“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.
No comments:
Post a Comment