See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321299546

The Origins of the Caste System: A New Perspective

Book · November 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 23,530

1 author:

Sanjay Sonawani

11 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Caste system origins View project

Language of the Indus People and what Indus Seals Do Convey? View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sanjay Sonawani on 26 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Origins of the Caste System
A New Perspective

By

Sanjay Sonawani
 Contents

1. An overview of the Caste system

2. How Scholars were misled?
3. Manusmriti and the Caste system
4. What is the Caste?
5. “Who were the Shudras?”– A critique
6. The riddle of the Shudra, the Rajanya and the Kshatriya!
7. Rise and fall of the “Shreni” System and the Castes!
8. Medieval India and the Caste System
9. Impact of British Raj on the Caste System!
 1. An overview of the Caste system

Inequality based caste system is unique feature of the Indian society. The assumption of the
various scholars, normally, is that the caste system is ancient and always was rigid, immobile and
unjust as it now is. In common understanding it is largely assumed that this system has been forced
on the masses by the Vedic Brahmins for selfish motives in remote past and is compartmentalized
since then. The very assumptions have to be corrected because they are based on an illusory premise
which does not stand on the historical facts. Also, there is no relationship between Varna system of
Vedic religion and the Caste system of Hindu religion, though both begun to plague each other in
the later course of the time. Western scholars invariably translate the terms “Varna” and “Jati” as
“Caste” which is incorrect and has created unnecessary confusion and a hurdle in understanding the
social system which has been thought to be very complex in nature.
The castes did not emerge out of Varna system. Caste is not product of the inter-Varna
Anuloma or Pratiloma marriages. The Vedic scholars of medieval era tried to fit the caste system
in the ambit of Varna system, but they utterly failed in this attempt. Dr. Ajay Mitra Shastri says
in this regard that, “…as various occupations became hereditary, they formed the castes. To
adjust the various castes in Varna system, Smriti’s considered Anuloma (marriage of lower
Varna woman with high Varna man) and Pratiloma (marriage of high Varna woman with lower
Varna man) marriages being responsible for emergence of the various castes. However, the
attempt seems to have failed as people mentioned their own professional castes in various
donations inscriptions.” (Translation mine)
Dr. Shastri further states that these occupational castes had played a major role in the
economics of that times.1
However, the idea that was invented to explain the castes (occupatiions) of non-Vedic
masses through Vedic perspective; was certainly insulting as the definition treated them as a
product of corrupt marital ties. This couldn’t have been accepted by the masses or rather they
may not have even known it because they anyway were forbidden from the Vedic literature.
What we can say is it was a fine example of moral corruption of Vedics.
Here Dr. Shastri is referring to the donation inscriptions in Buddhist caves of early
history of Maharashtra while explaining emergence of many Shudra dynasties in the country
which otherwise were prohibited from holding the Royal authorities as per Smritis. We also
know the instances of numerous Shudra kings, mentioned in Mahabharata, Satapatha Brahmana
and Manusmriti. Dr. Shastri states that there were many Shudra kings came in the power in early
and medieval era as well, especially in South India and with proud they have mentioned their
non-Vedic (i.e. Shudra) origin in inscriptions. 2
During this era, too, almost all the occupational professions were controlled by the non-
Vedic masses to whom Vedics referred as Shudras. The Shudras were Kings. They were money
lenders, artisans, landlords, peasants, knights, traders, sea farers, service providers and soldiers.
There is not an instance where Shudras were prohibited from holding authorities, no matter the
Vedic scriptures denounced the very idea all the time. Most importantly, warrior was never ever
a permanent class in Indian society. Kings seldom established standing armies. Mostly the
Farmers and peasants would be part time soldiers while most of the times landlords their
commanders. The kings would assemble their army in the times of need. Such profession
couldn’t have been compulsorily hereditary. It was occupation of choice, unrelated to the Vedic
Varna system simply because they were not part of it. It has been erroneously assumed that the
Shudras were part of the Vedic society and that they followed their religious commands without
any protests. Surprisingly, while explaining the caste system, the Vedic scholars do not stop
telling us how the society followed the commands of Dharmashastras, when the evidences go
contrary to their claims.
Still, the misunderstanding haunts even the scholars of the modern times, thus, creating a
confusion in the minds of the common people and has become a great hurdle in the path of caste
elimination movement.
Another assumption is that the invading Aryans defeated the aboriginals and enforced
lowly Varna status and caste system upon them. This also is not true because Aryan invasion
theory that was propagated by western scholars and blindly followed by the Indian scholars is
proven to be preposterous on account of the various archeological, scriptural and genetic
evidences. Though the issue of the Aryans or Indo-European language speakers’ migration to
India to effect cultural and linguistic impact on the locals is still being discussed on various
grounds, the fact remains that the Varna and Caste systems are absent from the entire so-called
Indo-European world.
Also, there is no iota of evidence to show that the caste system was an outcome of the
racial sense of the “purity and pollution”. The number of castes in India is more than five
thousand today. The fact remains that the many of the castes did not exist even few centuries
ago. Many new castes emerged in medieval era. If we go back in the human history we find the
number of castes were far lower. They go on reducing as we go back in the remote history. Many
castes mentioned in the ancient scriptures have been vanished long ago. The castes could not be
that much as they are today simply because there weren’t that many professions then.
The main feature of the caste is every caste has hereditary profession. To form a caste the
first prerequisite is to have a profession that could be continued traditionally for livelihood. And
if we go back to the prehistory of the humankind, we will find there were no professions except
foraging and hunting. Division of labor was not at all felt because there was no need.
When early human society began to form with couple of the inventions at hand to make
life safer and easier, its division of labor must have been simple. Humane race has traversed long
way, from food-gatherer-hunter man to pastoral man. His life turned semi-nomadic from
nomadic as his territorial conscienceless grew. Here we find the division of the labor to some
partial extent. Early wool-weavers, tanners, stone-masons would have formed the professions for
their skills and the needs of their tribes. But this is not called as permanent division of the
labor/skills but mostly it must have been a joint task conducted under leadership of the most
skilled men/women.
The invention of agriculture brought revolution in the life of the early human society.
This helped nomadic man to settle, changed his attitude towards the life. The transgression from
nomadic man to settled man dramatically changed life style and social philosophy of the early
agrarian people. Early professions were limited hence was no need to have well organized social
order. But with agriculture and allied professions the social order became more complex and
interdependent.
The agrarian life needed new inventions and innovations to carry out farming activities
more smoothly. Right from agricultural implements to permanent settlements were necessary to
accommodate the new way of life. With new inventions new professions emerged to serve the
society. Exchange of the innovations between the societies and trade of the surplus products are
seen from the era of 7000+ BC. From excavations we find explosion of the specialty products
from almost every region those were traded across the known civilizations of those times. We
can surmise from this that the specialty professions emerged gradually in the sedentary societies
those helped them to prosper and lead better life.
The service class, such as transporters, too emerged to fulfill the ever growing needs of
the society. The people those joined new professions naturally were from the same human stock.
It was not the rigid system. In India too, the people were free to choose the profession of their
like and choice. The excavations at Indus sites show the division of labor but it doesn’t show
discrimination based on the profession. Even after the advent of Vedic religion, we do not find
that the professions were stratified and were hereditary.
It will be thus ridiculous to think the Vedic Brahmins invented all the professions and by
creating the divisions forced upon the defeated ignorant masses. Indian history does not begin
with the Vedas but it has far more remote roots when the composition of the Vedas was yet to
begin. Hindu religion does not find its root in the Vedas. The religion based on the Vedas and
allied literature was always independent and had its roots in different geography.
The Varna system of the Vedics was stratified sometime about 1000 to 800 BC when this
religion found some ground in the Indian sub-continent. Prior to that we do not find any
stratification in Vedic society. But when they migrated in small numbers in a new land they
required some internal social system to maintain their identity and smooth functioning of the
society they invented Varna system, which otherwise is totally absent in the bulk of the Vedas.
They provided divine sanction to the new system by inserting Purushasukta in Rig Veda.
The professions were in existence and flourishing in India long before the entry of the
Vedic religion. They couldn’t have interfered in the local social system as they were dependent
on the local people. We find from the history that the professions could be changed or entered in
to if new invention or innovation was introduced. These people had their own priests,
philosophies and rituals. It is ridiculous to think that the people those traded with far off regions
and who were founders of the Indus and other civilizations didn’t have organized religion and
social system. The guild system that controlled the economy of the country, which finds its roots
in Indus civilization, clearly shows that anybody could enter or leave the profession of the guild.
The training was afforded to the new entrants. This was not the case to be seen with the Vedic
social order. Change in Varna was completely prohibited in the Vedic social system.
Rather, as we are going to see in the next chapters, the Vedic and Hindu religions are
independent of each other having independent social systems. The confusion has been created by
the scholars by considering both the religions one and the same. The British are responsible to
create a chaotic social environment as they used Vedic Smritis while making Hindu Code,
without giving due attention to the fact that the caste and Varna system are the social systems of
two distinct religions.
Manusmriti enumerates various professions conducted by non-Vedic people but does not
indicate anywhere that they were hereditary or these professionals belonged to the Vedic
religion. Rather it clearly prohibits the temple priests and other professionals from attending the
Shraddha of Vedic people. Manusmriti makes the clear cut religious distinction and yet the
scholars have been blind to it.
It would be erroneous to hold Manusmriti responsible for social stratification of Indian
society. It only stratified the Varna system. All the commands of Manu were addressed to the
members of the Vedic religion and their servant class hailing from non-Vedic masses to whom
they designated as Shudras. The whole society never ever was under the pale of the Vedic
religion hence the commands of Manusmriti were limited to the members of Vedic religion.
Manusmriti explicitly clears this. Not only Manusmriti, the social atmosphere we find portrayed
in Prakrit Texts, such as Gatha Saptashati and Angavijja, also evidences that, though we find
various professions enumerated, they were not classified as caste (Jati).
In Vedic religion, for stratifying the Varna system, the blame normally goes to
Purushsukta of Rig Veda where it is proclaimed that the Varna system is created from the
sacrificial body of the Lord himself, thus sanctifying it. It suggests that the Brahmin was first as
head of the lord became Brahmin and the Shudras were the last born from his feet. This is a myth
that has haunted Indian social system at the least from last thousand years as it gave sanctity to
the notion of birth based inequality. The term Shudra was grossly misunderstood by the scholars
hence they created a confusion that yet has not been sufficiently solved. They forgot to note
whatever Purushsukta or later Smritis commanded, the Hindu social facts surprisingly were
contrary to that. We find no implementation of the code on the Hindus as it was never intended
for them. Smritis codify the laws for the Varna and not Jati. Rather, caste system is not a
problem in itself but our grave misunderstanding about the caste system poses more
problems.
Prior to introduction of the Vedic religion (and even now) the people followed the
religion that was pre-Vedic, based on Tantras, Agamas and idolatry. The Vedic religion was
based on the sacrificial fires (Yajna) in which through libations were offered the prayers to the
numerous abstract gods. However, it its early times the sacrifices were simple in nature and
would be conducted by the family head instead of seeking any assistance from the trained priests.
Later the procedures laid down to conduct fire sacrifices were more elaborative and complex.
Vedics needed specially trained priests. We safely can assume that the emergence of the priestly
class even in Vedic society was a later incident.
Vedic religion was introduced to subcontinent in very late era, i.e. around 1000 BC. The
Shatapatha Brahmana have preserved this history through the myth of Videgh Mathava. This is
why we do not find any trace of rise, decline and revival process of the Indus civilization in
Vedic literature. Rig Veda evidences that the Vedics share similar ritualistic and linguistics traits
with the Zoroastrians, for their close geographical proximities and their emergence from the
commonly shared culture. None of the scholar dates both the religions prior to 1500 BC, the
period when the Indus and other contemporary civilizations had declined owing to the global
climatic changes and economic recession and were in revival process. Vedic religion entered
Indian subcontinent through the small number of refugees and later on was spread by missionary
practice in the subcontinent.
For their need of spreading their religion, to add aura, the Brahmins invented the
elaborative and complex nature of the rituals in Vedic religion. Brahmana literature was
composed to explain procedures to conduct various kinds of the sacrifices. It was religious need
of the Vedic people and this is why Brahmin became most important and revered entity in the
Vedic society. Their proclamation in the Purushsukta that the Brahmins were first born was their
own figment of the imagination, studded with pride but that suited their purpose.
Also, except Purushsukta, we do not find the term Shudra appearing anywhere in the Rig
Veda because they never had come across this set of the people until they entered the sub-
continent. Also we find the term “Rajanya” of Purushsukta, too, getting gradually vanishing in
later literature. It also is agreed by all the scholars that the Purushasukta is later interpolation in
the extant body of the Rig Veda. Still, we find that an illusory inerasable impression this Sukta
has left on the Indian mind that has disturbed the social order even in modern era.
And the reason is the Vedas have been considered the main source of the Hinduism
which is a grave mistake committed by all the scholars. A Vedas and Vedic code has nothing to
do with the Agamic (Hindu) religion. There are no instances, even in medieval era, to show that
the Vedic Smrities were ever forced on the Hindu society. Had it been the case no Shudra ever
could become a king, noble, priest or trader.
We will discuss on this issue in more detail later. However, it is clear that the Vedic
religion has nothing in common with Hindu religion and hence the Vedic Smrities were never
applicable to them. The Vedic Varna system was independent development of the Vedic religion
that also is confusing in its own nature. Brahmin or priestly class couldn’t have appeared first in
any human society. Rather the chronology is quite opposite. However, as the history is evident,
Vedic society was too a small where it was convenient to classify it in three special divisions. It
was not agrarian society. The Vedics were mostly pastorals and semi-nomadic in origin. The
Brahmin class got prominence because of the historical role they played in the development of
Vedic religion and they boldly declared in Purushasukta that they were the first-borns.
Vedics did not know geography of India when they first stepped in north-west region.
They came to know India gradually and their expanding knowledge of India is well reflected in
early Brahmina literature and Manusmriti. Pre-vedic Hindu religion did exist from millenniums
and was strong enough to oppose missionary practices of the Vedics. Satapatha Brahmin notes
that they had no entry in Prachya Desa (Eastern regions) those had their own priests. They knew
not which communities delved in the regions beyond the Vindhya Mountains. Vedics had
received royal patronages in Shudra kingdom to begin with followed by Kuru-Panchal, Videha
and then Magadha kingdoms.
 Indian history does not start with the entry of the Vedics but has its roots in the Indus
civilization. This is why the Vedic scholars now are hell-bent to prove the times of the Rig Veda
pre-Indus, but with no avail. Source of the Hindu religion cannot be traced in the Vedas but in
the material culture that existed since last 7000+ years ago. The people here had their own
religion, culture, kingdoms and republics. They had their own economic system. It was
impossible to enforce any language and culture upon them. Many professions already existed,
economy prospered with the inland and foreign trade. To convert some people to their fold the
early Vedics needed special skills, sufficient cunningness to impress the people and the patrons
like kings and the nobles. The Vedic literature is full of such stories in which we find how
gradually this religion came to the some prominence in North, especially in Kuru-Panchal and
Magadha regions. The old religion kept on thriving with its independent philosophy and faith on
their deities. The Tantra tradition had emerged long ago when the society had turned agrarian.
The rise of the fertility cult in agrarian society was inevitable that we find in the form of supreme
deities like Shiva and Shakti. Rather all the festivals today Hindu celebrate are connected with
the concept of fertility. This is evident from the fact that there is no any Vedic festival that
Hindus celebrate.
It was grave mistake of the scholars that they treated Hindu and Vedic religion as one and
the same. Their assumption that the Vedas are the source of the Hinduism was wrong. They
confused between Varna and Jati thus gave wrong explanations of the origin of the caste system.
They heavily neglected socio-economic history of India while explaining Jati system thus
postulating misguiding theories.
It is not the fact, as understood by the people, that the Jati system has ancient origins and
was rigid and it was enforced upon them by the Vedic people. We have numerous examples to
prove that the professions could be changed. One could enter easily in reputed or disreputable
professions depending upon his skills, choice or situation. Had Smrities of the Vedic were to
abide Hindus in their code, the historical Nanda dynasty to Satvahanas couldn’t have become
Kings and Emperors who belonged to the non-Vedic class. Manusmriti also acknowledges the
kingdoms of the Shudra kings. There are many examples that show clearly that the code
authored by Manu was not intended for the non-Vedic people at all.
We must not forget that the caste system never ever was rigid, inflexible as is commonly
thought. The Aryan invasion theory has classified the lower castes as the defeated and enslaved
aboriginals but there is no slightest evidence to support this hypothesis. Trautmann had rightly
remarked, “This is the theory that Indian civilization was formed by a big bang, caused by the
light-skinned, Aryan, civilized invaders over dark skinned savage aboriginal Indians, and the
formation of the caste system which bound two in a single society, at once mixed and segregated.
If this theory were true, there ought to be evidence in the earliest Vedic texts.” 2
Then how come that the birth based caste system emerged and persists even today with
its all evil sense of inequality, dividing the people those belonged to the same stock of the
people?
 Caste system originally was occupation based and was not unjust or enforced by any
religious command. The Vedics have no role in the formation and codification of the Castes.
Rather, surprisingly, caste system has no divine sanction the way Varna system has. Smrities
rather codified and stratified the Varna system, not Jati. These Smritis never were intended for
the Hindus. Historians forget that Vedic and Hindu are distinct religions having nothing in
common. It is a grave misconception that the castes emerged out of the Varnas. Caste assemblies
(Previously known as Shrenis) of Hindus were independent bodies those regularized their
internal code of conduct and caste morals. They never were dictated by the Vedic Brahmins.
Manusmriti instructs the codes of non-Vedics be disregarded by the Vedics. This does mean that
the non-Vedic Hindus had their own code to regulate their society. It was impossible for the
Vedic Brahmins to invent variety of the professions to force upon the people. The codes those
were written by the Vedics were limited to regulate their own religious community. Finding
history of the caste system in the Vedic literature has been proven disastrous because it does not
speak about it at all.
Ruling classes too could not force any profession on their subjects. Rather they never
interfered in the existing social system. Rulers accepted verdicts of the Shrenies or Caste
Assemblies without raising a doubt on its validity. We find many verdicts from the medieval era
those were issued by the caste assemblies and political authorities validating them. So, in a way,
castes were governed by their own leaders without any interference from political authorities.
Here we come across an intriguing conjecture. How and when caste systems became birth
based and sense of inequality plagued the Hindu society? This is a crucial question that we have
to deal with. Also, we have to deal with a major question, whether the religious commands
forced or created Casteism and the people accepted it without any protests, though it is thought
to be an inhuman system? The social history negates this question, yet we have to probe further
as common understanding is that the caste system was created by the Vedic Aryans to force over
the defeated non-Aryans. The other question is, whether it was the outcome of the peculiar socio-
economic and political circumstances? These questions have to be discussed at great length to
know the roots of the castes and its evil that has haunted Indian people for centuries.
First thing, however, we should know that the birth based caste system is not as ancient
as it is thought to be. Also, let us come out of the misconceptions that caste and Varna are co-
related in any way. Both are the independent systems of the distinct religions. Rise of birth based
caste system is a recent phenomenon and has its roots in entirely different circumstances those
we are going to discuss in the next chapters.
*
Ref.:
1. Itihas: Parachin Kal (Vol.1) Maharashtra State Gazetteer, page 489
2. Ibid
3. ‘The Aryan Debate’ by Thomas R. Trautmann, pub.: Oxford University Press, 2005,
p. 100
 3.
How Scholars were misled?

Social stratification, based on the birth, is considered to be unique feature of the caste
system. Also it is largely assumed that the rigid, birth based and unjust caste system has antique
origin. The various Indian and European scholars have attempted to find the origin of the caste
system. The various general opinions have been either in understanding of the people or have
been postulated by the scholars. They can be briefed as under-
1. Birth-based rigid caste system is an ancient fact of Hindu life.
2. Some scholars believe that the endogamous groups, not Varnas, are castes.
3. Scholars like H. S. Risley think that the caste means endogamous groups resulted
from interactions between the different races of remote past.
4. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar has different view. According to him the castes in India before
colonial rule were exogamous society because marriages within blood-relatives and class-
relations were forbidden. He proposes that the castes should be defined as a social group that
tries to impose endogamy in an exogamous population.
5. The definition given by Amar Kosha is, “Caste is a synonym of class. The groups
formed by the social common customs are called Castes.”
6. According to Dr. Iravati Karve, main feature of the caste is they are endogamous.
Spread of the caste is in the limited geographical area where a single common language is
spoken. Every caste has one or two ancestral profession and its status in comparison with other
castes can be either higher or lower. The families with which marital ties can be established such
group of the families is the caste. Hence the caste is nothing but expanded group of the relations.
Dr. Karve further states that the caste and tribe has striking similarities, such as limited
geographical spread and presence of the caste panchayat (Assembly), hence the castes are formed
out of ancient tribes.
7. Many think that the eugenics has been instrumental in water tight
compartmentalization of the castes.
8. The castes were enforced upon the aboriginals by the invading victorious Aryans is
another school of thought that is still dominant in the Indian society. Dr. Ghurye opines, “Caste
is a Brahminic child of Indo-Aryan culture cradled in the land of the Ganges and thence
transferred to other parts of India.”
9. The another thought is, the word “jati” is employed to mean the numerous sub-
divisions of a “varna”. However, this theory proposes that this demarcation is not rigidly
maintained. The word “jati”, is sometimes used for “Varna”.
From above it will appear that what G. S. Ghurye wrote in 1932, “…despite much study
by many people,... we do not possess a real general definition of caste. It appears to me that any
attempt at definition is bound to fail because of the complexity of the phenomenon. On the other
hand, much literature on the subject is marred by lack of precision about the use of the term.”1 is
not an exaggeration.
The above overview of the opinions of various scholars clearly shows that they are not
unanimously clear about the origin of the castes. Also the meaning and the origin of the caste too
is uncertain to them. Some scholars have taken racial or ethnic angles to define the castes
whereas some have taken tribal angle. However the fact remains that there are castes and every
caste is compartmentalized, independently functioning body set distinct and aloof from the other
castes, maintaining higher and lower status at the same time in the society.
Let us first discuss on the various opinions of the scholars of the past and try to find what
could be the truth. We have seen in opening chapter that the scholars have mixed up Varna
system with caste system and that is the reason most of their opinions have gone wrong and
misleading.
Varna system of the Vedic religion is like a pyramid. It has descending order. Brahmin is
placed higher while rest of the Varnas are set in descending order. It appears that there also was a
time when Kshatriya’s claimed highest position over Brahmins, though it is very much uncertain
that Kshatriya ever was the sanctified Varna in Vedic system. This is because the Purushsukta
mentions Rajanya instead of Kshatriya in the second order of Varna system and Rajanya and
Kshatriya are not one and the same. When exactly the Varna system became birth based is not
exactly known, but the period certainly is anterior to caste system. Varna system has divine
sanction which is not the case with caste system because the social history informs us that it was
occupation based practical system that was flexible till end of the tenth century AD.
However, it appears when Vedic religion came to India from Southern Afghanistan; the
early preacher’s accumulated new converts in either fold by offering some or other Varna to
them, excepting Shudra. Shudra was never a Varna, rather the term Shudra was used for those
who were not part of the Vedic religion. Fourfold system of the Vedics is not properly
understood by the scholars. The three Varnas together form the Vedic religion and the others, no
matter what religion they belonged to, were Shudras to them. Shudra, originally, it was a tribe
situated in Nort-Sindh region across which the new entrant Vedics came first. Though we find
mention of this tribe in Purushasukta, a later addition to the Rig Veda, the term “Varna” doesn’t
appear in it at all! Later on this term was applied to those all who were non-Vedic, no matter
even if they were foreign tribes and kings.
It is possible that by Brahmana era, about 800 BC, the Varna system gradually had
become rigid and birth based. Still, surprisingly we find the Rajanya Varna being replaced with
the Kshatriya in later literature, which has no Vedic sanction. Also, we find that the Vedic
system in later course of the time denied existence of the Kshatriyas too along with Vaishya
Varna by creating various fictitious stories. So far, the proper attention is not given towards this
drastic shift in the Vedic religion where the existence of two Varnas has absolutely been denied.

Was Varna system profession based? Or was it essential that the particular person had to
strictly follow the profession prescribed for his Varna? In the society, where population is
limited and professions are almost primordial, such classification is quite easy and convenient. In
larger and developed societies, where explosion of the occupations take place, it almost becomes
impossible to assign any Varna (or class) to anyone that forces the limited but defined duties on
its members. Since Vedic religion was limited to the small population it was easy to them to
classify the society in the three Varnas. However, the people, those were adhering to the pre-
Vedic religion, though labeled as Shudras, were a majority population that was loosely
distributed in variety of professions including their priestly class.
To a small group of people, stepping in a new land to survive and propagate their
religion, in the beginning, it was easy to assign the Varnas to regulate internal hierarchy. It also
was easy to assign any of the Varna to those who had converted to their fold as the number
wouldn’t be more. Many a times, higher Varnas were just designated to the local scholars and
nobles out of respect or praises in a hope to receive patronages, though they had not converted to
the Vedic fold.
It should be remembered that the Rajanya Varna was never used for the converted
warrior class. Instead the term Kshatriya was reintroduced with new meaning and was handily
used replacing Rajanyas. It seems most were just labeled Kshatriyas out of gratitude by Vedic
Brahmins because of the patronages they received from the local warrior class. We find many
historical instances of this practice. After close analysis of Mahabharata and Ramayana, though
heavily interpolated, it does not seem that Kuru or Ikshwaku clans were ever Vedic Kshatriya as
it is assumed. Rather the historical characters were used to glorify Vedic religion by assigning
them the Kshatriya status and calling them not only the saviors of the sacrifices, but portrayed
them conductors of the sacrifices.
Later on Brahmins stopped designating any warrior or King with Kshatriya title also,
excepting the Rajputs. They simply made declaration that in Kaliyuga (present times) there no
longer exist Kshatriyas.
Anyway, Varna system was created by Vedics in an order to regulate their social system.
Brahmins maintained their superiority for they were the early missionaries those had introduced
Vedic religion to the people of Indian subcontinent. It flourished in Kuru-Panchal regions in the
beginning and later thrived in Gangetic plains. The early opponents to this religion like
Charvaka, Buddha and Mahavira too arose from these regions. Elsewhere this religion was yet to
find space hence there was no question of any opposition. Entry of Vedic religion in southern
India was as late as in second century AD. Sangam literature doesn’t mention this religion in its
earlier texts.
What was the social system of the Indians before and after Vedic religion was introduced
to some sections of the society? We must bear in mind that Varna system of Vedic religion has
divine origin. Such is not the case with the Caste system because it always depended on the
occupations and was so much so flexible that Hindu (or we can call it Agamic or pre-Vedic
religion) needed not any divine explanation for it.
We have archaeological proofs of early settlements spread throughout India. The
settlement patterns clearly show that there were many professions, agriculture being prominent,
supported by animal husbandry and fishing. The housing patterns in towns and villages indicate
it depended on financial ability or political authority of the owner. There were professions like
pottery, copper-smith, ornament making, carpentry, trading (including import- export), mining,
mason work, tool making (from stones and metals) etc. in early period. There also were semi-
nomadic people like shepherds and cowherds among them.
Were they birth based? Did some religious authority, Vedic or Hindu, suddenly invented
all the professions and enforced on the entire Indian society, dividing it in the birth-based
castes? It would be ridiculous even to think so. All the professions of early humanity are the
outcome of gradual inventions and modifications and shared innovations. No particular
community can be credited with inventions of all the occupations and then distributing them in
ranks for their livelihood thus creating castes.
For example, after the Copper Age the Iron Age appeared. Sensing its utility many people
got diverted to the new profession, to smelt the iron and make implements from it. It must be
very profitable business in its early times. From where these people came and entered new
profession had Caste system been rigid? The people entered this new profession must have been
engaged in other occupations before. They could desert their previous business to enter another
only because there didn’t exist birth-based rigid caste system. It only can happen when freedom
to change profession is in place. And it clearly seems from available proofs and simple logic
such freedom certainly did exist in India too.
The castes are not outcome of the eugenics as some scholars like to prefer. Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar refutes this theory as he states, “As a matter of fact [the] Caste system came into
being long after the different races of India had commingled in blood and culture.”2 In ancient
India there were tribes, but their identity was not racial but totemic. There are many instances of
inter-tribal marriages, as many as it shows it could be a common practice. The racial sense had
not emerged in the early society. Dr. Iravati Karve’s assumption that the castes emerged from the
tribes is also incorrect because we find even today that the people of one tribe are distributed in
many occupational castes and though belonging to the same tribe, they do not intermarry.
For example, Ahir (or Abhir) was an ancient tribe. Now we find the people of this tribe
distributed in various castes like shepherds, salt-makers, fishermen, goldsmith, tailors, Marathas
etc. The same thing has happened with other ancient tribes.
Marriages within the caste have also been considered to be a main reason for formation
of the caste system. There is no proof to this. Rather the marriages happening in the same
occupational castes mostly had practical reason. For example, a girl raised up in the blacksmiths
house could have, at the least, preliminary knowledge of the profession her family was in. She
could be useless to the person engaged in different occupation except for continuing family
bloodline. The marriage solved twofold problem; one is reproduction and second is getting a free
laborer useful in his occupation. This situation arose in an era of the socio-economic distress. It
became a practice that turned to a custom in later age. However, several folklores tell us the
stories of the inter-occupational marriages and those cannot be neglected.
Amarkosha does not define Jati because it has no divine sanction. “Caste is a synonym of
class. The groups formed by the social common customs are called Castes,” it states. This
definition clearly indicates that the caste is synonym of the occupational class that naturally has
some mutually formed common customs and code of the ethics. It does not indicate that the
group comes to in existence on the basis of the birth. The customs of the society are never static.
They keep on changing with the time. This definition just is descriptive and of lesser use to us.
Most importantly the caste system has no divine sanction. Vasistha SaMhita (3.1) clearly
states that, “The regulations those govern Castes, tribes and local social systems have no Vedic
sanction.” There wouldn’t have been any Vedic regulations or divine sanction because the caste
system was not product of the Vedic religion.
Most of the castes have been categorized as the Shudra and Atishudra. Since the term has
been too controversial, causing irreparable damage to the Indian society and outrage for its use in
a derogatory manner aimed for social suppression, indicating the lowest status of the larger
population of India since long time, we need to have a brief look at the reality to solve the riddle
of the caste system.
Some scholars have tried to reach to the roots of the Shudra term which can be briefed
here.
R. K. Pruthi suggests that perhaps Shudra was originally the name of non-Aryan tribe. 3
Vi. Ka. Rajwade suggests that the people those were taken in the personal service by the
victorious Aryans were called as Shudras. He further states that, the term was later applied to
those all who were out of the three Varnas.4
D. R. Bhandarakar opines that the Shudras could be a tribe, but afterwards came to
signify anybody who was not a full-fledged Arya or a foreigner who has been partially
assimilated by Arya culture. He further states that, in Patanjal Sutras Shudra denotes a person
other than the member of three Varnas, i.e. Brahmina, Kshatriya and Vaishya. 5
Bhandarkar makes sense because in a Maharashtri Prakrit treaty, “Angavijja”, (1st AD)
includes all the indigenous and foreigners like Shaka, Huna, Kushanas, Mlecchas in Shudra
category excepting three Vedic Varnas.
This will make it clear that the Shudras couldn’t have been part of the Vedic
religion. The scholars have preferred to go by the descriptive nature of the castes but
unfortunately did not give attention towards the true nature of the castes. We also have to cast a
glance at Manusmriti because it is thought to be a code that polluted Hindu society with
inequality and caste prejudices.

Ref.:

1. Caste and Race in India, by G. S. Ghurye

2. Annihilation of catse, Vol. 1, by B. R. Ambedkar,
3. Indian Caste System, edited by R.K. Pruthi, Discovery Publishing House, 2004, page 72
4. RadhamadhavVilasChampu, Preface, Edited by Vi. Ka. Rajwade, Sarita Prakashan,
reprint 2014, page 130-31
5. Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture, By D. R. Bhandarkar, 1989, page 12
 4.

Manusmriti and the Caste system

Manusmriti is vehemently blamed for the stratification of the caste system. As I have
stated in earlier chapters, here too, we can note that the scholars have confused Varna (class)
with the caste system considering them one and the same while discussing the castes. It is,
however, necessary to critically analyze the Manusmriti to understand for whom the code was
intended and whether Manu stratified the caste system or Varna system.
Let us begin with the early geography of the Manusmriti. The regions known to
Manusmriti were Kuru, Panchal, Matsya, and Shaursena in its early times. (Manu. 2.17-2.19)
Manusmriti did not know the regions and people beyond Vindhya Mountain. It also did not know
existence of the Magadha or eastern regions. Manu enumerates only the known lands where
early Vedics were settled and with reverence applauds it as the region of the Brahmarshi’s. The
Brahmavart, the land they had left far behind, the land where Sarasvati and Drishadvati flowed,
Manu revered the most placing it at the highest rank. In early times of Manusmriti Vedics had
not forgotten that the original land was situated in Iran, to which, naturally, they revered the
most!
The code was intended to those people who adhered to the Vedic religion which was
limited to the lands situated within the boundaries of Brahmarshi Desha. Elsewhere, various
tribes dwelled and ruled the territories enjoying their own culture and religious practices, to
which they wholesomely addressed as Shudras. Naturally, though Manu proclaims that the code
is intended for all four Varnas and intermediate ones in its very first chapter (1.2) would have
intended to the people living in the region of Brahmarshi, comprising of five states and adhering
to the Vedic religion.
Manusmriti dictates many laws against Shudras. Manu in the first chapter considers
Shudras as a fourth Varna of the Vedic system. Yet Manu states that the Shudras could be
anywhere. Also, Manusmriti 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.” (Manu. 4.61)
Now the question will arise that if there were kingdoms of the Shudras, they had their
own religion to which Manu calls “heretics” how could his code be intended to them and how
the Shudras could be part of the Vedic religion?
We are aware that the pre-Vedic religion that is still flowing to us was idolatrous and
mainly Tantrik in nature, to its followers Manu calls non-religious and unrighteous. In Rig Veda
too we find that the enemy tribes have been addressed in the similar fashion.
While formulating the rules as to who cannot attend the funeral offerings, Manu also
enumerates various occupations, from cattle herders, physicians, traders, to actor or singers,
however, he does not call them Shudra, though all these professions were thought to be the
domain of the Shudras. (Manu. 2.150-155) He could have done with the usage of single term
“Shudra” instead of enumerating their various professions! If these people were not Shudras,
whom Manu treated as Shudras while making his most condemnable and hostile laws, whether
followed by the people or not?
 Manu all the time speaks of the sacred Vedas and sacrificial fires. He prohibits the
temple-priest in funeral offerings (Shraddha) but nowhere mentions any God that is worshiped
by Hindus since ancient times. His command to prohibit temple priest from attending the
Shraddha does only mean that the Manu was aware that the idolatrous religion did exist and was
alien to his. However, he does not mention any god like Shiva, Shakti etc. those Hindu worship
the most. His instructions are limited to the people who conducted or were eligible to conduct the
fire sacrifices and those who revered the Vedas, thus making it clear that they were intended to
the followers of Vedic religion.
Manu was aware of the codes and philosophies those were non-Vedic. He denounces
them and threatens no reward after death if followed by any. (Manu. 12.95-96) It was but natural
for Manu as he was advocating and codifying his Vedic religion and thus it was necessary to him
to denounce all other religious codes, traditions, and philosophies those were not based on the
Vedas. Important here is Manu acknowledges the existence of non-Vedic codes and
philosophies.
Most importantly, to Manu, the clans like Paundra, Aundra, Dravida, Camboja, Yavana,
Shaka, Pahlava, China, Kirata, Darada, and Khasha are Shudras. (Manu. 10.44) Manu reasons,
these clans reached lower positions because they violated the code and omitted the sacred rites. It
is clear that Manu here includes indigenous as well foreign clans in the Shudra category, no
matter what religion they belonged to. The fact remains that these clans couldn't have been part
and parcel of the Vedic religion as fourth Varna and still, they are called Shudras. Why this
anomaly in Manusmriti would have arisen?
Manusmriti did not know these clans when formulation of the code had begun. The
geography of the Manusmriti was limited to five regions. The spread of the Vedic religion was
so much so limited at that time that the Vedics did not know the people living elsewhere, thus
referring to them wholesomely as Shudras. Later on, gradually, they not only came to know the
various clans delving in the country, realized that they had their independent identities; still, they
went on addressing them as Shudras. Shudra, in fact, became a designation of the people those
were not Vedic. It was impossible that these non-Vedics, Shudras, would have ever given any
heed to the commands of the alien religion! And they did not as the history evidences it.
They came to know the people like Dravida, Aundra, Paundra only after first century AD.
Shakas and Kushanas were ruling the parts of the country by that time. Since there was no
question of their being Vedic anytime in their history, how could they have been degraded
because they violated the sacred rites of the Vedics? In all this was just a boastful proclamation
studded with Vedic supremacist approach to show their religion was ancient and once all
belonged to it. Even so, the fact remains this code couldn’t have been intended for them, though
they were designated as Shudras.
The geography of early Vedics had shifted to Magadha region in later times. We find
Magadha becoming the center of this religion from where the attempts were made to spread it by
missionary practice. The opposition in form of Buddha and Mahavira arose in sixth century BC
only in these parts. Elsewhere, in absence of its presence, there was no question of any
opposition.
None of the clan of India belonged to the Vedic religion anytime and hence there was no
question of their being degraded because of omission of the sacred rites or violation of the code.
The Vedic religion was new to this land; however, the proclamation just was sort of an
explanation that could be used as propaganda to attract non-Vedics to their fold. The Aundra,
Poundras, Dravidas etc., the mighty clans of southern India, would hardly have heard of this
religion till first century AD. Only two inscriptions of Satvahanas indicate that this religion was
known to them, but Gatha Saptashati, an anthology of this period, does not show the existence of
the adherents of this religion in contemporary society! The editor to this anthology Mr. S. A.
Joglekar wonders at this fact and surmises that the number of Vedic Brahmins could be very
limited during that era. Even so, though ridiculous, he forwards a big claim that the Satvahanas
were Vedic Brahmins!
It is ridiculous to think that the instructions of Manusmriti would be ever applicable to in
indigenous clans. The fact is these rulers seem to have hardly entertained Vedic religion in their
domain. Vedics had to work hard to get the entry in every region of India and still they could not
convert all to their fold because of the inherent limitations of their religion.
The historical fact that appears is the code of Manu was completely neglected by the so-
called Shudra masses as they continued to follow their independent idolatrous religion and their
own code. In fact, though Manu kept on insisting the Vedic rites and sacrifices, the new converts
forced many Vedics to adopt idol worship though it was prohibited in the Vedic religion. If
Manusmriti was so much so powerful to change and command entire social order, the Vedics
wouldn’t have dared to commit such blasphemy that was disastrous to the core of their religious
tenets. But the reality is the Vedics were forced to change the core of their religion and yet how
boastfully the Vedic supremacy was proclaimed!
The fact must be understood that Manusmriti’s contributors of the different times were
the representatives of a religion that boasted of the supremacy of the Vedas and twice born to
make feel others inferior. It cunningly tried to show all mankind been sheltered under one roof
and still humiliated those who had not converted. To Manu, once everyone was Vedic and
those deviated from the code and rites were fallen to the lowest rank and hence despicable. Every
religion for that matter behaves in a similar way with the other. Many of Manusmriti’s
instructions and explanations are imaginary, crooked, contradictory and confusing only because
the writers of various times did not know how to confront new situations those arose while
spreading the religion and the opposite principles that were carried in by the converts. In fact,
Vedic religion got heavily polluted in this process which reflects well from the contradictory and
yet stringent instructions those were inserted from time to time in the original body of the
Manusmriti.
In fact, if studied carefully, Manu originally seems to be very clear in his commands. He
knows to whom commands are intended and to whom not. He explicitly states, “Vedas, Smritis,
the custom of virtuous men and one’s own pleasures is the defined fourfold religion.” (Manu-
2.12) and in the earlier verse, Manu states, “Every twice-born man, who, relying on the
institutes of dialectics, treats with contempt those two sources of the law, must be cast out by
the virtuous, as an atheist and a scorner of the Vedas.” (Manu-2.11) His address is to the
people those faithfully adhere to the Vedic principles and revere the Vedas. All other faiths
opposite to Vedic principles are despicable to Manu to which he calls heretics. We are aware that
the pre-Vedic religion of India was based on Tantras to which we call today Hindu religion. The
commands of Manu are more strict for the three Varnas and contemptuous and humiliating
against Shudras. Every religion in a similar way has given commands against the people of
opposing faith. It does not mean that the illusory vicious commands would be followed by the
others.
Here we come across a serious juncture where Manu defines the Vedic religion that finds
the source in the Vedas and virtuous conduct of the twice- born men. He threatens the twice-born
men of being outcast if they do not respect the Vedas and the laws. Manu also might have felt an
imminent threat that the people of his religion could deviate from Vedicism and embrace the
religion of Shudra if not stopped by divine command! The contempt for Shudra, too, could have
been the outcome of this fear.
The twice-born are just three Varnas. Shudra is excluded in this command because Manu
is aware that this Varna is not Vedic. Because the Shudras are not twice-born and that they had
their independent religious order, temples and priests and several professions to conduct for their
livelihood Manu couldn’t have enforced Vedic ideas on them. It is evident from the second
chapter of Manusmriti where it enumerates several professions along with temple priests and
Shudra Kings. They are not expected to respect the Vedas, rather, they are forbidden from them.
However, in fact, there are Vedic Brahmins those performed the sacrifices for the
Shudras on fees. 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.”
And yet, at other hand, we find the instructions like-
1. God said the duty of a Shudra is to serve the upper Varnas faithfully with devotion
and without grumbling. (Manu 1-91)
2. Let the first part of a Brahman’s name denote something auspicious, a Kshatriya’s be
connected with power, and a Vaishyas with wealth but a Shudra’s express something
contemptible. (Manu II.31)
3. Shudra who insults a twice born man with gross invectives shall have his tongue cut
out; for he is of low origin. (Manu VIII. 270.)
4. Shudra is unfit of receive education. The upper Varnas should not impart education or
give advice to a Shudra. It is not necessary that the Shudra should know the laws and codes and
hence need not be taught. Violators will go to as amrita hell. (Manu IV-78 to 81)
We come across so many such humiliating and infuriating inhuman commands against the Shudras in
Manusmriti. Is Manu confused while dictating these commands? No. He is not confused. The confused lot is
of the scholars who have failed to understand the true essence of the Manusmriti. They did not give attention
to the following facts:
1. Manu admits there were Shudras Kings and the Vedic priests those performed sacrifices for them,
how they were expected to serve the twice-born with devotion and without grumbling? How Manu could
demand their names should be contemptible? If Shudras were well in the financial position to pay the
handsome fees to the Vedic priests for conducting the sacrifices, what about the commands of Manu that
prohibits Shudras from accumulating the wealth?
2. They did not give attention to the changing geography and the vast time span that Manuscript
covers, which begins in Kuru-Panchal at about 1000 BC and ends in Magadha region in Gupta era. The
additions and contradictions created by later authors to suit their time show the journey of the Vedic religion
that was gone through the several adjustments, modifications, and contractions. Still, there was not sanity on
part of the scholars not to understand that the code written in certain region couldn't have been applicable to all
the regions of the country.
3. It is evident from Manusmriti that those all who did not belong to the Vedic religion were Shudras
to them, no matter even if they were foreigners, ruling dynasties or indigenous clans! Manu also was aware
that the Shudras had temples and temple priests as a part of their religion, however, the fact remained
neglected. Though the Shudras were designated with fourth Varna, as a class, they couldn’t have been part of
the Vedic religion. The fact is Vedic religion always was three-fold religion and the fourth class always stood
opposite to it with its own distinct religion and faiths. The fact should have been noticed that only twice-born
were the Vedics and not Shudras!
 4. There is no evidence to show that the Shudras were prohibited from the education. The only fact is
they were not allowed to educate in Vedic literature, but since that literature was propriety of the Vedic
religion, prohibiting the people belonging to the other religion is not a surprise. There is no evidence to show
that the republics and Mahajanpadas of that time belonged to or were under influence of the Vedic religion.
Inscriptions, Numismatics and literary evidence go against the very notion that there was ever a Vedic Age in
India prior to the Gupta period.
5. From historical data, beginning from Pradyota of seventh century BC till medieval era, we do not
find any Vedic rulers excepting a couple of dynasties like Shunga and Kanvas. If we peep into the prehistory,
that mostly is written in mythological and propagandist form, though we come across many so-called
Kshatriya monarchs, the stories associated with them hardly can prove their being real Vedic. For example,
Kurus and Satvatas do not seem to have any Vedic background though they are portrayed as Kshatriyas in the
final recension of Mahabharata. The stories of Ramayana and Mahabharata have been used to propagate
Vedic religion with heavy interpolations. However, the social values those have survived in the final versions
of both the epics clearly show their non-Vedic origin underneath. In fact the Manusmriti does not mention the
social customs those were common in Ramayana and Mahabharata, either to praise or denounce.
6. Looking at above few indicative points, writing such hostile commands to regulate a majority
society and its obeying them without raising any protest not only sounds ridiculous but doesn’t stand on the
historical grounds as well.
It is clear that the Manusmriti was being written during this vast span of the time and one after another
command against Shudras was being added while regulating their religion, still, we do not find non-Vedic
society giving any heed to it!
Then the question will arise why the authors of the Manusmriti took so much so pains to invent
hostile commands against the Shudras? Who were they?
From close scrutiny of the Manusmriti, it clearly appears that the commands against Shudras were
intended only to the people those were in personal service of the twice-born, especially Brahmins. They could
be taken into the service on wages, bought out slaves or received in gifts from the patrons of the Vedic religion.
These servants would be employed for conducting domestic chores as well as for arming and tending
the cattle. It is clear that these servants would encamp close to the Vedic settlements. This closeness gave way
to an inevitable problem and that was illicit intermingling. Initially, they didn’t mind the children born to
Shudra woman but later on opposite too became a routine and hence they tried to prohibit such adulterous
practices between twice-born and Shudras by formulating harsh laws and threats of social degradation of the
children.
However, Mr. Vi. Ka. Rajwade inn the preface of ‘RadhaMadhavVillasChampu’ states, such efforts
proved futile as inter-class adultery and marriages did not stop. This is evident from the fact that though the
children born out of such relationships were designated with various low castes like Ugra, Ambashtha, Suta,
Magadha, Vaideha, Parashava etc. they hardly were in real existence. Panini does not mention any of such
caste born out of inter-Varna relationships. We can trace no caste in India by these names though the general
assumption is that the caste system is very ancient and rigid since the beginning.
It only does mean that though the Smriti tried their best to maintain original structure of their religion
pure and unadulterated, they failed in doing so. This may be the reason why in Mahabharata, especially in
Geeta, Vedics seems to be worried the most about the extinction of Varnashram-dharma.
Making harsh laws, at the least on paper, against the menial class that was dependent for subsistence
on the twice-born, were easy. Being scattered, dependent and already pauper they wouldn’t revolt. At the
most, they could leave the service and find other ways for survival to escape humiliation. However, we do not
find any instance of real execution of such commands. What we have are few imaginary stories those are
nothing but the fine example of the exaggerations those were used to create moral fear among this class.
 It is important to note that Panini classifies the Shudras in two categories, i.e. “Anirvasit” and
“Nirvasit” (Ashtadhyayi, 2: 4-10) Anirvasit means the Shudras those were taken into the private
services of the Vedics and Nirvasit means the Shudras those were not related to the Vedic social system
in any way. This categorization of Panini throws the clear light on the enigmatic question, against
whom the code was really intended. The code was intended for the Anirvasit Shudras those were in the
services of the Vedic people. Those who were Nirvasit Shudras had nothing to do with the code and the
social history supports this being a fact.
Also, Manu sometimes uses the term Arya to refer twice-born and Anarya for Shudras. (Manu: 10.
66-68, 73) This distinction clearly indicates towards the both religions and societies being independent. The
religion of the Aryas and Anaryas couldn’t be the one and the same. The religion of twice-born Vedic and the
Shudras couldn’t be the same. The ritualistic practices of the Shudras are clearly mentioned by Manu. They
used to go to the temples and had their own priests whereas the Vedics conducted fire sacrifices and upheld
supremacy of the Vedic doctrine. There was nothing in common between the both except they had to employ
some people from the Shudra community to assist them in their menial work. We must keep in mind here that
the population of the Vedics was always in the minority.
However, it seems from the annals of the history that the term “Shudra” which originally was the
name of a clan, excepting Vedics, stuck to those all who were delving in this subcontinent. Even the foreign
rulers of later times also were termed as Shudras. To Vedics, those all, who were not part of the Vedic religion
were Shudras. The code was intended only to those Shudras who were in their personal service. Whether or
not the Anirvasit Shudras remained in the existence, the term did not vanish. The grave misunderstanding
among the scholars seeded that the code was intended for all the Shudras. None went back into the social and
political history to check whether it really was ever practiced or accepted by the people.
Manusmriti, in fact, is overrated in regards to the caste system. It has created undue havoc and hatred
in the Hindu society. The fact is overlooked that Manu did not codify the Caste but Varna system. The code
was intended to regulate Vedic religion and not of the Hindus. The scholars did further damage by treating
caste and Varna one and the same when it was never a fact. Manu too uses the term Jati in the tenth chapter,
though in a different sense, while elaborating on the status of the children begotten by inter-Varna marriages.
Manu clearly means their status by using the term Jati and not the professions upon which the present caste
system is based. The present rigid and immobile Jati system of Hindu society does not find its origin in remote
past. Jatis are not the product of Varna system as is believed by some.
Varna and Jati are two distinct social systems belonging to different two religions. Hindus did not used
the term Jati in the same sense the way Vedics or Manu used. It has been fatal to find origin of everything in
the Vedic sources to know the social history. The scholars have failed to understand the Hindu religion does
not at all find its source in Vedas and Smritis. It has independent tradition and religious practices and
philosophies, to which Manu too evidences. The scholars heavily have neglected various dictates of the
Manusmriti those go contrary to their postulations. They have forgotten that the certain words are used in the
different sense in different societies. Manusmriti is a work of many authors of different times and all the while
the authors knew very well for whom their commands were intended. These are the scholars who failed to
understand this and thus couldn’t solve the riddle of the caste system.
We can safely conclude that the Manusmriti was intended to regulate only the Vedic religion. The
commands those appear against Shudras were limited to the only those people who were non-Vedic and in
service of the Vedic people. Rest of the people, those were designated as Shudras by the Vedics, in fact,
belonged to the various clans and preserved their identities with their ancestral clan names and occupations.
The donation inscriptions of the Satvahana era evidences this fact that the people of those times too preferred
to identify themselves by their profession. Rather the term Shudra is absent wherever the people have given
their own identifications. The scholars should have noticed this bare fact that the Vedic and Hindu religion are
two distinct entities and they shouldn’t have mixed the both!
The usage of the term Shudra for all those were not adherents of the Vedic religion, which otherwise
is completely absent from entire Rig Veda, clearly indicates that the Vedic religion was new entrant in this
subcontinent carried in by the handful of the adherents. The term Shudra was not a new invention but was the
name of a tribe they came across first and delved with for some generations! And yet scholars failed to
understand why this term could have applied later to all the tribes those delved in the country from ancient
times. They did not attempt to draw a map of the advances of the Vedic religion in the country and its
timeframe. Had they done so, a crucial problem would have been solved.
However, the fact is the term Shudra have unnecessarily created an inferiority complex in the Hindu
society. Without even knowing that the term Shudra finds no etymology in any language still it has cast an evil
spell over the society, so much so that the many communities have been jumped in a rat race to find their
origin in some or other Vedic Varna, to attain higher social status, no matter whether Vedic religious
authorities accept it or not! Albeit, they will not acknowledge and Vedic status because Hindus are not Vedic!
Unless the religious difference is understood the present caste problem will never come to an end.

*
 5.

What is the Caste?

We have seen different opinions of the scholars on origin of the caste system. We also
have seen that there is no religious sanction to the caste system. Treating Caste and Varna system
interdependent has not yielded any satisfactory explanation to its origin. The scholars are
ambiguous while defining the caste system. What is the Caste is a principle question and we
have to deal with it first. It is clear that the Castes did not emerge from the Varnas. Varna system
is like a pyramid whereas caste system is occupation based and the social status of the castes
moreover depended on the priorities of the society. For example Rarthakara (Chariot-maker),
potter, iron-smith etc. enjoyed higher status in the society when the need of these professions
was high. However, we can see that the profession of the Rathakara did vanish as there was no or
least need. We can find many castes did evaporate with their professions were replaced with
other technologies or the need of their product lo longer was felt. The social status too would
depend on the social needs of the particular professions. It was a practical system.
Still, erroneously scholars mixed both and have attempted to find origin of the castes.
They were bound to fail in constructing a theory based on a false premise.
Caste is the profession that one adapts for his/her livelihood. All the castes in India are
having some or other traditional profession. Many professions are now outdated as need of their
professional skills no longer are felt by the society. There are many professions those have been
replaced by the modern technologies. Many professions are long eliminated, but the caste
remains. Ironic, but true fact is, with death of any profession death or change in the profession
the caste too should have been dead or changed even now the way it was normal practice in
ancient times.
But our current stark reality is that this ease in caste change is completely stopped though
people change their professions now and then. The stigma or pride of caste thrives, no matter
whether one adheres to the ancestral profession or not. How a flexible system became rigid in
course of the time is a question and we have to deal with it from historical perspectives. Finding
its root in Vedic scriptures has already created a confusion and misunderstanding about the
castes.
We find some castes in Vedic system too, of the people born out of inter-Varna
marriages. Ayogava, Dhigvana, Pasrashara etc. castes are the few examples those have been
recorded in various Smritis and epic literature. But we do not find existence of these castes in the
society today. No scholar has given proper attention to this fact. These Vedic castes got
eliminated in the course of the time because either they changed the religion or somehow
grabbed the higher position in their religion. They did not suffer from the discrimination and
lower status for longer period as Vedic religion too has been going through the internal
adjustments over the time.
However, later, in an attempt to explain origin of the various castes in Hindu religion,
Inter-Varna marriages were thought to be a prime reason while explaining the origin of the
castes. However, this explanation naturally failed because Hindu castes were never an outcome
of inter-Varna marriages. Nonexistence of any Vedic castes today rather proves this proposition.
The word “Jati” has no certain etymology though it normally is connected with the birth.
The definition of Amar Kosha is descriptive. It too, doesn’t help us much. Customs keep on
changing with time and groups are not solely formed based on similarities in customs. Groups
can form based on the similar professions within the same region and society. We can call it as
close affinity or brotherhood among similar or equivalent professions.
There is no caste in India that doesn’t have (or had) any ancestral occupational business.
But originally occupations were not always ancestral. It was solely choice of the individuals
whether to stick to ancestral profession or to leave it to join other prosperous line of activity. We
shall see in detail how the occupational guild system of India offered such flexibility.
Rather, because of this flexibility new talent would easily enter in any profession and
they have done wonders. The freedom of occupational choice allows a person to enter the
occupation of his like and he can use his innovative talent, thus keeping the profession alive and
thriving with new innovations. This is why the monumental wonders like caves, iron pillar, huge
structures could see the light of the day in their glory. There were many researches and scientific
innovations in tannery, metal work, wine making, weaving etc. that helped Indian economy to
grow at fast pace. If ever there was a golden age in India, it was because of these innovative
people those were afforded with freedom of choice. The Tantra system that finds origins in Indus
civilization continued with its all strength till tenth century AD.
People have mentioned their occupational castes (professions) with pride in the donation
inscriptions. Such castes include Halik (Tiller), Sutar (carpenter), Sonar (Goldsmith) Lohar
(Blacksmith) Teli (oil producers), Vinkar (Weavers), Koli (Fishermen), Mali (gardener),
Charmakar (Cobbler) etc. It would appear that the donor castes were rich enough to donate. They
could accumulate wealth and spend it as per their own choice.
Also we can see that many castes of early centuries of our era no more exist, mostly
because of the fusion with other caste, such as of Tillers (Halik). They seem to have mixed later
in Kunbi (land tenant) class because of similarity in the profession. We have plenty of the
examples to show fusion and fission was an ongoing process in the ancient Indian society. Hence
there is no proof that the caste system was rigid from its inception. Rather it was a natural
institution where plenty of freedom was accorded to the people. Many new castes appeared and
old were vanished as they become redundant in contemporary times. For example, there was a
caste “Odyantrik” (makers of water-run-machines) which also was vanished during first
millennium.
We can safely conclude that the caste meant profession. The names of the caste too
clearly suggest professions the people carried out for their livelihood. It was a flexible and
horizontal system. Status or dignity of the profession would naturally depend on the financial or
authoritative status the time would provide. There could be up and downs in the statuse’
depending on the economic and political circumstances. We are aware that many people lost
their professions during waning era of the Indus civilization as foreign trade gradually came to
halt and worsening climatic changes. Naturally people turned to other professions for survival.
However evidences indicate that the independent invention of glass making helped some to
establish other profession (caste) for survival. No one can claim, under the circumstances, that
their ancestors always belonged to the same caste to which they belong now! Hence the pride of
the caste is unnatural and unnecessary.
So there is no shred of the evidence to show that caste system was rigid, birth based since
its beginning and it was enforced upon indigenous people by invading barbaric Vedic Aryans. It
originated with the professions those human being invented, innovated in course of the time for
survival. It has nothing to do with any religious doctrine. Confusing caste system with the Varna
system of the Vedics has already done irreparable harm to Indian society.
 This does mean that castes are nothing but professions. Caste names too mostly are
associated with the professions. The profession was the identity of the person and it is evident
from the various inscriptions where the donors have mentioned their castes with pride. The
fourth class (Chaturtha Varna) remained as an enigma to the people of the non-vedic origin. The
fictitious stories concocted by the Vedic priests to establish their supremacy over the Hindus
gradually started penetrating their psyche of the Hindu people because of the constant
propaganda. However, Hindus remained close to their ancestral religion that had Pre-Vedic
origin.
Now the question is apparent that how inequality among various castes did start to plague
Indian society? Most important is how flexible caste system became rigid and birth based?

We can deduce from above that the caste system was a practical and natural system that
continued its course without imposing any caste-based prejudices or restrictions. Shreni (Guild)
system of ancient India is a proof of this. The prestige in the society of every caste (profession)
depended on its economic and social value. No religious commands could change the social
order if it was not acceptable and suitable to the people. We find no instance of any revolt
against the caste system in the history because from the proofs it clearly seems that the system
was self-invented and self- imposed by the society. What were the conditions those forced
society to invent a completely new order that gradually became a bondage on them?
Why all of sudden we find the emergence of the saints after 12th century those started
protesting the caste system? Why in earlier times we do not find any kind of resistance to this
system which is thought to be unjust and cruel since its origin? Why there is only literature that
talks against Vedas and their social Varna order but not the castes prior to tenth century?
It is crucial to understand because unless done so we will be unable to solve the present
caste problems and eliminate the ever-growing social strife.

Varna system

Though we have discussed that the Varna system is not equivalent to Caste system, it will
not be imprudent here to see its definition and origin to make the distinction clear.
There has been no unanimous definition of the Varna as well though it has divine
sanction from Purushasukta, a late addition to the Rigveda. From Dharmashastras it does not
appear that the ideology of purity or impurity was basis of the Varnas. If we go by Rigvedic
meaning of the Varna, it is verbatim ‘Color’. Classifying the people in four classes seems to be
original idea that was later sanctified through the late addition to the Rigveda. Out of these four
Varnas, only three varnas were allowed to study the Vedas.
The Shudras, as a class or tribe, nowhere appears in the Rigveda excepting Purushasukta.
It would clearly mean that the geography of the Rigveda was changed at the time of composition
of this Sukta. The people coming in the new land needed some term to classify the people those
were not part of their religion. So, this was a class, though non-Vedic, but the part of the overall
population.
Three Varnas, though interdependent, were watertight compartments, where no entry
would be possible from one to another. However, there was a time when Kshatriyas claimed
higher status over Brahmins. There are many stories of such feuds, famous being of Vishvamitra,
between Brahmin and Kshatriyas.
 Manusmriti already degrades Vaishya Varna treating them equivalent to the Shudras. The
Puranic proclamation, in kaliyuga there are no Kshatriyas, seems to be outcome of these feuds.
We find the great consternation of the later preachers of the Vedic religion while trying to
fit non-Vedic heroes of the past in Vedic order while attempting to find alternate explanations! In
Mahabharata, a story is concocted that the Kshatriya race, though extinct, was recommenced by
the Brahmins on the behest of Kshariya women. The story goes farther by telling that the Asura
king Bali’ wife, Sudeshna, begotten sons from an expelled, blind, ugly and immoral Vedic seer
Deerghatama on behest of her husband! (Mahabharata, 1.114)
Here, we find that the Mahabharata heroes, though proclaimed Kshatriyas, Vedic
interpolators have mischievously shown them as a polluted product of Brahmin seed. They did
not lose any opportunity to defame the non-Vedic heroes like Bali and Rama while doing so.
However, what we can deduce from such mythical concocted stories is that the Vedic
used ancient non-Vedic literature and their heroes by polluting them with Vedic ideology for
propagating Vedic religion and Brahmanical supremacy. Jain and Buddhists too have used the
epical stories to propagate their religion, Vedic proved more powerful in doing so! However, the
fact seems that by fourth century the Vedic religion was contracted to the extreme, so much so
that, there were no Kshatriyas and Vaishyas in their religion.
It would appear that the Vedics have labeled Brahmin women too as ‘Shudra’ which have
confused many scholars. The confusion is unwarranted because the term Shudra is widely
applied by the Vedics without defining its scope. Brahmin women are Shudra only because they
are not initiated with Vedic rites. But for all purposes the Brahmin women remains Brahmin,
cannot marry any other Varna.
So, in short, the Vedic religion gradually became the domain of only Brahmins. The
conversions to Vedic fold gradually stopped by Gupta era. However, there are many claimants to
Vedic varnas from last millennium, but Vedic hardly had initiated the people to their religion.
From scriptures, it clearly will appear that Vedic religion had become moreover a
“Single-Varna” religion long before the Mahabharata reached its final recension. What we need
is to understand more about Shudras. We also need to discuss Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s book on this
subject to get more insight.
It will be clear that in Vedic religion there are no castes. They have the Varna and
they identify themselves with Varna. They have numerous subdivisions based on region,
branch of Vedas and so on, but the main identity is Varna and not the caste. Hence it will be
wrong to classify Brahmin, Kshatriya or Vaishya in the caste system. As emphasized earlier,
there is no relationship between the Caste and Varna system.

*
 6.

“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 written book 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 probe in to 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, the
Shudras were the indigenous aboriginal communities those were defeated by the invading
victorious Aryans, enslaved by them and were termed as Shudras while making their social four-
fold order in the process of assimilation, while maintaining their supremacy by denying any
social, economic or Vedic religious rights to them.
Dr. Ambedkar proposed a new theory through this book to explain 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 devaluate 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 a 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 the word “Shudra” appears nowhere in Rig Veda except
Purushsukta which is, Dr. Ambedkar too is aware of, a late addition to Rig Veda. Even if
considered the Kshatriyas and the Shudras were ranked equivalent, the fact is 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. Both are not equivalent to each other. Rajanya is mentioned as a 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 later removing Rajanya. That way, Purushsukta
does not sanction any status to Kshatriya…rather it does not acknowledge it at all!
Most importantly the term "Shudra" finds no etymology in Vedic Sanskrit or any other
language. Rather this term has no meaning! In all probability the Shudra is corrupt form of some
original Prakrit word.
There are many feuds mentioned in Rig Veda, but the word, Shudra, as a name of class or
tribe, 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 Rig Vedic period at all hence there
could not arise any issue over whether or not to deny Upanayana (Threading ceremony) of 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” (Sodrai) tribe Greeks came
across in northwest India. Aitareya Brahmana informs us that beyond Vindhya ruled various
Shudra tribes. Dr. Ambedkar also provides proofs of the mention of the Shudra as a tribe in
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 an evidence from 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 recessions, and found different 9 variant
readings of the word “Paijavana”. To name a few variants, word “Paijavana” is found
as pailavano, Yailanamo, YaJane, Vaibhavano etc. in different editions. Also, only six
manuscripts agree that the person who conducted sacrifice was Shudra. Rest three does not
mention as such.
In fact there are only three verses that mention this name, incident of Yajna, donation to
the Brahmins 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, performed sacrifice and Brahmins had no problem to perform the
sacrificial rituals for a Shudra. Dr. Ambedkar illustrates that in preceding verses of the same
chapter it is written that Shudra has no right at all to possess wealth and is prohibited
from chanting any Vedic mantra. Dr. Ambedkar derives that Shudras of ancient times weren’t
denied the right to have conducted Yajnas for their benefit. (126-127)
However, from Manusmriti, it clearly seems 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 performed sacrifices for the Shudras, were looked
upon contemptuously; still there existed the Brahmins who did that job risking degradation.
 Also, Shudra kings were also 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 does mean that even during the time of Manusmriti, there were numerous
Shudra Kings and some Vedic Brahmins those 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 Shantiparva.
This is mainly because Dr. Ambedkar has connected identity of Paijavana with a 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 Mahabharata
and King Sudas, who also was 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, 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 that why most illustrious war finds no mention
whatsoever in Mahabharata where most of the ancient stories are enumerated?
Dr. Ambedkar shows that in Vishnu Purana, there are at the least two Sudasas, one is in
the genealogy of Sagara and another one in the Puru family. They obviously are different than
the Sudasa of Rig Veda. 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 the Sudasa or his predecessors or successors in the Puru/Kuru
lineage in 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, the 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 Mahabharata.
Dr. Ambedkar too asserts that Bharata tribe of Rig Veda and Doushyanti Bharat of
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 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 Bharata tribe from which the country acquired name
“Bharata”. (page 141)
 We have seen earlier that Manusmriti knows there were Shudra rulers and the Brahmins
those 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 Indo-Aryan (or
Vedic) community. Even if he was a Shudra, either king or a wealthy person, from non-
Vedic community could have performed sacrifice if he had desired to do so. Because some Vedic
Brahmins were readily available to perform the sacrifices for anybody in exchange of the heavy
donations even if they were despised by their own brethren. Paijavana of Mahabharata too
donated handsomely to the Brahmins.
So, Paijavana of Mahabharata and Paijavana Sudasa of Rigveda are distinctly different
personalities. We have more proofs to make this point.
Dr. Ambedkar mentions a Rig Vedic feud that involves 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
deserted Sudasa to gather forces against him. However, to our surprise, we do not find any
support to this assumption in Rig Veda as there is no mention of such event taking place. In all
probabilities, the war was fought over religious issues as Rig Veda describes enemy, including
the Purus, as ‘ayajju’, non-sacrificers or over the political supremacy issue. Hence there arises no
reason why Brahmins would have treated him (Sudasa) 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 to such rivalries emerge in 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 Rig Veda, Sudasa is
nowhere mentioned as being Kshatriya, but mention is simply as Rajan.
Hence, considering Shudra class as a part of the Indo-Aryan community may not help us.
Paijavana of Mahabharata can be anyone with the identical name the way Puru, Anu, Druhyu etc.
appears in Mahabharata as personal names, which in fact are the names of the tribes, not
individuals, in the Rigveda. Hence, comparing either genealogy with 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, that there were two types of the Shudras, one
being the Shudras for whom the code was intended and enforced and the other was completely
outside of Vedic religious pale, enjoying their own faiths, kingdoms and wealth.
The Shudra Varna does not appear anywhere in Rig Veda, except Purushsukta, only
because Vedic Aryans had not come across this set of the people. Shudras were foreigners and
unknown to them. It was never part of their Indo-Aryan or Vedic society hence it constituted 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.
Still, in his opinion, there were only three Varnas in that period and Shudras belonged to
Kshatriya Varna. (page151-52).
We all are aware of the Vedic designs of falsities and recklessly fabricating anything by
interpolating to which they call sacred books. It is clear that the Purushsukta 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 Indo-Aryan
community. As stated earlier, the Vedics had not come across this new set of the people while
delving in their own geography. The known people, whether friends or foes, find mention
throughout 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,
those enjoyed the high status of Kshatriya accepted such a degradation without wielding
weapons?
Vedic religion came to India, not through the invasion. It came by missionary sort of
work by the refugees. They came across the new people to whom they named Shudra or Shudra
is a corrupt form of an original name of the people. “Sodari” (Or Sodrai) mentioned by
Alexanders historians too is a corrupt Greek form of name of a tribe that inhabited in North-West
India. The Vedic refugees too first might have come across this tribe first and this name stuck to
all the people residing in India, the same way as Hindustan name for the entire country was used
first only for the people living in Indus valley that later was applied to the whole subcontinent.
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 those were a menial class
taken in the personal service to meet daily needs. Rest of the people, though designated as
Shudras by the Vedics, were free from that code which is evidenced by Manusmriti itself. In the
later course of the time the scope of the code was widened, but history does not prove that the
Shudras heeded to it in practical life. The only worst 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 them. So much so that almost every caste from so-called Shudra class
tries to connect with Kshatriya origin to attain high social status. This is the outcome of the sheer
influence of Vedic mythical stories those glorify Kshatryadom. Why this class lost its place from
the Vedic society has been attempted to explain through some mythical stories, especially of
Parshuram, but these stories are the product of the quite late era and have the completely
different explanation to them. They also are not related to the era in question. The reasons behind
fabricating such stories are completely different and not related to the Brahmin-Kshatriya rivalry,
as Dr. Ambedkar suggests.
Hence, the proposition that the Shudras were Kshatriyas and Rig Vedic
Sudasa=Paijavana of Mahabharata, equation is not tenable on the ground of the proofs those are
available before us. Rather it seems an attempt to elevate status of the Shudras making them
think once upon the time they belonged to the glorious Kshatriya clan.
The fact, neglected by the scholars, 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 the 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, which is not present at all
in the rest of the rig Veda.
Had Shudras being 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 on
which we will discuss in next chapter.
 7.

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

The scholars have miserably been misled or it has been a deliberate act on their part that
they have tried to portray ancient India through the Vedic eyes, without paying any heed to the
stark open facts those are present, known and yet neglected. Even the inferences they have tried
to derive from the Vedic texts are only to prove their age-old notions, no matter how they are
wrong. This is why the picture of the ancient Indian society and Vedic society is distorted for
they did not consider them separate, independent entities. It is clear from the available evidences
that 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 mix all while
explaining the origin of the Shudras.
It also is agreed fact that the term Shudra nowhere appears in the Rig Veda except
Purusha Sukta (RV 10.90) and that this hymn is the late interpolation in the Rig Veda. When did
this interpolation happened is open to the speculations, but the fact is the hymn in question too
went through many modifications/additions in course of the 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 those describe how the four Varna were originated. It is as
under-
ा मणोऽ य मख
ु मासी बाहू राज यः कृतः ।
ऊ तद य य वै यः प "यां शू%ो अजायत ॥१२॥
Here, we will just focus on the second highest class or rank that is named as “Rajanya”.
This would mean that the Rajanya was standing second to the Brahmina. In the later Vedic
literature the trem Rajanya goes on gradually vanishing and is 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 the equivalent terms.
What are the facts? Are really Rajanya and Kshatriya are the equivalent or the truth is
otherwise?
Rajanya word has been used in the Rig Veda and Atharvaveda as generic class of the
warriors. The Aitareya Brahmina it is said that the Rajanya requests Kshatriya for a place at
Devayajna (sacrifice for gods). There are rituals mentioned in the Brahmana literature where
appears conflict between Rajanya’s and Kshatriya’s. Kaushitaki Upanishad differentiates the
Kshatriys and Rajanyas. Rig Veda mentions several times of Rajanyas and Kshatras and the
terms are not interchangeable. Rajanya term is used for the kins of the kings, nobles and scions.
Shatapath brahmina too mentions Rajputra, Rajanya and Kshatraputra separately. From these
instances it would be clear that the Rajanya and Kshatriyas were different entities. In Avesta too,
a contemporary book to Rig Veda, the word Kshatriya and Kshatra appears as
xšāyaθiya ("emperor") and xšaθra ("realm") The word Rajan too appears in the old Persian
literature. (See Zamyad Yast 88-90)
This would mean that the term 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 different scholars, either kinsmen of the Rajan
(King) or the ruling (even ex) families from which Rajan would be appointed or chosen. In short,
Rajanya is 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 to priestly families
or just lower to 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 means
power. The power was based on the greater control over the Jana and its territory. It can be seen
the relationship between Vish and Kshatriyas was not always cordial as Kshatriyas controlled the
Vish (Vaishya). In short, the Kshatra were either feudal class or 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
too between these two classes. Rajanya would mean the kins of the ex or present kings those
only could claim the thrown. Kshatriya was a class that would control the territories and would
act as a middleman between Vish and the King for collecting the tributes. We can easily surmise
that the Kshatriyas were the feudal lords of the tribal times those would establish authority over
land or cattle and would collect taxes from the Vish. Rajanyas too possibly sometimes acted as
Kshatriyas, but their status was higher as evidenced by Purushsukta itself. What most
importantly 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 Purush Sukta does not mention at all
the Kshatriya class? Instead, it mentions Rajanya. It would mean that the Rajanya was a larger or
powerful society than of the Kshatriyas and they, being insignificant in number and position, did
not form a social class in the early Vedic society where 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 Kshatriya 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 replaced in the so-called divine social
order.
Though in later course usage of the term Rajanya seems gradually vanishing, still
Aitareya Brahmin frequently uses it. (e.g. AB 1.5.2) This would mean that till the time of
compositions of the early parts of the Brahmana literature the Rajanya class was well in
existence and enjoying the social status that was granted by the Rig Veda.
 Now, the question arises that why Rajanya class disappeared from the Vedic society and
for all ritualistic purpose and authority Kshatriyas were replaced when they did not have any
divine sanction?
To understand this, we need to analyze 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.
It is now well-established fact that the geography of the Rig Veda and the Avesta were in close
vicinity. This does prove that the Vedic society was originally established in the Afghanistan
(most probably southern part). The memory that Shatapath Brahmina 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, the 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; those could only be Hindukush and rivers flowing through that
region, to reach the uninhabited place to settle.
Modern scholars normally try to equate this river with Gandaki that flows from Nepal
through India, finally feeding Ganga. However, from the Mahabharata’s accounts on this river, it
could not be Gandaki but some other river flowing through Gandaki and Sarayu. Amarasinha of
Amara Kosha asserts Sadanira to be synonym of Karatoya River, flowing through 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
inhabitable.
Thus, the invasionist scholars of those times from this myth had assumed Aryan
expansion from west to the east, occupying the lands and regions towards Gandaki River of
Bihar (or Bengal). This is not tenable because to reach there one cannot pass the whole range of
the Himalays. But to reach Sindh region, one has certainly cross the Hindukush Mountain. The
myth is addressing the Hindukush with the word ‘Uttargiri’ and not Himalayas. The river
Sarasvati mentioned here should not to be confused with a mythical Sarasvati river, but it was
the river of the same name still flowing in southern Afghanistan. Had it been a victorious march,
as some scholars suggest, towards Sadanira that located in Gangetic region, they needed not to
reside in 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
new habitat because of the constant struggles with Zoroastrian religion. The abundant mentions
of the Deva-Sura wars in Brahmana literature clearly indicate their vicious enmity that might
have resulted at some point of time in expulsion of the Vedics and hence Videgh Mathava and
his companions abandoned their original habitat in middle of the night with handful of the
companions. Crossing Hindukush they entered north-eastern parts of the India to find a place for
the settlement. They found such place near a river to which they named Sadanira and on its
banks, in marshy-swampy region, they camped. This must have been the north-west part, Sindh,
of India, where the historical tribe of Shudras already dwelt.
Here we get many historical as well as epical accounts that among others the tribe Shudra
was also located at north-western part of India. Alexander’s historian Diodoros, who had
accompanied Alexander in his expedition to India, notes of a tribe named “Sodrai” (Greek
corrupt form of the Shudra) which resided in Sindh region. Alexander seems to have built a city
naming after him, Alexandria, on the banks of a river.1 Ram Saran Sharma confirms that “There
is no doubt that Sudra existed as a tribe in the fourth century BC.” 2
Mahabharata records that the Shudra tribe along with Abhira tribe from north-west
participated the Great War. (Mahabharata 6-10.65) Also the same Shudra tribe finds independent
mention in the 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.” 3
Now it should be clear that the Shudra was a tribe. It was located in the north-west
regions of the country and their immediate neighbors and alleys were 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, being inhabited in north-west part of India, in Sindh region, in all
probabilities these were the people Vedics came across first and decided to live within their
territory.
We know from the Rig Veda that the Vedic peoples known geography was limited to the
south Afghanistan. Earlier they were just aware of the major river Indus and its few western
tributaries, but their knowledge of the vast regions beyond Indus was limited and was of hearsay
sort. The tribes like Shiva, Bhalanasa, Vishanin appearing in the episode of the battle of the ten
kings were located at north-west of the subcontinent. There is no slightest mention of any ancient
tribe that dwelt on the eastern side of the Indus. However, it seems that, after crossing the Indus,
they came across the region they decided to settle was occupied by the Shudras, completely
unknown to them. Hence, the term Shudra appears nowhere in rest of the Rig Veda.
How Shudras accommodated the Vedics in their territory is a matter of speculation.
However, the refugees could not afford to be hostile with the hosting countrymen. The number
of the Vedics those found refuge here could not be much. Had they waged war and acquired their
territory they did not need to reside in the marshy and swampy land. There is no mention of such
war between Shudras and Vedics in any of the Vedic literature; so, the Shudras might have
accommodated them peacefully, and it may be the reason why they mentioned them in the
Purushasukta.
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 geography, they addressed
all those beyond the region of Shudras with the same term though later they later came to know
of many tribes or Jana those were settled elsewhere as well. (Hindustan 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 name of the entire subcontinent and religion.)
Here, we come to the solution of our main riddle, why the term Rajanya instead of
Kshatriya and why Shudra came to be the fourth division of the society! Let us solve it as under-
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 those 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.
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 the number those 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.
Purushasukta indicates that though the Shudras are mentioned as a part of the cosmic
society, they are not at all the part of the Vedic society. This is evident from the verse:
ा मणोऽ य मख
ु मासी बाहू राज यः कृतः
ऊ तद य य वै यः प "यां शू%ो अजायत
In this verse 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.
6. The Yajurveda declares that “शू%ाया*वस+
ृ येताम” (Shudra and Arya were
created.) [Yajurveda 14/30] Here also there is clear distinction between Arya (Vedic) and
Shudra. Both has been created separate and that the Shudras weren’t Aryas. Here we do not find
any contemptuous view about the Shudras. The only probable reason is at the time of composing
these hymns 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.
 8. The Vedics, for they were few in number, must have in need of the servants and maids
to assist them in farming, cattle tending and household work. They had to hire such people in
need from the surrounding Shudra community. From Brahmana literature, it appears, the Vedics
in India too preferred to delve in the villages. They avoided town. The menial force they hired
too must have been living in the separate settlements, besides the Vedic Villages.
9. Manusmruti, as mentioned in the last chapters, mentions of the Shudra kings and their
domains. Aitareya Brahmina mentions of the Shudra kings those ruled beyond Vindhya
Mountain. (AB 7.13-18) However Mahabharata mentions of the Shudra tribe together with
Abhiras. This would mean that by the time of early Manusmriti, the Vedics, for lack of their
knowledge, erroneously considered all other tribes as Shudras. By the time of Mahahabharata,
Vedics could make a distinction between other tribal or Jana names and Shudra tribe.
10. During this vast span of the time the term Rajanya was gradually dropped because the
original Rajanyas lost their identity in the course of the time. The Kshatriya emerged as the
second ranking class, though it had no Vedic sanction. The Kshatriyas, it clearly seems, were
later converts to the Vedic faith while it also became an epithet to address warriors of the local
populace, no matter if not converted.
11. From Shudra’s tribal kingdom, Vedic spread to promote their religion, gained royal
patronage of the Kuru’s and Panchal’s 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 Kuru-Panchal region to which they named “Brahmarshi Desa”. By this time,
Rajanya class had lost all the significance and Kshatriya became a synonym of valor and the
authority.
12. The Vedics, till Brahmana era, and new recruits to the Brahmin fold, continued with
the same Vedic life style. They preferred villages and took services from the needy of the
surrounding regions. They, it clearly seems, habitually continued the practice of calling them
Shudra. Rather Shudra seems to have become a general term to be used for the servant class.
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 Mr. Vi. Ka. Rajwade (Preface, RadhaMadhavaVilasachampu) states, because of
the close contacts with the menial class, rise in the cross illicit relations were an inevitable
outcome. They did not know initially how the social treatment be given to the children begotten
of such relationships. In the beginning they assigned Varna of father or mother to accommodate
these children in their religious fold. However, Vedic soon realized the harm it would cause to
their religious order and later started denouncing such relationships including cross marriages.
They started designating the children low social status by creating new castes depending on the
nature of the marriage or relation. They started enforcing many humiliating restrictions on them
in an order to maintain purity of their religion and social order. Rajwade further states that,
though Vedics did attempt to stop such illicit relations they proved futile.
 15. Smritis are evident of this fact that all the restrictions, those sound humiliating and
cruel sometimes, were on the class that was employed (or the persons gifted by the patrons) in
their service. Except in Sindh region there never was 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 sake of the 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 in their fold. Those all, who had
not embraced Vedic faith, were Shudras in their eyes. By this time it seems Shudra had become a
derogatory term to them to use against those all who despised or avoided their religion. The
foreign tribes and rulers too were Shudras to them as is evidenced by the Manusmriti and
Angavijja. We can understand how this could have happened. The Shudras (their working class
that could have been from any particular tribe.) daily association had caused tremendous harm to
their social structure and hence had became despicable and yet unavoidable to them!
17. The so-called Shudras, though not belonging to the Shudra tribe at all, enjoyed their
titles and traditional ways of the life with the faiths they had nourished from ages. It were 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 Mahabharata of Vena, Nahusha etc. tell us the fact
that they were not ready to accept Vedic faith and hence were killed by the Vedic Brahmins.
These may be fabricated stories, created in an order to establish their superiority, but they
suggest their hostilities towards the kings too, who did not accept or patronized their religion.
19. The term Kshatriya was offered to only those, who either had became Vedic or
patronized their religion. This way, we can find neither Solar nor 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-
Brahmina rivalries because the new recruits to that fold, especially kings, desired upper hand in
the social religious order. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishada goes to the extent by declaring the
Kshatriya born first and hence superior over Brahmin. It declares that the Brahmina should take
lower seat in the Rajasuya sacrifice. (BU 1.4)
From above, it will be clear that how Rajanya finds place in the Purushsukta because then
thee didn’t exist any Kshatriya in early Vedic community which travelled to India. They had
Rajanyas and a Rajan (probably in form of the Videgh Mathava), hence Rajanya became a part
of divine body. They made the Shudras a part of the society but not considered them as the part
of the Vedic order, because they were not Vedics. Rather 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 3-4 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.
And let us not forget that in later course there remained no initiated Kshatriya as the
Vedic religion. The concocted stories of Parashurama and Nanda were created to explain absence
of the Kshatriyas in Vedic religion. Why warriors abandoned Vedic religion is matter of
speculation now. May be that the hereditary nature of Varna system could not produce warriors
in every generation and non-Vedic warriors could have replaced such few initiated Kshatriyas
hence there remained no Kshatriyas in Vedic religion.
However, during Gupta era, it seems, Vedic preachers glorified Kshatriyadom, assigned
that status to the heroes of ancient past, no matter whether they were Vedic or not. Same time
they cunningly created the stories that, after annihilation of the Kshatriyas at the hands of
Parashurama, they were born to Kshatriya women by Brahmin seed. This was sheer supremacist
egotism that forced the Vedics to fabricate such illogical false stories.
The journey of the Vedic religion in India has to be closely analyzed to know the facts,
which was avoided or neglected by the earlier scholars. Unless the entry of the Vedicism 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.

Ref.:
1. The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great-As described by Arrien, Q Curtius,
Diodoros, Plutarch and Justin, edited by J. W. Mcrindle, page 354
2. Sudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order Down to Circa A.D. 600 by
RS Sharma.
3. Some Aspects of Early Indian Society, by Gian Chand Chauhan, page 54.
 8

Rise and fall of the “Shreni” system and the Castes!

All the students of Indian history are aware of the caste (occupational) guilds, called as
“Shreni” or “Nigam” those used to operate like today’s Chamber of Commerce or
trade/manufacturers associations. The members of these guilds would manufacture the specialty
articles, provided services and would conduct local, interstate and foreign trade. Nigams were
allowed to issue coins too, which abundantly have found in excavations from Gandhar region to
south India. Rather in Janpada era till Gupta era the issuance authority of the coins were the
guilds. Every guild had their own unique trademark associated with the symbol of their kingdom
(Janpada) or Gana’s. (Republics) Rather Shrenis were economic, socio-political dominant
segment of ancient India that survived till 12th century AD.
Let us first understand what Shrenis were. Every Shreni was an association of artisans,
merchants or traders. The traders engaged in the trade of specific articles or goods would form
their Shreni. People residing in the same area and engaged in same occupation naturally
cooperated with one another to achieve common goals. The Shreni of artisans existed for a
particular group of persons engaged in the same vocation to which today we call castes. There
are mention in various scriptures and various epigraphs that there were Shrenis of the artisans
like blacksmiths, goldsmiths, weavers, carpenters, bamboo-craftsmen, cobblers, makers of ivory
articles, metal workers, miners, Jaggary producers, potters and so many other professions.
The merchants and craftsmen needed allied services like transportation also. Goods used
to be transported by bullock carts, loaded on the backs of the oxen or donkeys or ships. The
destinations could be far off. For example Al Masudi informs us how goods were brought
to Cheul harbor loaded on thousands of oxen. Some transporters were transporting specialty
goods, such as salt, food grains, wood etc. Other services included security providers to the
inland caravans. Variety of service based occupations too emerged during this vast span of time
to meet the needs of the craftsmen and merchants. Such service providers too formed their own
guilds.
Romila Thapar informs us that "The ancient sources frequently refer to the system of
guilds which began in the early Buddhist period and continued through the Mauryan period.
….Topography aided their development, in as much as particular areas of a city were generally
inhabited by all tradesmen of a certain craft. Tradesmen's villages were also known, where one
particular craft manufacturing was centred, largely due to the easy availability of raw
material.”1
However the origin of the Guild system can be traced back in Indus times. The purpose
of the guild (Shreni) was to regulate the manufacturing and service standards, ethical codes for
the member artisans, prices of the crafts, quantity and quality, training to the artisans etc. which
could ensure smooth and timely production. The major duty of
the Adhayksh, Shreshthi or Jyetthaka (President of the Guild) to represent the guild in the Royal
Court for any grievances about taxation or any other matter related with the supplies. The Guild
would work as an assembly where specific problems related to their member artisans or business
could be discussed and solved. If any criminal/unethical elements regarding the service or
manufacture detected, the Guild could fine or banish the member artisan from the guild. The
verdicts of the Shreni could not be challenged even in the Royal courts. Every Shreni had a
respectable status in the society and in the Royal houses and normally no decision in connection
with the production or trade of the crafts would be taken without consulting Shreni’s.
Unlike later “Independent Village System”, till tenth century AD manufacturing was
almost centralized. This was ideal system to make mass productions of the articles or metals.
From Jataka we know about the villages of bamboo Craftsmen (Burud) and other such 36
villages dedicated to mass manufacturing of speciality goods. In Maharashtra, from copper plates
and rock inscriptions, we know about the villages of the Cobblers, Jaggary makers, Weavers etc.
The artisans, specialized in certain crafts, together would form Shreni, elect their President and
other office bearers to represent them to protect their professional interests and account keeping
as Craft guilds would provide loans or accept deposits from the member craftsmen and the
public. The Kings too have seen to deposit their money on interest with the guilds.
Rishabhadutta, Son-in-law of Nahapan, too had invested in two guilds of the weavers. Mandsor
(old Dashpura) inscription of Kumargupta (I) details the activities of the Guilds of those times.
According to inscription, the control of the manufacturing and trade was the domain of the
guilds.2
Merchant guilds would distribute the goods in local markets as well export in the other
regions or foreign countries. Craftsmen could sell their goods individually as well through guild.
Especially Merchant Guilds had the authority to mint the coins and issue them. All the coins we
have from the 4th Century BC onward were issued by the merchant Guilds and not the king.
Mauryan kings too didn't issue their coins. In a way Merchant and craft guilds were the backbone
of Indian economic stability and prosperity. There are instances where we find that the Guilds
even lent the King in the time of distress.
The post of the President (Shreshthi or Jyetthaka) of the guild was not hereditary. There
are instances where the Shreshthi’s have been removed by the member artisans or merchants.
Moreover, it seems that the mobility from one profession to another was frequent. It was
because the vocational training was made available by the Guilds to meet needs of the
additional workforce. The people who wanted to raise their economic status by entering into
more flourishing businesses could get easy training and thus entry. Even local artisans would
travel far afar in search for better opportunities. Depending on the demand, supplies of the raw
material or political unrest, there could be rise and fall in all or the selective occupations. The
craftsmen either would acquire other vocational training and change the profession by joining
another guild or try to sustain in wait of the better days.
Guilds would donate to the temples or Buddhist or Jain sanctuaries. Mathura
inscription (2nd century AD) refers to the two permanent endowments of 550 silver coins each
with two guilds to feed Brahmins and the poor from out of the interest money.
A Nashik Inscriptions (2nd century AD) records the endowment of 2000 karshapanas at
the rate of one percent (per month) with a weavers' guild for providing cloth to bhikshus and
1000 karshapanas at the rate of 0.75 percent (per month) with another weavers' guild for serving
light meals to them. Apart from these more epigraphs and inscriptions are mentioned as evidence
in this regard. In addition to this the guilds engaged in works of Charity as well. Guilds worked
to alleviate distress and undertook works of piety and charity as a matter of duty. They were
expected to use part of their profits for preservation and maintenance of assembly halls,
watersheds, shrines, tanks and gardens, as also for helping widows, the poor and destitute. We
have epigraphical proofs from Maharashtra that shows the craftsmen, like cobbler, Potter, Tillers
(Halik) etc. have donated in an individual capacity to build arches or water tanks for the
Buddhist caves. This would mean that the artisans were in prosperous financial conditions.
So much so was the power of the craft and merchant guilds that Kautilya advises King
that he should ensure that the heads of the guilds are not united. However, there is no evidence
that the guilds ever tried to capture the political power ever, but they maintained their dominant
position in the politics.
The position of the guild can be explained in different five stages doweling from 600
B.C. to 1200 A.D. in the perspective of socio-economic environment of ancient India.
I. Pre-Mouryan Period (600 – 320 B.C.)
II. Mouryan Period (320 -200 B.C.)
III. Post-Mouryan Period (200 B.C. -300 A.D.)
IV. Gupta Period (300 - 600 A.D.)
V. Early Medieval Period (600 – 1200 A.D.)
In these eras Guilds transformed, prospered, declined and vanished from the
socioeconomic scene. Roots of the Guild or Shreni system can be traced back to Indus era, for it
was a manufacturing and trading community. From the Indus seals we can guess that the seals
were meant to inform the origin and name of the goods and the price. The later coins
of Mahajanpada era too were incorporated certain information in symbolic form, such as, the
name of the mint, issuing guild etc. As Indus civilization declined, the guild structure of those
times too must have been disintegrated, becoming less powerful and local. Later we come across
Mahajanpada era or pre-Mauryan period when Guilds seem to have come into the prominence
and continued to be dominant till the end of Gupta period.
However, Post-Mouryan Period (200 B.C. -300 A.D.) saw a stiff rise in the Guild system
in Indian economic scenario. Santanu Mahapatra in his essay states that-
“ In this period north-western and western part of India controlled by the Indo-Greeks,
Sakas, Kushanas, and Parthians. The Mourya Empire disintegrated into a number of kingdoms
and tribal republics. This led to the slackening of state control over administration and economy
and the guilds assumed more power and influence that developed the closer commercial contact
with the Roman Empire. The discovery of the north-eastern monsoon, ascribed to Hippalus, in C.
46 A.D. gave impetus to mid-sea voyage, reducing the time of journey, minimizing the danger of
piracy and also obviating the need of the service of middlemen in Indo-Roman trade. Then
Indian mercantile activity also extended to central Asia and China. India was the main exporter
of the luxury items to the Roman Empire and earned huge profits. A large number of coins of
this period those of the Indo-Greeks, Sakas, Parthians, Kushanas, indigenous rulers and tribal
republics, cities and guilds have been found, some in hoards. It indicates a greater circulation
of money-economy and fairly advancement of trade and commerce, in which guilds must have
played a significant role. ‘Milindapanho’ (ed. Trenckner, 1880) refers to a number of
occupational guilds, their number being much greater than the early period.”3
In the Gupta era too, guilds, whether merchant or craft, remained prominent, but it seems
that the authority to issue coins was withdrawn. We do not find coins issued by the guilds during
Gupta era. Rather banking activities, accepting deposits and advancing loans, of the guilds
gradually shifted towards select temples. Though the artisans and merchants, along with farmers
were prosperous in this era too, foundation of the guilds started weakening. Post-Gupta era saw
the rise of feudal lords and various independent powers, thereby disturbing the political stability
that India had enjoyed even under foreign rule. Constant conflicts between regional rulers made
it difficult to smoothly operate the trade.
 Later, we find series of Islamic invasions in North-west India causing further political
instability and disturbance in trade and commerce. “As a consequence, people’s confidence in
these institutions must have waned. There prosperity and affluence an account of which they
commanded social status must also have diminished. Thus political upheaval exercised its
worst effect on the guild organization.” thus states P. C. Jain. 4
In a way Samantas or feudal lords gradually became more dominant for the need of the
time to fight out aggression. It diminished the earlier social status of the Guilds and their
economy. The natural imact on the members was obvious. The status’ of the occupations too
declined to some extent. Also the taxation structure was changed putting a heavy burden on the
craftsmen, merchants and so the guilds.
“Arthuna inscription of Parmara Camundaraja, dated 1079 A.D, also gives a list of taxes
levied on different trade and crafts. On the account of these taxes, the guilds of merchants and
traders were losing prosperity in the preceding centuries. This prevailed from their donations
which clearly give the impression that they were poorer. To keep up their old reputation of
donations and defraying there expenses views of a region federated themselves and pooled their
resources” so informs us Mr. Mahapatra.
By the tenth century AD the guild system witnessed tremendous decline in the trade,
which naturally hampered production of all the crafts. In a way it was like the situation of great
recession. Craftsmen soon started deserting their centralized workplaces. This was exact
situation which had caused decline of the Indus Civilization. But political instability, constant
wars within local rulers and Islamic aggressors were not the only reason behind disintegration of
the Guild system. Another series of natural calamities begun in 11th Century AD…and that
were famines.

FAMINES

From the records we know that the year 1033, 1042 and 1052 witnessed nationwide dire
famines causing complete disruption in trade and distress in the society. Series of regional
famines followed almost in every alternative 3 years. In the year 1325 -1351 great famine befell
in Gangetic regions and elsewhere including Maharashtra. The series of the famines continued
till 1630. Within this period India suffered heavily from over 250 famines.
The contemporary travelers and historians have given the piercing accounts of the
famines. For example Badouni states about the distressful situation he witnessed during 1555 AD
famine of North India. He says, “I witnessed men eating human corpses like cannibals. The sight
of the hungry faces was so pitiable that hardly one could bear it. …all the region had become a
desolate desert and no farmer was left behind to look after the farms.” Abul Fazal of Ain-E-
Akbari supports this with the statement that, “people were hell bent to eat each other!”
About 1596 famine of North-West Fazal states, “men ate men and all the streets were
littered with dead bodies.” A Dutch trader Van Twist, various saints like Tukaram and Ramdas
have described the calamities the nationwide great famine of 1630 brought on the people.
Morland states about south that, “…because of this famine a generation of Deccan remained
pauper.”
From the descriptions, though they are scanty, scattered and all the famines have not been
properly recorded, we can get a picture what people would have suffered from 11th century
onwards till 1630. People used to abandon their villages, towns in search of the food, would sell
their kids, properties and even the titles at throw away prices. Kavindra Parmanand in
“Shivbharata” states, “during the famine, food became costlier than gold.”In a way the social
structure too got disintegrated because of constant onslaught of the nature. 5
A grave impact on the economic and social structure was inevitable. The craft guilds and
merchant guilds disintegrated and vanished completely under the Islamic rule and unstable grave
climatic conditions. Inland trade became more risky because many tribes and even the earlier
service-providing communities turned to robberies. The constant onslaught of the famines
reduced the farmers to the pauper state. Naturally demand to the artisan’s crafts too drastically
declined. The farmers, artisans and service providers, those had enjoyed prosperity during the
golden era for more than 1500 years, gradually became destitute and helpless.
Let us not forget here that the vocation means caste. Earlier caste mobility was easy as
there were tremendous opportunities and the Guilds were their strong support. With new
innovations or new inventions, new castes (vocations) would emerge and the guilds too used to
be formed to safeguard their interests. The economy decides social structure and its culture. The
economic prospe rity provides more freedom to the people. Earlier Guilds used to be in a
commanding position in the political system. Artisans and service providers of every kind
enjoyed a reputation since they were well-off, rich and backbone of the prosperous economy. But
with changing political and economic scenario, they too lost their glory.
Unfortunately, none of the scholar has taken into the consideration the significance of the
decline and fall of the Guild (Shreni) system while proposing their theories on the Caste system.
They have wrongly considered that the rigid, birth-based caste system is in existence and
practice since antiquity. It was not the case. No scholar ever bothered to look into the social and
economic history of India while theorizing origins of the caste system; hence it didn’t occur to
them that the hereditary nature of the caste system is a product of drastically changed economic
and political scenario which remained unchanged for centuries. The Caste system was not
imposed on them by some authority. It was not the outcome of the sense of maintaining purity of
the blood. People have innate tendency to find new ways of survival and to adjust with the
changed circumstances, no matter how grave they are! Indians, too, gradually found their unique
way of survival and when they found in later course that there was no hope left to see old
prosperous days again or any change in the circumstances, they made their new system
permanent. Norms and ethics of the life were rewritten.
We will discuss in the next chapter how did this transformation took place and how it
started becoming unjust, discriminating and vulgar as we experience it even today!

*
Ref:-
1. Ashoka and the Decline of the Mauryas by Romila Thapar, Oxford University Press, New
Delhi, p. 73.
2. 1. Itihas : Prachin Kal (Vol.1), Maharashtra State Gazetteer, Editor-Dr. Arunchandra
Pathak, page 523-24
3. GUILD, THE INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMIC BASE OF ANCIENT INDIA BY SANTANU
MAHAPATRA, published in International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary
Research, Vol.1, Issue 9, September 2012
4. Ibid
5. Marathe Ani Maharashtra, A. R. Kulkarni, Diomond Publications, 2007.
 8. Medieval India and the Caste System

As we discussed in an earlier chapter, the rise, decline and fall of the Shreni (Guild)
system echo the economic ups, down and demise of an economic order that once upon a time had
made India “Golden Sparrow”. Gupta era is highly praised by Indian Historians, but they hardly
have realized that it was Gupta era that started bungling up the economic strength of
the Shreni’s, whether craftsmen or Trader, by transferring the important financial authority from
guilds to the Vaishnavait temples. Gupta kings were ardent supporters of Vedic religion. An
offshoot of Vedic religion, Vaishnavait cult flourished during that era, many temples were
erected, though Vedic religion originally was not idolatrous. Vishnu too, was adorned with an
entirely new character erasing his original Rig Vedic character as a subordinate to Indra. Laxmi
is not his consort in Rig Veda, rather he has none, and still she was associated with him. Vishnu
and Laxmi suddenly became the deities of the wealth. So the flow of the wealth was diverted
towards the temples and suddenly the guilds became just the creators of the wealth, but
management of the wealth no more left with them.
The change in the religious priorities of the Gupta dynasty made a heavy social impact.
Because Vedics received special status during this era, many non-vedics started rushing to this
religion to get accommodated with it to earn reputation. G. S. Ghurye observes from the copper-
plate inscriptions of north to south that fifth century onwards there is eruption of many new
Brahmin Gotras those were absent from contemporary religious books those lists authentic
Gotras. Out of 124 Gotras, 77 Gotras were absent in nearest regions whereas only 12 Gotras like
Kashyap, Bharadvaj were in widest currency. Many Gotras clearly indicate their Tribal origin.
Being many Gotras bogus, it would suggest that many people were self-declared Brahmins to get
benefitted from the Royal patronages. Change in social tendency shows that the influence of
Vedic religion was on rise.1
The process that begun in Gupta era was largely continued by the succeeding dynasties.
Though Hindu religion still on helm, the social atmosphere open cherishing the equality granted
by the Tantras (Agamas)!
The attempts of the Vedic to establish supremacy with help of the ruling families didn’t
go unopposed. It is not a surprise that the masters of the Tantra started coming forward to write
down Tantric treaties to oppose the Vedic onslaught. Hundreds of the tantric sects emerged from
fifth century onwards till 17th century propagating the theory of the equality.
Let us not forget here that the status of economy is directly related to the degree of the
liberty that any society is granted with. The Vedic doctrine denies equality to men and women. It
prohibits social openness by creating religious restrictions. Though this doctrine naturally was
pleasant to the rulers, no matter to which religion they belonged, the social atmosphere gradually
changed to adjust with the new environment. However, the Hindu resistance Vedics had to
encounter made it difficult to them to establish their complete supremacy over Indian society.
Tenth century onwards the Vedics used different tactics to mitigate opposition.
Dr. Sudhakar Deshmukh states clearly in this regard that, “When any society starts
feeling insecure it turns to the fundamentalism. Tenth century onwards till 14th-15th century
adherents of the Vedic religion started to revive the codes, sacrificial rituals, Vedas and
Smritis….many commentaries were written on the Vedic Smritis which is referred as Nibandha
era….journey of these commentators was towards fundamentalism that effected in extinction of
the equality and freedom that was brought by the Tantras and Natha sect.” 1 (Translation mine)
This would mean that the Hindus were initially succeeded in encountering the onslaught
of Vedic doctrine. However, during Gupta era, the Vedics had been successful in making new
Vedicized editions of not only ancient epics and Puranas, but they had posed claims over many
ancient philosophies with interpolations those were had Tantra origin. SaMkhya philosophy, for
example, is one which clearly has pre-Vedic origin which was added to the Vedic Darshanas.
Upanisadas, those in reality were anti-Vedic too got merged with Vedic philosophies though the
Upanisada philosophy is against the Vedic tradition.
The Vedics succeeded in doing so during Gupta era when none could oppose them as the
Emperor had patronized the Vedics. The interpolated works came to the rescue of the Vedics
after tenth century to corrupt minds of the Hindus. The revivalist era of the Vedics begins in
tenth century when the society was going through the political and economic crisis. May be this
is a reason why the attempts of the Vedics went unopposed this time.
We have seen how later on the rise of feudal powers and political upheavals gradually
brought limitations on the inland trade and production. The series of foreign invasions, their
discriminatory rule and a series of famines was the final blow on the indigenous economic
system. It collapsed. There were no saviors. Islamic rulers imposed heavy duties on the foreign
trade on non-Muslim craftsmen and traders called ushr which forced many Hindu traders in
winding up foreign operations as well. From the seventh century onward overseas trade was
usurped by the sea-pirate Arabs and other Muslim powers. Al Masudi in his "Meadows of Gold"
reports he had seen over ten thousand Muslim traders settled at the Cheul port of Konkan.
Similar conditions must have been across the ports of western and eastern coasts.
When the centralized production centers were disintegrated, craftsmen started
abandoning them. When one economic system collapses, for want of survival people get engaged
in building a new order. Agriculture, the backbone of the economy, too, was devastated, limiting
creation of the wealth. The great fall in local demands eventually crippled the craftsmen, those
used mass-produce the articles of utility and fashion. The condition of the service providers must
be more pitiable.
This situation, pathetic though, forced the people to change previous social modality.
Overall internal functioning, social relationships and ways of survival had to be adjusted with the
new situation. Albeit, Indians invented a new order to survive through those odds. “Self reliant
Village system” emerged gradually by tenth century and became permanent by the twelfth
century. Though there are no written records available on emergence of this system and its exact
time, we can infer from the circumstantial evidences those must have led the people to find new
way of the life. Let us not forget that it is economy that commands the social orders. How it
could have happened? We can infer from the following circumstances.
1. In the absence of the sufficient demand, naturally, production too suffers. Supplies
cannot be more than the demand as the economy cannot absorb surplus productions. Under such
circumstances, no profession can expect any kind of competition from new entrants. Hence
mobility from one to another profession becomes highly difficult for the resistance from the
people already engaged in the same profession. We can find the same thing happening in modern
era too everywhere where doors are closed to the new entrants when economy suffers from the
recession.
2. In the absence of regional or national marketplaces and the trade channels, the
production becomes localized and need-based.
 3. Disintegration, separation and Localization of the craftsmen, traders and service
providers were inevitable making them village oriented, where they could meet local needs. A
village could not absorb excessive craftsmen and service providers for their limited demand.
Farmers (whether landlords or the tenants) still were the major component of the buyers, but
were in a distressful economic condition, since they too were suffering from the droughts and
political upheavals.
4. For survival, a new professional relationship came to be established, called
as “Balute” or “jajmani” system. In this system seller had no bargaining power whatsoever or
right to decide the price of his products or services. However, his survival was assured. Suddenly
professions became of secondary importance; some lost their requirement making them solely
dependent on the mercy of the villages, accepted to do the menial work as farm laborers, tenants
or even undertook filthy jobs.
5. Under the circumstances the status of the every profession solely depended on the
needs of the people and what they were paid in return for their services. The disparity in the
revenue of the every profession, though required same labor and skills, brought social inequality
and dissatisfaction among the professions.
6. The professional guilds appeared in a new form, called as Jati Panchayat(Caste
assembly) that started governing the professional communities by designing new professional
ethics, restricting other caste men to enter their profession and vice versa, and by making their
own caste-men outcast or enforce excommunication, if the codes of the caste were broken. In a
way the guilds started interfering in the ethical and personal conduct of the people belonging to
their caste (profession) and gradually it seems it became more tyrant and unjust. But it was
accepted for the basic need to stop competition, protect their rights, survive and solve
professional issues.
7. Since, it became almost impossible to enter another profession, it was but natural
that the castes became birth based and rigid. Also, since there was no more competition there
was no need to be innovative. Anyway, revenue would remain the same. India was thrown into
an abyss of Dark Age because the time killed their zeal of learning to become more productive
and innovative. In a way people’s life and horizons got restricted to the villages making them
almost careless about the rulers. It is important to note that the fall of Yadava dynasty, that ruled
over 300 years in Maharashtra, do not reflect at all in the Saint literature of 13-14th century. In a
way it is miraculous, but is a fact.
8. The circumstances made castes a close ended loop, where mobility was not possible
as the circumstances did not allow it to happen. There were absolutely no chances to break the
caste barriers to breath in the free atmosphere and choose a profession of individual choice. The
acquired skills from the past tradition were transferred to the next generations. Barring a few
professions, those still had been in demand, too, become stern enough not to allow new entrants.
It is not that the Brahmins closed their doors against others first which was imitated by the
others, as Dr. Ambedkar opines. The fact is the process of closing the doors against others had its
roots in the changed political and economic scenario. The people could not afford to be liberal
when the survival had become of prime importance. It had no religious relevance. It is
impossible that some authority could enforce such commands that would assassinate the sense of
the human freedom and the people accept them unopposed. It is against human nature.
This was how the caste and sub-caste structure became permanent. Financially, barring a
few, all castes became almost pauper. Self-reliant village system sounds good even to some
today, but it was the system people designed to survive through hard times. It killed basic human
instinct of competition and progress through it.
This situation occurred between the tenth to the twelfth century AD and became stratified
by the thirteenth century to become unjust and cruel. The role of the Vedic Brahmins was not in
making that system, but in regulating it as priests/ministers of the feudal lords and kings.
Brahmins or the rulers never interfered in the decisions given by the Caste Assemblies. Even the
verdicts of the Gotsabha’s (Brahmin caste assembly) were hardly declined by the rulers. In fact,
every caste assembly, old guild system in new form, too, remained defacto ruler of the profession
(caste) in new order too!
It is a common experience of the mankind that the people become more fatalists in the
time of the distress. Recently, in USA, in 2008, during the recession, it was observed that the
attendance in the Churches had phenomenally risen. Indians, suffering for over a period of
couple of the centuries, was natural to become more Destiny-Centric and thus believing in divine
command.
This broke the backbone of original Indian free will. So many new deities emerged
during this vast span of the time. Various new rituals too were introduced by the acting priests,
alien to Hindu religion, Brahmins, for their own benefit. In Royal courts and with feudal lords
they formed a coalition that helped them to preach Vedic supremacy. They captured many
Shaivait shrines claiming them to be Vaishnavait. A fine example is of Vitthala of Pandharpur.
They didn’t stop here. The new philosophy of “Karmavipaka. Siddhanta” got
prominence in this era. This theory proposed that the distresses of present life were outcome of
the sins committed in the past birth. This Vedic doctrine was vehemently proposed and
propagated, making the people more religious and slavish to the inevitability of the
destiny. Many Saints too fell to this fatal doctrine and echoed the same in their writings. The
acceptance of the inevitable destiny was dangerous to the society, but Vedics found opportunities
in it. They invented many selfish ritualistic remedies those people followed almost blindly in a
hope of ultimate salvation or better next life. The people gradually forgot the distinction between
Vedic and Hindu religion as Vedas were held as the supreme authority and a sacrosanct scripture
though the Hindus had no authority even to listen to it. Vaishnavait cult performed a major role
in diluting the religious demarcations and strengthening the Vedic authority over Hindu minds.
The Tantras were defamed so much so that hardly people could acknowledge any association
with them. Though the constructions of the temples, methods of worship and the festivals
remained moreover Tantra based, the concocted fraudulent mythical stories blurred the original
nature of the Hindu gods and festivals. The Vedic elements penetrated Hindu religion because of
the pathetic situation the society was fallen in.
We have many instances in the medieval history, how the Vedic doctrine of inequality
had started poisoning the peoples mind. Though they didn’t create birth based caste system, they
provided pseudo-divine reasoning for its brutal existence. Hemadri Pundit, a Minister of
Yadavas, authored Chaturvarga Chintamani in which over 2500 religious rituals was listed, most
of which never existed before.
The Vedicism and the Vedic Brahmins become an evil force as they misused the religious
authorities, mostly granted or approved by the ignorant rulers, over the people those never
belonged to their religion. The Fraudulent nature that persisted in them since the Gupta era, took
disadvantage of the changed circumstances. They used every tool to impose their supremacy that
made their life easier. Even they corrupted the religious scriptures. Rather, they imbibed the
Vedic divine order theory in the minds of the distressed people during this era. The social
inequality, they tried to connect with the Vedic ladder-like social order. Varna system thus
started plaguing Hindu’s and they too started to connect, like Varna system, their superiority
over some while inferior to another with their natural social status of the time.
This situation created such a complex relationship between the castes and sub-castes that
even acceptance or rejection of food or even water from other castes became a preordained
custom. The inter-caste marriages became almost rare, and if conducted the families of the
concerned couple were thrown away from the castes or punished heavily. The fear of becoming
outcaste is so much so in the some castes that they cannot overthrow the verdicts of their caste
assemblies, though the constitutional laws are very much in existence to protect them.
In fact marital system that enforced marriage within the caste began with a practical solution in
ancient times. But it was not mandatory. But later it became a sacrosanct custom that abided
everybody by that.
These customs were made and enforced by the caste assemblies. Hence, it can be said
that the tyranny of the caste assemblies too were responsible for the tightening of the caste-
grip. Caste assemblies enjoyed a status of defacto ruler of the caste because their decision was
final and was honored by the royal courts as well. We have many such instances from Shivaji till
Peshva era that has been recorded by the representatives of the political authorities. To Vedics,
there were religious authorities located at Paithan, Kashi, Kanchi and elsewhere those decided
into the matter of their Varna. Kings had no role in it. Because of the sheer negligence of the
political powers they didn’t interfere at all in the caste system and the brutalities exerted by the
caste assemblies.
Though it had inherent limitations, the movements against the evils of the caste system
begun to break the caste barriers by the saints in 12th century AD. However, the movement
remained in the enclosure of the spirituality. It didn’t address to the underlying reasons of the
caste system. Moreover Hindu saints preferred to obey the Vedic philosophical doctrine and its
dominance. Except for Basaveshvar, we do not find any saint challenging Vedas and Varna
system. Rather by then everyone has considered Vedics too were Hindu. They weren’t allowed
access to the Vedic scripts and hence they failed to know that the Vedic is a different, alien
religion. But this very restriction should have raised doubts in their mind that if they both
belonged to the same religion, why they be prohibited from reading or hearing the holy Vedic
scriptures.
To challenge the caste system it was essential to overthrow the yoke of Vedic dominance
and doctrine of birth-based inequality. Though Hindu followed their ancient religion in this era
too, the Vedic philosophy had penetrated into the minds of the people through the corrupted
Puranic tales and new myths. Very few saints realized this and tried to delink Hindu religion
from the Vedic dominance, but ultimately failed to do so. The people became destiny-centric and
silently suffered with a hope that in next birth they will attain something better than the present
life.
No any new social theory that could change the overall society for good could emerge as
the social leadership went in the hands of the saints those propagated salvation through devotion.
They moreover taught to accept the life as it is without challenging the inevitable destiny. This
has been a very tragic part of India’s social history.
Not that Tantras, backbone of the Hindu philosophy, were silent in this era. There were
many sects those survived during this era. New treaties were being written from north to south,
propagating the doctrine of equality. However the Vedic force was so much so dominant that
they too had to somehow show the Vedic sanction to their writing, no matter how anti-Vedic it
were.
This way, Indian philosophical fabric got so much so polluted that it almost became
impossible to separate Vedic and non-Vedic streams from medieval literature. This provided
strength to the modern scholars in a bold and fictitious claim that the Vedas were ultimate source
of the Hindu religion. They failed to analyze the independent philosophical and ritualistic origins
of both the religions.
However, we find clearly from the medieval history that though the supreme position of
the Vedas, though none of the Hindu knew what was in it, was almost accepted by the people,
the Vedic codes weren’t followed by the people. For example, Ahilyabai Holkar, a widowed
woman, that too belonging to non-Vedic stratum, couldn’t have come into the power during
reign of a Brahmin Peshva, had Manusmriti been a code meant for Hindus. There existed proper
awareness among all for whom the code was intended and for whom not!
However, because of the overall economic and political conditions the caste system was
almost stratified. There was a mobility, but in very limited sense. The castes too became an
enclosed unites barring marriages outside the groups. In fact the social mobility came to an end
with the end of occupational mobility. The caste prides, even in the days of extreme poverty,
became prominent because this was the only way to maintain their unity. In this process almost
every caste started finding their mythological origin, many wrote down their Purana as well!
Sense of the purity and pollution that had originated in Vedic religion entered the Hindu castes.
The caste hierarchies got defined in every region to decide the relationship between the castes.
This happened gradually. During this era some castes became untouchable. We do not yet
know the origins of the untouchablity though we can trace its source in Vedic literature where
some, now non-existent, castes has been declared untouchable. And yet we have no authentic
source to explain why some existing castes became suddenly untouchable though it couldn’t
have been the case during first millennium. We need to explore the social history more to reach
the roots of untouchability.
The original spirit of the Indian occupational class was lost. They had enclosed
themselves in the ruthless enclosures of the castes, as it was only the caste which could give
them sense of security. This is why the caste councils could become superior. They were
instrumental in elevating the caste prides. Almost every caste had its unwritten code that was
enforced on the caste members. The extreme degree of uncertainty in the life and the hopeless
future shadowed down their mentality, so much so that, we do not find any spectacular
inventions happening in India during this time. We have the abundant philosophies of this era
those are loaded with spirituality but what we do not have is any literature that could provide
alternative doctrine to rise up from the present macabre mess they were fallen in!
Then came the British Raj that created further complications, so much so that, forget
solving, we are still unable to understand them!

Ref:

1. Madhyayugin Dharmasankalpanancha Vikas: Tantra, Yoga ani Bhakti by Dr. Sudhakar

Deshmukh, page 282.
2. Caste and Race in India by G. S. Ghurye.
 9

Impact of British Raj on the Caste System!

We have seen that the medieval India witnessed the drastic change in Indian social order.
Hereditary, closed social regrouping based on the professions became inevitable for the want of
the survival. Onslaughts of the ever-changing socio-political conditions did continue till the rise
of the British Raj. Entire populace suffered because of the raids of the warlords and freebooters
in quest of recovering ransoms or one fourth part of the duties from the common people, if not
paid by the local rulers. India witnessed most of the cities and villages fortified during this era to
protect themselves from the constant raids. No part of the country experienced stability in post-
Aurangzeb era, too. This further triggered financial debacles and thus caused, as an inevitable
result, tightening of the caste ties as caste became an only shield that provided a sense of security
and only source of livelihood while facing the tough situations in the times of anarchy.
Also, the relations between the different castes were reconsolidated; the hierarchy was
redefined and strictly practiced. Even the strict rules about sharing food and drinks with other
castes too came in the force. Society already had become mostly endogamous and child marriage
had become a regular custom. In the times of continuous crisis, many social evils do pop up.
People become more orthodox and destiny-centric. This era saw the uprising of Vedic religion in
the new form, taking rein of religious authority over Hindu’s in their hands, propagating Vedic
doctrine in more corrupt form. In lack of the stability and in the quest of the survival people kept
on contracting in the cocoon of the self-created defenses. This led to total disharmony and strife
among the various castes.
We find many such caste dispute cases viciously fought in the Peshva and other rulers
courts. It was a weak attempt to restore the sense of the lost dignity through maintaining minimal
social and even religious rights those could be afforded by the system to restore or maintain the
dignity. This way mentality of the people became caste-centric, breaking the inherent sense of
unity forever.
In short, during this period caste became a distinct group with own assigned status and
internal code of the conduct and values. For livelihood, they had nothing else than the hereditary
professions, though uncertain and mostly unable to feed them properly. For mental solace they
had some or other religious cult to follow. For the sense of security, they nourished their caste
pride and caste unity.
No doubt there were some rulers those encouraged businesses. Ahilyabai Holkar and
Tipu Sultan are fine examples of this. Some Mughal emperors too tried to restore business
activity to some extent. But it proved insufficient to bring back the lost glory. The wealth was
mostly accumulated by the landlords and the rulers. The unjust economic divide created social
imbalance and it continued as there was no proper guiding force.
 The British had set their foot on the Indian soil to make profits through the trade. Most of
the Indian natural resources had remained unexploited for a long period because of the socio-
economic and political reasons. Indian economics already had become directionless and social
situation chaotic.
The British were always fascinated as well intrigued with the Indian social system that
they never had come across in other countries they ruled or traded with. The British scholars,
especially ethnologists, perception about the caste system was marred by their class and race
theories and they tried to connect the both, which ultimately led to the wrong policies that further
severely harmed the overall social system.
“One of the main tools used in the British attempt to understand the Indian population
was the census. Attempts were made as early as the beginning of the 19th century to estimate
populations in various regions of the country but these, as earlier noted, were
methodologically flawed and led to grossly erroneous conclusions. It was not until 1872 that a
planned comprehensive census was attempted. This was done under the direction of Henry
Beverely, Inspector General of Registration in Bengal. The primary purpose given for the
taking of the census, that of governmental preparedness to deal with disaster situations, was
both laudable and logical. However, the census went well beyond counting heads or even
enquiring into sex ratios or general living conditions. Among the many questions were
enquiries regarding nationality, race, tribe, religion and caste.” States Kevin Hobson in
“Ethnographic Mapping and the Construction of the British Census in India.”
The major development that heavily impacted the caste system was the formulation of the
Hindu Code based on the Vedic Smrities. Warren Hastings, in 1772, took initiative in
formulation of Hindu and Muslim laws that completed its first phase in 1864. Hastings hired 11
Brahmin Pundits to get Hindu code written, but he did not know that the Vedic Smrities never
regulated the Hindu life. The Pundits, taking advantage of the situation widened the application
of the Vedic laws, sometimes by misinterpreting and sometimes to please their masters, making
them applicable to all Hindus who, so far, were regulated by their own codes. Thus, British
influence on the fluid social structure of India can in large part be characterized as a
solidification of the privileges of the Hindu caste system through the influence of the Vedic
scholars by whom the British were advised in the formation of their laws. The process of making
Hindu laws by British ended in 1947.
“The Sanskrit pandits hired to translate and sanction this new interpretation of
customary laws created a curious Anglo-Brahmanical hybrid. The resulting document, printed in
London under the title, A Code of Gentoo Laws, or, Ordinations of the Pandits, was a made-to-
order text, in which the pandits dutifully followed the demands made by their paymasters.” Thus
states Madhu Kishvar in article ‘From Manusmriti to Madhusmriti : Flagellating a Mythical
Enemy’
The British could not make distinction between Hindu and Vedic laws because they had
taken fancy with the Sanskrit, thinking it an ancient mother language from which modern Indo-
European languages evolved. Naturally they valued the Vedas most thinking that the Hinduism
finds its source in Vedas. William Jones went on translating Manusmriti as he suspected that the
Sanskrit Pundits those were hired did their job dishonestly. However, lot of Vedic literature
found Vedic tongue during this era of Aryan euphoria. This changed the total perspective of the
people while looking back at the socio-religious history of India.
The major problem with those scholars was they mixed two independent religions while
offering supremacy to the Vedic Brahmins over Hindus. Mostly British scholars had to hire local
Sanskrit Pundits while making the translations and interpretations. The enthusiastic Brahmins
conveniently did hide the major sources of Hindu religion, especially the Tantras and Agamas.
This is the reason the Western scholars hardly touched that literature excepting passing
references. British became instrumental in establishing the Vedic supremacy, not only with
applauding the Vedic literature, but gave a special position being decedents of the Vedic Aryans.
The modern educated Vedic and Hindu elite in India who had the English language as
source were systematically brainwashed into believing that the Vedas were the only source of
their religion and that the Aryan Invasion really did happen to enslave the aboriginal masses.
They had no alternative sources to verify these big claims. This created a rift between the
aboriginals and Brahmins. It did not occur to any scholar that if there was a rift it was religious in
nature. They even forgot to ask the question why the deities they worship are absent from the
Vedas. They did not try to find why there are ritualistic differences if the religion is one and the
same. The explanations given by the Vedic scholars were mutely accepted. For example it was
imbibed that the victorious Aryans accommodated some of the Gods worshipped by the
aboriginals in their assimilation process and surprisingly this lame explanation went
unchallenged.
The social reformist movement of that era was divided in two forces, i.e. Brahmin-non-
Brahmin. The Brahmin thinkers were in an attempt of reviving Vedicism in modern perspective,
hence B. G. Tilak called revivalist to Prarthana Samaj and Ranade becase they had proposed to
‘revive’ the Vedic life and religion! Revivalism of the Brahmins led to either suppression of
various pluralistic traits or modified them to suit the Vedic religion. Herein, the Arya Samaj
attempted to incorporate the lower caste groups within the fold of Vedic Aryan Hinduism, thus
states Parimala V Rao in her book “Foundations of Tilak’s Nationalism”
This was the case almost everywhere in India as the Brahmin societies, barring few, were
in an attempt to revive Vedic religion and Tilak was no exception.
The Non-Brahmins too revolted against the Brahmanical tyranny. The movement was led
by Mahatma Phule and other Hindu caste leaders. However the nature of this movement was
anti-Brahmin denouncing their superiority and rejecting their gods! In fact it didn’t dawn upon
them that the gods they are rejecting were originally belonged to them. They failed to notice the
religious distinction and hence could not challenge the Brahmanical supremacy to get desired
effect. They blamed Brahmins for creation of the caste system. This was sad outcome of the
Aryan Invasion Theory.
However, the Vedic knew all the time which religion they belonged to and hence were in
an attempt of reviving Vedic religion.
 The British Raj thus harmed the society as they had given high status in their
administration and free hand to use the Aryan theory. The further damage it did that all the
scholars of early twentieth century had to use only Vedic sources to find their history! They
came across many interpolations but did not analyze the purpose behind it. This way, the
mentality of the Hindus became Vedic-centric and even now it remains a reality.
British introduced many social reforms. The census they conducted was an attempt to
understand the people they were ruling on, however, it made a further division in the Indian
society on racial (ethnic) basis. It was a blunder, but most of the ethnologists prepared their
surveys based on head measurements, classifying them in six different categories. The Purity of
Aryan blood, they thought, was preserved by the Brahmins of North India. This elevated the
Brahmanical racial ego. Many castes too jumped in a rat race to prove or claim how they
belonged to the Aryan race or higher social status in Vedic order to add to the social strife.
Since all the castes were classified in some or other racial or ethnic group, the caste
stratification in a way became permanent. The intellectual abilities too were defined on the
baseless hypothesis of ethnology. The Purity of the blood was never ever was the foundation of
the religious or caste system, but gradually it too became a source of pride that helped Vedics to
feel close to the ruling British as they too were Aryan! To them, as Aryan Invasion Theory
reached to the height of the popularity, non-elite, Hindu masses were the one to whom they had
enslaved in the ancient past. This was racial divide over religious and caste divide that gave a
new dimension to the caste struggle. The non-Aryan, Dravidian aboriginal movement erupted to
counter Aryan supremacist theory that till this date continues.
The British raj ended the little bit mobility that previous system afforded. The castes
reconsolidated under influence of the religious laws and the socio-racial theories. The census
made their mentioned castes concrete though many castes mentioned by the illiterate people in
the first and following censuses were incorrect. The British further classified the castes, useful
for administration, army, petty services and the troublesome castes or tribes those possibly could
rebel. Many such castes and tribes were declared criminal, treating them inhumanly and isolating
them by imposing many severe restrictions on their lives. The stigma that was stamped on them
in British era is not yet sufficiently erased.
This was another churning in the society. It again redefined the socio-political status’ of
various castes. It forced many castes to change their internal rules while fundamentally
transforming their previous status’. While these happenings were reshaping their mindsets, what
was their temporal condition?

Industrialization

Wake of industrialization era did further damage to the local economy whatever was left
of it. British saw India as a supplier of the raw material and consumer of the finished goods,
produced back home in their factories. India never ever was in a situation to learn from the West
the modern technologies and deploy them for their own benefit. The traditional technologies by
then had become mostly outdated. Many people shifted to the cities to work in factories as
laborers. Many turned to the work for Railway tracks and other infrastructure work. Indian
occupational businesses like weaving had suffered from the cheap textile imports. India became
mere exporter of the raw materials. The export kept growing from 89 million dollars (1850) to
1178 million dollars by 1950, while export of the finished product was as good as zero.
British avoided modernizing traditional occupations in technology and management. The
education that they provided was to create clerical workforce, not technical force. “Even in the
Bombay textile industry, where most of the capital was Indian, 28 per cent of the managerial and
supervisory staff were British in 1925 (42 per cent in 1895) and the British component was even
bigger in more complex industries.” States Angus Maddison in his work “The Economic and
Social Impact of Colonial Rule in India”(1971).
This way Indian workforce never achieved an ability to learn the new technologies to
compete and increase productivity. The independent village system thus could not get redundant
to give way to the people spread their wings in the modern atmosphere. Local economic
conditions were further deteriorated with the shrinking, even local, market places. British never
preferred to create industrial plants or development banks. They even never gave any preference
to the local industries while allotting the major contracts.
Though some social reforms were introduced by British law and indigenous social
activists tried their best to eradicate caste system, the root cause, poverty, remained intact or
rather worsened. The basic principles of the economics and its impact on the social order
remained totally neglected even by the social reformers. Hence, it became almost impossible to
break the caste ties in the new age too, as it did not reach to them. Social reformers never gave
preference to promote technical education amongst Indian populace. By the time of
independence large scale industries could employ less than 3% of the population whereas about
1.2 crore population was engaged in traditional occupational small scale industries and 16 crore
people were the labors. Rest of the population sustained somehow on the agriculture.
The British prejudicial preferences towards the castes, their census’, haphazard
classifications did so much so harm to the caste system that even in the modern era, people have
remained stuck with the caste barriers. The people engaged in government jobs were from the so-
called upper caste or those rose to the upper class by changing the tastes suitable to the British
culture. But the populace that was far away from the main stream of the economy suffered
heavily from the negligence as they never got encouragement to promote their products among
the new elite class. This caused further divide in the society. At one hand the Indian finances
were siphoned out abroad, making poor the poorer, thus making new investments impossible.
This was, in a way third setback to the Indian communities. They could not break the
caste ties because they never got any economically liberal atmosphere since 11th century. The
grave competition among themselves grew to the level that added to the caste base hatred. Even
after independence the situation largely remained the same with no major economic reforms. It
never occurred to the socialist mindsets that without economic reforms there hardly is any scope
to the social reforms. The previous chapters on the caste system have shown in detail, how, from
 a very flexible occupational system gradually turned to the rigid and unjust caste system because
of the drastic changes in economic order of the country.
The social dimensions drastically changed by the British Raj. The Vedic not only
maintained their higher status but they got it elevated. The modern Vedic scholars through their
writing imbibed on the masses that the Vedic were the people who created everything that
shaped Indian culture. The great contribution of the Hindus, their antiquity went unnoticed by
them. This created a kind of inferiority complex in the minds of the Hindus. Until they search for
their own rootsindependently they will never come to know their glorious past. The caste system
was occupation-based social order that was flexible. The flexibility have done miracles in the
past. They had their numerous kings and nobles, dramatists, epical poets and philosophers. What
most of the literature comes forth with Vedic origin label, if carefully read, one can easily notice
their non-Vedic origin.
Whether we succeed in caste eradication or not, we have to endeavor to understand its
true nature and respect all the castes on equal footing because they all together have built this
nation!

The riddle of the origins of the Indian caste system and its true nature remained unsolved
because erroneously the scholars tried to find its source in Vedic system. The theories so far
proposed mostly are descriptive in nature without touching the socio-economic aspects in
genesis and development of the castes. They failed to understand that the Caste and Varna
systems are independent concepts belonging to the distinct religions thus created a great
confusion. Hindu and Vedic religions are independent bodies those have very little or nothing in
common. The Author explains diligently what circumstances forced changing an occupation-
oriented flexible system into a rigid, compartmentalized unjust caste system during the
medieval era.

Mr. Sonawani in this book throws a glaring light on the historical facts of the castes extensively
using the social, religious and political history of India. This book will provide a new insight on
the enigmatic caste system!

View publication stats