Caste and Race in India c8.53

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