Shudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c10.189

c10.189

The law of inheritance contains discriminatory provisions relating to the share of the son of a śūdra wife. According to Baudhāyana in the case of issues from the wives of different varṇas, four shares would go to the brāhmaṇa, three to the kṣatriya, two to the vaiśya and one to the śūdra son.⁴ In such a case Vasiṣṭha provides for the shares of the sons of only the three higher varṇas, leaving out the śūdra son.⁵ He quotes the opinion of others as stating that the śūdra son may be regarded as a member of the family but not an heir,⁶ a provision which is confined by Baudhāyana⁷ to the case of the niṣāda son of a brāhmaṇa father and śūdra mother.⁸ Gautama provides for the disinheritance of the śūdra son of a brāhmaṇa in very clear and emphatic terms. According to him if the brāhmaṇa died without male issue, though his son by the śūdra wife might be obedient like a pupil, yet he could receive only a provision for maintenance out of the estate of his deceased father.¹ Thus it would appear that of the Dharmasūtras only Baudhāyana provides for the share of the śūdra son of a brāhmaṇa, Vasiṣṭha and Gautama being opposed to this. Possibly the liberalism of Baudhāyana was due to his connections with the south, where brāhmaṇism had not penetrated deeply. Further, the provisions show that they related only to the śūdra son of a brāhmaṇa. It is not clear whether such rules of inheritance applied to the śūdra sons of the kṣatriya and the vaiśya, although this is very probable. There is no corroborative evidence in the light of which the actual operation of these rules can be known. At any rate these could affect only a fringe of the śūdra population, for the regular marriage of śūdra women with persons of higher varṇas was not a widespread practice.