History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c21.9

v2.c21.9

Next comes the consideration of the evidence derived from the sūtras and smṛtis. But certain preliminary observations must be made to clarify the position. The theory of the early smṛtis was that there were only four varṇas and there was no fifth varṇa. Vide Manu X. 4 and Anuśāsanaparva 47.18.³⁹⁰ When in modern times the so-called untouchables are referred to as the *pañcamas*,³⁹¹ that is something against the smṛti tradition. Pāṇ. II. 4. 10 and Patañjali³⁹² say that a Samāhāra-dvandva compound can be formed from several subdivisions of śūdras that are not *niravasita* e. g. we can have the compound ‘takṣāyaskāram’ meaning carpenters and blacksmiths, but not ‘caṇḍāla-mṛtapam’, because caṇḍālas and mṛtapas are niravasita śūdras (and so the compound will be ‘caṇḍālamṛtapāḥ). Therefore it follows that Pāṇ. and Patañjali included caṇḍālas and mṛtapas among śūdras. When Aṅgiras (note 171 above) includes kṣatṛ, sūta, vaidehika, māgadha and āyogava (that are pratiloma castes) among antyāvasāyins along with cāṇḍāla and śvapaca, he makes it clear that he regarded cāṇḍālas as included among śūdras, for Manu X. 41 declares that all pratiloma castes are similar to śūdras in their dharma and because the Śāntiparva 297.28³⁹³ expressly says that the vaidehika is called śūdra by learned dvijas. Gradually however, a distinction was made between śūdras and castes like cāṇḍālas. Fresh castes were then added to the list of untouchables by custom and usage and the spirit of exclusiveness, though there is no warrant of the śāstras for such a procedure.