Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Caste and Race in India c7: Chapter III. Caste Through the Ages

Caste and Race in India c7

Language
English

Chapter III. Caste Through the Ages

c7.2

WE have here sought to give a picture of Hindu caste-society as it was functioning before modern ideas affected its course. We have now to see how it came to be what it was. For the convenience of such historical treatment we propose to break up the history of India into four periods. First, the Vedic period ending about 600 B.C. and comprising the literary data of the Vedic Saṃhitās and the Brāhmaṇas; second, the post-Vedic period, extending to the beginning of the Christian era. In this period we have three types of literature which shed light on this subject. The sacred laws of the Āryas present the orthodox and the more or less idealistic standpoint while the epics testify to the contemporary practices. Buddhist literature on the other hand, gives a glimpse of the institution as it appeared to those who rebelled against it and in part provides us with a natural picture of some aspects of caste. The third period may be styled the period of the Dharma-śāstras and ends with the seventh or eighth century A.D. Manu and Viṣṇu are the chief exponents of the social ideals of this age. The fourth period may, with propriety, be called the modern period, and it brings us down to about the middle of the nineteenth century. The customs and beliefs of contemporary Hindus are those that were mostly fixed and classified by the writers of this period. It was during this period that the present-day vernaculars of India were being evolved. A fresh religion and a somewhat different ethnic stock, accounting for many of our present-day political and social problems, were also introduced during this age. The idealistic point of view is provided by writers like Parāśara, Hemādri, and Mādhava, while the inscriptions and travellers' accounts reveal some of the realities of the times.

c7.3

It must be mentioned at the outset that all the literary accounts of the important aspects of caste centre round the four orders in society, namely Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaiśya, and Śūdra, and not the multifarious groups which are the present-day castes.

c7.4

In the Rigveda, the earliest literature of the first period, three classes of society are very frequently mentioned, and named Brahma, Kshatra, and Viś. The first two represented broadly the two professions of the poet-priest and the warrior-chief. The third division was apparently a group comprising all the common people. It is only in one of the later hymns, the celebrated Purushasūkta, that a reference has been made to four orders of society as emanating from the sacrifice of the Primeval Being. The names of those four orders are given there as Brāhmaṇa, Rājanya, Vaiśya, and Śūdra, and are said to have come from the mouth, the arms, the thighs, and the feet of the Creator. The particular limbs ascribed as the origins of these divisions and the order in which they are mentioned probably indicate their status in the society of the time, though no such interpretation is directly given in the hymn.

c7.5

This origin of the four classes is repeated in most of the later works with slight variations and interpretative additions. The Taittirīya Saṃhitā, for example, ascribes the origins of those four classes to the four limbs of the Creator and adds an explanation. The Brahmins are declared to be the chief because they were created from the mouth, punning on the word "mukha" ("mouth" and "chief"). The Rājanyas are vigorous because they were created from vigour. The Vaiśyas are meant to be eaten, referring to their liability to excessive taxation, because they were created from the stomach, the receptacle of food. The Śūdra, because he was created from the feet, is to be the transporter of others and to subsist by his feet. In this particular account of the creation not only is the origin of the classes interpreted theologically, but also a divine justification is sought to be given to their functions and status. The creation-theory is here further amplified to account for certain other features of these social classes. God is said to have created certain deities simultaneously with these classes. The Vaiśya class, the commoners, must have been naturally very large, and this account explains that social fact by a reference to the simultaneous creation of Viśvedevas, all and sundry deities, whose number is considerable. We are told that no deities were created along with the Śūdra and hence he is disqualified for sacrifice. Here again, the social regulation which forbade a Śūdra to offer sacrifice is explained as an incidental consequence of the creation.¹

c7.6

¹ Muir, i, p. 16.

c7.7

The fact that the four classes are described as of divine origin, although in the later hymns, must be taken as a sufficient indication that they were of long duration and very well-defined, even though the exact demarcation of their functions, the regulations guiding their inter-relations, and the extent of their flexibility may not be referred to in the main body of the Rigvedic literature, which is avowedly of a liturgical nature.

c7.8

The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa lays down different sizes of the funeral mound for the four classes. The terms of address are also different, varying in the degree of politeness. In the "Human Sacrifice" the representatives of these orders are dedicated to different deities. A passage in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa warns a Kshatriya to avoid certain mistakes in the sacrificial ritual. If he commits a particular mistake, it goes on to say, "one like a Brahmin shall be born in his line who in the second or third generation from his has the power of becoming a Brahmin, and likes to live as a Brahmin." Similarly for two other mistakes he shall have a Vaiśya-like and a Śūdra-like son capable of becoming a full-fledged Vaiśya or Śūdra in two or three generations. It is clear, that though the classes had come to be almost stereotyped by the end of the Vedic period, it was not altogether impossible for an upward or downward change to occur in a particular family in two or three generations.²

c7.9

² Ibid., p. 439.

c7.10

These classes are regularly referred to in later literature as varṇas, so much so, that popularly Hindu religion has come to be defined as Varṇāśrama Dharma. Yet in the Rigveda the word "varṇa" is never applied to any one of these classes. It is only the Ārya varṇa, or the Aryan people, that is contrasted with the Dāsa varṇa. The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, on the other hand, describes the four classes as the four varṇas.³ "Varṇa" means "colour", and it was in this sense that the word seems to have been employed in contrasting the Ārya and the Dāsa, referring to their fair and dark colours respectively. The colour-connotation of the word was so strong that later on when the classes came to be regularly described as varṇas, four different colours were assigned to the four classes, by which their members were supposed to be distinguished.

c7.11

³ Vedic Index, ii, p. 247.

c7.12

On the relations subsisting between the four classes the Rigveda has very little to say. The inferences that we can draw are also few. Rigvedic literature stresses very strongly the difference between the Ārya and the Dāsa, not only in their colour but also in their speech, religious practices, and physical features. The Brahmin class, by the end of the period, appears to have acquired almost all the characteristics of a caste. Though the general body of the Rigvedic evidence is not quite determinative, yet a stray reference to a false claim for being regarded a Brahmin, like the one contained in the seventy-first hymn of the tenth book of the Rigveda, points to this conclusion. The Brahmin is definitely said to be superior to the Kshatriya, whom he is able to embroil with his incantations or with his knowledge of rituals. He is said to ensure a king's safety in battle by his prayers and the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa lays down that a king's offerings are not acceptable to the gods unless they are offered with the help of a Purohita (chaplain), who, as we shall later on see, was generally a Brahmin. Wherever it is necessary, as in the Rājasūya sacrifice, for the Brahmin to pay homage to the king, the fact is explained in such a way as not to affect the superiority of the Brahmins. It is even suggested that the king rules by the authority delegated to him by the Brahmin.¹ The power of the king or the nobles to harass a Brahmin is recognized and as an antidote a speedy ruin is threatened. The necessity of co-operation between the Brahmin and the Kshatriya for the complete prosperity of both is often reiterated. The Brahmins are declared to be gods on earth. The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa even sums up the rights and duties of the Brahmins, amongst which receiving gifts and observing purity of descent are mentioned. It is also said that no Brahmin should accept whatever has been refused by others, and the sanctity attaching to the Brahmin is carried so far in the Pañchaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa as to foreclose any inquiry into his claim to Brahmin-hood. It appears from a passage in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa that property of a Brahmin was exempt from the royal claim. The remains of the sacrificial food must be eaten by nobody but a Brahmin. According to the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa the murder of a Brahmin is alone a real murder, while the Yajurveda declares it to be a more heinous crime than that of killing any other man. It could only be expiated by a heavy ritual. In a legal dispute between a Brahmin and a non-Brahmin an arbitrator or a witness must speak in favour of the former. Though the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa enumerates freedom from being killed as a privilege of the Brahmins, the Pañchaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa declares that a Purohita might be punished with death for treachery to his master. According to a legend in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, the Brahmins regarded themselves as the spreaders of civilization.

c7.13

¹ Compare Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, v, pp. 3, 4, 20.

c7.14

The functions of a Brahmin may be said to be teaching and officiating at sacrifices, and his aim was to be pre-eminent in sacred knowledge. To achieve this, a student's life (Brahmacharya) was enjoined. To this course, it seems, only Brahmins were generally admitted. The story of Satyakāma Jābāla makes this quite clear. This youth went to a famous Brahmin teacher, requesting to be admitted as a pupil. The teacher asked him to give particulars of his lineage, whereupon Satyakāma is represented to have told the sage that he did not know the name of his father as he was born to his mother when she was overburdened with work. The teacher thereupon acclaimed him as a Brahmin because he told the truth, and allowed him to be his pupil.¹ It must be inferred from this anecdote that according to this teacher at least, only Brahmins could be admitted to Brahmacharya-studentship, because Satyakāma was accepted as a pupil only when the teacher was satisfied that the boy was a Brahmin. The test of lineage was subordinated here to the criterion of the moral characteristic of truth-speaking. Incidentally it may be pointed out that according to the ideas of the age only Brahmins could be expected to speak the truth. This inference fundamentally conflicts with the general comment on this story that it proves the possibility of a non-Brahmin being allowed to acquire the sacred lore.

c7.15

¹ Chhāndogya-Upanishad, iv, 4.

c7.16

That members of other classes could be admitted to studentship as special cases must be inferred from the fact that in the Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā a rite is referred to for the benefit of a person, who had mastered the lore, though himself not a Brahmin. The priest's profession was perhaps hereditary, as we read of a Brahmaputra in a few passages as the son of a Brāhmaṇa (a priest) and also of a Brahmabandhu (a priest in name only). Nevertheless there are indications, corroborated by later tradition, that members of the Kshatriya class could also be priests. The expression "Brahmapurohita", meaning "having a Brahmin priest as Purohita", suggests the possibility of a non-Brahmin priest. Viśvāmitra, the chaplain of Sudās and the famous rival of Vasiṣṭha, according to the tradition, was a Kshatriya. Yāska tells us that Devāpi, who officiated as priest at his brothers' sacrifice, was a prince of the Kuru family. The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa regards a Brahmin as impure if he follows the profession of a physician.

c7.17

Whether marriage among the Brahmins was hemmed in by endogamous restrictions is not quite clear from the literature of this age. According to tradition, Chyavana and Śyāvāśva, two Vedic sages, married Kshatriya girls. On the other hand, the importance of pure descent was appreciated in so far as stress was laid on being a descendant of a Rishi. In the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, Kavasha is taunted with being the son of a female slave and in the Pañchaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa Vatsa is represented as having cleared himself of a similar charge.

c7.18

The second order in society, the Kshatriya, is known in the earlier portions of the Rigveda as the Rājanya. The class seems to have included only the chiefs and the nobles as the word "rājanya" points to the ruling activities, and thus brings out the functional origin of the class. Usually the class is represented as inferior to the Brahmin, but a solitary reference in the Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā raises the Kshatriya over the Brahmin. In another text, "rājakula" or the king's family, is ranked after the Brahmin family. The phrase, "claiming falsely Kshatriya's rank," occurring in the Rigveda (vii, 104, 13), raises the presumption that the Kshatriyas constituted a compact class.

c7.19

The occupations of the class, as we have mentioned above, must have consisted in administrative and military duties, though the rank and file of the army might have been formed even by the commoners. In the prayer for the prosperity of a Kshatriya, he is said to be an archer and good chariot-fighter. That members of this class could follow other occupations is rendered probable by the mention of a Rājanya as playing on the lute in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. According to later tradition, some of the composers of the hymns of the Rigveda belonged to this class. The few examples of Kshatriyas acting as priests are mentioned above. It is clear from Upanishadic literature that some of the kings of the age were not only the patrons of philosophers but were themselves well versed in the profound philosophical speculations of their times. Janaka of the Videhas, Pravāhaṇa Jaivali, Ajātaśatru, and Aśvapati Kaikeya are some of the conspicuous names of philosopher-kings. It seems that some of the Kshatriyas, though as a class they followed other professions, had kept themselves quite alert and abreast of their Brahmin brethren. The forward and daring spirits amongst them tried to assert their equality with the Brahmins both in priestcraft and philosophical disquisitions. The conclusion seems to be legitimate, therefore, that only when the ritual later on became too elaborate, and the Kshatriyas, on the other hand, became engrossed in the work of conquest, and progressively lost intimate contact with the older dialect, that they receded from the competitive field though only to rise in open rebellion against the Brahmins.

c7.20

While there are a few traditional examples of Kshatriya girls being married to Brahmins, there is not a single example from among the personages of this age where a Brahmin girl has married a Kshatriya. Though the Kshatriyas sometimes gave their daughters in marriage to Brahmins yet they seem to have had an objection to marry girls from even prosperous families of the two lower orders.

c7.21

The third order in society, namely the Vaiśya, figures singularly little in Vedic literature. The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa describes him as tributary to another, "to be lived upon by another," and "to be suppressed at will". Representing the common people, both the composition and the functions of this class are shadowy. According to the Taittirīya Saṃhitā, the greatest ambition of a Vaiśya was to be the "Grāmaṇī"

c7.22

or the village head-man. "The son of a Vaiśya woman is never anointed a king," so says the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa.¹ Though, in comparison to the higher classes, the Vaiśyas' position was rather insignificant, yet the class was definitely marked off from the Śūdras.

c7.23

¹ Eggeling's translation, pt. v, p. 326.

c7.24

¹ Eggeling's trans., pt. v, p. 440.

c7.25

The name of the fourth class, the Śūdra, occurs only once in the Rigveda. It seems the class represented domestic servants, approximating very nearly to the position of slaves. The Śūdra is described as "the servant of another", "to be expelled at will", and "to be slain at will". The Pañchaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa defines this position still more precisely when it declares that the Śūdra, even if he be prosperous, cannot but be a servant of another, washing his superior's feet being his main business. Yet according to the same work some of the king's ministers were Śūdras. The milk to be used for fire-oblation was not allowed to be milked by a Śūdra. He was not to be addressed by a person consecrated for a sacrifice. He is declared to be unfit for sacrifice and not allowed even to be present in the hall where the sacrifice was being offered. The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa goes to the length of declaring that the Śūdra is untruth itself.² Illicit connection between an Ārya male and a Śūdra female is mentioned, and the uneasiness felt by the Śūdra husband whose wife is a mistress of an Ārya is also hinted at.³ In this connection we may mention that Vasisṭha quotes a Brāhmaṇa text to the effect that a woman of the black race, meaning the Śūdra people, was meant only for enjoyment and not for the furtherance of any higher motives.⁴

c7.26

² Ibid., p. 326.

c7.27

⁴ Infra, p. 98.

c7.28

We have seen that in the Rigveda a marked distinction was drawn between the Ārya and the Dāsa. In the later Vedic literature this demarcation tends to be drawn between the Ārya and the Śūdra, who is being described as of dark colour. As if to preserve the memory of this change, as a part of sacrificial rites a mock-fight between an Ārya and a Śūdra, in which the former necessarily wins, is prescribed. This change is perhaps due to the increasing association between the Aryan people and the Indian aborigines resulting in illicit unions not only between Ārya males and Śūdra females but also between Śūdra men and Ārya women.

c7.29

Besides the four orders are mentioned in the Rigveda, occupations like blacksmith, leather-worker, barber, physician, goldsmith, merchant, and chariot-builder. We do not know which of these occupations were comprised in any of the four orders, nor can we say that each of them constituted a separate class. We know for certain that the status of the Rathakāra—the chariot-builder—was high enough to preclude his being classified with the Śūdras. The formulæ for placing the sacrificial fire include one for the Rathakāra, indicating his high status even in religious matters.

c7.30

It is not only the variety of occupations that is striking, but also the fact that one and the same occupation bore different names. The husbandman and potter have each more than one appellation. We shall see later that two groups, following the same occupation, have different names and are recognized as independent castes or sub-castes. Naming is the first step towards distinction. We should, therefore, attach due significance to the fact of one and the same occupation being given different names, either through individual or provincial peculiarities, in the Vedic literature.

c7.31

That some of the occupations at least had become hereditary is probable. The use of the patronymic, derived from the name of an occupation, lends support to this view. "kaulāla," "dhaivara," "pauñjiṣṭha," and "vāṇija" are used in the sense of the son of a kulāla (potter), of a dhīvara (fisherman), of a puñjiṣṭha (fisherman), and a vaṇij (merchant).

c7.32

Four names occurring in the Vedic literature, viz. Āyogava, Caṇḍāla, Niṣāda, and Paulkasa, deserve more than passing notice. A king, named Marutta Āvikshita, is called the Āyogava. The meaning of the word is doubtful, but it must be pointed out that in the literature of the next period it is regularly given as the name of one of the mixed castes. The references to the Caṇḍālas in the Yajurveda clearly show them to be a degraded people. In the next period, it will be seen, Caṇḍālas are invariably described as the offspring of a Śūdra father and a Brahmin mother. Whether their degraded position in the Vedic period was due to such mixed descent is more than can be ascertained. At the same time the possibility of such an explanation must not be wholly overlooked, inasmuch as illicit connection between a Śūdra male and an Aryan female is sometimes hinted at. But the more plausible explanation would be that the Caṇḍālas were a degraded group of aborigines. In the first place, it is difficult to see how a whole race of people could be the outcome of illicit unions between Aryan females and Śūdra males. Secondly, they are not the only group described as degraded people in the Vedic literature. The Paulkasas are described as a despised race of men in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanishad. This use of a derivative noun from Pulkasa shows the fixity of the group. The term also occurs in later literature as the name of the offspring of a Niṣāda or Śūdra by a Kshatriya woman. Such a connection of Kshatriya females, as a regular feature, is much more than can be believed. It is more reasonable to hold that both these groups, Caṇḍāla and Paulkasa, were sections of the aborigines that were, for some reason or another, despised by the Aryans. The Niṣādas, on the other hand, seem to have been a section liked by the Aryans, probably because they were amenable to their civilized notions. The Vedic expression "pañcajanaḥ" is explained by tradition, belonging to the latter part of this period, to mean the four varṇas and the Niṣādas, a fact which shows that these people had, by this time, become quite acceptable to the Aryans. This conclusion is also borne out by a text of the Kaushītaki Brāhmaṇa requiring the sacrificer in a particular rite to reside temporarily with the Niṣādas. It seems that the Vedic Dāsa, by constant association and slow assimilation, had been partially turned into the Śūdra and partially into the Niṣāda, while the refractory and incorrigible elements were despised and styled Paulkasa and Caṇḍāla.

c7.33

We have seen that the three classes of the early portion of the Rigveda were later solidified into four groups, more or less compact, with three or four other groups. Though these groups were very nearly exclusive units, upward or downward march of individuals was not altogether an impossibility, though it must have been an infrequent occurrence. Only the first three orders may be said to have been recognized as far as religious and ritualistic life was concerned. The Śūdra, though he was received within the precincts of the Aryan fold, was systematically debarred from following the religious practices of the Aryans. Nay, the ideas of untouchability were first given literary expression in connection with the Śūdras and the sacrifice. There were also various inequalities in the matter of religious practices between the other three classes. The impression is clearly gained that only the Brahmin and the Kshatriya were the two important orders in the society. The former was steadily gaining exclusive influence with the increasing complexity of the sacrificial ritual, while the latter produced, only off and on, individuals capable of keeping themselves abreast of the former. It was in keeping with this that the third order, Vaiśya, was spoken of as the taxable group, and the fourth order, Śūdra, was denied any justice. Each order seems to have been habitually endogamous though occasionally Brahmins married Kshatriya females, and all the three higher orders now and then might have kept Śūdra mistresses. There was a variety of specialized occupations about which we have no means of ascertaining whether they were included in one or the other of the four orders. They seem to have been hereditary rather by custom than by regulation. The prohibition of dining in the company of others is not laid down in connection with these orders, though the general idea is there. It is only those who were performing a certain rite or who believed in a certain doctrine that were forbidden to dine in the company of others.¹

c7.34

¹ *Vedic Index*, ii, p. 257. Note.—The above discussion is principally based on facts collected in the *Vedic Index*. Special attention may be drawn to the articles on Ārya, Brāhmaṇa, Caṇḍāla, Dāsa, Kshatriya, Nishāda, Paulkasa, Śūdra, Vaiśya, and Varṇa.

c7.35

The Brahmanic literature of the post-Vedic period, while reiterating that there are only four varṇas, mentions certain mixed castes (saṅkara jāti) and also a group of outcast classes (antyāvasāyin). The sacred laws of the Āryas are designed to expound "varṇa-dharma", i.e. the duties ostensibly of the four orders. The text-books of the different schools may broadly be analysed into four parts. The first part, generally very short, deals with the "āśramas" (four stages in individual life) and their duties; the second part, forming a large portion of the book, really deals with "varṇa-dharma". Much of the law proper is treated in this section under the heading, "duties of the Kshatriya." The two other parts deal with expiatory acts and inheritance. Though the main bulk of the law is treated under "varṇa-dharma", yet the "Śūdra" does not figure much in these texts. The "varṇa-dharma" of the "Śūdra" is such that it does not require elaborate regulation. It may justly be said that the "Śūdra" was left to himself as far as his internal affairs were concerned. Mandlik observes, "The non-regenerate class thus seems to form a group by itself, and its internal economy is not specially provided for by the ordinary Ārya writers on law."¹ Their case is provided for by the general dictum, fathered on Manu, that the peculiar laws of countries, castes, and families may be followed in the absence of sacred rules.² The other classes are considered derivative, and therefore so much beneath notice that only fourfold humanity is always alluded to and prevention of the confusion of these castes (varṇa-saṅkara) is considered as an ideal necessity.³ Mixture of castes is regarded to be such a great evil that it must be combated even though the Brahmins and the Vaiśyas have to resort to arms, a function which is normally sinful for them.⁴ As the outcasts were deprived of the right to follow the lawful occupations of the twice-born men and, after death, of the rewards of meritorious deeds,⁵ it follows that the law-givers had no concern for them. They were enjoined to live together and fulfil their purposes, sacrificing for each other and confining other relations to themselves.⁶ Of the mixed castes those that were the outcome of hypergamous unions, were proposed to be treated in two different ways. Gautama excludes from the brahmanic law only the issue of a Śūdra female by males of the first three orders.⁷ It is not clear how he would like to treat the remaining three possible groups. Kauṭilya, on the other hand, lays down that such mixed castes shall take to the occupations and practise the religious rites of the Śūdras.⁸ Persons born of unions in the inverse order of castes—technically known as the pratiloma (mixed) castes—are, of course, outside the pale of the sacred law, with the possible exception of one, viz. the Sūta.

c7.36

¹ Mandlik, p. 482.

c7.37

² Vasiṣṭha, p. 4.

c7.38

³ Gautama, p. 212.

c7.39

⁴ Baudhāyana, p. 236.

c7.40

⁵ Ibid., p. 277.

c7.41

⁶ Baudhāyana, p. 220.

c7.42

⁷ Gautama, p. 197.

c7.43

⁸ Arthaśāstra, i, p. 165.

c7.44

Among the four varṇas, the old distinction of Ārya and Śūdra now appears predominantly as Dvija and Śūdra, though the old distinction is occasionally mentioned. The first three varṇas are called Dvijas (twice-born) because they have to go through the initiation ceremony which is symbolic of rebirth. This privilege is denied to the Śūdra who is therefore called "ekajāti" (once-born).¹ The word "jāti" which is here used for "varṇa", henceforward is employed more often to mean the numerous sub-divisions of a "varṇa". It is also the vernacular term for a "caste". A rigorous demarcation of meaning between "varṇa" and "jāti", the former denoting the four large classes and the latter only their sub-divisions, cannot, however, be maintained. The word is sometimes indiscriminately used for "varṇa".

c7.45

¹ Vasiṣṭha, p. 9.

c7.46

This period sees a great consolidation of the position of the Brahmin class, while the degradation of the Śūdras comes out in marked contrast to the growing superiority of the Brahmins. The discomfiture of the Kshatriyas is complete, and the Vaiśyas, at least the general mass, have progressively approximated to the Śūdras. The first indication of the appreciation of the Brahmin's position is to be found in the implication underlying the sacred law that in strictness its dictates are meant primarily for the Brahmins. Vasiṣṭha quotes some Vedic texts to inculcate the view that a Brahmin is born with three debts, viz. to the gods, to the manes, and to the sages. The discharge of these debts was to be achieved through sacrifices, progeny, and Vedic studies. These are fulfilled through the life of a student and of a householder. According to the philosophy of life current in this period, these debts should have been common to the Kshatriya and the Vaiśya, yet it is only the Brahmin that is singled out as pre-eminently the one varṇa on whom the discharge of these debts was incumbent. The three lower castes are ordered to live according to the teaching of the Brahmin, who shall declare their duties while the king is exhorted to regulate their conduct accordingly.²

c7.47

² Vasiṣṭha, pp. 7, 8, 56.

c7.48

The importance of sacrifices and ritualism had been growing and with it the prestige of the priest. The privilege of officiating at sacrificial sessions and other religious rites was exclusively preserved as a divinely appointed and hereditary function of the Brahmins. As the monopolist of ritual procedure, the Brahmin naturally became important. In another way also, he gained in respect because he fulfilled a very fundamental function in the general philosophy of life of these times. As the Mahābhārata has it, "sacrifice sustains both the manes and the gods,"¹ and the Brahmin alone could ensure the proper performance of sacrifices. He was further represented as very beneficial to the political head of the society. Vasisṭha quotes a Vedic text, declaring that the king obtains the sixth part of the merit which Brahmins accumulate by means of their sacrifices and good work.² Gifts had been praised since the Vedic times, and in the literature of this period they were enjoined as a moral duty, the performance of which brought merit to the giver. "He who, placing on the skin of a black antelope, sesamum, gold, honey, and butter, gives it to a Brahmin over-comes all sin."³ Āpastamba declares that a king, who without prejudice to his servants gives land and money to deserving Brahmins, gains endless heavenly worlds. The Brahmin alone could rightfully accept the gifts. As a channel of easy acquisition of merit he thus gained added importance. "The offering made through the mouth of a Brahmin, which is neither split nor causes pain (to sentient creature) nor assails him (who makes it), is far more excellent than an agnihotra."⁴ All these circumstances and the growing unintelligibility of the scriptural language conspired to make the Brahmin almost a god on earth. Even the hard-headed Kauṭilya suggested that in order to avert such providential calamities as fire, flood, and pestilence, the people should worship gods and Brahmins.⁵ The pre-eminence of the Brahmin was so great that the Mahābhārata declared that really speaking there was only one varṇa, viz. the Brahmin and the other varṇas were merely its modifications.⁶ Though Gautama quotes the Vedic texts which declare that the Kshatriyas assisted by the Brahmins prosper, and that the union of the two alone upholds the moral order, yet he lays down that when a king and a Brahmin pass along the same road the road belongs to the Brahmin and not to the king.¹ Vasistha declares that the Brahmins' king is Soma.² The Mahābhārata goes even further, and emphasizes the subordinate position of the Kshatriya, whose only support is pronounced to be the Brahmin. It explains away earthly sovereignty of the Kshatriya by a social analogy. Just as a widow takes to her deceased husband's brother, so has the earth resorted to the Kshatriya in default of the Brahmin. Between a hundred year old Kshatriya and a ten year old Brahmin the latter is said to be like the father.³ And this in a society where age was the greatest consideration for respect.⁴ The superiority of a child-Brahmin over an aged Kshatriya is also supported by Āpastamba.⁵ It is thus clear that the union of the Brahmin and the Kshatriya that was advocated by Gautama must be understood to mean not an alliance between two equals but a tacit domination of the former over the latter.

c7.49

¹ Mahābhārata, Śānti Parva, 28-5, 72.

c7.50

² Vasisṭha, p. 8.

c7.51

³ Vasisṭha, p. 135.

c7.52

⁴ Vasisṭha, p. 139. The agnihotra has been the most fundamental and important ritual function that was enjoined on the first three castes since the earliest Vedic times.

c7.53

⁵ Arthaśāstra, ii, p. 410.

c7.54

⁶ Mahābhārata, Śānti Parva, 50, 50.

c7.55

¹ Gautama, p. 235. Āpastamba, pp. 124-5.

c7.56

² Vasistha, p. 8.

c7.57

³ Mahābhārata, Anuśāsana, 12, 21-8.

c7.58

⁴ Gautama, p. 208.

c7.59

⁵ Āpastamba, p. 58.

c7.60

This pre-eminence of the Brahmin had secured him many social privileges. According to Gautama, all varṇas must serve their superiors,⁶ which meant that the Brahmin, as the most superior among the varṇas, was entitled to the services of the others. Naturally the Brahmin recognized no teacher who was not a member of his varṇa. It was only in times of distress that he was allowed to study under a non-Brahmin teacher, whom he surpassed in venerability on the completion of his studies.⁷ This was against the general notions of respectability according to which the teacher must always be venerated by his pupils. The Brahmin might follow no gainful activity, yet as long as he continued the study of the Vedas, he was said to have fulfilled his purpose.⁸ The Brahmin was exempt from the usual taxes.⁹ If a Brahmin, who followed his lawful occupations, found a treasure, he had not to hand it over to the king.¹⁰ Both the person and the property of the Brahmin were absolutely inviolate. Stealing the gold of a Brahmin and killing a Brahmin were regarded as heinous sins (mahā-pātaka).¹ Raising one’s hand or weapon in anger against a Brahmin, actually striking him, causing blood to flow from his body, unintentionally killing him, and wilfully murdering him were offences in the ascending order of their heinousness.² Wilful murder of a Brahmin was, of course, inexpiable. The Brahmin was exempt from corporal punishment.³ Even Kauṭilya allowed this privilege to the Brahmin, except when he was guilty of high treason.⁴ He also exempted him from torture being applied to elicit confession.⁵ The estate of heirless persons of the Kṣatriya, Vaiśya, and Śūdra varṇas went to the king, who had to distribute it among learned Brahmins, while the estate of an heirless Brahmin belonged directly to them.⁶ The property of a Brahmin is described as the worst poison destroying him who takes it.⁷ On the other hand, in order to defray the expenses of a marriage or of a religious rite, he may help himself to the money of a Śūdra by fraud or by force. He may do the same with the property of those members of the other varṇas who neglect their religious duties.⁸ Even to accuse a Brahmin of a crime that he might have committed, is a sin.⁹ He must not be forced to be a witness at the instance of a non-Brahmin unless he is already mentioned in the plaint.¹⁰ Even as regards the highly lauded and essential duty of a householder, viz. hospitality, the Brahmin has his privileges. He need not treat a non-Brahmin as his guest unless he comes on the occasion of a sacrifice.¹¹

c7.61

⁶ Gautama, pp. 231.

c7.62

⁷ Ibid., p. 209.

c7.63

⁸ Mahābhārata, Śānti-Parva, 14, 59.

c7.64

⁹ Vasistha, p. 8.

c7.65

¹⁰ Vasistha, p. 18.

c7.66

¹ Vasiṣṭha, p. 5.

c7.67

² Baudhāyana, p. 212. Gautama, p. 279.

c7.68

³ Gautama, p. 242. Baudhāyana, p. 201.

c7.69

⁴ Arthaśāstra, ii, p. 277.

c7.70

⁵ Arthaśāstra, ii, p. 270.

c7.71

⁶ Gautama, p. 305. Baudhāyana, p. 179.

c7.72

⁷ Baudhāyana, p. 180.

c7.73

⁸ Gautama, p. 270.

c7.74

⁹ Gautama, p. 270.

c7.75

¹⁰ Gautama, p. 243.

c7.76

¹¹ Gautama, pp. 204-5.

c7.77

Though the various privileges of the Brahmins are sanctioned by the lawgivers, they insist from time to time that the Brahmin shall keep to the moral discipline of his class and conscientiously perform the duties laid down for him. They declare that a Brahmin who deviates from this path is equal to a Śūdra and as such there can be no harm in neglecting him.¹²

c7.78

¹² Vasiṣṭha, pp. 16-18, 46. Baudhāyana, p. 248.

c7.79

The statement that God created the Śūdra to be the slave of all is repeated and he is given the name " pādaja " (born from the feet). He is to be supported, to be fed, to be clothed with the remnants and castaways of food and raiment by the three varṇas.¹ He is contrasted with the Ārya, who, though younger than he, must be respected by him by rising from his seat.² Whereas in the Vedic period, as we have seen, the Dāsa was described as the black race, in this period the Śūdra is given that appellation.³ Vasiṣṭha declares him to be a burial ground. The Veda must not be recited in his presence, no advice must be given to him, nor the remnants of the offerings to the gods. Holy law must not be expounded to him, nor must he be asked to perform a penance.⁴ He shall use the old shoes, discarded garments, etc., of the members of the other varṇas, and eat the leavings of their food.⁵ So great was the feeling against the Śūdra performing a sacrifice that Gautama exhorted a person to cast off his father if he either sacrificed with the money given by a Śūdra or officiated at his sacrifice.⁶ It is well known that in the story of the Rāmāyaṇa, Rāma is represented to have killed a Śūdra who was practising austerities.⁷ The Śūdra was regarded to be so despicable, that a Brahmin, when, out of sheer necessity, he had to take up the Śūdras' occupation, was asked not to mix with them.⁸

c7.80

¹ Mahābhārata, Śānti, 84, verses 31, 34, 36, 38, 59, 310, ² Gautama, p. 206. ³ Āpastamba, p.

c7.81

It is clear that the Śūdra could not perform a sacrifice, could not listen to or recite the Vedic texts, nor could he practice austerities. He was categorically denied the right of initiation and consequently the first stage of individual life (āśrama)—the studentship. Out of the other sacraments marriage is the only one, which is explicitly applicable to the Śūdras. While laying down their duties Gautama observes: " For him (Śūdra) also (are prescribed) truthfulness, meekness, and purity. Some declare that instead of sipping water (the usual method of purification) he shall wash his hands and feet. (He shall also offer) the funeral oblations."⁹ Āpastamba opines that the Śūdra is not entitled to the rite of initiation, the study of the Veda, and the kindling of the sacred fire. His works (rites) are declared by implication to be unproductive of rewards either in this world or in the next.¹ According to Gautama, the Śūdra, if permitted, may use "namaḥ" (obeisance) as his "mantra" (holy incantation). He states that some allow him to offer Pākayajñas² (minor sacrifices to be offered in the fire kept at home, as distinguished from major sacrifices offered in the Śrauta or Vedic fire). The Mahābhārata also takes the same view of the Śūdra's religious duties. A Pākayajña may be offered on his behalf without his being initiated for it. Ample Dakṣiṇā (fees) seems to be a prominent feature of such sacrifices offered by the Śūdras, of whom one named Paijavana is said to have given away by thousands.³ It is apparent from these data that the Śūdra had no right to perform any of the important sacraments. As he could not kindle the sacred fire, his marriage was certainly not regarded as a sacrament, intended for the fulfilment of religious duties but only as a sexual union. As the minor sacrifices called the Pākayajñas were to be offered in the domestic sacred fire, and as we have seen above the Śūdra had no right to kindle this fire, we cannot attach much significance to the permission given to the Śūdra to offer these sacrifices. It only means that the Brahmin was not entirely unwilling to open up certain channels through which fees might flow to him, even though the donor might be a Śūdra. It may be mentioned that even the Dasyus were encouraged to offer such sacrifices.⁴ The utter indifference shown to the Śūdra is further brought out by the fact that out of the eight forms of marriage the two forms recommended for the Śūdra are entirely devoid of religious content. In fact, one of them may be termed rape as consummated marriage. And the curious justification offered for this prescription is that the Śūdras are not particular about their wives.⁵

c7.82

⁸⁷ Vasiṣṭha, p. 90. ⁴ Vasiṣṭha, p. 95. ⁶ Gautama, p. 230. ⁵ Ibid., p. 274. ⁷ Rāmāyaṇa (Nirnayasagar Ed.). Uttarakāṇḍa, vii, 4, 76. ⁸ Gautama, p. 211. ⁹ p. 230.

c7.83

¹ pp. 1-2.

c7.84

² p. 231.

c7.85

³ Mahābhārata, Śānti Parva, 59, 40-2.

c7.86

⁴ Ibid.

c7.87

⁵ Baudhāyana, p. 207.

c7.88

We cannot agree with Professor Max Müller when he says that the Gṛhya Sūtras never expressly exclude the Śūdra from the rite of initiation.¹ The ages at which this rite was to be performed are laid down only for the three classes and not for the Śūdra. To us it appears that this is sufficient evidence that the Gṛhya Sūtras did not contemplate the initiation of the Śūdra. The initiation ceremony opened the door to the study of the Veda. The Śūdra has, throughout, been debarred from that study. He has never been allowed to hear Vedic recitations. How possibly could the Gṛhya Sūtras, under these circumstances, even dream of the Śūdra being initiated? The fact appears to be that undeserving as he was of this rite, he was simply ignored.

c7.89

¹ A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (Panini Office edition, 1912), p. 106.

c7.90

The Mahābhārata says that the Śūdra can have no absolute property, because his wealth can be appropriated by his master at will.² If the master of a Śūdra has fallen into distress, the latter shall support him, and his treasure, if any, shall be placed at the disposal of the poor master.³ The king is enjoined to appoint only persons of the first three classes over villages and towns for their protection.⁴ A Śūdra trying to hear the Vedic texts shall have his ears filled with molten tin or lac; if he recites the Veda his tongue shall be cut off, and if he remembers it he shall be dismembered. If he assumes a position of equality with twice-born men, either in sitting, conversing, or going along the road, he shall receive corporal punishment.⁵ A Śūdra, committing adultery with women of the first three castes, shall suffer capital punishment, or shall be burnt alive tied up in straw.⁶ Kauṭilya restricts the punishment by burning only to the crime of the violation of a Brahmin female.⁷ When a Śūdra calls himself a Brahmin, either his eyes shall be destroyed by means of a poisonous ointment, or he shall be fined eight-hundred "paṇas".⁸ If he intentionally reviles twice-born men or criminally assaults them, the limb with which he offends shall be cut off.⁹ Kauṭilya, too, lays down the same punishment, but only in the case where the assault is directed against a Brahmin.¹ On the other hand, a Śūdra can be abused by a Brahmin without entailing any punishment.² A Snātaka (a Vedic student) is exhorted not to go on a journey alone in the company of a Śūdra.³ For a Brahmin to eat the food given by a Śūdra is a sin that must be expiated; and to avoid taking it is one of the few things the practice of which assures a Brahmin of bliss in heaven.⁴ Gautama goes further and forbids a Snātaka to accept water given by a Śūdra.⁵ Though, as we shall see later on, marriage between a Brahmin male and a Śūdra female is contemplated, yet it is said that such a wife is espoused merely for pleasure and not for the fulfilment of a religious purpose.⁶ Cohabitation with a Śūdra female is a sin, which a Brahmin must wipe out.⁷ A Brahmin who marries a Śūdra wife and dwells for twelve years in a village, where only well-water is obtainable, becomes equal to a Śūdra.⁸ A Śūdra committing adultery with an Aryan woman shall have his organ cut off and his property confiscated.⁹ Altogether so unworthy is the Śūdra that, if he comes as a guest, he shall be fed together with one's servants and that, too, perhaps after getting some work out of him.¹⁰

c7.91

² Mahābhārata, Śānti Parva, 89, 59.

c7.92

³ Gautama, p. 231.

c7.93

⁴ Apastamba, pp. 161-2.

c7.94

⁵ Apastamba, p. 165. Gautama, p. 236.

c7.95

⁶ Apastamba, p. 165. Vasiṣṭha, pp. 109-10. Baudhāyana, p. 233.

c7.96

⁷ Arthaśāstra, ii, p. 285.

c7.97

⁸ Arthaśāstra, ii, pp. 275-6.

c7.98

⁹ Gautama, p. 230.

c7.99

¹ Arthaśāstra, ii, p. 238. Āpastamba, p. 165.

c7.100

² Gautama, p. 237.

c7.101

³ Baudhāyana, pp. 224, 318.

c7.102

⁴ Baudhāyana, pp. 217, 243.

c7.103

⁵ Gautama, p. 76.

c7.104

⁶ Vasisṭha, p. 96.

c7.105

⁷ Baudhāyana, p. 318.

c7.106

⁸ Āpastamba, p. 84.

c7.107

⁹ Baudhāyana, p. 244.

c7.108

¹⁰ Gautama, p. 280.

c7.109

The Śūdra, thus had no civil or religious rights. Nevertheless, there are sentiments of compassion about him expressed here and there. A master is exhorted to support his Śūdra servant when he is unable to work,¹¹ and to offer funeral oblation for him in case he dies childless.¹² Rarely, as in one case given by Āpastamba,¹³ he is allowed to cook food, even though meant for a religious function, under the supervision of members of the other three classes. This extraordinary tolerance towards the Śūdra might have been dictated by the peculiar conditions prevailing in the south during the early migration of the Indo-Aryans.

c7.110

¹¹ Gautama, pp. 204-5.

c7.111

¹² Baudhāyana, p. 230.

c7.112

¹³ Gautama, p. 230.

c7.113

Though theoretically the position of the Śūdras was very low, there is evidence to show that many of them were well-to-do.¹ Some of them succeeded in marrying their daughters in royal families. Sumitrā, one of the four wives of king Daśaratha, was a Śūdra. Some of them even worked their way up to the throne. The famous Chandragupta is traditionally known to be a Śūdra. The Abhīras who ruled over the Deccan for some time must have been Śūdras.

c7.114

¹⁴ Mahābhārata, Śānti Parva, 59, 88.

c7.115

¹⁵ Āpastamba, p. 103.

c7.116

¹ Compare the allusion to Paijavana and other wealthy Śūdras in the Mahābhārata.

c7.117

The Vaiśya, though traditionally classed with the first two varṇas, is grouped on many occasions with the Śūdras. As we shall see later on, the occupations ordained for these two classes are almost identical. Gain by labour is mentioned as a special mode of acquisition, both for Vaiśya and Śūdra.² Apart from this increasing similarity of occupations, the special occupations of the Vaiśya were such that they could not be well defined. "The humblest tender of cows for a master may be of this caste, or the work may be done by one outside the Aryan ranks."³ The Vaiśyas are understood to consist of labourers.⁴ Kauṭilya leaves no doubt as to the equality of occupational status between the two castes. The Bhagavadgītā proudly proclaims that its religious doctrines can lead even the Vaiśyas and the Śūdras to salvation.⁵ In this matter these two classes stand in marked contrast to the other two classes. We are led to believe that the Vaiśya, in spite of the injunction of the Brahmins that he should fulfil the duties prescribed for him in the sacred law, had so much fallen off that a less rigid and elaborate way of working out one's salvation was necessary for him. Out of the eight forms of marriage, the two prescribed for the Vaiśyas are the same as those recommended for the Śūdra. According to Vasiṣṭha when a Brahmin marries outside his varṇa, his sons by a Vaiśya and a Śūdra wife shall inherit equal shares.⁶ Similarly only one common formula of welcome need be used for a Vaiśya and a Śūdra guest. Both of them are to be fed together with one's servants.⁷ In the chaos that is supposed to have ensued after Paraśurāma had slaughtered the Kshatriyas, we are told that both the Śūdras and the Vaiśyas discarded the Brahmanic rules of discipline and violated Brahmin females.¹ The moral of this story is clear: The Vaiśyas, like the Śūdras, were ready, as soon as the strong ruling arm was off, to rebel against the Brāhmanic rules of conduct. And the growth of Jainism and Buddhism, particularly their quick appeal to the Vaiśyas, fully corroborates this inference.

c7.118

² Gautama, p. 220.

c7.119

³ Ibid., p. 83.

c7.120

⁴ p. 89.

c7.121

⁵ JAOS., vol. xiii, p. 82.

c7.122

⁶ Bhagavadgītā, ix, 32-3.

c7.123

⁷ Gautama, pp. 204, 205.

c7.124

¹ Mahābhārata, Śānti Parva, 48, 70.

c7.125

The theory of the divine origin of the four castes is off and on repeated with special stress on the origin of the Śūdra from the feet of the Creator. In the Mahābhārata once at least a slightly material change is introduced in this theory, where we are told that the first three castes were created first, and the Śūdra created afterwards for serving the others. Evidently this divine origin did not prove as comforting to the lower classes as could be desired in the interests of social order. Salvation of self had come to be the outstanding problem of the philosophy of life. If the performance of religious rites, as laid down by the sacred law, could alone lead to salvation, there was no hope for the Śūdra nor even perhaps for the Vaiśya, because the former was emphatically forbidden to perform these religious rites and the latter had progressively lost their practice. A philosophy of caste, guaranteeing individual salvation to all, through the performance of duties alone, had to be formulated. Such a theory was calculated to allay the unrest and quell the rebellion against caste that might arise owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the old theory as far as salvation, which had become the most absorbing human interest, was concerned. The Buddhistic religion, however much its followers stood by caste, was ready to declare that Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaiśya, Śūdra, and Chaṇḍāla would be all equal in the world of the gods, if they had acted virtuously in this life, and that a person's worth in life was determined by his right conduct and knowledge. The necessity of closing up the ranks against the onslaught of Buddhism and of assuring individual salvation for all led to the formulation of two slightly differing philosophies of caste.

First 124 of 156 passages. Read on

Linked texts (20)