Hindu Administrative Institutions c6.s4: Sec. v. Social Organization

Hindu Administrative Institutions c6.s4

Language: English

Sec. v. Social Organization

c6.s4.1

It was further realized that the state alone was not enough to attain the three aims of life. It required an efficient social organization as well. It would appear from the scanty evidence available at present that people lived originally in groups or tribes, and as time went on, the necessity for defence and the increase of numbers led to amalgamation among tribes and the introduction of a civil order of society. When people once realized the necessity for an organized society they set about framing codes and regulations which were binding upon the members of the society. To keep it progressive the social order was based on the double division in the four castes and the four orders (or the stages of life). It was a system of social polity known by the term *varṇāśrama dharma*. Whatever may be the suitability or otherwise of these institutions to modern times, they served their purpose very well for several centuries. This was because the system was based on well-grounded scientific and economic principles. The four classes included first the group of philosophers and teachers; secondly the group of rulers and warriors; thirdly the group of agriculturists and traders, and lastly the group of men engaged in different menial services. It was realized that real progress lay in hereditary professions and it was considered wrong for members of one community to encroach on the functions of another. *Daṇḍa nīti* came forward with restraints and restrictions which could keep society going. The new society evolved, according to necessity, laws which became fixed. Life in society further involved the principle that every member should conduct himself according to the law established. The ideal preached was ‘better to observe one's own *dharma* though devoid of good qualities than adopt that of others. Better to die in following one's own *dharma* for the *dharma* of another is fraught with fear.'¹

c6.s4.2

¹ श्रेयान्स्वधर्मो विगुणः परधर्मात्स्वनुष्ठितात् । स्वधर्मे निधनं श्रेयः परधर्मो भयावहः ॥ (*Bhagavat Gīta*, iii. 35.)

c6.s4.3

It would be interesting to make an investigation into the origin of the four classes into which society was divided. Without taking up a detailed discussion, it would not be out of place to mention a few outstanding facts. According to the passage which occurs in the *Puruṣa Sūkta*, the four castes, Braha-maṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Sūdra constituted the face, arms, thighs and feet respectively of *Puruṣa*. We have the authority of Dr. Martin Haug to regard it as an old hymn and not a late interpolation. Besides Professors Macdonnel and Keith remark: 'It seems certain that in the *Ṛig Veda* this Brahman is already a separate caste differing from the warrior and the agricultural classes.'² Thus there is evidence to show the existence of different classes in very ancient times. This is corroborated by the evidence of the Persian sources like the *Zend Avesta*.

c6.s4.4

² *Vedic Index*, vol. ii, p. 81.

c6.s4.5

There is again a passage in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* which throws some side-light on the question of the origin of castes. Prajāpati created Brahma with *Bhūḥ*, Kṣatra with *Bhuvaḥ* and Viś with *Svaḥ*. Professor K. Sundararama Aiyar explains this passage following *Śrī Śankara Bhāshya* on a similar passage that occurs in the *Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa*.³ स भूरिति व्याहरन्स भूमिसृजत । That is, ‘ the earth was created by Brahma after the word *Bhū* became manifest in his mind.’ In the same way the passage in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* means that they were created by Prajāpati after these words (*Bhū*, etc.) became manifest in his mind, and so they can be said to have sprung from both Prajāpati and from *Bhūḥ*, etc., or from either.¹

c6.s4.6

³ भूरिति वै प्रजापति र्ब्रह्माजनयत्; भुव इति क्षत्रं; स्वरिति विशम् ॥

c6.s4.7

¹ *Vedānta : Its Ethical Aspect*, p. 268.

c6.s4.8

Whether this social system is to be attributed to divine creation or human, no one can possibly say. To a student of history who is engaged in studying only institutions of administrative importance this is immaterial.

c6.s4.9

Here we are concerned with the divisions and the orders that existed. Though the unfailing source of undated history which is tradition asserts that society came into being accompanied by these four divisions or communities of people yet it cannot be denied that caste arose long after the creation of man. With the establishment of this fourfold classification, to keep up orderliness in society and to preserve harmony, the seers and sages of old framed codes and laws enjoining on the particular classes to follow their *svadharma*. This conception of *svadharma* is a sound economic principle judged by modern notions of economic science. It at once knocks on the head the current principles of individual freedom, the struggle for existence, and the survival of the fittest. Ancient India had never to face these serious problems staring us now in the face. By healthy conventions, India solved these problems. Every individual was made to realize his responsibility and duty to himself, his family, community, state and ultimately to God. He is born in this broad world with three debts, duty to the elders or departed ones (पितृऋणं), duty to the sages and seers (ऋषिऋणं) and duty to God (देवऋण). He must absolve himself of these three debts if his aim is the liberation of his soul by means of supreme knowledge (ज्ञान). The first step is *karma* or *dharma*, transgression of which would lead to serious consequences. In the *Mokṣadharma* portion of the *Śanti Parvan* it is said¹ ‘animated by lustful enjoyments, devoid of commiseration, full of passion and wrath, and fond of daring, adventure and departed from *svadharma*, the Brahmans acquired the quality of the Kṣatriyas.’ Again those Brahmans² who take to agriculture and cattle rearing and do not attend to their proper duties acquire the quality of the Vaiśyas.’ And yet again those who indulge in cruelty and untruth,³ are avaricious, and take to all sorts of livelihood, full of *tamas* quality, and are fallen from the righteous path, acquire the quality of Sudras.’

c6.s4.10

¹ कामभोगप्रियाः तोक्ष्णाः क्रोधनाः प्रियसाहसाः । त्यक्तस्वधर्मा रक्ताङ्गाः ते द्विजाः क्षत्रतां गताः ॥ (186. 11.)

c6.s4.11

² गोभ्यो वृत्तिं समास्थाय पोताः कृष्युपजीविनः । स्वधर्माननुतिष्ठन्ति ते द्विजाः वैश्यतां गताः ॥ (Ibid., 12.)

c6.s4.12

³ हिंसानृतप्रिया लुब्धाः सर्वकर्मोपजीविनः । कृष्णाःशौचपरिभ्रष्टाः ते द्विजाः शूद्रतांगताः ॥ (Ibid., 13.)

c6.s4.13

From this one can easily understand how even professions or *vṛttis* were fixed by birth in a caste or a community. But this was not a hard and fast rule. There was the exception so far as the *vṛtti* was concerned. Here we must guard against confounding the principles of *svadharma* with *vṛtti*. Though the latter finds a place in the category of *svadharma* yet it was not absolutely insisted upon. For *svadharma* refers to religious functions, the various penances, and miscellaneous rites and ceremonies. But *vrtti* refers to the worldly affairs of earning a livelihood. Sukra says¹ that the tilling of the soil by the Brahmans has been recommended by Manu and other teachers. Again in the *Śānti Parvan* of the *Mahābhārata*, in case of distress and for the sake of livelihood, a Brahman can live by taking to the profession of a Kṣatriya and even a Vaiśya.²

c6.s4.14

¹ iv. iii. 19.

c6.s4.15

² > अशक्तः क्षत्रधर्मेण वैश्यधर्मेण वर्त्तेत् ।

c6.s4.16

Again when thieves abound in large numbers, and when respect to authority wanes and the intermixture of caste results, all the classes are entitled to take up arms in defence.³ A Brahman can take up arms on three occasions : for self-defence, for protection from dangerous and wicked men, and when he is robbed of his property.⁴ Also it is said, ‘ He who would serve as the shore on the shoreless place and as a boat in the boatless place is always entitled to respect whether he be a Śūdra or any other.’⁵ The idea contained herein shows that the ancients did not attach much importance to the so-called superiority of certain castes. Here the position accorded to the Śūdra must make one concede how catholic and how elastic the social system was as it was worked in ancient India.

c6.s4.17

³ *Ibid.*, 18.

c6.s4.18

⁴ *Ibid.*, 34.

c6.s4.19

⁵ > अपारे यो भवेत् पारमप्लवे य प्लवो भवेत् ।

c6.s4.20

Hindu society was an organism by itself. It came into being to meet social and economic needs. In the physical body there are several cells and the difference between these cells is mainly in function, which is

c6.s4.21

कृषिं गोरक्ष्यमास्थाय व्यसने वृत्तिसंक्षये ॥ (lxxviii. 2.)

c6.s4.22

शूद्रोवा यदि वाऽप्यन्यः सर्वथा मानं अर्हति ॥ (lxviii. 38.)

c6.s4.23

absolutely necessary for the life of organisms. The body-politic may thus be regarded as composed of individuals in various stages of evolution doing their respective duties and yet enjoying freedom. Thus we may realize the Sudra class as the pedestal of the body politic, but for which the head (Brahmans), the hands (the Kṣatriyas), the thighs (the Vaiśyas), would not only be ineffective for the functioning of society as a whole, but would also be incapable of performing their own functions to the best advantage. Dispute, discontent and despair would be the consequence. But if every member of this organism is powerful enough to function in its respective sphere, all of them would be interdependent and society would go on. ‘Therefore nothing is too high, nothing too low, for all are equally suffused saturated and transfigured by the one life which alone makes for righteousness.’ Hence the institution of the four varṇas has been based upon the latter’s guṇa or essential nature and quality, and their respective karma or social function. In the order of the āśramas lies the condition needed for the enabling of the individual to perform efficiently his duties to self, to the family, to the community and to God, and thus to achieve the happy solution of this universal social problem which even modern democracy is unable to tackle successfully. Thus the conception of society as an organism, a new product of western science, is the basic truth taught in the sacred books of the ancient Hindus.

c6.s4.24

The conception of an organism involves, above all, two things: first organs, and then the purpose which these serve. We have already said that the four varṇas are the four important organs of the body, head, hand, thighs and feet. Their respective purposiveness is the next question that needs to be answered. To a question put by Yudhiṣṭhira, Bhīṣma answers: ‘The duties common to all classes of people are control of temper, love of truth, complete impartiality, all round purity of mind and body, absence of ingratitude, earning only for livelihood, and the maintenance of servants.’¹ For the Brahmans the duties are,² in addition to the practice of self-control, the earning of a livelihood by following his own caste profession and entering into a dharmic marriage and obtaining a son, the following six: namely, learning and teaching, giving and receiving gifts, performing sacrifices for themselves and for others. For the Kṣatriyas³ gifts of wealth to the deserving, non-acceptance of gifts, performance of yajñas, study of the Vedas, but not the teaching of them, protection of the subjects, constant vigilance in putting down the wicked, prowess in war, killing the evil-minded, protection of the people in their svadharma are the duties. The duties of the Vaiśyas⁴ are gifts, study of the Vedas, performance of the yajñas, purity of mind in earning wealth, agriculture, rearing of cattle, trade and commerce, etc. The Śudradharma⁵ is the service of these three classes, spending wealth in religious works, receiving gifts of clothes, money, and other presents in return for their services. To a childless and deceased Śudra his master must perform the obse-

c6.s4.25

¹ Ibid., 11-14.

c6.s4.26

² Ibid., 15-22.

c6.s4.27

⁴ Ibid., 23-29.

c6.s4.28

⁵ Ibid., 30-39.

c6.s4.29

अक्रोधः सत्यवचनं संविभागश्च सर्वशः ।
प्रजननं क्षेत्रु दारेषु शौचमद्रोह एवच ॥
आर्जवं भृत्यभरणं त एते सार्ववर्णिकाः ।
(Śanti Parvan, lix. 9 and 10.)

c6.s4.30

quies and rites. The disabled and the old must be protected. Again the Sudra can perform yajñas called पाकयज्ञ.¹ If he is poor and cannot find the wherewithal to do the yajña, and if he sticks to his svadharma he is entitled to a share of the spiritual benefits accruing from the performance of yajñas by the other three classes. The discussion ends with a thought-provoking stanza² which says:

c6.s4.31

¹ Ibid., 41 ff.

c6.s4.32

As out of the one letter (अ), came out the three Vedas, the Rig, Yajus and Sāman, the three varṇas, Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas and Śudras came out of the one Brahmaṇa. For as the commentator puts it ब्रह्मैव ब्राह्मणः जातः 1; the creator himself became the Brahmaṇa. Out of him then sprang the other three who by dharma (ऋजवः by meaning साधवः), and by the tie of relationship (ज्ञातिवर्णाः), are related to the Brahmaṇa,² but with a change of form or nature so as to prevent monopolism or rivalry, the inevitable concomitance of modern individualistic organization, thus ultimately ensuring an orderly progress. In this one śloka one can read the various aspects of the theory of social organism, the correlation of the structure, and the functions of various organs, or limbs of the society.³

c6.s4.33

² तस्माद्वर्णा ऋजव्रो ज्ञातिवर्णाः संस्तूयन्ते तस्य विकार एव । एकं साम यजुरेकमेका । विप्रश्चैको निश्चयं तेषु सृष्टः । (Śanti Parvan, lix. 50.)

c6.s4.34

³ Śanti Parvan, pp. 98-99 (Kumbakonam edition).

c6.s4.35

There are other passages in the same chapter which deserve careful perusal. The social position accorded to the Śudras in ancient times, is at present much misunderstood. He was a kinsman by blood (ज्ञातिसाम्यं)

c6.s4.36

So far the *varṇas*. The *āśramas* or stages of life are for the Brahman four: *brahmacharya*, *gṛhastha*, *vānaprastha* and *sanyāsa*; for the Kṣatriya three (other than *Sanyāsa*); for the Vaiśya two (excluding *vānaprastha* and *sanyāsa*); and for the Sudra only one, i.e. *gṛhastha*.¹ An elaborate study of this is made in chapter lx of the *Rāja Dharma* portion of the *Mahābhārata*. The first is a course of education and discipline. The student is expected to undergo a life of celibacy and austerity under the immediate and continuous guidance of a patriarchal *guru* or teacher. It is a life of discipline and purity. It prepares the student to squarely face the struggling world of *saṃsāra*—household, family, and children. Formation of character, building up of a robust body and acquisition of sound educational qualifications are then the results of the first *āśrama*. Ancient India would count with pride a number of life-*brahmachārins* devoted to the welfare of the common people, at the sacrifice of their very selves. Some of them are the great Bhīṣmāchārya, the grandsire of the Kauravas, Hanumān the wisest sage and the heroic warrior rolled

c6.s4.37

¹ *Śānti Parvan*, commentary on *v.* 2, chap. lix. चातुर्वर्ण्यस्य ये आश्रमाः ब्राह्मणस्य चत्वार आश्रमाः, क्षत्रियस्य त्रयो, वैश्यस्य द्वौ, शूद्रस्यैक इति ।

c6.s4.38

as well as by cultural relationship (धर्मसाम्यं) to the Brahman like the Kṣatriya or the Vaiśya. The Śudra is entitled to perform *pāka-yajñas*, and the name of Paijāvāna or Pailavāna is mentioned as the great member of the Śudra community who performed these sacrifices and gave as *dakṣiṇa* one lakh of *pūrṇapātras*. *Śānti Parvan*, lix. 40-42. The learned commentator writes स वेदहीनोऽपि प्राजापत्यः प्रजापतिदेवताकः । Also सर्वेषां वर्णानां ब्राह्मणत्वादस्येव शूद्रस्यापि यज्ञे अधिकार इत्यर्थः । These bear out eloquently the fact that the Śudra was as much an Aryan as the Brahman and if these facts could be accepted there need be no hesitation in concluding that the Dravidian race as distinct from the Aryan is a myth.

c6.s4.39

into one, the minister of Sugrīva and devoted to Rāma, and Raikva of the *Chandogya*, the embodiment of purity and virtue, shedding spiritual lustre all round.

c6.s4.40

The *gṛhastha* is said to be the key-stone of the social arch and the housewife (गृहिणी) as the main-stay of *dharma*, the life and soul of *sat-karma* and *sadāchāra*. The house-holder enjoys wealth (*artha*) and desire (*kāma*), and adopts life (*pravṛttimārga*) not with the fever of ambition to scramble for gold, but with a good conception of duty (*dharma*) and ultimate release (*mokṣa*) as the ideal. He has to look upon wealth as a trust. He keeps an open door for the guests. He performs daily the five sacrifices *pañcha-mahā-yajña* to redeem himself from the debts he owes to his ancestors, sages and the gods. There are prohibitory injunctions for dressing, sleeping, marrying and living. He is to observe the various purifying ceremonies (*saṃskāras*) enjoined on him by the *Śāstras*. Women are the very queens of the household and are to be duly honoured; without honouring them, says Manu, one could not increase the prosperity of the family. If women grieve under any difficulty the family itself perishes.¹ This is proof positive to show how it is a mistake to regard that women in ancient India held a low position in the social scale. To call it slavery is, an illusion, born of prejudice rather than of ignorance.

c6.s4.41

¹ > पितृभिर्भ्रातृभिश्चैताः पतिभिर्देवरैस्तथा ।

c6.s4.42

The next *āśrama* is the *vānaprastha* when the house-holder grown old leaves for the forest with his wife to perform penances preparatory to the next stage of life, the *sanyāsa*. In this last stage he completely abandons the

c6.s4.43

पूज्या भूषयितव्याश्च बहुकल्याणमीप्सुभिः ॥ (Manu, iii, 55 ff.)
Cf. *Matsya Purāṇa*, chap. 214. 21-22.

c6.s4.44

joys and pleasures and even sorrows of the world, and leads a life of complete renunciation tending to *mokṣa* or salvation, the last *puruṣārtha* which is the supreme end of life. That this was in practice in ancient India is in evidence in the extant sacred books of the Hindus. The ancient sages and seers thus established what we can now regard as a well ordered life, by means of which the *puruṣārthas* may be realized. It was a living principle and had a special meaning and purpose. According to Dr. Ananda Coomarasvāmi ‘What nevertheless remains as the most conspicuous special character of the Indian culture is its purposive organization of the society in harmony with a definite conception of the meaning and ultimate purpose of life.’ What distinguishes the Indian social structure from western society is the pluralism of the group, intermediate between the state and the individual. The advantage of the Indian division lies in the fact that it finds it possible to absorb the activity of the individual in different forms of social grouping, the individual merging himself in the general will of the state.

c6.s4.45

Thus the system aims at unity in diversity. This ancient edifice of the Hindu society is in striking contrast to the social organizations of the West where change and readiness to change are the distinguishing characteristics which are the root cause of all social and economic discontent such as unemployment, and strikes, To-day we see there various efforts at social organization such as socialism, syndicalism, bolshevism, anarchism, etc.¹ All these movements have a common aim, namely, abolition of power and privilege. The economic doctrines of capital and labour are condemned, and communal ownership of land and capital is generally aimed at. Society in the West at present is practically constituted of two classes, the capitalists and the labourers. The former with their increasing mountains of wealth feel as discontented as the latter who sweat for a few farthings. This has not unnaturally led to class war and an atmosphere of discontent everywhere.

c6.s4.46

¹ Bertrand Russel's *Roads to Freedom* gives a clear idea of these efforts.

c6.s4.47

Any observant student of the history of ancient India, and, for the matter of that, modern India up to the close of the last century, will testify to the elements of permanence and orderly movement as the sustaining principles of Hindu society as compared with the restlessness of western society and its perpetual want of equilibrium. The two characteristic features that mark modern society are the struggle for existence and an unhealthy competition. But it was economic democracy that distinguished ancient society from the modern. To preserve caste life and orders whose value has been recognized by such well-meaning friends like Sir Henry Cotton and Sir George Birdwood, the *Rajadharma* acted as the check and the goad. In the absence of the *kṣatriya-dharma* it is said that all science and all the *dharmas* of caste and orders become ruined.¹ This excellent idea is also expressed with the same vigor and force in the Tamil classic, the *Kural*.²

c6.s4.48

¹ मञ्चेन्नयो दण्डनीतौ हतायां सर्वे धर्माः प्रक्षयेयुर्विरुद्धाः । सर्वे धर्माश्रमाणां हताःस्युः क्षात्रे नष्टे राजधर्मे पुराणे ॥ (*Śānti Parvan*, lxii. 28.)

c6.s4.49

² आपन कुंरम அறதொழிலோர் நூல்மறப்பர் காவலன் காவானெனின். (560). See Journal of Indian History, vol. iii, pt. iii, the correspondence between Dr. L. D. Barnett and Dr. S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar and especially p. 153.

c6.s4.50

Kāmandaka strikes the same note when he says तस्याभावे धर्मनाशः तदभावे जगच्च्युतिः। ii. 34. In commenting on this verse Sankarārya quotes तथाहि ‘लोकधारणात् धर्म’ इति निरुच्यते। It may be pointed out here that this *loka-dhāraṇam* consists in warding off evils arising from five different sources—officials, robbers, enemies, king's relatives, and king's covetousness.¹ This action on the part of the state represented by the king is for the increase of *trivarga* (त्रिवर्गपरिवृद्धये). Not only the gathering of the revenues in the proper season, but also the spending of the same in proper time is insisted upon, and in this way it is said that the realization of the three ends (त्रिवर्गप्रतिपत्ति) is attained.²

c6.s4.51

¹ Chap. v. 81-82.

c6.s4.52

² *Ibid.*, 86.

c6.s4.53

Thus the *kṣatria-dharma* leads on to universal welfare (लोकहितं धर्मम्).³ It is the *ādidharma* of every *yuga*. It keeps order in society and assures progress of the community.⁴ It is Bhīṣma who says that *daṇḍa nīti* establishes the four castes in their *svadharma*.⁵ But this could be effected only if the king were to be helped by the community at large. Indian social philosophers recognize state and society as distinct units but both complementary to each other and supplementary. Whenever society gets into distress the king must come forward to help. The people on the other hand must be aware of the usefulness and value of the *imperium* for their progress and welfare, and must help the authority whenever it runs into difficulties.⁶

Linked texts (9)

Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Mānava Dharmaśāstra — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit
Ṛgvedasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Bhagavadgītā — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Matsyapurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Taittirīyabrāhmaṇa — Sanskrit
Tirukkuṟaḷ — Tiruvaḷḷuvar, Tamil
Chāndogyopaniṣad — Sanskrit
Śatapathabrāhmaṇa — Yājñavalkya & Śāṇḍilya (Vedic teacher), Sanskrit