for the offence of carrying off the young wife of one of thecitizens under the influnece of a criminal passion and Vasishtha did not interfere toprevent his banishment. It is to this that the text refers.



given 1 The story runs :

“On one occasion, when hunting, the king heard a sound of female

lamentation which proceeded, it appears, from the sciences who were becoming

mastered by the austerely fervid sage Vishvamitra, in a way they had never

been before by anyone else; and were consequently crying out in alarm at

his superiority. For the fulfilment of his duty as a Kshatriya to defend the

weak, and inspired by the god Ganesha, who had entered into him,

Harishchandra exclaimed ‘What sinner is this who is binding fire in the hem

of his garment, while I, his lord, am present, resplendent with force and fiery

vigour? He shall to-day enter on his long sleep, pierced in all his limbs by

arrows, which, by their discharge from my bow, illuminate all the quarters

of the firmament.’ Vishvamitra was provoked by this address. In consequence

of his wrath the Sciences instantly perished, and Harishchandra, trembling

like the leaf of an ashvatlha tree, submissively represented that he had merely

done his duty as a king, which he defined as consisting in the bestowal of

gifts on eminent Brahmins and other persons of slender means, the protection

of the timid, and war against enemies. Vishvamitra hereupon demands a gift

as a Brahmin intent upon receiving one. The king offers him whatsoever he

may ask: Gold, his own son, wife, body, life, kingdom, good fortune. The saint

first requires the present for the Rajasuya sacrifice, On this being promised,

and still more offered, he asks for the empire of the whole earth, including

everything but Harishchandra himself, his wife, and son, and his virtue which

follows its possessor wherever he goes. Harishchandra joyfully agrees.

Vishvamitra then requires him to strip off all his ornaments, to clothe himself

in the bark of trees, and to quit the kingdom with his wife Shaivya and his

son. When he is departing, the sage stops him and demands payment of his

yet unpaid sacrificial fee. The king replies that he has only the persons of

his wife, his son and himself left. Vishvamitra insists that he must

nevertheless pay, and that unfulfilled promises of gifts to Brahmins bring

destruction. The unfortunate prince, after being threatened with a curse,

engages to make the payment in a month; and commences his journey with

a wife unused to such fatigues, amid the universal lamentations of his

subjects. While he lingers, listening to their affectionate remonstrances

against his desertion of his kingdom, Vishvamitra comes up, and being

incensed at the delay and the king’s apparent hesitation, strikes the

queen with his staff, as she is dragged on by her husband. Harishchandra

then proceeded with his wife and little son to Benares, imagining that the

divine city, as the special property of Siva, could not be possessed by any

mortal. Here he found the relentless Vishvamitra waiting for him, and ready

to press his demand for the payment of his sacrificial gift, even before the

expiration of the full period of grace, In this extremity, Shaivya the

queen suggests with a sobbing voice that her husband should sell her. On

hearing this proposal Harishchandra swoons, then recovers, utters lamenta-

tions and swoons again, and his wife seeing his sad condition, swoons

also. While they are in a state of unconsciousness their famished child

exclaims in distress, ‘O, father, give me bread; O, mother, mother, give mc

food; hunger overpowers mo and my tongue is parched.’ At this moment

1 Muir, Vol, 1, pp. 379-387.



Vishvamitra returns, and after recalling Harishchandra to consciousness bysprinkling water over him, again urges payment of the present. The king,again swoons, and is again restored. The sage threatens to curse him if hisengagement is not fulfilled by sunset. Being now pressed by his wife, theking agrees to sell her, adding, however, ‘If my voice can utter such a wickedword, I do what the most inhuman wretches cannot perpetrate.’ He then goesinto the city, and in self-accusing language offers his queen for sale as aslave. A rich old Brahmin offers to buy her at a price corresponding to hervalue, to do his household work. Seeing his mother dragged away the childran after her, his eyes dimmed with tears, and crying ‘mother.’ The Brahminpurchaser kicked him when he came up; but he would not let his mothergo, and continued crying ‘mother, mother.’ The queen then said to theBrahmin, ‘Be so kind, my master, as to buy also this child, as without himI shall prove to thee but a useless purchase. Be thus merciful to me in mywretchedness, unite me with my son, like a cow to her calf.’ The Brahminagrees: ‘Take this money and give me the boy.’ After the Brahmin had goneout of sight with his purchases. Vishvamitra again appeared and renewedhis demands: and when the afflicted Harishchandra offered him the smallsum he had obtained by the sale of his wife and son, he angrily replied,‘If, miserable Kshatriya, thou thinkest this a sacrificial gift befitting mydeserts, thou shalt soon behold the transcendent power of my ardent austrere-fervour of my terrible majesty, and of my holy study,’ Harishchandra promisesan additional gift, and Vishvamitra allows him the remaining quarter of theday for its liquidation. On the terrified and afflicted prince offering himselffor sale, in order to gain the means of meeting this cruel demand, Dharma(Righteousness) appears in the form of a hideous and offensive chandala, andagrees to buy him at his own price, large or small. Harishchandra declinessuch a degrading survitude, and declares that he would rather be consumedby the fire of his persecutor’s curse than submit to such a fate. Vishvamitra,however, again comes on the scene, asks why he docs not accept the largesum offered by the Chandala, and when he pleads in excuse his descent fromthe solar race, threatens to fulminate a curse against him if he docs not acceptthat method of meeting his liability. Harishchandra implores that he maybe spared this extreme of degradation, and offers to become Vishvamitra’sslave in payment of the residue of his debt; whereupon the sage rejoins, ‘ifthou art my slave, then I sell thee as such to the Chandala for a hundredmillions of money.’ The Chandala, delighted pays down the money, andcarries off Harishchandra bound, beaten, confused, and afflicted, to his ownplace of abode. Harishchandra is sent by the Chandala to steal graveclothes in a cemetery and is told that he will receive two-sixths of thevalue for his hire; three-sixths going to his master, and one-sixth to theking. In this horrid spot, and in this degrading occupation he spent in greatmisery twelve months, which seemed to him like a hundred years. He thenfalls asleep and has a series of dreams suggested by the life he had beenleading. After he awoke, his wife came to the cemetery to perform theobsequies of their son, who had died from the bite of a serpent. At first,the husband and wife did not recognize each other, from the change inappearance which had been wrought upon them both by their miseries.Harishchandra, however, soon discovered from the tenor of her lamentationsthat it is his wife, and falls into a swoon; as the queen docs also when sherecognizes her husband. When consciousness returns they both break



out into lamentations, the father bewailing in a touching strain the loss of

his son, and the wife, the degradation of the king. She then falls on his neck,

embraces him and asks ‘whether all this is a dream, or a reality, as she

is utterly bewildered’; and adds, that “if it be a reality, then righteousness

is unavailing to those who practise it.” After hesitating to devote himself to

death on his son’s funeral pyre without receiving his master’ leave.

Harishchandra resolves to do so, braving all the consequences and consoling

himself with the hopeful anticipation. ‘If I have given gifts and offered

sacrifices and gratified my religious teachers, then may I be reunited with

my son and with thee (my wife) in another world.’ The queen determines

to die in the same manner. When Harishchandra, after placing his son’s body

on the funeral pyre, is meditating on the Lord Hari Narayana Krishna, the

supreme spirit, all the gods arrive, headed by Dharma (Righteousness); and

accomapanied by Vishvamitra. Dharma entreats the king to desist from his

rash intention; and Indra announces to him that, he, his wife, and son have

conquerred heaven by their good works. Ambrosia, the antidote of death, and

flowers are rained by the gods from the sky; and the king’s son is restored

to life and the bloom of youth. The king adorned with celestial clothing and

garlands, and the queen, embrace their son. Harishchandra, however, declares

that he cannot go to heaven till he has received his master the Chandala’s

permission, and has paid him a ransom. Dharma then reveals to the king

that it was he himself who had miraculously assumed the form of a Chandala.

The king next objects that he cannot depart unless his faithful subjects, who

are sharers in his merits, are allowed to accompany him to heaven, at least

for one day. This request is granted by Indra; and after Vishvamitra has

inaugurated Rohitashva the king’s son to be his successor. Harishchandra,

his friends and followers, all ascend in company to heaven. Even after this

great consummation, however, Vasishtha, the family priest of Harishchandra,

hearing, at the end of a twelve years’ abode in the waters of the Ganges,

an account of all that has occurred, becomes vehemently incensed at the

humilation inflicted on the excellent monarch, whose virtues and devotion

to the gods and Brahmins he celebrates, declares that his indignation had

not been so greatly roused even when his own hundred sons had been slain

by Vishvamitra, and in the following words dooms the latter to be transformed

into a crane : ‘Wherefore that wicked man, enemy of the Brahmins, smitten

by my curse, shall be expelled from the society of intelligent beings, and

losing his understanding shall be transformed into a Baka.’ Vishvamitra

reciprocates the curse, and changes Vasishtha into a bird of the species

called Ari. In their new shapes the two have a furious fight, the Ari being

of the Portentous height of two thousand yojanas= 18,000 miles, and the

Baka of 3090 yojanas. They first assail each other with their wings; then

the Baka smites his antagonist in the same manner, while the Ari

strikes with his talons. Falling mountains, overturned by the blasts of wind

raised by the flapping of their wings, shake the whole earth, the waters of

the ocean overflow, the earth itself, thrown off its perpendicular slopes

downwards to Patala, the lower regions. Many creatures perished by these

various convulsions. Attracted by the dire disorder, Brahma arrives, attended

by all the gods, on the spot, and commands the combatants to desist



from their fray. They were too fiercely infuriated to regard this injunction;

but Brahma put an end to the conflict by restoring them to their natural

forms and counselling them to be reconciled.”

The next episode in which they came in as opponents is connected

with Ambarisha, king of Ayodhya :

“The story1 relates that Ambarisha was engaged in performing a

sacrifice, when Indra carried away the victim. The priest said that this

ill-omened event had occurred owing to the king’s bad administration; and

would call for a great expiation, unless a human victim could be produced.

After a long search the royal-rishi (Ambarisha) came upon the Brahmin

rishi, Richika, a descendant of Bhrigu, and asked him to sell one of his

sons for a victim, at the price of a hundred thousand cows. Richika

answered that he would not sell his eldest son and his wife added that

she would not sell the youngest; ‘youngest sons’ she observed, ‘being

generally the favourites of their mothers.’ The second son, Shunasshepa,

then said that in that case he regarded himself as the one who was to

be sold, and desired the king to remove him. The hundred thousand cows,

with ten millions of gold pieces and heaps of jewels, were paid down and

Shunasshepa carried away. As they were passing through Pushkara,

Shunasshepa beheld his maternal uncle Vishvamitra who was engaged in

austerities there with other rishis, threw himself into his arms, and

implored his assistance, urging his orphan, friendless and helpless state,

as claims on the sage’s benevolence. Vishvamitra soothed him; and pressed

his own sons to offer themselves as victims in the room of Shunasshepa.

This proposition met with no favour from Madhushyanda and the other

sons of the royal hermit, who answered with haughtiness and derision:

‘How is it that thou sacrificest thine own sons and seekest to rescue those

of others? We look upon this as wrong, and like the eating of one’s own

flesh. ‘The sage was exeedingly wroth at this disregard of his injunction,

and doomed his sons to be born in the most degraded classes, like

Vasishtha’s sons, and to eat dog’s flesh, for a thousand years. He then

said to Shunasshepa: ‘When thou art bound with hallowed cords, decked

with a red garland, and anointed with unguents and fastened to the

sacrificial post of Vishnu, then address thyself to Agni, and sing these

two divine verses (gathas), at the sacrifice of Ambarisha: then shalt thou

attain the fulfilment (of thy desire)’. Being furnished with the two gathas,

Shunasshepa proposed at once to king Ambarisha that they should set out

for their destination. When bound at the stake to be immolated, dressed

in a red garment, he celebrated the two gods, Indra and his younger brother

(Vishnu), with the excellent verses. The thousand-eyed (Indra) was pleased

with the secret hymn; and bestowed long life on Shunasshepa.”

The last episode recorded in which the two had ranged themselves

on opposite sides is connected with king Kalmashapada. The episode

is recorded in the Adi Parvan of the Mahabharata:2

1 Quoted by Muir, Vol. I. pp. 405-407.

2 Ibid, pp. 415-417.



“Kalmashapada was a king of the race of Ikshvaku. Vishvamitra wished

to be employed by him as his officiating priest; but the king preferred

Vasishtha. It happened however that the king went out to hunt, and after

having killed a large quantity of games, he became very much fatigued, as

well as hungry and thirsty. Meeting Shakti, the eldest of Vasishtha’s hundred

sons, on the road, he ordered him to get out of his way. The priest civilly

replied:’ The path is mine, O king; this is the immemorial law; in all

observations the king must cede the way to the Brahmin.’ Neither party would

yield, and the dispute waxing warmer, the king struck the muni with his

whip, The muni, resorting to the usual expedient of offended sages, by a curse

doomed the king to become a man-eater. It happened that at that time enmity

existed between Vishvamitra and Vasishtha on account of their respective

claims to be priest to Kalmashapada. Vishvamitra had followed the king; and

approached while he was disputing with Shakti. Perceiving, however, the son

of his rival Vasishtha, Vishvamitra made himself invisible, and passed them,

catching this opportunity. The king began to implore Shakti’s clemency; but

Vishvamitra wishing to prevent their reconciliation, commanded a Rakshasa

(a man-devouring demon) to enter into the king. Owing to the conjoint

influence of the Brahman-rishi’s curse, and Vishvamitra’s command, the

demon obeyed the injunction. Perceiving that his object was gained, Vishvamitra

left things to take their course, and absented himself from the country.The

king having happened to meet a hungry Brahmin, and sent him, by the hand

of his cook (who could procure nothing else), some human flesh to cat, was

cursed by him also to the same effect as by Shakti. The curse, being now

augmented in force, took effect, and Shakti himself was the first victim, being

eaten up by the king. The same fate befell all the other sons of Vasishtha

at the instigation of Vishvamitra. Perceiving Shakti to be dead, Vishvamitra

again and again incited the Rakshasa against the sons of Vasishtha and

accordingly the furious demon devoured those of his sons who were younger

than Shakti as a lion eats up the small beasts of the forest. On hearing the

destruction of his sons by Vishvamitra, Vasishtha supported his affliction as

the great mountain sustains the earth. He meditated his own destruction,

but never thought of exterminating the Kaushikas. This divine sage hurled

himself from the summit of Mcru, but fell upon the rocks as if on a heap

of cotton. Escaping alive from his fall, he entered a glowing fire in the forest;

but the fire, though fiercely blazing, not only failed to burn him, but seemed

perfectly cool. He next threw himself into the sea with a heavy stone attached

to his neck; but was cast up by the waves on the dry land. He then went

home to his hermitage; but seeing it empty and desolate, he was again

overcome by grief and sent out; and seeing the river Vipasa which was swollen

by the recent rains, and sweeping along many trees torn from its banks, he

conceived the design of drowning himself into its waters; he accordingly lied

himself firmly with cords, and threw himself in; but the river severing his

bonds, deposited him unbound (Vipasa) on dry land ; whence the name of

the stream, as imposed by the sage. He afterwards saw and threw himself

into the dreadful Satadru (Sutlej), which was full of alligators, etc., and

derived its name rushing away in a hundred directions on seeing the Brahmin

brilliant as fire. In consequence of this, he was once more stranded; and seeing

that he could not kill himself, he went back to his hermitage.”



There are particular instances in which Vasishtha and Vishvamitra

had come into conflict with each other. But there was more than these

occasional conflicts between the two. There was general enmity

between them. This general enmity was of a mortal kind so much

so that Vishvamitra wanted even to murder Vasishtha as will be seen

from the Shalyaparvan of the Mahabharata. Says the author of the

Mahabharata :1

“There existed a great enmity, arising from rivalry in their austerities,

between Vishvamitra and the Brahmin rishi Vasishtha. Vasishtha had an

extensive hermitage in Sthanutinha, to the east of which was Vishvamitra’s.

These two great ascetics were every day exhibiting intense emulation in

regard to their respective austerities. But Vishvamitra beholding the might

of Vasishtha was the most chagrined; and fell into deep thought. The idea

of this sage, constant in duty, was the following : ‘This river Sarasvati will

speedily bring to me on her current the austere Vasishtha, the most eminent

of all utterers of prayers. When that most excellent Brahmin has come, I

shall most assuredly kill him.’ Having thus determined, the divine sage

Vishvamitra, his eyes reddened by anger, called to mind the chief of rivers.

She being thus the subject of his thoughts became very anxious, as she knew

him to be very powerful and very irascible. Then trembling, pallid and with

joined hands, the Saraswati stood before the chief of munis like a woman

whose husband has been slain; she was greatly distressed, and said to him

‘what shall I do?’ The incensed muni replied, ‘Bring Vasishtha hither speedily,

that I may slay him.’ The lotus-eyed goddess, joining her hands trembled

in great fear, like a creeping plant agitated by the wind. Vishvamitra, however,

although he saw her condition, repeated his command. The Sarasvati, who knew

how sinful was his design, and that the might of Vasishtha was unequalled,

went trembling and in great dreed of being cursed by both the sages, to

Vasishtha and told him what his rival had said. Vasishtha seeing her

emaciated, pale and anxious, spoke thus, ‘Deliver thyself, O chief of rivers;

carry me unhesitatingly to Vishvamitra, lest he curse thee.’ Hearing these

words of the merciful sage, the Sarasvati considered how she could act most

wisely. She reflected, ‘Vasishtha has always shown me great kindness, I must

seek his welfare.’ Then observing the Kaushika sage praying and sacrificing

on her brink, she regarded that as a good opportunity, and swept away the

bank by the force of her current. In this way the son of Mitra and Varuna

(Vasishtha) was carried down; and while he was being borne along, he thus

celebrated the river; ‘Thou, o Sarasvati, issuest from the lake of Brahma, and

pervadest the whole world with thy excellent streams. Residing in the sky, thou

discharges! water into the clouds. Thou alone art all waters. By thee we study.’

Thou art nourishment, radiance, fame, perfection, intellect, light. Thou art

speech, thou art svaha; this world is subject to thee. Thou, in fourfold form,

dwellest in all creatures.’ Beholding Vasishtha brought near by the Sarasvati,

Vishvamitra searched for a weapon with which to make an end of him,

Perceiving his anger, and dreading lest Brahmanicidc should ensue, the river

1 Quoted by Muir, Vol. I, pp. 420-422.



promptly carried away, Vasishtha in an easterly direction thus fulfillingthe commands of both sages, but eluding Vishvamitra. Seeing Vasishthaso carried away, Vishvamitra, impatient and enraged by vexation, said toher, ‘Since thou, o chief of rivers, has eluded me, and hast receded, rollin waves of blood acceptable to the chief of demons’ (which are fabled togloat on blood). The Sarasvati being thus cursed, flowed for a year in astream mingled with blood. Rakshasas came to the place of pilgrimagewhere Vasishtha had been swept away, and revelled in drinking to satietythe bloody stream in security, dancing and laughing, as if they hadconquered heaven. Some rishis who arrived at the spot some time afterwere horrified to see the blood-stained water, and the Rakshasas quaffingit, and made the most strenuous efforts to rescue the Sarasvati.”

The enmity between Vasishtha and Vishvamitra was not an enmity

between two priests. It was an enmity between a Brahmin priest anda Kshatriya priest. Vasishtha was a Brahmin. Vishvamitra was aKshatriya. He was a Kshatriya of royal lingeage. In the Rig Veda(iii.33.11) Vishvamitra is spoken of as the son of Kushika. The VishnuPurana1 gives further details about Vishvamitra. It says thatVishvamitra was the son of Gadhi who was descended from kingPururavas. This is confirmed by the Harivamsha.2 From the Rig Veda(iii: 1:21) we know that the family of Vishvamitra has been keeping‘fire’ kindled in every generation.3 We also know from the Rig Vedathat Vishvamitra was the author of many hymns of that Veda andwas admitted to be a Rajarishi. He was the author of the hymn whichis held to be the holiest in the whole of the Vedas namely the Gayatri

hymn in the Rig Veda (iii.62.10). Another important fact we knowabout him is that he was a Kshatriya and his family belonged tothe clan of the Bharatas.4

It seems that about this time a dispute was going on between

Brahmins and Kshatriyas on the following points :

(1) The right to receive gifts. Gift means payment made without

work. The contention of the Brahmins was that nobody could

receive gifts. To receive gifts was the right of the Brahmins

only.5

(2) The right to teach the Vedas. The Brahmins’ contention was

that the Khastriya had only the right to study the Vedas. He

had no right to teach the Vedas. It was the privilege of the

Brahmins only.

1 Quoted in Muir, Vol. I, P. 349.

2 Quoted in Muir, Vol. I, p. 353.



5 That is why Manu says “if the king wants to make a gift to a Shudra he must

make him work.”



(3) The right to officiate at a sacrifice. On this point the Brahmins’

contention was that Kshatriya had the right to perform

sacrifices, but he had no right to officiate as a purohit (priest)

at a sacrifice. That was the privilege of the Brahmins.

What is important to note is that even in disputes on these points

and particularly on the third point they did not fail to play their

part as the opponents of each other. This is confirmed by the story

of Trishanku narrated in the Ramayana1 and which runs as follows :

“King Trishanku, one of Ikshvaku’s descendants, had conceived the designof celebrating a sacrifice by virtue of which he should ascend bodily to heaven.As Vasishtha on being summoned, declared that the thing was impossible(asakyam), Trishanku travelled to the south, where the sage’s hundred sonswere engaged in austerities, and applied to them to do what their fatherhad declined. Though he addressed them with the greatest reverence andhumility, and added that the Ikshvakus regarded their family-priests as theirhighest resource in difficulties, and that, after their father, he himself lookedto them as his tutelary deities,’ he received from the haughty priests thefollowing rubuke for his presumption : “Fool, thou hast been refused by thetruth-speaking preceptor. How is it that, disregarding his authority thou hastresorted to another school (shakha)? The family-priest is the highest oracleof all the Ikshvakus; and the command of that veracious personage cannotbe transgressed. Vasishtha, the divine rishi, has declared that ‘the thingcannot be :’ how can we undertake the sacrifice? Thou art foolish, king; returnto thy capital. The divine (Vasishtha) is competent to act as priest of thethree works; how can we shew him disrespect?”

Trishanku then gave them to understand, that as his preceptor and “hispreceptor’s sons had declined compliance with his requests, he should thinkof some other expedient. “In consequence of his venturing to express thispresumptuous intention, they condemned him by their imprecation to becomea Chandala. As this curse soon took effect, and the unhappy king’s form waschanged into that of a degraded outcast, he resorted to Vishvamitra (who,as we have seen, was also dwelling at this period in the south), enlargingon his own virtues and piety, and bewailing his fate. Vishvamitra commis-erated his condition and promised to sacrifice on his behalf, and exalt himto heaven in the same Chandala form to which he had been condemned byhis preceptor’s curse. “Heaven is now as good as in the possession, since thouhast resorted to the son of Kushika.’” He then directed that preparationsshould be made for the sacrifice, and that all the rishis, including the familyof Vasishtha, should be invited to the ceremony.

The disciples of Vishvamitra who had conveyed his message, reported theresult on their return in these words: “Having heard your message, all theBrahmins are assembling in all the countries, and have arrived, exceptingMahodaya (Vasishtha). Hear what dreadful words those hundred Vasishthas,their voices quivering with rage, have uttered: ‘How can the gods and rishisconsume the oblation at the sacrifice of that man, especially if he be a Chandala,

1 Muir, Vol. I, pp. 401-404.



for whom a Kshatriya is officiating priest? How can illustrious Brahmins

ascend to heaven, after eating the food of a Chandala, and being entertained

by Vishvamitra?” These ruthless words all the Vasishthas, together with

Mahodaya, uttered, their eyes inflamed with anger.” Vishvamitra who was

greatly incensed on receiving this message, by a curse doomed the sons of

Vasishtha to be reduced to ashes, and reborn as degraded outcasts (mritapah)

for seven hundred births, and Mahodaya to become a Nishada.

Knowing that this curse had taken effect Vishvamitra then, after eulogizing

Trishanku, proposed to the assembled rishis that the sacrifice should be

celebrated. To this they assented, being actuated by fear of the terrible sage’s

wrath, Vishvamitra himself officiated at the sacrifice as Yajaka; and the other

rishis as priests (ritvijah) (with other functions) performed all the ceremonies.”

In this dispute between Vasishtha and Vishvamitra, Sudas seemsto have played an important part. Vasishtha was the family priestof Sudas. It was Vasishtha who performed his coronation ceremony.It was Vasishtha who helped him to win the battle against the tenkings. Notwithstanding this, Sudas removed Vasishtha from office.

In his place he appointed Vishvamitra as his purohita1 who performedyajna for Sudas. This is the first deed of Sudas which created enmitybetween Sudas and Vasishtha. There was another deed which Sudascommitted which widened and intensified the enmity. He threw intofire Shakti the son of Vasishtha and burned him alive. The storyis reported in the Satyayana Brahmana.2 The Satyayana Brahmanadoes not give the reason for such an atrocious act. Some light isthrown on it by Shadgurushishya3 in his Commentary on Katyayana’sAnukramanika to the Rig Veda. According to Shadgurushishya, asacrifice was performed by Sudas at which there was a sort of publicdebate between Vishvamitra and Shakti, the son of Vasishtha andin this debate, to use the words of Shadgurushishya:

“The power and speech of Vishvamitra were completely vanquished by

Shakti, son of Vasishtha; and the son of Gadhi (Vishvamitra) being so

overcome, became dejected.”

Here is the reason why Sudas threw Shakti into fire. Obviously,Sudas did it to avenge the dishonour and disgrace caused toVishvamitra. Nothing could avert a deadly enmity growing upbetween Sudas and Vasishtha.

1 There is no direct evidence for this, Tradition accepts this as correct which seemsto have been based upon Rig Veda, III. 53.9. This is confirmed by Yaska in his Niruktu(II, 24) where he says, “They then relate a story. The rishi Vishvamitra was the purohitaof Sudas, the son of Pijavana.”

2. This is referred to by Sayana in his introduction to Rig Veda, vii.32 on theauthority of the Anukramanika which is quoted by Muir, Vol. I, p, 328.

3 This is referred to by Sayana in his introduction to verses 15 and 16 of Sukta53 of the Third Mandala of the Rig Veda, which is quoted by Muir, Vol. I, p. 343.



This enmity does not seem to have ended with Sudas andVasishtha. It appears to have spread to their sons. This is supportedby the Taittiriya Samhita which says :1

“Vasishtha, when his son had been slain, desired, ‘May I obtainoffspring; may I overcome the Saudasas.’ He beheld this ekasmannapanchasa,he took it and sacrificed with it. In consequence he obtained offspring,and overcame the Saudasas.”

This is confirmed by the Kaushitaki Brahmana2 which says :

“Vasishtha, when his son had been slain, desired, ‘May I be fruitfulin offspring and cattle and overcome the Saudasas. He beheld this formof offering, the Vasishtha-sacrifice; and having performed it, he overcamethe Saudasas.3"

II

The conflict between Sudas and Vasishtha is not the only conflictbetween kings and the Brahmins. The Puranas record other conflictsalso between kings and Brahmins. It is desirable to assemble them

here. The first relates to king Vena. The story of his conflict withBrahmins has been told by various authorities. The following account4

is taken from the Harivamsa :

“There was formerely a Prajapati (Lord of creatures), a protector ofrighteousness called Anga, of the race of Atri, and resembling him in power.His son was the Prajapati Vena who was but indifferently skilled in duty,and was born of Sunita, the daughter of Mrityu. This son of the daughterof Kala (Death), owing to the taint derived from his maternal grandfather,threw his duties behind his back, and lived in covetousness under theinfluence of desire. This king established an irreligious system of conduct;transgressing the ordinances of the Veda, he was devoted to lawlessness. Inhis reign men lived without study of the sacred books and without theVashatkara, and the gods had no Soma libations to drink at sacrifices. ‘Nosacrifice or oblation shall be offered’—such was the ruthless determinationof that Prajapati, as the time of his destruction approached. ‘I,’ he declared,’am the object, and the performer of sacrifice, and the sacrifice itself; it isto me that sacrifice should be presented, and oblations offered.’ Thistransgressor of the rules of duty, who arrogated to himself what was nothis due, was then addressed by all the great rishis headed by Marichi: ‘Weare about to consecrate ourselves for a ceremony which shall last for many

1 Muir, Vol. I, p. 328.

2 Ibid.

3 There seems to be some doubt whether this enmity of Vasishtha had developed

against Sudas or against the sons of Sudas. This doubt has arisen because the

Satyayana and Kaushitaki Brahmanas speak of Saudasa, thereby suggesting that thequarrel of Vasishtha was with the sons of Sudas and not with Sudas. On the other

hand, Manu is definite that it was Sudas who was the offender. Shadgurushishya speaks

of Sudas and not Saudasas while the Brihaddevta in a similar passage gives Sudas.The difficulty could be solved if Saudasas was interpreted to be the family of Sudas,

which includes both Sudas and his sons.




years; practise not unrighteousness, O Vena; this is not the eternal rule of

duty. Thou art in very deed a Prajapati of Atri’s race, and thou hast engaged

to protect thy subjects.’ The foolish Vena, ignorant of what was right,

laughingly answered those great rishis, who had so addressed him; ‘who but

myself is the ordainer of duty? or whom ought I to obey? Who on earth equals

me in sacred knowledge, in prowess, in austere fervour, in truth? Ye, who

are deluded and senseless, know not that I am the source of all beings and

duties. Hesitate not to believe that I, if I willed, could bum up the earth,

or deluge it with water, or close up heaven and earth.’ When owing to his

delusion and arrogance Vena could not be governed, then the mighty rishis

becoming incensed, seized the vigorous and struggling king, and rubbed his

left thigh. From this thigh, so rubbed, was produced a black man, very short

in stature, who, being alarmed, stood with joined hands. Seeing that he was

agitated, Atri said to him ‘Sit down’ (nishida). He became the founder of the

race of the Nishadas, and also progenitor of the Dhivaras (fisherman), who

sprang from the corruption of Vena.”

The next king who came in conflict with the Brahmins was

Pururavas. This Pururavas is the son of Ila and grandson of Manu

Vaivasvat. The details of his conflict with the Brahmins are given

in the Adi Parvan of the Mahabharata :1

“Subsequently, the wise Pururavas was born of Ila, who, as we have heard,

was both his father and his mother. Ruling over the thirteen islands of the

ocean, and surrounded by beings who were all superhuman, himself a man

of great renown, Pururavas, intoxicated by his prowess, engaged in a conflict

with the Brahmins, and robbed them of their jewels, although they loudly

remonstrated. Sanatkumara came from Brahma’s heaven, and addressed to

him an admonition, which, however, he did not regard. Being then straight-

away cursed by the incensed rishis, he perished, this covetous monarch, who,

through pride of power, had lost his understanding.”

The third king in this series is Nahusha. This Nahusha is the

grandson of Pururavas, the account of whose conflict with the

Brahmins has been recounted above. The story of Nahusha and his

conflict with the Brahmins has been told in two places in the

Mahabharata, once in the Vanaparvan and again in the Udyogaparvan.

The account which follows is taken from the Udyogaparvan.2 It says:

After his slaughter of the demon Vritra, Indra became alarmed at the idea

of having taken the life of a Brahmin (for Vritra was regarded as such), and

hid himself in the waters. In consequence of the disappearance of the king of

the gods, all affairs, celestial as well as terrestrial, fell into confusion. The rishis

and gods then applied to Nahusha to be their king. After first excusing himself

on the plea of want of power, Nahusha at length, in compliance with their


2 Quoted in Muir, Vol. I, pp. 310-313.



solicitations, accepted the high function. Up to the period of his elevationhe had led a virtuous life, but he now became addicted to amusement andsensual pleasure; and even aspired to the possession of Indrani, Indra’s wife,whom he had happened to see. The queen resorted to the Angiras Brihaspati,the preceptor of the gods who engaged to protect her. Nahusha was greatlyincensed on hearing of this interference; but the gods endeavoured to pacifyhim, and pointed out the immorality of appropriating another person’s wife.Nahusha, however, would listen to no remonstrance, and insisted that in hisadulterous designs he was no worse than Indra himself. The renowned Ahalya,a rish’s wife, was formerely corrupted by Indra in her husband’s lifetime.Why was he not prevented by you? And many barbarous acts, and unrighteousdeeds, and frauds were perpetrated of old by Indra; why was he not preventedby you?’ The gods, urged by Nahusha, went to bring Indrani; but Brihaspatiwould not give her up. At his recommendation, however, she solicited Nahushafor some delay, till she should ascertain what had become of her husband.This request was granted. Indrani now went in search of her husband; andby the help of Upashruti (the goddess of night and revealer of secrets)discovered him existing in a very subtle form in the stem of a lotus growingin a lake situated in a continent within an ocean north of the Himalayas.She made known to him the wicked intentions of Nahusha, and entreatedhim to exert his power, rescue her from danger and resume his dominion.Indra declined any immediate interposition on the plea of Nahusha’s superiorstrength; but suggested to his wife a device by which the usurper might behurled from his position. She was recommended to say to Nahusha that ‘ifhe would visit her on a celestial vehicle borne by rishis, she would withpleasure submit herself to him.’

The queen of the gods accordingly made this proposal:’ I desire for thee,

king of the gods, a vehicle hitherto unknown, such as neither Vishnu nor

Rudra, nor the Asuras, nor the Rakshasas employ. Let the eminent rishis,

all united, bear thee, lord, in a car; this idea pleases me’. Nahusha receives

favourably this appeal to his vanity, and in the course of his reply thus gives

utterance to his self-congratulation; ‘He is a personage of no mean prowess

who makes the munis his bearers. I am a fervid devotee of great might, Lord

of the past, the future, and the present. If I were angry, the world would

no longer stand; on me everything depends. Wherefore, O goddess, I shall,

without doubt, carry out what you propose. The seven rishis and all the

Brahmin rishis, shall carry me. Behold, beautiful goddess, my majesty and

my prosperity.’

The narrative goes on :

Accordingly this wicked being, irreligious, violent, intoxicated by the

force of conceit, and arbitrary in his conduct, attached to his car the rishis,

who submitted to his commands, and compelled them to bear him.

Indrani then again resorts to Brihaspati who assures her that vengeance

will soon overtake Nahusha for his presumption; and promises that he

will himself perform a sacrifice with a view to the destruction of the

oppressor, and the discovery of Indra’s lurking place. Agni is then sent

to discover and bring Indra to Brihaspati and the latter, on Indra’s arrival,

informs him of all that had occurred during his absence. While



Indra, with Kubera, Yama, Soma and Varuna was devising means for thedestruction of Nahusha, the sage Agastya came up, congratulated Indra onthe fall of his rival, and proceeded to relate how it had occurred.

Wearied with carrying the sinner, Nahusha, the eminent divine-rishis, andthe spotless Brahmin-rishis, asked that divine personage, Nahusha (to solve)a difficulty; ‘Dost thou, O Vasava, most excellent of conquerors, regard asauthoritative or not those Brahmana texts which arc recited at the immolationof king?’ ‘No’, replied Nahusha, whose understanding was enveloped indarkness. The rishis rejoined; ‘Engaged in unrighteousness, thou attainestnot unto righteousness; these tests, which were formerely uttered by greatrishis, arc regarded by us as authoritative.’ Then (proceeds Agastya) disputingwith the munis, Nahusha impelled by unrighteousness touched me on thehead with his foot. In consequence of this, the king’s glory was smitten andhis prosperity departed. When he had instantly become agitated and oppressedwith fear, I said to him, ‘Since thou, a fool, condemnest that sacred text,always held in honour, which has been composed by former sages, andemployed by Brahmin-rishis and hast touched my head with thy foot, andemployest the Brahma-like and irresistible rishis as bearers to carry thee,therefore, shorn of thy lustre and all thy merit exhuasted, sink down, sinner,degraded from heaven to earth. For ten thousand years thou shalt crawl inthe form of a huge serpent. When that period is completed, thou shalt againascend to heaven.’ So fell that wicked wretch from the sovereignty of thegods, Happily, O Indra, we shall now prosper, for the enemy of the Brahminshas been smitten. Take possession of the three worlds, and protect theirinhabitants, O husband of Shachi (Indrani), subduing the senses, overcomingthine enemies, and celebrated by the great rishis.”

The fourth king to come into conflict with the Brahmins was Nimi.

The details of the story are related in the Vishnu Purana1 which says:

“Nimi had requested the Brahmin-rishi, Vasishtha to officiate at a sacrifice,which was to last a thousand years. Vasishtha in reply pleaded a pro-engagement to Indra for five hundred years, but promised to return at theend of that period. The king made no remark, and Vasishtha went away,supposing that he had assented to his arrangement. On his return, however,the priest discovered that Nimi had retained Gautama (who was, euqally withVasishtha a Brahmin-rishi) and others to perform the sacrifice; and beingincensed, he cursed the King, who was then asleep, to lose his corporeal form.When Nimi awoke and learnt that he had been cursed without any previouswarning, he retorted by uttering a similar curse on Vasishtha, and then died.Nimi’s body was embalmed. At the close of the sacrifice which he had begun,the gods were willing, on the intercession of the priests, to restore him tolife; but he declined the offer; and was placed by the deities, according tohis desire, in the eyes of all living creatures. It is in consequence of thisthat they are always opening and shutting (Nimisha means ‘the twinklingof the eye’).

These foregoing cases of conflict have been referred to by Manu

in his Smriti ;2


2 Max Muller’s, Sacred Books of the East, Vol. XXV, p. 222.



“Through a want of modesty many kings have perished, together with

their belongings; through modesty even hermits in the forest have gained

kingdoms. Through a want of humility Vena perished, likewise king

Nahusha, Sudas, the son of Pijavana, Sumukha, and Nimi.”

Unfortunately, the bearing of these cases on the position of the

Shudra has not been realized as fully as it should have been. The

reason is that nobody has realized that this conflict was a conflict

between Brahmins and Shudras. Sudas definitely was a Shudra. The

others although they have not been described as Shudras are

described as having been descended from Ikshvaku. Sudas is also

described as a descendant of Ikshvaku. There is nothing far-fetched

in saying that they were all Shudras. Even Manu had no idea of this.

He represents these cases as cases of conflict between Brahmins and

Kshatriyas. Dr. Muir has failed to realize that Sudas was a Shudra

and has in recounting these stories represented that the parties to

these conflicts were Brahmins on the one hand and the Kshatriyas

on the other. In a sense, it is true that the conflict was between

Brahmins and Kshatriyas because the Shudras were also a branch

of the Kshatriyas. It would, however, have been far more illuminating

if they had been described in more precise terms as conflicts between

Brahmins and Shudras. The misunderstanding having been caused,

it has remained and has continued to conceal the real nature of so

important a part of the history of the Indo-Aryan society. It is to

clear this misunderstanding that the hearing given to this Chapter

is ‘Brahmins versus Shudras’ and not ‘Brahmins versus Kshatriyas’.

Understood as a history of conflict between Brahmins and Shudras,

it helps one to understand how the Shudras came to be degraded

from the second to the fourth Varna.


156 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

CHAPTER X

THE DEGRADATION OF THE SHUDRAS

WHAT is the technique which the Brahmins employed to bring about

the degradation of the Shudras from the rank of the second to the

rank of the fourth Varna?

The discussion has so far centred round two questions as to whether

or not the Shudras were originally a part of the second or Kshatriya

Varna and whether or not the Brahmins had not received sufficient

provocation to degrade the Shudras. It is now necessary to deal with

the question, which is logically, next in order of sequence. What is

the technique of degradation employed by the Brahmins?

My answer to the question is that the technique employed by the

Brahmins for this purpose was to refuse to perform the Upanayana

of the Shudras. I have no doubt that it is by this technique that

the Brahmins accomplished their end and thereby wreaked their

vengeance upon the Shudras.

It is perhaps necessary to explain what Upanayana means and

what importance it had in the Indo-Aryan Society. The best way to

give an idea of Upanayana is to give a description of the ceremony.

As a rite Upanayana was originally a very simple ceremony, The

boy came to the teacher with a samidh (a grass blade) in his hand

and told the teacher that he desired to become a Brahmachari (i.e

a student) and begged the teacher to allow him to stay with him

for purposes of study. At a later date it became a very elaborate

ceremony. How elaborate it had become may be realised from the

following description of Upanayana in the Ashvalayana Grihya

Sutra :l

Let him initiate the boy who is decked, whose hair (on the head) is shaved

(and arranged), who wears a new garment or an antelope skin if a Brahmana,

rum skin if a Kshatriya, a goat’s skin if a Vaishya; if they put on garments they

1 Kane, History of Dharmashastra, Vol. II (i), pp. 281-283.


157THE SHUDRAS : THE DEGRADATION OF THE SHUDRAS

should put on dyed ones, reddish-yellow, red and yellow (for a Brahmana,Kshatriya, Vaishya respectively); they should have girdles and staffs (asdescribed above). While the boy takes hold of (the hand of) his teacher, thelatter offers (a homa of clarified butter oblations) in the fire ( as describedabove), and seats himself to the north of the fire with his face turned tothe east, while the other one (the boy) stations himself in front (of the teacher)with his face turned to the west. The teacher then fills the folded hands ofboth himself and of the boy with water and with the verse ‘we choose thatof Savitri’ (Rg.V. 82.1) the teacher drops down the water in his own foldedhands on to the water in the folded hands of the boy; having thus pouredthe water, he should seize with his own hand the boy’s hand together withthe thumb (of the boy) with the formula’ by the urge (or order) of the godSavitri, with the arms of the two Ashvins, with the hands of Pushan, I seizethy hand, oh so, and so,’ with the words ‘Savitri has seized thy hand, ohso and so’ a second time (the teacher seizes the boy’s hand) with the words‘Agni is thy teacher oh so and so’ a third time. The teacher should cause(the boy, to look at the sun, while the teacher repeats ‘God Savitri, this isthy brahmachari protect him, may he not die’ and (the teacher should further)say Whose brahmachari art thou? thou art the brahmachari of Prana. Whodoes initiate thee and whom (docs he initiate)? I give thee to Ka (to Prajapati).’With the half verse (Rg. III.8.4) ‘the young man well attired and dressed,come hither’ he (the teacher) should cause him to turn round to the rightand with his two hands placed over (the boy’s) shoulders he should touchthe place of the boy’s heart repeating the latter half (of Rg. III. 8.4). Havingwiped the ground round the fire, the brahmachari should put (on the fire)a fuel stick silently, since it is known (from sruti) ‘what belongs to Prajapatiis silently done,’ and the brahmachari belongs to Prajapati. Some do this(offering of a fuel stick) with a mantra to Agni: ‘I Have brought a fuel stick,to the great Jatavedas; by the fuel stick mayest thou increase, Oh agni andmay we (increase) through brahman’ (prayer or spiritual lore), svaha.’ Havingput the fuel stick (on the fire) and having touched the fire, he (the student)thrice wipes off his face with the words ‘I anoint myself with lustre,’ it isknown (from sruti) for he does anoint himself with lustre. ‘May Agni bestowon me, insight, offspring and lustre: on me may Indra bestow insight, offspringand vigour (Indriya) ;on me may the sun bestow insight, offspring andradiance; what thy lustre is, Oh Agni, may I thereby become lustrous; whatthe strength is, Agni, may I thereby become strong; what thy consuming poweris, Agni, may I thereby acquire consuming power.’ Having waited upon(worshipped) Agni with these formulae, (the student) should bend his knees,embrace (the teachers feet) and say to him ‘recite, Sir, recite, Sir, the Savitri.’Seizing the student’s hands with the upper garment (of the student) and hisown hands, the teacher recites the Savitri first pada by pada, then hemistichby hemistich (and lastly) the whole verse. He (the teacher) should make him(the student) recite (the Savitri) as much as he is able. On the place of thestudent’s heart the teacher lays his hand with the fingers upturned with theformula ‘I place thy heart unto duty to me, may thy mind follow my mind;may you attend on my words single-minded; may Brihaspati appoint theeunto me.’ Having tied the girdle round him (the boy) and having given himthe staff, the teacher should instruct him in the observances of a brahmachariwith the words ‘a brahmachari art thou, sip water, do service, do not



sleep by day, depending (completely) on the teacher learn the Veda.’ He (the

student) should beg (food) in the evening and the morning; he should put

a fuel stick (on fire) in the evening and morning. That (which he has received

by begging) he should announce to the teacher; he should not sit down (but

should be standing) the rest of the day.

The Upanayana ends with the teaching by the Acharya to the boyof the Vedic Mantra known as the Gayatri Mantra. Why the GayatriMantra is regarded as so essential as to require the ceremony ofUpanayana before it is taught it is difficult to say.

From this description of the Upanayana ceremony two things areclear. First is that the purpose of Upanayana was to initiate a personin the study of the Vedas which commenced with the teaching ofGayatri Mantra by the Acharya to the Brahmachari. The second thingthat is clear is that certain articles were regarded as very essentialfor the Upanayana ceremony. They are (1) two garments one for thelower part of the body technically called Vasa and the other for theupper part of the body called Uttariya, (2) Danda or wooden staff,(3) Mekhala or a girdle of grass tied across the waist.

Any one who compares this description of Upanayana as it wasperformed in ancient times with the details of the ceremony asperformed in later days is bound to be surprised at the absence ofany mention of thread called Yajnopavita to be worn by theBrahmachari as a part of his Upanayana. The centre of the modernceremony of Upanayana is the wearing of this thread and the wholepurpose of the Upanayana has come to be the wearing of thisYajnopavita1 So important a part this Yajnopavita has come to playthat most elaborate rules have come to be framed about its manu-facture and its use.

The Yajnopavita should have three threads, each thread to be ofnine strands well twisted. One tantu (strand) stands for one devata(deity).

The Yajnopavita should reach as far as the navel,2 should not reachbeyond the navel, nor should it be above the chest.

1. Yajnavalkya (T, 16 and 133) calls It Bramhu Sutra,

2. Kane, D.S. H (i), p. 292.

The nine devatas of the nine tantus (strands) according to the Devala Smriti are,Omkara, Agni, Naga, Sema, Pitris, Prajapati, Vayu, Surya, Vishvcdeva. Some changeseems to have come about in this view. For Medhatithi (see Kane) says that in ishtis,animal sacrifices and soma sacrifices, the Yajnopavita was to have only one threadof three tantus, but it was three-fold in three classes of ahina, ekahu and sattrasacrifices as they required three fires, and in the seven somasamstha seven-fold, andfive-fold when viewed with reference to the three savanas and two samdhyas.

A brahmachari was to wear only one yajnopavita, and samnyasins, when they keptyajnopavita at all, also wore only one. A snataka (i.e., one who has returned fromthe teacher’s house after brahmacharya) and householder were to wear two, while onewho desired long life may wear more than two. A snataka should always wear twoyajnopavitas, A householder may wear any number up to ten.



A person could wear more than one Yajnopavita,

A man must always wear Yajnopavita. If he took his meals without

wearing the Yajnopavita, or answers the call of nature without having

the Yajnopavita placed on the right ear, he had to undergo prayascitta,

viz., to bathe, to mutter prayers and fast.

Wearing of another’s Yajnopavita along with several other things

(such as shoes, ornament, garland and kamandalu) is forbidden.1

Three ways of wearing the Yajnopavita are recognized: (1) nivita,

(2) pracinavita and (3) upavita. When the cord is carried over the

neck, both shoulders and the chest and is held with both the thumbs

(of the two hands) lower than the region of the heart and above the

navel, it is called nivita. Suspending the cord over the left shoulder

in such a way that it hangs down on his right side, it becomes upavita.

Suspending it on his right shoulder in such a way that it hangs down

on his left side, it becomes pracinavita.

How did this Yajnopavita come in? Mr. Tilak offers an explanation2

which is worth quoting. Mr. Tilak says :

“Orion or Mrigashiras is called Prajapati in the Vedic works, otherwise called

Yajna. A belt or girdle of cloth round the waist of Orion or Yajna will therefore

be naturally named after him as Yajnopavita, the upavita or the cloth of

yajna.

The term, however, now denotes the sacred thread of the Brahmins, and it

may naturally be asked whether it owes its character, if not the origin, to

the belt of Orion. I think it docs on the following grounds:

The word yajnopavita is derived by all native scholars from Yajna + Upavita;

but there is a difference of opinion as to whether we should understand the

compound to mean an upavita for yajna i.e for sacrificial purposes, or, whether

it is the ‘upavita of Yajnas.’ The former is not incorrect, but authority is

in favour of the latter. Thus the Prayoga-writers quote a smriti to the effect

that ‘the High Soul is termed Yajna by the hotris, this is his upavita; therefore

it is yajna-upavita.’ A mantra, which is recited on the occasion of wearing

the sacred thread means, ‘I bind you with the upavita of yajna’’, while the

first half of the general formula with which a Brahmin always puts on his

sacred thread is as follows:

;Kksiohra ijeaifo=ka iztkirs;ZRlgta iqjLrkr~

The Mantra is not to be found in any of the existing Samhitas, but is given

in the Brahmopanishad and by Baudhayana. This verse is strikingly similar to

the verse quoted above from the Haoma Ycsht. It says, ‘yajnopavita is high and

sacred; it was born with Prajapati, of old.’ The word purastat corresponds with

paurvanim in the Avesta verse and thus decides the question raised by Dr. Haug,

1. Kane. History of Dharmashastra Vol. II, (1), p. 293.

2. Orion, pp, 144-146.



while sahaja, born with the limbs of Prajapati, conveys the same meaning

as mainyutastem. The coincidence between these verses cannot be acci-

dental, and it appears to me that the sacred thread must be derived from

the belt of Orion. Upavita, from ve to weave, literally means a piece of

cloth and not a thread. It appears, therefore, that a cloth worn round the

waist was the primitive form of yajnopavita, and that the idea of sacredness

was introduced by the theory that it was to be a symbolic representation

of Prajapati’s waistcloth or belt.”

This explanation by Mr. Tilak is no doubt very interesting. But

it does not help to explain some of the difficulties. It does not explain

the relation of the Yajnopavita to the two garments the Uttariya, and

the vasa, which are necessary for a person to wear while undergoing

Upanayana. Was the Yajnopavita in addition to the two garments?

If so, how is it that there is no mention of it in the early description

of the ceremony of the Upanayana? It does not explain another

difficulty. If that thread is a substitute for the cloth, how is it that

the wearing of the cloth is retained in the Upanayana?

There seems to be another explanation. I offer it for what it isworth. According to it, the wearing of the thread had to do with theadoption of the gotra. Its object was to tie oneself to a particular

gotra. It had nothing to do with the Upanayana as such, the objectof which was to initiate a person in the study of the Vedas. It isnot sufficiently realized that under the Ancient Aryan Law, a sondid not naturally inherit the gotra of his father. The father had toperform a special ceremony to give his gotra to his son. It is onlywhen this ceremony was performed that the son became the samegotra as the father. In this connection, reference may be made totwo rules observed by the Indo-Aryan Society. One is the rule ofimpurities. The other is the rule of adoption. With regard to the ruleof impurity, brought about by death, the days of impurity vary withthe kinship with the dead. If the kinship is very close, the days ofimpurity are greater than those in the case where the kinship is less

close. The impurities attached to the death of a boy who has not beeninvested with the thread are very meagre,1 not extending for more thana few days. With regard to the rule of adoption,2 it lays down that aboy who was invested with the thread was not eligible for adoption.What is the idea behind these rules? The idea seems to be quite clear.The impurities are nominal because there being no thread, the boy hadnot formally entered into the gotra of his father. Adoption means

1. See Manu Smriti, Chapter V, Verses 66-70,

2. Kalikapurana quoted by Vyavahara Mayukha, edited by Kane, p. 114. This

plea hat been taken in various cases in Courts by litigants to which Mr. Kane makes

references.



entering into the gotra of the adoptive father. Once the thread

ceremony had taken place the boy had already and irrevocably

entered another gotra.

There was no room for adoption left. Both these rules show that

the thread ceremony was connected with gotra and not with Upanayana.

The view that the thread has connection with gotra seems to receive

support from Jain literature. Shloka 87 of the fourth Parvan of the

Padmapurana by Acharya Ravishena reads as follows :1

“Bhagwan ! you have told us the origin of Kshatriya, Vaishya and

Shudra. I am anxious to know the origin of those who wear the thread

in their neck.”

The words ‘those who wear the thread in the neck’ are very

important. There is no doubt that it is a description of the Brahmins.

From this it is clear that there was a time when the Brahmins alone

wore the thread and no other class did. Read with the fact that the

gotra relationship was confined only to the Brahmins, it is clear that

the thread ceremony was connected with bringing the boy into—

actually tying him up to the gotra— of his father, and had nothing

to do with Upanayana which was connected with the initiation in

the teaching of the Vedas.

If this is true, then the thread ceremony and the Upanayana

ceremony had different purposes to serve. At some later date the two

merged into one. The reason for this merger appears to be very

natural. The Upanayana without the thread ceremony involved the

danger of the Acharya taking the boy in his gotra. It was to avoid

the danger that the father of the boy performed the thread ceremony

before handing him over to the Acharya. This is the probable reason

why the two ceremonies came to be performed simultaneously.

Be that as it may, Upanayana means the teaching of the Veda by

the Vedic Brahmin.

III

While I am convinced that my thesis is sound, it would be over

confident to think that there will not be found persons who will not

raise objections to it. I anticipate the following :

(1) Is absence of Upanayana the test of Shudradom;

(2) Did the Shudra ever have the right to Upanayana?

1 Quoted by Nathuram Premi in his Jain Sahitya our Itihas (Hindi), p. 55a,



(3) How can the loss of Upanayana result in the general degra-

dation of Shudras?

(4) What power did the Brahmins have to deny Upanayana to the

Shudras?

Having stated the possible objections to my thesis, I like to give

my reply to them.

IV

To begin with the first. The best way to deal with this objection

is to refer to the judicial decisions in order to find out what the Courts

in India have regarded as the surest criterion for determining who

is a Shudra.

The first case to which reference may be made is to be found in

7, M.I.A.18.1 It was decided by the Privy Council in 1837. The question

at issue was whether at the relevant time there were in India any

Kshatriyas. The contention of one side was that there were. The

contention on the other side was that there were none. The latter

contention was based upon the theory propagated by the Brahmins

that the Brahmin Parashurama had killed all the Kshatriyas and that

if any were left they were all exterminated by the Shudra king

Mahapadma Nanda, so that thereafter there were no Kshatriyas left

and that there were only Brahmins and Shudras. The Privy Council

did not accept this theory which they regarded as false and concocted

by the Brahmins and held that the Kshatriyas still existed in India.

The Privy Council did not however lay down any test by which a

Kshatriya could be distinguished from a Shudra. In their view, the

question must be determined in each case on its own facts.

The second case on the subject is to be found in I.L.R.10 Cal. 688.2

The question raised in the case was whether the Kayasthas of Bihar

were Kshatriyas or Shudras. The High Court decided that they were

Shudras. The partisans of the Kayasthas took the position that the

Kayasthas of Bihar were different from the Kayasthas of Bengal, the

Upper Provinces and Benares and that while those in the Upper

Provinces and Benares were Shudras, the Kayasthas of Bihar were

Kshatriyas. The court refused to make this distinction and held that

the Kayasthas of Bihar were also Shudras.

1. Chuohirya Run Murdan Syn Versus Sahub Purhulad Syn.

2. Raj Coomar Lall versus Bissessur Dyal.



The validity of this judgement was not accepted by the Allahabad

High Court. In I.L.R.12 All. 328,1 Justice Mahamood at page 334

observed as follows :

“I entertain considerable doubts as to the soundness of the view which seemsto have been adopted by both the Courts below, that the literary caste ofKayasthas in this part of the country, to which the parties belong, falls underthe category of Shudras, as understood in the division of mankind in theInstitute of Manu or elsewhere in authoritative texts of the Hindu Law. Thequestion is one of considerable difficulty not only ethnologically, but also froma legal point of view, so far as the administration of the Hindu Law to thisimportant section of the population is concerned. I do not take the questionto be settled by any adjudication of the Lords of the Privy Council eitherin Sri Narayan Miner vs. Sree Mutty Kishen Soondoory Dassee,2 or inMahashova Shosinath Ghose vs. Srimati Krishna Soondari Dasi 3 in both ofwhich the cases referred to adoption by Kayasthas of Lower Bengal, who maybe distinguishable from the twelve castes of Kayasthas in Upper India, suchas the North-western Provinces and Oudh. Nor do I think that the unreporteddecision of the learned Chief Justice and my brother Tyrell in ChaudhariHazari Lai versus Bishnu Dial (First Appeal No. 113 of 1886, decided onthe 15th June 1887), which was also an adoption case, settles the question.But I need not pursue the subject any further....”

The third case is reported in (1916) 20 Cal. W.N.9014. Here the

question raised was whether Kayasthas of Bengal were Kshatriyas

or Shudras. The High Court of Calcutta held that they were Shudras.

The case was taken to the Privy Council by way of appeal against

the decision of the Calcutta High Court. The decision of the Privy

Council is reported in (1926) 47 I.A. 140. The question whether the

Bengali Kayasthas are Shudras or Kshatriyas was not decided upon

by the Privy Council but was left open. In between 1916 and 1926

the Calcutta High Court gave two decisions which held that inter-

marriages between Kayasthas of Bengal and Tantis5 and Domes6 two

of the low castes, were legal on the ground that both of them were

sub-castes of Shudras.

These decisions which caused further deterioration in the position

of the Kayasthas were followed by another which is reported in

I.L.R. 6 Patna 506.7 In a most elaborate judgement extending over

47 pages Mr. Justice Jwala Prasad went into every Purana and every

1. Tulsi Ram versus Behari Lai.

2. L. R. I. A. Sup., Vol. 149.

3. L. R. 7,1.A., 250.

4. Asita Mohan Ghosh versus Nirod Mohan Ghosh Maulik.

5. (1921) 48 Cal. 626. Bishwanath Ghosh versus Srimati Balai Desai.

6. (1924) 51 Cal. 788. Bholanalh Mitter versus King Emperor.

7. (1926) Ishwari Prasad versus Rai Hari Prasad Lai.



Smriti in which there was a reference to the Kayasthas. He differed

from the Calcutta High Court and held that the Kayasthas of Bihar

were Kshatriyas.

Next come cases in which the question at issue was whether the

Maharattas are Kshatriyas or Shudras. The first case in which this

issue was raised is reported in 48 Mad. I.1 This was an interpleader

suit filed by the Receiver of the estate of Raja of Tanjore in which

all the descendants as well as the distant agnates and cognates of

the Raja were made defendants in the suit. The kingdom of Tanjore

was founded by Venkoji, otherwise called Ekoji, who was a Mahratta

and the brother of Shivaji the founder of the Mahratta Empire. The

judgement in the case covers 229 pages and the question whether

the Mahrattas were Kshatriyas was dealt with in a most exhausitve

manner. The decision of the Madras High Court was that the

Mahrattas were Shudras and not Kshatriyas as was contended by

the defendants.

The next case which also relates to the Mahrattas is reported in

I.L.R. (1928) 52 Bom.497.2 The Court decided that :

“There are three classes among the Mahratthas in the Bombay Presi-

dency: (1) the five families; (2) the ninety-six families; (3) the rest Of these,

the first two classes are legally Kshatriyas.”

The last case to which reference may be made is reported in I.L.R.

(1927) 52 Mad. I.3 The issue was whether the Yadavas of Madura

were Kshatriyas. The Yadavas claimed themselves to be Kshatriyas.

But the Madras High Court negatived the claim and held that they

were Shudras.

Such is the course of judicial pronouncements on the issue as to

how to determine who is a Kshatriya and who is a Shudra. It is a

most confusing medley of opinion which settles little and unsettles

much. The Kayasthas of Bihar, of the Upper Provinces (now U.P) and

Benares are Kshatriyas, while the Kayasthas of Bengal are Shudras!!

According to the Madras High Court all Mahrattas are Shudras. But

according to the Bombay High Court, Mahrattas belonging to five

families and 96 families are Kshatriyas and the rest are Shudras!!

The Yadava community to which Krishna belonged is popularly

believed to be Kshatriyas. But according to the Madras High Court,

the Yadavas are Shudras!!

1. (1924) Maharaja of Kolhapur versus Sundaram Ayyar.

2. Subbarao Hambirao Palil vera? Radha Hambirao Patil.

3. Mokka Kone versus Ammakutti.



More important for our purpose are the criteria which the courts

have adopted in coming to their decisions than the particular

decisions in the cases referred to. Among the criteria which the courts

have laid down, the following may be noted :

(1) In I.L.R. 10 Cal. 688, the criteria adopted were (i) use of Das

as surname, (ii) wearing the sacred thread, (iii) ability to

perform the homa, (iv) the period of impurity; (v) competence

or incompetence of illegitimate sons to succeed.

(2) In I.L.R. 6 Patna 606, the criterion seems to be general repute.

If a community is Kshatriya by general repute it is to be

treated as a Kshatriya community.

(3) In 48 Madras 1, a variety of criteria were adopted. One was

the consciousness of the community. The second was under-

going the ceremony of Upanayana as distinguished from

wearing the sacred thread. The third criterion was that all

non-Brahmins are Shudras unless they prove that they are

Kshatriyas or Vaishyas.

(4) In I.L.R. Bom. 497, the tests adopted were (i) the consciousness

of the caste (ii) its custom, and (iii) the acceptance of that

consciousness by other castes.

No one who knows anything about the subject can say that the

criteria adopted by the various courts are the right ones. A criterion

such as the period of impurity is irrelevant and of no value for

determining the question. A criterion such as the capacity for

performing homa is relevant but not valid. It mistakes effect for a

cause. The criterion of consciousness is hardly a fair criterion. A

community may have lost its consciousness by long disuse of nec-

essary religious observances due to causes over which it has no

control. The criterion of Upanayana stands on a different footing. The

courts have not put it properly. But there is no doubt that rightly

understood and properly put the criterion of Upanayana is sound.

The Courts have not made any distinction between the de facto

position of the community and its position de jure in regard to

Upanayana, and have proceeded on the assumption that what is true

de facto must also be true de jure. It is this fault in the application

of the criterion of Upanayana which has produced anomalies and

absurdities, such as one community having one status in one area

and quite a different status in a different area—or allowing any

pretender community to wear the thread and by continuing its



pretence for a period to acquire a vested right or contrariwise

punishing a community by declaring that it had no de jure right to

wear the thread merely because it has not been wearing it de facto.

The real criterion is not the wearing of the sacred thread but the

right to wear the sacred thread. Understood in its proper sense, it

may be said without fear of contradiction that the right to Upanayana

is the real and the only test of judging the status of a person whether

he is a Shudra or a Kshatriya.

V

The second objection is quite untenable. To assume, as the objection

does, that from the very beginning the Aryan Society treated its

different classes differently in the matter of Upanayana is to my mind

a very unnatural supposition. Primitive society does not begin with

differentiation. It begins with uniformity and ends in diversity. The

natural thing would be to suppose that in the matter of the

Upanayana the ancient Aryan society treated all its classes on the

same footing. It may however be argued, on the other side, that such

an original tendency in favour of uniformity need not be accepted

as being universal, that it may well be that in the ancient Aryan

society the Shudras and the women were excluded from Upanayana.

Fortunately for me, it is not necessary for me to rely on logic alone

though I contend that logic is on my side. For there is ample evidence

both circumstantial as well as direct to show that both Shudras as

well as women had at one time the right to wear the sacred thread.

That the ancient Aryan society regarded Upanayana as essential

for all will be evident if the following facts are borne in mind.

Upanayana was allowed for the deaf, the dumb, the idiot and even

the impotent. A special procedure was prescribed for the Upanayana

of the deaf and dumb and idiots. The principal points in which their

Upanayana differs from that of others are that the offering of Samidh,

treading on a stone, putting on a garment, the tying of mekhala, the

giving of deer skin and staff are done silently, that the boy does not

mention his name, it is the acharya himself who makes offering of

cooked food or of clarified butter, all the mantras are muttered softly

by the acharya himself. The same procedure is followed as to other

persons who are impotent, blind, lunatic, suffering from such diseases

as epilepsy, white leprosy or black leprosy, etc.



The six anuloma castes were also eligible for Upanayana; this is

clear from the rules1 for the Upanayana of Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and

of mixed castes like Rathakara, Ambashtha, etc.

Upanayana was permitted to Patitasavitrikas. The proper age forthe Upanayana of a Brahman boy was 8th year from birth, of aKshatriya 11th year and of a Vaishya 12th year. But a certainlatitude was allowed so that the time for Upanayana was not deemedto have passed upon the 16th, the 22nd and the 24th year in thecase of Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas respectively. After theseyears are passed without Upanayana taking place, a person was held

to have become incompetent thereafter for learning the Savitri (thesacred Gayatri verse). Such persons were then called Patitasavitrikaor savitripatita. According to the strict interpretation of rules, noUpanayana is to be thereafter performed for them, they are not tobe taught the Veda, nor is anyone to officiate at their sacrifices andthere is to be no social intercourse with them (i.e., no marriage takesplace with them). But even in their case, there was readiness to relaxthe rules 2 subject to certain penances.

Upanayana was permitted in the case of Brahmaghnas. ABrahmaghna is a person whose father or grandfather had failed toperform Upanayana. The original rule3 was that if a person’s fatherand grandfather also had not the Upanayana performed for them thenthey (i.e., the three generations) are called slayers of brahma (holyprayers or lore); people should have no intercourse with them, shouldnot take their food nor should enter into marriage alliance with them.But even in their case the rule was relaxed and they were allowed

Upanayana if they desired, provided they performed the prescribedpenance.

1. Baud. Gr. Sutra (II.8). Kane, History of Dharmashastra, II (1), p. 299.

2. Ap. Dh. S., I. 1. 1 28-31, prescribes that after the 16th or 24th year, the personshould undergo the rules of studenthood two months just as those who meant to studythe three vedas and whose Upanayana has been performed, observe (viz., begging forfood, etc.) then his Upanayana should be performed, then for one year he should bathe(thrice if possible) every day and then he should be taught the Veda. This is a somewhateasy penance. But others prescribe heavier penalties. Vas. Dh. S. XI. 76-79 and theVaik. Smarta, 11.3 prescribes that one who is patitasavitrika should either performthe Uddalaka vrata or should take a bath along with the performer of an Ashvamedhasacrifice or should perform the Vratyastoma sacrifice. See Kane, ibid., p. 377.

3. Ap. Dh. S., I. 1.1. 32-2. 4. The penance prescribed was that of observing therules of studenthood one year for each generation (that had not the Upanayanaperformed) then there is Upanayana and then they have to bathe (thrice or once) everyday for a year with certain mantras, viz., the seven Pavamani verses beginning with‘yad ami yacca durake’ (Rg. IX. 67. 21-27), with the Yajus Pavitra (Tai. S., I. 2.1.l=Rg. X. 17. 10) with the samapavitra and with the mantras called Angirasa (Rg. IV.40.5) or one may pour water only with the Vyahritis. After all this is done, one mustbe taught the Veda. See Kane, ibid., p. 378.



A further relaxation was made in the case of a person whose

generation beginning with the great grandfather had not the

Upanayana performed on them.1 Even they were allowed to have their

Upanayana performed if they desired, provided they performed

penance which included studenthood for twelve years and bath with

the Pavamani, and other verses. On his Upanayana, instruction in

the duties of the householder was imparted to him, and though he

himself could not be taught the Veda, his son may have the samskara

performed as in the case of one who is himself a patitasavitrika so

that his son will be ‘one like other Arya’.

Upanayana was permitted to the Vratyas. It is difficult to state

exactly who the Vratyas were, whether they were Aryans who had

for more than three generations failed to perform the Upanayana or

whether they were non-Aryans who were never within the Aryan fold

and whom the Brahmins wanted to convert to the Aryan faith. It

is possible that it included both. Be that as it may, there is no doubt

that Upanayana was open to the Vratyas provided they performed

Vratyastomas. Vratyas were those who lead the Vratya life, were base

and were reduced to a baser state since they did not observe

studenthood (brahmacharya) nor did they till the soil nor engage in

trade. There were four Vratyastomas, the first of which is meant for

all Vratyas, the second is meant for those who are Abhishasta who

are wicked or guilty of heavy sins and are censured and lead a Vratya

life, the third for those who are the youngest and lead a Vratya life

and the fourth for those who are very old and yet lead a Vratya life.

In each of the four Vratyastomas, Sodasastoma2 is always performed.

It is by the Sodasastoma that they can attain this (superior status).

The Sodasastoma was supposed to have the power to remove the guilt

of these. By performing the Vratyastoma sacrifice, they should cease

to be Vratyas and become eligible for social intercourse with the

Orthodox Aryas, to have the sacrament (samskara of Upanayana)

performed of them and then be eligible to study the Veda.

In the Vratyata-shuddisamgraha3 provision is made for the puri-

fication of Vratyas even after twelve generations subject to appro-

priate penances.

1. Ap. Dh S., 1.1. 2.5-10.

2. Kane (ibid, p. 385) refers to the Tandya Brahmana 17.1.1 which tells the story

that when the gods went to the heavenly world some dependents of theirs who lived

the vratya life were left behind on the earth. Then through the favour of the gods

the dependents got at the hands of Maruts the Sodasastoma (containing 16 stotras)

and the metre (viz., anustubh ) and then the dependents secured heaven.

3. Kane, ibid, p. 387



Upanayana was so highly thought of that Baudhayana (ii.10)

allowed Upanayana for the Asvattha tree.

Given these facts, it is difficult to believe that the women andShudras were excluded from the Upanayana by the Aryan societyfrom the very beginning. In this connection, attention may be drawnto custom prevalent among the Indo-Iranians who were very closelyrelated to the Indo-Aryans in their culture and religion. Among theIndo-Iranians, not only both men and women but men and womenof all classes are invested with the sacred thread. It is for theopponents to prove why the system was different among the Indo-Aryans.

It is, however, not quite necessary to depend upon circumstantialevidence. There is enough direct evidence to show that there was atime when both women and Shudras had the right to Upanayana anddid have it performed.

As to the Upanayana of women the statements1 contained in theHindu religious books are quite explicit. Anyone who examines themwill find that Upanayana was open to women. Women not onlylearned the Vedas but they used to run schools for teaching the Vedas,

are even known to have written commentaries on the Women PurvaMimamsa.

As to the Shudras, the evidence is equally positive. If Sudas wasa king, if Sudas was a Shudra, if his coronation ceremony was

performed by Vasishtha and he performed the Rajasuya Yaga, thenthere can be no doubt that the Shudras did at one time wear thesacred thread. In addition to circumstantial evidence and the evidenceof the authors mentioned before, the Sanskara Ganapati cited by MaxMuller2 contains an express provision declaring the Shudra to beeligible for Upanayana.

The only difference between the women and the Shudras is thatin the case of women there is some plausible explanation given asto why the Upanayana of women was stopped, while there is no suchexplanation for stopping the Upanayana of the Shudras. It is arguedthat the Upanayana of women continued as long as the age ofUpanayana and the age of marriage continued to be different. It is saidthat in ancient times the age of Upanayana was 8 and the age formarriage was considerably later. But at a later stage, the age ofmarriage was brought down to 8, with the result that the Upanayana

1. See Purushartha Number for September 1940 where all authorities are

collected in one place.

2. History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (1860), p. 207.



as an independent ceremony ceased to exist and became merged in

marriage. Whether this explanation is right or wrong is another

matter. The point is that in the case of the Shudra, the Upanayana

was at one time open to him, that it was closed to him at a later

stage and that there is no explanation for this change.

Those who, in spite of the evidence to which I have referred, think

that they must insist upon their objection should remember the

weakness of their side. Assuming that the Shudras had never had

the benefit of Upanayana, the question they have to face is why were

the Shudras not allowed the benefit of the Upanayana. The orthodox

theory merely states the fact that there is no Upanayana for a

Shudra. But it does not say why the Shudra is not to have his

Upanayana performed. The explanation that there was no Upanayana

of the Shudra because he was a non-Aryan is a modern invention

which has been shown to be completely baseless. Either there was

once an Upanayana and it was stopped or the Upanayana was from

the very beginning withheld. Either may be true. But before one or

the other is accepted to be true, it must be accompanied by reasons.

There being no reason why the benefit of the Upanayana was withheld

from the Shudra, the presumption must be in favour of my thesis

which states that they had the right to Upanayana, that they were

deprived of it and gives reasons why they were deprived of its validity.

VI

The third objection is no objection at all. Only a person who does

not know fully all the incidents of Upanayana can persist in upholding

its validity.

The Aryan society regarded certain ceremonies as Samskaras. The

Gautama Dharma Sutra (VIII. 14-24) gives the number of Samskaras

as forty. They are :

Garbhadhana Pumsavana, Simantonnayana, Jatakarma, namakarana,

annaprasana, caula, Upanayana, the four vratas of the Veda, Snana (or

Samavartana), vivaha, five daily mahayajnas (for deva, pitri, manushya,

bhuta, and Brahma); seven pakayajnas (viz., astaka, parvanasthalipaka,

sraddha sravani, agrahayani, caitri, asvayuji); seven haviryajnas (in which

there is burnt offering but no Soma, viz., Agnyadheya, Agnihotra,

Darsapurnamasa, Agrayana, Caturmasyas, Nirudhapasubandha and

Sautramani); seven soma sacrifices (Agnistoma, Atyagnistoma, Ukthya,

Sodasin, Vajapeya, Atiratra, Aptoryama).



At a late stage a distinction appears to have been drawn between

Samskaras in the narrower sense and Samskaras in the wider sense.

Samskaras in the wider sense were really sacrifices and were

therefore not included in the Samskaras in the proper sense, which

were reduced to sixteen.

There is nothing strange about the Samskaras. Every society

recognises them. For instance, the- Christians regard Baptism,

Cofirmation, Matrimony, Extreme Unction, Eucharist, the Lord’s

Supper and the Holy Communion as sacraments. There however

seems to be a difference between the notions of the Indo-Aryans and

say the Christians about the Samskaras. According to Christian

notions, the Samskara or Sacrament is a purely spiritual matter-

drawing in of God’s grace by particular rites. It had no social

significance. Among the Indo-Aryans the Samskaras had originally

a purely spiritual significance. This is clear from what Jaimini the

author of the Purva Mimamsa has to say about the Samskaras.

According to Jaimini the general theory is that Samskaras impart

fitness. They act in two ways. They remove taints and they generate

fresh qualities. Without such Samskaras, a person may not get the

reward of his sacrifice on the ground that he is not fit to perform

it. Upanayana was one of the Samskaras and like other Samskaras,

its significance was just spiritual. The denial of the Upanayana to

the Shudras necessarily brought about a change in its significance.

In addition to its spiritual significance it acquired a social significance

which it did not have before.

When Upanayana was open to everyone, Aryan or non-Aryan, it

was not a matter of social significance. It was a common right of

all. It was not a privilege of the few. Once it was denied to the

Shudras, its possession became a matter of honour and its denial

a badge of servility. The denial of Upanayana to the Shudras

introduced a new factor in the Indo Aryan society. It made the

Shudras look up to the higher classes as their superiors and enabled

the three higher classes to look down upon the Shudras as their

inferiors. This is one way in which the loss of Upanayana brought

about the degradation of the Shudras.

There are other incidents of Upanayana. Since idea of these can be

had if one refers to the rules laid down in the Purva Mimamsa1. One

1 See Ganganath Jha, Purva Mimamsa, pp. 368-369 and 171-172.



of these rules is that all property is meant primarily for the purpose

of providing a person with the means of performing a sacrifice. The

right to property is dependent upon capacity to sacrifice.1 In other

words, anyone who suffers from an incapacity to perform a sacrifice

has no right to property. Capacity to sacrifice depends upon Upanayana.

This means that only those who are entitled to Upanayana have a

right to own property.

The second rule of the Purva Mimamsa is that a sacrifice must

be accompanied by Veda mantras. This means that the sacrificer must

have undergone a course in the study of the Veda. A person who

has not studied the Vedas is not competent to perform the sacrifices.

The study of the Veda is open only to those persons who have

undergone the Upanayana ceremony. In other words, capacity to

acquire knowledge and learning—which is what the study of Veda

means-is dependent upon Upanayana. If there is no Upanayana the

road to knowledge is closed. Upanayana is no empty ceremony. Right

to property and right to knowledge are the two most important

incidents of Upanayana.

Those who cannot realise how loss of Upanayana can bring about

the degradation of the Shudras should have no difficulty in under-

standing the matter if they will bear in mind the rules of the Purva

Mimamsa referred to above. Once the relation of Upanayana to

education and property is grasped, all difficulty in accepting the

thesis that the degradation of the Shudra was entirely due to loss

of Upanayana must vanish.

It will be seen, from what has been said above, how the sacrament

of Upanayana was in the ancient Aryan society fundamental and how

the social status and personal rights of persons depended upon it.

Without Upanayana, a person was doomed to social degradation, to

ignorance and to poverty. The stoppage of Upanayana was a most

deadly weapon discovered by the Brahmins to avenge themselves

against the Shudras. It had the effect of an atomic bomb. It did make

the Shudra, to use the language of the Brahmins, a graveyard.

1 Not a few are unable to understand why the Manu Smriti and other Smritis

deny women and Shudra the right to hold property and to study the Vedas. All

difficulty, however, vanishes if one bears in mind that the disabilities are the natural

consequences of the rule, laid down in the Purva Mimamsa. Women and Shudras

cannot hold property, not because they are women and Shudras, but because they

are debarred from performing sacrifices.



VII

That the Brahmins possessed the power to deny Upanayana is

beyond question. The doubt probably arises from the fact that there

is nowhere an express statement showing the conferment of such a

power upon the Brahmins. All the same, whatever doubt there may

be lurking in the minds of persons who are not aware of the operative

parts of the religious system of the Indo-Aryans must vanish if

account is taken of two things: (1) the exclusive right of the Brahmin

to officiate at the Upanayana and (2) the penalties imposed upon the

Brahmin for performing unauthorised Upanayana.

It is probable that in most ancient times it was the father who

taught his son the Gayatri, with which the study of the Veda begins

and for which the ceremony of Upanayana was devised at a later

stage. But it is beyond question that from a very early time the

function of performing Upanayana had been assigned to a guru or

a teacher called the Acharya and the boy went and stayed in the

Acharya’s house.

The questions as to who should be the Acharya and what should

be his qualification have been the subject of discussions from very

ancient times.

The Acharya must be a man learned in the Vedas. A Brahmana

text1 says, “he, whom a teacher devoid of learning initiates, enters

from darkness into darkness and he also (i.e. an acharya) who is

himself unlearned (enters into darkness).”

The Ap. Dh. S. (1.1.1.12—13), lays down that an Acharya selected

for performing one’s Upanayana should be endowed with learning and

should be one whose family is hereditarily learned and who is serene

in mind, and that one should study Vedic lore under him up to the

end (of brahmacharya) as long as the teacher does not fall off from

the path of Dharma.2

But the first and foremost qualification of an Acharya is that he

must be a Brahmana: It was only in times of difficulty (i.e., when

a Brahmana is not available) that a person was allowed to have a

1 Quoted in the Ap. Dh. S., I. i. i. 11, Kane, II (I), p. 324.

2 According to Vyasa (quoted in Sam. p., p. 408) the Acharya should be one who

is solely devoted to the Veda, who knows Dharma, is born of a good family, who

is pure, is a shrotriya that has studied his Vedic sakha and who is not lazy. Shrotriya

has been defined as one who has studied one sakha of a Veda.



Kshatriya or a Vaishya teacher1. This exception was permitted onlyduring the period when the distinction between the right to learn theVedas and the right to teach the Vedas had not been made. But whenthat distinction came to be made—and it was made in very early times—in fact the conflict between Vasishtha and Vishvamitra was just on thisvery point—the Brahmin alone came to possess the right to be anAcharya fit to officiate at an Upanayana.

One thing therefore must be taken as well-established, namely thatnone but a Brahmin could perform the Upanayana ceremony. Upanayanaperformed by anybody else is not a valid Upanayana.

The other operative part of the Indo-Aryan religious system is theobligation imposed upon the Brahmin not to do any unauthorized actof a religious character. A Brahmin guilty of any such conduct was liableto punishment or penance. Many such penalties are to be found in theancient Law Books. I refer to Manu and Parashara.

Manu (III.150ff.), lays down what class of Brahmins are to be deemedunworthy (to partake) of oblations to the gods and manes. In this listhe includes :

III. 156.—“He who teaches for a stipulated fee and he who is taughton that condition, he who instructs Shudra pupils and he whose teacheris a Shudra, he who speaks rudely, the son of an adultress, and the sonof a widow.”

Parashara says :2

“That Brahmana, who for the sake of dakshina (gift of money or fee) offers

oblation into fire on behalf of a Shudra, would become a Shudra, would the

Shudra (for whom he offers) would become a Brahman;” that, according to

Madhava, propounds that the merit of the rite “goes to the Shudra and the

Brahmana incurs sin.” ”

Those who may ask what powers the Brahmins had to deprive theShudra of his right to Upanayana may consider the combined effectof these two facts : (1) the Brahmin’s exclusive right to officiate atan Upanayana, and (2) the penalties to which he is made liable forperforming an unauthorized Upanayana. If they do, they will haveno doubt that the combined effect of these two factors was to vestin the Brahmin the power of performing as well as of denyingUpanayana. It is true that such a power has not been expressly vestedin the Brahmin. That was because it was unnecessary to do by express

1 It is curious to note that in such cases the only service a Brahmana studentwas required to render to his Kshatriya or Vaishya guru was to follow after him; hehad not to render bodily service (such as shampooing or washing the feet, etc.). VideAp. Dh. S., II, 2.4, 25-28 Gaut, 7, 1-3, Baud Dh. S.I.-2, 40-42, Manu, II. 241. It wasalso premised that a Kshatriya or a Vaishya should teach a Brahmana only whenurged by him and not at his sweet will.

2. Quoted by Vyavahara Mayukha (edited by Kane, p. 115).



terms what was in fact done by indirect but more effectual means.

That the Brahmins are conscious of the possession of this power to

deny Upanayana is also beyond doubt. So far as the records go, there

are 16 reported cases in which they have threatened various com-

munities by putting it into operation against them. In nine cases,

they challenged the Kayasthas, in four they challenged the Panchalas,

in one they challenged the Palshes. What is important is that they

challenged even two Maratha Kings. These instances have occurred

between 556 to 1904 A.D. It is true that they do not belong to ancient

times. It must however be remembered that these instances are mere

evidences of the exercise by the Brahmins of their power to deny

Upanayana. The power itself must have been acquired in much more

ancient times. That they have acquired it earlier is not an empty

assertion without support. Satyakama Jabali’s instance which is very

ancient is cited generally to prove that the Varna of a man was

determined by his guna (mental and moral qualities) and not by his

birth. While this is true, it is equally true that Jabali’s case proves

that even in ancient times the Brahmins had acquired the right to

refuse to perform Upanayana.

The enumeration of these cases has very little value for the purpose

in hand unless we know the deductions that could be drawn from

the decisions arrived at in them. To be able to do this, we must know

the details of each case. Unfortunately, in most of them beyond the

decision other details are not sufficiently full for the purpose. There

is only one case that of the Brahmins versus Shivaji in respect of

which the details are full and well-known. The case is sufficiently

important and it is therefore well worth detailed examination. The

deductions deducible from it are not only interesting and instructive

but they throw a flood of light on the point under discussion.

VIII

As is well known, Shivaji after having established a Hindu

independent kingdom in the western part of Maharashtra thought

of proclaiming himself a king by having his coronation performed.

It was felt by Shivaji and his friends that the coronation ceremony

if it was at all to be of any value must be performed according to

Vedic rites. But in carrying out his wishes Shivaji found himself faced

with many difficulties. He found that whether his coronation could

be performed with Vedic rites depended entirely upon the Brahmins.



Nobody was from religious point of view qualified to perform theceremony except a Brahmin. Secondly, he found that no suchceremony could be performed unless it was proved that he was aKshatriya. There was a third difficulty, namely, that even if he wasfound to be a Kshatriya, he was past the age of Upanayana andwithout Upanayana there could be no coronation. The third difficultywas a minor one for it could be got over by the performance of theVratya Stoma ceremony. The first difficulty was the greatest stum-bling block. It related to Shivaji’s status. The question was, was he

a Kshatriya? If that could be got over, the rest was easy. Shivaji’sclaim that he was Kshatriya was opposed by many. His principalopponents were Brahmins who were led by his own Prime MinisterMoro Pant Pingle. Unfortunately for Shivaji even his MarathaSardars had refused to give him social precedence1 and had rangedthemselves against him. In their view, he was a Shudra. Shivaji’sclaim was also in direct conflict with the well established thesis longinsisted upon by the Brahrnins that there were no Kshatriyas in theKali age. Shivaji was living in the Kali age. Obviously he could notbe a Kshatriya. This objection to his claim for the status of Kshatriyawas further strengthened by the non-performance of the ceremonyof Upanayana or the investiture of the sacred thread at the proper

time, which was fixed by the Sastras to be the eleventh year in thecase of the Kshatriyas. This was taken to be evidence of his beinga Shudra. He was however fortunate in securing the services of oneGagabhat, a renowned Brahmin, resident of Benares, learned bothin the Vedas and Sastras. Gagabhat solved all difficulties andperformed Shivaji’s coronation2 on 6th June 1674 at Raigad first afterperforming the Vratya Stoma and then the Upanayana.

1 Kinkaid has some interesting observations to make as to how the idea of coronation

originated. He says :

“For although the high-spirited Deccan nobles gladly followed Shivaji in the field,they were unwilling in private life to concede to him any precedence. And at State

dinners they resented that a Bhosle should sit on a seat raised above those assigned

to Mohites and Nimbalkars, Savants and Ghorpades. He spoke of the matter to hisSecretary, Balaji Avaji Chitnis and the latter urged him to take the royal crown from

the hands, not of the Moghul Emperor, but of a Benares priest. The king consulted

his mother, Jijabai, the saintly Ramdas and his favourite goddess Bhavani and foundthem all favourable to his Secretary’s suggestions.”—History of Maharashtra, p. 244.

From this it appears that the ideas behind Vedic coronation was to obtain social

precedence and not so much to obtain legal and political sovereignty.

2 It seems that some Brahmins were prepared to perform Shivaji’s coronation but

with non-Vedic, i.e., with Pauranic rites as is done in the case of Shudras. Theypredicted all sorts of evils to happen if Shivaji had his coronation performed with Vedic

rites. Unfortunately these evils did take place and Shivaji who undoubtedly was

superstitious had another coronation performed according to non-Vedic rites. Thefollowing account of this second coronation taken from Mr. C. V. Vaidya makes

interesting reading :



Shivaji’s case is important for several reasons. It is important becauseit proves that nobody except a Brahmin has the right to perform theUpanayana and that nobody can compel a Brahmin to perform it if heis not prepared to do so. Shivaji was the ruler of an independent kingdomand had already started styling himself Maharaja and Chhatrapati.There were many Brahmins who were his subjects. Yet, Shivaji couldnot compel anyone of them to perform his coronation.

It is important because it proves that the ceremony to be valid mustbe performed by a Brahmin. A ceremony performed by a non-Brahminwould be infructuous. It was open to Shivaji to have his coronationperformed by a non-Brahmin. But he did not dare1 to do it. For he knewit would be without any social or spiritual efficacy.

In the third place, it is important because it proves that the power

of determining the status of a Hindu depends entirely upon the willof the Brahmins. The decision in favour of Shivaji is sought to bejustified by the genealogy which was brought from Mewar by Shivaji’sfriend, Balaji Avaji, and which connected Shivaji with the Sisodiyas ofMewar who were reckoned as Kshatriyas. It has been alleged that thegenealogy was a fabrication got up for the occasion.

“Obstructive and dissatisfied Brahmins there were even then as always. They didnot deem the ceremony satisfactory, though it was acclaimed by the whole ofMaharashtra. A poem named Rajyabhisheka Kalpataru, a copy of which is in the Libraryof the Bengal Royal Asiatic Society and which has been published from it by ItihasS. Mandal of Poona (Quarterly, Vol. X-I), embodies some objections raised against thecoronation ceremony gone through. This poem is not quite contemporary, as it mentionsthe later idea that Shivaji was an incarnation of Siva (not of Vishnu as representedby the earlier Shivabharata) though it is of the time of Rajaram. It gives an imaginaryconversation between Nischalpuri, a learned Brahmin ascetic of Benares who was anopponent of Gagabhat, and Govindbhat Barve as taking place in Konkan. It recountsthe ill omens which preceded and followed the coronation, such as the death ofPrataprao Gujar, the death of Kashibai, wife of Shivaji, etc., and the wound causedto Gagabhat himself on the nose by the falling of a rafter. The poem expressly saysthat Gagabhat engaged for the ceremony those Brahmins only who were his followersand refused to employ those recommended by Nischalpuri. Many defects in the ceremonyitself, are next mentioned. Thus when Shivaji was getting into the chariot after theceremony of ascending the throne Gagabhat himself first sat in the chariot and thenShivaji. After seeing the whole ceremony through Nischalpuri left the fort but toldShivaji that bad events would happen on the 13th, 22nd and 55th days. On the 13thday accordingly, Shivaji’s mother died. Next a horse-shed was burnt at Pratapgad withgood many horses in it and an elephant died on Sinhgad. These incidents inducedShivaji to call Nischalpuri back and through him and his Brahmins Shivaji performedafresh the ceremony of ascending the throne, not with Vedic rites, but Tantrik ormagical. This ceremony is also described in detail. There are mentioned some Vedicmantras from Sama Veda as recited; but the ceremony was not Vedic. It was performedon Ashvin Suddha 5 (Lalita Panchami day S, 1596), as is stated at the end of thepeom. This ceremony is also mentioned by J and Nischapuri is also spoken of in aMahomedan record.’—.Shivaji the Founder of Maratha Swaraj, pp. 252-253.”

1 The Kayasthas had at one time resolved to perform their own ceremonies as a priestagainst the constant challenge by the Brahmins to their status. But they did not puttheir resolve into action. The reason must be the same.



Assuming it was not a fabrication,1 how can it justify the recognition ofShivaji’s claim to be a Kshatriya? Far from establishing that Shivaji wasa Kshatriya, the genealogy could do no more than raise another question,namely, whether the Sisodiyas were Kshatriyas. The Sisodiyas wereRajputs. There is considerable doubt as to whether the Rajputs are thedescendants of the original Kshatriyas who formed the second Varna ofthe ancient Indo-Aryan community. One view is that they are foreigners,remnants of the Huns who invaded India and established themselves inRajputana and whom the Brahmins raised to the status of Kshatriyas withthe object of using them as means to suppress Buddhism in Central Indiaby a special ceremony before the sacred fire and who were therefore knownas the Agnikul Kshatriyas. This view has the support of many eruditescholars who are entitled to speak on the subject. Vincent Smith says :2

In this place I want to draw attention to the fact, long suspected andnow established by good evidence that the foreign immigrants intoRajputana and the upper Gangetic valley were not utterly destroyed inthe course of their wars with the native princes. Many of course perishedbut many survived and were mixed in the general population of whichno inconsiderable part is formed by their descendants. These foreignerslike their fore-runners the Sakas and the Yue-chi universally yielded tothe wonderful assimilative power of Hinduism and rapidly became Hinduised.Clans or families which succeeded in winning chieftainships were admittedreadily into the frame of Hindu polity as Kshatriyas or Rajputs and thereis no doubt that the Parihars and many other famous Rajput clans of thenorth were developed out of the barbarian hordes which poured into Indiaduring the fifth and sixth centuries. The rank and file of the strangersbecame Gujars and the castes ranking lower than Rajputs in theirprecedence. Further to the south, various indigenous or aboriginal tribesand clans underwent the same process of Hinduised social promotion invirtue of which Gonds, Bhars, Kharwas and so forth emerged as Chandels,Rathors, Gaharwars and other well-known Rajput clans duly equipped withpedigree reaching back to the sun and the moon.

William Crooke3 says :

Recent research has thrown much light on the origin of Rajputs. A wide gulf

lies between the Vedic Kshatriyas and the Rajputs of mediaeval times which it

1 The Sisodiya family of Mewar was important for two reasons (1) They were

a branch of the Sisodiyas of Udaipur who were descendants of the family of Lava

the eldest son of Rama, the hero of Ramayana. (2) The Sisodiyas of Mewar were

pure because they had refused to give their females in marriage to the Moghul

emperors and had refused to intermarry with other Rajput families such as Jaipur

and Jodhpur who had done so. Was it because of these reasons that this attempt

to establish that Shivaji was the descendant of the Sisodiyas of Mewar was made?

2 Quoted by C. V. Vaidya in his History of Mediaeval India, Vol. II. P. 8.

3 Quoted by Vaidya, ibid., p. 9.



is now impossible to bridge. It is now certain that the origin of many clansdates from the Saka or Kushan invasions of more certainly from that ofthe White Huns who destroyed the Gupta empire about 480 A.D. The Gujartribe connected with the latter people adopted Hinduism and their leadersformed the main stock from which the higher Rajput families sprang. Whenthese new claimants to princely honour accepted the faith and theinstitution of Brahmanism the attempt would naturally be made to connectthem with the heroes of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. Hence arosethe body of legend recorded in these annals by which a fabulous origin

from the sun and the moon was ascribed to these Rajput families ... Thegroup denoted by the name Kshatriya or Rajput depended on status ratherthan on descent and it was therefore possible for foreigners to be introducedinto these tribes without any violation of the prejudices of caste, whichwas then only partially developed. But it was necessary to disguise thisadmission of foreigners under a convenient fiction. Hence arose the legendhow by a solemn act of purification or initiation under the superintendenceof the ancient Vedic Rishis, the fire—born septs were created to help theBrahmins in repressing Buddhism and other heresies. This privilege wasconfined to four septs known as Agnikula or fire-born viz., the Parmar,Parihar, Chalukya and Chauhan.

Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar1 also holds the same view. According to him,the Rajputs are the descendants of Gujars, the Gujars were foreignersand that the Rajputs are therefore the descendants of foreigners.

The Brahmins engaged for the coronation could not have been ignorantof the origin of the Rajputs, and their claim to be descended from theKshatriyas. But assuming that they did not know this fact they knew thatthere was already a previous decision of the Brahmins, namely, that therewere no Kshatriyas in the Kali age. This was an old, long-standing decision.And if the Brahmins had respect for precedent, they were bound to throw

out the claim of Sisodiyas as well as of Shivaji. Nobody would have blamedthem, if they had done so. But the Brahmins had never accepted the lawof precedent as binding upon them. With them there was no such thingas stare decisis.

Fourthly, it is important because it shows that the decisions of

the Brahmins on matters of status were open to sale like the

indulgences of the Catholic clergy. That the decision of Gagabhat was

not an honest decision is obvious from the amount of money which

Gagabhat and other Brahmins received as officiating priests. The

amount of money spent on the coronation by Shivaji and how much

of it went to Gagabhat and the Brahmins will be seen from the

1 Quoted by Vaidya, Ibid., p. 10. Mr. Vaidya combats the view and tries to prove

that the Rajputs are not foreigners but are the descendants of original Aryan-

Kshatriyas. What Mr. Vaidya says does not appear to be very convincing.



following details collected by Mr. Vaidya. :1

“These ministers were presented each with one lakh of hon, one elephant,one horse, garments and ornaments. Gagabhat was given one lakh of rupeesfor seeing the whole ceremony through. The Dakshinas granted by Shivajion the several occasions of the coronation ceremony were very large, as wassuited to the occasion. Sabhasad reports that the whole expenditure amountedto one crore and forty-two lakhs of hons or 426 lakhs of rupees.

Sabhasad relates that 50,000 Vaidika Brahmins had collected on the occasionof Shivaji’s coronation.2 Besides these there were Jogis, Sanyasis, etc., bythousands. These were fed or given corn below the fort. It is related incontemporary papers that Shivaji, before coronation, was weighed against goldand almost every other metal as well as auspicious thing. Dutch recorddescribing the ceremony in detail on 3rd October PS. 1684 states that Shivajiweighed 17,000 hons or 160 lbs. and he was also weighed against silver,copper, iron, etc., and against camphor, salt, sugar, butter, various kinds offruit, betel-nuts, etc., and the value of the whole was distributed amongstBrahmins. On the 7th June, the day after the coronation, Dakshina was givenin general and every Brahmin got three to five rupees and everyone else,whether woman or child two rupees and one rupee. In all, the Dakshinaamounted to one and a half lakhs of hon3 in value.

Oxenden also states in his diary from 18th May to 13th June that Shivajiwas weighed against gold and the weight 16,000 hons, together with one lakhof hons in addition were distributed as Dakshinas among Brahmins.

The above noted Dutch record further states that for the Vratya ceremony7,000 hons were given to Gagabhat and 17,000 to other Brahmins. On the5th of June Shivaji bathed in holy Ganges water and every Brahmin presentwas given 100 hons.”

Can the amount paid to Gagabhat be taken as representing nothingmore than a fee4 properly payable to a priest? There is onecircumstance which may be depended upon to show that Gagabhatwas not even paid enough. It is that what Gagabhat got wascomparatively much less than what the Ministers of Shivaji got. Twofacts must however be noted as telling on the other side before anyconclusion is drawn from this fact. They completely nullify theargument. The first is that the ministers themselves had madelarge presents5 to Shivaji on his coronation. Moropant Pingle thePeshwa or Prime Minister of Shivaji, the Mujamdar had paid 7,000 honsand the other two ministers 5,000 hons each. Deducting these, the

1 Shivaji, the Founder of Maratha Swaraj, pp. 248 and 252.

2 Vaidya says this must be a mistake for 5,000. He gives no reason in support

of his ‘must’.

3 A Hon was equal to 3 rupees.

4 It must not be supposed that Gagabhat got only Rs. 1 lakh. He got in addition

7,000 hons or 21,000 rupees for Vratya Stoma. Further he must have received somepart of the gold and the value of other things against which Shivaji was weighed and

which was distributed among the Brahmins.

5 Vaidya, ibid., p. 247.



presents given to them by Shivaji must be said to be much smaller

than they appear to be.

The second fact is that these ministers of Shivaji were the greatest

opponents of Shivaji in this project of coronation. They were staunch

in their view that he was a Shudra and that he was not entitled

to have his coronation performed as it was a right which belonged

to the Kshatriya only. It is therefore, no surprise if Shivaji gave them

large presents with a view to silence them and win them over

permanently to his side. The amount of money paid to the ministers

by Shivaji is therefore no criterion to determine whether the amount

paid to Gagabhat was no more than a fair fee for officiation. Indeed

there are so many twists and turns taken by Gagabhat that one is

forced to the conclusion that it was more than fair fee and that it

included some part as illegal gratification to keep him straight.

In this business of coronation the man who took the most leading

part in bringing it about was a Kayastha from Maharashtra by name

Balaji Avaji who was the Personal Secretary to Shivaji. The first step

Balaji took was to send three Brahmins1 as messengers from Shivaji

to fetch Gagabhat from Benares with full information as to the status

and purpose of Shivaji. What did Gagabhat do? He sent back the

three messengers with a letter refusing to accept the invitation on

the ground that in his. view Shivaji was a Shudra and was therefore

not fit for coronation. The next step Balaji took was to collect evidence

in support of Shivaji’s claim to the status of a Kshatriya. He

succeeded in obtaining a genealogy which showed that Shivaji was

a Kshatriya descended from the Sisodiyas who were Rajputs and

rulers of Mewad. This evidence he sent with another messenger,2 to

Gagabhat. Gagabhat seemed to have been impressed by the evidence

for he agreed to come to Raigad to perform the coronation ceremony.

What did Gagabhat do on his arrival? He said that he had reexamined

the evidence and had come to the conclusion that Shivaji was a

Shudra and was therefore unfit for coronation.

This is not the only somersault which Gagabhat took in this business.

He took another and a very queer turn and declared that he was

prepared to perform the coronation of Balaji Avaji for he was a

1 They were (1) Keshav Bhat, (2) Bhalachandra Bhat, and (3) Somanath Bhat.

2 The name of the messenger was Nilo Yesaji. He was a Kayastha. The three

Brahmins who went on the first occasion to fetch Gagabhat were suspected to have

commuted a foul play by acting contrary to their instructions and betraying the

interest of Shivaji to which as Brahmins they were opposed. It is possible that Balaji

felt that the letter brought by them was a piece of manoeuvre. That is why Balaji

this lime sent a Kayastha, a man of his own caste.



Kayastha and therefore a Kshatriya but not of Shivaji who wasShudra. Gagabhat did not stop there. He again turned round andgave his opinion that Shivaji was a Kshatriya and that he wasprepared to perform his coronation and even went so far as to writea treatise known as Gagabhatti in which he sought to prove thatthe Kayasthas were bastards.

What do these twists and turns show? Do they not show he wasa most unwilling priest and that his willingness has had to be boughtby cash? If this argument is sound then there is no doubt that hisdecision that Shivaji was Kshatriya was sold by him for illegalgratification.1

Lastly Shivaji’s case is important because it shows that theBrahmins in the matter of status did not recognize as being boundby the principle of res judicata. They regard themselves as free toreopen a case already decided by them. For how long did theBrahmins respect their decision that Shivaji was a Kshatriya?

Shivaji started a new era from the day of his coronation, namely, 6thJune 1674 which he called the Rajyabhisheka Era. How long did it remainin vogue? Only so long as Shivaji and his descendants remained as activerulers on the throne. The moment effective sovereignty passed into thehands of the Brahmin Peshwas, they issued an order2 to discontinue it.

Not only did they stop the use of the Era, they began using the style ofthe Muslim Emperors, namely, the Fasli year. The Brahmins did not stopthere. They went further and began to question the very status of Shivaji’sdescendants as Kshatriyas.3 They could do nothing to the two sons ofShivaji, Sambhaji and Rajaram. Shivaji had their Upanayana performedin his life-time by Brahmins with Vedic rites. They could do nothing tohis grandson, Shahu because the Brahmins had no ruling power in their

1 For facts about Gagabhat’s twist’s and turns stated above, I have drawn onK. S. Thakare’s Marathi booklet Gramanyacha Itihas. Thakare has in his turn drawnupon the Bakhars or Chronicles. How far they are reliable it is difficult to say. Itmust however be admitted that the twists and turns of Gagabhat appear to be truebecause without them it would be difficult to explain certain relevant and disturbingfacts. For instance, take the following question : Did Gagabhat change after comingto Raigad and if so, why? The change and the reason for it is to be found in thediscovery by Gagabhat that another Brahmin by name’ Moropant Pingle who was noless than the Prime Minister of Shivaji was deadly opposed to Shivaji’s claim to bea Kshatriya. It is likely that the two Brahmins on meeting together saw eye to eyewhich make Gagabhat change. Why did Moropant who was a strong opponent becamelater on a strong supporter of Shivaji’s coronation? If it is a fact that Gagabhat didpropose that Balaji should be proclaimed king it gives a complete explanation ofMoropant’s change of front. Balaji being Kayastha and the Kayasthas being thedeadliest enemies of the Brahmins, Moropant consented to Shivaji’s coronation as alesser of the two evils.

2 Sardesai, Marathi Riyasat, II. p. 363, and Vaidya, Shivaji, p. 251

3 What follows is taken from Siddhanta Vijaya, edited by Rao Bahadur Dongre.



hands. The moment Shahu transferred his sovereign powers to his

Brahmin Peshwa their road to repudiation became clear. There is

no evidence whether Ramjee Raje the successor and adopted son of

Shahu, who was minor and whose guardians were the Peshwas, had

his Upanayana performed and if so, whether it was performed with

Vedic rites. But there is definite evidence that the Upanayana

ceremony of his successors, Shahu II, who was adopted in 1777 had

been performed with Pauranic rites and by the direction of the

Peshwas.1 The performance of Upanayana of Shahu II with Pauranic

rites was tantamount to his being regarded by the Peshwas as a

Shudra. For it is only in the case of a Shudra that the ceremonies

are performed with Pauranic rites. What happened to Maharaja

Pratapsing who succeeded Shahu II in 1808 whether or not his

Upanayana was performed and if performed whether it was performed

with Vedic rites or Pauranic rites it is not possible to be definite.

One thing, however, is definitely known that in about 1827 the

Shankarcharya of Karvir in his judgement about the status of the

Kayasthas of Sangli stated2 “that there were no Kshatriyas in the Kali

age and that documents showing that neither Shivaji, nor Sambhaji

nor Shahu were Kshatriyas exist in his Daftar”. It is alleged that this

statement is not to be found in the original judgement but was

interpolated by the Brahmin Raja of Sangli. Be that as it may, it

was a direct challenge to the status of Pratapsinha as a descent of

Shivaji. Pratapsinha had to put the issue to a conference of Brahmins

which was held in Satara in 1830. The majority gave a decision in

favour and saved Pratapsinha from being degraded to the status of

a Shudra.

Foiled in their attempt to level down one line of Shivaji to the

status of a Shudra, the Brahmins began their attack on the status

of the second line of Shivaji which had established itself at Kolhapur.

In the reign of one of the rulers of Kolhapur by name Babasaheb

Maharaj, the Palace Priest by name Raghunath Sastri Parvate took

into his head to perform all ceremonies in the Palace with Pauranic

rites. It is said that he was stopped from continuing the practice.

Babasaheb died in 1886. From 1886 to 1894, all rulers were minors

and the administration was in the hands of the British. There is no

direct evidence as to the exact manner and mode of ceremonial

performances adopted by the Palace priest. In 1902, the late Shahu

Maharaj issued order to the Palace priest to perform all ceremonies

1 Dongre Siddhanta Vijaya, Introduction, p. 6.

2 Dongre, Ibid., Introduction, p. 9.



in the Vedic manner. The priest refused and insisted on performing

it in the Pauranic manner suggesting thereby that the rulers of

Kolhapur were Shudras and not Kshatriyas. The part played by

Sankaracharya of Karvir Math in this affair is very noteworthy. At

the time of the controversy the head of the Math called Guru, had

adopted a disciple (Sishya) by name Brahmanalkar and had given

him all the rights of the head of the Math. At first both the Guru

and the Sishya were on the side of the Palace Priest and against

the Maharaja. Later on, the disciple took the side of the Maharaja

and accepted his status as a Kshatriya. The Guru who remained on

the side of the Priest excommunicated the Sishya. The Maharaja later

on tried to create his own Sankaracharya1 but he too proved false

to the Maharaja.

Shivaji was recognised as a Kshatriya. Obviously, that status was

not a personal honour conferred on him. It was a status in tail and

belonged to his family as well as to his descendants. Nobody could

question it. It could be lost by a particular descendant by doing some

act which was inconsistent with it. It could not be lost generally.

No act inconsistent with the Kshatriya status was attributed to any

of the descendants of Shivaji. Yet the Brahmins came forward to

repudiate the decision on their status.

This could happen only because the Brahmins claimed the power

to do and undo the status of any Hindu at any time. They can raise

a Shudra to the status of a Kshatriya. They can degrade the Kshatriya

to the status of a Shudra. Shivaji’s case proves that their sovereignty

in this matter is without limit and without challenge.

These instances2 are no doubt drawn from the Bombay Presidency

only. But the principles from them are clear and general in their

application. They are :

(1) That the Brahmins have the exclusive right to perform the

Upanayana. Neither Shivaji, nor Pratap Sinha nor the

Kayasthas, Panchals or Palashes wanted the Upanayana to be

performed by a non-Brahmin. It is only once that the Kayasthas

resolved to have their ceremonies performed by Kayasthas. But

it was only a paper resolution.

(2) The Brahmin has the right to say whose Upanayana he will

perform and whose he will not perform. In other words, the

1 He is known as Dr. Kurtakoti.

2 For details of each see a Marathi publication, Gramanyacha Itihas, by K. S.

Thakare, published in 1919.



Brahmin is the sole judge of deciding whether a given

community is entitled to Upanayana.

(3) The support of the Brahmins for the performance of Upanayana

need not be based on honest grounds. It could be purchased

by money. Shivaji got the support of the Brahmin Gagabhat

on payment of money.

(4) The denial of Upanayana by the Brahmins need not be on legal

or religious ground. It is possible for the denial to be based

on purely political grounds. The refusal by the Brahmins of

Upanayana to Kayasthas was entirely due to political rivalry

between the two.

(5) The right of appeal against the denial of an Upanayana by

a Brahmin is only to a Vidvat-Parishad and the Vidvat-

Parishad is an assembly for which a Brahmin alone is eligible

to be a member.

From the foregoing discussion, it must be clear to all that the

Brahmins did possess the power to deny Upanayana. Given the

powers and the motive, there is nothing strange if they used it against

the Shudras.



CHAPTER XI

THE STORY OF RECONCILIATION

SO far I have attempted to establish the following propositions

:

(1) That it is the Brahmins who brought about the fall of the

Shudras from the second to the fourth Varna in the Indo-

Aryan Society;

(2) That the technique adopted by the Brahmins to degrade the

Shudras was to deny them the benefit of the Upanayana;

(3) That this act of degradation was born out of the spirit of

revenge on the part of the Brahmins who were groaning under

the tyrannies and oppressions and indignities to which they

were subjected by the Shudra kings.

While all this is crystal clear, there may be some who may yet

have some such questions to ask, namely :

(i) Why should a quarrel with a few kings make the Brahmins

the enemies of the whole Shudra community?

(ii) Was the provocation so great as to create a feeling of hatred

and desire to seek vengeance?

(iii) Were not the parties reconciled? If they were, then their was

no occasion for the Brahmins to degrade the Shudras.

(iv) How did the Shudras suffer this degradation?

These questions I admit have in them enough force and substance

to call for serious consideration. It is only proper that they should

be answered.

I

The question why the Brahmins, because of their quarrels with a

few kings, should proceed to degrade the whole community of Shudras

is not only relevant but is also very pertinent. There would, however,

be no difficulty to answer this question if two things are borne in mind.


THE SHUDRAS : THE STORY OF RECONCILIATION 187

In the first place, the conflicts described in Chapter 9 between

the Brahmins and the Shudra kings were not individual conflicts

though they appear to be so. On the side of the Brahmins there

is no doubt that the whole class was involved. Barring the episode

relating to Vasishtha, all other episodes relate to Brahmins in

general. On the side of the kings, it is true that the episodes mention

individual kings as being involved in this conflict with the Brahmins.

But it must not be forgotten that they all belonged to the same line

to which Sudas belonged.

In so far as Sudas is concerned, the conflict was between theBrahmins and the Shudra clan of Kshatriyas. Of this, there can beno doubt. We have no direct evidence to say that the other offendingkings also belonged to the Shudra clan of Kshatriyas. But we haveother evidence which leads to the conclusion that they belonged tothe same line of descent as Sudas.

Attention is invited to the following genealogical tree appearing

overleaf which is taken from the Adi Parvan of the Mahabharata.1

The inter-relationship of the Kshatriya kings who came in conflictwith the Brahmins throws some interesting light on the subject,Pururavas2 is the son of Ila and the grandson of Manu Vaivasvata.Nahusha3 is the grandson of Pururavas. Nimi4 is one of the sons ofIkshvaku, who is the son of Manu Vivasvat. Trishanku 5 is 28th in

descent from Ikshvaku. Sudas 6 is descended from Ikshvaku and is50th in descent from him. Vena 7 is the son of Manu Vaivasvata.All of them claimed descent from Manu, some from him and somefrom Ikshvaku. Being descendants of Manu and Ikshvaku, it ispossible to argue that they were all kindred of Sudas. Given the factthat Sudas is a Shudra, it follows logically that all these kingsbelonged to the Shudra group.

We have no direct evidence, but there would be nothing unnatural

in supposing that in these conflicts with the Brahmins, the whole

Shudra community, not merely a few Shudra kings, was involved.

This conflict, it must be remembered, has taken place in the ancient

past when life was tribal in thought and in action, and when the rule

1 Muir, Vol. I, p. 126

2 Muir, Vol. I, p. 126.

3 Muir Vol. I, p. 307.




7 Divodasa, the father of Sudas, is spoken of in the Rig Veda as king of Purus

and Purus are described as Ikshvakus.



MA

RIC

HI

KA

SY

AP

A=

Da

ksh

ay

an

i (o

ne

of

the

da

ug

hte

rs

of

Da

ksh

a

Pra

jap

ati

)

Ad

ity

as

Viv

asv

at

MA

NU

Ya

ma

(ha

d

10

son

s)

Ven

aD

hris

hn

uN

au

sh

ya

uta

Na

bh

ag

aIk

sh

va

ku

Ka

rush

aS

ary

ati

Ila

Pri

sh

ad

raN

ab

ha

ga

ush

la

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10

)



was that what was done by one individual belonging to the tribe wasdeemed to be done by the whole tribe. In all ancient societies the unitwas the tribe or the community and not the individual, with the resultthat the guilt of the individual was the guilt of the community andthe guilt of the community was the guilt of every individual belongingto it. If this fact is borne in mind, then it would be quite natural tosay that the Brahmins did not confine their hatred to the offendingkings, but extended it to the whole of the Shudra community andapplied the ban against Upanayana to all the Shudras.

II

As to whether there was enough provocation, the matter is hardly opento question. Tempers must have risen high on both sides. There wasenough combustible material on both sides for an explosion to take place.

On the side of the Brahmins, it is evident that their pretensions tosocial superiority and their claim for special privileges had becomeoutrageous in character and unbearable in extent.

The following is a catalogue1 of the pretensions put fourth by theBrahmins :

(i) The Brahmin must be acknowledged to be the guru to all Varnasby the mere fact of his birth;

(ii) The Brahmana has the sole right of deciding upon the duties ofall other classes, what conduct was proper to them and what shouldbe their means of livelihood; and the other classes were to abideby his directions and the king was to rule in accordance with suchdirections;

(iii) The Brahmana is not subject to the authority of the king. Theking was the ruler of all except the Brahmana;

(iv) The Brahmana is exempt from (1) whipping; (2) fetters being puton him; (3) the imposition of fines; (4) exile; (5) censure and (6)abandonment.

(v) A Shrotriya (a Brahmana learned in Vedas) is free from taxes.

(vi) A Brahmana is entitled to claim the whole of the treasure troveif he found it. If the king found it he must give half to theBrahmana.

(vii) The property of a Brahmana dying without an heir shall not goto the king, but shall be distributed among Shrotriyas or Brahmanas.

(viii) The king meeting a Shrotriya or a Brahmana on the road mustgive way to the Brahmana.

(ix) The Brahmana must be saluted first.

(x) The person of a Brahmana is sacred. No death sentence could bepassed against a Brahmana even if he is guilty of murder.

1 This summary is based on the catalogue given in Kane’s Dharma Shastra,

Vol. II (I), pp. 138-153.



(xi) Threatening a Brahmana with assault, or striking him or drawing

blood from his body is an offence.

(xii) For certain offences the Brahmana must receive a lesser punish-

ment than members of other classes.

(xiii) The king should not summon a Brahmana as a witness where

the litigant is not a Brahmana.

(xiv) Even when a woman has had ten former husbands who are not

Brahmanas, if a Brahmana marries such a woman, it is he alone

who is her husband and not a Rajanya or a Vaishya1 to whom

she may have been married.

After discussing these pretensions and privileges claimed by theBrahmanas, Mr. Kane says :2

“Further privileges assigned to Brahmanas are : free access to the houses

of other people for the purpose of begging alms; the right to collect fuel,

flowers, water and the like without its being regarded as a theft, and to

converse with other men’s wives without being restrained (in such conver-

sation) by others; and the right to cross rivers without paying any fare for

the ferry-boat and to be conveyed (to the other bank) before other people.

When engaged in trading and using a ferry boat, they shall have to pay no

toll. A Brahmana who is engaged in travelling, who is tired and has nothing

to eat, commits no wrong by taking two canes of sugar or two esculent roots.”

These privileges have no doubt grown in course of time and itis difficult to say which of them had become vested rights when theseconflicts were raging. But there is no doubt that some of the mostannoying ones such as (i), (ii), (iii), (viii) and (xiv) had then come

into existence. These were enough to infuriate any decent and self-respecting body of men.

On the side of the Kshatriya kings they could not be supposed tobe willing to take things lying low. How could they? It must not beforgotten that most of the Kshatriya kings who came into conflict withthe Brahmins, belonged to the solar line.3 They differed from the

Kshatriyas of the lunar line in learning, in pride and in martial spirit.The Kshatriyas who belonged to the solar line were a virile people,while those who belonged to the lunar line were an imbecile lot withoutany self-respect. The former challenged the Brahmins. The lattersuccumbed to them and became their slaves. This was as it shouldbe. For while the Kshatriyas of the lunar line were devoid of anylearning, those belonging to the solar line were not merely the equalsof Brahmins in the matter of learning, they were their

1 No. (xiv) is not mentioned by Kane, but is mentioned in the Atharva Veda V.17. 8-9; see Muir, Vol. I, p. 280.

2. Ibid., pp. 153-4.

3. Only Pururavas and Nahusha belong to the Lunar line of Kshatriyas as maybe seen from



superiors. Several of them were the authors of the Vedic hymns andwere known as Rajarishis. This was particularly true of those whocame into conflict with the Brahmins.

According to the Anukramanika to the Rig Veda as well asaccording to tradition the following hymns are said to have beencomposed by the undermentioned kings :l

“vi.15: Vitahavya (or Bharadvaja); x.9: Sindhuvipa, son of Ambarisha (orTrisiras, son of Tvashtri); x.75: Sindhukshit, son of Priyamedha; x. 133, Sudasson of Pijavana; x. 134, Mandhatri, son of Yuvanasva; x. 179, Sibi, son ofUsinara, Pratardana, son of Divodasa and king of Kasi, and Vasumanas, sonof Rohidasva; and x. 148 is declared to have had Prithi Vainya.”

The Matsya Purana also gives the lists2 of those who composedthe hymns of the Rig Veda in a passage which says :

“Bhrigu, Kashya, Prachetas, Dadhicha, Atmavat, Aurva, Jamadagni, Kripa,Sharadvata, Arshtishena, Yudhajit, Vitahavya, Suvarchas, Vaina, Prithu,Divodasa, Brahmasva, Gritsa, Saunaka—these are the nineteen Bhrigus,composers of hymns. Angiras, Vedhasa, Bharadvaja, Bhalandana, Ritabadha,Garga, Siti, Sankriti, Gurudhira, Mandhatri, Ambarisha, Yuvanasva, Purukutsa,Pradyumna, Shravanasya, Ajamidha, Haryashva, Takshapa, Kavi,Prishadashva, Virupa, Kanva, Mudgala, Utathya, Sharadvat, Vajasravas,Apasya, Suvitta, Vamadeva, Ajita, Brihaduktha, Dirghatamas, Kakshivat, arerecorded as thirty-three eminent Angirases. These were all composers ofhymns. Now learn the Kasyapas... Vishvamitra, son of Gadhi, Devaraja, Balathe wise Madhuchhandas, Rishabha, Aghamarshana, Ashtaka, Lohita,Bhritakila, Vedasravas, Devarata, Puranashva, Dhananjaya, the gloriousMithila, Salankayana,—these are to be known as the thirteen devout andeminent Kusikas. Manu Vaivasvata, Ida, king Pururavas, these are to beknown as the eminent utterers of hymns among the Kshatriyas. Bhalanda,Vandya, and Sanskirti these are always to be known as the three eminentpersons among the Vaishyas who were composers of hymns. Thus ninety-onepersons have been declared by whom hymns have been given birth to,Brahmanas, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas.

the following genealogical tree :—

Soma=Tara

Budha=Ila

Pururav as=Urvashi

Ayus

Nahusha

If it is bome in mind that Ha the mother of Pururavas was the daughter of

Manu Vaivasvata it will be seen that they too were the kith and kin of the

solar Kshatriyas who came into conflict with the Brahmins.

1. Muir, Vol. I, p. 268

2. Muir Vol. I, p. 279.



In the list of the authors of the Vedic hymns there are not only

names of many Kshatriyas, there are names of many of the

Kshatriyas who had come into conflict with the Brahmins. The

Kshatriyas were the leaders among the Vedic hymn makers. The

most famous Vedic hymn namely the Gayatri mantra is the

production of Vishvamitra who was a Kshatriya. It was impossible

for the Kshatriyas of this calibre not to take up this challenge of

the Brahmins.

Their pride which was born out of their prowess and their learning

must have been so greatly wounded by the pretensions of the

Brahmins that when they did take up the challenge of the Brahmins

they did it in a ruthless spirit. They hit the Brahmins hip and thigh.

Vena forced them to worship him and no other god; Pururavas looted

their wealth. Nahusha yoked them to his chariot and made them

drag it through the city. Nimi flouted the exclusive and hereditary

right of a family priest to perform all the ceremonies in the family

and Sudas went to the length of burning alive the son of Vasishtha

who was once his family priest. Surely, there cannot be greater cause

to provoke the Brahmins to seek their vengeance upon the Shudras.

III

On the point of possible reconciliation between the Brahmins and

the Shudras, there is no doubt some evidence on which some people

might rely. Before stating my views upon the worth of this evidence,

it is desirable to draw attention to it. The evidence consists of stories

of reconciliation which are scattered throughout the Mahabharata

and the Puranas.

The first story of reconciliation concerns the two tribes, the

Bharatas to whom Vishvamitra belonged and the Tritsus to whom

Vasishtha belonged. That the Bharatas were enemies of Vasishtha

or Tritsus is clear from the Rig Veda itself which says :l

III. 53.24.—“These sons of Bharata, O Indra, desire to avoid (the

Vasishthas), not to approach them.”

The story of their reconciliation is told in the Adi Parvan of the

Mahabharata2 and runs as follows :

“And the hosts of their enemies also smote the Bharatas. Shaking the earth

with an army of four kinds of forces, the Panchalya chief assailed him having

1. Muir, Vol. I, p. 354.

2. Muir Vol. I, p. 361.



rapidly conquered the earth and vanquished him with ten complete hosts.

Then the king Samvarana with his wives, ministers, sons and friends fled

from that great cause of alarm and dwelt in the thickets of the great river

Sindhu (Indus) in the country bordering on the stream, and near a mountain.

There the Bharatas abode for a long time, taking refuge in a fortress. As

they were dwelling there, for a thousand years, the venerable rishi Vasishtha

came to them. Going out to meet him on his arrival, and making obeisance,

the Bharatas all presented him with the arghya, offering, showing every

honour to the glorious rishi. When he was seated, the king himself solicited

him: ‘Be thou our priest; let us strive to regain my kingdom,’ Vasishtha

consented to attach himself to the Bharatas, and as we have heard, invested

the descendant of Puru with the sovereignty of the entire Kshatriya race,

to be a horn (to have a mastery) over the whole earth. He occupied the

splendid city formerly inhabited by Bharata, and made all kings again

tributary to himself,”

The second story relates to the conflict between the Bhrigus and

the Kshatriya king Kritavirya and their subsequent reconciliation.

It occurs in the Adi Parvan of the Mahabharata i1

“There was a king named Kritavirya, by whose liberality the Bhrigus,learned in the Vedas, who officiated as his priests, had been greatly enrichedwith cows and money. After he had gone to heaven, his descendants werein want of money, and came to beg for a supply from the Bhrigus, of whosewealth they were aware. Some of the latter hid their money underground,others bestowed it on Brahmins, being afraid of the Kshatriyas, while othersagain gave these last what they wanted. It happened, however, that aKshatriya while digging the ground, discovered some money buried in thehouse of a Bhrigu. The Kshatriyas then assembled and saw this treasure,and, being incensed, slew in consequence all the Bhrigus, whom theyregarded with contempt, down to the children in the womb. The widows,however, fled to the Himalaya mountains. One of them concealed herunborn child in her thigh. The Kshatriyas, hearing of its existence froma Brahmani informant sought to kill it, but it issued forth from his mother’sthigh with lustre, and blinded the persecutors. After wandering aboutbewildered among the mountains for a time, they humbly supplicated themother of the child for the restoration of their sight; but she referred themto her wonderful infant Aurva, into whom the whole Veda, with its sixVcdangas, had entered, as the person who (in retaliation of the slaughterof his relatives) had robbed them of their eye-sight, and who alone couldrestore it. They accordingly had recourse to him, and their eye-sight wasrestored. Aurva, however, mediated the destruction of all living creatures,in revenge for the slaughter of the Bhrigus, and entered on a course ofausterities which alarmed both gods, asuras and men; but his progenitors(Pitris), themselves appeared, and sought to turn him from his purposeby saying that they had no desire to be rovenged on the Kshatriyas. Itwas not from weakness that the devout Bhrigus overlooked the massacreperpetrated by the murderous Kshatriyas. ‘When we became distressed by oldage, we ourselves desired to be slaughtered by them. The money which was

1. Muir, Vol. I, pp. 448-449



buried by some one in a Bhrigu’s house was placed there for the purposeof exciting hatred, by those who wished to provoke the Kshatriyas. For whathad we who were desiring heaven, to do with money?’ They added that theyhit upon this device because they did not wish to be guilty of suicide, andconcluded by calling upon Aurva to restrain his wrath, and abstain from thesin he was meditating: ‘Destroy not the Kshatriyas, o son, nor the sevenworlds. Suppress thy kindled anger which nullifies the power of austerefervour.’ Aurva, however, replies that he cannot allow his threat to remainunexecuted. His anger, unless wreaked upon some other object, will, he says,consume himself, and he argues, on grounds of justice, expediency and duty,against the clemency which his progenitors recommended. He is, however,persuaded by the Pltris to throw the fire of his anger into the sea, wherethey say it will find exercise in assailing the watery element, and in thisway his threat will be fulfilled, It accordingly became the great Hayasiras,known to those who are acquainted with the Veda, which vomits forth thatfire and drinks up the waters.”

The third story concerns the conflict between Arjuna, son of

Kritavirya, the king of the Haihayas and Parashurama and the

subsequent reconciliation between them. It occurs in the Vanaparvan

of the Mahabharata and runs as follows :l

“Arjuna, son of Kritavirya and king of the Haihayas, had, we are told,a thousand arms. He obtained from Dattaireya an aerial car of gold, the marchof which was irresistible. He thus trod down gods, Yakshas, rishis, andoppressed all creatures. The gods and rishis applied to Vishnu and he alongwith Indra, who had been insulted by Arjuna, devised the means of destroyingthe latter. At this time, the story goes on, there lived a king of Kanyakubja,called Gadhi, who had a daughter named Satyavati. The marriage of thisprincess to the rishi Richika and the birth of Jamadagni, are then told innearly the same way as above narrated. Jamadagni and Satyavati had fivesons, the youngest of whom was the redoubtable Parashurama. By his father’scommand he kills his mother (who, by the indulgence of impure desire, hadfallen from her previous sanctity), after the four elder sons had refused thismatricidal office, and had in consequence been deprived of reason by theirfather’s curse. At Parashurama’s desire, however, his mother is restored byhis father to life, and his brothers to reason; and he himself is absolved fromall the guilt of murder; and obtains the boon of invincibility and long lifefrom his father. His history now begins to be connected with that of kingArjuna (or Kritavirya). The latter had come to Jamadagni’s hermitage, andhad been respectfully received by his wife; but he had requitted this honourby carrying away by force the calf of the sage’s sacrificial cow, and breakingdown his lofty trees. On being informed of this violence, Parashurama wasfilled with indignation, attacked Arjuna, cut off his thousand arms, andslew him. Arjuna’s son, in return slew the peaceful sage Jamadagni, inthe absence of Parashurama. Parashurama incensed at the slaughter ofhis father, having vowed in consequence to sweep away all • Kshatriyasfrom the earth, seized his weapons and slaying all the sons and grandsonsof Arjuna, with thousands of the Haihayas, he turned the earth into

1. Muir, Vol. I, pp. 449-454



a mass of ensanguined mud. Having thus cleared the earth of Kshatriyashe became penetrated by deep compassion and retired to the forest. Aftersome thousands of years had elapsed, the hero, naturally irascible, wastaunted by Paravasu, the son of Raibhaya and grandson of Vishvamitra, ina public assembly in these words : ‘Are not these virtuous men, Pratardanaand the others, who are assembled at the sacrifice in the city of Yayati—are they not Kshatriyas? Thou hast failed to execute thy threat, and vainlyboastest in the assembly. Thou hast withdrawn to the mountain from thefear of those valiant Kshatriyas, while the earth has again become overturnby hundreds of their race,’ Hearing these words, Rama seized the weapons.The hundreds of Kshatriyas who had before been spared had now grownpowerful kings. Those, however, Parashurama, now slew with their children,and all the numerous infants then unborn as they came into the world. Some,however, were preserved by their mothers. Having twenty-one times clearedthe earth of the Kshatriyas, Rama gave her as a sacrificial fee to Kasyapaat the conclusion of an Ashvamedha.”

After telling the story of the conflict the author of the Mahabharata

proceeds to narrate the story of reconciliation in the following terms :1

“Having one and twenty times swept away all the Kshatriyas from the earth,the son of Jamadagni engaged in austerities on Mahendra, the most excellentof mountains. After he had cleared the world of Kshatriyas, their widows cameto the Brahmins, praying for offspring. The religious Brahmins, free from anyimpulse of lust, cohabited at the proper seasons with these women, who inconsequence became pregnant, and brought forth valiant Kshatriya boys and girls,to continue the Kshatriya stock. Thus was the Kshatriya race virtuously begottenby Brahmins on Kshatriya women and became multiplied and long-lived. Thencethere arose four castes inferior to the Brahmins.”

The above instances of conflicts and conciliations between Brah-

mins and Kshatriyas do not relate to those Kshatriya kings who have

figured in history as having declared war on the Brahmins. To turn

to instances of their2 stories of reconciliation with the Brahmins the

first is that of Kalmashapada. He is said to be the son of Sudas.3

The story is given in the Adiparvan of the Mahabharata.4 That part

of the story which narrates the enmity between Kalmashapada and

Vasishtha has already been recounted.5 The part of the story which

deals with reconciliation runs as follows :

“After roaming about over many mountains and countries, he (Vasishtha) was

followed home by his daughter-in-law Adrisyanti, Shaktri’s 6 widow, from whose

1. Muir, Vol. I, pp. 451-452

2. I am not sure that the kings mentioned in the episodes which follow are the sameas those mentioned in Chapter IX. I refer to them because they belong to the Ikshvakufamily.

3. I am not sure which Sudas he is. From the details he seems to be Paijavana Sudas.

4. Muir, Vol. I, pp. 415-418.

5. See Chapter 9.

6. This is probably a mistake for Shakti.



womb he heard a sound or the recitation of the Vedas, as she was pregnantwith a child, which, when born, received the name of Parasara. Learning fromher that there was thus a hope of his line being continued, he abstainedfrom further attempts on his own life. King Kalmashapada, however, whomthey encountered in the forest, was about to devour them both when Vasishthastopped him by a blast from his mouth, and sprinkling him with waterconsecrated by a holy text, he delivered him from the curse by which he hadbeen affected for twelve years. The king then addressed Vasishtha thus: ‘Mostexcellent sage, I am Saudasa, whose priest thou art, what can I do that wouldbe pleasing to thee?’ Vasishtha answered : ‘This which has happened hasbeen owing to the force of destiny; go, and rule thy kingdom; but, o monarch,never condemn the Brahmins.’ The king replied, ‘Never shall I despise themost excellent Brahmins; but submitting to thy commands I shall pay theeall honour. And I must obtain from thee the means of discharging my debtto the Ikshvakus. Thou must give me the offspring which I desire.’ Vasishthapromised to comply with his request. They then returned to Ayodhya. AndVasishtha having been solicited by the king to beget an heir to the throne,the queen1 became pregnant by him, and brought forth a son at the end oftwelve years.”

The second instance occurs in the Anushasanaparvan of the

Mahabharata :2

“At the time the eloquent king Saudasa sprung from the race of Ikshvakuproceeded, after salutation, to make an enquiry of his family priest Vasishtha,the eternal saint, the most excellent of rishis, who was able to traverse allthe world, and was a treasure of sacred knowledge: ‘What, o, venerable andsinless man, is declared to be the purest thing in the three worlds, byconstantly celebrating which one may acquire the highest merit?’ Vasishthain reply expatiates at great length on the merit resulting from bestowingcows, and ascribes to these animals some wonderful properties so that theyare the ‘support of all beings,’ the present and the future, and describes thecow as ‘pervading the universe, mother of the past and the future’. The greatself-subduing king, considering that these words of the rishi were mostexcellent, lavished on the Brahmins very great wealth in the shape of cowsand obtained the worlds. So here we find the son of Saudasa extolled as asaint.”

The third instance relates to the reconciliation in which there is

reference to Sudasa’s descendants. It occurs in the Shanti Parvan

of the Mahabharata :3

“Having received the dominion over the earth, Kasyapa made it an abodeof Brahmins, and himself withdrew to the forest. Shudras and Vaishyas thenbegan to act lawlessly towards the wives of the Brahmins, and in consequenceof there being no government, the weak were oppressed by the strong, and noone was master of any property. The earth being distressed by the wicked, in

1. Her name was Madayanti, She is referred to in the Anushashana Parvan at

the wife of Mitrasaha, which is another name for Kamashapada—See Muir, Vol. I,

pp, 418, 423 and 514,

2. Muir, Vol. I, p. 374.

3. Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 455-456.



consequence of that disorder, and unprotected according to rule by the

Kshatriyas, the guardians of justice, descended to the lower regions.

Perceiving’ her moving from place to place in terror, Kasyapa upheld her

with his thigh (uru). From this circumstance she derives her name of urvi.

The goddess Earth then propitiated Kasyapa and supplicated him for

protection, and for a king. ‘I have,’ she said, ‘preserved among females

many Kshatriyas who have been bom in the race of Haihayas; let them

be my protectors. There is the heir of Pauravas, the son of Viduratha,

who has been brought up by bears on the mountain Rikshavat; let him

protect me. So, too, the heir of Saudasa, has been preserved by the tender-

hearted and glorious priest, Parasara who had performed, though a

Brahmin, all menial offices for him like a Shudra whence the prince’s name

Sarvakarman. ‘After enumerating other kings who had been rescued, the

Earth proceeds: ‘All these Kshatriya descendants have been preserved in

different places, abiding continually among the classes of dyokaras and

goldsmiths. If they protect me, I shall continue unshaken. Their fathers

and grandfathers were slain on my account by Rama, energetic in action.

It is incumbent on me to avenge their cause. For I do not desire to be

always protected by an extraordinary person (such as Kasyapa); but I will

be content with an ordinary ruler. Let this be speedily fulfilled.’ Kasyapa

then sent for these Kshatriyas who had been pointed out by the Earth,

and installed them in the kingly office.”

Such is the evidence. Can anybody accept it as reliable? In my

opinion, far from accepting it, one should beware of such evidence.

In the first place, all these stories of reconciliation end, for the

Kshatriyas, in peace without honour. In every case, the Kshatriyas

are shown to have undergone an abject surrender. The Bharatas are

the enemies of Vasishtha. Suddenly there is a famine in their

country. They leave the country and lose their kingdom. They

implore Vasishtha their age-old enemy and pray that he become their

priest and save them from the calamity. In the story of the Bhrigus

and the Kshatriyas, the credit is given to the Brahmins as being

too proud to fight. In the story of the Haihaya Kshatriyas and the

Saudasa such as Kalmashpada, the surrender of the Kshatriyas was

so to say purchased by them by offering their women to the victorious

Brahmins. The stories are all doctored with a view to glorify the

Brahmins and humiliate the Kshatriyas. Who can take such dirty,

filthy, abominable and vainglorious stories of reconciliation as true

historical facts? Only a supporter of Brahminism can do so.

Such is the general character of the evidence on the question of

reconciliation. Coming to the particular case of reconciliation between

the Brahmins and the Shudras, the descendants of Sudas, there is

ample, evidence to show that no such reconciliation had taken place.

In the first place, it cannot be gainsaid that Parasara, the son



of Shakti or Shaktri, the son of Vasishtha, when he heard of the

way in which his father had met his death—namely, that he was

burnt alive by Sudas, the Shudra king,—determined to execute a

general slaughter of all creatures. The general slaughter is, of course,

a figurative term. What is meant is that Vasishtha took a vow of

general vengeance against the descendants of Sudas, namely, the

Shudras. It is no doubt said in the Mahabharata that Vasishtha

restrained Parasara and persuaded him not to carry out his threat

of vengeance by telling him how the Bhrigus and the Kshatriyas had

come into conflict and how the former won against the latter by

adopting non-violence. But this story cannot be true; for, like other

stories it is doctored with a view to bring glory to the Brahmins.

In the second place, the strongest proof in support of the contention

that there was no reconciliation between the Brahmins and the

Shudras comes from the legislation enacted by the Brahmins against

the Shudras. The laws against the Shudras have already been

referred to. Their growth and their extraordinary character have been

pointed out. All that remains to do is to say that against this

background of black laws any suggestion regarding reconciliation

must appear to be wholly untenable. The Brahmins not only did not

forgive the Shudras, they pursued even the progeny of the Shudras

with the same spirit of relentless revenge. As many people do not

seem to have any idea of this, it may be desirable to state a few

facts regarding the Chandala and the Nishada.

The Chandala and Nishada are the issues of mixed marriages.

Nishada is an anuloma while the Chandala is a Pratiloma. The

anulomas1 are held to be eligible for Upanayana. But curiously

enough an exception is made to this rule. Nishada who is the son

of Brahman from a Shudra woman, though an anuloma, is held not

to be eligible for Upanayana. It is interesting to know why this

exception was made. The only answer seems to be that this arbitrary

act is an act of revenge against the children of one’s enemy.

1 There are six anulomas as shown in the following table :

Father Mother Name of the progeny

Brahmin Kshatriya Murdhavasikta

Brahmin Vaishya Ambashtha

Brahmin Shudra Nishada

Kshatriya Vaishya Mahishya

Kshatriya Shudra Urga

Vaishya Shudra Karana



Turning to the Pratilomas,1 Manu no doubt calls, all of them as thebasest of men. At the same time, the stigma on the Pratilomas is notevenly distributed among all of them. In the matter of rights andprivileges, the Ayogava and the Kshattar are treated with incredibleconsideration, while the Chandala is subjected to unspeakable condem-nation. As an illustration of this discrimination one can cite thefollowing provisions in the Manu Smriti :

As to the Ayogava, the Manu Smriti merely says :

Carpenting (shall be the occupation) of an Ayogava.—X.46. As to the

Kshattar the Manu Smriti says :

……. catching and killing animals that live in holes (is the occupation)

of Kshattar.—x.49.

They are only assigned low occupations.

Compare with this what the Manu Smriti has to say about the

Chandala :

“A Chandala and a boar, a cock and also a dog, and a woman in her

courses and an eunuch, may not see the Brahmins eating.”—

iii. 239.

One may not abide with outcasts, nor Chandalas, nor Pukkasas, noridiots, nor proud (people), nor with the low-born (people) nor withAntyavasayins.—iv.79.

One becomes pure by bathing if one has touched a Chandala, or awoman in her courses, an outcaste, also a woman lying-in, a corpse orone who has touched it.—v.85.

Manu declared the flesh of (a beast) killed by dogs (to be pure); alsothe flesh of an animal killed by other carnivorous (animals) (or) byChandala (and) other Dasyus.— v. 131.

Two-fold should be the fine of a criminal sentenced within a year,and just as much if one cohabit with a Vratya woman or a Chandalawoman.— viii.373.

The man, however, who foolishly allows this to be done by anyother (wife) than the one of his own caste when the latter is athand, has been, of old, looked upon as (no whit better than) a

1 Gaut. Dh, S., IV. 21, quoted by Kane, II, Part I, p. 229.

Father Mother Name of the caste

Shudra Brahmin Chandala

Shudra Kshatriya Kshattar

Shudra Vaishya Ayogava

Vaishya Brahmin Suta

Vaishya Kshatriya Vaidehaka

Kshatriya Brahmin Magadha



Chandala.—ix.87.

The dwelling of Chandalas and Svapacas (should be) outside the

village; they should be deprived of dishes (apapatra); their property

(consists of) dogs and asses.—x.51.

Moreover, Vishvamitra, well knowing right and wrong, being

oppressed by hunger proceeded to eat the ramp of a dog, having it

from the hand of a Chandala.—x. 108.

At no time should a Brahmin beg property from a Shudra for the

sake of sacrifice, for on offering sacrifice after begging (from a

Shudra) he is born after death as a Chandala.-—vi.24.

On having (carnal) intercourse with Chandala women (or low born

woman), on eating their food or receiving (presents) from them, a

Brahmin (if he has done so) unwittingly, falls; but (if he has done

so) wittingly, he comes to an equality (with them).— xi.175.

The slayer of a Brahmin enters the womb of dogs, boars, asses,

camels, cows, goats, sheep, (forest) animals, birds, Chandalas and

Pukkasas.—xi.55.

How different is the treatment accorded to the Chandala as

compared to the treatment accorded to the Ayogava and the Kshattar

when all of them are Pratilomas? Why should the Chandala be singled

out as the most infamous of the Pratilomas? Only because he is the

progeny of the hated Shudra. It is just an act of revenge against

the children of one’s enemy.

All this leaves no doubt that there was no reconciliation between

the Brahmins and the Shudras.

IV

Coming to the last objection, it appears that behind it there is a

feeling that the Shudras must have been a very large part of the

Indo-Aryan society. With such a feeling it does appear rather strange

that the Shudras should have suffered silently the perpetration of

such an act as the denial of the Upanayana. Because the Shudras

in the Hindu Society form such a vast proportion of the population,

so the Shudras of the Indo-Aryan Society must also have formed a very

large proportion of the population, can be the only basis for such a

feeling. Such an inference is without any foundation, for the Shudras

of the Indo-Aryan Society are absolutely different in race from the

Shudras of the Hindu Society. The Shudras of the Hindu Society are

not the racial descendants of the Shudras of the Indo-Aryan Society.



This confusion has arisen because of the failure to realize that the

meaning of the word ‘Shudras’ in the Indo-Aryan society is quite

different from the meaning it has in the Hindu society. In the Indo-

Aryans the word Shudra was proper name of one single people. It

was the name of a people who belonged to a particular race. The

word Shudra, as used in the Hindu society, is not a proper name

at all. It is an epithet for a low uncultured class of people. It is a

general cognomen of a miscellaneous and heterogeneous collection of

tribes and groups, who have nothing in common except that they

happen to be on a lower plane of culture. It is wrong to call them

by the name Shudras. They have very little to do with their

namesakes of the Aryan society, who had offended the Brahmins. It

is a pity that these innocent and backward people of later days have

been rolled up with the original Shudras and subjected to the same

penalties for which they had given no cause.

That the Shudras of the Indo-Aryan and the Shudras of the Hindu

Society are different and distinct is a fact which was present at one

time to the minds of the Dharma Sutrakaras is quite clear. This is

evident from the distinction they made between Sacchudra and Asac-

chudra and between Aniravasita Shudras and Niravasita Shudras.

Sachudra means a cultured Shudra and asac-chudra means an

uncultured Shudra. Nirvasita Shudra means a Shudra living in the

village community. Anirvasita Shudra means a Shudra living outside

the village community. It is quite wrong to say as some1 do that this

division indicates that the condition of Shudras in the eyes of the

lawgivers was improving, in that some were admitted to social

intercourse when formerly none was. The correct interpretation is the

Sacchudra and Nirvasita Shudra refer to the Shudras of the Aryan

society and the asac-chudra and the Anirvasita Shudra refer to the

Shudras by epithet who had begun to form part of the Hindu society.

We are concerned with the Shudra of the Aryan society. They have

no connection with the later-day Shudras of the Hindu society. That

being so, the fact that the Shudras of the Hindu society form such

a large number cannot be made the basis for an argument that the

Shudras of the Indo-Aryans must have also been a very large body

of people. We do not know exactly whether the Shudras were a tribe,

a clan or a moiety or a group of families. But even if they were as

1 Sec Kane, II (I), p. 123. His view that this distinction implies that Shudras were

being gradually raised from their low status is quite incorrect.



big as a tribe, they could not have been larger than a few thousand.

The Bharatas are being expressly spoken of in the Rig Veda, vii.33.6,

as being small in number. The Satapatha Brahmana referring to

a horse sacrifice performed by the Panchala king Son Satrasaha1

says :

“When Satrasaha makes the Ashvamedha offering the Taurvasas arise,

six thousand and six and thirty, clad in mail.”

If it is any indication that the tribe of Taurvasas numbered six

thousand, the Shudras could not be very many.

Apart from the question of numbers, what could the Shudras have

done to prevent the calamity? If some Brahmins whom they had

offended refused to perform their Upanayana, could they have got

the services of other Brahmins whom they had not offended? Such

a possibility would of course depend upon various circumstances. In

the first place, we do not know whether all the Brahmins had formed

a common front and whether it was possible to break up that front.

We do not know that at the time when the issue was a burning

issue the Brahmins had become a caste. But it is clear2 that even

in the times of the Rig Veda, Brahmins were a class by themselves,

had developed class consciousness and were keen on maintaining

class interests. In that event it would have been difficult for the

Shudras to break up the conspiracy of the Brahmins. Secondly, it

might also be that the performance of Upanayana had become the

exclusive right of the family priest. The story of king Nimi3 shows

that the performance of sacrifices had become the exclusive right

of the family priest. If there is substance in these suggestions, then

obviously the Shudras could not have done much to prevent the

common front of the Brahmins operating against them.

Another possibility was the forging of a common front among all

the Kshatriyas which might have had the effect of weighing down the

opposition of the Brahmins. Whether such a thing was possible can

only be a matter of speculation. In the first place, did the Shudras

realize what the effect of the loss of Upanayana was going to be on

their future status? I am sure they did not. Secondly, were the

Kshatriyas a united body of people? I doubt if they were. Thirdly, had

the other Kshatriya kings any symapathy for the Shudras? If the story

of the Dasharajna Yuddha told in the Rig Veda is true, it is quite

1. Quoted by Oldcnberg, Life of Buddha, p. 404.

2. Kane, Vol. H (1) p. 29.

3. Supra, p. 175



obvious that there was not much love lost between the Shudras and

the other non-Shudra Kshatriyas.

Taking all these circumstances into consideration, there is nothing

strange if the Shudras suffered the denial of the Upanayana by the

Brahmins to be a fact.



CHAPTER XII

THE THEORY IN THE CRUCIBLE

I

THE object of this essay was to trace the origin of the Shudras and

discover the causes of their degradation. After an examination of

historical material and of theories suggested by various writers—

orthodox as well as modern—I have put forth a new thesis. In the

preceding chapters, it has been presented in parts for the facility of

laying the foundation of each part separately. It is time these parts

were assembled together for a full and complete understanding of

what the thesis is. It may be summarized as follows :

(1) The Shudras were one of the Aryan communities of the Solar

race.

(2) The Shudras ranked as the Kshatriya Varna in the Indo-Aryan

Society.

(3) There was a time when the Aryan Society recognized only three

Varnas, namely, Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. The

Shudras were not a separate Varna but a part of the Kshatriya

Varna.

(4) There was a continuous feud between the Shudra kings and

the Brahmins, in which the Brahmins were subjected to many

tyrannies and indignities.

(5) As a result of the hatred towards the Shudras due to their

tyrannies and oppressions, the Brahmins refused to invest the

Shudras with the sacred thread.

(6) Owing to the loss of the sacred thread the Shudras became

socially degraded, fell below the rank of the Vaishyas and came

to form the fourth Varna.

It now remains to assess the validity of this thesis. It is usual

for the author to leave this to others to do it. I propose to make

a departure and myself enter upon the task of putting my thesis to


THE SHUDRAS : THE THEORY IN THE CRUCIBLE 205

test. I do so because it gives me an opportunity of vindicating my

thesis.

II

I can well imagine my critics to allege that my thesis rests upon

a single statement from the Mahabharata in which Paijavana is

described as a Shudra; that identification of Paijavana with Sudas

is not proved beyond the shadow of doubt; that the description of

Paijavana as a Shudra does not occur in any other place except in

a single place in the Mahabharata. How can a theory built on such

weak foundations be acceptable? They are bound to invoke the usual

agreement that a chain is not stronger than its weakest link. I am

sure that my thesis cannot be discredited and demolished in such

an easy manner.

In the first place, I do not admit that a thesis cannot be built up

on a single piece of evidence. It is a well-known principle of the law

of evidence that witness must be weighed and not numbered. The

number of witnesses is a less important consideration than the weight

to be attached to the individual testimony of each or to the sum of

the testimonies of all taken together. There is no reason to doubt

the truth of the statement that Paijavana was a Shudra. The author

of the Mahabharata has no reason to give a false description. Writing

after such a long time, no motive, no partiality could be attributed

to him. The only conclusion one can draw is that the author was

recording a true tradition.

The fact that Paijavana is not described as a Shudra in the Rig

Veda does not militate against the truth of the statement which

occurs in the Mahabharata. Many explanations can be given for the

absence of the word Shudra from the description of Paijavana in the

Rig Veda. The first explanation is that it is wrong to expect such

a description in the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda is a book of religion.

A description such as Shudra could not be expected in a book of

religion. It would be irrelevant. But such a description may well be

expected to occur in a book of history such as the Mahabharata

wherein as a matter of fact it does.

The other explanation for the infrequent mention of the word

Shudra in connection with Sudas which I can think of is that it was

unnecessary. Descriptions in terms of kula, gotra, tribe, etc., are

really speaking marks of identification. Marks of identification are



necessary in the case of lesser people. They are unnecessary in the

case of famous men. There is no doubt that Sudas was the most

famous man of his time. It was unnecessary to describe him as Shudra

for the purpose of identifying him to the people. This is not altogether

a mere matter of speculation. One can cite historical instances. Take

the case of Bimbisara and Pasenadi, two kings who lived in the time

of Buddha. All other kings who were their contemporaries are

described in the literature of the time by their gotra name. But these

two are just spoken of by their personal names. Prof. Oldenberg1 who

noticed this fact explains this on the ground that they were well-

known and did not stand in need for being described by their gotra

names.

III

But it is really wrong to suppose that my theory is based on the

solitary passage in the Mahabharata or on the identification of

Paijavana with Sudas. Nothing of the kind. The thesis is not

supported by a single chain and therefore the argument that a chain

is not stronger than its weakest link does not apply to it. The case

is supported by several parallel chains. The weakness of a link in

one of them cannot be said to weaken the support. The weakness

of one link in one chain throws the whole weight on other chains.

Consequently, before concluding that the theory has broken down,

it is necessary to prove that the other chains are not able to sustain

the weight.

The description of Paijavana as Shudra and the identification of

Paijavana with Sudas of the Rig Veda is not the only chain which

supports the thesis. There are other chains. One of these is the

admission in the Satapatha and Taittiriya Brahmanas that there were

only three Varnas and the Shudras did not form a separate Varna.

The second consists of evidence that Shudras were kings and

ministers of State. The third consists of evidence that the Shudras

were at one time entitled to Upanayana. All these are strong chains

quite capable of taking all extra weight arising out of a possible

breakdown of the first chain.

As far as evidence is concerned, absolute certainty amounting to

demonstration is seldom to be had and I do not claim absolute

1 Lift of Buddha, p. 414.



certainty for my thesis. But I do claim that the evidence in support

of the theory is both direct as well as circumstantial, and where it

is conflicting it is supported by strong probabilities in favour of it.

IV

I have shown what strength there is in the thesis I have presented.

I will now proceed to show that the thesis is a valid one. There is

one test which I think is generally accepted as the right one by which

to appraise the validity of a thesis. It is that a thesis which demands

acceptance must not only suggest a solution, but must also show that

the solution it proposes answers the riddles which surround the

problem which it claims to have solved. It is this test that I propose

to apply to my thesis.

Let me begin by listing in one place the riddles of the Shudra.

The following include the most important of them :

(1) The Shudras are alleged to be non-Aryans, hostile to the

Aryans, whom the Aryans are said to have conquered and

made slaves. How is it then that the rishis of the Yajur Veda

and the Atharva Veda should wish glory to the Shudras and

express a desire to be in favour of the Shudras?

(2) The Shudras are said not to have the right to study the Vedas.

How is it then that Sudas, a Shudra, was the composer of the

hymns of the Rig Veda?

(3) The Shudras are said to have no right to perform sacrifices.

How is it that Sudas performed the Ashva-Medha sacrifice?

Why does the Satapatha Brahmana treat the Shudra as a

sacrificer and give the formula of addressing him?

(4) The Shudras are said not to have the right to Upanayana. If

this was so from the very beginning, why should there be a

controversy about it? Why should Badari and the Samskara

Ganapati say that he has a right to Upanayana?

(3) The Shudra is not permitted to accumulate property. How is

it that the Maitrayani and Kathaka Samhitas speak of the

Shudras being rich and wealthy?

(6) The Shudra is said to be unfit to become an officer of the State.

How is it then that the Mahabharata speaks of Shudras being

ministers to kings?



(7) It is said that the duty of the Shudra is to serve, in the capacity

of a menial, the three Varnas. How is it then that there were

kings among the Shudras as testified by the case of Sudas

and other cases mentioned by Sayana?

(8) If the Shudra had no right to study the Vedas, if he had no

right to Upanayana, if he had no right to sacrifice, why was

he not given the right to have his Upanayana, to read the

Vedas and to perform sacrifice?

(9) The performance of Upanayana of the Shudra, his learning to

read the Vedas, his performing the sacrifices, whether they

were of any value to the Shudra or not, were certainly

occasions of benefit to the Brahmins in as much as it is the

Brahmins who had the monopoly of officiating at ceremonies

and of teaching the Vedas. It is the Brahmins who stood to

earn large fees by allowing the Shudra the right to Upanayana,

the performance of sacrifices and the reading of the Vedas.

Why were the Brahmins so determined to deny these conces-

sions to the Shudras, when granting them would have done

no harm and would have increased their own earnings?

(10) Even if the Shudra had no right to Upanayana, sacrifices and

Vedas, it was open to the Brahmins to concede him these

rights. Why were these questions not left to the free will of

the individual Brahmins? Why were penalties imposed upon

a Brahmin if he did any of these prohibited acts?

How can these riddles be explained? Neither the orthodox Hindu

nor the modern scholar has attempted to explain them. Indeed they

do not seem to be aware of the fact that such riddles exist. The

orthodox Hindu does not bother about them. He is content with the

divine explanation contained in the Purusha Sukta that the Shudra

was born from the feet of the Purusha. The modern scholar is content

with the assumption that the Shudra in his origin is a non-Aryan

aboriginal, for whom the Aryan quite naturally prescribed a different

code of laws. It is a pity that none of these classes of people have

cared to acquaint themselves with the riddles which surround the

problem of the Shudra, much less have they thought of suggesting

a theory of the origin of the position of the Shudra capable of solving

them.

With regard to my thesis it will be seen that it can explain

everyone of these riddles. Postulates (1) to (4) explain how the

Shudras could be kings and ministers and why the rishis should



praise them and desire to be in their good books. Postulates (5) and

(6) explain why there was a controversy over the Upanayana of the

Shudra, also why the law not only denied the right to the Shudra

but imposed penalties upon a Brahmin, helping to make it effective.

Indeed there is no riddle which the thesis does not solve. The thesis,

if I may say so, is a close and a perfect fit. Few theses can therefore

have a better title deed than this.


210

Appendices

D:\A

MB

ED

KA

R\V

OL

-07\VO

L7-13

Mk

S.K

.—27-09-2013>

DK

>10-11-2013

211

21

1

APPENDIX I

References to the word “Arya” (v;Z) in the Rig Veda.

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

H M H M H M H M H M H M H M H M H M H M

33 3 23 13 43 2 1 7 2 12 14 3 8 1 1 4 23 3 20 4

70 1 23 15 2 12 33 2 15 3 21 5 19 36 61 11 27 8

71 3 35 2 2 18 33 6 16 27 21 9 21 16 79 1 27 19

73 5 4 6 33 9 20 1 31 5 24 221 34 13

81 6 16 19 34 9 24 5 34 18 34 10 42 1

81 9 20 3 54 12 25 7 48 3 39 2 59 3

116 6 24 8 36 5 56 12 48 8 76 2

118 9 29 1 45 33 60 11 49 12 86 1

121 15 38 2 47 9 64 3 52 7 86 3

122 14 48 1 48 16 68 2 54 9 89 3

169 6 50 11 51 2 83 5 55 12 133 3

184 1 59 8 86 7 148 3

185 9 92 4 191 1

100 5

D:\A

MB

ED

KA

R\V

OL

-07\VO

L7-13

Mk

S.K

.—27-09-2013>

DK

>10-11-2013

212

21

2APPENDIX II

References to the word “Arya” (vk;Z)(I) In the Rig Veda



51 8 11 18 34 9 26 2 34 6 18 3 5 6 24 27 63 6 38 3

59 2 11 19 30 18 20 10 18 7 103 1 63 14 43 4

117 21 25 2 83 1 49 3

130 8 33 3 65 11

156 5 60 6 69 6

83 1

86 19

102 3

103 3

138 3

191 1

(II) In the Yajur Veda (III) Atharva Veda

IV V VI XVIII XIX XX IV XX XXII

H M H M H M H M H M H M H M H M H M

20 4 11 3 63 4 1 21 32 8 18 5 32 1 11 9 63 4

20 8 62 1 85 4 17 4

18 5

36 10

85 4

89 1

95 4

D:\A

MB

ED

KA

R\V

OL

-07\VO

L7-13

Mk

S.K

.—27-09-2013>

DK

>10-11-2013

213

21

3

APPENDIX III

Different meanings of the word “Arya” (v;Z) found in the Rig Veda.

Meaning I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X


Enemy 70 1 16 19 33 2 14 3 21 9 48 8 79 1 42 1

73 5 15 3 34 18 49 12 59 3

118 9 20 1 48 3 76 2

121 15 36 5 56 22 89 3

169 6 68 2

92 4

Respectable 33 3 23 15 43 2 1 7 33 6 24 5 8 1 19 36 20 4

Noble 81 6 35 2 2 12 33 9 25 7 21 5 21 16 27 8

81 9 43 2 4 6 34 9 47 9 31 5 24 22 27 19

121 14 20 3 86 7 34 10 34 13

184 1 24 8 100 5 55 12 86 1

29 1 86 3

38 2 116 6

48 1 148 3

191 1

Citizen 2 18

20 3

D:\A

MB

ED

KA

R\V

OL

-07\VO

L7-13

Mk

S.K

.—27-09-2013>

DK

>10-11-2013

214

21

4APPENDIX IV

References to “DASA” in the Rig Veda



92 8 11 2 34 1 18 9 30 7 20 6 19 2 5 31 22 8

103 3 11 4 28 4 30 8 20 10 83 1 24 27 23 2

104 2 12 4 30 14 30 9 22 10 86 7 32 2 38 3

158 5 20 6 30 15 33 4 25 2 99 4 40 6 49 6

174 7 20 7 30 21 34 6 26 5 51 9 49 7

32 10 33 3 56 3 54 1

47 21 70 10 62 10

60 6 73 7

83 1

86 9

99 6

102 3

120 2

138 3

D:\A

MB

ED

KA

R\V

OL

-07\VO

L7-13

Mk

S.K

.—27-09-2013>

DK

>10-11-2013

215

21

5

APPENDIX V

References to “Dasyu” in the Rig Veda



33 4 11 18 29 9 16 9 4 6 14 3 5 6 6 14 41 2 22 8

33 7 11 19 34 6 16 10 7 10 16 15 6 2 14 14 47 2 47 4

33 9 12 10 34 9 16 12 14 14 18 3 19 4 39 8 88 4 48 2

36 18 13 9 49 2 28 3 29 10 23 2 50 8 92 5 49 3

51 5 15 9 28 4 30 9 24 8 51 2 55 8

51 6 20 9 38 4 31 5 29 6 56 2 73 5

51 8 31 7 31 4 70 11 83 3

53 4 70 3 45 24 98 6 83 6

59 6 95 7

78 4 99 7

100 18 105 11

101 5

103 3 170 2

103 4

108 12

117 3

117 21

D:\A

MB

ED

KA

R\V

OL

-07\VO

L7-13

Mk

S.K

.—27-09-2013>

DK

>10-11-2013

216

21

6APPENDIX VI

References to the word “Varna” in the Rig Veda



73 7 1 12 34 5 5 13 65 8 3 3

92 10 3 5 71 2 124 7

96 5 4 5 71 8

104 2 5 5 97 15

113 2 12 4 104 4

179 6 34 13 105 40


THE SHUDRAS : INDEX 217

INDEX

Acharya—Exclusive right to officiate

at Upanayana, 173-74; Qualifica-

tions, 173

Aitarcya Brahmana—Manu the pro-

genitor of Indo-Aryans, 29; Dis-

abilities of Shudras under, 42; On

Vaishyas’ sacrificial disabilities,

56-57; List of coronations of Kings

and officiating priests 123-24

Alpine Race—Traits of, 67-68; Prof.

Ripley on, 98-99; Its languages of

Aryan Stock, 99

Ambarisha—145

Anulomas—Who are, 199 (and foot-

note); sec Nishada

Apastamba Dharma Sutra—Support

to Purusha Sukta, 23; Disabilities

of Shudras under; 43, 47, 50-51;

On qualifications of Acharya, 173

Arjuna—194-95

Aryan—Race, an invader of India, 65;

Type and its traits, 69; Four senses

of term, 69; Not a race according to

Prof. Max Muller, 69-70; Original

home as traceable by common vo-

cabulary, 71-72; Caucasia, not the

original home of, 71-72; Mr. Tilak’s

theory of Arctic region being home

of, 72-74; Evidence against theory

of, invasion of India, 74-75; and

subjugation of Dasas and Dasyus,

75-76, 86-87; Inseparable from

Dasas and Dasyus, 77; Race theory,

its failure, 78-79, its Indian vota-

ries, 79-80, meaning of term

Varna its mainstay, 80; Of Vedic

times had no colour prejudice, 81;

Two communities : with and with-

out belief in Chaturvamya, 97, 100;

Permitted to make other Aryansslaves, 112-13; Vedic, social orga-nization, 130-31; Rules of Impurityand Adoption, 160-61

Ashwalayan Grihya Sutra—Descriptionof Upanayana ceremony, 156-58

Ashwins—Though Shudras entitled toSoma, 109

Atharva Veda—On five tribes of Indo-Aryan nation, 31; Its four explana-

tions of the origin of Vamas, 39;When it came to be regarded on parwith Rig Veda, 87; Statements from,demarcating Shudra from Arya, 107;Statements from, showing basis ofequality between Brahmins and

Shudras, 107-108, 207-208

Aupamanyava—Five tribes of Indo-

Aryan nations according to, 30

Avarnas—De jure connotation of,

35-36, Who are, 36

Balaji Avji—His part in Shivaji’s coro-nation, 177-78, 181-82

Baudhayana—Prescription ofUpanayana for Ashwathha tree, 169

Belavalkar, Prof.—Theory of Synchro-nous composition of Vedic Litera-ture, 138.

Benfey, Dr.—Summary of his views onoriginal home of Aryans, 71

Bhagavat Purana—On naming of Indiaas ‘Bharata Bhumi’. 129

Bhandarkar, Dr. D. R.—His view ofRajputs as descendants of foreign-ers, Gurjars, 179

Bhandarkar Research Institute—colla-tion Sheet for shloka i.e. Paijavana,116 (footnote)



Bhishma—On ministers of four

Varnas, 112

Bharadwaja Sutra—Reference to

Shudra’s right to sacrifice, 108-109

Bharatas—128-30,192-93

Bode, Dastur—Meaning of ‘Varna’ in

Indo-Iranian Literature, 83

Bopp, Dr.—Theory of common ances-

try of Indo-Aryan and Indo-Ger-

manic languages, 78

Brahmanic—Literature full of legends

of creation, 37-41; analysis of leg-

ends, 41; Theories about origin of

Shudras most unsatisfactory, 65-

66; Literature, its two ideologies

relating to creation, 87-96; Com-

parison of the two ideologies—

sacerdotal and secular, 97; Writ-

ers’ invention of false etymologies

to suit prevalent meaning of words,

102-03; Forgeries of Purusha Sukta

and Smritis, 137-38

Brahmins—Origin of, according to

Purusha Sukta, 22; Are Dwijas, 24;

Superior to all other classes in

status, 26, 32; As savarnas, Dwijas

and Traivarnika, 36; Their special

rights and privileges against

Shudras, 56; Their indifference or

apologetic attitude towards disabili-

ties of Shudras, 57; Their Law

compared with Roman Law is com-

munal and arbitrary, 63-64; Accept

theory of Aryan conquest of India

for it establishes their kinship with

Europeans, 80; Mentioned as sepa-

rate Varna sixteen times in Rig

Veda, 133; Dispute with

Kshatriyas, 148-49; Conflict with

Kshatriyas, 140-55; Technique for

degrading Shudras: refusal of

Upanayana, 156, 208; Exclusive

right to officiate at Upanayana,

173-74, 177, 184-85; Penalties on,

or performing unauthorised

Upanayana, 181, 208; Instances of

denial of Upanayana to other

Varnas, 175; Vs. Shivaji, 175-78,

178-82; Their thesis: no Kshatriyas

exist in Kaliyuga, 176; Alone candetermine status of Hindu, 177,184; Never accepted law of prece-dents, 179-83; Fifty thousand, re-ceive Dakshina at Shivaji’s corona-tion, 179-80: Question Kshatriya

status of Maharajas of Satara andKolhapur, 182-84; Degraded Shudracommunity out of revenge againstShudra kings, 186-89; Enoughprovocation to, for conflict withShudras, 189-90: Catalogue of privi-

leges claimed by, 189-90: Chal-lenged by (Shudra) Kshatriyas intheir privileges, 190-92 Stories oftheir reconciliation with Shudras,192-97 Stories to glorify, 197-98;Conscious of class interests in Rig

Vedic times, 202

Brihaspati Dharma Shastra—Disabili-

ties of Shudras under, 48

Brihaspati Smriti—Disabilities of

Shudras under, 49

Buddha—And Buddhism, their inabil-

ity to shake Chaturvarnya, 23

Buhler, Dr.—On Shudras’ eligibility

to become Brahmins, 110

Chandala—A Pratiloma, 198; Rights

inferior to other Pratilomas, 199;

Manu’s laws against, 199; and

reasons for their severity, 200

Chhandogya Upanishad—Explanation

of origin of Vedas from deities, 33;

Describes Rishi Janasruti, author

of Rig Vedic Hymns as Shudra, 108

Chaturvarnya—Ideal of Indo Aryan

Society, 23; Buddha’s ineffective

challenge to, 23; Manu invests,

with divinity, 24; Basis of, graded

inequality, 26; A political jugglery,

31-33; Later development of, cre-

ation of fifth Varna and separtaion

of Shudras from Traivamikas, 35-

36; One Aryan tribe believer in,

the other non-believer in, 97; See

also, 40-41,80, Varna, Aryan,

Shudras, Manu



Chitrao Shastri— On list of Sudas’

opponent, 126 (footnote)

Chirstians— Emperors, their disabili-

ties under Roman Law, 58-59

Sacraments and Brahmanic

Samskaras, 171;

Crooke, Mr. Villiam—On Hinduisation

of Gurjar tribes into Rajputs for

representing Buddhism, 178-79

Das, Mr. A. C.—Identifies Dasas and

Dasyus with Shudras of later times,

101

Dasas—And Dasyus, according to

Western Scholars: (i) a dark race

different from Aryans, (ii) con-

quered, enslaved and called

Shudras by Aryans, 65; Paucity of

references to, and Dasyus as en-

emies of Aryans in Rig Veda, 75;

United with Aryans against com-

mon enemy, 75, conflict with

Aryan’s, religious not racial, 75-76;

And Dasyus terms not used in

racial sense, 76-77; Their epithet

‘Krishnayoni’ connotes no racial

distinction with Aryans, 77; Appli-

cation of word ‘Varna’ to, in Rig

Veda, 83; And Dasyus not distinct

from Aryans in race and complex-

ion, 85; And Dasyus as allies of one

Aryan community and enemies of

the other, 86-87; can be identified

with Azi Dahaka of Zend Avesta,

104-05; A civilized people, 105-06;

Cannot be identified with Shudras,

106; And Dasyus, their complete

disappearance from Post-Vedic lit-

erature and absorption by Aryans,

106; Term, occurs five times in Rig

Veda in sense of slave, 111

Dasharajna Yuddha—Account of,

124-26; A war between Shudras

and non-Shudra Kshatriyas, 202-

03; See also Sudas.

Dasyus— Conflict with Aryans reli-

gious not racial, 75-76; Correct

interpretation of epithet‘Mridhravak’ and ‘Anasa’, 76; Dis-tinct from Aryans not by race butby religion, 103-04; Existence of, inall Varnas according toMahabharata, 104; A contemptu-ous term used by Indo-Aryans todesignate Indo-Iranians, 104; Morepowerful than Aryans, 105, Seealso Dasa and Aryan

Dharma Sutras— Evidentiary valueof their statements on Shudras,107-08; Their prohibition ofUpanayana, Vedic ceremonies andsacrifices and Soma drink toShudras, 108-09; Evidence againsttheir prohibitions from Brahmanicliterature, 109-11

Divodasa—122-23, 128-29

Dongre, Rao Bahadur—SiddhantaVijaya, 182 (footnote)

Egyptian—Cosmogony, 22; Classes intheir society, 26

Encylopaedia of Religion And Eth-ics—22

Fausboll, Dr.—Story of Chyavana, 109(footnote)

Foster, Prof. Michael—On hypothesis,80

Gagabhat—officiating priest atShivaji’s coronation, 176; Boughtover by huge Dakshina, 179-80;His twists and turns, 181-82; Hisattempt to prove Kayasthas bas-tards, 182

Ganganath Jha—Purva Mimamsa, 172(footnote)

Gautama Dharma Sutra— Disabili-ties of Shudra under, 47,49, 51-52,Enumeration of forty Samskarasfrom; 170

Geiger—Summary of his views onoriginal home of Aryans, 71

Grant Maddison—Introduction ofAryan language in Europe, 99 (foot-note)



Greeks—Class composition of their

society compared with ‘Varna’ sys-

tem, 26

Griffiths, Dr.—Perturbed over Tritsus

being shown Non-Aryans, 129-30

Guha Dr.—On two racial stocks of

Indian people and their distribu-

tion, 97-98

Harishchandra—141-44

Harivamsha—Explanation of origin of

Vedas from eyes, tongue and head

of God, 34; Explanation of origin

of priests from limbs of God Hari,

34; Studious avoidance of feet as

origin of any priest or Veda, 34-35;

Story of Trishanku, 141-45; Story

of Varna’s conflict with Brahmins,

151-52

Hearn, Mr. W.E.—On rule of estab-

lishing nobility among Aryans, 110

High Courts in India—Calcutta deci-

sion about Kayasthas of Bihar

being Shudras, 162; Allahabad’s

non-acceptance of validity of ‘

Calcutta decision, 163; Calcutta

(1916 and 1926) decision about

Bengal Kayasthas being Shudras,

163; Patna (1926) decision holding

Bihar Kayasthas as Kshatriyas,

163-64; Madras (1924) decision

holding Marathas as Shudras, 164;

Bombay (1928) decision holding five

and ninty-six families of Marathas

as Kshatriyas, rest as Shudras,

164 : Madras (1927) holding

Yadavas as Shudras, 164; Criteria

adopted by, in determining Shudras

and their relevance, 165; Failure

to distinguish between de facto and

de jure position of communities

relating to Upanayana, 165-66; see

also Privy Council

India—Designed ‘Bharata Bhumi’

after Vedic and not Daushyanti

Bharatas, 128-29

Indo-Aryans—See Manu, Aryan,

Chaturvarnya, Atharva Veda,

Aupamanyava, Dr. Bopp, Dasas,

Dasyus, Dr. Guha, Purusha Sukta

Indo-Iranians—Three classes in their

Society, 26; Meaning of ‘Varna’ in

their literature, 82-85; Identifica-

tion of Azi Dahaka with Dasa, 104-

105, see also Dasyu

Jabali, Satyakama—His story, and

inferences from it, 175

Jaimini—Cites Badari’s contention of

Shudra’s right to sacrifice, 108;

Spiritual significance of Samskaras

according to, 171; His rules in

‘Purva Mimamsa’ about property,

sacrifice and Vedic mantras 170-71

Jayaswal, Dr.—Shudra as a minister,

112-13 (footnotes)

Jews—Existence of classes in society

of, 28; Disabilities under Roman

Law, 61; A people not race, 66

Justinian—Enfranchisement of slaves,

60

Kalikapurana—160 (footnote)

Kalmashapada—145-46

Kane, Mr.—Identifies Dasas and

Dasyus with Shudras of later time,101; On demarcation line betweenAryans and Shudras; see also 102,156, 158-60, 167,168, 174,190, 201,202 (footnote)

Kathaka Samhita—Disabilities ofShudras under, 42; Statementsfrom, demarcating Shudra from

Arya, 107

Katyayana Srauta Sutra—Commen-

tary on, admits Shudra’s eligibilityto perform Vedic rites, 109

Kaushitaki Brahmana—On enmitybetween Sudas and Vasisthaspreading to descendants, 151

Kautilya—His reference to Shudras asAryans in laws of slavery, 110-11



Kayastha—Status of, of Bengal and

Bihar, 163-64; Status, challenged

by Brahmins, 175-85; Reaction to

challenge, 177 (see also footnote);

Gagabhat’s attempt to prove them

bastards, 181-82

Khnumu—The shaper in Egyptian

cosmogony, 22

Kinkaid, Mr—On Maratha Sardars’

attitude to Shivaji’s status, 176

(footnote)

Kolhapur—Palace priest’s controversy

over eligibility of Maharaja to Vedic

rites, 183-84

Kritavirya—193-94

Kshatriyas—Origin, according to

Purusha Sukta, 22; Are Dvijas, 24;

Inferior to Brahmins and superior

to other classes in status, 26,32; As

Savarnas, Dwijas and Traivarnikas,

36; Though Traivarnikas, their

rights against Shudras very negli-

gible, 57; Mention of, nine times as

separate Vama in Rig Veda, 133;

Conflict with Brahmins, 140-55;

Kings conflicting with Brahmins

belonged to Shudra tribe and solar

line, 155, 187-88; Genealogies of

Kings, 190-91; Of solar line supe-

rior to Brahmins in prowess and

learning, 191-92, Authors of Vedic

Hymns, 191; Of Lunar line an

imbecile people, 190-91; Stories of

their reconciliaton with Brahmins,

192-97; Enmity between Shudra

and non-Shudra, 202-03

Kurtakoti—184 (footnote)

Lassen—His identification of Shudras

with Sodari tribe, 103 Law, Dr. B.

C—103 (footnote)

Mahabharata—Ideology relating to

creation, 92-93, On existence of

Dasyus in all Varnas, 104; Shudra

invited at coronation of

Yudhishthira, 112; On ministers of

four Varnas, 112; Collation of

stanza referring to Paijavana, 114,

116-17; Nature of its manuscripts

and recensions, 115; Results of

scrutiny of texts of the stanza, 117-

18; Story of Kalmashapada, 145-46

and 195-96; Pururavas’ conflict with

Brahmins, 152; Bharatas reconcili-

ation with Vasishtha 192; Conflict

and reconciliation of Kritavirya

with Bhrigus, 193-94, 194-95 with

Parshurama, 194-95; Saudasas’

reconciliation with Vasishtha and

Brahmins, 196-97; Its statement

about Paijavana record of true tra-

dition, 205

Maharashtra Dnyana Kosha— Mean-

ing of Varna, 82 (footnote); Iden-

tification of Dasa with Azi Dahaka,

105 (footnote), Appendices I-VI,

210-16

Maitrayani Samhita—Disabilites of

Shudras, under, 42; Reference to

Shudra’s wealthiness, 112

Manu—On divine origin of four varnas

24-25; On disabilities of Shudras,

43-44,45-55; On Shudras’ eligibil-

ity to Brahmindom, 109-10; His

injunctions to Brahmins against

Shudra Kings, 112; On conflicts

between Kings and Brahmins, 154-

55; Laws against Chandala, 199

Manu—The progenitor of Indo-Ary-

ans, 29

Matsya Purana—On Manu the pro-

genitor of Aryans, 29; List of

Kshatriya, authors of Rig Vedic

hymns, 191

Mediterranean Race—Traits of, 67-

68; Facts about, 98

Muir, Dr.—His failure to realize con-

flicts between Brahmins and

Kshatriyas as one between Brah-

mins and Shudras, 155; see also

30-31, 33-34, 38-41, 56, 87, 88-98,

102, 131, 133-35, 141-42, 145, 147-

49, 151-54, 187, 190,96 (footnote)



Max Muller, Prof.—On disappointing

nature of Brahmanas as literary

productions, 41; On meaning of

Arya, 69-70; His insistence on

restriction of term Aryan to Philol-

ogy, 195-96; His interpretation of

term ‘Anasa’, 76-77; On Brahmanic

etymologies, 102-03,108

Nahusha—152-54, 191, (footnote), 192

Nimi—154, 192

Nishada—An Anuloma, 198; His in-

eligibility to Upanayana, 198; an

arbitrary exception and why, 198

Old Testament—Genesis, 22; Com-

parison of Genesis with Purusha

Sukta, 28

Oldenberg, Prof—Absence of Gotra

name in description of famous men,

202 (footnote), 206

Padma Purana—161

Pagans—Disabilities under RomanLaw, 59-60

Palashes—Status challenged by Brah-mins, 175, 184

Panchavimsa Brahmana—Disabilitiesof Shudras under, 42; On Shudra’swealthiness, 112

Papacy—Its forgeries, 137

Patitasavitrika—167

Peshwas—Discontinued Rajya-bhishekaera, 182; Directed Upanayana ofShahu II to be performed byPauranic rites, 182-83,

Pingle, Moropant—Opposed to Shivaji’scoronation, 176; Huge presents to,at coronation, 180

Plato—On class distinction, an idealsocial structure, 26

Pratapsinha II—Challenge to hisKshatriya status by Brahmins, 183

Pratiloma—Who are, 199 (footnote);Uneven distribution of stigma on,

200; see Chandala

Premi Nathurama—161

Privy Council—Decision on existence

of Kshatriyas in modern times, 162

Pururavas—152, 191 (footnote), 192

Purus—128

Purushartha—Magazine, 169 (foot-

note)

Purusha Sukta—Text of, 21-22; As

Indo-Aryan cosmogony, as expla-nation of origin of, and as manda-tory injunction prescribing fourVarnas, 22-23; Its influence onIndo-Aryan Society, 23; Examina-tion of its claim to uniqueness’ and

‘extraordinariness’, 25-27; Expla-nation of origin of classes—itsdifference with other cosmogonies,28; Contradicts secular theory ofRig Veda of origin of society,28-29; Its preference for commu-

nalism than nationalism, 31; Itspolitical jugglery in makingChaturvarnya a sacred institution,31-33; Its equation of classes withlimbs of Purusha, deliberate andmalicious, 33-35; A later interpo-

lation, 132-37, 138-39 a forgery byBrahmins, 137

Race—Jews, an illustration of peoplemistaken for, 66; A body of peoplepossessing certain typical heredi-tary traits, 66-67; Traits constitut-

ing a, old and modern views, 67-68; Cephalic Index and FacialIndex, 67; Application ofanthropometrical method to Euro-pean Races, a Table, 68 and 71-72;Is there an Aryan—, 70; Mediter-

ranean, 98; Alpine, 98

Ramayana—Ideology relating to cre-

ation, 94-95; Story of Trishanku,149-50; See footnote 29

Ranade, Prof.—Theory of Synchro-nous Composition of Vedic Litera-ture, 138

Rig Veda—Purusha Sukta, 21-22;

Another cosmogony besides



Purusha Sukta, 27; Comparison of

its two cosmogonies, 27; Its secular

theory of origin of classes, 28-29;

Consciousness of division of labour,

30; On five tribes of Indo-Aryan

nation, 30-31; Does not use term

Arya in racial sense, 70; On united

front of Aryans and Dasas against

common enemy, 75; Description of

Dasyus as people belonging in cult

different from that of Aryans, 75-

76; Occurrence of terms ‘Anasa’,

‘Mridha vak’ and ‘Krishna Yoni’,

76-77; On absence of racial distinc-

tion between Aryans, Dasas and

Dasyus, 77; On absence of colour

prejudice amongst Aryans, 81-82;

Occurrence of word ‘Varnas’ in, 82-

83; Supports existence of, two

opposing Aryan communities, 86-

87; One of the two Vedas, 87;

Description of Dasa in, 105-06;

Dasharajna Yuddha, 124-27; Praise

of Sudas’ philanthropy, 127; Tribes

in and Sudas’ relation to them,

128; On enmity between Bharatas

and Tritsus, 192; Reasons for ab-

sence of word ‘Shudra’ in its de-

scription of Paijavana, 205

Ripley, Prof. W. E.—On difference

between a race and a people, 66;

His table of European Racial Types,

68; Disproves theory of Caucasia

as cradle of Aryan race, 71-72; On

dark complexion of earliest Euro-

peans, 81; 98 (footnotes)

Risley, Sir Herbert—On

anthropometrical survey finds

people of India mixture of four

races, 97

Romans—Classes in their society, 26;

Need for comparison of Brahmanic

Laws with theirs, 59-60; Classes

and persons under their Law, 60;

Basis for rights and disabilities;

Caput and Existimatio, 59-61; Was

their Law regulated by communal

considerations? 61-63; Their removal

of social and political disabilities ofPlebians, 61-63; Difference withBrahmanic Law on Equality of Lawin Criminal matters and extinctionof disabilities, 63-64

Roy, Mr.—On authenticity of hisMahabharata text, 114-15

Sadgurushishya—Reasons for Sudas’

cruelty to Sakti according to, 150

Sakti—Vide Sadgurushishya and

Satyayana Brahmana

Sama Veda—A different form of Rig

Veda, 87

Samskara Ganapati—Its acceptance of

Shudra’s eligibility for Upanayana,169

Samskaras—Names of forty, 170;Jaimini, view on necessity of, 171-72; In narrower sense only sixteen,171; Spiritual in significance inearlier times, 171; And ChristianSacraments, 171

Sardesai Rao Bahadur, G. S.—OnPeshwa’s discontinuation of Rajya-

bhisheka era, 182 (footnote)

Sarup, Laxman—Edition of Nighantu

and Nirukta, 118 (footnote)

Satapatha Brahmana—Explanation of

four Varnas, 39-40; disabilities ofShudras under, 42; ideolology relat-ing to creation, 88-89; Discrimina-tion in mode of address to differentVarnas at sacrifices, 131, 207; Ex-planation of creation of three Varnas

only, 128; On strength of TurvasaTribe, 202

Satyayana Brahmana—Story of Sudas’atrocity on Sakti, 150

Savarnas—De jure connotation of, 36;Who are, 36

Sayanacharya—His interpretation ofterm ‘Anasa’, 77; List of Kings-authors of Rig Veda hymns, 126,126 (footnote)

Senart, Prof—On social organization

of Vedic times 130-31



Shahu Maharaja—Controversy with

palace priests and Sankarachrya

regarding eligibility of Vedic rites,

183-84

Shankaracharya, Karvir—His refusal

to recognize Kayasthas as

Kshatriyas: 183; Vs. Royal House

of Kolhapur on eligibility to Vedic

rites, 182-84

Shivaji—Vs. Brahmins, 175; Corona-

tion by Vedic rites dependent on

acceptance of Kshatriya Status by

Brahmins, 175; and on their per-

formance of his Upanayana, 176;

Regarded by Brahmin Ministers

and Maratha Sardars as Shudra,

176 (and footnote), 181; King at

mercy of Brahmins, 177; His two

coronations, 176-77 (footnote); Ge-

nealogy connecting him to Sisodiya

Rajputs, 177-78, 181-82; Money

paid to Brahmins at coronation,

180; His descendants vs. Brah-

mins, 182-84; Peshwas discontinue

his Rajyabhisheka era, 182

Shrinivasa Iyengar, Mr. P. T.—On

rare occurence of word ‘Arya’ in

Rig Veda; a proof against theory of

Invasion of India by Aryans, 74;

Reference to 75 (footnote); on Civi-

lization of Dasyus, 105

Shudras—Riddle of, 21, 35 : Genesis of,

according to Purusha Sukta, 22, 23;

Position of, according to Apastambha

Dharma Sutra, 23-24, Vasishtha

Dharma Sutra, 24; and Manusmriti,

24; Their status, 26,32 and 33; Was

their inclusion implied in Rig Veda

reference to five tribes. 31; are

savarnas but not Dvijas and

Traivarnikas, 36; Disabilities and

penalties under Samhitas,

Brahmanas, Sutras, Smritis, 42-57:

Gist of penal legislations against,

55-56; Comparison between

privileges of Brahmins and—,

56-57; Inequality and permanence

of disabilities, 63-64; Derivation of

word, in Vayu Purana and Vedant

Sutra, 103; Proper name of a tribe,

103; Lassen’s identification of, with

Sodari tribe defeated by Alexander,

103; Associates of Abhirs according

to Patanjali, 103; A separate tribe

according to Brahma, Markendeya

and Vishnu Puranas, 103; Vedas

silent on, and later literature full

of, 106; Basis of arguments that,

were non-Aryans, 107, and, Ary-

ans, 107-08; Statements showing

basis of equality with Brahmins,

107-08, and eligibility to become

Brahmins, 109-11; Aryan by birth

according to Kautilya, 110-11; not

slaves, 111; Participation in Coro-

nation of kings during Brahmanic

period. 111; Members of political

assemblies, 112; As Kings and

Ministers, 112, and 206; Their

Wealthiness 112; and 207; Ques-

tions on assumption of their en-

slavement, 113; Were Aryans of

Kshatriya class, 114, 131, 139; Sig-

nificance of term—clan, phratry or

tribe?, 130; Conflict with Brah-

mins, 140-55; not mentioned as

separate Varna in Rig Veda, 139;

Degradation to fourth Varna due

to conflict with Brahmins, 140-203;

Right to Upanayana, 166-70; De-

nial of Upanayana to, results; loss

of property and knowledge, 170-72;

Brahmins’ power for degrading,

173-74, 208; Shivaji a, 176;

Kings of tribe of, 186-89; Stories

of their reconciliation with,

192-200; Growth of laws against,

disproves reconciliation with Brah-

mins, 198: Treatment ordained to

Nishadas and Chandalas, 198-99;

Did they suffer denial of

Upanayana silently, 199-200; Name

of single people in Indo-Aryan



Society, 201, Epithet of uncultured

class of people in Hindu Society,

201-02; Of Indo-Aryan Society dif-

ferent from those of Hindu Society,

201-02; ‘Nirvasit, ‘Anirvasit ’ ,

‘Sacchudra’ and ‘Asacchudra’, 201;

Of Indo-Aryan Society a tribe of

few thousands, 201-02; Their in-

ability to break common front of

Brahmins and denial of Upanayana,

202-03; Ten riddles of, 207-09

Sisodiya Rajputs—Are they

Kshatriyas of Indo-Aryan Commu-

nity? 178-80

Smith, Vincent—On Hinduisation of

Gurjars into Rajputs, 178

Social Organisation—According to

Purusha Sukta, 25-26, 31-32; Of

primitive Society, 129-30, 187; Of

Vedic Aryans, 130-31

Sudas Paijavana—Description in

Mahabharata : A Shudra Paijavana,

114,117-18, 205; Yaska’s interpre-

tation of, 118-19; Family particu-

lars of, in Rig Veda, 119, 122-24;

Two in Vishnu Purana, 119; (i)

Descendant of Sagar a, and his

genealogy, 119; (ii) Descendant of

Puru and his genealogy, 120; Tabu-

lar results of genealogists of three,

121-22; Rig Vedic different from

Puranic, 121-22; Paijavana in

Mahabharata is Rig vedic, 121-22;

Agreement of Prof. Weber with the

view, 122; Hero of Dasharajna

Yuddha, 124; Author of Rigvedic

hymns, 126; Performed

Ashwamedha sacrifice, 126; Known

for charity, 127. Belonged to

Bharata, Puru or Tritsu tribe, 128-

29; Removal of Vasishtha and

appointment of Vishwamitra as

chief priest, 150; Conflict with

Vasishtha, 150-51, 196, Story of

reconciliation of his descendants

with Brahmins, 196-97; Being most

famous man not described by name

of community in Rig Veda, 205-06

Sukthanker, Dr.—On authenticity of

Roy’s Text of Mahabharata, 115;

Memorial Vol. 1, 115, 116 (foot-

note)

Taittiriya Aranyaka—Ideology relat-ing to creation, 91-92

Taittiriya Brahmana—Explanation oforigin of Shudras, 40, Ideologyrelating to creation, 90-91;Describes creation of Three Varnasonly, 133, 206

Taittiriya Samhita—Explanations oforigin of four Varnas, 38-39; Ide-ology relating to creation, 87; Onconflict between Vasishtha andSaudasas, 151

Taylor, Prof. Isac—His summary ofBenfy’s views on original home ofAryans, 71

Thakare, Mr. K. S.—On twists andturns of Gagabhat and change offront of Moropant Pingle, 182, (foot-note); On Performance ofKayastha’s ceremonies by Kayas-thas, 184 (footnote)

Thesis of the Book—Summary of, 204;Strength of its evidence, 205-06;Validity of, 206; Solves ten riddlesof Shudras, 207-08

Tilak, Mr. B. G.— On characteristicsof Polar and Circum-polar regions,72-74; On correspondence of thecharacteristics with myths andlegends in Vedas; 73-74, His infer-ence : Arctic, the Home of Aryans,73-74; Shortcomings of his theory,74; On origin of Yajnopavita, 159-60; Shortcomings of his explana-tion, 160-61

Traivarnika—Who are, 35-36; Absenceof Uniformity of rights among; 57

Trishanku—140-41, 149-50

Tritsus—130

Triveda, Prof. D. S.—On proof againsttheory of Aryan invasion of India,75

Turvasas-31



Untouchables—Are Atishudras,

Avarnas and Advijas, 36

Upanayana—Who have right to, 156-

58; Purpose of : initiation to study

of Vedas, 158; Articles essential

for, 158; Yajnopavita essential for

modern ceremony of, 158; Merger

with ceremony of wearing

Yajnopavita 161; Danger of, with-

out Yajnopavita, 161; True mean-

ing of, 161; Test of Shudradom

absence of, 161, 165-66; Had

Shudras a right to, 165-66, 169-70;

Dead, dumb, blind, ‘Anuloma’, 166,

Those crossing age-limit 167, their

Sons and Vratyas 167-68, eligible

to—; Universal among Indo-Irani-

ans, 169; Closed to women owing

to child marriage 169; Open to

Shudras according to Samskara

Ganpati, 169, 206; Absence of rea-

sons for withholding from Shudras,

169-70; First spiritual in signifi-

cance, 171; Acquisition of social

significance after denial to Shudras,

171; Confers right to property and

knowledge, 172; Performance of,

assigned to Acharya, 173; Shivaji’s

right to, 175-77

Vaidya, Mr. C. V.—His extract from

Bhagavat Purana on Bharata

Bhumi, 173-74; On second corona-

tion of Shivaji, 176-77 (footnote);

On money spent at Shivaji’s coro-

nation on Dakshina to Brahmins,

180; See also, 178-79 (footnote)

Vaishampayana—Origin of classes of

priests, 34-35

Vaishyas—Origin of, according to

Purusha Sukta, 22; Are twice born

(Dvijas) 24; Superior only to

Shudras in status, 26, 32-33; As

Savarnas, Dvijas, Traivarnikas, 36;

Oppressed class in Indo-Aryan

Society, 56; Fury against them di-

rected later on towards Shudras, 56;

Though a Traivarnika, their rights

against Shudras very negligible,

56-57

Vajasaneyi Samhita—Two theories of

origin of classes (Varnas) 38-39;

Statements demarcating Shudra

from Arya, 107; Statement showing

basis of equality between Brahmins

and Shudras, 107-08; Pours scorn on

Shudras, 108

Varna—In sense of colour mainstay of

Aryan Race theory, 81; Occurrence

of terms in Rig Veda and its con-

notations, 82-83; Occurrence of term,

in Zend Avesta connoting ‘a class

holding particular faith’, 83-85;

System with three Varnas in Rig

Veda, 132-33, 139 See also Purusha

Sukta and Chaturvarnya

Vasishtha—His conflict with

Vishwamitra, 140-55; Stories of his

reconciliation with Bharatas,

Kalmashapada and Saudasas, 192-

93, 195-96 See also Sudas and

Vishwamitra

Vasishtha Dharma Sutra—Its support

to Purusha Sukta, 24; Disabilities of

Shudras under, 43-45, 52

Vayu Purana—102-03

Vedic Literature—Origin of, and Brah-

manic view, 33-35, Max Muller’s

order to growth of 138 : Professors

Ranade and Belavalkar’s theory of

synchronous composition of, 138 ;

See also Rig Veda, Atharva Veda,

Yajur Veda and Veda.

Vena—151-52

Vishnu Purana—Manu, the Progenitor

of the Indo-Aryans, 29; Explanation

of origin of Vedas from different

mouths of Brahma, 34; Ideology

relating to creation, 95-97; Geneal-

ogy of two Sudas and Table 96-97;

Story of Harishchandra, 141-45; On

Nimi’s conflict with Brahmins, 154



Vishnu Smriti—Disabilities of

Shudras under, 44, 46, 49, 52

Vishwamitra—His conflict with

Vasishtha, 140-41; His part in epi-

sodes of Trishanku, 141;

Harishchandra, 141-45; Ambarisha,

145, and Kalmashapada, 145-46;

Wants to murder Vasishtha, 147-48;

Biographical particulars about, 148;

Feud with Vasishtha on points of

privileges, in story of Trishanku,

149-50; Dishonour to, avenged by

Sudas, 150-51

Vratya—39; Who were they, 168-69;

Stoma, 168; Shuddhisangraha’s pro-

vision for purification of, 168

Vyavahara Mayukha—Kalipurana quo-

tation of rule of adoption, 160 (foot-

note); 174 (footnote)

Weber, Prof.—Traces Sudas in

Mahabharata to Sudas in Rig Veda,

122; On Shudras, an Aryan tribe

immigrating into India before oth-

ers, 131

Western Writers—Theory about origin

of Shudras from Dasas and Dasyus

according to, 65-66; Basis of their

theory—inference drawn from

Bopp’s theory, of common ancestry

of languages, 78, Inferences :

(i) common habitat and social stock

of Aryans, 78-79; (ii) Conquest of

India by Aryans, 79 (iii) Subjuga-

tion of Dasas, 79; (iv) Practice of

colour distinction by Aryans in

Varna system, 79-80; Reasons for

failure of their theory, 78-79; Scru-

tiny of their theory, 79-85;

Conflict of their theory with Rig Veda,

99-100; Its shortcomings, 100 Wil-

son, Dr.—Extract from his transla-

tion of Rig Veda, 27 (footnote), 119-

20

Yajnopavita—Importance of, 158;

Rules about manufacture and use

of, 158-59; Mr. Tilak on its origin,

159-60; Real object of, to tie one to

particular ‘Gotra’ 160-61; Once

Brahmins alone wore, 161; Merger

with Upanayana, 161

Yajnavalkya—On Yajnopavita, 158

Yajurveda—Its two recensions, 37;

Ashwamedha Yajna, 74; A differ-

ent form of Rig Veda, 86

Yaska—On five tribes of Indo-Aryan

nation, 30; On meaning of

Paijavana 118

Zend Avesta—Occurrence of word

Varna in, in sense of ‘a class hold-

ing a particular faith’, 82-85; Azi

Dahaka in, 104-05


228

BLANK


229

2

UNTOUCHABLES


230

BLANK


231

THE UNTOUCHABLES


232

BLANK


233

THE

UNTOUCHABLES

WHO WERE THEY

AND WHY THEY

BECAME UNTOUCHABLES ?

By

DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR

(Reprint of the edition of 1948)


234

First Published, October 1948

by Amrit Book Co., New Delhi.

Government of Maharashtra’s

First Edition - January 26, 1990


235

Inscribed to the memory of

NANDNAR

RAVIDAS

CHOKHAMELA

THREE RENOWNED SAINTS WHO WERE BORN

AMONG THE UNTOUCHABLES AND WHO BY

THEIR PIETY AND VIRTUE WON THE ESTEEM OF ALL.


236

BLANK


237

CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE .. .. .. 239

PART I

A COMPARATIVE SURVEY

Chapter

I. UNTOUCHABILITY AMONG NON-HINDUS .. 249

II. UNTOUCHABILITY AMONG HINDUS. .. 256

PART II

PROBLEM OF HABITAT

III. WHY DO THE UNTOUCHABLES LIVE OUTSIDE

THE VILLAGE? .. .. 271

IV. ARE THE UNTOUCHABLES BROKEN MEN ? .. 278

V. ARE THERE PARALLEL CASES ? .. .. 281

VI. How DID SEPARATE SETTLEMENTS FOR

BROKEN MEN DISAPPEAR ELSEWHERE ? .. 284

PART III

OLD THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF UNTOUCHABILITY.

VII. RACIAL DIFFERENCE AS THE ORIGIN OF

UNTOUCHABILITY .. .. 289

VIII. OCCUPATIONAL ORIGIN OF UNTOUCHABILITY .. 305

PART IV

NEW THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF UNTOUCHABILITY.

IX. CONTEMPT FOR BUDDHISTS AS THE ROOT OF

UNTOUCHABILITY .. .. 311

X. BEEF-EATING AS THE ROOT OF UNTOUCHABILITY .. 318


238

PART V

THE NEW THEORIES AND SOME HARD QUESTIONS.

XL DID THE HINDUS NEVER EAT BEEF ? .. 323

XII. WHY DID NON-BRAHMINS GIVE UP BEEF-EATING ? 329

XIII. WHAT MADE THE BRAHMINS BECOME

VEGETARIANS ? .. .. 334

XIV. WHY SHOULD BEEF-EATING MAKE BROKEN MEN

UNTOUCHABLES ? .. .. 350

PART VI

UNTOUCHABILITY AND THE DATE OF ITS BIRTH.

XV. THE IMPURE AND THE UNTOUCHABLES .. 359

XVI. WHEN DID BROKEN MEN BECOME ..

UNTOUCHABLES ? .. .. 370

INDEX.. .. .. .. 381


239

PREFACE

This book is a sequel to my treatise called The Shudras—Who they

were and How they came to be the Fourth Varna of the Indo-Aryan

Society which was published in 1946. Besides the Shudras, the Hindu

Civilization has produced three social classes whose existence has not

received the attention it deserves. The three classes are :-

(i) The Criminal Tribes who number about 20 millions or so;

(ii) The Aboriginal Tribes who number about 15 millions; and

(iii) The Untouchables who number about 50 millions.

The existence of these classes is an abomination. The Hindu

Civilization, gauged in the light of these social products, could hardly

be called civilization. It is a diabolical contrivance to suppress and

enslave humanity. Its proper name would be infamy. What else can

be said of a civilization which has produced a mass of people who

are taught to accept crime as an approved means of earning their

livelihood, another mass of people who are left to live in full bloom

of their primitive barbarism in the midst of civilization and a third

mass of people who are treated as an entity beyond human intercourse

and whose mere touch is enough to cause pollution?

In any other country the existence of these classes would have led

to searching of the heart and to investigation of their origin. But

neither of these has occurred to the mind of the Hindu. The reason

is simple. The Hindu does not regard the existence of these classes

as a matter of apology or shame and feels no responsibility either

to atone for it or to inquire into its origin and growth. On the other

hand, every Hindu is taught to believe that his civilization is not

only the most ancient but that it is also in many respects altogether

unique. No Hindu ever feels tired of repeating these claims. That

the Hindu Civilization is the most ancient, one can understand and

even allow. But it is not quite so easy to understand on what grounds

they rely for claiming that the Hindu Civilization is a unique one.

The Hindus may not like it, but so far as it strikes non-Hindus, such

a claim can rest only on one ground. It is the existence of these classes

for which the Hindu Civilization is responsible. That the existence of

such classes is a unique phenomenon, no Hindu need repeat, for nobody


240

can deny the fact. One only wishes that the Hindu realized that it

was a matter for which there was more cause for shame than pride.

The inculcation of these false beliefs in the sanity, superiority and

sanctity of Hindu Civilization is due entirely to the peculiar social

psychology of Hindu scholars.

To-day all scholarship is confined to the Brahmins. But unfortu-

nately no Brahmin scholar has so far come forward to play the part

of a Voltaire who had the intellectual honesty to rise against the

doctrines of the Catholic Church in which he was brought up; nor

is one likely to appear on the scene in the future. It is a grave

reflection on the scholarship of the Brahmins that they should not

have produced a Voltaire. This will not cause surprise if it is

remembered that the Brahmin scholar is only a learned man. He is

not an intellectual. There is a world of difference between one who

is learned and one who is an intellectual. The former is class-

conscious and is alive to the interests of his class. The latter is an

emancipated being who is free to act without being swayed by class

considerations. It is because the Brahmins have been only learned

men that they have not produced a Voltaire.

Why have the Brahmins not produced a Voltaire? The question can

be answered only by another question. Why did the Sultan of Turkey

not abolish the religion of the Mohammedan World? Why has no Pope

denounced Catholicism? Why has the British Parliament not made

a law ordering the killing of all blue-eyed babies? The reason why

the Sultan or the Pope or the British Parliament has not done these

things is the same as why the Brahmins have not been able to produce

a Voltaire. It must be recognized that the selfish interest of a person

or of the class to which he belongs always acts as an internal

limitation which regulates the direction of his intellect. The power

and position which the Brahmins possess is entirely due to the Hindu

Civilization which treats them as supermen and subjects the lower

classes to all sorts of disabilities so that they may never rise and

challenge or threaten the superiority of the Brahmins over them. As

is natural, every Brahmin is interested in the maintenance of

Brahmanic supremacy be he orthodox or unorthodox, be he a priest

or a grahastha, be he a scholar or not. How can the Brahmins

afford to be Voltaires? A Voltaire among the Brahmins would be a

positive danger to the maintenance of a civilization which is contrived

to maintain Brahmanic supremacy. The point is that the intellect of

a Brahmin scholar is severely limited by anxiety to preserve his


241

interest. He suffers from this internal limitation as a result of which

he does not allow his intellect full play which honesty and integrity

demands. For, he fears that it may affect the interests of his class

and therefore his own.

But what annoys one is the intolerance of the Brahmin scholar

towards any attempt to expose the Brahmanic literature. He himself

would not play the part of an iconoclast even where it is necessary.

And he would not allow such non-Brahmins as have the capacity to

do so to play it. If any non-Brahmin were to make such an attempt

the Brahmin scholars would engage in a conspiracy of silence, take

no notice of him, condemn him outright on some flimsy grounds or

dub his work useless. As a writer engaged in the exposition of the

Brahmanic literature I have been a victim of such mean tricks.

Notwithstanding the attitude of the Brahmin scholars, I must

pursue the task I have undertaken. For the origin of these classes

is a subject which still awaits investigation. This book deals with

one of these unfortunate classes namely, the Untouchables. The

Untouchables are the most numerous of the three. Their existence

is also the most unnatural. And yet there has so far been no

investigation into their origin. That the Hindus should not have

undertaken such an investigation is perfectly understandable. The old

orthodox Hindu does not think that there is anything wrong in the

observance of Untouchability. To him it is a normal and natural thing.

As such it neither calls for expiation nor explanation. The new modern

Hindu realizes the wrong. But he is ashamed to discuss it in public

for fear of letting the foreigner know that Hindu Civilization can be

guilty of such a vicious and infamous system or social code as

evidenced by Untouchability. But what is strange is that Untouch-

ability should have failed to attract the attention of the European

student of social institutions. It is difficult to understand why. The

fact, however, is there.

This book may therefore, be taken as a pioneer attempt in the

exploration of a field so completely neglected by everybody. The book,

if I may say so, deals not only with every aspect of the main question

set out for inquiry, namely, the origin of Untouchability, but it also

deals with almost all questions connected with it. Some of the

questions are such that very few people are even aware of them; and

those who are aware of them are puzzled by them and do not know

how to answer them. To mention only a few, the book deals with

such questions as : Why do the Untouchables live outside the village?


242

Why did beef-eating give rise to Untouchability ? Did the Hindus

never eat beef ? Why did non-Brahmins give up beef-eating ? What

made the Brahmins become vegetarians, etc.? To each one of these,

the book suggests an answer. It may be that the answers given in

the book to these questions are not all-embracing. Nonetheless it

will be found that the book points to a new way of looking at old

things.

The thesis on the origin of Untouchability advanced in the book

is an altogether novel thesis. It comprises the following propositions :-

(1) There is no racial difference between the Hindus and the

Untouchables;

(2) The distinction between the Hindus and Untouchables in its

original form, before the advent of Untouchability, was the

distinction between Tribesmen and Broken Men from alien

Tribes. It is the Broken Men who subsequently came to be

treated as Untouchables;

(3) Just as Untouchability has no racial basis so also has it no

occupational basis;

(4) There are two roots from which Untouchability has sprung:

(a) Contempt and hatred of the Broken Men as of Buddhists

by the Brahmins:

(b) Continuation of beef-eating by the Broken Men after it

had been given up by others.

(5) In searching for the origin of Untouchability care must be

taken to distinguish the Untouchables from the Impure. All

orthodox Hindu writers have identified the Impure with the

Untouchables. This is an error. Untouchables are distinct from

the Impure.

(6) While the Impure as a class came into existence at the time

of the Dharma Sutras the Untouchables came into being much

later than 400 A.D.

These conclusions are the result of such historical research as

I have been able to make. The ideal which a historian should place

before himself has been well defined by Goethe who said1 :

“The historian’s duty is to separate the true from the false, the certain

from the uncertain, and the doubtful from that which cannot be

accepted ... ... Every investigator must before all things look upon

himself as one who is summoned to serve on a jury. He has

1 Maxims and Reflections of Goethe, Nos. 453, 543.


243

only to consider how far the statement of the case is complete andclearly set forth by the evidence. Then he draws his conclusion andgives his vote, whether it be that his opinion coincides with that ofthe foreman or not.”

There can be no difficulty in giving effect to Goethe’s direction

when the relevant and necessary facts are forthcoming. All this

advice is of course very valuable and very necessary. But Goethe

does not tell what the historian is to do when he comes across a

missing link, when no direct evidence of connected relations between

important events is available. I mention this because in the course

of my investigations into the origin of Untouchability and other inter

connected problems I have been confronted with many missing links.

It is true that I am not the only one who has been confronted with

them. All students of ancient Indian history have had to face them.

For as Mount Stuart Elphinstone has observed in Indian history “no

date of a public event can be fixed before the invasion of Alexander:

and no connected relation of the natural transactions can be at-

tempted until after the Mohamedan conquest.” This is a sad confes-

sion but that again does not help. The question is: “What is a student

of history to do? Is he to cry halt and stop his work until the link

is discovered?” I think not. I believe that in such cases it is

permissible for him to use his imagination and intuition to bridge

the gaps left in the chain of facts by links not yet discovered and

to propound a working hypothesis suggesting how facts which cannot

be connected by known facts might have been inter-connected. I must

admit that rather than hold up the work, I have preferred to resort

to this means to get over the difficulty created by the missing links

which have come in my way.

Critics may use this weakness to condemn the thesis as violating

the canons of historical research. If such be the attitude of the critics

I must remind them that if there is a law which governs the

evaluation of the results of historical results then refusal to accept

a thesis on the ground that it is based on direct evidence is bad law.

Instead of concentrating themselves on the issue of direct evidence

versus inferential evidence and inferential evidence versus specula-

tion, what the critics should concern themselves with is to examine

(i) whether the thesis is based on pure conjecture, and (ii) whether

the thesis is possible and if so does it fit in with facts better than

mine does?


244

On the first issue I could say that the thesis would not be unsound

merely because in some parts it is based on guess. My critics should

remember that we are dealing with an institution the origin of which

is lost in antiquity. The present attempt to explain the origin of

Untouchability is not the same as writing history from texts which

speak with certainty. It is a case of reconstructing history where

there are no texts, and if there are, they have no direct bearing

on the question. In such circumstances what one has to do is to

strive to divine what the texts conceal or suggest without being even

quite certain of having found the truth. The task is one of gathering

survivals of the past, placing them together and making them tell

the story of their birth. The task is analogous to that of the

archaeologist who constructs a city from broken stones or of the

palaeontologist who conceives an extinct animal from scattered bones

and teeth or of a painter who reads the lines of the horizon and

the smallest vestiges on the slopes of the hill to make up a scene.

In this sense the book is a work of art even more than of history.

The origin of Untouchability lies buried in a dead past which nobody

knows. To make it alive is like an attempt to reclaim to history

a city which has been dead since ages past and present it as it was

in its original condition. It cannot but be that imagination and

hypothesis should pay a large part in such a work. But that in itself

cannot be a ground for the condemnation of the thesis. For without

trained imagination no scientific inquiry can be fruitful and hypoth-

esis is the very soul of science. As Maxim Gorky has said1 :

“Science and literature have much in common; in both,observation, comparison and study are of fundamental importance;the artist like the scientist, needs both imagination and intuition.Imagination and intuition bridge the gaps in the chain of facts byits as yet undiscovered links and permit the scientist to createhypothesis and theories which more or less correctly and successfullydirect the searching of the mind in its study of the forms andphenomenon of nature. They are of literary creation; the art ofcreating characters and types demands imagination, intuition, theability to make things up in one’s own mind”.

It is therefore unnecessary for me to apologize for having resorted

to constructing links where they were missing. Nor can my thesis be

said to be vitiated on that account for nowhere is the construction of

1 Literature and life. A selection from the writings of Maxim Gorky.


245

links based on pure conjecture. The thesis in great part is based

on facts and inferences from facts. And where it is not based on

facts or inferences from facts, it is based on circumstantial evidence

of presumptive character resting on considerable degree of probabil-

ity. There is nothing that I have urged in support of my thesis which

I have asked my readers to accept on trust. I have at least shown

that there exists a preponderance of probability in favour of what

I have asserted. It would be nothing but pedantry to say that a

preponderance of probability is not a sufficient basis for a valid

decision.

On the second point with the examination of which, I said, my

critics should concern themselves what I would like to say is that

I am not so vain as to claim any finality for my thesis. I do not

ask them to accept it as the last word. I do not wish to influence

their judgement. They are of course free to come to their own

conclusion. All I say to them is to consider whether this thesis is

not a workable and therefore, for the time being, a valid hypothesis

if the test of a valid hypothesis is that it should fit in with all

surrounding facts, explain them and give them a meaning which in

its absence they do not appear to have. I do not want anything more

from my critics than a fair and unbiased appraisal.

January 1, 1948

1, Hardinge Avenue, B. R. AMBEDKAR

New Delhi.


246

BLANK


THE UNTOUCHABLES : UNTOUCHABILITY AMONG NON-HINDUS 247

PART I

A COMPARATIVE SURVEY

Chapter I. Untouchability Among Non-Hindus

Chapter II. Untouchability Among Hindus



BLANK



CHAPTER I

UNTOUCHABILITY AMONG NON-HINDUS

WHO are the Untouchables and what is the origin of Untouchability?

These are the main topics which it is sought to investigate and the

results of which are contained in the following pages. Before launch-

ing upon the investigation it is necessary to deal with certain

preliminary questions. The first such question is : Are the Hindus

the only people in the world who observe Untouchability? The second

is: If Untouchability is observed by Non-Hindus also how does

Untouchability among Hindus compare with Untouchability among

non-Hindus? Unfortunately no such comparative study has so far been

attempted. The result is that though most people are aware of the

existence of Untouchability among the Hindus they do not know what

are its unique features. A definite idea of its unique and distinguish-

ing features is however essential not merely for a real understanding

of the position of the Untouchables but also as the best means of

emphasising the need of investigating into their origin.

It is well to begin by examining how the matter stood in Primitive

and Ancient Societies. Did they recognize Untouchability? At the

outset it is necessary to have a clear idea as to what is meant by

Untouchability. On this point, there can be no difference of opinion.

It will be agreed on all hands that what underlies Untouchability

is the notion of defilement, pollution, contamination and the ways

and means of getting rid of that defilement.

Examining the social life of Primitive Society1 in order to find out

whether or not it recognized Untouchability in the sense mentioned

above there can be no doubt that Primitive Society not only did

believe in the notion of defilement but the belief had given rise to

a live system of well-defined body of rites and rituals.

1 The facts relating to pollution among non-Hindus are drawn from “Hastings

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics”, Vol. X, Article Purification, pp. 455-504.



Primitive Man believed that defilement was caused by

(1) the occurrences of certain events;

(2) contact with certain things; and

(3) contact with certain persons.

Primitive Man also believed in the transmission of evil from oneperson to another. To him the danger of such transmission waspeculiarly acute at particular times such as the performance ofnatural functions, eating, drinking, etc. Among the events theoccurrence of which was held by Primitive Man as certain to causedefilement included the following :—

(1) Birth

(2) Initiation

(3) Puberty

(4) Marriage

(5) Cohabitation

(6) Death

Expectant mothers were regarded as impure and a source of

defilement to others. The impurity of the mother extended to the childalso.

Initiation and puberty are stages which mark the introduction ofthe male and the female to full sexual and social life. They were

required to observe seclusion, a special diet, frequent ablutions, useof pigment for the body and bodily mutilation such as circumcision.Among the American Tribes not only did the initiates observe aspecial dietary but also took an emetic at regular intervals.

The ceremonies which accompanied marriage show that marriagewas regarded by the Primitive Man as impure. In some cases thebride was required to undergo intercourse by men of the tribe asin Australia or by the chief or the medicine man of the tribe as inAmerica or by the friends of the grooms as among the East AfricanTribes. In some cases there takes place the tapping of the bride bya sword by the bridegroom. In some cases, as among the Mundas,there takes place marriage to a tree before marriage with thebridegroom. All these marriage observances are intended to neutralizeand prepare the individual against the impurity of marriage.

To the Primitive Man the worst form of pollution was death. Notonly the corpse, but the possession of the belongings of the deceasedwere regarded as infected with pollution. The widespread custom ofplacing implements, weapons, etc., in the grave along with the corpse



indicates that their use by others was regarded as dangerous and

unlucky.

Turning to pollution arising out of contact with objects Primitive

Man had learned to regard certain objects as sacred and certain

others as profane. For a person to touch the sacred was to contami-

nate the sacred and to cause pollution to it. A most striking example

of the separation of the sacred and the profane in Primitive Society

is to be found among the Todas, the whole of whose elaborate ritual

and (it would not be too much to say) the whole basis of whose social

organisation is directed towards securing the ceremonial purity of the

sacred herds, the sacred dairy, the vessels, and the milk, and of those

whose duty it is to perform connected rites and rituals. In the dairy,

the sacred vessels are always kept in a separate room and the milk

reaches them only by transfer to and fro of an intermediate vessel

kept in another room. The dairyman, who is also the priest, is

admitted to office only after an elaborate ordination, which in effect

is a purification. He is thereby removed from the rank of ordinary

men to a state of fitness for sacred office. His conduct is governed

by regulations such as those which permit him to sleep in the village

and only at certain times, or that which entails that a dairyman who

attends a funeral should cease from that time to perform his sacred

function. It has, therefore, been conjectured that the aim of much

of the ritual is to avert the dangers of profanation and prepare or

neutralise the sacred substance for consumption by those who are

themselves unclean.

The notion of the sacred was not necessarily confined to objects.

There were certain classes of men who were sacred. For a person

to touch them was to cause pollution. Among the Polynesians, the

tabu character of a Chief is violated by the touch of an inferior,

although in this case the danger falls upon the inferior. On the other

hand, in Efate, the ‘sacred man’ who comes into contact with Namin

(ceremonial uncleanliness) destroys his sacredness. In Uganda, before

building a temple, the men were given four days in which to purify

themselves. On the other hand, the Chief and his belongings are very

often regarded as sacred and, therefore, as dangerous to others of

an inferior rank. In the Tonga island, anyone who touches a Chief

contacted tabu; it was removed by touching the sole of the foot of

a superior chief. The sacred quality of the chief in Malaya Peninsula

also resided in the Royal Regalia and anyone touching it was invited

with serious illness or death.



Contact with strange people was also regarded as a source of

Untouchability by the Primitive Man. Among the Bathonga, a tribe

in South Africa, it is belived that those who travel outside their own

country are peculiarly open to danger from the influence of foreign

spirits and in particular from demoniac possession. Strangers are

tabu because, worshipping strange gods, they bring strange influence

with them. They are, therefore, fumigated or purified in some other

way. In the Dieri and neighbouring tribes even a member of the tribe

returning home after a journey was treated as a stranger and no

notice was taken of him until he sat down.

The danger of entering a new country is as great as that which

attaches to those who come from thence. In Australia, when one tribe

approaches another, the members carry lighted sticks to purify the

air, just as the Spartan kings in making war had sacred fires from

the altar carried before them to the frontier.

In the same manner, those entering a house from the outside world

were required to perform some ceremony, even if it were only to

remove their shoes, which would purify the incomer from the evil

with which otherwise he might contaminate those within, while the

threshold, door-posts and lintel—important as points of contact with

outer world—are smeared with blood or sprinkled with water when

any member of household or of the community has become a source

of pollution, or a horse-shoe is suspended over the door to keep out

evil and bring goodluck.

Of course, the rites and ceremonies connected with birth, death,

marriage, etc., do not positively and unequivocally suggest that they

were regarded as sources of pollution. But that pollution is one

element among many others is indicated by the fact that in every

case there is segregation. There is segregation and isolation in birth,

initiation, marriage, death and in dealing with the sacred and the

strange.

In birth the mother is segregated. At puberty and initiation there

is segregation and seclusion for a period. In marriage, from the time

of betrothal until the actual ceremony bride and bride-groom do not

meet. In menstruation a woman is subjected to segregation. Segre-

gation is most noticeable in the case of death. There is not only

isolation of the dead-body but there is isolation of all the relatives

of the dead from the rest of the community. This segregation is

evidenced by the growth of hair and nail and wearing of old clothes

by the relatives of the dead which show that they are not served by



the rest of the society such as the barber, washerman, etc. The period

of segregation and the range of segregation differ in the case of death

but the fact of segregation is beyond dispute. In the case of defilement

of the sacred by the profane or of defilement of the kindred or by

intercourse with the non-kindred there is also the element of

segregation. The profane must keep away from the sacred. So the

kindred must keep away from the non-kindred. It is thus clear that

in Primitive Society pollution involved segregation of the polluting

agent.

Along with the development of the notion of defilement, Primitive

Society had developed certain purificatory media and purificatory

ceremonies for dispelling impurity.

Among the agents used for dispelling impurity are water and blood.

The sprinkling of water and the sprinkling of blood by the person

defiled were enough to make him pure. Among purificatory rites were

included changing of clothes, cutting hair, nail, etc., sweat-bath, fire,

fumigation, burning of incense and fanning with the bough of a tree.

These were the means of removing impurity. But Primitive Society

had another method of getting rid of impurity. This was to transfer

it to another person. It was transferred to some one who was already

tabu.

In New Zealand, if anyone touched the head of another, the head

being a peculiarly ‘sacred’ part of the body, he became tabu. He

purified himself by rubbing his hands on fernroot, which was then

eaten by the head of the family in female line. In Tonga, if a man

ate tabued food he saved himself from the evil consequences by having

the foot of a chief placed on his stomach.

The idea of transmission also appears in the custom of the

scapegoat. In Fiji, a tabued person wiped his hands on a pig, which

became sacred to the chief, while in Uganda, at the end of the period

of mourning for a king a ‘scapegoat’ along with a cow, a goat, a dog,

a fowl and the dust and fire from the king’s house was conveyed to

the Bunyoro frontier, and there the animals were maimed and left

to die. This practice was held to remove all uncleanliness from the

king and queen.

Such are the facts relating to the notion of pollution as it prevailed

in Primitive Society.



Turning to Ancient Society the notion of pollution prevalent

therein was not materially different from what was prevalent in

Primitive Society. There is difference as to the sources of pollution.

There is difference regarding purificatory ceremonies. But barring

these differences the pattern of pollution and purification in Primi-

tive and Ancient Society is the same.

Comparing the Egyptian system of pollution with the Primitive

system there is no difference except that in Egypt it was practised

on an elaborate scale.

Among the Greeks the causes of impurity were bloodshed, the

presence of ghost and contact with death, sexual intercourse, child-

birth, the evacuation of the body, the eating of certain food such as

pea-soup, cheese and garlic, the intrusion of unauthorised persons

into holy places, and, in certain circumstances, foul speech and

quarrelling. The purificatory means, usually called kaopoia by Greeks,

were lustral water, sulphur, onions, fumigation and fire, incense,

certain boughs and other vegetative growths, pitch, wool, certain

stones and amulets, bright things like sunlight and gold, sacrificed

animals, especially the pig and of these specially the blood and the

skin; finally, certain festivals and festival rites particularly the ritual

of cursing and the scapegoat. One unusual method was the cutting

of the hair of the polluted person or sacrificial communion with the

deity.

A striking feature of the Roman notion of pollution and

purification is to be found in the belief of territorial and communal

pollution and purification. Parallel to the lustratio of the house is

the periodical purificatory ritual applied to a country district (Pagi).

The lustractio pagi consisted in a religious procession right round

its boundaries, with sacrifice. There seems to have been in ancient

days a similar procession round the walls of the city, called amburbium.

In historical times special purification of the City was carried out

when a calamity called for it, e.g.’ after the early disasters in the

Second Punic War. The object of all such expiations was to seek

reconciliation with the gods. Lustral ceremony accompanied the

foundation of a colony. The Therminalia protective of boundaries, and

the Compitalia of streets in the City were also probably lustral in

their origin. Down to the late period, priests called Luperci peram-

bulated in the boundaries of the earliest Rome, the settlement on

the Palatinate. Earlier there was an annual solemn progress round



the limits of the most ancient territory of the Primitive City. It was

led by the Archaic priesthood called the Arval brotherhood. The

ceremony was called ambravalia and it was distinctly piacular. When

Roman territory was expanded no corresponding extension of the

lustral rite seems ever to have been made. These round-about piacular

surveys were common elsewhere, inside as well as outside Italy and

particularly in Greece. The solemn words and prayers of the tradi-

tional chant, duly gone through without slip of tongue, seem to have

had a sort of magical effect. Any error in the pronouncement of these

forms would involve a need of reparation, just as in the earliest

Roman legal system, the mispronunciation of the established verbal

forms would bring loss of the lawsuit.

Other forms of quaint ancient ritual were connected with the

piacular conception. The Salii, ancient priests of Mars, made a

journey at certain times round a number of stations in the City. They

also had a ‘cleaning of the weapons’ and a ‘cleaning of the trumpets’

which testify to a primitive notion that the efficiency of the army’s

weapons required purification. The ‘washing’ (lustrum) with which the

census ended was in essence military; for it was connected with the

Comitia Centuriata, which is merely the army in civil garb. Lustratio

exercitus was often performed when the army was in the field, to

remove superstitious dread which sometimes attacked it at other

times, it was merely prophylactic. There was also a lustration of the

fleet.

Like all Primitive people the Hebrews also entertained the notion

of defilement. The special feature of their notion of defilement was

the belief that defilement was also caused by contact with the carcass

of unclean animals, by eating a carcass or by contact with creeping

things, or by eating creeping things and by contact with animals

which are always unclean such as “every beast which divideth the

hoof, and is not cloven footed, nor cheweth the cud...whatsoever goeth

upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four”.

Contact with any unclean person was also defilement to the Hebrews.

Two other special features of the Hebrew notion of defilement may

be mentioned. The Hebrews believed that defilement might be caused

to persons by idolatrous practices or to a land by the sexual impurities

of the people.

On the basis of this survey, we can safely conclude that there are

no people Primitive or Ancient who did not entertain the notion of

pollution.



CHAPTER II

UNTOUCHABILITY AMONG HINDUS

IN the matter of pollution there is nothing to distinguish the Hindus

from the Primitive or Ancient peoples. That they recognized pollution

is abundantly clear from the Manu Smriti. Manu recognises physical

defilement and also notional defilement.

Manu treated birth,1 death and menstruation2 as sources of

impurity. With regard to death, defilement was very extensive in its

range. It followed the rule of consanguinity. Death caused difilement

to members of the family of the dead person technically called

Sapindas and Samanodakas? It not only included maternal relatives

such as maternal uncle4 but also remote relatives.5 It extended even

to nonrelatives such as (1) teacher6, (2) teacher’s7 son, (3) teacher’s8

wife, (4) pupil,9 (5) fellow10 student, (6) Shrotriya,11 (7) king,12 (8)

friend,13 (9) members of the household,14 (10) those who carried the

corpse,15 and (11) those who touched the corpse.16

Anyone within the range of defilement could not escape it. There

were only certain persons who were exempt. In the following verses

Manu names them and specifies the reasons why he exempts them :—

1. Chapter V. 58, 61- 63, 71, 77, 79.

2. Chapter III, 45-46 : IV 40-41, 57, 208 ; V. 66,85,108.

3. Chapter V. 58, 60, 75-77, 83-94.

4. Chapter V. 81.

5. Chapter V. 78.

6. Chapter V. 65, 80, 82.

7. Chapter V. 80.

8. Chapter V. 80.

9. Chapter V. 81.

10. Chapter V. 71.

11. Chapter V. 81.

12. Chapter V. 82.

13. Chapter V. 82.

14. Chapter V. 81.

15. Chapter V. 64-65, 85.

16. Chapter V. 64, 85


THE UNTOUCHABLES : UNTOUCHABILITY AMONG HINDUS 257

“V.93. The taint of impurity does not fall on kings and those engaged

in the performance of a vow, or of a Sattra; for the first are seated

on the throne of India, and the (last two are) ever pure like

Brahman.

94. For a king, on the throne of magnanimity, immediate purification

is prescribed, and the reason for that is that he is seated (there)

for the protection of (his) subjects.

95. (The same rule applies to the kinsmen) of those who have fallen

in a riot or a battle, (of those who have been killed) by lightning

or by the king, and for cows and Brahmins, and to those whom

the king wishes to be pure (in spite of impurity).

96. A king is an incarnation of the eight guardian deities of the world,

the Moon, the Fire, the Sun, the Wind, Indra, the Lords of wealth

and water (Kubera and Varuna) and Yama.

97. Because the king is pervaded by those lords of the world, no

impurity is ordained for him for purity and impurity of mortals

is caused and removed by those lords of the world.”

From this it is clear that the king, the kinsmen of those who have

fallen in a noble cause as defined by Manu and those whom the king

chose to exempt were not affected by the normal rules of defilement.

Manu’s statement that the Brahmin was ‘ever pure’ must be under-

stood in its usual sense of exhalting the Brahmin above everything.

It must not be understood to mean that the Brahmin was free from

defilement. For he was not. Indeed besides being defiled by births

and deaths the Brahmin also suffered defilement on grounds which

did not affect the Non-Brahmins. The Manu Smriti is full of tabus

and don’ts which affect only the Brahmins and which he must observe

and failure to observe which makes him impure.

The idea of defilement in Manu is real and not merely notional.

For he makes the food offered by the polluted person unacceptable.

Manu also prescribes the period of defilement. It varies. For the

death of a Sapinda it is ten days. For children three days. For fellow

students one day. Defilement does not vanish by the mere lapse of

the prescribed period. At the end of the period there must be

performed a purificatory ceremony appropriate to the occasion.

For the purposes of purification Manu treats the subject of

defilement from three aspects : (1) Physical defilement, (2) notional



or psychological defilement, and (3) ethical defilement. The rule1 forthe purification of ethical defilement which occurs when a personentertains evil thoughts are more admonitions and exhortations. Butthe rites for the removal of notional and physical defilement are thesame. They include the use of water.2 earth.3 cow’s urine,4 the kusagrass5 and ashes.6 Earth, cow’s urine, Kusa grass and ashes areprescribed as purificatory agents for removing physical impuritiescaused by the touch of inanimate objects. Water is the chief agentfor the removal of notional defilement. It is used in three ways (1)sipping, (2) bath, and (3) ablution.7 Later on panchagavya becamethe most important agency for removing notional defilement. Itconsists of a mixture of the five products of the cow, namely, milk,urine, dung, curds and butter.

In Manu there is also provision for getting rid of defilement bytransmission through a scapegoat8 namely by touching the cow orlooking at the sun after sipping water.

Besides the individual pollution the Hindus believe also in terri-torial and communal pollution and purification very much like thesystem that prevailed among the early Romans. Every village hasan annual jatra. An animal, generally a he buffalo, is purchased onbehalf of the village. The animal is taken round the village and issacrificed, the blood is sprinkled round the village and towards theend toe meat is distributed among the villagers. Every Hindu, everyBrahmin even though he may not be a beef eater is bound to accepthis share of the meat. This is not mentioned in any of the Smritisbut it has the sanction of custom which among the Hindus is so strongthat it always overrides law.

II

If one could stop here, one could well say that the notion ofdefilement prevalent among the Hindus is not different from thatwhich obtained in Primitive and in Ancient Societies. But one cannotstop here. For there is another form of Untouchability observed by

1. Chapter V. 105-109; 127-128.

2. Chapter V. 127.

3. Chapter V. 134-136.

4. Chapter V. 121, 124.

5. Chapter V. 115.

6. Chapter V. 111.

7. Chapter V. 143.

8. Chapter V. 87.



the Hindus which has not yet been set out. It is the hereditaryUntouchability of certain communities. So vast is the list of suchcommunities that it would be difficult for an individual with his unaidedeffort to compile an exhaustive list. Fortunately such a list was preparedby the Government of India in 1935 and is attached to the Orders-in-Council issued under the Government of India Act of 1935. To thisOrder-in-Council there is attached a Schedule. The Schedule is dividedinto nine parts. One part refers to one province and enumerates thecastes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within steps which aredeemed to be Untouchables in that province either in the whole of thatprovince or part thereof. The list may be taken to be both exhaustiveand authentic. To give an idea of the vast number of communities whichare regarded as hereditary Untouchables by the Hindus. I reproducebelow the list given in the Order-in-Council.

SCHEDULE

PART I. - MADRAS

(1) Scheduled Castes throughout the Province :—

Adi-Andhra. Gosangi. Paidi.

Adi-Dravida. Haddi Painda.

Adi-Karnataka. Hasla Paky.

Ajila. Holeya. Pallan.

Arunthuthiyar. Jaggali. Pambada.

Baira. Jambuvulu. Pamidi.

Bakuda. Kalladi Panchama.

Bandi. Kanakkan Paniyan.

Bariki. Kodalo. Panniandi.

Battada. Koosa. Paraiyan.

Bavuri Koraga. Parvan.

Bellara. Kudumban Pulayan.

Bygari Kuravan. Puthirai Vanan.

Chachati. Madari. Raneyar.

Chakkiliyan. Madiga. Relli.

Chalvadi. Maila Samagara.

Chamar. Mala. Samban

Chandala. Mala Dasu. Sapari.

Cheruman. Matangi. Semman.

Dandasi. Moger. Thoti.

Devendrakulathan. Muchi. Tiruvalluvar.

Ghasi. Mundala. Valluvan.

Godagali. Nalakcyava. Valmiki.

Godari. Nayadi. Vettuvan.

Godda. Paga dai



(2) Scheduled Castes throughout the Provinces except in any specialconstituency constituted under the Government of India Act, 1935, forthe election of a representative of backward areas and backward tribesto the Legislative Assembly of the Province :—

Arnadan. Kattunayakan. Kuruman.

Dombo. Kudiya. Malasar.

Kadan. Kudubi. Mavilan.

Karimpalan. Kurichchan. Pano.

PART II.—BOMBAY

Scheduled Castes :—

(1) Throughout the Province :—

Asodi. Dhor. Mang Garudi.

Bakad. Garode. Maghval, or Menghwar.

Bhambi. Halleer. Mini Madig.

Bhangi. Halsar, or Haslar. Mukri.

Chakrawadya-Dasar. Hulsavar. Nadia.

Chalvadi. Holaya. Shenva, or Shindhava.

Chambhar, or Mochigar, or Khalpa. Shinghdav, or Shingadya.

Samagar. Kolcha, or Kolgha. Sochi.

Chena-Dasaru. Koli-Dhor. Timali.

Chuhar, or Chuhra. Lingader. Turi.

Dakaleru. Madig, or Mang. Vankar.

Dhed. Mahar. Vitholia.

Dhegu-Megu.

(2) Throughout the Province except in the Ahmedabad, Kaira, Broachand Panch Mahals and Surat Districts—Mochi.

(3) In the Kanara district—Kotegar.

PART III.—BENGAL

Scheduled Castes throughout the Province :—

Agaria. Bhumij. Gonrhi.

Bagdi. Bind. Hadi.

Bahelia. Binjhia. Hajang.

Baiti. Chamar. Halalkhor.

Bauri. Dhcnuar. Hari.

Bediya. Dhoba. Ho.

Beldar. Doai. Jalia Kaibartta.

Berua. Dom. Jhalo Malo, or Malo.

Bhatiya. Dosadh. Kadar.

Bhuimali. Garo. Kalpahariya.

Bhuiya. Ghasi. Kan.



Kandh. Lodha. Oraon.

Kandra. Lahor. Paliya.

Kaora. Mahli. Pan.

Kapuria. Mai. Pasi.

Karenga. Mahar. Patni.

Kastha. Mallah. Pod.

Kaur. Mech. Rabha.

Khaira. Mehtor. Rajbanshi.

Khatik. Muchi. Rajwar.

Koch. Munda. Santal.

Konai. Musahar. Sunri.

Konwar. Nagesia. Tiyar.

Kora. Namasudra. Turi.

Kotal. Nat.

Lalbegi, Nuniya.

PART IV.—UNITED PROVINCES



Agariva. Chamar. Kharwar (except

Aheriya. Chero. Benbansi)

Badi. Dabagar. Khatik.

Badhik. Dhangar. Kol.

Baheliya. Dhanuk (Bhangi). Korwa.

Bajaniya. Dharkar. Lalbegi.

Bajgi. Dhobi. Majhawar.

Balahar. Dom. Nat.

Balmiki. Domar. Pankha.

Banmanus. Gharami. Parahiya.

Bansphor. Ghasiya. Pasi.

Barwar. Gual. Patari.

Basor. Habura. Rawat.

Bawariya. Hari. Saharya.

Beldar. Hela. Sanaurhiya.

Bengali. Khairaha. Sansiya.

Berya. Kalabaz. Shilpkar.

Bhantu. Kanjar. Tharu.

Bhuiya. Kapariya. Turaiha.

Bhuiyar. Karwal.

Boriya. Kharot.

(2) Throughout the Province except in the Agra, .Meerut and

Rohilkhand divisions—Kori.



PART V—PUNJAB

Scheduled Castes throughout the Province :—

Ad Dharmis. Marija, or Marecha. Khatik.

Bawaria. Bengali. Kori.

Chamar. Barar. Nat.

Chuhra, or Balmiki. Bazigar. Pasi.

Dagi and Koli. Bhanjra. Perna.

Dhumna. Chanal. Sepela.

Od. Dhanak. Sirkiband.

Sansi. Gagra. Megha.

Sarera. Gandhila. Ramdasis.

PART VI.—BIHAR



Chamar. Halalkhor. Mochi.

Chaupal. Hari. Musahar.

Dhobi. Kanjar. Nat.

Dusadh. Kurariar. Pasi

Dom. Lalbegi.

(2) In the Patna and Tirhut divisions and the Bhagalpur, Monghyr,Palamau and Purnea districts :—

Bauri. Bhumij. Rajwar.

Bhogta. Ghasi. Turi.

Bhauya. Pan.

(3) In the Dhanbad sub-division of the Manbhum district and theCentral Manbhum general rural constituency, and the Purulia andRaghunathpur municipalities :—

Bauri. Ghasi. Rajwar.

Bhogta. Pan. Turi.

Bhuiya.

PART VH.—CENTRAL PROVINCES AND BERAR

Scheduled Castes Localities

Basor, or Burud .. )Chamar .. )Dom .. )Ganda ) Throughout the Province.Mang .. )Mehtar or Bhangi )Mochi .. )Satnami .. )Audhelia .. In the Bilaspur district.

Bahna .. In the Amraoti district




Balahi, or Balai. .. In the Berar division and the Balaghat, Bhandara Belul,Chanda, Chhindwara, Hoshangabad, Jabbulpore,Mandla, Nagpur, Nimar, Saugor and Wardha districts.

Bedar .. In the Akola, Amraoti and Buldhana districts.

Chadar .. In the Bhandara and Saugor districts.

Chauhan .. In the Durg district.

Dahayat .. In the Damoh sub-division of the Saugor district.

Dewar .. In the Bilaspur, Durg and Raipur districts.

Dhanuk .. In the Saugor district, except in the Damoh sub-divisionthereof.

Dhimar .. In the Bhandara district.

Dhobi .. In the Bhandara, Bilaspur, Raipur and Saugor districtsand the Hoshangabad and Seoni-Malwa tahsils of theHoshangabad district.

Dohar .. In the Berar division and the Balaghat, Bhandara,Chanda, Nagpur and Wardha districts.

Ghasia .. In the Berar division and in the Balaghat, Bhandara,Bilsaspur, Chanda, Durg, Nagpur, Raipur and Wardhadistricts.

Holiya .. In the Balaghat and Bhandara districts.

Jangam .. In the Bhandara district.

Kaikari .. In the Berar division, and in Bhandara, Chanda, Nagpurand Wardha districts.

Katia .. In the Berar division, in the Balaghat, Betul, Bhandara,Bilaspur, Chanda, Durg, Nagpur, Nimar, Raipur andWardha districts, in the Hoshangabad and Seoni-Malwa tahsils of the Hoshangabad district, in theChhindwara district, except in the Seoni sub-divisionthereof, and in the Saugor district, except in theDamoh sub-division thereof.

Khangar .. In the Bhadara, Buldhana and Saugor districts and theHoshangabad and Seoni Malwa tahsils of theHoshangabad district.

Khatik .. In the Berar division, in the Balaghat, Bhandara,Chanda, Nagpur and Wardha districts, in theHoshangabad tahsil of the Hoshangabad district, inthe Chhindwara district, except in the Seoni sub-division thereof, and in the Saugor district, except inthe Damoh sub-division thereof.

Koli .. In the Bhandara and Chanda districts.

Kori .. In the Amraoti, Balaghat, Betul, Bhandara, Buldhana,Chhindwara, Jubbulpore, Mandla, Nimar, Raipur andSaugor districts, and in the Hoshangabad district,except in the Harda and Sohagpur tahsils thereof.

Kumhar .. In the Bhandara and Saugor districts and theHoshangabad and Seoni-Malwa tahsils of theHoshangabad district.



Madgi .. In the Berar division and in the Balaghat, Bhandara,Chanda, Nagpur and Wardha districts.

Mala .. In the Balaghat, Betul, Chhindwara, Hoshangabad,Jubbulpore Mandla, Nimar and Saugor districts.

Mehra or Mahar .. Throughout the Province, except in the Harda andSohagpur tahsils of the Hoshangabad district.

Nagarchi .. In the Balaghat, Bhandara, Chhindwara, Mandla, Nagpurand Raipur districts.

Ojha .. In the Balaghat, Bhandara and Mandla districts and theHoshangabad tahsil of the Hoshangabad district

Panka .. In the Berar division, in the Balaghat, Bhandara,Bilaspur, Chanda, Durg, Nagpur, Raipur, Saugor andWardha districts and in the Chhindwara district,except in the Seoni subdivison thereof.

Pardhi .. In the Narsinghpura sub-division of the Hoshangabaddistrict.

Pradhan .. In the Berar division, in the Bhandara, Chanda, Nagpur,Nimar, Raipur and Wardha districts and in theChhaindwara district, except in the Seoni sub-divisionthereof.

Rajjhar .. In the Sohagpur tahsil of the Hoshangabad district

PART VIII. - ASSAM

Scheduled Castes :-

(1) In the Assam Valley :-

Namasudra. Hira. Mchtar, or Bhangi.

Kaibartta. Lalbegi. Bansphor.

Bania, or Brittial-Bania.

(2) In the Surma Valley :-

Mali, or Bhuimali. Sutradhar. Kaibartta, or Jaliya.

Dhupi, or Dhobi. Muchi. Lalbegi.

Dugla, or Dholi. Patni. Mehtar, or Bhangi.

Jhalo and Malo, Namasudra. Bansphor.Mahara.

PART IX. - ORISSA

Scheduled Castes :-

(1) Throughout the Province :-

Adi-Andhra. Chamar. Ghusuria.

Audhelia. Chandala. Godagali.

Bariki. Dandasi. Godari.

Bansor, or Burud. Dewar. Godra.

Bavuri. Dhoba or Dhobi. Gokha.

Chachati. Ganda. Haddi, or Hari.




Irika. Mala. Panchama.

Jaggali. Mang. Panka

Kandra. Mangan. Relli.

Katia. Mehra, or Mahar. Sapari.

Kela. Mehtar, or Bhangi. Satnami.

Kodalo. Mochi or Muchi. Siyal.

Madari. Paidi. Valmiki.

Madiga. Painda.

Mahuria. Pamidi.

(2) Throughout the Province except in the Khondmals district, thedistrict of Sambalpur and the areas transferred to Orissa under theprovisions of the Government of India (Constitution of Orissa) Order,1936, from the Vizagapatam and Ganjam Agencies in the Presidencyof Madras :-

Pan, or Pano.

(3) Throughout the Province except in the Khondmals district andthe areas so transferred to Orissa from the said Agencies :-

Dom, or Dambo.

(4) Throughout the Province except in the district of Sambalpur :

Bauro. Bhumij. Turi.

Bhuiya. Ghasi, or Ghasia.

(5) In the Nawapara sub-division of the district of Sambalpur :-

Kori. Nagarchi. Pradhan.

This is a very terrifying list. It includes 429 communities. Reducedto numbers it means that today there exist in India 50-60 millions

of people whose mere touch causes pollution to the Hindus. Surely,the phenomenon of Untouchability among primitive and ancientsociety pales into insignificance before this phenomenon of hereditaryUntouchability for so many millions of people which we find in India.This type of Untouchability among Hindus stands in a class by itself.It has no parallel in the history of the world. It is unparalleled notmerely by reason of the colossal numbers involved which exceed thenumber of great many nations in Asia and in Europe but also onother grounds.

There are some striking features of the Hindu system of Untouch-ability affecting the 429 Untouchable communities which are not tobe found in the custom of Untouchability as observed by Non- Hinducommunites, primitive or ancient.

The isolation prescribed by Non-Hindu societies as a safeguard

against defilement, if it is not rational, is at least understandable. It



is for specified reasons such as birth, marriage, death, etc., But the

isolation prescribed by Hindu society is apparently for no cause.

Defilement as observed by the Primitive Society was of a temporary

duration which arose during particular times such as the performance

of natural functions, eating, drinking, etc. or a natural crisis in the

life of the individual such, as birth, death, menstruation, etc. After

the period of defilement was over and after the purificatory ceremo-

nies were performed the defilement vanished and the individual

became pure and associable. But the impurity of the 50-60 millions

of the Untouchables of India, quite unlike the impurity arising from

birth, death, etc., is permanent. The Hindus who touch them and

become polluted thereby can become pure by undergoing purificatory

ceremonies. But there is nothing which can make the Untouchables

pure. They are born impure, they are impure while they live, they

die the death of the impure, and they give birth to children who are

born with the stigma of Untouchability affixed to them. It is a case

of permanent, hereditary stain which nothing can cleanse.

In the third place, Non-Hindu societies which believed in defilement

isolated the individuals affected or at the most those closely connected

with them. But the Untouchability among the Hindus involves the

isolation of a class-a class which today numbers about 50 to 60 million

people.

In the fourth place, Non-Hindu societies only isolated the affected

individuals. They did not segregate them in separate quarters. The

Hindu society insists on segregation of the Untouchables. The Hindu

will not live in the quarters of the Untouchables and will not allow

the Untouchables to live inside Hindu quarters. This is a fundamental

feature of Untouchability as it is practised by the Hindus. It is not

a case of social separation, a mere stoppage of social intercourse for

a temporary period. It is a case of territorial segregation and of a

cordon sanitaire putting the impure people inside a barbed wire into

a sort of a cage. Every Hindu village has a ghetto. The Hindus live

in the village and the Untouchables in the ghetto.

Such is the Hindu system of Untouchability. Who can deny that it

is not altogether different from what is found to exist among Non-

Hindu societies? That Untouchability among Hindus is a unique

phenomenon is beyond question. Persons were treated by non-Hindu

communities as impure but as individuals. Never a whole class was

treated as impure. But their impurity was of a temporary duration and

was curable by the performance of some purificatory rites. There has



never been a case of permanent impunity based on the rule ‘once

impure always impure’. Persons were treated as impure by Non-Hindu

Communities and they were even cut off from social intercourse. But

there has never been a case of persons having been put into

permanent segregation camps. A whole body of people have been

treated as impure by Non-Hindu communities. But they were strang-

ers outside the fold of the kindred. There has never been a case of

a people treating a section of their own people as permanently and

hereditarily impure.

Untouchability among Hindus is thus a unique phenomenon,

unknown to humanity in other parts of the world. Nothing like it

is to be found in any other society- primitive, ancient or modern. The

many problems that arise out of a study of Untouchability and which

call for investigation may be reduced to two :

(1) Why do the Untouchables live outside the village?

(2) What made their impurity permanent, and ineradicable?

The following pages are devoted to finding answers to these two

questions.



BLANK


THE UNTOUCHABLES : WHY DO THE..... VILLAGE ? 269

PART II

PROBLEM OF HABITAT

Chapter III. Why do the Untouchables Live Outside the Village ?

Chapter IV. Are the Untouchables Broken Men ?

Chapter V. Are there Parallel Cases ?

Chapter VI. How did Separate Settlements for Broken Men

Disappear Elsewhere ?



BLANK



CHAPTER III

WHY DO THE UNTOUCHABLES LIVE

OUTSIDE THE VILLAGE ?

THAT the Untouchables live outside the village is so notorious a fact

that it must be taken to be within the cognizance even of those whose

knowledge about them is not very profound. Yet, nobody has thought

that this was a serious question calling for satisfactory answer. How

did the Untouchables come to live outside the village? Were they

declared to be Untouchables first and then deported out of the village

and made to live outside? Or were they from the very beginning living

outside the village and were subsequently declared to be Untouch-

ables? If the answer is that they were living outside the village from

the very beginning, there arises a further question, namely, what can

be the reason for it ?

As the question of the separate settlement of the Untouchables has

never been raised before, naturally there exists no theory as to how

the Untouchables came to live outside the village. There is, of course,

the view of the Hindu Shastras and if one wants to dignify it by

calling it a theory one may do so. The Shastras of course say that

the Antyajas should live and have their abode outside the village.

For instance, Manu says :

“X. 51. But the dwellings of the Chandalas and the Shvapakas

shall be outside the village, they must be made Apapatras

and their wealth (shall be) dogs and donkeys.

X. 52. Their dress (shall be) the garments of the dead, (they

shall eat) their food from broken dishes, black iron

(shall be) their ornaments and they must always wander

from place to place.

X. 53. A man who fulfils a religious duty, shall not seek

intercourse with them; their transactions (shall be)

among themselves and their marriages with their

equals.



X. 54. Their food shall be given to them by others (than an

Aryan giver) in a broken dish; at night they shall not

walk about in village and in towns.

X. 55. By day they may go about for the purpose of their work,

distinguished by marks at king’s command, and they

shall carry out the corpses (of persons) who have no

relatives; that is a settled rule.

X. 56. By the King’s order they shall always execute the

criminals, in accordance with the law, and they shall

take for themselves the clothes, the beds, and the

ornaments of (such) criminals.”

But what conclusion can one draw from these statements of the

Shastras? They are capable of double interpretation. When the

Shastras say that the Untouchables should stay outside the village,

they may be purporting to say no more than that the Untouchables

should stay where they have been staying, i.e. outside the village.

This is one interpretation. The second interpretation is that those

who are declared Untouchables should not be allowed to stay inside

the village but should be required to go out of the village and live

outside. Following up the alternate interpretations of the Shastras

there are two different possibilities which call for consideration. One

is that the Untouchability has nothing to do with the Untouchables

living outside the village. From the very beginning they lived outside

the village. Thereafter when the stigma of Untouchability fell on them

they were prohibited from coming to live inside the village. The other

possibility is that Untouchability has everything to do with the

Untouchables, living outside the village. In other words, the Untouch-

ables originally lived inside the village and that thereafter when the

stigma of untouchability fell on them they were forced to vacate and

live outside the village.

Which of the two possibilities is more acceptable?

The second possibility is on the face of it absurd and fantastic.

One argument is quite enough to expose its absurdity. The phenom-

enon we are discussing is not confined to a single village or single

area. It exists all over India. The transplantation of the Untouchables

from within, the village to outside the village is a vast operation. How

and who could have carried on an operation of such colossal dimensions?

It could not have been carried out except by the command of an

Emperor having his sway over the whole of India. Even to him such



a transplantation would have been impossible. But possible and

impossible it can only be the work of an Emperor. Who is the Emperor

to whom the credit or discredit of this task can be assigned?

Obviously, India had no Emperor to perform this task. If there was

no Emperor to do the transplantation, then the second possibility

must be abandoned.

That those who are called Untouchables lived outside the village

from the very beginning even before they became Untouchables and

that they continued to live outside the village because of the

supervention of untouchability at a later stage is the only possibility

worth consideration. But this raises a very difficult question: Why

did they live outside the village? What made them or forced them

to do so? The answer is that having regard to the factors which are

known to students of Sociology to have influenced the transformation

of Primitive Society into Modern Society all over the world it is only

natural to suppose that the Untouchables should have from the

beginning lived outside the village.

Not many will realise why this is natural without some explanation

of the factors which have affected the condition of Primitive Society

into Modern Society. For a clear understanding of the matter it is

necessary to bear in mind that Modern Society differs from Primitive

Society in two respects. Primitive Society consisted of nomadic

communities while Modern Society consists of settled communities.

Secondly, Primitive Society consisted of tribal communities based on

blood relationship. Modern Society consists of local communities

based on territorial affiliation. In other words there are two lines

of evolution along which Primitive Society has proceeded before it

became transformed into Modern Society. One line of evolution has

led the Primitive Society to become a territorial community from

being a tribal community. There can be no doubt that such a change

has taken place. Clear traces of the change are to be seen in the

official style of kings. Take the style of the English kings. King John

was the first to call himself the king of England. His predecessors

commonly called themselves kings of the English. The former

represent a territorial community. The latter represent a tribal

community. England was once the country which Englishmen inhab-

ited. Englishmen are now the people who inhabit England. The same

transformation can be seen to have taken place in the style of the

French kings who were once called kings of the Franks and later

as kings of France. The second line of evolution had led Primitive



Society to become a settled community instead of the Nomadic

community which it was. Here again, the change is so definite and

so impressive that no illustration is required to convince anybody of

its reality.

For the purpose in hand all we need is to confine ourselves to a

consideration of the second line of evolution. How did Primitive

Society become a settled community? The story of how Primitive

Society became a settled community is too long to be detailed in a

chapter- much too long to be compressed in a section thereof. It is

enough to note two things. The first thing to understand is what made

Primitive Society give up its nomadic life and secondly what happened

in the transition from nomadic to settled life.

Primitive Society was no doubt nomadic. But it was nomadic not

because of any migratory instinct. Nor was it due to any mental trait

peculiar to it. It was the result of the fact that the earliest form

of the wealth held by Primitive Society was cattle. Primitive Society

was migratory because its wealth, namely the cattle, was migratory.

Cattle went after new pastures. Primitive Society by reason of its

love for cattle, therefore, went wherever its cattle carried it. Primitive

Society became fixed in its abode, in other words became a settled-

community, when a new species of wealth was discovered. This new

species of wealth was land. This happened when Primitive Society

learned the art of farming and of cultivating land. Wealth became

fixed at one place when it changed its form from cattle to land. With

this change Primitive Society also became settled at the same place.

This explains why Primitive Society was at one time nomadic and

what led it take to settled life.

The next thing is to note the events that have happened when

Primitive Society was on the road to becoming a Settled Society. The

problems which faced Primitive Society in its transition from Nomadic

life to Settled life were mainly two. One confronted the Settled

Community. The other confronted the Broken men. The problem that

confronted the Settled community was that of its defence against the

Nomadic tribes. The problem which confronted the Broken men was

that of the protection and shelter. It may be desirable to elucidate

how and why these problems arose.

For an understanding of the problem which confronted the Settled

tribes, it is necessary to bear in mind the following facts. All tribes

did not take to settled life at one and the same time. Some became

settled and some remained nomadic. The second thing to remember



is that the tribes were never at peace with one another. They were

always at war. When all tribes were in a Nomadic state the chief

causes for intra-tribal warfare were (1) stealing cattle, (2) stealing

women, and (3) stealthily grazing of cattle in the pastures belonging

to other tribes. When some tribes became settled, the tribes that

remained nomadic found it more advantageous to concentrate their

fight against the settled tribes. It was more paying than a war against

other Nomadic tribes. The Nomadic tribes had come to realize that

the Settled tribes were doubly wealthy. Like the Nomadic tribes, they

had cattle. But in addition to cattle, they had corn which the Nomadic

tribes had not and which they greatly coveted. The Nomadic tribes

systematically organized raids on the Settled tribes with the object

of stealing the wealth belonging to the Settled tribes. The third fact

is mat the Settled tribes were greatly handicapped in defending

themselves against these raiders. Being engaged in more gainful

occupation, the Settled tribes could not always convert their ploughs

into swords. Nor could they leave their homes and go in pursuit

of the raiding tribes. There is nothing strange in this. History shows

that peoples with civilization but no means of defence are not able

to withstand the attacks of the barbarians. This explains how and

why during the transition period the Settled tribes were faced with

the problem of their defence.

How the problem of the Broken men arose is not difficult to

understand. It is the result of the continuous tribal warfare which was

the normal life of the tribes in their primitive condition. In a tribal

war it often happened that a tribe instead of being completely

annihilated was defeated and routed. In many cases a defeated tribe

became broken into bits. As a consequence of this there always existed

in Primitive times a floating population consisting of groups of Broken

tribesmen roaming in all directions. To understand what gave rise

to the problem of the Broken men it is necessary to realize that

Primitive Society was fundamentally tribal in its origanization. That

Primitive Society was fundamentally tribal meant two things.

Firstly, every individual in Primitive Society belonged to a tribe. Nay,

he must belong to the tribe. Outside the tribe no individual had any

existence. He could have none. Secondly tribal organization being

based on common blood and common kinship an individual born in

one tribe could not join another tribe and become a member of it.

The Broken Men had, therefore, to live as stray individuals. In

Primitive Society where tribe was fighting against tribe a stray



collection of Broken Men was always in danger of being attacked.

They did not know where to go for shelter. They did not know who

would attack them and to whom they could go for protection. That

is why shelter and protection became the problem of the Broken Men.

The foregoing summary of the evolution of Primitive Society shows

that there was a time in the life of Primitive Society when there

existed two groups— one group consisting of Settled tribes faced with

the problem of finding a body of men who would do the work of watch

and ward against the raiders belonging to Nomadic tribes and the

other group consisting of Broken Men from defeated tribes with the

problem of finding patrons who would give them food and shelter.

The next question is: How did these two groups solve their

problems? Although we have no written text of a contract coming

down to us from antiquity we can say that the two struck a bargain

whereby the Broken Men agreed to do the work of watch and ward

for the Settled tribes and the Settled tribes agreed to give them food

and shelter. Indeed, it would have been unnatural if such an

arrangement had not been made between the two especially when

the interest of the one required the co-operation of the other.

One difficulty, however, must have arisen in the completion of the

bargain, that of shelter. Where were the Broken Men to live? In the

midst of the settled community or outside the Settled community?

In deciding this question two considerations must have played a

decisive part. One consideration is that of blood relationship. The

second consideration is that of strategy. According to Primitive

notions only persons of the same tribe, i.e.. of the same blood, could

live together. An alien could not be admitted inside the area occupied

by the homesteads belonging to the tribe. The Broken men were

aliens. They belonged to a tribe which was different from the Settled

tribe. That being so, they could not be permitted to live in the midst

of the Settled tribe. From the strategic point of view also it was

desirable that these Broken men should live on the border of the

village so as to meet the raids of the hostile tribes. Both these

considerations were decisive in favour of placing their quarters

outside the village.

We can now return to the main question, namely, why do the

Untouchables live outside the village? The answer to the question can

be sought along the lines indicated above. The same processes must

have taken place in India when the Hindu Society was passing from



Nomadic life to the life of a settled village community. There must

have been in Primitive Hindu society, Settled tribes and Broken Men.

The Settled tribes founded the village and formed the village

community and the Broken Men lived in separate quarters outside

the village for the reason that they belonged to a different tribe and,

therefore, to different blood. To put it definitely, the Untouchables

were originally only Broken Men. It is because they were Broken Men

that they lived outside the village.

This explains why it is natural to suppose that the Untouchables

from the very beginning lived outside and that Untouchability has

nothing to do with their living outside the village.

The theory is so novel that critics may not feel satisfied without

further questioning. They will ask:

(1) Is there any factual evidence to suggest that the Untouchables

are Broken Men?

(2) Is there evidence that the process of settlement suggested

above has actually taken place in any country?

(3) If Broken Men living outside the village is a universal feature

of all societies, how is it that the separate quarters of the

Broken Men have disappeared outside India but not in India?



CHAPTER IV

ARE THE UNTOUCHABLES BROKEN MEN ?

TO the question : Are the Untouchables in their origin only BrokenMen, my answer is in the affirmative. An affirmative answer is boundto be followed by a call for evidence. Direct evidence on this issuecould be had if the totems of the Touchables and the Untouchablesin the Hindu villages had been studied. Unfortunately the study ofthe totemic organization of the Hindus and the Untouchables has notyet been undertaken by students of anthropology. When such datais collected it would enable us to give a decisive opinion on thequestion raised in this Chapter. For the present, I am satisfied fromsuch inquiries as I have made that the totems of the Untouchablesof a particular village differ from the totems of the Hindus of thevillage.

Difference in totems between Hindus and Untouchables would bethe best evidence in support of the thesis that the Untouchables areBroken Men belonging to a tribe different from the tribe comprisingthe village community. It may, however, be admitted that such directevidence as has a bearing on the question remains to be collected.But facts have survived which serve as pointers and from which itcan be said that the Untouchables were Broken men. There are twosets of such evidentiary facts.

One set of facts comprise the names Antya, Antyaja and Antyavasin

given to certain communities by the Hindu Shastras. They have comedown from very ancient past. Why were these names used to indicatea certain class of people? There seem to be some meaning behindthese terms. The words are undoubtedly derivative. They are derivedfrom the root Anta. What does the word Anta mean? Hinduslearned in the Shastras argue that it means one who is born lastand as the Untouchable according to the Hindu order ofDivine creation is held to be born last, the word Antya means anUntouchable. The argument is absurd and does not accord with the


THE UNTOUCHABLES : ARE THE UNTOUCHABLES BROKEN MEN? 279

Hindu theory of the order of creation. According to it, it is the Shudrawho is born last. The Untouchable is outside the scheme of creation.The Shudra is Savarna. As against him the Untouchable is Avarna,

i.e outside the Varna system. The Hindu theory of priority in creationdoes not and cannot apply to the Untouchable. In my view, the wordAntya means not end of creation but end of the village. It is a namegiven to those people who lived on the outskirts of the village. Theword Antya has, therefore, a survival value. It tells us that therewas a time when some people lived inside the village and some livedoutside the village and that those who lived outside the village, i.e.

on the Antya of the village, were called Antyaja.

Why did some people live on the border of the village? Can therebe any other reason than that they were Broken Men who were aliensand who belonged to tribes different from those who lived inside thevillage? I cannot see any. That this is the real reason is to be foundin the use of these particular words to designate them. The use ofthe words Antya, Antyaja and Antyavasin has thus double signifi-cance. In the first place, it shows that living in separate quarterswas such a peculiar phenomenon that a new terminology had to beinvented to give expression to it. Secondly, the words chosen expressin exact terms the conditions of the people to whom it applied namelythat they were aliens.

The second set of facts which shows that the Untouchables wereBroken men relates to the position of a community called the Mahars.The Mahar community is a principal Untouchable community inMaharashtra. It is the single largest Untouchable community foundin Maharashtra. The following facts showing the relations betweenthe Mahars and the Touchable Hindus are worthy of note: (1) TheMahars are to be found in every village; (2) Every village inMaharashtra has a wall and the Mahars have their quarters outsidethe wall; (3) The Mahars by turn do the duty of watch and wardon behalf of the village; and (4) The Mahars claim 52 rights againstthe Hindu villagers. Among these 52 rights the most important are:-

(i) The right to collect food from the villagers;

(ii) The right to collect corn from each villager at the harvestseason; and

(iii) The right to appropriate the dead animal belonging to thevillagers.

The evidence arising from the position of the Mahars is of courseconfined to Maharashtra. Whether similar cases are to be found in otherparts of India has yet to be investigated. But if the Mahars case



can be taken as typical of the Untouchables throughout India it willbe accepted that there was a stage in the history of India whenBroken Men belonging to other tribes came to the Settled tribes andmade a bargain whereby the Broken men were allowed to settle onthe border of the village, were required to do certain duties and inreturn were given certain rights. The Mahars have a tradition thatthe 52 rights claimed by them against the villagers were given tothem by the Muslim kings of Bedar. This can only mean that theserights were very ancient and that the kings of Bedar only confirmedthem.

These facts although meagre do furnish some evidence in supportof the theory that the Untouchables lived outside the village fromthe very beginning. They were not deported and made to live outsidethe village because they were declared Untouchables. They livedoutside the village from the beginning because they were Broken Menwho belonged to a tribe different from the one to which the Settledtribe belonged.

The difficulty in accepting this explanation arises largely from thenotion that the Untouchables were always Untouchables. Thisdifficulty will vanish if it is borne in mind that there was a timewhen the ancestors of the present day Untouchables were notUntouchables vis-a-vis the villagers but were merely Broken Men, nomore and no less, and the only difference between them and thevillagers was that they belonged to different tribes.


THE UNTOUCHABLES : ARE THERE PARALLEL CASES ? 281

CHAPTER V

ARE THERE PARALLEL CASES ?

ARE there any cases known to history of Broken Men living outside

the village? To this question it is possible to give an affirmative

answer. Fortunately for us we have two reported cases which show

that what is said to have occurred in India particularly has also

actually occurred elsewhere. The countries wherein such a develop-

ment has actually been reported to have taken place are Ireland and

Wales.

The organization of the Irish village in primitive times can be seen

from the Brehon Laws of Ireland. Some idea of it as revealed in these

Laws may be obtained from the following summary given by Sir

Henry Maine. Says Sir Henry Maine1 :-

“The Brehon Law discloses a stage when the tribe has long been settled,

in all probability upon the tribal territory. It is of sufficient size and

importance to constitute a political unit, and possibly at its apex is one of

the numerous chieftain whom the Irish records call kings. The primary

assumption is that the whole of the tribal territory belongs to the whole of

the tribe, but in fact large portions of it have been permanently appropriated

to minor bodies of tribesmen; A part is allotted in special way to the chief

as appurtenant to his office, and descends from chief to chief according to

a special rule of succession. Other portions are occupied by fragments of the

tribe, some of which are under minor chiefs while others, though not strictly

ruled by a chief, have somebody of noble class to act as their representative

. All the unappropriated tribelands are in a more special way the property

of the tribe as a whole, and no portion can theoretically be subjected to more

than a temporary occupation. Such occupations are, however, frequent and

among the holders of tribeland, on these terms, are groups of men calling

themselves tribesmen, but being in reality associations formed by contract,

chiefly for the purpose of pasturing cattle. Much of the common tribeland

is not occupied at all, but constitutes, to use the English expression, the

‘waste’ of the tribe. Still this waste is constantly brought under tillage

or permanent pasture by settlements of tribesmen, and upon it cultivators

and servile states are permitted to squat, particularly towards the border.

It is part of the territory over which the authority of the chief tends

1 Early History of Institutions, Lecture HI, pp. 92-93.



steadily to increase, and here it is that he settles his ‘fuidhir’ or stranger—tenants a very important class—the outlaws and ‘broken men’ from other tribeswho come to him for protection, and who are only connected with their newtribe by their dependence on its chief, and through the responsibility whichhe incurs for them.”

Who were the Fuidhirs? According to Sir Henry Maine the Fuidhirs

were :

“Strangers or fugitives from other territories, men in fact, who had brokenthe original tribal bond which gave them a place in the community, and whohad to obtain and then as best they might in a new tribe and new place.Society was violently disordered. The result was probably to fill the countrywith ‘Broken Men’ and such men could only find a home and protection bybecoming Fuidhir tenants.

“The Fuidhir was not a tribesman but an alien. In all societies cementedtogether by kinship the position of the person who has lost or broken thebond of union is always extraordinarily miserable. He has not only lost hisnatural place in them but they have no room for him anywhere else.”

II

Now as to Wales. The organization of the Welsh village in primitive

times is described1 by Mr. Seebhom. According to Mr. Seebhom a

village in Wales was a collection of homesteads. The homesteads were

separated into two groups, the homesteads of the Free-tenants and

the homesteads of the Unfree-tenants. Mr. Seebhom says that this

separation in habitation was a common feature of the primitive

village in Wales. Why were these Unfree-tenants made to live in a

separate and detached place? The reason for this separation is

explained2 by Mr. Seebhom in the following terms :-

“At first sight there is a great confusion in the class of men mentionedin the ancient Welsh Laws— of tribesmen, Uchelore bryre and innateboneddings : of non-tribesmen, talogo Aillte, Alltude, etc. The confusionvanishes only when the principle underlying the constitution of tribalsociety is grasped. And this principle would apparently be a very simpleone if could be freed from the complications of conquest and permanentsettlement of land from the inroads of foreign law, custom, and nomen-clature. To begin with there can be little doubt that the ruling principleunderlying the structure of tribal society was that of blood relationshipamong the free tribesmen. No one who did not belong to a kindred couldbe a member of the tribe, which was in fact, a bundle of Welsh kindred.Broadly then under the Welsh tribal system there were two classes, thoseof Cymric blood—and those who were stranger in blood. There was

1 The Tribal System in Wales p. 9

2 Ibid pp. 54-55.


THE UNTOUCHABLES : ARE THERE PARALLEL CASES ? 283

a deep, if not unpassable, gulf between these two classes quite apart from

any question of land or of conquest. It was a division in blood and it soon

becomes apparent that the tenacity with which the distinction was maintained

was at once one of the strong distinctive marks of the tribal system and one

of the main secrets of its strength.”

III

This description of the organisation of the Irish and the Welsh

villages in the primitive times leave no doubt that the case of the

Untouchables of India is not the only case of a people living outside

the village. It proves that in it was exhibited a universal phenomenon,

and was marked by the following features :

1. That in primitive times the Village Settlement consisted of two

parts. One part occupied by the community belonging to one

tribe and another part occupied by the Broken Men of different

tribes.

2. The part of the settlement occupied by the tribal community

was regarded as the village proper. The Broken Men lived in

the outskirts of the village.

3. The reason why the Broken Men lived outside the village was

because they were aliens and did not belong to the tribal

community.

The analogy between the Untouchables of India and the Fuidhirs

of Ireland and the Alltudes of Wales is complete. The Untouchables

lived outside the village for the same reason for which the Fuidhirs

and Alltudes had to live outside the village in Ireland and Wales.

It is, therefore, clear that what is said about the Untouchables on

the issue of their living outside the village is not without a parallel

elsewhere.



CHAPTER VI

HOW DID SEPARATE SETTLEMENTS FOR

BROKEN MEN DISAPPEAR ELSEWHERE ?

THAT the Fuidhirs of Ireland and the Alltudes of Wales were Broken

Men is true. That they lived in separate quarters is also a fact. But

it is also true that the separate quarters of those Broken Men

disappeared and they became part of the Settled tribe and were

absorbed in it. This is somewhat strange. The Broken Men according

to the theory set out before were given quarters outside the village

because they belonged to a different tribe and, therefore, to different

blood. How is it then that they were absorbed by the tribe later on?

Why such a thing did not happen in India? These are questions which

are natural and which call for an answer.

The question is integrally connected with the process of evolution

through which Primitive Society came to be transferred into Modern

Society. As has already been said this evolution has proceeded along

two different lines. One marked the transformation of Primitive

Society from Nomadic into a settled community. The other marked

the transformation of Primitive Society from tribal into a territorial

community. The question with which we are immediately concerned

relates to the second line of evolution. For it is the substitution of

common territory for common blood as the bond of union that is

responsible for the disappearance of the separate quarters of the

Broken Men. Why did Primitive Society substitute common territory

for common blood as the bond of union? This is a question for which

there is no adequate explanation. The origin of the change is very

obscure. How the change was brought about is however quite clear.

At some stage there came into being in Primitive Society a rule

whereby a non-tribesman could become a member of the tribe and

become absorbed in it as a kindred. It was known as a rule of

ennoblement. This rule was that if a non-tribesman lived next to the

tribe or married within a tribe for a given number of generations he


THE UNTOUCHABLES : HOW DID.... DISAPPEAR ELSEWHERE ? 285

became their kindred.1 Mr. Seebhom gives the following rules for a

non-tribesman becoming a tribesman as it was found in the Welsh

village system.

(1) Residence in Cymru (Wales) according to the tradition of

South Wales made the descendant of a stranger at last, a

Cymru, but not until continued to the ninth generation.

(2) Intermarriage with innate Cymraeses generation after gen-

eration made the descendent of a stranger an innate Cymru

in the fourth generation. In other words, the original stranger’s

great grandson, whose blood was at least seven-eighths Cymric

was allowed to attain the right to claim the privileges of a

tribesman.

Should not such a thing have happened in India? It could have—

indeed it should have. For a rule similar to that which existed in

Ireland and Wales also existed in India. It is referred to by Manu.

In Chapter X, verses 64-67, he says that a Shudra can be a Brahmin

for seven generations (if he marries) within the Brahmin Community.

The ordinary rule of Chaturvarna was that a Shudra could never

become a Brahmin. A Shudra was born a Shudra and could not be

made a Brahmin. But this rule of antiquity was so strong that Manu

had to apply rule of Untouchability to the Shudra. It is obvious that

if this rule had continued to operate in India, the Broken Men of

India would have been absorbed in the village community and their

separate quarters would have ceased to exist.

Why did this not happen? The answer is that the notion of

Untouchability supervened and perpetuated difference between kin-

dred and non-kindred, tribesmen and non-tribesmen in another form;

namely; between Touchables and Untouchables. It is this new factor

which prevented the amalgamation taking place in the way in which

it took place in Ireland and Wales, with the result that the system

of separate quarters has become a perpetual and a permanent feature

of the Indian village.



BLANK


THE UNTOUCHABLES : RACIAL DIFFERENCE ... 287

PART III

OLD THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN

OF UNTOUCHABILITY

Chapter VII. Racial Difference as the Origin of Untouchability.

Chapter VIII. Occupational Origin of Untouchability.



BLANK



CHAPTER VII

RACIAL DIFFERENCE AS THE ORIGIN OF

UNTOUCHABILITY

WHAT is the origin of Untouchability? As has been said the field

is quite unexplored. No student of Sociology has paid any attention

to it. Writers, other than Sociologists, who have written about India

and her people have been content with merely recording the custom

of Untouchability with varying degrees of disapprobation and leaving

it at that. So far as my researches go, I have come across only one

author who has attempted to explain how Untouchability has come

about. It is Mr.Stanley Rice1. According to Mr. Rice—

There is a strong probability that the outcasts were the survivors of the

conquered peoples, who, as caste tended to coincide with occupation, became

the drum-beating, leather-working, and farm labouring classes to which as

serfs they had been relegated from early times. They were not the races

conquered by the Aryans; the Paraiyans belonged to the aborigines who were

conquered by the Dravidians and being of a different race they were not

admitted to the totem of similar clans with which marriage is always

intimately connected, since that would have led to free intercourse and the

gradual degradation of race. But this prohibition cannot have been absolute;

there are always exceptions. In the course of the centuries, some forty or

more, the inevitable miscegenation may very well have obliterated the racial

distinctions between aboriginal and early Dravidian. These people have been

admitted to a sort of lowly participation in the Hindu system in the

atmosphere of which they have lived for so long, for Hinduism is at once

the most tolerant and intolerant of creeds. It does not proselytize; you cannot

become a Hindu as you can become a Mussalman, and those within the fold

are liable to the most rigid restrictions. But it has always been ready to

embrace aboriginal tribes who arc willing to submit to its laws, though it

may assign to them a very lowly place and they have always been kept at

a distance and have been excluded from the temples. It would seem, therefore,

that anthropological arguments are in any case not conclusive when we

consider these factors which must have profoundly modified the original racial

characteristics and must have changed their outlook. Thus the Dravidians

applied to the Paraiyans the same test which the Aryans are assumed to have

1. Hindu Customs And Their Origins : pp. 113-115. (Italics not in the original.)



applied to the conquered inhabitants. They reduced them to the position of

serfs and assigned to them those duties which it was thought beneath their

own dignity to perform. Nor was marriage the only consideration. The

disabilities of the Paraiyans were due also– and to an even greater degree–

to the mystical qualities inherent in Tabu. To admit such a man to the totem

family was not only contrary to the social order, it would bring upon the

clan the anger of their particular god. But to admit him to the worship of

the god within the sacred precincts of a temple was to call clown authentic

fire from Heaven, whereby they would be consumed. It would be sacrilege

of the same kind as the offering of unconsecrated or unorthodox fire by Koran,

Dathan and Abhiram. But though debarred from taking an active part in

worship, the Paraiyans might yet do the menial services connected with it,

provided that they did not entail the pollution of the sacred building. In

Christian terminology the Paraiyan, although he could neither officiate at

the altar, nor preach a sermon nor even be one of the congregation, might

still ring the bell– on one condition. He could not regard himself as of the

communion; he was, in fact, ex-communicate. And as such, he was ceremo-

nially unclean. No washing with water, no cleansing ceremony, could remove

that stain which was indelibly fixed by the operation of Tabu. To touch him,

to have any dealings with him save as it were, at arm’s length, was by a

sort of contagious magic a defilement You could employ him to till your field

because that entailed no contact of any kind, beyond giving an order, you

need have no further communication with him. The seal of pollution was set

on his forehead; it was inherent in him as surely as the blood in his veins.

And so from being the vile, degraded fellow which Indian opinion had made

him, he became viler and more degraded from the kinds of occupation left

open to him.”

The theory of Mr. Rice really divides itself into two parts. For,according to him, the origin of untouchability is to be found in twocircumstances—Race and Occupation. Obviously, they require sepa-rate consideration. This Chapter will be devoted to an exaiminationof his theory of racial difference as the origin of untouchability.

The racial theory of Mr. Rice contains two elements :–

(1) That the Untouchables are non-Aryan, non-Dravidianaboriginals; and

(2) That they were conquered and subjugated by the Dravidians.

This theory raises the whole question of the invasions of India byforeign invaders, the conquests made by them and the social andcultural institutions that have resulted therefrom. According toMr. Rice, there have been two invasions of India. First is the invasionof India by the Dravidians. They conquered the non-Dravidianaborigines, the ancestors of the Untouchables, and made themUntouchables. The second invasion is the invasion of India by theAryans. The Aryans conquered the Dravidians. He does not say how



the conquering Aryans treated the conquered Dravidians. If pressed

for an answer he might say they made them Shudras. So that we

get a chain. The Dravidians invaded India and conquered the

aborigines and made them Untouchables. After Dravidians came the

Aryans. The Aryans conquered the Dravidians and made them

Shudras. The theory is too mechanical, a mere speculation and too

simple to explain a complicated set of facts relating to the origin of

the Shudras and the Untouchables.

When students of ancient Indian history delve into the ancient past

they do often come across four names, the Aryans, Dravidians, Dasas

and Nagas. What do these names indicate? This question has never

been considered. Are these names Aryans, Dravidians, Dasas and

Nagas the names of different races or are they merely different names

for a people of the same race? The general assumption is that they

are different races. It is an assumption on which theories like that

of Mr. Rice, which seek to explain the social structure of the Hindu

Society, particularly its class basis, are built. Before such a theory

is accepted it is necessary to examine its foundations.

Starting with the Aryans it is beyond dispute that they were not

a single homogeneous people. That they were divided into two1

sections is beyond dispute. It is also beyond dispute that the two

had different cultures. One of them may be called Rig Vedic Aryans

and the other the Atharva Vedic Aryans. Their cultural cleavage

appears to be complete. The Rig Vedic Aryans believed in Yajna. The

Atharva Vedic Aryans believed the Magis. Their mythologies were

different. The Rig Vedic Aryans believed in the Deluge and the

creation of their race from Manu. The Atharva Vedic Aryans did not

believe in Deluge but believed in the creation of their race from

Brahma or Prajapati. Their literary developments also lay along

different paths. The Rig Vedic Aryans produced Brahmanas, Sutras

and Aranyakas. The Atharva Vedic Aryans produced the Upanishads.

Their cultural conflict was so great that the Rig Vedic Aryans would

not for a long time admit the sanctity of the Atharva Veda nor of

the Upanishads and when they did recognize it they called it Vedanta

which contrary to the current meaning of the word—namely, essence

of the Vedas—originally meant something outside the boundary of

the Vedas and, therefore, not so sacred as the Vedas and regarded its

study as Anuloma. Whether these two sections of Aryans were two

1. For an exhaustive treatment of the subject see my book “Who Were the

Shudras?”



different races we do not know. We do not know whether the word

Aryan is a term indicative of race. Historians have therefore made

a mistake in proceeding on the assumption that the Aryans were a

separate race.

A greater mistake lies in differentiating the Dasas from the Nagas.

The Dasas are the same as Nagas. Dasas is merely another name

for Nagas. It is not difficult to understand how the Nagas came to

be called Dasas in the Vedic literature. Dasa is a Sanskritized form

of the Indo-Iranian word Dahaka. Dahaka was the name of the king

of the Nagas.1 Consequently, the Aryans called the Nagas after the

name of their king Dahaka, which in its Sanskrit form became Dasa

a generic name applied to all the Nagas.

Who were the Nagas? Undoubtedly they were non-Aryans. A careful

study of the Vedic literature2 reveals a spirit of conflict, of a dualism,

and a race for superiority between two distinct types of culture and

thought. In the Rig Veda, we are first introduced to the Snake-god

in the form of Ahi Vitra, the enemy of the Aryan god Indra. Naga,

the name under which the Snake-god was to become so famous in

later days, does not appear in early Vedic literature. Even when it

does for the first time in the Satapatha Brahmana (XI.2,7,12), it is

not clear whether a great snake or a great elephant is meant. But

this does not conceal the nature of Ahi Vitra, since he is described

always in Rig Veda as the serpent who lay around or hidden in

waters, and as holding a full control over the waters of heaven and

earth alike.

It is also evident from the hymns that refer to Ahi Vitra, that he

received no worship from the Aryan tribes and was only regarded

as an evil spirit of considerable power who must be fought down.

The mention of the Nagas in the Rig Veda shows that the Nagas

were a very ancient people. It must also be remembered that the

Nagas were in no way an aboriginal or uncivilized people. History

shows a very close association by intermarriage between the Naga

people with the Royal families of India. The Devagiri record of the

Kadamba king Krisnavarma3 connects the beginning of the Kadamba-

kula with the Nagas. The Royakota4 grant of 9th Century A.D.

1. On this point see my Volume : “Who Were the Shudras?”

2. For the facts stated in the next few pages, see a Paper on the Nagas and the

Naga cult in Ancient Indian History by Miss Karunakara Gupta in the Proceedings

of the Third Session of the Indian History Congress (1939), p. 214 onwards.

3. I. A. VII. p. 34

4. E.L XV. p. 246



mentions the marriage of Asvathama with a Nagi and the foundationof the Pallava line by Skandasishya, the issue of this marriage.Virakurcha, who according to another Pallava inscription dated inthe 9th century A.D. was the ruler of the dynasty, is also mentionedin the same inscription as having married a Nagi and obtained fromher the insignia of royalty.’1 The marriage of Gautamiputra, the sonof the Vakataka king Pravarasena, with the daughter of the Bharasivaking Bhava Naga, is a historical fact. So is the marriage ofChandragupta II with princess Kuvera Naga ‘of Naga Kula’.2 A Tamil

poet asserts that Kokkilli, an early Chola king, had married a Nagaprincess.3 Rajendra Chola is also credited to have won ‘by his radiantbeauty the hand of the noble daughter of Naga race.’4 TheNavasahasanka Charita describes the marriage of the Paramara kingSindhuraja (who seems to have reigned towards the early part of the10th Century A. D.) with the Naga princess Sasiprabha, with suchexhaustive details in so matter-of-fact-a-manner as to make us almostfeel certain that there must have been some historical basis for thisassertion.5 From the Harsha inscription of V.S. 1030-973 A.D. weknow that Guvaka I, who was the sixth king in the genealogy upwardsfrom Vigraharaja Chahamana and thus might be supposed to havebeen ruling towards the middle of the 9th Century was “famous as

a hero in the assemblies of the Nagas and other princes.” 6 Sanatikaraof the Bhaumn dynasty of Orissa, one of whose dates was mostprobably 921 A.D., is mentioned in an inscription of his son as havingmarried Tribhuana Mahadevi of the Naga family.7

Not only did the Naga people occupy a high cultural level buthistory shows that they ruled a good part of India. That Maharashtrais the home of the Nagas goes without saying. Its people and its kingswere Nagas.8

That Andhradesa and its neighbourhood were under the Nagas during

the early centuries of the Christian era is suggested by evidence from

more sources than one. The Satavahanas, and their successors, the

Chutu Kula Satakarnis drew their blood more or less from the

Naga stock. As Dr. H.C. Roy Chaudhari has pointed out, the

1. S.I. I.II. p. 508

2. E.L XV.p.41

3. EL XV. p. 249

4. I.A. XXII. pp. 144-149

5. E.I.I. p. 229.

6. E.I.I. p. 117

7. J. B. O. R. S. XVI. p.771

8. Rajwade.



Dvatrima Satpukalitta represents Salivahana, the mythological rep-

resentative of the Satavahana dynasty, as of mixed Brahmana and

the Naga origin.1 This is amply attested to by the typical Naga names

which occur in their dynastic lists. That the Naga grew to be very

powerful towards the end of the Satavahana rule is also proved by

a number of facts. A chief called Skandanaga is found ruling the

Bellary district, in the reign of Pulumavi, the last king of the main

Satavahana line. Secondly, Naga Mulanika the daughter of a Chutu

king, is mentioned as making a gift of a Naga, together with her

son, who is called Sivakanda-Naga-Sri. All the known kings of this

line bear the same name and thus prove a close association with the

Nagas. Thirdly, the name of Uragapura, the capital of Soringoi,

suggests not an isolated reign of one Naga king but a Naga Settlement

in that locality of tolerably long duration.

From Buddhist tradition of Ceylon and Siam we also know that

there was a Naga country called Majerika near the Diamond Sands,

i.e. Karachi.2

Then during the third and early part of the 4th Century A.D.

Northern India also was ruled by a number of Naga kings is clearly

proved by Puranic as well as numismaric and epigraphic evidence.

Three independent groups of Vidisa, Campavati or Padmavati and

Mathura are distinctly mentioned in such a way as to leave little

doubt of their importance. The name Bhava Naga, the only known

king of the Bharasiva dynasty, also seems to connect him with the

Nagas. It is not possible to enter here into a discussion of the coins

of the second group, or the question of indentification of Achyuta

Ganapati Naga or Nagasena of Allahabad Pillar inscription with these

Puranic Naga kings.3 Of all the Nagas referred to in ancient Indian

History, the North Indian Naga houses4 of the 4th century A.D. stand

out as the most prominent and historically the most tangible. We

do not know whether Nagabhatta and his son Maharaja Mohesvara

Naga of the Lahore Copper Seal5 belonged to any of these three groups

or formed a separate Naga family by themselves. But all this sufficiently

justifies the conclusion of Dr. C. C. Roy Chaudhari that the Kushana

kingdom of Northern India disappeared in the 4th Century A.D.

having been conquered by the Nagas. These Nagas must have been

1. I. P. H. A. I, p. 280

2. Cunningham A. Geo. India, pp. 611-12

3. G. M. I. pp. 23-24

4. P. H. A. I. p. 364

4. G. I. p. 284



ruling over different portions of Uttarapatha till they were themselves

swept away before the conquering arms of Samudragupta.

As late as the time of Skandagupta, however we find one Sarvanagaas the governor of Antarvedi1 In the neighbourhood of Saurashtraand Bharukaccha especially, the Nagas seem to have held a promi-nent position down to the 6th Century A.D. From the Junagadhinscription Skandagupta appears to have dealt severely with a Nagarebellion.2 In 570 A. D. Dadda I Gurjara uprooted the Nagas.3 whohave been identified with the jungle tribes ruled over by Brihul lakaof Broach.4 Dhruvasena II’s grant of G.S. 334 (645 A.D.) also mentionsas Dutaka the Pramatri Srinaga.5

The next important revival of the Nagas particularly in CentralIndia seems to date about the 9th Century A.D. In 800 A.D. MaharajaTivaradeva of Sripura in Kosala most probably defeated a Naga tribe.6

Sometime after this period, we also note two references to Nagas in

the inscription of Bengal. The Ramganj record of MahamandalikaIsvara Ghosha introduces us to a Ghosha Naga family of Dhekkari,which was to be assigned to 11th century7 A.D. The BhuvanesvaraPrasasti of Bhatta Bhavadeva, the minister of Harivarmadeva in 12thcentury8 A.D. also refers to destruction of Naga kings by him. TheRamacharita mentions the conquest of Utkala, the kingdom of Bhava-Bhushana-Santati, by Ramapala, but it is not clear whether in thiscase the Nagas or the Chandras were meant. The greater probabilitywould however lie in favour of the former, since they were the morewell known.

It was in the period 10th-12th Century A.D. that the differentbranches of the Sendraka, Sinda, or Chindaka family, which calledthemselves lords of Bhogavati and Nagavamsi gradually spreadthemselves over different portions of Central India, particularlyBaster. The Nagattaras of Begur, too, appear in an inscription of the10th Century 9 A.D. as having fought against king Viramahendra,

on behalf of the W. Ganga king Ereyappa and being distinguishedfor bravery in the fight. If the evidence of Navashasanka Charita is

1. G. I. p. 68

2. G.I. p. 59

3. I. A. XIII pp. 82

4. B.Gaz. I.i.115

5. ELI. p. 92

6. G.I. p. 298

7. Bhandarkar’s List No. 2100

8. Inscription of Bengal III pp. 30 ff.

9. E.I.VI p.45



accepted, then the Naga king, whose daughter Sasiprabha wasmarried to Sindhuraja Paramara, must also have been ruling inRatnavati on the Narmada at about this period.

Who are the Dravidians? Are they different from the Nagas? Orare they two different names for a people of the same race? Thepopular view is that the Dravidians and Nagas are names of twodifferent races. This statement is bound to shock many people.Nonetheless, it is a fact that the term Dravidians and Nagas aremerely two different names for the same people.

It is not to be denied that very few will be prepared to admit theproposition that the Dravidians and Nagas are merely two differentnames for the same people and fewer that the Dravidians as Nagasoccupied not merely South India but that they occupied the wholeof India— South as well as North. Nonetheless, these are historicaltruths.

Let us see what the authorities have to say on the subject. Thisis what Mr. Dikshitiar, a well-known South Indian scholar, has tosay on the subject in his1 Paper on South India in the Ramayana:

“The Nagas, another tribe-semi-divine in character, with their totems asserpent, spread throughout India, from Taksasila in the North-West to Assamin the North-East and to Ceylon and South India in the South. At one timethey must have been powerful. Contemporaneous with the Yakwas or perhapssubsequent to their fall as a political entity, the Nagas rose to prominencein South India. Not only parts of Ceylon but ancient Malabar were theterritories occupied by the ancient Nagas ......... In the Tamil classics of theearly centuries after Christ, we hear frequent references to Naganadu.........Remnants of Naga worship are still lingering in Malabar, and the templein Nagercoil in South Travancore is dedicated to Naga worship even today.All that can be said about them is that they were a sea-faring tribe. Theirwomenfolk were renowned for their beauty. Apparently the Nagas had becomemerged with the Cheras who rose to power and prominence at the commence-ment of the Christian Era.”

Further light is thrown on the subject by C. F. Oldham who has

made a deep study of it. According to Mr. Oldham:2

“The Dravidian people have been divided, from ancient times, into Cheras,

Cholas and Pandyas. Chera, or Sera (in old Tamil Sarai) is the Dravidian

equivalent for Naga; Cheramandala, Nagadwipa, or the Naga country. This

seems to point distinctly to the Asura origin of the Dravidians of the South.

But in addition to this there still exists, widely spread over the Ganges valley,

a people who call themselves Cherus or Seoris, and who claim descent from

the serpentgods.3 The Cherus are of very ancient race; they are believed to have

1. Proceedings of the Seventh All-India Oriental Conference, pp. 248-49.

2. The Sun and the Serpent, pp. 157-161.

3. Elliot Sup. Glossary N. W. F.. 135. 136.



once held a great portion of the valley of the Ganges, which, as we havealready seen, was occupied in very early times by Naga tribes. The Cherusappear to have been gradually ousted from their lands, during the troubloustimes of the Mohammedan invasions, and they are now poor and almostlandless. There can be little doubt that these people are kinsmen of theDravidian Cheras.

The Cherus have several peculiar customs and amongst them one which seemsto connect them with the Lichhavis, as well as with the Newars of Nepal. This isthe election of a raja for every five or six houses, and his investiture, in due form,with the tilak or royal frontal mark.1 Both Lichavis and Newars had many customsin common with the Dravidians of the South. Each venerated the serpent,Karkotaka Naga being to Nepal what Nila Naga was to Kashmir. A Naga, too, wasthe tutelary deity of Vaisali, the Lichavi capital. The marital relations of Newarsand Lichavis closely resembled those of the Tamil people, and go far to show acommon origin.

Property amongst the Newars descended in the female line, as it once didamongst the Arattas, Bahikas or Takhas of the Punjab, whose sisters’ sons,and not their own, were their heirs.2 This is still a Dravidian custom. Inshort, a recent Dravidian writer, Mr. Balakrishna Nair, says that his people‘appear to be, in nearly every particular, the kinsfolk of the Newars.’3

Besides all this, however, there are other links connecting the Naga peopleof the South with those of the north of India. In an inscription discoveredby Colonel Tod at Kanswah near the river Chambal, a Raja, called Salindra,‘of the race of Sarya, a tribe renowned amongst the tribes of the mighty’is said to be ruler of Takhya.4

This was evidently the Takhya or Takha kingdom of the Punjab, which wasvisited by Hiou-en-Tsiang,5 and which has been already referred to. It seems,therefore, that the Naga people of Takhya were known also by the name of Sarya.

Again, in the outer Himalaya, between the Sutlej and Beas Valleys, isa tract of country called Sara, or Scoraj. In this district the Naga demigodsare the chief deities worshipped.

There is another Seoraj in the Upper Chinab Valley, and this too is occupiedby a Naga worshiping people.

The name Saraj, or Seoraj, appears to be the same as the Sarya of Colonel Tod’sinscription and as Seori, which is the alternative name of the Cherus of the GangesValley. It also seems to be identical with Sarai, which we have already seen, is theold Tamil name for the Chera or Naga. Apparently, therefore, the Saryas orTakhya, the Saraj people of the Sutlej Valley, the Seoris or Cherus of the valleyof the Ganges, and the Cheras, Seras, or Keralas of Southern India, are butdifferent branches of the same Naga-worshipping people.

It may be noted, too, that in some of the Himalayan dialects, Kira or Kiri

means a serpent. This name, from which was perhaps derived the term Kirate

1. Sherring Races of N.W.P., 376,377

2. Mahabharata, Karna, p. xiv

3. Calcutta Review, July, 1896

4. Annals of Rajasthan, i. 795

5. Hiouen Tsiang, Beal, i. 165



so often applied to the people of the Himalayas, is found in the Rajatarangini,where it is applied to a people in or near Kashmir. The Kiras are mentionedby Varaha Mihira, and in a copper plate published by Prof. Kielhorn.1

An inscription at the Baijnath temple in the Kangra valley gives Kiragramsas the then name of the place.2 This, in the local dialect, would mean thevillage of serpents. The Naga is still a popular deity at Baijnath, andthroughout the neighbouring country. The term Kira is thus an equivalentfor Naga, and it can scarcely be doubted that the serpent-worshipping Kirasof the Himalayas were closely related to the Dravidian Keras, Cheras orKeralas of the South.

Similarity of name is not always to be trusted, but here we have somethingmore. These people, whose designation is thus apparently the same, are allof Solar race; they all venerate the hooded serpent; and they all worship,as ancestors, the Naga demi-gods.

From the foregoing it would seem tolerably certain that the Dravidiansof Southern India were of the same stock as the Nagas or Asuras of theNorth.”

It is thus clear that the Nagas and Dravidians are one and thesame people. Even with this much of proof, people may not be foundready to accept the thesis. The chief difficulty in the way of acceptingit lies in the designation of the people of South India by the nameDravidian. It is natural for them to ask why the term Dravidian hascome to be restricted to the people of South India if they are reallyNagas. Critics are bound to ask : If the Dravidians and the Nagasare the same people, why is the name Nagas not used to designatepeople of South India also. This is no doubt a puzzle. But it is apuzzle which is not beyond solution. It can be solved if certain factsare borne in mind.

The first thing to be borne in mind is the situation regardinglanguage. Today the language of the Southern India differs from thatof the people of Northern India. Was this always so? On this questionthe observations of Mr. Oldham3 are worth attention.

“It is evident that the old Sanskrit grammarians considered the languageof the Dravidian countries to be connected with the vernaculars of northernIndia; and that, in their opinion, it was especially related to the speech ofthose people who, as we have seen, were apparently descendants of the Asuratribes. Thus, in the ‘Shahasha Chandrika’, Lakshmidhara says that thePaisachi language is spoken in the Paisachi countries of Pandya, Kekaya,Vahlika, Sahya, Nepala, Kuntala, Sudesha, Bhota, Gandhara, Haiva andKanoj; and that these are the Paisachi countries.4 Of all the vernaculardialects, the paisachi is said to have contained the smallest infusion ofSanskrit.5

1. Rajatarangini, Stein, viii. 27, 67, Rapson J. R. A. S., July 1900, 533

2. J. R. A. S., Jan., 1903, p. 37

3. The Sun and the Serpent.

3. and 5. Muir O.S.T. ii.49



That the Asuras originally spoke a language which differred from that ofthe Aryas seems evident. Several passages are quoted by Prof. Muir, fromthe Rig Veda, in which the word ‘mridavach’ is applied to the speech of theAsuras (R.vi.74, 2; v. vi.3; v.vii.6). Of these passages, Professor Muir observes:“The word mridavach, which I have translated “injuriously speaking”, isexplained by Sayana as meaning “one whose organs of speech are destroyed”.1

The original meaning of the expression was, doubtless that the language ofthe Asuras was more or less unintelligible to the Aryas. The same explanationwill apply to another passage in the Rig Veda, where it is said : ‘May we(by propitiating Indra) conquer the ill speaking man.’2

From the Satapatha Brahmana we find that ‘the Asuras, being deprivedof speech, were undone, crying. ‘He lava’, ‘He lava’. Such was the unintelligiblespeech which they uttered. And he who speaks thus is a Mlecha. Hence, letno Brahman speak barbarous language, since such is the speech of Asuras3

We learn from Manu, that ‘those tribes who are outside of the classesproduced from the mouth, arms, thighs and feet of Brahman, whether theyspeak the language of the Mlechas or of the Aryas, are called Dasyus.,4 Inthe time of Manu, therefore, the Aryan language and that of the Mlechasor Asuras were both in use. At the period described in the Mahabharata,however, the Asura language must have almost died out amongst theAryanized tribes; as Vidura addressed Yudhishthira in the Mlecha tongue,so as to be unintelligible to all except Yudhishthira.5

At a later period than this, however, the grammarian Rama Tarkavagisarefers to ‘those who speak like Nagas.’6 It would seem, therefore, that theunregenerate Asuras retained the language, as well as the religion andcustoms, of their forefathers long after their converted brethren had discardedthem. It was evidently amongst these unregenerate tribes that the Paisachidialects were in use; and amongst these tribes, as we have just seen, werethe Dravidian Pandyas.7

This view, that the Tamil and cognate tongues were founded upon theancient Asura speech, is very strongly confirmed by the fact that the languageof the Brahuis, a tribe on the borders of Sind, has been found to be veryclosely allied to them. Indeed, Dr. Caldwell says: ‘The Brahui (language)enables us to trace the Dravidian race, beyond the Indus, to the southernconfines of Central Asia. This country, as I have already pointed out, wasthe home of the Asuras or Nagas, to which race apparently belonged thefounders of the Dravidian kingdoms.’

Taking into consideration all the evidence which has been brought forward,the only possible conclusion seems to be, that the Dravidians, of the southof India, were of the same stock as the Asuras or Nagas of the North.”

The second thing to be borne in mind is that the word ‘Dravida’ isnot an original word. It is the Sanskritized form of the word Tamil’.

1. Muir, O.S.T. ii. 49

2. Rig Veda, Wilson VII, XVIII, 13

3. Satapatha Br. iii. 2, 1, 23

4. Muir, Haughton x. 45

5. Mahabharata, Adi. Jatagriha, p. cx/vii

6. Muir, O.S.T. ii. 52

7. Ibid. 49



The original word ‘Tamil’ when imported into Sanskrit became

Damita1 and later on Damilla became Dravida. The word Dravida

is the name of the language of the people and does not denote the

race of the people. The third thing to remember is that Tamil or

Dravida was not merely the language of South India but before the

Aryans came it was the language of the whole of India,2 and was

spoken from Kashmere to Cape Camorin. In fact, it was the language

of the Nagas throughout India. The next thing to note is the contact

between the Aryan and the Nagas and the effect it produced on the

Nagas and their language. Strange as it may appear the effect of

this contact on the Nagas of North India was quite different from

the effect it produced on the Nagas of South India. The Nagas in

North India gave up Tamil which was their mother tongue and

adopted Sanskrit in its place. The Nagas in South India retained

Tamil as their mother tongue and did not adopt Sanskrit the language

of the Aryans. If this difference is borne in mind it will help to explain

why the name Dravida came to be applied only for the people of South

India. The necessity for the application of the name Dravida to the

Nagas of Northern India had ceased because they had ceased to speak

the Dravida language. But so far as the Nagas of South India are

concerned not only the propriety of calling them Dravida had

remained in view of their adherence to the Dravida language but the

necessity of calling them Dravida had become very urgent in view

of their being the only people speaking the Dravida language after

the Nagas of the North had ceased to use it. This is the real reason

why the people of South India have come to be called Dravidians.

The special application of the use of the word Dravida for the people

of South India must not, therefore, obscure the fact that the Nagas

and Dravidas are the one and the same people. They are only two

different names for the same people. Nagas was a racial or cultural

name and Dravida was their linguistic name.

Thus the Dasas are the same as the Nagas and the Nagas are

the same as the Dravidians. In other words what we can say about

the races of India is that there have been at the most only two races

in the field, the Aryans and the Nagas. Obviously the theory of

Mr. Rice must fall to the ground. For it postulates three races in

action when as a matter of fact we see that there are only two.

1. B. R. Bhandarkar, Lectures on the Ancient History of India (1919), p: 80 .

2. Ibid pp., 25-28



II

Granting however that there was a third aboriginal race living inIndia before the advent of the Dravidians, can it be said that thesepre-Dravidian aboriginals were the ancestors of the present dayUntouchables of India? There are two tests we can apply to find thetruth. One is the anthropometric test and the other is the ethnological.

Considered in the light of the anthropometric characteristics of theIndian people Prof. Ghurye has something very striking to say in hisvolume on ‘Caste and Race in India’ from which the following is anextract :

“Taking the Brahmin of the United Provinces as the typical representativeof the ancient Aryans we shall start comparisons with him. If we turn tothe table of differential indices we find that he shows a smaller differentialindex as compared with the Chuhra and the Khatri of the Punjab than withany caste from the United Provinces except the Chhatri. The differential indexbetween the Khatri and the Chuhra1 is the only slightly less than that betweenthe Brahmin of the United Provinces and the Chuhra of the Punjab. Thismeans that the Brahmin of the United Provinces has closer physical affinitieswith the Chuhra and the Khatri of the Punjab than with any caste fromhis own province except the very high caste of the Chhatri...... The realityof this close affinity between the United Provinces Brahmin and the PunjabChuhra is more clearly brought out if we look at the table of differentialindices between the United Provinces Brahmin and the Brahmins of otherregions. Even the differential index between the United Provinces Brahminand the Bihar Brahmins, who from what we know about the history of spreadof the Aryan culture, is expected to be very nearly allied to the former, isjust as high as that between the United Provinces Brahmin and theChuhra...... On historical ground we expect Bihar to approximate to the UnitedProvinces. On referring to the table we find that the Kurmi comes near tothe Brahmin, and the Chamar and the Dom2 stand much differentiated fromhim. But the Chamar in this case is not as much distinct from the Brahminas the United Provinces Chamar is from the United Provinces Brahmin. Thetable for Bengal shows that the Chandal3 who stands sixth in the schemeof a social precedence and whose touch pollutes, is not much differentiatedfrom the Brahmin, from whom the Kayasthas, second in rank, can hardlybe said to be distinguished. In Bombay the Deshastha Brahmin bears as closeraffinity to the Son-Koli, a fisherman caste, as to his own compeer, theChitpavan Brahmin. The Mahar, the Untouchable of the Maratha region, comenext together with the Kunbi, the peasant. Then follow in order the ShenviBrahmin, the Nagar Brahmin and the high caste Maratha. These results arerather old. Stated in a generalized form they mean that there is nocorrespondence between social gradation and physical differentiation inBombay.

1. Chuhra is an Untouchable of the Punjab.

2. Dom is an Untouchable of Bihar.

3. Chandal is an Untouchable of Bengal.



Finally we come to Madras. Here we must treat the different linguistic areasseparately for the schemes of social precedence in the various areas are different.According to the average given by Risely and by E. Thurston the order of castesis as follows:

Kapu, Sale, Malla, Golla, Madiga, Fogata and Komati.

According to their social status they are ranked as below:

Brahmin, Komati, Golla, Kapu and others and Sale, Fagota and others. MalaMadiga occupy the lowest rank being the Pariahs of the Telugu country.

In the Canarese the nasal index gives the following order :

Karnatak Smarts, Brahmin, Bant, Billiva, Mandya Brahmin, Vakkaliga,Ganiga, Linga Banajiga, Panchala, Kurha, Holeya, Deshastha Brahmin, Toreyaand Bedar.

In the scheme of social precedence the castes are as under:

Brahmin, Bant and Vakkaliga, Toreya, etc., Kuruba and Ganiga, Badaga andKrumba and Solaga, Billiva, Beda Holeya.

The significance of the comparison is enhanced when we remember that thenasal index of the Holeya, the Untouchables of the Canarese region is 75.1 thatof the highest of the Brahmin being 71.5 while those of the jungle Krumba andthe Solaga, who when Hinduised occupy the rank allotted to them in the list,arc 86.1 and 85.1 respectively.

The Tamil castes may be arranged according to their nasal index as follows:

Ambattan, Vellai, Ediayan, Agamudaiyan, Tamil Brahmin, Palli, Malaiyali,Shanan and Parayan. The Nasal indices of four typical Malayalam castes are:Tiyan, 75; Nambudri 75.5; Nayar 76.7; Charuman 77.2. The order of socialprecedence among these is: Nambudri, Nayar, Tiyan and Charuman. The nasalindex of the Kanikar, a jungle tribe of Tranvancore is 8.46. Thus, the Charuman(an Unapproachable) belonging to the same race as the Brahmin rather thanto Kanikar.”

To omit from the above extract what is said about other commu-nities and to draw attention to what relates to the Untouchables only,it is clear that the nasal index of the Chuhra (the Untouchables) ofthe Punjab is the same as the nasal index of the Brahmin of theUnited Provinces; the nasal index of the Chamar (the Untouchables)of Bihar is not very much distinct from the Brahmin of Bihar; thenasal index of the Holeya (an Untouchable) of the Canarese is farhigher than that of the Brahmin of Karnatak and that the nasal indexof the Cheruman (an Unapproachable lower than the Pariah) of theTamil belongs to the same race as the Brahmin of the Tamil Nad.If anthropometry is a science which can be depended upon todetermine the race of a people, then the result obtained by theapplication of anthropometry to the various strata of Hindusociety disprove that the Untouchables belong to a race differentfrom the Aryans and the Dravidians. The measurements establishthat the Brahmin and the Untouchables belong to the same race.



From this it follows that if the Brahmins are Aryans the

Untouchables are also Aryans. If the Brahmins are Dravidians the

Untouchables are also Dravidians. If the Brahmins are Nagas, the

Untouchables are also Nagas. Such being the facts, the theory

propounded by Mr. Rice must be said to be based on a false

foundation.

III

The racial theory of Untouchability not only runs counter to the

results of anthropometry, but it also finds very little support from

such facts as we know about the ethnology of India. That the people

of India were once organized on tribal basis is quite well known, and

although the tribes have become castes the tribal organization still

remains intact. Each tribe was divided into clans and the clans were

composed of groups of families. Each group of families had a totem

which was some object, animate or inanimate. Those who had a

common totem formed an exogamous group popularly known as Gotra

or Kula. Families having a common gotra were not allowed to

intermarry for they were supposed to be descended from the same

ancestor having the same blood running in their veins. Having regard

to this fact an examination of the distribution of the totems among

the different castes and communities should serve as good a test for

determining race as anthropometry has been.

Unfortunately, the study of the totems and their distribution among

different communities has been completely neglected by students of

sociology. This neglect is largely due to the current view propagated

by the Census Commissioners that real unit of the Hindu social

system and the basis of the fabric of Hindu society is the sub-caste

founded on the rule of endogamy. Nothing can be a greater mistake

than this. The unit of Hindu society is not the sub-caste but the family

founded on the rule of exogamy. In this sense the Hindu family is

fundamentally a tribal organization and not a social organization as

the sub-caste is. The Hindu family is primarily guided in the matter

of marriage by consideration of Kul and Gotra and only secondarily

by considerations of caste and sub-caste. Kul and Gotra are Hindu

equivalents of the totem of the Primitive Society. This shows that

the Hindu society is still tribal in its organization with the family at

its base observing the rules of exogamy based on Kul and Gotra. Castes

and sub-castes are social organizations which are superimposed over



the tribal organization and the rule of endogamy enjoined by them

does not do away with the rule of exogamy enjoined by the tribal

organizations of Kul and Gotra.

The importance of recognizing the fact that it is the family which

is fundamental and not the sub-caste is obvious. It would lead to

the study of the names of Kul and Gotra prevalent among Hindu

families. Such a study would be a great help in determining the racial

composition of the people of India. If the same Kul and Gotra were

found to exist in different castes and communities it would be possible

to say that the castes though socially different were racially one. Two

such studies have been made, one in Maharashtra by Risley1 and

another in the Punjab,2 by Mr. Rose and the result flatly contradict

the theory that the Untouchables are racially different from the

Aryans or the Dravidians. The main bulk of the population in

Maharashtra consists of Marathas. The Mahars are the Untouchables

of Maharashtra. The anthropological investigation shows that both

have the same Kul. Indeed the identity is so great that there is hardly

a Kul among the Marathas which is not to be found among the Mahars

and there is no Kul among the Mahars which is not to be found among

the Marathas. Similarly, in the Punjab one main stock of people

consists of Jats. The Mazabi Sikhs are Untouchables most of them

being Chamars by caste. Anthropological investigation shows that the

two have the same Gotras. Given these facts how can it be argued

that the Untouchables belong to a different race? As I have said if

totem, kul, and gotra, have any significance it means that those who

have the same totem must have been kindred. If they were kindred

they could not be persons of different race.

The racial theory of the origin of Untouchability must, therefore,

be abondoned.

1. Census of India 1901. Ethnographical Appendices.

2. Glossary of Tribes and Castes in the Punjab by Rose, Vol., III, p. 76.


THE UNTOUCHABLES : OCCUPATIONAL... UNTOUCHABILITY 305

CHAPTER VIII

OCCUPATIONAL ORIGIN OF

UNTOUCHABILITY

WE may now turn to the occupational theory of the origin of

Untouchability. According to Mr. Rice, the origin of Untouchability

is to be found in the unclean and filthy occupations of the Untouch-

ables. The theory is a very plausible one. But there are certain

difficulties in the way of its being accepted as a true explanation

of the origin of Untouchability. The filthy and unclean occupations

which the Untouchables perform are common to all human societies.

In every human Society there are people who perform these occu-

pations. Why were such people not treated as Untouchables in other

parts of the world? The second question is : Did the Dravidians have

a nausea against such callings or against persons engaged in them?

On this point, there is no evidence. But we have evidence about the

Aryans. That evidence shows that the Aryans were like other people

and their notions of purity and impurity did not fundamentally differ

from those of other ancient people. One has only to consider the

following texts from Narada Smriti to show that the Aryans did not

at all mind engaging themselves in filthy occupations. In Chapter

V Narada is dealing with the subject matter of breach of contract

of service. In this Chapter, there occur the following verses :

1. The sages have distinguished five sorts of attendants according

to law. Among these are four sorts of labourers; the slaves

(are the fifth category of which there are) fifteen species.

2. A student, an apprentice, a hired servant, and fourthly an

official.

3. The sages have declared that the state of dependence is

common to all these but their respective position and income

depends on their particular caste and occupations.



4. Know that there are two sorts of occupations; pure work andimpure work; impure work is that done by the slaves. Pure workis that done by labourers.

5. Sweeping the gateway, the privy, the road and the place forrubbish; shampooing the secret parts of the body; gathering andputting away the leaving of food, ordure and urine.

6. And lastly, rubbing the master’s limbs when desired; this shouldbe regarded as impure work. All other work besides this is pure.

25. Thus have the four classses of servants doing pure work beenenumerated. All the others who do dirty work are slaves, of whomthere are fifteen kinds:1

It is clear that impure work was done by the slaves and that theimpure work included scavenging. The question that arises is: Who werethese slaves? Were they Aryans or non-Aryans? That slavery existedamong the Aryans admits of no doubt. An Aryan could be a slave ofan Aryan. No matter to what Varna an Aryan belonged he could bea slave. A Kshatriya could be a slave. So could a Vaishya. Even aBrahmin was not immune from the law of slavery. It is whenChaturvarna came to be recognized as a law of the land that a changewas made in the system of slavery. What this change was can be seenfrom the following extract from the Narada Smriti :

“39. In the inverse order of the (four) castes slavery is not ordained, exceptwhere a man violated the duties peculiar to his caste. Slavery (in that respect)is analogous to the condition of a wife”.

Yajnavalkya also says that :

“183(2) Slavery is in the descending order of the Varnas and not in theascending order”

This is explained by Vijnaneswara in his Mitakshara, a Commentaryon Yajnavalkya Smriti in the following terms:-

“Of the Varna such as the Brahmin and the rest, a state of slavery shallexist in the descending order (Anulomcyna). Thus, of a Brahmin, a Kshatriya,and the rest may become a slave; of a Kshatriya, the Vaishya and the Shudra;and of a Vaishya, a Shudra; this state of slavery shall operate in the descendingorder.”

1 The fifteen classes of slaves are defined by the Narada Smriti in the following

verses ;

V. 26. One born at (his master’s) house; one purchased; one received (bygift); one obtained by inheritance; one maintained during a generalfamine; one pledged by his rightful owner.

V. 27. One released from heavy debt; one made captive in fight; one wonthrough a wager; one who has come forward declaring ‘I am thine.’An apostate from asceticism; one enslaved for a stipulated period.

V. 28. One who has become slave in order to get a maintenance; one enslavedon account of his connection with a female slave; and one self-sold.These are 15 classes of slaves as declared by law.


THE UNTOUCHABLES : OCCUPATIONAL... UNTOUCHABILITY 307

The change was a mere reorganization of slavery and the basis

of the principles of graded inequality which is the soul of Chaturvarna.

To put it in a concrete form, the new law declared that a Brahmin

could have a Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and a Shudra as his slave.

A Kshatriya could have Kshatriya, a Vaishya and a Shudra as his

slave. A Vaishya could have a Vaishya and and a Shudra as his slave.

A Shudra could have a Shudra only. With all this, the law of slavery

remained and all Aryans whether they were Brahmins, Kshatriyas,

Vaishyas or Shudras if they become slaves were subject to it.

Having regard to the duties prescribed for the slaves, this change

in the law of slavery does not matter at all. It still means that a

Brahmin if he was a slave, a Kshatriya if he was a slave, a Vaishya

if he was a slave, did the work of a scavenger. Only a Brahmin would

not do scavenging in the house of a Kshatriya, Vaishya or a Shudra.

But he would do scavenging in the house of a Brahmin. Similarly,

a Kshatriya would do scavenging in the house of a Brahmin and the

Kshatriya. Only he would not do it in the house of a Vaishya or

Shudra and a Vaishya would do scavenging in the house of a Brahmin,

Kshatriya and Vaishya. Only he would not do it in the house of a

Shudra. It is, therefore, obvious that the Brahmins, Kshatriyas and

Vaishyas who are admittedly the Aryans did the work of scavengers

which is the filthiest of filthy occupations. If scavenging was not

loathsome to an Aryan how can it be said that engaging in filthy

occupations was the cause of Untouchability. The theory of filthy

occupation as an explanation of Untouchability is, therefore, not

tenable.



BLANK


THE UNTOUCHABLES : CONTEMPT FOR... UNTOUCHABILITY 309

PART IV

NEW THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN

OF UNTOUCHABILITY

Chapter IX. Contempt for Buddhists as the Root of Untouchability.

Chapter X. Beef-eating as the Root of Untouchability.



BLANK



CHAPTER IX

CONTEMPT FOR BUDDHISTS AS THE

ROOT OF UNTOUCHABILITY

I

THE Census Reports for India published by the Census Commis-

sioner at the interval of every ten years from 1870 onwards contain

a wealth of information nowhere else to be found regarding the social

and religious life of the people of India. Before the Census of 1910

the Census Commissioner had a column called “Population by

Religion”. Under this heading the population was shown (1) Muslims,

(2) Hindus, (3) Christians, etc. The Census Report for the year 1910

marked a new departure from the prevailing practice. For the first

time it divided the Hindus under three separate categories,

(i) Hindus, (ii) Animists and Tribal, and (iii) the Depressed Classes

or Untouchables. This new classification has been continued ever

since.

II

This departure from the practice of the previous Census Commis-

sioners raises three questions. First is what led the Commissioner

for the Census of 1910 to introduce this new classification. The second

is what was the criteria adopted as a basis for this classification.

The third is what are the reasons for the growth of certain practices

which justify the division of Hindus into three separate categories

mentioned above.

The answer to the first question will be found in the address

presented in 1909 by the Muslim Community under leadership of H.H.

The Aga Khan to the then Viceroy, Lord Minto, in which they asked

for a separate and adequate representation for the Muslim community

in the legislature, executive and the public services.



In the address1 there occurs the following passage :-

“The Mohamedans of India number, according to the census taken in theyear 1901 over sixty-two millions or between one-fifth and one-fourth of thetotal population of His Majesty’s Indian dominions, and if a reduction be madefor the uncivilised portions of the community enumerated under the heads ofanimist and other minor religions, as well as for those classes who areordinarily classified as Hindus but properly speaking are not Hindus at all,the proportion of Mohamedans to the Hindu Majority becomes much larger.2

We therefore desire to submit that under any system of representationextended or limited a community in itself more numerous than the entirepopulation of any first class European power except Russia may justly layclaim to adequate recognition as an important factor in the State.

“We venture, indeed, with Your Excellency’s permission to go a step further,and urge that the position accorded to the Mohamedan community in anykind of representation direct or indirect, and in all other ways effecting theirstatus and influence should be commensurate, not merely with their numericalstrength but also with their political importance and the value of thecontribution which they make to the defence of the empire, and we also hopethat Your Excellency will in this connection be pleased to give due consid-eration to the position which they occupied in India a little more than hundredyears ago and of which the traditions have naturally not faded from theirminds.”

The portion in italics has a special significance. It was introducedin the address to suggest that in comprising the numerical strengthof the Muslims with that of the Hindus the population of the animists,tribals and the Untouchables should be excluded. The reason for thisnew classification of ‘Hindus’ adopted by the Census Commissioner in1910 lies in this demand of the Muslim community for separaterepresentation on augmented scale. At any rate this is how the Hindusunderstood this demand.3

Interesting as it is, the first question as to why the CensusCommissioner made this departure in the system of classification is ofless importance than the second question. What is important is to knowthe basis adopted by the Census Commissioner for separating thedifferent classes of Hindus into (1) those who were hundred per centHindus and (2) those who were not.

1 For the text of the address see my Pakistan p. 431

2 Italics not in the original.

3 This operation came soon after the address given by Muslim community toLord Minto in 1909 in which they asked for a separate and adequate representationfor the Muslim community. The Hindu smelt a rat in it. As the Census Commissionerobserved :—

“Incidentally, the enquiry generated a certain amount of heat, because unfortunatelyit happened to be made at a time when the rival claims of Hindus and Mohammedansto representation on the Legislative Councils were being debated and some of theformer feared that it would lead to the exclusion of certain classes from the categoryof Hindus and would thus react unfavourably on their political importance”. PartI. p. 116.



The basis adopted by the Census Commissioner for separation isto be found in the circular issued by the Census Commissioner inwhich he laid down certain tests for the purpose1 of distinguishingthese two classes. Among those who were not hundred per centHindus were included castes and tribes which :–

(1) Deny the supremacy of the Brahmins.

(2) Do not receive the Mantra from a Brahmin or other recognizedHindu Guru.

(3) Deny the authority of the Vedas.

(4) Do not worship the Hindu gods.

(5) Are not served by good Brahmins as family priests.

(6) Have no Brahmin priests at all.

(7) Are denied access to the interior of the Hindu temples.

(8) Cause pollution (a) by touch, or (b) within a certain distance.

(9) Bury their dead.

(10) Eat beef and do no reverence to the cow.

Out of these ten tests some divide the Hindus from the Animistsand the Tribal. The rest divide the Hindus from the Untouchables.Those that divide the Untouchables from the Hindus are (2), (5), (6),(7), and (10). It is with them that we are chiefly concerned.

For the sake of clarity it is better to divide these tests into partsand consider them separately. This Chapter will be devoted only tothe consideration of (2), (5), and (6).

The replies received by the Census Commissioner to questionsembodied in tests (2), (5) and (6) reveal (1) that the Untouchablesdo not receive the Mantra from a Brahmin; (2) that the Untouchablesare not served by good Brahmin priests at all; and (3) thatUntouchables have their own priests reared from themselves. Onthese facts the Census Commissioners of all Provinces are unani-mous.2

Of the three questions the third is the most important. Unfortu-nately the Census Commissioner did not realize this. For in makinghis inquiries he failed to go to the root of the matter to find out:Why were the Untouchables not receiving the Mantra from theBrahmin? Why Brahmins did not serve the Untouchables as theirfamily priests? Why do the Untouchables prefer to have their ownpriests? It is the ‘why’ of these facts which is more important than theexistence of these facts. It is the ‘why’ of these facts which must be

1. See Census of India (1911). Pan 1. p. 117

2. See Census of 1911 for Assam p.40; for Bengal, Bihar and Orisa p. 282; for

CP.p.73;



investigated. For the clue to the origin of Untouchability lies hidden

behind it.

Before entering upon this investigation, it must be pointed out thatthe inquiries by the Census Commissioner were in a sense one-sided.They showed that the Brahmins shunned the Untouchables. They didnot bring to light the fact that the Untouchables also shunned theBrahmins. Nonetheless, it is a fact. People are so much accustomedto thinking that the Brahmin is the superior of the Untouchablesand the Untouchable accepts himself as his inferior; that thisstatement that the Untouchables look upon the Beahmin as an impureperson is sure to come to them as a matter of great surprise. Thefact has however been noted by many writers who have observed andexamined the social customs of the Untouchables. To remove anydoubt on the point, attention is drawn to the following extracts fromtheir writings.

The fact was noticed by Abbe Dubois who says1 :

“Even to this day a Pariah is not allowed to pass a Brahmin Street in

a village, though nobody can prevent, or prevents, his approaching or passing

by a Brahmin’s house in towns. The Pariahs, on their part will under no

circumstances, allow a Brahmin to pass through their paracherries (collection

of Pariah huts) as they firmly believe it will lead to their ruin”.

Mr. Hemingsway, the Editor of the Gazetteer of the Tanjore District

says :

“These castes (Parayan and Pallan or Chakkiliyan castes of Tanjore

District) strongly object to the entrance of a Brahmin into their quarters

believing that harm will result to them therefrom”.2

Speaking of the Holeyas of the Hasan District of Mysore, Captain

J.S.F. Mackenzie says:-

“Every village has its Holigiri as the quarters inhabited by the Holiars,

formerly agrestic serfs, is called outside the village boundary hedge. This,

I thought was because they were considered as impure race, whose touch

carries defilement with it”3

Such is the reason generally given by the Brahmins who refuse

to receive anything directly from the hands of a Holiar, and yet the

Brahmins consider great luck will wait upon them if they can manage

to pass through the Holigiri without being molested. To this Holiars

for Madras p. 51; for Punjab p. 109; for U.P. p. 121; for Baroda p.55. for Mysore

p.53; for Rajputana pp. 94—105; for Travancore p.198

1. Hindu Manners and Customs (3rd Edition) p. 61 f.n.

2. Gazetteer of Tanjore District (1906) p. 80.

3. Indian Antiquary 1873 11.65.



have a strong objection, and, should a Brahmin attempt to enter their

quarters, they turn out in a body and slipper him, in former times,

it is said, to death. Members of the other castes may come as far

as the door, but they must not enter the house, for that would bring

the Holiar bad luck. If, by chance, a person happens to get in, the

owner takes care to tear the intruder’s cloth, tie up some salt in one

corner of it, and turn him out. This is supposed to neutralise all the

good luck which might have accrued to the tresspasser, and avert

any evil which ought to have befallen the owner of the house.

What is the explanation of this strange phenomenon? The expla-

nation must of course fit in with the situation as it stood at the start,

i.e. when the Untouchables were not Untouchables but were only

Broken Men. We must ask why the Brahmins refused to officiate at

the religious ceremonies of the Broken Men? Is it the case that the

Brahmins refused to officiate? Or is it that the Broken Men refused

to invite them? Why did the Brahmin regard Broken Men as impure?

Why did the Broken Men regard the Brahmins as impure? What is

the basis of this antipathy?

This antipathy can be explained on one hypothesis. It is that the

Broken Men were Buddhists. As such they did not revere the

Brahmins, did not employ them as their priests and regarded them

as impure. The Brahmin on the other hand disliked the Broken Men

because they were Buddhists and preached against them contempt

and hatred with the result that the Broken Men came to be regarded

as Untouchables.

We have no direct evidence that the Broken Men were Buddhists.

No evidence is as a matter of fact necessary when the majority of

Hindus were Buddhists. We may take it that they were.

That there existed hatred and abhorrence against the Buddhists

in the mind of the Hindus and that this feeling was created by the

Brahmins is not without support.

Nilkant in his Prayaschit Mayukha1 quotes a verse from Manu

which says :–

“If a person touches a Buddhist or a flower of Pachupat, Lokayala,

Nastika and Mahapataki, he shall purify himself by a bath.”

The same doctrine is preached by Apararka in his Smriti.2 Vradha

Harit goes further and declares entry into the Buddhist Temple as

sin requiring a purificatory bath for removing the impurity.

1 Edited by Gharpure, p.95.

2 Smriti Sammuchaya I. p. 118.



How widespread had become this spirit of hatred and contemptagainst the followers of Buddha can be observed from the scenesdepicted in Sanskrit dramas. The most striking illustration of thisattitude towards the Buddhists is to be found in the Mricchakatika.In Act VII of that Drama the hero Charudatta and his friend Maitreyaare shown waiting for Vasantasena in the park outside the city. Shefails to turn up and Charudatta decides to leave the park. As theyare leaving, they see the Buddhist monk by name Samvahaka. Onseeing him, Charudatta says :-

“Friend Maitreya, I am anxious to meet Vasantsena ...

Come, let us go. (After walking a little) Ah ! here’s an inauspicious

sight, a Buddhist monk coming towards us. (After a little reflection) well,

let him come this way, we shall follow this other path. (Exit.)

In Act VIII, the monk is in the Park of Sakara, the King’s brother-in-law, washing his clothes in a pool. Sakara accompanied by Vita,turns up and threatens to kill the monk. The following conversationbetween them is revealing :

“Sakara- Stay, you wicked monk.

Monk- Ah! Here’s the king’s brother-in-law! Because some monk hasoffended him, he now beats up any monk he happens to meet.

Sakara- Stay, I will now break your head as one breaks a radish in atavern. (Beats him).

Vita- Friend, it is not proper to beat a monk who has put on thesaffron-robes, being disgusted with the world.

Monk- (Welcomes) Be pleased, lay brother.

Sakara- Friend, see. He is abusing me.

Vita- What does he say?

Sakara- He calls me lay brother (upasaka). Am I a barber?

Vita- Oh! He is really praising you as a devotee of the Buddha.

Sakara- Why has he come here?

Monk- To wash these clothes.

Sakara- Ah! you wicked monk. Even I myself do not bathe in this pool; Ishall kill you with one stroke.”

After a lot of beating, the monk is allowed to go. Here is a BuddhistMonk in the midst of the Hindu crowd. He is shunned and avoided.The feeling of disgust against him is so great that the people evenshun the road the monk is travelling. The feeling of repulsion is sointense that the entry of the Buddhist was enough to cause the exitof the Hindus. The Buddhist monk is on a par with the Brahmin.A Brahmin is immune from death-penalty. He is even free fromcorporal punishment But the Buddhist monk is beaten and assaulted



without remorse, without compunction as though there was nothing

wrong in it.

If we accept that the Broken Men were the followers of Buddhism

and did not care to return to Brahmanism when it became triumphant

over Buddhism as easily as other did, we have an explanation for

both the questions. It explains why the Untouchables regard the

Brahmins as inauspicious, do not employ them as their priest and

do not even allow them to enter into their quarters. It also explains

why the Broken Men came to be regarded as Untouchables. The

Broken Men hated the Brahmins because the Brahmins were the

enemies of Buddhism and the Brahmins imposed untouchability upon

the Broken Men because they would not leave Buddhism. On this

reasoning it is possible to conclude that one of the roots of untouch-

ability lies in the hatred and contempt which the Brahmins created

against those who were Buddhist.

Can the hatred between Buddhism and Brahmanism be taken to

be the sole cause why Broken Men became Untouchables? Obviously,

it cannot be. The hatred and contempt preached by the Brahmins

was directed against Buddhists in general and not against the Broken

Men in particular. Since untouchability stuck to Broken Men only,

it is obvious that there was some additional circumstance which has

played its part in fastening untouchability upon the Broken Men.

What that circumstance could have been? We must next direct our

effort in the direction of ascertaining it.



CHAPTER X

BEEF EATING AS THE ROOT OF

UNTOUCHABILITY

WE now take up test No. 10 referred to in the circular issued by

the Census Commissioner and to which reference has already been

made in the previous chapter. The test refers to beef-eating.

The Census Returns show that the meat of the dead cow forms

the-chief item of food consumed by communities which are generally

classified as untouchable communities. No Hindu community, however

low, will touch cow’s flesh. On the other hand, there is no community

which is really an Untouchable community which has not something

to do with the dead cow. Some eat her flesh, some remove the skin,

some manufacture articles out of her skin and bones.

From the survey of the Census Commissioner, it is well established

that Untouchables eat beef. The question however is: Has beef-eating

any relation to the origin of Untouchability? Or is it merely an

incident in the economic life of the Untouchables? Can we say that

the Broken Men came to be treated as Untouchables because they

ate beef? There need be no hesitation in returning an affirmative

answer to this question. No other answer is consistent with facts as

we know them.

In the first place, we have the fact that the Untouchables or the

main communities which compose them eat the dead cow and those

who eat the dead cow are tainted with untouchability and no others.

The co-relation between untouchability and the use of the dead cow

is so great and so close that the thesis that it is the root of

untouchability seems to be incontrovertible. In the second place if

there is anything that separates the Untouchables from the Hindus,

it is beef-eating. Even a superficial view of the food taboos of the

Hindus will show that there are two taboos regarding food which

serve as dividing lines. There is one taboo against meat-eating. It

divides Hindus into vegetarians and flesh eaters. There is another


THE UNTOUCHABLES : BEEF EATING ... UNTOUCHABILITY 319

taboo which is against beef eating. It divides Hindus into those whoeat cow’s flesh and those who do not. From the point of view ofuntouchability the first dividing line is of no importance. But thesecond is. For it completely marks off the Touchables from theUntouchables. The Touchables whether they are vegetarians or flesh-eaters are united in their objection to eat cow’s flesh. As against themstand the Untouchables who eat cow’s flesh without compunction andas a matter of course and habit.1

In this context it is not far-fetched to suggest that those who havea nausea against beef-eating should treat those who eat beef asUntouchables.

There is really no necessity to enter upon any speculation as towhether beef-eating was or was not the principal reason for the riseof Untouchability. This new theory receives support from the HinduShastras. The Veda Vyas Smriti contains the following verse whichspecifies the communities which are included in the category ofAntyajas and the reasons why they were so included.2

L. 12-13 “ The Charmakars (Cobbler), the Bhatta (Soldier), the Bhilla,

the Rajaka (washerman), the Puskara, the Nata (actor), the Vrata, the

Meda, the Chandala, the Dasa, the Svapaka, and the Kolika- these are

known as Antyajas as well as others who eat cow’s flesh.”

Generally speaking the Smritikars never care to explain the why

and the how of their dogmas. But this case is exception. For in this

case, Veda Vyas does explain the cause of untouchability. The clause

“as well as others who eat cow’s flesh” is very important. It shows

that the Smritikars knew that the origin of untouchability is to be

found in the eating of beef. The dictum of Veda Vyas must close the

argument. It comes, so to say, straight from the horse’s mouth and

what is important is that it is also rational for it accords with facts

as we know them.

The new approach in the search for the origin of Untouchability

has brought to the surface two sources of the origin of Untouchability.

One is the general atmosphere of scorn and contempt spread by the

Brahmins against those who were Buddhists and the second is the

habit of beef-eating kept on by the Broken Men. As has been said ,

the first circumstance could not be sufficient to account for stigma of

1 The Untouchables have felt the force of the accusation levelled against them

by the Hindus for eating beef. Instead of giving up the habit the Untouchables have

invented a philosophy which justifies eating the beef of the dead cow. The gist of

the philosophy is that eating the flesh of the dead cow is a better way of showing

respect to the cow than throwing her carcass to the wind.

2 Quoted in Kane’s History of Dharma Shastra-Vol.11, Part 1 p. 71.



Untouchability attaching itself to the Broken Men. For the scorn and

contempt for Buddhists spread by the Brahmins was too general and

affected all Buddhists and not merely the Broken Men. The reason

why Broken Men only became Untouchables was because in addition

to being Buddhists they retained their habit of beef-eating which gave

additional ground for offence to the Brahmins to carry their newfound

love and reverence to the cow to its logical conclusion. We may

therefore conclude that the Broken Men were exposed to scorn and

contempt on the ground that they were Buddhists the main cause

of their Untouchability was beef-eating.

The theory of beef-eating as the cause of untouchability also gives

rise to many questions. Critics are sure to ask: What is the cause

of the nausea which the Hindus have against beef-eating? Were the

Hindus always opposed to beef-eating? If not, why did they develop

such a nausea against it? Were the Untouchables given to beef-eating

from the very start? Why did they not give up beef-eating when it

was abandoned by the Hindus? Were the Untouchables always

Untouchables? If there was a time when the Untouchables were not

Untouchables even though they ate beef why should beef-eating give

rise to Untouchability at a later-stage? If the Hindus were eating

beef, when did they give it up? If Untouchability is a reflex of the

nausea of the Hindus against beef-eating, how long after the Hindus

had given up beef-eating did Untouchability come into being? These

questions must be answered. Without an answer to these questions,

the theory will remain under cloud. It will be considered as plausible

but may not be accepted as conclusive. Having put forth the theory,

I am bound to answer these questions. I propose to take up the

following heads :-

(1) Did the Hindus never eat beef?

(2) What led the Hindus to give up beef-eating?

(3) What led the Brahmins to become vegetarians?

(4) Why did beef-eating give rise to Untouchability? and

(5) When was Untouchability born?


THE UNTOUCHABLES : DID THE HINDUS... BEEF ? 321

PART V

THE NEW THEORIES AND SOME QUESTIONS

Chater XI. Did the Hindus never eat beef ?

Chapter XII. Why did non-Brahmins give up beef-eating ?

Chapter XIII. What made the Brahmins to become vegetarians ?

Chapter XIV. Why should beef-eating make Broken Men

Untouchables ?



BLANK



CHAPTER XI

DID THE HINDUS NEVER EAT BEEF ?

TO the question whether the Hindus ever ate beef, every Touchable

Hindu, whether he is a Brahmin or a non-Brahmin, will say ‘no,

never’. In a certain sense, he is right. From times no Hindu has eaten

beef. If this is all that the Touchable Hindu wants to convey by his

answer there need be no quarrel over it. But when the learned

Brahmins argue that the Hindus not only never ate beef but they

always held the cow to be sacred and were always opposed to the

killing of the cow, it is impossible to accept their view.

What is the evidence in support of the construction that the Hindus

never ate beef and were opposed to the killing of the cow?

There are two series of references in the Rig Veda on which reliance

is placed. In one of these, the cow is spoken of as Aghnya. They are

Rig Veda 1.164, 27; IV.1.6; V 82-8; VII.69. 71; X.87. Aghnya means

‘one who does not deserve to be killed’. From this, it is argued that

this was a prohibition against the killing of the cow and that since

the Vedas are the final authority in the matter of religion, it is

concluded that the Aryans could not have killed the cows, much less

could they have eaten beef. In another series of references the cow

is spoken of as sacred. They are Rig Veda VI.28.1.8. and VIII, 101.

15. In these verses the cow is addressed as Mother of Rudras, the

Daughter of Vasus, the Sister of the Adityas and the Centre of Nectar.

Another reference on the subject is in Rig Veda VIII. 101. 16 where

the cow is called Devi (Goddess).

Raliance is also placed on certain passages in the Brahmanas and

Sutras.

There are two passages in the Satapatha Brahmana which relate

to animal sacrifice and beef-eating. One is at III. 1.2.21 and reads

as follows :-

“He (the Adhvaryu) then makes him enter the hall. Let him not eat (the flesh) of

either the cow or the ox, for the cow and the ox doubtless support everything here on

earth. The gods spake, ‘verily, the cow and the ox support everything

here; come, let us bestow on the cow and the ox whatever vigour belonged to



other species (of animals); and therefore the cow and the ox eat most. Hence

were one to eat (the flesh) of an ox or a cow, there would be, as it were,

an eating of everything, or, as it were, a going to the end (or, to destruction)...

Let him therefore not eat (the flesh) of the cow and the ox.”

The other passage is at 1, 2, 3, 6. It speaks against animal sacrifice

and on ethical grounds.

A similar statement is contained in the Apastambha Dharma Sutra

at 1, 5, 17, 29. Apastambha lays a general embargo on the eating

of cow’s flesh.

Such is the evidence in support of the contention that the Hindus

never ate beef. What conclusion can be drawn from this evidence?

So far as the evidence from the Rig Veda is concerned the

conclusion is based on a misreading and misunderstanding of the

texts. The adjective Aghnya applied to the cow in the Rig Veda means

a cow that was yielding milk and therefore not fit for being killed.

That the cow is venerated in the Rig Veda is of course true. But

this regard and venerations of the cow are only to be expected from

an agricultural community like the Indo-Aryans. This application of

the utility of the cow did not prevent the Aryan from killing the cow

for purposes of food. Indeed the cow was killed because the cow was

regarded as sacred. As observed by Mr.Kane:

“It was not that the cow was not sacred in Vedic times, it was because

of her sacredness that it is ordained in the Vajasaneyi Samhita that beef

should be eaten.”1

That the Aryans of the Rig Veda did kill cows for purposes of food

and ate beef is abundantly clear from the Rig Veda itself. In Rig

Veda (X. 86.14) Indra says:- “They cook for one 15 plus twenty oxen”.

The Rig Veda (X.91.14) says that for Agni were sacrificed horses,

bulls, oxen, barren cows and rams. From the Rig Veda (X.72.6) it

appears that the cow was killed with a sword or axe.

As to the testimony of the Satapatha Bramhana, can it be said

to be conclusive? Obviously, it cannot be. For there are passages in

the other Bramhanas which give a different opinion.

To give only one instance. Among the Kamyashtis set forth in the

Taittiriya Bramhana, not only the sacrifice of oxen and cows are laid

down, but we are even told what kind and description of oxen and

cows are to be offered to what deities. Thus, a dwarf ox is to be

chosen for sacrifice to Vishnu; a drooping horned bull with a blaze

on the forehead to Indra as the destroyer of Vritra; a black cow to

1 Dharm Shaslra Vichar (Marathi) p, 180.



Pushan; a red cow to Rudra; and so on. The Taittiriya Bramhana

notes another sacrifice called Panchasaradiya-seva, the most impor-

tant element of which was the immolation of seventeen five-year old

humpless, dwraf-bulls, and as many dwarf heifers under three year-

old.

As against the statement of the Apastamba Dharma Sutra, the

following points may be noted.

First is the contrary statement contained in that Very Sutra. At

14, 15, 29, the Sutra says :-

“The cow and the bull are sacred and therefore should be eaten”.

The second is the prescription of Madhuparka contained in theGrahya Sutras. Among the Aryans the etiquette for receiving impor-tant guests had become settled into custom and had become aceremony. The most important offering was Madhuparka. A detaileddescriptions regarding Madhuparka are to be found in the variousGrahya Sutras. According to most of the Grahya Sutras there aresix persons who have a right to be served with Madhuparka namely;(1) Ritwija or the Brahmin called to perform a sacrifice, (2) Acharya,the teacher, (3) The bridegroom (4) The King (5) The Snatak, the

student who has just finished his studies at the Gurukul and (6) Anyperson who is dear to the host. Some add Atithi to this list. Exceptin the case of Ritvija, King and Acharya, Madhuparka is to be offeredto the rest once in a year. To the Ritvija, King and Acharya it isto be offered each time they come.

What was this Madhuparka made of ? There is divergence aboutthe substances mixed in offering Madhuparka. Asv.gr and Ap.gr.(13.10) prescribe a mixture of honey and curds or clarified butter andcurds. Others like Par.gr. 13 prescribe a mixture of three (curds,honey and butter). Ap.gr.(13.11-12) states the view of some that thosethree may be mixed or five (those three with fried yava grain andbarley). Hir.gr.I, 12, 10-12 give the option of mixing three of five(curds, honey, ghee, water and ground grain). The Kausika Sutra (92)speaks of nine kinds of mixtures, viz., Brahma (honey and curds). Aindra(of payasa), Saumya (curds and ghee), Pausna (ghee and mantha),Sarasvata (milk and ghee), Mausala (wine and ghee, this being used

only in Sautramanai and Rajasuya sacrifices), Parivrajaka (sesame oiland oil cake). The Madhava gr.I.9.22 says that the Veda declares thatthe Madhuparka must not be without flesh and so it recommendsthat if the cow is let loose, goat’s meat or payasa (rice cooked inmilk) may be offered; the Hir.gr. 1.13, 14 says that other meat shouldbe offered; Baud.gr. (1.2,51-54) says that when the cow is let off, theflesh of a goat or ram may be offered or some forest flesh (of a deer,



etc.) may be offered, as there can be no Madhuparka without fleshor if one is unable to offer flesh one may cook ground grains.

Thus the essential element in Madhuparka is flesh and particularlycow’s flesh.

The killing of cow for the guest had grown to such an extent thatthe guest came to be called ‘Go-ghna’ which means the killer of thecow. To avoid this slaughter of the cows the Ashvalayana GrahyaSutra (1.24.25) suggests that the cow should be let loose when theguest comes so as to escape the rule of etiquette.

Thirdly, reference may be made to the ritual relating to disposalof the dead to counter the testimony of the Apastamba Dharma Sutra.The Sutra says1 :-

“1. He should then put the following (sacrificial) implements (on the

dead body)

2. Into the right hand the (spoon called) Guhu.

3. Into the left the (other spoon called) Upabhrit.

4. On his right side the wooden sacrificial sword called Sphya, on his

left side the Agnihotrahavani (i.e., the laddle with which the

Agnihotra oblations are sacrified).

5. On his chest the (big sacrificial laddle called) Dhruva. On his head

the dishes. On his teeth the pressing stones.

6. On the two sides of his nose, the two smaller sacrificial laddies called

Sruvas.

7. Or, if there is only one (Sruva), breaking it (in two pieces).

8. On his two ears the two Prasitraharanas (i.e, the vessels into which

the portion of the sacrificial food belonging to the Brahmin) is put

9. Or, if there is only one (Prasitraharana), breaking it (in two pieces).

10. On his belly the (vessel called) Patri.

11. And the cup into which the cut-off portion (of the sacrificial food)

are put.

12. On his secret parts the (staff called) Samy.

13. On his thighs two kindling woods.

14. On his legs the mortar and the pestle.

15. On his feet the two baskets.

16. Or, if there is only one (basket), breaking it in two pieces.

17. Those of the implements which have a hollow (into which liquids

can be poured) are filled with sprinkled butter.

1 Kane’s vol. II. Part I p. 545.



18. The son (of the deceased person) should take the under and the

upper mill-stone for himself.

19. And the implements made of copper, iron and earthenware.

20. Taking out the omentum of the she-animal he should cover therewith

the head and the mouth (of the dead person) with the verse, ‘But

on the armour (which will protect thee) against Agni, by that which

comes from the cows.’ (Rig Veda. X.16.7).

21. Taking out the kidneys of the animal he should lay them into the

hands (of the dead body) with the verse, escape the two hounds,

the sons of Sarma (Rig Veda X 14.10) the right kidney into the right

hand and the left into the left hand.

22. The heart of the animals he puts on the heart of the deceased.

23. And two lumps of flour or rice according to some teachers.

24. Only if there are no kidneys according to some teachers.

25. Having distributed the whole (animal), limb by limb (placing its

different limbs on the corresponding limbs of the deceased) and

having covered it with its hide, he recites when the Pranita water

is carried forward (the verse), ‘Agni do not overturn this cup,’ (Rig

Veda, X.16.8).

26. Bending his left knee he should sacrifice Yugya oblation into the

Dakshina fire with the formulas ‘To Agni Svaha, to Kama Svaha,

to the world Svaha, to Anumati Svaha’.

27. A fifth (oblation) on the chest of the deceased with the formula ‘from

this one verily thou hast been born. May he now be born out of

thee. To the heaven worlds Svaha.’ ”

From the above passage quoted from the Ashvalayan Grahya Sutrait is clear that among the ancient Indo-Aryans when a person died,an animal had to be killed and the parts of the animal were placedon the appropriate parts of the dead body before the dead body was

burned.

Such is the state of the evidence on the subject of cow-killing andbeef-eating. Which part of it is to be accepted as true? The correctview is that the testimony of the Satapatha Brahmana and the

Apastamba Dharma Sutra in so far as it supports the view thatHindus were against cow-killing and beef-eating, are merely exhorta-tions against the excesses of cow-killing and not prohibitions againstcow-killing. Indeed the exhortations prove that cow-killing and eatingof beef had become a common practice. That notwithstanding theseexhortations cow-killing and beef-eating continued. That most oftenthey fell on deaf ears is proved by the conduct of Yajnavalkya, thegreat Rishi of the Aryans. The first passage quoted above from the



Satapatha Brahmana was really addressed to Yajnavalkya as an

exhortation. How did Yajnavalkya respond? After listening to the

exhortation this is what Yajnavalkya said :–

“I, for one, eat it, provided that it is tender”

That the Hindus at one time did kill cows and did eat beef is proved

abundantly by the description of the Yajnas given in the Buddhist

Sutras which relate to periods much later than the Vedas and the

Brahmanas. The scale on which the slaughter of cows and animals

took place was colossal. It is not possible to give a total of such

slaughter on all accounts committed by the Brahmins in the name

of religion. Some idea of the extent of this slaughter can however

be had from references to it in the Buddhist literature. As an

illustration reference may be made to the Kutadanta Sutta in which

Buddha preached against the performance of animal sacrifices to

Brahmin Kutadanta. Buddha, though speaking in a tone of sarcastic

travesty, gives a good idea of the practices and rituals of the Vedic

sacrifices when he said:

“And further, O Brahmin, at that sacrifice neither were any oxen slain,

neither goats, nor fowls, nor fatted pigs, nor were any kind of living creatures

put to death. No trees were cut down to be used as posts, no Darbha grasses

mown to stress around the sacrificial spot. And the slaves and messengers

and workmen there employed were driven neither by rods nor fear, nor carried

on their work weeping with tears upon their faces.”

Kutadanta on the other hand in thanking Buddha for his conversion

gives an idea of the magnitude of the slaughter of animals which

took place at such sacrifices when he says :-

“I, even I betake myself to the venerable Gotama as my guide, to the

Doctrine and the Order. May the venerable One accept me as a disciple, as

one who, from this day forth, as long as life endures, has taken him as his

guide. And I myself, O, Gotama, will have the seven hundred bulls, and the

seven hundred steers, and the seven hundred heifers, and the seven hundred

goats, and the seven hundred rams set free. To them I grant their life. Let

them eat grass and drink fresh water and may cool breezes waft around them.”

In the Samyuta Nikaya (III,1-9) we have another description of

a Yajna performed by Pasenadi, king of Kosala. It is said that five

hundred bulls, five hundred calves and many heifers, goats and rams

were led to the pillar to be sacrificed.

With this evidence no one can doubt that there was a time when

Hindus –both Brahmins and non-Brahmins –ate not only flesh but

also beef.


THE UNTOUCHABLES : WHY DID NON-BRAHMINS... 329

CHAPTER XII

WHY DID NON-BRAHMINS GIVE UP

BEEF-EATING?

THE food habits of the different classes of Hindus have been as fixed

and stratified as their cults. Just as Hindus can be classified on their

basis of their cults so also they can be classified on the basis of their

habits of food. On the basis of their cults, Hindus are either Saivites

(followers of Siva) or Vaishnavites (followers of Vishnu). Similarly,

Hindus are either Mansahari (those who eat flesh) or Shakahari

(those who are vegetarians).

For ordinary purposes the division of Hindus into two classes

Mansahari and Shakahari may be enough. But it must be admitted

that it is not exhaustive and does not take account of all the classes

which exist in Hindu society. For an exhaustive classification, the

class of Hindus called Mansahari shall have to be further divided

into two sub-classes : (i) Those who eat flesh but do not eat cow’s

flesh; and (ii) Those who eat flesh including cow’s flesh; In other

words, on the basis of food taboos, Hindu society falls into three

classes : (i) Those who are vegetarians; (ii) Those who eat flesh but

do not eat cow’s flesh; and (iii) Those who eat flesh including cow’s

flesh. Corresponding to this classification, we have in Hindu society

three classes : (1) Brahmins; (2) Non-Brahmins; and (3) The Untouch-

ables. This division though not in accord with the fourfold division

of society called Chaturvarnya, yet it is in accord with facts as they

exist. For, in the Brahmins1 we have a class which is vegetarian,

in the non-Brahmins the class which eats flesh but does not eat cow’s

flesh and in the Untouchables a class which eats flesh including cow’s

flesh.

This threefold division is therefore substantial and is in accord with

facts. Anyone who stops to turn over this classification in his mind

1 The Brahmins of India fall into two divisions (1) Pancha Dravid and (2) Panch

Gauda. The former are vegetarians, the latter are not.



is bound to be struck by the position of the Non-Brahmins. One can

quite understand vegetarianism. One can quite understand meat-

eating. But it is difficult to understand why a person who is a flesh-

eater should object to one kind of flesh namely cow’s flesh. This is

an anomaly which call for explanation. Why did the Non-Brahmin

give up beef-eating? For this purpose it is necessary to examine laws

on the subject. The relevant legislation must be found either in the

Law of Asoka or the Law of Manu.

II

To begin with Asoka. The edicts of Asoka which have referenceto this matter are Rock Edict No.I and Pillar Edict Nos.II andV. Rock Edict No.I reads as follows :-

“This pious Edict has been written by command of His Sacred and GraciousMajesty the King. Here (in the capital) no animal may be slaughtered forsacrifice, nor may the holiday feast be held, because His Sacred and GraciousMajesty, the king sees much offence in the holiday feasts, although in certainplaces holiday feasts are excellent in the sight of His Sacred and GraciousMajesty the king.

“Formerly, in the kitchen of His Sacred and Gracious Majesty the King,each day many hundred thousands of living creatures were slaughtered tomake curries. But now, when this pious edict is being written, only threeliving creatures are slaughtered (daily) for curry, to wit, two peacocks andone antelope: the antelope, however, not invariably. Even those three livingcreatures henceforth shall not be slaughtered.”

Pillar Edict No.II was in the following terms :

“Thus saith His Sacred and Gracious Majesty, the King :-

“The Law of Piety is excellent. But wherein consists the Law of Piety?In these things, to wit, little piety, many good deeds, compassion, liberality,truthfulness and purity.

The gift of spiritual insight I have given in manifold ways: whilst on two-footed and four-footed beings, on birds and the denizens of the waters, I haveconferred various favours-even unto the boon of life; and many other gooddeeds have I done.

For this purpose, have I caused this pious edict to be written, that menmay walk after its teaching, and that it may long endure; and he who willfollow its teaching will do well.”

Pillar Edict V says :

“Thus said His Sacred and Gracious Majesty, the king :

When I had been consecrated twenty-six years the following species weredeclared exempt from slaughter, namely :

Parrots, starlings adjutants, Brahmany ducks, geese, pandimukhas, gelatas,bats, queen-ants, female tortoises, boneless fish, vedaveyakas, gangapuputakas,



skate, (river) tortoise, porcupines, tree-squirrels, barasingha stag, Brahmanybulls, monkeys, rhinoceros, grey doves village pigeons, and all fourfooted animalswhich are not utilised or eaten.

She-goats, ewes, cows, that is to say, those either with young or in milk, areexempt from slaughter as well as their off-spring up to six months of age.

The caponing of cocks must not be done.

Chaff must not be burned along with the living things in it.

Forests must not be burned either for mischief or so as to destroy livingcreatures.

The living must not be fed with the living. At each of the three seasonal fullmoons, and at the full moon of the month Tishya (December-January) for threedays in each case, namely, the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the first fortnight,and the first day of the second fortnight, as well as on the first days throughoutthe year, fish is exempt from killing and may not be sold.

“On the same days, in elephant-preserves or fish-ponds no other classes ofanimals may be destroyed.

On the eighth, fourteenth and fifteenth days of each fortnight, as well as on theTishya and Punarvasa days and festival days, the castration of bulls must not beperformed, nor may he-goats, rams, boars and other animals liable to castrationbe castrated.

On the Tishya and Punarvasa days, on the seasonal full moon days, and duringthe fortnights of the seasonal full moons the branding of horses and oxen must notbe done.

During the time upto the twenty-sixth anniversary of my consecration twenty-five jail deliveries have been effected.”

So much for the legislation of Asoka.

III

Let us turn to Manu. His Laws contain the the following provisions

regarding meat-eating :- -

“V.11. Let him avoid all carnivorous birds and those living in villages,and one hoofed animals which are not specially permitted (to beeaten), and the Tithbha (Parra) Jacana.

V.12. The sparrow, the Plava, the Hamsa, the Brahmani duck, thevillage-cock, the Sarasa crane, the Raggudal, the woodpecker, theparrot, and the starling.

V.13. Those which feed striking with their beaks, web-footed birds, theKoyashti, those which scratch with their toes, those which diveand live on fish, meat from a slaughter-house and dried meat.

V.14. The Baka and the Balaka crane, the raven, the Khangartaka(animals) that eat fish, village-pigs, and all kinds of fishes.

V.l5. He who eats the flesh of any (animals) is called the eater of theflesh of that (particular) creature, he who eats fish is an eater ofevery (kind of) flesh; let him therefore avoid fish.



V.16. (But the fish called) Pathine and (that called) Rohita may beeaten, if used for offering to the gods or to the manes; (onemay eat) likewise Ragivas, Simhatundas, and Sasalkas on alloccasions.

V.17. Let him not eat solitary or unknown beasts and birds thoughthey may fall under (the categories of) eatable creatures, notany five-toed (animals).

V.18. The porcupine, the hedgehog, the iguana, the rhinoceros, thetortoise, and the hare they declare to be eatable; likewise those(domestic animals) that have teeth in one jaw exceptingcamels.”

IV

Here is survey of the legislation both by Asoka and by Manu on

the slaughter of animals. We are of course principally concerned with

the cow. Examining the legislation of Asoka the question is: Did he

prohibit the killing of the cow? On this issue there seems to be a

difference of opinion. Prof. Vincent Smith is of opinion that Asoka

did not prohibit the killing of the cow. Commenting on the legislation

of Asoka on the subject, Prof. Smith says:1

“It is noteworthy that Asoka’s rules do not forbid the slaughter of cow, which,

apparently, continued to be lawful.”

Prof. Radhakumud Mookerji joins issue with Prof. Smith and says2

that Asoka did prohibit the slaughter of the cow. Prof. Mookerji relies

upon the reference in Pillar Edict V to the rule of exemption which

was made applicable to all four-footed animals and argues that under

this rule cow was exempted from killing. This is not a correct reading

of the statement in the Edict. The Statement in the Edict is a

qualified statement. It does not refer to all four-footed animals but

only to four-footed animals, ‘which are not utilised or eaten. ‘A cow

cannot be said to be a four-footed animal which was not utilized or

eaten. Prof. Vincent Smith seems to be correct in saying that Asoka

did not prohibit the slaughter of the cow. Prof. Mookerji tries to get

out of the difficulty by saying that at the time of Asoka the cow was

not eaten and therefore came within the prohibition. His statement

is simply absurd for the cow was an animal which was very much

eaten by all classes.

It is quite unnecessary to resort as does Prof. Mookerji to a forced

construction of the Edict and to make Asoka prohibit the slaughter

of the cow as though it was his duty to do so. Asoka had no particular

1. Smith,- Asoka, p. 58

2. Mookerji, Asoka pp. 21, 181, 184



interest in the cow and owed no special duty to protect her against

killing. Asoka was interested in the sanctity of all life human as well

as animal. He felt his duty to prohibit the taking of life where taking

of life was not necessary. That is why he prohibited slaughtering

animal for scrifice1 which he regarded as unnecessary and of animals

which are not utilized nor eaten which again would be wanton and

unnecessary. That he did not prohibit the slaughter of the cow in

specie may well be taken as a fact which for having regard to the

Buddhist attitude in the matter cannot be used against Asoka as a

ground for casting blame.

Coming to Manu there is no doubt that he too did not prohibit

the slaughter of the cow. On the other hand he made the eating of

cow’s flesh on certain occasions obligatory.

Why then did the non-Brahmins give up eating beef? There appears

to be no apparent reason for this departure on their part. But there

must be some reason behind it. The reason I like to suggest is that

it was due to their desire to imitate the Brahmins that the non-

Brahmins gave up beef-eating. This may be a novel theory but it is

not an impossible theory. As the French author, Gabriel Tarde has

explained that culture within a society spreads by imitation of the

ways and manners of the superior classes by the inferior classes. This

imitation is so regular in its flow that its working is as mechanical

as the working of a natural law. Gabriel Tarde speaks of the laws

of imitation. One of these laws is that the lower classes always

imitate the higher classes. This is a matter of such common

knowledge that hardly any individual can be found to question its

validity.

That the spread of the cow-worship among and cessation of beef-

eating by the non-Brahmins has taken place by reason of the habit

of the non-Brahmins to imitate the Brahmins who were undoubtedly

their superiors is beyond dispute. Of course there was an extensive

propaganda in favour of cow-worship by the Brahmins. The Gayatri

Purana is a piece of this propaganda. But initially it is the result

of the natural law of imitation. This, of course, raises another

question: Why did the Brahmins give up beef-eating?

3 See Rock Edict No. I



CHAPTER XIII

WHAT MADE THE BRAHMINS BECOME

VEGETARIANS ?

THE non-Brahmins have evidently undergone a revolution. From

being beef-eaters to have become non-beef-eaters was indeed a

revolution. But if the non-Brahmins underwent one revolution, the

Brahmins had undergone two. They gave up beef-eating which was

one revolution. To have given up meat-eating altogether and become

vegetarians was another revolution.

That this was a revolution is beyond question. For as has been

shown in the previous chapters there was a time when the Brahmins

were the greatest beef-eaters. Although the non-Brahmins did eat beef

they could not have had it every day. The cow was a costly animal

and the non-Brahmins could ill afford to slaughter it just for food.

He only did it on special occasion when his religious duty or personal

interest to propitiate a deity compelled him to do. But the case with

the Brahmin was different. He was a priest. In a period overridden

by ritualism there was hardly a day on which there was no cow

sacrifice to which the Brahmin was not invited by some non-Brahmin.

For the Brahmin every day was a beef-steak day. The Brahmins were

therefore the greatest beef-eaters. The Yajna of the Brahmins was

nothing but the killing of innocent animals carried on in the name

of religion with pomp and ceremony with an attempt to enshroud it

in mystery with a view to conceal their appetite for beef. Some idea

of this mystery pomp and ceremony can be had from the directions

contained in the Atreya Brahmana touching the killing of animals

in a Yajna.

The actual killing of the animal is preceded by certain initiatory

Rites accompanied by incantations too long and too many to be

detailed here. It is enough to give an idea of the main features of

the Sacrifice. The sacrifice commences with the erection of the

Sacrificial post called the Yupa to which the animal is tied before it


THE UNTOUCHABLES : WHAT MADE... VEGETARIANS ? 335

is slaughtered. After setting out why the Yupa is necessary the Atreya

Brahamana proceeds to state what it stands for. It says:1

“This Yupa is a weapon. Its point must have eight edges. For a weapon

(or iron club) has eight edges. Whenever he strikes with it an enemy or

adversary, he kills him. (This weapon serves) to put down him (every one)

who is to be put down by him (the sacrificer). The Yupa is a weapon which

stands erected (being ready) to slay an enemy. Thence an enemy (of the

sacrificer) who might be present (at the sacrifice) comes of all ill after having

seen the Yupa of such or such one.”

The selection of the wood to be used for the Yupa is made to vary

with the purposes which the sacrificer. wishes to achieve by the

sacrifice. The Atreya Brahmana says :

“He who desires heaven, ought to make his Yupa of Khadira wood. For

the gods conquered the celestial world by means of a Yupa, made of Khadira

wood. In the same way the sacrificer conquers the celestial world by means

of a Yupa, made of Khadira wood.”

“He who desires food and wishes to grow fat ought to make his Yupa of

Bilva wood. For the Bilva tree bears fruits every year; it is the symbol of

fertility; for it increases (every year) in size from the roots up to the branches,

therefore it is a symbol of fatness. He who having such a knowledge makes

his Yupa of Bilva wood, makes fat his children and cattle.

“As regards the Yupa made of Bilva wood (it is further to be remarked),

that they call ‘light’Bilva. He who has such a knowledge becomes a ‘light’

among his own people, the most distinguished among his own people.

“He who desires beauty and sacred knowledge ought to make his Yupa

of Palasa wood. For the Palasa is among the trees of beauty and sacred

knowledge. He who having such a knowledge makes his Yupa of Palasa wood,

becomes beautiful and acquires sacred knowledge.

“As regards the Yupa made of Palasa wood (there is further to be

remarked), that the Palasa is the womb of all trees. Thence they speak on

account of the palasam (foliage) of this or that tree (i.e. they call the foliage

of every tree palasam). He who has such a knowledge obtains (the gratification

of) any desire, he might have regarding all trees (i.e. he obtains from all

trees any thing he might wish for).”

This is followed by the ceremony of anointing the sacrificial post.2

“The Adhvaryu says (to the Hotar): “We anoint the sacrificial post (Yupa);

repeat the mantra (required)”. The Hotar then repeats the verse: “Amjanti

tvam adhvare” (3, 8, 1) i.e.” The priests anoint thee, O tree! with celestial

honey (butler); provide (us) with wealth if thou standest here erected, or if

thou art lying on thy mother (earth).” The “celestial honey” is the melted

butter (with which the priests anoint the Yupa). (The second half verse from)

“provide us” &c. means: “ thou mayest stand or lie, provide us with wealth.”

1. Atreya Brahmana II pp. 72-74.

2. Atrcy Brahmana (Martin Haug) II pp. 74-78



“(The Hotar then repeats :) “jato jayate sudinatve” &c. (3, 8, 5) i.e., “After

having been born, he (the Yupa) is growing (to serve) in the prime of his

life the sacrifice of mortal men. The wise are busy in decorating (him, the

Yupa) with skill. He, as an eloquent messenger of the gods, lifts his voice

(that it might be heard by the gods).” He (the Yupa) is called jata, i.e., bom,

because he is born by this (by the recital of the first quarter of this verse).

(By the word) vardhamana, i.e., growing, they make him (the Yupa) grow

in this manner. (By the words:) punanti (i.e. to clean, decorate), they clean

him in this manner. (By the words:) “he as an eloquent messenger, &c.” he

announces the Yupa (the fact of his existence) to the gods.

The Hotar then concludes (the ceremony of anointing the sacrificial

post) with the verse “yuva suvasah parivitah” (3, 8, 4), i.e. “the youth

decorated with ribands, has arrived; he is finer (than all trees) which

ever grew; the wise priests raise him up under recital of well-framed

thoughts of their mind.” The youth decorated with ribands, is the

vital air (the soul), which is covered by the limbs of the body. (By

the words;) “he is finer, “&c. he means that he (the Yupa) is becoming

finer (more excellent, beautiful) by this (mantra).”

The next ceremony is the carrying of fire round the sacrificial

animal. The Atreya Brahmana gives the following directions on this

point. It says1 :-

“When the fire is carried round (the animal) the Adhvaryu says to the

Hotar: ‘repeat (thy mantras)’. The Hotar then repeats this triplet of verses,

addressed to Agni, and composed in the Gayatri metre: Agnir Hota no adhvare

(4.15.1-3) i.e. (1) Agni, our priest, is carried round about like a horse, he

who is among gods, the god of sacrifices, (2) Like a charioteer Agni passes

thrice by the sacrifice; to the gods he carries the offering, (3) The master

of food, the seer of Agni, went round the offering; he bestows riches on the

sacrificer.

“When the fire is carried round (the animal) then he makes him (Agni)

prosper by means of his own deity and his own metre. ‘As a horse he is

carried’ means: they carry him as if he were a horse, round about. Like a

charioteer Agni passes thrice by the sacrifice means; he goes round the

sacrifice like a charioteer (swiftly). He is called vajapati (master of food)

because he is the master of (different kinds of) food.

“The Advaryu says: give Hotar! the additional order for despatching

offerings to the gods.

“The Hotar then says : (to the slaughterers) : Ye divine slaughterers,

commence (your work), as well as ye who are human! that is to say, he orders

all the slaughterers among gods as well as among men (to commence).

Bring hither the instruments for killing, ye who are ordering the sacrifice,

in behalf of the two masters of the sacrifice.

1 Atreya Brahmana (Martin Haug) II - pp, 84-86



“The animal is the offering, the sacrificer the master of the offering. Thus

he (the Hotar) makes prosper the sacrificer by means of his (the sacrifcer’s)

own offering. Thence they truly say: for whatever deity the animal is killed,

that one is the master of the offering. If the animal is to be offered to one

deity only, the priest should say : Medhapataye ‘to the master of the sacrifice

(singular)’, if to two deities, then he should use the dual ‘to both masters

of the offering’, and if to several deities, then he should use the plural, ‘to

the masters of the offering’. This is the established custom.

Bring ye for him fire! For the animal when carried (to the slaughter) saw

death before it Not wishing to go to the gods, the gods said to it: Come we

will bring thee to heaven ! The animal consented and said: One of you should

walk before me. They consented. Agni then walked before it, and it followed

after Agni. Thence they say, every animal belongs to Agni, for it followed

after him. Thence they carry before the animal fire (Agni).

Spread the (sacred) grass! the animal lives on herbs. He (the Hotar) thus

provides the animal with its entire soul (the herbs being supposed to form

part of it).

After the ceremony of carrying fire round the animal comes the

delivery of the animal to the priests for sacrifice. Who should offer

the animal for sacrifice? On this point the direction of the Atreya

Brahmana is1 —

“The mother, the father, the brother, sister, friend, and companions should

give this (animal) up (for being slaughtered)! When these words are pronounced,

they seize the animal which is (regarded as) entirely given up by its relations

(parents, &c.)”

On reading this direction one wonders why almost everybody is

required to join in offering the animal for sacrifice. The reason is

simple. There were altogether seventeen Brahmin priests who were

entitled to take part in performing the sacrifice. Naturally enough

they wanted the whole carcass to themselves.2 Indeed they could not

give enough to each of the seventeen priests unless they had the whole

carcass to distribute. Legally the Brahmins could not claim the whole

carcass unless everybody who could not claim any right over the

animal had been divested of it. Hence the direction requiring even

the companion of the sacrificer to take part in offering the animal.

Then comes the ceremony of actually killing the animal. The Atreya

Brahmana gives the details of the mode and manner of killing the

animal. Its directions are3 :

1. Atreya Brahmana (Martin Haug) II p. 86

2. As a matter of fact the Brahmins took the whole carcass. Only one leg each

was given to the sacrificer and his wife.

3. Atreya Brahmana (Martin Haug) II pp. 86-87



“Turn its feet northwards! Make its eye to go to the sun, dismiss its breath

to the wind, its life to the air, its hearing to the directions, its body to the

earth. In this way he (the Hotar) places it (connects it) with these worlds.

Take off the skin entire (without cutting it). Before operating the naval, tear

out omentum. Stop its breathing within (by stopping its mouth). Thus he (the

Hotar) puts its breath in the animals.

Make of its breast a piece like an eagle, of its arms (two pieces like) two

hatchets, of its forearms (two pieces like) two spikes, of its shoulders (two pieces

like) two Kashyapas, its loins should be un-broken (entire); (make of) its thighs

(two pieces like) two shields, of the two kneepans (two pieces like) two oleander

leaves; take out its twenlysix ribs according to their order; preserve every limb

of it in its integrity. Thus he benefits all its limbs.”

There remain two ceremonies to complete the sacrificial killing of

the animal. One is to absolve the Brahmin priests who played the

butcher’s part. Theoretically they are guilty of murder for the animal

is only a substitute for the sacrificer. To absolve them from the

consequences of murder, the Hotar is directed by the Atreya Brahmana

to observe the following injuction1 :

“Do not cut the entrails which resemble on owl (when taking out the

omentum), nor should among your children, O slaughterers! or among their

offspring any one be found who might cut them. By speaking these words

he presents these entrails to the slaughterers among the gods as well as to

those among men.

The Hotar shall then say thrice : O Adhrigu (and ye others), kill (the

animal), do it well; kill it, O Adhrigu.

After the animal has been killed, (he should say thrice:) Far may it (the

consequences of murder) be (from us). For Adhrigu among the gods is he

who silences (the animal) and the Apapa (away, away!) is he who puts it

down. By speaking those words he surrenders the animal to those who silence

it (by stopping its mouth) and to those who butcher it.

The Hotar then mutters (he makes, Japa); “O slaughterers! may all good

you might do abide by us! and all mischief you might do go elsewhere!” The

Hotar Gives by (this) speech the order (for killing the animal), for Agni had

given the order for killing (the animal) with the same words when he was

the Hotar of the gods.

By those words (the Japa mentioned) the Hotar removes (all evil

consequences) from those who suffocate the animal and those who butter it,

in all that they might transgress the rule by cutting one piece too soon, the

other too late, or by cutting a too large, or a too small piece. The Hotar

enjoying this happiness clears himself (from all guilt) and attains the full

length of his life (and it serves the sacrificer) for obtaining his full life. He

who has such a knowledge, attains the full length of his life.”

1 Atreya Brahmana (Martin Haug) II pp. 86-90



The Atreya Bramhana next deals with the question of disposing

of the parts of the dead animal. In this connection its direction is1—

“Dig a ditch in the earth to hide its excrements. The excrements consistof vegetable food; for the earth is the place for the herbs. Thus the Hotarputs them (the excrements) finally in their proper places. Present the evilspirits with the blood! For the gods having deprived (once) the evil spiritsof their share in the Haviryajnas (such as the Full and New Moon offerings)apportioned to them the husk and smallest grains, and after having themturned out of the great sacrifice (such as the Soma and animal sacrifices),presented to them the blood. Thence the Hotar pronounces the words : presentthe evil spirits with the blood! By giving them this share he deprives theevil spirits of any other share in the sacrifice. They say : one should notaddress the evil spirits in the sacrifice, and evil spirits whichever they mightbe (Rakshasa, Asuras, etc.): for the sacrifice is to be without (the) evil spirits(not to be disturbed by them). But others say: one should address them; for (hewho deprives any one, “entitled to a share of this share, will be punished (byhim whom he deprives); and if he himself does not suffer the penalty, then hisson, and if his son be spared, then his grandson will suffer it, and thus heresents on him (the son or grandson) what he wanted to resent on you.”

“However, if the Hotar addresses them, he should do so with a low voice.For both, the low voice and the evil spirits, are, as it were, hidden. If headdresses them with a loud voice, then such one speaks in the voice of theevil spirits, and is capable of producing Rakshasa sounds (a horrible, terrificvoice). The voice in which the haughty man and the drunkard speak is thatof the evil spirits (Rakshasas). He who has such a knowledge will neitherhimself become haughty nor will such a man be among his offspring.”

Then follows the last and the concluding ceremony that of offeringparts of the body of the animal to the gods. It is called the Manota.According to the Atreya Brahmana2—

“The Adhvaryu says (to the Hotar): recite the verses appropriate to the offeringof the parts of the sacrificial animal which are cut off for the Manota. Hethen repeats the hymn : Thou, O Agni, art the first Manota3 (6.1)”

There remains the question of sharing the flesh of the animal. Onthis issue the division was settled by the Atreya Brahmana in thefollowing terms4 :

“Now follows the division of the different parts of the sacrificial animal (amongthe priests). We shall describe it. The two jawbones with the tongue are to be givento the Prastotar; the breast in the form of an eagle to the Udgatar; the throat withthe palate to the Pratihartar; the lower part of the right loins to the Hotar: the leftto the Brahma; the right thigh to the Maitravaruna; the left to theBrahmanachhamsi; the right side with the shoulder to the Adhvaryu; the

1. Atreya Brahmana (Martin Haug) H p. 87

2. Atreya Brahmana (Martin Haug) II p. 93

3. Manota means the deity to whom the offering is dedicated.

1 Atreya Brahmana (Martin Haug) II, pp. 441-42.



left side to those who accompany the chants; the left shoulder to the

Pratipashatar; the lower part of the right arm to the Neshtar; the lower part

of the laft arm to the Potar; the upper of the right thigh to the Achhavaka;

the left to the Agnidhara; the upper part of the right arm to the Atreya;

the left to the Sadasya; the back bone and the urinal bladder to the Grihapati

(sacrificcr); the right feet to the Grihapati who gives a feasting; the left feet

to the wife of that Grihapati who gives a feasting; the upper lip is common

to both (the Grihapati and his wife), which is to be divided by the Grihapati.

They offer the tail of the animal to wives, but they should give it to a

Brahmana; the fleshy processes (manikah) on the neck and three gristles

(kikasah) to the Gravastut; three other gristles and one-half of the fleshy

part on the back (vaikartta) to the Unnetar; the other half of the fleshy part

on the neck and the left lobe (kloma) to the slaughterer, who should present

it to a Brahmana, if he himself would not happen to be a Brahmana. The

head is to be given to the Subrahmanya, the skin belongs to him (the

Subrahmanya), who spoke, svah sutyam (tomorrow at the Soma sacrifice); that

part of the sacrificial animal at a Soma sacrifice which belongs to Ila

(sacrificial food) is common to all the priests; only for the Hotar it is optional.

All these portions of the sacrificial animal amount to thirtysix single pieces,

each of which represents the pada (foot) of a verse by which the sacrifice

is carried up. The Brihati metre consists of thirtysix syllables; and the

heavenly worlds are of the Brihati nature. In this way (by dividing the animal

into thirtysix parts) they gain life (in this world) and the heavens, and having

become established in both (this and that world) they walk there.

To those who divide the sacrificial animal in the way mentioned, it becomes

the guide to heaven. But those who make the division otherwise are like

scoundrels and miscreants who kill an animal merely (for gratifying their

lust after flesh). This division of the sacrificial animal was invented by the

Rishi (Devabhaga, a son of Sruta). When he was departing from this life,

he did not entrust (the secret to anyone). But a supernatural being

communicated it to Cirija, the son of Babhru. Since his time men study it.”

What is said by the Atreya Brahmana places two things beyond

dispute. One is that the Brahmins monopolised the whole of the flesh

of the sacrificial animal. Except for a paltry bit they did not even

allow the sacrificer to share in it. The second is that the Brahmins

themselves played the part of butchers in the slaughter of the animal.

As a matter of principle the Brahmins should not eat the flesh of

the animal killed at a sacrifice. The principle underlying Yajna is

that man should offer himself as sacrifice to the gods. He offers an

animal only to release himself from this obligation. From this it

followed that the animal, being only a substitute for the man, eating the

flesh of animal meant eating human flesh. This theory was very detri-

mental to the interest of the Brahmins who had a complete monopoly

of the flesh of the animal offered for sacrifice. The Atreya Brahmana

which had seen in this theory the danger of the Brahmins being



deprived of the flesh of sacrificial animal takes pains to explain away

the theory by a simple negation. It says1 :

“The man who is intitiated (into the sacrificial mysteries) offers himself

to all deities. Agni represents all deities and Soma represents all deities.

When he (the sacrificer) offers the animal to Agni-Soma he releases himself

(by being represented by the animal) from being offered to all deities.

They say : “do not eat from the animal offered to Agni-Soma. Who eats

from this animal, eats from human flesh; because the sacrificer releases

himself (from being sacrificed) by means of the animal”. But this (precept)

is not to be attended to.”

Given these facts, no further evidence seems to be necessary to

support the statement that the Brahmins were not merely beef-eaters

but they were also butchers.

Why then did the Brahmins change front? Let us deal with their

change of front in two stages. First, why did they give up beef-

eating?

II

As has already been shown cow-killing was not legally prohibited by

Asoka. Even if it had been prohibited, a law made by the Buddhist

Emperor could never have been accepted by the Brahmins as binding

upon them.

Did Manu prohibit beef-eating? If he did, then that would be

binding on the Brahmins and would afford an adequate explanation

of their change of front. Looking into the Manu Smriti one does find

the following verses :

“V; 46. He who docs not seek to cause the sufferings of bonds anddeath to living creatures, (but) desires the good of all (beings),obtains endless bliss.

“V. 47. He who does not injure any (creature), attains without an effortwhat he thinks of, what he undertakes, and what he fixes hismind on.

“V. 48. Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures,and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainmentof) heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun (the use of) meat.

1 Atreya Brahmana (Martin Haug) II p. 80



“V. 49. Having well considered the (disgusting) origin of flesh and the(cruelty of) fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let himentirely abstain from eating flesh.”

If these verses can be treated as containing positive injunctions

they would be sufficient to explain why the Brahmins gave up meat-

eating and became vegetarians. But it is impossible to treat these

verses as positive injunctions, carrying the force of law. They are

either exhortations or interpolations introduced after the Brahmins

had become vegetarians in praise of the change. That the latter is

the correct view is proved by the following verses which occur in the

same chapter of the Manu Smriti. :

“V. 28 : The Lord of creatures (Prajapati) created this whole (world tobe) the sustenance of the vital spirit; both the immovable andthe movable creation is the food of the vital spirit.

“V. 29. What is destitute of motion is the food of those endowed withlocomotion; (animals) without fangs (are the food) of those withfangs, those without hands of those who possess hands, andthe timid of the bold.

“V. 30. The eater who daily even devours those destined to be his food,commits no sin; for the creator himself created both the eatersand those who are to be eaten (for those special purposes).

“V. 56. There is no sin in eating meat, in (drinking) spirituous liquor,and in carnal intercourse for that is the natural way of createdbeings, but abstention brings great rewards.

“V. 27. One may eat meat when it has been sprinkled with water,while Mantras were recited, when Brahmanas desire (one’sdoing it) when one is engaged (in the performance of a rite)according to the law, and when one’s life is in danger.

“V. 31. ‘The consumption of meat (is befitting) for scrifices,’ that isdeclared to be a rule made by the gods, but to persist (in usingit) on other (occasions) is said to be a proceeding worthy ofRakshasas.

“V. 32. He who eats meat, when he honours the gods and manescommits no sin, whether he has bought it, or himself has killed(the animal) or has received it as a present from others.

“V. 42. A twice-born man who, knowing the true meaning of the Veda,slays an animal for these purposes, causes both himself andthe animal to enter a most blessed state.

“V. 39. Swayambhu (the self-existent) himself created animals for thesake of sacrifices; sacrifices (have been instituted) for the goodof this whole (world); hence the slaughtering (of beasts) forsacrifice is not slaughtering (in the ordinary sense of the word).

“V. 40. Herbs, trees, cattle, birds, and other animals that have beendestroyed for sacrifices, receive (being reborn) higher exist-ences.”



Manu goes further and makes eating of flesh compulsory. Note the

following verse :

“V. 35. But a man who, being duly engaged (to officiate or to. dineat a sacred rite), refuses to eat meat, becomes after death ananimal during twentyone existences.”

That Manu did not prohibit meat-eating is evident enough. That

Manu Smriti did not prohibit cow-killing can also be proved from the

Smriti itself. In the first place, the only references to cow in the Manu

Smriti are to be found in the catalogue of rules which are made

applicable by Manu to the Snataka. They are set dut below :-

1. A Snataka should not eat food which a cow has smelt.1

2. A Snataka should not step over a rope to which a calf is tied.2

3. A Snataka should not urinate in a cowpan.3

4. A Snataka should not answer call of nature facing a cow.4

5. A Snataka should not keep his right arm uncovered when heenters a cowpan.5

6. A Snataka should not interrupt a cow which is sucking her calf,nor tell anybody of it6

7. A Snataka should not ride on the back of the cow.7

8. A Snataka should not offend the cow.8

9. A Snataka who is impure must not touch a cow with his hand.9

From these references it will be seen that Manu did not regard

the cow as a sacred animal. On the other hand, he regarded it as

an impure animal whose touch caused ceremonial pollution.

There are verses in Manu which show that he did not prohibit the

eating of beef. In this connection, reference may be made to Chapter

III. 3. It says :-

“He (Snataka) who is famous (for the strict performance of) his duties

and has received his heritage, the Veda from his father, shall be honoured,

sitting on couch and adorned with a garland with the present of a cow

(the honey-mixture).”

The question is why should Manu recommend the gift of a cow

to a Snataka? Obviously, to enable him to perform Madhuparka. If

that is so, it follows that Manu knew that Brahmins did eat beef

and he had no objection to it.

1 Manu, 209 4 Manu, 48 7 Manu, 70

2 Ibid, 38 5 Ibid, 58 8 Ibid, 162

3 Ibid, 45 6 Ibid, 59 9 Ibid, 142



Another reference would be to Manu’s discussion of the animals

whose meat is eatable and those whose meat is not. In Chapter

V. 18. he says :-

“The porcupine, the hedgehog, the iguana, the rhinoceros, the tortoise,

and the hare they declare to be eatable, likewise those (domestic animals)

that have teeth in one jaw only, excepting camels.”

In this verse Manu gives general permission to eat the flesh of

all domestic animals that have teeth in one jaw only. To this rule

Manu makes one exception, namely, the camel. In this class of

domestic animals— those that have teeth in one jaw only— falls not

only the camel but also the cow. It is noteworthy that Manu does

not make an exception in the case of the cow. This means that Manu

had no objection to the eating of the cow’s flesh.

Manu did not make the killing of the cow an offence. Manu divides

sins into two classes (i) mortal sins and (ii) minor sins. Among the

mortal sins Manu includes :

“XI. 55. Killing a Brahmana, drinking (the spirituous liquor calledSura) stealing the (gold of Brahmana) a adultery with a Guru’swife, and associating with such offenders.”

Among minor sins Manu includes :

“XI. 60. Killing the cow, sacrificing for those unworthy to sacrifice,adultery, setting oneself, casting off one’s teacher, mother,father or son, giving up the (daily) study of the Veda andneglecting the (sacred domestic) fire.”

From this it will be clear that according to Manu cow-killing was

only a minor sin. It was reprehensible only if the cow was killed

without good and sufficient reason. Even if it was otherwise, it was

not heinous or inexplicable. The same was the attitude of Yajnavalkya1.

All this proves that for generations the Brahmins had been eating

beef. Why did they give up beef-eating? Why did they, as an extreme

step, give up meat eating altogether and become vegetarians? It is

two revolutions rolled into one. As has been shown it has not been

done as a result of the preachings of Manu, their Divine Law-maker.

The revolution has taken place in spite of Manu and contrary to his

directions. What made the Brahmins take this step? Was philosophy

responsible for it? Or was it dictated by strategy?

Two explanations are offered. One explanation is that this deification

of the cow was a manifestation of the Advaita philosophy

1 Yaj. III. 227 and III 234.



that one supreme entity pervaded the whole universe, that on that

account all life human as well as animal was sacred. This explanation

is obviously unsatisfactory. In the first place, it does not fit in with

facts. The Vedanta Sutra which proclaims the doctrine of oneness of

life does not prohibit the killing of animals for sacrificial purposes

as is evident from II.1.28. In the second place, if the transformation

was due to the desire to realize the ideal of Advaita then there is

no reason why it should have stopped with the cow. It should have

extended to all other animals.

Another explanation1 more ingenious than the first, is that this

transformation in the life of the Brahmin was due to the rise of the

doctrine of the Transmigration of the Soul. Even this explanation does

not fit in with facts. The Brahadaranyaka Upanishad upholds the

doctrine of transmigration (vi.2) and yet recommends that if a man

desires to have a learned son born to him he should prepare a mass

of the flesh of the bull or ox or of other flesh with rice and ghee.

Again, how is it that this doctrine which is propounded in the

Upanishads did not have any effect on the Brahmins upto the time

of the Manu Smriti, a period of at least 400 years. Obviously, this

explanation is no explanation. Thirdly, if Brahmins became vegetarians

by reason of the doctrine of transmigration of the soul how is it, it

did not make the non-Brahmins take to vegetarianism?

To my mind, it was strategy which made the Brahmins give up

beef-eating and start worshipping the cow. The clue to the worship

of the cow is to be found in the struggle between Buddhism and

Brahmanism and the means adopted by Brahmanism to establish its

supremacy over Buddhism. The strife between Buddhism and Brah-

manism is a crucial fact in Indian history. Without the realisation

of this fact, it is impossible to explain some of the features of

Hinduism. Unfortunately students of Indian history have entirely

missed the importance of this strife. They knew there was Brahman-

ism. But they seem to be entirely unaware of the struggle for

supremacy in which these creeds were engaged and that their struggle

which extended for 400 years has left some indeliable marks on

religion, society and politics of India.

This is not the place for describing the full story of the struggle.

All one can do is to mention a few salient points. Buddhism was at

one time the religion of the majority of the people of India. It

continued to be the religion of the masses for hundreds of years. It

attacked Brahmanism on all sides as no religion had done before.

1 Kane’s Dharma Shastra II. Part II. P 776



Brahmanism was on the wane and if not on the wane, it was certainly

on the defensive. As a result of the. spread of Buddhism, the

Brahmins had lost all power and prestige at the Royal Court and

among the people. They were smarting under the defeat they had

suffered at the hands of Buddhism and were making all possible

efforts to regain their power and prestige. Buddhism had made so

deep an impression on the minds of the masses and had taken such

a hold of them that it was absolutely impossible for the Brahmins

to fight the Buddhists except by accepting their ways and means and

practising the Buddhist creed in its extreme form. After the death

of Buddha his followers started setting up the images of the Buddha

and building stupas. The Brahmins followed it. They, in their turn,

built temples and installed in them images of Shiva, Vishnu and Ram

and Krishna etc.,—all with the object of drawing away the crowd that

was attracted by the image worship of Buddha. That is how temples

and images which had no place in Brahmanism came into Hinduism.

The Buddhists rejected the Brahmanic religion which consisted of

Yajna and animal sacrifice, particularly of the cow. The objection to

the sacrifice of the cow had taken a strong hold of the minds of the

masses especially as they were an agricultural population and the

cow was a very useful animal. The Brahmins in all probability had

come to be hated as the killer of cows in the same way as the guest

had come to be hated as Gognha, the killer of the cow by the

householder, because whenever he came a cow had to be killed in

his honour. That being the case, the Brahmins could do nothing to

improve their position against the Buddhists except by giving up the

Yajna as a form of worship and the sacrifice of the cow.

That the object of the Brahmins in giving up beef-eating was to

snatch away from the Buddhist Bhikshus the supremacy they had

acquired is evidenced by the adoption of vegetarianism by Brahmins.

Why did the Brahmins become vegetarian? The answer is that without

becoming vegetarian the Brahmins could not have recovered the

ground they had lost to their rival namely Buddhism. In this

connection it must be remembered that there was one aspect in which

Brahmanism suffered in public esteem as compared to Buddhism.

That was the practice of animal sacrifice which was the essence of

Brahmanism and to which Buddhism was deadly opposed. That in

an agricultural population there should be respect for Buddhism

and revulsion against Brahmanism which involved slaughter of

animals including cows and bullocks is only natural. What could the

Brahmins do to recover the lost ground? To go one better than the



Buddhist Bhikshus not only to give up meat-eating but to become

vegetarians— which they did. That this was the object of the

Brahmins in becoming vegetarians can be proved in various ways.

If the Brahmins had acted from conviction that animal sacrifice

was bad, all that was necessary for them to do was to give up killing

animals for sacrifice. It was unnecessary for them to be vegetarians.

That they did go in for vegetarianism makes it obvious that their

motive was far-reaching. Secondly, it was unnecessary for them to

become vegetarians. For the Buddhist Bhikshus were not vegetarians.

This statement might surprise many people owing to the popular

belief that the connection between Ahimsa and Buddhism was

immediate and essential. It is generally believed that the Buddhist

Bhikshus eschewed animal food. This is an error. The fact is that

the Buddhist Bhikshus were permitted to eat three kinds of flesh

that were deemed pure. Later on they were extended to five classes.

Yuan Chwang, the Chinese traveller was aware of this and spoke

of the pure kinds of flesh as San-Ching. The origin of this practice

among the Bhikshus is explained by Mr. Thomas Walters. According

to the story told by him1—

“In the time of Buddha there was in Vaisali a wealthy general named

Siha who was a convert to Buddhism. He became a liberal supporter of the

Brethren and kept them constantly supplied with good flesh-food. When it

was noticed abroad that the Bhikshus were in the habit of eating such food

specially provided for them, the Tirthikas made the practice a matter of angry

reproach. Then the abstemious ascetic Brethren, learning this, reported the

circumstances to the Master, who thereupon called the Brethren together.

When they assembled, he announced to them the law that they were not

to eat the flesh of any animal which they had seen put to death for them,

or about which they had been told that it had been slain for them. But he

permitted to the Brethern as ‘pure’ (that is, lawful) food the flesh of animals

the slaughter of which had not been seen by the Bhikshus, not heard of by

them, and not suspected by them to have been on their account. In the Pali

and Ssu-fen Vinaya it was after a breakfast given by Siha to the Buddha

and some of the Brethren, for which the carcass of a large ox was procured

that the Nirgranthas reviled the Bhikshus and Buddha instituted this new

rule declaring fish and flesh ‘pure’ in the three conditions. The animal food

now permitted to the Bhikshus came to be known as the ‘three pures’ or ‘three

pure kinds of flesh’, and it was tersely described as ‘unseen, unheard, unsus-

pected’, or as the Chinese translations sometimes have it ‘not seen, not heard

nor suspected to be on my account’. Then two more kinds of animal food

were declared “lawful for the Brethren viz., the flesh of animals which had

died a natural death, and that of animals which had been killed by a bird

of prey or other savage creature. So there came to be five classes or

1 Yuan Chwang (1904) Vol. I. p. 55



descriptions of flesh which the professed Buddhist was at liberty to use as

food. Then the ‘unseen, unheard, unsuspected’ came to be treated as one class,

and this together with the ‘natural death’ and ‘bird killed’ made a san-ching.”

As the Buddhist Bhikshus did eat meat the Brahmins had no reason

to give it up. Why then did the Brahmins give up meat-eating and

become vegetarians? It was because they did not want to put

themselves merely on the same footing in the eyes of the public as

the Buddhist Bhikshus.

The giving up of the Yajna system and abandonment of the sacrifice

of the cow could have had only a limited effect. At the most it would

have put the Brahmins on the same footing as the Buddhists. The

same would have been the case if they had followed the rules observed

by the Buddhist Bhikshus in the matter of meat-eating. It could not

have given the Brahmins the means of achieving supremacy over the

Buddhists which was their ambition. They wanted to oust the

Buddhists from the place of honour and respect which they had

acquired in the minds of the masses by their opposition to the killing

of the cow for sacrificial purposes. To achieve their purpose the

Brahmins had to adopt the usual tactics of a wreckless adventurer.

It is to beat extremism by extremism. It is the strategy which all

rightists use to overcome the leftists. The only way to beat the

Buddhists was to go a step further and be vegetarians.

There is another reason which can be relied upon to support the

thesis that the Brahmins started cow-worship, gave up beef-eating

and became vegetarians in order to vanquish Buddhism. It is the date

when cow-killing became a mortal sin. It is well-known that cow-

killing was not made an offence by Asoka. Many people expect him

to have come forward to prohibit the killing of the cow. Prof. Vincent

Smith regards it as surprising. But there is nothing surprising in

it.

Buddhism was against animal sacrifice in general. It had no

particular affection for the cow. Asoka had therefore no particular

reason to make a law to save the cow. What is more astonishing

is the fact that cow-killing was made a Mahapataka, a mortal sin

or a capital offence by the Gupta Kings who were champions of

Hinduism which recognised and sanctioned the killing of the cow for

sacrificial purposes. As pointed out by Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar1—

“We have got the incontrovertible evidence of inscriptions to show that early

in the 5th century A. D. killing a cow was looked upon as an offence of the

1 Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture (1940) pp. 78-79.



deepest turpitude, turpitude as deep as that involved in murdering a

Brahman. We have thus a copper-plate inscription dated 465 A.D. and

referring itself to the reign of Skandagupta of the Imperial Gupta dynasty.

It registers a grant and ends with a verse saying : ‘Whosoever will transgress

this grant that has been assigned (shall become as guilty as) the slayer of

a cow, the slayer of a spiritual preceptor (or) the slayer of a Brahman. A

still earlier record placing go-hatya on the same footing as brahma hatya

is that of Chandragupta II, grandfather of Skandagupta just mentioned. It

bears the Gupta date 93, which is equivalent to 412 A.D. It is engraved on

the railing which surrounds the celebrated Buddhist stupa at Sanchi, in

Central India. This also speaks of a benefaction made by an officer of

Chandragupta and ends as follows: .. … “Whosoever shall interfere with this

arrangement .. he shall become invested with (the guilt of) the slaughter of

a cow or of a Brahman, and with (the guilt of) the five anantarya.” Here

the object of this statement is to threaten the resumer of the grant, be he

a Brahminist or a Buddhist, with the sins regarded as mortal by each

community. The anantaryas arc the five mahapatakas according to Buddhist

theology. They arc: matricide, patricide, killing an Arhat, shedding the blood

of a Buddha, and causing a split among the priesthood. The mahapatakas

with which a Brahminist is here threatened are only two : viz., the killing

of a cow and the murdering of a Brahman. The latter is obviously a

mahapataka as it is mentioned as such in all the Smritis, but the former

has been specified only an upapalaka by Apastamba, Manu, Yajnavalkya and

so forth. But the very fact that it is here associated with brahma-hatya and

both have been put on a par with the anantaryas of the Buddhists shows

that in the beginning of the fifth century A.D., it was raised to the category

of mahapatakas. Thus go-hatya must have come to be considered a mahapataka

at least one century earlier, i.e., about the commencement of the fourth

century A.D.”

The question is why should a Hindu king have come forward to

make a law against cow-killing, that is to say, against the Laws of

Manu? The answer is that the Brahmins had to suspend or abrogate

a requirement of their Vedic religion in order to overcome the

supremacy of the Buddhist Bhikshus. If the analysis is correct then

it is obvious that the worship of the cow is the result of the struggle

between Buddhism and Brahminism. It was a means adopted by the

Brahmins to regain their lost position.



CHAPTER XIV

WHY SHOULD BEEF-EATING MAKE

BROKEN MEN UNTOUCHABLES?

THE stoppage of beef-eating by the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins

and the continued use thereof by the Broken Men had produced a

situation which was different from the old. This difference lay in the

face that while in the old situation everybody ate beef, in the new

situation one section did not and another did. The difference was a

glaring difference. Everybody could see it. It divided society as

nothing else did before. All the same, this difference need not have

given rise to such extreme division of society as is marked by

Untouchability. It could have remained a social difference. There are

many cases where different sections of the community differ in their

foods. What one likes the other dislikes and yet this difference does

not create a bar between the two.

There must therefore be some special reason why in India the

difference between the Settled Community and the Broken Men in

the matter of beef-eating created a bar between the two. What can

that be? The answer is that if beef-eating had remained a secular

affair—a mere matter of individual taste-such a bar between those

who ate beef and those who did not would not have arisen.

Unfortunately beef-eating, instead of being treated as a purely secular

matter, was made a matter of religion. This happened because the

Brahmins made the cow a sacred animal. This made beef-eating a

sacrilege. The Broken Men being guilty of sacrilege necessarily

became beyond the pale of society.

The answer may not be quite clear to those who have no idea of

the scope and function of religion in the life of the society. They may

ask: Why should religion make such a difference? It will be clear

if the following points regarding the scope and function of religion

are borne in mind.


THE UNTOUCHABLES : WHY SHOULD BEEF-EATING... 351

To begin with the definition1 of religion. There is one universal

feature which characterises all religions. This feature lies in religion

being a unified system of beliefs and practices which (1) relate to

sacred things and (2) which unite into one single community all those

who adhere to them. To put it slightly differently, there are two

elements in every religion. One is that religion is inseparable from

sacred things. The other is that religion is a collective thing

inseparable from society.

The first element in religion presupposes a classification of all

things, real and ideal, which are the subject-matter of man’s thought,

into two distinct classes which are generally designated by two

distinct terms the sacred and the profane, popularly spoken of as

secular.

This defines the scope of religion. For understanding the function

-of religion the following points regarding things sacred should be

noted :

The first thing to note is that things sacred are not merely higher

than or superior in dignity and status to those that are profane. They

are just different. The sacred and the profane do not belong to the

same class. There is a complete dichotomy between the two. As Prof.

Durkhiem observes2 :—

“The traditional opposition of good and bad is nothing beside this; for

the good and the bad are only iwo opposed species of the same class,

namely, morals, just as sickness and health are two different aspects of

the same order of facts, life, while the sacred and the profane have always

and everywhere been conceived by the human mind as two distinct classes,

as two worlds between which there is nothing in common.”

The curious may want to know what has led men to see in this

world this dichotomy between the sacred and the profane. We must

however refuse to enter into this discussion as it is unnecessary for

the immediate purpose we have in mind.3

Confining ourselves to the issue the next thing to note is that the

circle of sacred objects is not fixed. Its extent varies infinitely from

religion to religion. Gods and spirits are not the only sacred things.

A rock, a tree, an animal, a spring, a pebble, a piece of wood, a house,

in a word anything can be sacred.

1 This definiton of religion it by Prof. E’nvile Durkhiem. See his The Elementary

Forms of the Religious Life’ p. 47. For the discussion that follows I have drawn

upon the same authority.

2 Prof. Durkhiem’s The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life p.38

3 The curious may refer to page 317 of the above book.



Things sacred are always associated with interdictions otherwise

called taboos. To quote Prof. Durkhiem1 again :

“Sacred things are those which the interdictions protect and isolate;

profane things, those to which these interdictions are applied and which

must remain at a distance from the first.”

Religious interdicts take multiple forms. Most important of these

is the interdiction on contact. The interdiction on contact rests upon

the principle that the profane should never touch the sacred. Contact

may be established in a variety of ways other than touch. A look

is a means of contact. That is why the sight of sacred things is

forbidden to the profane in certain cases. For instance, women are

not allowed to see certain things which are regarded as sacred. The

word (i.e., the breath which forms part of man and which spreads

outside him) is another means of contact. That is why the profane

is forbidden to address the sacred things or to utter them. For

instance, the Veda must be uttered only by the Brahmin and not

by the Shudra. An exceptionally intimate contact is the one resulting

from the absorption of food. Hence comes the interdiction against

eating the sacred animals or vegetables.

The interdictions relating to the sacred are not open to discussion.

They are beyond discussion and must be accepted without question.

The sacred is ‘untouchable’ in the sense that it is beyond the pale

of debate. All that one can do is to respect and obey.

Lastly the interdictions relating to the sacred are binding on all.

They are not maxims. They are injunctions. They are obligatory but

not in the ordinary sense of the word. They partake of the nature

of a categorical imperative. Their breach is more than a crime. It

is a sacrilege.

The above summary should be enough for an understanding of the

scope and function of religion. It is unnecessary to enlarge upon the

subject further. The analysis of the working of the laws of the sacred

which is the core of religion should enable any one to see that my

answer to the question why beef-eating should make the Broken Men

-untouchables is the correct one. All that is necessary to reach the

answer I have proposed is to read the analysis of the working of the

laws of the sacred with the cow as the sacred object. It will be found

that Untouchability is the result of the breach of the interdiction

against the eating of the sacred animal, namely, the cow.

1 The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life p 41, Interdictions which come

from religion must be distinguished from those which proceed from magic to a

discussion of this subject see Ibid. p. 300.



As has been said, the Brahmins made the cow a sacred animal.

They did not stop to make a difference between a living cow and

a dead cow. The cow was sacred, living or dead. Beef-eating was not

merely a crime. If it was only a crime it would have involved nothing

more than punishment. Beef-eating was made a sacrilege. Anyone who

treated the cow as profane was guilty of sin and unfit for association.

The Broken Men who continued to eat beef became guilty of sacrilege.

Once the cow became sacred and the Broken Men continued to eat

beef, there was no other fate left for the Broken Men except to be

treated unfit for association, i.e., as Untouchables.

Before closing the subject it may be desirable to dispose of possible

objections to the thesis. Two such objections to the thesis appear

obvious. One is what evidence is there that the Broken Men did eat

the flesh of the dead cow. The second is why did they not give up

beef-eating when the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins abandoned it.

These questions have an important bearing upon the theory of the

origin of untouchability advanced in this book and must therefore

be dealt with.

The first question is relevant as well as crucial. If the Broken Men

were eating beef from the very beginning, then obviously the theory

cannot stand. For, if they were eating beef from the very beginning

and nonetheless were not treated as Untouchables, to say that the

Broken Men became Untouchables because of beef-eating would be

illogical if not senseless. The second question is relevant, if not

crucial. If the Brahmins gave up beef-eating and the non-Brahmins

imitated them why did the Broken Men not do the same? If the law

made the killing of the cow a capital sin because the cow became

a sacred animal to the Brahmins and non-Brahmins, why were the

Broken Men not stopped from eating beef? If they had been stopped

from eating beef there would have been no Untouchability.

The answer to the first question is that even during the period

when beef-eating was common to both, the Settled Tribesmen and

the Broken Men, a system had grown up whereby the Settled

Community ate fresh beef, while the Broken Men ate the flesh of the

dead cow. We have no positive evidence to show that members of the

Settled Community never ate the flesh of the dead cow. But we have

negative evidence which shows that the dead cow had become an

exclusive possession and perquisite of the Broken Men. The evidence

consists of facts which relate to the Mahars of the Maharashtra to



whom reference has already been made. As has already been pointed

out, the Mahars of the Maharashtra claim the right to take the dead

animal. This right they claim against every Hindu in the village. This

means that no Hindu can eat the flesh of his own animal when it

dies. He has to surrender it to the Mahar. This is merely another

way of stating that when eating beef was a common practice the

Mahars ate dead beef and the Hindus ate fresh beef. The only

questions that arise are : Whether what is true of the present is true

of the ancient past? Can this fact which is true of the Maharashtra

be taken as typical of the arrangement between the Settled Tribes

and the Broken Men throughout India?

In this connection reference may be made to the tradition current

among the Mahars according to which they claim that they were given

52 rights against the Hindu villagers by the Muslim King of Bedar.

Assuming that they were given by the King of Bedar, the King

obviously did not create them for the first time. They must have been

in existence from the ancient past. What the King did was merely

to confirm them. This means that the practice of the Broken Men

eating dead meat and the Settled Tribes eating fresh meat must have

grown in the ancient past. That such an arrangement should grow

up is certainly most natural. The Settled Community was a wealthy

community with agriculture and cattle as means of livelihood. The

Broken Men were a community of paupers with no means of livelihood

and entirely dependent upon the Settled Community. The principal

item of food for both was beef. It was possible for the Settled

Community to kill an animal for food because it was possessed of

cattle. The Broken Men could not for they had none. Would it be

unnatural in these circumstances for the Settled Community to have

agreed to give to the Broken Men its dead animals as part of their

wages of watch and ward? Surely not. It can therefore be taken for

granted that in the ancient past when both the Settled Community

and Broken Men did eat beef the former ate fresh beef and the latter

of the dead cow and that this system represented a universal state

of affairs throughout India and was not confined to the Maharashtra

alone.

This disposes of the first objection. To turn to the second

objection. The law made by the Gupta Emperors was intended to

prevent those who killed cows. It did not apply to the Broken Men.

For they did not kill the cow. They only ate the dead cow. Their

conduct did not contravene the law against cow-killing. The practice



of eating the flesh of the dead cow therefore was allowed to continue.

Nor did their conduct contravene the doctrine of Ahimsa assuming

that it has anything to do with the abandonment of beef-eating by

the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins. Killing the cow was Himsa. But

eating the dead cow was not. The Broken Men had therefore no cause

for feeling qualms of conscience in continuing to eat the dead cow.

Neither the law nor the doctrine of Himsa could interdict what they

were doing, for what they were doing was neither contrary to law

nor to the doctrine.

As to why they did not imitate the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins

the answer is two fold. In the first place, imitation was too costly.

They could not afford it. The flesh of the dead cow was their principal

sustenance. Without it they would starve. In the second place,

carrying the dead cow had become an obligaton1 though originally

it was a privilege. As they could not escape carrying the dead cow

they did not mind using the flesh as food in the manner in which

they were doing previously.

The objections therefore do not invalidate the thesis in any way.

1 Owing to the reform movement among the Mahars the position has become

just the reverse. The Mahars refuse to take the dead animal while the Hindu

villagers force them to take it.



BLANK


THE UNTOUCHABLES : THE IMPURE.. UNTOUCHABLES 357

PART VI

UNTOUCHABILITY AND THE DATE OF ITS BIRTH

Chapter XV. The Impure and The Untouchables.

Chapter XVI. When did Broken Men become Untouchables ?



BLANK



CHAPTER XV

THE IMPURE AND THE UNTOUCHABLES

I

WHEN did Untouchability come into existence? The orthodox Hindus

insist that it is very ancient in its origin. In support of their

contention reliance is placed on the fact that the observance of

Untouchability is enjoined not merely by the Smritis which are of

a later date but it is also enjoined by the Dharma Sutras which are

much earlier and which, according to certain authors, date some

centuries before B.C.

In a study devoted to exploring the origin of Untouchability the

question one must begin with is : Is Untouchability as old as is

suggested to be?

For an answer to this question one has to examine the Dharma

Sutras in order to ascertain what they mean when they refer to

Untouchability and to the Untouchables. Do they mean by Untouch-

ability what we understand by it to-day? Do the class, to which they

refer, Untouchables in the sense in which we use the term Untouch-

ables to-day?

To begin with the first question. An examination of the Dharma

Sutras no doubt shows that they speak of a class whom they call

Asprashya. There is also no doubt that the term Asprashya does mean

Untouchables. The question however remains whether the Asprashya

of the Dharma Sutras are the same as the Asprashya of modern India.

This question becomes important when it is realized that the

Dharma., Sutras also use a variety of other terms such as Antya,

Antyaja, Antyavasin and Bahya. These terms are also used by the

later Smritis. It might be well to have some idea of the use of these

terms by the different Sutras and Smritis. The following table is

intended to serve that purpose :—



I. Asprashya

Dharma Sutra Smriti

1. Vishnu V. 104. 1. Katyayana verses 433, 783.

II. Antya

Dharma Sutras Smriti

1. Vasishta. (16-30) 1. Manu IV. 79; VIII. 68.

2. Apastambha (III.I) 2. Yajnavalkya I. 148. 197.

3. Atri 25.

4. Likhita 92.

III. Bahya


1. Apastambha 1.2.39.18 1. Manu 28.

2. Vishnu 16. 14 2. Narada I. 155.

IV. Antyavasin


1. Gautama XXXI; XXIII 32 1. Manu IV.79; X.39

2. Vasishta XVIII. 3 2. Shanti Parvan of the

Mahabharata 141; 29-32

3. Madhyamangiras (quoted

in Mitakshara on Yaj.

3-280



V. Antyaja

Dharma Sutra Smriti

1. Vishnu 36.7 1. Manu IV. 61; VIII. 279

2. Yajnavalkya 12.73

3. Brihadyama Smriti (quoted

by Mitakshara on Yajna-

valkya III. 260)

4. Atri. 199

5. Veda Vyas 1. 12. 13.

II

The next question is whether the classes indicated by the terms

Antya, Antyaja, Antyavasin and Bahya are the same as those

indicated by the term Asprashya which etymologically means an

Untouchable. In other words are they only different names for the

same class of people?

It is an unfortunate fact that the Dharma Sutras do not enable

us to answer this question. The term Asprashya occurs in two places

(once in one Sutra and twice in one Smriti). But not one gives an

enumeration of the classes included in it. The same is the case with

the term Antya. Although the word Antya occurs in six places (in

two Sutras and four Smritis) not one enumerates who they are.

Similarly, the word Bahya occurs in four places (in two Sutras and

two Smritis), but none of them mentions what communities are

included under this term. The only exception is with regard to the

terms Antyavasin and Antyajas. Here again no Dharma Sutra

enumerates them. But there is an enumeration of them in the Smritis.

The enumeration of the Antyavasin occurs in the Smriti known as

Madhyamangiras and that of the Antyajas in the Atri Smriti and

Veda Vyas Smriti. Who they are, will be apparent from the following

table :—



ANTYAVASIN ANTYAJA

Madhyamangiras Atri Veda Vyas

1. Chandala. 1. Nata 1. Chandala.

2. Shvapaka. 2. Meda. 2. Shvapaka.

3. Kshatta. 3. Bhilla. 3. Nata.

4. Suta. 4. Rajaka. 4. Meda.

5. Vaidehika. 5. Charmakar. 5. Bhilla.

6. Magadha. 6. Buruda. 6. Rajaka.

7. Ayogava. 7. Kayavarta. 7. Charmakar.

8. Virat.

9. Dasa.

10. Bhatt.

11. Kolika.

12. Pushkar.

From this table it is quite clear that there is neither precision nor

agreement with regard to the use of the terms Antyavasin and

Antyaja. For instance Chandala and Shvapaka fall in both the

categories Antyavasin and Antyaja according to Madhyamangiras and

Veda Vyas. But when one compares Madhyamangiras with Atri they

fall in different categories. The same is true with regard to the term

Antyaja. For example while (1) Chandala and (2) Shvapaka are

Antyajas according to Veda Vyas, according to Atri they are not.

Again according to Atri (1) Buruda and (2) Kayavarta are Antyajas

while according to Veda Vyas they are not. Again (1) Virat (2) Dasa



(3) Bhatt (4) Kolika and (5) Pushkar are Antyaja according to Veda

Vyas but according to Atri they are not.

To sum up the position reached so far : neither the Dharma Sutras

nor the Smritis help us to ascertain who were included in the category

of Asprashya. Equally useless are the Dharma Sutras and the Smritis

to enable us to ascertain whether the classes spoken of as Antyavasin,

Antyaja and Bahya were the same as Asprashya. Is there any other

way of ascertaining whether any of these formed into the category

of Asprashya or Untouchables? It would be better to collect together

whatever information is available about each of these classes.

What about the Bahyas? Who are they? What are they? Are they

Untouchables? They are mentioned by Manu. To understand their

position, it is necessary to refer to Manu’s scheme of social classi-

fication. Manu divides the people into various categories. He first1

makes a broad division between (1) Vaidikas and (2) Dasyus. He then

proceeds to divide the Vaidikas into four sub-divisions: (1) Those

inside Chaturvarnya (2) Those outside Chaturvarnya (3) Vratya and

(4) Patitas or outcastes.

Whether a person was inside Chaturvarnya or outside, was a

question to be determined by the Varna of the parents. If he was

born of the parents of the same Varnas, he was inside the

Chaturvarnya. If, on the other hand, he was born of parents of

different Varnas i.e., he was the progeny of mixed marriages or what

Manu calls Varna Samkara, then he was outside the Chaturvarnya.

Those outside Chaturvarnya are further sub-divided by Manu into

two classes. (1) Anulomas and (2) Pratilomas. Anulamas2 were those

whose fathers were of a higher Varna and mothers of a lower Varna.

Pratilomas, on the other hand, were those whose fathers were of a

lower Varna and the mothers of a higher Varna. Though both the

Anulomas and Pratilomas were alike for the reason that they were

outside the Chaturvarnya. Manu proceeds to make a distinction

between them. The Anulomas, he calls Varna Bahya or shortly

Bahyas, while Pratilomas he calls Hinas. The Hinas are lower than

the Bahyas. But neither the Bahyas nor the Hinas does Manu regard

as Untouchables.

1. See Manu 1, 45,

2 Ibid



Antya as a class is mentioned in Manu IV.79. Manu however does

not enumerate them. Medhatithi in his commentary suggests that

Antya means Mlecha, such as Meda, etc. Buhler translates Antya as

a low-caste man.

There is thus nothing to indicate that the Antyas were Untouch-

ables. In all probability, it is the name given to those people who

were living in the outskirts or end (Anta) of the village. The reason

why they came to be regarded as low is to be found in the story

narrated in the Brahadaranyaka Upanishad (1.3) to which reference

is made by Mr. Kane.1 The story is that-

“Gods and Asuras had a strike and the gods thought that they might

rise superior to the Asuras by the Udgithana. In this occurs the passage

‘this devata (Prana) throwing aside the sin that was death to these devatas

(vak, etc.) sent it to ends of these devatas there; therefore one should not

go to the people outside the Aryan pale nor to disam anta (the ends of

the quarters) thinking, otherwise I may fall in with papmani i.e., death.”

The meaning of Antya turns on the connotation of the phrase ‘disam

Anta’ which occurs in the passage quoted above. If the phrase ‘ends

of the quarters’ can be translated as meaning the end of the periphery

of the village, without its being called a far-fetched translation, we

have here an explanation of what Antya originally meant. It does

not suggest that the Antyas were Untouchables. It only meant that

they were living on the outskirts of the village.

As to the Antyajas, what we know about them is enough to refute

the view that they were Untouchables. Attention may be drawn to

the following facts2 :

In the Shanti Parvan (109.9) of the Mahabharat there is a reference

to Antyajas who are spoken of as Soldiers in the Army. According

to Sarasvativiiasa, Pitamaha speaks of the seven cases of Rajakas

included in the term Antyaja as Prakritis. That Prakritis mean trade

guilds such as of washermen and others is quite clear from the

Sangamner Plate of Bhillama II dated Saka 922 which records the

grant of a village to eighteen Prakritis. Viramitrodaya says that

Srenis mean the eighteen castes such as the Rajaka, etc., which are

collectively called Antyajas. In view of these facts how could the

Antyajas be said to have been regarded as the Untouchables?

Coming to the Antyavasin, who were they? Were they Untouch-

ables? The term Antyavasin has been used in two different

1. Kane– History of Dharma Shastra II. Part I. p. 167.

2. Kane– History of Dharma Shastra. Vol. II. part I. p. 70



senses. In one sense it was applied to a Brahmachari living in the

house of the Guru during his term of studentship. A Brahmachari

was referred to as Antyavasin.1 It probably meant one who was served

last. Whatever the reason for calling a Brahmachari Antyavasin it

is beyond dispute that the word in that connection could not connote

Untouchability. How could it when only Brahmins, Kshatriyas and

Vaishyas could become Brahmacharis. In another sense they refer

to a body of people. But even in this sense it is doubtful if it means

Untouchables.

According to Vas.Dh.Sutra (18.3) they are the offspring of a Sudra

father and Vaishya mother. But according to Manu (V.39) they are

the offspring of a Chandala father and a Nishad mother. As to the

class to which they belong, the Mitakshara says they are a sub-group

of the Antyajas which means that the Antyavasin were not different

from the Antyajas. What is therefore true of the Antyajas may also

be taken as true of the Antyavasin.

III

Stopping here to take stock of the situation as it emerges from such

information as we have regarding the social condition of the people

called Antyavasin, Antya, Antyaja, as is available from ancient

literature, obviously it is not open to say that these classes were

Untouchables in the modern sense of the term. However, for the

satisfaction of those who may still have some doubt, the matter may

be further examined from another point of view. Granting that they

were described as Asprashya we may proceed to inquire as to what

was the connotation of the term in the days of the Dharma Sutras.

For this purpose we must ascertain the rules of atonement

prescribed by the Shastras. From the study of these rules we will

be able to see whether the term Asprashya had the same connotation

in the times of the Dharma Sutras as it has now.

Let us take the case of the Chandalas as an illustration of the

class called Asprashya. In the first place, it should be remembered

that the word Chandala does not denote one single homogenous class

of people. It is one word for many classes of people, all different from

one another. There are altogether five different classes of Chandalas

who are referred to in the Shastras. They are (i) the offspring of

1. Amarkosh II Kanda Brahmabarga Verse II.



a Shudra father and a Brahmin mother,1 (ii) the offspring of anunmarried woman2 (iii) the offspring of union with a sagotra woman3

(iv) the offspring of a person who after becoming an ascetic turnsback to the householder’s life4 and (v) the offspring of a barber fatherand a Brahmin mother5.

It is difficult to say which Chandala calls for purification. We shallassume that purification is necessary in the case of all the Chandalas.What is the rule of purification prescribed by the Shastras?

Gautama in his Dharma Sutra (Chapter XIV, Verse 30) also refersto it in the following terms :—

“On touching an outcaste, a Chandala, a woman impure on account of

her confinement, a woman in her courses, or a corpse and on touching

persons who have touched them, he shall purify himself by bathing dressed

in his clothes.”

Below is the text of the rule given by the Vasishta Dharma Sutra(Chapter IV. Verse 37) :—

“When he has touched a sacrificial post, a pyre, a burial ground, a

menstruating or a lately confined woman, impure men or Chandalas and

so forth, he shall bathe, submerging both his body and his head.”

Baudhayana agrees with Vasishta for he too in his Dharma Sutra(Prasna 1, Adhyaya 5, Khanda 6, Verse 5) says :—

“On touching a tree standing on a sacred spot, a funeral pyre, a

sacrificial post, a Chandala or a person who sells the Veda, a Brahmin

shall bathe dressed in his clothes.”

The following are the rules contained in Manu :—

V. 85 : When he (the Brahmin) has touched a Chandala, amenstruating woman, an outcaste, a woman in childbed,a corpse, or one who has touched a (corpse), he becomespure by bathing.

V. 131 : Manu has declared that the flesh of an animal killed bydogs is pure, likewise (that) of a (beast) slain bycarnivorous (animals) or by men of low caste (Dasya)such as Chandalas.

V. 143 : He who, while carrying anything in any manner, is

touched by an impure (person or thing), shall become

pure, if he performs an ablution, without pulling down

that object.

1. According to all Dharma Sutras and Smritis including Manu Smriti.

2& 3 According to Veda Vyas Smriti (1. 910)

4. According to Yama quoted in Parasura Madhavya.

5. Anusasan Parva (29-17). He is also called Matanga.



From these texts drawn from the Dharma Sutras as well as Manu,

the following points are clear :—

(1) That the pollution by the touch of the Chandala was observed

by the Brahmin only.

(2) That the pollution was probably observed on ceremonial

occasions only.

IV

If these conclusions are right then this is a case of Impurity asdistinguished from Untouchability. The distinction between the Impureand the Untouchable is very clear. The Untouchable pollutes all whilethe Impure pollutes only the Brahmin. The touch of the Impure causespollution only on a ceremonial occasion. The touch of the Untouchablecauses pollution at all times.

There is another argument to which so far no reference has beenmade which completely disproves the theory that the communitiesmentioned in the Dharma Sutras were Untouchables. That argumentemerges out of a comparison of the list of communities given in theOrder-in-Council (which is reproduced in Chapter II) with the listgiven in this chapter prepared from the Smritis. What does thecomparison show? As anyone can see, it shows :—

Firstly : The maximum number of communities mentioned in theSmritis is only 12, while the number of communities mentioned inthe Order-in-Council comes to 429.

Secondly : There are communities which find a place in the Order-in-Council but which do not find a place in the Smritis.1 Out of thetotal of 429 there are nearly 427 which are unknown to the Smritis.

Thirdly : There are communities mentioned in the Smritis whichdo not find a place in the Order-in-Council at all.

Fourthly : There is only one community which finds a place in both.It is the Charmakar community.2

Those who do not admit that the Impure are different from theUntouchables do not seem to be aware of these facts. But they willhave to reckon with them. These facts are so significant and so tellingthat they cannot but force the conclusion that the two are different.

l. Out of the 429 communities mentioned in the Order-in-Council, there are only

3 which are to be found in the list given by the Smritis.

2. There are also two other communities mentioned in both lists (1) Nata and

(2) Rajaka. But according to the Order-in-Council they are Untouchables in some

parts of the country only. The Chamar is Untouchable throughout India.



Take the first fact. It raises a very important question.

If the two lists refer to one and the same class of people, why

do they differ and differ so widely? How is it that the communities

mentioned in the Shastras do not appear in the list given in the

Order-in-Council? Contrarywise, how is it that the communities

mentioned in the Order-in-Council are not to be found in the list given

by the Shastras? This is the first difficulty we have to face.

On the assumption that they refer to the same class of people, the

question, assumes a serious character. If they refer to the same class

of people then obviously Untouchability which was originally confined

to 12 communities came to be extended to 429 communities! What

has led to this vast extension of the Empire of Untouchability? If

these 429 communities belong to the same class as the 12 mentioned

by the Shastras why none of the Shastras mention them? It cannot

be that none of the 429 communities were not in existence at the

time when the Shastras were written. If all of them were not in

existence at least some of them must have been. Why even such as

did exist find no mention?

On the footing that both the lists belong to the same class of people,

it is difficult to give any satisfactory answer to these questions. If,

on the other hand, it is assumed that these lists refer to two different

classes of people, all these questions disappear. The two lists are

different because the list contained in the Shastras is a list of the

Impure and the list contained in the Order-in-Council is a list of the

Untouchables. This is the reason why the two lists differ. The

divergence in the two lists merely emphasizes what has been urged

on other grounds, namely, that the classes mentioned in Shastras

are only Impure and it is a mistake to confound them with the

Untouchables of the present day.

Now turn to the second. If the Impure are the same as the

Untouchables, why is it as many as 427 out of 429 should be unknown

to the Smritis? As communities, they must have been in existence

at the time of the Smritis. If they are Untouchables now, they must

have been Untouchables then. Why then did the Smritis fail to

mention them?

What about the third? If the Impure and the Untouchables are one

and the same, why those communities which find a place in the

Smritis do not find a place in the list given in the Order-in-Council?

There are only two answers to this question. One is that though

Untouchables at one time, they ceased to be Untouchables



subsequently. The other is that the two lists contain names of

communities who fall in altogether different categories. The first

answer is untenable. For, Untouchability is permanent. Time cannot

erase it or cleanse it. The only possible conclusion is the second.

Take the fourth. Why should Chamar alone find a place in the lists?

The answer is not that the two lists include the same class of people.

If it was the true answer, then not only the Chamar but all others

included in the list given by the Smritis should appear in both the

lists. But they do not. The true answer is that the two lists contain

two different classes of people. The reason why some of those in the

list of the Impure appear in the list of the Untouchables is that the

Impure at one time became Untouchables. That the Chamar appears

in both is far from being evidence to support the view that there

is ho difference between the Impure and the Untouchables. It proves

that the Chamar who was at one time an Impure, subsequently

became an Untouchable and had therefore to be included in both the

lists. Of the twelve communities mentioned in the Smritis as Impure

communities, only the Chamar should have been degraded to the

status of an Untouchable is not difficult to explain. What has made

the difference between the Chamar and the other impure communities

is the fact of beef-eating. It is only those among the Impure who

were eating beef that became Untouchables, when the cow became

sacred and beef-eating became a sin. The Chamar is the only beef-

eating community. That is why it alone appears in both the lists.

The answer to the question relating to the Chamars is decisive on

two points. It is conclusive on the point that the Impure are different

from the Untouchables. It is also decisive on the point that it is beef-

eating which is the root of Untouchability and which divides the

Impure and the Untouchables.

The conclusion that Untouchability is not the same as Impurity

has an important bearing on the determination of the date of birth

of Untouchability. Without it any attempt at fixing the date would

be missing the mark.



CHAPTER XVI

WHEN DID BROKEN MEN BECOME

UNTOUCHABLES?

THE foregoing researches and discussions have proved that there was

a time when the village in India consisted of a Settled Community

and Broken Men and that though both lived apart, the former inside

the village and the latter outside it, there was no bar to social

intercourse between the members of the Settled Community and the

Broken Men. When the cow became sacred and beef-eating became

taboo, society became divided into two — the Settled Community

became a touchable community and Broken Men became an untouch-

able community. When did the Broken Men come to be regarded as

Untouchables? That is the last question that remains to be consid-

ered. There are obvious difficulties in the way of fixing a precise date

for the birth of Untouchability. Untouchability is an aspect of social

psychology. It is a sort of social nausea of one group against another

group. Being an outgrowth of social psychology which must have

taken some time to acquire form and shape, nobody can venture to

fix a precise date to a phenomenon which probably began as a cloud

no bigger than man’s hand and grew till it took its final all-pervading

shape as we know it today. When could the seed of Untouchability

be said to have been sown? If it is not possible to fix an exact date,

is it possible to fix an approximate date?

An exact date is not possible. But it is possible to give an

approximate date. For this the first thing to do is to begin by fixing

the upper time-limit at which Untouchability did not exist and the

lower time-limit at which it had come into operation.

To begin with the question of fixing the upper limit the first thing

to note is that those who are called Antyajas are mentioned in the

Vedas. But they were not only not regarded as Untouchables but they

were not even regarded as Impure. The following extract from Kane


THE UNTOUCHABLES : WHEN DID BROKEN MEN... 371

may be quoted in support of this conclusion. Says Kane1

“In the early Vedic literature several of the names of castes that are spoken

of in the Smritis as Antyajas occur. We have Carmanna (a tanner of hides)

in the Rig Veda (VIII.8,38) the Chandala and Paulkasa occur in Vaj. S., the

Vepa or Vapta (barber) even in the Rig., the Vidalakara or Bidalakar

(corresponding to the Buruda of the Smritis) occurs in the Vaj.S. and the

Tai.Br.Vasahpalpuli (washer woman) corresponding to the Rajakas of the

Smritis in Vaj.S. But there is no indication in these passages whether they,

even if they formed castes, were at all Untouchables.”

Thus in Vedic times there was no Untouchability. As to the periodof the Dharma Sutras, we have seen that there was Impurity butthere was no Untouchability.

Was there Untouchability in the time of Manu? This questioncannot be answered offhand. There is a passage2 in which he saysthat there are only four varnas and that there is no fifth varna. Thepassage is enigmatical. It is difficult to make out what it means. Quiteobviously the statement by Manu is an attempt by him to settle acontroversy that must have been going on at the time he wrote. Quiteobviously the controversy was about the status of a certain class inrelation to the system of Chaturvarnya. Equally obvious is the pointwhich was the centre of the controversy. To put briefly, the pointwas whether this class was to be deemed to be included within theChaturvarnya or whether it was to be a fifth varna quite distinctfrom The original four varnas. All this is quite clear. What is,however, not clear is the class to which it refers. This is becauseManu makes no specific mention of the class involved in thecontroversy.

The verse is also enigmatical because of the ambiguity in thedecision given by Manu. Manu’s decision is that there is no fifthVarna. As a general proposition it has a meaning which everybodycan understand. But what does this decision mean in the concreteapplication to the class whose status was the subject-matter ofcontroversy. Obviously it is capable of two interpretations. It maymean that as according to the scheme of Chaturvarna there is nofifth varna the class in question must be deemed to belong to oneof the four recognized varnas. But it may also mean that as in theoriginal Varna System there is no provision for a fifth varna the classin question must be deemed to be outside the Varna Systemaltogether.

The traditional interpretation adopted by the orthodox Hindu is thatthe statement in Manu refers to the Untouchables, that it was the

1. Dharma Shastra Vol II. Part I. p. 165

2. Manu X. 4



Untouchables whose status was in controversy and that it was then-

status which is the subject-matter of Manu’s decision. This interpre-

tation is so firmly established that it has given rise to a division

of Hindus into two classes called by different names, Savarnas or

Hindus (those included in the Chaturvarna) and Avarnas or Untouch-

ables (those excluded from the Chaturvarna). The .question is, is this

view correct? To whom does the text refer? Does it refer to the

Untouchables? A discussion of this question may appear to be out

of place and remote from the question under consideration. But it

is not so. For if the text does refer to the Untouchables then it follows

that Untouchability did exist in the time of Manu— a conclusion

which touches the very heart of the question under consideration.

The matter must, therefore, be thrashed out.

I am sure this interpretation is wrong. I hold that the passage

does not refer to the Untouchables at all. Manu does not say which

was the fifth class whose status was in controversy and about whose

status he has given a decision in this passage. Was it the class of

Untouchables or was it some other class? In support of my conclusion

that the passage does not refer to Untouchables at all I rely on two

circumstances. In the first place, there was no Untouchability in the

time of Manu. There was only Impurity. Even the Chandala for whom

Manu has nothing but contempt is only an impure person. That being

so, this passage cannot possibly have any ‘reference to Untouchables.

In the second place, there is evidence to support the view that this

passage has reference to slaves and not to Untouchables. This view

is based on the language of the passage quoted from the Narada

Smriti in the chapter on the Occupational Theory of Untouchability.

It will be noticed that the Narada Smritis peaks of the slaves as

the fifth class. If the expression fifth class in the Narada Smriti refers

to slaves, I see no reason why the expression fifth class in Manu

Smriti should not be taken to have reference to slaves. If this

reasoning is correct, it cuts at the very root of the contention that

Untouchability existed in the time of Manu and that Manu was not

prepared to include them as part of the Varna System. For the

reasons stated, the passage does not refer to Untouchability and there

is, therefore, no reason to conclude that there was Untouchability

in the time of Manu.

Thus we can be sure of fixing the upper limit for the date of the

birth of Untouchability. We can definitely say that Manu Smriti did

not enjoin Untouchability. There, however, remains one important



question. What is the date of Manu Smriti? Without an answer to

this question it would not be possible for the average to relate the

existence or non-existence of Untouchability to any particular point

in time. There is no unanimity among savants regarding the date

of Manu Smriti. Some regard it as very ancient and some regard it

as very recent. After taking all facts into consideration Prof. Buhler

has fixed a date which appears to strike the truth. According to

Buhler, Manu Smriti in the shape in which it exists now, came into

existence in the Second Century A.D.1 In assigning so recent a date

to the Manu Smriti Prof. Buhler is not quite alone. Mr. Daphtary

has also come to the same conclusion. According to him Manu Smriti

came into being after the year 185 B.C. and not before. The reason

given by Mr. Daphtary is that Manu Smriti has a close connection

with the murder of the Buddhist Emperor Brihadratha of the Maurya

dynasty by his Brahmin Commander-in-Chief Pushyamitra Sunga and

as even that took place in 185 B.C., he concludes that Manu Smriti

must have been written after 185 B.C. To give support to so important

a conclusion it is necessary to establish a nexus between the murder

of Brihadratha Maurya by Pushyamitra and the writing of Manu

Smriti by strong and convincing evidence. Mr. Daphatry has

unfortunately omitted to do so. Consequently his conclusion appears

to hang in the air. The establishment of such a nexus is absolutely

essential. Fortunately there is no want of evidence for the purpose.

The murder of Brihadratha Maurya by Pushyamitra has unfortu-

nately passed unnoticed. At any rate it has not received the attention

it deserves. It is treated by historians as an ordinary incident between

two individuals as though its origin lay in some personal quarrel

between the two. Having regard to its consequences it was an epoch—

making event. Its significance cannot be measured by treating it as

a change of dynasty-the Sungas succeeding the Mauryas. It was a

political revolution as great as the French Revolution, if not greater.

It was a revolution— a bloody revolution-engineered by the Brahmins

to overthrow the rule of the Buddhist Kings. That, is what the murder

of Brihadratha by Pushyamitra means.

This triumphant Brahmanism was in need of many things. It of

course needed to make Chaturvarna the law of the land the validity

of which, was denied by the Buddhists. It needed to make animal

sacrifice, which was abolished by the Buddhists, legal. But it needed

1. Buhler-Laws of Manu (S.B.E.) Vol. XXV. Int. CXN.



more than this. Brahmanism in bringing about this revolution against

the rule of the Buddhist Kings had transgressed two rules of the

customary law of the land which were accepted by all as sacrosanct

and inviolable. The first rule made it a sin for a Brahmin even to

touch a weapon. The second made the King’s person sacred and

regicide a sin. Triumphant Brahmanism wanted a sacred text,

infallible in its authority, to justify their transgressions. A striking

feature of the Manu Smriti is that it not only makes Chaturvarna

the law of the land, it not only makes animal sacrifice legal but it

goes to state when a Brahmin could justifiably resort to arms and

when he could justifiably kill the King. In this the Manu Smriti has

done what no prior Smriti has done. It is a complete departure. It

is a new thesis. Why should the Manu Smriti do this? The only answer

is, it had to strengthen the revolutionary deeds committed by

Pushyamitra by propounding philosophic justification. This intercon-

nection between Pushyamitra and the new thesis propounded by

Manu shows that the Manu Smriti came into being some time after

185 B.C., a date not far removed from the date assigned by Prof.

Buhler. Having got the date of the Manu Smriti we can say that

in the Second Century A.D., there was no Untouchability.

Now to turn to the possibility of determining the lower limit to

the birth of Untouchability. For this we must go to the Chinese

travellers who are known to have visited India and placed on record

what they saw of the modes and manners of the Indian people. Of

these Chinese travellers Fah-Hian has something very interesting to

say. He came to India in 400 A.D. In the course of his observations

occurs the following passage1 :—

“Southward from this (Mathura) is the so-called middle-country

(Madhyadesa). The climate of this country is warm and equable, without frost

or snow. The people are very well off, without poll-tax or official restrictions.

Only those who till the royal lands return a portion of profit of the land.

If they desire to go, they go; if they like to stop they stop. The kings

govern without corporal punishment; criminals arc fined, according to

circumstances, lightly or heavily. Even in cases of repeated rebellion they

only cut off the right hand. The King’s personal attendants, who guard him

on the right and left, have fixed salaries. Throughout the country the people

kill no living thing nor drink wine, nor do they eat garlic or onion,

with the exception of Chandalas only. The Chandalas are named ‘evil

men’ and dwell apart from others; if they enter a town or market, they

sound a piece of wood in order to separate themselves; then, men knowing

they are, avoid coming in contact with them. In this country they

1. Buddhist Records in Western India by Bcal. Introduction p. xxxviii.



do not keep swine nor fowls, and do not deal in cattle; they have no shambles

or wine shops in their market-places. In selling they use cowrie shells. The

Chandalas only hunt and sell flesh.”

Can this passage be taken as evidence of the prevalence of

Untouchability at the time of Fah-Hian? Certain parts of his

description of the treatment given to the Chandalas do seem to lend

support to the conclusion, that is, a case of Untouchability.

There is, however, one difficulty in the way of accepting this

conclusion. The difficulty arises because the facts relate to the

Chandalas. The Chandala is not a good case to determine the

existence or non-existence of Untouchability. The Brahmins have

regarded the Chandalas as their hereditary enemies and are prone

to attribute to them abominable conduct; hurl at them low epithets

and manufacture towards them a mode of behaviour which is utterly

artificial to suit their venom against them. Whatever, therefore, is

said against the Chandalas must be taken with considerable reser-

vations.

This argument is not based on mere speculation. Those who doubt

its cogency may consider the evidence of Bana’s Kadambari for a

different description of the treatment accorded to the Chandalas.

The story of Kadambari is a very complex one and we are really

not concerned with it. It is enough for our purpose to note that the

story is told to King Shudraka by a parrot named Vaishampayana

who was the pet of a Chandala girl. The following passages from the

Kadambari are important for our purpose. It is better to begin with

Bana’s description of a Chandala settlement. It is in the following

terms’ :—

“I beheld the barbarian settlement, a very market-place of evil deeds.

It was surrounded on all sides by boys engaged in the chase, unleashing

their hounds, teaching their falcons, mending snares, carrying weapons,

and fishing, horrible in their attire, like demoniacs. Here and there the

entrance to their dwellings, hidden by thick bamboo forests, was to be

inferred, from the rising of smoke of orpiment. On all sides the enclosures

were made with skulls; (627) the dust-heaps on the roads were filled with

bones; the yards of the huts were miry with blood, fat, and meat chopped

up. The life there consisted of hunting; the food, of flesh; the ointment,

of fat; the garments, of coarse silk; the couches, of dried skins; the

household attendants, of dogs; the animals for riding, of cows; the men’s

employment, of wine and women; the oblation to the gods, of blood; the

sacrifice, of cattle. The place was the image of all hells.”

1 Kadambari (Ridding’s Translation) p. 204.



It is from such a settlement that the Chandala girl starts withher parrot to the palace of King Shudraka. King Shudraka is sittingin the Hall of Audience with his Chieftains. A portress enters theHall and makes the following announcement1 :—

“Sire, there stands at the gate a Chandala maiden from the South, a royal

glory of the race of that Tricamku who climbed the sky, but fell from it at

the order of wrathful Indra. She bears a parrot in a cage, and bids me thus

hail your majesty: “Sire, thou, like the ocean, art alone worthy to receive

the treasures of whole earth. In the thought that this bird is a marvel and

the treasure of the whole earth, I bring it to lay at thy feet, and desire to

behold thee. Thou, O king, hast heard her message, and must decide!” so

saying, she ended her speech. The king, whose curiosity was aroused, looked

at the chiefs around him, and with the words ‘Why not? Bid her enter’ gave

his permission.

Then the portress, immediately on the king’s order ushered in theCandala maiden. And she entered.”

The King and the Chieftains did not at first take notice of her.To attract attention she struck a bamboo on the mosaic floor to arousethe King. Bana then proceeds to describe her personal appearance.2

“Then the king, with the words, ‘Look yonder’ to his suite, gazed steadily uponthe Candala maiden, as she was pointed out by the portress; Before her went aman, whose hair was hoary with age, whose eyes were the colour of the red lotus,whose joints, despite the loss of youth, were firm from incessant labour, whoseform, though that of Matanga, was not to be despised, and who wore the whiteraiment meet for a court. Behind her went a Candala boy, with locks falling oneither shoulder, bearing a cage, the bars of which, though of gold, shone likeemerald from the reflection of the parrot’s plumage. She herself seemed by thedarkness of her hue to imitate Krishna when he guilefully assumed a woman’sattire to take away the amrita seized by the demons. She was, as it were, a dollof sapphire walking alone; and over the blue garment, which reached to her ankle,there fell a veil of red silk, like evening sunshine falling on blue lotuses. The circleof her cheek was whitened by the ear-ring that hung from one ear, like the face ofnight inlaid with the rays of the rising moon; she had a tawny tilaka of gorocana,as if it were a third eye, like Parvati in mountaineer’s attire, after the fashion ofthe garb of Civa.

She was like Cri. darkened by the sapphire glory of Narayana reflected on therobe on her breast; or like Rati, stained by smoke which rose as Madana was burntby the fire of wrathful Civa; or like Yamuna, fleeing in fear of being drawn alongby the ploughshare of wild Balarama; or, from the rich lac that turned her lotusfeet into budding shoots, like Durga, with her feet crimsoned by the blood of theAsura Mahisha she had just trampled upon.

Her nails were rosy from the pink glow of her fingers; the mosaic pavementseemed too hard for her touch, and she came forward, placing her feet like tendertwigs upon the ground.

1. Kadambari (Ridding’s Translation) p. 6.

2. Ibid pp. 8-10.



The rays of her anklets, rising in flame-colour, seemed to encircle her aswith the arms of Agni, as though,, by his love for her beauty, he would purifythe strain of her birth, and so set the Creator at naught.

Her girdle was like the stars wreathed on the brow of the elephant ofLove; and her necklace was a rope of large bright pearls, like the streamof Ganga just tinged by Yamuna.

Like autumn, she opened her lotus eyes; like the rainy season, she hadcloudy tresses; like the circle of the Malaya Hills, she was wreathed withsandal; like the zodiac, she was decked with starry gems; like Cri, she hadthe fairness of a lotus in her hand; like a swoon, she entranced the heart;like a forest, she was endowed with living beauty; like the child of a goddess,she was claimed by no tribe; like sleep, she charmed the eyes; as a lotus-pool in a wood is troubled by elephants, so was she dimmed by her Matangabirth; like spirit, she might not be touched; like a letter, she gladdened theeyes alone; like the blossoms of spring she lacked the jati flower; her slenderwaist, like the line of Love’s bow, could be spanned by the hands; with hercurly hair, she was like the Lakshmi of the Yaksha king in Alaka. She hadbut reached the flower of her youth, and was beautiful exceedingly. And theking was amazed; and the thought arose in his mind, ‘Ill-placed was the labourof the Creator in producing this beauty! For if she has been created as thoughin mockery of her Candala form, such that all the world’s wealth of lovelinessis laughed to scorn by her own, why was she born in a race with which nonecan mate? Surely by thought alone did Prajapati create her, fearing thepenalties of contact with the Matanga race, else whence this unsulliedradiance, a grace that belongs not to limbs sullied by touch? Moreover, thoughfair in form, by the basenness of her birth, whereby she, like a Lakshmiof the lower world, is a perpetual reproach to the gods, she, lovely as sheis, causes fear in Brahma, the maker of so strange a union.’ While the kingwas thus thinking the maiden, garlanded with flowers, that fell over her ears,bowed herself before him with a confidence beyond her years. And when shehad made her reverence and stepped on to the mosaic floor, her attendant,taking the parrot, which had just entered the cage, advanced a few steps,and, showing it to the King, said: ‘Sire, this parrot, by name Vaicampayana,knows the meaning of all the castras, is expert in the practice of royal policy,skilled in tales, history, and Puranas, and acquinted with songs and withmusical intervals. He recites, and himself composes graceful and incomparablemodern romances, love-stories, plays, and poems, and the like; he is versedin witticisms and is an unrivalled disciple of the vina, flute, and drum. Heis skilled in displaying the different movements of dancing, dextrous inpainting, very bold in play, ready in resources to calm a maiden angeredin a lover’s quarrel, and familiar with the characteristics of elephants, horses,men, and women. He is the gem of the whole earth; and in the thought thattreasures belong to thee, as pearls to the ocean, the daughter of my lordhas brought him hither to thy feet, O king! Let him be accepted as thine.’

On reading this description of a Chandala girl many questions

arise. Firstly, how different it is from the description given by

FaHian? Secondly Bana is a Vatsyayana Brahmin. This Vatsyayana

Brahmin, after giving a description of the Chandala Settlement, finds



no compunction in using such eloquent and gorgeous language to

describe the Chandala girl. Is this description compatible with the

sentiments of utter scorn and contempt associated with Untouchability?

If the Chandalas were Untouchables how could an Untouchable girl

enter the King’s palace? How could an Untouchable be described in

the superb terms used by Bana? Far from being degraded, the

Chandalas of Bana’s period had Ruling Families among them. For

Bana speaks of the Chandala girl as a Chandala princess1 Bana wrote

some time about 600 A.D., and by 600 A.D. the Chandalas had not

come to be regarded as Untouchables. It is, therefore, quite possible

that the conditions described by Fa-Hian, though bordering on

Untouchability, may not be taken as amounting to Untouchability.

It may only be extreme form of impurity practised by the Brahmins

who are always in the habit of indulging in overdoing their part in

sacerdotalism. This becomes more than plausible if we remember that

when Fa-Hian came to India it was the reign of the Gupta Kings.

The Gupta Kings were patrons of Brahmanism. It was a period of

the triumph and revival of Brahmanism. It is quite possible that what

Fa-Hian describes is not Untouchability but an extremity to which

the Brahmins were prepared to carry the ceremonial impurity which

had become attached to some community, particularly to the Chandalas.

The next Chinese traveller who came into India was Yuan Chwang.

He came to India in 629 A.D. He stayed in India for 16 years and

has left most accurate records of journeys up and down the country

and of the manners and customs of the people. In the course of his

description of general characters of the cities and buildings of India,

he says2 :—

“As to their inhabited towns and cities the quadrangular walls of the cities

(or according to one text, of the various regions) are broad and high, while

the thoroughfares arc narrow tortuous passages. The shops are on the

highways and booths, or (inns) line the roads. Butchers, fishermen, public

performers, executioners, and scavengers have their habitations marked by

a distinguishing sign. They are forced to live outside the city and they sneak

along on the left when going about in the hamlets.”

The above passage is too short and too brief for founding a definite

conclusion thereon. There is, however, one point about it which is

worthy of note. Fa-Hian’s description refers to the Chandalas only

while the description given by Yuan Chwang applies to communities

1. Kadambari (Ridding’s Translation) p. 204.

2. Wallers-Yuan Chwang Vol.I.p. 147.



other than the Chandalas. This is a point of great importance. No

such argument can be levelled against the acceptance of a description

since it applies to communities other than the Chandalas. It is,

therefore, just possible that when Yuan Chwang came to India,

Untouchability had emerged.

On the basis of what has been said above we can conclude that

while Untouchability did not exist in 200 A.D., it had emerged by

600 A.D.

These are the two limits, upper and lower, for determining the birth

of Untouchability. Can we fix an approximate date for the birth of

Untouchability? I think we can, if we take beef-eating, which is the

root of Untouchability, as the point to start from. Taking the ban

on beef-eating as a point to reconnoitre from, it follows that the date

of the birth of Untouchability must be intimately connected with the

ban on cow-killing and on eating beef. If we can answer when cow-

killing became an offence and beef-eating became a sin, we can fix

an approximate date for the birth of Untouchability.

When did cow-killing become an offence?

We know that Manu did not prohibit the eating of beef nor did

he make cow-killing an offence. When did it become an offence? As

has been shown by Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar, cow killing was made a

capital offence by the Gupta kings some time in the 4th Century A.D.

We can, therefore, say with some confidence that Untouchability

was born some time about 400 A.D. It is born out of the struggle

for supremacy between Buddhism and Brahmanism which has so

completely moulded the history of India and the study of which is

so woefully neglected by students of Indian history.



BLANK



INDEX

Abbe Dubois : 314

Aghnya, definition and meaning : 323

Annals of Rajasthan : 297 f.n.

Antyaja : 278-79

–communities included in the term

: 319, 361-64

Antyas : 360-61 Antyavasin : 361-63

Aparaka: 313

Ashvalayana-Orahya Sutra : 326-27

Asoka, edicts : 330-32, 341

Asuras, language of: 299

Atreya Brahmana, directions on the

animal sacrifice in Yajna : 334-341

Balakrishna Nair : 297

Bahyas : 360,363

Bana: 375.377-78

Bhandarkar, D. R. : 348

Beef-eating and untouchability : 318-

20, 379

Brahmins and Beef-eating : 328, 349

Brahma : 299

Broken Men

-problem of : 274-75

-among settled tribes : 276-78

-evolution into untouchables : 315-

20, 350

Brihadratha : 373-74

Buhler : 373

Caldwell : 299

Chandalas : 365-66, 372. 374-75, 376-79

Chaturvarna : 306, 363, 373-74

Cow-killing : 325-28. 347-49

Damila and Damilla : 300

Dasas : 292

Dasyus : 299

Defilement

–causes of: 249, 251, 253, 254-55

Notional and physical 257-58

Dom : 301 f.n.

Dravidians: 296

Egypt: 253

Fah-Hian: 374

Fuidhirs : 282-83

Ghurye : 301

Goethe

on historian’s duty Pref. : 242-43

Gorky. Pref. : 244

Gotra and Kula : 303, 304

Greeks

conception of causes of impurity : 253

Hebrews : 255

Hemingsway : 314

Hereditary Untouchables

–schedule of: 259-65

Hinas : 363

Holiar: 314

Kadambari : 375

–description of Chandala settlement

and Chandala girl: 375-77

Kane

–history of Dharmasastra: 319 f.n.

324, 345 f.n.

Kaopoia

–purificatory ceremony of Greeks : 254

Kielhom: 298

Kirate

–origin and application : 297

Lichavis : 297

Lustractio pagi : 254



Mahapataka

–Gupta inscriptions on evolution into: 349,

–moral sin : 348

Mahars : 260, 279-80, 301, 304, 354, 355

Madhuparka

–use and composition of : 325-26

Manu

–on Chandalas : 271-72, 366

–Smriti-date of : 373, recognition ofpollution : 256, 315, 331-32,340-42, 363, 366

Mansahari : 329

Mlecha : 299

Mukerjee, R. K. : 332

Mricchakatika

–scenes depicting hatred of Buddhistsby Hindus : 316

Muir : 299

Mundas : 250

Narada Smriti : 305, 306

Nagas : 292-98

Newars : 297

New Zealand, untouchability in : 253

Oldham, C. F.

–on Dravidians : 296, 298

Orders-in-Council

–Schedule of hereditary untouchablesin India attached to the Governmentof India Act of 1935 : 259-65

Paisachi, language and countries : 299

Panchagavya : 258

Panchasaradiya Seva

–a kind of sacrifice : 325

Pollution : 251-53, 255

–territorial and communal : 258

Prayaschit Mayukha : 315

Pushyamitra Sunga : 373

Rama Tarkavagisa : 299

Rice, Mr. Stanley : 289-90

Risley : 304

Roman, notion of pollution : 254

Saivitcs : 329

Salindra : 297

Sarya : 297

Scavenging, among Aryans : 306

Scheduled Castes, Government of India

List.

–Madras : 259

–Bombay : 260

–Bengal : 260-61

–U. P. : 260-61

–Punjab : 261

–Bihar : 262

–C. P. & Berar 262-264

–Assam : 264

–Orissa : 264-65

Savamas : 372

Segregation, period and range : 252

Shakahari : 329

Slavery, among Aryans : 305-307, 306f.n.

Smith Vincent : 332, 348

Societies.–

–Untouchability in primitive : 247-55, 266-67

–Evolution of: 275-76

Tamil castes, according to nasal index :302

Takhya, identification of : 297

Thurston,

order of castes : 302

Todas : 251

Tarde, Gabriel : 333

Totem

–Equivalent to Gotra in prim.

societies : 303

Tribes, nomadic and settled : 274-75

Untouchability

–occupational theory : 372

–racial theory : 291-304

Vaishnavites : 329

Vedanta Sutra : 345

Vedavyasa Smriti : 319

Vegetarianism and Brahmins : 334, 349

Walters Thomas : 347

Yajnavalkya: 328

Yuan Chwang : 347, 378

Yupa, its descriptions : 335

Documents

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Source Material Publication Committee