War in Ancient India c4.s6.t1: (1) A Caste Society
War in Ancient India c4.s6.t1
- Language
- English
(1) A Caste Society
c4.s6.t1.1
The ancient Hindu society was a caste society. By this we mean a system of social organisation, the framework of which is without any parallel in the social institutions of the world. The whole community was divided into four distinct groups (*varṇas*) governed by different customs and rules which are still in force in India. Separate occupations were assigned to each of these groups, to be followed hereditarily, though cases of lapses were not infrequent. But occupation did not form the basis of caste, though in theory it marked one group from another. Nor was race the basis of caste, as Risley would have it.⁷ It was the natural outcome of social conditions which have been shaping themselves from primitive times. This is clear from the relation in which caste stands to the ancient family institution. It is the direct outcome of a system derived from a more or less spontaneous partition, where neither class-hierarchy nor theocracy played a significant role. Senart rightly says: ‘The system under which India has lived is not purely an economic organisation of trades nor a chaos of strange and hostile tribes and races, nor again a simple class-hierarchy, but a mingling of all these, united by the common inspiration which dominates the functioning of all the groups, and by the community of characteristic ideas and prejudices which govern their order of precedence.’⁸
c4.s6.t1.2
⁷ Ethnographical Glossary, p. xxxiv.
c4.s6.t1.3
⁸ Caste in India, p. 215.
c4.s6.t1.4
The Varṇa system of the ancient Hindus implied the fourfold division of society into Brahmans, Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas, and Śūdras. The Brahmans formed the group of philosophers and teachers, the Kṣatriyas the group of rulers and warriors, the Vaiśyas the group of agriculturists and traders, and the Śūdras the group of men engaged in different menial services. The idea gained ground that to follow one’s own dharma and to sacrifice one’s own life, if need be, in the prosecution of that dharma, was the highest duty expected of every citizen, to whatever caste he belonged. We may remember how Kṛṣṇa laid emphasis on this point to the vacillating Arjuna who was out to fight his own kith and kin. This is the plain teaching of the Bhagavad Gītā. This insistence on svadharma is a sound economic concept.
c4.s6.t1.5
It lays the axe on the principles of individual freedom, the struggle for existence, and the survival of the fittest. The individual is made to realise his responsibility and duty to himself, his family, country, state, and ultimately to God.⁹ In short, he is a member of a free corporate State. He stands or falls with society and State. He is part of it and not separate from it. It is a peculiar concept by which the individual did his duty and yet enjoyed freedom. Every caste realised its dependence on the other castes, and this tended to avoid caste wars. Hereditary callings and the absence of competition helped an orderly movement, unlike the perpetual restlessness of modern society due to lack of equilibrium. It is the strong bold bond, the corporate organisation, and recognised jurisdiction that stood to guarantee its perpetuity.¹⁰
c4.s6.t1.6
⁹ Dikshitar: *Hindu Administrative Institutions*, pp. 40-41; *The Individual in Hindu Polity*—Aryan Path, Vol. X. No. 4 (April, 1939); *Society and State in Ancient India*—Aryan Path, Vol. XI. No. 2 (February, 1940).
c4.s6.t1.7
¹⁰ Senart, op. cit., p. 60.
c4.s6.t1.8
It is a fact that the ancient Hindu society was divided into a number of water-tight compartments. It had all the evils of rigidity with little or no chance for elasticity. A man, by virtue of his being born in a certain community, continued to be a member of that community all his life. It became a hereditary social system where a Kṣatriya could not become a Brahman, or vice versa. This was considered as virtually trespassing the duties and rights of another community. Any such trespass was punished by the State. So ancient Hindu society, as it was constituted, became necessarily a caste society, but with democratic social standards and conventions. In that state of society, in which a whole caste was set apart for the purpose of war, it was inevitable that that caste should be actuated by a warlike mentality, and that peace was despised. The assumption of that caste was that war was good for all time, and that war brought in its train not only glory to the individual knight but also glory and honour to the king and country. This aspect of the psychological impulse will be examined presently. But what deserves to be noted here is that with a settled community whose function was to defend the country by offensive or defensive methods, the mental atmosphere quickened the impulse to develop war-preparedness. This attitude of the mind was not entirely the result of a spirit of adventure but wholly the result of the realisation of the fact that by war the warrior and the hero were doing a piece of service which tended towards the common good and which was consequently acceptable to the common will. This was an important concept which was realised in abundant measure by every member of the Hindu warrior caste.
Linked texts (1)
- Bhagavadgītā — Vyāsa, Sanskrit