Essay on the nature of the Varnas of Ancient India

The division of society into four vamas with their distinctive duties, occupations and status, and the rules relating to their intermarriage and so forth, are the bedrock of the Brahmanical social fabric. By virtue of their origin, the Brah­mins take the first place in the order of castes.

It is on this and similar grounds that Manu and Yajnavalkya assert the doctrine of the pre­eminence of the Brahmins not only over all other vamas but over all created beings.

Along with this went an amplification of the rules governing the sacraments and the domestic and other sacrifices that were incumbent upon the Brahmins. As before, while the duties (dharma) of Vedic study, of sacrificing for him and of making gifts, are shared by the Brahmin with the two other upper castes, to the Brahmin alone fell the distinctive occupations of teaching, sacrificing for others, and accepting gifts.

In Manu not only are the other castes expressly forbidden to adopt any of these occupations, but a man of low caste ac­cepting through greed the occupation of a higher one is punished with confiscation of property and imprisonment.

In general, a Brahmin is to follow those occupations that cause the least pain to others; he may live by gleaning corn, taking what is given unasked, by begging, agriculture or trade, but never by service, “a dog’s occupation”. Though this is the strict law prescribing a Brahmin’s occupation, both Manu and Yaj­navalkya feel constrained to allow Brahmins, when reduced to distress, to live by the occupa­tions of the lower castes.

The immunities and privileges belonging to the Brahmins in the old Smriti law are repeated in oUr present texts. A Brahmin offender was not to be sentenced to death on any account, but he was liable to banishment without confiscation of property, to shaving of the head, to branding or to fines. As a rule the Brahmin’s punishments were less severe than those of the other classes.

On the other hand, offences against Brahmins were punished with more severity than those committed against the other classes. As in the older law, the murder of a Brahmin heads the list of mortal sins (1mahapatakas) to be expiated by particularly severe penances, and it is visited with other fearful punishments in the next life. According to Manu no injury may be done to a Brahmin, and inten­tional slaying of a Brahmin is an inexpiable sin.

Kshatriyas:

In Manu and Yajnavalkya, as in the older Smritis, the Kshatriyas, while sharing with the Brahmins and the Vaishyas the duties of Vedic study, sacrificing for themselves, and making gifts, are assigned the sole occupation of ruling and fighting; only in times of distress is a Kshatriya allowed to live by the occupation of a Vaishya. This is confirmed in part and partly corrected and supplemented by references in other works. The list of duties and occupations laid down for the Kshatriyas in the Smritis is reflected in the Mahab­harata.

The essence of the king’s duty according to the oft-repeated axiom and motto of the caste in the Great Epic is fighting; for him to die of disease in a house is declared to be a sin, while death in battle is most commended.

Repeated references in the Mahabharata again lead Hop­kins to conclude that there were three fundamen­tal rules forming the Kshatriya’s code of conduct towards his fellows: the first was the ‘guest-law’, every guest being regarded as inviolable; the second was the law of not forgetting kindness, and the third and last was the sacredness of a ‘refugee’, i.e. a person who threw himself (even in battle) upon one’s mercy.

The Kshatriyas were held, as in the early Buddhist times, to be an exclusive caste, and the privilege of ruling was regarded as the monopoly of a member of this order receiving proper consecration.

Vaishyas:

Repeating the old Smriti rule Manu and Yajnavalkya enjoin the Vaishyas, the third in the Varna order, the three-fold duty of Vedic study, performing sacrifices and making gifts, while fixing for them the occupation of agricul­ture, cattle rearing, money-lending, and trade.

The same three-fold list of duties is laid down for the Vaishya in the Mahabharata which, however, declares his special occupation to be cattle rear­ing. As in the contemporary Smriti law, the Vaishya is entitled to take up arms for self- defence, for the defence of cows and Brahmins, and for preventing the mixture of castes. In other passages, when we turn to the Milindapanli, we find it assigning, in the fashion of the Smritis, the duties of agriculture and trade to the Vessa (Vaishya).

In their actual pictures of social life, however, the records of this period make no men­tion of the Vaishyas as a separate caste. We are introduced instead to a class well known to the early Buddhist literature, namely grihapatis (Pali galiapati, Jain Prakrit galiavati).

The grihapatis formed the rich capitalist class consisting of big land-owners, money-lenders and ranchers, and they enjoyed high social prestige and were distin­guished from the humbler class of artisans. The grihapatis are referred to as following the avoca­tions of a merchant, farmer, caravan-leader or banker.

Donors introduce themselves as relations (son, grandson, mother, wife, daughter, or daughter-in-law) of individual grihapatis ap­parently; therefore, the grihapatis followed miscel­laneous occupations and formed a special class or rank with high distinctions, but not a rigid caste. Lastly and most important, the votive inscriptions and other records of this period speak of who is likewise a familiar figure in the early Bud­dhist literature.

Sudras:

The disabilities imposed by the old Smriti law upon the fourth and lowest caste, the Shudras, are emphasised by the authorities of this period. According to Manu and Yajnavalkya the Shudra, because of his low origin, has only one duty and one occupation, namely to serve the upper classes and especially the Brahmins who in their turn are bound to feed, clothe and maintain him.

Only in times of distress is a Shudra allowed to live by practising various arts and crafts or by serving a Kshatriya or a rich Vaishya, or alterna­tively by engaging in trades and crafts of various kinds.

From an important extract in Patanjali’s Mahabhashya we learn that the Shudras, instead of forming a single caste, really consisted, even so early, of various professional and ethnic groups occupying different social grades.

Among the Shudras, the lowest place belongs to the Chandelles and Mritapa, who are excluded from sacrifi­cial performances, and from taking food with the Aryans. Higher in the scale are the carpenters, washer men, blacksmiths and weavers.

Insofar as the Dravidian peoples of the far South are concerned, their social divisions are revealed to us in the valuable works of the Sangam Age. Among these peoples while the immigrant Brahmins had an honoured place in society, the classes in order of descending importance were the sages (arivar), landowners (vellalar), herdsmen, hunters, artisans and soldiers and, last­ly, fishermen and scavengers.