Saturday, November 26, 2016

भारत दुर्दैवाने आज तरी अशा स्थितीत आहे!

एक मुक्तीदाता...एक तारणहार...या संकल्पनेने मानवी मनावर पाशवी गारुड केले आहे आणि यातच त्याच्या स्वनिमंत्रित गुलामीची बीजे आहेत. दगडालाही शेंदूर फासत त्याच्यातही एकमात्र ईश्वर शोधणारे कमी नसतात. भारत तर अशांचा मुकूटमणी. अशा समाजात स्वतंत्र विचार, लोकशाहीची मुल्ये ख-या अर्थाने रुजू शकत नाहीत.

ख-या प्रश्नांकडे दुर्लक्ष व्हावे, ते सुटुच नयेत यासाठी थिल्लर प्रश्नाभोवती राष्ट्रीय अस्मितांना चेतवले जाते तेंव्हा राष्ट्राने आपला आत्मा हरवला आहे असे समजायला हरकत नाही. मुक्तीदाता कोणीही नसतो हे भान नसणे हे स्वत:च गुलामीसाठीच जन्माला आलेल्यांना समजणे शक्यच नसल्याने त्यांचे उन्माद हेच जणुकाही राष्ट्रवादाचे उद्गार बनतात. आपल्या जहरी उद्गारांच्या समर्थनार्थ हवे ते मार्ग वापरणे ओघाने आले.

हे राष्ट्राच्या मुळांचेच वधक असतात. सर्जनाचे कृत्य यांच्याकडून होऊ शकत नाही. विध्वंस हेच त्यांना सृजन वाटावे अशा पद्धतीने यांची मानसिकता बनवण्यात आली असते. संधी मिळताच ती उफाळते. एकामागोमाग एक अशी कृत्ये घडू लागतात. अशा रितीने कि मागचे कृत्य सौम्य वाटावे. बुजगावण्यांनाही शेताचे मालक आहोत असे वाटावे अशी स्थिती यातुनच निर्माण होते. राष्ट्राचे मारकच लोकांना राष्ट्रभक्ती शिकवू लागतात.

नादानांची क्रांती आत्मघातकी असते हे आम्हाला विसरून चालणार नाही.

भारत दुर्दैवाने आज तरी अशा स्थितीत आहे.  

Sunday, November 20, 2016

संपुर्ण जगाचे एकच एक राष्ट्र!

आपण जागतिक व्यवस्थांचा अदिम कालापासूनचा धावता आढावा घेतला. आपल्या लक्षात आले असेल कि मानव सातत्याने गरजेपोटी वा व्यावहारिक सुलभतेपोटी व्यवस्था बदलत आला आहे. टोळीराज्य ते राष्ट्र असा प्रवास त्याने केला आहे. एके काळी भुगोलाचे ज्ञान अत्यल्प होते. चार-पाचशे वर्षांपुर्वीपर्यंत त्यात भर पडली असली तरी संपुर्ण पृथ्वी माणसाला माहित नव्हती. ज्ञान भुगोलातच तत्कालीन राज्ये होती-साम्राज्ये होती. जगभरच्या राज्यांत स्पर्धा-असुया-युद्धे जशी होती तशीच व्यापारी व सांस्कृतिक देवाण घेवाणही होती. एकविसाव्या शतकात तर जग हे खेडे बनले आहे असे आपणच म्हणत असतो व ते खरेही आहे. आजचा माणुस हा जागतिक माणुस बनला आहे.

जागतिकीकरण झाले आहे. सांस्कृतिक सरमिसळीत होत आहेत. नव्या जगाची नवी मुल्ये जागतिक मानवी समाज शिकत आहे. त्याचा वेग कोठे जास्त तर कोठे कमी आहे. जगात तणावाची केंद्रेही असंख्य आहेत. राष्ट्रांचा राजकीय व व्यापारी साम्राज्यवाद आजही आपण पाहतो. वंश संकल्पना बाद झाली असली तरी अगणित लोकांच्या मनातून ती अजून गेलेली नाही. सांस्कृतिक व धार्मिक वर्चस्वतावादाची अहमाहिका लागलेली आहे. भारतात तर जाती-जातींतच विभाजन आहे. खरे तर आज तरी समस्त विश्वात माणुस एकटा आहे. म्हणजे त्याला अद्याप तरी जीवसृष्टी असलेले ग्रह सापडलेले नाहीत. सापडले समजा तरी त्याचे स्वरूप काय असेल हेही आपल्याला माहित नाही. असे असुनही माणसाला अद्याप "मानव"पणाचे रहस्य उमगले आहे असे नाही.

राष्ट्रवाद नेमका काय आहे हे आपण आधीच्या लेखांत पाहिले आहे. ही कृत्रीम धारणा असून ती राष्ट्राराष्ट्रांत भेद करते. त्या अर्थाने जातीयवाद व राष्ट्रवाद वेगळे करता येत नाहीत. प्रत्येक राष्ट्रात स्वतंत्र व्यवस्था आहेत. त्या व्यवस्थेत अनेक उपव्यवस्था आहेत व त्यातही संघर्ष आहे. बव्हंशी प्रत्येक राष्ट्राला शत्रू आहेत नि मित्रही आहेत. आर्थिक विचारधाराही संघर्ष निर्माण करतात व अनेकदा तो आक्रमक होतो हे आपण साम्यवाद विरुद्ध भांडवलवाद यातील संघर्षात पाहिले आहे. आज स्थिती अशी आहे कि विज्ञानातील अनेक शोधही काही राष्ट्रे स्वत:पुरते मर्यादित ठेवतात. अनेक दुर्बल राष्ट्रांच्या साधनसंपत्तीचे शोषण केले जाते. पण हे शोषण अंतता: मानवी जगाचेच आहे हे मात्र कोणी लक्षात घेत नाही.

जगभर आज भिषण विषमता आहे. एकीकडे वैभवशाली राष्ट्रे आहेत तर दुसरीकडे सोमालियासारखी अन्नान्न करत मरणारी राष्ट्रेही आहेत. माणुस माणसाच्या मुलभूत गरजा भागवण्यासाठी सक्षम असतांनाही जागतिक वितरण हे अर्थ-राजकीय प्रेरणांनीच होत असल्याने विषम आहे.

असे असुनही, प्रत्येक राष्ट्राकडे सैन्य आहे. सातत्याने खरबो डालर्सची प्रतिवर्षी खरेदी विक्री होत असते. सैन्यदलांवर होणारा खर्च तर मोजता येणेही अशक्य आहे. कारण सीमांचे रक्षण प्रत्येक राष्ट्राला महत्वाचे वाटते. खरे तर या सीमा ज्या आज आहेत त्या काही शतकांपुर्वी नव्हत्या. हजारो वर्षांपुर्वी तर मुळात राष्ट्र ही संकल्पनाच नव्हती. प्राचीन काळातील बलाढ्य टोळ्या आज अवशेषवत झाल्या आहेत...त्यांचे नामोनिशानही नाही. अलीकडच्या काही शतकांचा इतिहास पाहिला तरी तेंव्हाची बलाढ्य राष्ट्रेही आज दुय्यम बनली आहेत. आजच्या महासत्ता उद्या राहतीलच याची खात्री नाही.

आणि तरीही सहजीवनाखेरीज, परस्पर सहकार्याखेरीज आपण जगू शकत नाही याचीही जाण जागतिक समुदायाला आहे.

असे असतांना, राष्ट्र संकल्पनेची तार्किक परिणती "एक जग : एक राष्ट्र" संकल्पनेतच होऊ शकते यावर माझा ठाम विश्वास आहे. आपल्या जीवसृष्टी असलेल्या एकाच पृथ्वीवर राष्ट्राच्या सीमांनी गजबजलेली शेकडो राष्ट्रे असण्याची पुर्वीची निकड आता संपुष्टात आली आहे. माणसाचा भुगोल आता विस्तारला आहे. माणसाचे ज्ञानविश्वही आता विस्तारले असून त्याला जागतिक ज्ञानाचे स्वरूप आले आहे. इतिहास जर असेलच तर तो आता जागतिक इतिहास बनला आहे. भाषा वेगळ्या असल्या तरी त्यांना स्थानिक भुगोलाचे अनिवार्य संदर्भ आहेत. आनुवांशीकी वेगळी वाटली तरी माणसाचा जन्म एकाच एकमेवाद्वितीय रसायनातून जगभर झाली आहे. त्या अर्थाने सारेच मानव एकमेकांचे भाईबंद आहेत.

एक जग: एक राष्ट्र व्हायला अशी अनुकूल पार्श्वभुमी आहे.

यातून असंख्य फायदे आहेत. ते आपण पुढील भागात पाहुच. व्यावहारिक अडचणी काय आहेत आणि त्या कशा सोडवता येतील यावरही विचार करू. पण अडथळ्यांची शर्यतही मोठी आहे याची जाणीव मला आहे. या दिशेकडे चालतांना धर्मवाद, वर्चस्वतावाद, अर्थवाद हे सर्वात मोठे अडसर आहेत. नव्या जगाची अर्थव्यवस्था कोणत्या अर्थविचाराच्या पायावर असावी यावर जसे रणकंदन होईल तसेच धर्मवादाच्या आहारी गेलेल्या इस्लामी राष्ट्रांचा आत्मघातकीवाद व अन्यधर्मीय वर्चस्वतावाद यातही संघर्ष होईल. आताच्या महासत्तांना जग आपल्याच अंकित असले पाहिजे असे वाटेल तर अनेकांना आपण जणू काही आपल्या अस्मितेला तिलांजली देत आहोत असे वाटून शोक-संतापाचे भरते येईल. अतिरेकी राष्ट्रवादाचे भक्त असे काही न होण्यासाठी अपरंपार प्रयत्न करतील

यादी बरीच वाढेल हे खरे आहे. ही कमी कशी करता येईल, हेही आपल्याला पहावे लागेल. या लेखाचा समारोप करतांना एकच म्हणता येईल...

ही क्रांती सर्व जागतिक सामान्य मानवी समुदायांकडुनच होईल. राजकीय व्यवस्थेत फायदे लाटणारे जागतिक राजकारणी व धर्माचे टुक्कार स्तोम माजवणारे याला विरोध करतील हे गृहित धरून विचारी जागतिक मानवी समुदायाला या दिशेने ठामपणे पावले उचलावी लागतील.

वेळ लागेल...पण एके दिवशी आपल्या संपुर्ण जगाचे एकच एक राष्ट्र बनेल याचा मला विश्वास आहे.  

चलनबदलाचा निर्णय

चलनबदलाचा निर्णय अत्यंत घाईतील होता. कसलेही पुर्वनियोजन नव्हते. अजुनही वेगवेगळे  फतवे रोज निघत आहेत. सामान्य जनता, विशेषत: शेतकरी वर्ग या तुघलकी निर्णयाने होरपळून निघाला आहे. यामुळे अर्थव्यवस्थेचे प्रचंड न मोजता येणारे नुकसान झाले आहे व अजुनही काही महिने होत राहील. यामुळे काळा पैसा नष्ट होईल हा आशावाद होणा-या नुकसानीपेक्षा किरकोळ ठरावा व निराशाच फ़डद व्हावी असे चित्र सध्या तरी आहे व एकंदरीत मोदीकारभार पाहता त्यात काही बदल होईल अशी अपेक्षा व्यर्थ ठरावी असे दिसते.


चलनबदलामुळे घर, जमीनीचे भाव, सोने-दागिणे, शेयर्स, कर्जे वगैरे स्वस्त होतील असा एक युक्तिवाद केला जातो. असे समजा झाले तर आजवर ज्यांनी स्वत:च्या घरासाठी, वृद्धापकाळा गुंतवणुकी केल्या त्याचे मूल्यही २० ते ३०% घटणार आहे. जीडीपी खाली येईल हे ओघाने आलेच. म्हणजेच परकीय गुंतवणुकही येणार नाही. देशी उद्योग आहे तेच कसे वाचवायचे या नादात नवे उद्योग उभारण्याच्या फंदात पडणार नाहीत. घटनार नाहीत त्या जीवनावश्यक वस्तुंच्या किंमती त्यामुळे जगण्याचा खर्च कमी होणार नाही. याचा परिणाम सर्वांप्रमाने स्तुतीपाठक भक्तांवरही होणारच आहे. घटल्या मागणीमुळे उत्पादन कमी करुन किती नोक-या जातील याचा नेमका अंदाज नाही, पण ती टांगती तलवार असणारच आहे. आपली नोकरी राहील आणि नव्याही निर्माण होतील या भ्रामक आशेवर जे जगताहेत त्यांनी आधी स्वत:चे बुड वाचवावे.


आणि समजा अशी स्वस्ताई (मंदी) आली नाही तर आपसूक चलनबदलाचा निर्णय ठार चुकीचा होता व अर्थव्यवस्थेचे अकारण नुकसान झाले असे म्हणावे लागेल.


या परिस्थितीतून मार्ग तर काढावाच लागेल. सर्व क्षेत्रांतील मागणी व व्यवहार किमान स्थिर ठेवण्याची जबाबदारी आता सरकारवरच आहे. जी.एस.टी. चे सध्या घोषित केलेले दर घटवावे लागतील. आयकरावरील मर्यादा वाढवावी लागेल. शिवाय तो कमी करण्याचीही गरज आहे. सातव्या वेतन आयोगावर स्थगिती देत कामाच्याच प्रमाणात वेतन हे साहसी पाऊल उचलत सेवाहमी कायदा रद्द करत बाबुंचा भ्रष्टाचार व कार्यक्षमता लकवा घालवावा लागेल. पायाभूत सुविधा व्यापक करण्यासाठी मोठ्या प्रमाणावर गुंतवणूक कशी येईल (देशी-विदेशी) यासाठी युद्धपातळीवर प्रयत्न करावे लागतील. उद्योग-व्यवसायांसाठी पुरक वातावरण तयार करत सरकारी बिनकामाचे आणि भ्रष्टाचाराला उत्तेजन देणारे नियम हटवावे लागतील. निवडणुक पद्धतीत सुधारणा (ज्या स्टेटफंडिंगबाबत मोदी फक्त बोलत आले आहेत) प्रत्यक्षात तत्काळ येतील हे पाहिले पाहिजे. चलन-बदलाचा जो दुष्परिणाम होणार आहे तो यामुळे व अशा अनेक उपाययोजनांनी थांबेल व प्रगती होईल. मोदी (त्यांना जवळपास मंत्रीमंडळच नसल्याने) हे निर्णय घेऊ शकतात कि रसातळ लवकर दाखवतात हे यावर अवलंबून आहे.


समजा असे अथवा वेगळे पण सकारात्मक निर्णय घेतले गेले नाहीत तर जनतेसमोर असणारा रास्त पर्याय म्हणजे गरजा कमी करणे. काल्पनिक सुखाचा आभास देणा-या कसल्याही वस्तू अथवा सेवा घेऊ नये. घरगुती गरजांसाठी कर्ज घेण्याच्या भानगडीत पडू नये. थोडक्यात शाश्वत अर्थव्यवस्थेच्या नियमाने सध्या तरी चालायची सवय लावावी. अनिश्चितता शेवटी सारे शिकवते...पण उशीराचे शहाणपण कामाला येत नाही हा सर्वांचाच अनुभव असतो....

Thursday, November 17, 2016

The riddle of the Shudra, the Rajanya and the Kshatriya!

The scholars have been miserably misled, or it has been a deliberate act on their part, that they have tried to portray ancient India through Vedic glasses, without paying heed to the stark, open facts that are present, known, and yet neglected. Even the inferences they have tried to derive from the Vedic texts are only intended to prove their age-old notions, regardless of how incorrect they may be. This is why the picture of the ancient Indian society and the new entrant Vedic society, and the new recruits in that religion is distorted, for they did not consider them separate, independent entities. It is clear from the available evidence that the Shudra was a tribe, located in North-West India, and other tribes or people too were present across the country, known by their various tribal or regional names; still, they surprisingly did mix all while explaining the origin of the Shudras.

The most neglected fact that demands serious attention is that almost all the scholars have neglected the fact that the Vedic religion and the Hindu religion (Ancient folk religion) are not one and the same. 

It is also an agreed fact that the term Shudra nowhere appears in the Rig Veda except Purusha Sukta (RV 10.90) and that this hymn is a late interpolation in the Rig Veda. It never occurred to the scholars that why only Shudra tribe become part of a Vedic verse when there were many other tribes, too, those inhabited the vast regions of the country. They didn't bother to analyse the significance of the term Rajanya that is mentioned in the said Sukta in place of the Kshatriya and overlooked the fact that the Kshatriyas and Rajanyas are not the same but distinct entities.

When exactly this interpolation took place is open to speculation, but the fact is that the hymn in question also went through many modifications/additions in the course of time. It is believed that the hymn gave divine sanction to the permanent four-fold social order to seed the inequality and injustice amongst Hindu society. 

The Sukta has two verses that describe how the four Varna were originated. It is as under-

ब्राह्मणोऽस्य मुखमासीद् बाहू राजन्यः कृतः 
ऊरू तदस्य यद्वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत ॥१२

Here, we will just focus on the second-highest class or rank, which is named as “Rajanya”. This would mean that the Rajanya stood second in rank to the Brahmina. In the later Vedic literature, the term Rajanya gradually vanished and was replaced with Kshatriya. It is assumed by all the scholars and tradition that the Rajanya and Kshatriya are interchangeable or that Rajanya and Kshatriya are equivalent terms.

What are the facts?  Are Rajanya and Kshatriya equivalent or is the truth otherwise?


The ord Rajanya has been used in the Rig Veda and Atharvaveda as a generic class of the warriors. In the Aitareya Brahmana, it is said that the Rajanya requests a Kshatriya for a place at Devayajna (sacrifice for gods). There are rituals mentioned in the Brahmana literature where conflict appears between Rajanyas and Kshatriyas. The Kaushitaki Upanishad differentiates the Kshatriyas and Rajanyas. Rig Veda mentions several times of Rajanyas and Kshatras, and the terms are not interchangeable. The Rajanya term is used for the kins of the kings, nobles, and scions. Shatapatha Brahmana too mentions Rajputra, Rajanya, and Kshatraputra separately. From these instances, it would be clear that the Rajanyas and Kshatriyas were separate entities. In Avesta, too, a contemporary book to the Rig Veda, the word Kshatriya and Kshatra appear as xšāyaθiya ("emperor") and xšaθra ("realm"). The word Rajan also appears in the old Persian literature. (See Zamyad Yast 88-90) 

This would mean that the terms Kshatra and Rajanya existed simultaneously in those contemporary (Vedic and Zoroastrian) societies. The word Rajan would mean the King (elected or otherwise), and Rajanya meant, accordingly to different scholars, either kinsmen of the Rajan (King) or the ruling (even former ruling) families from whom Rajan would be appointed or chosen. In short, Rajanya is the ruling power, and Rajan is chosen from them to rule. In a tribal society, though social classification was loose, the class of the Rajanya was held equally important with priestly families or just lower than them. The mention of this term as a class in the Purushasukta would mean that the Rajanyas had emerged as a distinct social class by the time of its composition.

The term Kshatra appears in the Rig Veda about 9 times. The meaning of Kshatra is power. The power was based on the greater control over the Jana and its territory. It can be seen that the relationship between Vish and Kshatriyas was not always cordial, as Kshatriyas controlled the Vish (Vaishya). In short, the Kshatra were either a feudal class or a warrior class in general. 

It will appear from the Vedic literature that the Kshatriyas (or Kshatras) and Rajanyas were contemporaneous and formed two distinct classes in the Vedic society. There were rivalries between these two classes. Rajanya would mean the kins of the ex or present kings who could only claim the throne. Kshatriya was a class that would control the territories and would act as a middleman between the Vish (agrarian society) and the King for collecting the tributes. Rajanyas, too, possibly sometimes acted as Kshatriyas, but their status was higher, as evidenced by Purushsukta itself. What is most important we have to note here that the Rajanya and the Kshatriya were not one and the same. 

However, the main question remains, and that is, why Purusha Sukta does not mention at all the Kshatriya class? Instead, it mentions Rajanya. It would mean that the Rajanya was a larger and important society than that of the Kshatriyas, and being insignificant in number or position, did not form a social class in the early Vedic society where the Rig Veda was composed. 

However, we must note here that the Kshatriya varna has no divine sanction as it is not mentioned in the Purushsukta and equivalent literature. Considering that the Kshatriya is second in the Vedic social order has been a gross mistake of the scholars. There is no explanation in the Vedic literature why Rajanyas were dropped and Kshatriyas were replaced in the so-called divine social order. 

Though in later course usage of the Rajanya term seems to be gradually vanishing, still Aitareya Brahmin frequently uses it. (e.g. AB 1.5.2) This would mean that till the time of composition of the early parts of the Brahmana literature, the Rajanya class was well in existence and enjoying the social status that was granted to them by the Rig Veda.
Now, the question arises as to why the Rajanya class disappeared from the Vedic society, and for all ritualistic purposes and authority, Kshatriyas were replaced when they did not have any divine sanction.

To understand this, we need to analyse the geographical shift of the Vedic people and the new societies they came across and their endeavour to adjust in the new social environmental circumstances while readjusting their religious rules without neglecting the local populace on whose mercy and cooperation their survival depended.

It is now a well-established fact that the geography of the Rig Veda and the Avesta was in the close vicinity. This does prove that the Vedic society was originally established in Afghanistan (most probably the southern part). The memory that Shatapatha Brahmana preserves goes like this :


“Videgh Mathava, residing on the banks of the Saraswati river, accompanied by his family priest Goutama Rahugana and Agni, symbol of Vedic culture, marched onwards. Through crossing the northern mountains (Uttaragiri), drying the rivers, and burning the forests, he reached the Sadanira river. The legend tells that when Videgh Mathava asked Agni, where he should make his abode, Agni told him to reside to the east of the river.” (SB 1.4.1, 14-17)


The myth, preserved by Brahmana, clearly indicates that from the banks of Saraswati, a group of the Vedic people had marched towards a river to find refuge. The group marched through the northern mountains, which could only be the Hindukush and the rivers flowing through that region, to reach an uninhabited place to settle.


Modern scholars normally try to equate this river with the Gandaki, which flows from Nepal through India, finally feeding the Ganga. However, from the Mahabharata’s accounts on this river, it could not be the Gandaki but some other river flowing through the Gandaki and Sarayu. Amarasinha of Amara Kosha asserts Sadanira to be a synonym of the Karatoya River, flowing through the north of Bengal. Anyway, Sadanira means ‘abounding in water’, which can be applied to any river that is full of abundant water. The myth also indicates that the area across the river was swampy and uninhabitable.


Thus, the theory of the invasionist scholars of those times from this myth had considered Aryan expansion from the west to the east, occupying the lands and regions towards the Gandaki River of Bihar (or Bengal), is not tenable. The Sarasvati River still flows in southern Afghanistan. Had it been a victorious march, as some scholars suggest, towards Sadanira, that located in the Gangetic region, they would not to resided in the uninhabitable area because those regions were already populated, as it is evidenced by the Archaeological findings. 

Videgh Mathava and his companions might have deserted their original homeland to find a new habitat because of the constant struggles with the Zoroastrian religion, or there might be political reasons. We get many instances of such struggles in the Vedic literature, recorded in the form of myths, where the Vedics were defeated many a time. Videgh Mathava and his companions abandoned their original habitat and, crossing Hindukush, entered the north-eastern parts of India to find a place to seek refuge. They found such a place near a river to which they named Sadanira, and on its banks, in a marshy and swampy region, they made their first settlement. This must have been the north-west part, Sindh, of India, as is evidenced by supportive proofs.

Here we get many historical as well as mythological proofs that the tribe Shudra was also located in the north-western part of India. Alexander's historian Diodoros, who accompanied Alexander in his expedition to India,  notes of a tribe named “Sodrai” (Greek corrupt form of the Shudra) which resided in the Sindh region. Alexander seems to have built a city named after himself, Alexandria, on the banks of a river. (The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great-As described by Arrian, Q Curtis, Diodoros, Plutarch, and Justin, edited by J. W. Mcrindle, page 354) Ram Saran Sharma confirms that “There is no doubt that Sudra existed as a tribe in the fourth century BC.” (Sudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order Down to Circa A.D. 600 by RS Sharma).

Mahabharata records that a Shudra tribe, along with the Abhira tribe from north-west, participated in the great war. (Mahabharata 6-10.65) Also, the same Shudra tribe finds independent mention in a list of peoples conquered by Nakula during his victorious march before the coronation of Yudhisthira. Gian Chand Chauhan states, “The plethora of references to the term Sudras along with the Abhiras show that the Sudras was an old tribe flourishing at the time of the Great War in the Sapta-Sindhava region.” (Some Aspects of Early Indian Society, by Gian Chand Chauhan, page 54) 

Now it should be clear that the Shudra was a tribe. It was located in the north-west regions of the country, and its immediate neighbours and allies were the Abhiras. Also, it should make clear that the Shudra was never a class but a tribe that dwelt in India along with several tribes like Surasenas, Sibis, Nishads, Panchals, Kurus, and so on. 

The Shudra tribe, inhabiting in north-west part of India,  in the Sindh region, in all probability, these were the people the Vedics came across first on friendly terms and decided to live within their territory. 

We know from the Rig Veda that the Vedic people’s known geography was limited. Earlier, they were aware of the major river Indus and a few western tributaries, but their knowledge of the vast regions and the people beyond the Indus was limited and was of the hearsay sort. They didn't know anything about the regions beyond the Vindhya mountain, as is evidenced by the Aitareya Brahmana and Manusmriti. It seems that, when they entered the Indus region, they came across a region they decided to settle was within the territory occupied by the Shudras, completely unknown to them before; hence, the term Shudra appears nowhere in the rest of the Rig Veda. 

Interestingly, terms like Das, dasyu, and Pani, etc., are disappearing from the Vedic texts of later times. The reason may be that they had left those communities far behind. 

How the Shudras (Sudda, original Prakrit term) accommodated the Vedics in their territory is a matter of speculation. However, the refugees could not have afforded to be hostile to the hosting countrymen. The number of the Vedics who found refuge here could not be very large. Had they waged war and acquired their territory, they would not have decided to reside in the marshy and swampy land. There is no mention of any war between the Shudras and the Vedics in any of the Vedic literature, so the Shudras might have accommodated them without any hassle. 

Here, let us conclude that the handful of the Vedics came to India and found refuge in the territories of the Shudra tribe. Looking at their limited knowledge of the geography, in sheer ignorance, they addressed all those beyond the region of Shudras with the same term, though later they came to know of many tribes or jana that were located elsewhere as well, with independent identities. (Hindustan's name too emerged from the River name Sindhu, as foreigners initially didn’t know the lands beyond that river. The name given to the limited geographical area became the name of the entire subcontinent.) 

Here, we come to the solution of our main issue as to why the term Rajanya instead of Kshatriya and why Shudra came to be an important part of the society. The process can be shown as follows. 

1.     Being small in number, residing in a separate village or two, a settlement, where they lived on the mercy or friendship of the Shudras who resided around in their independent settlements.

2.     Whatever portions of the Rig Veda and other literature they had brought with them were rearranged, classified, and then the later additions started in the same land. 

3.     Purushasukta clearly indicates, from its language and mention of the seasons, that this composition was made when they had set foot in India; as Max Muller suggests, it is entirely modern in its character and diction. (‘A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature’, by F. Max Muller, Pub.: Williams and Norgate, 1859, p. 557)

4.     In the Purushsukta, Rajanya appears in the second rank because, in all probabilities, besides priests, Rajanyas were larger in number than those who had joined this expedition. The Kshatras were completely absent or very meagre in number; hence, there was no need to assign them any position in the social order.

5.     Vedics gave Shudras the fourth place, not to demean them, but to make a cosmic social order without whose mention it would be incomplete, though they knew very well that these people are different, racially as well as by religious faith. Also, they didn't know other people (tribes) for lack of their limited contact and were completely at the mercy of the Shudra tribal people. 

Purushasukta indicates that though the Shudras are mentioned as a part of the cosmic society, they were not at all a part of the Vedic society by religious faith. This is evident from the verse 

ब्राह्मणोऽस्य मुखमासीद् बाहू राजन्यः कृतः
ऊरू तदस्य यद्वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत 

 where it has made very clear that “The Brahmana was his [God’s] mouth, of both his arms was the Rajanya made. His thighs became the Vaishya, from his feet, the Shudra was produced.” The feet didn’t become the Shudra, because the composer of the hymn knew very well that the Shudras were not part of the Vedic community, though an important society. The distinction was very clear to them, and they skillfully composed the verse.  

6.     The Yajurveda declares that “शूद्रार्यावसृज्येताम”  (Shudra and Arya were created) [Yajurveda 14/30]. Here also, there is a clear distinction between Arya (Vedic) and Shudra (non-Vedic). Here, we do not find any contemptuous view about the Shudras. The only probable reason is that at the time of composing these hymns, too, the Vedics were on good terms with the entire Shudra tribe.

7.     In fact, it does not appear that the purpose of the Purushasukta was to make permanent stratification of the social order. Even the term “varna” does not appear in this hymn. The hymn was just meant to show how a society came to an existence without assigning a rank to anyone. It is a fact that the same verse was used to stratify the Vedic social order in later times, but originally it was not intended. Had it been the case the Vedics wouldn't have mentioned Shudras at all because they were not part of the Vedic society. In fact, they were foreigners to them. 

8.     The Vedics, for they were few in number, must have needed servants and maids to assist them in farming, cattle tending, and household work. They naturally had to hire such people in need from the surrounding Shudra community. From Vedic literature, it appears the Vedics in India, too, preferred to dwell in the villages. They avoided cities. The menial force they hired, too, must have been living in the separate settlements, besides the Vedic Villages, as was the old practice in India. 

9.     Manusmruti, as mentioned in the last chapters, mentions the Shudra kings and their domains. Aitareya Brahmana mentions the Shudra kings who ruled beyond the Vindhya mountain. (AB 7.13-18) They termed other people also Shudra for their lack of knowledge of the lands and people of the country in the early times. However, the Mahabharata mentions the Shudra tribe together with the Abhiras and also the numerous tribes that dwelt in the country. This would mean that by the time of the early Manusmriti, the Vedics considered all other tribes as Shudras. By the time of Mahabharata, the Vedics could make a distinction between other tribal or jana names and the Shudra tribe.

10.                         During this vast period, the term Rajanya was gradually dropped because the original Rajanyas who had walked with the entrants lost their entity and purpose over time. The Kshatriya emerged as the second-ranking class, though it had no Vedic sanction. The Kshatriyas, it clearly seems, were converts to the Vedic faith or it became an epithet to address warriors of the local populace in later times. To them, the Vedics did not assign the Rajanya rank. They kept it deliberately vacant as the ruling class here belonged to different faiths and customs. It is quite possible that some Kings of those times could have converted to the Vedic faith and were happy with the assigned title.

11.                        From Shudra’s tribal kingdom, Vedic spread to promote their religion, gained royal patronage of the Kurus and Panchals to begin with, and converted some to their fold. (See “The Rigveda, trans. By Griffith, preface.) The first recension of the Manusmriti seems to have been composed in the Kuru-Panchal region to which they named “Aryavarta”.  By this time, Rajanya had lost all significance, and Kshatriya became a synonym of valour and authority.

12.                        The Vedics, till the Brahmana era, and new recruits to the Brahmin fold, continued with the same lifestyle; they preferred villages and took services from the poor folks of the surrounding regions. They, it clearly seems, habitually continued the practice of calling them Shudra. 

13.                         By this time, with the addition of the new recruits, the number of the Vedics and their needs had grown. To meet them, they naturally required more serving staff, which was met with the gifts of the slaves or hired workmen. They resided in the Vedic villages, though in independent colonies.    

14.                        As Vi. Ka. Rajvade (Preface, Radhamadhavavilasachampu) states that, because of the close contacts with the menial class, the cross-illicit relations also started creating social problems in the Vedic order. In the beginning, they accommodated the offspring in their fold, assigned them some castes, but later on, it was prohibited because it created a chaotic condition in Vedic society. They started enforcing many restrictions on them in order to maintain the purity of their religion and social order. However, they failed in such attempts. 

15.                        Smritis are evidence of this fact that all the restrictions, those that sound humiliating and cruel sometimes, were meant for the class that was employed (or the people gifted by the patrons) in their service. Except in the Sindh region, there was never any other Shudra tribe. Though Vedic habitually addressed their servants as Shudras, it wasn’t and couldn’t be the case. People from other tribes, too, must have joined their services, or people from any tribe could have been gifted to them by the patrons, to all for the sake of convenience, collectively, they called Shudras. The fact was always otherwise and is evident from the Vedic scriptures too! 

16.                        The Vedics assigned Kshatriya and the Vaishya status to those who were indigenous warriors or trading/farming people, who had officially entered their fold. Those who had not embraced the Vedic faith, followed their ancient folk-religion,  were Shudras in their eyes. By this time, it seems Shudra had become a derogatory term to them to use against those who despised or avoided their religion. We can understand how this could have happened. The Shudras (their working class that included people from many tribes) daily association had caused tremendous harm to their social structure and hence had became despicable and yet unavoidable!

17.                          It seems from the Manusmriti, some Vedics conducted sacrifices for the Shudras (non-Vedic tribes/janas) and received the fees. Such Vedics were also avoided by the Vedics who thought they were loyal to the tradition. Calling such a host who performed a sacrifice for his benefit, too, was despised by addressing him with the term Shudra. 

18.                        The so-called Shudras, though not belonging to the Shudra tribe at all, enjoyed their titles and traditional ways of life with the faiths they had nourished for ages. It was the Vedics who termed all those who were non-Vedics, hostile to the Vedic religion, as Shudras. They offered their respects to only those who were sympathetic towards their religion but had not embraced their faith. Stories enumerated by the Mahabharata of Vena, Nahusha, etc., tell us the fact that they were not ready to accept the Vedic faith and hence were killed by the Vedic Brahmins. These may be fabricated stories, created in order to establish their superiority, but they suggest their hostilities towards the kings, too, who did not accept or patronise their religion. To even Gautam Buddha, Vedic tradition calls “Vratya Kshatriya”, a kshatriya who has not undergone any Vedic ritualistic custom. 

19.                        The term Kshatriya was offered to only those who either had become Vedic or patronised their religion. This way, we can find that neither the Solar nor the Lunar race was Kshatriya in origin. Either the title Kshatriya was used for them suo- motto, to please them or to those who had converted to their religion. Whatsoever the case may be, we find several stories of Kshatriya-Brahmin rivalries because the new recruits to that fold, especially kings, desired an upper hand in the socio-religious order. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishada goes to the extent of declaring the Kshatriya born first and hence superior over the Brahmin. It declares that the Brahmin should take a lower seat in the Rajasuya sacrifice. (BU 1.4) 

From above, it will be clear how Rajanya finds a place in the Purushsukta because then there didn’t exist any Kshatriya in the early Vedic community that travelled to India. They had Rajanyas and a Rajan (in the form of the Videgh Mathav), hence Rajanya became a part of the divine body. They made the Shudras a part of the social order but did not consider them as part of the Vedic order, because they were not Vedics, but the Vedics depended on their mercy and assistance they tendered for their survival. It is very much possible that the Vedics lived in the Shudra kingdom for 4-5 generations to reorganize themselves before they marched out in the eastern regions to spread their faith. 

They applied the term Kshatriya, a rare term used in Rig Veda, to the new converts (or patrons) hailing from the royal families and warriors and glorified the term so much so that even today Indian populace is crazy about it, though the term was unimportant to the early Vedics for the term had no place in the divine order that was proclaimed by much-hyped Rig Veda. 


As we have seen, it should not be forgotten that the term Kshatriya is not equivalent to Rajanya at all. Both were distinct classes in the original Vedic society when located at their original homeland. The Shudra were never meant to be a varna in the Purusha Sukta because it was merely a tribe among which the Vedics had to live. Hence, the term Shudra should be dropped while writing the social history of India. Mixing the term with other tribal or jana identities will not yield any satisfactory analysis. The journey of the Vedic religion to India has to be closely analysed to know the facts, which were avoided or neglected by the earlier scholars. Unless the entry of Vedism in India and its methodological spread is understood, the riddles of our present social structure, which is largely based on the self-nourished myths and sheer misunderstandings, cannot be solved. We shall discuss in the next chapter why the Kshatriya (and Vaishya) class came to be eliminated in the later course of time.   

Monday, November 14, 2016

ज्ञान म्हणजे काय? (५)

माहितीतून ज्ञान येते कि उत्स्फुर्त कल्पनाशक्तीने अचानक सुचवलेल्या एखाद्या संकल्पनेमुळे विशिष्ट-ज्ञानाकडे जायचा प्रवास सुरु होतो? माहितीतून येणा-या ज्ञानात स्वत:च्या प्रतिभेची भर घातल्या खेरीज ती माहिती म्हणजे एक प्रकारचा सचलेला माहितीचा अस्ताव्यस्त ढीग होय. त्या माहितीला सुसंगत क्रमात घेत त्याचे विश्लेशन करत त्या माहितीला एका तर्कसीमेपर्यंत नेता आले तर माहितीचे विशिष्ट ज्ञानात रुपांतर झाले असे म्हणता येईल. ही तर्कसीमा ही त्या व्यक्तीचा वकूब ठरवेल हेही तेवढेच खरे. कारण तर्क संपला असे एखाद्या व्यक्तीच्या बाबतीत घडले तरी तो म्हणजे तर्काचाही अंत नाही. तर्क त्याहीपुढे जाऊ शकतो व ही प्रक्रियाही सतत सुरु राहणे ज्ञानाच्या विश्वात गरजेचे असते.

मी नीतिशास्त्रावर लिहितांना उत्स्फुर्ततावादाचा पुरस्कार केला होता. प्रत्येक माणसात उत्स्फुर्तपणे घोंगावणा-या स्वतंत्र कल्पनांचा गोंगाट असतोच. त्यातील कोणती उपयुक्त व कोणती अनुपयुक्त हे सर्वांना ठरवता येतेच असे नाही. तसेच अशा उत्स्फुर्त संकल्पना धुसर असल्याने त्या स्मृतीत दिर्घकाळ राहतील असेही नाही. उत्स्फुर्तपणे सुचलेल्या संकल्पनांवर बाह्य घटकाचा प्रभाव नसतोच असे नाही. अनेक संकल्पना अव्यवहार्य वाटल्याने अनेकजण सुचताच तशाच सोडुनही दिल्या जातात. काही लोक मात्र संकल्पनांचा उपयुक्ततेचा विचार न करता पाठपुरावा करतात व त्यातून एखादा सिद्धांत, कविता, साहित्यकृती अथवा शोध निर्माण करतात. नाविण्याचा जन्म उत्स्फुर्ततावादातून होतो. हा उत्स्फुर्ततावाद माहित्यांचे संकलन करतांनाही अचानक जागा होऊ शकतो व एखाद्या घटनेचे नवे अन्वयार्थ व्यक्तीला लागतात. त्यातून नवनिर्मिती घडू शकते.

जी संकल्पना सुचते ती अव्यवहार्य असतेच असे नाही. अनेक संकल्पना काळापुढच्या असल्याने त्या आजच्या वर्तमानात अव्यवहार्य वाटल्या तरी त्या अनुपयुक्त आहेत असेही म्हणता येत नाही. अनेक संकल्पना बाळबोध असतात हेही खरे. पण त्यामुळे चिंतीत होण्याचे कारण नाही. प्रत्येक संकल्पनेचे स्वत:चे असे महत्व असतेच. त्या संकल्पना प्रत्यक्ष प्रयोग केल्यानंतर बाद होऊ शकतात. त्या निरर्थक आहेत असे दिसू शकते. तरीही त्या महत्वाच्याच असतात कारण कोणत्या संकल्पना टाकवू आहेत हे त्याशिवाय कळत नाहीत. शिवाय आजच्या प्रयोगांतून टाकावू वाटलेल्या संकल्पना वेगळ्या पद्धतीने, वेगळ्या परिस्थितीत प्रयोग केल्याने वास्तवात येणारच नाहीत असे नाही. ज्यूल्स व्हर्नने आपल्या वैज्ञानिक कादंब-यांत मांडलेल्या संकल्पना नंतर प्रत्यक्षात, वेगळ्या पद्धतीने, अधिक शास्त्रुशुद्धतेने प्रत्यक्षात अस्तित्वात आल्या हा इतिहास आहे. अकल्पनीय, प्रसंगी हास्यास्पद वाटणा-या संकल्पनांचेही असेच असते.

संकल्पनेच्या बीजाशिवाय प्रत्यक्ष वृक्ष वाढणार नाही हे तर आहेच. माणसाला संकल्पना सुचतात, अचानक काहीतरी सुचून जाते ही प्रक्रिया नेमकी का आणि कशी घडते हे अद्याप उलगडायचे आहे. मानवी मनात अमर्याद असलेली कुतुहलाची सुप्त शक्ती त्यामागे काम करत असू शकते. भवतालही या प्रक्रियेत हातभार लावू शकतो. संकल्पनांचे प्रकार अनंत आहेत असे म्हटले तरी चालेल. त्यावर मर्यादाही अनंत आहेत हेही खरे. मनातील पुर्वग्रह, एखाद्या तत्वाच्या प्रेमात पडणे अथवा त्याचाच सुप्त अथवा जागृत प्रभाव व्यक्तीच्या मनावर असणे या अनेकदा मर्यादा बनून जातात व त्या आज आपण मान्य केलेल्या अगदी शास्त्र सिद्धांतांवरही असतात. आजही आपण विश्वाचा विचार सापेक्षवादी चौकटीत करतो पण निरपेक्षवादी (जेथे चौकटच नसेल) स्थितीतील विश्व कसे असू शकेल येथवर आपली मजल गेली नाही. मी विश्वरचनेचा सिद्धांत मांडतांना निरपेक्षवादाचा विचार केला आहे, पण अजून तरी माझे म्हणने काहींना (म्हणजे ज्यांनी वाचले आहे त्यातील) स्विकारणीय नाही.  ते तसे कदाचित असेलही, पण हाही एक विचार आहे व तो अर्धवट सोडून देणे योग्य नाही असे मला वाटते. अनेक सिद्धांतांचा मृत्यू अशा वातावरणामुळे झाला आहे हेही आपण पाहू शकतो.

आव्हानच दिले जाऊ शकत नाही असे कोणतेही सिद्धांत असू शकत नाहीत. एकाच उपलब्ध संदर्भचौकटीत ते निर्विवाद वाटले तरी अन्य संदर्भचौकटींत ते तसे असतीलच असे नाही. इतिहासाचेही वेगळ्या प्रकारे असेच असते. समजा उद्या सिंधू लिपी निर्विवाद वाचली गेली (एखादा रोझेटा स्टोन सापडल्याने) तर आज त्या संस्कृतीबाबतचे आजवरच्या सर्व विद्वानांचे आकलन ढासळून टाकू शकते. एखादी अजून पुरातन संस्कृती परिसरातच अथवा अन्यत्र उजेडात येऊ शकते. अनेक कोडी सोडवत नवीन कोडी उभी राहू शकतात. थोडक्यात ही प्रक्रिया निरंतर आहे.

त्यामुळे विशिष्ट-ज्ञानाचा प्रवासही त्या विशिष्टतेच्या मर्यादेत पुर्ण होऊ शकत नाही. मग ज्ञान म्हणता येईल असे मुलतत्व कोठे राहते?

 मग ज्ञानाचा काही अंतिम थांबा आहे काय? असल्यास तो नेमका कोनता? सर्व विशिष्ट-ज्ञानांचे ध्येय एकच असले तर असा Grand Unified Knowledge चा एकच एक असा टप्पा असु शकतो काय आणि असल्यास त्याची काही रुपरेषा तरी आज आपल्याला गवसू शकते काय हे प्रश्न उपस्थित होणे स्वाभाविक आहे.

आपल्याला विचार करतच रहावा लागेल. 

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

“Who were the Shudras” : A critique

“Who were the Shudras – How they came to be the Fourth Varna in the Indo-Aryan society” is a scholarly book written by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, which was first published in 1946.  While the debate over original homeland of the Aryans was a highly debated issue, Dr. Ambedkar found it necessary to search for the origins of the Shudra Varna, which is considered to be lowest in the Vedic social order, devoid of any Vedic ritualistic rights,  and hence an oppressed but largest part of the so-called Hindu society. The common understanding was that the Shudras were the indigenous, aboriginal communities that were defeated by the invading Aryans, enslaved by them, and were termed as Shudras while establishing their social order as four-fold during the process of assimilation, while maintaining their supremacy by denying social, economic, and Vedic religious rights to the Shudras.

Dr. Ambedkar proposed a new theory through this book to explain the origin of the Shudra Varna. The theory is outlined as under:

(1) The Shudras were one of the Aryan communities of the Solar race. 

(2) There was a time when the Aryan society recognized only three Varnas, namely. Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas.

(3) The Shudras did not form a separate Varna. They ranked as part of the Kshatriya Varna in the Indo-Aryan society.

(4) There was a continuous feud between the Shudra kings and the Brahmins in which the Brahmins were subjected to many tyrannies and indignities.

(5) As a result of the hatred towards the Shudras generated by their tyrannies and oppressions, the Brahmins refused to perform the Upanayana of the Shudras.

(6) Owing to the denial of Upanayana, the Shudras who were Kshatriyas became socially degraded, fell below the rank of the Vaishyas and thus came to form the fourth Varna.


Dr. Ambedkar explains that the original Shudras were part of the Indo-Aryan community, and to devalue them, the code was invented and was strictly applied.  The other Shudras were not from the Indo-Aryan communities, were racially different, but to widen the application of the code to the innocent masses, the term was used for them also. He says that the original word “Shudra” lost its original meaning of being a name of a particular community and became a general name for low-class people without civilization, without culture, without respect, and without a position. He asserts that “ If the Hindu lawgivers had enough historical sense to realize that the original Shudras were different from the present low-class people, this tragedy-this massacre of the innocents would have been avoided.” He laments that the code that was meant for the original culprit Shudras is applied to the present-day Shudras is unfortunate. (See preface)

However,  the fact is that the word Shudra appears nowhere in the Rig Veda except Purushsukta, which is, Dr. Ambedkar too is aware of, a late addition to the Rig Veda. Even if considered that the Kshatriyas and the Shudras are equivalent, the fact is that Purushasukta does not mention Kshatriya while enumerating the Varnas originating from the divine sacrificial body of the Purusha. Rather, it mentions Rajanya, not KSHATRIYA and both the terms have different connotations. Neither is the equivalent. Rajanya is mentioned as the second highest rank in the Vedic social order, however, Kshatriya does not appear at all as a name of a class or Varna. However, it seems Kshatriya was inserted, removing Rajanya in later literature. That way, Purushsukta does not sanction any status to Kshatriya…rather, it does not acknowledge it at all! 

There are many feuds mentioned in the Rig Veda, but the word Shudra appears nowhere, though Dr. Ambedkar says Shudra and Kshatriya were equivalent. Dr. Ambedkar emphatically states that the Brahmins, out of hatred, denied Upanayana of the Kshatriyas, and hence they fell lowest in the social order. At the least, the Vedas do not support this assumption. Upanayana was not a ritualistic ceremony in the Vedic period hence, there could not arise any issue over whether or not to deny Upanayana to any person of any rank.

The term Shudra finds no etymology. Dr. Ambedkar shows how false etymologies were attempted to explain the words whose original meaning was lost or forgotten by the half-educated people of those times. (page 107)  Dr. Ambedkar finds the word is a proper name of a tribe or a clan to which historians of Alexander mention as a “Sodari” tribe Greeks came across in northwest India. Aitareya Brahmana informs us that beyond Vindhya ruled various Shudra tribes. Dr. Ambedkar also provides proof of the mention of the Shudra as a tribe in the Mahabharata, Markandeya, and Brahma Purana. 
The main question is, who were the Shudras? 

Dr. Ambedkar insists that the Shudras were Kshatriyas. Not only that, he states that “The Shudras were so important a class of Kshatriyas that some of the most eminent and powerful kings of the ancient Aryan communities were Shudras.” (page 121)

To prove his statement, Dr. Ambedkar gives evidence from the Mahabharata (Shanti Parva 40 . 38-40) where it is said that a Shudra of the name Paijavana performed fire sacrifice (Yajna) and donated heavily to the priests. Dr. Ambedkar has cross-checked 9 extant manuscripts of the Mahabharata, southern and northern recensions, and found 9 different variant readings of the word “Paijavana”.   To name a few variants, the word “Paijavana” is found as pailavano, Yailanamo, YaJane, Vaibhavano, etc. in different editions. Also, only six manuscripts agree that the person who conducted the sacrifice was a Shudra. The remaining three do not mention as such.

In fact, there are only three verses that mention this name, incident, and Varna of the person in question. Dr. Ambedkar treats the “Paijavana” reading as correct, and yes, it is. So let us take it as an indisputable fact that there was a Paijavana, a Shudra of ancient times, who performed sacrifice, and Brahmins had no problem performing the sacrificial rituals for a Shudra. Dr. Ambedkar illustrates that in preceding verses on the same chapter, it is written that the Shudra has no right at all to have wealth and is prohibited from chanting any Vedic mantra. Dr. Ambedkar derives that the Shudras of ancient times weren’t denied the right to conduct Yajnas for their benefit. (126-127)  

However, it seems from Manusmriti that sacrifices performed for Shudras weren’t unknown. Manusmriti verse 3.178  proclaims that “The giver (of a Sraddha) loses the reward, due for such a non-sacrificial gift, for as many Brahmanas as a (guest) who sacrifices for Sudras may touch (during the meal) with his limbs.”

From this, it seems that though the Brahmins, those who performed sacrifices for the Shudras, were looked upon contemptuously, still there existed the Brahmins who did that job.  

Also, Shudra kings were not unknown to Manusmriti as verse 4.61 proclaims that “ Let him not dwell in a country where the rulers are Sudras, nor in one which is surrounded by unrighteous men, nor in one which has become subject to heretics, nor in one swarming with men of the lowest castes.”

This only means that even during the time of Manusmriti, there were numerous Shudra Kings and some Vedic Brahmins who performed sacrifices for them.

However, we have to discuss in more detail, as Dr. Ambedkar’s premise of the whole theory depends on this sole incident mentioned in the Shantiparva.

This is mainly because Dr. Ambedkar has connected the identity of Paijavana with the Rig Vedic The- battle of- Ten Kings fame king Sudasa who happened to be the son of Pijavana, hence also was called Paijavana. According to Dr. Ambedkar, Shudra Paijavana of the Mahabharata and King Sudas, who was also known as Paijavana, are one and the same, hence, Shudras were Kshatriyas.

Superficially, logic may sound very convincing, but then we have to look into the matter more seriously. First of all, the Mahabharata nowhere mentions the famous battle of the ten kings in the entire bulk in which Sudasa had emerged as the celebrated hero after defeating the Puru and other tribes. This has surprised many scholars as to why the most illustrious war finds no mention whatsoever in the Mahabharata, where most of the ancient stories are enumerated.

Dr. Ambedkar shows that in the Vishnu Purana, there are at least two Sudasas, one is in the genealogy of Sagara and another in the Puru family.  Dr. Ambedkar also gives the family tree of Sudasa, of Rig Veda, where at one place he has inferred that Divodasa (father of Sudasa) is Pijavana.

We should not forget here that the Mahabharata genealogies are restricted to the regions where the distinct Puru/Kuru clan (descendants of Nahusha) ruled and not the Sudasa. Hence, there was no need to mention Sudasa or his predecessors or successors in the Puru/Kuru lineage in the Mahabharata. Most probably, the later writers of the Mahabharata had borrowed the names of Yayati’s sons, such as Puru, Anu, Druhyu (From Sharmistha), Yadu and Turvasu (From Devyani) from the Rig Vedic tribal names to bridge the missing or forgotten link in the genealogy. In reality, there cannot be any possible relationship of these tribe-names with the personal names of Yayati’s sons, unless they were borrowed directly from the Rig Veda. If we try to assume that, Yayati’s sons, establishing different kingdoms, formed the Rig Vedic tribes, we do not get any such support from the Mahabharata. Yayati had cursed his other sons, except Puru, when they declined to transfer their youth to him. (1.84, Mahabharata) However, the name Sudasa nowhere appears in the Mahabharata.

Dr. Ambedkar, too, asserts that the Bharata tribe of the Rig Veda and Doushyanti Bharat of the Mahabharata are distinct entities. (page 141)  

Considering this, the Bharata/Puru lineage of Mahabharata would seem to be rather fictitious, fabricated unless the Kurus borrowed the Rig Vedic names right from personal names such as Nahusha, Yayati (composers of some Rig Vedic verses) to tribal names like Puru, Anu, and Druhyu etc. or the names were, too, common to have been used by all other societies including the Vedics and others in different original forms.

And most importantly, Sudasa, a king of celebrated fame, who does not find any mention in any story, a passing reference to one Shudra Paijavana in the Mahabharata cannot be linked with Rig Vedic Sudasa. However, Dr. Ambedkar states emphatically that this Shudra Sudasa belonged to the illustrious line of kings of the Bharata tribe from which the country acquired the name “Bharata”. (page 141)

We have seen earlier that the Manusmriti knows there were Shudra rulers and the Brahmins who performed sacrifices for Shudras. Hence, the Mahabharata, which came to the final form only after 3rd century, finding mention of one Shudra Paijavana, for whom a sacrifice was performed, doesn’t come as a surprise. This Paijavana need not to be a part of the Indo-Aryan (or Vedic) community.  Even if he was a Shudra, either a king or a wealthy person from non-Vedic communities, could have performed a sacrifice if he had desired to do so. Because some Vedic Brahmins used to do so in exchange of the heavy donations, even if they were despised by their own brethren. Paijavana of the Mahabharata, too, donated handsomely to the Brahmins.  

So, Paijavana of the Mahabharata and Paijavana Sudasa of the Rigveda are distinctly different personalities. We have more proof to make this point.

Dr. Ambedkar mentions a Rig Vedic feud that involves a rivalry between his two priests, Vashishtha and Vishvamitra. It is assumed by the scholars as well that the rivalry between seer Vishwamitra and Vasishtha was the major cause behind the battle of ten kings. It is believed that Sudasa removed Vishwamitra from the post of chief priest. Hence, an anguished Vishwamitra left Sudasa to gather forces against him. However, to our surprise, we do not find any support for this assumption in the Rig Veda, as there is no mention of such an event taking place. In all probability, the war was fought over religious issues as the Rig Veda describes the enemy, including the Purus, as ‘ayajju’, non-sacrificers, or over the political supremacy issue. Hence, there is no reason why Brahmins would have treated him (Sudasa) as a “Shudra” by denying Upanayana to him or his successors to proclaim them Shudras. And Mahabharata mentions Paijavana, to whom Dr. Ambedkar identifies with Sudasa, as a Shudra.  However, there appears no feud in the Vedic literature that would indicate rivalry between two classes, i.e., Brahmin and Kshatriyas. Rather, the stories concerning such rivalries emerge in the late Brahmana period.

Hence, it would be the far-fetched statement that “…A Shudra to be an Aryan, a Shudra to be a Kshatriya, and a Shudra to be a king! Can there be a greater revelation? Can there be anything more revolutionary?” (page 139) We must bear in mind that in the Rig Veda, Sudasa is nowhere mentioned as being Kshatriya, but simply as Rajan.

Hence, considering the Shudra class as a part of the Indo-Aryan community may not help us. Paijavana of the Mahabharata can be anyone with the identical name, the way Puru, Anu, Druhyu, etc. appear in the Mahabharata as personal names, which in fact are the names of the tribes, not individuals, in the Rigveda. Hence, comparing either genealogy with the other does not yield any satisfactory result. Shudras couldn’t have been part of the Indo-Aryan club and their religion. The only fact, the way Dr. Ambedkar puts forth, is that there were two types of the Shudras, one being the Shudras for whom the code was intended and enforced, and the other being completely outside of the Vedic religious periphery, enjoying their own faiths, kingdoms, and wealth. In fact, the Shudra was a tribe residing across the Sindhu River. There were hundreds of tribes dwelling in India when Vedic Aryans arrived in the subcontinent in the north-west region. They mentioned Shudras only because this was the first tribe they had come across, thinking that the whole land is occupied by this tribe.

The Shudra Varna does not appear anywhere in the Rig Veda, except in Purushsukta, only because Vedic Aryans had not come across this set of people. Shudras were foreigners and unknown to them. It was never part of their Indo-Aryan or Vedic society, hence it consisted of only three varnas. Dr. Ambedkar has deliberated on this issue in his book and has concluded in support of his theory that the two specific verses from Purushasukta is a forgery that sanctified Chaturvarnya.  In his opinion, there were only three Varnas in that period, and Shudras belonged to the Kshatriya Varna. (page 151- 52).
We are all aware of the Vedic designs of falsities and recklessly fabricating anything by interpolating into what they call sacred books. The Purusha Sukta is a later interpolation. Not only this, but Purushasukta too is not composed at once, but there are seemingly different layers, fabrication of different times.

But this is not enough to prove that the Shudras were Kshatriyas of the Indo-Aryan community. As stated earlier, the Vedics had not come across this new set of people while delving into their own geography. The known people, whether as friends or as foes, find mention throughout the Rig Veda except for the Shudras. This term finds no satisfactory etymology too in any language. It has no certain meaning. Why were Indo-Aryans forced to invent a term to name so-called degraded Kshatriyas, which has no meaning? And how could such people, who enjoyed the high status of Kshatriya, accept such a degradation without wielding weapons?

Vedic religion came to India, not through an invasion. It came by a missionary sort of work by the handful of refugees. They came across the new people named Shudra or Shudra is a corrupt form of the original name of the people. “Sodrai,” mentioned by Alexander's historians, too, is a corrupt Greek form of the name of a tribe that inhabited North-West India. Interestingly, the term Shudra finds no etymology in any language. This wouldn't be possible if the Shudra community belonged to the Indio-Aryan Society. Also, Dr. Ambedkar is very much aware of the Shudra tribe of northwest India, still he trusts that the Shudra were the Kshatriyas. The fact is, the Vedic refugees, too, first might have come across this Shudra tribe first and this name stuck to all the people residing in India, the same way as Hindustan name for the entire country was first used only for the people living in Indus valley that later was applied to the whole subcontinent. I have discussed more on this issue here.

Hence, Dr. Ambedkar’s theory gives us a foresight but does not satisfactorily solve the problem of the Shudras. Indeed, it raises more questions.

It seems that the code that was intended against the Shudras was a menial class taken in the personal service to meet daily needs. The rest of the people, in the Shudra tribe, naturally were Shudras, but the code was never intended for them. They simply could not enforce any code on the locals, who were mere refugees. This is why Manu records the states where the Shudra rules. Considering Manu's commands, Shudras, who were prohibited even from wearing good clothes, how could Shudra kingdoms exist?  It clearly seems that the first tribe introduced to them was the Shudra, and they later designated or considered all other tribes as Shudra. 

However, these Shudras were free from that code, which is evidenced by the Manusmriti itself.  In the later course of time, the scope of the code was widened, but history does not prove that the Shudras heeded to it in practical life. In known history, we find Nanda, Mauryas, Satvahanas, Yadavas, and so many other dynasties were Shudra. Thus, Shudra meant the people who did not adhere to the Vedic religion. The only worse influence the code (especially Vedic religious stories) seeded in the minds of the Shudras (non-Vedic people) was a sense of birth-based inequality among themselves.  So much so that almost every caste from the so-called Shudra class tries to connect with Kshatriya origin.

The fact remains that Kshatriya Varna has no Rig Vedic sanction. It places Rajanya in the second order, without mentioning Kshatriyas, though the term Kshatriya appears at least 9 times in the Rig Veda. Rajanya was removed in the later course and was replaced with Kshatriya, but the term Shudra did not vanish. Had Shudras been Kshatriyas and the Kshatriyas were degraded in the later course, Kshatriyas wouldn’t find any place in the Vedic social order. In fact, this change, Rajanya being replaced with Kshatriya, suggests more dramatic occurrences in the history of Vedic people.

कॉर्पोरेट क्षेत्र शेतीत उतरण्याचे धोके...

  मागील लेखात आपण भविष्यात सर्व शेती कॉर्पोरेट क्षेत्राच्या ताब्यात गेली आणि त्यांनी शेतीचे पूर्ण नियंत्रण घेतले, तर त्याचे काय परिणाम होऊ श...