Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Public Administration in Ancient India c5: Chapter II: The Structure of Society

Public Administration in Ancient India c5

Language
English

Chapter II: The Structure of Society

c5.2

WHEN the primeval Āryas left their original cradle-home—we do not exactly know where it was, whether in Persia, or in Central Asia, or in the regions farther north—and entered on their journeys in different directions, they had already passed out of the nomadic and pastoral stages of civilisation. The dawn of history thus finds the Indo-Āryans settled on the banks of the Seven Rivers (Sapta-Sindhavah), leading a civilised life, practising agriculture and some of the simpler kinds of manufacture, and adoring whatever is sublime and beautiful in Nature.

c5.3

The Āryas of the land of the Seven Rivers (now known as the Punjab) were divided into a number of tribes or nations (janāḥ).¹ Each tribe or nation, again, was subdivided into a number of clans (viśaḥ), the members of which claimed their descent from a common ancestor, real or mythical. The different tribes lived, as a rule, on terms of amity and peaceful neighbourliness, and each clan was united with the others by a tie of kindred and a sense of common interest. Occasionally, envy and jealousy led to quarrels and internecine wars, but such occasions were few and far between.¹

c5.4

¹ The Āryas of the Punjab are often alluded to in the Rig-Veda as the five nations or tribes (pañca-janāḥ). For the meaning of the term see Chap. VI., footnote.

c5.5

¹ A careful reading of the Rig-Veda gives the reader the impression that although the wars of the Āryas with the Dasyus were very frequent, internecine wars among the Āryas themselves were rare.

c5.6

In the early Vedic Age, the structure of society was very simple. There were no class distinctions, and each person was the full equal of every other.² But as time went on, and the struggle with the non-Āryans became keener, it was found necessary to devise some system which would keep the Āryas distinct and separate from the Dasyus,³ and would, at the same time, increase the political, industrial, and intellectual efficiency of the Āryas themselves.

c5.7

² Even the Mahābhārata, the great book of orthodox Brahmanism, admits, “There is no real distinction between the different orders. The whole world at first consisted of Brāhmanas. Created (equal) by Brahman, men have in consequence of their acts become distributed into several classes.” Sānti Parva, Sec. 188, sl. 10. The description given in the Rig-Veda of the rise of the four castes from the mouth, the arms, the thighs, and the feet respectively of Brahman, is merely figurative, but in later times the Brāhmanas used this passage to prove their superiority to the other classes.

c5.8

³ Originally, the term ‘Dasyu’ meant ‘non-Āryan,’ and was similar in signification to the Gr. word ‘barbarian.’ But as many of the non-Āryan tribes disturbed the Āryas in the performance of their sacrifices and carried off their cattle, the term gradually acquired a sinister meaning. The other epithets which the Āryas applied to the aboriginal tribes were ‘Yakshas,’ ‘Rākshasas,’ ‘Nāgas,’ ‘Vānaras,’ and ‘Kinnaras.’

c5.9

Several theories exist about the origin of the caste-system. But it seems reasonable to hold that the first beginnings of the system are to be found in the sharp colour line¹ which distinguished the fair-complexioned Āryas from the dark-skinned non-Āryan races of India. Very little is as yet known about the origin of the pre-Āryan inhabitants of the country. But they are said to have belonged mainly to two races, the Kolarian and the Dravidian, who had probably come into India from outside at some remote period of history.² Some of the tribes belonging to these races were fairly civilised, while others were at a very low stage of civilisation. The Āryan conquerors, conscious of their higher powers of intellect, and proud of their superior culture, despised the less civilised non-Āryans, and detested their superstitious customs and practices; and in order to preserve the purity of the Āryan blood, they prohibited all intercourse with the non-Āryan races.

c5.10

¹ The constant use of the term ‘varna’ in Sanskrit literature suggests that colour was the chief ground of distinction. The following reference in the Tibetan Buddhist ‘Dulva’ to the caste-system is interesting: “Then those whose complexion was clear said to the others, ‘Why, I have a fine complexion, whereas you are dark,’ and thus were established distinctions.” The Life of Buddha, derived from Tibetan works, translated by Rockhill, p. 3.

c5.11

² Some scholars think that the Kolarians came into India from the north-east, and the Dravidians from the north-west. The Dravidians are believed to have had affinities with the people of the First Babylonian Empire, and, in fact, to have belonged to the same race.

c5.12

During this time other factors were at work to introduce social distinctions into the Āryan community itself. As civilisation grew, the needs of life became more varied and complex, and this necessitated a division of duties among the people. The continuous and unceasing struggle with the aboriginal races compelled the Āryas to set apart the hardiest portion of their community for the exclusive occupation of war. Then, as engagement in warfare was found incompatible with devotion to learning and the arts of peace, the most intellectual among the Āryas formed themselves into a separate class, while the general mass of the people began to devote their energies exclusively to agriculture, industry, and trade. The members of a clan were originally designated by the collective name of *vis*, but in the course of time this name was reserved for the common people, while those who distinguished themselves either in learning or in war were raised above the general level, and became Brāhmanas and Kshatriyas (or Rājanyas). Lastly, those among the Dasyus who submitted to the Āryan conquerors and were admitted into the pale of Āryan society came to be known as Sūdras. Thus arose the caste-system.

c5.13

The origin of the caste-system can be traced back to the early Vedic times,¹ but it was not until a much later period that it became well established. Intermarriages were not prohibited in early times, and famous Rishis sometimes married the daughters of kings. The division into classes in these times depended more upon occupation, character, and attainments than upon birth.¹ But as the Vedic Age glided imperceptibly into the Brahmanic Period, the caste-system was more fully organised, and by about the eighth or seventh century B.C. it became almost completely stereotyped. In the fourth century B.C., according to Megasthenes, “ no one is allowed to marry out of his own caste or to exchange one profession or trade for another, or to follow more than one business.”² This, however, was the caste-system in its simple form. In the course of time, anulom and pratilom marriages and an ever-increasing diversity of occupations gave rise to innumerable mixed castes, until there was developed that complex mass of social divergences with which we are at the present day familiar, and to which the term caste-system is now—not very properly—applied.

c5.14

¹ Dr. Muir, many years ago, collected a number of passages from the Vedas in his Original Sanskrit Texts, which point to the existence of distinctions within the Āryan community in the Vedic Period. The fact that the social divisions of the early Persians were very similar to the castes of India leads us to think that the beginning of the system can be traced back to the period when the Indo-Āryans had not yet separated from their kinsmen, the Perso-Āryans.

c5.15

¹ In the Buddhist books there are many references to persons who changed their professions without losing caste. In the time of the Mahābhārata mixed marriages were infrequent, but not absolutely impossible. The Sukranīti, a comparatively recent work, says, “It is not by birth that men became Brāhmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Sūdras and Mlechchas; but the distinctions arose in accordance with their qualifications (guṇa) and occupation (karma).” The Bhagavad-Gītā also mentions guṇa and karma as the determining factors in the division of men into castes.

c5.16

² Megasthenes, Fragment XXXIII. (McCrindle’s Trans.). According to Megasthenes, the population of India was divided into seven parts, namely, (1) philosophers, (2) husbandmen, (3) herdsmen and hunters, (4) traders and manual labourers, (5) fighters, (6) overseers, and (7) councillors. This division is substantially correct; and if we put (1) and (7) in one group, (3) and (4) in a second, and (5) and (6) in a third, the classification would exactly correspond with that given by Kautilya.

c5.17

A review of the caste-system is important to the student of ancient Indian polity in this that it affected the status of the citizens and their duties as members of the body politic. From the commencement of the Brahmanic Period until recently, the position of a man in relation to society, and his duties, both public and private, always depended more upon the importance of his class, than upon his individual capacity and character. The duties of the different castes are thus defined by Manu: of the Brāhmanas,—teaching, studying, offering sacrifices, officiating at sacrifices, charity and acceptance of gifts; of the Kshatriyas,—protection of the people, charity, performing sacrifices, study, and want of attachment to pleasures; of the Vaisyas,—cattle-rearing, agriculture, charity, performance of sacrifices, study, trade and money-lending; of the Sūdras,—service of the three orders.¹ To this list Chānakya adds agriculture, arts, and crafts as the occupations of the Sūdras;² and Vishnu mentions all industrial arts (sarva-śilpāni)³ as being within their province. In the Mahābhārata,⁴ also, similar duties are assigned to the members of the different castes.

c5.18

¹ Manu-Samhitā, I. 88-91. The other Smriti works also mention the same or similar duties for the different orders.

c5.19

² Arthasāstra, Bk. I. ch. 3.

c5.20

³ Vishnu Smriti (ed. by J. Jolly), ch. 2.

c5.21

⁴ Sānti Parva, Sec. 72. The Great Epic enumerates the following as the duties common to all classes: the suppression of wrath, truthfulness of speech, justice, forgiveness, begetting children on one's wedded wives, purity of conduct, avoidance of quarrel, and maintenance of dependents.

c5.22

With the establishment of the caste-system the Brāhmanas, by virtue of their position and intellectual attainments, gradually gained an ascendancy over the other classes in society. And this ascendancy was won and maintained not only in matters of religion and learning, but also in politics and statecraft.¹ They were, in fact, looked upon as the natural guardians of society. They were the councillors of the king, and the chief officers of state, both executive and judicial. "To them," says Megasthenes, "belong the highest posts of government, the tribunals of justice, and the general administration of public affairs."²

c5.23

¹ The Brahmanical books give an exaggerated importance to the Brāhmanas, and push their claims to absurd lengths. "The Brāhmana is the lord of the entire creation, for he sprang from the head of Brahmā, and he is the eldest of all created beings." Manu, I. 92. And again, "Everything that exists in the Universe belongs to the Brāhmanas in consequence of his birth and precedence." Mahābhārata, Sānti Parva, Sec. 72, sl. 10.

c5.24

² Megasthenes, Fragment XIII.

c5.25

But this ascendancy had not been won without a struggle. Although the contest was not always bloody, yet there appears to be some truth in the story of Parasu-Rāma who is said to have cleared the earth of the Kshatriyas "thrice seven times." It does not, however, seem that the Brāhmanas had always the best of the business, and possibly the failure of the appeal to force led them to adopt milder methods for the attainment of their object. The allegory of Mitra and Varuna in the Satapatha-Brāhmana correctly represents the final rapprochement between the two classes. “Mitra is the priesthood, and Varuna, the nobility; and the priesthood is the conceiver, and the noble is the doer. . . . So the two united.”¹ But they did not unite on an exactly equal footing, for we are told that “it is quite proper that a Brāhmana should be without a king, but were he to obtain a king, it would be conducive to the success (of both). It is, however, quite improper that a king should be without a Brāhmana, for whatever deed he does, unsped by Mitra, the priesthood, therein he succeeds not.”² Gautama says, “Kshatriyas who are assisted by the Brāhmanas prosper, and do not fall into distress.” And further, “A king and a Brāhmana, deeply versed in the Vedas, these two uphold the moral order of the world.”

c5.26

¹ Satapatha Brāhmana, IV. 1, 4, 1-4.

c5.27

² Satapatha Brāhmana, IV. 1, 4, 6. In another passage the Brāhmana is compared to truth, and the Kshatriya to life.

c5.28

It is thus evident that the Brāhmanas and the Kshatriyas were the two most important classes in the early Indian society. The general superiority of the Brāhmanas over the Kshatriyas was admitted to some extent, but the influence of the former class in the State was not quite exclusive.³ Even in the sphere of religion their supremacy was not absolutely undisputed. For we find that in the sixth century B.C., two of the greatest religious reformers of India—Vardhamāna Mahāvīra and Gautama Buddha—belonged to the Kshatriya caste; and throughout the period known as the Buddhist Age, the superiority of the Brāhmanas was challenged by men belonging to the other classes. With the decline of Buddhism, however, the ascendancy of the Brāhmanas became complete. But though in these latter days the Brāhmanas gained an unassailable position as religious and social leaders, they lost the political influence they once possessed as an organised community. Individual Brāhmanas continued to fill high offices in the State, but as a body they never again became a factor of any great importance in the administration of the country.

c5.29

³ It is difficult, however, to fully agree with Prof. Hopkins when he says, “Brahmanism has always been an island in a sea. . . . It did not even control all the Āryan population.” Quoted with approval by Prof. Rhys Davids in Buddhist India, p. 152.

c5.30

A few words may be said here in regard to a system connected with the caste-system. This was the Āsrama-dharma. Under this system there were four stages in the life of every person belonging to the three higher grades, namely, student (Brahmacārin), householder (Gṛihastha), hermit (Vānaprastha), and ascetic (Parivrājaka).¹ This system undoubtedly tended to promote the efficiency of society, but it was not free from practical difficulties; and it does not seem that the rules laid down in regard to this institution were ever very strictly observed.

c5.31

¹ The duties of the different orders are described in detail in the Dharma-sūtras and Dharma-śāstras. Kautilya also devotes some space to the subject.

c5.32

We now pass on to the second important feature of early Indian society—the family. Man is a gregarious animal, and in the very earliest stages of social evolution, the family—and not the individual—was the unit of society.¹ From this starting-point social progress seems to have taken place concurrently in two distinct—and, in fact, opposite—directions. One movement led to the formation of larger and still larger associations, such as the clan, the tribe, and the village, culminating in the State. The other movement consisted in the gradual emancipation of the component parts of the family, thus giving rise to the individual. And this, we may take it, was what happened in India as in other countries.

c5.33

¹ Some sociologists hold that the tribe was the earliest type of social aggregation, and that the family was a later development. But this view does not seem to be quite correct.

c5.34

From very early times, the reverence for family ties was firmly established and held sacred in India. The family was like a small communistic society, bound together by the tie of natural affection, holding in joint possession the means of production, and enjoying the fruit of labour in common.² All acquisitions were joint property, and all expenses were paid out of the common fund. The Joint Family was, in fact, very similar to the *societas universorum bonorum* of the Romans. The father was the head and protector of the family. But just as the dependent members owed their duties to the father, so the father was bound by obligations to the rest of the family. Unlike the Roman paterfamilias, the father of the Indian family had no powers of life and death over the subordinate members. The family was not his property. Every individual member of the family had a locus standi in the law-courts and the other departments of the State; and the government could, if it thought fit, deal direct with every member of the family without the intervention of the head. As regards the family property, the father was the manager, rather than the owner, of it. The family collectively was the owner, and the father had powers to deal with it only as the representative of the family; but even here his powers were not unlimited.

c5.35

² Kautilya says, "With the exception of the sleeping rooms, all parts of the house shall be open to all members of the family." Arthaśāstra, Bk. III. ch. 8.

c5.36

The members of the family were the father, the mother, sons, daughters, daughters-in-law, brothers, sisters, and other dependent relations. Slavery, such as existed in olden times in other parts of the world, was unknown in India. Megasthenes emphatically asserts, “None of the Indians employ slaves.”¹ And, again, he says, “All Indians are free, and not one of them is a slave. The Lakedaemonians and the Indians are so far in agreement. The Lakedaemonians, however, hold the Helots as slaves, and these Helots do servile labour; but the Indians do not even use aliens as slaves, and much less a countryman of their own.”² This was perfectly true, and yet there existed in Ancient India a class of persons who were not completely free. This class was known as the Dāsas. The word ‘Dāsa’ is a variant of the word ‘Dasyu,’ and, originally, the Dāsas consisted of the non-Āryans who were captured in war.¹ To this class were afterwards added the issue of Dāsas and those who were deprived of their freedom as a judicial punishment. The number of Dāsas was never very large, and no Ārya could be a Dāsa.² Trading in Dāsas was prohibited,³ and any Dāsa could purchase his freedom by paying a reasonable price.⁴ The Dāsas were members of the family of their masters, and their condition was very different from that of the slaves in ancient Rome. In Roman law, a slave was nothing better than the chattel of his owner, and the penalty for the killing of a slave was the same as that for killing a four-footed beast. In India, on the other hand, a Dāsa had the protection of the courts, and any ill-treatment of a Dāsa was visited with severe punishment.⁵ Moreover, the emancipation of a Dāsa was always considered as a virtuous act, which produced the happy result that the institution died out in India at an early period, and Hindu society was rid of an evil which continued to disfigure other civilised societies for a much longer time and in a much more degraded form.

c5.37

¹ Fragment XXVII. Also Fragment XLI.

c5.38

² Fragment XXVI.

c5.39

¹ Manu mentions seven different classes of Dāsas. VIII. 415.

c5.40

² Arthaśāstra, Bk. III. ch. 13.

c5.41

³ Ibid.

c5.42

⁴ Kautilya prescribes a heavy fine for any person who refuses to emancipate his Dāsa on the latter offering the ransom-money. Bk. III. ch. 13. Manu, on the other hand, is, like Aristotle, a believer in the doctrine of natural slavery. “A Sūdra,” says he, “though emancipated by his master, is not released; since that is innate in him, who can free him from it?” VIII. 414.

c5.43

⁵ Arthaśāstra, Bk. III. ch. 3.

c5.44

The third important feature of the early Indian society was the village system. The village was in ancient times—as it is still to some extent—the basis of the social structure of the country. A village was an aggregation of families, and was composed of various classes following divers occupations. The bond, which united the villagers together, were some or all of the following: common blood, common property, common production and distribution, common institutions, or merely common interest. The villagers did not necessarily trace their lineage from a common ancestor, and, very often, the connections of the villagers outstripped the limits of the village. The village lands were held in private ownership, but pastures, plains, and forests were enjoyed in common. Transfers of property to outsiders were permitted, but only with the consent, explicit or implied, of the villagers.¹ All fines went to the common fund of the village, and every person was bound to co-operate in all works tending to the common benefit of the villagers and in the getting up of public amusements. The village thus had a sort of corporate life in the times of Manu and Chānakya, but it seems that it was not until a much later date that village communities, such as they existed at the time of the rise of the British power, came into existence.

c5.45

¹ Arthaśāstra, Bk III. ch. 9. Relatives, neighbours, and creditors had the right of pre-emption in respect of lands which were to be sold. Ibid.

Linked texts (11)