Shudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c9.152

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