Shudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c12.147

c12.147

Manu lays down that the king should appoint seven or eight ministers whose ancestors have been royal officers, who are skilled in the use of weapons, descended from noble families and are men of experience.⁷ It is obvious that the śūdras could be hardly expected to fulfil these qualifications. Manu warns that the kingdom of that monarch who looks on, while a śūdra settles the law, will sink low like a cow in morass.⁸ Such a rule perhaps again refers to the kingdoms of the barbarian rulers, who may have appointed some śūdras to carry on the administration of justice or to perform other administrative functions. But Manu emphatically states that even a brāhmaṇa who subsists mainly by the name of his caste (i.e. merely by calling himself a brāhmaṇa) can interpret the law, but a śūdra can never be appointed a judge (*dharma-pravaktā*).¹ The commentators add that kṣatriyas might be employed in cases of necessity,² but they do not mention vaiśyas. This fits in with the scheme of Manu, in which kṣatriyas cannot prosper without brāhmaṇas and *vice-versa*, but closely united they prosper in this world and in the next.³ Probably in brāhmaṇical kingdoms the first two varṇas monopolised all administrative and judicial posts.