Shudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c12.416

c12.416

Manu provides a number of safeguards against the hostile activities of the śūdras. In contrast to Kauṭilya, he lays down that the king should settle in a country chiefly peopled by the āryans,⁵ for the kingdom having majority of śūdras (śūdra-bhūyiṣṭha) soon perishes.⁶ Manu confines the protection of the state only to the people who live like āryans.⁷ He further states that those non-āryans (i.e. śūdras) who wear marks of āryans should be treated as thorns and removed without delay.⁸ In particular the mixed castes (mostly śūdras) were considered non-āryans who were cruel and violent.⁹ All these statements of Manu betray his complete distrust of the śūdras and his consequent anxiety to guard against their hostile activities, which were either apprehended or actually took place in times of foreign invasion. Manu probably has such situations in mind when he ordains that, if the members of the three upper varṇas are hindered in the performance of their duties on account of the outbreak of revolution, they should take up arms.¹ In the context of the description of conditions at the end of the Kali age the Vāyu Purāṇa refers to the exploits of Pramiti (an incarnation of god Mādhava), who raised an army of armed brāhmaṇas and set out to annihilate the various peoples such as the mlecchas and the vṛṣalas.² This may be taken as a faint echo of violent struggle between the brāhmaṇas on the one hand, and the śūdras and foreign rulers on the other. This was natural, for the vṛṣalas were regarded as the breakers of the established order³ and not its preservers. Manu’s elaborate provisions for punishing śūdras offending against brāhmaṇas are attributed to his hostility chiefly against the learned śūdra.⁴ But his measures as a whole show that he was not less hostile to the śūdra masses.