Deva-Asura conflicts
and
expansion of the term Shudra....
Implications of the forced cultural game!
By
Sanjay Sonawani
Until now, it was
believed that the Vedic religion and their languages spread in the Indian
subcontinent due to the Aryan invasion or demographic migration. Because
of the Western and Indian scholars of the past, the misguided postulation has
been rooted in the modern Indian mindset that the caste system was also imposed
on the local masses by the invading Aryans. But now it is becoming clear from
the study of textual and archeological history that the Vedic Aryans actually
came here not as invaders but as refugees and that instead of imposing their
own deities and rituals, they had to adopt the local language and the deities
of indigenous folk religion which is known now as Hindu. The Varna system of
the Vedic religion is independent of the Hindu caste system and has evolved
independently. The cultural conflict between the two religions is still going
on as was in the past though by sheer ignorance both religions live under a
single designation i.e. Hindu.
To understand this we
have to go into the ancient past. From a comparative study of the Avesta and
Rigveda, we realize that Zoroastrianism and Vedic religion arose out of the
same Asura-centric culture in Iran at about the same period. Further, owing to
the religious rivalry, on the matter of supremacy and gaining patronage, both
religions took separate paths by readjusting their theology and modifying their
rituals. This change in the Vedic hierarchy of the gods and their epithets can
be seen clearly in the Rigveda. For example ‘Asura’ was a prominent epithet of
the supreme god Varuna, which was used for main gods like Agni, Indra, etc.
gods out of reverence in the early compositions of the Rigveda but later on
gradually, this epithet vanished while the meaning of “Asura” got changed to
opposite, from supreme force to evil entity. Instead, the term Deva earned more
prominence, and the eternal struggle between Deva v/s Asura theme became the
foundation of Vedic mythology. In Vedic mythology, the original sense was
preserved with a myth that the Asuras were the elder brothers of the Devas who
were offspring of Prajapati. (Later on, their fatherhood was
conferred on sage Kashyapa.) However, from the mythology, we can deduce that
both were human communities living side by side in some remote past having
similar faiths and spiritual goals, and due to some kind of disagreement, both
groups turned hostile against each other. This shift in change in the meaning
of the once revered epithet “Asura” is significant and sheds light on the newly
sprung rivalry between both religions though the basic source of both religions
was one and the same. The Brahmana literature is loaded with the Deva-Asura wars,
but a difference is the Rigvedic mythologies only record victories but Brahmana
literature records Devas who get routed first and then by immoral means
gradually achieve victory. The inconsistency in the stories and
their description of the final outcome only indicates that Vedic Aryans or
Devas always weren’t victors. However, we can derive from the descriptions of
various Vedic wars recorded in the Rigveda that were in a contest to achieve
religious and political supremacy.
Rather, it seems from
the mythological account that Devas were finally defeated and had to migrate to
save their religion of Devas. The tendency in the Vedic Aryans developed to
such an extent that the people belonging to any opposite faith, they labeled
them as Asuras. In Mahabharata, we can see the mighty kings like Shambara,
Bana, Naraka, or those who harassed the Vedic community, out of hatred, were
wholesomely called Asuras.
Since Asura (Ahura)
oriented Zoroastrianism was reformed by a prophet, it had a discipline from the
beginning. Zoroastrianism flourished as it was first patronized by a king like
Vishtaspa whereas we find from Danastuti Suktas that the Vedic
Aryans were always in search of the patrons. Of course, there were other enemy
tribes also present contemporaneously with different faiths with whom Vedic
Aryans had to wage battles. The Turanians, Parshus, Dasa, and Dasyus
were some of them. The Turanians (Turvasa) appear in the Rigveda sometimes as
friends and sometimes as enemies of the Vedic Aryans. The relationships among
the tribes were ever-changing. In fact, there were numerous clans in the vast
territory of ancient Iran and they struggled for supremacy over each other. The
struggle had political as well as religious dimensions. However, in the
beginning, there was no reason for their enmity with Zoroastrianism as Vedic
religion was also Asura-oriented with slight changes in the rituals and
pantheon of gods. But later, the battle of supremacy began between the two
religions, and out of enmity the Asura-centric Vedic religion started to become
Deva-centric. The patrons of the Vedic religion also kept changing, so the
hierarchy of the gods and religious beliefs also were changed such as Indra
became prominent and Varuna lost his old supreme position.
We find Sudasa, the hero
of the Tutsu tribe at the time of the famous Battle of Ten Kings, seems to be a
main patron and follower of Vedic religion as mentioned in the Rigveda. In this
war, ten anti-Vedic sects formed an alliance against Sudasa. This war is
mentioned several times in the Rigveda and it can be surmised from internal
evidence that it may have taken place after the death of Zarathustra and in the
middle of the composition of the Rigveda.
In this war,
tribes like Anu, Pakht, Bhalanas, Drahyu, Puru, Shiva, Vishanin, Alinas Parshu,
etc. had united against Sudasa. Though the Puru tribe was once allied with the
Vedic confederation, and the Yadu tribe assisted Vedic Aryans in some wars,
they also were described as non-sacrificers and disbelievers of Indra as they
allied with enemy tribes to stand against Sudasa. This means that even Puru had
moved away from the Vedic Aryans. The site of this war is given to Parushni
River and it was believed till now that this river is Ravi in India. But as the
geography of the other tribes is carefully fixed by the scholars, it is not
likely that the tribes of Anu (Parthia) and Parshu (Persia) in the far west
would travel nearly eight hundred miles across the Indus for a war.1
Parushni River should be identified with some rivers situated in southern
Afghanistan. Moreover, if Sudas was stationed on the banks of the Ravi, he
would have had no logical reason to develop enmity with such distant tribes. It
is also mentioned in Rigveda that after this battle, Sudasa immediately pursued
the enemy and marched on the settlements of the Anu tribe broke their seven
fortifications with the help of Indra, and laid a siege. It is also impossible
for Sudasa to pursue such a long distance from Ravi River to Parthia. Hence the
identification is wrong and we have to deduce that the participating tribes in
this war were located in east Iran (present Afghanistan) and adjoining regions.
Secondly, it is also clear that the name Ravi is not a corrupt form of the
Parushni River. Indian scholars have made blunders in their quest to
prove their pet theory of indigenous Aryans
From Battle of Ten Kings
and other wars described in the Rigveda proves that there were various faiths
while jumping from one to another faith was a common scenario. The most
relevant point here is that even those who were supporters of the Vedic
religion earlier had deserted the Vedic fold before this war and nourished
enmity after the conclusion of the war. Rigveda tends not to mention
the defeats and superiority of any other faith, but it seems that the other
tribes including Parshu (Persians) embraced the Zoroastrian faith after the
war. Rigvedic account tells us that, although these ten tribes were defeated in
this war, they weren’t annihilated or forcibly converted to the Vedic fold.
That is, the spread of Vedic religion seems to have been limited during and
after this war period. Druhyu, Parshu, and Puru clans were once auxiliaries of
the Vedic religion but after the defeat in this war, they would have become
sworn opponents or enemies of the Vedic clans. To gather more strength it was
natural on their part that they embrace the opposite faith to strengthen their
opposition and avenge the enemy. Though the post-war events have not
been mentioned in Rigveda, it is a most probable scenario that there were other
wars in which Vedic Aryans had to suffer defeats. It becomes obvious because
these enemy tribes do not appear to have re-entered the Vedic religion later as
the mention of these tribes can be seen completely disappeared from the later
portions of the Rigveda and subsequent Vedic literature, while Purus are
mentioned with disrespect.
It can be deduced
that the victory in the most celebrated Battle of Ten Kings, did not yield
larger gains except of the bootees from the vanquished tribes. This
means that the Vedic religion did not expand after this battle, but rather
shrunk, despite the victory. It is not that the rival tribes would have
remained silent after defeat. Later, after Sudasa, the center of Vedic religion
seems to have changed again. Later kings, Sahadeva and Somaka, seem to have
been father-son relationships during whose reign the latter part of the Rigveda
was composed. Although they are also believed to belong to the Bharata tribe,
with efforts, only a few of these claimants can be linked to a single Vedic
clan. It is evident from the Danastuti Suktas of later times
the Vedic seers accepted donations from Panis as well whom they hated.
Zoroastrianism spread
Let us also see
what was going on with Zoroastrianism at this time. Zarathustra developed his
religion under the patronage of Vishtaspa, king of the province of Balkh
(Avestan 'Baksoi'). The Heyona clan of the Turiya (Vedic Turvasa, i.e. Turani)
people thus formed enmity with Vishtaspa, who is recorded in Rigveda as
Ishtashva. This resulted in Zarathustra being burnt to death in a fire temple.
Rigveda has also recorded the murder of Zarathustra thrice. Turani alias
Turvasa was once a friendly tribe with Vedic clans during this period but
later became an enemy of the Vedics, which is evident from the fact that
Turanis stood against Sudasa in the Battle of Ten Kings.
The geography of Avesta
seems to have changed a lot after the Battle of Ten Kings. Unfortunately, the
post-Zarathustra Avestan literature, though voluminous, lacks historical
narratives. However, the expansion of Zoroastrianism can be traced from the
changed landscape. The geographical expansion mentioned in Zamayad Yast is that
of the Sistan province through which the Helmand (Saraswati) river flows.
Zamyad Yast provides in-depth information about its watershed.2 The
river empties into the lake Hamaun ( Vedic- Samudra). Apart from this, the
information about the mountains and other regions in the vicinity of this river
is also explained, which does not find any place in the earlier Avestan works.
The geography of the Hindu Kush ranges from the central, marginal areas,
Margiana, Drangiana, and up to Gandhara on the Indo-Iranian border is explained
in detail. This means that Zoroastrianism had dominated even southern
Afghanistan, the original home of the Vedic Aryans, by the time of the Zamayad
Yast, otherwise the Avesta would not have had such profound information. Later,
when Persians formed Persia, Zoroastrian religion became its official religion.
Vedic
religion originated in Sistan province and in the area of Saraswati
(Harhavati/Helmand) river. That is also the reason why Saraswati's praises in
Rigveda were sung a lot. The Zamayad Yast indicates that Zoroastrianism later
gained strength in this region; in fact, it crossed the Balkh province in the
north and later on became dominant in the south. To achieve this feat, Zoroastrianism
certainly needed to acquire prominence over other faiths, either by force or
preaching. The mythological stories of Rigveda inform us that Devas had to be
in the constant battle with the Asuras which reveals the violent conflict
between the two faiths. It appears from the mythological stories that the Vedic
Aryans lost their prominent position gradually and had to vacate the territory
or submit to the Zoroastrian religion. Deva-Asura conflict stories
are the records of real events composed in mythological style.
We know from Rigveda
that Vedic religion began to shrink during this period. In absence of the
strong patronage, they had to accept donations even from Panis whom they once
hated. (Rig Veda 6.45.31-32). From the geography of Zamyad Yast, we
know that the religion of Zarathustra, which was confined to northern
Afghanistan, later settled down to the south as well. Although it is not
clearly written what exactly transpired in this region or which tribes adopted
Zoroastrianism, it can be speculated that later many tribes including the
Parshus and Turvasas had converted to this religion.
There are
many legends of Deva-Asura wars in Vedas and Brahmana texts. If the mythical
element is removed, it seems to reflect the violent conflict between Deva
(Vedic) and Asura (Zarothustrian). There is a story in the Shatapatha Brahmana
that as the Deva were defeated in the battle with Asuras, they all fled in
fear. Then Asuras sat down to share the vacant earth after the Devas had been
driven away. As the Devas found no place in this allotment, the helpless Devas
again approached the Asuras and begged to get at least a small share of the
earth. Then the Asuras agreed to give the land to the gods equal to three steps
of a dwarf Vamana. That dwarf Vaman was actually Vishnu who in the form of
Vamana became huge and occupied the universe in three steps and deprived the
Asuras of the land. (Shatapatha Brahmana 1.2.2.1-5). Aitareya Brahmana narrates
a story where the Devas and Asuras were fighting from west, east, south, and
north directions in sequence and that in those all wars, Devas were defeated.
Then they fought in the north-eastern direction, and Devas emerged victorious.
(Aitareya Brahmin 1.14, 8.10) Stripping away the Vedic-style mythic element of
such stories, it is clear that the Devas (i.e. the Vedic Aryans) had to accept
defeat and become landless, not the Asuras. The later part of the Shatapatha
Brahmana story comes as a fictional consolation where a dwarf becomes so giant
that he occupies the universe in three steps. It is clear that basically these
Deva-Asura Wars are not entirely fictional but indicate a conflict between
Deva-centric and Asura-centric religions, morphed into an eternal struggle
between good and bad narrative. Although the gods are shown to have triumphed
in the end, albeit fraudulently, the real outcome does not indicate so. We have
to consider them fictitious because the subsequent history does not complement
the story of that victory. They did not forget this conflict and brought their
memories in a mythical form to India when they migrated.
Shatapatha
Brahmana also preserves a memory of how some Vedic Aryans had to vacate the
Saraswati river region under Videgh Mathava and cross the Hindu Kush (Uttar
Giri) to come to India. Though the story does not explain why Videgh Mathava
had to leave the homeland, in fact, this is the only story of Vedic Aryan
migration to be found in Vedic literature and it is significant. This story in
the Shatapatha Brahmana (S. Bra. 1.4.1, 14-17) goes like this-
"When
fire sprang from the mouth of Videgh Mathva, who lived on the banks of the
river Saraswati, the fire proceeded eastward, engulfing the earth (forests) and
rivers (drying up). Videgh Mathava and his priest Gautama Rahugana along with
others followed the fire. The fire finally came near the river Sadanira. Agni
could not dry up this river. Vedic Aryans had never crossed this river before.
Videgha Mathava asked Agni “Where should we live? Agni replied that you should
stay east of this river. The land east of Sadanira they settled was marshy and
not under cultivation."
In conclusion of the
story, an attempt is made to connect Videgha Mathva with King Madhava of
Videha. If this was the case, then the question arises as to why the name
Videgha Mathava was not mentioned as Videha Madhava? The overlooked fact is
that Videgha is the name of a person and not of the region. Forcibly connecting
the name of Videgha with the Videha region was an attempt to gain royal
patronage from the Videha king by showing his concocting with Vedic Aryans, to
please him. Moreover, the word Mathava is not derived from Madhu so there
cannot be any connection between Madhava and Mathava. At the time of migration,
Videgha Mathava could be a leader of the remaining Vedic Aryans who needed to
preserve their religion from the onslaught of rival Zoroastrian faith by seeking refuge
in unknown lands.
Considering the Vedic
narrative style of this story, the fact appears that there was a king or tribal
chief named Videgha Mathava living on the banks of the river Saraswati
(Harhavati) and Gautama Rahugana was his priest. Maybe because of persecution
of the Vedic Aryans, they came under threat of annihilation and all left the
bank of Saraswati River one day (or night) and crossed the Hindu Kush Mountains
(Uttaragiri is not the Himalayas. The word Giri is used for low mountains. The
Himalayas are mentioned in ancient literature as Himavat or Himavan.) They
stealthily came to some river located in northwest India and settled in the
barren and marshy land. It is clear from the story itself that no Yajna (Vedic
religious) had ever come to this place.
Surprisingly,
Aryan invasion/migration theorists have interpreted this story as the expansion
of the Vedic Aryas from Punjab to the east (towards Videha). Many scholars by
equating the Sadanira River with the Gandaki River have postulated a misguiding
theory that argues in favor of the eastern movement of the Vedic Aryans from
Punjab to the Videha kingdom. Their overall implication is that after the
completion of Vedic compositions in Punjab, the Vedic Aryans began to expand
eastwards. If this is the case, then the question arises why Rigveda does not
mention the regions apart from Gandhara, the eastward kingdoms like Kekaya,
Kuru, Panchal, Magadha, Kosala, or even Videha? In Nadi Sukta, various river
names do appear. Still, mention of river names does not prove the Vedic Aryans
had occupied all those regions through which these rivers like the Ganga, and
Yamuna flow as no mention of any tribe or kingdom appears in these texts except
names of the rivers. In fact, the names of the regions and tribes begin to
appear only in the post-Rig Vedic literature. All the tribes that appear in the
Rigveda are from northwest India and ancient Iran. That is, the geography of Rigveda
was different and the geography of other Vedas and Brahmana texts was
distinctly different. It is true that Vedic religion later spread to Bihar
(Magadha) and other regions as well, but the first migration is recorded in the
Shatapatha Brahmana, and that too in the form of remnants of ancient memory,
proves the fact otherwise.
To make their
point, the scholars have made the confusion by equating River Gandaki with an
unidentified River Sadanira. They have considered the original location of
River Saraswati to be an Indian River, i.e. Ghaggar, without an iota of
geological or scriptural proof. Basically, Gandaki flowing through Bihar is not
synonymous to Sadanira, nor is a corruption of the original name. Amarsingh
of Amarkosha states that probably Sadanira is the name of the
Kartoya River in Bengal. So he is not firm either. If we look at the
Mahabharata, it seems that it must be some independent river flowing through
the region between Sharayu and Gandaki. Apart from this hypothetical reasoning,
the fact remains that there is no river of this name in North India. Just like
how the name of the river Saraswati, which is revered by the Vedics, could
become Ghaggar, it is also a question of how the name of Gandaki could become
Sadanira, no matter to what degree the original name was corrupted.
In all, there is no
connection between the Videha region and a king named Videgh Mathva. Sadanira
simply means a river with a constant flow of water and this descriptive name
may be applied to any river with abundant water. All that can be said in this
context is that the river was temporarily named by Videgha Mathava who lived in
the marshy areas of the uninhibited region and later it was forgotten. So this
is not an expansion of Vedic Aryans from Punjab to Bihar (Magadha via Videha)
but a journey from Saraswati (S. Afghanistan) to the Indus Valley. The
information occurring in Shatapatha Brahmana implies that the Vedic Aryans had
to march secretively, avoiding urban settlements, crossing many rivers, through
the forest, and settling in a secluded area. Although the area was swampy, it
was safe, so they had no choice but to stay there, even temporarily.
The region east of the Punjab was
not as uninhibited and uncultivated as the scholars tend to think. The
archeological evidence shows that agriculture had begun in the Gangetic plains
long before 2000 BC. It is not a fact that the region was not populated hence
the Vedic Aryans had to settle in the marshy and uncultivated land. 3, 4
This only means that the
Vedics traveled, avoiding human settlements, but not eastward from the Punjab,
but east of the Saraswati in Afghanistan into the Indian subcontinent, and that
too east of some tributary of the Indus River which changes the entire plot.
The limited territories of North and East India gradually came to be known to
them later and we also find an indication of this in the Shatapatha Brahmana.
It should also be noted here that the Aryan invasion theory drawn from the
story of Videgha Mathva goes to waste, as the Shatapatha Brahmana itself
records that the Vedic Aryans were prohibited in the eastward regions like
Magadha during the composition of this text. So, we have to take the myth of
Videgha Mathava in another sense.
This story, though not
explicitly mention the reasons as to why Videgh Mathava, his priest Gautama
Rahugan and his family or entire clan would have suddenly and secretively left
the banks of the river Saraswati? The most probable answer is it was the
expansion of Zoroastrianism in the mainland of Vedic Aryan settlements that
forced the adherents of the Vedic religion out. The expansion of Zoroastrians
couldn’t have been peaceful. Because of persecution many Vedic clans would have
voluntarily or forcibly converted to Zoroastrianism. The faithful adherents
like Videgha Mathava had to vacate the Sarasvati basin in the middle of the
night to find safe refuge. In the mythological story, it is allegorically
mentioned that the Agni was in the mouth of Videgha (i.e. was not exposed) this
does mean that he had to leave the original habitat stealthily. The story also
indicates that this group came to India by crossing the Gandhara (Hindukush)
from Afghanistan, hiding from the Zoroastrians. In recorded history, we come
across many migrations of religious people after the invasion or persecution of
any religion, so there is no reason to be surprised by this migration. Even
though the Vedic mythological stories always boast of the victory of Devas over
Asuras, it is clear that the victorious elements are fictitiously added to
preserve self-glory/identity, but it does not appear to be a historical
reality.
In the kingdom of
Shudras
Now, let us also see
from the available evidence who had occupied the region where the Vedic Aryans
had taken temporary refuge. Fortunately, we have indicative evidence that this
first stop of the Vedic Aryans was in the kingdom of the Shudras (a corrupt
form of the original Prakrit word Sudda). The Shudra tribe delved into the
eastern part of the river Indus. This kingdom was not just mythical but existed
in reality. Alexander's historian Diodorus describes the war with the Sodrai
tribe in the province of Sindh and the city of Alexandria which was founded by
Alexander on the banks of a river in that province. 5 All scholars
agree that the name Sodrai is a Greek corruption of the word Sudda (later
Sanskritised Shudra). It is a well-known fact that Alexander's invasion took
place in the 4th century BC, so this tribe was still present in that region.
Historian Ram Saran Sharma also corroborates this statement and says,
"There is no doubt that the Shudras as a tribe (tribe) existed till the
fourth century BC."6
In the Mahabharata, the
name of the Shudra tribe is frequently mentioned along with the Abhiras. Before
Yudhishthira's coronation, Nakula, who had gone to conquer north, received
handsome tribute from the Shudra king.
Mahabharata also
mentions that the Shudra tribe fought on the side of Duryodhana along with the
Abhiras in the Great War. Historian Gianchand Chauhan states that there are so
many mentions of the Shudra tribe along with the Abhiras which makes it clear
that this tribe was flourishing in the Sindh region by the time of the
Mahabharata.7 The Shudra tribe is also mentioned separately in
Markandeya and Brahma Purana. One thing is clear from this and that is Shudra
was the name of a tribe in the province of Sindh. In that province, there were
many tribes like Abhiras, Shibis with many others. Several tribes or Ganas were
living happily in their own territory all over India under their own name,
which is evidenced by later Vedic texts such as Aitareya Brahmana and
Manusmriti etc., but initially, newcomers, Vedic Aryans, had no knowledge of
those tribes or regions. They mentioned only a tribe across which they had
come, thinking that the entire region was occupied by the same tribe and hence
they designated wholesomely all the indigenous people with a single tribal
identity.
Although the Vedic
Aryans under Videgha Mathava settled in a deserted area, that area belonged to
some tribe’s domain. The only Indian tribal name that delved into the basin of
the Indus River appears in the Rigveda is Shudras. The Shudra tribe does not
seem to have tried to drive them out. Moreover, they must have stayed in this
region for a long time. The later portions of the Rigveda were composed in this
region. This is why new vocabulary and names of the deities appear in the later
portion of Rigveda. Since the Vedic Aryans lived in the region of Shudras, they
had to maintain good relations with Shudras. Hence there are prayers in
Yajurveda for the well-being of Shudras. The title Shudra was not used
contemptuously in the early era because they were at the mercy of the
Shudras. They were aware of the fact that the religion of the
Shudras was different. Even so, we know from the Manusmriti that the Vedic
Brahmins performed sacrifices for them. As they had started to label everything
Asura those who followed different faiths, the Taittiriya Brahmana records
(T.B. 1-2.6.7) that "Brahmins sprang from the Devas while Shudras sprang
from the Asuras".
Yajurveda also
emphatically declares that “shudraryavasrujyetam” -Yajurveda 14/30. (Shudras
and Aryas were created). This clearly indicates that the Shudras belonged to a
different religion hence they were connected with Asuras The Vedic Aryans were
clearly aware that Aryans and Shudras are two separate communities and their
creations are separate, but being on their mercy, Yajurveda also prays for the
welfare of Shudras. (Yajurveda 18.48, 20.17, 26.2) This means that the
distinction was clear that Aryas (i.e. belonging to Vedic religion) and Shudras
(belonging to a distinct idolatrous religion) were created separately and they
are different. However, till this time the names of other Indian tribes did not
appear because these verses were composed in the kingdom of Shudras, and the
Vedic Aryans till then had not come across other tribes delving into the
subcontinent. It was natural to pray for their welfare even knowing that they
were different because they were on their mercy. The Vedic Aryans initially
thought that the people living in the country were all Shudras. They used the
term wholesomely to address all the people wholesomely as Shudras who didn’t
belong to their faith. Shudra became an alternative term to Asuras and Vedic
Aryans either ignorantly or deliberately used these terms to address their
religious enemies. As they left the kingdom of Shudras and moved further toward
the east, and as they started gaining royal patronage with efforts, they
started using the term Shudra contemptuously. Shudras (or any other Indian
tribe for that matter) never belonged to the Vedic religion, though some got
converted to the Vedic fold in a later course. We have to understand this
process carefully as the term Shudra has created cultural chaos in India.
In the initial stage,
Vedic Aryans tried hard to maintain an amicable relationship with the Shudras
because they couldn’t afford to engage in any kind of hostility. During this
period, the Vedic Aryans not only strengthened the fire sacrifice institution
by compiling, reconstructing, and adding more to the existing Vedas but also
restructured their own society. Being small in number they had to create a
Varna (class) system to designate their position in the society. They did so by
inserting newly composed Purushsukta, they carefully designed the three sections
(Varnas) for the people who belonged to the Vedic faith and the fourth section
of the society, Shudras, those who didn’t belong to their religion. In the
Purushsukta it appears that they were making a universal division of the
societies where they could not exclude the Shudras because they lived among
them. Purushsukta thus proclaims,
ब्राह्मणोऽस्य
मुखमासीद् बाहू राजन्यः कृतः
ऊरू
तदस्य यद्वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत
The face of the
sacrificial man (cosmic being) became Brahmins, the arms became Kshatriyas, the
thighs became Vaishyas, and the Shudras were born from the feet. Here the feet
have not become Shudras, but they sprang from the feet because they were aware
that the Shudras were not part of the body of that divine Purusha. This is also
the reason why they were recorded last. The fire sacrifice in which a divine
being was sacrificed was not vertical but horizontal. So their attitude towards
Shudras in the beginning seems equal but different, legitimate, and important.
Feet did not become Shudras because they were aware that they were not part of
the Vedic social system. In the entire bulk of the Rigveda, the Shudras appear
in only one hymn and that is Purushsukta. They came to know the other regions
and the tribes living in those regions in the later course. Even till the time
of Manusmriti, they did not even know who lived in the south beyond Vindhya. In
fact, it is clear from the Manusmriti that they had the illusory idea that the
people who lived elsewhere were all the Shudras. Manusmriti also admits that
the Shudras were the kings, though Manusmriti explicitly bans Shudras from
accumulating wealth and power.
Importantly, the
etymology of the word Shudra does not occur in the Sanskrit language. In fact,
no meaning can be found for the word Shudra in Vedic vocabulary. It is
evidently a Vedic corruption of the Prakrit term "Sudda". The Vedics
have corrupted many words like this. For example, Dani and Thapar have shown
that the word Mlenchha is a corruption of "Milakkha". 8 Sumerian
corruption was Meluhha which originally was the designation of the country or
region. Vedic Aryans used this term to designate all people who didn’t belong
to their religion or were foreigners or spoke a different language, in a
corrupt form. Moreover, the language of the Rigveda was repeatedly
modified and polished even later. The original Persian names and vocabulary
were also corrupted in an attempt to change the language that was closer to the
original Avesta. For example, the Vedic name of Arjasp was transliterated to Rijashva.
There are numerous such examples. So there is no reason to think that Vedic
language is pure.
That is, when the
Purushsukta was composed they obviously were living in the tribal kingdom of
the Shudras and they were not of their religion/culture but they were effective
members of the cosmic society. This hymn does not mention other tribes at all
those are frequently mentioned in earlier parts of the Rigveda as they were
left far behind. They mentioned the Shudra tribe but the original circumstances
were blurred as they later moved westward and then southward. They encountered
many new tribes, and they mentioned them with names but the main designation,
Shudra, became permanent with changed meaning. After gaining royal patronages
they looked at the Shudras contemptuously for their belonging to different
faiths and continued to call Asuras those were antagonists to them.
The cultural upheaval
that took place in ancient India has roots in the main difference…difference in
faiths that continues even in modern times but unfortunately due cognizance has
not been taken by the scholars. They did not bother to check why the
term Shudra is absent in the entire bulk of the Rigveda except for
Purushasukta. The scholars did not pay attention to the fact that the tribes
mentioned in the Rigveda were left far behind and the Vedic Aryans had come
across a new set of people who couldn’t in any case belong to the Vedic
religion. The scholars of the nineteenth century were euphoric with the myth of
mighty Aryans and their superiority in culture and warfare which not at all was
a fact. They devised a concocted theory and the whole cultural history was
built on the misconception.
They failed to
understand that the term Asura was carried out by the migrant Vedic Aryans which
they continued to apply to the religious rivals in new geography. The same
happened with the tribal name Shudra which they applied to all people of the
country who didn’t belong to their religion. They artificially designated the
Shudra kings with Vedic titles like Kshatriya and composed fictitious stories
to make them feel exalted. This was done tactfully to maintain the supremacy of
their religion.
As far the bulk of
Rigveda is considered the priest of Videgh Mathva, Rahugana could have brought
with him as much Veda as he remembered, but even he couldn’t have known all of
it because the Vedas were divided among many sage families. Not all sages had
friendly relations. The onslaught of Zoroastrians would have scattered them
all. For example, there was discord in the family of Vishwamitra and Vasishta.
There are two important Mandalas named after these two sage families. There is
no question of them backing each other. But as compilation was necessary,
Videgh Mathava or his descendants painstakingly collected the Vedas as they
could. Divided it into mandalas/suktas and added from memory or composed new
verses wherever there were blanks. The 10th Mandal is considered to be the
later composition of which Nadi Sukta and Purusha Sukta of Rigveda is a part.
The Vedic social order also changed in a later course. Purush Sukta mentions
the Rajanya varna which seems to have completely disappeared and the practice
of considering Kshatriya as the second varna seems to have arisen.
Moreover, the original
Avesta-like language of the Rigveda also takes a Prakrit turn here. It would
not be absurd and unhistorical to say that this language is influenced by the
Prakrit spoken in the kingdom of the Shudras, i.e. Sindh region. As the root
structure of the Rig Veda was phonetically changed, the Vedic chants also
changed. For example, Maxmuller says, "In this Sukta, for the first time,
summer, spring, and other seasons occur which are not in Iran and are not
mentioned elsewhere in the Rigveda. The language of this Sukta is also modern."
9 In short, the editing of Rigveda and most of the writing of the
10th Mandala took place after coming to India. Due to the influence of the
techniques prevalent in the Shudras at that time, not only new deities but
concepts such as marriage, funeral, and posthumous rituals also entered the
Rigveda, which was completely invisible in the earlier Mandalas. There are many
examples of Prakrit being the base language of the Rigveda. The Vedics had to
break away from the Avesta-like language because they wanted to spread religion
in a new language environment.
The new vocabulary like
Labh, Lohit, Kal, Lakshmi, Ajya, Vijay, etc., appear in the tenth
mandala. Instead of the Sanskrit plurals such as Devas:, Satyas:, plural usages
such as Deva:, Satya: have appeared more often. Many new deities incarnate in
this mandala, viz. Manu, Shraddha, Lakshmi, Tarkshya, etc.10 It is
more likely that these deities were borrowed by the Vedics from the Shudras.
Vedics are indebted to the Shudra tribe in many ways.
It is not that scholars
didn’t know the religious and cultural distinction between Shudra and the Vedic
Aryans, their observation was neglected by the social scientists. Let us see
what the scholars have to say.
1) "Shudra must
originally be the name of a non-Vedic (Aryan) tribe." - Raj Prithi.11
2) "The community
outside the three Varnas was called Shudra." Vi. Ka. Rajwade. 12
3) "Shudra must
have been the name of a tribe first. Later this name was applied to anyone who
was non-Aryan, non-Vedic, outside the three Varnas, including foreigners.
According to the Sutras, anyone who was not of the three Varnas was a
Shudra."- Devadatta Bhandarkar. 13
In the Maharashtrian
Prakrit text ‘Angavija’ of the first century, the first three Vedic Varnas are
called Aryans and the Shudras, Yavanas, Shakas, Kushans, etc. are wholesomely
called Mlenchha.14 Manusmriti (2.4.10) and Patanjali
Mahabhashya also make a similar arrangement. The meaning of this is clear the
religion of that Shudra tribe and later all the people no matter to which tribe
they belonged called wholesomely Shudras did not belong to Arya or Vedic or
Sanatan Dharma but to some or other sect of the religion of Tantra-based
Shiva-Shakti oriented idolaters.
It was clear from the
beginning that the Shudras were not part of the Vedic religion or community but
were a distinct stock and religion. Aryas (Vedic) sprang from Devas and from
Asuras Shudra is emphatically repeated in the ancient Vedic texts, showing the
clear distinction. Vedic Aryans always treated people belonging to other
religions with terms like Asura, Shudra, and Mlenchha. In Manusmriti also this
distinction is clear. Hence Manusmriti commands that the states of Kuru,
Panchal, Matsya, and Shursena are the lands of Bramharshi where Vedic Aryans
should reside; in the rest of the areas reside only Shudras.
Beginning of Vedic
expansion
Griffiths suggests that
the first stop of the Vedics in India was the Kuru region, where they found
their royal refuge.15 Judging by the available evidence, it was the
second stop. After two or three generations, the Vedic religion started moving
towards the east from the kingdom of Shudras. During this period, they seem to
have come in contact with the Vratyas, another local tribe. The process of
religious conversion had begun and during this period, many Shudras and Vratyas
also embraced the Vedic religion. That is why some new deities are included in
the final part of Rigveda. Receiving the patronage of the Kurus, helped them to
improvise the ritualistic system, making them more elaborate and providing a
disciplined form of the religion. Here they began training the missionaries to undertake
evangelical missions.16 This process can be understood from the
stories in Bhagavata and Brahmand Purana. This process is called Vedic branch
formation. First of all Pail, then Indrapramati and Bashkal, Satyashrava,
Satyahit, etc. 27 main preachers (Shakhas) were prepared and by spreading
independently started the conversion campaign in various parts of the north.16
Agasti was their last chief preacher who went to the south. It should be noted
here that Agasti the preacher and the Agasti of Rigveda are different
personalities.
It can be said with
certainty that the arrival of Agastya in the south is between the first century BC and the first century AD as we do not find any Vedic element anywhere in the
early Sangam literature. The archeological proofs also evidence this fact. The
major task the Vedic Aryans undertook was interpolating the mythological
history of India by inserting Vedic elements in them. The Deva-Asura conflict
of ancient Iran was brought to India and they artificially forged Indian
personalities and their conflicts in Deva v/s Asura form. We can trace how this
tendency is maintained in the Sanskrit version of Ramayana and Mahabharata.
They used royal patronages and administrative posts to popularize these
versions of the story through the centuries to gain the upper hand for Devas, i.e.
to the Brahmins. For this, they recklessly polluted the original stories and
though they could not win the battles, found and established their egos through
the illusory stories.
However, the fact
remains that Vedics had come as refugees in India and were dependent on the
Shudra tribe where they compiled and composed the Vedas. When they arrived and
gradually spread in India they found various sects of Tantra-based idolatrous
Shaivaism prevailed everywhere in India. This is why they always treated Indian
masses as offspring of Asuras. Over time, all forgot that the Deva-Asura enmity
had originally flourished in the distant land of Iran and that Indians had
nothing to do with these designations. The predominance of idolatrous Hindu
religion persists even today. The Vedic deities and the rituals almost are
forgotten even by the Vedics, but their carefully developed supremacy persists.
They nourished a wrong tendency to believe that Vedas are the main sources of
Hinduism. The original distinction that Vedic religion and Hinduism are
different has also been lost. However, the fact should be remembered that the
Vedic Aryans came here not as victors but as refugees and that the religion
spread through proselytizing. Unless the Indians do not understand this they
cannot throw the yoke of Vedic supremacy.
-Sanjay Sonawani
Ref.:-
१. ‘Vedic Civilization’ by Raj Pruthi, Pub. Discovery
Publishing House, 2004, p. 85
२. AVESTAN GEOGRAPHY by G. Gnoli,
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/avestan-geography
३. ‘Plant macro-remains from Neolithic Jhusi in Ganga Plain:
evidence for grain-based agriculture’, by Anil K. Pokharia, J. N. Pal and Alka
Srivastava, Pub.: In ‘Current Science’ (Vol. 97, No. 4), August 2009.
४. Agricultural Origins and
Frontiers in South Asia: A Working Synthesis’, by Dorian Q. Fuller, published
in ‘J World Prehistory’, December 2006, 20:1–86
५. The Invasion of India by
Alexander the Great-As described by Arrian, Q Curtius, Diodoros, Plutarch and
Justin, edited by J. W. Mcrindle, page 354
६. Sudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower
Order Down to Circa A.D. 600 by RS Sharma
७. Some Aspects of Early Indian Society, by Gian Chand
Chauhan, page 54
८. The Indus Civilization’, by A. H. Dani and B. K. Thapar, p. 274. (Available
online at
https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/sites/silkroad/files/knowledge-bank-article/vol_I%20silk%20road_the%20indus%20civilization%20BIS.pdf
९. ‘A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature’, by F. Max
Muller, Pub.: Williams and Norgate, , 1859, p. 557
१०. वैदिक संस्कृतीचा विकास, तर्कतीर्थ लक्ष्मणशास्त्री जोशी, प्रज्ञापाठशाळा मंडळ, १९९६, पृ. ५८.
११. Indian Caste System, edited by R.K. Pruthi, Discovery
Publishing House, 2004, page 72
१२. राधामाधवविलासचंपू, प्रस्तावना, वि. का. राजवाडे, सरिता प्रकाशन, २०१४.
१३. Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture, By D. R.
Bhandarkar, Asian Educational Services, 1989, page 12.
१४. 24th
chapter of Angavijja (edited by Muni Shri Punyavbijayji, Prakrit Text Society, 1957)
१५. Preface, The hymns of the Rigveda by Griffith, Ralph T.
H, E.J. Lazarus and Co, १९२०.
१६. Encyclopedia of Hinduism’,
edited by Constance Jones, James D. Ryan, Pub.: Facts of File, Inc., 2007,
p. 13
