Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Caste and Race in India c8: Chapter IV. Caste Through the Ages (Continued)

Caste and Race in India c8

Language
English

Chapter IV. Caste Through the Ages (Continued)

c8.2

THE post-Vedic period testifies to the rigid stratification and internal solidarity of the four varṇas. Each group was recognized as distinct, almost complete in itself, for its social life. Among the laws that were valid, provided they did not contradict the sacred precepts, are those of castes. "Cultivators, traders, money-lenders, and artisans have authority to lay down rules for their respective classes."¹ It is clear that many of the sub-divisions within each varṇa—and undoubtedly by now there must have existed in each varṇa numerous sub-divisions—had rules of their own for their internal management. Jāti or caste had now grown to be such an important and universal feature of social organization that in a lawsuit both the plaintiff and the defendant had to register their jāti or caste along with their residence and their village, and one of the questions to be put to the witness of the defendant was to be about the latter's caste. While defamation of one's nation or village was punishable with the lowest amercement, that of one's own caste or guild, was meted with the middle one.² Allegiance to one's caste was thus more important than loyalty to one's nation or village. Correctly stating one's caste was evidently thought to be such a matter of common honesty that the level-headed Kauṭilya says that among persons who may be suspected to be murderers, etc., are those who misstate their caste and "gotra". Persons of low caste and avocation might also be suspected of such serious crimes.³

c8.3

¹ Gautama, p. 234; also compare *Arthaśāstra*, ii, p. 203.

c8.4

² *Arthaśāstra*, ii, pp. 105, 183, 267.

c8.5

³ *Arthaśāstra*, ii, pp. 200-1.

c8.6

The four castes were even supposed to be distinguished by their origin and particular sacraments.⁴ When officers were chosen from all castes, their positions were to be so adjusted as not to disturb the caste-order of precedence.⁵ A number of major and minor offences are also enumerated as leading to loss of caste.¹ Social intercourse, eating, and intermarriage seem to have been the visible marks of an individual's assimilation in his group.² Clearly these groups and subdivisions must have had each its own internal organization to carry out effectively the avoidance of social intercourse, eating and intermarriage with their defaulting members. Adherence to prescribed duties was not wholly left to the sweet will of the individual, nor was it only to be enforced by the group. It was the duty of the king to see that the prescribed duties were performed by the proper individuals. If a man always neglected his prescribed duty and did what was forbidden, his property, with the exception of what was required for food and raiment, would be attached till he reformed his ways.³

c8.7

⁴ Vasiṣṭha, p. 25.

c8.8

⁵ *JAOS*., vol. xlii, p. 95.

c8.9

¹ Baudhāyana, pp. 217-18. ² Gautama, p. 238. ³ Baudhāyana, p. 150. ⁴ Baudhāyana, p.

c8.10

The rules and regulations governing social life and individual conduct differed according to the caste, only the four castes being taken into account. Others, like the mixed castes and the outcasts, are mentioned, but their status in the eye of law and morals is not clearly defined. Even the Dharma was apportioned according to caste. The Brahmin was entitled to the practice of the whole of it, the Kshatriya to three-fourths of it, the Vaiśya to half, and the Śūdra only to a quarter.⁴ A Brahmin was to be initiated in his eighth year, a Kshatriya in the eleventh, and a Vaiśya in the twelfth.⁵ A student, while begging alms, must use different formulæ varying with his caste.⁶ Of the eight forms of marriage only specific ones are enjoined for each caste. Where water is drunk for purification it must reach the heart, the throat, and the interior of the mouth in the case of the first three orders respectively. In the case of the Śūdra it need touch only the extremity of the lips.⁷ The higher the caste the shorter was the period of impurity to be observed at birth and death.⁸ If a man of a lower varṇa carried the corpse of one of a higher caste or vice versa, the period of impurity was determined by the caste of the deceased. The higher castes had their cremation-grounds in different localities from those of the lower castes.¹ While asking a guest about his health, the terms to be used, according to the caste of the guest, were "kuśala" in the case of a Brahmin, "anāmaya" in the case of a Kshatriya, and "ārogya" in that of a Vaiśya and a Śūdra. A Brahmin must feed his Kshatriya guest after his Brahmin guests have had their meals. Other guests were to be fed together with one's servants.² In certain cases where a woman's husband had emigrated, the period of waiting prescribed for her varied according to her caste, being the shortest for a Śūdra and the longest for a Brahmin female.³ The rate of interest chargeable to a Brahmin debtor was 2 per cent, to a Kshatriya 3 per cent, to a Vaiśya 4 per cent, and to a Śūdra 5 per cent per month. Abusing the habits of a member of a higher caste was punished with fines, commencing from the lowest caste, of three "paṇas" and rising higher. If a person of a higher caste abused one of the lower caste, fines commenced from two "paṇas" and proceeded in the descending order.⁴

c8.11

¹⁵¹ Vasiṣṭha, pp. 56-8. ⁵ Baudhāyana, p. 107. ⁶ Cf. Āpastamba, p. 5. ⁷ Mahābhārata, Śānti Parva, 84, 32-8. ⁸ Vasiṣṭha, p.

c8.12

²⁹ Gautama, p. 246.

c8.13

¹ Gautama, p. 250. *Arthaśāstra*, i, p. 50.

c8.14

² Gautama, pp. 204-5.

c8.15

³ Vasiṣṭha, p. 92.

c8.16

⁴ *Arthaśāstra*, ii, pp. 236-7.

c8.17

Baudhāyana allows a sane man of any of the four castes to be a competent witness in a legal proceeding.⁵ Vasiṣṭha's opinion is less decided. He observes: "Śrotriyas, men of unblemished form, of good character, men who are holy and love truth (are fit to be) witnesses. Or (men of) any (caste may give evidence) regarding (men of) any (other castes). Let him make women witnesses regarding women; for twice-born men, twice-born men of the same caste (shall be witnesses), and good Śūdras for Śūdras and men of low birth for low caste men."⁶ Kauṭilya prescribes for the four castes, different formulæ to be employed in addressing witnesses and in swearing them in.⁷ If a Śūdra committed theft, he had to pay back eight times the value of the property stolen. In the case of a Vaiśya thief, the penalty was doubled. A Kshatriya had to pay twice as much as a Vaiśya and a Brahmin four times. If a learned man committed theft, the punishment was very much increased.⁸ A man committing adultery with a woman of his caste had to undergo a certain penance.¹ Adultery with a woman of a higher caste entailed punishment, the severity of which increased with the caste-status of the woman violated.² It seems that illicit intercourse with females of lower castes by males of higher castes was not regarded in the nature of a serious offence. Only adultery with a low-caste woman was condemned as a heinous crime, the punishment for which was either banishment or degradation to the caste of the woman.³ If a Brahmin killed a Brahmin, he was to be banished from the kingdom with the mark of a headless trunk branded on his forehead; but if a man of any of the other three castes committed the same offence, the punishment was death and confiscation of all his property. For slaying a Kshatriya, a Vaiśya and a Śūdra the fine was a thousand, a hundred, and ten cows respectively with a bull for the expiation of the sin in each case.⁴ Even in the matter of taxation there seems to have been much inequality on the basis of caste. From Buddhist literature we gather that both the Kshatriyas and the Brahmins, though they owned the greater portion of the land, were free from taxes.⁵

c8.18

⁵ Baudhāyana, p. 204. Gautama, p. 243.

c8.19

⁶ Vasiṣṭha, p. 82.

c8.20

⁷ *Arthaśāstra*, i, p. 176.

c8.21

⁸ Gautama, p. 237.

c8.22

¹ Baudhāyana, p. 232. Āpastamba, p. 165.

c8.23

² Vasiṣṭha, pp. 109-10. Arthaśāstra, ii, p. 285.

c8.24

³ Arthaśāstra, ii, p. 285.

c8.25

⁴ Baudhāyana, pp. 201-2. Āpastamba, pp. 78-9. Arthaśāstra, ii, p. 270.

c8.26

⁵ Fick, p. 119.

c8.27

The Śūdra generally was regarded as so low that his food might not be accepted by the Brahmin. There is one exception to this attitude of the lawgivers, and that is the permission given by Āpastamba for food being prepared by a Śūdra under the guidance of the higher varṇas.⁶ As we have suggested above this relaxation of the usual rule must have been necessitated by the special conditions of South India from which Āpastamba hailed. The same author lays down very strict rules in the matter of acceptance of food by a Brahmin student, who has completed his studies but has not yet entered the life of a householder. In his opinion such a person shall not eat in the houses of people belonging to the three lower castes. He quotes, but evidently does not approve of, the view that he may take food offered by persons of the two castes, next in order, who follow the prescribed rules.⁷ Baudhāyana exhorts such a person to beg only uncooked food from the members of the first three castes and from the carpenters,¹ (lit. chariot-makers). He enjoins a Brahmin to eschew Śūdra's food. A Brahmin observing this rule is said to be the worthiest object of gifts. If the injunction is broken, dreadful consequences will follow both for the recalcitrant individual as well as for his progeny. Recitation of the Veda or offering of sacrifices cannot obliterate the evil effects of such action. A person who dies with a Śūdra's food in his stomach will be born again as a pig or a Śūdra. If after partaking of such food a Brahmin be so unwise as to have conjugal intercourse, the offspring will belong to the Śūdra, and the Brahmin cannot ascend to heaven.² In another passage Vasiṣṭha gives a list of persons whose food must not be eaten. They are the outcast, the Śūdra, the physician, the carpenter, the washerman, the cobbler, etc.³ Gautama is more strict in his rule, and allows a Brahmin to eat the food, evidently cooked food, given only by such of the twice-born persons as are praised for the proper performance of their duties. But he differs from others in this that he recognizes the claims of some people, who are of the Śūdra class, for special treatment. The food offered by a herdsman, a husbandman, an acquaintance of the family, a barber, or a servant may be accepted.⁴ A Brahmin may also accept food at the hands of a trader who is not at the same time an artisan,⁵ the latter's food being forbidden by Āpastamba to a Brahmin student returned home.⁶ According to Gautama the food of a carpenter is also taboo to a Brahmin.⁷

c8.28

⁶ Āpastamba, p. 103.

c8.29

⁷ Ibid., pp. 66-7.

c8.30

¹ p. 159.

c8.31

² Vasiṣṭha, pp. 38-9.

c8.32

³ Ibid., p. 60.

c8.33

⁴ Gautama, p. 262.

c8.34

⁵ Ibid., p. 263.

c8.35

⁶ Āpastamba, p. 67.

c8.36

⁷ Gautama, p. 264.

c8.37

The idea that certain persons defile, while others sanctify the company, if they sit down to a meal in one row, is present in the Sūtras.⁸ In this idea lies the origin of the later practice not to dine in the same row with people of other castes than one's own. Āpastamba enjoins a Brahmin student, who has returned home, not to eat sitting in the same row with unworthy people.⁹ The shrewd Kauṭilya advises a spy, engaged in spreading discontent among certain corporations, to make the superiors interdine and intermarry with the inferiors if the custom of any corporation prevented such intercourse between the two classes or to prevent them from doing this if the custom allowed such interdining and intermarrying.¹ Evidently interdining, like intermarrying, was a mark of equality.

c8.38

⁸ Vasiṣṭha, p. 19.

c8.39

⁹ Āpastamba, p. 61.

c8.40

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, ii, p. 437.

c8.41

The idea that an impure person imparts pollution by his touch and even by his near approach to a member of the first three castes finds definite expression in the law-texts of this period, generally with reference to the persons who are outcasted and even specifically in relation to a class of people called Caṇḍālas. According to Gautama a man who is guilty of the crime of killing a Brahmin, must live outside the village, entering it only for alms. When he thus enters the village he must step out of the road on meeting a member of the first three castes and make the way clear for him.² On touching a Caṇḍāla or one who has touched a Caṇḍāla one must immediately bathe with one's clothes on.³ If a Brahmin unintentionally eats the food or accepts the presents given by a Caṇḍāla he is outcast. But if he does so knowingly he becomes equal to a Caṇḍāla.⁴ The position of the Caṇḍālas must have been very degraded. A householder is exhorted to throw some food for them and the outcasts along with that for crows and dogs outside the house, after all the members of the household have taken their meals.⁵ Kauṭilya forbids them to follow the customs of the Śūdras.⁶ Āpastamba regards it as an offence even to speak to or to look at a Caṇḍāla.⁷ The outcasts are to live by themselves as a community, teaching each other and marrying among themselves. Association with them by pure men is prohibited on pain of excommunication. By association is meant either a matrimonial alliance, officiating at their sacrifice, or even touching them.⁸ It seems that the ideas of pollution had progressed further than these examples lead us to believe. Continued use by the Śūdras of the water in a well rendered it unfit for religious purposes. This at least seems to be the opinion of Baudhāyana who says that a Brahmin, who marries a Śūdra wife and dwells in a village where only well-water is available, becomes equal to a Śūdra.¹ According to the Arthaśāstra the Caṇḍālas had to live beyond the burial grounds, and a simile used by the author makes it quite clear that the Caṇḍālas had their own reservoirs of water which the other classes would not use.² There are many stories in the Jātakas, illustrating the scrupulous avoidance of the proximity of persons belonging to a despised or even a very low caste. The fear of pollution was not entirely confined to the Brahmins, but sensitive females like the daughter of a merchant in the story showed it in an excessive degree. The impurity of a person could also be imparted to objects touched by him.³ The Caṇḍālas lived outside the town in a hamlet of their own, and it seems that the other low castes, mentioned together with them, like Pukkasa, Rathakāra, Niṣāda did likewise.⁴

c8.42

² p. 280.

c8.43

³ Gautama, p. 250. Baudhāyana, p. 171.

c8.44

⁴ Baudhāyana, p. 235.

c8.45

⁵ Vasiṣṭha, p. 50.

c8.46

⁶ *Arthaśāstra*, i, p. 165.

c8.47

⁷ p. 103.

c8.48

⁸ Baudhāyana, p. 220. Vasiṣṭha, p. 5.

c8.49

¹ p. 244.

c8.50

² ii, pp. 27 and 59.

c8.51

³ Fick, pp. 89, 48, 44.

c8.52

⁴ Ibid., pp. 318, 323.

c8.53

The ideal theory of castes laid down certain duties as common to all of them and some as specific to each. Out of these some were prescribed as the authorized modes of gaining livelihood, and were generally peculiar to each caste and ordinarily forbidden to the others. The Brahmin must subsist on teaching and officiating as priest at the sacrifices of the castes that were entitled to offer such religious worship and by accepting gifts. The Kṣatriya was to live by administration and the profession of arms. Agriculture, trade, and pastoral pursuits were to be exploited by the Vaiśya, while the one occupation prescribed for the Śūdra was service of the other castes.⁵ In times of distress one might follow the occupation peculiar to the lower orders, but never that of the higher, and preferably the one prescribed for the caste next in status to one's own.⁶ Gautama is more lenient than other lawgivers and allows a Brahmin to take to agriculture and trade as lawful occupations, provided he employs servants to carry on the actual business and does not do the work himself.⁷ That the Brahmins engaged themselves in occupations other than the lawful ones, either out of necessity or even ordinarily, is clear from the injunction not to entertain at a Śrāddha-dinner Brahmins who follow the profession of Kshatriyas, or live by trade or by handicrafts.¹ When a Brahmin practises trade he is enjoined to abstain from dealing in certain articles. If he engages in agriculture, he must not yoke to his plough bullocks whose noses are pierced, nor must he plough after breakfast.² A few occupations, like that of the carpenter, the charioteer, and the bard, are assigned to some of the mixed castes that are described as the result of mesalliance between the four castes. Kautilya allows all the mixed castes, in addition to their specific vocations, or, in case there is any doubt about their proper callings, to take up the occupations of the Sūdra.³ It will be noticed that the theory of occupations as proper pursuits of specific castes does not accommodate the artisans. It is not that there were no artisans in the society but that their status does not seem to have been definitized. Indeed, Gautama distinguishes the artisans from those who live by personal labour, the latter expression being understood by the commentator to denote labourers like carriers.⁴ Nay, crafts were so much advanced that pure artisans, who did not deal in their handiworks, were distinguished from artisan-traders.⁵ Kautilya fills in the gap by assigning to the Sūdra, in addition to his usual duty of service, the work of artisans and court-bards. He also allows him to engage in agriculture, trade and pastoral pursuits.⁶ That even members of the Kshatriya caste did engage in agriculture and other pursuits, not proper for their class, is proved by the Kambojas and Saurāṣṭras, who, though they are described as corporations of warriors, lived by agriculture and trade as much as by the profession of arms.⁷ In view of the later degradation of the artisans it is to be noted that Kautilya already describes them as of naturally impure character.⁸

c8.54

⁵ Vasiṣṭha, p. 11. Gautama, pp. 224-30. Āpastamba, pp. 122-3.

c8.55

⁶ Vasiṣṭha, p. 12. Gautama, pp. 200, 211. Baudhāyana, pp. 235-6.

c8.56

⁷ p. 225.

c8.57

¹ Āpastamba, p. 144. Gautama, p. 255.

c8.58

² Vasiṣṭha, pp. 12-13. Baudhāyana, p. 286.

c8.59

³ Arthaśāstra, i, p. 165.

c8.60

⁴ Gautama, p. 228.

c8.61

⁵ Ibid., p. 263.

c8.62

⁶ Arthaśāstra, ii, p. 7.

c8.63

⁷ Ibid., p. 437.

c8.64

⁸ Ibid., p. 221.

c8.65

In the Buddhistic literature many of the occupations are represented as having been hereditary, and some of the classes like that of the Brahmin and the Gahapati, the representative of the Vaiśya, had definitely come to be regarded as such rigid castes that, though their members followed other occupations than those customary for their classes, they remained the members of their castes.¹ The Jātakas mention villages each of which consisted wholly of the followers of one occupation. Thus there were smiths' villages and potters' villages.² Some of the crafts are spoken of as low, e.g. that of the barber, who is also referred to as of inferior caste.³ Though the Buddhistic evidence as regards the actual professions taken up by the contemporary Brahmins must be taken with some discount—it was but natural for the Buddhist writers to hold up to ridicule their opponents by depicting them as violators of their own precepts—yet it must be pointed out that the cultivating and cattle-rearing Brahmin is an oft-recurring figure in the Pāli texts and once even a Brahmin carpenter is mentioned.⁴

c8.66

¹ Fick, pp. 180-1, 255, 270, 278.

c8.67

² Ibid., pp. 327-30.

c8.68

³ Arthaśāstra, ii, pp. 58-9.

c8.69

⁴ Ibid., p. 302.

c8.70

Though the orthodox theory of caste is stated in terms of only the broad categories of occupations, yet there are enough indications that in daily life further distinctions based on specialization were recognized. Traders and craftsmen are mentioned in specific relation to their special merchandise and craft. Giving directions for laying out the plan of the environs of the royal palace within the fort, Kauṭilya enjoins the localization of trades and crafts in various quarters; and in this connection he mentions, as separate groups, dealers in grain, purveyors of liquids, dealers in cooked rice, those who sell flesh, manufacturers of cotton threads, workers in bamboo, workers in hides, makers of gloves, ironsmiths and artisans working in precious stones.⁵ From the evidence of the Jātaka literature we may conclude that these specific occupations were hereditary,⁶ though the Brahmanic theory of castes referred only to the larger categories. The Jātakas further bear testimony to the then incipient practice of naming sub-divisions of artisans on the basis of differences in the methods employed in carrying on the craft. Thus the fishermen who used nets and baskets were called "Kevattas" in contradistinction to "Bālisikas" who were angling fishermen.⁷

c8.71

⁵ Ibid., p. 280.

c8.72

⁶ Ibid., pp. 241, 246.

c8.73

⁷ Fick, pp. 276, 278-9.

c8.74

The lawgivers look upon marriage in one's own caste among the four orders as the most ideal and in a way the only sanctified practice, though they are prepared to recognize marriages outside the caste as perfectly lawful. Vasisṭha and Gautama exhort a person about to enter on the life of a householder, to marry a female of one's own caste and the latter opines that it is only the virtuous sons, born of wives of equal caste, who are married in accordance with the approved rites, that sanctify their father's family.¹ Baudhāyana recognizes only the son by a wife of equal caste as a sapiṇḍa, sons by wives of other castes being not so reckoned.² But, probably in conformity with the practice of their day, these lawgivers allowed males of higher castes to marry females of lower castes, though they refused to allow the issue of such marriages equal rights with the sons of equal marriages. In the matter of inheritance, for example, the share of a son in his patrimony varied according to the caste-status of his mother.³ The offspring of such unequal unions are said to belong neither to the caste of the father nor to that of the mother but are relegated to separate classes, called the intermediate castes. The names of these castes as given by Gautama do not correspond to those given by Baudhāyana except in the case of the issue of the marriage of a Brahmin male and a Śūdra female.⁴ In the case of the first three castes Baudhāyana declares that the offspring of a male of the higher caste and a female of the next lower caste are "savarṇas" or of equal caste. Consistently he gives the name of the issue of the marriage of a Brahmin with a Kshatriya female as a Brahmin, and that of the union of a Kshatriya male and a Vaiśya female as a Kshatriya. This seems to represent the old practice, when marriages between males of higher castes and females of castes next in order were regarded as perfectly regular and entailed no disqualification on the issue. For even Gautama calls the issue of the union of a Brahmin male and a Kshatriya female "savarṇa", though refusing to give a similar name to the progeny of a Kshatriya male and a Vaiśya female. Kauṭilya's nomenclature of the mixed castes agrees with that of Baudhāyana except in the case of the issue of a Vaiśya male and a Śūdra female. But he designates the children of the unions of males of the Brahmin and Kshatriya castes and females of the Kshatriya and Vaiśya castes respectively as "savarṇas", and does not explicitly speak of them as Brahmins and Kshatriyas.¹

c8.75

¹ Vasisṭha, p. 42. Gautama, pp. 104, 107.

c8.76

² p. 178.

c8.77

³ Baudhāyana, p. 225.

c8.78

⁴ Gautama, pp. 105-6. Baudhāyana, pp. 107-8.

c8.79

¹ Arthaśāstra, i, p. 164.

c8.80

That restriction on such marriages was being newly put during this period is rendered probable by the fact that the rule clearly enunciated in the works of the next period, viz. that only a wife of equal caste can be a full and lawful participant in the religious ceremonies of her husband, does not find its counterpart in the legal literature of this period. The lawgivers, as we shall note below, disqualify for religious rites only a Śūdra wife. Nay, we have reason to believe that the still older practice contemplated unrestricted marriages of the males of the two highest castes with females of the two lower castes—Kshatriya and Vaiśya. It is said in the Mahābhārata that the sons of a Brahmin born of wives of the first three castes are Brahmins.²

c8.81

² C. V. Vaidya, Epic India, p. 50.

c8.82

We may conclude that in olden days Brahmins could marry females from any of the first three castes and Kshatriyas from their own and from among the Vaiśyas without any stigma. The lawgivers of this period restricted this custom. While some of them recognized marriages of males of higher castes with females of the next lower caste as unobjectionable, others confined this attitude to the marriage of a Brahmin with a Kshatriya female and regarded the marriage of a Brahmin or a Kshatriya with a Vaiśya female as outlandish. This view of marriage with a Vaiśya female might have been due to the progressive assimilation of the Vaiśya caste to the Śūdras, which we have delineated above.

c8.83

Marriage with a Śūdra female, though theoretically allowed for all the castes, is discountenanced in many practical ways. First, even Baudhāyana and Kauṭilya, who look with no disfavour on the marriage of a male of a higher caste with a female of the next lower caste, do not concede the social status of its father to the child of a Vaiśya by a Śūdra female. Kauṭilya regards such an issue as Śūdra, while Baudhāyana calls it Rathakāra. Vasiṣṭha expressly forbids any of the first three castes to marry a Śūdra female. Such a union according to him leads to the degradation of the family in this life and to loss of heavenly bliss in the next.¹ He forbids a householder, who has built the fire-altar for a Śrauta sacrifice, to approach a Śūdra wife, for she is meant for pleasure and not for the fulfilment of the sacred duties. He quotes an opinion that the issue of a Brahmin male and a Śūdra female is as impure as a corpse.² Gautama places the claims of such offspring on a par with the rights of persons that are the issue of marriages between lower caste males and females of the higher castes because both of them are outside the pale of the sacred law.³ Thus the lawgivers definitely set their face against the marriages of men of the first three castes with Śūdra females. This is the first pronounced restriction on marriage of the nature of endogamy in Hindu society.

c8.84

¹ Vasiṣṭha, pp. 5-6.

c8.85

² Gautama, pp. 107, 306.

c8.86

³ Ibid., pp. 95-6.

c8.87

The unions of males of lower castes with females of higher castes are contemplated and specifically treated. Yet they are not at all countenanced. As a matter of fact, they are not marriages at all. The progeny of such unions is declared to be without the pale of the sacred law,⁴ though the names of the different groups formed by them according to the difference in the caste of the father and the mother are given.⁵ Such unions are so despised that their offspring, though their actual parentage may be unknown, are held capable of being singled out, because such persons certainly are destitute of virtue and good conduct.⁶ Caṇḍāla—the untouchable and unapproachable class of this period—is represented as the issue of the union of a Śūdra male with a Brahmin female.

c8.88

⁴ Ibid., p. 107.

c8.89

⁵ Baudhāyana, pp. 197-8. Vasiṣṭha, pp. 195-6. Arthaśāstra, ii, pp. 202-3.

c8.90

⁶ Vasiṣṭha, p. 64.

c8.91

The fresh groups, formed by the offspring of the unions of males of higher castes with females of the second lower castes, and those resulting from their unions, may intermarry and give rise to other castes. But these last mentioned mixed castes must marry among themselves.⁷

c8.92

⁷ Arthaśāstra, ii, p. 203.

c8.93

It seems reasonable to conclude that endogamy was being sought to be rigorously prescribed and was followed to a large extent, and that the writers were at great pains to explain the origin of so many different castes, which had sprung up either by miscegenation, local segregation, occupational specialization, or tribal incorporation, because the orthodox theory mentioned only four castes.

c8.94

Fick summarizes the evidence of the Jātakas thus: "Marriage within one's own 'jāti' (caste) was the rule. Everywhere in the Jātakas we meet with the effort to keep the family pure through marriage confined to people of one's own standing and profession, and not to allow it to degenerate through mixture with lower elements. When the parents desire to marry their son they seek a maiden of the same caste for him." Yet there are instances in the Jātakas where the barriers of caste against intermarriage are surmounted. Endogamy was rather a universal custom than a rigid rule of caste.¹

c8.95

¹ Fick, pp. 51-3.

c8.96

Gautama is the one amongst the lawgivers who recognizes the possibility of a change of caste, which can only come about by marriage.² If a Brahmin male married a Vaiśya female the progeny formed a separate caste. If a girl of this caste was married to a Brahmin male, and if their daughter again was married in the same way, and if such unions were continued for five or seven generations from the girl of the original mixed stock, then the issue would be regarded as Brahmins. Evidently only the progeny through a female could thus be raised to a higher caste. The male issue of such mixed marriages could marry either among themselves or in the caste of their mother. Their progeny in the fifth or the seventh generation, if the males continued to marry in the caste of their mother, was reduced to the caste of the female of the original mixed stock. Suitable marriages, continued through generations, alone could effect a change in caste. That this elaborate rule should have led to any practical results is more than doubtful.

c8.97

² pp. 190-7.

c8.98

The epics contain some examples of intercaste marriages, but they illustrate the practice prevailing among the aristocracy and the sages. We will leave out the sages as their stories are shrouded in much mystic lore. As for the aristocracy we have already mentioned that Daśaratha had a Śūdra female as one of his wives. But the Rāmāyaṇa does not drop any hint that the children of the union were regarded as in any way different from the Kshatriyas. Santanu married Satyavatī, the daughter of a fisherman. In the story of the Mahābhārata no suggestion is made that the issue would be considered lower than the Kshatriyas. The girl's father extorts a promise from the king that the son of Satyavatī by him shall be the heir to the throne to the exclusion of his other son, not because he feared that the status of the son of his daughter would debar him from his right to the throne, but because the other son of the king, being the eldest, would be entitled to it. As a matter of fact, the Kauravas and the Pāṇḍavas, the heroes of the Mahābhārata, are represented as the descendants of the line of Satyavatī. Though the Kshatriyas were willing to marry females of lower castes and bring up the progeny as their equals, yet they could not tolerate their daughters marrying men of faulty descent. Thus Draupadī at her choice-marriage raised an objection against Karṇa on the ground of his low birth.

c8.99

The third period¹ of Indian history, as we have conceived the periods, is marked by two developments in the ideals of the Hindu Dharma, which had an important bearing on the theory and practice of caste. The glorification of gifts to Brahmins, which became so absorbing a feature of later Hinduism, was largely the contribution of this age. True it is that certain hymns in the Ṛigveda praise the giving of gifts, and are known as Dāna-Stutis, but they remained outside the main currents of the Upanishadic age, which was seething with philosophical discussions. Nor are they so definitive in their tone as the dictum of Manu that gifts alone—and by gifts Manu unequivocally means gifts to Brahmins—is the supreme duty of man in the Kali age.² Another noteworthy development is the schematic growth of imaginary hells as punishments for certain offenders and the progressive application of the doctrine of rebirth. Penances have been always ordained for specific breaches of sacred rules. If these are not performed by the offenders, then the picture of torments in hell is held before the sinners. The dread of these imaginary hells was a new and perhaps a more effective method of seeing that penances were scrupulously performed. Unhesitating faith in the penances naturally adds to the importance of the Brahmins. The theory of rebirth is sought to be skilfully employed as a sanction for certain rules of conduct. The perpetrator of a particular offence, it is declared, will be born in such and such a low station. The murderer of a Brahmin will be reborn not as man but only as some beast. Those who relinquish without necessity their divinely ordained occupations will become the servants of the Dasyus. A Śūdra who has fallen from his duty becomes an evil spirit feeding on moths.¹ Dread of horrible future births must have helped to uphold the proper practice of at least some of the rules connected with caste. The total result of the pronounced developments of these tendencies in this period is to be seen in the preposterous claims put forward in favour of the Brahmins.

c8.100

¹ Data which are common to the last period and the two succeeding ones are not repeated. Only such details as shed light on the development of the institution are collated.

c8.101

² Manu, i, 80.

c8.102

¹ Manu, xii, 54-80; also cf. Yājñavalkya, pp. 1243-58.

c8.103

According to Manu the Brahmin is the lord of this whole creation, because he is produced from the purest part of the Supreme Being, namely the mouth. Both the gods and manes have to receive their offerings through them. They are, therefore, the most exalted amongst men, so much so that, by his mere birth as a Brahmin, a person is the living embodiment of the eternal law. The function that fire served in Vedic worship is now discharged by the Brahmin. He replaces, so to say, fire as an intermediary between man and the gods. A Brahmin alone can become one with Brahman, for only he of all the varṇas is entitled to enter the fourth stage of life, viz. asceticism. Feeding the Brahmins is one of the acknowledged ways of gaining religious merit.² Inscriptions of this period testify to the fact that this was not a mere pious wish of the Brahmins, but a living reality acted up to by contemporary men and women.³ A Brahmin is entitled to whatever exists in the world. In fact, the whole world is his property, and others live on his charity.⁴ So sacred are they that not to wait on them is one of the reasons leading to the degradation of the Kshatriyas. In purity they are compared with fire and water, the two pre-eminently purifying agents. Whatever forbidden acts they do in adversity do not, therefore, contaminate them.⁵

c8.104

² Collection of Smritis, p. 423.

c8.105

³ R. G. Bhandarkar, A Peep into the Early History of India, p. 58.

c8.106

⁴ Manu, i, pp. 93-101.

c8.107

⁵ Manu, x, 43, 103.

c8.108

Vishnu is more audacious than Manu in asserting the worth of the Brahmins. He is not satisfied with claiming that they are the intermediaries between man and the gods, but would like to enthrone them as the equals of gods, nay even as their masters. He observes: "The gods are invisible deities, the Brahmins are visible deities. The Brahmins sustain the world. It is by the favour of the Brahmins that the gods reside in the heavens; a speech uttered by Brahmins (whether a curse or a benediction) never fails to come true. What the Brahmins pronounce, when highly pleased (as, if they promise sons, cattle, wealth, or some other boon to a man) the gods will ratify; when the visible gods are pleased the invisible gods are surely pleased as well."¹

c8.109

¹ Vishnu, p. 77.

c8.110

Naturally many are the privileges that are claimed for the Brahmins. We will mention only a few of them, not previously noticed. While in the last period it was only the Śūdra who was enjoined to serve the varnas and particularly the Brahmin, now all the three varnas are exhorted to serve the Brahmin, the theory being that each lower caste owes subservience to all the higher castes.² Nārada exhorts a king to be constantly showing honour to the Brahmins for "a field furnished with Brahmins is the root of the prosperity of the world". The king must show himself first in the morning to the Brahmins and salute them. To them belongs the right to collect flowers and such other things, to converse with other men's wives without any restraint, and to cross rivers without paying any fare for the ferry. If engaged in trade, they may use the ferry without paying any toll.³ Yet with all his exaltation a Brahmin is exhorted to follow the rules of conduct laid down for him lest he should miss the fruit of his Vedic studies. And the old saying, applauding the union of the Brahmin and the Kshatriya, is glibly paraded forth.⁴

c8.111

² Collection of Smritis, p. 122.

c8.112

³ Nārada, pp. 218-19.

c8.113

⁴ Manu, ix, 322.

c8.114

The Śūdra gets socially more degraded, though ways and means are discovered for his religious emancipation. In the latter connection, the later division into "sat" and "asat"—good and bad—Śūdras first makes its appearance. And the rules regarding social and moral life, evincing greater degradation of the class, must evidently have been devised for the use of the latter class, viz. the asat Śūdras. Servitude is proclaimed to be a permanent condition of a Śūdra, whether he be actually bought or not. A Śūdra must not acquire wealth, because thereby he causes pain to the Brahmins. Manu roundly declares that a Śūdra cannot commit an offence causing loss of his caste, so degraded was he.¹ Where some kinds of spirituous liquors are forbidden to the members of the twice-born castes, the Śūdra is left to himself.² Evidently the Śūdra was regarded beyond the pale of moral influence. The Brahmin did not even condescend to expect of him an adherence to his high moral precepts. A householder, when sipping water for personal purification, must not use it if brought by a Śūdra. A member of the first three castes must not travel in the company of Śūdras. It seems that the Śūdras were considered to impart some sort of defilement to objects like bed and seat by their touch.³

c8.115

¹ Manu, viii, 413-14; x, 120.

c8.116

² Vishnu, pp. 95-6.

c8.117

³ Vishnu, pp. 99, 108-9.

c8.118

In the sphere of religion the tendency is to forbid to the Śūdra the use of the most efficacious formulæ and rites on the one hand, and to exhort him to perform most of the daily rites and the obligatory sacraments prescribed for the other castes. The doctrine of salvation through the conscientious discharge of the duties proper to caste is, indeed, mentioned here and there. But evidently the Brahmin lawgivers of this period did not feel fully satisfied with that method of salvation. They had come to possess too much faith in the efficacy of the rites and sacraments to allow them to be neglected even by the Śūdra. The liberalizing influence of the Buddhist revolt and of Vaiṣṇava compassion led the Brahmins to devise ways and means of assuring spiritual betterment to the Śūdra in the Brahmanic way of rites and sacraments. It must also be mentioned that the performance of the Brahmanic rites and sacraments by a large section of the people had a selfish interest for the Brahmin, which he could not have entirely lost sight of. Rites and sacraments require the services of a Brahmin. The Śūdra caste—the largest section of the people—was the only one which was denied sacred knowledge. If the Śūdras wanted to perform the Brahmanic rites and sacraments they would invariably have to requisition the services of a Brahmin. To allow the Śūdra the privilege of these sacred performances was thus to ensure a large clientele for the Brahmin. Yet neither the genuine desire to widen the scope of his religious regulations so as to make it possible for the lowly Śūdra to work for his spiritual uplift in the Brahmanic way, nor the selfish motive of procuring mass clientele was strong enough for the Brahmin to override completely his supreme faith in the sanctity of his lore or his high regard for ceremonial purity. He began to make a distinction between the Śūdra who behaved properly according to the Brahmin’s ideas, and the Śūdra who was slovenly enough not to come up to this standard of conduct—the “sat” and the “asat” Śūdra. Only the former class of Śūdras was allowed the privilege of the practice of rites and sacraments though without the use of the Vedic formulæ.

c8.119

Yājñavalkya opines that the usual sacraments are accompanied by the recital of mantras only in the case of the first three castes. The Śūdras, by implication, were to perform them without the use of Vedic formulæ. They had to use the ordinary formula of “namas” (obeisance). They may offer in the same way the daily sacrifices on the domestic, fire and also the annual offering to the manes.¹ According to the Śukranīti, a Śūdra must perform all the sacred duties incumbent on him with the help of the “namas” formula, which is here explained in the terminology, usual in the next period, as the mantra given in the Purāṇas.² Atri, Laghuśaṅkha, and Likhita draw a distinction between the Śūdra and the other castes by enjoining the Śūdra to undertake only charitable and welfare works and to eschew the Vedic performances.³ Manu is more rigorous in his refusal of the right of the Śūdra to fulfil the sacred law of the Āryas. But even he is prepared to make a concession in the case of those Śūdras who are desirous of gaining merit, and exhorts them to imitate the practices of the virtuous.⁴ Yājñavalkya also seems to recognize the higher claims of those Śūdras whose conduct is proper according to the Brahmanic ideas.⁵ Ushanas, Bṛhadyama, and Laghuvishṇu classify the Śūdras into sat and asat.⁶ The most potent agent for personal purification that the Brahmins have thought of, viz. the liquid made up by the mixture of cow's milk, curds, ghee, urine, and dung is, however, considered so sacred a thing that if a Śūdra drinks it, he commits as heinous a sin as a Brahmin who drinks spirituous liquor.¹

c8.120

¹ Yājñavalkya, pp. 11, 86.

c8.121

² Śukranīti, p. 163.

c8.122

³ Collection of Smṛitis, pp. 11, 124, 182.

c8.123

⁴ Manu, x, 126, 128.

c8.124

⁵ Yājñavalkya, p. 1165.

c8.125

⁶ Collection of Smṛitis, pp. 48, 101, 122.

c8.126

¹ Viṣṇu, p. 175. Collection of Smritis, p. 23.

c8.127

The approximation of the Vaiśya to the Śūdra, already noticed in the last period, is carried further in this. In the account of the creation of the four castes from the body of the Supreme Being, Manu groups the two castes together as being produced out of that half of the body, which is less sanctified than the other half, above the navel, from which the Brahmin and the Kshatriya are represented to have emerged.² While dealing with the question as to who should be treated as his guest by a Brahmin, Manu and Viṣṇu recommend that a Vaiśya and a Śūdra guest may be allowed to eat with one's servants, out of compassion.³ Yājñavalkya prescribes for the Vaiśya the same period of death-impurity as the one he recommends for a good Śūdra.⁴ We have seen that a Brahmin could not generally accept food offered by a Śūdra, though he could eat what was given to him by a Vaiśya. Some writers of this period extend this privilege to the good Śūdras, thus putting them on a par with the Vaiśyas.⁵

c8.128

² Manu, i, 92.

c8.129

³ Manu, iii, 112. Viṣṇu, p. 216.

c8.130

⁴ Yājñavalkya, p. 1165.

c8.131

⁵ Collection of Smritis, p. 122.

c8.132

Of the castes that are supposed to spring from mixed marriages the offspring of hypergamous unions among the first three castes are allowed by Manu the rites and duties of the twice-born. The other mixed castes, according to him, are entitled only to the religious privileges of the Śūdra.⁶ Yājñavalkya's view is clearly stated only in the case of the Caṇḍāla, whom he describes as outside the pale of the sacred law.⁷ Śukranīti strikes a different note, more in consonance with the religious feelings of the later period, when worship through muttering the name of god came to be believed to be the universal and easy method of spiritual uplift. The issue of the mixed marriages of a hypergamous nature, excepting perhaps the offspring of a Brahmin male and a Kshatriya female, are to be treated as Śūdras. This view is in marked contrast with that of the Dharma literature, but in perfect conformity with that of the Arthaśāstra. Progeny of unions in the inverse order of castes is assigned to a new category, to be met with in the caste-organization of the later period. They are the lowest of the Śūdras and must practise their duties for their religious uplift by repeating only the name of god.¹ Thus the pratilomas (offspring of unions of females of higher and males of lower castes) are no doubt outside the pale of the Brahmanic law, as they were in the last period; but the general tendency of liberalizing religious regulations, as we observed has effected a change in the attitude towards the necessity of spiritual betterment for these groups. And the newer method of religious worship is thrown open to them.

c8.133

⁶ Manu, x, 41.

c8.134

⁷ Yājñavalkya, p. 67.

c8.135

¹ Sukranīti, p. 104. ² Yājñavalkya, p.

c8.136

The solidarity of a caste as a unit of social organization is more and more acknowledged. It is the duty of the king to see that the various castes observe their own rules and regulations, and to bring back the erring members to their path of duty. He has also to differentiate between different castes by appropriate marks of distinction.² The king must inquire into the laws of castes before settling disputes. When enacting any law he must see that the proposed law is not at variance with the customs of castes.³ Nārada recognizes the right of a member of a caste to succeed to the property of the deceased in case he has no near heirs entitled to succession.⁴ Yājñavalkya requires a suitor to mention his caste in his plaint.⁵ The solidarity of the Brahmin caste is very pronounced. Members of the caste owe certain duties to fellow-members on certain occasions. One of them is that of inviting certain neighbours of the caste to a dinner-party, at which twenty Brahmins are entertained.⁶

c8.137

What constitutes effective association between members of a group is important from the point of view of the development of caste. Vishnu's views on association, though they govern the outcasts and the "mlecchas", are very much like the ideas that regulated social intercourse between caste and caste or between the members of a single caste in later times. Sitting on the same bench, riding in the same carriage, lying on the same couch, or eating in the company of a person proves such close relations that if a person happens to be an outcast, the person associating with him in the ways indicated above, becomes himself an outcast after a year. One who habitually drinks water from or bathes in a pool situated in a foreign country reduces himself to the status of the inhabitant of that country.¹ We can clearly recognize in these ideas, once they were applied to social behaviour, the potency to create, in course of time, newer and newer castes.

c8.138

²¹⁸ Nārada, p.

c8.139

²¹⁵ Sukranīti, p. 164. ³ Manu, viii, 41, 40. Sukranīti, p. 187. ⁴ Nārada, p. 201. ⁵ Yājñavalkya, p. 247. ⁶ Manu, viii, 392.

c8.140

¹ Vishnu, pp. 133, 255.

c8.141

Food offered by a Śūdra is generally forbidden to a Brahmin as in the last period, but with this difference that, in addition to the specifically privileged Śūdras, there is the class of the good Śūdras whose food may be accepted. The general tenor of the detailed regulations leads us to believe that this permitted food was to be either uncooked or specially prepared in milk or ghee. According to Vishnu, a member of the first three castes has to undergo a penance if he takes food offered by a carpenter, a blacksmith, a goldsmith, a dealer in molasses and other liquids, an oil-presser, a weaver, a dyer of cloths, a cane-worker, or a washerman. The later distinction between food prepared without the addition of water and that in which water is used is mentioned by Atri. He allows a Brahmin to accept from a Śūdra anything that is prepared in ghee and articles like milk, buttermilk, curds, etc. Consistently with this distinction in food the same writer forbids a Brahmin to take water from a Śūdra. The food offered even by a Kshatriya and a Vaiśya was not considered to be perfectly innocuous.²

c8.142

² Vishnu, pp. 163, 164. Collection of Smritis, pp. 3, 4, 10, 20, 122, 392.

c8.143

The origin of the later practice for members of different castes not to sit in the same row for taking meals must be discovered in an idea expressed by Angiras. He opines that if, among persons taking their meals sitting in a row, one of them happens to have committed any sin, all the others share it. This possibility of guilt can, however, be evaded by the interposition of doors, posts, ashes, and water.³

c8.144

³ Collection of Smritis, p. 5.

c8.145

We have already noticed that Vishnu enjoins the householders of the first three castes not to travel in the company of the Śūdras. The reason for this injunction was that probably the Śūdra was considered to impart pollution by contact. As a matter of fact, according to the interpretation put by the commentator on another rule, the Śūdra's touch defiled objects like vehicles and seats and thus rendered them unfit for use unless water was sprinkled over them.¹ Aṅgiras requires a Brahmin to sip water for purification if he comes in contact with a washerman, a leather-worker, a fisherman, or a cane-worker. A Brahmin, drinking water from the vessel of a Caṇḍāla, has to undergo the penance of living on cow's urine for a number of days. Nay, Laghuśaṅkha goes even further and prescribes this penance if a Brahmin happens to drink water from a well from which a Caṇḍāla has drawn water. Saṃvarta's opinion is still more stringent inasmuch as he regards even running water as defiled, if it is used by the Antyajas or outcasts. Atri declares a washerman, a leather-worker, a cane-worker, a fisherman, and a Bhil to be Antyajas or outcasts. Vedavyāsa adds to this list several other castes. According to Uśanas, the Caṇḍāla was to enter a village for sweeping, etc., in the first half of the day, carrying a broom under his armpit and a small pot hanging at his neck.² These regulations remind one of Poona life in the days of the Peshwas.

c8.146

¹ Vishnu, p. 99.

c8.147

² Collection of Smritis, pp. 1, 16, 18, 22, 46, 125-6, 357, 421.

c8.148

The later theory of pollution by contact and its limits finds its first mention in Vṛddhahārīta who observes that the effect of contact is limited to three persons, the fourth person if touched being free. A regulation of Atri about touch-pollution fully breathes the later spirit. In sacrificial sessions, in religious and marriage processions, and on all festive occasions there is no question of untouchability.³

First 147 of 233 passages. Read on

Linked texts (40)