History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c19.114
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c19.114
- Language
- English
v2.c19.114.1
One important question is whether the theory of anuloma or pratiloma castes presupposes a marriage or only a union (outside marriage) of a man and a woman. The Āp. Dh. S. (II. 6. 13. 1, 3-4) lays down¹²³ that a man must marry a virgin of his own *varṇa* with the rites prescribed by the *śāstras* and only the son born of such a marriage is entitled to the privileges and occupation of his father, that sexual intercourse with a woman who has been married by another or on whom the proper ceremonies of marriage are not performed or who belongs to another caste is condemned and that the son (and not the daughter) born of such an union is condemned (through the sin of the parents). So Āpastamba looked with disfavour even on marriages called *anuloma*. He is entirely silent about anuloma and pratiloma castes. It is no doubt true that most ancient writers like Gautama (IV. 1), Vasiṣṭha (I. 24), Manu (III. 12-13), Yāj. (I. 55 and 57) prescribe that a person should by preference marry a girl of his own varṇa but also allow the marriage of a person with a girl of another varṇa lower than his own. Yāj. (I. 92) expressly says that the six *anuloma* castes, mūrdhāvasikta, ambaṣṭha, niṣāda, māhiṣya, ugra, and karaṇa are so called only when they are the offspring of women married by men of higher varṇas. Manu (X. 41) says that the six anuloma castes are entitled to the rites (saṁskāras like upanayana) performed for *dvijas*, but that the pratiloma castes are like śūdras (i. e.
v2.c19.114.2
even when a pratiloma caste springs from a brāhmaṇa woman and a kṣatriya or vaiśya male they cannot have upanayana and other rites of *dvijas* performed for them, though both parents are *dvijas*). Kauṭilya¹²⁴ (III. 7) also says that all pratilomas except caṇḍālas are like śūdras; Viṣṇu says that they are condemned by all Āryas. Devala¹²⁵ (quoted by Parāśara-mādhavīya I. 2. p. 122) says that pratilomas are outside the pale of the system of varṇas and are *patita*. The Smṛtyarthasāra p. 13 says that anuloma sons and those born of the mūrdhāvasikta and other anuloma castes are *dvijātis* and are entitled to saṁskāras as *dvijātis*. Commentators like Kullūka (on Manu X. 11) say that, as no marriage is legally possible between a woman of a higher varṇa and a male of a lower varṇa, all the pratilomas are born outside lawful wedlock. Gautama (IV. 20) says that all pratilomas are *dharmahīna*, which is interpreted by the Mit. on Yāj. III. 262 as meaning that they cannot have upanayana and similar saṁskāras of *dvijas* performed for them, though they are amenable to the rules of morality and entitled to perform vratas and prāyaścittas. Vasiṣṭha, Baudhāyana and several others do not make it clear whether, when they speak of *pratilomas*, they contemplate offspring of legal marriages or only of illegitimate and adulterous unions.
v2.c19.114.3
But it will be seen from the list appended below that Uśanas and Vaikhānasa almost always make a distinction between the caste assigned to the offspring of the union of parents of different varṇas, according as there is a marriage between the two or it is only a clandestine, illegitimate or adulterous union. For example, Uśanas says¹²⁶ that when there is a marriage between a kṣatriya male and a brāhmaṇa female, the offspring is called sūta, while the offspring of a clandestine union between a brāhmaṇa woman and a kṣatriya male was called rathakāra. So these two authors held that there could be a legal marriage when a woman of a higher varṇa married a male of a lower varṇa.¹²⁷ There were several other works like the Sūtasaṁhitā (Śivamāhātmyakhaṇḍa chap. 12. 12-48) where a similar distinction is made between the children of marriages and clandestine unions. The Mit. on Yāj. I. 90 says that such progeny as kuṇḍa and golaka (Manu III. 174), kānīna, sahoḍhaja (who are all not due to intercourse in wedlock) are different from savarṇa, anuloma and pratiloma and are to be treated as śūdras and that the *kṣetraja* son is to be treated as in a different category (since *niyoga* is allowed by the smṛtis and by the usage of *śiṣṭas*) and belongs to the caste of his mother. Aparārka (on Yāj. I. 92 p. 118) does not accept this view and holds that even kānīna and sahoḍha may be held to be brāhmaṇas (if the begetter can be proved to have been a brāhmaṇa); while Viśvarūpa on Yāj. II.
v2.c19.114.4
133 says that kānīna and gūḍhaja must be deemed to belong to the mother's caste as the begetter may not be known and that sahoḍhaja (II. 135) is also to be so treated. These several kinds of secondary sons will be treated under inheritance.