WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS ?
______________________________________________________________
Inscribed to the Memory of
MAHATMA JOTIBA FULE (1827—1890)
The Greatest Shudra of Modern India who
made the lower classes of Hindus conscious of their slavery to the higher
classes and who preached the gospel that for India social democracy was more
vital than independence from foreign rule.
WHO WERE
THE SHUDRAS?
How they came to be the
Fourth Varna in the
Indo-Aryan Society
By B. R. Ambedkar
______________________________________________________________
CONTENTS
Preface
PART I
1. Chapter I - The Riddle of the Shudras
2. Chapter II - The Brahmanic Theory of
the Origin of the Shudras
3. Chapter III - The Brahmanic Theory of
the Status of the Shudras
4. Chapter IV - Shudras Versus Aryans
5. Chapter V - Aryans Against Aryans
6. Chapter VI - Shudras And Dasas
PART II
7. Chapter VII - The Shudras were
Kshatriyas
8. Chapter VIII - The Number of Varnas,
Three or Four?
9. Chapter IX - Brahmins Versus Shudras
10. Chapter X - The Degradation of the
Shudras
11. Chapter XI - The Story of
Reconciliation
12. Chapter XII - The Theory in the
Crucible
APPENDICES
PREFACE
In the present stage of the literature on
the subject, a book on the Shudras cannot be regarded as a superfluity. Nor can
it be said to deal with a trivial problem. The general proposition that the
social organization of the Indo-Aryans was based on the theory of Chaturvarnya
and that Chaturvarnya means division of society into four classes—Brahmins
(priests), Kshatriyas (soldiers),Vaishyas (traders) and Shudras (menials) does
not convey any idea of the real nature of the problem of the Shudras nor of its
magnitude. Chaturvarnya would have been a very innocent principle if it meant
no more than mere division of society into four classes. Unfortunately, more
than this is involved in the theory of Chaturvarnya. Besides dividing society
into four orders, the theory goes further and makes the principle of graded
inequality. the basis for determining the terms of associated life as between
the four Varnas. Again, the system of graded inequality is not merely notional.
It is legal and penal. Under the system of Chaturvarnya, the Shudra is not only
placed at the bottom of the gradation but he is subjected to inunumerable
ignominies and disabilities so as to prevent him from rising above the
condition fixed for him by law. Indeed until the fifth Varna of the
Untouchables came into being, the Shudras were in the eyes of the Hindus the
lowest of the low. This shows the nature of what might be called the problem of
the Shudras. If people have no idea of the magnitude of the problem it is
because they have not cared to know what the population of the Shudras is.
Unfortunately, the census does not show their population separately. But there
is no doubt that excluding the Untouchables the Shudras form about 75 to 80 per cent of the population
of Hindus. A treatise which deals with so vast a population cannot be
considered to be dealing with a trivial problem.
The book deals with the Shudras in the
Indo-Aryan Society. There is a view that an inquiry into these questions is of
no present-day moment. It is said by no less a person than Mr. Sherring in his
Hindu Tribes and Castes*[f1] that :
"Whether the Shudras were Aryans, or
aboriginal inhabitants of India, or tribes produced by the union of the one
with the other, is of little practical moment. They were at an early period
placed in a class by themselves, and received the fourth or last degree of
rank, yet at a considerable distance from the three superior castes. Even
though it be admitted that at the outset they were not Aryans, still, from
their extensive intermarriages with the three Aryan Castes, they have become so
far Aryanized that, in some instances as already shown, they have gained more
than they have lost, and certain tribes now designated as Shudras are in
reality more Brahmins and Kshatriyas than anything else. In short, they have
become as much absorbed in other races the cletic tribes of England have become
absorbed in the Anglo-Saxon race; and their own separate individuality, if they
ever had any, has completely vanished."
This view is based on two errors. Firstly,
the present-day Shudras are a collection of castes drawn from heterogeneous
stocks and are racially different from the original Shudras of the Indo-Aryan
society. Secondly, in the case of Shudras the centre of interest is not the
Shudras as a people but the legal system of pains and penalties to which they
are subjected. The system of pains and penalties was no doubt originally
devised by the Brahmins to deal with the Shudras of the Indo-Aryan society, who
have ceased to exist as a distinct, separate, identifiable community. But
strange as it may seem the Code intended to deal with them has remained in
operation and is now applied to all low-class Hindus, who have no lock stock
with the original Shudras. How this happened must be a matter of curiosity to
all. My explanation is that the Shudras of the Indo-Aryan Society in course of
time became so degraded as a consequence of the severity of the Brahmanical
laws that they really came to occupy a very low state in public life. Two
consequences followed from this. One consequence was a change in the
connotation of the word Shudra. The word Shudra lost its original meaning of
being the name of a particular community and became a general name for a
low-class people without civilisation, without culture, without respect and
without position. The second consequence was that the widening of the meaning
of the word Shudra brought in its train the widening of the application of the
Code.lt is in this way that the so-called Shudras of the present-day have
become subject to the Code, though they are not Shudras in the original sense
of the word. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Code intended for the
original culprits has come to be applied to the innocents. If the Hindu
law-givers had enough historical sense to realise that the original Shudras
were different from the present-day low-class people, this tragedy—this
massacre of the innocents—would have been avoided. The fact, however
unfortunate it may be, is that the Code is applied to the present-day Shudras
in the same rigorous manner in which it was applied to the original Shudras.
How such a Code came into being cannot therefore be regarded as of mere
antiquarian interest to the Shudras of to-day.
While it may be admitted that a study of
the origin of the Shudras is welcome, some may question my competence to handle
the theme. I have already been warned that while I may have a right to speak on
Indian politics, religion and religious history of India are not my field and
that I must not enter it. I do not know why my critics have thought it
necessary to give me this warning. If it is an antidote to any extravagant
claim made by me as a thinker or a writer, then it is unnecessary. For, I am
ready to admit that I am not competent to speak even on Indian politics. If the
warning is for the reason that I cannot claim mastery over the Sanskrit
language, I admit this deficiency. But I do not see why it should disqualify me
altogether from operating in this field. There is very little of literature in
the Sanskrit language which is not available in English. The want of knowledge
of Sanskrit need not therefore be a bar to my handling a theme such as the
present. For I venture to say that a study of the relevant literature, albeit
in English translations, for 15 years ought to be enough to invest even a
person endowed with such moderate intelligence like myself, with sufficient
degree of competence for the task. As to the exact measure of my competence to
speak on the subject, this book will furnish the best testimony. It may well
turn out that this attempt of mine is only an illustration of the proverbial
fool rushing in where the angels fear to tread. But I take refuge in the belief
that even the fool has a duty to perform, namely, to do his bit if the angel
has gone to sleep or is unwilling to proclaim the truth. This is my
justification for entering the prohibited field.
What is it that is noteworthy about this
book? Undoubtedly the conclusions which I have reached as a result of my
investigations. Two questions are raised in this book: (1) Who were the
Shudras? and (2) How they came to be the fourth Varna of the Indo-Aryan
society? My answers to them are summarised below :
(1)
The Shudras were one of the Aryan communities of the Solar race.
(2)
There was a time when the Aryan society recognised 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.
I must of course await the verdict of
scholars on these conclusions. That these conclusions are not merely original
but they are violently opposed to those that are current is of course evident.
Whether these conclusions will be accepted or not will depend upon the
mentality of a person claiming to have a right to sit in judgement over the
issue. Of course, if he is attached to a particular thesis he will reject mine.
I would not however bother about his judgement for he would be an adversary
from whom nothing can be expected except opposition. But if a person is an
honest critic, howsoever cautious, however conservative he may be, provided
that he has an open mind and a readiness to accept facts, I do not despair of
converting him to my view. This expectation may fail to materialize, but about
one thing I am quite certain. My critics will have to admit that the book is
rich in fresh insights and new visions.
Apart from scholars, how the Hindu public
will react may be an interesting speculation. The Hindus of to-day fall into
five definite classes. There is a class of Hindus, who are known as orthodox
and who will not admit that there is anything wrong with the Hindu social
system. To talk of reforming it is to them rank blasphemy. There is a class of
Hindus who are known as Arya Samajists. They believe in the Vedas and only in
the Vedas. They differ from the orthodox inasmuch as they discard everything
which is not in the Vedas. Their gospel is that of return to the Vedas. There
is a class of Hindus who will admit that the Hindu social system is all wrong,
but who hold that there is no necessity to attack it. Their argument is that
since law does not recognize it, it is a dying, if not a dead system. There is
a class of Hindus, who are politically minded. They are indifferent to such
questions. To them Swaraj is more important than social reform. The fifth class
of Hindus are those who are rationalists and who regard social reforms as of
primary importance, even more important than Swaraj.
With the Hindus, who fall into the second
category, those who are likely to regard the book as unnecessary, I cannot
agree. In a way, they are right when they say that the existing laws in British
India does not recognize the caste system prevalent in the Hindu society. It is
true that, having regard to section II of the Civil Procedure Code, it would
not be possible for a Hindu to obtain a declaration from a civil court that he
belongs to a particular Varna. If courts in British India have to consider the
question whether a person belongs to a particular Varna, it is only in cases of
marriage, inheritance and adoption, the rules of which vary according to the
Varna to which the party belongs. While it is true that the Law in British
India does not recognize the four Varnas of the Hindus, one must be careful not
to misunderstand what this means. To put it precisely: (1) it does not mean
that the observance of the Varna system is a crime; (2) it does not mean that
the Varna system has disappeared; (3) it does not mean that the Varna system is
not given effect to in cases where the observance of its rules are necessary to
acquiring civil rights; (4) it only means that the general legal sanction
behind the Varna system has been withdrawn New, law is not the only sanction
which goes to sustain social institutions. Institutions are sustained byother
sanctions also. Of these, religious sanction and social sanction are the most
important. The Varna system has a religious sanction. Because it has a
religious sanction, the Varna system has the fullest social sanction from the Hindu
society. With no legal prohibition, this religious sanction has been more than
enough to keep the Varna system in full bloom. The best evidence to show that
the Varna system is alive notwithstanding there is no law to enforce it, is to
be found in the fact that the status of the Shudras and the Untouchables in the
Hindu society has remained just what it has been. It cannot therefore be said
that a study such as this is unnecessary.
As to the politically-minded Hindu, he
need not be taken seriously. His line of approach is generally governed by a
short-term view more than by long-range considerations. He is willing to follow
the line of least resistance and postpone a matter, however urgent, if it is
likely to make him unpopular. It is therefore quite natural if the
politically-minded Hindu regards this book as a nuisance.
The book treads heavily on the toes of the
Arya Samajists. My conclusions have come in sharp conflict with their ideology
at two most important points. The Arya Samajists believe that the four Varnas
of the Indo-Aryan society have been in existence from the very beginning. The
book shows that there was a time when there were only three Varnas in the
Indo-Aryan society. The Arya Samajists believe that the Vedas are eternal and
sacrosanct. The book shows that portions of the Vedas at any rate, particularly
the Pursha Sukta, which is the mainstay of the Arya Samajists, are fabrications
by Brahmins intended to serve their own purposes. Both these conclusions are
bound to act like atomic bombs on the dogmas of the Arya Samajists.
I am not sorry for this clash with Arya
Samajists. The Arya Samajists have done great mischief in making the Hindu
society a stationary society by preaching that the Vedas are eternal, without
beginning, without end, and infallible, and that the social institutions of the
Hindus being based on the Vedas are also eternal, without beginning, without
end, infallible and therefore requiring no change. To be permeated with such a
belief is the worst thing that can happen to a community. I am convinced that
the Hindu society will not accept the necessity of reforming itself unless and
until this Arya Samajists' ideology is completely destroyed. The book does
render this service, if no other.
What the Orthodox Hindu will say about
this book I can well imagine for I have been battling with him all these years.
The only thing I did not know was how the meek and non-violent looking Hindu
can be violent when anybody attacks his Sacred Books. I became aware of it as
never before when last year I received a shower of letters from angry Hindus,
who became quite unbalanced by my speech on the subject delivered in Madras.
The letters were full of filthy abuse, unmentionable and unprintable, and full
of dire threats to my life. Last time they treated me as a first offender and
let me off with mere threats. I don't know what they will do this time. For on
reading the book they are sure to find more cause for anger at what in their
eyes is a repetition of the offence in an aggravated form for having brought
forth chapter and verse to show that what goes by the name of Sacred Books
contains fabrications which are political in their motive, partisan in their
composition and fraudulent in their purpose. I do not propose to take any
notice of their vilifications or their threats. For I know very well that they
are a base crew who, professing to defend their religion, have made religion a
matter of trade. They are more selfish than any other set of beings in the
world, and are prostituting their intelligence to support the vested interests
of their class. It is a matter of no small surprise that when the mad dogs of
orthodoxy are let loose against a person who has the courage to raise his voice
against the so-called Sacred Books of the Hindus, eminent Hindus occupying
lofty places, claiming themselves to be highly educated and who could be
expected to have no interest and to have a free and open mind become partisans
and join the outcry. Even Hindu Judges of High Courts and Hindu Prime Ministers
of Indian States do not hesitate to join their kind. They go further. They not
only lead the howl against him but even join in the hunt. What is outrageous is
that they do so because they believe that their high stations in life would
invest their words with an amount of terror which would be sufficient enough to
cow down any and every opponent of orthodoxy. What I would like to tell these
amiable gentlemen is that they will not be able to stop me by their
imprecations. They do not seem to be aware of the profound and telling words of
Dr. Johnson who when confronted with analogous situation said, 1 am not goint
to be deterred from catching a cheat by the menaces of a ruffian.' I do not
wish to be rude to these high-placed critics, much less do I want to say that they
are playing the part of a ruffian interested in the escape of a cheat. But I do
want to tell them two things: firstly that I propose, no matter what happens,
to follow the determination of Dr. Johnson in the pursuit of historical truth
by the exposure of the Sacred Books so that the Hindus may know that it is the
doctrines contained in their Sacred Books which are responsible for the decline
and fall of their country and their society; secondly, if the Hindus of this
generation do not take notice of what I have to say I am sure the future
generation will. I do not despair of success. For I take consolation in the
words of the poet Bhavabhuti who said, "Time is infinite and earth is
vast, some day there will be born a man who will appreciate what I have said."
Whatever that be the book is a challenge to orthodoxy.
The only class of Hindus, who are likely
to welcome the book are those who believe in the necessity and urgency of
social reform. The fact that it is a problem which will certainly take a long
time to solve and will call the efforts of many generations to come, is in
their opinion, no justification for postponing the study of that problem. Even
an ardent Hindu politician, if he is honest, will admit that the problems
arising out of the malignant form of communalism, which is inherent in the
Hindu social organization and which the politically minded Hindus desire to
ignore or postpone, invariably return to plague, those very politicians at every turn. These
problems are not the difficulties of the moment. They are our permanent
difficulties, that is to say, difficulties of every moment. I am glad to know
that such a class of Hindus exists. Small though they be, they are my mainstay
and it is to them that I have addressed my argument.
It will be said that I have shown no
respect for the sacred literature of the Hindus which every sacred literature
deserves. If the charge be true, I can plead two circumstances in justification
of myself. Firstly I claim that in my research I have been guided by the best
tradition of the historian who treats all literature as vulgar—1 am using the
word in its original sense of belonging to the people—to be examined and tested
by accepted rules of evidence without recognizing any distinction between the
sacred and the profane and with the sole object of finding the truth. If in following
this tradition I am found wanting in respect and reverence for the sacred
literature of the Hindus my duty as a scholar must serve as my excuse.
Secondly, respect and reverence for the sacred literature cannot be made to
order. They are the results of social factors which make such sentiments
natural in one case and quite unnatural in another. Respect and reverence for
the sacred literature of the Hindus is natural to a Brahmin scholar. But it is
quite unnatural in a non-Brahmin scholar. The explanation of this difference is
quite simple. That a Brahmin scholar should treat this sacred literature with
uncritical reverence and forbear laying on it the heavy hands which the
detachment of an intellectual as distinguished from the merely educated is what
is to be expected. For what is this sacred literature? It is a literature which
is almost entirely the creation of the Brahmins. Secondly, its whole object is
to sustain the superiority and privileges of the Brahmins as against the
non-Brahmins. Why should not the Brahmins uphold the sanctity of such a
literature? The very reason that leads the Brahmin to uphold it makes the
non-Brahmin hate it. Knowing that what is called the sacred literature contains
an abominable social philosophy which is responsible for their social
degradation, the non-Brahmin reacts to it in a manner quite opposite to that of
the Brahmin. That I should be wanting in respect and reverence for the sacred
literature of the Hindus should not surprise any one if it is borne in mind
that I am a non-Brahmin, not even a non-Brahmin but an Untouchable. My
antipathy to the sacred literature could not naturally be less than that of the
non-Brahmin As Prof. Thorndyke says: that a man thinks is a biological fact
what he thinks is a sociological fact.
I am aware that this difference in the
attitude of a Brahmin scholar and a non-Brahmin scholar towards this sacred
literature—literature which is the main source of the material for the study of
the problems of the social history of the Hindus— the former with his attitude
of uncritical commendation and the latter with his attitude of unsparing
condemnation is most harmful to historical research.
The mischief done by the Brahmin scholars
to historical research is obvious. The Brahmin scholar has a two-fold interest
in the maintenance of the sanctity of this literature. In the first place being
the production of his forefathers his filial duty leads him to defend it even
at the cost of truth. In the second place as it supports the privileges of the
Brahmins, he is careful not to do anything which would undermine its authority.
The necessity of upholding the system by which he knows he stands to profit, as
well as of upholding the prestige of his forefathers as the founders of the
system, acts as a silent immaculate premise which is ever present in the mind
of the Brahmin scholar and prevents him from reaching or preaching the truth.
That is why one finds so little that is original in the field of historical
research by Brahmin scholars unless it be a matter of fixing dates or tracing
genealogies. The non-Brahmin scholar has none of these limitations and is
therefore free to engage himself in a relentless pursuit of truth. That such a
difference exists between the two classes of students is not a mere matter of
speculation. This very book is an illustraton in point. It contains an exposure
of the real character of the conspiracy against the Shudras, which no Brahmin
scholar could have had the courage to present.
While it is true that a non-Brahmin
scholar is free from the inhibitions of the Brahmin scholar he is likely to go
to the other extreme and treat the whole literature as a collection of fables
and fictions fit to be thrown on the dung heap not worthy of serious study.
This is not the spirit of an historian. As has been well said, an historian
ought to be exact, sincere, and impartial; free from passion, unbiased by
interest, fear, resentment or affection; and faithful to the truth, which is
the mother of history, the preserver of great actions, the enemy of oblivion,
the witness of the past. the director of the future. In short he must have an
open mind, though it may not be an empty mind, and readiness to examine all
evidence even though it be spurious. The non-Brahmin scholar may find it
difficult to remain true to this spirit of the historian. He is likely to
import the spirit of non-Brahmin politics in the examination of the truth or
falsity of the ancient literature which is not justifiable. I feel certain that
in my research I have kept myself free from such prejudice. In writing about
the Shudras I have had present in my mind no other consideration except that of
pure history. It is well-known that there is a non-Brahmin movement in this
country which is a political movement of the Shudras. It is also well-known
that I have been connected with it. But I am sure that the reader will find
that I have not made this book a preface to non-Brahmin politics.
I am sensible of the many faults in the
presentation of the matter. The book is loaded with quotations, too long and
too many. The book is not a work of art and it is possible that readers will
find it tedious to go through it. But this fault is not altogether mine. Left
to myself, I would have very willingly applied the pruning knife. But the book
is written for the ignorant and the uninformed Shudras, who do not know how
they came to be what they are. They do not care how artistically the theme is
handled. All they desire is a full harvest of material— the bigger the better.
Those of them to whom I have shown the manuscript have insisted upon retaining
the quotations. Indeed, their avidity for such material was so great that some
of them went to the length of insisting that besides giving translations in
English in the body of the book I should also add the original Sanskrit texts
in an Appendix. While I had to deny their request for the reproduction of the
original Sanskrit texts, I could not deny their request for retaining the
translations on the ground that the material is not readily available to them.
When one remembers that it is the Shudras, who have largely been instrumental
in sustaining the infamous system of Chaturvarnya, though it has been the
primary cause of their degradation and that only the Shudras can destroy the
Chaturvarnya, it would be easy to
realize why I allowed the necessity of educating and thereby preparing the
Shudra fully for such a sacred task to outweigh all other considerations which
favoured the deletion or if not deletion the abridgement of the quotations.
There are three persons to whom I owe my
thanks. Firstly to the writer of Adhyaya LX of the Shanti Parva of the
Mahabharata. Whether it is Vyasa, Vaiashampayana, Suta, Lomaharshana or Bhrigu
it is difficult to say. But whoever he was, he has rendered great service by giving
a full description of Paijavana. If he had not described Paijavana as a Shudra,
the clue to the origin of the Shudra would have been completely lost. I express
my gratitude to the writer for having preserved so important a piece of
information for posterity. Without it, this book could not have been written.
Secondly, I must thank Prof. Kangle of Ismail Yusuf College, Andheri, Bombay.
He has come to my rescue and has checked the translation of Sanskrit shlokas
which occur in the book. As I am not a Sanskrit scholar, his help has been to
me a sort of an assurance that I have not bungled badly in dealing with the
material which is in Sanskrit. The fact that he has helped me does not mean
that he is responsible for such faults and errors as may be discovered by my
critics. Thanks are also due to Prof. Manohar Chitnis of the Siddharth College,
Bombay, who has been good enough to prepare the Index.
I am grateful to Messrs. Charles
Scribner's Sons Publishers, New York for their kind permission to reproduce the
three maps from Mr. Madison Grant's Passing of the Great Race and which form
Appendices II, III and IV of this book.
B. R. AMBEDKAR
10th October 1946
"RAJGRIHA,"
DADAR,
BOMBAY 14.
Part I
[f1]1 Vol. I, Introduction, P. xxi.
Comments
Social Counter