Shudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c8.302

c8.302

It has been asserted that the kṣatriyas were reduced to the position of śūdras as a result of their long struggle with the brāhmaṇas, who ultimately deprived their adversaries of the right to the upanayana (investiture with sacred thread).¹ On the basis of a solitary tradition occurring in the Śānti Parvan of the Mahābhārata, that Paijavana was a śūdra king, it is claimed that śūdras were kṣatriyas in the beginning.² Such a view seems to be without any foundation in facts. First, kṣatriyas as a well-defined varṇa with their rights and duties did not exist in the Ṛg Vedic period. Fighting and management of the common affairs were the concern of the whole tribe and at best of the clan chiefs but not confined to a class of chosen warriors. From the very beginning the slowly emerging groups of warriors and priests co-operated in leading the viś in their fight against the Āryan as well as non-Āryan peoples. In times of peace the two groups together tried to collect tributes from the viś, and hence the king was called viśamattā. As time passed, the warriors bestowed on the priests generous gifts, and the religious rituals were much elaborated, so that the power of the priests who performed them and of the warriors who patronized them was much strengthened as against that of the common people. Secondly, in spite of the echoes of the struggle between priests and warriors during the later Vedic period, as reflected in the stories of Paraśurāma and Viśvāmitra, there is nothing to show that the upanayana formed the issue, and that it was decided against the kṣatriyas. Perhaps the struggle centred round the question of sharing the surplus in the form of gifts and tributes collected occasionally from the tribal peasantry called the viś and of enjoying social supremacy, which determined the nature of the privileges to be enjoyed by them. There was some dispute regarding the brāhmaṇical monopoly of knowledge, which was successfully challenged by the kṣatriyas. It seems that Aśvapati Kaikeya and Pravāhaṇa Jaivali were not improbably teachers of the brāhmaṇas.¹ Kṣatriya princes such as Janaka of Mithilā contributed to the growth of the Upaniṣadic thought, and the kṣatriya ruler Viśvāmitra climbed to priesthood. In eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar the kṣatriya revolt reached its climax with the preachings of Gautama Buddha and Vardhamāna Mahāvīra, who claimed social primacy for the kṣatriyas and gave the next place to the brāhmaṇas. The real issue was, who would get the first place in society, brāhmaṇa or kṣatriya? But this was closely linked to the sharing of gifts tributes and labour power. Neither in post-Vedic nor in pre-Mauryan literature is there anything to show that the brāhmaṇas intended to reduce the kṣatriyas to the third or fourth varṇa, or that the kṣatriyas wanted to do the same to the brāhmaṇas.