_________________________________________________
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
Chapter
I
EVERYBODY knows that the Shudras formed the fourth Varna of the Indo-Aryan society. But very few have cared to inquire who were these Shudras and how they came to be the fourth Varna. That such an enquiry is of first-rate importance is beyond question. For, it is worth knowing how the Shudras came to occupy the fourth place, whether it was the result of evolution or it was brought about by revolution.
Any
attempt to discover who the Shudras were and how they came to be the fourth Varna must
begin with the origin of the Chaturvarnya in the Indo-Aryan society. A study
of the Chaturvarnya
must in its turn start with a study of the ninetieth Hymn of the Tenth Mandala of the Rig Veda— a Hymn, which is known by the
famous name of Purusha
Sukta.
What
does the Hymn say? It says[f1]
:
1. Purusha has a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet. On every side enveloping the earth he overpassed (it) by a space of ten fingers.
2. Purusha
himself is this whole (universe), Whatever has been and
whatever shall be. He is the Lord of immortality, since (or
when) by food he expands.
3. Such
is his greatness, and Purusha is superior to this. All existences are a quarter to him;
and three-fourths of him are that which is immortal in the sky.
4. With
three-quarters, Purusha mounted upwards. A quarter of him was again produced here. He was
then diffused everywhere over things which eat and things which do not eat.
5. From
him was born Viraj, and from Viraj, Purusha. When born, he
extended beyond the earth, both behind and before.
6. When
the gods performed a sacrifice with Purusha as the oblation,
the spring was its butter, the summer its fuel, and the
autumn its (accompanying) offering.
7. This
victim, Purusha, born in the
beginning, they immolated on the sacrificial grass. With him the gods, the Sadhyas, and the rishis sacrificed.
8. From
that universal sacrifice were provided curds and butter. It
formed those aerial (creatures) and animals both wild and tame.
9. From
that universal sacrifice sprang the rik and saman verses, the metres and the yajus.
10. From
it sprang horses, and all animals with two rows of teeth; kine
sprang from it; from it goats and sheep.
11. When
(the gods) divided Purusha, into how many parts did they cut him up? What was his mouth?
What arms (had he)? What (two objects) are said (to have
been) his thighs and feet?
12. The
Brahmana was his mouth, the Rajanya
was made his arms; the being called the Vaishya, he was his thighs; the Shudra sprang from
his feet.
13. The
moon sprang from his soul (manas), the sun from the eye, Indra and Agni from his mouth and Vayu from his breath.
14. From
his navel arose the air, from his head the sky, from his feet the earth, from his ear the (four) quarters; in this manner (the gods) formed the worlds.
15. When
the gods, performing sacrifices, bound Purusha as a victim, there were seven sticks (stuck
up) for it (around the fire), and thrice seven pieces of
fuel were made.
16. With
sacrifices the gods performed the sacrifice. These were the earliest rites. These great
powers have sought the sky, where are the former Sadhyas,
gods."
The
Purusha Sukta is
a theory of the origin of the Universe. In other words, it is a cosmogony. No nation which
has reached an advanced degree of thought has failed to develop some sort of cosmogony.
The Egyptians had a cosmogony somewhat analogous with that set out in the Purusha Sukta. According to it,[f2]
it was god Khnumu,
' the shaper,' who shaped living things on the potter's
wheel, "created all that is, he formed all that exists, he is the father of fathers,
the mother of mothers... he fashioned men, he made the gods,
he was the father from the beginning... he is the creator of the heaven, the earth, the
underworld, the water, the mountains... he formed a male and a female of all birds,
fishes, wild beasts, cattle and of all worms." A very similar cosmogony is found in
Chapter I of the Genesis in the Old Testament.
Cosmogonies
have never been more than matters of academic interest and have served no other purpose
than to satisfy the curiosity of the student and to help to amuse children. This may be
true of some parts of the Purusha Sukta. But it
certainly cannot be true of the whole of it. That is because all verse of the Purusha Sukta are not of the same importance and do
not have the same significance. Verses 11 and 12 fall in one category and the rest of the
verses fall in another category. Verses other than II and 12 may be regarded as of
academic interest. Nobody relies upon them. No Hindu even remembers them. But it is quite
different with regard to verses 11 and 12. Primafacie these verses do no more than explain
how the four classes, namely. (1) Brahmins or priests, (2) Kshatriyas
or soldiers, (3) Vaishyas or traders, and (4) Shudras or menials, arose from the body of the Creator. But the
fact is that these verses are not understood as being merely explanatory of a cosmic
phenomenon. It would be a grave mistake to suppose that they were regarded by the Indo-Aryans as an innocent piece of a poet's idle imagination.
They are treated as containing a mandatory injunction from the Creator to the effect that
Society must be constituted on the basis of four classes mentioned in the Sukta.Such a
construction of the verses in question may not be warranted by their language. But there
is no doubt that according to tradition this is how the verses are construed, and it would
indeed be difficult to say that this traditional construction is not in consonance with
the intendon of the author of the Sukta. Verses II and 12 of the Purusha Sukta are, therefore, not a mere cosmogony. They
contain a divine injunction prescribing a particular form of the constitution of society.
The
constitution of society prescribed by the Purusha Sukta is known as Chaturvarnya. As a divine injunction, it
naturally became the ideal of the Indo-Aryan
society. This ideal of Chaturvarnya was the
mould in which the life of the Indo-Aryan community in its early or liquid state was cast.
It is this mould, which gave the Indo-Aryan community its peculiar shape and structure.
This
reverence, which the Indo-Aryan society had for this ideal mould of Chaturvarnya, is not only beyond question, but it
is also beyond description. Its influence on the Indo-Aryan society has been profound and
indelible. The social order prescribed by the Purusha
Sukta has never been questioned by anyone except Buddha. Even Buddha was not able to
shake it, for the simple reason that both after the fall of Buddhism and even during the period of Buddhism there were enough law-givers, who made it
their business not only to defend the ideal of the Purusha
Sukta but to propagate it and to elaborate it.
To
take a few illustrations of this propaganda in support of the Purusha Sukta,
reference may be made to the Apastamba Dharma Sutra and the
Vasishtha Dharma Sutra. The Apastamba Dharma Sutra states:
"There
are four castes—Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras.
This
is repeated by Vasishtha
Dharma Sutra which says :
"There are four castes (Vamas), Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. Three castes. Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas (are called) twice-born. Their first birth is from their mother; the second from the investiture with the sacred girdle. In that (second birth) the Savitri is the mother, but the teacher is said to be, the father.
They call the teacher father, because he gives instruction in the Veda.[f5] The four castes are distinguished by their origin and by particular sacraments.
There
is also the following passage of the Veda : "The Brahmana was his mouth, the Kshatriya
formed his arms, the Vaishya his thighs; the Shudia was born from his feet."
It has been declared in the following passage that a Shudra shall not receive the sacraments."
Many
other law-givers have in parrot-like manner repeated the
theme of the Purusha Sukta and have reiterated its sanctity. It is unnecessary to repeat their
version of it. All those, who had raised any opposition to the sanctity of the ideal set
out in the Purusha Sukta,
were finally laid low by Manu, the architect of the Hindu
society. For Manu did two things. In the first place, he enunciated afresh the ideal of
the Purusha Sukta as a part of divine
injunction. He said:
"For
the prosperity of the worlds, he (lhe creator) from his mouth, arms, thighs and feet created the Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya and the Shudra.[f6]
The
Brahmin, Kshatriya (and) Vaishya (constitute) the three twice-born castes; but the fourth the shudra has only one birth.[f7]
In
this he was no doubt merely following his predecessors. But he went a step further and
enunciated another proposition in which he said:
Bearing
in mind that the Purusha Sukta is a part of the Veda, it cannot be difficult to realise
that Manu invested the social ideal of Chaturvarnya contained in the Purusha Sukta, with a degree of divinity and infallibility which it
did not have before.
A
critical examination of the Purusha Sukta
therefore becomes very essential.
It
is claimed by the Hindus that the Purusha Sukta
is unique.This is no doubt a tall claim for an idea which
came to birth when the mind of man was primitive and was without the rich endowment of
varied thought available in modem times. But there need not be much difficulty in
admitting this claim provided it is understood in what respect the Purusha Sukta is unique.
The
principal ground for regarding the Purusha Sukta
as unique is that the ideal of social
organization, namely, the ideal of Chaturvarnya which it upholds, is unique. Is
this a sufficient ground for holding the Purusha
Sukta as unique? The Purusha Sukta would
really have been unique if it had preached a classless society as an ideal form of society. But what does the Purusha Sukta do? It preaches a class-composed
society as its ideal. Can this be regarded as unique? Only a nationalist and a patriot can
give an affirmative answer to this question. The existence of classes has been the defacto condition
of every society, which is not altogether primitive. It is a normal state of society all
over the world where society is in a comparatively advanced state. Looking at it from this
point of view, what uniqueness can there be in the Purusha
Sukta, when it does no more than recognise the sort of class composition that existed
in the Indo-Aryan society?
Notwithstanding
this, the Purusha Sukta must be admitted to be
unique, though for quite different reasons. The unfortunate part of the matter is that
many people do not know the true reasons why the Purusha
Sukta should be regarded as unique. But once the true reasons are known, people will
not only have no hesitation in accepting that the Purusha
Sukta is a unique production of the human intellect but will perhaps be shocked to
know what an extraordinary production of human ingenuity it is.
What
are the features of the social ideal of the Purusha
Sukta, which give it the hall mark of being unique? Though the existence of classes is
the de facto condition of every society, nevertheless no society
has converted this de facto state of affairs
into a de jure connotation
of an ideal society. The scheme of the Purusha
Sukta is the only instance in which the real is elevated
to the dignity of an ideal. This is the first unique feature of the scheme set forth in
the Purusha Sukta. Secondly, no community has
given the de facto state of class composition a
legal effect by accepting it as a de jure connotation
of an ideal society. The case of the Greeks is a case in point. Class composition was put
forth as an ideal social structure by no less an advocate than Plato. But the Greeks never
thought of making it real by giving it the sanction of law. The Purusha Sukta is the only instance in which an
attempt was made to give reality to the ideal by invoking the sanction of law. Thirdly, no
society has accepted that the class composition is an ideal. At the most they have
accepted it as being natural. The Purusha Sukta
goes further. It not only regards class composition as natural and ideal, but also regards
it as sacred and divine. Fourthly, the number of the classes has never been a matter of
dogma in any society known to history. The Romans had two classes. The Egyptians thought
three were enough. The Indo-Iranians also had no more than
three classes:[f9]
(1) The Athravans (priests)
(2) Rathaeshtar
(warriors) and (3) the Vastrya-fshuyat
(peasantry). The scheme of the Purusha Sukta
makes the division of society into four classes a matter of dogma. According to it, there
can be neither more nor less. Fifthly, every society leaves a class to find its place vis-a-vis other classes according to its importance
in society as may be determined by the forces operating from time to time. No society has
an official gradation laid down, fixed and permanent, with
an ascending scale of reverence and a descending scale of contempt. The scheme of the Purusha Sukta is unique, inasmuch as it fixes a
permanent warrant of precedence among the different classes, which neither time nor
circumstances can alter. The warrant of precedence is based on the principle of graded
inequality among the four classes, whereby it recognises the Brahmin to be above all, the Kshatriya below the Brahmin but above the Vaishya and the Shudra, the Vaishya below the Kshatriya but above the Shudra and the Shudra
below all.
These
are the real reasons why the Purusha
Sukta is unique. But the Purusha Sukta is not
merely unique, it is also extraordinary. It is extraordinary because it is so full of
riddles. Few seem to be aware of these riddles. But anyone who cares to inquire will learn
how real in their nature and how strange in their complexion these riddles are. The
cosmogony set out in the Purusha Sukta is not
the only cosmogony one comes across in the Rig Veda. There is another cosmogony which is
expounded in the 72nd Hymn of the Tenth Mandala of the Rig
Veda. It reads as follows :[f10]
1. Let
us proclaim with a clear voice of the generation of the gods
(the divine company), who, when their praises are recited, look (favourably on the
worshipper) in this latter age.
2. Brahmanaspati
filled these (generations of the gods) with breath as a
blacksmith (his bellows); in the first age of the gods the
existent was born of the non-existent.
3. In
the first age of the gods the existent was born of the non-existent; after that the quarters (of the horizon) were born, and after them the upward-growing (trees).
4. The
earth was born from the upward growing (tree), the quarters were born from the earth; Daksha was born from Adili
and afterwards Aditi from Daksha.
5. Aditi,
who was thy daughter, Daksha, was born; after her, the gods were born, adorable, freed
from the bonds of death.
6. When,
gods, you abode in this pool well-arranged, then a pungent
dust went forth from you as if you were dancing.
7. When,
gods, you Filled the worlds (with your radiance) as clouds
(fill the earth with rain) then
you brought fourth the sun hidden in the ocean.
8. Eight
sons (there were) of Aditi who were born from her body; she
approached the gods with seven, she sent forth Martanda on
high.
9. With seven sons Aditi went to a former generation, but she bore
Martanda for the birth and death (of human beings).
The
two cosmologies are fundamentally different in principle as well as in detail. The former
explains creation ex nihilo
'being was born of non-being'.
The latter ascribes creation to a being which it calls Purusha. Why in one and the same book two such
opposite cosmologies should have come to be propounded? Why did the author of the Purusha Sukta think it necessary to posit a Purusha and make all creation emanate from' him?
Any
one who reads the Purusha Sukta will find that
it starts with the creation of donkyes, horses, goats, etc.,
but does not say anything about the creation of man. At a point when it would have been
natural to speak of the creation of man, it breaks off the chain and proceeds to explain
the origin of the classes in the Aryan society. Indeed, the Purusha Sukta appears to make the explaining of the four classes of
the Aryan society to be its primary concern. In doing this, the Purusha Sukta stands in complete contrast not only
with other theologies but with the other parts of the Rig Veda also.
No
theology has made it its purpose to explain the origin of classes in society. Chapter I of
the Genesis in the Old Testament, which can be said to be analogous in intention and
purpose to the Purusha Sukta, does nothing more
than explain how man was created. It is not that social classes did not exist in the old
Jewish society. Social classes existed in all societies. The Indo-Aryans
were no exception. Nevertheless, no theology has ever thought it necessary to explain how classses arise. Why then did the Purusha Sukta make the explanation of the origin of
the social classes its primary concern?
The
Purusha Sukta is not the only place in the Rig
Veda where a discussion of the origin of creation occurs. There are other places in the
Rig Veda where the same subject is referred to. In this connection, one may refer to the
following passage in the Rig Veda which reads as follows :[f11]
Rig
Veda,
i.96.2: "By the first nivid,
by the wisdom of Ayu, he (Agni)
created these children of men; by his gleaming light the
earth and the waters, the gods sustained Agni the giver of the riches."
In
this, there is no reference at all to the separate creation of classes, though there is no
doubt that even at the time of the Rig Veda, the Indo-Aryan Society had
become differentiated into classes; yet the above passage in the Rig Veda ignores the classes and refers to the
creation of men only. Why did the Purusha Sukta
think it necessary to go further and speak of the origin of the classes?
The
Purusha Sukta contradicts the Rig Veda in another respect. The Rig Veda propounds a secular theory regarding the
origin of the Indo-Aryans as will be seen from the following texts:
(1) Rig Veda, i.80:16: "Prayers and hymns were formerly congregated in that Indra, in the ceremony which Atharvan,
father Manu, and Dadhyanch celebrated.'[f12]
(2) Rig Veda, i.l 14.2 : "Whatever prosperity or succour father Manu obtained by sacrifice, may we gain all that under thy
guidance, Rudra.[f13]
(3) Rig
Veda,
ii.33.13 : "Those pure
remedies of yours, O Maruts, those which are most
auspicious, ye vigorous gods, those which are beneficent, those which our father Manu chose, those and the blessing and succour of Rudra, I desire. [f14]
(4) (4)
Rig Veda, viii.52.1 :
"The ancient friend hath been equipped with the powers
of the mighty (gods). Father Manu has prepared hymns to him, as portals of access to the gods.'[f15]
(5) Rig
Veda,
iii.3.6 : "Agni, together with the gods, and the children (jantubhih) of Manush, celebrating a multiform sacrifice with hymns.[f16]
(6) Rig
Veda,
iv. 37.1 :" Ye gods, Vajas, and Ribhukshana, come to
our sacrifice by the path travelled by the gods, that ye, pleasing deities, may institute
a sacrifice among these people of Manush (Manusho
vikshu) on auspicious • days."[f17]
(7) Rig
Veda,
vi.l4.2 : "The people of Manush praise in the sacrifice
Agni the invoker.[f18]
From
these texts it is beyond question that the rishis who were
the authors of the hymns of the Rig Veda regarded Manu as the progenitor of the Indo-Aryans. This theory about Manu being the progenitor of the
Indo-Aryans had such deep foundation that it was carried
forward by the Brahmanas
as well as the Puranas.
It is propounded in the Aitareya Brahmana[f19]
in the Vishnu Parana [f20]
and the Matsya Parana[f21]It
is true that they have made Brahma the progenitor of Manu;
but the Rig Veda theory of Manu being the progenitor has been accepted and
maintained by them[f22]
Why does the Purusha Sukta make no mention of Manu ? This is
strange because the author of the Purush
Sukta seems to be aware of the fact that Manu Svayambhuva
is called Viraj
and Viraj is
called Adi Purusha, [f23]since
he too speaks of Virajo
adhi Purushah in verse
five of the Sukta.
There
is a third point in which the Purush Sukta has
gone beyond the Rig Veda. The Vedic Aryans were sufficiently advanced in their civilization
to give rise to division of labour. Different persons among
the Vedic Aryans followed different occupations. That they
were conscious of it is evidenced by the following verse:
This
is as far as the Rig Veda had gone. The Purusha Sukta goes beyond. It follows up the notion of division of
labour and converts the scheme of division of work into a scheme of division of workers
into fixed and permanent occupational categories. Why does the Purush Sukta commit
itself to such a perversity?
There
is another point in which the Purusha Sukta departs from the Rig Veda. It is not that the Rig Veda speaks only of man. It speaks also of the Indo-Aryan nation. This nation was made up of the five tribes,
which had become assimilated into one common Indo-Aryan people. The following hymns refer
to these five tribes as moulded into a nation:
(1) Rig
Veda,
vi.ll.4 :" Agni, whom,
abounding in oblations, the five tribes, bringing offerings, honour with prostrations, as
if he were a man.[f24]
(2) Rig
Veda,
vii.l5.2 : "The wise and youthful master of the house (Agni) who has taken up his abode among the
five tribes in every house.'[f25]
There
is some difference of opinion as to who these five tribes are. Yaska in his Nirukta says that it denotes Gandharvas, Pitris, Devas, Asuras and Rakshasas. Aupamanyava says that it denotes the four Varnas and the Nishadas. Both these
explanations seem to be absurd. Firstly, because the five tribes are praised collectively
as in the following hymns:
(1) Rig
Veda,
ii.2.10 : "May our glory
shine aloft among the five tribes, like the heaven unsurpassable.[f26]
(2) Rig
Veda,
vi.46.7 : "Indra, whatever force or vigour exists in
the tribe of Nashusa or whatever glory belongs to the five
races bring (for us).
[f27]
Such
laudatory statements could not have been made if the five tribes included the Shudras. Besides,
the word used is not Varnas. The word used is Janah. That it refer
to the five tribes and not to the four Varnas
and Nishadas is quite clear from the following
verse of the Rig Veda:
Rig Veda,
i. 108.8: "If, 0 Indra
and Agni, ye are abiding among the Yodus, Turvasas, Druhyus, Anus, Purus, come hither, vigorous heroes from all quarters, and
drink the Soma which has been poured out.[f28]
That
these five tribes had been moulded into one Aryan people is clear from the Atharva Veda (iii.24.2) which
says : "these five regions, the five tribes springings from Manu."
A
sense of unity and a consciousness of kind can alone explain why the Rishis of the Rig Vedic hymns came
to refer to the five tribes in such manner. The questions are: why did the Purusha Sukta not recognise this unity of the five tribes and give
a mythic explanation of their origin? Why instead did it
recognise the communal divisions within the tribes? Why did the Purusha Sukta regard communalism more important than nationalism?
These
are some of the riddles of the Purush Sukta , which come to
light when one compares it with the Rig Veda.
There are others, which emerge when one proceeds to examine the Purusha Sukta from a sociological
point of view.
Ideals
as norms are good and are necessary. Neither a society nor an individual can do without a
norm. But a norm must change with changes in time and circumstances. No norm can be
permanently fixed. There must always be room for revaluation of the values of our norm.
The possibility of revaluing values remains open only when the institution is not invested
with sacredness. Sacredness prevents revaluation of its values. Once sacred, always
sacred. The Purusha
Sukta makes the Chaturvarnya a
sacred institution, a divine ordination. Why did the Purusha
Sukta make a particular form of social order so sacred as to be beyond criticism and
beyond change? Why did it want to make it a permanent ideal beyond change and even beyond
criticism? This is the first riddle of the Purusha
Sukta which strikes a student of sociology.
In
propounding the doctrine of Chaturvarnya, the Purush Sukta plays a double game. It proceeds
first to raise the real, namely, the existence of the four classes in the Indo-Aryan Society, to the status of an ideal. This is a
deception because the ideal is in no way different from facts as they exist. After raising
the real to the status of the ideal, it proceeds to make a show of giving effect to what
it regards as an ideal. This again is a deception because the ideal already exists in
fact. This attempt of the Purusha Sukta to
idealise the real and to realise the ideal, is a kind of political jugglery, the like of
which, I am sure, is not to be found in any other book of religion. What else is it if not
a fraud and a deception? To idealise the real, which more
often than not is full of inequities, is a very selfish thing to do. Only when a person
finds a personal advantage in things as they are that he tries to idealise the real. To
proceed to make such an ideal real is nothing short of criminal. It means perpetuating
inequity on the ground that whatever is once settled is settled for all times. Such a view
is opposed to all morality. No society with a social conscience has ever accepted it. On
the contrary, whatever progress in improving the terms of associated life between
individuals and classes has been made in the course of history, is due entirely to the
recognition of the ethical doctrine that what is wrongly settled is never settled and must
be resettled. The principle underlying the Purush Sukta is, therefore,
criminal in intent and anti-social in its results. For, it aims to perpetuate an illegal
gain obtained by one class and an unjust wrong inflicted upon another. What can be the
motive behind this jugglery of the Purusha
Sukta ? This is the second riddle.
The
last and the greatest of all these riddles, which emerge out of a sociological scrutiny of the Purusha Sukta , is
the one relating to the position of the Shudra. The Purusha Sukta concerns
itself with the origin of the classes, and says they were created by God—a doctrine
which no theology has thought it wise to propound. This in itself is a strange thing. But
what is astonishing is the plan of equating different classes to different parts of the
body of the Creator. The equation of the different classes to different parts of the body
is not a matter of accident. It is deliberate. The idea behind this plan seems to be to
discover a formula which will solve two problems, one of fixing the functions of the four
classes and the other of fixing the gradation of the four classes after a preconceived
plan. The formula of equating different classes to the different parts of the body of the
Creator has this advantage. The part fixes the gradation of the class and the gradation in
its turn fixes the function of the class. The Brahmin
is equated to the mouth of the Creator. Mouth being the noblest part of the anatomy, the Brahmin becomes the noblest of the four classes. As
he is the noblest in the scale, he is given the noblest function, that of custodian of
knowledge and learning. The Kshatriya is equated
to the arms of the Creator. Among the limbs of a person, arms are next below the mouth.
Consequently, the Kshatriya is given an order of
precedence next below the Brahmin and is given a
function which is second only to knowledge, namely, fighting.
The Vaishya is
equated to the thighs of the Creator. In the gradation of limbs the thighs are next below
the arms. Consequently, the Vaishya is given an
order of precedence next below the Kshatriya and is assigned a function of
industry and trade which in name and fame ranks or rather did rank in ancient times below
that of a warrior. The Shudra
is equated to the feet of the Creator. The feet form the lowest and the most ignoble part
of the human frame. Accordingly, the Shudra is
placed last in the social order and is given the filthiest function, namely, to serve as a
menial.
Why
did the Purusha Sukta choose such
a method of illustrating the creation of the four classes? Why did it equate the Shudras to the feet?
Why did it not take some other illustration to show how the four classes were created. It
is not that Purusha
is the only stock simile used to explain creation. Compare the explanation of the origin of the Vedas contained in the Chhandogya Upanishad. It says[f29]
"Prajapati
infused warmth into the worlds, and from them so heated he drew forth their essences, viz., Agni (fire) from the earth, Vayu
(wind) from the air, and Surya (the sun) from the sky. He
infused warmth into these three deities, and from them so heated he drew forth their
essences,— from Agni the ric verses, from Vayu the yajus verses and from
Surya the saman
verses. He then infused heat into this triple science, and from it so heated he drew forth
its essences—from ric verses the syllable
bhuh, from yajus verses bhuvah, and from Saman verses svar."
Here
is an explanation of the origin of the Vedas from different deities. So far as the Indo-Aryans are concerned, there
was no dearth of them. There were thirty crores of them. An
explanation of the origin of the four Varnas from four gods would have maintained
equality of dignity by birth of all the four classes. Why did the Purusha Sukta not
adopt this line of explanation?
Again,
would it not have been possible for the author of. the Purusha Sukta to say that the different classes
were born from the different mouths of the Purusha.
Such a conception could not have been difficult because the Purusha of the Purush Sukta has one
thousand heads, enough to assign one species of creation to one of his heads. Such a
method of explaining creation could not have been unknown to the author of the Purusha Sukta. For we find it used by the Vishnu Purana to
explain the origin of the different Vedas as may
be seen from the following extract:2[f30]
"From
his eastern mouth Brahma formed the Gayatd, the ric verses, the trivrit,
the sama-rathantara and of sacrifices, the agnistoma. From his southern mouth he created the yajus verses, the trishtubh
metre, the panchadasa stoma,
the brihatsaman, and the ukthya.
From his western mouth he formed the saman verses, the jagati metre, the saptadasa
stoma, the Vairupa, and the atiratra.
From his northern mouth he formed the ekavimsa, the atharvan, the aptoryaman with the anushtubh and
viraj metres."
The
Harivansa has
another way of explaining the origin of the Vedas. According
to it:[f31]
"The
god fashioned the Rig Veda with the Yajus from
his eyes, the Sama Veda
from the tip of his tongue, and the Atharvan
from his head."
Assuming
that for some reason the author of the Purusha Sukta could not avoid
using the body of the Creator and its different parts for explaining the origin and the
relation of the four classes, the question still remains as to why he chose to equate the
different parts of the Purusha to the different
classes in the manner in which he does.
The
importance of this question is considerably heightened when one realises that the Purusha Sukta is not the only instance in which
the different parts of the body of the Creator are used as illustrations to explain the
origin of the different classes in society. The same explanation is given by the sage Vaishampayana to
explain the origin of the various classes of priests employed in the performance of
sacrifices. But what a difference is there between the two! The explanation of Vaishampayana which is reported in the Harivarnsa reads as
follows: [f32]
"Thus
the glorious Lord Hari Narayana,
covering the entire waters, slept on the world which had become one sea, in the midst of
the vast expanse of fluid (rajas), resembling a
mighty ocean, himself free from passion (virajaskah), with mighty arms; Brahmans know him as the undecaying. Invested through austere
fervour with the light of his own form and clothed with triple time (past, present and
future) the lord then slept. Purushotiama (Vishnu) is whatever is declared
to be the highest. Purusha the sacrifice, and
everything else which is known by the name of Purusha.
Here how the Brahmins devoted to sacrifice, and
called ritvijas,
were formerly produced by him from his own body for offering sacrifices. The Lord created
from his mouth the Brahman,
who is the chief, and the udgatri,
who chants the Saman, from his arms the hotri and the adhvaryu . He then...
created the prastotri,
the maitravaruna,
and the pratishthatri, from
his belly the pratiharti
and the potri,
from his thighs the achhavaka
and the neshtri,
from his hands the agnidhra
and the sacrificial brahmanya,
from his arms the gravan
and the sacrificial unnetri.
Thus did the divine Lord of the world create the sixteen excellent ritvijas, the utterers of all sacrifices. Therefore this Purusha is formed of
sacrifice and is called the Veda; and all the Vedas with the
Vedangas, Upanishads and
ceremonies are formed of his essence."
There
were altogether seventeen different classes of priests required for the performance of a
sacrifice. It could never be possible for anyone attempting to explain the origin of each
by reference to a distinct part of the body of the Creator to avoid using the feet of the Purusha as the origin of a class, the limbs of the Purusha being so few and the number of priests
being so many. Yet what does Vaishampayana do? He does not mind using the
same part of the Creator's body to explain the origin of more than one class of priests.
He most studiously avoids using the feet as the origin of anyone of them.
The
situation becomes completely intriguing when one compares the levity with which the Shudras are treated
in the Purusha Sukta with
the respect with which the Brahmins are treated
in the Hari-varnsa in the matter of their respective
origins. Is it because of malice that the Purusha Sukta did not hesitate to say that the Shudra was born from
the feet of the Purusha and that his duty was to
serve? If so what is the cause of this malice?
The
riddles about the Shudras mentioned above are those which
arise out of a sociological scrutiny of the Purusha Sukta. There
are other riddles regarding the position of the Shudra
which arise out of later developments of the ideal of Chaturvarnya. To appreciate these results it is
necessary first to take note of these later developments. The later developments of Chaturvarnya are mainly two. First is the creation
of the fifth class next below the Shudras. The second is the separation of the Shudras from the
first three Varnas.
These changes have become so integrated with the original scheme of the Purusha Sukta that they have given rise to peculiar
terms and expressions so well-known that everybody understands what they stand for. These
terms are : Savarnas, Avarnas, Dvijas, non-Dvijas, and Traivarnikas. They stand to indicate the sub-divisions of
the original four classes and the degree of separation between them. It is necessary to
take note of the relative position of these classes because they disclose a new riddle. If
this riddle has not caught the eye of the people, it is because of two reasons. Firstly,
because students have not cared to note that these names are not mere names but that they
stand for definite rights and privileges, and secondly, because they have not cared to
find out whether the groupings made under these names are logical having regard to the
rights and privileges they connote.
Let
us therefore see what is the de jure connotation of these
terms. Savarna is
generally contrasted with Avarna. Savarna means one who belongs to one of the four Varnas. Avarna means one who does not belong to any one
of the four Varnas.
The Brahmins, Kshatriyas,
Vaishyas and Shudras are Savarnas. The Untouchables or Ati-Shudras are
called Avarnas,
those who have no Varna. Logically, the. Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras are within the Chaturvarnya. Logically, the Untouchables or
the Ati-Shudras
are outside the Chaturvarnya. Dvija is generally
contrasted with non-Dvija.
Dvija literally means twice-born and non-Dvija means one
who is born only once. The distinction is based on the right
to have Upanayana.
The Upanayana is
treated as a second birth. Those who have the right to wear the sacred thread are called Dvijas. Those who
have no right to wear it are called non-Dvijas. The Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas have the right to wear the sacred thread.
Logically, they are Dvijas. The Shudras and the Ati-Shudras have no right to wear the sacred
thread. Logically, they are both non-Dvijas. The
Traivarnika is
contrasted with the Shudra.
But there is nothing special in this contrast. It conveys the same distinction which is
conveyed by the distinction between the Dvijas
and the non-Dvijas except the fact that the
contrast is limited to the Shudra and does not
extend to the Ati-Shudra.
This is probably because this terminology came into being before the rise of the Ati-Shudras as a separate class.
Bearing
in mind that both the Shudra and the Ati-Shudra are non-Dvijas, why then is the Shudra regarded as Savarna and the Ati-Shudra as Avarna ? Why is the
former within and why is the latter outside the Chaturvarnya
? The Brahmins,
Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras are all
within the four corners of the Chaturvarnya.
They are all Savarnas. Why then is the Shudra denied the right of the Traivarnikas ?
Can
there be a greater riddle than the riddle of the Shudras
? Surely, it calls for investigation and explanation as to
who they were and how they came to be the fourth Varna
in the Aryan Society.
chapter
II
THE
BRAHMANIC THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE SHUDRAS
HAS the Brahmanic literature any explanation to offer which can account for the origin of the Shudras? There is no doubt that the Brahmanic literature is full of legends regarding creation which touch upon the creation of the universe, of man and of the different Vamas. Whether or not they furnish any clue to discover the origin of the Shudras, there can be no doubt that all such theories should find a place in a book which is concerned with the problem of the Shudras if for no other reason than that of assembling all material relating to the Shudras in one place and making their story complete. It would be better to take each piece of the Brahmanic literature separately, and note what contribution it has to make to the subject.
I
To
begin with the Vedas. As to the Rig Veda, the legend about creation to be found in
its Sukta known as the Purusha Sukta has already been set out in the
previous chapter. It now remains to take note of the legends contained in the other Vedas.
There
are two recensions of the Yajur Veda : (1) the
White Yajur Veda and (2) the Black Yajur Veda. To take the White Yajur Veda first. The Vajasaneyi Samhita of the White Yajur Veda sponsors two theories. One is a mere
reproduction of the Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda with this difference that it has 22
verses, while the original as it occurs in the Rig
Veda has only 16 verses. The six additional verses in the White Yajur Veda read as follows :
17. Brought
forth from the waters and from the essence of the earth, he was produced by Vishvakannan in the beginning. Tvashta
gives him form; that is the Universe of Purusha on all sides in the beginning.
18. 1
know this great Purusha, of the colour of the sun, beyond darkness. Only by knowing him
does one go beyond death; there is no other path for going.
19. Prajapati moves in the interior of the womb; though unborn, he is born in many forms. Wise men see his source; wise men desire the place of the Marichis.
20. He
who shines for the gods, he who is the priest of the gods, he who was born before the
gods,—salutation to that shining offspring of Brahma.
21. The
gods, generating the shining offspring of Brahma, said in the beginning; "That
Brahmin who knows thus,— the gods will be under his control."
22. Sri
and
Laxmi are his wives; the day and night his
sides; the Stars his ornament; the Ashwins his
bright face. Grant me my desires; grant me that; grant me everything.
The
second explanation contained in the Vajasaneyi
Samhita is quite different from the Purusha
Sukta. It reads as follows :
V.S.,
xiv,28. *[f33]"He
lauded with one. Living beings were formed. He lauded with three the brahman was created; Brahmanaspati was the ruler. He lauded with five existing things were created;
bhutanampati was ruler. He lauded with seven:
die seven rishis were created: Dhatri was the
ruler. He lauded with nine: the Fathers were
created: Aditi was the ruler. He lauded with
eleven: the seasons were created: the Artavas
were the rulers. He lauded with thirteen: the months were created: the year was the ruler.
He lauded with fifteen: the Kshatra (the Kshatriya) was created: Indra was the ruler. He lauded with seventeen:
animals were created: Brihaspati was the ruler.
He lauded with nineteen: the Shudra and the Arya (Vaishya ) were created: day and night were
the rulers. He lauded with twenty-one: animals with undivided hoofs were created: Varuna was the ruler. He lauded with twenty-three:
small animals were created: Pushan was the
ruler. He lauded with twenty-five: wild animals were created: Vayu was the ruler (compare R.V., x.90.8). He
lauded with twenty-seven: heaven and earth separated: Vasus, Rudras and Adityas separated after them: they were the rulers.
He lauded with thirty-one: living beings were created: the first and second halves of the
month were the rulers. He lauded with thirty one: existing things were tranquillized: Prajapati Parameshthin was the ruler."
Now
to turn to the Black Yajur Veda . The Taittriya Samhita of the Black Yajur Veda gives altogether five explanations. The
one at iv. 3, 10 is the same as has been put forth by the Vajasaneyi Samhita of the White Yajur Vedaa-t (xiv.28) and which has been
reproduced earlier. Of the rest those which narrate the origin of the Shudra are set out
below:
T.S.,
ii.4.13.1.[f34]—"The
gods were afraid of the Rajanya when he was in
the womb. They bound him with bonds when he was in the womb. Consequently, this Rajanya is born bound. If he were born unbound he
would go on slaying his enemies. In regard to whatever Rajanya any one desires that he should be born
unbound, and should go on slaying his enemies, let him offer for him this Aindra-Barhaspatya oblation. A Rajanya has the character of Indra, and a Brahman is Brihaspati. It is through the Brahman that anyone releases the Rajanya from his bond. The golden bond, a gift,
manifestly releases from the bond that fetters him."
(2)
T.S., vii. 1.1.4.[f35]—Prajapad desired, may I propagate.' He formed the
Trivrit (stoma) from his mouth. After it were produced the deity Agni, the metre Gayain,
the Saman (called) Rathantara, of men the Brahmin, of beasts the goats. Hence they are the
chief (mukhyah) because they were created from
the mouth (mukhatah). From (his) breast, from
his arms,- he formed the. Panchadasa {stoma)
After it were created the god, the indra, the Trishtubh metre, the Saman (called) Brihat,
of men the Rajanya, of beasts the sheep. Hence
they are vigorous, because they were created from vigour. From (his) middle he foamed the
Saptadasa (stoma). After it were created the gods (called) the Vishvedevas, the Jagati
metre, the Saman called the Vairupa of men the Vaishya,
of beasts kine. Hence they are to be eaten, because they were created from the receptacle
of food. Wherefore they are more numerous than
others, for the most numerous deities were created after (the Saptadasa), From his foot he
formed the Ekavimsa (Stoma.). After it were created
the Anushtubh metre, the saman called vairaja, of men the.Shudra, of beasts the horse. Hence these two,
both the horse and the Shudra, are transporters
of (other) creatures. Hence (too) the Shudra is incapacitated for sacrifice, because no deities were created after (the
Ekavimsa). Hence (too) these two subsist by
their feet, for they were created from the foot.
Coming
to the Atharva Veda, there are altogether four
explanations. One of these is the same as the Purusha
Sukta of the Rig Veda. It occurs at xix.6.
The others are as stated below :
(1) A.V.[f36]
iv.6.1.—The Brahman was born the first with
ten heads and ten faces. He first drank the soma; he made poison powerless.
(2) A.V., [f37]xv.S.I.—He
(the Vratya) became filled with passion thence
sprang the Rajanya.
(3) A.V.,
[f38]xv.9.1.—Let
the king to whose house the Vratya who knows
this, comes as a guest, cause him to be respected as superior to himself. So doing he does
no injury to his royal rank, or to his realm. From him arose the Brahman (Brahmin) and the Kshattra (Kshatriya). They said Into whom shall we
enter,' etc.
To
proceed to the Brahmanas. The Satapatha Brahmana
contains six explanations. There are two which concern themselves with the creation of the
Varnas. Of the two, the one which speaks of the
origin of the Shudras is given below :
S.B[f39] xiv.4.2.23.—"Brahma (here, according to the commentator, existing in the form of Agni and representing the Brahmana caste) was formerly this (universe), one only. Being one, it did not develop. It energetically created an excellent form, the Kshattra, viz., those among the gods who are powers (Kshattrani), Indra, Varuna, Soma, Rudra, Parjanya, Yama, Mrityu, Isana, Hence nothing is superior to the Kshatra. Therefore, the Brahmana sits below the Kshatriya at the Rajasuya sacrifice; he confers that glory on the Kshattra (the royal power). This, the Brahma, is the source of the Kshattra. Hence although the king attains supremacy, he at the end resorts to the Brahman as his source. Whoever destroys him (the Brahman) destroys his own source. He becomes most miserable, as one who has injured a superior. He did not develop. He created the Vis, viz., those classes of gods who are designated by troops, Vasus, Rudras, Adityas, Visvedevas, Maruts. He did not develop. He created the Shudra class Pushan. This earth is Pushan ; for she nourishes all that exists. He did not develope. He energetically created an excellent form. Justice (Dharma). This is the ruler (Kshattra) of, the ruler (Kshattra), namely. Justice. Hence nothing is superior to Justice. Therefore the weaker seeks (to overcome) the stronger by Justice, as by a king. This justice is truth. In consequence they say of a man who speaks truth, 'he speaks justice.' For this is both of these. This is the Brahma, Kshattra, Vis and Shudra. Through Agni it became Brahma among the gods, the Brahmana among men, through the (divine) Kshatriya a (human) Kshatriya, through the (divine) Vaishya a (human) Vaishya, through the (divine) Shudra a (human) Shudra. Wherefore it is in Agni among the gods and in a Brahman among men that they seek after an abode.
The
Taittriya Brahman is responsible for the following
explanation:
T.B.[f40]
i.2.6.7.—"The Brahmana caste is sprung from the gods; the Shudras from the
Asuras."
(1) T.B., [f41]iii.
2.3.9.—"This Shudra has sprung from non-existence."
Here
is a complete collection of all the Brahmanic speculations on the origin of the four
classes and of the Shudras. The ancient Brahmins were evidently conscious of the fact that
the origin of the four classes was an unusual and uncommon social phenomenon and that the
place of the Shudra in it was very unnatural and that this called for some explanation.
Otherwise, it would be impossible to account for these innumerable attempts to explain the
origin of the Chaturvarnya and of the Shudra.
But
what is one to say of these explanations? The variety of them is simply bewildering. Some
allege that Purusha was the origin of the four Varnas, and some attribute their origin to Brahma,
some to Prajapati and some to Vratya. The same source gives differing explanations. The
White Yajur Veda has two explanations, one in
terms of Purusha, the other in terms of Prajapati. The Black Yajur Veda has three explanations to offer. Two are
in terms of Prajapati, the third in terms of
Brahman. The Atharva Veda has four explanations,
one in terms of Purusha, second in terms of Brahman, third in terms of Vratya and fourth quite different from the first
three. Even when the theory is the same, the details are not the same. Some explanations
such as those in terms of Prajapti, or Brahma are theological. Others in terms of Manu or
Kasyapa are in humanistic terms. It is imagination running riot. There is in them neither
history nor sense. Prof. Max Muller commenting on the Brahmanas has said:
"The
Brahmanas represent no doubt a most interesting phase in the history of the Indian mind,
but judged by themselves, as literary productions, they are most disappointing. No one
would have supposed that at so early a period, and in so primitive a state of society,
there could have risen up a literature which for pedantry and downright absurdity can
hardly be matched anywhere. There is no lack of striking thoughts, of bold expressions, of
sound reasoning, and curious traditions in these collections. But these are only like the
fragments of a torso, like precious gems set in brass and lead. The general character of
these works is marked by shallow and insipid grandiloquence, by priestly conceit, and
antiquarian pedantry. It is most important to the historian that he should know how soon
the fresh and healthy growth of a nation can
be blighted by priestcraft and superstition. It is most important that we should know that
nations are liable to these epidemics in their youth as well as in their dotage. These
works deserve to be studied as the physician studies the twaddle of idiots, and the raving
of madmen."[f42]
On
reading these Brahmanic speculations on the origin of the four Varnas and particularly of the Shudras one is very much reminded of these words of Prof. Max
Muller. All these speculations are really the twaddles of idiots and ravings of madmen and
as such they are of no use to the student of history who is in search of a natural
explanation of a human problem.
CHAPTER
III
THE BRAHMANIC THEORY
OF THE STATUS OF THE SHUDRAS
So
much for the Brahmanic view of the origin of the Shudra. Turning to the Brahmanic view of
the civil status of the Shudra, what strikes one is the long list of (disabilities, accompanied by a most dire system
of pains and-penalties to which. the Shudra is subjected by the Brahmaiac law-givers.
The
disabitities and penalties of the Shudra found in the Samhitas and the Brahmanas were few, as may be seen from the following
extracts:
I.
According
to the Kathaka Samhita (xxxi.2) and the Maitrayani Samhita(iv.1.3;i.8.3)
"A shudra should not be allowed to milk the cow whose milk is used for Agnihotra."
II. The
Satapatha Brahmana (iii.1.1.10), the Maitrayani Samita (vii.l.l.6) and also the Panchavirnsa Brahmana (vi.l.ll) say:
"The Shudra must not be spoken to when performing a sacrifice and a Shudra must not be present when a sacrifice is being performed."
III. The
Satapatha Brahmana (xiv.l.31) and the Kathaka Samhita (xi.lO) further provide that :
"The
Shudra must not be admitted to Soma drink."
The Aitareya
Brahmana (vii.29.4) and the Panchavirnsa
Brahmana (vi.l.ll) reached the culminating point when they say:
"Shudra
is a servant of another (and cannot be anything else)."
But
what in the beginning was a cloud no bigger than a man's hand, seems to have developed
into a storm, which has literally overwhelmed the Shudras. For, as will be seen from the
extracts given from later penal legislation by the Sutrakaras
like Apastamba, Baudhayana, etc. and the Smritikaras like Manu and others, the growth of the
disabilities of the Shudras has been at a maddening speed and to an extent which is quite
unthinkable.
The
disabilities are so deadening that it would be impossible to believe them unless one sees
them in cold print. They are, however, so numerous that it is impossible to present them
in their fullness. To enable those, who do not know them, to have some idea of these
disabilities, I have assembled below in one place illustrative statements by the different
Sutrakaras and Smritikaras relating to the
disabilities of the Shudras scattered in their Law Books.
(i)
(A)
The.Apastamba DharmaSutra says :
"There
are four castes—-Brahmanas, Kshatriyas,
Vaishyas and Shudras. amongst these, each preceding (caste) is superior by birth to the one following*[f43]
:
For
all these, excepting Shudras and those who have committed bad actions are ordained. (1)
the initiation (Upanayaaa or the wearing of the sacred thread), (2) the study of the Veda
and (3) the kindling of the sacred fire (i.e„ the right to perform sacrifices).[f44]"
(B)
This is what the Vasishtha Dharma Sutra says:
"There are four castes (Varna) Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras.
Three castes, Brahmanas, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas (are called) twice-born.
Their
first-birth is from the mother; the second from the investiture with the sacred girdle. In
that (second birth) the Savitri is the mother, but the teacher is said to be the father.
They
call the teacher father, because he gives instruction in the Veda.[f45]
The four castes are distinguished by their origin and by particular sacraments.
There
is also the following passage of the Veda: ' The Brahmana was his mouth, the Kshatriya
formed his arms: the Vaishya his thighs; the Shudra was born from his feet.'
It
has been declared in the following passage of the Veda that a Shudra shall not receive the
sacraments. 'He created the Brahmana with the Gayatri (metre), the Kshatriya with the
Trishtubh, the Vaishya with the Jagati, the Shudra without any metre."[f46]
(C)
The Manu Smriti propounds the following view on
the subject:
"For the prosperity of the worlds, he (the creator) from his mouth, arms, thighs and feet created the Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra.[f47]
The Brahmans, Kshatriya (and) Vaishya constitute the three twice-born castes, but the fourth, the Shudra has only one birth."[f48]
(ii)
(A)
The Apastamba Dharma Sutra says :
"(A Traivarnika) shall never study (the Veda) in a burial ground nor anywhere near it within the throw of a Sarnya.
If a village has been built over a burial ground or its surface has been cultivated as a field, the recitation of the Veda in such a place is not prohibited.
But if that place is known to have been a burial ground, he shall not study (there).
A
Shudra and an outcaste are (included by the term) burial-ground, (and the rule given,
Sutra 6 applies to them).
Some
declare, that (one ought to avoid only to study) in the same house (where they dwell).
But
if (a student and) a Shudra woman merely look at each other, the recitation of the Veda
must be interrupted.[f49]
Food
touched by a (Brahmana or other high-caste person) who is impure, becomes impure but not
unfit for eating.
But
what has been brought (be it touched or not) by an impure Shudra must not be eaten. A
Shudra touches him, (then he shall leave off eating)."[f50]
(B)
The Vishnu Smriti says :
"He
must not cause a member of a twice born caste to be carried out by a Shudra (even though he be a kinsman of
the deceased). Nor a Shudra by a member of a twice-born caste.
A
father and a mother shall be carried out by their sons; (who are equal in caste to their parents).
But
Shudras must never carry out a member of a twice-born caste, even though he be their
father."[f51]
(C)
The Vasishtha Dharma Sutra prescribes :
"Now
therefore, we will declare what may be eaten and what may not be eaten.
Food
given by a physician, a hunter, a woman of bad character, a mace-bearer, a thief, an
Abhisasta, and eunuch, (or) an outcaste must not be eaten.
Nor
that given by a miser, one who has performed the initiatory ceremony of a
Srauta-sacrifice, a prisoner, a sick person, a seller of the Soma plant, a carpenter, a
washerman, a dealer in spirituous liquor, a spy, an usurer, (or) a cobbler.
Nor
that given by a Shudra.[f52]
Some
call that Shudra race a burial-ground.
Therefore
the Veda must not be recited in the presence of a Shudra."
Now
they quote also the (following) verses which Yama proclaimed :
The
wicked Shudra-race is manifestly a burial-ground. Therefore (the Veda) must never be
recited in the presence of a Shudra.[f53]
Some
become worthy receptacles of gifts through sacred learning, and some through the practice
of austerities. But that Brahmana whose stomach does not contain the food of a Shudra, is
even the worthiest receptacle of all.[f54]
If
a Brahmana dies with the food of a Shudra in his stomach, he will become a village pig (in
his next life) or be born in the family of that Shudra.
For
though a (Brahmana) whose body is nourished by the essence of a Shudra's food may daily
recite the Veda, though he may offer (an Agnihotra) or mutter (prayers, nevertheless) he
will not find the path that leads upwards.
But
if, after eating the food of a Shudra, he has conjugal intercourse, (even) his sons
(begotten on a wife of his own caste) will belong to the giver of the food (i.e., to the
Shudra) and he shall not ascend to heaven.[f55]
(D)TheManuSmriti
says:
"He
(Brahmin) may not dwell in the kingdom of a Shudra nor in one full of unrighteous people,
nor in one invaded by hosts of heretics nor in one possessed by low-born men.[f56]
A
Brahmin who performs a sacrifice for a Shudra should not be invited to dine with other
Brahmins at a Shraddha ceremony. His company will destroy all merit that which may
otherwise be obtained from such a dinner.[f57]
One should carry out by the southern town-gate a dead Shudra, but the twice-born by the western, northern and eastern (gates) respectively.
(iii)
(A) The
Apastamba Dharma Sutra says :
"A Brahmana shall salute stretching forward his right arm on a level with his ear, a Kshatriya holding it on a level with the breast, a Vaishya holding it on a level with the waist, a Shudra holding it low (and) stretching forward the joined hands.[f58]
And
when returning the salute of (a man belonging) to the first (three) castes, the last
syllable of the name of the person addressed is produced to the length of three moras.[f59]
If
a Shudra comes as a guest (to a Brahmana) he shall give him some work to do. He may feed
him, after (that has been performed. To feed him without asking him first to do some work
is to do him honour.)
Or
the slaves (of the Brahmana householder) shall fetch (rice) from the royal stores, and
honour the Shudra as a guest."[f60]
(B)
The Vishnu Smriti prescribes :
"The
same punishment (payment of hundred Panas) is also ordained for hospitably entertaining a
Shudra or religious ascetic at an oblation to the gods or to the manes.'"[f61]
(C)
The Manu Smriti enjoins that :
One
should consider a Brahmana ten years old and a Kshatriya a hundred years old as father and
son; but of them the Brahman (is) the father.
Wealth,
kindred, age, sects (and) knowledge as the fifth; those are the causes of respect, the
most important (is) the last (mentioned).
In
whom among the three (higher) castes the most and the best of (those) five may be he is
here worthy of respect; a Shudra (is not worthy of respect on the ground of his wealth or
knowledge no matter how high they are. It is only on the ground of his age and that too
only if) he has attained the tenth (decade of his life that he becomes worthy of respect
and not before.)[f62]
For not by years, nor by grey hair, not by wealth,
nor kindred (is superiority); the seers made the rule—Who knows the Veda completely,
he is great among us.
Of
Brahmins, superiority (is) by knowledge, but of Kshatriyas by valour, of Vaishyas by
reason of property (and) wealth, and of Shudras by age.
One
is not, therefore, aged because his head is grey; whoever, although a youth, has perused
(the Vedas), him the gods consider an elder.[f63]
Now
a Kshatriya is not called a guest in a Brahmin's house, nor a Vaishya nor a Shudra;
neither is a friend, the kinsman, nor a Guru (of the householder). (That is, a Brahmin has
alone the right to have the honour of being treated as a guest in a Brahmin's house).
But
if a Kshatriya come as a guest to the house after the said Brahmins have eaten one should
give him food (if) he wishes.
If
a Vaishya (or) Shudra come to the house as guests, the Brahmin should give them food but
with the servants, using kindness."[f64]
(A)
According to the Apastamba Dharma Sutra :
He
who has killed a Kshatriya shall give a thousand cows (to Brahmins for the expiation of
the act).
He
shall give, a hundred cows for the killing of a Vaishya, (only) ten for a Shudra.[f65]
(B)
According to the Gautama Dharma Sutra :
"A Kshatriya (shall be fined) one hundred (Karshapanas) if he abuses a Brahmana.
In
case of an assault (on a Brahmana) twice as much.
A
Vaishya (who abuses a Brahmana, shall pay) one and a half (times as much as a Kshatriya).
But
a Brahmana (who abuses) a Kshatriya (shall pay) fifty (Karshapanas).
One half of that amount (if he abuses) a Vaishya. And if he abuses a Shudra nothing."[f66]
(C)
According toBrihaspati's Dharma Shastra :
"For a Brahmin abusing a Kshatriya, the fine shall be half of a hundred (fifty) Panas; for abusing a Vaishya, half of fifty (twenty-five) Panas, for abusing a Shudra twelve and a half.
This
punishment has been declared for abusing a virtuous Shudra (i.e., a Shudra who accepts his
low status and does willingly the duties attached to that status) who has committed no
wrong; no offence is imputable to a Brahmin for abusing a Shudra devoid of virtue.
A
Vaishya shall be fined a hundred (Panas) for reviling a Kshatriya; a Kshatriya reviling a
Vaishya shall have to pay half of that amount as a fine.
In
the case of a Kshatriya reviling a Shudra the fine shall be twenty Panas; in the case of a
Vaishya, the double amount is declared to be the proper fine by persons learned in law.
A
Shudra shall be compelled to pay the first fine for abusing a Vaishya; the middling fine
for abusing a Kshatriya; and the highest fine for abusing a Brahmin.[f67]
(D)
According to the Manu Smruti:
"A
Kshatriya who reviles a Brahmin ought to be fined one hundred (Panas); a Vaishya one
hundred and fifty or two hundred, but a Shudra ought to receive corporal punishment.
A
Brahmin should be fined fifty if he has thrown insult on a Kshatriya, but the fine shall
be a half of fifty if on a Vaishya and twelve if on a Shudra."[f68]
In
the murder of a Kshatriya, one fourth (part) of the penance for slaying a Brahman is
declared to be the proper penance; an eighth part in the case of a Vaishya; and in (the
case of) a Shudra (who) lives virtuously, one sixteenth part must be admitted (as the
proper penance).
But
if one of the highest of the twice-born (a Brahmin) slay a Kshatriya involuntarily he may,
in order to cleanse himself give a thousand cows and a bull.
Or
let him for three years (with senses) subdued and locks braided, follow the observances of
one who has slain a Brahmin, living in a place rather far from the town, his dwelling
place the foot of a tree.
The
highest of a twice-born (the Brahmin) should practise just
this expiation for a year on having slain a Vaishya who
lives virtuously and give one hundred and one (heads) of cattle.
The
slayer of a Shudra should practise exactly all these observances for six months; or he may
give to a priest ten white cows and a bull.[f69]
(E)
According to the Vishnu Smriti:
"With
whatever limb an inferior insults or hurts his superior in caste, of that limb the king
shall cause him to be deprived.
If
he places himself on the same seat with his superior, he shall be banished with a mark on
his buttocks. If he spits on him he shall lose both lips. If he breaks wind against him,
he shall lose his hind parts. If he uses abusive language, his tongue.
If
a low-born man through pride give instruction (to a member of the highest caste)
concerning his duty, let the king order hot oil to be dropped into his mouth.
If
a Shudra man mentions the name or caste of a superior revealingly, an iron pin ten inches
long shall be thrust into his mouth (red hot)."[f70]
(V)
(A)
According to the Brihaspati Smriti :
"A
Shudra teaching the precepts of religion or uttering the words of the Veda, or insulting a
Brahmin shall be punished by cutting out his tongue."[f71]
(B)
According to the Gautama Dharma Sutra :
"Now
if he listens intentionally to (a recitation of) the Veda, his ears shall be filled with
(molten) tin or lac.
If
he recites (Vedic texts), his tongue shall be cut out.
If
he remembers them, his body shall be split in twain."[f72]
(C)
According to the Manu Smriti:
One
who teaches for hire, also one who learns by paying hire (a Shudra) teacher and one who
learns from him are unfit for being invited at the performance in honour of the Devas and
Pitris.[f73]
One
may not give advice to a Shudra, nor (give him) the remains (of food) or of butter that
has been offered.
And
one may not teach him the law or enjoin upon him religious observances.
For he who tells him the law and he who
enjoins upon him (religious) observances, he
indeed together with that (Shudra) sinks into the darkness of the hell called Asamvrita.[f74]
One
should never recite (the Vedas) indistinctly or in the presence of a Shudra; nor having
recited the Veda at the end of the night, (though) fatigued may one sleep again. "[f75]
(vi)
This
is what the Manu Smriti says :
"A
Brahmin may take possession of the goods of a Shudra with
perfect peace of mind, for, since nothing at all belongs to this Shudra as his own, he is
one whose property may be taken away by his master.[f76]
Indeed,
an accumulation of wealth should not be made by a Shudra even if he is able to do so, for
the sight of mere possession of wealth by a Shudra injures the Brahmin.'"[f77]
Here
is the advice of the Manu Smriti to the king :
"He
who can claim to be a Brahmin merely on account of his birth, or he who only calls himself
a Brahmin, may be, if desired, the declarer of law for the king, but a Shudra never.
If
a king looks on while a Shudra gives a judicial decision, his realm sinks into misfortune,
like a cow in a quagmire.
A
realm which consists chiefly of Shudras and is overrun by unbelievers and destitute of
twice-born men is soon totally destroyed, oppressed by famine and disease."[f78]
(viii)
(A) The
Apastamba Dharma Sutra says:
"And
those who perform austerities, being intent on fulfilling the sacred laws. And a Shudra
who lives by washing the feet (of the Brahmin).
Also
blind, dumb, deaf and diseased persons (as long as their infirmities last) are exempt from
taxes.[f79]
To serve the other three castes is ordained for the Shudra. The higher the caste which he serves the greater is the merit. " [f80](B) The Manu Smriti has the following:
"Now,
for the sake of preserving all this creation, the most glorious (being) ordained separate
duties for those who sprang from (his) mouth, arm, thigh and feet.
For
Brahmins he ordered teaching, study, sacrifices and sacrificing (as priests) for others,
also giving and receiving gifts.
Defence
of the people, giving (alms), sacrifice, also study, and absence of attachment to objects
of sense, in short for a Kshatriya.
Tending
of cattle, giving (alms), sacrifice, study, trade, usury, and also agriculture for a
Vaishya.
One
duty the Lord assigned to a Shudra—service to those (before-mentioned) classes
without grudging."[f81]
(ix)
(A)
The Apastamba Dharma Sutra says :
"A man of one of the first three castes (who commits adultery) with a woman of the Shudra caste shall be banished.
A
Shudra (who commits adultery) with a woman of one of the first three castes shall suffer
capital, punishment[f82]
(B)
The Gautama Dharma Sutra says:
If
(the Shudra) has criminal intercourse with an Aryan woman,
his organ shall be cut off and all his property be
confiscated.
If (the woman had) a protector (i.e., she was under the guardian-ship of some person) he (the Shudra) shall be executed
after having undergone the punishments prescribed above. [f83]
(C)
The Manu Smriti says:
If
a man (of the Shudra caste) makes love to a girl of the highest caste he deserves corporal
punishment.[f84]
A
Shudra cohabiting with a woman of twice-born castes, whether she be guarded or not
guarded, is (to be) deprived of his member and of all his property if she be not guarded
and of everything if she is guarded.[f85]
For
twice-born men, at first, a woman of the same caste is approved for marrying; but of those
who act from lust, those of lower caste may in order (be wives).
A
Shudra woman alone (is) a wife for a Shudra; both she and a woman of his own caste (are)
legally (wives) of a Vaishya; they two and also a woman of his own caste (are wives) of a Kshatriya, both they and a woman of his own caste (are wives)
of a Brahmin.
A
Shudra wife is not indicated in any history for a Brahmin and Kshatriya, even though they
be in distress.
Twice-born
men marrying a (Shudra) woman out of infatuation will surely bring quickly (their)
families and descendants to the condition of Shudras.[f86]
A
Brahmin having taken a Shudra woman to his bed goes the lower course; having begotten on
her a son, he is surely deprived of his Brahminhood.
Now
of (a man) whose offerings towards gods, manes, and guests depend on her, the manes and
gods eat not that offering nor does he go to heaven.
An
expiation is not prescribed for him who has drunk the moisture on a Shudra woman's lips,
who has been reached by her breath, and who has also begotten a son on her.[f87]
(x)
(A)
The Vasishtha Dharma Sutra says :
"One
may know that bearing grudges, envy, speaking untruths, speaking evil of Brahmins,
backbiting and cruelty are the characteristics of a Shudra."[f88]
(B) The
Vishnu Smriti prescribes that :
(The
name to be chosen should be) auspicious in the case of a Brahmin. Indicating power in the
case of a Kshatriya. Indicating wealth in the case of a Vaishya. And indicating contempt
in the case of a Shudra.[f89]
(C) The
Gautama Dharma Sutra says :
"The
Shudra belongs to the fourth caste, which has one birth (only).
And
serves the higher (castes). From them he shall seek to obtain his livelihood. He shall use
their cast-off shoes. And eat the remnants of their food.
A
Shudra who intentionally reviles twice-born men by Criminal abuse, or criminally assaults
them with blows, shall be deprived of the limb with which he offends.
If
he assumes a position equal to that of twice-born men in sitting, in lying down, in
conversation or on the road, he shall undergo (corporal punishment)"[f90]
(D)
The Manu Smrid follows suit
and says :
"But
if a Brahmin through avarice, and because he possesses the power, compel twice-born men,
who have received the initiation (into the caste order), to do the work of a slave when
they do not wish it, he shall be fined six hundred panas by
the king.
But
a Shudra, whether bought or not bought (by the Brahmin) may be compelled to practise
servitude, for that Shudra was created by the self-existent merely for the service of the
Brahmin.
Even
if freed by his master, the Shudra is not released from servitude; for this (servitude) is
innate in him; who then can take it from him.[f91]
Just
in proportion as one pursues without complaining the mode of life (practised) by the good,
so free from blame, he gains both this and the other world.[f92]
Now
the
supreme duty of a Shudra and that which ensures his bliss is merely obedience toward
celebrated priests who understand the Veda and live as householders.
If
he be pure, obedient to the higher (castes), mild in speech, without conceit, and always
submissive to the Brahmin, he attains (in the next transmigration) a high birth.[f93]
Now
a Shudra desiring some means of subsistence may serve a Kshatriya, so (is the rule); or
the Shudra (if) anxious to support life, (may do so by) serving a wealthy Vaishya.
But
he should serve the Brahmins for the sake of heaven, or for the sake of both (heaven and
livelihood); for by him (for whom) the word Brahmin (is always) uttered is thus attained
the state of completing all he ought to do.
Merely
to serve the Brahmins is declared to be the most excellent occupation of a Shudra; for if
he does anything other than this it profits him nothing.
His
means of life should be arranged by those Brahmins out of their own household (goods) in
accordance with what is fitting after examining his ability, cleverness, and (the amount)
the dependants embrace.
The
leaving of food should be given
(to him) and the old clothes, so too the blighted part of the grain, so too the old furniture.[f94]
Let
a Brahmin's name be auspicious, a Kshatriya's full of power, let a Vaishya's mean wealth,
a Shudra's however be contemptible.
Let
a Brahmin's (distinctive title) imply prosperity, a Kshatriya's safeguard, a Vaishya's
wealth, a Shudra's service.[f95]
If
(a man) of one birth assault one of the twice-born castes with virulent words, he ought to
have his tongue cut, for he is of the lowest origin.
If
he makes mention in an insulting manner of their name and caste, a red-hot iron rod, ten
fingers long, should be thrust into his mouth.
If
this man through insolence gives instruction to the priests in regard to their duty, the
king should cause boiling hot oil to be poured into his mouth and ear.[f96]
If
a man of the lowest birth should with any member injure one of the highest station, even
that member of this man shall be cut (off); this is an ordinance of Manu.
If
he lift up his hand or his staff (against him), he ought to have his hand cut off; and if
he smites him with his feet in anger, he ought to have his feet cut off.
If
a low-born man endeavours to sit down by the side of a high-born man, he should be
banished after being branded on the hip, or (the king) may cause his backside to be cut
off.
If
through insolence he spit upon him, the king should cause his two lips to be cut off; and
if he makes water upon him, his penis, and if he breaks wind upon him, his anus.
If
he seize him by the locks, let the king without hesitation cause both his hands to be cut
off, (also if he seize him) by the feet, the beard, the neck or the testicles.
A
man who tears (another's) skin and one who causes blood to be seen ought to be fined five
hundred (Panas), if he tears the flesh (he should be fined) six niskas, but if he breaks a
bone he should be banished.[f97]
(D)
The Narada Smriti says:
Men
of the Shudra caste, who prefer a false accusation against a member of a twice-born Aryan
caste, shall have their tongue split by the officers of the king, and he shall cause them
to be put on stakes.
A
once-born man (or Shudra) who insults members of a twice-born caste with gross invectives,
shall have his tongue cut off; for he is of low origin.
If
he refers to their name or caste in terms indicating contempt, an iron-rod, ten angulas long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth.
If
he is insolent enough to give lessons regarding their duty to Brahmins, the king shall
order hot oil to be poured into his mouth and ears.
With
whatever limb a man of low caste offends against a Brahmin, that very limb of him shall be
cut off, such shall be the atonement for his crime.
A
low-born man, who tries to place himself on the same seat with his superior in caste,
shall be branded on his hip and banished, or (the king) shall cause his backside to be
gashed.
If
through arrogance he spits on a superior, the king shall cause both his lips to be cut
off; if he makes water on him, the penis; if he breaks wind against him, the buttocks."[f98]
Such
were the laws made against the Shudras by the Brahmanic lawgivers. The gist of them may be summarised under
the following heads:
(1) That
the Shudra was to take the last place in the social order.
(2) That
the Shudra was impure and therefore no sacred act should be done within his sight and
within his hearing.
(3) That
the Shudra is not to be respected in the same way as the other classes.
(4) That the life of a Shudra is of no value and anybody may kill him without having to pay compensation and if at all of small value as compared with that of the Brahmana, Kshatriya and Vaishya.
(5) That
the Shudra must not acquire knowledge and it is a sin and a
crime to give him education.
(6) That
a Shudra must not acquire property. A Brahmin can take his property at his pleasure.
(7) That
a Shudra cannot hold office under the State.
(8) That
the duty and salvation of the Shudra lies in his serving the higher classes.
(9) That
the higher Classes must not inter-marry with the Shudra.
They can however keep a Shudra woman as a concubine But if
the Shudra touches a woman of the higher classes he will be liable to dire punishment.
(10) That
the Shudra is born in servility and must be kept in servility for ever.
Anyone
who reads this summary will be struck by two considerations. He will be struck by the
consideration that Shudra alone has been selected by the Brahmanic
law-givers as a victim for their law-making authority. The wonder must be all the greater
when it is recalled that in the ancient Brahmanic literature the oppressed class in the
ancient Indo-Aryan society was the Vaishya and not the
Shudra. In this connection a reference may be made to the Aitareya Brahmana.
The Aitareya Brahmana in telling the story of
King Vishvantara and the Shyapama
Brahmanas refers to the sacrificial drink to which the
different classes are entitled. In the course of the story, it speaks of the Vaishya in
the following terms :
"Next, if (the priest brings) curds, that is the Vaishya's draught with it thou shall satisfy the Vaishyas. One like a Vaishya shall be born in thy line, one who is tributary to another, who is to be used- (lit eaten) by another, and who may be oppressed at will.[f99]
The
question is: why was the Vaishya let off and why the fury directed towards the Shudras ?
He will also be struck by the close connection of the disabilities of the Shudra with the privileges of the Brahmin. The Shudra is below the Traivarnikas and is contrasted with the Traivarnikas. That being so, one would expect all the Traivarnikas to have the same rights against the Shudras. But what are the facts? The facts are that the Kshatriyas and Vaishyas have no rights worth speaking of against the Shudras. The only Traivarnika who has special rights and privileges is the Brahmin. For instance, if the Shudra is guilty of an offence against the Brahmin, the Brahmin has the privilege of demanding a higher punishment than what a Kshatriya or a Vaishya could. A Brahmin could take the property of the Shudra without being guilty of an offence if he needed it for the purpose of performing a sacrifice. A Shudra should not accumulate property because he thereby hurts the Brahmin. A Brahmin should not live in a country where the king is a Shudra. Why is this so? Had the Brahmin any cause to regard the Shudra as his special enemy?.
There
is one other consideration more important than these. It is, what does the average Brahmin
think of these disabilities of the Shudras? That they are
extraordinary in their conception and shameful in their nature will be admitted by all.
Will the Brahmin admit it? It would not be unnatural if this catalogue of disabilities may
not make any impression upon him. In the first place, by long habit and usage his moral
sense has become so dulled that he has ceased to bother about the how and why of these
disabilities of the Shudras. In the second place, those of
them who are conscious of them feel that similar disabilities have been imposed on
particular classes in other countries and there is therefore nothing extraordinary nor
shameful in the disabilities of the Shudras. It is the second attitude that needs to be exposed.
This attitude is a very facile one and is cherished bacause it helps to save reputation and slave conscience. It is, however, no use leaving things as they are. It is absolutely essential to show that these disabilities have no parallel anywhere in the world. It is impossible to compare the Brahmanic. Law with every other legal system on the point of rights and disabilities. A comparison of the Brahmanic Law with the Roman Law ought to suffice.
IV
It
will be well to begin this comparison by noting the classes which under the Roman Law had
rights and those which suffered from disabilities. The Roman jurists divided men into five
categories: (1) Patricians and Plebians; (2) Freemen and
Slaves; (3) Citizens and Foreigners; (4) Persons who were sui juris and persons who were alieni juris and (5) Chirstians and Pagans.
Under
the Roman Law; persons who were privileged were: (1) Patricians; (2) Freeman; (3)
Citizens; (4) Sui juris and (5) Christians. As
compared to these, persons who suffered disabilities under
the Roman Law were: (1) the Plebians; (2) Slaves; (3)
Foreigners; (4) Persons who were alieni juris and (5) Pagans.
A
Freeman, who was a citizen under the Roman Law, possessed civil rights as well as
political rights. The civil rights of a citizen comprised rights of connubium and commercium. In
virtue of the connubium,
the citizen could contract a valid marriage according to the jus civile, and
acquire the rights resulting from it, and particularly the paternal
power and the civil relationship called agnation, which was absolutely necessary to enable
him in law to succeed to the property of persons who died intestate. In virtue of the commercium he could
acquire and dispose of property of all kinds, according to the forms and with the peculiar
privileges of the Roman Law. The political rights of the Roman citizen included jus suffragii and jus honorum, the
right to vote in public elections and the right to hold office.
The
slave differed from the Freeman in as much as he was owned by the master and as such had
no capacity to acquire rights.
Foreigners,
who were called Peregrine,
were not citizens and had none of the political or civil rights which went with
citizenship. A Foreigner could obtain no protection unless he was under the protection of
a citizen.
The
alieni juris differed from sui juris in as much as the former were subject to
the authority of another person, while the latter were free from it. This authority was
variously called (1) Potestas, (2) Manus and (3) Mancipium, though they had the same effect. Potestas
under the Roman Law fell into two classes. Persons subject to Potestas were
(1) slaves, (2) children, (3) wife in Manus, (4)
debtor assigned to the creditor by the Court and (5) a hired gladiator. Potestas gave to one in whom it was vested rights
to exclusive possession of those to whom it extended and to vindicate any wrong done to
them by anyone else.
The
correlative disabilities which persons alieni juris
suffered as a result of being subject to Potestas
were: (1) they were not free, (2) they could not acquire property and (3) they could not
directly vindicate any wrong or injury done to them.
The
disabilities of the Pagans began with the advent of Christianity. Originally, when all the
Romans followed the same Pagan worship, religion could occasion no difference in the
enjoyment of civil rights. Under the Christian Emperors, heretics and apostates as well as
Pagans and Jews, were subjected to vexatious restrictions, particulary
as regards their capacity to succeed to property and to act as witnesses. Only orthodox
Christians who recognised the decisions of the four oecumenical councils had the full
enjoyment of civil rights.
This survey of rights and disabilities of the Roman Law may well give comfort to Hindus that the Brahmanic Law was not the only law which was guilty of putting certain classes under disabilities, although the disabilities imposed by the Roman Law have nothing of the cruelty which characterises the disabilities imposed by the Brahmanic Law. But when one compares the principles of the Roman Law with those of the Brahmanic Law underlying these disabilities, the baseness of the Brahmanic Law becomes apparent.
Let
us first ask: What was the basis of rights and disabilities under the Roman Law. Even a
superficial student of Roman Law knows that they were based upon (1) Caput and (2) Existimatio.
Caput
meant the civil status of a person. Civil status among the Romans had reference chiefly to
three things; liberty, citizenship and family. The status libertatis consisted of being a freeman and not
a slave. If a freeman was also a Roman citizen, he enjoyed the status civitatis.
Upon this quality depended not only the enjoyment of political rights, but the capacity of
participating in the jus civile.
Finally, the status familice consisted in a citizen belonging to a particular
family, and being capable of enjoying certain rights in which the members of that family,
in their quality of agnates, could alone take part.
If
an existing status came to be lost or changed, the person suffered what was called a capitis diminutio, which
extinguished either entirely or to some extent his former legal capacity. There were three changes of state or condition attended
with different consequences, called maxima, media, and minima.
The greatest involves the loss of liberty, citizenship, and family; and this happened when
a Roman citizen was taken prisoner in war, or condemned to slavery for his crimes. But a
citizen who was captured by the enemy, on returning from captivity, was restored to all
his civil rights jure postliminii.
The
next change of status consisted of the loss of citizenship and family rights, without any
forfeiture of personal liberty; and this occurred when a citizen became a member of
another state. He was then forbidden the use of fire and water, so as to be forced to quit
the Roman territory, or was sentenced to deportation under the empire.
Finally,
when a person ceased to belong to a particular family, without losing his liberty or citizenship, he was said to suffer the least
change of state, as for instance, where one sui juris came under the power of another by arrogation, or a son who had been under the patria potestas was legally
emancipated by his father.
Citizenship
was acquired first by birth. In a lawful marriage the child followed the condition of the
father, and became a citizen, if the father was so at the time of conception. If the child
was not the issue of justoe nuptioe, it followed
the condition of the mother at the time of its birth. Secondly, by manumission, according
to the formalities prescribed by law, the slave of a Roman citizen became a citizen. This
rule was modified by the laws. AElia Sentia and Junia Norbana, according to which, in certain cases, the freedman acquired only the status of a foreigner, peregrinus dedititius or of a
Latin, Latinus Junianus,
Justinian restored the ancient principle, according to which every slave, regularly
enfranchised, became in full right a Roman citizen. Thirdly, the right of citizenship was
often granted as a favour, either to a whole community or to an individual, by the people
or the senate during the republic, and by the reigning prince during the empire; and this
was equivalent to what the moderns call naturalisation.
Citizenship
was lost—Firstly, by the loss of liberty—as, for instance, when a Roman became a
prisoner of war, secondly, by renouncing the character of Roman citizen, which took place
when anyone was admitted a citizen of another state; thirdly, by a sentence of deportation
or exile, as a punishment for crime.
The
civil status of a person under the Roman Law may or may not
be civis optino jure. Civis optima jure included not only capacity for civil rights but also
capacity for political rights such as jus suffragii et honorwn, i.e., the right to vote and the capacity to hold a
public office. Capacity for political rights depended upon existimatio. Existimatio means reputation in the eye of the law. A
Roman citizen may have caput
as well as existimatio.
On the other hand, a Roman may have caput but
may not have existimatio. Whoever had caput as well as existimatio had
civil rights as well as political rights.
Whoever had caput but had no existimatio could claim civil rights only. He could
not claim political rights.
A
person's existimatio was lost in two ways. It
was lost by loss of freedom or by conviction for an offence. If a person lost his freedom
his existimatio was completely extinguished.
Loss of existimatio by conviction for offence
varied according to the gravity of the offence.[f100]
If the offence was serious the diminution of his existimatio was called infamia. If the
offence was less grave it was called turpitudo, Infamia resulted in the existinguishment of existimatio
. Under the Roman Law a defendant, in addition to ordinary
damages, was subjected to infamia. Condemnation
for theft, robbery, injuria
or fraud, entailed infamy. So a partner, a mandatarius, a depositarins, tutor,
a mortgagee (in contractus
fidudoe) if condemned for wilful breach of duty, was
held to be infamous.
The
consequence of infamia was exclusion from
political rights, [f101]not
merely from office (honours), but even from the right to vote in elections (suffragium).
From
this brief survey of the basis of rights and disabilities in Roman Law, it will be clear
that the basis was the same for all. They did not differ from community to community.
Rights and disabilities according to Roman Law were regulated by general considerations,
such as caput and existimatio. Whoever had caput and existimatio
had rights. Whoever lost his caput and his existimatio suffered disabilities. What is the
position under the Brahmanic Law? There again, it is quite
clear that rights and disabilities were not based on general uniform considerations. They
were based on communal considerations. All rights for the first three Varnas and all
disabilities for the Shudras was the principle on which the Brahmanic Law was based.
The
protagonists of Brahmanic Laws may urge that this comparison
is too favourable to Roman Law and that the statement that Roman Law did not distribute
rights and liabilities on communal basis is not true. This may be conceded. For so far as
the relation between the Patricians and Plebians was
concerned the distribution of rights and liabilities was
communal. But in this connection the following facts must be
noted.
In
the first place, it must be noted that Plebians were not
slaves. They were freemen in as much as they enjoyed jus commercii
or the right to acquire, hold and transfer property. Their disabilities consisted in the
denial of political and social rights. In the second place, it must be noted that their
disabilities were not permanent. There were two social disabilities from which they
suffered. One arose from the interdict on intermarriage between them and the Patricians
imposed by the Twelve Tables. [f102]This
disability was removed in B.C. 445 by the passing of the Canulenian
Law which legalized intermarriage between Particians and
Plebians. The other disability was their ineligibility to hold the office of Pontiffs and
Augurs in the Public Temples of Rome. This disability was removed by the Ogulnian Law passed in B.C. 300.
As
to the political disabilities of the Plebians they had secured the right to vote in
popular assemblies (jus suffragii)
under the Constitution of Servius Tullius
the Sixth King of Rome. The political disabilities which had remained unredressed were
those which related to the holding of office. This too was removed in course of time after
the Republic was established in B.C. 509. The first step taken in this direction was the
appointment of Plebian Tribunes in B.C. 494; the Questorship was opened to them, formally in B.C. 421; actually
in B.C. 409; the Consulship in B.C. 367; the curule-aedileship
in B.C. 366; the dictatorship in B.C. 356; the Censorship in B.C
351; and the Praetorshipin B.C. 336. The Hortensian Law enacted in B.C. 287 marked a complete triumph
for the Plebians. By that laws the resolutions of the Assembly of the tribes were to be
directly and without modification, control or delay, binding upon the whole of the Roman
people.
This
marks a complete political fusion of Patricians and Plebians on terms of equality.
Not
only were the Plebians placed on the same footing as to political capacity and social
status with the Patricians but the road to nobility was also thrown open to them. In Roman
society, birth and fortune were the two great sources of rank and personal distinction.
But in addition to this, the office of Curule Magistracy was
also a source of ennoblement to the holder thereof. Every citizen, whether Patrician or
Plebian, who won his way to a Curule Magistracy, from that AEdile
upwards, acquired personal distinction, which was transmitted to his descendants, who
formed a class called Nobiles,
or men known, to distinguish them from the ignobiles, or people who were not known. As the
office was thrown open to the Plebians, many Plebians[f103]
had become nobles and had even surpassed the Patricians in point of nobility.
It may be that the Roman Law did recognise communal distinction in distributing rights and disabilities. The point is that the disabilities of the Plebians were not regarded as permanent. Although they existed they were in course of time removed. That being so, the protagonists of Brahmanic Law cannot merely take solace in having found a parallel in the Roman Law but have to answer why the Brahmanic Law did not abolish the distinction between the Traivarnikas and the Shudras as the Roman Law did by equating the Plebians with the Patricians? One can therefore contend that the Roman Law of rights and disabilities was not communal while the Brahmanic Law was.
This
is not the only difference between the Roman Law and the Brahmanic
Law. There are two others. One is equality before law in criminal matters. The Roman Law
may not have recognised equality in matters of civil and political rights. But in matters
of criminal law it made no distinction between one citizen and another, not even between
Patrician and Plebian. The same offence the same punishment,
no matter who the complainant and who the accused was. Once an offence was proved, the
punishment was the same. What do the Dharma Sutras and the Smritis do? They follow an entirely different
principle. For the same offence the punishment varies according to the community of the
accused and the community of the complainant. If the complainant is a Shudra and the accused belonged to any one of the three classes
the punishment is less than what it would be if the relations were reversed. On the other
hand, if the complainant was Traivarnika and the accused a Shudra, the punishment is far
heavier than in the first case. This is another barbarity which distinguishes the Brahmanic Law from the Roman Law.
The
next feature of the Roman Law which distinguishes it from the Brahmanic
Law is most noteworthy. It relates to the extinction of
disabilities. Two points need be borne in mind. First is that the disabilities under the
Roman Law were only contingent. So long as certain conditions lasted, they gave rise to
certain disabilities. The moment the conditions changed, the disabilities vanished and a
step in the direction of equality before law was taken. The second point i is that the Roman Law never attempted to fix the conditions
for ever and thereby perpetuate the disabilities. On the other hand, it was always ready
to remove the conditions to which these disabilities were attached as is evident in the
case of the Plebians, the Slaves, the Foreigners and the
Pagans.
If
these two points about the disabilities under the Roman Law are borne in mind, one can at once see what mischief the Dharma Sutras and the Smritis have done in imposing the
disabilities upon the Shudras. The imposition of
disabilities would not have been so atrocious if the disabilities were dependent upon
conditions and if the disabled had the freedom to outgrow those conditions. But what the Brahmanic Law does is not merely to impose disabilities but it
tries to fix the conditions by making an act which amounts
to a breach of those conditions to be a crime involving dire punishment. Thus, the
Brahmanic Law not only seeks to impose disabilities but it endeavours to make them
permanent. One illustration will suffice. A Shudra is not
entitled to perform Vedic sacrifices as he is not able to
repeat the Vedic Mantras.
Nobody would quarrel with such a disability. But the Dharma Sutras do not stop here. They
go further and say that it will be a crime for a Shudra to study the Vedas or hear it being pronounced and if he does commit such a
crime his tongue should be cut or molten lead should be poured into his ear. Can anything
be more barbarous than preventing a man to grow out of his disability? What is the
explanation of these disabilities? Why did the Brahmanic Law-givers take such a cruel
attitude towards the Shudras? The Brahmanic Law books merely state the disabilities. They
say that the Shudras have no right to Upanayana. They say that the Shudras shall hold
no office. They say that the Shudras shall not have property. But they do not say why. The
whole thing is arbitrary. The disabilities of the Shudra have no relation to his personal
conduct. It is not the result of infamy. The Shudra is punished just because he was a
Shudra. This is a mystery which requires to be solved. As the Brahmanic Law books do not
help us to solve it, it is necessary to look for explanation elsewhere.
[f1]Muir's,
Original Sanskrit Texts, VoL I, P. 9.
[f2]2
Encyclopadia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. IV, p. 145
[f3]1
Presna 1. Patala I, Khanda I, Sutras 4-5.
[f4]2
Prasna I, Patala I, Khanda I, Sutra 6
[f5]3
Chapter II, Verses 1-4.
[f6]. 4 Manu, Chapter I,
Verse 31.
[f7]5
Ibid.. Chapter X, Verse 4
[f8]6
Ibid.. Chapter II, Verse 6.
[f9]1
Geiger : Civilization of the Eastern Iranians in Ancient Times, Vol. II, P.64
[f10]1
Wilson's. Rig Veda. Vol. VI, p. 129
[f11]1
Muir. Vol. 1. p. 180
[f12]2
Muir. lbid.. Vol. I, p. 162
[f13]3
Ibid.. p. 163.
[f14]Muir. Vol. 1. p. 163.
[f15]Ibid.. p. 163.
[f16]Ibid.. p. 165.
[f17]Ibid., p. 165.
[f18]Ibid..
p. 165
[f19]Quoted
by Muir, Vol. I, p. 108
[f20]Quoted
by Muir, Vol. I pp. 105-107
[f21]Quoted
by Muir, Vol. 1. p. 110-112
[f22]There
is however a great deal of confusion when one comes to details. The Vishnu Purana says that Brahma divided his person
into two parts: with the one half he became a male, with the other half a female. The
female was called Satarupa who by incessantly
practising austere fervour of a highly arduous description acquired for herself as a
husband a Male called Manu Svayambhuva. There is
no suggestion in the Vishnu Purana of incest by Brahma with his daughter. The Aitareya Brahmana and the Matsya Purana on the other hand speak of Brahma
having begotten Manu by committing incest with his daughter Satarupa; the Matsya Purana adds that Manu by his austerity
obtained a beautiful wife named Ananta.
According to the Ramayana (see Muir, I, p. 117) Manu
was not a male but a female and was a daughter of Daksha
Prajapali and the wife of Kasyapa.
[f23]Matsya
Purana-
Muir, Vol., I p. Ill f.n.
[f24]1
Muir, Vol. I, p. 177.
[f25]2
Ibid., Vol. I, p. 178.
[f26]3
Ibid., Vol. I, p. 178.
[f27]4
Ibid., Vol. I, p. 180.
[f28]I
Muir, 1. p. 179
[f29]1
Muir, Vol. 11. p,5
[f30]2
Ibid.,
p. 11.
[f31]1
Muir, Vol. III, p. 13.
[f32]2
Muir, Vol. I, pp. 154-155
[f33]1Muir,Vol.
l,p.l8.
[f34]2Muir,Vol.
l,p.22.
[f35]1
Muir, Vol. I, p. 16
[f36]2
Muir, Vol. I, p. 21
[f37]3
Moir, VoL 1. p. 22
[f38]4
Muir, Vol. 1. p. 22
[f39]5
Muir, Vol. 1. p. 20
[f40]1
Muir, Vol. I, p. 21
[f41]2
Muir, Vol. I, p. 21
[f42]1
Max Muller, Ancient Sanskrit Literature (Panini
office edition), p. 200
[f43]1
Prasna I, Patala I, Khanda I, Sutras 4-5.
[f44]2
Ibid., Sutra 6
[f45]3
Chapter II, Verses 1-4.
[f46]4
Chapter IV, Verse 3.
[f47]1
Chapter I, Verse 31
[f48]2
Chapter X, Verse 4
[f49]3
Prasna 1, Patala 3, Khanda 9, Sulias 6-11.
[f50]4
Prasna I, Patala 5, Khanda 16, Sutras 21-22.
[f51]5
Chapter XIX, Sutras 1-4
[f52]1 Chapter XIV, Verses 1-4
[f53]2
Chapter XVIII, Verses 11-15
[f54]3
Chapter VI, Verses 26.
[f55]4
Chapter VI, Verses 27-29
[f56]5
Chapter IV, Verse 61.
[f57]6
Chapter III, Verse 178
[f58]1
Prasna 1, Patala 2, Khanda 5, Sutra 16.
[f59]2
Ibid, Sutra 17
[f60]3
Prasna II, Patala 2, Khanda 4, Sutras 19-20
[f61]4
Chapter V. Sutra 115
[f62]5
Chapter II, Verses 135-137
[f63]1
Chapter II, Verses 154-156
[f64]2
Chapter III. Verses 110-112
[f65]3
Prasna I, Palala 9, Khanda 24. Sutras 1-3.
[f66]1
Chapter XII, Sutras 8-13
[f67]2
Chapter XX, Verses 7-11.
[f68]3
Chapter VIII, Verses 267-268
[f69]1
Chapter XI, Verses 127-131
[f71]3
Chapter XII, Verse 12.
[f72]4
Chapter XX, Sutras 4-6.
[f73]5
Chapter III, Verse 156.
[f74]1
Chapter IV, Verses 78-81
[f75]2
Chapter IV, Verse 99.
[f76]3
Chapter VIII, Verse 417
[f77]4
Chapter X, Verse 129
[f78]5
Chapter VIII, Verses 20-22.
[f79]1
Prasna II, Patala 10, Khanda 26, Sutras 14-16
[f80]2
Prasna I, Patala I, Khanda I, Sutras 7-8
[f81]3
Chapter I, Verses 87-91.
[f82]4
Prasna II, Patala 10, Khanda 27, Sutras 8-9
[f83]. 5 Chapter XII, Sutras 2-3.
[f84]6
Chapter VIII, Verse 366.
[f85]7
Chapter VIII, Verse 374.
[f86]1
Chapter III, Verses 12-15
[f87]2
lbid. Verses 17-19.
[f88]3
Chapter VI, Verse 24.
[f89]4
Chapter XXVII, Sutras 6-9.
[f90]1
Chapter X. Sutras 50, 56-59 and Chapter XII, Sutras 1,7.
[f91]2
Chapter VIII, Verses 412-414.
[f92]3
Chapter X. Verse 128.
[f93]4
Chapter IX, Verses 334-335
[f94]1
Chapter X. Verses 121-125
[f95]2
Chapter II, Verses 31-32.
[f96]3
Chapter VIII, Verses 270-72.
[f97]1
Chapter VIII. Verses 279-284.
[f98]2
Chapter XV, Verses 22-27.
[f99]1
Muir. Vol. I, p. 436-40. 42 Chapter XII, sutres 2-3
[f100]Such
as robbery, theft, perjury, fraud, appearing on the public stage as an actor or gladiator,
ignominious expulsion from the army, gaining a living by aiding in prostitution and other
disreputable occupations and other variety of acts involving gross moral turpitude.
[f101]There
were other consequences of infamia such as
exclusion from the office of attorney, disability to act on behalf of another in a law
suit or giving evidence. Infamia was inflicted
in two ways, either by the censors or by the judgement of a Court of Law. It was in the
power of the censors, in superintending public morality, to deprive senators of their
dignity, to remove knights from the equestrian order and even to strip a citizen of all
his political rights by classing him among the aerarii.
The censors also put a nota censoria
opposite to a man's name in the roll of citizens; and this might be done upon their own
responsibility; without special inquiry, though they generally acted in accordance with
public opinion. The nota censoria produced no
effect except during the magistracy of the censor who imposed it. In this respect it
differed essentially from infamy, which was perpetual, unless the stigma was removed by
the prerogative of the people or the Emperor.
[f102]1
It was older than the Twelve Tables. The Twelve Tables only recognized it
[f103]1
A Plebian who first attained a Curule office and became the founder of a noble family was
called by the Romans a novus homo or new man.