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/