Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c15.18

c15.18

after-life. Yet while depriving himself voluntarily of much that ordinary mortals prize, the Brâhmaṇa surrounded himself with privileges. After the struggle for supremacy between Brâhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas, which is reflected in the earlier writings, had ended in favour of the latter, the ground was clear for the Brâhmaṇa to entrench himself firmly against all attack. For more than two thousand years he has insisted that he must be honoured and worshipped. For more than a thousand years he claimed exemption from taxes on the ground that his proper contribution to the state was spiritual, and that he had no superfluous worldly goods to offer. Obviously on this last line of argument many writers exempt some other classes of people from taxes. The Brâhmaṇa, however, goes further and claims an extraordinarily wide benefit of clergy which seems to convert his supremacy into a loathsome tyranny. He is painting himself worse than he was in actual practice. But the fact remains that Hindu social philosophy draws its darkest stain from caste-privilege. The evil did not stop with Brâhmaṇas. The Dharma Sûtras and Dharma Śâstras work out regular systems of punishments based on gradations of caste in which the Śûdra finds himself deprived of elementary justice. A protest, indeed, was raised in antiquity. The Buddhists and Jainas attacked the Brahmanic supremacy. They could not abolish caste. They reconciled themselves to it. Jainism, in particular, adopted the current notions on social organisation, social superiority and etiquette. But neither Buddhists nor Jainas harp constantly like Brâhmaṇas on caste prerogatives. The Buddhists concede a sort of primacy to Kṣatriyas.