Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Rashtrakutas and their Times c21: Chapter XIV. Social Condition

The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times c21

Language
English

Chapter XIV. Social Condition

c21.2

Most of the writers, who have attempted to describe the social conditions and institutions in ancient India, have relied upon the evidence afforded by the Dharmas'āstra literature. This evidence is undoubtedly very valuable; but since the dates of many of the Smriti writers are but very vaguely known, it is necessary to check and correlate it with epigraphical facts and the accounts supplied by foreign travellers. Besides the Smritis have, to some extent, been written from a certain viewpoint which may not have been always shared by the majority of society. In the following pages, the method above indicated, with which the reader of these pages must be already familiar, will be followed.

c21.3

The most striking feature of the Hindu Society has been the caste system since very early times. To trace the history of this institution from its beginning is irrelevant for our present enquiry; we shall, therefore, try to ascertain its nature during our period. The usual theoretical number of the castes is four, but it is rather strange that Greek writers like Megasthenes and Strabo and Muslim writers like Ibn Khurdadba and Al Idrisi should concur in maintaining that their number was seven. The seven castes of the Muslim travellers are, however, not identical with the seven castes of the Greek ambassador : the latter does not enumerate any of the untouchables among his castes, while the former include at least two among the depressed classes. Alberuni, however, differs from the earlier Muslim travellers and maintains that there were sixteen castes, the four well-known ones, five semi-untouchables and seven untouchables. The actual number of the castes and sub-castes of our period was, however, more than sixteen; the Smritis of our period mention several subcastes, and according to Kalhaṇa, who flourished in Kashmir in the 12th century, the number was 64.¹

c21.4

¹ VIII, 2407.

c21.5

The seven castes mentioned by Ibn Khurdadba, who died in 912 A.D., are (1) Sābkufrīa (spelt as Sabakferya or Ṣamkufrīa according to some Mss), (2) Brahma, (3) Katarīya, (4) Sūdariyā, (5) Baisurā, (6) Sandālia, and (7) Lahūd.² The seven castes of Al Idrisi are practically identical with the seven ones mentioned above, if slight variation in spelling is ignored.³ There is, however, one variation; the name of the 7th caste according to Al Idrisi is Zakya and not Lahūd as Ibn Khurdadba asserts. Both of them agree, however, in observing that the members of this caste were following the professions of the dancers, tumblers, and players. The order of enumeration of these castes is not according to their relative status or importance; for both mention the Vaishyas after the Sudras and the Lahūd or Zakya caste, which comes last, seems certainly not lower in status than the Chandala one, which precedes it.

c21.6

² Elliot, I, pp. 16-7.

c21.7

³ Ibid, p. 76.

c21.8

It is quite clear from the details given by these writers that Brahma, Sūdariyā, Baisurā, and Sandālia are the same as Brahmanas, Sudras, Vaishyas, and Chandalas. Katarīyas, who could drink three cups of wine and whose daughters could be married by the Brahmanas, are obviously the same as the Kshatriyas. Sābkufrīas or Sabakfreyas seem to stand for Sanskrit Satkshatriyas, (4) since we are told that they were superior to all the remaining castes and that the kings were chosen from among them. The distinction between the Katarīyas and Sābkufrīas or Satkshatriyas seems similar to the distinction between the Kshatriyas and the Rājanyas of the earlier period; the former constituted the general military order while the latter were the members of the aristocracy descended from the royal stock. This distinction between the Kshatriyas and Satkshatriyas reminds us of the distinction between the Sudras and Sachchhudras, though the former is not known to the Dharmaśāstra literature. (5)

c21.9

The information of Alberuni about the caste system is more detailed and interesting, and though he was not like Ibn Khurdadba or Al Idrisi directly connected with the Deccan we cannot pass over his account as the conditions in the south were not much different from those prevailing in the north. After mentioning the four principal castes Alberuni says:—

c21.10

‘After the Sudras follow the people called Antyajas, who render various kinds of services and are not reckoned among the castes but only as members of a certain craft or profession. There are eight classes of them who freely intermarry with each other, except the fuller (washerman), shoemaker, and weaver; for no others will condescend to have anything to do with them. These eight guilds are:—
(1) The fuller or washerman,
(2) The shoemaker,
(3) The juggler,
(4) The basket and shield maker,
(5) The sailor,

c21.11

4. Arabic letters ta and ba can be easily confounded in Mss, because the former differs from the latter only by the addition of two dots. The expressions Satkufriya and Satakafreya are fairly similar to the original Skt. form Satkshatriya.

c21.12

⁵ See p. 333.

c21.13

(6) The fisherman,
(7) The hunter of wild animals and birds, and
(8) The weaver.

c21.14

The four castes do not live with them in one and the same place. These guilds live near the villages and towns of the four castes but just outside them. The people called Hādi, Domba, Chandāla and Badhatau are not reckoned among any class or guild. They are occupied with dirty work, like the cleansing of the villages and other services. They are considered as one sole class distinguished only by their occupations.' (6)

c21.15

The above description of the Muslim writers raises several interesting points with reference to the position of the untouchables. Ibn Khurdadba and Al Idrisi mention only two untouchable castes, Sandālia and Lahūd or Zakya, which correspond with the Chandāla and the juggler classes of Alberuni. Were the remaining classes mentioned by Alberuni as untouchables really so, and if so, why does he divide them into two groups?

c21.16

After mentioning the eight varieties of the Antyajas, Alberuni expressly adds that all these classes lived near the towns or villages of the four castes, but outside them. It is therefore clear that they were regarded as untouchables. It may be pointed out that some of the later Smritis like Angiras, (7) Brihadyama, (8) Atri, (9) and Āpastamba (10), which discuss the problem and the treatment of the untouchables, pronounce most of these classes as untouchables. Washerman, shoemaker, juggler, fisherman, Chandāla, and basket-maker of Alberuni correspond to rajaka, charmakāra, naṭa or s'ailushika, kaivarta, chaṇḍāla and veṇujivin of these Smriti writers. Since early times these were regarded as untouchables and till quite recently; washermen, shoemakers, fishermen, and Chandalas because their professions were dirty, and jugglers and basketmakers, probably because these professions were the monopoly of the non-Aryan aborigines in the beginning. One of the inscriptions on the Rajarajesvara temple at Tanjore provides, as we have seen, for the enactment of a certain drama at the time of the annual fair and states the salaries paid to the actors. A perusal of Sanskrit literature also shows that the actors who enacted the dramas of Bhāsa, Kālidāsa, and Bhavabūti were not regarded as untouchables. The Naṭas, who are pronounced as untouchables by the Smriti writers, were not obviously the members of this class; they were tumblers, jesters, and rope-dancers who are described as untouchables by the Muslim writers of our period.

c21.17

⁶ I, pp. 101 ff.

c21.18

⁷ Vv, 17, 20.

c21.19

⁸ Chapters I and II,

c21.20

⁹ Vv. 174, ff.

c21.21

¹⁰ Chapters, IV and V.

c21.22

We have next to consider the case of the weaver, the sailor, and the hunter of wild animals and birds, who are included by Alberuni among the untouchables of the first group. From Manu(11) we learn that members of the Mārgava and Āyogava sub-castes, who were supposed to have sprung from pratiloma unions, were assigned the professions of the sailor and the hunter; that would explain why they were regarded as untouchables. The weaver, however, whom Alberuni regards as untouchable, is nowhere regarded as such in the Smriti literature, and if we follow Alberuni, we shall have to suppose that the famous weaving industry of ancient India was a monopoly in the hands of the untouchables. There is no evidence, however, to show that such was the case. According to Bṛhadyama Smriti(12) it would appear that the Hindus of our period regarded it as sinful to touch a person who was dealing in red cloth and, according to Āpastamba Smriti,(13) it was extremely undesirable to touch or wear blue cloth or colour. It would seem that notions like these were responsible for the theory that persons, who produce or deal in red or blue cloth, were impure. If Alberuni's information about the weavers being regarded as untouchables is correct, we shall have to suppose, as the Smriti literature leads us to believe, that it refers only to a section of that class engaged in producing red or blue cloth which was losing in the estimation of the orthdoxy. It may be pointed out that at present the tailors are divided in Maharashtra into two castes; the members of one caste are called Shimpis (ordinary tailors) and those of the other Nili Shimpis (i. e. tailors dealing with blue cloth). The latter are held by the former in low estimation, and no interdining or intermarriages are possible between the members of these two sub-castes. It is clear that the Nili Shimpis are regarded as degraded because they had not tabooed blue cloth tailoring in middle ages. It is possible that weavers also in our period may have formed two similar classes. It is, however, difficult to say whether the section dealing with the manufacture of red and blue cloth was actually regarded as untouchable, as Alberuni would have us believe, or whether it was merely held in lower estimation. The probability seems to be that the latter was the case.

c21.23

¹¹ X, 34, 48.

c21.24

¹² III, 52.

c21.25

Hāḍi, Domba, and Badhatau now remain to be considered. What section of the untouchables is called Hāḍi by Alberuni is not clear; he tells us that of all the classes below the castes, the Hāḍis are the best spoken of, because they keep themselves free from everything unclean, though their work was the cleansing of the villages etc. That the Dombas were regarded as untouchable is proved also by the Rājatarangiṇī; King Chakravarman went outside the court hall when he had to see a troop of Domba dancers.¹⁴ It is true that he subsequently began to share his bed with some of the Domba dancing girls, but he was all along conscious of having committed a grievous sin thereby. The term Badhatau of Alberuni is an apabhraṅśa of vadhaka or the executioner, who is untouchable even according to the Dharmaśāstra literature.

c21.26

¹⁴ V, 354.

c21.27

The distinction which Alberuni draws between the eight untouchables of the first group, and the four ones of the second one, is unknown to the Smriti literature. Alberuni himself says that the shoemaker, washerman, and weaver were regarded as lower than themselves by the rest of the untouchables of the first group, who while intermarrying among themselves, would have nothing to do with the members of these classes. It would be, therefore, clear that all the Antyajas were not on the same level in our age; the juggler, basketmaker, sailor, fisherman, and hunter seem to have constituted in our period a class of semi-untouchables. The reason why Alberuni separates the Chandala, Domba, Hādi and Badhatau from the Antyajas of the first group seems to be that these latter had no guild organisations of their own, like the Antyajas of the first group. This inference is supported by the fact that he refers to the Antyajas of the first group as castes or guilds and adds that the Antyajas of the second group were not reckoned among any such castes or guilds.

c21.28

Our epigraphical records and foreign travellers do not enable us to realise the intensity of the notion of untouchability of our period. Kalhaṇa's chronicle, however, throws a flood of light on the actual condition during our period, and since the Kashmiri historian is supported by the Smriti literature, we may well assume that similar notions prevailed in the contemporary Deccan as well. The feeling of untouchability was so deep-rooted that we find a Chandala sweeper refraining from touching a foundling on the road, lest it should be polluted, and requesting a Sudra lady to pick and rear it up.¹⁵ The untouchables could not enter the audience hall; the kings used to see them in the outer courtyard when necessary as did Chandravarman when he had to hear a shoemaker's complaint.¹⁶ Even conversation with the untouchables was regarded as polluting by some sections of the society; when Chandrāpīḍa began to talk with the shoemaker, the courtiers became agitated, which led the latter to enquire whether he was inferior even to a dog.¹⁷

c21.29

¹⁵ Rājatarangiṇī, V. 77.

c21.30

¹⁶ *Ibid*, IV, 62.

c21.31

¹⁷ *Ibid*, IV, 67.

c21.32

Let us now discuss the position of the higher castes. Ibn Khurdadba and Al Idrisi, who were acquainted with the conditions prevailing on the western coast, observe that the members of the remaining six castes, Brahmanas included, paid homage to the members of the Sābfukrīya caste from among whom kings were selected.¹⁸ This would support the contention of the Jains and the Buddhists that the Kshatriyas were superior to the Brahmanas and not vice versa. It must be, however, noted that the Sābkufrīa caste is distinguished by these Muslim writers from the Katarīya or the Kshatriya caste and that their testimony would, therefore, show that not all the Kshatriyas but only the Sat-Kshatriyas, *i. e.* the actual princes and their descendants, were held superior to the Brahmanas and reverenced by them. And this is quite natural; for, the actual rulers and their descendants, who in many cases in our period were not even Kshatriyas, must have been obviously treated with respect by the Brahmanas. The average Kshatriya, however, did not enjoy a status superior to that of an average Brahmana, for from the *Chachanāmā*¹⁹ we learn that the principal inhabitants of Brahmanabad supported the contention of the Brahmanas that they were superior to the rest of the population. Kassim accordingly maintained their dignity and passed orders confirming their preeminence.

c21.33

¹⁸ Elliot, I, p. 16 and p. 76.

c21.34

¹⁹ *Ibid*, p. 183.

c21.35

The Brahmana community of our period followed a number of professions, besides those that were theoretically permitted to it. A section of course followed the scriptural duties; Al Idrisi describes Brahmanas as dressed in the skins of tigers and other animals and addressing crowds around them about God and His nature.²⁰ Our epigraphical records also make it clear that some of them were maintaining the sacred fires and performing the various Smārta sacrifices prescribed for them. According to Alberuni,²¹ these Brahmanas were called iṣṭins. Many others were discharging, as will be shown in chapter XVI, their scriptural duty of teaching and conducting schools and colleges, where they used to impart education without stipulating for any fees. Jurists, astrologers, mathematicians, poets and philosophers were, as Abu Zaid informs us, mostly members of this class.²² Administrative civil posts seem to have been largely filled from among the Brahmanas; the Chachanāmā informs us that Kassim appointed Brahmins to hereditary administrative posts following the practice of his predecessors; it is also shown already how many of the ministers and officers of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas were Brahmins by caste. From I-tsing²³ also we learn that towards the end of the 7th century A.D. the scholars of the Valabhi university used to proceed to the royal courts after their education was over in order to show their abilities and talents with a view to be appointed to practical government. These scholars, we are told by I-tsing, used to receive grants of land or government service. We may presume that the scholars trained at the famous centres of education in the Deccan like Kalas, Mangoli, Salotgi etc., may have received similar treatment from the Rāṣṭrakūṭa emperors and their feudatories. Government service was largely manned from among the Brahmanas even during the Mauryan period, as the testimony of Megasthenes shows.²⁴ Smriti writers no doubt say that Brahmanas should not take up service, but they had probably non-government service in view when they made this statement; for, they themselves lay down that Brahmanas alone should be appointed as a rule to the ministry and the judicial posts.²⁵

c21.36

²⁰ Ibid, p. 76.

c21.37

²¹ Sachau, I, p. 102.

c21.38

²² Elliot, I, p. 6.

c21.39

²³ p. 176.

c21.40

²⁴ Maccrindle, Megasthenes, pp. 47-48.

c21.41

²⁵ Manu, VII, 37, 58; VIII, 20.

c21.42

The observation of S'ankarāchārya,²⁶ a contemporary writer, that the castes were no longer following their prescribed duties and functions is supported by historic evidence. It has been already shown how some of the Brahmanas of our period were enlisting in the army both as privates and captains.²⁷ From Alberuni²⁸ we learn that some of the Brahmanas in the 11th century were trying their fortunes in the trades of clothes and betel nuts, while others preferred to trade indirectly by employing a Vaishya to do the actual business for them. These last mentioned Brahmanas were following the advice of Gautama-Dharma-Sūtra which lays down that Brahmanas may live upon agriculture, trade etc., if they apppoint agents to carry on the business.²⁹ According to Manu, a doctor was never to be invited for a dinner in celebration of a havya or kavya ritual; but from Arabian travellers we learn that the physicians were honoured equally with learned men, and we find a Brahmana physician among the donees of an agrahāra village given by a Pallava king in the 8th century.³⁰ This would show that the medical profession was not treated with contempt by the society, as the Smriti writers would make us believe. Its disparagement by Manu and others is probably due to their theory that medicine was the profession of a mixed caste called Ambashṭha, a view which does not seem to have been founded on the actual state of affairs in the society. Puritanical notions of purity may also have been partly responsible for the ban placed on the doctor at the Śrāddha dinner.

c21.43

²⁶ इदानीमिव कालान्तरेऽप्यव्यवस्थितप्रायान्‌वर्णाश्रमधर्मान्‌ प्रतिजानीते । ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम्, १, ३, ३३.

c21.44

²⁷ Ante, pp. 249-50.

c21.45

²⁸ II, 132.

c21.46

²⁹ X, 5 and 6.

c21.47

³⁰ I., A. VIII, p. 277.

c21.48

Trade, agriculture, banking, fighting etc., were permitted to Brahmanas only in times of difficulties by earlier writers on the Dharmaśāstra. As time began to roll on, these became quite normal avocations for the first caste. We therefore find the Smritis of our period boldly withdrawing the ban on these professions and permitting them to the Brahmanas. Banking (*kusīda*) has been praised as an ideal profession for the Brahmanas by Brihaspati⁽³¹⁾ and the same writer along with Hārita, Parāśara and the author of Kūrma-purāṇa boldly differs from Manu in declaring that agriculture could be followed as a normal profession by the Brahmanas.⁽³²⁾ Apastamba Smriti⁽³³⁾ also declares that agriculture, cattle breeding etc., were necessary and normal avocations for the Brahmanas and not their *Apaddharmas*.

c21.49

³¹ As quoted in the *Smṛti Chandrikā Āchārakāṇḍa*, p. 473.

c21.50

³² *Ibid*, 454.

c21.51

³³ Chap. 76 v. 22.

c21.52

Exemption from taxation and the capital punishment are two of the main privileges claimed for the Brahmanas by the Smritis and the Puranas. It must be, however, noted that it is only for the S'rotriya or the learned Brahmana that these privileges were originally claimed; the S'ānti Parvan expressly states that the Brahmanas, who followed trade and industry, were to be fully taxed. It is quite clear from the numerous Rāṣṭrakūṭa charters that the donees of the Brahmadeya grants, who were as a rule learned Brahmanas, used to receive all the taxes payable by the inhabitants to the king; they themselves had to pay nothing to the latter. But whether ordinary Brahmanas of our period enjoyed similar exemption from taxation is extremely doubtful. The Tuppad Kurahatti inscription of Kṛṣṇa III,⁽³⁴⁾ the Honawad inscription of Someśvara⁽³⁵⁾ and numerous Chola records make it quite clear that even lands granted to temples by kings were not entirely exempted by them from the Government taxation; a quit rent, sometimes as high as 50 per cent of the normal demand, was charged. If Devadeya grants were thus not exempted from taxation, it is extremely unlikely that ordinary Brahmanas following a number of secular professions, could have enjoyed in our period complete exemption from taxation. Somadeva, a contemporary writer, lays down that when the king had to make a capital levy in order to tide over a difficulty, he could take a portion of the property of Brahmanas and temples, taking the only precaution that money absolutely necessary for the performance of the sacrifices and worship was left with them.³⁶ This again would suggest that not all the Brahmanas could have enjoyed complete exemption from taxation in our period. There is no epigraphical evidence to support such a general claim. An inscription from Gujarat, dated 1230 A.D.,³⁷ no doubt says that king Somasimha had exempted Brahmanas from taxation. But this statement is made in the course of that king's eulogy, and may not be more reliable than the assertion, immediately following, that he had defeated a host of enemies. It is further not clear whether all the Brahmanas or only a section of them was exempted from taxation.

c21.53

³⁴ E. I., XIV, p. 366.

c21.54

³⁶ Nītivākyāmṛta, XXI, 14.

c21.55

³⁷ Cf. मुक्त्वा विप्रकरानरातिनिकरान्निर्जित्य । E. I., VIII, p. 211.

c21.56

There existed in our period, as in earlier ones, a number of learned and pious Brahmanas who were given grants of land or money in recognition of their erudition and public service in educating students without any stipulation for fees. These seem to have been exempted from taxation as far as the lands that were assigned to them were concerned. This reality in the body politic is reflected in the Dharmaśāstra literature when it lays down that a S'rotriya or learned Brahmana was not to be taxed.

c21.57

Exemption from the capital punishment is another privilege claimed for the Brahmanas by a number of Smritis, and the claim is corroborated by Alberuni(38) and Bouchet(39) from whom we learn that Brahmanas were not given the extreme penalty of the law in northern India in the 11th and the southern India in the 17th century. In ancient times the sin of *Brahmahatyā* (the killing of a Brahmana) was regarded to be the most heinous one, and it seems that the Hindu state tried to avoid it, even if it was to result indirectly by way of judicial punishment, especially as it could achieve its object in another and more effective way. *Apastamba Dharma-Sūtra*(40) lays down that a Brahmana was to be blinded and banished for the offences that involved capital punishment for the other castes. That the advice of this Dharma-Sūtra writer was followed in our period is proved by the statement of Alberuni that though the Brahmana was above the death sentence he could be banished and his property confiscated, and that if he was guilty of stealing a precious and costly article he was blinded and his right hand and left foot were cut off.(41) It may be pointed out that the sentence for the theft of a precious article referred to by Alberuni is not to be found in the Smriti literature. It would, therefore, appear that the Hindu state of our period normally refrained from inflicting the capital punishment on the Brahmana, probably because the alternative punishment permitted by the Dharmaśāstra or custom was sufficiently deterrent. The life of a Brahmana blinded and banished or blinded and maimed in the right hand and the left foot was hardly better than a living death. We may, therefore, conclude that it must have been on rare occasions that the capital punishment was inflicted on the Brahmana during our period. That it was sometimes inflicted is clear from the *Arthaśāstra* of Kautalya where it is laid down(42) that a Brahmana guilty of treason should be punished with drowning, and from the *Rājatarangiṇī*.

c21.58

³⁹ J. R. A. S., 1881 p. 227.

c21.59

⁴⁰ II, 27, 16.

c21.60

⁴¹ I, p. 162.

c21.61

⁴² Book IV, Chap. 11.

c21.62

where we sometimes come across the cases of Brāhmaṇas being executed by haughty tyrants.(43) But as against these rare cases of executions, we have several cases of even tyrannical rulers like Didda(44) and Bhikṣāchara(45) being compelled to accede to the requests of Brāhmaṇas, because they had threatened to commit suicide by fasting.(46) Here again the fear of the sin of Brahmahatyā seems to have been working on the minds of the rulers, who yielded to the demands of the Brāhmaṇas, who in many of the cases above referred to, it may be pointed out, were deputed by the oppressed subjects to get their grievances redressed through the threat of suicide by fasting. The privilege of immunity from taxation was conceded, as we have seen, only to the learned and pious Brāhmaṇas; one cannot be, however, certain that the immunity from the capital punishment was similarly restricted. It is, however, clear that Brāhmaṇas who had joined the army could not have claimed the privilege of avadhyatva, and it is not unlikely that others, who violated the scriptural rules by following a number of prohibited professions, may have been treated as ordinary persons.

c21.63

Let us now proceed to consider the position of the Kshatriyas. Those among them who were actual rulers or their relatives enjoyed the highest status in the land, as has been shown already. It is probably these, and not all the ordinary Kshatriyas, who enjoyed immunity from the capital punishment as reported by Alberuni.(47) This privilege is not extended to the Kshatriyas by the Dharmaśāstra literature, but since it is mentioned by Alberuni, who was a fairly close student of Sanskrit literature, we may presume that it was actually claimed by and conceded to the elite among the Kshatriyas. It may be further noted that according to the testimony of Alberuni, a Kshatriya guilty of theft, was merely maimed in the right hand and left foot and not blinded in addition like the Brahmana. It would thus follow that in actual practice the privileges of the Kshatriya were by no means less than those of the Brahmana, though they do not all of them figure in the Smriti literature.

c21.64

⁴³ VIII, 1013, 2060.

c21.65

⁴⁴ VI, 307.

c21.66

⁴⁵ VIII, 908.

c21.67

⁴⁶ See also VII, 400, 773, VIII, 2076, 2221 for further cases of prāyopaves'anas.

c21.68

⁴⁷ Sachau, II, p. 162.

c21.69

It may be noted that during our period, as in earlier times, not all the fighters were Kshatriyas and not all the Kshatriyas were fighters. The army consisted of a number of non-Kshatriyas as pointed out in chapter XII. A number of Kshatriyas also must have taken to professions theoretically not their own. In the 17th century such was the case, for Travernier expressly states that the Rajputs were the fighters, whereas the remaining Khatris, *i. e.* Kshatriyas, had degenerated from their ancestral military profession and taken to trade.⁴⁸ This tendency may have very probably made its appearance during our period.

c21.70

⁴⁸ *Travels in India*, pp. 387-8.

c21.71

Among the Indian kings who were Yuan Chwang's contemporaries and whose castes are mentioned by him, five were Kshatriyas, three Brahmanas, two Vaishyas, and two Sudras. It is therefore clear that kingship had ceased to be an exclusive monopoly of the Kshatriyas even earlier than our period. We can, therefore, well understand how the imaginary opponent of Kumārila, who flourished just before our period, should have assumed the position that kingship and Kshatriyahood were not coextensive terms,⁴⁹ since the members of all the four castes were to be seen ruling in contemporary times.

c21.72

⁴⁹ *Tantravārtika*, on II, 3. 3.

c21.73

Now let us consider the religious position of the Kshatriyas. The queens and kings of earlier periods like Nayanikā, Samudragupta, Pṛthvīsheṇa, who were presumably Kshatriyas, are known to have performed several Vedic sacrifices. In our period these sacrifices had become unpopular, as shown already in the last chapter; so we do not find any kings celebrating them. The Kshatriyas, however, were still permitted to study the Vedas, for Alberuni tells us that they could read and learn them in his times. (50) He, however, immediately adds:—‘ He (i. e. the Kshatriya) offers to the fire and acts according to the rules of the Puranas.’ All the Hindus of our period were following the Puranic rather than Vedic rules and rituals, as shown in the last chapter. It is, however, not unlikely that Alberuni’s statement refers to the Kshatriyas performing their rituals and sacraments with the help of the Puranic rather than the Vedic Mantras. If so, it would follow that the Kshatriyas were rapidly going down to the position of the Vaishyas and Sudras, as far as the religious privileges were concerned. The absence of the mention of their gotras by the kings of our period in their copper-plate grants would also show that they were getting more and more dissociated from the orthodox Vedic atmosphere.

c21.74

The Vaishyas were losing their position among the Traivarnikas much earlier than our period. S'rikrishna enumerates them along with Sudras as persons who were backward or suffering from religious disabilities.(51) Baudhayana Dharma-Sutra(52) points out that the Vaishyas were practically of the same status as the Sudras, as both were marrying indiscriminately and following similar professions like service and tilling. In our period there was no very great difference between the positions of these two castes, for Alberuni expressly says so.(53) He further informs us that(54) if a Vaishya or Sudra was proved to have recited the Veda, his tongue was cut off. There are many clear indications in Alberuni's works to show that he was well acquainted with the contents of the Dharmasastra literature; if, therefore, he makes such a statement which goes directly against the rules of the Smritis on the point, the reason may be well presumed to be that the position of the Vaishyas was actually reduced in practice to that of the Sudras, in spite of the rules of the Smritis. It is, therefore, certain that at the end of our period the Vaishyas were levelled down to the position of the Sudras throughout the whole of India. To discuss the causes of this phenomenon is beyond the scope of the present work.

c21.75

⁵⁰ Sachau, II, p. 136.

c21.76

⁵¹ Gita IX, 32.

c21.77

⁵² I, 11, 4.

c21.78

⁵³ Sachau, I, p. 101.

c21.79

⁵⁴ Ibid, II, p. 136.

c21.80

The Smriti writers permit the Vaishyas to follow the military profession when in distress. A number of the Deccan guilds of our period were maintaining their own militias, as will be shown in chapter XV; even the Jains were among the martial races of the Deccan during our period, as has been shown in the last chapter. 17th century travellers like Tavernier note that the Vaishyas would rather die than kill the smallest animal and had, therefore, no fighting value.(55) The case, however, was entirely different in the Deccan of our period.

c21.81

The unanimous opinion of the Vedic and Smriti writers that the Sudras were not to be permitted to read the Vedas is supported by Alberuni from whom it appears that the rule was actually enforced in practice.(56) A number of later Smritis like Baijavāpa,(57) Jātūkarṇya,(58) Aus'anas, and Laghu-vishṇu(59) distinguish a pious Sudra (Sachchhūdra) from an ordinary one (Asachchhūdra), and extend to the former the privilege of Srāddha, Saṃskāras and Pākayajñas. Somadeva, a Jain writer of the Deccan of our period, confirms the testimony of these Smritis when he observes that internal and external purity qualifies even a Sudra for spiritual duties connected with gods, Brahmanas, and ascetic life.(60) There is no epigraphical evidence to show that these privileges were actually enjoyed by the Sudras of our period, but it is not likely that the Brahmanical writers would have enunciated religious privileges not countenanced by the society. We may, therefore, take it as certain that the respectable among the Sudras used to perform the S'rāddhas, Sanskaras, and other Smārta rites throughout India, of course through the medium of the Brahmanas and with Pauranic Mantras.

c21.82

⁵⁵ Travels in India, p. 386.

c21.83

⁵⁶ II, p. 136.

c21.84

⁵⁷ Quoted in the Viramitrodaya, Paribhāshā, p. 135.

c21.85

⁵⁸ V. 50.

c21.86

⁵⁹ V. 105.

c21.87

⁶⁰ Nitivākyāmṛta, VII, 12.

c21.88

Much earlier than our period had the service of the twiceborn ceased to be the only profession of the Sudras. A number of Smriti writers like Bṛhadyama, (61) Us'anas, and Devala (62) declare that trade, crafts and industries were the ordinary and not the exceptional avocations of this caste. In the 17th century, infantry was largely recruited from this caste (63) and the same was the case in our period. The military career naturally brought the throne within the reach of the Sudra, and we have already seen how two of the kings ruling at the time of Yuan Chang were Sudras. (64) The theory that the Sudra could not own any property was a dead letter long before our period; Medhātithi, who flourished in our period, declares that even a Chaṇḍāla had proprietory rights and that his stolen property, when recovered, ought to be restored to him by the king. (65)

c21.89

Our epigraphical records prove that during our period, Brahmanas of one province were freely going to permanently settle in another. The donees of the Alas plates of Yuvarāja Govinda (66) and the Wani-Dindori plates of Govinda III (67) were immigrants from Vengi in Kalinga country, and since they were assigned villages in Maharashtra, it is clear that they had permanently domiciled in that province. The donees of the Begumra plates of Indra III (68) and the Sangli plates of Govinda IV(69) were immigrants respectively from Pataliputra and Pundravardhana (in northern Bengal). It is, therefore, clear that provincial barriers of castes had not arisen in our period. Indra III and his religious advisers did not share the view of the *Atrisaṃhitā*(70) that a Magadha Brahmana was not to be honoured even if he was as learned as Brihaspati; for, in that case the donee of the Begumra plates would not have been a Brahmana from Pataliputra. Nāgamārya, the donee of the Cambay plates of Govinda IV,(71) was an immigrant from Kavi in Gujrat settled in Malkhed. It is obvious that the present-day prejudice in the Deccan, that a Brahmana from Gujrat is inferior to one from the Deccan, does not go back to our period; for Gujrat Brahmanas were settling down in Karnatak and were being honoured with *brahmadeya* grants. In no records of our period are the donees described as Gauḍa, Kanoji, Nāgara or Drāviḍa Brahmanas. In later records, however, such provincial denominations become the order of the day. Thus in Bahal (Khandesh district) inscription of the Yādava king Singhana, dated 1222 A.D.,(72) the composer of the grant describes himself as a Nāgara-Jñātīya-Brāhmaṇa. Though the provincial castes had not arisen in our period, the way to their formation was being paved. Smritis like the *Atrisaṃhitā* were helping the fissiparous tendency by dubbing as worthless the Brahmanas of certain provinces; their teachings had no effect on the Deccan of our period, but they were being gradually followed in the north in the 11th century. For, Alberuni notes that in his time it was regarded as sinful for a Brahmana to cross the Sindhu or the Chambal and enter the territories beyond them.(73) The time was, therefore, at hand when provincial barriers were to introduce further ramifications in the caste system.

c21.90

⁶¹ I, 5.

c21.91

⁶² Quoted in the Smṛtichandrikā Āchārakāṇḍa, p. 455.

c21.92

⁶³ Tavernier, p. 328.

c21.93

⁶⁴ Life, p. 79.

c21.94

⁶⁵ Cf. सर्वग्रहणेन चाण्डाल्येभ्योऽपि चोरहृतं द्रव्यं देयमिति। On Manu, VII, 40.

c21.95

⁶⁶ E. I., VI, p. 208.

c21.96

⁶⁷ I. A., XI, p. 157.

c21.97

⁷² E. I., III, p. 123.

c21.98

⁷³ Sachau, II, pp. 134-5.

c21.99

Let us now proceed to consider the attitude of our age towards the question of the intercaste marriages. These marriages, if *anuloma*, have been permitted as legal by most of the Smriti writers, both old and new; the *Nitivākyāmṛta*, which was composed in the Deccan of our period, concurs with the Smritis.⁷⁴ That they were once common in the Hindu society is proved by the rules of *ās'aucha*,⁷⁵ and partition,⁷⁶ where detailed provisions are given as to the liabilities, duties, right, and privileges of the children born of intercaste *anuloma* marriages These intercaste unions could not have been numerous, for society usually prefers marriage alliances with the equals. They, however, did exist and served the useful function of rendering the caste system flexible to a great degree. Historical examples can be cited to show that these intercaste marriages were actually taking place. The father of the famous Sanskrit poet Bāṇa had married a Sudra lady in addition to a Brahmana one; for in the 2nd Ulhāsa of the *Harshacharit* Bāṇa mentions a *pārās'ava* brother (*i. e.* a brother born of a Brahmana father and Sudra mother) of his, Chandrasena by name.⁷⁷ Since Chandrasena was the first to report to Bāṇa the arrival of the messenger from Harsha, it may be presumed that the Sūdrā and the Brāhmaṇī mothers and their children were living together under the same roof. Bālāditya, the last king of the Gonanda dynasty in Kashmir is known to have given his daughter in marriage to a Kāyastha.⁷⁸ The Jodhpur inscription of Pratīhāra Bāuka concurs with the Ghatiyala inscription of Kakkula in stating that the founder of the house, Harischandra, had two wives, one of the Brahmana and the other of the Kshatriya caste.⁷⁹ Ghaṭotkacha cave inscription of Hastibhoja, a minister of the Vākāṭaka king Devasena, informs us that Hastibhoja's ancestor Brahmana Soma had married a Kshatriya lady ‘in accordance with the precepts of the revelation and tradition.’⁸⁰ While most of the ancestors of Lokanātha, the grantor of the Tipperah copper plates, ⁸¹ (c. 650 A.D.) are described as good Brahmanas, his mother's father is called Parāśava i. e. sprung from a Brahmana father and a Sudra mother. It is therefore clear that the father of this gentleman had at least two wives, one a Brahmaṇī and the other Sūdrā. Coming down to our own period, we find that Rājaśekhara had married a Kshatriya lady, and she seems to have been his only wife. Ibn Khurdadba writing about the state of affairs in western India during our period, states that the anuloma intercaste marriages used to take place.⁸² These marriages were, however, getting more and more unpopular towards the end of our period. Alberuni, after laying down the theoretical rule that anuloma intercaste marriages were permissible, adds that in his time the Brahmanas did not avail themselves of this liberty and were invariably marrying women of their own caste only.⁸³ Sangrāmarāja, an 11th century king of Kashmir had married his sister to a Brahmana; the notions of decency of the 12th century historian Kalhaṇa were outraged by this union. The historian deplores that the king should have courted infamy by this intercaste marriage and exclaims, ‘What a great disparity between the princess fit to be the consort only of a powerful king and the Brahmana bridegroom of small mind with his hand always wet with the libation water poured at the time of the receipt of gifts.’⁸⁴ It is.

c21.100

⁷⁴ XXXI, 28.

c21.101

⁷⁵ Baudhāyana, as quoted by Haradatta at Gautama, II, 5, 4.

c21.102

⁷⁶ Gautama II, 3, 33: Vishnu, X etc.

c21.103

⁷⁷ About 3 pages from the beginning of the Ulhāsa.

c21.104

⁷⁸ *Rājatarangiṇī*, IV, 489.

c21.105

⁷⁹ J. R. A. S., 1894, p. 1 and 1895, p. 576.

c21.106

⁸⁰ A. S. W. I., IV, p. 140.

c21.107

⁸¹ E. I., XV, p. 301.

c21.108

⁸² Elliot, I, pp. 16.

c21.109

⁸³ Sachau, II, pp. 155-6.

c21.110

⁸⁴ VII, 10-12.

c21.111

therefore fair to conclude that the intercaste anuloma marriages ceased to take place soon after our period. It is true that a Dutch clergyman of the 17th century, Abraham Roger by name, observes that Brahmanas used to marry girls of all the four castes, though their marriages with Sudra girls were disapproved. (85) Another 17th century European observer, Bernier, however contradicts this statement asserting that the intermarriages between the four castes were forbidden. (86) Abraham Roger had lived in the southern presidency, and he had probably the Nambudri Brahmanas in view when he refers to the unions of the Brahmanas with the girls of the lower castes. We may therefore conclude that Kalhaṇa was the spokesman of the 12th century view and that soon thereafter the intercaste marriage became obsolete.

c21.112

A number of earlier writers like Gautama, (87) Āpastamba, (88) and Baudhāyana (Dharma-Sūtrakāra) (89) permit freely intercaste dinners; the custom had begun to fall into disrepute in our period, for a number of later Smritis either restrict or condemn it. Angiras (90) prohibits the dinner with a Sudra and permits one with a Kshatriya only on days of religious festivity and with a Vaishya when in distress. (91) Yama and Vyāsa (92) declare that a Brahmana should beg cooked food only in the houses of the members of his own caste. That these writers faithfully reflect the feeling of our period, to which in all probability they belonged, is proved by the statement of Alberuni that a Brahmana was permanently expelled from his caste, if he was found guilty of having eaten the food of a Sudra for a certain number of days. (93) Alberuni does not attest to the cessation of interdining among the three higher castes, but the Smritis of our period, as shown above, had begun to frown upon the practice. The cessation of the intercaste marriages, and the difference in diet that soon manifested itself, were further making interdining impracticable. Brahmanas of an earlier age were non-vegetarians, but from Al Masudi and Al Idrisi we learn that in Western India they had become thorough vegetarians during our period. Kshatriyas on the other hand, were then as now non-vegetarians, and were besides, not total abstainers from wine like the Brahmanas; they were permitted in theory three cups of wine.⁹⁴ This disparity in diet and drink must have made interdining between the Brahmanas and the Kshatriyas an impracticable and, therefore, an unpopular practice. This difficulty need not have stood in the way of the intercaste dinners between the Vaishyas and the Brahmanas of the Deccan during our periods, for the influence of Jainism had weaned away a large mass of the traders and agriculturists from non-vegetarianism.⁹⁵ But the Vaishyas had by this time degenerated to the position of the Sudras as shown already, and this fact was making interdining between them and the Brahmanas impracticable.

c21.113

⁸⁵ J. R. A. S., 1881, p. 221.

c21.114

⁸⁶ Travels in India, p. 325.

c21.115

⁸⁷ Chap. XVII.

c21.116

⁸⁸ II, 3, 4.

c21.117

⁸⁹ II, 3, 14.

c21.118

⁹⁰ Vv, 55, 57.

c21.119

⁹¹ Quoted by Haradatta at Gautama, III, 5, 8.

c21.120

⁹² Quoted by Smritichandrikā Saṃskārakāṇḍa p. 109.

c21.121

⁹⁴ Eiliot, I, pp. 16-7.

c21.122

⁹⁵ Al Kaziwini has noted that most of the Hindus at Saimur were vegetarians; Elliot, I, p. 97.

c21.123

Let us now consider the family system of our period. Joint families were the order of the day, but cases of separation in our period were not as rare as is sometimes supposed. Some of our records, which mention the specific shares of the cosharers of agrahāra villages, prove that in many cases fathers and sons were living separately. In the Torkhede inscription of Govinda III,⁹⁶ separate shares are assigned to two brothers showing that they were no longer members of a joint family. In the Chikka-Bagevadi inscription, dated 1149 A.D.,⁹⁷ Lalla and his brother Jajjuka were assigned different shares as also Naiva and his brother Gona. In the Bendegiri grant of Kṛṣṇa, dated 1249 A.D.,(98) there are eight cases of brothers and two of sons being given separate shares from their brothers and fathers respectively. The Paithan plates of Rāmachandra, dated 1271 A.D.,(99) mention the case of a father living separately from his six sons, and four cases of brothers who were no longer following the joint family system. Epigraphical evidence thus shows that though the Smritis had disapproved partition in the life-time of the father, such partitions were not rare in practice. Some of the above records do not strictly belong to our period, but they can be utilised to indicate the general state of affairs in our period as well, since nothing is known to have happened in the next two centuries to revolutionise the notions of the society in this respect.

c21.124

⁹⁶ E. I., III, p. 54.

c21.125

⁹⁷ I. A., VII, p. 303.

c21.126

A record from Managoli in Bijapur district, dated 1178 A.D., observes:—'If any one in the village should die at Mamgavalli without sons, his wife, female children,(100) divided parents, brothers and their children, and any kinsmen and relatives of the same Gotra who might survive, should take possession of all his property, i. e. bipeds, quadrupeds, coins, grains, house and field. If none such should survive, the authorities of the village should take the property as Dharmadeya grant.'(101) The record reveals the actual order of succession in the Deccan of the 12th century, and it is very probable that the same may have been the case in our period. It is noteworthy that this order of succession agrees substantially with that given by Yājñavalkya and his commentator Vijñāneśvara.¹⁰² The inscription does not mention like Yājñavalkya the bandhus, disciples, and fellow students among the heirs; but it may be pointed out that the inscription was not intended to be a text-book in a law college, and its drafters may have omitted disciples, fellow students etc., because the cases of property going to persons who were not even sagotras were very rare in practice. The epigraphical evidence, therefore, shows that the theory of succession advocated by the Mitākṣarā school was substantially based on the actual practice as it was prevalent in the Deccan. In contemporary Gujarat the law of succession was different; property of persons dying without sons used to escheat to the crown till the conversion of Kumārapāla to Jainism. The credit of permitting the widow to inherit her husband's property has been claimed for that king.¹⁰³ That a widow in the Deccan could inherit her husband's property is made further clear from the case of a country Gavunda, who was succeeded in his office by his widow.¹⁰⁴ That daughters were heirs on the failure of sons is further proved by a Saundatti record¹⁰⁵ which informs us that when Mādirāja II of Kolara family was killed in battle, Gaurī, his only daughter, was married to a Banihaṭṭi chief, who consequently became heir to the fiefdom of the Kolara family as well.

c21.127

⁹⁸ Ibid, XIV, p. 69.

c21.128

⁹⁹ Ibid, XIV, p. 315.

c21.129

¹⁰⁰ The expression 'female children' is probably intended to include the daughter's son. It may be pointed out that the text of Yājnavalkya also uses the word duhitaraschaiva only. Vijñānes'vara maintains that the particle cha is intended to denote the daughter's son as well. Historically, the contention is justifiable, since the daughter's son was recognised as heir fairly early.

c21.130

¹⁰² Yājñavalkya, II, 135-6.

c21.131

¹⁰³ Mohaparājaya, Act III, See ante, p. 243.

c21.132

¹⁰⁴ E. C., VII, No. 219.

c21.133

¹⁰⁵ J. B. B. R. A. S., X, p. 177.

c21.134

Now let us consider the position of women. We have seen already how widows and daughters were recognised as heirs. The *Strīdhana* rights, we may presume, were also recognised. They have been conceded in the Hindu society since very early times and even the Smriti writers, who refuse to recognise the widow as an heir, permit women to have undisputed proprietary rights over certain varieties of *Strīdhana* property.¹⁰⁶ A 12th century record from Kolhapur seems to refer to the case of a daughter selling landed property.¹⁰⁷ The record is unfortunately fragmentary and so we do not know whether the land that was sold by this lady was sold with the consent of the reversioners, or whether it was a piece of property that had devolved upon her as a daughter or as a widow. In any case the record shows that the women in the Deccan could sell landed property under certain circumstances.

c21.135

¹⁰⁶ E. g. Vasisṭha, XVII, 43, Baudhāyana II, 2, 49; Āpastamba II, 6, 14, 9 recognise this right though they do not admit widow as an heir.

c21.136

¹⁰⁷ E. l., III, p. 216.

c21.137

Alberuni says that the Hindus of his time used to arrange the marriages of their sons, because they used to take place at a very early age.¹⁰⁸ In another place he informs us that no Brahmana was allowed to marry a girl above 12 years of age.¹⁰⁹ That Alberuni's observation was true of the Deccan of our period as well, is proved by the *Nitivākyāmṛta* from which we learn that boys were usually 16, and girls not above 12, at their marriage.¹¹⁰ It may be pointed out that as early as the time of the Dharmasūtras, *i. e.* c. 300 B. C. – c. 100 A.D., pre-puberty marriages were regarded as preferable to post-puberty ones; almost all the Smritis that were composed at about our period pronounce most frightful curses upon the guardians who fail to marry their female wards before they attain puberty.¹¹¹ We may, therefore, safely conclude that during our period pre-puberty marriages of girls were the order of the day at least among the Brahmanas. There seem to have been some occasional cases of post-puberty marriages among the ruling families; the marriage of Samyogitā, with the famous Pṛthvīrāja, for example, took place when she was quite grown up. But such cases were exceptions and not the rule.

c21.138

¹⁰⁸ II, p. 154.

c21.139

¹⁰⁹ Ibid, p. 131.

c21.140

¹¹⁰ XI, 28; XXX, 1.

c21.141

¹¹¹ E. g. Bṛhadyama III, 22; Samvarta I, 67; Yama I, 22; S'ankha XV, 8; Laghus'ātātapa 65.

c21.142

Several law writers from Baudhāyana downwards observe that the custom of marrying the maternal uncle's daughter prevailed among the inhabitants of the Deccan. Inscriptions of our period refer to a number of cases of such marriages. Jagattunga, the predeceased son of Kṛṣṇa II, had married a daughter of his maternal uncle S'ankaragaṇa.¹¹² The same was the case with Indra IV. Such marriages are recognised as valid by the Dharmas'āstra literature for the Deccanese and are still not unknown. They may have been fairly in vogue in our period.

c21.143

¹¹² Sangli plates, I. A., XII, p. 265.

c21.144

There is no Purda system even today in the Deccan, except in the case of a few royal families who are known to have imitated it from the north. We may, therefore, well presume that the custom was unknown in our period. Abu Zaid says :—' Most princes in India allow their women to be seen when they hold their Court. No veil conceals them from the eyes of the visitors.'¹¹³ The statement in the Kadba plates that the moon-faced damsels in the court of Kṛṣṇa I, who were skilful in exhibiting internal sentiments by means of the movements of their hands, used to give delight to the ladies of the capital, would support the testimony of Abu Zaid that no Purda was observed in the Deccan of our period.

First 143 of 215 passages. Read on

Linked texts (45)