[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Castes??? (Post - 2)


			   "Varna" and "Jati"
			    ----------------

The following is based on a classic book: "Samskriti ke Chaar Adhyaay"
(in Hindi). The author is Shri Ramdhari Sinh Dinkar. (pp 73-78 publisher
Kedarnath Sinh, Udayaachal, Patna).

(translated by Pandit S. N. Vyas)

It has not yet been determined, that the jati-pratha was very much in
existence, when the Aryans came to India. The extent of development of
this system among the Aryans themselves, is also quite indefinite. How-
ever, the idea of dividing a society on the basis of profession is a very
ancient one, and was practised all over the world. Reference to such a
system comes in the "Parsi-Prasang", which shows that a class based
society was very much in effect in Persia. Similarly, the Greek
philosopher, Plato also mentions about four classes.

Indian texts refer to the term 'varna' in earlier times, and only in the
later years, reference to 'jati' is made. (Ref: "We have yet to find a
reference to 'jati' in Vedic Samhitaas. And in the Brahmanas too, we do
not find this term except at one place in the Shatpath Brahman, where the
term 'jati' is used in the sense of 'varna'." - Mangaldev Shastri). Thus,
it has been conjectured that 'varnas' were used in the sense of the color
of the skin. However, this is not true. "Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas
and Shudras are supposed to be white, red, yellow and balck respectively"
is mentioned only in Mahabharata. At all other places, 'varna' has never
been used in the sense of color. Thus any theory aimed at explaining
'varna' in the sense of color has very weak basis, and cannot be
adequately defended. Such a view has also been endorsed by Lakshman
Shastri Joshi. In the Dharmashastras, the usage of 'jati' and 'varna' has
been done in similar contexts, and the basis of such equivalence has been
'beej-kshetra-vichaar'. Further, Dr. Ambedkar has put forward the idea
that Vedas cannot be used to prove that Aryans and the Dasas had different
skin colors. In the most earlier times, the basis of 'varna' was
profession, nature and habits.

The Indian populace has been mentioned in the RgVeda as 'vish'. This term
is used in RgVeda several number of times. The word 'vaishya' does not
appear in the RgVeda. It is said that 'vaishya' came out of this 'vish',
only when 'jati' became very important in India. "However, in the Vedic
era, the 'vish' was not divided into Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vasihyas. It
is worth noting that in the entire RgVeda Samhita, the terms 'Shudra' and
'Rajanya' occur only once". (Mangaldev Shastri) The term 'Shudra' appears
in the Purusha Sukt. Colebrook and Maxbuller are of the view that this
Sukta is a very recent Sukta if we look at its language and style. Dr.
Mangaldev Shastri also agrees. He says: "The Purush Sukt, clearly, is a
product of the last years of the Vedic era". He also goes on to add RgVeda
refer to terms Brahmn (verb) and Khstr more frequently than Brahman (noun)
and Kshatriya (noun). (My comments: This tells us that class of Brahmins
and Kshatriyas had not emerged in the Vedic era.)

Hence, RgVeda throws light on the origins of Brahmins, Kshatriyas and
Vaishyas. These classes became a reality with the development of the idea
of passing on ones profession to the oncoming generations. Still, further,
the RgVeda does not throw any light on the origins of the Shudras (if we
disregard Purush Sukta as a later addition). The idea that Kshatriyas and
Shudras have common origins, as propounded by Dr. Ambedkar (Book: Who were
the Shudras?) is perhaps not incorrect. Tradition tells us that some
proffesions have been specific to the Shudras. If we look at these Shudra
specific traditions closely enough, we realize that Shudras were not
disrespected in the Vedic times. In the Chandogya Upanishad, there is a
tale that Raikva gave the knowledge of Vedas to Janshruti. However, we
know that Raikva was a charioteer by proffesion (and hence Shudra in
modern sense). Dr. Ambedkar claims that Kavash-Ailush was a Shudra. And it
is quite well known that Ailush was authored a number of mantras of
RgVeda's 10th Mandal. According to the Maha-Aitaraiya Upanishad, the
Kavashayas were the progeny of 'dasis'. But these persons used to reveal
several spiritual secrets. Then we know thru Bharadwaj, Katyayan and
Shrauta sutras that several religious texts permitted Shudras to perform
Yajnas. Then we know that despite the reser- vations of Indra,
Ashwini-Kumars (who were Shudras) were offered Soma by Sage Chyavan.

Then, we know that the Vedic King Sudas was a Shudra. According to the
Vedic tradition, he was the protector of Rajarshi Vishvamitra. Sudas was
coronated by Vashishta himself, and it is known that he even performed the
Ashvamedha Yajna.

The RgVeda refers to only three varnas. Shudras are not mentioned as the
4th varna. The Shatpath Brahman and the Tattiriya Brahman also mention
three varnas. In light of this evidence, any conjecture about a 4th varna,
who were not given any name by the Aryans, is purely baseless. Further,
according to Laxman Shastri Joshi, the civilized persons living beyond the
Aryan circle (i.e. Arya-vritta) were also considered as Kshatriyas. In
light of this fact, it makes little sense that Aryans would treat
non-Aryans (living outside Arya-vritta) as kshatriyas, and accord Shudras
(which are not mentioned in the RgVeda) as inferior beings

The idea of Shudrattva must certainly have been a post-Vedic development.
People living outside the Aryavritta (Shaksas, Cheen, Yavan, Parad, K
Kiraat, Darad, Paundra, Chaundra etc.) have been called as 'vrisha' in
Manusmriti and Mahabahrat. During the times of Mahabharat the 'Vrishals'
could perform Yajnas, and were included in Arayn group in large numbers.
(In the Shanti-Parva of Mahabharat, Indra instructs Mandhataa to ask the
'dasyus' of his kingdom to perform Yajnas and accomodate them in the
Vedic-Dharma). The 'non-dwijas' in those days could enter into the 'dwij'
fold by 'karma-shuddhi'. Most of these persons became kshatriyas by
profession.

However, the rigidity of profession was a development only in the post
Vedic era. Such a development is clearly mentioned in the Manusmiriti.

          varam swa-dharmo vi-guno, na parakyah swa-nushthitah
          par-dharmen jivan ji sadyah patati jaatitah.

Ones viguna dharma (i.e a difficult profession acquired thru birth) is
better than other's dharmas. By changing ones profession (dharma) which is
not yours (although it is easy), man falls from his jati. "But in the
earlier days, this jati-pratha was quite flexible. It was still not
difficult to switch your jati. There are hundreds of examples in our
itihaas-puranas". (L.S. Joshi).

Pururava was a kshtriya king. Gadhi was born in his blood-line. However,
Gadhi's daughter Satyavati, married Parashuram's grandfather Richeek. Thus
Gadhi's son Vishvamitra was a kshatriya and his son-in-law became a
Brahmin.

Vyas's mother Satyavati was a fisherwoman. But Vyas himself was respected
by everyone, Kshatriyas as well by the Brahmins. Similarly, Jabala's son
Satyakaam is considered a Brahmin, although it is said that Jabala did not
even know that Satyakaam was born of who's sperm. L.S. Joshi and Dr.
AvinashChandra Dutt have quite well argued that in the early Vedic times,
any one could rise to become a Brahmin.

The law of Manu which fixes ones profession on the basis of one's birth,
is not consistent witn RgVeda. A rishi says in RgVeda (9th Mandal, 112):
"I am a poet. My father is a vaidya (doctor). My mother is a pisaan." In
the 10 Mandal (Sukta 102) Rishi Maudgalya (a Brahmin) uses arms to fight
the dasyus who were stealing his cows. Then we have the story of Parashu-
Ram who faught despite being a Brahmin. Then, the Bhrigus (son of Bhrigu)
work as carpenters in RgVeda. Among the devataas, the Ribhus are expert in
the art of wood-work and foundry.

It cannot be said sure as to why in the later times, people who knew were
well wersed with arts and engineering (iron-smiths, carpenters) were
assigned a lower order in the Hindu social set up. Probably, the 'dwijas'
of those times, in effort to ensure their superiority, did not let others
come close to themselves. In these times, the Kshatriyas were warriors &
kings, and the Brahmins were priests, ministers and raj-gurus. The
relationship between these two groups was of co-existence. The Vaishyas,
although not in the priveleged league, had a monopoly over agriculture &
commerce. Hence they too could not be ignored. People of all these three
groups considered engineering, architecture and artistic professions to be
less dignified and fit for the Shudras. The groups which were highly
cultured, remained aloof from industry and expertises associated with it.
India had to pay for such an undesirable development.

Dr. Avinash Chandra Dutt and Maha-Mahopadhyaya Kane, both hold the view
that the dasyus, and the dasas who were won over by the Aryans and later
assimilated into their (Aryan's) fold, were called as Shudras. However,
this is not true, since several non-Aryan, who were won over were incor-
porated into the Kshatriya clan. It is also possible that lots of persons
were assigned the status of Shudra on the basis of cultural mores.
Similarly, those Aryans, who did not confirm to the standards of dwijatva
were termed as 'Shudras'. Specifically speaking, the rise in the number of
Shudras was due conjugal reltations of 'anulom' and 'pratilom' types.

An 'anulom' marriage was that in which the class of the groom was higher
than that of the bride. The 'pratilom' marraige was between a 'high' bride
and a 'low' groom. In the earlier times, 'pratilom' marriage was not
considered good. Later even the 'anulom' marriage was condemned. The
progeny from such ties was termed "varna-sankar' and was relegated to the
Shudra status. The opposition of 'anulom' marraiage is quite a recent
phenomenon. As late as 7th century (Harsha's era) marriages of the
'anulom' were not a rarity. The caste-differences, which are so acute
today, were not that acute and rigid 1000 years back from today.

Dr. Ambedkar is of the view that Shudras had the right to 'up-nayan' and
yajna in the earlier times. However, the Taittiriya Samhita put a
restricted the access of Shudras to Vedas and Yajnas. Later, the belief
that Shudras were supposed to serve others gained ground. In the Aitireya
Brahman, a Shudra is termed as "yathaa-kaam-preshya" and 'yathaa-kaam-
vadhya'. (L.S. Joshi) (Yatha-kaam-preshya means that a Shudra could be
sent to any place by a 'dwij'; yathaa-kaam-vadhya means that a Shudra
could be beaten at the will of 'dwij').

However, the Shudras were not in that bad a position as their counter-
parts in the Western world. From the point of view of religion, Shudras
were the sub-ordinated and even slaves of 'dwijas'. However, their plight
could not be compared to that of the slaves of Semitic and Western
cultures. The Shudras were lords of their bodies, labor, engineering
creations (which could be traded), land etc. They could do several jobs,
on which the tri-varna had no control. It were the Shudras, who were
balcksmiths, goldsmiths, carpenters, leather-men, cooks, etc. This is not
to say that the Shudras were not exploted. But they were 100% slaves of
the 'dwijas'. The Aapastamb-Dharma-Sutra instructs that a dwij should pay
his labor force even if he himself, his wife and his son are going thru
economic distress.

Clearly, the the Indian Shudra was a very differnt person than the slave
in the sense of Aristotle. The Indian dasas had the right to collect
money, and if desired trade this money to become and Arya. And the
Mahabharata states that it is not a neccesity that a Shudra has to live by
serving others. Mahabharata prescribes: "Only if a Shudra cannot practice
commerce, dairy farming, sculpture etc., is it fit that he lives by
serving others". It also permits a Shudra to practice the first three
phases of Chatur-ashram (bramh-charya, grhastha and praudha).

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.