Palah Biswas On Unique Identity No1.mpg

Unique Identity No2

Please send the LINK to your Addresslist and send me every update, event, development,documents and FEEDBACK . just mail to palashbiswaskl@gmail.com

Website templates

Zia clarifies his timing of declaration of independence

what mujib said

Jyothi Basu Is Dead

Unflinching Left firm on nuke deal

Jyoti Basu's Address on the Lok Sabha Elections 2009

Basu expresses shock over poll debacle

Jyoti Basu: The Pragmatist

Dr.BR Ambedkar

Memories of Another day

Memories of Another day
While my Parents Pulin Babu and basanti Devi were living

"The Day India Burned"--A Documentary On Partition Part-1/9

Partition

Partition of India - refugees displaced by the partition

Saturday, October 29, 2011

WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS ?


WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS ?
______________________________________________
________________
Inscribed to the Memory of
MAHATMA JOTIBA FULE (1827—1890)
The Greatest Shudra of Modern India who made the lower classes of Hindus
conscious of their slavery to the higher classes and who preached the gospel
that for India social democracy was more vital than independence from
foreign rule. 
WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS?
How they came to be the 
Fourth Varna in the 
Indo-Aryan Society
By B. R. Ambedkar
______________________________________________
________________
CONTENTS
Preface
PART I
1. Chapter I - The Riddle of the Shudras
2. Chapter II - The Brahmanic Theory of the Origin of the Shudras
3. Chapter III - The Brahmanic Theory of the Status  of the Shudras
4. Chapter IV - Shudras Versus Aryans
5. Chapter V - Aryans Against Aryans
6. Chapter VI - Shudras And DasasPART II
7. Chapter VII - The Shudras were Kshatriyas
8. Chapter VIII - The Number of Varnas, Three or Four?
9. Chapter IX - Brahmins Versus Shudras
10. Chapter X - The Degradation of the Shudras
11. Chapter XI - The Story of Reconciliation
12. Chapter XII - The Theory in the Crucible
APPENDICES
PREFACE
In the present stage of the literature on the subject, a book on the Shudras
cannot be regarded as a superfluity. Nor can it be said to deal with a trivial
problem. The general proposition that the social organization of the IndoAryans was based on the theory of Chaturvarnya and that Chaturvarnya
means division of society into four classes—Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas
(soldiers),Vaishyas (traders) and Shudras (menials) does not convey any idea
of the real nature of the problem of the Shudras nor of its magnitude.
Chaturvarnya would have been a very innocent principle if it meant no more
than mere division of society into four classes. Unfortunately, more than this is
involved in the theory of Chaturvarnya. Besides dividing society into four
orders, the theory goes further and makes the principle of graded inequality.
the basis for determining the terms of associated life as between the four
Varnas. Again, the system of graded inequality is not merely notional. It is
legal and penal. Under the system of Chaturvarnya, the Shudra is not only
placed at the bottom of the gradation but he is subjected to inunumerable
ignominies and disabilities so as to prevent him from rising above the
condition fixed for him by law. Indeed until the fifth Varna of the Untouchables
came into being, the Shudras were in the eyes of the Hindus the lowest of the
low. This shows the nature of what might be called the problem of the
Shudras. If people have no idea of the magnitude of the problem it is because
they have not cared to know what the population of the Shudras is.
Unfortunately, the census does not show their population separately. But
there is no doubt that excluding the Untouchables the Shudras form about 75
to 80 per cent of the population of Hindus. A treatise which deals with so vast
a population cannot be considered to be dealing with a trivial problem.The book deals with the Shudras in the Indo-Aryan Society. There is a view
that an inquiry into these questions is of no present-day moment. It is said by
no less a person than Mr. Sherring in his Hindu Tribes and Castes* that :
"Whether the Shudras were Aryans, or aboriginal inhabitants of India, or tribes
produced by the union of the one with the other, is of little practical moment. They
were at an early period placed in a class by themselves, and received the fourth or last
degree of rank, yet at a considerable distance from the three superior castes. Even
though it be admitted that at the outset they were not Aryans, still, from their
extensive intermarriages with the three Aryan Castes, they have become so far
Aryanized that, in some instances as already shown, they have gained more than they
have lost, and certain tribes now designated as Shudras are in reality more Brahmins
and Kshatriyas than anything else. In short, they have become as much absorbed in
other races the cletic tribes of England have become absorbed in the Anglo-Saxon
race; and their own separate individuality, if they ever had any, has completely
vanished."
This view is based on two errors. Firstly, the present-day Shudras are a
collection of castes drawn from heterogeneous stocks and are racially
different from the original Shudras of the Indo-Aryan society. Secondly, in the
case of Shudras the centre of interest is not the Shudras as a people but the
legal system of pains and penalties to which they are subjected. The system
of pains and penalties was no doubt originally devised by the Brahmins to
deal with the Shudras of the Indo-Aryan society, who have ceased to exist as
a distinct, separate, identifiable community. But strange as it may seem the
Code intended to deal with them has remained in operation and is now
applied to all low-class Hindus, who have no lock stock with the original
Shudras. How this happened must be a matter of curiosity to all. My
explanation is that the Shudras of the Indo-Aryan Society in course of time
became so degraded as a consequence of the severity of the Brahmanical
laws that they really came to occupy a very low state in public life. Two
consequences followed from this. One consequence was a change in the
connotation of the word Shudra. The word Shudra lost its original meaning of
being the name of a particular community and became a general name for a
low-class people without civilisation, without culture, without respect and
without position. The second consequence was that the widening of the
meaning of the word Shudra brought in its train the widening of the
application of the Code.lt is in this way that the so-called Shudras of the
present-day have become subject to the Code, though they are not Shudras
in the original sense of the word. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the
Code intended for the original culprits has come to be applied to the
innocents. If the Hindu law-givers had enough historical sense to realise thatthe original Shudras were different from the present-day low-class people,
this tragedy—this massacre of the innocents—would have been avoided. The
fact, however unfortunate it may be, is that the Code is applied to the presentday Shudras in the same rigorous manner in which it was applied to the
original Shudras. How such a Code came into being cannot therefore be
regarded as of mere antiquarian interest to the Shudras of to-day.
While it may be admitted that a study of the origin of the Shudras is
welcome, some may question my competence to handle the theme. I have
already been warned that while I may have a right to speak on Indian politics,
religion and religious history of India are not my field and that I must not enter
it. I do not know why my critics have thought it necessary to give me this
warning. If it is an antidote to any extravagant claim made by me as a thinker
or a writer, then it is unnecessary. For, I am ready to admit that I am not
competent to speak even on Indian politics. If the warning is for the reason
that I cannot claim mastery over the Sanskrit language, I admit this deficiency.
But I do not see why it should disqualify me altogether from operating in this
field. There is very little of literature in the Sanskrit language which is not
available in English. The want of knowledge of Sanskrit need not therefore be
a bar to my handling a theme such as the present. For I venture to say that a
study of the relevant literature, albeit in English translations, for 15 years
ought to be enough to invest even a person endowed with such moderate
intelligence like myself, with sufficient degree of competence for the task. As
to the exact measure of my competence to speak on the subject, this book
will furnish the best testimony. It may well turn out that this attempt of mine is
only an illustration of the proverbial fool rushing in where the angels fear to
tread. But I take refuge in the belief that even the fool has a duty to perform,
namely, to do his bit if the angel has gone to sleep or is unwilling to proclaim
the truth. This is my justification for entering the prohibited field.
What is it that is noteworthy about this book? Undoubtedly the conclusions
which I have reached as a result of my investigations. Two questions are
raised in this book: (1) Who were the Shudras? and (2) How they came to be
the fourth Varna of the Indo-Aryan society? My answers to them are
summarised below :
(1) The Shudras were one of the Aryan communities of the Solar race.
(2) There was a time when the Aryan society recognised only three Varnas,
namely. Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas.(3) The Shudras did not form a separate Varna. They ranked as part of the
Kshatriya Varna in the Indo-Aryan society.
(4) There was a continuous feud between the Shudra kings and the
Brahmins in which the Brahmins were subjected to many tyrannies and
indignities.
(5) As a result of the hatred towards the Shudras generated by their
tyrannies and oppressions, the Brahmins refused to perform the
Upanayana of the Shudras.
(6) Owing to the denial of Upanayana, the Shudras who were Kshatriyas
became socially degraded, fell below the rank of the Vaishyas and thus
came to form the fourth Varna.
I must of course await the verdict of scholars on these conclusions. That
these conclusions are not merely original but they are violently opposed to
those that are current is of course evident. Whether these conclusions will be
accepted or not will depend upon the mentality of a person claiming to have a
right to sit in judgement over the issue. Of course, if he is attached to a
particular thesis he will reject mine. I would not however bother about his
judgement for he would be an adversary from whom nothing can be expected
except opposition. But if a person is an honest critic, howsoever cautious,
however conservative he may be, provided that he has an open mind and a
readiness to accept facts, I do not despair of converting him to my view. This
expectation may fail to materialize, but about one thing I am quite certain. My
critics will have to admit that the book is rich in fresh insights and new visions.
Apart from scholars, how the Hindu public will react may be an interesting
speculation. The Hindus of to-day fall into five definite classes. There is a
class of Hindus, who are known as orthodox and who will not admit that there
is anything wrong with the Hindu social system. To talk of reforming it is to
them rank blasphemy. There is a class of Hindus who are known as Arya
Samajists. They believe in the Vedas and only in the Vedas. They differ from
the orthodox inasmuch as they discard everything which is not in the Vedas.
Their gospel is that of return to the Vedas. There is a class of Hindus who will
admit that the Hindu social system is all wrong, but who hold that there is no
necessity to attack it. Their argument is that since law does not recognize it, it
is a dying, if not a dead system. There is a class of Hindus, who are politically
minded. They are indifferent to such questions. To them Swaraj is more
important than social reform. The fifth class of Hindus are those who are
rationalists and who regard social reforms as of primary importance, even
more important than Swaraj.With the Hindus, who fall into the second category, those who are likely to
regard the book as unnecessary, I cannot agree. In a way, they are right when
they say that the existing laws in British India does not recognize the caste
system prevalent in the Hindu society. It is true that, having regard to section
II of the Civil Procedure Code, it would not be possible for a Hindu to obtain a
declaration from a civil court that he belongs to a particular Varna. If courts in
British India have to consider the question whether a person belongs to a
particular Varna, it is only in cases of marriage, inheritance and adoption, the
rules of which vary according to the Varna to which the party belongs. While it
is true that the Law in British India does not recognize the four Varnas of the
Hindus, one must be careful not to misunderstand what this means. To put it
precisely: (1) it does not mean that the observance of the Varna system is a
crime; (2) it does not mean that the Varna system has disappeared; (3) it
does not mean that the Varna system is not given effect to in cases where the
observance of its rules are necessary to acquiring civil rights; (4) it only
means that the general legal sanction behind the Varna system has been
withdrawn New, law is not the only sanction which goes to sustain social
institutions. Institutions are sustained byother sanctions also. Of these,
religious sanction and social sanction are the most important. The Varna
system has a religious sanction. Because it has a religious sanction, the
Varna system has the fullest social sanction from the Hindu society. With no
legal prohibition, this religious sanction has been more than enough to keep
the Varna system in full bloom. The best evidence to show that the Varna
system is alive notwithstanding there is no law to enforce it, is to be found in
the fact that the status of the Shudras and the Untouchables in the Hindu
society has remained just what it has been. It cannot therefore be said that a
study such as this is unnecessary.
As to the politically-minded Hindu, he need not be taken seriously. His line
of approach is generally governed by a short-term view more than by longrange considerations. He is willing to follow the line of least resistance and
postpone a matter, however urgent, if it is likely to make him unpopular. It is
therefore quite natural if the politically-minded Hindu regards this book as a
nuisance.
The book treads heavily on the toes of the Arya Samajists. My conclusions
have come in sharp conflict with their ideology at two most important points.
The Arya Samajists believe that the four Varnas of the Indo-Aryan society
have been in existence from the very beginning. The book shows that there
was a time when there were only three Varnas in the Indo-Aryan society. TheArya Samajists believe that the Vedas are eternal and sacrosanct. The book
shows that portions of the Vedas at any rate, particularly the Pursha Sukta,
which is the mainstay of the Arya Samajists, are fabrications by Brahmins
intended to serve their own purposes. Both these conclusions are bound to
act like atomic bombs on the dogmas of the Arya Samajists.
I am not sorry for this clash with Arya Samajists. The Arya Samajists have
done great mischief in making the Hindu society a stationary society by
preaching that the Vedas are eternal, without beginning, without end, and
infallible, and that the social institutions of the Hindus being based on the
Vedas are also eternal, without beginning, without end, infallible and therefore
requiring no change. To be permeated with such a belief is the worst thing
that can happen to a community. I am convinced that the Hindu society will
not accept the necessity of reforming itself unless and until this Arya
Samajists' ideology is completely destroyed. The book does render this
service, if no other.
What the Orthodox Hindu will say about this book I can well imagine for I
have been battling with him all these years. The only thing I did not know was
how the meek and non-violent looking Hindu can be violent when anybody
attacks his Sacred Books. I became aware of it as never before when last
year I received a shower of letters from angry Hindus, who became quite
unbalanced by my speech on the subject delivered in Madras. The letters
were full of filthy abuse, unmentionable and unprintable, and full of dire
threats to my life. Last time they treated me as a first offender and let me off
with mere threats. I don't know what they will do this time. For on reading the
book they are sure to find more cause for anger at what in their eyes is a
repetition of the offence in an aggravated form for having brought forth
chapter and verse to show that what goes by the name of Sacred Books
contains fabrications which are political in their motive, partisan in their
composition and fraudulent in their purpose. I do not propose to take any
notice of their vilifications or their threats. For I know very well that they are a
base crew who, professing to defend their religion, have made religion a
matter of trade. They are more selfish than any other set of beings in the
world, and are prostituting their intelligence to support the vested interests of
their class. It is a matter of no small surprise that when the mad dogs of
orthodoxy are let loose against a person who has the courage to raise his
voice against the so-called Sacred Books of the Hindus, eminent Hindus
occupying lofty places, claiming themselves to be highly educated and who
could be expected to have no interest and to have a free and open mindbecome partisans and join the outcry. Even Hindu Judges of High Courts and
Hindu Prime Ministers of Indian States do not hesitate to join their kind. They
go further. They not only lead the howl against him but even join in the hunt.
What is outrageous is that they do so because they believe that their high
stations in life would invest their words with an amount of terror which would
be sufficient enough to cow down any and every opponent of orthodoxy. What
I would like to tell these amiable gentlemen is that they will not be able to stop
me by their imprecations. They do not seem to be aware of the profound and
telling words of Dr. Johnson who when confronted with analogous situation
said, 1 am not goint to be deterred from catching a cheat by the menaces of a
ruffian.' I do not wish to be rude to these high-placed critics, much less do I
want to say that they are playing the part of a ruffian interested in the escape
of a cheat. But I do want to tell them two things: firstly that I propose, no
matter what happens, to follow the determination of Dr. Johnson in the pursuit
of historical truth by the exposure of the Sacred Books so that the Hindus
may know that it is the doctrines contained in their Sacred Books which are
responsible for the decline and fall of their country and their society; secondly,
if the Hindus of this generation do not take notice of what I have to say I am
sure the future generation will. I do not despair of success. For I take
consolation in the words of the poet Bhavabhuti who said, "Time is infinite and
earth is vast, some day there will be born a man who will appreciate what I
have said." Whatever that be the book is a challenge to orthodoxy.
The only class of Hindus, who are likely to welcome the book are those who
believe in the necessity and urgency of social reform. The fact that it is a
problem which will certainly take a long time to solve and will call the efforts of
many generations to come, is in their opinion, no justification for postponing
the study of that problem. Even an ardent Hindu politician, if he is honest, will
admit that the problems arising out of the malignant form of communalism,
which is inherent in the Hindu social organization and which the politically
minded Hindus desire to ignore or postpone, invariably return to plague,
those very politicians at every turn. These problems are not the difficulties of
the moment. They are our permanent difficulties, that is to say, difficulties of
every moment. I am glad to know that such a class of Hindus exists. Small
though they be, they are my mainstay and it is to them that I have addressed
my argument.
It will be said that I have shown no respect for the sacred literature of the
Hindus which every sacred literature deserves. If the charge be true, I can
plead two circumstances in justification of myself. Firstly I claim that in myresearch I have been guided by the best tradition of the historian who treats
all literature as vulgar—1 am using the word in its original sense of belonging
to the people—to be examined and tested by accepted rules of evidence
without recognizing any distinction between the sacred and the profane and
with the sole object of finding the truth. If in following this tradition I am found
wanting in respect and reverence for the sacred literature of the Hindus my
duty as a scholar must serve as my excuse. Secondly, respect and reverence
for the sacred literature cannot be made to order. They are the results of
social factors which make such sentiments natural in one case and quite
unnatural in another. Respect and reverence for the sacred literature of the
Hindus is natural to a Brahmin scholar. But it is quite unnatural in a nonBrahmin scholar. The explanation of this difference is quite simple. That a
Brahmin scholar should treat this sacred literature with uncritical reverence
and forbear laying on it the heavy hands which the detachment of an
intellectual as distinguished from the merely educated is what is to be
expected. For what is this sacred literature? It is a literature which is almost
entirely the creation of the Brahmins. Secondly, its whole object is to sustain
the superiority and privileges of the Brahmins as against the non-Brahmins.
Why should not the Brahmins uphold the sanctity of such a literature? The
very reason that leads the Brahmin to uphold it makes the non-Brahmin hate
it. Knowing that what is called the sacred literature contains an abominable
social philosophy which is responsible for their social degradation, the nonBrahmin reacts to it in a manner quite opposite to that of the Brahmin. That I
should be wanting in respect and reverence for the sacred literature of the
Hindus should not surprise any one if it is borne in mind that I am a nonBrahmin, not even a non-Brahmin but an Untouchable. My antipathy to the
sacred literature could not naturally be less than that of the non-Brahmin As
Prof. Thorndyke says: that a man thinks is a biological fact what he thinks is a
sociological fact.
I am aware that this difference in the attitude of a Brahmin scholar and a
non-Brahmin scholar towards this sacred literature—literature which is the
main source of the material for the study of the problems of the social history
of the Hindus— the former with his attitude of uncritical commendation and
the latter with his attitude of unsparing condemnation is most harmful to
historical research.
The mischief done by the Brahmin scholars to historical research is obvious.
The Brahmin scholar has a two-fold interest in the maintenance of the sanctity
of this literature. In the first place being the production of his forefathers hisfilial duty leads him to defend it even at the cost of truth. In the second place
as it supports the privileges of the Brahmins, he is careful not to do anything
which would undermine its authority. The necessity of upholding the system
by which he knows he stands to profit, as well as of upholding the prestige of
his forefathers as the founders of the system, acts as a silent immaculate
premise which is ever present in the mind of the Brahmin scholar and
prevents him from reaching or preaching the truth. That is why one finds so
little that is original in the field of historical research by Brahmin scholars
unless it be a matter of fixing dates or tracing genealogies. The non-Brahmin
scholar has none of these limitations and is therefore free to engage himself
in a relentless pursuit of truth. That such a difference exists between the two
classes of students is not a mere matter of speculation. This very book is an
illustraton in point. It contains an exposure of the real character of the
conspiracy against the Shudras, which no Brahmin scholar could have had
the courage to present.
While it is true that a non-Brahmin scholar is free from the inhibitions of the
Brahmin scholar he is likely to go to the other extreme and treat the whole
literature as a collection of fables and fictions fit to be thrown on the dung
heap not worthy of serious study. This is not the spirit of an historian. As has
been well said, an historian ought to be exact, sincere, and impartial; free
from passion, unbiased by interest, fear, resentment or affection; and faithful
to the truth, which is the mother of history, the preserver of great actions, the
enemy of oblivion, the witness of the past. the director of the future. In short
he must have an open mind, though it may not be an empty mind, and
readiness to examine all evidence even though it be spurious. The nonBrahmin scholar may find it difficult to remain true to this spirit of the historian.
He is likely to import the spirit of non-Brahmin politics in the examination of
the truth or falsity of the ancient literature which is not justifiable. I feel certain
that in my research I have kept myself free from such prejudice. In writing
about the Shudras I have had present in my mind no other consideration
except that of pure history. It is well-known that there is a non-Brahmin
movement in this country which is a political movement of the Shudras. It is
also well-known that I have been connected with it. But I am sure that the
reader will find that I have not made this book a preface to non-Brahmin
politics.
I am sensible of the many faults in the presentation of the matter. The book
is loaded with quotations, too long and too many. The book is not a work of art
and it is possible that readers will find it tedious to go through it. But this faultis not altogether mine. Left to myself, I would have very willingly applied the
pruning knife. But the book is written for the ignorant and the uninformed
Shudras, who do not know how they came to be what they are. They do not
care how artistically the theme is handled. All they desire is a full harvest of
material— the bigger the better. Those of them to whom I have shown the
manuscript have insisted upon retaining the quotations. Indeed, their avidity
for such material was so great that some of them went to the length of
insisting that besides giving translations in English in the body of the book I
should also add the original Sanskrit texts in an Appendix. While I had to deny
their request for the reproduction of the original Sanskrit texts, I could not
deny their request for retaining the translations on the ground that the
material is not readily available to them. When one remembers that it is the
Shudras, who have largely been instrumental in sustaining the infamous
system of Chaturvarnya, though it has been the primary cause of their
degradation and that only the Shudras can destroy the Chaturvarnya, it
would be easy to realize why I allowed the necessity of educating and thereby
preparing the Shudra fully for such a sacred task to outweigh all other
considerations which favoured the deletion or if not deletion the abridgement
of the quotations.
There are three persons to whom I owe my thanks. Firstly to the writer of
Adhyaya LX of the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata. Whether it is Vyasa,
Vaiashampayana, Suta, Lomaharshana or Bhrigu it is difficult to say. But
whoever he was, he has rendered great service by giving a full description of
Paijavana. If he had not described Paijavana as a Shudra, the clue to the
origin of the Shudra would have been completely lost. I express my gratitude
to the writer for having preserved so important a piece of information for
posterity. Without it, this book could not have been written. Secondly, I must
thank Prof. Kangle of Ismail Yusuf College, Andheri, Bombay. He has come to
my rescue and has checked the translation of Sanskrit shlokas which occur in
the book. As I am not a Sanskrit scholar, his help has been to me a sort of an
assurance that I have not bungled badly in dealing with the material which is
in Sanskrit. The fact that he has helped me does not mean that he is
responsible for such faults and errors as may be discovered by my critics.
Thanks are also due to Prof. Manohar Chitnis of the Siddharth College,
Bombay, who has been good enough to prepare the Index.
I am grateful to Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons Publishers, New York for
their kind permission to reproduce the three maps from Mr. Madison Grant'sPassing of the Great Race and which form Appendices II, III and IV of this
book.
B. R. AMBEDKAR
10th October 1946
"RAJGRIHA," 
DADAR,
BOMBAY 14.
Part I
12 1 Vol. I, Introduction, P. xxi.
WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS ?
_______________________________________________
CONTENTS
PART II
7. Chapter VII - The Shudras were Kshatriyas
8. Chapter VIII - The Number of Varnas, Three or Four?
9. Chapter IX - Brahmins Versus
Shudras
CHAPTER VII
WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS ?SHUDRAS WERE KSHATRIYAS
WHO were the Shudras if they were not a non-Aryan aboriginal race? This question
must now be faced. The theory I venture to advance may be stated in the following
three propositions:
(1) The Shudras were Aryans.
(2) The Shudras belonged to the Kshatriya class.
(3) The Shudras were so important a class of Kshatriyas that some of the
most eminent and powerful kings of the ancient Aryan communities were
Shudras.
This thesis regarding the origin of the Shudras is a startling if not a revolutionary
thesis. So startling it is that not many people will be ready to accept it, even though
there may be enough evidence to support it. My obligation is to produce the
evidence, leaving the people to judge its worth.
The primary piece of evidence on which this thesis rests is a passage which
occurs in Verses 38-40 of Chapter 60 of the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata.
It reads as follows :
"It has been heard by us that in the days of old a Shudra of the name of
Paijavana gave a Dakshina (in his own sacrifice) consisting of a hundred
thousand Purnapatras according to the ordinance called Aindragni."
The important statements contained in this passage are three : (1) that
Paijavana was a Shudra, (2) that this Shudra Paijavana performed sacrifices,
and (3) the Brahmins performed sacrifices for him and accepted Dakshina from
him.
The passage quoted above is taken from Mr. Roy's edition of the
Mahabharata. The first thing is to ascertain whether the text is accurate or
whether there are any variant readings. As regards the authenticity of his text,
this is what Mr.Roy
*
says :
"As far as my edition is concerned it is substantially based on that of Royal
Asiatic Society of Bengal, published about forty-five years ago under the
superintendence of a few learned Pandits of Bengal aided, as I believe, by an
English Orientalist of repute. Manuscripts had been procured from all parts of
India (the South unexcepted) and these were carefully collated. Although
edited with such care, I have not, however, slavishly followed the Society's
edition. I have compared it carefully with the Maharajah of Burdwan's text inthe Bengalee character which was edited with still greater care. About 18
manuscripts procured from different parts of India (the South not excepted)
were carefully collated by the Burdwan Pandits before they admitted a single
sloka as genuine."
Prof. Sukthankar, the erudite editor of the critical edition of the Mahabharata,
after examining many editions of the Mahabharata, concluded by saying that :
"The editio princeps (Calcutta—1856) remains the best edition of the
Vulgate, after the lapse of nearly a century."
Although the authenticity of Mr.Roy's edition of the Mahabharata canot be doubted, it
would not be unreasonable if critics were to say that they would like to know what
other manuscript support there is behind this text, which is made the basis of this new
theory of the origin of the Shudras. In undertaking such an inquiry it is necessary to
point to two considerations. One is that there is no such thing as a Mahabharata
manuscript in the sense of complete sets of manuscripts covering all the eighteen
Parvans. Each Parvan is treated as a separate unit with the result that the number of
copies of the different Parvans to be found differ by a vast margin. Consequently, the
number of manuscripts to be taken as a basis for deciding which is the correct text must
vary with each Parvan.
The second consideration to which attention must be drawn is the fact that
the text of the Mahabharata has been handed down in two divergent forms; a
Northern and a Southern recension, texts, typical of the Aryavrata and the
Dakshinapatha.
It is obvious that an examination of manuscript support must be based upon
collation from a fair number of manuscripts and a fair distribution of the
manuscripts between the Northern and the Southern recensions. Bearing these
considerations in mind, the results of the collation of the text of Shloka 38 of the
60th chapter of the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata with which we are
primarily concerned from different manuscripts is presented below :
1. Shudrah Paijavano nama (K) S
2. Shudrah Pailavano nama (M/l: M/2) S
3. Shudrah Yailanano nama  (M/3 : M/4) S
4. Shudmh Yaijanano nama  (F)5. Shudropi Yajane nama  (L)
6. Shudrah Paunjalka nama  (TC) S
7. Shuddho Vaibhavano nama  (G) N
8. Pura Vaijavano nama (A, D/2)
9. Pura Vaijanano nama  (M) N
Here is the result of the collation of nine manuscripts. Are nine manuscripts
enough for constituting a text which has a number of variant readings? It is true
that the number of manuscripts taken for the critical edition of the different
Parvans of the Mahabharata exceeds nine. For the entire Mahabharata the
minimum number of manuscripts taken for constituting the text is only ten. It
cannot therefore be contended that nine is an insufficient number. The nine
manuscripts fall into two geographical divisions. Northern and Southern. MI,
M2, M3, M4 and TC belong to the Southern recession. A, M, G, D2 belong to
the Northern recession. The selections of the manuscripts therefore satisfy the
two tests which experts have laid down.
I am grateful to the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute for allowing me to use
their collation sheet. Letters in brackets indicate the index number given by the Institute
to the manuscript. N or S indicate whether .the manuscript comes from the North or
South. K is Kumbhakonam.
A scrutiny of the readings shows that :
(1) there is a variation in the description of Paijavana;
(2) there is a variation in the name of Paijavana;
(3) of the nine texts, six agree in describing him as a Shudra. One describes
him as Shuddha and two instead of speaking of the class to which he
belonged refer to the time when he lived and use the word 'Pura';
(4) with regard to the name, there is no agreement between any two of the
nine manuscripts. Each gives a different reading. 
Given this result, the question is what is the real text? Taking first the texts
relating to the name, it is obvious that this is not a matter in which the question
of meaning is involved. It does not raise any questions such as interpretation
versus emendation or of giving preference to a reading which suggests how
other readings might have arisen. The question is which is the correct nameand which readings are scriptural blunders committed by the scribes. There
seems to be no doubt that the correct text is Paijavana. It is supported by both
the recessions, Southern as well as Northern. For Vaijavano in No.S is the
same as Paijavano. All the rest are variations which are due to the ignorance of
the scribes in not being able to read the original copy correctly and then trying
to constitute the text in their own way.
Turning to the description of Paijavana, the change from Shudrah to Pura, it
must be granted, is not accidental. It appears to be deliberate. Why this change
has occurred it is difficult to say categorically. Two things appear to be quite
clear. ln the first place, the change appears to be quite natural. In the second
place, the change does not militate against the conclusion that Paijavana was a
Shudra. The above conclusion will be obvious if the context, in which verses
38-40 occur, is borne in mind. The context will be clear from the following
verses which precede them:
"The Shudra should never abandon his master whatever the nature or
degree of the distress into which the latter may fall. If the master loses his
wealth, he should with excessive zeal be supported by the Shudra servant A
Shudra cannot have any wealth that is his own. Whatever he possesses
belongs to his master. Sacrifice has been laid down as a duty of the three
other orders. It has been ordained for the Shudra also, 0.! Bharata. A Shudra
however is not competent to utter swaha and svadha or any other mantra. For
this reason, the Shudra, without observing the vows laid down in the Vedas,
should worship the gods in minor sacrifices called Pakayajnas. The gift called
Pumapatra is declared to be the Dakshina of such sacrifices."
Taking the verses 38 to 40 in the context of these verses preceding them, it
becomes clear that the whole passage deals with the Shudra. The story of
Paijavana is a mere illustration. Against this background, it is unnecessary to
repeat the word 'Shudra' before Paijavana. This explains why the word Shudra
does not occur before Paijavana in the two manuscripts. As to the reason for
the use of the word pura in place of Shudra it must be remembered that the
case of Paijavana had occurred in very ancient times. It was therefore quite
natural for the scribe to feel that it was desirable to put this fact in express
terms. The writer being aware that there was no necessity for describing
Paijavana as Shudra since that was made clear from the context, it was not
necessary to emphasise it. On the other hand, knowing that Paijavana had
lived in very ancient times and that that fact was not made very clear from the
context, the writer thought it more appropriate to add the word Pura which wasnecessary and omit the word Shudrah which having regard to the context was
unnecessary.
If this explanation is well-founded, we may take it as well established that the
person referred to in the passage in the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata is
Paijavana and that this Paijavana was a Shudra.
II
The next question that falls due for consideration is the identification of
Paijavana. Who is this Paijavana?
Yaska's Nirukta seems to give us a clue. In Nirukta ii.24  Yaska Says:
"The seer Vishvamitra was the purohita of Sudas, the son of Pijavana,
Vishvamitra, friend of all. All, moving together. Sudas a bountiful giver.
Paijavana, son of Pijavana. Again Pi-javana one whose speed is enviable or
whose gait is inimitable."
From Yaska's Nirukta we get two very important facts : (1) Paijavana means son of
Pijavana, and (2) the person who is the son of Paijavana is Sudas. With the help of
Yaska, we are able to answer the question: who is Paijavana referred to in the
passage in the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata? The answer is that Paijavana is
simply another name for Sudas.
The next question is who is this Sudas and what do we know about him? A
search in the Brahmanic literature discloses three persons with the name
Sudas. One Sudas is mentioned in the Rig Veda. His family particulars are
given in the following stanzas of the Rig Veda :
1. Rig Veda, vii.18.21.—" Parashara, the destroyer of hundreds (of
Rakshasas), and Vasishtha, they who, devoted to thee, have glorified
thee in every dwelling, neglect not the friendship of thee (their)
benefactor; therefore prosperous days dawn upon the pious."
2. Rig Veda, vii. 18.22.— "Praising the liberality of Sudas, the grandson of
Devavata, the son of Paijavana, the donor of two hundred cows, and of
two chariots with two wives, I, worthy (of the gift), circumambulate thee,
Agni, like the ministrant priest in the chamber (of sacrifice)"
3. Rig Veda, vii.18.23.— "Four (horses), having golden trappings, going
steadily on a difficult road, celebrated on the earth, the excellent andacceptable gifts (made) to me by Sudas, the son of Pijavana; bear me as
a son (to obtain) food and progeny."
4. Rig Veda, vii. 18.24.— "The seven worlds praise (Sudas) as if he were
Indra; him whose fame (spreads) through the spacious heaven and
earth; who, munificent, has distributed (wealth) on every eminent person,
and (for whom) the flowing (rivers) have destroyed Yudhyamadhi in war."
5. Rig Veda, vii.18.25.— "Maruts, leaders (of rites), attend upon this
(prince) as you did upon Divodasa, the father of Sudas: favour the
prayers of the devout son of Pijavana, and may his strength be
unimpaired, undecaying."
The two others are mentioned by the Vishnu Purana. One Sudas is
mentioned in Chapter IV as the descendant of Sagara. The genealogical tree
connecting this Sudas with Sagara is as follows:
"Sumati, the daughter of Kasyapa and Kesini, the daughter of Raja Vidarbha, were the two wives of Sagara. Being without
progeny, the king solicited the aid of the sage Aurva with great earnestness, and the Muni pronounced this boon, that one wife
should bear one son, the upholder of his race, and the other should give birth to sixty thousand sons; and he left it to them to
make their election. Kesini chose to have the single son; Sumati the multitude; and it came to pass in a short time that the
former bore Asamanjas, a prince through whom the dynesty continued; and the daughter of Vinata (Sumati) had sixty
thousand sons. The son of Asamanjas was Ansumat. 
***
The son of Ansumat was Dilipa; his son was Bhagiratha, who brought Ganga down to earth, whence she is called Bhagirathi.
The son of Bhagiratha was Sruta; his son was Nabhaga; his son was Ambarisha; his son was Sindhudvipa; his son was
Ayutashva; his son was Ritupama, the friend of Nala, skilled profoundly in dice. The son of Ritupama was Sarvakama; his son
was Sudasa; his son was Saudasa, named also Mitrasaha."
Another Sudas is mentioned in Chapter XIX as a descendant of Puru. The
genealogical tree connecting this Sudas with Puru is as follows :
"The son of Puru was Janamejaya; his son was Prechinvat; his son was
Pravira, his son was Manasyu; his son was Bhayada; his son was Sudhumna;
his son was Bahugava; his son was Samyati; his son was Bhamyati; his son
was Raudrashva, who had ten sons, Riteyu, Kaksheyu, Stnandileyu,
Ghriteyu, Jaleyu, Sthaleyu, Dhaneyu, Vaneyu, and Vrateyu. The son of Riteyu
was Rantinara whose sons were Tansu. Aprtiratha, and Dhruva. The son of
the second of these was Kanva, and his son was Medhatithi, from whom the
Kanvayana Brahmans are descended. Anila was the son of Tansu, and he
had four sons, of whom Dushyanta was the elder. The son cf Dushyanta was
the emperor Bharata;...Bharata had by different wives nine sons, but they were put to death by their own mothers, because Bharata remarked that
they bore no resemblance to him, and the women were afraid that he would therefore desert them. The birth of his sons being
thus unavailing, Bharata, sacrificed to the Maruts, and they gave him Bharadvaja, the son of Brihaspati by Mamata the wife of
Utathya.
***
He was also termed Vitatha, in allusion to the unprofitable (vitatha) birth of
the sons of Bharata. The son of Vitatha was Bhavanmanyu: his sons were
many, and amongst them the chief were Brihatkshatra, Mahavirya, Nara and
Garga. The son of Nara was Sankriti; his sons were Ruchiradhi and
Rantideva. The son of Garga was Sini; and their descendants called Gargyas
and Sainyas, although Kshatriyas by birth, became Brahmins. The son of
Mahavirya was Urukshaya, who had three sons, Trayyaruna, Pushkarin and
Kapi, the last of whom became a Brahmin. The son of Brihatkshatra was
Suhotra, whose son was Hastin, who founded the city of Hastinapur. The
sons of Hastin were Ajamidha, Dvimidha and Purumidha. One son of
Ajamidha was Kanva, whose son was Medhatithi, his other son was
Brihadshu, whose son was Brinadvasu; his son was Brihatkarman: his son
was Jayadratha, his 'son was Vishvajit, his son was Senajit, whose sons were
Ruchirashva, Kasya, Dridhadhanush, and Vasahanu. The son of Ruchiraswa
was Prithusena: his son was Para; his son was Nipa; he had a hundred sons,
of whom Samara, the principal, was the ruler of Kampilya. Samara had three
sons, Para, Sampara, Sadashva. The son of Para was Prithu; his son was
Sukriti; his son was Vibhratra; his son was Anuha, who married Kritvi, the
daughter of Shuka (the son of Vyasa), and had by her Brahmadatta; his son
was Vishvaksena; his son was Udaksena; and his son was Bhallata. The son
of Dvimidha was Yavinara; his son was Dhritimat; his son was Satyadhriti; his
son was Dridhanemi; his son was Suparshva,' his son was Sumati; his son
was Sannatimat; his son was Krita, to whom Hiranyanabha taught the
philosophy of the Yoga, and he compiled twenty-four Sanhitas (or compendia)
for the use of the eastern Brahmins, who study the Sama-Veda. The son of
Krita was Ugrayudha, by whose prowess the Nipa race of Kshatriyas was
destroyed; his son was Kshemya; his son was Suvira; his son was
Nripanjaya; his son was Bahuratha. These were all called Pauravas.
Ajamidha had a wife called Nilini, and by her he had a son named Nila: his
son was Santi; his son was Susanti; his son was Purujanu; his son was
Chakshu; his son was Haryashva, who had five sons. Mudgala, Srinjaya,
Brihadishu. Pravira, and Kampilya. Their father said, "These my five (pancha)sons are able (alam) to protect the countries'; and hence they were termed the
Panchalas. From Mudgala descended the Maudgalya Brahmins; he had also a
son named Bahvashva, who had two children, twins, a son and daughter,
Divodasa and Ahalya.
***
The son of Divodasa was Mitrayu; his son was Chyavana; his son was
Sudasa; his son was Saudasa, also called Sahadeva; his son was Somaka;
he had a hundred sons, of whom Jantu was the eldest, and Prishata the
youngest. The son of Prishata was Drupada; his son was Dhrishtadyumna;
his son was Drishtaketu.
Another son of Ajamidha was named Riksha; his son was Samvarana; his
son was Kuru, who gave his name to the holy district Kurukshetra; his sons
were Sudhanush, Parikshit, and many others. The son of Sudhanush was
Suhotra; his son was Chyavana; his son was Kritaka; his son was Uparichara
the Vasu, who had seven children Brihadratha, Pratyagra, Kushamba,
Mavella, Matsya, and others. The son of Brihadratha was Kusagra; his son
was Rishabha; his son was Pushpavat; his son was Satyadhrita; his son was
Sudhanvan; and his son was Jantu. Brihadratha had another son, who being
born in two parts, which were put together (sandhita) by a female fiend
named Jara, he was denominated Jarasandha; his son was Sahadeva; his
son was Somapi; his son was Srutasravas, These were kings of Magadha."
The immediate ancestry of the three Sudasas is put below in parallel columns to
facilitate the settlement of the question whether they are one or three different
persons:
Status in
Rig
Veda Sudas in Vishnu
Purana
VII, 18:22 VII, 18:23 VlI 18:25 In the Sagar
Family
In the Puru Family
Devavata
Pijavana
Pijavana
Sudas
Divodasa=
Pijavana
Rituparna Bahvashva
Sarvakama Divodasa 
Sudas Sudas Mitrayu
Sudas Chyavana 
Saudasa= Sudas
Mitrasaha Saudasa
SomakaFrom the table two things are as clear as day-light. First is that neither Sudas
mentioned in the Vishnu Purana has anything to do with the Sudas mentioned
in the Rig Veda. The second point which is clear is that if the Paijavana
mentioned in the Mahabharata can be identified with anybody who lived in
ancient times it can only be with Sudas mentioned in Rig Veda who was called
Paijavana because he was the son of Pijavana which was another name of
Divodasa.
Fortunately. for me my conclusion is the same as that of Prof.Weber. In
commenting upon the passage in the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata on
which my thesis is based Prof.Weber says :
"Here the remarkable tradition is recorded that Paijavana, i.e., Sudas who was so famous for his sacrifices and who is
celebrated in the Rig Veda as the patron of Vishvamitra and enemy of Vasishtha, was a Shudra."
Prof.Weber unfortunately did not realize the full significance of this passage.
This is another matter. It is enough for my purpose to find that he too thinks that
the Paijavana of the Mahabharata is no other than Sudas of the Rig Veda.
Ill
What do we know about Sudas, the Paijavana? 
The following particulars are available about him:
1. Sudas was neither Dasa nor Arya. Both the Dasas as well as the Aryas
were his enemies This means that he was a Vedic Aryan.
2. The father of Sudas was Divodasa. He seems to be the adopted son of
Vadhryashva. Divodasa was a king. He fought many battles against
Turvasas and Yadus, Shambara, Parava, and Karanja and Gungu. There
was a war between Turyavana and Divodasa and his allies Ayu and Kutsa.
The victory went to Turyavana.
It seems that at one time Indra was against him particularly in the battle of
Turyavana. His purohita was Bharadvaja, to whom Divodasa gave many
gifts. Bharadvaja seems to have played the part of a traitor by joining
Turyavana against Divodasa.
There is no reference to the mother of Sudas. But there is a reference to
the wife of Sudas. His wife's name is given as Sudevi. It is said that the
Ashvins procured her for Sudas.
3. Sudas was a king and his coronation ceremony was performed by the Brahmarishi, Vasistha. The Aitarreya Brahmana gives the following list of the kings whohad the Mahabhisheka ceremony performed and the name of the Purohita who
officiated at it.
"With this ceremony Sharyata, the son of Manu, was inaugurated by Chyavana, the son of Bhrigu. Thence Sharyata went
conquering all over the earth, and sacrificed the sacrificial horse, and was even at the sacrificial session held by the gods, the
house-father."
"With this ceremony Samasushama, the son of Vajaratna, inaugurated
Shatanika, the son of Satrajit. Thence Shatanika went conquering
everywhere over the whole earth up to its ends, and sacrificed the sacrificial
horse."
"With this ceremony Parvata and Narada inaugurated Ambashthya.
Thence Ambashthya went conquering everywhere over the whole earth up
to its ends, and sacrificed the sacrificial horse."
"With this ceremony Parvata and Narada inaugurated Yudhamasraushti,
the son of Ugrasena. Thence Yudhamasraushti went conquering
everywhere over the whole earth up to its ends, and sacrificed the sacrificial
horse."
"With this inauguration ceremony Kashyapa inaugurated Vishva-karma,
the son of Bhuvana. Thence Vishvakarma went conquering everywhere
over the whole earth up to its ends, and sacrificed the sacrificial horse."
"They say that the earth sang to Vishvakarma the following stanza: "No
mortal is allowed to give me away (as donation). 0, Vishva-karma, thou hast
given me, (therefore) I shall plunge into the midst of the sea. In vain was thy
promise made to Kashyapa.' "
"With this ceremony Vasishtha inaugurated Sudas, the son of Pijavana. Thence Sudas
went conquering everywhere over the whole earth up to its ends, and sacrificed the
sacrificial horse."
"With this inauguration ceremony Samvarta, the son of Angiras, inaugurated
Maruta, the son of Avikshit Thence Maruta went conquering everywhere over
the whole earth up to its ends, and sacrificed the sacrificial horse."
In this list there is a specific mention of Sudas and of his coronation having
been performed by Vasishtha.
Sudas was the heroin the famous Dasharajna Yuddha or the battle of the ten
kings described in the Rig Veda. References to this famous battle occur in the
various Suktas of the Seventh Mandala of the Rig Veda.
Sukta 83 says:4. "Indra and Varuna, you protected Sudas, overwhelming the yet unassailed Bheda with your fatal weapons; hear the prayers
of these Tritsus in time of battle, so that my ministration may have borne them fruit."
6. "Both (Sudas and the Tritsus) call upon you two, (Indra and Varuna), in
combats for the acquirement of wealth, when you defend Sudas, together
with the Tritsus, when attacked by the ten Rajas."
7. "The ten confederated irreligious Rajas did not prevail, Indra and Varuna,
against Sudas; the praise of the leaders (of rites), the offerers of sacrificial
food, was fruitful; the gods were present at their sacrifices."
9. "One of you destroys enemies in battle, the other ever protects religious
observances; we invoke you. showerers (of benefits), with praises; bestow
upon us, Indra and Varuna, felicity."
Sukta 33 says:
2. "Disgracing (Pashadyumna), they brought from afar the fierce Indra, when drinking the ladle of Soma at his sacrifice, to
(receive) the libation (of Sudas); Indra hastened from the effused Soma of Pashadyumna, the son of Vayata, to the
Vasishthas."
3. "In the same manner was he, (Sudas), enabled by them easily to cross
the Sindhu river; in the same manner, through them he easily slew his foes;
so in like manner, Vasishthas, through your prayers, did Indra defend Sudas
in the war with the ten kings."
"Suffering from thirst, soliciting (rain), supported (by the Tritsus) in the war
with the ten Rajas, (the Vasishthas) made Indra radiant as the sun; Indra
heard (the praises) of Vasishtha glorifying him, and bestowed a spacious
region on the Tritsus."
.
Sukta 19 says:
3. "Undaunted (Indra), thou hast protected with all thy protecti-ons Sudas,
the offerer of oblations; thou hast protected, in battles with enemies for the
possession of the earth, TRASADASYU, the son of PURUKUTSA. and
PURU."
6. "Thy favours, Indra, to Sudas, the donor (of offerings), the presenter of oblations,
are infinite;showerer (of benefits)I yoke for thee (thy vigorous) steeds; may our
prayers, reach thee who art mighty, to whom many rites are addressed."
Sukta 18 of the Seventh Mandala says :5. "The adorable Indra made the well-known deep waters (of the Parushni) fordable
for Sudas, and converted the vehement awakening imprecation of the sacrificer into
the calumniation of the rivers."
6. "TURVASHA, who was preceding (at solen rites), diligent in sacrifice,
(went to Sudas) for wealth; but like fishes restricted (to the element of water),
the Bhrigus and Druhyus quickly assailed them; of these two everywhere
going, the friend (of Sudas, Indra) rescued his friend."
7. "Those who dress the oblation, those who pronounce auspicious words,
those who abstain from penance, those who bear horns (in their hands),
those who bestow happiness (on the world by sacrifice), glorify that Indra,
who recovered the cattle of the Arya from the plunderers, who slew the
enemies in battle."
8." The evil-disposed and stupid (enemies of Sudas), crossing the humble
Parushni river, have broken down its banks;but he by his greatness pervades
the earth, and KAVI. the son of CHAYAMANA, like a falling victim, sleeps (in
death)."
9. "The waters followed their regular course to the Parushni, nor (wandered)
beyond it; the quick course (of the king) came to the accessible places, and
INDRA made the idly-talking enemies, with their numerous progeny, subject
among them (to Sudas)."
10. "They who ride on parti-coloured cattle, (the Maruts), despatched by
PRISHNI, and recalling the engagement made by them with their friend
(Indra), came like cattle from the pasturage, when left without a herdsman;
the exulting Niyut steeds brought them quickly (against the foe)."
11. "The hero INDRA created the Maruts (for the assistance of the Raja),
who, ambitious of fame, slew one and twenty of the men on the two banks (of
the Parushni), as a well looking priest lops the sacred grass in the chamber of
sacrifice."
12. "Thou, the bearer of the thunderbolt, didst drown SHRUTA, KAVASHA,
VRIDDHA, and afterwards DRUHYU in the waters; for they, Indra, who are
devoted to thee, and glorify thee, preferring thy friendship, enjoy it."
13. "Indra, in his might, quickly demolished all their strongholds, and their
seven (kinds of ) cities; he has given the dwelling of the son of ANU to
TRITSU; may we, (by propitiating), (Indra) conquer in battle the ill-speaking
man."
14. "The warriors of the ANUS and DRUHYUS. intending (to carry off the)
cattle, (hostile) to the pious (SUDAS), perished to the number of sixty-six
thousand six hundred and sixty; such are all the glorious acts of INDRA."15. "These hostile Tritsus, ignorantly contending with INDRA, fled, routed as
rapidly as rivers on a downward course, and being discomfited abandoned all
their possessions to SUDAS."
16. "INDRA has scattered over the earth the hostile rival of the hero
(SUDAS), the senior of INDRA, the appropriator of the oblation; INDRA has
baffled the wrath of the wrathful enemy, and the (foe) advancing on the way
(against SUDAS) has taken the path of flight."
17. "INDRA has effected a valuable (donation) by a pauper; he has slain an
old lion by a goat; he has cut the angles of the sacrificial post with a needle;
he has, given all the spoils (of the enemy) to SUDAS."
18. "Thy numerous enemies, INDRA, have been reduced to subjugation,'
effect at some time or other the subjugation of the turbulent BHEDA.who
holds men praising thee as guilty of wickedness; hurl, INDRA, thy sharp
thunderbolt against him."
19. "The dwellers on the Yamuna and Tritsus glorified INDRA when he killed
BHEDA in battle; the Ajas, the Shigrus, the Yakshas, offered to him as a
sacrifice the heads of the horses killed in the combat"
20. "Thy favours, INDRA, and thy bounties, whether old or new, cannot be
counted like the (recurring) dawns; thou hast slain DEVAKA, the son of
MANYAMANA and of thine own will hast cast down SHAMBARA from the vast
(mountain)."
In this batte the kings who fought against Sudas were: (1) Shinyu, (2)
Turvasha, (3) Druhyu, (4) Kavasha, (5) Puru, (6) Anu, (7) Bheda, (8) Shambara,
(9) Vaikama, (10) another Vaikama, (II) Yadu, (12) Matsya, (13) Paktha, (14)
Bhalanas, (15) Aleena, (16) Vishanin, (17) Aja, (18) Shiva, (19) Shigru, (20)
Yakshu, (21) Yudhyamadhi, (22) Yadva, (23) Devaka Manyamana, (24)
Chayamana Kavi, (25) Sutuka, (26) Uchatha, (27) Shruta, (28) Vriddha, (29)
Manyu, and (30) Prithu.
Obviously, the war was a much bigger war than its name indicates. The war
must have been a very great event in the history of the Indo-Aryans. No wonder
the victorious Sudas became a great hero of his time. We do not know what
exactly led to this war. Some indication is given by Rig Veda, vii.83.7, where the
kings arrayed against Sudas are described as irreligious which suggests that it
was probably a religious war.
4. Sayanacharya, as well as tradition, declare the following hymns of the Rig
Veda to have had the under-mentioned kings for their rishis :"Vitahavya (or Bharadva)a) x.9, Sindhudvipa, son of Ambarisha (or Trisiras,
son of Tvashtri) x.75,Sindhukshit, son of Priyamedha; x.l33, Sudas, son of
Pijavana; x.l34, Mandhatri, son of Yuvanasa;x.l79, Sibi, son of Usinara,
Pratardana, son of Divodasa and king of Kasi, and Vasumanas, son of
Rohidasva; and x.l48 is declared to have had Prithi Vainya."
It will be noticed that in this list there occurs the name of Sudas as a
composer of Vedic hymns.
5. Sudas performed Ashvamedha Yajna. There is reference to this in Rig Veda, iii.53.
9. "The great RISHI, the generator of the gods, attracted by the deities, the
overlooker of the leaders (at holy rites), VISHVA-MITRA arrested the watery
stream when he sacrificed for SUDAS; INDRA with the Kushikas, was pleased."
11. "Approach, Kushikas, the steed of SUDAS; animate (him), and let him
loose to (win) riches (for the raja); for the king (of the gods), has slain VRITRA
in the East, in the West, in the North, therefore let (SUDAS) worship him in the
best (regions) of the earth."
6. Sudas was known for charity to the Brahmins who called him Atithigva (the
doyen) of Philanthrophists. How the Brahmins have praised him for his
philanthrophy appears from the following references in the Rig Veda:
i.47.6. "0, impetuous Ashvins, possessing wealth in your car, bring
sustenance to Sudas. Send to us from the (aerial) ocean, or the sky, the
riches which are much coveted."
i.63.7. "Thou didst then, 0,thundering Indra, war against, and shatter, the
seven cities for Purukutsa, when thou, 0 king, didst without effort hurl away
distress from Sudas like a bunch of grass, and bestow wealth on Puru."
i. 112.19. "Come, 0 Ashvins, with those succours whereby ye brought
glorious power to Sudas."
vii. 19.3. "Though, 0 fierce Indra, hast impetuously protected Sudas, who
offered oblations, with every kind of succour. Thou hast preserved
Trasadasyu the son of Purukutsa, and Puru in his conquest of land and in his
slaughter of enemies."
vii.20.2 "Indra growing in force slays Vritra; the hero protects him who
praises him; he makes room for Sudas (or the liberal sacrificer- Sayana); he
gives riches repeatedly to his worshippers."
vii.25.3. "Let a hundred succours come to Sudas, a thousand desirable
(gifts) and prosperity. Destroy the weapon of the murderous. Confer renown
and wealth on us."vii.32.10. "No one can oppose or stop the chariot of Sudas. He whom Indra,
whom the Marutas, protect, walks in a pasture filled with cattle." 
vii.53.3. "And ye, 0, Heaven and Earth, have many gifts of wealth for
Sudas." 
vii.60.8. "Since Aditi, Mitra, and Varuna, afford secure protection to Sudas
(or the liberal man), bestowing on him offspring—may we not, 0 mighty
deities, commit any offence against the gods ... May Aryaman rid us of our
enemies. (Grant) ye vigorous gods, a wide space to Sudas."
These are the biographical bits regarding Paijavana referred to in the Shanti
Parvan of the Mahabharata gleaned from the most authentic source, namely,
the Rig Veda. From the Rig Veda, we know that his real name was Sudas, that
he was a Kshatriya. He was more than a Kshatriya. He was a king and a mighty
king. To this, the Mahabharata adds a fresh and a new detail, namely that he
was a Shudra. A Shudra to be an Aryan, a Shudra to be a Kshatriya and a
Shudra to be a king!! Can there be a greater revelation? Can there be anything
more revolutionary?
This search for .biographical details may be closed with a discussion of three
important questions: .Was Sudas an Aryan? If Sudas is,an Aryan what is the
tribe to which he belonged? If Sudas is a Shudra, what does Shudra signify?
It might be well to begin with the second. For the determination of this
question it is possible to derive some assistance from certain reference in the
Rig Veda. The Rig Veda mentions many tribes, most important of which are
Tritsus, Bharatas, Turvasas, Durhyus, Yadus, Purus and Anus. But according to
the references in the Rig Veda there are only three with whom Sudas was
connected. They are Purus, Tritsus and the Bharatas. It is enough to confine
ourselves to these three and to find out if possible to which of these tribes he
belonged. The most important stanzas bearing on the relation between Tritsus
and Sudas are the Rig Veda, i.63.7; i. 130.7; vii.l8.15; vii.33.5;vii.33.6;
vii.83:4,6.
In i.63,7,Divodasa is spoken of as the king of the Purus and in i.130.7,
Divodasa is spoken of as Paurve, i.e., belonging to the Purus.
Rig Veda,vii.l8.15 and vii.83.6, suggest that Sudas was not a Tritsu. The first
suggests that Sudas raided the camp of Tritsus who ran away and Sudas took
possession of their wealth. The second suggests that Tritsus and Sudas were
on one side in the war against the ten kings, but they are shown as separate.But in vii.35.5 and in vii.83.4, Sudas becomes fully identified with Tritsus;
indeed, in the former Sudas becomes a king of the Tritsus.
On this question of the relation between the Tritsus and the Bharatas and
between them and Sudas, we have as our evidence Rig Veda, vii.33.6 and v.
16.4, 6, 19. According to the first, Tritsus are the same as the Bharatas.
According to the second, Divodasa the father of Sudas is spoken of as
belonging to the Bharatas.
From these references one thing is certain that the Purus, Tritsus and
Bharatas were either different branches of one and the same folk or that they
were different tribes, who in the course of time became one people, folk. This is
not impossible. The only question is: assuming they were different, to whom did
Sudas originally belong? To the Purus, the Tritsus or to the Bharatas? Having
regard to the connection of the Purus and the Bharatas with Divodasa, his
father, it seems natural to suppose that Sudas originally belonged either to the
Purus or to the, Bharatas—which, iris difficult to say.
Whether he belonged to the Purus or not, there is no doubt that Sudas
belonged to the Bharatas if regard is had to the fact that his father Divodasa is
spoken of as belonging to the Bharatas. The next question is: who were these
Bharatas and whether they are the people after whom India got the name
Bharata Bhumi or the land of the Bharatas. This question is important because
most people are not aware of the true facts. When Hindus talk of the Bharatas
they have in mind the Daushyanti Bharatas, Bharatas descended from
Dushyanta and Shakuntala and who fought the war which is described in the
Mahabharata. Not only are they not aware of any other Bharatas but they
believe that the name Bharata Bhumi which was given to India was given after
the Daushyanti Bharatas.
There are two Bharatas quite distinct from each other. One tribe of the
Bharatas are the Bharatas of the Rig Veda, who were descended from Manu
and to whom Sudas belonged. The other tribe of Bharatas are the Daushyanti
Bharatas. What is more important is that if India has been named Bharata
Bhumi it is after the Bharatas of the Rig Veda and not after the Daushyanti
Bharatas. This is made clear by the following stanzas from the Bhagavata
Purana:
Priyamvadho nama sutho manoh swayambhuvasya ha !
Thasyagnigrasthatho nabhitrishbhashcha suthasthathah !!
Avatheerana puthrashatham thasyasidrahaychaparagham !Vikyatham varshamethaghyannaamnaa bharathamuthapram !!
"Manu, the son of Syavambhu, had a son named Priyamvada; his son was
Agnidhra: his son was Nabhi: he had a son Rishabha. He had a hundred sons
born to him, all learned in the Veda; of them, Bharata was the eldest, devoted
to Narayana, by whose name this excellent land is known as Bharata."
This shows to what illustratious line of kings this Shudra Sudas belonged.
The next thing to find out is whether Sudas was an Aryan. The Bharatas were
of course Aryans and therefore Sudas must have been an Aryan. If reference is
had to Rig Veda, vii. 18.7, this connection with the Tritus to the Aryans seems to
throw some doubt on his Aryan origin. This stanza says that Indra rescued the
cows of the Aryas from the Tritus and killed the Trtsus, thereby suggesting that
the Tritsus were the enemies of the Aryas. Griffiths is very much perturbed by
the Tritsus being shown as non-Aryans which is the result of a literal translation
of the stanza, and to avoid it he understands cows to mean comrade. This of
course is unnecessary if one bears in mind that the Rig Veda contains the story
of two sorts of Aryas, whether differing in race or religion, it is difficult to say.
Interpreted in the light of this fact, all that the stanza means is that at the time
when it was written the Tritsus had not become Aryans by religion. It does not
mean that they were not Aryans by race. It is therefore indisputable that Sudas,
whether taken as a Bharata or as a Tritsu was an Aryan.
And now to the last question, though it is by no means the least. What does
Shudra signify? In the light of this new discovery that Sudas was a Shudra, the
word now stands in a totally different light. To old scholars to whom the word
was just the name of a servile and aboriginal class this new discovery must
come as a surprise for which their past researches cannot possibly furnish an
answer. As for myself, I am in no better position. The reason is that the social
organisation of the Vedic Aryans has-yet to be studied. We know from the study
of primitive societies that they are organised in groups and they act as groups.
The groups are of various sons. There are clans, phratries, moieties and tribes.
In some cases, the tribe is the primary unit, in others it is the clan, in others the
phratry. In some cases tribes are sub-divided into clans. In other cases there
are no clans. It is a single clanless tribe.
The clan embraces the descendants of a single ancestor held together by a
sense of common descent. Clans often become associated through common
social and ceremonial interests into major units, called phratries or
brotherhoods of clans. The bond within the phratry may be relatively loose, that
is, the association may not imply more than an informal feeling of preferentialfriendship. The phratry may become a moiety in which each clan is recognised
as part of one of two major units. But moieties may occur without any subdivision, that is, the entire clan may consist of two clans. All these organisations
whether it is a clan, a phratry, a moiety or a tribe, are all based on the tie of
kinship.
The Vedic Aryans had no doubt some such forms of social organisation. That
is clear from the nomenclature. As pointed out by Prof. Senart :
"The Vedic hymns are all too indefinite concerning the details of external
and social life. We at least see from them that the Aryan population was
divided into a number of tribes or small peoples (janas), subdivided into clans
united by the ties of kinship (visas), which in their turn were split up into
families. The terminology of the Rig Veda, is in this respect somewhat
indecisive, but the general fact is clear. Sajata, that is to say, kinsman' or
'fellow in Jati,' of race, seems in the Atharva-Veda to denote fellow in clan
(vis). Jana, which assumes a wider significance, recalls the Avestic equivalent
of the clan, the zantu, and the jati or caste. A series of terms, vra, vrijana,
vraja, vrata, appear to be synonyms or subdivisions either of the clan or of the
tribes. The Aryan population then lived, at the epoch to which the hymns refer,
under the rule of an organisation dominated by the traditions of the tribe and
the lower or similar groupings. The very variety of names indicates that -this
organisation was somewhat unsettled."
We have, however, no information to determine which of these corresponds
to the clan, which to the phratry and which to the tribe. That being so, it is
difficult to say whether Shudra was the name of a clan, a phratry or a tribe. It is,
however, interesting to refer to the view of Prof. Weber when he comments on
the passage from the Satapatha Brahmana (i.1.4.12) where it says that
different modes of address should be adopted inviting the sacrificer to proceed
with the sacrifice, addressing him as 'come' if he is a Brahmin, 'hasten hither' if
he is a Kshatriya, 'hasten hither' if he is a Vaishya and 'run hither' if he is a
Shudra. Prof.Weber says :
"The entire passage is of great importance, as it shows (in opposition to
what Roth says in the first Volume of this Journal, p. 83) that the Shudras
were then admitted to the holy sacrifices of the Aryans, and understood their
speech, even if they did not speak it. The latter point cannot certainly be
assumed as a necessary consequence, but it is highly probable and I
consequently incline to the view of those who regard the Shudras as an Aryan
tribe which immigrated into India before the others."His conclusion that the Shudras were Aryans hits the nail squarely on the
head. The only point of doubt is whether the Shudras were a tribe. That they
were Aryans and Kshatriyas is beyond doubt.
CHAPTER VIII
THE NUMBER OF VARNAS, THREE OR FOUR ?
THAT there were from the very beginning four Varnas in the Indo-Aryan
society is a view which is universally accepted by all classes of Hindus, and
also by European scholars. If the thesis advanced in the last chapter, namely,
that the Shudras were Kshatriyas is accepted, then it follows that this theory is
wrong and that there was a time when there were only three Varnas in the
Indo-Aryan society, viz.. Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. Thus, the thesis,
while it solves one problem, at the same time creates another. Whether
anybody else sees the importance of this problem or not, I do. Indeed, I am
aware of the fact that unless I succeed in proving that there were originally only
three Varnas, my thesis that the Shudras were Kshatriyas may not be said to
be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt.
While it is unfortunate that I should have landed on a thesis, which, while
holding out a promise of solving the problem, creates another, I feel fortunate in
having strong and cogent evidence to show that there were originally only three
Vamas among the Indo-Aryans.
The first piece of evidence I rely upon is that of the Rig Veda itself. There are
some scholars who maintain that the Varna system did not exist in the age of
the Rig Veda. This statement is based on the view that the Purusha Sukta is an
interpolation which has taken place long after the Rig Veda was closed. Even
accepting that the Purusha Sukta is a later interpolation, it is not possible to
accept the statement that the Varna system did not exist in the time of the Rig
Veda. Such a system is in open conflict with the text of the Rig Veda. For, the
Rig Veda, apart from the Purusha Sukta, does mention Brahmins, Kshatriyas
and Vaishyas not once but many times. The Brahmins are mentioned as a
separate Varna fifteen times, Kshatriyas nine times. What is important is that
the Rig Veda does not mention Shudra as a separate Varna. If Shudras were a
separate Varna there is no reason why the Rig Veda should not have
mentioned them. The true conclusion to be drawn from the Rig Veda is not thatthe Varna system did not exist, but that there were only three Varnas and that
Shudras were not regarded as a fourth and a separate Varna.
The second piece of evidence I rely on is the testimony of the two
Brahmanas, the Satapatha and the Taittiriya. Both speak of the creation of
three Varnas only. They do not speak of the creation of the Shudras as a
separate.
The Satapatha Brahmana says :*
11.1.4.11.— "(Uttering), 'butgh', Prajapati generated this earth. (Uttering) 'bhuvah'
he generated the air, and (Utering) 'svah' he generated the sky. This universe is coextensive with these worlds. (The fire) is placed with the whole. Saying 'bhuh',
Prajapali generated the Brahman; saying 'bhuvah', he generated the Kshattra; (and
saying) 'svah', he generated the Vis. The fire is placed with the whole. (Saying)
'bhuh', Prajapati generated himself; (saying) bhuvah', he generated offspring :
saying 'svah', he generated animals. This world is so much as self, offspring, and
animals. (The fire) is placed with the whole."
The Taittirya Brahmana says :
111.12.9.2.— "This entire (universe) has been created by Brahma. Men say
that the Vaishya class was produced from ric verses. They say that the Yajur
Veda is the womb from which the Kshattriya was born. The Sama Veda is the
source from which the Brahmins sprang. This word the ancients declared to
the ancients."
Here is my evidence. It consists of an inference from the Rig Veda and two
statements from two Brahmanas which in point of authority are co-equal with
the Vedas. For both are Shruti both say in definite and precise terms that there
were only three Varnas. Both agree that the Shudras did not form a separate
and a distinct Varna, much less the fourth Varna. There cannot, therefore, be
better evidence in support of my contention that there were originally only three
Varnas that the Shudras were only a part of the second Varna.
II
Such is my evidence. On the other side, there is, of course, the evidence
contained in the Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda, which maintains that there
were four Varnas from the very beginning. The question now is : which of the
two should be accepted as the correct? How is this question to be decided? It
cannot be decided by applying the rules of Mimamsa. If we did apply it, we willhave to admit that both the statements, one in the Purusha Sukta that there
were four Varnas and the statement in the two Brahmanas that there were
three Varnas, are true. This is an absurd position. We must decide this matter
in the light of the canons of historical criticism, such as sequence of time and
intrinsic criticism, etc. The main question is whether the Purusha Sukta is a
later composition added to the original Rig Veda. The question has been dealt
with on the basis of the language of the Sukta as compared with the language
of the rest of the Rig Veda. That it is a late production is the opinion of all
scholars. This is what Colebrooke says :
"That remarkable hymn (the Purusha Sukta) is in language, metre, and
style, very different from the rest of the prayers with which it is associated. It
has a decidedly more modern tone; and must have been composed after the
Sanskrit language had been refined, and its grammar and rhythm perfected.
The internal evidence which it furnishes serves to demonstrate the important
fact that the compilation of the Vedas, in their present arrangement, took
place after the Sanskrit tongue had advanced from the rustic and irregular
dialect in which the multitude of hymns and prayers of the Veda was
composed, to the polished and sonorous language in which the mythological
poems, sacred and profane (puranas and kavyas), have been written."
In the opinion of Prof.Max Muller :
"There can belittle doubt, for instance, that the 90th hymn of the 10th book... is modern
both in its character and in its diction. It is full of allusions to the sacrificial
ceremonials, it uses technically philosophical terms, it mentions the three seasons in the
order of Vasanta, spring, Grishma, summer and Sharad, autumn; it contains the only
passage in the Rig Veda where the four castes are enumerated. The evidence of
language for the modem date of this composition is equally strong. Grishma, for
instance, the name for the hot season, does not occur in any other hymn of the Rig
Veda; and Vasanta also, the name of spring does not belong to the earliest vocabulary of
the Vedic poets. It occurs but once more in the Rig Veda (x. 161.4), in a passage where
the three seasons are mentioned in the order of Sharad, autumn; Hemanta, winter; and
Vasanta, spring."
Prof.Weber observes :
"That the Purusha Sukta, considered as a hymn of the Rig Veda, is among the latest
portions of that collection, is clearly perceptible from its contents. The fact that the
Sama Samhita has not adopted any verse from it, is not without importance
(compare what I have remarked in my Academical Prelections). The Naigeyaschool, indeed, appears (although it is not quite certain) to have extracted the first
five verses in the seventh prapathaka of the first Archika, which is peculiar to it."
III
This is one line of argument. There is also another line of argument which
also helps us to determine whether the Purusha Sukta is an earlier or later
production. For this it is necessary to find out how many Samhitas of the Vedas
have adopted the Purusha Sukta. Examining the different Vedas and the
Samhitas, the position is as follows:
The Sama Veda produces only 5 verses from the Purusha Sukta. As to the
White Yajur Veda, the Vajasaneyi Samhita includes it but the difference
between the two is great. The Purusha Sukta, as it stands, in the Rig Veda, has
only 16 verses. But the Purusha Sukta in the Vajasaneyi Samhita has 22
verses. Of the Black Yajur Veda there are three Samhitas available at present.
But none of the three Samhitas, the Taittiriya, the Katha and the Maitrayani,
gives any place to the'Purusha Sukta. The Atharva Veda is the only Veda which
contains a more or less exact reproduction of the Purusha Sukta of the Rig
Veda.
The text of the Purusha Sukta, as it occurs in the different Vedas, is not
uniform. The six additional verses of the Vajasaneyi Samhita are special to it
and are not to be found in the text as it occurs in the Rig Veda, the Sama Veda
or the Atharva Veda. There is another difference which relates to verse 16. The
16th verse of the Rig Veda is to be found neither in the Atharva Veda nor in the
Sama Veda nor in the Yajur Veda. Similary, the 16th verse of the Atharva Veda
is to be found neither in the Rig Veda nor in the Yajur Veda. Of the fifteen
verses, which are common to the three Vedas, their texts are not identical. Nor
is the order in which the verses stand in the three Vedas the same as may be
seen from the following table :
Yajur Veda Rig Veda Sama Veda Atharva Veda
1 1 3 1
2 2 5 4
3 3 6 3
4 4 4 2
5 5 7 9
6 8 * 10
7 9 * 118 10 * 14
9 7 * 13
10 11 * 12
11 12 * 5
12 13 * 6
13 14 * 7
14 6 * 8
15 15 * 15
16 16 * 16
17 * *
18 * * *
19 * * *
20 * * *
21 * * *
22 * * *
* Means that these Verses are not to be found.
The point is that if the Purusha Sukta had been an old, hoary text, sanctified
by ancient tradition, could the other Vedas have taken such a liberty with it?
Could they have changed it and chopped it as they have done?
The place of the Purusha Sukta in the hymns of the different Vedas is also very significant. In the Rig Veda it occurs in the
miscellaneous part and in the Atharva Veda it occurs in what is known as the supplementary part. If it was the earliest
composition of the Rig Veda, why should it have been placed in such inconsequential collection? What do these points
suggest? They suggest that :
(1) If the Purusha Sukta was not incorporated in the Taittiriya, Kathaka and
Maitrayani Samhitas of the Black Yajur Veda, it follows, that the Purusha
Sukta was added to the Rig Veda after the Taittiriya Samhita, the
Kathaka Samhita, the Maitrayana Samhita of the Black Yajur Veda.
(2) That it had to be put in the miscellaneous and supplementary portions of
the Vedas shows that it was composed at a later stage.
(3) That the freedom which the authors of the different Samhitas took in
adding, omitting and. recording the verses shows that they did not
regard it as an ancient hymn, which they were bound to reproduce in its
exact original form.
These points go a long way in furnishing corroborative evidence in support of
the views held by Prof. Max Muller and others that the Purusha Sukta is a later
interpolation.IV
The difference in the form of the stanzas in the Purusha Sukta is also very
noteworthy. Anyone who reads the Purusha Sukta will find that except for these
two verses, viz., 11 and 12, the whole of it is in the narrative form. But the two
verses, which explain the origin of the four Varnas, are in the form of question
and answer. The point is : Why should these verses be introduced in a question
form breaking the narrative form? The only explanation is that the writer wanted
to introduce a new matter and in a pointed manner. This means that not only
the Purusha Sukta is a later addition to the Rig Veda, but these particular
verses are much later than even the Purusha Sukta.
Some critics have gone to the length of saying that the Purusha Sukta is a
forgery by the Brahmins to bolster up their claim to superiority. Priests are
known to have committed many forgeries. The Donations of Constantine and
Pseudo-Isidore Decretals are well known forgeries in the history of the Papacy.
The Brahmins of India were not free from such machinations. How they
changed the original word 'Agre' into 'Agne' to make Rig Veda give support to
the burning of widows has been pointed out by no less an authority than
Prof.Max, Muller. It is well-known how in the time of the East India Company a
whole Smriti was fabricated to support the case of a plaintiff. There is,
therefore, nothing surprising if the Brahmins did forge the Purusha Sukta, if not
the whole, at least the two versus II and 12, at some later stage, long after the
fourth Varna had come into being, with a view to give the system of
Chaturvarnya the sanction of the Veda.
V
Is the Purusha Sukta earlier than the Brahmanas? This question is distinct
and separate from the first. It may be that the Purusha Sukta belongs to the
later part of the Rig Veda. Yet, if the Rig Veda as a whole is earlier than the
Brahmanas, the Purusha Sukta would still be earlier than the Brahmanas. The
question, therefore, needs to be separately considered.
It is Prof. Max Muller's view that in the growth of the Vedic literature the order
was Vedas, then Brahmanas and thereafter the Sutras. If this proposition was
adopted, it would mean that the Purusha Sukta must be earlier than the
Brahmanas. Question is : Can Prof. Max Muller's proposition be accepted as
absolute? If it was accepted as absolute, the proposition would lead to two
conclusions:(1) That in the time of the Rig Veda there were four Varnas and at the time of
the Satapatha Brahmana they became three; or
(2) that the tradition is not completely recorded in the Satapatha Brahmana.
It is obvious that both these conclusions are absurd and must be rejected.
The first is absurd on the face of it. The second is untenable because the
theory of the evolution of Varnas by the two Brahmanas is different from that
set out in the Purusha Sukta and is complete in itself. The absurdity of the
result is inevitable if one were to take Max Muller's proposition as absolute. The
proposition cannot be taken as absolute to mean that no Brahmana was
composed until all the Samhitas had come into being. On the other hand, it is
quite possible as pointed out by Professors Belvalkar and Ranade that most of
these compositions are composite and synchronous and, therefore, one part of
the Vedas can be earlier than another part and that a part of the Brahmanas
can be earlier than parts of the Vedas. If this is a correct view then there is
nothing inherently improbable in holding that the parts of the Satapatha
Brahmana and of the Taittiriya Brahmana, which record the legend that there
were at one time only three Varnas, are earlier than the Purusha Sukta of the
Rig Veda.
What is the conclusion which follows from this examination of the Purusha
Sukta? There is only one conclusion, that the Sukta is an addition to the Rig
Veda made at a later stage and is, therefore, no argument that there were four
Varnas from the very beginning of the Aryan Society.
For the reasons given above, it will be seen that my thesis about the origin of
the Shudras' creates no problem such as the one mentioned in the beginning of
this Chapter. If it did appear to create a problem, it was because of the
assumption that the Purusha Sukta was an authentic and genuine record of
what it purports to say. That assumption has now been shown to be quite
baseless. I, therefore, see no difficulty in concluding that there was a time when
the Aryan Society had only three Varnas and the Shudras belonged to the
second or the Kshatriya Varna.
CHAPTER IX
BRAHMINS VERSUS SHUDRAS
THE thesis that the Shudras were Kshatriyas and that if they became the
fourth Varna it was because they were degraded to that position does notwholly solve the problem. It only raises another problem. This problem is why
were the Shudras degraded?
The problem is new. It has never been raised before. The existing literature
on the subject cannot, therefore, be expected to contain an answer. The
question is raised by me for the first time. As it is a question on which my theory
of the Shudras rests, the burden of giving a satisfactory answer must rest on
me. I believe, I can give a satisfactory answer to this question. My answer is
that the degradation of the Shudras is the result of a violent conflict between
the Shudras and the Brahmins. Fortunately for me, there is abundant evidence
of it.
I
There is direct evidence of a violent
conflict between the Shudra king, Sudas
and Vasishtha, the Brahmin rishi. The facts
relating to this conflict however are stated
in a very confused manner. In the narration
which follows, I have made an attempt to
state them in a neat and an orderly fashion.
To understand the nature of the conflict, it is necessary first to understand the
relations between Vasishtha and Vishvamitra.
Vasishtha and Vishvamitra were enemies and were enemies first and
enemies last. There was no incident to which one of them was a party in which
the other did not know himself as an opponent. As evidence of their enmity, I
will refer to some of the episodes. The first one is that of Satyavrata otherwise
called Trishanku. The story as told in the Harivamsha
*
is as follows:
"Meanwhile Vasishtha, from the relation subsisting between the king (Satyavrata's
father) and himself, as disciple and spiritual preceptor, governed the city of
Ayodhya, the country, and the interior apartments of the royal palace. But
Satyavrata, whether thorough folly or the force of destiny, cherished constantly an
increased indignation against Vasishtha, who for a (proper) reason had notinterposed to prevent his exclusion from the royal power by his father. "The
formulae of the marriage ceremonial are only binding,' said Satyavrata, 'when the
seventh step has been taken, and this had not been done when I seized the damsel;
still Vasishtha, who knows the precepts of the law, does not come to my aid.' Thus
Satyavrata was incensed in his mind against Vasishtha, who, however had acted
from a sense of what was right. Nor did Satyavrata understand (the propriety of)
that silent penance imposed upon him by his father... When he had supported this
arduous rite, (he supposed that) he had redeemed his family position. The venerable
muni Vasishtha did not, however, (as has been said), prevent his father from setting
him aside, but resolved to install his son as king. When the powerful prince
Satyavrata had endured the penance for twelve years, he beheld, when he was
without flesh to eat, the milch cow of Vasishtha which yielded all objects of desire,
and under the influence of anger, delusion, and exhaustion, distressed by hunger,
and failing in the ten duties he slew... and both partook of her flesh himself, and
gave it to Vishvamitra's sons to eat. Vasishtha hearing of this, became incensed
against him and imposed on him the name of Trishanku as he had committed three
sins. On his return home, Vishvamitra was gratified by the support which his wife
had received, and offered Trishanku the choice of a boon. When this proposal was
made, Trishanku chose his boon of ascending bodily to heaven. All apprehension
from the twelve years' drought being now at an end, the muni (Vishvamitra)
installed Trishanku in his father's kingdom and offered sacrifice on his behalf. The
mighty Kaushika then, in spite of the resitance of the gods and of Vasishtha exalted
the king alive to heaven."
The next episode in which they appear on opposite sides is that of
Harishchandra, the son of Trishanku. The story is told in the Vishnu Purana and
in the Markandeya Purana. The following account is given  The story runs :
"On one occasion, when hunting, the king heard a sound of female
lamentation which proceeded, it appears, from the sciences who were
becoming mastered by the austerely fervid sage Vishvamitra, in a way they
had never been before by anyone else; and were consequently crying out in
alarm at his superiority. For the fulfilment of his duty as a Kshatriya to defend
the weak, and inspired by the god Ganesha, who had entered into him,
Harishchandra exclaimed "What sinner is this who is binding fire in the hem of
his garment, while I, his lord, am present, resplendent with force and fiery
vigour? He shall to-day enter on his long sleep, pierced in all his limbs by
arrows, which, by their discharge from my bow, illuminate all the quarters of
the firmament.' Vishvamitra was provoked by this address. In consequence of
his wrath the Sciences instantly perished, and Harishchandra, trembling likethe leaf of an ashvattha tree, submissively represented that he had merely
done his duty as a king, which he defined as consisting in the bestowal of
gifts on eminent Brahmins and other persons of slender means, the protection
of the timid, and war against enemies. Vishvamitra hereupon demands a gift
as a Brahmin intent upon receiving one. The king offers him whatsoever he
may ask: Gold, his own son, wife, body, life, kingdom, good fortune. The saint
first requires the present for the Rajasuya sacrifice. On this being promised,
and still more offered, he asks for the empire of the whole earth, including
everything but Harishchandra himself, his wife, and son, and his virtue which
follows its possessor wherever he goes. Harishchandra joyfully agrees.
Vishvamitra then requires him to strip off all his ornaments, to clothe himself
in the bark of trees, and to quit the kingdom with his wife Shaivya and his son.
When he is departing, the sage stops him and demands payment of his yet
unpaid sacrificial fee. The king replies that he has only the persons of his
wife, his son and himself left. Vishvamitra insists that he must nevertheless
pay, and that unfulfilled promises of gifts to Brahmins bring destruction. The
unfortunate prince, after being threatened with a curse, engages to make the
payment in a month; and commences his journey with a wife unused to such
fatigues, amid the universal lamentations of his subjects. While he lingers,
listening to their affectionate remonstrances against his desertion of his
kingdom, Vishvamitra comes up, and being incensed at the delay and the
king's apparent hesitation, strikes the queen with his staff, as she is dragged
on by her husband. Harishchandra then proceeded with his wife and little son
to Benares, imagining that the divine city, as the special property of Siva,
could not be possessed by any mortal. Here he found the relentless
Vishvamitra waiting for him, and ready to press his demand for the payment
of his sacrificial gift, even before the expiration of the full period of grace. In
this extremity, Shaivya the queen suggests with a sobbing voice that her
husband should sell her. On hearing this proposal Harishchandra swoons,
then recovers, utters lamentations and swoons again, and his wife seeing his
sad condition, swoons also. While they are in a state of unconsciousness
their famished child exclaims in distress. 'O, father, give me bread; 0, mother,
mother, give me food; hunger overpowers me and my tongue is parched.' At
this moment Vishvamitra returns, and after recalling Harishchandra to
consciousness by sprinkling water over him, again urges payment of the
present The king again swoons, and is again restored. The sage threatens to
curse him if his engagement is not fulfilled by sunset. Being now pressed by
his wife, the king agrees to sell her, adding, however. If my voice can utter
such a wicked word, I do what the most inhuman wretches cannot perpetrate.'
He then goes into the city, and in self-accusing language offers his queen forsale as a slave. A rich old Brahmin offers to buy her at a price corresponding
to her value, to do his household work. Seeing his mother dragged away the
child ran after her, his eyes dimmed with tears, and crying 'mother.' The
Brahmin purchaser kicked him when he came up; but he would not let his
mother go, and continued crying 'mother, mother.' The queen then said to the
Brahmin, 'Be so kind, my master, as to buy also this child, as without him I
shall prove to thee but a useless purchase. Be thus merciful to me in my
wretchedness, unite me with my son, like a cow to her calf.' The Brahmin
agrees : Take this money and give me the boy.' After the Brahmin had gone
out of sight with his purchases. Vishvamitra again appeared and renewed his
demands : and when the afflicted Harishchandra offered him the small sum
he had obtained by the sale of his wife and son, he angrily replied. If,
miserable Kshatriya, thou thinkest this a sacrificial gift befitting my deserts,
thou shall soon behold the transcendent power of my ardent austrere-fervour
of my terrible majesty, and of my holy study,' Harishchandra promises an
additional gift, and Vishvamitra allows him the remaining quarter of the day for
its liquidation. On the terrified and afflicted prince offering himself for sale, in
order to gain the means of meeting this cruel demand, Dharma
(Righteousness) appears in the form of a hideous and offensive chandala,
and agrees to buy him at his own price, large or small. Harishchatidra
declines such a degrading survitude, and declares that he would rather be
consumed by the fire of his persecutor's curse than submit to such a fate.
Vishvamitra, however, again comes on the scene, asks why he does not
accept the large sum offered by the Chandala, and when he pleads in excuse
his descent 'from the solar race, threatens to fulminate a curse against him if
he does not accept that method of meeting his liability. Harishchandra
implores that he may be spared this extreme of degradation, and offers to
become Vishvamitra's slave in payment of the residue of his debt; whereupon
the sage rejoins, if thou art my slave, then I sell thee as such to the Chandala
for a hundred millions of money.' The Chandala, delighted pays down the
money, and carries off Harishchandra bound, beaten, confused, and afflicted,
to his own place of abode. Harishchandra is sent by the Chandala to steal
grave clothes in a cemetery and is told that he will receive two-sixths of the
value for his hire; three-sixths going to his master, and one-sixth to the king.
In this horrid spot, and in this degrading occupation he spent in great misery
twelve months, which seemed to him like a hundred years. He then falls
asleep and has a series of dreams suggested by the life he had been leading.
After he awoke, his wife came to the cemetery to perform the obsequies of
their son, who had died from the bite of a seipent At first, the husband and
wife did not recognise each other, from the change in appearance which hadbeen wrought upon them both by their miseries. Harishchandra, however,
soon discovered from the tenor of her lamentations that it is his wife, and falls
into a swoon; as the queen does also when she recognises her husband.
When consciousness returns they both break out into lamentations, the father
bewailing in a touching strain the loss of his son, and the wife, the
degradation of the king. She then falls on his neck, embraces him and asks
'whether all this is a dream, or a reality, as she is utterly bewildered'; and
adds, that "if it be a reality, then righteousness is unavailing to those who
practise it." After hesitating to devote himself to death on his son's funeral
pyre without receiving his master' leave. Harishchandra resolves to do so,
braving all the consequences and consoling himself with the hopeful
anticipation. If I have given gifts and offered sacrifices and gratified my
religious teachers, then may I be reunited with my son and with thee (my wife)
in another world.' The queen determines to die in the same manner. When
Harishchandra, after placing his son's body on the funeral pyre, is meditating
on the Lord Hari Narayana Krishna, the supreme spirit, all the gods arrive,
headed by Dharma (Righteousness), and accomapanied by Vishvamitra.
Dharma entreats the king to desist from his rash intention; and Indra
announces to him that, he, his wife, and son have conquered heaven by their
good works. Ambrosia, the antidote of death, and flowers are rained by the
gods from the sky; and the king's son is restored to life and the bloom of
youth. The king adorned with celestial clothing and garlands, and the queen,
embrace their son. Harishchandra, however, declares that he cannot go to
heaven till he has received his master the Chandala's permission, and has
paid him a ransom. Dharma then reveals to the king that it was he himself
who had miraculously assumed the form of a Chandala. The king next objects
that he cannot depart unless his faithful subjects, who are sharers in his
merits, are allowed to accompany him to heaven, at least for one day. This
request is granted by Indra; and after Vishvamitra has inaugurated
Rohitashva the king's son to be his successor. Harishchandra, his friends and
followers, all ascend in company to heaven. Even after this great
consummation, however, Vasishtha, the family priest of Harishchandra,
hearing, at the end of a twelve years' abode in the waters of the Ganges, an
account of all that has occurred, becomes vehemendy incensed at the
humiliation inflicted on the excellent monarch, whose virtues and devotion to
the gods and Brahmins he celebrates, declares that his indignation had not
been so greatly roused even when his own hundred sons had been slain by
Vishvamitra, and in the following words dooms the latter to be transformed
into a crane : 'Wherefore that wicked man, enemy of the Brahmins, smitten by
my curse, shall be expelled from the society of intelligent beings, and losinghis understanding shall be transformed into a Baka.' Vishvamitra reciprocates
the curse, and changes Vasishlha into a bird of the species called Ari. In
their new shapes the two have a furious fight, the Ari being of the Portentous
height of two thousand yojanas= 18,000 miles, and the Baka of 3090 yojanas.
They first assail each other with their wings; then the Baka smites his
antagonist in the same manner, while the Ari strikes with his talons. Falling
mountains, overturned by the blasts of wind raised by the flapping of their
wings, shake the whole earth, the waters of the ocean overflow, the earth
itself, thrown off its perpendicular slopes downwards to Patala, the lower
regions. Many creatures perished by these various convulsions. Attracted by
the dire disorder, Brahma arrives, attended by all the gods, on the spot, and
commands the combatants to desist from their fray. They were too fiercely
infuriated to regard this injunction; but Brahma put an end to the conflict by
restoring them to their natural forms and counselling them to be reconciled."
The next episode in which they came in as opponents is connected with
Ambarisha, king of Ayodhya :
"The story relates that Ambarisha was engaged in performing a sacrifice, when
Indra carried away the victim. The priest said that this ill-omened event had
occurred owing to the king's bad administration; and would call for a great
expiation, unless a human victim could be produced. After a long search the royalrishi (Ambarisha) came upon the Brahmin rishi, Richika, a descendant of Bhrigu,
and asked him to sell one of his sons for a victim, at the price of a hundred thousand
cows. Richika answered that he would not sell his eldest son and his wife added that
she would not sell the youngest; 'youngest sons' she observed, 'being generally the
favourites of their mothers.' The second son, Shunasshepa, then said that in that
case he regarded himself as the one who was to be sold, and desired the king to
remove him. The hundred thousand cows, with ten millions of gold pieces and
heaps of jewels, were paid down and Shunasshepa carried away. As they were
passing through Pushkara, Shunasshepa beheld his maternal uncle Vishvamitra who
was engaged in austerities there with other rishis, threw himself into his arms, and
implored his assistance, urging his orphan, friendless and helpless state, as claims
on the sage's benevolence. Vishvamitra soothed him; and pressed his own sons to
offer themselves as victims in the room of Shunasshepa. This proposition met with
no favour from Madhushyanda and the other sons of the royal hermit, who
answered with haughtiness and derision: 'How is it that thou sacrificest thine own
sons and seekest to rescue those of others? We look upon this as wrong, and like the
eating of one's own flesh. 'The sage was exceedingly wroth at this disregard of his
injunction, and doomed his sons to be born in the most degraded classes, likeVasishtha's sons, and to eat dog's flesh, for a thousand years. He then said to
Shunasshepa: 'When thou art bound with hallowed cords, decked with a red arland,
and anointed with unguents and fastened to the sacrificial post of Vishnu, then
address thyself to Agni, and sing these two divine verses (gathas), at the sacrifice of
Ambarisha: then shall thou attain the fulfilment (of thy desire)'. Being furnished
with the two gathas, Shunasshepa proposed at once to king Ambarisha that they
should set out for their destination. When bound at the stake to be immolated,
dressed in a red garment, he celebrated the two gods, Indra and his younger brother
(Vishnu), with the excellent verses. The thousand-eyed (Indra) was pleased with the
secret hymn; and bestowed long life on Shunasshepa."
The last episode recorded in which the two had ranged themselves on
opposite sides is connected with king Kalmashapada. The episode is recorded
in the Adi Parvan of the Mahabharata:
"Kalmashapada was a king of the race of lkshvaku. Vishvamitra wished to
be employed by him as his officiating priest; but the king preferred Vasishtha.
It happened however that the king went out to hunt, and after having killed a
large quantity of games, he became very much fatigued, as well as hungry
and thirsty. Meeting Shakti, the eldest of Vasishtha's hundred sons, on the
road, he ordered him to get out of his way. The priest civilly replied:' The path
is mine, 0 king; this is the immemorial law; in all observations the king must
cede the way to the Brahmin.' Neither party would yield, and the dispute
waxing warmer, the king struck the muni with his whip. The muni, resorting to
the usual expedient of offended sages, by a curse doomed the king to
become a man-eater. It happened that at that time enmity existed between
Vishvamitra and Vasishtha on account of their respective claims to be priest
to Kalmashapada. Vishvamitra had followed the king; and approached while
he was disputing with Shakti. Perceiving, however, the son of his rival
Vasishtha, Vishvamitra made himself invisible, and passed them, catching
this opportunity. The king began to implore Shakti's clemency; but
Vishvamitra wishing to prevent their reconciliation, commanded a Rakshasa
(a man-devouring demon) to enter into the king. Owing to the conjoint
influence of the Brahman-rishi's curse, and Vishvamitra's command, the
demon obeyed the injunction. Perceiving that his object was gained,
Vishvamitra left things to take their course, and absented himself from the
country.The king having happened to meet a hungry Brahmin, and sent him,
by the hand of his cook (who could procure nothing else), some human flesh
to eat, was cursed by him also to the same effect as by Shakti. The curse,
being now augmented in force, took effect, and Shakti himself was the firstvictim, being eaten up by the king. The same fate befell all the other sons of
Vasishtha at the instigation of Vishvamitra. Perceiving Shakti to be dead,
Vishvamitra again and again incited the Rakshasa against the sons of
Vasishtha and accordingly the furious demon devoured those of his sons who
were younger than Shakti as a lion eats up the small beasts of the forest. On
hearing the destruction of his sons by Vishvamitra, Vasishtha supported his
affliction as the great mountain sustains the earth. He meditated his own
destruction, but never thought of exterminating the Kaushikas. This divine
sage hurled himself from the summit of Meru, but fell upon the rocks as if on a
heap of cotton. Escaping alive from his fall, he entered a glowing fire in the
forest; but the fire, though fiercely blazing, not only failed to bum him, but
seemed perfectly cool. He next threw himself into the sea with a heavy stone
attached to his neck; but was cast up by the waves on the dry land. He then
went home to his hermitage; but seeing it empty and desolate, he was again
overcome by grief and sent out and seeing the river Vipasa which was
swollen by the recent rains, and sweeping along many trees torn from its
banks, he conceived the design of drowning himself into its waters; he
accordingly tied himself firmly with cords, and threw himself in; but the river
severing his bonds, deposited him unbound (Vipasa) on dry land ; whence the
name of the stream, as imposed by the sage. He afterwards saw and threw
himself into the dreadful Satadru (Sutlej), which was full of alligators, etc., and
derived its name rushing away in a hundred directions on seeing the Brahmin
brilliant as fire. In consequence of this, he was once more stranded; and
seeing that he could not kill himself, he went back to his hermitage."
There are particular instances in which Vasishtha and Vishvamitra had come
into conflict with each other. But there was more than these occasional conflicts
between the two. There was general enmity between them. This general enmity
was of a mortal kind so much so that Vishvamitra wanted even to murder
Vasishtha as will be seen from the Shalyaparvan of the Mahabharata. Says the
author of the Mahabharata :
"There existed a great enmity, arising from rivalry in their austerities,
between Vishvamitra and the Brahmin rishi Vasishtha. Vasishtha had an
extensive hermitage in Sthanutirtha, to the east of which was Vishvamitra's.
These two great ascetis were every day exhibiting intense emulation in regard
to their respective austerities. But Vishvamitra beholding the might of
Vasishtha was the most chagrined; and fell into deep thought. The idea of this
sage, constant in duty, was the following : This river Sarasvati will speedily
bring to me on her current the austere Vasishtha, the most eminent of allutterers of prayers. When that most excellent Brahmin has come, I shall most
assuredly kill him.' Having thus determined, the divine sage Vishvamitra, his
eyes reddened by anger, called to mind the chief of rivers. She being thus the
subject of his thoughts became very anxious, as she knew him to be very
powerful and very irascible. Then trembling, pallid and with joined hands, the
Saraswati stood before the chief of munis like a woman whose husband has
been slain; she was greatly distressed, and said to him 'what shall I do?' The
incensed muni replied, 'Bring Vasishtha hither speedily, that I may slay him.'
The lotus-eyed goddess, joining her hands trembled in great fear, like a
creeping plant agitated by the wind. Vishvamitra, however, although he saw
her condition, repeated his command. The Sarasvati, who knew how sinful
was his design, and that the might of Vasishtha was unequalled, went
trembling and in great dreed of being cursed by both the sages, to Vasishtha
and told him what his rival had said. Vasishtha seeing her emaciated, pale
and anxious, spoke thus. Deliver thyself, o chief of rivers; carry me
unhesitatingly to Vishvamitra, lest he curse thee.' Hearing these words of the
merciful sage, the Sarasvati considered how she could act most wisely. She
reflected, 'Vasishtha has always shown me great kindness, I must seek his
welfare.' Then observing the Kaushika sage praying and sacrificing on her
brink, she regarded that as a good opportunity, and swept away the bank by
the force of her current. In this way the son of Mitra and Varuna (Vasishtha)
was carried down; and white he was being borne along, he thus celebrated
the river. Thou, o Sarasvati, issuest from the lake of Brahma, and pervadest
the whole world with thy excellent streams. Residing in the sky, thou
dischargest water into the clouds. Thou alone art all waters. By thee we
study.' Thou art nourishment, radiance, fame, perfection, intellect, light. Thou
art speeh, thou art svaha; this world is subject to thee. Thou, in fourfold form,
dwellest in all creatures.' Beholding Vasishtha brought near by the Saratvati,
Vishvamitra searched for a weapon with which to make an end of him.
Perceiving his anger, and dreading lest Brahmanicide should ensue, the river
promptly carrried away, Vasishtha in an easterly direction thus fulfilling the
commands of both sages, but eluding Vishvamitra. Seeing Vasishtha so
carried away. Vishvamitra, impatient and enraged by vexation, said to her,
'Since thou, o chief of rivers, has eluded me, and hast receded, roll in waves
of blood acceptable to the chief of demons' (which are fabled to gloat on
blood). The Saratvati being thus cursed, flowed for a year in a stream mingled
with blood. Rakshasas came to the place of pilgramage where Vasishtha had
been swept away, and revelled in drinking to satiety the bloody stream in
security, dancing and laughing, as if they had conquered heaven. Some rishis
who arrived at the spot some time after were horrified to see the blood-stained water, and the Rakshasas quaffing it, and made the most strenuous
efforts to rescue the Sarasvati."
The enmity between Vasishtha and Vishvamitra was not an enmity between
two priests. It was an enmity between a Brahmin priest and a Kshatriya priest.
Vasishtha was a Brahmin. Vishvamitra was a Kshatriya. He was a Kshatriya of
royal lingeage. In the Rig Veda (iii.33.11) Vishvamitra is spoken of as the son of
Klishika. The Vishnu Purana gives further details about Vishvamitra. It says that
Vishvamitra was the son of Gadhi who was descended from king Pururavas.
This is confirmed by the Harivamsha. From the Rig Veda (iii :l : 21) we know
that the family of Vishvamitra has been keeping 'fire' kindled in every
generation. We also know from the Rig Veda that Vishvamitra was the author of
many hymns of that Veda and was admitted to be a Rajarishi. He was the
author of the hymn which is held to be the holiest in the whole of the Vedas
namely the Gayatri hymn in the Rig Veda (iii.62.10). Another important fact we
know about him is that he was a Kshatriya and his family belonged to the clan
of the Bharatas.
It seems that about this time a dispute was going on between Brahmins and
Kshatriyas on the following points :
(1) The right to receive gifts. Gift means payment made without work. The
contention of the Brahmins was that nobody could receive gifts. To receive
gifts was the right of the Brahmins only.
(2) The right to teach the Vedas. The Brahmins' contention was that the
Khastriya had only the right to study the Vedas. He had no right to teach
the Vedas. It was the privilege of the Brahmins only.
(3) The right to officiate at a sacrifice. On this point the Brahmins' contention
was that Kshatriya had the right to perform sacrifices, but he had no right
to officiate as a purohit (priest) at a sacrifice. That was the privilege of the
Brahmins.
What is important to note is that even in disputes on these points and
particularly on the third point they did not fail to play their part as the opponents
of each other. This is confirmed by the story of Trishanku narrated in the
Ramayana and which runs as follows:
"King Trishanku, one of Ikshvaku's descendants, had conceived the design
of celebrating a sacrifice by virtue of which he should ascend bodily to
heaven. As Vasishtha on being summoned, declared that the thing was
impossible (asakyam), Trishanku travelled to the south, where the sage'shundred sons were engaged in austerities, and applied to them to do what
their father had declined. Though he addressed them with the greatest
reverence and humility, and added that the lkshvakus regarded their familypriests as their highest resource in difficulties, and that, after their father, he
himself looked to them as his tutelary deities,' he received from the haughty
priests the following rubuke for his presumption : "Fool, thou hast been
refused by the truth-speaking preceptor. How is it that, disregarding his
authority thou hast resorted to another school (shakha)? The family-priest is
the highest oracle of all the lkshvakus; and the command of that veracious
personage cannot be transgressed. Vasishtha, the divine rishi, has declared
that 'the thing cannot be : ' how can we undertake the sacrifice? Thou art
foolish, king; return to thy capital. The divine (Vasishtha) is competent to act
as priest of the three works; how can we shew him disrespect?"
Trishanku then gave them to understand, that as his preceptor and "his preceptor's
sons had declined compliance with his requests, he should think of some other
expedient "In consequence of his venturing to express this presumptous intention,
they condemned him by their imprecation to become a Chandala. As this curse soon
took effect, and the unhappy king's form was changed into that of a degraded
outcast, he resorted to Vishvamitra (who, as we have seen, was also dwelling at this
period in the south), enlarging on his own virtues and piety, and bewailing his fate.
Vishvamitra commiserated his condition and promised to sacrifice on his behalf,
and exalt him to heaven in the same Chandala form to which he had been
condemned by his preceptor's curse. "Heaven is now as good as in the possession,
since thou hast resorted to the son of Kushika.' " He then directed that preparations
should be made for the sacrifice, and that all the rishis, including the family of
Vasishtha, should be invited to the ceremony.
The disciples of Vishvamitra who had conveyed his message, reported the result on
their return in these words: "Having heard your message, all the Brahmins are
assembling in all the countries, and have arrived, excepting Mahodaya (Vasishtha).
Hear what dreadful words those hundred Vasishthas, their voices quivering with
rage, have uttered: 'How can the gods and rishis consume the oblation at the
sacrifice of that man, especially if he be a Chandala, for whom a Kshatriya is
officiating priest? How can illustrious Brahmins ascened to heaven, after eating the
food of a Chandala, and being entertained by Vishvamitra?" These ruthless words
all the Vasishthas, together with Mahodaya, uttered, their eyes inflamed with anger."
Vishvamitra who was greatly incensed on receiving this message, by a curse
doomed the sons of Vasishtha to be reduced to ashes, and reborn as degraded
outcasts (mritapah), for seven hundred births, and Mahodaya to become a Nishada.Knowing that this curse had taken effect Vishvamitra then, after eulogizing
Trishanku, proposed to the assembled rishis that the sacrifice should be celebrated.
To this they assented, being actuated by fear of the terrible sage's wrath,
Vishvamitra himself officiated at the sacrifice as Yajaka; and the other rishis as
priests (ritvijah) (with other functions) performed all the ceremonies."
In this dispute between Vasishtha and Vishvamitra, Sudas seems to have
played an important part. Vasishtha was the family priest of Sudas. It was
Vasishtha who performed his coronation ceremony. It was Vasishtha who
helped him to win the battle against the ten kings. Notwithstanding this, Sudas
removed Vasishtha from office. In his place he appointed Vishvamitra as his
purohita who performed yajna for Sudas. This is the first deed of Sudas which
created enmity between Sudas and Vasishtha. There was another deed which
Sudas committed which widened and intensified the enmity. He threw into fire
Shakti the son of Vasishtha and burned him alive. The story is reported in the
Satyayana Brahmana. The Satyayana Brahmana does not give the reason for
such an atrocious act. Some light is thrown on it by Shadgurushishya in his
Commentary on Katyayana's Anukramanika to the Rig Veda. According to
Shadgurushishya, a sacrifice was performed by Sudas at which there was a sort of
public debate between Vishvamitra and Shakti, the son of Vasishtha and in this debate,
to use the words of Shadgurushishya:
"The power and speech of Vishvamitra were completely vanquished by Shakti, son
of Vasishtha; and the son of Gadhi (Vishvamitra) being so overcome, became
dejected."
Here is the reason why Sudas threw Shakti into fire. Obviously, Sudas did it to
avenge the dishonour and disgrace caused to Vishvamitra. Nothing could avert
a deadly enmity growing up between Sudas and Vasishtha.
This enmity does not seem to have ended with Sudas and Vasishtha. It
appears to have spread to their sons. This is supported by the Taittiriya
Samhita which says
"Vasishtha, when his son had been slain, desired, 'May I obtain offspring;
may I overcome the Saudasas.' He beheld this ekasmannapanchasa, he took
it and sacrificed with it. In consequence he obtained offspring, and overcame
the Saudasas."
This is confirmed by the Kaushitaki Brahmana which says :"Vasishtha, when his son had been slain, desired, 'May I be fruitful in
offspring and cattle and overcome the Saudasas. He beheld this form of
offering, the Vasishtha-sacrifice; and having performed it, he overcame the
Saudasas."
II
The conflict between Sudas and Vasishtha is not the only conflict between
kings and the Brahmins. The Puranas record other conflicts also between kings
and Brahmins. It is desirable to assemble them here. The first relates to king
Vena. The story of his conflict with Brahmins has been told by various
authorities. The following account is taken from the Harivamsa :
"There was formerely a Prajapati (Lord of creatures), a protector of righteousness
called Anga, of the race of Atri, and resembling him in power. His son was the
Prajapati Vena who was but indifferently skilled in duty, and was born of Sunita, the
daughter of Mrityu. This son of the daughter of Kala (Death), owing to the taint
derived from his maternal grandfather, threw his duties behind his back, and lived
in covetousness under the influence of desire. This king established an irreligious
system of conduct; transgressing the ordinances of the Veda, he was devoted to
lawlessness. In his reign men lived without study of the sacred books and without
the Vashatkara, and the gods had no Soma libations to drink at sacrifices. 'No
sacrifice or oblation shall be offered'— such was the ruthless determination of that
Prajapati, as the time of his destruction approached. I,' he declared, ' am the object,
and the performer of sacrifice, and the sacrifice itself; it is to me that sacrifice
should be presented, and oblations offered.' This transgressor of the rules of duty,
who arrogated to himself what was not his due, was then addressed by all the great
rishis headed by Marichi: 'We are about to consecrate ourselves for a ceremony
which shall last for many years; practise not unrighteousness, Vena; this is not the
eternal rule of duty. Thou art in very deed a Prajapati of Atri's race, and thou hast
engaged to protect thy subjects.' The foolish Vena, ignorant of what was right,
laughingly answered those great rishis, who had so addressed him; 'who but myself
is the ordainer of duty? or whom ought I to obey? Who on earth equals me in sacred
knowledge, in prowess, in austere fervour, in truth? Ye, who are deluded and
senseless, know not that I am the source of all beings and duties. Hesitate not to
believe that I, if I willed, could burn up the earth, or deluge it with water, or close
up heaven and earth.' When owing to his delusion and arrogance Vena could not be
governed, then the mighty rishis becoming incensed, seized the vigorous and
struggling king, and rubbed his left thigh. From this thigh, so rubbed, was produced
a black man, very short in stature, who, being alarmed, stood with joined hands.Seeing that he was agitated, Atri said to him 'Sit down' (nishida). He became the
founder of the race of the Nishadas, and also progenitor of the Dhivaras
(fisherman), who sprang from the corruption of Vena."
The next king who came in conflict with the Brahmins was Pururavas. This
Pururavas is the son of Ila and grandson of Manu Vaivastava. The details of his
conflict with the Brahmins are given in the Adi Parvan of the Mahabharata :
"Subsequently, the wise Pururavas was born of lla, who, as we have heard, was both
his father and his mother. Ruling over the thirteen islands of the ocean, and
surrounded by beings who were all superhuman, himself a man of great renown,
Pururavas, intoxicated by his prowess, engaged in a conflict with the Brahmins, and
robbed them of their jewels, although they loudly remonstrated. Sanatkumara came
from Brahma's heaven, and addressed to him an admonition, which, however, he
did not regard. Being then straightaway cursed by the incensed rishis, he perished,
this covetous monarch, who, through pride of power, had lost his understanding."
The third king in this series is Nahusha. This Nahusha is the grandson of
Pururavas, the account of whose conflict with the Brahmins has been
recounted above. The story of Nahusha and his conflict with the Brahmins has
been told in two places in the Mahabharata, once in the Vanaparvan and again
in the Udyogaparvan. The account, which follows, is taken from the
Udyogaparvan. It says:
After his slaughter of the demon Vritra, Indra became alarmed at the idea of having
taken the life of a Brahmin (for Vritra was regarded as such), and hid himself in the
waters. In consequence of the disappearance of the king of the gods, all affairs,
celestial as well as terrestrial, fell into confusion. The rishis and gods then applied
to Nahusha to be their king. After first excusing himself on the plea of want of
power, Nahusha at length, in compliance with their solicitations, accepted the high
function. Up to the period of his elevation he had led a virtuous life, but he now
became addicted to amusement and sensual pleasure; and even aspired to the
possession of Indrani, Indra's wife, whom he had happened to see. The queen
resorted to the Angiras Brihaspati, the preceptor of the gods who engaged to protect
her. Nahusha was greatly incensed on hearing of this interference; but the gods
endeavoured to pacify him, and pointed out the immorality of appropriating another
person's wife. Nahusha, however, would listen to no remonstrance, and insisted that
in his adulterous designs he was no worse than Indra himself. The renowned
Ahalya, a rish's wife, was formerly corrupted by Indra in her husband's lifetime.
Why was he not prevented by you? And many barbarous acts, and unrighteous
deeds, and frauds were perpetrated of old by Indra; why was he not prevented byyou?' The gods, urged by Nahusha, went to bring Indram; but Brihaspati would not
give her up. At his recommendation, however, she solicited Nahusha for some
delay, till she should ascertain what had become of her husband. This request was
granted. Indrani now went in search of her husband; and by the help of Upashruti
(the goddess of night and revealer of secrets) discovered him existing in a very
subtle form in the stem of a lotus growing in a lake situated in a continent within an
ocean north of the Himalayas. She made known to him the wicked intentions of
Nahusha, and entreated him to exert his power, rescue her from danger and resume
his dominion. Indra declined any immediate interposition on the plea of Nahusha's
superior strength; but suggested to his wife a device by which the usurper might be
hurled from his position. She was recommended to say to Nahusha that if he would
visit her on a celestial vehicle borne by rishis, she would with pleasure submit
herself to him.'
The queen of the gods accordingly made this proposal:' I desire for thee, king of the
gods, a vehicle hitherto unknown, such as neither Vishnu nor Rudra, nor the Asuras,
nor the Rakshasas employ. Let the eminent rishis, all united, bear thee, lord, in a
car; this idea pleases me'. Nahusha receives favourably this appeal to his vanity, and
in the course of his reply thus gives utterance to his self-congratulation; 'He is a
personage of no mean prowess who makes the munis his bearers. I am a fervid
devotee of great might. Lord of the past, the future, and the present. If I were angry,
the world would no longer stand; on me everything depends. Wherefore, goddess, I
shall, without doubt, carry out what you propose. The seven rishis and all the
Brahmin rishis, shall carry me. Behold, beautiful goddess, my majesty and my
prosperity.'
The narrative goes on :
Accordingly this wicked being, irreligious, violent, intoxicated by the force of
conceit, and arbitrary in his conduct, attached to his car the rishis, who submitted to
his commands, and compelled them to bear him. Indrani then again resorts to
Brihaspati who assures her that vengeance will soon overtake Nahusha for his
presumption; and promises that he will himself perform a sacrifice with a view to
the destruction of the oppressor, and the discovery of Indra's lurking place. Agni is
then sent to discover and bring Indra to Brihaspati and the latter, on Indra's arrival,
informs him of all that had occurred during his absence. While Indra, with Kubera,
Yama, Soma and Varuna was devising means for the destruction of Nahusha, the
sage Agastya came up, congratulated Indra on the fall of his rival, and proceeded to
relate how it had occurred.
Wearied with carrying the sinner, Nahusha, the eminent divine-rishis, and the
spotless Brahmin-rishis, asked that divine personage, Nahusha (to solve) adifficulty; 'Dost thou, 0 Vasava, most excellent of conquerors, regard as
authoritative or not those Brahmana texts which are recited at the immolation of
king?' 'No', replied Nahusha, whose understanding was enveloped in darkness. The
rishis rejoined; Engaged in unrighteousness, thou attainest not unto righteousness;
these tests, which were formerely uttered by great rishis, are regarded by us as
authoritative.' Then (proceeds Agastya) disputing with the munis, Nahusha impelled
by unrighteousness touched me on the head with his foot. In consequence of this,
the king's glory was smitten and his prosperity departed. When he had instantly
become agitated and oppressed with fear, I said to him, 'Since thou, a fool,
condemnest that sacred text, always held in honour, which has been composed by
former sages, and employed by Brahmin-rishis and hast touched my head with thy
foot, and employest the Brahma-like and irresistible rishis as bearers to carry thee,
therefore, shorn of thy lustre and all thy merit exhuasted, sink down, sinner,
degraded from heaven to earth. For ten thousand years thou shall crawl in the form
of a huge serpent. When that period is completed, thou shalt again ascend to
heaven.' So fell that wicked wretch from the sovereignty of the gods. Happily, 0
Indra, we shall now prosper, for the enemy of the Brahmins has been smitten. Take
possession of the three worlds, and protect their inhabitants, 0 husband of Shachi
(Indrani), subduing the senses, overcoming thine enemies, and celebrated by the
great rishis."
The fourth king to come into conflict with the Brahmins was Nimi. The details
of the story are related in the Vishnu Purana which says:
"Nimi had requested the Brahmin-rishi, Vasishtha to officiate at a sacrifice, which
was to last a thousand years. Vasishtha in reply pleaded a pre-engagement to Indra
for five hundred years, but promised to return at the end of that period. The king
made no remark, and Vasishtha went away, supposing that he had assented to his
arrangement. On his return, however, the priest discovered that Nimi had retained
Gautma (who was, euqally with Vasishtha a Brahmin-rishi) and others to perform
the sacrifice; and being incensed, he cursed the King, who was then asleep, to lose
his corporeal form. When Nimi awoke and learnt that he had been cursed without
any previous warning, he retorted by utering a similar curse on Vasishtha, and then
died. Nimi's body was embalmed. At the close of the sacrifice which he had begun,
the gods were willing, on the intercession of the priests, to restore him to life; but he
declined the offer; and was placed by the deities, according to his desire, in the eyes
of all living creatures. It is in consequence of this that they are always opening and
shutting (Nimisha means 'the twinkling of the eye').These foregoing cases of conflict have been referred to by
Manu in his Smriti:
"Through a want of modesty many kings have perished, together with their
belongings; through modesty even hermits in the forest have gained kingdoms. 
Through a want of humility Vena perished, likewise king Nahusha, Sudas,
the son of Pijavana, Surnukha, and Nimi."
Unfortunately, the bearing of these cases on the position of the Shudra has
not been realised as fully as it should have been. The reason is that nobody
has realised that this conflict was a conflict between Brahmins and Shudras.
Sudas definitely was a Shudra. The others although they have not been
described as Shudras are described as having been descended from Ikshvaku.
Sudas is also described as a descendant of lkshvaku. There is nothing farfetched in saying that they were all Shudras. Even Manu had no idea of this. He
represents these cases as cases of conflict between Brahmins and Kshatriyas.
Dr. Muir has failed to realise that Sudas was a Shudra and has in recounting
these stories represented that the parties to these conflicts were Brahmins on
the one hand and the Kshatriyas on the other. In a sense, it is true that the
conflict was between Brahmins and Kshatriyas because the Shudras were also
a branch of the Kshatriyas. It would, however, have been far more illuminating if
they had been described in more precise terms as conflicts between Brahmins
and Shudras. The misunderstanding having been caused, it has remained and
has continued to conceal the real nature of so important a part of the history of
the Indo-Aryan society. It is to clear this misunderstanding that the hearing
given to this Chapter is 'Brahmins versus Shudras' and not 'Brahmins versus
Kshatriyas'. Understood as a history of conflict between Brahmins and
Shudras, it helps one to understand how the Shudras came to be degraded
from the second to the fourth Varna.
Contents Continued…
54 1 Quoted in Sukthankar Memorial Edition, Vol. I, p.p. 43-44.
54 1 Quoted in Sukthankar Memorial Edition, Vol. I, p. 131.
54 2 Sukthankar, op. cit., p. 14
54 3 Ibid.. pp. 9-42.
54 2 Sukthankar, Vol. 1. p. 14.
54 2 Sukthankar, Vol. 1. p. 14.55 1 Lakshman Samp, The Nighanta and Nirukta, pp. 35-36
55 1 Wilson's Rig Veda, Vol. IV (Poona Reprint), p. 146.
55 2 Wilson's Vishnu Purana, pp. 377-380.
55 1 Wilson's Vishnu Purana, pp. 447-456
55 Some difficulty is felt about the genealogy of this Sudas in the Rig Veda, which is sought to be got over
by identifying Devavata with Divodasa. This difficulty has mainly arisen because of the diffirent texts of
Stanzas 22, 23 and 25 which nobody seems to have cared to collect properly. Chitrava Shastris edition of
Rig Veda has Pijavana throughout. Satavalekar's edition has Paijavana throughout Wilson has Paijavana in
22 and 23 and Pijavana in 25. Wilson's text seems to be accurate. For even Yaska has noticed the existence
of the name Paijavana in his Nirukta which he endeavours to explain. If Wilson's text in 25 is taken as
correct no difficulty can arise. Pijavana would then appear to be another name of Divodasa and Paijavana
would be another name of Sudas.
55 2 Muir, Vol. I, p. 366
55 3 Rig Veda. VII, 83. 1.
55 4 Rig Veda, IX.. 61.2
55
55 6 Rig Veda. 1. 130. 7 5 Rig Veda,VI. 61. 1; VII. 19.8
55 7 Rig Veda, 1. 53. 10
55 1 Rig Veda, X. 48
55 2 Rig Veda, 1. 53, 8; VI. 18. 13
55 3 Rig Veda, 1. 116. 18
55 4 Rig Veda.VI. 16. 5.
55 5 Rig Veda, VI. 18. 13.
55 6 Rig Veda, 1. 112. 19.
55 7 Martin Haug, Vol. II. pp. 523-524.
55 8 The king had promised the whole earth as gift to his officiating priest
55 I The list is taken from Chitrava Shastri's Prachin Charitra Kosh, p. 624. There is no unanimity whether all
the names are of kings. Sayanacharya says that 13-16 are names of the Purohitas. There is also doubt
about 27-2956 2 The name of Sudas occurs in the Rig Veda in 27 places. It shows what a great hero he must have been
regarded by the Vedic people.
56 1 Quoted by Vaidya in Mahabharatacha Upasamhara, p. 200. Vol-VII- 11
56 I His rendering is "yet to the Tritsus came the Aryas comrade, through love of spoil and heros' war, to
lead them."
56 2 'Castes in India' by Emile Senart, p. 192.
56 1 What are called Aryan tribes appear to be a phratry in view of their changing alliances.
56 2 Muir, Vol. I, p. 366.
56 1 Muir, Vol. 1. p. 17.
56 2 Quotted by Muir. Vol. I, p. 17
56 1 Quoted in Muir. Vol. I, p. 13.
56 2 Ibid.. Vol. I, p. 13.
56 1 Quoted by Muir, Vol. I, p. 14.
56 + Means that they are not identical
56 * Means that these Verses are not to be found
56 1 Quoted by Muir, Vol. I, pp. 377-378
56 It is staled in the Harivamsha :
"In consequence of the wickedness which had been committed, Indra did not. rain for a period of twelve years. At that
lime Vishvamitra had left his wife and children and gone to practise austerities on the seashore. His wife, driven to
extremity by want, was on the point of selling her second son for a hundred cows, in order to support the others; but
this arrangement was stopped by the intervention of Satyavrata who liberated the son when bound, and maintained the
family by providing them with the flesh of wild animals and according to his father's injuction, consterated himself for
the performance of a silent penance for twelve years."
As stated in another place in the Harivamsha, Trishanku had been expelled from his home by his father
for the offence of carrying off the young wife of one of the citizens under the influnece of a criminal passion
and Vasishtha did not interfere to prevent his banishment. It is to this that the text refers.
56 1 Muir, Vol. I. pp. 379-387.
56 1 Quoted by Muir, Vol.. 1. pp. 405-407
56 2 Quoted by Muir, Vol. I, pp. 415-417
56 1 Quoted by Moir. Vol. 1. pp. 420-42257 1 Quoted in Muir, Vol. I, P. 349.
57 2 Quoted in Muir, Vol I. p. 353
57 3 Quoted in Muir, Vol. 1. p. 316
57 4 Quoted in Muir. Vol. I, p. 354.
57 5 That is why Manu says "if the king wants to make a gift to a Shudra he must make him work."
57 1 Muir, Vol. 1. pp. 401-404
57 There is no direct evidence for this. Tradition accepts this as correct which seems to have been based
upon Rig Veda, III. 53.9. This is confirmed by Yaska in his Nirukta (II. 24) where he says, "They then relate a
story. The rishi Vishvamitra was the purohita of Sudas, the son of Pijavana."
57 2 This is referred to by Sayana in his introduction to Rig Veda, vii.32 on the authority of the Anukramanika
which is quoted by Muir, Vol. 1. p. 328.
57 3 This is referred to by Sayana in his introduction to verses 15 and 16 of Sukta 53 of the Third Mandala of the Rig
Veda, which is quoted by Muir, Vol. I, p. 343.
57 1 Muir, Vol. I, p. 328
57 2 Ibid
57 There seems to be some doubt whether this enmity of Vasishtha had developed against Sudas or against the sons of
Sudas. This doubt has arisen because the Satyayana and Kaushitaki Brahmanas speak of Saudasa, thereby suggesting
that the quarrel of Vasishtha was with the sons of Sudas and not with Sudas. On the other hand, Manu is definite that it
was Sudas who was the offender. Shadgurushishya speaks of Sudas and not Saudasas while the Brihaddevta in a similar
passage gives Sudas. The difficulty could be solved if Saudasas was interpreted to be the family of Sudas, which
includes both Sudas and his sons. 
57 4 Quoted by Muir, Vol. I, p. 302
57 1 Quoted by Muir, Vol. 1. p. 307
57 2 Quoted in Muir, Vol. I, pp. 310-313.
57 1 Quoted by Muir, Vol. I, p. 316
57 2 Max Muller's, Sacred Books of the East. Vol. XXV. p. 222THE UNTOUCHABLES WHO WERE THEY AND WHY
THEY BECAME UNTOUCHABLES ?
_____________________________________________________
_____________
CONTENTS
PART IV NEW THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF UNTOUCHABILITY.
Contempt For Buddhists As The Root Of Untouchability
Beef-eating As The Root Of Untouchability
PART V THE NEW THEORIES AND SOME HARD QUESTIONS.
Did The Hindus Never Eat Beef ?
Why Did Non-Brahmins Give Up Beef-Eating ?
What Made The Brahmins Become Vegetarians ?
Why Should Beef-Eating Make Broken Men Untouchables ?
PART VI UNTOUCHABILITY AND THE DATE OF ITS BIRTH.
The Impure And The Untouchables ..
When Did Broken Men Become Untouchables ?
PART IV.
NEW THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OFUNTOUCHABILITY
CHAPTER IX
CONTEMPT FOR BUDDHISTS AS THE ROOT OF UNTOUCHABILITYTHE Census Reports for India published by the Census Commissioner at the interval of
every ten years from 1870 onwards contain a wealth of information nowhere else to be
found regarding the social and religious life of the people of India. Before the Census of
1910 the Census Commissioner had a column called "Population by Religion". Under
this heading the population was shown (1) Muslims, (2) Hindus, (3) Christians, etc. The
Census Report for the year 1910 marked a new departure from the prevailing practice.
For the first time it divided the Hindus under three separate categories, (i) Hindus, (ii)
Animists and Tribal, and (iii) the Depressed Classes or Untouchables. This new
classification has been continued ever since.
II
This departure from the practice of the previous Census Commissioners raises three
questions. First is what led the Commissioner for the Census of 1910 to introduce this
new classification. The second is what was the criteria adopted as a basis for this
classification. The third is what are the reasons for the growth of certain practices which
justify the division of Hindus into three separate categories mentioned above.
The answer to the first question will be found in the address presented in 1909 by the
Muslim Community under leadership of H.H. The Aga Khan to the then Viceroy, Lord
Minto, in which they asked for a separate and adequate representation for the Muslim
community in the legislature, executive and the public services.
In the address* there occurs the following passage –
"The Mohamedans of India number, according to the census taken in the year 1901
over sixty-two millions or between one-fifth and one-fourth of the total population of
His Majesty's Indian dominions, and if a reduction be made for the uncivilised portions
of the community enumerated under the heads ofanimist and other minor religions, as
well as for those classes who are ordinarily classified as Hindus but properly speaking
are not Hindus at all, the proportion of Mohamedans to the Hindu Majority becomes
much larger We therefore desire to submit that under any system of representation
extended or limited a community in itself more numerous than the entire population of
any first class European power except Russia may justly lay claim to adequate
recognition as an important factor in the State.
"We venture, indeed, with Your Excellency's permission to go a step further, and urge
that the position accorded to the Mohamedan community in any kind of
representation direct or indirect, and in all other ways effecting their status and
influence should be commensurate, not merely with their numerical strength but also
with their political importance and the value of the contribution which they make tothe defence of the empire, and we also hope that Your Excellency will in this
connection be pleased to give due consideration to the position which they occupied
in India a little more than hundred years ago and of which the traditions have
naturally not faded from their minds."
The portion in italics has a special significance. It was introduced in the address to
suggest that in comprising the numerical strength of the Muslims with that of the Hindus
the population of the animists, tribals and the Untouchables should be excluded. The
reason for this new classification of 'Hindus' adopted by the Census Commissioner in
1910 lies in this demand of the Muslim community for separate representation on
augmented scale. At any rate this is how the Hindus understood this demand
Interesting as it is, the first question as to why the Census Commissioner made this
departure in the system of classification is of less importance than the second question.
What is important is to know the basis adopted by the Census Commissioner for
separating the different classes of Hindus into (1) those who were hundred per cent
Hindus and (2) those who were not.
The basis adopted by the Census Commissioner for separation is to be found in the
circular issued by the Census Commissioner in which he laid down certain tests for the
purpose of distinguishing these two classes. Among those who were not hundred percent
Hindus were included castes and tribes which :-
(1) Deny the supremacy of the Brahmins.
(2) Do not receive the Mantra from a Brahmin or other recognized Hindu Guru.
(3) Deny the authority of the Vedas.
(4) Do not worship the Hindu gods.
(5) Are not served by good Brahmins as family priests.
(6) Have no Brahmin priests at all.
(7) Are denied access to the interior of the Hindu temples.
(8) Cause pollution (a) by touch, or (b) within a certain distance.
(9) Bury their dead.
(10) Eat beef and do no reverence to the cow.
Out of these ten tests some divide the Hindus from the Animists and the Tribal. The rest
divide the Hindus from the Untouchables. Those that divide the Untouchables from the
Hindus are (2), (5), (6), (7), and (10). It is with them that we are chiefly concerned.
For the sake of clarity it is better to divide these tests into parts and consider them
separately. This Chapter will be devoted only to the consideration of (2), (5), and (6).The replies received by the Census Commissioner to questions embodied in tests (2),
(5) and (6) reveal (1) that the Untouchables do not receive the Mantra from a Brahmin;
(2) that the Untouchables are not served by good Brahmin priests at all; and (3) that
Untouchables have their own priests reared from themselves. On these facts the Census
Commissioners of all Provinces are unanimous.
Of the three questions the third is the most important. Unfortunately the Census
Commissioner did not realise this. For in making his inquiries he failed to go to the root
of the matter to find out: Why were the Untouchables not receiving the Mantra from the
Brahmin? Why Brahmins did not serve the Untouchables as their family priests? Why do
the Untouchables prefer to have their own priests? It is the 'why of these facts which is
more important than the existence of these facts. It is the 'why' of these facts which must
be investigated. For the clue to the origin of Untouchability lies hidden behind it.
Before entering upon this investigation, it must be pointed out that the inquiries by the
Census Commissioner were in a sense one-sided. They showed that the Brahmins
shunned the Untouchables. They did not bring to light the fact that the Untouchables also
shunned the Brahmins. Nonetheless, it is a fact. People are so much accustomed to
thinking that the Brahmin is the superior of the Untouchables and the Untouchable
accepts himself as his inferior; that this statement that the Untouchables look upon the
Brahmin as an impure penvon is sure to come to them as a matter of great surprise. The
fact has however been noted by many writers who have observed and examined the
social customs of the Untouchables. To remove any doubt on the point, attention is drawn
to the following extracts from their writings.
The fact was noticed by Abbe Dubois who says :
"Even to this day a Pariah is not allowed to pass a Brahmin Street in a village, though
nobody can prevent, or prevents, his approaching or passing by a Brahmin's house in
towns. The Pariahs, on their part will under no circumstances, allow a Brahmin to pass
through their paracherries (collection of Pariah huts) as they firmly believe it will lead
to their ruin".
Mr. Hemingsway, the Editor of the Gazetteer of the Tanjore District says:
"These casts (Parayan and Pallan or Chakkiliyan castes of Tanjore District) strongly
object to the entrance of a Brahmin into their quarters believing that harm will result to
them therefrom".
Speaking of the Holeyas of theHasan District of Mysore, Captain J.S.F. Mackenzie says:-"Every village has its Holigiri as the quarters inhabited by the Holiars, formerly
agrestic serfs, is called outside the village boundary hedge. This, I thought was because
they were considered as impure race, whose touch carries defilement with it."
Such is the reason generally given by the Brahmins who refuse to receive anything
directly from the hands of a Holiar, and yet the Brahmins consider great luck will wait
upon them if they can manage to pass through the Holigiri without being molested. To
this Holiars have a strong objection, and, should a Brahmin attempt to enter their
quarters, they turn out in a body and slipper him, in former times, it is said, to death.
Members of the other castes may come as far as the door, but they must not enter the
house, for that would bring the Holiar bad luck. If, by chance, a person happens to get in,
the owner takes care to tear the intruder's cloth, tie up some salt in one corner of it, and
turn him out. This is supposed to neutralise all the good luck which might have accrued
to the tresspasser, and avert any evil which ought to have befallen the owner of the
house.
What is the explanation of this strange phenomenon? The explanation must of course
fit in with the situation as it stood at the start, i.e, when the Untouchables were not
Untouchables but were only Broken Men. We must ask why the Brahmins refused to
officiate at the religious ceremonies of the Broken Men? Is it the case that the Brahmins
refused to officiate? Or is it that the Broken Men refused to invite them? Why did the
Brahmin regard Broken Men as impure? Why did the Broken Men regard the Brahmins
as impure? What is the basis of this antipathy?
This antipathy can be explained on one hypothesis. It is that the Broken Men were
Buddhists. As such they did not revere the Brahmins, did not employ them as their priests
and regarded them as impure. The Brahmin on the other hand disliked the Broken Men
because they were Buddhists and preached against them contempt and hatred with the
result that the Broken Men came to be regarded as Untouchables.
We have no direct evidence that the Broken Men were Buddhists. No evidence is as a
matter of fact necessary when the majority of Hindus were Buddhists. We may take it
that they were.
That there existed hatred and abhorrence against the Buddhists in the mind of the
Hindus and that this feeling was created by the Brahmins is not without support.
Nilkant in his Prayaschit Mayukha quotes a verse from Manu which says :-
"If a person touches a Buddhist or a flower of Pachupat, Lokayata, Nastika and
Mahapataki, he shall purify himself by a bath."The same doctrine is preached by Apararka in his Smriti. Vradha Harit goes further and
declares entry into the Buddhist Temple as sin requiring a purificactory bath for
removing the impurity.
How widespread had become this spirit of hatred and contempt against the followers of
Buddha can be observed from the scenes depicted in Sanskrit dramas. The most striking
illustration of this attitude towards the Buddhists is to be found in the Mricchakatika. In
Act VII of that Drama the hero Charudatta and his friend Maitreya are shown waiting for
Vasantasena in the park outside the city. She fails to turn up and Charudatta decides to
leave the park. As they are leaving, they seethe Buddhist monk by name Samvahaka. On
seeing him, Charudatta says :-
"Friend Maitreya, I am anxious to meet Vasantsena ... Come, let us go. (After walking a
little) Ah ! here's aninauspicious sight, a Buddhist monk coming towards us. (After a
little reflection) well, let him come this way, we shall follow this other path. (Exit.)
In Act VIII the monk is in the Park of Sakara, the King's brother-in-law, washing his
clothes in a pool. Sakara accompanied by Vita turns up and threatens to kill the monk.
The following conversation between them is revealing :
"Sakara - Stay, you wicked monk. 
Monk - Ah! Here's the king's brother-in-law! Because some monk has offended him,
he now beats up any monk he happens to met.
Sakara- Stay, I will now break your head as one breaks a radish in a tavern. (Beats
him).
Vita- Friend, it is not proper to beat a monk who has put on the saffron-robes, being
disgusted with the world. 
 Monk- (Welcomes) Be pleased, lay brother.
 Sakara- Friend, see. He is abusing me. 
Vita- What does he say?
Sakara- He calls me lay brother (upasaka). Am I a barber? 
Vita- Oh! He is really praising you as a devotee of the Buddha. 
Sakara- Why has he come here? 
Monk- To wash these clothes. 
Sakara- Ah! you wicked monk. Even I myself do not bathe in this pool; I shall kill you
with one stroke."
After a lot of beating, the monk is allowed to go. Here is a Buddhist Monk in the midst
of the Hindu crowd. He is shunned and avoided. The feeling of disgust against him is so
great that the people even shun the road the monk is travelling. The feeling of repulsion
is so intense that the entry of the Buddhist was enough to cause the exit of the Hindus.
The Buddhist monk is on a par with the Brahmin. A Brahmin is immune from death-penalty. He is even free from corporal punishment. But the Buddhist monk is beaten and
assaulted without remorse, without compunction as though there was nothing wrong in it.
If we accept that the Broken Men were the followers of Buddhism and did not care to
return to Brahmanism when it became triumphant over Buddhism as easily as other did,
we have an explanation for both the questions. It explains why the Untouchables regard
the Brahmins as inauspicious, do not employ them as their priest and do not even allow
them to enter into their quarters. It also explains why the Broken Men came to be
regarded as Untouchables. The Broken Men hated the Brahmins because the Brahmins
were the enemies of Buddhism and the Brahmins imposed untouchability upon the
Broken Men because they would not leave Buddhism. On this reasoning it is possible to
conclude that one of the roots of untouchability lies in the hatred and contempt which the
Brahmins created against those who were Buddhist.
Can the hatred between Buddhism and Brahmanism be taken to be the sole cause why
Broken Men became Untouchables? Obviously, it cannot be. The hatred and contempt
preached by the Brahmins was directed against Buddhists in general and not against the
Broken Men in particular. Since untouchability stuck to Broken Men only, it is obvious
that there was some additional circumstance which has played its part in fastening
untouchability upon the Broken Men. What that circumstance could have been? We must
next direct our effort in the direction of ascertaining it. 
CHAPTER X
BEEF EATING AS THE ROOT OF UNTOUCHABILITY
WE now take up test No. 10 referred to in the circular issued by the Census
Commissioner and to which reference has already been made in the previous chapter.
The test refers to beef-eating.
The Census Returns show that the meat of the dead cow forms the chief item of food
consumed by communities which are generally classified as untouchable communities.
No Hindu community, however low, will touch cow's flesh. On the other hand, there is
no community which is really an Untouchable community which has not something to do
with the dead cow. Some eat her flesh, some remove the skin, some manufacture articles
out of her skin and bones.
From the survey of the Census Commissioner, it is well established that Untouchables
eat beef. The question however is: Has beef-eating any relation to the origin of
Untouchability? Or is it merely an incident in the economic life of the Untouchables?
Can we say that the Broken Men came to be treated as Untouchables because they atebeef? There need be no hesitation in returning an affirmative answer to this question. No
other answer is consistent with facts as we know them.
In the first place, we have the fact that the Untouchables or the main communities
which compose them eat the dead cow and those who eat the dead cow are tainted with
untouchability and no others. The co-relation between untouchability and the use of the
dead cow is so great and so close that the thesis that it is the root of untouchability seems
to be incontrovertible. In the second place if there is anything that separates the
Untouchables from the Hindus, it is beef-eating. Even a superficial view of the food
taboos of the Hindus will show that there are two taboos regarding food which serve as
dividing lines. There is one taboo against meat-eating. It divides Hindus into vegetarians
and flesh eaters. There is another taboo which is against beef eating. It divides Hindus
into those who eat cow's flesh and those who do not. From the point of view of
untouchability the first dividing line is of no importance. But the second is. For it
completely marks off the Touchables from the Untouchables. The Touchables whether
they are vegetarians or flesh-eaters are united in their objection to eat cow's flesh. As
against them stand the Untouchables who eat cow's flesh without compunction and as a
matter of course and habit.
In this context it is not far-fetched to suggest that those who have a nausea against
beef-eating should treat those who eat beef as Untouchables.
There is really no necessity to enter upon any speculation as to whether beef-eating was
or was not the principal reason for the rise of Untouchability. This new theory receives
support from the Hindu Shastras. The Veda Vyas Smriti contains the following verse
which specifies the communities which are included in the category of Antyajas and the
reasons why they were so included
L.12-13 " The Charmakars (Cobbler), the Bhatta (Soldier), the Bhilla, the Rajaka
(washerman), the Puskara, the Nata (actor), the Vrata, the Meda, the Chandala, the
Dasa, the Svapaka, and the Kolika- these are known as Antyajas as well as others who
eat cow's flesh."
Generally speaking the Smritikars never care to explain the why and the how of their
dogmas. But this case is exception. For in this case, Veda Vyas does explain the cause of
untouchability. The clause "as well as others who eat cow's flesh" is very important. It
shows that the Smritikars knew that the origin of untouchability is to be found in the
eating of beef. The dictum of Veda Vyas must close the argument. It comes, so to say,
straight from the horse's mouth and what is important is that it is also rational for it
accords with facts as we know them.The new approach in the search for the origin of Untouchability has brought to the
surface two sources of the origin of Untouchability. One is the general atmosphere of
scorn and contempt spread by the Brahmins against those who were Buddhists and the
second is the habit of beef-eating kept on by the Broken Men. As has been said the first
circumstance could not be sufficient to account for stigma of Untouchability attaching
itself to the Broken Men. For the scorn and contempt for Buddhists spread by the
Brahmins was too general and affected all Buddhists and not merely the Broken Men.
The reason why Broken Men only became Untouchables was because in addition to
being Buddhists they retained their habit of beef-eating which gave additional ground for
offence to the Brahmins to carry their new-found love and reverence to the cow to its
logical conclusion. We may therefore conclude that the Broken Men were exposed to
scorn and contempt on the ground that they were Buddhists the main cause of their
Untouchability was beef-eating.
The theory of beef-eating as the cause of untouchability also gives rise to many
questions. Critics are sure to ask: What is the cause of the nausea which the Hindus have
against beef-eating? Were the Hindus always opposed to beef-eating? If not, why did
they develop such a nausea against it? Were the Untouchables given to beef-eating from
the very start? Why did they not give up beef-eating when it was abandoned by the
Hindus? Were the Untouchables always Untouchables? If there was a time when the
Untouchables were not Untouchables even though they ate beef why should beef-eating
give rise to Untouchability at a later-stage? If the Hindus were eating beef, when did they
give it up? If Untouchability is a reflex of the nausea of the Hindus against beef-eating,
how long after the Hindus had given up beef-eating did Untouchability come into being?
These questions must be answered. Without an answer to these questions, the theory will
remain under cloud. It will be considered as plausible but may not be accepted as
conclusive. Having put forth the theory, I am bound to answer these questions. I propose
to take up the following heads :-
(1) Did the Hindus never eat beef?
(2) What led the Hindus to give up be heating?
(3) What led the Brahmins to become vegetarians?
(4) Why did beef-eating give rise to Untouchability? and
(5) When was Untouchability born?
PART V
THE NEW THEORIES AND SOME QUESTIONS 
CHAPTER XIDID THE HINDUS NEVER EAT BEEF ?
TO the question whether the Hindus ever ate beef, every Touchable Hindu, whether he
is a Brahmin or a non-Brahmin, will say 'no, never'. In a certain sense, he is right. From
times no Hindu has eaten beef. If this is all that the Touchable Hindu wants to convey by
his answer there need be no quarrel over it. But when the learned Brahmins argue that the
Hindus not only never ate beef but they always held the cow to be sacred and were
always opposed to the killing of the cow, it is impossible to accept their view.
What is the evidence in support of the construction that the Hindus never ate beef and
were opposed to the killing of the cow?
There are two series of references in the Rig Veda on which reliance is placed. In one
of these, the cow is spoken of as Aghnya. They are Rig Veda 1.164, 27; IV.1.6; V 82-8;
V11.69. 71; X.87. Aghnya means 'one who does not deserve to be killed'. From this, it is'
argued that this was a prohibition against the killing of the cow and that since the Vedas
are the final authority in the matter of religion, it is concluded that the Aryans could not
have killed the cows, much less could they have eaten beef. In another series of
references the cow is spoken of as sacred. They are Rig Veda V1.28.1.8. and VIII, 101.
15. In these verses the cow is addressed as Mother of Rudras, the Daughter of Vasus, the
Sister of the Adityas and the Centre of Nectar. Another reference on the subject is in Rig
Veda VIII. 101. 16 where the cow is called Devi (Goddess).
Raliance is also placed on certain passages in the Brahmanas and Sutras.
There are two passages in the Satapatha Brahmana which relate to animal sacrifice and
beef-eating. One is at 111.1.2.21 and reads as follows :-
"He (the Adhvaryu) then makes him enter the hall. Let him not eat (the flesh) of either
the cow or the ox, for the cowand the ox doubtless support everything here on earth. The
gods spake, 'verily, the cow and the ox support everything here; come, let us bestow on
the cow and the ox whatever vigour belonged to other species (of animals); and therefore
the cow and the ox eat most Hence were one to eat (the flesh) of an ox or a cow, there
would be, as it were, an eating of everything, or, as it were, a going to the end (or, to
destruction)... Let him therefore not eat (the flesh) of the cow and the ox."
The other passage is at 1, 2, 3, 6. It speaks against animal sacrifice and on ethical
grounds.
A similar statement is contained in the Apastambha Dharma Sutra at 1, 5, 17, 29.
Apastambha lays a general embargo on the eating of cow's flesh.Such is the evidence in support of the contention that the Hindus never ate beef. What
conclusion can be drawn from this evidence?
So far as the evidence from the Rig Veda is concerned the conclusion is based on a
misreading and misunderstanding of the texts. The adjective Aghnya applied to the cow
in the Rig Veda means a cow that was yielding milk and therefore not fit for being killed.
That the cow is venerated in the Rig Veda is of course true. But this regard and
venerations of the cow are only to be expected from an agricultural community like the
Indo-Aryans. This application of the utility of the cow did not prevent the Aryan from
killing the cow for purposes of food. Indeed the cow was killed because the cow was
regarded as sacred. As observed by Mr.Kane:
"It was not that the cow was not sacred in Vedic times, it was because of her
sacredness that it is ordained in the Vajasaneyi Samhita that beef should be eaten."*
That the Aryans of the Rig Veda did kill cows for purposes of food and ate beef is
abundantly clear from the Rig Veda itself. In Rig Veda (X. 86.14) Indra says:- 'They cook
for one 15 plus twenty oxen". The Rig Veda (X.91.14) says that for Agni were sacrificed
horses, bulls, oxen, barren cows and rams. From the Rig Veda (X.72.6) it appears that the
cow was killed with a sword or axe.
As to the testimony of the Satapatha Bramhana, can it be said to be conclusive?
Obviously, it cannot be. For there are passages in the other Bramhanas which give a
different opinion.
To give only one instance. Among the Kamyashtis set forth in the Taittiriya Bramhana,
not only the sacrifice of oxen and cows are laid down, but we are even told what kind
and description of oxen and cows are to be offered to what deities. Thus, a dwarf ox is to
be chosen for sacrifice to Vishnu; a drooping horned bull with a blaze on the forehead to
Indra as the destroyer of Vritra; a black cow to Pushan; a red cow to Rudra; and so on.
The Taittiriya Bramhana notes another sacrifice called Panchasaradiya-seva, the most
important element of which was the immolation of seventeen five-year old humpless,
dwraf-bulls, and as many dwarf heifers under three year-old.
As against the statement of the Apastamba Dharma Sutra, the following points may be
noted.
First is the contrary statement contained in that Very Sutra. At 15, 14, 29, the Sutra says
:-"The cow and the bull are sacred and therefore should be eaten". The second is the
prescription of Madhuparka contained in the Grahya Sutras. Among the Aryans the
etiquette for receiving important guests had become settled into custom and had become
a ceremony. The most important offering was Madhuparka. A detailed descriptions
regarding Madhuparka are to be found in the various Grahya Sutras. According to most
of the Grahya Sutras there are six persons who have a right to be served with
Madhuparka namely; (1) Ritwija or the Brahmin called to perform a sacrifice, (2)
Acharya, the teacher, (3) The bridegroom (4) The King (5) The Snatak, the student who
has just finished his studies at the Gurukul and (6) Any person who is dear to the host.
Some add Atithi to this list. Except in the case of Ritvija, King and Acharya, Madhuparka
is to be offered to the rest once in a year. To the Ritvija, King and Acharya it is to be
offered each time they come.
What was this Madhuparka made of ? There is divergence about the substances mixed
in offering Madhuparka. Asv.gr and Ap.gr. (13.10) prescribe a mixture of honey and
curds or clarified butter and curds. Others like Par.gr.l3 prescribe a mixture of three
(curds, honey and butter). Ap.gr. (13.11-12) states the view of some that those three may
be mixed or five (those three with fried yava grain and barley). Hir.gr.L, 12, 10-12 give
the option of mixing three of five (curds, honey, ghee, water and ground grain). The
Kausika Sutra (92) speaks of nine kinds of mixtures, viz., Brahma (honey and curds).
Aindra (of payasa), Saurnya (curds and ghee), Pausna (ghee and mantha), Sarasvata
(milk and ghee), Mausala (wine and ghee, this being used only in Sautramanai and
Rajasuya sacrifices), Parivrajaka (sesame oil and oil cake). The Madhava gr.l.9.22 says
that the Veda declares that the Madhuparka must not be without flesh and so it
recommends that if the cow is let loose, goat's meat or payasa (rice cooked in milk) may
be offered; the Hir.gr. 1.13, 14 says that other meat should be offered; Baud.gr. (1.2,51-
54) says that when the cow is let off, the flesh of a goat or ram may be offered or some
forest flesh (of a deer, etc.) may be offered, as there can be no Madhuparka without flesh
or if one is unable to offer flesh one may cook ground grains.
Thus the essential element in Madhuparka is flesh and particularly cow's flesh.
The killing of cow for the guest had grown to such an extent that the guest came to be
called 'Go-ghna' which means the killer of the cow. To avoid this slaughter of the cows
the Ashvateyana Grahya Sutra (1.24.25) suggests that the cow should be let loose when
the guest comes so as to escape the rule of etiquette.
Thirdly, reference may be made to the ritual relating to disposal of the dead to counter
the testimony of the Apastamba Dharma Sutra. The Sutra says :-
1. He should then put the following (sacrificial) implements (on the dead body)2. Into the right hand the (spoon called) Guhu.
3. Into the left the (other spoon called) Upabhrit.
4. On his right side the wooden sacrificial sword called Sphya, on his left side the
Agnihotrahavani (i.e., the laddle with which the Agnihotra oblations are sacrified).
5. On his chest the (big sacrificial laddle called) Dhruva. On his head the dishes. On
his teeth the pressing stones.
6. On the two sides of his nose, the two smaller sacrificial laddles called Sruvas.
7. Or, if there is only one (Sruva), breaking it (in two pieces).
8. On his two ears the two Prasitraharanas (i.e, the vessels into which the portion of
the sacrificial food belonging to the Brahmin) is put
9. Or, if there is only one (Prasitraharana), breaking it (in two pieces).
10. On his belly the (vessel called) Patri.
11. And the cup into which the cut-off portion (of the sacrificial food) are put.
12. On his secret parts the (staff called) Samy.
13. On his thighs two kindling woods.
14. On his legs the mortar and the pestle.
15. On his feet the two baskets.
16. Or, if there is only one (basket), breaking it in two pieces.
17. Those of the implements which have a hollow (into which liquids can be poured)
are filled with sprinkled butter.
18. The son (of the deceased person) should take the under and the upper mill-stone for
himself.
19. And the implements made of copper, iron and earthenware.
20. Taking out the omentum of the she-animal he should cover therewith the head and
the mouth (of the dead person) with the verse, 'But on the armour (which will
protect thee) against Agni, by that which comes from the cows.' (Rig Veda. X.
16.7).
21. Taking out the kidneys of the animal he should lay them into the hands (of the dead
body) with the verse, escape the two hounds, the sons of Sarma (Rig Veda X 14.10)
the right kidney into the right hand and the left into the left hand.
22. The heart of the animals he puts on the heart of the deceased.
23. And two lumps of flour or rice according to some teachers.
24. Only if there are no kidneys according to some teachers.
25. Having distributed the whole (animal), limb by limb (placing its different limbs on
the corresponding limbs of the deceased) and having covered it with its hide, he
recites when the Pranita water is carried forward (the verse), 'Agni do not overturn
this cup,' (Rig Veda, X. 16.8).
26. Bending his left knee he should sacrifice Yugya oblation into the Dakshina fire with
the formulas 'To Agni Svaha, to Kama Svaha, to the world Svaha, to Anumati
Svaha'.27. A fifth (oblation) on the chest of the deceased with the formula 'from this one verily
thou hast been born. May he now be born out of thee. To the heaven worlds Svaha.'
"
From the above passage quoted from the Ashvalayan Grahya Sutra it is clear that
among the ancient Indo-Aryans when a person died, an animal had to be killed and
the parts of the animal were placed on the appropriate parts of the dead body before
the dead body was burned.
Such is the state of the evidence on the subject of cow-killing and beef-eating. Which
part of it is to be accepted as true? The correct view is that the testimony of the Satapatha
Brahmana and the Apastamba Dharma Sutra in so far as it supports the view that Hindus
were against cow-killing and beef-eating, are merely exhortations against the excesses of
cow-killing and not prohibitions against cow-killing. Indeed the exhortations prove that
cow-killing and eating of beef had become a common practice. That notwithstanding
these exhortations cow-killing and beef-eating continued. That most often they fell on
deaf ears is proved by the conduct of Yajnavalkya, the great Rishi of the Aryans. The first
passage quoted above from the Satapatha Brahmana was really addressed to Yajnavalkya
as an exhortation. How did Yajnavalkya respond? After listening to the exhortation this is
what Yajnavalkya said :-'" I, for one, eat it, provided that it is tender"
That the Hindus at one time did kill cows and did eat beef is proved abundantly by the
description of the Yajnas given in the Buddhist Sutras which relate to periods much later
than the Vedas and the Brahmanas. The scale on which the slaughter of cows and animals
took place was collosal. It is not possible to give a total of such slaughter on all accounts
committed by the Brahmins in the name of religion. Some idea of the extent of this
slaughter can however be had from references to it in the Buddhist literature. As an
illustration reference may be made to the Kutadanta Sutta in which Buddha preached
against the performance of animal sacrifices to Brahmin Kutadanta. Buddha, though
speaking in a tone of sarcastic travesty, gives a good idea of the practices and rituals of
the Vedic sacrifices when he said:
"And further, O Brahmin, at that sacrifice neither were any oxen slain, neither goats,
nor fowls, nor fatted pigs, nor were any kind of living creatures put to death. No trees
were cut down to be used as posts, no Darbha grasses mown to stress around the
sacrificial spot. And the slaves and messengers and workmen there employed were
driven neither by rods nor fear, nor carried on their work weeping with tears upon their
faces."
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/

No comments:

Post a Comment