______________________________________________
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
______________________________________________
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 Dasas
7.
Chapter VII - The Shudras were Kshatriyas
8.
Chapter
VIII - The Number of Varnas, Three or Four?
10.
Chapter
X - The Degradation of the Shudras
11.
Chapter
XI - The Story of Reconciliation
12.
Chapter
XII - The Theory in the Crucible
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 Indo-Aryans 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*[f1]
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 that the 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 present-day 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 long-range 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. The Arya 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 mind become
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 my research 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 non-Brahmin 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 non-Brahmin 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 non-Brahmin, 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 his filial 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 non-Brahmin 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 fault is 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's Passing 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.
[f1]1
Vol. I, Introduction, P. xxi.