Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Shudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c9: Chapter III: Tribe versus Varṇa

Śūdras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c9

Language
English

Chapter III: Tribe versus Varṇa

c9.1

(c. 1000-c. 500 B.C.)

c9.2

The later Vedic literature, which is almost the only source for the study of the position of the śūdras during that period, mainly deals with rituals, pervading all aspects of the life of the people. Every important public or individual act is accompanied by an appropriate ritual, which not seldom takes into account the fact that society was divided into four varṇas.

c9.3

Information gleaned from the rituals mainly relates to the land of the Kuru-Pañcālas, where the major part of the later Vedic literature was composed.¹ This literature roughly covers the period from *circa* 1000 to *circa* 500 B.C., and presupposes various phases of social development, differing according to the times to which a particular text can be assigned. Thus the collections (Saṃhitās) of the Black school of the *Yajus* are earlier than those of the White school.² Of the Brāhmaṇas the *Śatapatha* and the *Aitareya*, which make important statements on the inter-relation between the varṇas, are ‘comparatively modern, while the *Pañcaviṃśa* and *Taittirīya* are the most ancient.³ Even later than the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* and the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* is the *Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa*,⁴ and so is the *Kauṣitaki* or *Śāṅkhāyana Brāhmaṇa*.⁵ In some cases it is difficult to draw a line between the Śrautasūtras and the Brāhmaṇas; thus the *Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra* may be regarded as a late Brāhmaṇa.⁶ The *Āpastamba Śrautasūtra* seems to be similarly old.¹ In addition to these, the dates of other principal *Śrautasūtras* (viz. *Āśvalāyana*, *Kātyāyana*, *Śāṅkhāyana*, *Lāṭyāyana*, *Drāhyāyaṇa* and *Satyāṣāḍha*) have been fixed between 800 and 400 B.C.² Some authorities assign these texts to 400-200 B.C.,³ but since they explain many rituals mentioned in the *Saṃhitās* and *Brāhmaṇas* we have preferred to use them mainly for the study of later Vedic society. However the fact of their overlapping with the *Gṛhyasūtras*, which we have used for post-Vedic times, cannot be overlooked. At present the number of the *Upaniṣads* exceeds even two hundred, but only six of them can be ascribed to the pre-Buddhist period.⁴ In examining the material from the different strata of later Vedic literature regard has to be paid also to the relative dating of the various parts of individual texts.⁵ Moreover, in the later *Saṃhitās*, and especially in the *Brāhmaṇas*, we find far more frequent use of optatives than in the *Ṛg Veda* and the *Atharva Veda*.⁶ Hence many statements in the later Vedic literature are not in the form of the record of facts that actually occurred, but are to be interpreted as advice and instructions. But occasional evidence for things which may have happened can be culled from the main narrative portion of the *Mahābhārata*, which possibly reflects happenings in the later Vedic period.⁷ A good portion of the *Jaya Saṃhitā* or the original epic, consisting of nearly 8000 verses, sounds archaic and can be used for supplementing information obtained from later Vedic texts.⁸

c9.4

¹ Winternitz, *HIL*, i, 195-6. Keith says that the home of the *Taittirīya* school was the middle country, as was the home of the *Kāṭhaka*, the *Maitrāyaṇi*, and even the *Vājasaneyi* and the *Śatapatha*. *HOS*, xviii, p. XCIII.

c9.5

² Weber. *Ind. Lit.*, p. 86.

c9.6

³ Wackernagel, *Altind. Grammatik*, i, pp. XXX-XXXI; Keith, *HOS*, xxv, 44.

c9.7

⁴ Keith, *HOS*, xxv, 46.

c9.8

⁵ Winternitz, *HIL*, i, 191.

c9.9

⁶ B. K. Ghosh, *VA*, p. 235.

c9.10

¹ Keith, *HOS*, xviii, p. XI.I.

c9.11

² *VA*, p. 476.

c9.12

³ Louis Renou & J. Filliozat, *L'Inde classique*, i+ii, quoted in J. Gonda, *The Ritual Sūtras*, pp. 476-77, footnotes.

c9.13

⁴ *VA*, p. 467.

c9.14

⁵ Here it is not possible to do more than refer to the opinions of generally accepted authorities.

c9.15

⁶ Macdonell, *A Vedic Grammar for Students*, p. 118.

c9.16

⁷ Cf. *PHAI*, pp. 7-8.

c9.17

⁸ The text *Up-Mahābhārata* or *Jaya Saṃhitā* has been reconstructed by K. K. Shastree by selecting about 8,000 verses out of 78,000 verses found in the Critical Edition.

c9.18

The material background to social developments in later Vedic times is formed by the Painted Grey Ware archaeology.

c9.19

Both the PGW and the later Vedic texts belong to the same area and period. Hence the PGW evidence can be used for a study of the later Vedic period. 315 PGW sites were reported by 1975,¹ but by now in Haryana alone nearly 300 sites have been noticed.² Therefore the total number may have exceeded 500. Consistent carbon 14 dates for several excavated sites suggest that the PGW period roughly covered the period *circa* 1000-500 B.C.³ They indicate the transformation of the Vedic people from a pastoral and semi-nomadic community into a sedentary and agricultural community. But by and large structures are poor and do not suggest social differentiation. However the use of fine PGW and a few glass objects might indicate the emergence of an upper crust in society. Iron objects appear in the upper Gaṅgā basin for the first time, but they were used mainly for war and did not contribute significantly to crafts and cereal cultivation. We therefore cannot expect much social surplus which would make possible the existence of too many professional priests, warriors, etc., living on the surplus produce and labour of peasants and various types of labourers. The material culture created conditions for the beginnings of social inequality,⁴ which became prominent only in post-Vedic times.

c9.20

¹ Vibha Tripathi, *The Painted Grey Ware*, Appendix I.

c9.21

² Based on information about explorations carried out by Dr. Suraj Bhan and his colleagues.

c9.22

³ B.B. Lal, "Did the Painted Grey Ware continue up to the Mauryan Times?" (Cyclostyled copy).

c9.23

⁴ R.S. Sharma, "The Later Vedic Phase and the Painted Grey Ware Culture," *History and Society : Essays in Honour of Professor Niharranjan Ray*, pp. 133-41; ibid., "Class Formation and its Material Basis in the Upper Gangetic Basin (*c.* 1000-500 B.C.)," *The Indian Historical Review*, ii, 1-13.

c9.24

Since the śūdras appear in post-Vedic times mainly as the serving class, we will begin the study of their position in the later Vedic period with an inquiry into their economic conditions. In an early reference they are described as being in possession of cattle, which could be taken away by the people of the higher varṇas for sacrifice.⁵ This is corroborated by another reference in an early Brāhmaṇa, in which the śūdra is represented as being born without god and sacrifice, but owning many cattle (*bahu-paśuḥ*).¹ It is obvious that such śūdras, as held independent property in cattle, which seem still to have been the chief form of wealth, may not have been under the necessity to serve others.

c9.25

⁵ *MS*, IV.2.7 and 10.

c9.26

¹ Pañc. Br., VI.1.11.

c9.27

Nevertheless, there are some references to the functions of the śūdras as a serving class. It is stated in the *Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa* that the śūdra is created from the feet of Prajāpati without any god, and therefore the lords of the house are his gods and he is to earn his living by washing feet.² In other words, according to a later source he has to live by serving people of higher varṇas.³ The former source further informs us that as a result of the Horse Sacrifice (*aśvamedha*) the nourisher vaiśya becomes wealthy, and the rising śūdra becomes an expert worker.⁴ It is not known whether the term *karmakartā* is used here in the sense of hired labourer, a meaning always attached to a similar term *karmakara* in post-Vedic literature.⁵ In an early Upaniṣad, however, the śūdra is called Pūṣan or the nourisher,⁶ a title (*poṣayiṣṇuḥ*) applied to the vaiśya in the *Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa*.⁷ This would, then, suggest that he was the tiller of the soil,⁸ engaged in sustaining and producing activities for the nourishment of society. Probably in the earlier part of this period, like the vaiśyas, he paid part of his produce as tribute, an obligation from which he was freed in post-Vedic times.

c9.28

² *śūdro’ anuṣṭupchandā veśmapatidevas; tasmād u pādāvanejenaiva jijīviṣati.* Jai. Br., I. 68-69.

c9.29

³ *suśrūṣā śūdrasyetareṣām varṇānām.* Satyāṣādha Śr. Su., XXVI. 1-7, but this is not to be found in any other early Śr. S.

c9.30

⁴ *utthātā śudro dakṣaḥ karmakartā.* Jai. Br., II, 266. Perhaps there is no parallel for this passage in other Brāhmaṇas.

c9.31

⁵ *Karmakara* occurs in *Tai. Br.* III, 11. 10. 3, in the sense of a ṛtvik priest and not as a hired labourer. There seems to be no mention of *karmakara* in other Brāhmaṇas.

c9.32

⁶ Bṛ. Up., I. 4.13.

c9.33

⁷ II. 266.

c9.34

⁸ Mookerji, *AIE*, p. 158.

c9.35

But the impression that the śūdras constituted the labouring class is gained from several other references. In the *puruṣamedha* (human sacrifice) a brāhmaṇa is to be sacrificed to the priesthood, a rājanya to the nobility, a vaiśya to the Maruts (the class of peasants), and a śūdra to toil (*tapase*).¹ It was thought that the śūdra symbolised hard work. In the list of sacrificial victims, members of four varṇas are followed by those of various occupations such as chariot-maker, carpenter, potter, smith, jeweller, herdsman, shepherd, farmer, brewer, fisherman and hunter, in addition to certain peoples such as Niṣāda, Kirāta, Parṇaka, Paulkasa and Bainda,² who presumably were included in the broad term of the śūdra.³ The list, therefore, shows that although the crafts had increased in number, they were no longer practised by the members of the viś. The idea was gaining ground that śūdras included artisans and workers of various kinds.

c9.36

¹ VS, XXX. 5; *Śat. Br.*, XIII. 6.2.10; *Tai. Br.*, III. 4.1.1.

c9.37

² VS, XXX. 6-21; *Tai. Br.*, III. 4. 2.17.

c9.38

³ *VI*, ii, 267.

c9.39

What was the nature of relations between the śūdra workers and their employers? The authors of the *Vedic Index* say that slaves were certainly included in the term śūdra.⁴ But the number of slaves seems to have been very small. We learn of ten thousands of women slaves, captured from various countries and given away by Aṅga to his brāhmaṇa priest Ātreya.⁵ The number is obviously exaggerated and conventional. Āruṇi, the father of Śvetaketu, boasts that he possesses gold, cattle, horses, maid-servants (*dāsis*), retinue and dress, but does not speak of men slaves.⁶ Tradition has it that the brāhmaṇas received women slaves at the time of the great coronation sacrifice of Yudhiṣṭhira,⁷ which may be ascribed to the later Vedic period. Clearly, then, during this period women slaves were owned on a considerable scale by the ruling chiefs and priests, but the same cannot be said of men slaves. The term *dāsa* is mentioned in the *Aitareya* and *Gopatha Brāhmaṇas*⁸ but not in the sense of a slave. It is remarkable that, in the list of words for servants (*paricaraṇakar-māṇaḥ*) given in the *Nighaṇṭu*,¹ there is no mention of *dāsa*, although there occur ten synonyms for servants. Perhaps the number of men slaves was so negligible as not to attract any notice. This would naturally rule out the possibility of male śūdras being employed as slaves on any considerable scale. Therefore Keith’s statement, that in the period of the Brāhmaṇas the peasant working in his own fields was being substituted for the landowner cultivating his estate by means of slave labour,² may not represent the true state of affairs.

c9.40

⁴ Ibid.

c9.41

⁵ *deśād-deśāt samoḷhānām sarvāsām ādhyaduhitṛṇām; daśadadāt sahasrāṇi ātreyo niṣkakaṇṭhyaḥ*. *Ait. Br.*, VIII. 22. The chapter is a part of the later portion of this work.

c9.42

⁶ *Bṛ. Up.*, VI. 2.7. There is no mention of land either.

c9.43

⁷ *Mbh.* (Cal.). II. 33.52. Karṇa, the sūta king of Aṅga, is found offering a hundred Māgadhi slave-girls decked and trained in music and similar accomplishments. *Mbh.* (Cal.), VIII. 38.7.18.

c9.44

⁸ *Ait. Br.*, VI. 18-19; *Gopatha Br.*, II. 4.2., 6.1.

c9.45

¹ III. 5.

c9.46

² *CHI*, i, 128. Cf. Ghoshal, *Historiography and other Essays*, p. 87, fn. 9.
3. ...*dāsamithunau dhānyapālyam sīraṃ dhenuriti*. Lāṭyā. Śr. S., VIII. 4.14.

c9.47

Slaves working on land are first heard of in the Śrautaśūtras, which were composed towards the end of the Vedic period and later. One of them informs us that two slaves are to be given away along with grain, plough and cattle,³ suggesting thereby that slaves were employed in ploughing and could be freely disposed of by their masters. But in several passages the practice of making gifts of land and of the people working on it is looked upon with disfavour. Thus it is stated that at the *aśvamedha* sacrifice the sacrificial fee could not include land and men working on it (*bhūmipuruṣavarjam*).⁴ Again, in connection with the gifts in the one-day (*ekahā*) sacrifice, it is laid down that land and śūdras could not be given away (*bhūmiśūdravarjam*).⁵ There is, however, the alternative that sometimes the śūdras could be also given away,⁶ but the commentary adds that this can be done only in the case of those who are born slaves.⁷ There are two similar references from the *Śāṅkhāyana Śrautasūtra*. One of them says that in the *puruṣamedha* sacrifice land with men is given away as sacrificial fee.⁸ One other is not clear, and perhaps suggests that in the sacrifice of all (*sarvamedha*) land is given ‘along with’ the people.⁹ These references indicate a new social development possibly after the close of the Vedic period. Śūdras were employed as slaves working on lands owned by individuals (mostly ruling chiefs), and they could be given away as gifts along with the land itself, although this did not go without challenge from the authors of the Āśvalāyana and Kātyāyana Śrautasūtras.

c9.48

⁴ *Āśva Śr. S.*, X. 10.10.

c9.49

⁵ *Kā. Śr. S.*, XXII. 10.

c9.50

⁶ *śūradānaṃ vā darśanāvirodhābhyām*. Ibid., XXII. 11.

c9.51

⁷ *na ca virodha garbhadāsasya*. Comm. to *Kā. Śr. S.*, XXII. 11.

c9.52

⁸ *sahapuruṣam ca dīyate*. *Śāṅkh. Śr. S.*, XVI. 14.18.

c9.53

⁹ *sahabhūmi ca dīyate*. The comm. adds *sapuruṣam ca*. Ibid., XVI. 15.20.

c9.54

It is held that śūdras were serfs in the Vedic period.¹ The term serf denotes one who is attached to the soil of his master. He owns a patch of land for which he pays taxes to his master and works on his fields, but can be transferred along with the land to other owners. He is allowed to keep his small plot and cultivate it only so long as he works on the much larger plot of his landlord with the result that small plots are attached economically and juridically to larger stretches of land under serfdom. But such a system did not prevail even towards the end of the Vedic period, and hence the interpretation of the word śūdra as serf does not quite suit the relevant references. First, individual ownership of land in the Vedic period was of a very limited nature. Ownership implies free disposal of property, but there are no examples of land grants in the Saṃhitās. There is one such example, however, in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, in which a whole village is granted by the king Jānaśruti to Raikva.² Another instance is to be found in two later Brāhmaṇas. They inform us that land could be given away only with the consent of the clan,³ and even there the earth refused to be transferred.⁴ In the earlier period there is no example of śūdras being given away with the land. The development is to be found in some of the Śrautasūtras, but according to a commentary such śūdras appear to be born slaves (garbhadāsa)⁵ and not serfs attached to the soil. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that in post-Vedic times the śūdras do not appear as peasants paying taxes. In the vājapeya (‘the drink of strength’) sacrifice peasants (viś or vaiśyas) are described as food for the nobility.¹ It is perhaps because of this that the vaiśya is to be afflicted with misery and sin.² In the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*³ the vaiśya is described as one paying taxes (*balihṛt*) and oppressed at will (*ajayeyyam*). All this would indicate that the vaiśya had to pay part of their products to the rulers who lived on them. Absence of such a role prescribed for the śūdras shows that they were not supposed to possess any taxable property. In an Upaniṣad Soma is described as eating the kṣatriyas and vaiśyas respectively with his two mouths, the brāhmaṇa and the rājanya.⁴ Here the rājanya is represented as paying tributes to the brāhmaṇa, and the vaiśya to the rājanya. As usual the śūdra is left out on the ground of his inability to pay.

c9.55

¹ VI, ii, 389.

c9.56

² IV. 2. 4-5.

c9.57

³ Ait. Br., VIII. 21; Śat. Br., XIII. 7.1.15.

c9.58

⁴ Ibid.

c9.59

⁵ Comm. to Kā. Śr. S., XXII. 11.

c9.60

¹ *vaiśyo' dyamāno na kṣīyate...brāhmaṇasya ca rājanasya cādyo' dharohi sṛṣṭaḥ.* Pañc. Br., VI. 1.10; *Śat. Br.*, V. 2.1.17; VIII. 7.1.2, 2.2.

c9.61

² *Śat. Br.*, V. 1. 5. 28.

c9.62

³ VII. 29.

c9.63

⁴ *Kauṣītaki Up.*, II. 8-9.

c9.64

It is difficult to define the position of the śūdras in the Vedic period in terms of slavery or serfdom. Although the references found in very late Vedic texts give the impression of their being the labouring masses, generally they do not seem to have been slaves or serfs owned by individuals. Apparently just as the community exercised some sort of general control over land, so also it exercised similar control over the labouring population. And, in this sense, the śūdras may be very roughly compared to the helots of Sparta, with the difference that they were not treated with the same amount of coercion and contempt.

c9.65

Although in the later Vedic period artisan sections of the viś were reduced to the position of śūdras, there is nothing to show that crafts or agricultural operations in which they were employed were looked upon with contempt. So far as agriculture is concerned, there was a positive attitude of aiding, encouraging and honouring it by applying charms and performing a number of domestic rites.⁵ As to the crafts, there is no evidence of contempt even for leather-work.⁶ This would suggest that impurity did not arise from the nature of the task, which remained unchanged even in subsequent times. Significantly enough in the Śrautasūtra a ceremonial act was called *śilpa*,¹ a word which also means craft. The absence of contempt for manual labour during the later Vedic period may be likened to a parallel development in Greece, where during the period from Hesiod to Socrates (*cir.* 800-*cir.* 400 B.C.) public conscience was favourably disposed towards it.² Respect for manual labour in the later Vedic period probably lingered from the old simple society in which even the king lent his hand to ploughing. The epic instances of prince Janaka actually ploughing the sacrificial ground and prince Duryodhana being asked to do it may reflect the archaic Vedic society, which still retained much of tribal equality. A survival of princes taking to ploughing is found in the Buddhist ceremony of *vappa-mangala*.³ Interestingly enough in the ancient society of the Jews the rabbis supported themselves by manual labour and taught that god had commanded mankind not only to rest on the sabbath but also to work on the other six days of the week.⁴

c9.66

⁵ AV, III. 24, VI. 142; *VS*, IV. 10; *Śat. Br.*, I. 6.1. 1-8.

c9.67

⁶ S.K. Das has collected the relevant references. *The Eco. History of Ancient India*, pp. 139-40.

c9.68

¹ *Āśva. Śr. S.*, VIII. 4.5-8; IX. 10.11, 11.2.

c9.69

² *Past and Present*, No. 6, p. 1.

c9.70

³ *s. v. vappa-mangala*, Rhys Davids and Stede, *Pali-English Dictionary*. Even now the ploughing ceremony is annually performed by the Buddhist king of Thailand.

c9.71

⁴ Lynn White, Jr., *Medieval Religion and Technology*, p. 319.

c9.72

The śūdras seem to have played a correspondingly important part in the political life of the period. In the formative stage of the Indo-Āryan polity they enjoyed a considerable share in the functions of the state. It is striking that they found place in the exalted body of about a dozen ‘high functionaries of the state’⁵ called *ratnins* (jewel-holders), which may be compared to the council of twelve, an institution of great antiquity among several Indo-European peoples such as the Old Saxons, Frisians, Celts etc.⁶ The *ratnins* were so important that on the occasion of the *rājasūya* sacrifice the king had to repair to their houses to perform the ceremonies of offering jewels to various gods.

c9.73

⁵ Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, ii, 20.

c9.74

⁶ Chadwick, *The Heroic Age*, p. 370.

c9.75

The list of *ratnins* shows that they included the representatives of all the varṇas.¹ Thus two of the *ratnins*, the *rathakāra* and the *takṣan*, who are mentioned in several texts,² belonged to the artisan section of the śūdra varṇa. The fact that all kinds of metals are prescribed as the sacrificial fee³ in the ceremonies at their homes shows that they owed their importance to their association with metal-working. It has been shown earlier how the king in the *Atharva Veda* tries to secure the aid of the *karmāra* and the *rathakāra*. But in several later texts the place of the *karmāra* is taken by the *takṣan*, who, along with the *rathakāra*, may have been in charge of all the activities connected with metal-working and cart-making, without which the Āryan expansion and settlements farther east and south could not have made any headway. These two *ratnins* are not, however, mentioned in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*, where their place is taken by the *govikartana* (huntsman) and *pālāgala* (messenger).⁴ There are reasons to think that these two were non-āryanised aborigines who were admitted to the śūdra varṇa through rituals. The ceremony of offering jewels is followed by an act of expiation on the part of the king, who is considered guilty of having brought the non-sacrificing śūdras into contact with the sacrifice.⁵ Sāyaṇa goes too far when he includes even the *senānī* (commander) among the śūdra *ratnins*.⁶ In all likelihood the reference to non-sacrificing śūdras applies only to the pālāgala and the govikartana. That the pālāgala was a śūdra can be inferred from the fact that the pālāgalī is addressed as a śūdra.¹ At another place the term pālāgala is defined as false envoy (anṛtadūta);² the quality here ascribed to the pālāgala is always in later times associated with the śūdra.³ The govikartana, who is mentioned as a ratnin in several other lists besides that of the Śatapatha,⁴ is specified as ‘of low caste’ (hinajāti) by Sāyaṇa.⁵ Presumably he was the keeper of game and forests and may have been a śūdra. Keith takes kṣattṛ, one of the ratnins, in the sense of a carver,⁶ which would mean that he also was a śūdra. But this rendering seems to be doubtful, for in the epic kṣattṛ means a chamberlain,⁷ and there is no special reason for believing that the word was used with a different meaning in the Brāhmaṇas. Among the ratnins it is takṣan who can be better rendered as a carver. Thus it would appear that in some cases artisans, and in other cases herdsmen and messengers, from the śūdra varṇa were considered important enough to be approached by the king on the occasion of his great coronation sacrifice.

c9.76

¹ Ghoshal, *Historiography and other Essays*, p. 253.

c9.77

² ..takṣarathakārayorgrhe. MS. II. 6.5; Āp. Śr. S., XVIII. 10.17; Satyā. Śr. S., XIII. 4.8. It is to be noticed that takṣa and rathakāra are not mentioned in a similar description of ratnins in TS, I. 8.9. 1-2 and KS, XV. 4.

c9.78

³ sarvāyasāni dakṣiṇā. Ibid.

c9.79

⁴ Śat. Br., V. 3.1. 10-11.

c9.80

⁵ eṣa'etattamaḥ ppraviśattyetaṃ vvā tamaḥ praviśati yadayajñīyāniyojñena pprasajattyayajñīyānnvā' etadyajñena prasajati śūdrānstvadyāṃstu. Śat. Br., V. 3.2.2-4. The provision for expiation by means of offerings to Soma and Rudra, and Mitra and Bṛhaspati, looks like an attempt to reconcile two opposite views, one earlier and the other later, about the participation of the śūdra in the sacrifice. The king could enter into sacral relations with the śūdra, but the sin arising out of it had to be removed by another rite. It is to be noted that this does not occur in the Black Yajus texts or in the other texts of the White Yajus (Ghoshal, Hin. P. L., i, 133.)

c9.81

⁶ śūdrān senānyādin...Comm. to Śat. Br., V. 3.2.2.

c9.82

¹ Śāṅkh. Śr. S., XVI. 4.4; cf. Śat. Br., XIII. 5.2.8.

c9.83

² Āp. Śr. S. (Garbe’s edn.), XVIII.10.26.

c9.84

³ Ibid., VI. 3.12.

c9.85

⁴ MS, II. 6.5; Āp. Śr. S. (Garbe’s edn.), XVIII. 10.20; Satyā. Śr. S., XIII. 4.8.

c9.86

⁵ Comm. to Śat. Br., V. 3.2. 2-4.

c9.87

⁶ He derives it from kṣad to carve. HOS, xviii, 120.

c9.88

⁷ s. v. kṣattṛ, Monier-Williams, Śansk.-Eng. Dict. Acc. to Sāyaṇa he is the son of a kṣatriya woman by a śūdra.

c9.89

But the position of the śūdra ratnins needs further clarification. Firstly, they are not specified by their varṇa name, as is to be found in the case of the brāhmaṇa, the rājanya and the vaiśya ratnins.⁸ Secondly, in respect of powers, functions and representation the scales may have weighed heavily against the śūdra ratnins, whose appearance in political rituals in course of time may have been reduced to a matter of form. The number of the śūdra ratnins in individual lists varies from two to three.⁹

c9.90

⁸ The list of the ratnins in the Saṃhitās and Brāhmaṇas has been compiled by Ghoshal on the page facing p. 249 in Historiography and other Essays.

c9.91

⁹ In one list (MS. II. 6.5; IV. 3.8) their number is three, and in two lists it is two (KS, XV 4; Śat. Br., V. 3. 1ff.). It is strange that they are not mentioned in the texts of the Black School of the Yajus (TS, I.8.9. 1ff; Tai. Br., I. 7.3).

c9.92

There is nothing to indicate that their presence secured the representation of the whole śūdra varṇa, but certainly some sections of that community could find a place in the polity.

c9.93

Jayaswal views the ceremony of the offerings of jewels (*ratnahavimṣi*) as a great constitutional change inasmuch as the śūdra, “the conquered helot, is now worshipped by the man who is going to become king”.¹ This implies that the conquered pre-Āryan masses were deliberately given a high status in the Āryan polity. But it is clear that at least the two artisan *ratnins*, the *rathakāra* and the *takṣan*, owed their positions not to any deliberate policy of exalting the conquered in the Āryan political organization but to their original membership of the Āryan tribes which had now disintegrated into varṇas; for in the *Atharva Veda* the *rathakāra* and *karmāra* (whose place is now taken by the *takṣan*) are clearly described as part of the *viś* (folk) round the king.² Their indispensability as skilled workers in metals and chariot-making may have also contributed to their importance in early society. Nevertheless, it is not unlikely that in the sequel the existence of these śūdra *ratnins* gave some reflected importance to the other sections of the śūdra varṇa.

c9.94

¹ Hindu Polity, ii, 21.

c9.95

² AV, III. 5.6.

c9.96

The śūdra’s participation in the political life of the period is further evident from the ritual of the game of dice, which is prescribed as a rite in the *rājasūya* sacrifice and presented to us in two versions. In the earlier version, which occurs in the *Black Yajus* texts, the brāhmaṇa, the rājanya, the vaiśya and the śūdra participate in a game of dice for the sake of cow, which is won by the king.³ In the later version, which occurs in the *White Yajus* texts, the vaiśya and śūdra are eliminated as candidates in competition for the cow, which is staked by the kinsman (*sajāta*) of the king and won for him by the officiating priest (*adhvaryu*).⁴ It appears that this contest for the cow was originally a tribal custom to test the wit and sagacity of the leader. It is, therefore, the old tradition of tribal solidarity and homogeneity which accounts for the participation of all the varṇas in the game of the dice. But with the passage of time the character of the ritual changed; the vaiśya and the śūdra were excluded from the game. Nevertheless, it is significant that in the earlier period even a śūdra could join as a competitor in a game, which formed one of the preliminaries to the formal consecration of the king.

c9.97

³ tatra paṣṭhauhīṃ vidīvyante brāhmaṇo rājanyo vaiśyaḥ śūdraḥ. Vārāha Śr. S., III. 3.3.24; MS. IV. 4.6; Āp. Śr. S. (Garbe’s edn.), XVIII. 19. 2-3; Satyā. Śr. S., XIII. 6. 29-30.

c9.98

⁴ VS, X. 29; Śat. Br., V. 4.4.19-23; Kā, Śr. S., XV. 7.7.11-20.

c9.99

Again, the śūdra appears in another ceremony of the rājasūya sacrifice, in which the sacrificer gives first gold to the brāhmaṇa and purchases splendour with it; then a bow with three arrows to the rājanya and purchases lustre with it; next a goad to the vaiśya with which he purchases nourishment; and finally a pot of beans to the śūdra with which he purchases longevity.¹ Although varṇa distinctions are maintained and śūdras are probably represented as labourers engaged in agriculture, none the less they are brought into contact with the king and are considered capable of conferring longevity on him.

c9.100

¹ KS, XXXVIII. 1. This passage has no parallel in VS, Kap. S, TS and MS, but it occurs in a modified form in Tai. Br., II. 7.9.1. & 2, which mentions the gifts and results but does not bring in the four varṇas. In place of ojas it gives vīryam. Cf. Sātyā. Śr. S., XXIII. 4.21, in which the passage occurs in connection with the odanasava oblation.

c9.101

The śūdra is possibly connected with another ceremony of the rājasūya sacrifice, in which the newly consecrated king is called on to ascend the four quarters of the sky, when brahma in the east, kṣatra in the south, viś in the west and phala, varcas and puṣṭam in the north are asked to protect him.² Jayaswal says that phala is evidently a substitute for śūdra.³ This is not accepted by Ghoshal who takes the ceremony as symbolising the influence of the three higher castes in the Vedic polity.⁴ It has been also suggested that phala denotes industrial classes.⁵ In our opinion the term phala, which is used in Vedic literature⁶ in its literal sense as meaning ‘fruit’ and not in its later secondary sense as ‘result,’ may not be unconnected with the producing activities of the śūdra, but the same cannot be said of the term varcas which means lustre. As to the word puṣṭam (nourishment), it is generally associated with the vaiśyas, but in one passage the śūdra is also called pūṣan (nourisher).¹ It may, therefore, be tentatively suggested that the terms phalam and puṣṭam reflect the producing activities of the śūdra, who is thus indirectly called upon to protect the king in the north.

c9.102

² phala and varcas in VS, X. 10-13; bala and varcas in TS, I. 8.13; puṣṭam and phalam in MS, II. 6.10; puṣṭam and varcas in KS, XV. 7.

c9.103

³ Op. cit., ii, 29, fn. 2.

c9.104

⁴ Hist. and Essays, p. 264.

c9.105

⁵ S.V. Venkateswara, Indian Culture Through the Ages, pt. I, p. 11.

c9.106

⁶ VI, ii. 57.

c9.107

¹ Br. Up., I. 4.13.
2. viśaśca mānyāṁśśūdrāṁśca sarvānānayateti ca. Mbh. II. 30.41.
3. na tasyāṁ samnidhau śūdraḥ kaścidāsanna cāvrataḥ. Mbh., II. 33.9.
4. yadecchūdre yadarye yadenaścakṛmā vayaṁ yadekasya dhi dharmaṇi tasyāvaya-janamasi. VS. XX. 17 (on the occasion of the sautrāmaṇi sacrifice); TS, I. 8.3. 1; KS. XXXVIII. 5; cf. Śat. Br., XII. 9.2.3.

c9.108

The Sabhā Parvan, which is regarded as one of the earliest portions of the Mahābhārata, tells us that respectable śūdras were invited to the great coronation sacrifice (rājasūya) of Yudhiṣṭhira.² The contradictory statement that no non-sacrificing śūdra was present on the occasion³ probably reflects a later attempt to exclude śūdras from political power. At any rate it seems clear that at least some sections of the śūdras participated in the coronations of kings.

c9.109

According to a passage of the Yajus collections of both the schools,⁴ on the occasion of the rājasūya sacrifice the king established among the viś (people)⁵ prays to Sūrya for the expiation of the sin committed against the arya and the śūdra. Relying on Pāṇini⁶ the commentators Uvaṭa and Mahīdhara take the word arya in the sense of vaiśya.⁷ This shows that not even the king was free to oppress the members of the two lower varṇas, a situation entirely different from the one in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa⁸ where the vaiśya appears as one to be oppressed, and the śūdra as one to be beaten at the pleasure of the king.

c9.110

⁵ VS, XX. 9.
6. aryaḥ svāmivaiśyayoḥ. Pā., III. 1.103.

c9.111

⁷ Comm. to VS, XX.

c9.112

⁸ VII. 29.

c9.113

In the aśvamedha sacrifice, which was supposed to confer universal sovereignty upon its performer, the śūdras appear as the armed guards of the horse which is sent out on an expedition of world-wide conquest.¹

c9.114

¹⁷ The VI takes it in the sense of ārya.

c9.115

¹ *śatam śūdrā varūthinaḥ*. Āp. Śr. S. (Garbe's edn.), XX. 5.13; cf. Kā. Śr. S., XX. 50. It seems that moved by later bias the *Satyāṣādha Śr. S.*, which is a popular version of the Āp. Śr. S., leaves out the *śūdra varūthinaḥ*. Satyā. Śr. S., XIV. 1.46.

c9.116

That the śūdra could use weapons can also be inferred from an early passage, which states that with the king as helper they slay a king, with the vaiśya a vaiśya, and with the śūdra a śūdra.² The traditional account in the *Mahābhārata* refers to a king called Dambhodbhava who used every day to challenge armed soldiers of the kṣatriya, vaiśya and śūdra classes to prove themselves his equal in fighting.³ While enumerating different leaders and peoples participating in battle, the epic refers to the case of all the four varṇas taking part and thereby gaining righteousness, heaven and glory.⁴ Thus the fact that śūdras also acted as soldiers again betrays the influence of the old tribal polity, in which every member could take up arms.

c9.117

² *tasmād rājñā rājānam aśabhuvā ghnanti vaiśyena vaiśyam śūdreṇa śūdram*. TS, VI. 4.8.

c9.118

³ *asti kaścidviśiṣṭo vā madvidho vā bhavedyudhi; śūdro vaiśyaḥ kṣatriyo vā brāhmaṇo vāpi śastrabhr̥t*. Mbh., V. 94.7.

c9.119

⁴ *teṣāmantakaram yuddham dehapāpapraṇāśanam; śūdraviṭkṣatraviprāṇām dharmyam svargyam yaśaskaram*. Mbh., VIII, 32.18. The Cr. Edn. reads *vīrāṇām* in place of *viprāṇām*, but the latter occurs in MS T1. 3G and seems to be more suitable.

c9.120

It is to be further noted that the *āyogava*, who is defined by the commentator as a son of a vaiśya woman by a śūdra, is to act as a vigilant dog in the horse sacrifice.⁵ Perhaps this refers to the practice of enlisting the aboriginals as watchmen. The *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* furnishes the unique case of an *āyogava* king Marutta Āvikṣita performing the *aśvamedha* sacrifice, in which the Maruts act as his body-guards, Agni as his chamberlain, and the All-Gods (*Viśvedevas*) as his courtiers (*sabhāsadas*).⁶ This does not seem to be a case of a śūdra king but probably is an example of a non-brāhmaṇical ruler being assimilated to the brāhmaṇical polity. The definition of *āyogava* does not appear until the Dharmasūtras, and we cannot be sure that Marutta Āvikṣita was a low caste king.

c9.121

⁵ Kā. Śr. S., XX. 37.

c9.122

⁶ Śat. Br., XIII. 5.4.6.

c9.123

It was provided in the *aśvamedha* sacrifice that the house of the *rathakāra* should serve as the resting place for the horse and its guardians.¹ This shows that the *rathakāra* continued to hold his political position in the later ritual of the *aśvamedha* as well.

c9.124

¹ *Śat. Br.*, XIII. 4.2.17; *Āp. Śr. S.* (Garbe’s edn.), XX. 5.18; *Kā. Śr. S.*, XX. 55; *Satyā Śr. S.*, XIII. 1.47.

c9.125

The *aśvamedha* sacrifice was performed with the object of conquering all the four varṇas, which shows that the ruler felt the necessity of securing the allegiance of all sections of society.² The same impression is acquired from another passage, in which on the occasion of the *rājasūya* sacrifice, the priest makes the king successful in gaining splendour, strength, offspring and firm footing, which qualities are respectively associated with the brāhmaṇa, the kṣatriya, the vaiśya and the śūdra.³ A passage of similar import is to be found in the *Taittirīya Saṃhitā*.⁴ According to it the rājanya has to repeat the kindling verses thrice, because in addition to the allegiance of the warrior, he has to secure the obedience of the three other classes of people, namely the brāhmaṇa, the vaiśya and the śūdra. All this shows that the obedience of the śūdra was not taken for granted as in some later sources. That it was found essential for the king to win his support also is evident from a passage of the *Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa*. It informs us that the Pañcāla prince Darbha Śātānīki was honoured among the brāhmaṇas, the kṣatriyas, the vaiśyas and the śūdras successively through the use of the *gāyatrī*, the *triṣṭubh*, the *jagatī* and the *anuṣṭubh* metres.⁵

c9.126

² *Jai. Br.*, II. 266-67.

c9.127

³ *Ait. Br.*, VIII. 4.

c9.128

⁴ *TS*, III. 5.10. No parallel in other collections of the *Yajus*.

c9.129

⁵ *Jai. Br.*, II. 102. The same idea is conveyed by the *Śāṅkh. Śr. S.*, XIV. 33.18-19 in a slightly different form.

c9.130

A remarkable passage occurring in all the collections of the *Yajus* contains a prayer to Agni to confer brilliance on ‘our’ priests, warriors, vaiśyas and śūdras.⁶ The context, in which this passage occurs in the *Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā*, deals with formulas for the performance of the *vasordhārā*, a sort of consecration service of Agni as king. On this occasion the officiating priest (*adhvaryu*) recites formulas meant to bestow all temporal and spiritual blessings on the sacrificer. It is not clear, but may not be improbable, that the ritual is prescribed for the king, who prays to Agni to place lustre in all the varṇas of his subjects including the śūdras.

c9.131

⁶ *rucam viśyeṣu śūdreṣu mayi dhehi rucā rucam*. *TS*, V. 7.6. 4; *VS*, XVIII. 48; *KS*, XL. 13; *MS*, III. 111. 4.8; *TS*, V. 7.6. The *Śat. Br.*, IX. 4.2.14 has “*rucam no dhehi brāhmaṇeṣvi’ ti*”. J. Eggeling thinks that the other three varṇas are understood, and, therefore, in translating the passage notes them in the brackets (*SBE*, xliii, 238). But the text probably furnishes a typical example of brāhmaṇical juggling with the old ritual in the interests of their priestly pretensions.

c9.132

There was no uniformity in the nature and extent of the śūdra's participation in what may be described as rituals of a political character. In some cases the minutiae of ceremonies varied according to varṇa, and naturally the śūdra was given the lowest place; in other cases all the varṇas, including the śūdra, participated in the ceremony in the same manner, and could expect similar blessings. At any rate, compared to rules in the Dharmaśāstras, it is worth notice that in the later Vedic period the śūdras could have some share in political power along with the members of the three higher varṇas.

c9.133

But there is also the other side of the picture. Already during this period, particularly towards its end, a clear tendency had begun to exclude the śūdra from participating in the communal life. Thus the śūdra could not take part in the sprinkling ceremony on the occasion of the *rājasūya* sacrifices, unlike the members of the threc higher varṇas.¹ It has been contended by Jayaswal that the *janya* or the *janya-mitra*, who appears in the texts as the fourth person to sprinkle water on the king, is a śūdra in the sense of a man of hostile tribe.² Such an interpretation seems to be without any authority. In our opinion like the *vrātya*, who was not a member of the *vrāta* or the tribal unit, the *janya* was also not a member of the *jana* or the tribal community concerned with the performance of the *rājasūya* or similar sacrifices but the member of an alien tribe who was assimilated into the growing brāhmaṇised society through rituals. Whatever be the correct meaning of this term;¹ it is clear that it has nothing to do with the śūdra at any place in literature. It is also stated that on the occasion of the rājasūya sacrifice the three higher varṇas could request the king to grant a place for the worship of gods.² Although the exclusion of the śūdra would naturally follow from the theory that he was born without gods, it can be also taken to indicate his declining importance in political life.

c9.134

¹ *Śat. Br.*, V. 3.5. 11-14; *Tai. Br.* I. 7.8.7; *Vārāha Śr. S.*, III. 3.2.48.

c9.135

² *Hindu Polity*, ii, 25. What Jayaswal further says implies that in later times the śūdra always appears as a participant in the *abhiṣecana* ceremony, but there is nothing to prove this until we come to the coronation rites of the *Agni Purāṇa* (ch. 218. 18-20), a work of early mediaeval period.

c9.136

¹ For various interpretations see Ghoshal, Hist. & Essays, pp. 265-66 and S.V. Venkateswara, op. cit., pt. I, 11.

c9.137

² Ait. Br., VII. 20.

c9.138

The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa explains certain rites as establishing the control of the kṣatra (ruling chiefs) over the viś (tribal community).³ These rites probably suggest the process by which the cultivating kinsmen were compelled to convert their occasional gifts and tributes made over to their chiefs into regular taxes. The śūdra is left out, presumably because the king's control over him is taken for granted and because he is not considered capable of offering any strong resistance. Another passage, which speaks of the brahma and the kṣatra being established among the viś⁴ but leaves out the śūdra, conveys a similar idea.

c9.139

³ Śat. Br., I. 3.4.15; II. 5.2.6; II. 5.2.27; cf. XII. 7.3.15.

c9.140

⁴ Ibid., XI. 2. 7. 16.

c9.141

The śūdra was not admitted to the vājapeya (drink of strength) sacrifice, which was supposed to increase the strength of the king. According to one text it was open to the brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya and vaiśya,⁵ but in other texts even the vaiśya came to be excluded.⁶

c9.142

⁵ Śāṅkh. Śr. S., XVI. 17.4 quoted in VI, ii, 256.

c9.143

⁶ Vārāha Śr. S., III. 1.1.1; Ghoshal, Hist. & Essays, p. 283. The vaiśya was, however, associated with some of the minor ceremonies of the vājapeya sacrifice along with the kṣatriya (Kāt. Śr., S., XIV. 75).

c9.144

There is an indication of the lack of civic status of the śūdra in a minor ceremony described in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa. In explaining a rite of new and full-moon day ceremonies (darśapūrṇamāsa) it is argued that the śūdras who are in front of their masters seek their favour, and those who are not capable of making contradictions are to be treated in the same manner as the śūdras.¹ This would suggest that the śūdras were not expected to speak against their master, and were thought to be completely servile.

c9.145

¹ Tai. Br., III. 3.11.2. with Bhaṭṭabhāskara’s comm.

c9.146

An important development in later Vedic polity is the tendency to claim a special position for the brāhmaṇa and the kṣatriya, distinguishing them from the vaiśya and the śūdra. Ghoshal cites a number of examples to show the importance of the brahma and the kṣatra as two dominant forces in society, their mutual antagonism and their close political alliance.² Prayers for the protection of the two upper classes are to be found in the Saṃhitās³ as well as in the Brāhmaṇas.⁴ If such references are closely analysed, they seem to yield two results. Firstly, most of them occur in later literature, especially in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. Secondly, while the earlier references generally point to the combination between the two upper varṇas, the later do it to the specific exclusion of the vaiśya and the śūdra. Thus the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa clearly states that the brāhmaṇa and the kṣatriya enclose the vaiśya and the śūdra.⁵ The same text also states that those who are neither kṣatriya nor purohita (priest) are incomplete.⁶ Attention has already been drawn to the exclusion of the vaiśya and the śūdra from the game of dice in the later version of this rājasūya rite.⁷ In connection with the same coronation sacrifice the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa states that the brāhmaṇa precedes the kṣatra but the vaiśyas and the śūdras follow him.⁸ Therefore it would appear that the tendency to equate the vaiśya with the śūdra and exclude them from public life is implicit in earlier texts, but becomes explicit and pronounced in later literature.

c9.147

² Hin. P.L., i, 73-80.

c9.148

³ TS, XVIII. 38-44; Kāṇva S., XX. 2.
4. Śat. Br., III. 5.2.11; III. 6.1.17-18; IX. 4.1.7-8.

c9.149

⁵ Ibid., VI. 4.4.12-13.

c9.150

⁶ Ibid., VI. 6.3.12-13.

c9.151

⁷ Supra, p. 57.
8. viśam caivāsmai tacchaudram ca varṇam anuvartmānau kurvanti. Ait. Br., VIII. 4.

c9.152

This review of the role of the śūdra in the public life of the later Vedic period may be closed with an examination of the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* passage¹, which has been interpreted as indicating an absolutely servile position of the śūdra in the Vedic polity. Such a view is not justified by a close scrutiny of the context and meaning of the crucial passage. It is said that a king named Viśvantara Sauṣadmana performed a sacrifice without the priestly clan of the Śyāparṇas, who were removed from the altar. Their case was taken up by their learned leader Rāma Mārgaveya, who protested against the dismissal of the priests, on the ground that he possessed the knowledge of the food to be taken by the king in lieu of soma on the occasion of the *rājasūya* sacrifice.² The passage in question describes in his words the possible results of the various kinds of food to be taken by the king, and in doing so indicates the kind of relation which subsists between the ruling varṇa of the warrior and the three other varṇas. It is said that if the king takes soma, the food of the brāhmaṇa, his progeny will be a brāhmaṇa with all his characteristics. He will be an acceptor of gifts, a drinker of soma, a seeker of livelihood and one to be removed at will (*yathākāmaprayāpyaḥ*).³ If the king takes curd, the food of the vaiśya, his progeny will be a vaiśya, and will have all the vaiśya’s characteristics. He will be tributary to another, eaten by another, and oppressed at will. But we are more concerned with the epithets which describe the position of the śūdra. It is stated that if the king takes water, the food of the śūdra, he will favour the śūdras and his progeny will have all their characteristics.⁴ He will be (i) *anyasya preṣyaḥ*, (ii) *kāmotthāpyaḥ* and (iii) *yathākāmavadhyaḥ*. Keith correctly renders the first epithet as ‘the servant of another’, although in place of ‘servant’ ‘messenger’ would be a more precise rendering. But we cannot accept Keith’s translation of the other two epithets. The second epithet *kāmotthāpyaḥ* is rendered by him as one ‘to be removed at will’⁵ and by Haug as one ‘to be expelled’¹ at the pleasure of the master. On this basis it is said that the śūdra was a tenant-at-will who could be thrown out of his holding at any time.² But Sāyaṇa’s comment to this term states that the śūdra could be made to work at any time of the day or night whenever the master desired.³ His interpretation seems to be quite feasible because the plain meaning of the *utthāpana* is the act of causing to get up to rise. In early Sanskrit the sense of expulsion is conveyed by other words such as *nirvāsana*⁴ or *niṣkāsana*. The third epithet *yathākāmavadhyah* has been rendered by Keith as ‘to be slain at will.’⁵ but Sāyaṇa interprets the phrase as meaning that the śūdra could be beaten by the angry master if he went against his will.⁶ Sāyaṇa’s interpretation is supported by the *Nirukta*, in which, as against three places where *vadha* means to kill,⁷ at five places it means to hurt or wound.⁸ Haug is, therefore, right when he renders the third epithet ‘as to be beaten at pleasure’.⁹

c9.153

¹ VII. 29.

c9.154

² *Ait. Br.*, VII. 27-8.

c9.155

³ Muir, Haug and Weber take the word as active in sense, ‘moving at will’. But the verb is clearly used in the passive causative sense (*VI, ii, 255*), which Sāyaṇa recognises.

c9.156

⁴ ‘*atha yadi ataḥ, śūdrāṇām sa bhakṣaḥ; śūdrāvistena bhakṣeṇa jimisyasi, śūdrakalpa te prajāyāmājaniṣyate.* *Ait. Br.*, VIII. 29.

c9.157

⁵ HOS, xxv, 315.

c9.158

¹ *Tr. of Ait. Br.*, p. 485.

c9.159

² Ghoshal, *op. cit.*, i, 158.

c9.160

³ *madhyarātrādau yadākadāciddina icchā bhavati tadānīm ayam uthāpyate.*
4. *Pā.*, II. 4.10.

c9.161

⁵ *HOS*, XXV, 315.

c9.162

⁶ *vadhyaḥ=kupitena svāminā tādyo bhavati icchāmanatikramya.*
7. III, 11; V. 16 and X. 11.

c9.163

⁸ III. 9; IX. 15, 16, 18; X. 29.

c9.164

⁹ *Tr. of the Ait. Br.*, p. 485.

c9.165

The ready and uncritical acceptance of the false view that according to the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* the śūdra could be slain at the plesure of the master¹⁰ led to the natural corollary that in the Vedic period he had no wergeld, which he came to have in the period of the Dharmasūtras, when the relation of simple slavery was being abolished.¹¹ It is evident that such a view rests on a dubious interpretation of the term *yathākāmavadhyah*. Moreover, although the wergeld (called *vaira* or *vairadeya*) was probably fixed at a hundred cows,¹² there is neither any reference to the variation of this amount according to the varṇa nor to the denial of this right to any varṇa. There seems also to have been provision of penance for the expiation of the sin of manslaughter (*vairahatya*) through sacrifice,¹ but this is also kept free from considerations of varṇa. Therefore it would appear that in later Vedic society varṇa distinctions were not so sharp and wide as to degenerate into the acute civic discriminations of the Dharmasūtras, in which the śūdra was entitled to the lowest wergeld of ten cows.

c9.166

¹⁰ VI, ii, 256.

c9.167

¹¹ Keith, *CHI*, i, 128-9; Dutt. *op. cit.*, p. 166; cf. Ghoshal, *Hin. P. L.*, i, 167.

c9.168

¹² VI, ii, 331.

c9.169

¹ *Tai. Br.*, I. 5.9.5-6; cf. III. 4.1.7.

c9.170

Reverting to the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* passage, the meanings which have been suggested for the two epithets applied to the śūdra seem to be plausible. In the whole of Vedic literature there is no parallel passage, which describes the śūdra as one to be expelled and slain at the will of the master.

c9.171

Whether the alternative meanings suggested above represent the true state of affairs is difficult to determine. This is because Book VII of the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, in which the passage in question occurs, is a later part.² It would not be surprising if some of the epithets here applied to the various varṇas were used by a discarded priest to ingratiate himself into the favour of his patron king. It is not without significance that even a brāhmaṇa is described as one to be removed at will. In such a case the position of other varṇas can be well imagined.

c9.172

² Keith, *HOS*, XXV, 29; cf. VI, ii, 256.

c9.173

All these considerations, however, in no way disprove the low status of the śūdra in later Vedic polity. Our object is to define it as precisely as we can. And it is abundantly clear that while the śūdra was associated with several ceremonies of the two important sacrifices of political nature, the *aśvamedha* and the *rājasūya*, there had already begun, possibly towards the end of the Vedic period, a definite tendency to exclude him from rituals connected with political life. In some cases the vaiśya was also condemned to the position of the śūdra and deprived of his old rights. But if we rely on the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* passage and place it around the middle of the first millennium B.C., it would appear that by that time society in the upper Gangā basin had become class-divided, and although the vaiśyas and śūdras formed the two lower orders, their respective positions were sharply defined. The vaiśyas represented the peasants, for PGW sites producing rice and other cereals, suggest numerous rural settlements. They were expected to pay regular tithes, and hence are described as those who were meant to be eaten and extorted for the collection of tribute by the kṣatra; on the other hand the śūdras had emerged as a class of domestics for serving the upper and controlling classes.

First 173 of 352 passages. Read on

Linked texts (40)