02 Varṇa

CHAPTER II VARṆA

The number of works dealing with the origin and characteristics of the caste system in India is legion. Most of them, however, concern themselves with the detailed {{des cription|description}} of the bewildering variety of castes and subdivisions of castes in modern times and their present religious and social customs and usages. The origin of caste has given rise to great speculation and several schools of thought have arisen. Generally individual authors lay undue emphasis on one element or attach far too much importance to one point in tracing the origin of the caste system and its ramifications, such as race (Risley), tribe (Ibbetson), occupation (Nesfield). The study of the origin and development of caste in India is one of deep and absorbing interest to all students of sociology. A complete and critical examination of the several theories of caste advanced by distinguished authors and a detailed description of the hundreds of castes and {{suboastes|subcastes}} now found in India is far beyond the scope of the present work. For those who want to make a thorough study of the most important works on caste a modest list is given in the footnote below.¹

The caste system has been highly eulogised and also most severely condemned by Western writers. Sidney Low in his ‘Vision of India’ (pp. 262-263, 2nd ed. of 1907) speaks of the beneficent aspect of the caste system in the following eloquent passage: ‘There is no doubt that it is the main cause of the fundamental stability and contentment by which Indian society has been braced up for centuries against the shocks of politics and the cataclysms of Nature. It provides every man with his place, his career, his {{ocoupation|occupation}}, his {{cirole|circle}} of friends. It makes him at the outset a member of a corporate body, it protects him through life from the canker of social jealousy and unfulfilled aspirations; it ensures him {{compa nionship|companionship}} and a sense of community with others in like case with himself. The caste organization is to the Hindu his club, his trade union, his benefit society, his philanthropic society. There are no work-houses in India and none are as yet needed.’ Abbe Dubois, who wrote about 130 years ago after being in close touch with Hindus of all castes for 15 years as a missionary, remarks (in his work on the character, manners and customs of the people of India, translated into English and published in London in 1817) ‘I consider the institution of castes among the Hindu nations as the happiest effort of their legislation; and I am well convinced that, if the people of India never sunk into a state of barbarism, and if, when almost all Europe was plunged in that dreary gulf, India kept up her head, preserved and extended the sciences, the arts and civilization, it is wholly to the distinction of castes that she is indebted for that high celebrity’ (p. 14) and he devotes several pages to the justification of this remark. Maine in his ‘Ancient [[21]] Law’ (new edition of 1930 p. 17) characterises it as ’the most disastrous and blighting of all human institutions.’ Sherring in ‘Hindu tribes and castes’ vol. III p. 293 says it is ’the most baneful, hard-hearted and cruel social system that could possibly be invented for damning the human race’. On the other hand Meredith Townsend in ‘Europe and Asia’ (edition of 1901 p. 72) wrote ‘I firmly believe caste to be a marvellous discovery, a form of socialism which through ages protected Hindu Society from anarchy and from the worst evils of industrial and competitive life—it is an automatic poor law to begin with and the strongest form known of Trades Union’. There are others,² though their number is small, that believe

[[22]] that the caste system was an invention, an artificial product, due to the machinations of crafty brāhmaṇas. Every great institution has its extremes of good or evil. This work will endeavour to steer clear of downright and hypercritical condemnation of the caste system due to relying on modern {{stand points|standpoints}} and conditions of society and unthinking adulation thereof. It will try to present and balance facts and though it cannot help passing judgments it will leave the reader free to judge for himself as far as possible. In the present work the discussion will be mostly confined to the evidence of Sanskrit literary monuments, ancient and medieval. An attempt will be made to trace the origin of caste from Vedic times, to exhibit theories of the Dharmasūtrakāras, other smṛtikāras and {{oom mentators|commentators}} on the subject and to describe the peculiar ceremonies, privileges, duties and responsibilities of Hindu castes as gathered from these works in Sanskrit. To discuss the feasibility or desirability of totally destroying the caste system or the ways and means of attaining that end is deemed to be outside the legitimate limits of this volume. It may, however, be expressly stated as the author’s opinion, in order to avoid misunderstandings or fruitless speculations about his personal views, that he does not think that the caste system was an artificial product due to the intrigues, greed and cunning of brāhmaṇas, nor does he hold that it is feasible to destroy the whole edifice of the caste system in the near future. In the cities we may find some people taking their food together but the real India is in the villages, where in spite of the loud denunciations of reformers for a hundred years, the restrictions on taking food and inter-caste marriages are almost as rigid as they once were. Our efforts must be {{direoted|directed}} to wide and rapid spread of literacy among the village people, the diffusion of the idea of one people and one nationality and gradual fusion of small subcastes into larger similar units. We in India have no doubt reached a critical stage in our history when old ideals, institutions and habits are being shattered by the impact of new ideas and by the onrush of world forces. We have to decide whether we shall make or be able to make a clean sweep of all old ideals and institutions as so much debris and rubbish or whether while keeping the old ideals and some of the old institutions as foundations we shall build up a new social order and create and foster new habits of thought and action. It is beyond the scope of the present work to write more on this point.

A sort of caste system based on birth and occupation did prevail in many countries in ancient times as in Persia, Rome and Japan. But in all these countries it hardly ever made any near approach in rigour and complexity to the caste system that we have in India and instead of ramifying into divisions and subdivisions, it dwindled and disappeared in the course of time. {{Nounanimity|No unanimity}} seems possible as to the several causes and {{ciroum stanoes|circumstances}} which led in India alone to the evolution of the stupendous structure of caste. Not only is it impossible to hold that the origin of the modern complexity of the caste system is to be traced back to one single cause, but it is difficult to accept that even all the origins that have been postulated by the several authors can {{adoquately|adequately}} and satisfactorily explain the modern caste system.

In most of the works on the castes in India a few features are pointed out as the characteristics of the caste system and as common to all castes and {{sub-oestes|sub-castes}}. They are: (1) heredity i. e. in theory a man is assigned to a particular caste by birth in that caste; (2) endogamy and exogamy i. e. restriction as to marrying in the same caste and not marrying {{cortain|certain}} relatives or other persons, though of the same caste; (3) {{restrio tions|restrictions}} as to food (i. e. what food and water may be taken or not taken and from whom); (4) occupation (i. e. members of most castes follow certain occupations and no others); (5) {{grade tion|gradation}} of castes, some being at the top in the social scale and others being deemed to be so low that they are untouchable. Some authors³ like Senart add another characteristic, viz the caste council with its {{ohiof|chief}} having in meeting assembled among other matters the power to regulate the conduct of its members, to impose the penalties of fine or {{excommunioation|excommunication}} for lapses. It may be said at once that this last is a feature

[[23]] that is not found among most of the brāhmaṇa and kṣatriya castes even in modern times and is not dealt with by {{dharma sāstra|dharmaśāstra}} works. Endogamy is now the most prominent characteristic of caste and so is the theory that it is by birth. The other three are more or less fluctuating from province to {{pro vince|province}} and age to age. In this work the first five characteristics of the caste system set out above will be subjected to a close critical examination on the basis of the Vedic and {{dharma sāstra|dharmaśāstra}} material. We must also remember that the attributes of caste have not been the same throughout the ages. There is great difference between the popular conceptions of modern caste and the conceptions about it embodied in the ancient and medieval dharmaśāstra works. In the twentieth century caste in India is a matter of marriage and to a much lesser extent of food and drink. As to {{avoca tions|avocations}} any one can at present follow any profession without fear of loss of caste excepting a few believed to be very impure and very degrading ones (like those of sweepers, butchers, tanners &c.). It is also not possible even now for any one to be generally accepted as a priest, unless he is or claims to be a brāhmaṇa. The old barriers that separated one caste or subcaste from another have been greatly shaken by the influx of modern ideas and the exigencies of the times and one may hope that in a few decades more caste will remain as a purely social institution regulating marriages and to a lesser extent {{oommen. sality|commensality}} (and not a religious one). Western scholars, in spite of their most commendable patience and industry, often present, through ignorance or lack of first-hand knowledge, the number of castes as larger than what it actually is. For example, Sherring (vol. II. Introduction pp. XXII-XLVI) gives an {{alpbabetical|alphabetical}} list of brāhmaṇical tribes and remarks (p. XLVII) ‘Hundreds of these tribes, if not at enmity with one another, cherish mutual distrust and antipathy to such a degree that they are socially separated from one another as far as it is possible for them to be—as much as brāhmaṇas are from the lowest {{outoastes|outcastes}}—neither eating nor drinking together nor intermarrying’. The list he gives is most misleading. To take only a few examples, he enumerates Athavle, Achwal, {{Abhyan kara|Abhyankar}}, Apte, Agashe, Bhanu, Bivalkar, {{Badye|Badhe}}, Bhide, Bhagvat, Bhuskute, Bhat, Bodas as separate tribes; but it is well-known to people in Western India that these are the surnames (not subcastes) of the Konkanastha or {{Citpavana|Citpāvana}} brāhmaṇas, who not only interdine, but also inter-marry among themselves, provided there is no bar on the ground of sameness of {{gotrn|gotra}} and pravara.

The word varṇa means ‘colour’ or ’light’ in most passages of the {{Roveda|Ṛgveda}} (e. g. I. 73.7, II. 3.5, IX. 97.15, IX. 104.4, IX. 105.4, X. 124.7). But in some verses of the Ṛgveda⁴ the word varṇa is associated with groups of people having a skin of a dark or fair colour. For example, we read in Ṛg. II. 12.4 ‘(Indra) who placed low the dāsa colour in a cave (or darkness)’; in Ṛg. I. 179,6 ’the fierce sage (Agastya) cherished both varṇas’; in Ṛg. IX. 71.2 ’like one (a fighter) who strikes the people he (Soma) who is powerful goes giving out frequent roars; he exposes the Asura colour’; in Ṛg. I. 130.8 ‘Indra helped in battles the Ārya sacrificer… Indra punished for the sake of Manu (the dāsas) who do not observe the ordinances and subdued (or killed) the dark skin’; ‘Indra having killed the dasyus protected the ārya varṇa (Ṛg. III. 34.9); “You (Indra) subdued for Rjiśvan, the son of Vidathin, Pipru and powerful Mṛgaya; you mowed down fifty thousand dark (men), you shattered cities as old age does shatter good looks’ Ṛg. IV. 16.13; ‘Somas, which strike away the dark skin’ Ṛg. IX. 41.1. In Ṛg. I. 158.5 a certain dāsa is called Traitana which name has a Persian ring about it; In Ṛg. I. 104.2 varṇa seems to be placed in opposition to dāsa. These passages make it clear that the Āryas and dāsas were two opposing camps and both were designated varṇas on account of the colour of their skins. The {{Tai. Br.|Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa}} (Tai. Br.) I. 2. 6 (with reference to the Mahāvrata in which there was a mock fight between a brāhmaṇa and a śūdra) says ’that the brāhmaṇa is the divine varṇa, and śūdra is the āsurya varṇa’.⁵ If we can interpret the Ṛgveda verse by the help of the Tai. Br., then in Ṛg. IX. 71.2, the words ‘āsuryam varṇam’ mean ‘śūdra tribe’. There is no doubt that the word asura when applied to gods like {{Varupa|Varuṇa}} has another meaning also in the Ṛg. In numerous places in the Ṛgveda the antagonism [[25]]

between the āryas and dāsas or dasyus is emphasized and prayers are offered to Indra and other gods for having subdued or for subduing the dāsa in favour of the Ārya. Ṛg. I. 51.8; I. 103.3; I. 117.21; II. 11.2, 4, 18, 19; III. 29.9; V. 70.3; VII. 5.6; IX. 88.4; VI. 18.3; VI. 25.2. In Ṛg. I. 51.8 Indra is requested to mark who are āryas and who are dasyus. This does not mean that there was difference between the two in bodily appearance only; on the contrary the antithesis between the ārya who is referred to as ‘{{barhismat|barhiṣmat}}’ and the dasyu who is styled ‘avrata’ clearly shows that the emphasis was rather on the difference of their cults. That dasyu and dāsa are identical in meaning follows from the same epithets being applied to both and from the fact that dasyu and dāsa occur in the same verses as applying to the same enemy.⁶ In Ṛg. X. 22.8 dasyu and dāsa are used in the same verse as applicable to the same enemy. In Ṛg. X. 99.6 and 8 Indra is represented as killing both dāsa and dasyu respectively. The dasyus are described as ‘avrata’ (not obeying the ordinances of the gods) in Ṛg. I. 51.8, I. 175.3, VI. 14.3, ‘akratu’ (who perform no sacrifice) in VII. 6.3,⁷ ‘{{mṭdhravacaḥ|mṛdhravācaḥ}}’ (whose speech is indistinct or soft) in VII. 6.3 and V. 29.10, ‘anāsaḥ’ (snub-nosed or dumb) in Ṛg. V. 29.10. It appears that dāsa and dasyu are synonyms and were sometimes styled asuras. For example, Śambara is called dasyu and dāsa in Ṛgveda VI. 31.4 and dāsa in Ṛg. VI. 26.5 and is also associated with asuras like Pipru in VI. 18.8; Pipru is spoken of as a dāsa in Ṛg. VIII. 32.2 and as an asura in X. 138.3. Varcin is styled dāsa in Ṛg. IV. 30.15 and VI. 47.21 and asura in VII. 99.5. In {{Tai. S.|Taittirīya Saṃhitā}}⁸ (IV. 3.11.3) also it seems that they are held to be identical. The enmity between dāsa and ārya is breathed in such verses as the following: Ṛg. II. 11.4 ‘vanquish the tribe of dāsas by the sun (i. e. by the help of a brilliant weapon); Ṛg. I. 174.7 ‘You made the earth a pillow for the dāsa (i. e. you laid him low on the ground)’; Ṛg. III. 12.6 ‘Oh Indra and Agni, by one effort together you shook ninety [[26]]

cities that had {{dāgas|dāsas}} as overlords’. It is not possible to say that dāsas or dasyus were some Aryan tribes that had fallen from the worship or culture of the Aryan singers of Vedic {{hyians|hymns}}. In many places the sage refers to the conquest for him by Indra and other gods of dāsas as well as Aryan foes. For example, ‘Protectors of the good! you (two) killed Aryan foes and dāsa foes’ Ṛg. VI. 60.6; ‘Oh Indra and Varuṇa! you killed dāsa foes and also Ārya foes and helped Sudās with your protection’ Ṛg. VII.83.1. Vide also Ṛg. VI. 22.10, X. 69.6, X. 33.1, X. 102.3. This shows that though the āryans had become divided and fought among themselves, they kept āryas and dāsas quite distinct. The foregoing shows that in the times of the Ṛgveda there were two antagonistic camps, of the āryas and dāsas or dasyus, they differed in the colour of their skins and also in worship, speech and bodily appearance. Therefore, in the earliest period we find the word varṇa associated only with dāsa and with ārya. Though the words brāhmaṇa and kṣatriya occur frequently in the Ṛgveda, the word varṇa is not used in connection with them. Even in the {{Puruṣasākta|Puruṣasūkta}} (Ṛgveda X. 90) where the words brāhmaṇa, rājanya, vaiśya and śūdra occur the word varṇa is not used. Hence, one may reasonably say that the only water-tight groups that are positively or expressly vouchsafed by the Ṛgveda are ārya and dāsa or dasyu. It is often argued that as the word brāhmaṇa denotes a caste in later literature, in the Ṛgveda also it must be presumed to have the same meaning. But this begs the whole question. No one denies that brāhmaṇa denotes a caste in later literature. But whether it has the same sense in the Ṛgveda must be determined on the materials furnished by the Ṛgveda itself. Some rely on the word ‘{{bra hmaputra|brahmaputra}}’ in Ṛg. II. 43.2 as showing that a brāhmaṇa became so only by birth in the Ṛgveda. But the verse begins by saying that ‘you sing a Sāman like the Udgātṛ priest’ and ‘brahmaputra’ must mean a ṛtvij whose duty it was to recite śastras (the {{Brahmapāochamsin|Brāhmaṇācchaṃsin}} as {{Sāyana|Sāyaṇa}} explains). It is generally conceded that the {{Puruṣagūkta|Puruṣasūkta}} is a much later hymn than most of the hymns of the Ṛgveda. In the whole of the Ṛgveda the words vaiśya and śūdra do not occur except in the Puruṣasūkta, though both of them occur in the {{Atharyaveda|Atharvaveda}} (V. 17.9 for vaiśya and IV. 20. 4 and 8 for śūdra and ārya) and very frequently in the Tai. S. Besides we cannot forget that the final redaction of the Ṛgveda must be held to have been separated from the composition of the individual hymns by several hundred years (if not more) and that even if it be conceded [[27]] that at the time when the {{Puruṣasūkta|Puruṣasūkta}} was composed, the four varṇas had been constituted and had become castes, yet the same cannot be affirmed for the time of the original composition of the other {{byrns|hymns}}. The word brāhmaṇa occurs several times in the Ṛgveda:⁹ ‘Oh brāhmaṇas, Oh pitṛs fond of soma! May the sinless {{Dyāvāprthivi|Dyāvāpṛthivī}} (Heaven and Earth) tend to our welfare’; ‘Like brāhmaṇas in the Atirātra where soma is to be drunk, uttering (words) round a lake full of water you have, Oh frogs, gathered together on that day of the year on which the rains begin’ (Ṛg. VII. 103.7);¹⁰ ‘The {{brahmanan|brāhmaṇas}}, who drink soma, reciting prayers of the yearly sacrifice, have sent forth their speech’ (Ṛg. VII. 103. 8). In this verse brāhmaṇas are expressly said to be getting ‘brahma’ ready. ‘May {{Agoi|Agni}} who devours every thing make that (dead body) free from disease and (may) soma also (do the same) who entered into the brāhmaṇas’ (Ṛg. X. 16. 6). “When the brāhmaṇas worship together as friends in hymns (lit. speed of the mind) that are fabricated from their hearts’ (Ṛg. X. 71. 8). In Ṛg. VI. 75. 10 brāhmaṇas are invoked for welfare along with pitṛs. This shows that the brāhmaṇas were highly venerated. The other verses establish that they were the reciters of hymns (brahma) and drank soma. In Ṛg. VIII. 35. 16-18 we read ‘You ({{As vins|Aśvins}}) urge on (or inspire) brahma, you urge on our thoughts (or actions), you kill the evil spirits and subdue diseases; (17) you urge kṣatra (valour) and also men, you kill evil spirits (same as 16); (18) you urge on the cows and also the Viś (the rest is same as 16).’ Here it seems that the groups of people (viz. those who think and make songs, those who show valour and lead men, and those common people who tend cattle) are clearly meant. These verses may be conceded as pointing to the existence of three groups (brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and {{vitaḥ|viśaḥ}}) but there is nothing in them to show that these three had {{crystal. lised|crystallised}} into somewhat like the castes of later times. In Ṛg. VII. 33. 11 {{Vasiṣtha|Vasiṣṭha}} is addressed as brahman, but that does not mean that he was a brāhmaṇa (by birth), as he is said to have been born of {{Urvaśi|Urvaśī}} from Mitra and Varuṇa. Similarly, in [[28]]

Ṛg. IX. 96. 6 (Brahmā devānām) the word brahmā does not certainly mean ‘brāhmaṇa by birth’, nor does ‘viprāṇām’ mean “brāhmanas by birth’. In that verse one who is super-eminent among a group is specified, just as the buffalo among animals, the hawk among carnivorous birds &c. In Ṛg. VIII. 33. 19 ’look down and not up: bring your feet close together; may thy {{kaśaplakas|kaśaplakas}} (legs?) be not seen, for though a brahmā, thou wert born a woman,’ it is impossible to hold that the last words mean ’thou wert a brāhmaṇa woman’. If it is only intended to refer to the fact that she is a brāhmaṇa woman, there is no reason why the Perfect tense (babhūvitha) is used and not the present. Here ‘brahmā’ most probably means ‘a priest of that name’, as that is the meaning in Ṛg. II. 1. 2 (brahmā casi gṛhapatisca no dame). The word ‘brahmajāyā’ in Ṛg. X. 109.2, 3, 6 and 7 does not mean the wife of a brāhmaṇa by birth but rather ‘wife of {{Bphaspati|Bṛhaspati}}’. The whole hymn is obscure and more or less enigmatic or allegorical. In the Aitareya-brāhmaṇa¹¹ 35. 2-4 it is said that soma is the food of brāhmaṇas and that a kṣatriya was to press the tendrils of the Nyagrodha tree and the fruits of Udumbara, {{Asvattha|Aśvattha}} and {{Plakga|Plakṣa}} and drink the juice so pressed instead of soma. It appears, therefore, that the brāhmaṇas were a distinct group even in the earliest period of the Ṛgveda. Whether they were hereditary is certainly not clear; nor is there anything to show that there were restrictions as regards partaking of food from persons other than brāhmaṇas or as to marriage. That brāhmaṇas in the Ṛgveda were a class by themselves may be conceded, but whether they had become a caste by birth is a matter of opinion dependent on the connotation given to the word caste. Dr. Ghurye (‘Caste and race in India’ p. 42) thinks, probably following the Vedic Index (vol. I on Kṣatriya), that the reference in Ṛg. X. 71. 9 to a false claim for being regarded as a brāhmaṇa points to the {{nonolusion|conclusion}} that brāhmaṇas had become a caste. The verse literally translated means ’these (persons) who do not move below nor beyond, who are neither brāhmaṇas, nor engaged in pressing soma – they [[29]]

being ignorant and having resorted to speech in sinful (or coarse) language take to ploughshares and engage in {{agri. oultural|agricultural}} operations’. It is difficult to see how there is here any false claim to be regarded as a brāhmaṇa. This verse means apparently that those who are not composers of prayers or drinkers of soma (because they are ignorant) are men of low speech and have to turn to agriculture. Even in the days of the dharma-sūtras restrictions as to food and marriage for brāhmaṇas were not at all as rigid as they became in medieval and modern times; but even when these restrictions were not rigid it was clearly laid down that a brāhmaṇa is so by birth alone. The word ‘brahma’ generally means in the Ṛgveda ‘prayer’ or ‘hymn’. Vide¹² Ṛg. IV. 6.11, VI. 52.2, X. 105.8, X. 141.5 (‘Oh Agni, make our prayer and sacrifice prosper by your flames’). Ṛg. III. 53.12 is ’this brahma (prayer or spiritual power) of Viśvāmitra protects the Bharata people’. In the Atharvaveda II. 15.4 (as brahma and kṣatra entertain no fear, nor are they harmed) brahma seems to mean the class of ‘brāhmaṇas’. The transition of meaning from ‘brahma’ (prayer) to ‘brahma’ meaning the class of those who composed or recited prayers is natural and easy. In the Ṛgveda I. 157.2 both brahma and kṣatra occur¹³ in the same verse where they probably mean ‘prayer’ and ‘valour’ respectively. In the Atharvaveda III. 19.1 both words occur and probably mean the same thing as in Ṛg. I. 157.2. In some Vedic works brahma and kṣatra stand collectively for brāhmaṇas¹⁴ and kṣatriyas (e. g. {{Tai. Br.|Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa}} II. 7.18, {{Bṛ. Up.|Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad}} I. 4.11, {{Kathopaniṣad|Kaṭhopaniṣad}} I. 2. 24). The word kṣatriya is very frequently applied as an epithet to several gods; e. g. Ṛg. VII. 64. 2 and VIII. 25. 8 (in both to Mitra and Varuṇa), Ṛg. VIII. 67. 1 (to Ādityas), Ṛg. X. 66.8 (to gods in general). In some verses kṣatriya means ‘a king or a nobleman’; e.g. Ṛg. IV. 42.1 ’the kingdom on both sides (heaven and earth) belongs to me, who am a kṣatriya and who holds sway over all living persons, so that all the immortals (gods) are ours (on my side)’;¹⁵ Ṛg. X. 109.3 [[30]]

(= Atharva V. 17.3) ’the domain of the kṣatriya has been protected (from the sight of enemies)’. The word ‘rājanya’ occurs in the Ṛgveda only in the Puruṣasūkta. It occurs in the sense of kṣatriya in the Atharvaveda V. 17.9. The same remark applies to the word kṣatriya as to brāhmaṇa. It is difficult to say whether kṣatriyas were so by birth in the times of the hymns of the Ṛg. or were only a class more or less fluid. We find that the Ṛg. speaks of Devāpi as the purohita of Śāntanu who became a king. The story is that both were sons of Ṛṣṭiṣena and that Śāntanu, though a younger brother, became king as Devāpi was not willing to be a king.¹⁶ The result was a famine due to Śāntanu’s transgression and so Devāpi performed a sacrifice to induce rainfall. This shows that out of two brothers one became a king and the other a purohita. So kings and purohitas did not depend on birth. In Ṛg. IX. 112, 3 a poet exclaims ‘I am a reciter of hymns my father is a physician and my mother grinds (corn) with stones. We desire to obtain wealth in various actions’.¹⁷ In Ṛg. III. 44.5 the poet wistfully asks Indra ‘O, Indra, fond of soma, would you make me the protector of people, or would you make me a king, would you make me a sage, that has drunk of soma, would you impart to me endless wealth?’ This shows that the same man could be a ṛṣi or a noble or a king. Dr. Ghurye (in ‘Caste and race in India’ p. 44) thinks that the kṣatriyas had become a compact body and he particularly relies on Ṛg. VII. 104. 13 (= Atharvaveda VIII. 4. 13) which is cited in the Vedic Index (vol. 1, p. 207) for the same purpose. That verse literally means ‘Soma does not urge on the crooked one, nor the kṣatriya who bears false (words). He strikes the rakṣas, and strikes him who speaks falsely; both lie in the bonds of Indra’. The words ‘kṣatriyam mithuyā dhārayantam’ are explained by Sāyaṇa as ‘Kṣatriya who bears false words’. The 2nd half is only an expansion of the first half and so ‘vṛjina’ corresponds to ‘rakṣas’ and ‘asad vadantam’ is only a paraphrase of ‘mithuyā dhārayantam’. They may mean this that one who is a kṣatriya, but has no strength as a kṣatriya should have, is at [[31]]

the mercy of Indra. Unless we project our notions of the later state of society and the caste system when considering this verse, it is hardly possible to hold that this verse indicates that it refers to persons making a false claim for entrance into a compact body of kṣatriyas by birth. Dr. Ghurye also says (p. 44) ‘The 2nd order in society, the kṣatriya, is known in the earlier portions of the Ṛgveda as rājanya.’ I have not been able to find the word rājanya in the Ṛgveda any where except in the Puruṣa-sūkta. In the Aitareya brāhmaṇa (chap. 34. 2) the word ‘rājanya’ stands for a member of the 2nd class in society, while kṣatriya means a king of whom land (for sacrifice to gods) is asked for by brāhmaṇa, rājanya or vaiśya.

Though the word vaiśya occurs in the Ṛgveda only in the Puruṣasūkta, the word ‘viś’ is very frequently employed in it. It generally means ‘people’ or ‘group of people’. In a large number of cases we have the words mānuṣīr-viśaḥ or mānuṣiṣu vikṣu or mānuṣiṇām viśām, e.g. Ṛg. III.5.3, III.6.3, III. 11.5 (invincible Agni goes in front of human groups), IV. 6. 7 and 8, IV.9.2, V. 1. 9, V. 8.3, VI. 48. 8, VI. 47. 16 (viśo mānuṣyān), X. 1. 4, X. 69. 9. In some places we have ‘dāsir viśaḥ’ (the dāsa hordes) e. g. IV. 28-4, VI. 25.2. In¹⁸ Ṛg. III. 34.2 we have ‘Oh Indra, you are the leader of human hordes as well as of divine hordes’ (where we have daivīnām viśām). Ṛg.¹⁹ VIII. 63.7 (when loud invocations were sent towards Indra by the people consisting of five groups) shows that ‘viś’ means all the Aryan people. In Ṛg. V. 32. 11 Indra is styled ‘pāñcajanya’ (favourable to the five people) and in IX. 66. 20 Agni has the appellation pañcajanyaḥ purohitaḥ (the purohita of the five peoples). Sometimes jana and viś seem to be contradistinguished as in Ṛg. II. 26. 3 (sa ij-janena sa viśā sa janmanā sa putrair-vājam bharate dhanā nṛbhiḥ). But the very fact that viś is qualified also as pāñcajanya shows that [[32]]

there was hardly any distinction between jana and viś. In the Ṛgveda frequent reference is made to five people (pañca janāḥ); vide Ṛg. III. 37. 9, III. 59.7, VI. 11. 4, VIII. 32. 22, X. 65.23, X. 45.6. In the same way the words kṛṣṭi (II. 2. 10, IV.38.10), kṣiti (V. 35. 2, VI. 48. 7, VII. 75. 4), carṣaṇi (V.86.2, VII. 15.2) are employed along with pañca. We have also ‘pāñcajanyāsu kṛṣṭiṣu’ in Ṛg. III. 53.16. So it is clear that viś cannot in almost all hymns of the Ṛg. mean ‘vaiśya’ but means ’the people’ or ‘āryan people’ when no epithet like ‘dāsiḥ’ or daiviḥ is prefixed.²⁰ The Ait. Br. (I. 26) says that ‘viśaḥ’ means ‘rāṣṭrāṇi’ (countries) when explaining Ṛg. IV. 50.8 (tasmai viśaḥ svayam-evānamante).

The word ‘dāsa’ in later literature means ‘a serf or a slave.’ It follows that the dāsa tribes that we see opposed to the Āryas in the Ṛgveda were gradually vanquished and were then made to serve the Āryas. In the Manusmṛti (VIII. 413) the śūdra is said to have been created by God for service (dāsya) of the brāhmaṇa.²¹ We find in the Tai. S., the Tai. Br. and other Brāhmaṇa works that the śūdra occupies the same position that he does in the smṛtis. Therefore it is reasonable to infer that the dāsas or dasyus conquered by the Āryas were gradually transformed into the śūdras. From being enemies they were brought into friendly relations and given a very subordinate position. Traces are visible even in the Ṛgveda that friendly relations had begun to be established between certain dāsas and the priests. For example in Ṛg. VIII. 46. 32 we read ’the singer took a hundred (cows or other gifts) from the dāsa Balbūtha and from Tarukṣa.’ In the Puruṣasūkta (X. 90.12) the brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya and śūdra are said to have sprung from the mouth, arms, thighs and feet of the supreme Puruṣa. In the very next verse the sun and the moon are said to have been born from the eye and mind of the Puruṣa. This shows that the composer of the hymn regarded the division of society into four classes to be very ancient and to be as natural and God-ordained as the sun and the moon.

Varna: position of śūdra

We shall now see what position was assigned to the śūdra in the Vedic Saṃhitās and Brāhmaṇas. In the Ṛgveda the Ārya is contradistinguished from the men of dark skin. In the dharmasūtras we find the Śūdras spoken of as ‘dark varṇa.’ [[33]]

Vide Āp. Dh. S. I. 9. 27. 11 which is the same as Baud. Dh. S. II. 1. 59.²² ‘The śūdra among men and the horse among beasts. Therefore those two, the horse and the śūdra, are the conveyances of beings; therefore the śūdra is not fit (or ordained) for sacrifice’ (Tai. S. VII. 1. 1. 6).²³ This shows that the śūdra could not perform the Vedic sacrifices and that he was employed for carrying persons in a palanquin or otherwise. In Tai. S. V. 7. 6. 3-4 we have ‘put light (glory) in our brāhmaṇas, put it in our chiefs (or kings), (put) light in vaiśyas and śūdras, put light in me by your light.’²⁴ This is a sure indication that the śūdra who took the place of the dāsa is here placed on the same level with the other three classes in the matter of the receipt of light from God and that far from being looked upon as an enemy, he had come to be looked upon as a member of the society (though the lowest in the scale). ‘The śūdra is a moving burial ground; therefore one should not study the Veda in the vicinity of a śūdra.’²⁵ ‘He created the brāhmaṇa with Gāyatrī, the rājanya with Triṣṭubh and the vaiśya with Jagatī; but he did not create the śūdra with any metre.’²⁶ The Tāṇḍyamahābrāhmaṇa says²⁷ ‘Therefore a śūdra, though he may have many beasts, is not entitled to perform sacrifice, he is godless as no deity was created after him (as in the case of the other varṇas); therefore he does not go beyond washing the feet (of the three other varṇas), since he was created from the feet’ (this last being an allusion to the Puruṣasūkta X. 90. 12 padbhyāṃ śūdro ajāyata). This shows that the śūdra, however rich in cattle he might be, had to perform the menial duty of washing the feet of dvijas. The [[34]]

Śatapatha Br. says that the śūdra is ‘untruth’ (S. B. E. vol. 44. p. 446), that the śūdra is ’toil’ (S. B. E. vol. 44 p. 410), and that a dīkṣita (one who was initiated for a Vedic sacrifice) was not to speak with a śūdra (S. B. E. vol. 26 p. 4). The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa remarks that ’the śūdra²⁸ is at the beck and call of others (the three varṇas), he can be made to rise at will, he can be beaten at will.’ When the father of Śunaḥśepa²⁹ (who had sold Śunaḥśepa for 100 coins and had shown himself ready to kill him as a paśu for another hundred coins) urged his son to come back to him after the boy had been taken into favour by Varuṇa and Viśvāmitra, he contemptuously discards his father’s proposal with the words ‘one who commits an evil deed once may commit another sinful deed thereafter; you did not leave aside the śūdra’s line of conduct; you did what leaves no door for reconciliation.’ These passages show that the śūdra, though he had ceased to be an enemy of the ārya and had been allowed to be within the pale of society, was looked down upon, was assigned a very low position, had to perform work of toil as a menial and was not allowed to perform Vedic sacrifices. A clear line of demarcation was kept between the Ārya and the Śūdra in the times of the Brāhmaṇa works and even in the dharmasūtras. The Tāṇḍya Brāhmaṇa³⁰ speaks of a mock fight ’the śūdra and ārya fight on a hide, out of the two they so arrange that the ārya colour becomes the victor’. The Āp. Dh. S. (I. 1.3.40-41) says³¹ that a brahmacārin, if he cannot himself eat all the food he has brought by begging, may keep it near an ārya (for his use) or he may give it to a śūdra who is a dāsa (of his teacher). The same Dharmasūtra³² (II. 2.3. 1 and 4) says ‘Āryas who are pure (by bath) should prepare the food for Vaiśvadeva; … or śūdras supervised by Āryas should prepare it’. Similarly Gautama X. 69 uses the word ‘anārya’ for śūdra and Gautama 12.3 prescribes heavy punishment for a [[35]]

śūdra having sexual intercourse with an ārya woman. Jaimini in his Pūrvamīmāṃsā-sūtra (VI. 1.25-38) establishes after elaborate discussion that the śūdra has no adhikāra for the performance of Agnihotra and Vedic sacrifices. It is, however, somewhat gratifying to find that at least one ācārya, Bādari, espoused the cause of the śūdra and propounded the view that all (including śūdras) were entitled to perform Vedic sacrifices (VI. 1.27). In the Vedānta-sūtras also (I. 3.34-38) it is established that the śūdra has no adhikāra for brahmavidyā based on Veda study, though some śūdras like Vidura might have been endowed with the knowledge of brahma owing to saṃskāras of former births. In the smṛti literature, however, a few passages are found allowing marriages of āryas with śūdra women (which will be discussed later on). Similarly sexual relations (illicit) between a śūdra woman and a man of higher varṇa are alluded to even in the Saṃhitās e. g. Tai. S.³³ VII. 4.19.3 ‘when a śūdra woman has an ārya as her paramour she does not seek wealth for the prosperity (of her relations)’. In Ait. Br. (8. 1) there is the story of Kavaṣa Ailūṣa, who was driven out from the sacrifice on the Sarasvatī with the words ‘Oh, son of a female slave, you are a rogue and not a brāhmaṇa; how did you take the dīkṣā (initiation) as one of us’ and they carried him off to a sandy desert with the idea that he might die of thirst there. He when tormented by thirst ‘saw’ the hymn Ṛg. X. 30 and Sarasvatī came rushing to him.³⁴ Further discussion about the śūdra and his disabilities will follow in another section later.

Varna: brāhmaṇas

The position of the three varṇas inter se (called collectively ārya) now requires consideration. It is clear that the Saṃhitās other than the Ṛgveda and Brāhmaṇa works show that the three classes of brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas had become differentiated and their privileges, duties and liabilities had become more or less fixed in those times. [[36]]

In Ṛg. IV. 50.8 we read that ‘king alone who places brahma first (i. e. honours him) dwells happy in his house, for him the earth always remains prosperous and to him all the people (or kingdoms) bow down of their own accord’. ‘Brāhmaṇas³⁵ are gods that are directly seen’ (Tai. S. I. 7.3.1); ’there are two kinds of gods; for indeed the gods are gods and the brāhmaṇas who have studied and teach the sacred lore are the human gods’ Śat. Br. (S. B. E. vol. 12 p. 309, vol. 26 p. 341). In the Atharvaveda V. 17. 19 there is an assertion of the pre-eminence of brāhmaṇas and the consequences of harming them or their cows. ‘Therefore the brāhmaṇa is the foremost’ (Tai. S. II. 6.2.5, V.2.7.1). ‘Therefore the brāhmaṇa shows his might by his mouth, since he was created from the mouth’ (Tāṇḍya Br. XI. 1. 2).³⁶ In the Ait. Br. (33. 4) Varuṇa, when he was told that a brāhmaṇa boy would be offered in place of the son of the king Hariścandra, is made to say ‘a brāhmaṇa is indeed preferable to a kṣatriya’. The mere fact of birth as brāhmaṇa’s son is represented here as giving to the boy pre-eminence over a king’s son. On the other hand the Śat. Br. says (V. 1. 1. 12) ‘a brāhmaṇa³⁷ is not adequate to (competent to manage) a kingdom’. In the Tai. Br. it is said that playing on the vīṇā (in the Aśvamedha) is to be done by a brāhmaṇa and a rājanya (and not by two brāhmaṇas), since wealth does not find delight in the brāhmaṇa. The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa³⁸ (XI. 5. 7.1) lays emphasis on the four peculiar attributes of brāhmaṇas viz. brāhmaṇya (purity of parentage as a brāhmaṇa), pratirūpacaryā (befitting deportment or conduct), yaśas (glory) and lokapakti (the teaching or perfecting of people). “When the people are being perfected or taught by him, people endow him with four privileges viz. arcā (honour), dāna (gifts), ajyeyatā (freedom [[38]]

from being harassed) and avadhyatā (freedom from being beaten). The Śatapatha (V. 4. 6. 9) expressly mentions that brāhmaṇa, rājanya, vaiśya and śūdra are the four Varṇas. Teaching had become so much associated with the brāhmaṇas that when the brāhmaṇa Gārgya approached king Ajātaśatru for the knowledge of brahma, the latter replied “this is contrary to the natural order that a brāhmaṇa should approach a kṣatriya with the idea ‘he (kṣatriya) will propound to me brahma’”.³⁹ In a separate section below all the privileges enjoyed by the brāhmaṇas will be set out at one place.

Varna: kṣatriyas

The position of kṣatriyas and their relation to the brāhmaṇas falls to be considered now. First of all with reference to the king several important passages may be cited. In some cases ‘rājan’ means only a ’noble’ or ‘chief’, as in Ṛg. X. 42. 10, X. 97. 6. In many passages ‘rājan’ means ‘king’. The government often seems to have been tribal, such tribes as Yadus, Turvaśas, Druhyus, Anus and Pūrus (Ṛg. I. 108. 8) being frequently mentioned (vide Ṛg. VII. 18. 6 for Bhṛgus and Druhyus and VII. 18. 7 for Tṛtsus, VIII. 6. 46 for Yadvas). Whether kingship was by election it is not necessary here to discuss. The king was regarded as keeping the people within bounds.⁴⁰ When a king was crowned, it was thought that ‘a kṣatriya was produced, a lord of all beings, the defender of brāhmaṇas (or of holy texts) and of dharma.’⁴¹ The Śat. Br. says ‘for these two (śrotriya and king) are the upholders of the sacred law among men’ (S. B. E. vol. 41 p. 106).⁴² That the co-operation between brāhmaṇa and kṣatriya results in glory and success is frequently emphasized e. g. ’therefore a brāhmaṇa must certainly be approached by a kṣatriya who is about to perform some act, for indeed that act of a kṣatriya which is sped on by brāhmaṇa succeeds’ (Śatapatha, S. B. E. vol. 26 pp. 270-271).⁴³ The purohita of a [[39]]

kṣatriya came to occupy a very high position. The Śatapatha (S. B. E. vol. 26 p. 270) lays emphasis on the importance of the purohita and cautions a brāhmaṇa against being the purohita of any king he meets with and adds that a brāhmaṇa may remain without a king, but a king should not be without a brāhmaṇa. Even the gods required a purohita, as the Tai. S. II. 5. 1. 1. says ‘Viśvarūpa son of Tvaṣṭṛ was the purohita of gods.’⁴⁴ Śaṇḍa and Amarka were the purohitas of the Asuras (Kāṭhaka S. IV. 4). Agni is often called purohita (Ṛg. I. 1. 1., I. 44. 10, III. 2. 8). “May we, purohitas, be awake in the kingdom (for its welfare)’ says the Tai. S. (I. 7. 10.1). The Ait. Br. (chap. 34.8) says⁴⁵ ’the purohita is half the soul of the kṣatriya’ and contains an eulogy of purohita in the following words (40.1) ‘for indeed the gods do not eat the food of a king who has no purohita; therefore a king when about to offer a sacrifice should have a brāhmaṇa as his purohita with the idea ‘may the gods eat my food.’” The combination of the brāhmaṇa and the rājanya is said to be most desirable and that it is conducive to the eminence of both is declared in the Tai. S. (V. 1. 10. 3)⁴⁶ ‘Therefore a brāhmaṇa who is supported by a rājanya is superior to another brāhmaṇa (not so supported), hence a rājanya who has a brāhmaṇa (to help him) is superior to another rājanya’. The Śatapatha (V. 4. 4. 15) declares that ‘king indeed who is not powerful to the brāhmaṇas (i. e. who is humble before the brāhmaṇas) becomes more powerful than his foes.’⁴⁷ It is not to be supposed that this attainment of the supreme position by brāhmaṇas was an affair of plain sailing. Sometimes kṣatriyas claimed higher position and also paid scant respect to brāhmaṇas. In the Śatapatha we read ‘whence the brāhmaṇa is an object of respect after the king’ (S. B. E. vol. 41, p. 96); ‘hence the people here serve, from a lower position, the kṣatriya seated above them’ Śatapatha (S. B. E. vol. 12 p. 94); ‘hence when a nobleman approaches, all these people, the subjects crouch down by him on the ground’ Śatapatha (S. B. E. vol. 26 p. 228); ’therefore there is nothing higher than the kṣatra; [[40]]

therefore the brāhmaṇa sits down below the kṣatriya in the Rājasūya’ (Śatapatha 14. 4. 1. 23 = Bṛ. Up. I. 4. 11). In the Atharvaveda several verses occur which declare the harm that results from disrespecting or injuring a brāhmaṇa or from robbing him of his cow. “He who regards brāhmaṇa as food drinks of the poison of Taimāta; he who injures a brāhmaṇa, the relative of the gods, does not attain to the world of pitṛs (Atharvaveda V. 18. 4 and 13). Those who spat on a brāhmaṇa or those who sent to him mucous remain biting the hair in the midst of a stream by their mouth; that kingdom sinks as water sinks a shattered vessel, where they injure a brāhmaṇa; that wicked act strikes that kingdom” (Atharvaveda V. 19. 3 and 8).⁴⁸

The stories of king Kārtavīrya and Viśvāmitra who respectively carried off the cows of Jamadagni and Vasiṣṭha narrated in the Mahābhārata (Śānti 49 for Kārtavīrya; Ādi. 175 for Viśvāmitra) and the Purāṇas show how several kings were high-handed and treated brāhmaṇas with no respect whatever. It appears that even the wives of brāhmaṇas were not quite safe at the hands of kings. ‘The chamberlain (kṣattṛ) of that king in whose kingdom the wife of a brāhmaṇa is thoughtlessly put under restraint does not march in front of cooking vessels with a golden ornament on his neck’⁴⁹ (Atharva V. 17. 14). The somewhat mystical hymn (Ṛg. X. 109) where ‘brahmajāyā’ figures prominently probably hints at the same fact (viz. the kidnapping of the wives of brāhmaṇas).

The Tai. S. says that ’the vaiśya indeed sacrifices, being desirous of cattle’ and that ’the gods having been defeated were reduced to the condition of being the vaiśyas or ‘viś’ of asuras’;⁵⁰ ’the vaiśya among men, cows among beasts, therefore they are to be enjoyed (to be eaten, to be subsisted upon) by others; they were produced from the receptacle of food; therefore they exceed others in numbers.’⁵¹ The Tai. Br. says ’the vaiśya class is [[41]]

said to have been born from ṛk verses, they declare the Yajurveda as the origin of the kṣatriya, the Sāmaveda is indeed the source of brāhmaṇas.’⁵² The same Brāhmaṇa further says ’the viś go away from (reside separately from) the brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas’. The Tāṇḍya Br. says⁵³ ‘Hence the vaiśya, though being eaten (i. e. subsisted upon) by others is not exhausted, since he was created from the prajanana (from the sexual parts of Prajāpati); therefore he has numerous cattle, he has all the gods (as his patrons) and was produced with the Jagatī metre, his season is the rains, therefore he is to be eaten by the brāhmaṇa and the rājanya, since he was created as lower (than those two classes). The Śat. Br. (S. B. E. vol. 26 p. 335) says ‘He thus assigns to the Maruts a share therein after Indra, whereby he makes the people (viś) subservient and obedient to the nobility’.⁵⁴ According to the Ait. Br. 35. 3 the vaiśya is one who is the food of others, who pays taxes to others. These passages show that vaiśyas were entitled to sacrifice, reared cattle, were far more numerous than the other two classes, they had to bear the brunt of taxation, they lived apart from brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas and were obedient to them.

The system of the four varṇas had taken such deep roots in the period when the Brāhmaṇa works were composed, that we often meet with Vedic passages saying that it extended even to the gods, Agni and Bṛhaspati being the brāhmaṇas among gods; Indra, Varuṇa, Soma, Yama being the kṣatriyas; Vasus, Rudras, the Viśve Devas and Maruts being the viś, and Pūṣan being the śūdra.⁵⁵ Similarly it is said ’the brāhmaṇa is really spring, the kṣatriya summer, and the viś are the rainy season.’ [[42]]

Varna: various crafts in the Vedas

That there were other professions and crafts with specific names (which in later times at least became castes) even in the times of the Saṃhitās is quite clear. The Ṛg. speaks of vaptā (barber) in X. 142.4, taṣṭā (a carpenter or maker of chariots) in Ṛg. I. 61.4, VII. 32.20, IX. 112.1, X. 119.5; tvaṣṭā (a carpenter) in VIII. 102.8; bhiṣak (medicine man) in IX. 112.1 and 3; karmāra or kārmāra (iron-smith) in X. 72.2 and IX. 112.2; carmamnā (tanner) in Ṛg. VIII. 5.38.

The Atharvaveda mentions rathakāra (III. 5.6), karmāra (III. 5.6) and sūta (III. 5.7). In the Tai. S. (IV. 5.4.2)⁵⁶ mention is made of kṣattṛ (royal chamberlain or doorkeeper), saṃgrahītṛ (treasurer), takṣan (carpenter) and rathakāra (maker of chariots), kulāla (potter), karmāra, puñjiṣṭa (fowler), niṣāda, iṣukṛt (maker of arrows), dhanvakṛt (maker of bows), mṛgayu (hunter) and śvanin (those who lead packs of hounds). These also occur in the Vājasaneya-saṃhitā 16.26-28 and these and a few more in Vāj. S. 30.5-13 and in Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā 17.13. In the Tai. Br. (III. 4.1 and the following anuvākas that deal with Puruṣamedha) we have āyogū, māgadha (bard), sūta, śailūṣa (actor), rebha, bhīmala, rathakāra, takṣan, kaulāla, karmāra, maṇikāra, vapa (sower or barber), iṣukāra, dhanvakāra, jyākāra (maker of bow-string), rajjusarga, mṛgayu, śvanin, surākāra (vintner), ayastāpa (heater of iron or copper), kitava (gambler), bidalakāra (worker in wicker-work), kaṇṭakakāra. The Śatapatha Br. XI. 8.1. speaks of kaulāla-cakra (the potter’s wheel). The Tai. Br. III. 8.5 mentions also rājaputra ugra. The Śatapatha (S. B. E. Vol. 44 p. 397) speaks of Marutta Āvikṣita as an āyogava king. This latter is a pratiloma caste according to the dharmasūtras (vide below). Whether in the Śatapatha that word has the same sense is doubtful. The Tai. S. I. 8.9.1-2 mentions among the ‘ratnas’ (the jewels), the sūta, grāmaṇi, kṣattṛ, saṃgrahītṛ, bhāgadugha (collector of taxes), akṣāvāpa (superintendent of gambling). Vide also Tai. Br. I. 7.3. In the Tāṇḍya Brāhmaṇa (19.1.4) it is said that ’eight brave persons hold up the kingdom viz. the king’s brother, the king’s son, the purohita, the crowned queen, the sūta, the grāmaṇi, kṣattṛ and saṃgrahītṛ’. Therefore it looks likely that kṣattṛ and saṃgrahītṛ were high officers of state and not castes. In the Śat. Br. XIII. 4. 1. 5 among the [[43]]

guards of the horse let loose in the Aśvamedha there were ‘a hundred sons of kṣāttṛ-saṃgrahītṛs carrying clubs’. As the word ‘kṣāttra’ is prefixed to ‘saṃgrahītṛ’ it follows that ‘saṃgrahītṛs’ were officers who may have belonged to any varṇa. In the same passage mention is made of a hundred guardians who were the sons of sūtagrāmaṇis. In another passage of the same brāhmaṇa (XIII. 2.2.18) the sūtas and grāmaṇis are said to be ’no kings and yet are rājakṛt (i. e. king-makers)’.⁵⁷ This means probably that they are the principal persons on whose support the king depends. The Śat. Br. V. 4. 4.15-19 arranged brāhmaṇa, king, king’s brother, sūta or sthapati, grāmaṇi, sajāta in a descending scale of powerfulness. So the sūta appears to have been originally an important officer. It is hardly possible to say with assurance that all these had become petrified into castes in the modern sense, particularly when several persons associated with these in the Vāj. S. and elsewhere were not castes such as the thief (taskara), the impotent (klība), humpbacked (kubja), dwarf (vāmana); but most of the avocations and crafts referred to above have corresponding castes and subcastes for hundreds of years. It is therefore possible to say that in the times of the Saṃhitās and Brāhmaṇas these were groups founded on occupations that had become castes or were in process of developing into castes. The Tāṇḍya Br. speaks of Kirātas (who were and are non-Āryan and were aboriginal tribes).⁵⁸ The Vāj. S. (30. 17) speaks of Paulkasa in connection with bībhatsā (nauseating filth) and of cāṇḍālas (in 30.21) in connection with vāyu (wind). The paulkasa and caṇḍāla occur in Tai. Br. (III. 4. 14 and III. 4. 17 respectively). In the Chāndogya Up. (V. 10.7)⁵⁹ the cāṇḍāla is ranked with the dog and the boar. ‘Therefore even if one knowing thus were to give the leavings of his food to a cāṇḍāla that would in his case be an offering made into the [[44]]

Self as Fire’—Chāndogya V. 24. 4. This shows that the cāṇḍāla was the lowest in the social scale. ‘Just as a dasyu or vaideha, or the son of an ugra, after having made his bow strung &c.’–Bṛ. Up. III. 8.2. In the Bṛ. Up. IV. 3.22 mention is made of both cāṇḍāla and paulkasa and in IV. 3.37 it is said⁶⁰ that ‘just as when a king pays a visit, the ugras, pratyenasas (thief-catchers), the sūtas and headmen of the village make arrangements for him with food and drink and with pavilions.” Here ugras seem to be a group of nobles subordinate to the king. In later literature ugra is the offspring of a kṣatriya from a śūdra woman (Yāj. I. 91). In the Ṛg. X. 97, 12 the word ugra occurs “You destroy disease just as an ugra who is a mediator or arbitrator (removes dispute).” What ugra means here cannot be said with certainty. It may only mean a ‘formidable chief or king.’

The rathakāra and niṣāda deserve a passing notice. The Tai. Br. I. 1. 4 after stating that the brāhmaṇas should consecrate sacred fires in the spring, the kṣatriya in summer, the vaiśya in autumn, ordains that the rathakāra should consecrate sacred fires in the rainy season. The question arises whether the rathakāra is a member of the three higher castes who has taken in economic distress to the profession of making chariots or is a person belonging to a caste other than the three higher varṇas. Jaimini in his Pūrvamīmāṃsā-sūtra (VI. 1. 44-50) discusses this question and establishes⁶¹ that the rathakāra is a member of a caste other than the three higher varṇas, that he has on account of the express words in the śruti the privilege to consecrate sacred fires with vedic mantras, that the mantra for the consecration of rathakāras is ‘ṛbhūṇāṃ tvā’ (Tai. Br. I. 1. 4) and that the rathakāras are the caste called Saudhanvana which is neither śūdra nor one of the three higher ones, but is slightly inferior to the three higher varṇas. Viśvarūpa⁶² (on [[45]]

Yāj. I. 10) notices that in some smṛti the rathakāra though not belonging to the three higher varṇas, was allowed the privilege of upanayana, but adds that this dictum of the smṛti is due to mistake, it being misled by the fact that he is allowed the privilege of ādhāna⁶³ (consecration of sacred fires). In modern times the members of the carpenter caste in certain parts of the Deccan at least are in the habit of performing the upanayana and wearing the sacred thread.

With reference to an iṣṭi offered to Rudra a Vedic text says ‘one should make a niṣādasthapati perform this iṣṭi.’ The Pūrvamīmāṃsā-sūtra⁶⁴ (VI. 1. 51-52) discusses the question whether this authorises a niṣāda who is himself a chieftain or a chieftain (who is a member of the three higher varṇas) of niṣādas. The established conclusion is that the iṣṭi is to be performed by a niṣāda who is a chieftain though he be beyond the pale of the three varṇas, as the Karmadhāraya compound is the proper way of dissolving the compound and not the genitive Tatpuruṣa. The Ait. Br. (37.7) says⁶⁵ ‘just as the niṣādas, or selagas (thieves) or evil-doers seize a wealthy man in a forest and throwing him in a well run away with his wealth.’ The Śāṅkhāyana Br. (25. 15) allows one who had performed the Viśvajit sacrifice (in which everything is given away) to stay in a settlement of niṣādas whose food is the lowest that he is allowed to take. The Kātyāyanaśrauta-sūtra (I. 1. 12-14) says⁶⁶ that the chieftain who is a niṣāda can offer a caru of Gavedhuka corn to Rudra, but this offering is to be made in ordinary fire (and not in the fires consecrated with Vedic mantras) i. e. the permission to offer Raudra iṣṭi does not entitle him to perform Vedic consecration of fire (ādhāna). But according to Satyāṣāḍha⁶⁷ kalpa III. 1 both the niṣāda and the rathakāra are entitled to perform Agnihotra and Darśa-pūrṇamāsa. [[46]]

The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa⁶⁸ narrates that Viśvāmitra cursed his senior fifty sons, when they did not agree to his proposal to treat Śunaḥśepa (Devarāta) as his son, that they would associate with the lowest castes and that they became the Andhras, Puṇḍras, Śabaras, Pulindas and Mūtibas who are among the lowest of society and are mostly composed of dasyus. It is probably owing to this legend that the Manusmṛti⁶⁹ (X. 43-45) is prepared to regard the Pauṇḍrakas, the Oḍras, Draviḍas, Kāmbojas, Yavanas, Śakas, Pāradas, Pahlavas, Cīnas, Kirātas, Daradas and Khaśas as being originally kṣatriya castes, but later on reduced to the position of śūdras by the non-performance of Vedic saṃskāras (like upanayana) and by the absence of contact with brāhmaṇas. Manu further adds that the various castes that are outside the (influence of the) four varṇas are all known as dasyus whether they speak the language of Mlecchas or of Āryas.

One very important question is whether the theory of the four varṇas with their peculiar privileges and duties described in the dharmasūtras and other smṛtis was merely a theory even in the most ancient times. When the Puruṣasūkta of the Ṛgveda speaks of Brāhmaṇa, Rājanya, Vaiśya and Śūdra or when the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa expressly says that they are four Varṇas, it appears to me that they speak of facts existing in their times and not merely of a theory which was to be striven for as an ideal. Smṛti writers try to place all their dicta in the frame-work of the varṇas because the four varṇas and their duties and privileges had been more or less clearly defined in the times of the Vedas and Brāhmaṇas, which according to the authors of the smṛtis were śruti, eternal and infallible. They tried to approximate the state of society existing in their times to the varṇas which they held were of hoary antiquity. But there is nothing to show that the same difficulties were felt by the authors of the Vedic hymns and the Brāhmaṇas. The manner in which they refer to the privileges and disabilities of the several varṇas have such a deep ring of actuality that one must concede that the varṇas spoken of in them represented the [[48]]

real divisions of society at least to a very great extent, if not cent percent.

The preceding discussion renders the following propositions most probable:

(1) that in the earliest times about which we have literary records there were only two varṇas, the āryas and their opponents the dasyus or dāsas; that the difference between the two was based on difference of colour and culture and was thus more or less racial and cultural;

(2) that centuries before the saṃhitā period closed the dasyus had been conquered and were given a position subservient to the āryas;

(3) that the śūdras were the dasyus so subjugated and made subservient;

(4) that the spirit of exclusiveness and pride of superiority existing among the Āryas with reference to dasyus soon extended to groups among the āryas themselves;

(5) that by the time of the Brāhmaṇa Literature, brāhmaṇas (men supposed to be devoted to learning and priesthood), kṣatriyas (kings, noblemen and some warriors) and vaiśyas (the artisans and common people) had become separated into groups more or less dependent on birth and that the brāhmaṇa⁷⁰ had come to be regarded as superior to the kṣatriya by the fact of birth;

(6) that even such low castes as cāṇḍālas and paulkasas had been evolved long before the end of the Vedic period;

(7) that owing to cultural advance, division of labour arose and numerous arts and crafts had been developed and they were in process of contributing to the complexity of the system by creating numerous sub-castes based upon occupations;

(8) that besides the four varṇas intermediate castes like the rathakāra had been evolved;

(9) that there were certain non-Āryan tribes which were supposed to have been originally kṣatriyas but fallen later on. [[49]]

The close of the Vedic period is here taken as being not later than about 1000 B. C. How much earlier it may be placed it is not possible to say.

The following is a list of persons engaged in professions and crafts, which had probably become castes or were in the process of becoming castes, before the close of the Vedic period, as seen from the Vāj. S., Tai. S. and Tai. Br., Kāṭhaka Saṃ. (17. 13), the Atharva-veda, the Tāṇḍya Br. (III. 4.), the Ait. Br., the Chāndogya and the Bṛ. Up. The meaning of some of the words is not quite clear and it is possible that some in the list were not at all castes or professions. They are arranged in the alphabetical order of Sanskrit (though transliterated). The meanings of most of them have been given above. Where the meaning is doubtful a question mark has been made.

Ajāpala (goatherd) Andhra Ayastāpa Ayogū or Āyogū Avipāla (keeper of ewes) Āṇḍa (?) Iṣukāra Ugra Kaṇṭakakāra or Kaṇṭakīkārī (in Vāj. S.) Karmāra Kāri (dancer?) Kitava Kirāta Kināśa (cultivator?) Kulāla or Kaulāla Kuparta Kośakārī (blower of bellows) Kṣattṛ Gopāla Carmamnā Caṇḍāla Jambhaka (?) Jyākāra Takṣan Dāśa Dhanuṣkāra Dhanvakāra Dhanvakṛt Dhaivara Niṣāda Naiṣāda Puṃścalī Puñjiṣṭa Pauñjiṣṭha Puṇḍra Pulinda Paulkasa Bainda (catching fish in nets) Bhiṣak Bhīmala (timid?) Maṇikāra Māgadha Mārgāra Mūtiba Mṛgayu [[50]] Maināla (catcher of fish?) Vidalakārī or Bidalakārī Rajayitrī (dyer) Rathakāra Rajaputra Rebha (?) Vaṃśanartin Vapa (barber) Vāṇija Vāsaḥ-palpūlī (a washer-woman) Vrātya Śabara Śābalya (?) Śailūṣa Śvanin (or Śvanina) Saṃgrahītṛ Surākāra Sūta Selaga Hiranyakāra

Several centuries before the Christian era there were several castes. This follows not only from the dharmasūtras but also from the ancient Buddhist works and from the meagre existing fragments of the work of Megasthenes on India. Though Megasthenes was confused in his statements about the caste system as prevalent in his day, some propositions are clearly deducible therefrom. He states (pp. 40 ff) that the whole population of India was divided into seven castes, (1) philosophers, (2) husbandmen, (3) neatherds and shepherds, (4) artisans, (5) military, (6) overseers, (7) councillors and assessors. Out of these 1 and 5 correspond to brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas, 2-3 to vaiśyas, 4 to śūdras; 6th and 7th correspond to adhyakṣas and amātyas (as in Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra) and are not really castes but occupations. He probably regards them as castes because the offices of the adhyakṣas and amātyas were generally hereditary or at least he gathered that they were so. Megasthenes’ further statement (pp. 43-44) that ’no one is allowed to marry out of his own caste or to exercise any calling or art except his own’ shows that the prevailing tendency was that caste had become exclusive and mostly occupational in his day, though there must have been exceptions of which he was not informed.

Varna and castes derived therefrom

The ancient writers on dharmaśāstra strive very hard to account for the bewildering ramifications of the caste system from the four varṇas that were spoken of in the śruti (revelation). There is unanimity on the theory that the numerous castes actually found in the country arose from the unions of males of different varṇas with women belonging to varṇas differing from their own. The divergences (and they are [[51]] many) among the several smṛtikāras relate only to details. The smṛti writers had before them the hoary theory of four Varṇas vouched for by infallible Vedic authority, but they were at the same time quite cognizant of the realities in society viz. the separate existence of numerous castes and sub-castes that had varying claims as regards social status and that were based in popular estimation on birth alone. Therefore, when one criticizes the smṛti view of the derivation of numerous castes from the mixture or confusion (saṅkara) of the four varṇas as purely hypothetical and imaginary, the criticism is true only partially. The smṛtis were composed in different parts of India at different times and they were meant to supply a popular want, to guide the people and to reflect the prevailing state of society and popular feeling. Therefore, it must be admitted that the numerous castes mentioned in the smṛtis did exist at the time of the smṛtis, that the social status of the several castes might have varied from country to country or from epoch to epoch, that the peculiar avocations and means of livelihood assigned to the various castes reflected the real state of things. The element of hypothesis and speculation lies only in the theory of a particular sub-caste having sprung from the union of two persons belonging to two particular varṇas or castes.⁷¹ This description of the origin of the several castes was only indicative of the author’s view or of the accepted view about the social status of those castes in particular localities. There is here, as a matter of fact, great divergence of views among the several authors.

In the first place all writers on dharmaśāstra start with the propositions viz. (1) that the four varṇas, brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya and śūdra, are arranged in a descending scale of social status; and (2) that marriage is or was permissible between a male of a higher varṇa with a woman of a lower varṇa, but the union of a woman of a higher varṇa with a male of varṇa lower than her own is reprehensible and not permitted. There is a third proposition advanced by many writers that a man belongs to a particular varṇa or jāti by birth only i. e. if born in lawful wedlock of parents both of whom belong to that varṇa [[52]]

or jāti.⁷² This is the view held by all medieval writers and digests and it is expressly said that a man belongs to a caste by birth and no actions of his can alter that fact, that several castes are like the species of animals and that caste attaches to the body and not to the soul (vide Sūtasaṃhitā). When a male of a higher varṇa marries a woman of a lower varṇa, the marriage is said to be anuloma (lit. with the hair, in the natural order) and the offspring is said to be anuloma; when there is a union of a woman of a higher varṇa with a male of a lower varṇa, it is said to be pratiloma (against the hair, i. e. against the natural or proper order) and the children of the union are said to be pratiloma. These two words anuloma and pratiloma (as applied to marriage or progeny) hardly ever occur in the vedic literature. In the Bṛ. Up. (II. 1. 15) and Kauṣītaki Br. Up. IV. 18 (quoted in note 89 above) the word ‘pratiloma’ is applied to the procedure adopted by a brāhmaṇa of going to a kṣatriya for knowledge about brahman. From this it may possibly be inferred that pratiloma and anuloma might have been employed with reference to marriages also (in the days of the Upaniṣad). Pāṇini (IV. 4. 28) teaches the formation of words from anuloma and pratiloma. They occur in Gautama (IV. 14-15), Baud. Dh. S. (I. 8. 8), Vasiṣṭha (18.7), Manu (X. 13), Yāj. (I. 95) and other smṛti works.

One important question is whether the theory of anuloma or pratiloma castes presupposes a marriage or only a union (outside marriage) of a man and a woman. The Āp. Dh. S. (II. 6. 13. 1, 3-4) lays down⁷³ that a man must marry a virgin of his own varṇa with the rites prescribed by the śāstras and only the son born of such a marriage is entitled to the privileges and occupation of his father, that sexual intercourse with a woman who has been married by another or on whom the proper ceremonies of marriage are not performed or who [[53]]

Varna: anuloma and pratiloma castes

belongs to another caste is condemned and that the son (and not the daughter) born of such an union is condemned (through the sin of the parents). So Āpastamba looked with disfavour even on marriages called anuloma. He is entirely silent about anuloma and pratiloma castes. It is no doubt true that most ancient writers like Gautama (IV. 1), Vasiṣṭha (I. 24), Manu (III. 12-13), Yāj. (I. 55 and 57) prescribe that a person should by preference marry a girl of his own varṇa but also allow the marriage of a person with a girl of another varṇa lower than his own. Yāj. (I. 92) expressly says that the six anuloma castes, mūrdhāvasikta, ambaṣṭha, niṣāda, māhiṣya, ugra, and karaṇa are so called only when they are the offspring of women married by men of higher varṇas. Manu (X. 41) says that the six anuloma castes are entitled to the rites (saṃskāras like upanayana) performed for dvijas, but that the pratiloma castes are like śūdras (i. e. even when a pratiloma caste springs from a brāhmaṇa woman and a kṣatriya or vaiśya male they cannot have upanayana and other rites of dvijas performed for them, though both parents are dvijas). Kauṭilya⁷⁴ (III. 7) also says that all pratilomas except cāṇḍālas are like śūdras; Viṣṇu says that they are condemned by all Āryas. Devala’s (quoted by Parāśaramādhavīya I. 2. p. 122) says that pratilomas are outside the pale of the system of varṇas and are patita. The Smṛtyarthasāra p. 13 says that anuloma sons and those born of the mūrdhāvasikta and other anuloma castes are dvijātis and are entitled to saṃskāras as dvijātis. Commentators like Kullūka (on Manu X. 11) say that, as no marriage is legally possible between a woman of a higher varṇa and a male of a lower varṇa, all the pratilomas are born outside lawful wedlock. Gautama (IV. 20) says that all pratilomas are dharmahīna, which is interpreted by the Mit. on Yāj. III. 262 as meaning that they cannot have upanayana and similar saṃskāras of dvijas performed for them, though they are amenable to the rules of morality and entitled to perform vratas and prāyaścittas. Vasiṣṭha, Baudhāyana and several others do not make it clear whether, when they speak of pratilomas, they contemplate offspring of legal [[54]]

marriages or only of illegitimate and adulterous unions. But it will be seen from the list appended below that Uśanas and Vaikhānasa almost always make a distinction between the caste assigned to the offspring of the union of parents of different varṇas, according as there is a marriage between the two or it is only a clandestine, illegitimate or adulterous union. For example, Uśanas says⁷⁵ that when there is a marriage between a kṣatriya male and a brāhmaṇa female, the offspring is called sūta, while the offspring of a clandestine union between a brāhmaṇa woman and a kṣatriya male was called rathakāra. So these two authors held that there could be a legal marriage when a woman of a higher varṇa married a male of a lower varṇa.⁷⁶ There were several other works like the Sūtasaṃhitā (Śivamāhātmyakhaṇḍa chap. 12. 12-48) where a similar distinction is made between the children of marriages and clandestine unions. The Mit. on Yāj. I. 90 says that such progeny as kuṇḍa and golaka (Manu III. 174), kānīna, sahoḍhaja (who are all not due to intercourse in wedlock) are different from savarṇa, anuloma and pratiloma and are to be treated as śūdras and that the kṣetraja son is to be treated as in a different category (since niyoga is allowed by the smṛtis and by the usage of śiṣṭas) and belongs to the caste of his mother. Aparārka (on Yāj. I. 92 p. 118) does not accept this view and holds that even kānīna and sahoḍha may be held to be brāhmaṇas (if the begetter can be proved to have been a brāhmaṇa); while Viśvarūpa on Yāj. II. 133 says that kānīna and gūḍhaja must be deemed to belong to the mother’s caste as the begetter may not be known and that sahoḍhaja (II. 135) is also to be so treated. These several kinds of secondary sons will be treated under inheritance.

Varna and jāti

A few words must be said about the word jāti. The idea of varṇa was as we have seen based originally on race, culture, character and profession. It takes account mainly of the moral and intellectual worth of man and is a system of classes which appears more or less natural. The ideal of varṇa even in the smṛtis lays far more emphasis on duties, on a high standard of effort for the community or society rather than on the rights and privileges of birth. The system of jātis (castes) lays all emphasis on [[55]]

birth and heredity and tends to create the mentality of clinging to privileges without trying to fulfil the obligations corresponding to such privileges. The word “jāti’ in the sense of caste hardly ever occurs in the vedic literature. In the Nirukta⁷⁷ (XII. 13) it is said ‘after agnicayana (the building of the fire altar), a man should not approach a rāmā (for sexual intercourse); rāmā is so called because she is approached only for pleasure and not for (accumulation of) merit; she is of a dark caste’. Here the word kṛṣṇajātīyā occurs with reference to a woman of the śūdra caste. Almost these very words occur in Vasiṣṭha (18. 17-18)⁷⁸ where for kṛṣṇajātīyā the word kṛṣṇavarṇā is substituted. Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 56 (yad-ucyate etc.)⁷⁹ quotes these words as a brāhmaṇa text, but there the word is kṛṣṇavarṇī. Therefore, the use of the word jāti in the sense of caste can be traced back at least to the times of the Nirukta. Pāṇini (V. 4. 9)⁸⁰ teaches the formation of words like ‘brāhmaṇajātīya’ derived from words ending in ‘jāti’ (in the sense of caste). The expression ‘jātidharma’ (rules of castes) occurs in Gautama XI. 20, Vasiṣṭha I. 17 and XIX. 7, Manu I. 118 and VIII, 41 and the word jāti (caste) occurs also in Āp. Dh. S. II. 3. 6.1, II. 1.2.3, Manu (IV. 141, X, 11, 18, 40, 97), Yāj. (I. 95, 361, II. 69, 206, III. 213), Nārada (ṛṇādāna 288) and in the vārtika on Pāṇini IV. 1. 137. Varṇa and jāti are sometimes clearly distinguished as in Yāj. II. 69 and 206. But very often they are confounded. In Manu X. 27, 31 the word varṇa is used in the sense of mixed castes (jātis). Conversely the word jāti often appears to be used to indicate ‘varṇa’. Vide Manu III. 15, VIII. 177, IX. 86 and 335, X. 41 and Yāj. I. 89 (in which latter sajāti appears to mean ‘savarṇa’).

Even when anuloma marriages were allowed there is no unanimity among the sages and the smṛtis as to the status of the progeny of such unions. Three different views are found. The first view is that if a male of one varṇa married a female of the varṇa immediately after it, the progeny belonged to the varṇa [[56]]

of the father; e. g. Baud. Dh. S.⁸¹ (I. 8.6 and I. 9. 3) says that sons born to a person of a savarṇa wife or a wife of the varṇa next to his own are savarṇa i. e. the son of a brāhmaṇa from a wife of the kṣatriya varṇa is a brāhmaṇa. The Anuśāsana-parva 48. 4, Nārada (strīpuṃsa 106) and Kauṭilya (III. 7) say the same. Gautama IV. 15 as interpreted by Haradatta appears to say that the offspring of a brāhmaṇa from a kṣatriya wife is called savarṇa, but not the offspring of a kṣatriya male from a vaiśya wife or of a vaiśya male from a śūdra wife. Fick (pp. 54-57) shows that even according to the Bhaddasāla Jātaka ’the family of the mother does not matter; the family of the father alone is important’. The second view is that the progeny of anuloma unions is in status lower than the father, but higher than the mother; e. g. Manu X. 6 ‘sages declare the sons begotten by dvijas on wives of varṇas immediately next to theirs as similar (to the fathers, but not of the same varṇa with the fathers) but tainted by the inferiority of their mothers.’ The third view (and this is the common view) is that the progeny of anuloma marriages is of the same varṇa as regards its privileges and obligations as the mother’s; e. g. vide Viṣṇu Dh. S. 16. 2⁸² and Śaṅkha (prose) quoted by the Mit. on Yāj. I. 91 and Aparārka (p. 118). A classical echo of this view is found in the Śakuntalā of Kālidāsa where king Duṣyanta exclaims aside to himself ‘would that this girl were born of the sage from a wife who was not savarṇa’.⁸³ Medhātithi on Manu X. 6 says that Pāṇḍu, Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Vidura being kṣetraja sons took the caste of their mothers. The Mit. explains the words of Śaṅkha by saying that the offspring of anuloma marriages such as mūrdhāvasikta are not really different from kṣatriyas, that they have the same saṃskāras but they do not become kṣatriyas etc. and are dubbed by these names to indicate their mixed origin and come to form separate sub-castes. The pratilomas, as said above, are lower in status than any of the two parents. [[57]]

Varna and the enumeration of castes

The ancient dharmasūtras mention only a few mixed castes. Āp. Dh. S. mentions only cāṇḍāla, paulkasa and vaiṇa. Gautama names five anuloma castes, six pratiloma, one and eight others according to the view of some. Baudhāyana adds to those mentioned by Gautama a few more viz rathakāra, śvapaka, vaiṇa and kukkuṭa. Vasiṣṭha names even a smaller number than Gautama and Baudhāyana. It is Manu (X) and Viṣṇu Dh. S. (XVI) that for the first time dilate upon the avocations of the mixed castes. Manu refers to 6 anuloma, 6 pratiloma and 20 doubly mixed castes and states the avocations of about 23; Yāj. names only 13 castes (other than the four Varṇas). Uśanas names about 40 and gives their peculiar avocations. All the smṛtis taken together hardly mention more than about one hundred castes.

The number of primary anulomas is only six (vide Manu X. 10, Yāj. I. 91-92), but Manu names only three of them, viz. ambaṣṭha, niṣāda and ugra. The primary pratilomas also are six (vide Manu X. 11–12 and 16-17 and Yāj. I. 93–94) viz sūta, vaidehaka, cāṇḍāla, māgadha, kṣattṛ, and āyogava. Further sub-castes are said to arise from the unions of the anulomas and pratilomas with the four varṇas and of the male of one anuloma and the female of another, from the union of pratilomas among themselves and from the union of a male or female of an anuloma caste and the female or male of a pratiloma caste. For example, Yāj. I. 95 defines rathakāra as the offspring of a māhiṣya male and a karaṇa female, i. e. it is a further mixture between two anuloma castes. The Mit. on Yāj. I. 95 says that upanayana and other saṃskāras are performed for the offspring of anuloma persons marrying among themselves. The Smṛtyarthasāra (p. 13) says the same.⁸⁴ Similarly Manu X. 15 says that āvṛta and ābhīra spring from the union of a brāhmaṇa with an ugra girl and an ambaṣṭha girl respectively (i. e. from the union of a brāhmaṇa with anuloma caste girls). Manu X. 19 says that śvapāka is the offspring of a kṣattṛ male (a pratiloma) with an ugra female (an anuloma). Manu X. 33 defines maitreyaka as the offspring of a vaidehaka male and an āyogava female (i.e. from parents who are both pratiloma). A [[58]]

smṛti verse quoted⁸⁵ by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 95 says that there are six anulomas, 24 doubly mixed castes (due to the union of the six anulomas with the four varṇas), 6 pratilomas and 24 doubly mixed castes (due to the unions of 6 pratilomas with four varṇas) i. e. in all 60 and further mixtures of these among themselves give rise to innumerable sub-castes. Similarly Viṣṇu Dh. S. 16.7⁸⁶ says that the further mixed castes arising from the unions of mixed castes are numberless. This shows that before the time of the Viṣṇudharmasūtra (i. e. at least about 2000 years ago) numberless castes and sub-castes had been formed and the writers on dharmaśāstra practically gave up in despair the task of deriving them, even though mediately, from the primary varṇas. The same state of things was continued and was rather aggravated by the time of the nibandhakāras. Medhātithi on Manu X. 31 speaks of 60 mixed castes along with the four varṇas and adds that by the intermingling of these endless sub-castes are formed. The Mitākṣarā⁸⁷ on Yāj. I. 95 observes that since the castes springing from the double intermingling of varṇas are innumerable, it is impossible to describe or enumerate them. Similarly the Kṛtyakalpataru in its prakīrṇaka topic of vyavahāra section, when dealing with castes, merely quotes several passages from the smṛtis and does not add a word of its own about the castes, their names or avocations in its own day (first half of 12th century). The Mit. on Yāj. I. 94⁸⁸ expressly says that the avocations of the pratilomas (about which Yāj. is silent) should be understood from the smṛtis of Uśanas and Manu. Medieval writers on dharmaśāstra usually ignore the treatment in detail of the numerous sub-castes and content themselves with dilating upon the duties of the four varṇas.

Varna and sub-castes

There was great diversity of opinion among the smṛtikāras about the derivation and status of the several sub-castes. We find that the same sub-caste is known under five or six different names even so early as the present Manusmṛti. [[59]]

Manu X. 22 gives seven names for the same caste and Manu X. 23 gives five for another. Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 92 explains that these different names are due to difference of locality.⁸⁹ There is another difficulty. The same name given to a caste is differently derived by different writers (vide under niṣāda and pāraśava below). For the same sub-caste different names are given in different smṛtis (vide under kṛta and rāmaka). It became difficult to assign any peculiar derivation for groups of people and so Manu (X. 40), Vasiṣṭha⁹⁰ (18.7) and Anuśāsana-parva 148. 29 laid down that men’s sub-caste was to be known from their actions and occupations. This shows that according to most writers castes in the times of the smṛtis were predominantly occupational.

One word that frequently occurs in connection with castes and sub-castes is varṇasaṅkara (or only saṅkara). In Manu X. 12 and 24 the word varṇasaṃkara is used in the plural in the sense of ‘mixed castes’, while in Manu X. 40 (and in V. 89) the word saṅkara seems to be used in the sense of ‘mixture or intermingling of Varṇas’. Gautama (VIII. 3) employs the word saṃkara and says ‘on the two (the brāhmaṇa and the king) depends the prosperity of men, protection, the prevention of mixture (of varṇas) and the (accumulation of) merit (or the observance of dharma).⁹¹ Nārada (strīpuṃsa 102)⁹² says ’to be born from a union in the inverse order of Varṇas amounts to varṇasaṅkara;’ while Bṛhaspati quoted in the Kṛtyakalpataru appears to apply the word varṇasaṃkara to both anuloma and pratiloma castes. Baud.⁹³ Dh. S. (I. 9. 16) says that those who are born of [[60]]

Varṇasaṃkara are called vrātyas. The Mit. on Yāj. I. 96 applies the word varṇasaṃkara to both anuloma and pratiloma progeny. Medhātithi⁹⁴ on Manu V. 88 says that the word ‘saṃkarajāta’ indicates pratilomas like āyogava and that even though as regards anulomas there is intermingling (of varṇas), yet as they have the privileges of the caste of their mothers, even Manu himself does not apply the word saṃkīrṇayoni to them as seen above (Manu X. 25). Yama⁹⁵ quoted in the Kṛtyakalpataru says ‘Varṇasaṃkara arises by the violation of the restrictions (about marriage); if the proper order of varṇas (i. e. male of higher varṇa marrying a woman of a lower varṇa) is followed, (the offspring) is entitled to be regarded as belonging to the system of varṇas, but if the reverse order is followed it is sin.’ Manu (X. 24) says ‘mixed castes arise by members of one varṇa having sexual intercourse with women of another varṇa, by marrying women who ought not to have been married (such as a sagotra girl) and by neglect of the duties peculiar to one’s varṇa’. The Anuśāsanaparva 48. 1⁹⁶ remarks that ‘varṇasaṃkara arises from wealth, greed, desires, uncertainty about the varṇa (of a person) or ignorance about varṇa’. Even in such a philosophical treatise as the Bhagavad-gītā (I. 41-43), it is said ‘when women become corrupt (or demoralised), intermingling of varṇas arises; saṃkara necessarily leads the whole family and the destroyer of the family to hell. By reason of these transgressions of the destroyers of families which bring about varṇasaṃkara, the ancient caste observances and family observances are subverted.’

Varna and varṇasaṅkara

On account of the great emphasis laid on the prevention of varṇasaṃkara the smṛtis ordain that it is one of the principal duties of the king to punish people if they transgress the rules prescribed for varṇas and to punish men and women if guilty of varṇasaṃkara. Gautama (XI. 9-10) says ’the king should protect the varṇas and āśramas according to the śāstras and he should make them conform to their duties when they swerve [[61]]

from them;’ Vasiṣṭha (19. 7-8) ’the king paying attention to all these viz. the observances of countries, castes and families should make the four varṇas conform to their duties and should punish them when they go astray’; Viṣṇu Dh. S. III. 3 and Yāj. I. 361, Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa 27, Matsyapurāṇa 215. 63 say the same. Nārada (strīpuṃsa 113)⁹⁷ says ‘when a brāhmaṇa woman goes astray a cāṇḍāla is born from a śūdra male (and the brāhmaṇa woman); therefore the king should specially protect women from saṃkara’. It is on account of this that so early as in the first centuries of the Christian era we see that king Vāsiṭhīputa Siri Pulumāyi is extolled as having prevented the mixture of the four varṇas (E. I. vol. VIII pp. 60-61, ‘vinivatita-cātuvvaṇa-sakarasa’). That Varṇasaṃkara had gone too far in the opinion of the author of the Mahābhārata (Vanaparva 180. 31-33) follows from the following words which are despairingly put in the mouth of Yudhiṣṭhira:⁹⁸ “It appears to me that it is very difficult to ascertain the caste of human beings on account of the confusion of all varṇas; all sorts of men are always begetting offspring from all sorts of women; speech, sexual intercourse, being born and death—these are common to all human beings; and there is scriptural authority (for this view) in the words ‘We, who ever we are, offer the sacrifice’. Hence those who have seen the truth regard character as the principal thing desired.” Śaṅkarācārya in his bhāṣya on Vedāntasūtra I. 3. 33 remarks that, though in his day varṇas and āśramas had become disorganised and unstable as to their dharmas, that was not the case in other ages, since otherwise the śāstras laying down regulations for them would have to be deemed purposeless or futile.⁹⁹

Varna and jātyutkarṣa

Gautama (IV. 18-19), Manu (X. 64-65) and Yāj. (I. 96) speak of a peculiar doctrine called Jātyutkarṣa and Jātyapakarṣa. These passages have given rise to some divergence of interpretation, [[62]]

but their general sense is clear. Gautama (IV. 18)¹⁰⁰ says that according to the ācāryas the anulomas when they marry in such a way that the bridegroom in each stage is higher or lower than the bride they rise to a higher or go down to a lower varṇa in the 7th or 5th generation (respectively). This is explained by Haradatta as follows: When a brāhmaṇa marries a kṣatriya woman the daughter born of this marriage is called savarṇā; if this latter is married to a brāhmaṇa and a daughter is born and this latter is again married by a brāhmaṇa and if this continues in the same way for seven generations, then when the 7th girl in descent marries a brāhmaṇa, whatever child is born of that union belongs to the brāhmaṇa varṇa (though in the preceding generations only the fathers were brāhmaṇas and the mothers were all not strictly brāhmaṇas, but only savarṇās if at all). This is called jātyutkarṣa (rise in status as a caste). On the other hand, when a brāhmaṇa marries a kṣatriya girl and a son is born who is called savarṇa, then that son marries a kṣatriya girl and has a son and this is continued for five generations, then when the fifth son (in descent) marries a kṣatriya girl, the child born belongs to the kṣatriya varṇa (though in all the preceding generations the father was higher than kṣatriya and the mother only was a kṣatriya). This is jātyapakarṣa (fall in status as a caste). The same rule holds good as regards a kṣatriya marrying a vaiśya female and a vaiśya marrying a śūdra female. The same rule applies among anulomas also e. g. if a savarṇa (as defined by Gautama) marries an ambaṣṭha girl and a daughter is born who again marries a savarṇa and this continues for seven generations, then the child of the 7th girl (in descent) from a savarṇa male becomes a savarṇa (rises in status); on the other hand if a savarṇa (offspring of brāhmaṇa male and kṣatriya female) marries an ambaṣṭha girl and a son is born and that son marries an ambaṣṭha girl and their son marries an ambaṣṭha girl and this goes on for seven generations, then the child of [[63]]

the 7th male (in descent) born of an ambaṣṭha wife becomes an ambaṣṭha (i. e. there is jātyapakarṣa as to anulomas).

According to Manu¹⁰¹ X. 64 when a brāhmaṇa marries a śūdra woman, the daughter born is pāraśava, and if this pāraśava daughter marries a brāhmaṇa and the daughter of this latter union marries a brāhmaṇa and this continues for seven generations, then the seventh generation will be a brāhmaṇa (i. e. there will be jātyutkarṣa). Conversely, if a brāhmaṇa marries a śūdra woman and a son is born, he is a pāraśava and that son marries a śūdra woman and their son again marries a śūdra woman and this goes on for 7 generations, the 7th generation becomes a mere śūdra (there is jātyapakarṣa). It will be seen that this differs from Gautama in several respects. In the first place for both jātyutkarṣa and jātyapakarṣa seven generations are prescribed, while in Gautama they are 7 and 5 respectively (according to Haradatta). In the second place according to Gautama the 8th in descent from the first anuloma marriage secures jātyutkarṣa, while according to Manu, the 7th secures it. Further Manu is silent about jātyutkarṣa when the original parents are anulomas. Besides, the commentators of Manu shorten the period for rise or fall in jāti as stated below. Manu X. 65 extends the same rules to the offspring of the marriage of a kṣatriya with a vaiśya woman and of a vaiśya with a śūdra woman. Medhātithi and Kullūka extend these express words of Manu further by explaining that if a brāhmaṇa marries a vaiśya female and a daughter is born and she again marries a brāhmaṇa then in the fifth generation there will be jātyutkarṣa; conversely if a son is born from a brāhmaṇa and a vaiśya wife, and he marries [[64]]

a vaiśya female and this goes on, then in the fifth generation the son will be a vaiśya (i. e. there will be jātyapakarṣa). Similarly if a brāhmaṇa marries a kṣatriya woman then there is jātyutkarṣa or jātyapakarṣa in three generations.

Yajñavalkya (I. 96)¹⁰² speaks of two kinds of jātyutkarṣa or jātyapakarṣa viz. one due to marriage (as in Manu and Gautama) and another due to the avocation followed. It should be understood that there is rise in caste in the 7th or even in the 5th generation; if there is inversion as to the avocations, then there is corresponding similarity (of varṇa in the 7th or even 5th generation). This is elaborated by the Mitākṣarā as follows: If a brāhmaṇa marries a śūdra woman and a daughter is born she is a niṣādī; if this latter marries a brāhmaṇa and a daughter is born and she in turn marries a brāhmaṇa and this goes on for six generations, then the child of the 6th girl (in descent) becomes a brāhmaṇa (he being 7th in descent); similarly if a brāhmaṇa marries a vaiśya woman and a girl is born, she is an ambaṣṭhā; if the latter marries a brāhmaṇa and a daughter is born and this goes on in the same way, then the fifth girl in descent has a child (from a brāhmaṇa husband) which is the 6th in descent from the original anuloma marriage and which then becomes a brāhmaṇa. If a brāhmaṇa marries a kṣatriya woman and a daughter is born who is called mūrdhāvasiktā (Yāj. I. 91) and she marries a brāhmaṇa, then the fourth in descent marrying a brāhmaṇa has a child (5th in descent), then that child becomes a brāhmaṇa. Similarly, if a kṣatriya married a śūdra female and a daughter was born, she was called ugrā, then jātyutkarṣa by marrying a higher male took place in the 6th generation. If a kṣatriya married a vaiśya woman, the daughter born was a māhiṣyā and jātyutkarṣa took place in the 5th generation. If a vaiśya married a śūdra woman, the daughter of the marriage is a karaṇī and if she marries a vaiśya, then in the fifth generation there would be jātyutkarṣa. Certain peculiar avocations and activities are prescribed for the four varṇas. Each varṇa may in times of difficulty follow the occupation peculiar to the caste immediately below it, but should not follow the avocations peculiar to the higher varṇas;¹⁰³ he must however revert to his proper avocation when the difficulty is [[65]]

Varna and jātyapakarṣa

over (vide Vasiṣṭha II. 13-23, Viṣṇu Dh. S. II. 15, Yāj. I. 118-120, Gautama X. 1-7 &c.). If a brāhmaṇa begins to follow the avocations peculiar to a śūdra and has a son, who does the same and this goes on continuously for seven generations, the 7th becomes a śūdra (by caste). If a brāhmaṇa begins to follow the avocations peculiar to a vaiśya or a kṣatriya then in the 5th or 6th generation respectively there is fall in caste (i.e. the 5th or 6th becomes respectively a vaiśya or kṣatriya). Similarly if a kṣatriya follows the avocation of a vaiśya or śūdra and this goes on continuously, then the 5th or 6th (respectively) becomes a śūdra or vaiśya. Similarly if a vaiśya takes to the work peculiar to śūdras, then the fifth generation becomes śūdra.

Baud.¹⁰⁴ Dh. S. (I. 8. 13-14) gives another illustration of jātyutkarṣa. He says “if a niṣāda (the son of a brāhmaṇa from a śūdra wife) marries a niṣādī (and this goes on continuously), then the fifth generation becomes free of the taint of a śūdra status, he can have upanayana performed for him and his son (6th from the original niṣāda pair) can have a vedic sacrifice performed for him.’

These provisions would considerably lessen the rigour of the caste system based purely on birth. But one feels grave doubts whether such a method of jātyutkarṣa or jātyapakarṣa (particularly the one based on occupation) was or could be ever enforced in actual life. It would have been impossible to remember descent in a particular way for five or seven generations. The want of unanimity among the original smṛtikāras and the commentators also points in the direction that the method advocated, though it might have originally some slight basis in fact, was only a hypothesis and an ideal. Hardly any examples of jātyutkarṣa in the way set out by Manu or Yāj. occur in the literature on dharma-śāstra or in inscriptions. In the inscriptions we have authentic cases of intercaste marriages only, but hardly anything further.¹⁰⁵ From the Tālaguṇḍa pillar inscription of king Kākusthavarman of the Kadamba family we learn that the Kadambas were originally of brāhmaṇa lineage, that the founder of the family was a brāhmaṇa [[66]]

Mayūraśarman, who became exasperated with the Pallavas of Kāñcīpura and took up the sword to conquer the earth, that his descendants applied the affix ‘Varman’ to their names (as if they were kṣatriyas, according to Manu II. 32) and Kākustha Varman (4th in descent from Mayūraśarman) married his daughters to Gupta and other kings¹⁰⁶. This shows that an originally brāhmaṇa family came to look upon itself as kṣatriya by virtue of pursuing the profession of arms and governing the people. In the Mahābhārata we meet with stories of kings who became brāhmaṇas. For example, Anuśāsana 30 speaks of Vitahavya, a king, as having become a brāhmaṇa; similarly Śalya (39. 36-37) speaks of Ārṣṭiṣeṇa, Sindhudvīpa, Devāpi and Viśvāmitra as having become brāhmaṇas at a sacred spot on the Sarasvatī. In the Purāṇas also there are stories¹⁰⁷ of kings like Viśvāmitra, Māndhātā, Saṃkṛti, Kapi, Vadhryaśva, Purukutsa, Arṣṭiṣeṇa, Ajamīḍha and others as having risen to the status of brāhmaṇas. These are mythical sages and their rise is not stated to have been due to the principle of jātyutkarṣa¹⁰⁸. Ibbetson (Report on the census of the Punjab 1881, pp. 174-176) notes that brāhmaṇas following certain professions became degraded and that the caste was changed.

Varna: caste and other guilds

That the professional castes were wealthy and well organized follows from the dharmaśāstra works and epigraphic records. In this connection the words śreṇi, pūga, gaṇa, vrāta and saṅgha deserve to be carefully studied. All these were called samūha (group) or varga according to Kātyāyana.¹⁰⁹ These [[67]]

words occur in the Vedic literature, but the sense is generally ‘a group’ and there is no special meaning attached. ‘Śreṇi’ occurs in the Ṛg. I. 163. 10¹¹⁰ (like flamingoes the horses press forward in rows or groups); both vrāta and gaṇa occur in Ṛg. III. 26. 6, V. 53. 11 and in numerous other places. The Kauṣītaki Br. 16.7¹¹¹ speaks of Rudra as pūga (as he is the head of the band of Maruts). Āp. Dh. S. I. 1. 3. 26¹¹² quotes a Brāhmaṇa passage about a group (saṅgha) of brahmacārins going about for alms. Pāṇini teaches¹¹³ the formation of derivatives from pūga, gaṇa, saṅgha (V. 2. 52), from vrāta (V. 2. 21). In his time it appears the words had acquired specific meanings. The Mahābhāṣya explains (on Pāṇini V. 2.21) that vrātas are groups formed by men of various castes with no fixed means of livelihood but subsisting by the might (or strength) of their bodies (by bodily labour of various kinds). The Kāśikā¹¹⁴ explains pūgas as associations of men of different castes with no fixed professions, who are solely bent on making money or seeking pleasure. Kauṭilya in one place distinguishes between soldiers and śreṇis (guilds) and in another place says that the guilds of kṣatriyas in Kāmbhoja and Surāṣṭra subsist by the profession of arms and vārtā (agriculture).¹¹⁵ Vas. Dh. S. XVI. 15 says that boundary disputes are to be settled by the evidence of the old men in the village or town or of guilds (śreṇi) when there is conflict of documentary evidence. Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 167 prescribes banishment for him who embezzles the wealth of associations (gaṇa) and who transgresses the conventions made by them. Manu (VIII. 219) has a similar rule about village and local associations (saṅgha). The above words are variously explained by the several commentators [[68]]

(vide my notes to the translation of Kātyāyana verses 678-682 of that reconstructed smṛti). Kātyāyana says ‘Naigama is an association of citizens of the same city, vrāta is a company of soldiers carrying various arms, pūga is an association of traders and the like, gaṇa is a group of brāhmaṇas, saṅgha is a body of Bauddhas or Jainas; and bands of cāṇḍālas and śvapacas are called gulma.’ Yāj. (I. 361) directs the king to punish kulas, castes, śreṇis, gaṇas, if they transgress their rules (of conduct or business) and the Mit. explains śreṇi as a guild of sellers of betel leaves and the like and gaṇa as of ‘helābukas’ (horse-dealers); while Yāj. II. 192 and Nārada¹¹⁶ (samayasyānapākarma) require the king to prevent the breach of the conventions of śreṇi, naigama, pūga, vrāta, gaṇa and to confirm them in their traditional occupations. Yāj. II. 30 says that pūgas and śreṇis had authority to investigate disputes and that the pūga was a higher tribunal than the śreṇi. The Mit. on this explains that pūga is an association of people of different castes and different occupations that stay in one locality, while a śreṇi is a group of people of different castes, that subsist by the occupation of one caste and gives ‘heḍābukas’, ’tāmbūlikas’ (betel sellers), ‘kuvindas’ (weavers) and ‘carmakāras’ (shoe-makers) as examples of śreṇis. In the Harṣa stone of Chāhamāna Vigraharāja (E. I. vol. II. p. 124) there is a reference to one dramma for each horse given to ‘heḍāvikas.’ In the Nasik Inscription No. 15 (E. I. vol. VIII p. 88) we are told that in the reign of the Ābhīra king Īśvarasena 1000 kārṣāpaṇas were deposited with an association of potters as a permanent donation yielding interest, 500 with a guild of oilmen and 2000 with a guild of watermen (udakayantra-śreṇi) for medicines to be given to sick bhikṣus. No. 9 and No. 12 of the inscriptions at Nasik also contain reference to deposits of money with the guild of weavers. The Mathurā Brāhmī inscription of Huviṣka’s reign mentions a guild of flour-makers (samitakara, vide E. I. vol. 21 p. 55 at p. 61). The Junnar Buddhist cave Inscription (A. S. W. I. vol. IV p. 97) refers to an investment of monies with the guild (śreṇi) of bamboo-workers and of braziers (kāsakāra). The Indore copperplate of Skandagupta (of the Gupta saṃvat 146) speaks of the deposit with the guilds of the [[69]]

oilmen of Indrapura for permanently securing a supply of two palas of oil (C. I. I. vol. III p. 70). Similarly it is said that a guild of silk weavers from Lāṭa (southern Gujarat) came to Daśapura (Dasor in Malwa) and built a temple of the sun in the Mālava year 494 i. e. 437-38 A. D. (C. I. I. vol. III p. 81 = I. A. vol. 15 p. 194). These examples show that about the first centuries of the Christian era such castes as woodworkers, oilmen, betel sellers and weavers that are at present very low in the hierarchy of castes had very efficient caste guilds, so famous for their organization, integrity and stability that people deposited with them thousands for permanent services to objects of charity.¹¹⁷

We shall now append a list of several castes enumerated or mentioned in smṛti and other dharmaśāstra works from about 500 B. C. to 1000 A. D. in alphabetical (Sanskrit) order. They are not given in a tabular form owing to numerous contradictory statements in the smṛtis themselves. References are given only to a few smṛtis, the principal ones drawn upon being the Dharmasūtras, Manu, Yāj., Vaikh. smārta-sūtra X 11-15, Uśanas, the Sūtasaṃhitā (Śiva-māhātmya-khaṇḍa chap. 12). It is hoped that the list is fairly exhaustive for the smṛti period. It will be noticed that many of the caste names collected here still occur under the same forms or under slightly modified forms of the names.

Andhra. Vide above note 118 quoting the Ait. Br. Manu X. 36 says it was a low subcaste sprung from Vaidehaka father and Kārāvara mother and that Andhras were to live outside the village and to subsist (X. 48) by killing wild beasts. In the edicts of Aśoka the Andhras are associated with Pulindas (vide Rock Edict No. 13). The Udyogaparva (160. 103) mentions Andhras (probably as people of Āndhradeśa) along with Drāviḍas and Kāñcyas. In the Nālandā plate of Devapāladeva (E. I. vol. 17 p. 321) meda, āndhraka and cāṇḍāla are spoken of as the lowest castes. In Orissa one scheduled caste is noted as Ādi-Āndhra (vide Sch. C. O. 1936).

Antya. According to Vas. Dh. S. 16.30, Manu IV. 79, VIII. 68, Yāj. I. 148, 197, Atri 251, Likhita 92, verse Āpastamba (III. 1) this word is a generic appellation for all lowest castes [[70]]

like the cāṇḍāla. Vide the chapter on ‘untouchables’. The word ‘bāhya’ has the same sense. Āp. Dh. S. I. 3. 9. 18 says that there is a cessation of Vedic study on the day on which bāhyas enter a village; vide also Nārada (ṛṇādāna 155), Viṣṇu Dh. S. 16.14.

Antyaja. This word is applied to all lowest castes like the cāṇḍāla in Manu IV. 61, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 36.7, Yāj. I. 273, Bṛhad-Yama (quoted in Mit. on Yāj. III. 260). In Manu VIII. 279 the word is used in the sense of ‘śūdra’. Various enumerations of the subdivisions of antyajas are found in the smṛtis. Atri 199 enumerates¹¹⁸ seven antyajas viz. rajaka (washerman), carmakāra (worker in hides), naṭa (dancer caste, represented in the Deccan by Kolhāṭis), buruḍa (worker in bamboos), kaivarta (fisherman), meda, bhilla. This verse is quoted as Āpastamba’s by the Mit. on Yāj. III. 265, while Aparārka p. 1123 ascribes it to Atri. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 260 distinguishes between two groups of antyajas, viz. the one quoted above which it says is not so low as another group of seven, which are called antyāvasāyins,¹¹⁹ viz. cāṇḍāla, śvapaca (eater of dog flesh), kṣattṛ, sūta, vaidehika, māgadha and āyogava. In the Mahābhārata (Śānti 101. 19) reference is made to antyaja soldiers and Nīlakaṇṭha explains that they were the kaivartas and bhillas of the border regions. According to the Sarasvatīvilāsa (p. 74) Pitāmaha speaks of the seven castes of rajaka and others as prakṛtis.¹²⁰ Is it possible that the Prākṛta languages were originally so called because they were spoken by these castes called prakṛtis? In the Sangamner plate of Bhillama II dated śake 922 (E. I. vol. II. p. 220) a village is granted with eighteen prakṛtis (meaning probably the eighteen guilds of washermen and others). The Vīramitrodaya (vyavahāra p. 12) explains that śreṇis mean the eighteen low castes such as the rajaka. This shows that these low castes had risen in social status in the medieval ages by their organization and [[71]]

wealth. The Veda-Vyāsa smṛti (I. 12-13) enumerates twelve castes by name as antyajas and adds that all those who eat cow’s flesh are also antyajas.¹²¹

Antāvasāyin or Antyāvasāyin. Manu IV.79 separately mentions ‘antyas’ and ‘antyāvasāyins’ and Manu X. 39 says that the antyāvasāyin is the offspring of a cāṇḍāla male from a niṣāda female, that he is condemned even by all ‘bāhyas’ (untouchables) and stays in a cemetery. Gautama 20.1 and 23. 32 mentions ‘antyāvasāyin’ (and -yinī). Vas. Dh. S. 18. 3 holds that the antyāvasāyin is the offspring of a śūdra from a vaiśya woman. The Bhāradvāja-śrauta-sūtra (XI. 22. 12) forbids the study of the Veda in the presence of the antyāvasāyin. The Anuśāsana-parva (22.22) speaks of Medas, Pulkasas and Antāvasāyins (the printed text is corrupt). Śānti (141. 29-32) gives a graphic description of a hamlet of cāṇḍālas and calls them ‘antyāvasāya’ (in verse 41). Nārada (ṛṇādāna 182) says that an antyāvasāyin is not eligible as a witness. Some modern works like the Jātiviveka (D.C. Ms. No.347 of 1887-91) say that Dom in modern times is the antyāvasāyin of the smṛtis.

Abhiṣikta - See under Mūrdhāvasikta.

Ambaṣṭha - (same as Bhṛjjakaṇṭha). In Ait. Br. (chap. 39. 7) king Ambaṣṭhya is said to have performed an Aśvamedha sacrifice. In Pāṇ. VIII. 3. 97 the word Ambaṣṭha is derived and on Pāṇ. IV. 1. 170 Ambaṣṭhya (king?) is cited by Pat. as an example derived from Ambaṣṭha (a country). It is a question whether the caste of Ambaṣṭhas derived its name from a country. Karṇaparva (6. 11) mentions a king Ambaṣṭha. In Baud. Dh. S. I. 9. 3, Manu X. 8, Yāj. I. 91, Uśanas 31, Nārada (strīpuṃsa v. 107) Ambaṣṭha is an anuloma sprung from the marriage of a brāhmaṇa with a vaiśya woman, while according to Gautama 4. 14 as interpreted by Haradatta he is the offspring of a kṣatriya from a vaiśya woman. Manu X. 47 prescribes the profession of medicine for him and Uśanas¹²² (31-32) says that he may subsist by agriculture or may be a fire-dancer or he may be a herald (? banner proclaimer) [[72]]

and live by surgery. Vaik. 10. 12 has almost the same words; the Sahyādri-khaṇḍa (26. 40-41) says the same, Haradatta on Āp. Dh. S. I. 6. 19. 14 says that ambaṣṭha and śalyakṛnta are synonymous. The Baidyas of Bengal came to be the ambaṣṭhas of Manu (vide Risley’s ‘People of India’ p. 114).

Ayaskāra (blacksmith). In the Vedic literature we have Ayastāpa (heater of ayas, probably any metal). Vide under karmakara and karmāra. Patañjali on Pāṇ. II. 4. 10 mentions him as a śūdra along with takṣan (Mahābhāṣya, vol. I. p. 475).

Avarīṭa. Devala quoted by Aparārka (p. 118 on Yāj. I. 92) says that he is born of the illegitimate connection between a married woman and a male of the same caste and he becomes a śūdra. The Śūdra-kamalākara¹²³ (p. 247) cites from the Smṛtikaumudī a verse of the Ādityapurāṇa to the same effect.

Āvīra. According to the Sūtasaṃhitā he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a kṣatriya male and a vaiśya female.

Āpīṭa. According to the Sūtasaṃhitā he is the offspring of a brāhmaṇa from a Dauṣyantī.

Ābhīra. According to Manu X. 15 he is the child of the union of a brāhmaṇa with an ambaṣṭha girl. The Mahābhārata (Mausalaparva 7. 46-63 and 8. 16-17) states that the ābhīras were dasyus and mlecchas who attacked Arjuna after the great war in the land of the five rivers and carried away Vṛṣṇi women. The Sabhāparva (51.12) mentions ābhīras with Pāradas and the Aśvamedhika (29. 15-16) says (just as Manu X. 43-44 do) that the Ābhīras, the Drāviḍas and others became śūdras by non-contact with brāhmaṇas. The Mahābhāṣya expressly states that the ābhīras are not a subcaste included under the genus śūdra but that they are a caste distinct from śūdras.¹²⁴ The Kāmasūtra (V. 5. 30) names an ābhīra king Koṭṭarāja. Daṇḍin in his Kāvyādarśa (I. 36) says that Apabhraṃśa is the appellation of the speech of ābhīras and the like [[73]]

in poetry. The Amarakośa says that they are cow-herds and that the ābhīra wife of a Mahāśūdra is called Ābhīrī. The Ābhīras became absorbed in Hindu society and we find that an Ābhīra senāpati Rudrabhūti in the year 103 (181-82 A. D.) under king Rudrasiṃha, son of Rudradāman, built a well (E. I. vol. 16 p. 235) and in the Nasik cave No. 15 there is an inscription of king Īśvarasena, a son of Ābhīra Śivadatta and Māḍharī (i. e. the mother was of the Māṭhara gotra). Vide E. I. vol. 8. p. 88. Ābhīras are called ahirs in modern times. Vide J. B. B. R. A. S. vol. 21 pp. 430-433, Enthoven’s ‘Tribes and castes of Bombay’ vol. I. p. 17 ff.

Āyogava. Vide Āyogū above (p. 43) from Vedic literature. According to Gaut. IV. 15, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 16. 4, Manu X. 12, Kauṭ. III. 7, Anuśāsana 48. 13, Yāj. I. 94 this is a pratiloma caste sprung from the union of a śūdra male and a vaiśya female; while Baud. Dh. S. (I. 9.7), Uśanas 12, Vaik. X. 14 say that it springs from the union of a vaiśya male and a kṣatriya female. Vas. Dh. S. (18.3) gives antyāvasāyin as the name of the caste sprung from a śūdra male and a vaiśya female and pulkasa as the name of one sprung from a vaiśya male and a kṣatriya female. His avocation (Manu X 48) is to pare wood, while Uśanas (verse 13) says he is a weaver or subsists by making vessels of bronze or by cultivating paddy or by dealing in cloth. According to Viṣṇu Dh. S. 16. 8 and Agnipurāṇa (151. 15) he is to make his living by going to the stage. The Sahyādrikhaṇḍa says (26. 68-69) that he works in stones and bricks, makes pavements and whitewashes walls i. e. he is the modern Pātharvaṭa (in the Deccan).

Āvantya. Same as Bhūrjakaṇṭha (Manu X. 21).

Āvṛtika. According to Vaik. X. 12 he is the child of a clandestine union between a kṣatriya male and a vaiśya female and deals in horses.

Āhiṇḍika. According to Manu X. 37 he is the offspring of a niṣāda male from a vaidehī female i. e. he is a double pratiloma caste. Kullūka says that his avocation according to Uśanas is to prevent strangers from trespassing on places where offenders are kept imprisoned. Manu X. 36 shows that the same caste is called Kārāvara when it follows the craft of a carmakāra.

Ugra. For Vedic reference see above (p. 45). According to Baud. Dh. S. (I. 9.5), Manu X. 9, Kauṭ. III.7, Yāj. I. 92, Anuśāsana 48. 7 he is an anuloma offspring of a kṣatriya male from a śūdra [[74]] woman, while according to Uśanas (verse 41) he is the offspring of the union of a brāhmaṇa with a śūdra woman. The Āp. Dh. S. (I. 2. 7. 20) allows a pupil to bring wealth from a śūdra or an ugra when the teacher is in distress or difficulties. Gaut. 4. 14 (as explained by Haradatta) says that ugra is the offspring of a vaiśya from a śūdra female. The Āp. Dh. S. (I. 6. 18. 1) says that a brāhmaṇa may accept the gift of money, corn like paddy, flesh of deer, house, field, hay for oxen from an ugra. Manu X. 49 says that the ugra should subsist by catching and killing animals that hide in holes, while Uśanas (verse 41) states that he is to be the staff-bearer of the king and to carry out the punishments inflicted on offenders. Vide Vaik. 10. 13. According to the Sahyādrikhaṇḍa and Śūdrakamalākara (p. 255) he is called ‘Rajpūta’. In the Jātiviveka (the D. C. collection of 1887-1891 No. 347) he is called Rāvut.

Udbandhaka. According to Uśanas (verse 15) he is the offspring of the union of a śūnika and a kṣatriya woman, subsists by washing clothes and is an untouchable. Vaik. 10. 15 says he is the offspring of a khanaka and a kṣatriya woman.

Upakruṣṭa. According to Āśv. śr. sūtra (II. 1) he does not belong to the dvijātis, but is authorised to perform the vedic rite of agnyādheya and the commentary explains that he is a vaiśya following the profession of a carpenter.

Oḍra. Vide Manu X. 43-44. Oḍra is a country corresponding more or less to modern Orissa. Most of the names of people mentioned in Manu X. 44 are derived from countries. Vide note on Khasa (p. 79) and see Sabhāparva 51. 23.

Kaṭakāra. According to Uśanas (45) and Vaik. 10. 13 he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a vaiśya and a śūdra female.

Karaṇa. According to Gaut. (IV. 17 the view of some Ācāryas) and Yāj. I. 92, he is the child of the marriage of a vaiśya and a śūdra woman (i. e. he is an anuloma). Manu (X. 22) says that a kṣatriya who is a vrātya (i. e. for whom no upanayana has been performed) has from a similar woman a child variously called Jhalla, Malla, Nicchivi (Licchavi?), Naṭa, Karaṇa, Khaśa, Draviḍa. Ādiparva 115. 43 tells us that Dhṛtarāṣṭra had from a vaiśya female a karaṇa son named Yuyutsu. Kṣīrasvāmī on Amara says that karaṇa also denotes a group of officers like kāyasthas and adhyakṣas (superintendents). The Sahyādrikhaṇḍa (26. 49-51) says he is the same as [[75]] cāraṇa or vaitālika and his business is to sing the praises of kings and brāhmaṇas and study the science of erotics.

Karmakāra. Viṣṇu Dh. S. (51. 14) mentions this caste. It is most probably the same as karmāra. But Śaṅkha (prose) quoted by Aparārka p. 115 separately mentions in the same passage karmakāra and karmāra.

Karmāra. For vedic references vide (p. 43) above. This caste appears in the gaṇa kulālādi (Pāṇ. IV. 3. 118). Manu IV. 215 mentions it. In Bengal the Lohār is a scheduled caste (vide Sch. C. O. 1936).

Kāṃsyakāra. (modern kāṃsāra in Marathi) Mentioned by Nārada (ṛṇādāna 274) and Viṣṇu Dh. S. X. 4 in connection with the balance ordeal.

Kākavaca. Mentioned in Uśanas (50) as doing the work of bringing grass for horses.

Kāmboja. Vide Manu X. 43-44. The country of Kāmboja was known to Yāska (Nirukta II. 2) and Pāṇini (IV. 1. 175). Udyogaparva 160. 103, Droṇa 121. 13 mention Kāmbojas with Śakas. Vide under Yavana.

Kāyastha.¹²⁵ Heated controversies have raged in medieval and modern times about the origin and status of kāyasthas and the bitterness is reflected in the decisions of the Indian courts also. In Bholanath v. Emperor¹²⁶ the Calcutta High Court held that the kāyasthas of Bengal were śūdras and went so far as to hold that a kāyastha could marry a Dom female. But in Asita Mohan v. Nirode Mohani¹²⁷ the Privy Council left open the question whether the kāyasthas of Bengal were śūdras. On the other hand in Tulsi Ram v. Bihari Lal¹²⁸ and in Ishwari Prasad v. Rai Hari Prasad¹²⁹ the Allahabad and Patna High Courts respectively held that the kāyasthas were dvijas and not śūdras. In Subrao v. Radha 52 Bom. 497 at p. 504-506 this conflict of decisions is referred to. The word kāyastha does not occur in the ancient dharmasūtras of Gautama, Āpastamba, Baudhāyana, or Vasiṣṭha nor [[76]]

in the Manusmṛti. The Viṣṇu Dh. S. VII. 3 defines a public document (rājasākṣika) as one written in the royal court or office by a kāyastha appointed by the king and attested by the hand of the superintendent of the office.[^181] These words suggest that the kāyastha was an officer and that there is nothing about a caste here. Yāj. I. 322 calls upon the king to protect the subjects from the harassment of cāṭas (rogues), thieves, bad characters, desperadoes and the like and particularly of kāyasthas. The Mit. explains that kāyasthas are accountants and scribes, are favourites of the king and very cunning. Uśanas[^182] (35) holds the kāyasthas to be a caste and gives an uncomplimentary derivation of the name by saying that it is compounded of the first letters of kāka (crow), Yama and sthapati to convey the three attributes of greed, cruelty and the spoliation (or paring), characteristic of the three. The Veda-Vyāsa-smṛti[^183] (I. 10-11) includes the kāyastha among śūdras along with barbers, potters and others. Sumantu quoted in the Par. M. II part 1.

The number of works dealing with the origin and characteristics of the caste system in India is legion. Most of them, however, concern themselves with the detailed {{des cription|description}} of the bewildering variety of castes and subdivisions of castes in modern times and their present religious and social customs and usages. The origin of caste has given rise to great speculation and several schools of thought have arisen. Generally individual authors lay undue emphasis on one element or attach far too much importance to one point in tracing the origin of the caste system and its ramifications, such as race (Risley), tribe (Ibbetson), occupation (Nesfield). The study of the origin and development of caste in India is one of deep and absorbing interest to all students of sociology. A complete and critical examination of the several theories of caste advanced by distinguished authors and a detailed description of the hundreds of castes and {{suboastes|sub-castes}} now found in India is far beyond the scope of the present work. For those who want to make a thorough study of the most important works on caste a modest list is given in the footnote below.¹

The {{oaste|caste}} system has been highly eulogised and also most severely condemned by Western writers. Sidney Low in his Vision of India (pp. 262-263, 2nd ed. of 1907) speaks of the beneficent aspect of the caste system in the following eloquent passage: ‘There is no doubt that it is the main cause of the fundamental stability and contentment by which Indian society has been braced up for centuries against the shocks of politics and the cataclysms of Nature. It provides every man with his place, his career, his {{ocoupation|occupation}}, {{bie|his}} {{cirole|circle}} of friends. It makes him at the outset a member of a corporate body; it protects him through life from the canker of social jealousy and unfulfilled aspirations; it ensures him {{compa nionship|companionship}} and a sense of community with others in like case with himself. The caste organization is to the Hindu his club, {{bis|his}} trade union, his benefit society, his philanthropic society. There are no work-houses in India and none are as yet needed.’ Abbé Dubois, who wrote about 130 years ago after being in close touch with Hindus of all castes for 15 years as {{&|a}} missionary, remarks (in his work on the character, manners and customs of the people of India, translated into English and published in London in 1817) ‘I consider the institution of castes among the Hindu nations as the happiest effort of their legislation; and I am well convinced that, if the people of India never sunk into a state of barbarism, and if, when almost all Europe was plunged in that dreary gulf, India kept up her head, preserved and {{ex tended|extended}} the sciences, the arts and civilization, it is wholly to the distinction of castes that she is indebted for that high celebrity’ (p. 14) and he devotes several pages to the justification of this remark. Maine in his Ancient Law (new edition of 1930 p. 17) characterises it as ’the most disastrous and blighting of all human institutions.’ Sherring in Hindu tribes and castes vol. III p. 293 says ‘it is the most baneful, hard-hearted and cruel social system that could possibly be invented for damning the human race’. On the other hand Meredith Townsend in Europe and Asia (edition of 1901 p. 72) wrote ‘I firmly believe caste to be a marvellous discovery, a form of socialism which through ages protected Hindu {{Sooiety|society}} from anarchy and from the worst evils of industrial and competitive life—it is an automatic poor law to begin with and the strongest form known of {{Trades Union|Trade Union}}’. There are others,² though their number is small, that believe that the caste system was an invention, an artificial product, due to the machinations of crafty {{brāhmaṇas}}. Every great institution has its extremes of good or evil. This work will endeavour to steer clear of downright and hypercritical {{con demnation|condemnation}} of the caste system due to relying on modern {{stand points|standpoints}} and conditions of society and unthinking adulation thereof. It will try to present and balance facts and though it cannot help passing judgments it will leave the reader free to judge for himself as far as possible. In the present work the discussion will be mostly confined to the evidence of Sanskrit literary monuments, ancient and medieval. An attempt will be made to trace the origin of caste from Vedic times, to exhibit theories of the {{Dharmasūtrakāras|Dharmasūtrakāras}}, other {{smṛtikāras|smṛtikāras}} and {{oom mentators|commentators}} on the subject and to describe the peculiar ceremonies, privileges, duties and responsibilities of Hindu castes {{88|as}} gathered from these works in Sanskrit. To discuss the feasibility or desirability of totally destroying the caste system or the ways and means of attaining that end is deemed to be outside the legitimate limits of this volume. It may, however, be expressly stated as the author’s opinion, in order to avoid {{misunderstand ings|misunderstandings}} or fruitless speculations about his personal views, that he does not think that the caste system was an artificial product due to the intrigues, greed and cunning of {{brābmaṇas|brāhmaṇas}}, nor does he hold that it is feasible to destroy the whole edifice of the caste system in the near future. In the cities we may find some people taking their food together but the real India is in the villages, where in spite of the loud denunciations of reformers for a hundred years, the restrictions on taking food and inter-caste marriages are almost as rigid as they once were. Our efforts must be {{direoted|directed}} to wide and rapid spread of literacy among the village people, the diffusion of the idea of one people and one nationality and gradual fusion of small subcastes into larger similar units. We in India have no doubt reached {{&|a}} critical stage in our history when old ideals, institutions and habits are being shattered by the impact of new ideas and by the onrush of world forces. We {{bave|have}} to decide whether we shall make or be able to make a clean sweep of all old ideals and institutions as so much debris and rubbish or whether while keeping the old ideals and some of the old institutions as {{founda tions|foundations}} we shall build up a new social order and create and foster new {{babits|habits}} of thought and action. It is beyond the scope of the present work to write more on this point. [[21]]

A sort of caste system based on birth and occupation did prevail in many countries in ancient times as in Persia, Rome and Japan. But in all these countries it hardly ever made any near approach in rigour and complexity to the {{oaste|caste}} system that we have in India and instead of ramifying into divisions and subdivisions, it dwindled and disappeared in the course of time. {{Nounanimity|No unanimity}} seems possible as to the several causes and {{ciroum stanoes|circumstances}} which led in India alone to the evolution of the stupendous structure of caste. Not only is it impossible to hold that the origin of the modern complexity of the {{casto|caste}} system is to be traced back to one single cause, but it is difficult to accept that even all the origins that have been postulated by the several authors can {{adoquately|adequately}} and satisfactorily explain the modern caste system.

In most of the works on the castes in India a {{fow|few}} features are pointed out as the characteristics of the caste system and as common to all castes and {{sub-oestes|sub-castes}}. They are: (1) heredity i. e. in theory a man is assigned to a particular caste by birth in that {{oaste|caste}}; (2) endogamy and exogamy i. e. restriction as to marrying in the same caste and not marrying {{cortain rela. tives|certain relatives}} or other persons, though of the same caste; (3) {{restrio tions|restrictions}} as to food (i. e. what food and water may be taken or not taken and from whom); (4) occupation (i. e. members of most castes follow certain occupations and no others); (5) {{grade tion|gradation}} of castes, some being at the top in the social scale and others being deemed to be so low that they are untouchable. Some authors³ like Senart add another characteristic, viz. the {{oaste|caste}} council with its {{ohiof|chief}} having in meeting assembled among other matters the power to regulate the conduct of its members, to impose the penalties of fine or excommunication for lapses. It may be said at once that this last is a feature that is not found among most of the {{brāhmaṇa}} and {{kṣatriya}} castes even in modern times and is not dealt with by {{dharma sāstra|dharmaśāstra}} works. Endogamy is now the most prominent {{characte ristio|characteristic}} of caste and so is the theory that it is by birth. The other three are more or less fluctuating from province to {{prom vince|province}} and age to age. In this work the first five characteristics of the {{oaste|caste}} system set out above will be subjected to a close critical examination on the basis of the Vedic and {{dharma sāstra|dharmaśāstra}} material. We must also remember that the attributes of caste have not been the same throughout the ages. There is great difference between the popular conceptions of modern caste and the conceptions about it embodied in the ancient and medieval {{dharmaśāstra}} works. In the twentieth century caste in India is a matter of marriage and to a much lesser extent of food and drink. As to {{avoca tions|avocations}} any one can at present follow any profession without fear of loss of caste excepting a few believed to be very impure and very degrading ones (like those of sweepers, butchers, tanners &c.). It is also not possible even now for any one to be generally accepted as a priest, unless he is or claims to be a {{brāhmaṇa}}. The old barriers that separated one caste or subcaste from another have been greatly shaken by the influx of modern ideas and the exigencies of the times and one may hope that in a few decades more caste will remain as a purely social institution regulating marriages and to a lesser extent {{commen. sality|commensality}} (and not a religious one). Western scholars, in spite of their most commendable patience and industry, often present, through ignorance or lack of first-hand knowledge, the number of castes as larger than what it actually is. For example, Sherring (vol. II. Introduction pp. XXII-XLVI) gives an {{alpbabetical|alphabetical}} list of {{brahmanical|brāhmanical}} tribes and remarks (XLVII) ‘Hundreds of these tribes, if not at enmity with one another, cherish mutual distrust and antipathy to such a degree that they are socially separated from one another as far as it is possible for them to be—as much as {{brahmaṇas|brāhmaṇas}} are from the lowest {{outoastes|outcastes}}—neither eating nor drinking together nor intermarrying’. The list he gives is most misleading. To take only a few examples, he enumerates Athavle, Achwal, Abhyankara, Apte, Agashe, Bhanu, Bivalkar, Badye, Bhide, Bhagvat, Bhuskute, Bhat, Bodas as separate tribes; but it is well-known to people in Western India that these are the surnames (not subcastes) of the Konkanastha or Citpavana {{brabmaṇas|brāhmaṇas}}, who not only interdine, but also inter-marry among themselves, provided there is no bar on the ground of sameness of {{gotrn|gotra}} and pravara.

The word {{varṇa}} means ‘colour’ or ’light’ in most passages of the {{Roveda|Ṛgveda}} (e. g. I. 73.7, II. 3.5, IX. 97.15, IX. 104.4, IX. 105.4, X. 124.7). But in some verses of the {{Ṛgveda}}⁴ the word {{varṇa}} is associated with groups of people having a skin of a dark or fair colour. For example, we read in Ṛg. II. 12.4 ‘(Indra) who placed low the {{dāsa}} colour in a cave (or darkness)’; in Ṛg. I. 179.6 ’the fierce sage (Agastya) cherished both {{varṇas}}’; in Ṛg. IX. 71.2 ’like one (a fighter) who strikes the people he (Soma) who is powerful goes giving out frequent roars; he exposes the Asura colour’; in Ṛg. I. 130.8 ‘Indra helped in battles the {{Ārya}} sacrificer… Indra punished for the sake of Manu (the {{dāsas}}) who do not observe the ordinances and subdued (or killed) the dark skin’; ‘Indra having killed the {{dasyus}} protected the {{ārya varṇa}} (Ṛg. III. 34.9); ‘You (Indra) subdued for {{Ṛjiśvan}}, the son of {{Vidathin}}, Pipru and powerful {{Mṛgaya}}; you mowed down fifty thousand dark (men), you shattered cities as old age does shatter good looks’ Ṛg. IV. 16.13; ‘Somas, which strike away the dark skin’ Ṛg. IX. 41.1. In Ṛg. I. 158.5 a certain {{dāsa}} is called Traitana which name has a Persian ring about it; In Ṛg. I. 104.2 {{varṇa}} seems to be placed in opposition to {{dāsa}}. These passages make it clear that the {{Āryas}} and {{dāsas}} were two opposing camps and both were designated {{varṇas}} on account of the colour of their skins. The {{Tai. Br.|Tait. Br.}} I. 2. 6 (with reference to the {{Mahāvrata}} in which there was a mock fight between a {{brāhmaṇa}} and a {{śūdra}}) says ’that the {{brāhmaṇa}} is the divine {{varṇa}}, and {{śūdra}} is the {{asurya|āsurya varṇa}}’.⁵ If we can interpret the Ṛgveda verse by the help of the {{Tai. Br.|Tait. Br.}}, then in Ṛg. IX, 71.2, the words ‘{{asuryam varṇam}}’ mean ‘{{śūdra}} tribe’. There is no doubt that the word asura when applied to gods like {{Varupa|Varuṇa}} has another meaning also in the Ṛg. In numerous places in the Ṛgveda the antagonism between the {{āryas}} and {{dāsas}} or {{dasyus}} is emphasized and prayers are offered to Indra and other gods for having subdued or for subduing the {{dāsa}} in favour of the {{Ārya}}. Ṛg. I. 51.8; I. 103.3; I. 117.21; II. 11.2, 4, 18, 19; III. 29.9; V. 70.3; VII. 5.6; IX. 88.4; VI. 18.3; VI. 25.2. In Ṛg. I. 51.8 Indra is requested to mark who are {{āryas}} and who are {{dasyus}}. This does not mean that there was difference between the two in bodily appearance only; on the contrary the antithesis between the {{ārya}} who is referred to as ‘{{barhiṣmat}}’ and the {{dasyu}} who is styled ‘{{avrata}}’ clearly shows that the emphasis was rather on the difference of their cults. That {{dasyu}} and {{dāsa}} are identical in meaning follows from the same epithets being applied to both and from the fact that {{dasyu}} and {{dāsa}} occur in the same verses as applying to the same enemy.⁶ In Ṛg. X. 22.8 {{dasyu}} and {{dāsa}} are used in the same verse as applicable to the same enemy. In Ṛg. X. 99.6 and 8 Indra is represented as killing both {{dāsa}} and {{dasyu}} respectively. The {{dasyus}} are described as ‘{{avrata}}’ (not obeying the ordinances of the gods) in Ṛg. I. 51.8, I. 175.3, VI. 14.3, ‘{{akratu}}’ (who perform no sacrifice) in VII. 6.3,⁷ ‘{{mṛdhravācaḥ}}’ (whose speech is indistinct or soft) in VII. 6.3 and V. 29.10, ‘{{anāsaḥ}}’ (snub-nosed or dumb) in Ṛg. V. 29.10. It appears that {{dāsa}} and {{dasyu}} are synonyms and were sometimes styled asuras. For example, {{Śambara}} is called {{dasyu}} and {{dāsa}} in Ṛgveda VI. 31.4 and {{dāsa}} in Ṛg. VI. 26.5 and is also associated with asuras like Pipru in VI. 18.8; Pipru is spoken of as a {{dāsa}} in Ṛg. VIII. 32.2 and as an asura in X. 138.3. {{Varcin}} is styled {{dāsa}} in Ṛg. IV. 30.15 and VI. 47.21 and asura in VII. 99.5. In {{Tai. S.|Tait. S.}}⁸ (IV. 3.11.3) also it seems that they are held to be identical. The enmity between {{dāsa}} and {{ārya}} is breathed in such verses as the following: Ṛg. II. 11.4 ‘vanquish the tribe of {{dāsas}} by the sun (i. e. by the help of a brilliant weapon); Ṛg. I. 174.7 ‘You made the earth a pillow for the {{dāsa}} (i. e. you laid him low on the ground); Ṛg. III. 12.6 ‘Oh Indra and Agni, by one effort together you shook ninety cities that had {{dāsas}} as overlords’. It is not possible to say that {{dāsas}} or {{dasyus}} were some Aryan tribes that had fallen from the worship or culture of the Aryan singers of Vedic {{hyians|hymns}}. In many places the sage refers to the conquest for him by Indra and other gods of {{dāsas}} as well as Aryan foes. For example, ‘Protectors of the good! you (two) killed Aryan foes and {{dāsa}} foes’ Ṛg. VI. 60.6; ‘Oh Indra and {{Varuṇa}}! you killed {{dāsa}} foes and also {{Ārya}} foes and helped {{Sudās}} with your protection’ Ṛg. VII.83.1. Vide also Ṛg. VI. 22.10, X. 69.6, X. 33.1, X. 102.3. This shows that though the {{āryans|Āryas}} had become divided and fought among themselves, they kept {{āryas}} and {{dāsas}} quite distinct. The foregoing shows that in the times of the Ṛgveda there were two antagonistic camps, of the {{dryas|Āryas}} and {{dāsas}} or {{dasyus}}, {{tbey|they}} differed in the colour of their skins and also in worship, speech and bodily appearance. Therefore, in the earliest period we find the word {{varṇa}} associated only with {{dāsa}} and with {{drya|ārya}}. Though the words {{brāhmaṇa}} and {{kṣatriya}} occur frequently in the Ṛgveda, the word {{varṇa}} is not used in connection with them. Even in the {{Puruṣasūkta|Puruṣasūkta}} (Ṛgveda X. 90) where the words {{brāhmaṇa}}, {{rājanya}}, {{vaiśya}} and {{śūdra}} occur the word {{varṇa}} is not used. Hence, one may reasonably say that the only water-tight groups that are positively or expressly vouchsafed by the Ṛgveda are {{ārya}} and {{dāsa}} or {{dasyu}}. It is often argued that as the word {{brāhmana|brāhmaṇa}} denotes a caste in later literature, in the Ṛgveda also it must be presumed to have the same meaning. But this begs the whole question. No one denies that {{brāhmana|brāhmaṇa}} denotes a caste in later literature. But whether it has the same sense in the Ṛgveda must be determined on the materials furnished by the Ṛgveda itself. Some rely on the word ‘{{bra hmaputra|brahmaputra}}’ in Ṛg. II. 43.2 as showing that a {{brāhmaṇa}} became so only by birth in the Ṛgveda. But the verse begins by saying that ‘you sing a {{Sāma}} like the {{Udgātṛ}} priest’ and so ‘{{brahma putra|brahmaputra}}’ must mean a {{ftvij|ṛtvij}} whose duty it was to recite {{śastras}} (the {{Brahmapāochamsin|Brahmāṇācchaṁsin}} as {{Sāyana}} explains). It is generally conceded that the {{Puruṣagūkta|Puruṣasūkta}} is a much later hymn than most of the hymns of the Ṛgveda. In the whole of the Ṛgveda the words {{vaiśya}} and {{śūdra}} do not {{oocur|occur}} except in the {{Puruṣa sūkta|Puruṣasūkta}}, though both of them occur in the {{Atharyaveda|Atharvaveda}} (V. 17.9 for {{vaiśya}} and IV. 20. 4 and 8 for {{śūdra}} and {{ārya}}) and very frequently in the {{Tai. S|Tait. S}}. Besides we cannot forget that the final redaction of the Ṛgveda must be held to have been separated from the composition of the individual hymns by several hundred years (if not more) and that even if it be {{oonooded|conceded}} that at the time when the {{Puruṣasūkta}} was composed, the four {{varṇas}} had been constituted and had become castes, yet the same cannot be affirmed for the time of the original composition of the other {{bymns|hymns}}. The word {{brāhmana|brāhmaṇa}} occurs several times in the Ṛgveda:⁹ ‘Oh {{brāhmaṇas}}, Oh {{pitṛs}} fond of soma! May the sinless {{Dyāvāpṛthivi|Dyāvāpṛthivī}} (Heaven and Earth) tend to our welfare’; ‘Like {{brāhmaṇas}} in the Atirātra where soma is to be drunk, uttering (words) round a lake full of water you have, Oh frogs, gathered together on that day of the year on which the rains begin’ (Ṛg. VII. 103.7); ‘The {{brāhmanan|brāhmaṇas}}, who drink soma, reciting prayers of the yearly sacrifice, have sent forth their speech’ (Ṛg. VII. 103. 8). In this verse {{brāhmaṇas}} are expressly said to be getting ‘{{brahma}}’ ready. ‘May {{Agoi|Agni}} who devours every thing make that (dead body) free from disease and (may) soma also (do the same) who entered into the {{brāhmanas|brāhmaṇas}}’ (Ṛg. X. 16. 6). ‘When the {{brābmapas|brāhmaṇas}} worship together as friends in hymns (lit. speed of the mind) that are fabricated from their hearts’ (Ṛg. X. 71. 8). In {{Rø.|Ṛg.}} VI. 75. 10 {{brāhmaṇas}} are invoked for welfare along with {{pitṛs}}. This shows that the {{brāhmaṇas}} were highly venerated. The other verses establish that they were the reciters of hymns ({{brahma}}) and drank soma. In Ṛg. VIII. 35. 16-18 we read ‘You ({{As vins|Aśvins}}) urge on (or inspire) {{brabma|brahma}}, you urge on our thoughts (or actions), you kill the evil spirits and subdue diseases; (17) you urge {{kṣatra}} (valour) and also men, you kill evil spirits (same as 16); (18) you urge on the cows and also the {{Viś}} (the rest is same as 16).’ Here it seems that the groups of people (viz. those who think and make songs, those who show valour and lead men, and those common people who tend cattle) are clearly meant. These verses may be conceded as pointing to the existence of three groups ({{brāhmaṇas}}, {{kṣatriyas}} and {{viśaḥ}}) but there is nothing in them to show that these three had crystallised into something like the castes of later times. In Ṛg. VII. 33. 11 Vasiṣṭha is addressed as {{brahman}}, but that does not mean that he was a {{brābmaṇa}} (by birth), as he is said to have been born of {{Urvaśi}} from Mitra and Varuṇa. Similarly, in Ṛg. IX. 96. 6 ({{Brahmā devānām}}) the word {{brahma|brahmā}}¹³⁰ does not certainly mean ‘{{brāhmaṇa}} by birth’, nor does ‘{{viprāṇām}}’ mean ‘{{brāhmaṇas}} by birth’. In that verse one who is super-eminent among a group is specified, just as the buffalo among animals, the hawk among carnivorous birds &c. In Ṛg. VIII. 33. 19 ’look down and not up: bring your feet close together; may thy {{kaśaplakas|kāśaplakas}} (legs?) be not seen, for though a {{brahmā}}, thou wert born a woman,’ it is impossible to hold that the last words mean ’thou wert a {{brāhmaṇa}} woman’. If it is only intended to refer to the fact that she is a {{brāhmaṇa}} woman, there is no reason why the Perfect tense ({{babhūvitha}}) is used and not the present. Here ‘{{brahmā}}’ most probably means ‘a priest of that name’, as that is the meaning in Ṛg. II. 1. 2 ({{brahma casi gṛbapatis-ca no dame|brahmā cāsi gṛhapatiśca no dame}}). The word ‘{{brahmajāyā}}’ in Ṛg. X. 109.2, 3, 6 and 7 does not mean the wife of a {{brāhmaṇa}} by birth but rather ‘wife of {{Bṛhaspati}}’. The whole hymn is obscure and more or less enigmatic or allegorical. In the Aitareya-brāhmaṇa¹¹ 35. 2-4 it is said that soma is the food of {{brāhmaṇas}} and that a {{kṣatriya}} was to press the tendrils of the Nyagrodha tree and the fruits of Udumbara, {{Aśvattha}} and {{Plakṣa}} and drink the juice so pressed instead of soma. It appears, therefore, that the {{brāhmaṇas}} were a distinct group even in the earliest period of the Ṛgveda. Whether they were hereditary is certainly not clear; nor is there anything to show that there were restrictions as regards partaking of food from persons other than {{brāhmaṇas}} or as to marriage. That {{brāhmaṇas}} in the Ṛgveda were a class by themselves may be conceded, but whether they had become a caste by birth is a matter of opinion dependent on the connotation given to the word caste. Dr. Ghurye (Caste and race in India p. 42) thinks, probably following the Vedic Index (vol. I on {{Kṣatriya}}), that the reference in Ṛg. X. 71. 9 to a false claim for being regarded as a {{brāhmaṇa}} points to the {{nonolusion|conclusion}} that {{brāhmaṇas}} had become a caste. The {{verge|verse}} literally translated means ’these (persons) who do not move below nor beyond, who are neither {{brāhmaṇas}}, nor engaged in pressing soma – they being ignorant and having reported to speech in sinful (or coarse) language take to ploughshares and engage in (agricultural) operations’. It is difficult to see how there is here any false claim to be regarded as a {{brāhmaṇa}}. This verse means apparently that those who are not composers of prayers or drinkers of soma (because they are ignorant) are men of low speech and have to turn to agriculture. Even in the days of the {{dharma-sūtras}} restrictions as to food and marriage for {{brāhmaṇas}} were not at all as rigid as they became in medieval and modern times; but even when these restrictions were not rigid it was clearly laid down that a {{brābmana|brāhmaṇa}} is so by birth alone. The word ‘{{brahma}}’ generally means in the Ṛgveda ‘prayer’ or ‘hymn’. Vide¹² Ṛg. IV. 6.11, VI. 52.2, X. 105.8, X. 141.5 (‘Oh Agni, make our prayer and sacrifice prosper by your flames’). Ṛg. III. 53.12 is ’this {{brahma}} (prayer or spiritual power) of {{Viśvāmitra}} protects the Bharata people’. In the Atharvaveda II. 15.4 (as {{brahma}} and {{kṣatra}} entertain no fear, nor are they harmed) {{brahma}} seems to mean ’the class of {{brāhmaṇas}}’. The transition of meaning from ‘{{brahma}}’ (prayer) to ‘{{brahma}}’ meaning the class of those who composed or recited prayers is natural and easy. In the Ṛgveda I. 157.2 both {{brahina|brahma}} and {{kpatra|kṣatra}} occur¹³ in the same verse where they probably mean ‘prayer’ and ‘valour’ respectively. In the Atharvaveda III. 19.1 both words occur and probably mean the same thing as in Ṛg. I. 157.2. In some Vedic works {{brahma}} and {{kṣatra}} stand collectively for {{brāhmaṇas}}¹⁴ and {{kṣatriyas}} (e. g. {{Tait. Br.|Tait. Br.}} II. 7.18, {{Bṛ. Up.|Bṛ. Up.}} I. 4.11, {{Kathopaniṣad|Kaṭhopaniṣad}} I. 2. 24). The word {{kṣatriya}} is very frequently applied as an epithet to several gods; e. g. Ṛg. VII. 64. 2 and VIII. 25. 8 (in both to Mitra and Varuṇa), Ṛg. VIII. 67. 1 (to {{Ādityas}}), Ṛg. X. 66.8 (to gods in general). In some verses {{kṣatriya}} means ‘a king or a nobleman’; e. g. Ṛg. IV. 42.1 ’the kingdom on both sides (heaven and earth) belongs to me, who am a {{kṣatriya}} and who holds sway over all living persons, so that all the immortals (gods) are ours (on my side)’;¹⁵ Ṛg. X. 109.3 (= Atharva V. 17.3) ’the domain of the {{kṣatriya}} has been protected (from the sight of enemies)’. The word ‘{{rājanya}}’ occurs in the Ṛgveda only in the {{Puruṣasūkta}}. It occurs in the sense of {{kṣatriya}} in the Atharvaveda V. 17.9. The same remark applies to the word {{kṣatriya}} as to {{brāhmang|brāhmaṇa}}. It is difficult to say whether {{kṣatriyas}} were so by birth in the times of the hymns of the Ṛg. or were only a class more or less fluid. We find that the Ṛg. speaks of {{Devāpi}} as the {{purohita}} of Śantanu who became a king. The story is¹⁶ that both were sons of {{Ṛṣṭiṣena}} and that Śantanu, though a younger brother, became king as {{Devāpi}} was not willing to be a king. The result was a famine due to Śantanu’s transgression and so {{Devāpi}} performed a sacrifice to induce rainfall. This shows that out of two brothers one became a king and the other a {{purohita}}. So kings and {{purohitas}} did not depend on birth. In Ṛg. IX. 112. 3 a poet exclaims ‘I am a reciter of hymns my father is a physician and my mother grinds (corn) with stones. We desire to obtain wealth in various actions’.¹⁷ In Ṛg. III. 44.5 the poet wistfully asks Indra ‘O, Indra, fond of soma, would you make me the protector of people, or would you make me a king, would you make me a sage, that has drunk of soma, would you impart to me endless wealth?’ This shows that the same man could be a {{ṛṣi}} or a noble or a king. Dr. Ghurye (in ‘Caste and race in India’ p. 44) thinks that the {{kṣatriyas}} had become a compact body and he particularly relies on Ṛg. VII. 104. 13 (= Atharvaveda VIII. 4. 13) which is cited in the Vedic Index (vol. I, p. 207) for the same purpose. That verse literally means ‘Soma does not urge on the crooked one, nor the {{kṣatriya}} who bears {{false|false.}} He strikes the {{rakṣas}}, and strikes him who speaks falsely; both lie in the bonds of Indra’. The words ‘{{kṣatriyam mithuyā dhārayantam}}’ are explained by {{Sāyaṇa}} as ‘{{Kṣatriya}} who bears false words’. The 2nd half is only an expansion of the first half and so ‘{{vṛjina}}’ corresponds to ‘{{rakṣas}}’ and ‘{{asad vadantan|asad vadantam}}’ is only a paraphrase of ‘{{mithuyā dbārayantam|mithuyā dhārayantam}}’. They may mean this that one who is a {{kṣatriya}}, but has no strength as a {{kṣatriya}} should have, is at the mercy of Indra. Unless we project our notions of the later state of society and the caste system when considering this verse, it is hardly possible to hold that this verse indicates that it refers to persons making a false claim for entrance into a compact body of {{kṣatriyas}} by birth. Dr. Ghurye also says (p. 44) ‘The 2nd order in society, the {{kṣatriya}}, is known in the earlier portions of the Ṛgveda as {{rājanya}}.’ I have not been able to find the word {{rājanya}} in the Ṛgveda any where except in the {{Puruṣa-sūkta|Puruṣasūkta}}. In the {{Aitareya brāhmaṇa|Aitareya-brāhmaṇa}} (chap. 34. 2) the word ‘{{rājanya}}’ stands for a member of the 2nd class in society, while {{kṣatriya}} means a king of whom land (for sacrifice to gods) is asked for by a {{brāhmaṇa}}, {{rājanya}} or {{vaiśya}}. [[27]] [[28]] [[29]] [[30]] [[31]]

Though the word {{vaiśya}} occurs in the Ṛgveda only in the {{Purugasūkta|Puruṣasūkta}}, the word ‘{{viś}}’ is very frequently employed in it. It generally means ‘people’ or ‘group of people’. In a large number of cases we have the words {{mānuṣīr-viśaḥ}} or {{mānuṣiṇu vikṣu|mānuṣīṣu vikṣu}} or {{mānuṣiṇām viśām|mānuṣīṇāṁ viśām}}, e.g. Ṛg. III.5.3, III.6.3, III. 11.5 (invincible Agni goes in front of human groups), IV. 6. 7 and 8, IV.9.2, V. 1. 9, V. 8.3, VI. 48. 8, VI. 47. 16 ({{viśo mānuṣyān}}), X. I. 4, X. 69. 9. In some places we have ‘{{dāsir viśaḥ}}’ (the {{dāsa}} hordes) e. g. IV. 28.4, VI. 25.2. In¹⁸ Ṛg. III. 34.2 we have ‘Oh Indra, you are the leader of human hordes as well as of divine hordes’ (where we have {{daivīnāṁ viśām}}). Ṛg.¹⁹ VIII. 63.7 (when loud invocations were sent towards Indra by the people consisting of five groups) shows that ‘{{viś}}’ means all the Aryan people. In Ṛg. V. 32. 11 Indra is styled ‘{{pāñcajanya}}’ (favourable to the five people) and in IX. 66. 20 Agni has the appellation {{pañcajanyaḥ purohitab|pañcajanyaḥ purohitaḥ}} (the {{purohita}} of the five peoples). Sometimes {{jana}} and {{viś}} seem to be contradistinguished as in Ṛg. II. 26. 3 ({{sa ij-janena sa viśā sa janmanā sa putrair-vājam bharate dhana nṛbhiḥ}}). But the very fact that {{viś}} is qualified also as {{pāñcajanya}} shows that there was hardly any distinction between {{jana}} and {{viś}}. In the Ṛgveda frequent reference is made to five people ({{pañca janaḥ}}); vide Ṛg. III. 37. 9, III. 59.7, VI. 11. 4, VIII. 32. 22, X. 65.23, X. 45.6. In the same way the words {{kṛṣṭi}} (II. 2. 10, IV.38.10), {{kṣiti}} (V. 35. 2, VI. 48. 7, VII. 75. 4), {{carṣaṇi}} (V.86.2, VII. 15.2) are employed along with {{pañca}}. We have also ‘{{pāñcajanyāsu kṛṣṭiṣu}}’ in Ṛg. III. 53.16. So it is clear that {{viś}} cannot in almost all hymns of the Ṛg. mean ‘{{vaiśya}}’ but means ’the people’ or ‘{{ārgan|Āryan}} people’ when no epithet like ‘{{dāsiḥ}}’ or ‘{{daiviḥ}}’ is prefixed. The {{Ait. Br.|Ait. Br.}} (1. 26) says that ‘{{viśaḥ}}’ means ‘{{rāṣṭrāṇi}}’ (countries) when explaining Ṛg. IV. 50.8 ({{tasmai viśaḥ svayam-evānamante}}).

The word ‘{{dāsa}}’ in later literature means ‘a serf or a slave.’ It follows that the {{dāsa}} tribes that we see opposed to the {{Āryas}} in the Ṛgveda were gradually {{vonquished|vanquished}} and were then made to serve the {{Āryas}}. In the {{Manusmṣti|Manusmṛti}} (VIII. 413) the {{śūdra}} is said to have been created by God for service ({{dāsya}}) of the {{brāhmapa|brāhmaṇa}}.²¹ We find in the {{Tai. S.|Tait. S.}}, the {{Tai. Br.|Tait. Br.}} and other Brāhmaṇa works that the {{śūdra}} occupies the same position that he does in the {{smśtis|smṛtis}}. Therefore it is reasonable to infer that the {{dāsa}} or {{dasyus}} conquered by the {{Āryas}} were gradually transformed into the {{śūdras}}. From being enemies they were brought into friendly relations and given a very subordinate position. Traces are visible even in the Ṛgveda that friendly relations had begun to be established between certain {{dāsas}} and the priests. For example in Ṛg. VIII. 46. 32 we read ’the singer took a hundred (cows or other gifts) from the {{dāsa Balbūtha}} and from Tarukṣa.’ In the {{Puruṣasūkta}} (X. 90.12) the {{brāhmaṇa}}, {{kṣatriya}}, {{vaiśya}} and {{śūdra}} are said to have sprung from the mouth, arms, thighs and feet of the supreme {{Puruṣa}}. In the very next verse the sun and the moon are said to have been born from the eye and mind of the {{Puruṣa}}. This shows that the composer of the hymn regarded the division of society into four classes to be very ancient and to be as natural and God-ordained as the sun and the moon.

We shall now see what position was assigned to the {{śūdra}} in the Vedic Saṁhitās and {{Brābmapas|Brāhmaṇas}}. In the Ṛgveda the {{Ārya}} is contradistinguished from the men of dark skin. In the dharmasūtras we find the {{Śūdras}} spoken of as ‘dark {{varṇa}}’. Vide Āp. Dh. S. I. 9. 27. 11 which is the same as Baudh. Dh. S. II. 1. 59.²² ‘The {{śūdra}} among men and the horse among beasts. Therefore those two, the horse and the {{śūdra}}, are the conveyances of beings; therefore the {{śūdra}} is not fit (or ordained) for sacrifice’ ({{Tai. S.|Tait. S.}} VII. 1. 1. 6).²³ This shows that the {{śūdra}} could not perform the Vedic sacrifices and that he was employed for carrying persons in a palanquin or otherwise. In {{Tai. S.|Tait. S.}} V. 7. 6. 3-4 we have ‘put light (glory) in our {{brāhmaṇas}}, put it in our chiefs (or kings), (put) light in {{vaiśyas}} and {{śūdras}}, put light in me by your light.’²⁴ This is a sure indication that the {{śūdra}} who took the place of the {{dāsa}} is here placed on the same level with the other three classes in the matter of the receipt of light from God and that far from being looked upon as an enemy, he had come to be looked upon as a member of the society (though the lowest in the scale). ‘The {{śūdra}} is a moving burial ground; therefore one should not study the Veda in the vicinity of a {{śūdra}}.’²⁵ ‘He created the {{brāh inana|brāhmaṇa}} with Gāyatrī, the {{rājanya}} with Triṣṭubh and the {{vaiśya}} with Jagatī; but he did not create the {{śūdra}} with any metre.’²⁶ The {{Tāṇḍyamahābrāhmaṇa}} says²⁷ ‘Therefore a {{śūdra}}, though he may have many beasts, is not entitled to perform sacrifice, he is godless as no deity was created after him (as in the case of the other {{varṇas}}); therefore he does not go beyond washing the feet (of the three other {{varṇas}}), since he was created from the feet’ (this last being an allusion to the {{Puruṣasūkta}} X. 90.12 ‘{{padbhyāṁ śūdro ajāyata}}’). This shows that the {{śūdra}}, however rich in cattle he might be, had to perform the menial duty of washing the feet of {{dvijas}}. The {{Śatapatha Br.}} says that the {{śūdra}} is ‘untruth’ (S. B. E. vol. 44. p. 446), that the {{śūdra}} is ’toil’ (S. B. E. vol. 44 p. 410), and that a {{dīkṣita}} (one who was initiated for a Vedic sacrifice) was not to speak with a {{sūdra|śūdra}} (S. B. E. vol. 26 p. 4). The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa remarks that ’the {{śūdra}}²⁸ is at the beck and call of others (the three {{varṇas}}), he can be made to rise at will, he can be beaten at will.’ When the father of {{Śunaḥśepa}}²⁹ (who had sold {{Śunaḥśepa}} for 100 coins and had shown himself ready to kill him as a {{paśu}} for another hundred coins) urged his son to come back to him after the boy had been taken into favour by Varuṇa and Viśvāmitra, he contemptuously discards his father’s proposal with the words ‘one who commits an evil deed once may commit another sinful deed thereafter; you did not leave aside the {{śūdra}}’s line of conduct; you did what leaves no door for reconciliation.’ These passages show that the {{śūdra}}, though he had ceased to be an enemy of the {{ārya}} and had been allowed to be within the pale of society, was looked down upon, was assigned a very low position, had to perform work of toil as a menial and was not allowed to perform Vedic sacrifices. A clear line of demarcation was kept between the {{Ārya}} and the {{Śūdra}} in the times of the Brāhmaṇa works and even in the dharmasūtras. The {{Tāṇḍya Brāhmaṇa}}³⁰ speaks of a mock fight ’the {{śūdra}} and {{ārya}} fight on a hide, out of the two they so arrange that the {{ārya}} colour becomes the victor’. The Āp. Dh. S. (I. 1.3.40-41) says³¹ that a {{brahmacārin}}, if he cannot himself eat all the food he has brought by begging, may keep it near an {{ārya}} (for his use) or he may give it to a {{śūdra}} who is a {{dāsa}} (of his teacher). The same Dharmasūtra³² (II. 2.3. 1 and 4) says ‘{{Āryas}} who are pure (by bath) should prepare the food for Vaiśvadeva; … or {{śūdras}} supervised by {{Āryas}} should prepare it’. Similarly Gautama X. 69 uses the word ‘{{anārya}}’ for {{śūdra}} and Gautama 12.3 prescribes heavy punishment for a {{śūdra}} having sexual intercourse with an {{ārya}} woman. Jaimini in his {{Pūrvamīmāṃsā-sūtra}} (VI. 1.25-38) establishes after elaborate discussion that the {{śūdra}} has no {{adhikāra}} for the performance of Agnihotra and Vedic sacrifices. It is, however, somewhat gratifying to find that at least one {{ācārya}}, Bādari, espoused the cause of the {{śūdra}} and propounded the view that all (including {{śūdras}}) were entitled to perform Vedic sacrifices (VI. 1.27). In the Vedānta-sūtras also (I. 3.34-38) it is established that the {{śūdra}} has no {{adhikāra}} for {{brahmavidyā}} based on Veda study, though some {{śūdras}} like Vidura might have been endowed with the knowledge of {{brahma}} owing to {{saṁskāras}} of former births. In the {{smṛti}} literature, however, a few passages are found allowing marriages of {{āryas}} with {{śūdra}} women (which will be discussed later on). Similarly sexual relations (illicit) between a {{śūdra}} woman and a man of higher {{varṇa}} are alluded to even in the {{Saṁhitās}} e. g. {{Tai. S.|Tait. S.}}³³ VII. 4.19.3 ‘when a {{śūdra}} woman has an {{ārya}} as her paramour she does not seek wealth for the prosperity (of her relations)’. In Ait. Br. (8. 1) there is the story of {{Kavaṣa Ailūṣa}}, who was driven out from the sacrifice on the Sarasvatī with the words ‘Oh, son of a female slave, you are a rogue and not a {{brāhmaṇa}}; how did you take the {{dīkṣā}} (initiation) as one of us’ and they carried him off to a sandy desert with the idea that he might die of thirst there. He when tormented by thirst ‘saw’ the hymn Ṛg. X. 30 and Sarasvatī came rushing to him.³⁴ Further discussion about the {{śūdra}} and his disabilities will follow in another section later. [[32]] [[33]] [[34]] [[35]]

The position of the three {{varṇas}} inter se (called collectively {{ārya}}) now requires consideration. It is clear that the {{Saṁhitās}} other than the {{Ṛgveda}} and {{Brāhmaṇa}} works show that the three classes of {{brāhmaṇas}}, {{kṣatriyas}} and {{vaiśyas}} had {{bocome|become}} {{differ entiated|differentiated}} and their privileges, duties and liabilities had become more or less fixed in those times.

Varna: brāhmaṇas

[[36]] In {{Ṛg.}} IV. 50.8 we read that king alone who places {{brāhmaṇa}} first (i. e. honours him) dwells happy in his house, for him the earth always remains prosperous and to him all the people (or kingdoms) bow down of their own accord’. ‘{{Brāhmaṇas}}³⁵ are gods that are directly seen’ ({{Tait. S.}} I. 7.3.1); ’there are two kinds of gods; for indeed the gods are gods and the {{brāhmaṇas}} who have studied and teach the sacred lore are the human gods’ {{Śat. Br.}} (S. B. E. vol. 12 p. 309, vol. 26 p. 341). In the Atharvaveda V. 17.19 there is an assertion of the pre-eminence of {{brāhmaṇas}} and the consequences of harming them or their cows. Therefore the {{brāhmaṇa}} is the foremost’ ({{Tait. S.}} II. 6.2.5, V.2.7.1). Therefore the {{brāhmaṇa}} shows his might by his mouth, since he was created from the mouth’ ({{Tāṇḍya Br.}} XI. 1. 2).³⁶ In the {{Ait. Br.}} (33. 4) Varuṇa, when he was told that a {{brāhmaṇa}} boy would be offered in place of the son of the king {{Hariścandra}}, is made to say ‘a {{brāhmaṇa}} is indeed preferable to a {{kṣatriya}}’. The mere fact of birth as {{brāhmaṇa}}’s son is represented here as giving to the boy pre-eminence over a king’s son. On the other hand the {{Śat. Br.}} says (V. 1. 1. 12) ‘a {{brāhmaṇa}}³⁷ is not adequate to (competent to manage) a kingdom’. In the {{Tait. Br.}} it is said that playing on the {{vīṇā}} (in the {{Aśvamedha}}) is to be done by a {{brāhmaṇa}} and a {{rājanya}} (and not by two {{brāhmaṇas}}), since wealth does not find delight in the {{brāhmaṇa}}. The {{Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa}}³⁸ (XI. 5. 7.1) lays emphasis on the four peculiar attributes of {{brāhmaṇas}} viz. {{brāhmaṇya}} (purity of parentage as a {{brāhmaṇa}}), {{pratirūpacaryā}} (befitting deportment or conduct), {{yaśas}} (glory) and {{lokapakti}} (the teaching or perfecting of people). “When the people are being perfected or taught by him, people endow him with four privileges viz. {{arcā}} (honour), {{dāna}} (gifts), {{ajyeyatā}} (freedom from being harassed) and {{avadhyatā}} (freedom from being beaten). The {{Śatapatha}} (V. 4. 6. 9) expressly mentions that {{brāhmaṇa}}, {{rājanya}}, {{vaiśya}} and {{śūdra}} are the four {{Varṇas}}. Teaching had become so much associated with the {{brāhmaṇas}} that when the {{brāhmaṇa Gārgya}} approached king {{Ajātaśatru}} for the knowledge of {{brahma}}, the latter replied “this is {{oontrary|contrary}} to the natural order that a {{brāhmaṇa}} should approach a {{kṣatriya}} with the idea ‘he ({{kṣatriya}}) will propound to me {{brahma}}…’” In a separate section below all the privileges enjoyed by the {{brāhmaṇas}} will be set out at one place.³⁹ [[38]]

Varna: kṣatriyas

[[39]] The position of {{kṣatriyas}} and their relation to the {{brāhmaṇas}} falls to be considered now. First of all with reference to the king several important passages may be cited. In some cases ‘{{rājan}}’ means only a ’noble’ or ‘chief’, as in {{Ṛg.}} X. 42. 10, X. 97. 6. In many passages ‘{{rājan}}’ means ‘king’. The government often seems to have been tribal, such tribes as {{Yadus}}, {{Turvabas|Turvaśas}}, {{Druhyus}}, Anus and {{Pūrus}} ({{Ṛg.}} I. 108. 8) being frequently mentioned (vide {{Ṛg.}} VII. 18. 6 for {{Bhṛgus}} and {{Druhyus}} and VII. 18. 7 for {{Tṛtsus}}, VIII. 6. 46 for {{Yadvas|Yadus}}). Whether kingship was by election it is not necessary here to discuss. The king was regarded as keeping the people within bounds. When a king was crowned, it was thought that ‘a {{kṣatriya}} was produced, a lord of all beings, the defender of {{brāhmaṇas}} (or of holy texts) and of {{dharma}}’.⁴¹ The {{Śat. Br.}} says ‘for these two ({{śrotriya}} and king) are the upholders of the sacred law among men (S. B. E. vol. 41 p. 106).⁴² That the co-operation between {{brāhmaṇa}} and {{kṣatriya}} results in glory and success is frequently emphasized e. g. *therefore a {{brāhmaṇa}} must certainly be approached by a {{kṣatriya}} who is about to perform some act, for indeed that act of a {{kṣatriya}} which is sped on by {{brāhmaṇa}} succeeds ({{Śatapatha}}, S. B. E. vol. 26 pp. 270-271). The {{purohita}} of a {{kṣatriya}} came to occupy a very high position. The {{Śatapatha}} (S. B. E. vol. 26 p. 270) lays emphasis on the importance of the {{purohita}} and cautions a {{brāhmaṇa}} against being the {{purohita}} of any king he meets with and adds that a {{brāhmaṇa}} may remain without a king, but a king should not be without a {{brāhmaṇa}}. Even the gods required a {{purohita}}, as the {{Tait. S.}} II. 5. 1. 1. says ‘{{Viśvarūpa}} son of {{Tvaṣṭṛ}} was the {{purobita|purohita}} of gods’.⁴⁴ {{Śaṇḍa}} and {{Marka}} were the {{purohitas}} of the Asuras ({{Kāṭhaka S.}} IV. 4). Agni is often called {{purohita}} ({{Ṛg.}} I. 1. 1., I. 44. 10, III. 2. 8). “May we, {{purohitas}}, be awake in the kingdom (for its welfare)’ says the {{Tait. S.}} (I. 7. 10.1). The {{Ait. Br.}} (chap. 34.8) says⁴⁵ ’the {{purohita}} is half the soul of the {{kṣatriya}}’ and contains an eulogy of {{purohita}} in the following words (40.1) “for indeed the gods do not eat the food of a king who has no {{purohita}}; therefore a king when about to offer a sacrifice should have a {{brāhmaṇa}} as his {{purohita}} with the idea ‘may the gods eat my food.’” The combination of the {{brāhmaṇa}} and the {{rājanya}} is said to be most desirable and that it is conducive to the eminence of both is declared in the {{Tait. S.}} (V. 1. 10. 3)⁴⁶. Therefore a {{brāhmaṇa}} who is supported by a {{rājanya}} is superior to another {{brāhmaṇa}} (not so supported), hence a {{rājanya}} who has a {{brāhmaṇa}} (to help him) is superior to another {{rājanya}}’. The {{Śatapatha}} (V. 4. 4. 15) declares ’that king indeed who is not powerful to the {{brāhmaṇas}} (i. e. who is humble before the {{brāhmaṇas}}) becomes more powerful than his foes.’⁴⁷ It is not to be supposed that this attainment of the supreme position by {{brāhmaṇas}} was an affair of plain sailing. Sometimes {{kṣatriyas}} claimed higher position and also paid scant respect to {{brāhmaṇas}}. In the {{Śatapatha}} we read ‘whence the {{brāhmaṇa}} is an object of respect after the king’ (S. B. E. vol. 41, p. 96); ‘hence the people here serve, from a lower position, the {{kṣatriya}} seated above them’ {{Śatapatha}} (S. B. E. vol. 12 p. 94); ‘hence when a nobleman approaches, all these people, the subjects crouch down by him on the ground’ {{Śatapatha}} (S. B. E. vol. 26 p. 228); ’therefore there is nothing higher than the {{kṣatra}}; therefore the {{brāhmaṇa}} sits down below the {{kṣatriya}} in the {{rājasūya}}’ ({{Śatapatha}} 14. 4. 1. 23 = {{Bṛ. Up.}} I. 4. 11). In the Atharvaveda several {{verges|verses}} occur which declare the harm that results from disrespecting or injuring a {{brāhmaṇa}} or from robbing him of his cow. “He who regards {{brāhmaṇa}} as food drinks of the poison of Taimāta; he who injures a {{brāhmaṇa}}, the relative of the gods, does not attain to the world of {{pitṛs}} (Atharvaveda V. 18. 4 and 13). Those who spat on a {{brāhmaṇa}} or those who sent to him mucous remain biting the hair in the midst of a stream by their mouth; that kingdom sinks as water {{sank|sinks}} a shattered vessel, where they injure a {{brāhmaṇa}}; that wicked act strikes that kingdom’ (Atharvaveda V. 19. 3 and 8).⁴⁸

The stories of king {{Kārtavīrya}} and {{Viśvāmitra}} who respectively carried off the cows of {{Jamadagni}} and {{Vasiṣṭha}} narrated in the {{Mahābhārata}} ({{Śānti}} 49 for {{Kārtavīrya}}; {{Ādi.}} 175 for {{Viśvāmitra}}) and the {{Purāṇas}} show how several kings were high-handed and treated {{brāhmaṇas}} with no respect whatever. It appears that even the wives of {{brāhmaṇas}} were not quite safe at the hands of kings. ‘The chamberlain ({{kṣattṛ}}) of that king in whose kingdom the wife of a {{brāhmaṇa}} is thoughtlessly put under restraint does not march in front of cooking vessels with a golden ornament on his {{neok|neck}}’⁴⁹ (Atharva V. 17. 14). The somewhat mystical hymn ({{Ṛg.}} X. 109) where ‘{{brahmajāyā}}’ figures prominently probably hints at the same fact (viz. the kidnapping of the wives of {{brāhmaṇas}}).

The {{Tait. S.}} says that ’the {{vaiśya}} indeed sacrifices, being desirous of cattle’ and that the gods having been defeated were reduced to the condition of being the {{vaiśyas}} or ‘{{viś}}’ of asuras’;⁵⁰ ’the {{vaiśya}} among men, cows among beasts, therefore they are to be enjoyed (to be eaten, to be subsisted upon) by others; they were produced from the receptacle of food; therefore they exceed others in numbers’.⁵¹ The {{Tait. Br.}} says ’the {{vaiśya}} class is said to have been born from {{pk|ṛk}} verses, they declare the {{Yajurveda}} as the origin of the {{kṣatriya}}, the {{Sāmaveda}} is indeed the source of {{brāhmaṇas}}’.⁵² The same {{Brāhmaṇa}} further says ’the {{viś}} go away from (reside separately from) the {{brāhmaṇas}} and {{kṣatriyas}}’. The {{Tāṇḍya Br.}} says⁵³ ‘Hence the {{vaiśya}}, though being eaten (i. e. subsisted upon) by others is not exhausted, since he was created from the {{prajanana}} (from the sexual parts of {{Prajāpati}}); therefore he has numerous cattle, he has all the gods (as his patrons) and was produced with the {{Jagatī}} metre, his season is the rains, therefore he is to be eaten by the {{brāhmaṇa}} and the {{rājanya}}, since he was created as lower (than those two classes)’. The {{Śat. Br.}} (S. B. E. vol. 26 p. 335) says ‘He thus assigns to the Maruts a share therein after Indra, whereby he makes the people ({{viś}}) subservient and obedient to the nobility’.⁵⁴ According to the {{Ait. Br.}} 35, 3 the {{vaiśya}} is one who is the food of others, who pays taxes to others. These passages show that {{vaiśyas}} were entitled to sacrifice, reared cattle, were far more numerous than the other two classes, they had to bear the brunt of taxation, they lived apart from {{brāhmaṇas}} and {{kṣatriyas}} and were obedient to them.

The system of the four {{varṇas}} had taken such deep roots in the period when the {{Brāhmaṇa}} works were composed, that we often meet with Vedic passages saying that it extended even to the gods, Agni and {{Bṛhaspati}} being the {{brāhmaṇas}} among gods; Indra, Varuṇa, Soma, Yama being the {{kṣatriyas}}; Vasus, {{Rudras}}, the {{Viśve Devas}} and Maruts being the {{viś}}, and {{Pūṣan}} being the {{śūdra}}.⁵⁵ Similarly it is said ’the {{brāhmaṇa}} is really spring, the {{kṣatriya}} summer, and the {{viś}} are the rainy season.’

Various crafts in the Vedas

That there were other professions and crafts with specific names (which in later times at least became castes) even in the times of the {{Saṁhitās}} is quite clear. The {{Ṛg.}} speaks of {{vaptā}} (barber) in X. 142.4, {{taṣṭā}} (a carpenter or maker of chariots) in {{Ṛg.}} I. 61.4, VII. 32.20, IX. 112.1, {{X119.5|X. 119. 5}}; {{tvaṣṭṛ}} (a carpenter) in VIII. 102.8; {{bhiṣak}} (medicine man) in IX. 112.1 and 3, {{karmāra}} or {{kārmāra}} (iron-smith) in X. 72.2 and IX. 112.2, {{carmamna}} (tanner) in {{Ṛg.}} VIII. 5.38.

The Atharvaveda mentions {{rathakāra}} (III. 5.6), {{karmāra}} (III. 5.6) and {{sūta}} (III. 5.7). In the {{Tait. S.}} (IV. 5.4.2)⁵⁶ mention is made of {{kṣattṛ}} (royal chamberlain or doorkeeper), {{saṁgrahītṛ}} (treasurer), {{takṣan}} (carpenter) and {{rathakāra}} (maker of chariots), {{kulāla}} (potter), {{karmāra}}, {{puñjiṣṭa}} (fowler), {{niṣāda}}, {{iṣukṛt}} (maker of arrows), {{dhanvakṛt}} (maker of bows), {{mṛgayu}} (hunter) and {{śvanin}} (those who lead packs of hounds). These also occur in the {{Vājasaneyi-saṁhitā}} 16.26-28 and these and a few more in {{Vāj. S.}} 30.5-13 and in {{Kāṭhaka Saṁhitā}} 17.13. In the {{Tait. Br.}} (III. 4.1 and the following {{anuvākas}} that deal with {{Puruṣamedha}}) we have {{dyogū}}, {{māgadha}} (bard), {{sūta}}, {{śailūṣa}} (actor), {{rebha}}, {{bhasmala}}, {{rathakāra}}, {{takṣan}}, {{kaulāla}}, {{karmāra}}, {{maṇikāra}}, {{vapa}} (sower or barber), {{iṣukāra}}, {{dhanvakāra}}, {{jyākāra}} (maker of bow-string), {{rajjusarga}}, {{mṛgayu}}, {{śvanin}}, {{Surākāra}} (vintner), {{ayastāpa}} (heater of iron or copper), {{kitava}} (gambler), {{bidalakāra}} (worker in wicker-work), {{kaṇṭakakāra}}. The {{Śatapatha Br.}} XI. 8.1. speaks of {{kaulāla-cakra}} (the potter’s wheel). The {{Tait. Br.}} III. 8.5, mentions also {{rājaputra ugra}}. The {{Śatapatha}} (S. B. E. Vol. 44 p. 397) speaks of {{Marutta Āvikṣita}} as an {{āyogava}} king. This latter is a {{pratiloma}} caste according to the {{dharmaśāstras}} (vide below). Whether in the {{Śatapatha}} that word has the same sense is doubtful. The {{Tait. S.}} I. 8.9.1-2 mentions among the ‘{{ratnas}}’ (the jewels), the {{sūta}}, {{grāmaṇi}}, {{kṣattṛ}}, {{saṁgrahītṛ}}, {{bhāgadugha}} (collector of taxes), {{akṣāvāpa}} (superintendent of gambling). Vide also {{Tait. Br.}} I. 7.3. In the {{Tāṇḍya Brāhmaṇa}} (19.1.4) it is said that ’eight brave persons hold up the kingdom viz. the king’s brother, the king’s son, the {{purohita}}, the crowned queen, the {{sūta}}, the {{grāmaṇī}}, {{kṣattṛ}} and {{saṁgrahītṛ}}’. Therefore it looks likely that {{kṣattṛ}} and {{saṁgrahītṛ}} were high officers of state and not castes. In the {{Śat. Br.}} XIII. 4. 1. 5 among the guards of the horse let loose in the {{Aśvamedha}} there were a hundred sons of {{kṣāttṛ-saṁgrahītṛs}} carrying clubs’. As the word ‘{{kṣāttra}}’ is prefixed to ‘{{saṁgrahītṛ}}’ it follows that ‘{{saṁgrahītṛs}}’ were officers who may have belonged to any {{varṇa}}. In the same passage mention is made of a hundred guardians who were the sons of {{sūtagrāmaṇis}}. In another passage of the same {{brāhmaṇa}} (XIII. 2.2.18) the {{sūtas}} and {{grāmaṇis}} are said to be no kings and yet are {{rājakṛt}} (i. e. king-makers).⁵⁷ This means probably that they are the principal persons on whose support the king depends. The {{Śat. Br.}} V. 4. 4.15-19 arranged {{brāhmaṇa}}, king, king’s brother, {{sūta}} or {{sthapati}}, {{grāmaṇi}}, {{sajāta}} in a descending scale of powerfulness. So the {{sūta}} appears to have been originally an important officer. It is hardly possible to say with assurance that all these had become petrified into castes in the modern sense, particularly when several persons associated with these in the {{Vāj. S.}} and elsewhere were not castes such as the thief ({{taskara}}), the impotent ({{klība}}), humpbacked ({{kubja}}), dwarf ({{vāmana}}); but most of the avocations and crafts referred to above have corresponding castes and subcastes for hundreds of years. It is therefore possible to say that in the times of the {{Saṁhitās}} and {{Brāhmaṇas}} these were groups founded on occupations that had become castes or were in process of developing into castes. The {{Tāṇḍya Br.}} speaks of {{Kirātas}} (who were and are non-Aryan and were aboriginal tribes).⁵⁸ The {{Vāj. S.}} (30. 17) speaks of {{Paulkasa}} in connection with {{bībhatsā}} (nauseating filth) and of {{cāṇḍālas}} (in 30.21) in connection with {{vāyu}} (wind). The {{paulkasa}} and {{cāṇḍāla}} occur in {{Tait. Br.}} (III. 4. 14 and III. 4. 17 respectively). In the {{Chāndogya Up.}} (V. 10.7)⁵⁹ the {{cāṇḍāla}} is ranked with the dog and the boar. “Therefore even if one knowing thus were to give the leavings of his food to a {{cāṇḍāla}} that would in his case be an offering made into the Self as Fire’-{{Chāndogya}} V. 24. 4. This shows that the {{cāṇḍāla}} was the lowest in the social scale. ‘Just as a {{dāsya}} or {{vaideha}}, or the son of an {{ugra}}, after having made his bow strung &c.’ –{{Bṛ. Up.}} III. 8.2. In the {{Bṛ. Up.}} IV. 3.22 mention is made of both {{cāṇḍāla}} and {{paulkasa}} and in IV. 3.37 it is said⁶⁰ that ‘just as when a king pays a visit, the {{ugras}}, {{pratyenasas}} (thief catchers), the {{sūtas}} and headmen of the village make arrangements for him with food and drink and with pavilions.” Here {{ugras}} seem to be a group of nobles subordinate to the king. In later literature {{ugra}} is the offspring of a {{kṣatriya}} from a {{śūdra}} woman ({{Yāj.}} I. 91). In the {{Ṛg.}} X. 97, 12 the word {{ugra}} occurs “You destroy disease just as an {{ugra}} who is a mediator or arbitrator (removes dispute).” What {{ugra}} means here cannot be said with certainty. It may only mean a ‘formidable chief or king.’

The {{rathakāra}} and {{niṣāda}} deserve a passing notice. The {{Tait. Br.}} I. 1. 4 after stating that the {{brāhmaṇas}} should consecrate sacred fires in the spring, the {{kṣatriya}} in summer, the {{vaiśya}} in autumn, ordains that the {{rathakāra}} should consecrate sacred fires in the rainy season. The question arises whether the {{rathakāra}} is a member of the three higher castes who has taken in economic distress to the profession of making chariots or is a person belonging to a caste other than the three higher {{varṇas}}. Jaimini in his {{Pūrvamīmāṁsā-sūtra}} (VI. 1. 44-50) discusses this question and establishes⁶¹ that the {{rathakāra}} is a member of a caste other than the three higher {{varṇas}}, that he has on account of the express words in the {{śruti}} the privilege to consecrate sacred fires with vedic mantras, that the mantra for the consecration of {{rathakāras}} is ‘{{ṛbhūṇāṁ tvā}}’ ({{Tait. Br.}} I. 1. 4) and that the {{rathakāras}} are the caste called {{Saudhanvana}} which is neither {{śūdra}} nor one of the three higher ones, but is slightly inferior to the three higher {{varṇas}}. {{Viśvarūpa}}⁶² (on {{Yāj.}} I. 10) notices that in some {{smṛti}} the {{rathakāra}} though not belonging to the three higher {{varṇas}}, was allowed the privilege of {{upanayana}}, but adds that this dictum of the {{smṛti}} is due to mistake, it being misled by the fact that he is allowed the privilege of {{ādhāna}}⁶³ (consecration of sacred fires). In modern times the members of the carpenter caste in certain parts of the Deccan at least are in the habit of performing the {{upanayana}} and wearing the sacred thread.

With reference to an {{iṣṭi}} offered to Rudra a Vedic text says ‘one should make a {{niṣādasthapati}} perform this {{iṣṭi}}.’ The {{Pūrvamīmāṁsā sūtra}}⁶⁴ (VI. 1, 51-52) discusses the question whether this authorises a {{niṣāda}} who is himself a chieftain or a chieftain (who is a member of the three higher {{varṇas}}) of {{niṣādas}}. The established conclusion is that the {{iṣṭi}} is to be performed by a {{niṣāda}} who is a chieftain though he be beyond the pale of the three {{varṇas}}, as the {{Karmadhāraya}} compound is the proper way of dissolving the compound and not the genitive {{Tatpuruṣa}}. The {{Ait. Br.}} (37.7) says⁶⁵ ‘just as the {{niṣādas}}, or {{selagas}} (thieves) or evil-doers seize a wealthy man in a forest and throwing him in a well run away with his wealth.’ The {{Sāṅkhāyana Br.}} (25. 15) allows one who had performed the {{Viśvajit}} sacrifice (in which everything is given away) to stay in a settlement of {{niṣādas}} whose food is the lowest that he is allowed to take. The {{Kātyāyana-śrauta-sūtra}} (I. 1. 12-14) says⁶⁶ that the chieftain who is a {{niṣāda}} can offer a {{caru}} of {{Gavedhuka}} corn to Rudra, but this offering is to be made in ordinary fire (and not in the fires consecrated with Vedic mantras) i. e. the permission to offer {{Raudrī iṣṭi}} does not entitle him to perform Vedic consecration of fire ({{ādhāna}}). But according to {{Satyāṣāḍha}}⁶⁷ {{kalpa}} III. 1 both the {{niṣāda}} and the {{rathakāra}} are entitled to perform Agnihotra and {{Darśa-pūrṇamāsa}}.

The {{Aitareya Brāhmaṇa}}⁶⁸ narrates that {{Viśvāmitra}} cursed his senior fifty sons, when they did not agree to his proposal to treat {{Śunaḥśepa}} ({{Devarāta}}) as his son, that they would associate with the lowest castes and that they became the {{Andhras}}, {{Puṇḍras}}, {{Śabaras}}, {{Pulindas}} and {{Mūtibas}} who are among the lowest of society and are mostly composed of {{dasyus}}. It is probably owing to this legend that the {{Manusmṛti}}⁶⁹ (X. 43-45) is prepared to regard the {{Pauṇḍrakas}}, the {{Oḍras}}, {{Draviḍas}}, {{Kāmbojas}}, {{Yavanas}}, {{Śakas}}, {{Pāradas}}, {{Pahlavas}}, {{Cīnas}}, {{Kirātas}}, {{Daradas}} and {{Khaśas}} as being originally {{kṣatriya}} castes, but later on reduced to the position of {{śūdras}} by the non-performance of Vedic {{saṁskāras}} (like {{upanayana}}) and by the absence of contact with {{brāhmaṇas}}. Manu further adds that the various castes that are outside the (influence of the) four {{varṇas}} are all known as {{dasyus}} whether they speak the language of {{Mlecchas}} or of {{Āryas}}.

One very important question is whether the theory of the four {{varṇas}} with their peculiar privileges and duties {{desoribed|described}} in the {{dharmaśāstras}} and other {{smṛtis}} was merely a theory even in the most ancient times. When the {{Puruṣasūkta}} of the {{Ṛgveda}} speaks of {{Brāhmaṇa}}, {{Rājanya}}, {{Vaiśya}} and {{Śūdra}} or when the {{Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa}} expressly says that they are four {{Varṇas}}, it appears to me that they speak of facts existing in their times and not merely of a theory which was to be striven for as an ideal. {{Smṛti}} writers try to place all their {{diota|dicta}} in the frame-work of the {{varṇas}} because the four {{varṇas}} and their duties and privileges had been more or less clearly defined in the times of the Vedas and {{Brāhmaṇas}}, which according to the authors of the {{smṛtis}} were {{śruti}}, eternal and infallible. They tried to approximate the state of society existing in their times to the {{varṇas}} which they held were of {{hoery|hoary}} antiquity. But there is nothing to show that the same difficulties were felt by the authors of the Vedic hymns and the {{Brāhmaṇas}}. The manner in which they refer to the privileges and disabilities of the several {{varṇas}} have such a deep ring of actuality that one must concede that the {{varṇas}} spoken of in them represented the real divisions of society at least to a very great extent, if not cent percent.

The preceding discussion renders the following propositions most probable;

(1) that in the earliest times about which we have literary records there were only two {{varṇas}}, the {{āryas}} and their opponents the {{dasyus}} or {{dāsas}}; that the difference between the two was based on difference of colour and culture and was thus more or less racial and cultural; (2) that centuries before the {{saṁhitā}} period closed the {{dasyus}} had been conquered and were given a position subservient to the {{āryas}}; (3) that the {{śūdras}} were the {{dasyus}} so subjugated and made subservient; (4) that the spirit of exclusiveness and pride of superiority existing among the {{Āryas}} with reference to {{dasyus}} soon extended to groups among the {{āryas}} themselves; (5) that by the time of the {{Brāhmaṇa}} Literature, {{brāhmaṇas}} (men supposed to be devoted to learning and priesthood), {{kṣatriyas}} (kings, noblemen and some warriors) and {{vaiśyas}} (the artisans and common people) had become separated into groups more or less dependent on birth and that the {{brāhmaṇa}}⁷⁰ had come to be regarded as superior to the {{kṣatriya}} by the fact of birth; (6) that even such low castes as {{cāṇḍālas}} and {{paulkasas}} had been evolved long before the end of the Vedic period; (7) that owing to cultural advance, division of labour arose and numerous arts and crafts had been developed and they were in process of contributing to the complexity of the system by creating numerous sub-castes based upon occupations; (8) that besides the four {{varṇas}} intermediate castes like the {{rathakāra}} had been evolved; (9) that there were certain non-Aryan tribes which were supposed to have been originally {{kṣatriyas}} but fallen later on.

The close of the Vedic period is here taken as being not later than about 1000 B. C. How much earlier it may be placed it is not possible to say. [[48]]

List of professions and crafts from Vedic texts

The following is a list of persons engaged in professions and crafts, which had probably become castes or were in the process of becoming castes, before the close of the Vedic period, as seen from the {{Vāj. S.}}, {{Tait. S.}} and {{Tait. Br.}}, {{Kāṭhaka Saṁ.}} (17. 13), the {{Atharva-veda}}, the {{Tāṇḍya Br.}} (III. 4.), the {{Ait. Br.}}, the {{Chāndogya}} and the {{Bṛ. Up.}} The meaning of some of the words is not quite clear and it is possible that some in the list were not at all castes or professions. They are arranged in the alphabetical order of Sanskrit (though transliterated). The meanings of most of them have been given above. Where the meaning is doubtful a question mark has been made. [[49]]

{{Ajāpala}} (goatherd) {{Dāśa}} {{Andhra}} {{Dhanuṣkāra}} {{Ayastāpa}} or {{Āyogū}} or {{Āgogū}} {{Dhanvakāra}} {{Avipāla}} (keeper of ewes) or {{Dhanvakṛt}} {{Iṣukāra}} {{Dhaivara}} {{Ugra}} {{Niṣāda}} {{Kaṇṭakakāra}} or {{Kaṇṭakī}} {{Pumścalū}} {{Karmāra}} {{Puñjiṣṭa}} {{Kāri}} (dancer?) or {{Kirāta}} {{Kitava}} {{Pauñjiṣṭha}} {{Kināśa}} (cultivator?) {{Puṇḍra}} {{Kulāla}} or {{Kaulāla}} {{Pulinda}} {{Keparta}} {{Paulkasa}} {{Kośakārī}} (blower of bellows) {{Bainda}} (catching fish in nets) {{Kṣattṛ}} {{Bhiṣak}} {{Gopāla}} {{Bhimala}} (timid?) {{Carmamna}} {{Maṇikāra}} {{Cāṇḍāla}} {{Māgadha}} {{Jambhaka}} (?) {{Mārgāra}} {{Jyakāra}} {{Mūtiba}} {{Takṣan}} {{Mṛgayu}} {{Mainala}} (catcher of fish?) {{Vidalakārī}} or {{Bidala}} {{Rajayitri}} (dyer) {{Vrātya}} {{Rajusarga}} or-{{sarja}} {{Śabara}} {{Rathakāra}} {{Śābalya}} (?) {{Rājaputra}} {{Śailūṣa}} {{Rebha}} (?) {{Śvanin}} (or {{Śvanita}}) {{Vaṁśanartin}} {{Saṁgrahītṛ}} {{Vapa}} (barber) {{Surākāra}} {{Vaṇija}} {{Sūta}} {{Vāsaḥ-palpūlī}} (a washer-woman) {{Selaga}} {{Hiraṇyakāra}}

Several centuries before the Christian era there were several castes. This follows not only from the {{dharmaśāstras}} but also from the ancient Buddhist works and from the meagre existing fragments of the work of Megasthenes on India. Though Megasthenes was confused in his statements about the caste system as prevalent in his day, some propositions are clearly deducible therefrom. He states (pp. 40 ff) that the whole population of India was divided into seven castes, (1) philosophers, (2) husbandmen, (3) neatherds and shepherds, (4) artisans, (5) military, (6) overseers, (7) councillors and assessors. Out of these 1 and 5 correspond to {{brāhmaṇas}} and {{kṣatriyas}}, 2-3 to {{vaiśyas}}, 4 to {{śūdras}}; 6th and 7th correspond to {{adhyakṣas}} and {{amātyas}} (as in {{Kauṭilya}}’s {{Arthaśāstra}}) and are not really castes but occupations. He probably regards them as castes because the offices of the {{adhyakṣas}} and {{amātyas}} were generally hereditary or at least he gathered that they were so. Megasthenes’ further statement (pp. 43-44) that no one is allowed to marry out of his own caste or to {{exeroise|exercise}} any calling or art except his own’ shows that the prevailing tendency was that caste had become exclusive and mostly occupational in his day, though there must have been exceptions of which he was not informed.

Varna and castes derived therefrom

The ancient writers on {{dharmaśāstra}} strive very hard to account for the bewildering ramifications of the caste system from the four {{varṇas}} that were spoken of in the {{śruti}} (revelation). There is unanimity on the theory that the numerous castes actually found in the country arose from the unions of males of different {{varṇas}} with women belonging to {{varṇas}} differing from their own. The divergences (and they are many) among the several {{smṛtikāras}} relate only to details. The {{smṛti}} writers had before them the hoary theory of four {{Varṇas}} vouched for by infallible Vedic authority, but they were at the same time quite cognizant of the realities in society viz. the separate existence of numerous castes and sub-castes that had varying claims as regards social status and that were based in popular estimation on birth alone. Therefore, when one criticizes the {{smṛti}} view of the derivation of numerous castes from the mixture or confusion ({{saṅkara}}) of the four {{varṇas}} as purely hypothetical and imaginary, the criticism is true only partially. The {{smṛtis}} were composed in different parts of India at different times and they were meant to supply a popular want, to guide the people and to reflect the prevailing state of society and popular feeling. Therefore, it must be admitted that the numerous castes mentioned in the {{smṛtis}} did exist at the time of the {{smṛtis}}, that the social status of the several castes might have varied from country to country or from epoch to epoch, that the peculiar avocations and means of livelihood assigned to the various castes reflected the real state of things. The element of hypothesis and speculation lies only in the theory of a particular sub-caste having sprung from the union of two persons belonging to two particular {{varṇas}} or castes.⁷¹ This description of the origin of the several castes was only indicative of the author’s view or of the accepted view about the social status of those castes in particular localities. There is here, as a matter of fact, great divergence of views among the several authors.

In the first place all writers on {{dharmaśāstra}} start with the propositions viz. (1) that the four {{varṇas}}, {{brāhmaṇa}}, {{kṣatriya}}, {{vaiśya}} and {{śūdra}}, are arranged in a descending scale of social status; and (2) that marriage is or was permissible between a male of a higher {{varṇa}} with a woman of a lower {{varṇa}}, but the union of a woman of a higher {{varṇa}} with a male of {{varṇa}} lower than her own is reprehensible and not permitted. There is a third proposition advanced by many writers that a man belongs to a particular {{varṇa}} or {{jāti}} by birth only i. e. if born in lawful wedlock of parents both of whom belong to that {{varṇa}} or {{jāti}}.⁷² This is the view held by all medieval writers and digests and it is expressly said that a man belongs to a caste by birth and no actions of his can alter that fact, that several castes are like the species of animals and that caste attaches to the body and not to the soul (vide {{Sūtasaṁhitā}}). When a male of a higher {{varṇa}} marries a woman of a lower {{varṇa}}, the marriage is said to be {{anuloma}} (lit. with the hair, in the natural order) and the offspring is said to be {{anuloma}}; when there is a union of a woman of a higher {{varṇa}} with a male of a lower {{varṇa}}, it is said to be {{pratiloma}} (against the hair, i. e. against the natural or proper order) and the children of the union are said to be {{pratiloma}}. These two words {{anuloma}} and {{pratiloma}} (as applied to marriage or progeny) hardly ever occur in the vedic literature. In the {{Bṛ. Up.}} (II. 1. 15) and {{Kauṣītakī Br. Up.}} IV. 18 (quoted in note 89 above) the word ‘{{pratiloma}}’ is applied to the procedure adopted by a {{brāhmaṇa}} of going to a {{kṣatriya}} for knowledge about {{brahman}}. From this it may possibly be inferred that {{pratiloma}} and {{anuloma}} might have been employed with reference to marriages also (in the days of the {{Upaniṣad}}). {{Pāṇini}} (IV. 4. 28) teaches the formation of words from {{anuloma}} and {{pratiloma}}. They occur in Gautama (IV. 14-15), {{Baud. Dh. S.}} (I. 8. 8), {{Vasiṣṭha}} (18.7), Manu (X. 13), {{Yāj.}} (I. 95) and other {{smṛti}} works.

One important question is whether the theory of {{anuloma}} or {{pratiloma}} castes presupposes a marriage or only a union (outside marriage) of a man and a woman. The {{Āp. Dh. S.}} (II. 6. 13. 1, 3-4) lays down⁷³ that a man must marry a virgin of his own {{varṇa}} with the rites prescribed by the {{śāstras}} and only the son born of such a marriage is entitled to the privileges and occupation of his father, that sexual intercourse with a woman who has been married by another or on whom the proper ceremonies of marriage are not performed or who belongs to another caste is condemned and that the son (and not the daughter) born of such an union is condemned (through the sin of the parents). So {{Āpastamba}} looked with disfavour even on marriages called {{anuloma}}. He is entirely silent about {{anuloma}} and {{pratiloma}} castes. It is no doubt true that most ancient writers like Gautama (IV. 1), {{Vasiṣṭha}} (I. 24), Manu (III. 12-13), {{Yāj.}} (I. 55 and 57) prescribe that a person should by preference marry a girl of his own {{varṇa}} but also allow the marriage of a person with a girl of another {{varṇa}} lower than his own. {{Yāj.}} (I.92) expressly says that the six {{anuloma}} castes, {{mūrdhāvasikta}}, {{ambaṣṭha}}, {{niṣāda}}, {{māhiṣya}}, {{ugra}}, and {{karaṇa}} are so called only when they are the offspring of women married by men of higher {{varṇas}}. Manu (X. 41) says that the six {{anuloma}} castes are entitled to the rites ({{saṁskāras}} like {{upanayana}}) performed for {{dvijas}}, but that the {{pratiloma}} castes are like {{śūdras}} (i. e. even when a {{pratiloma}} caste springs from a {{brāhmaṇa}} woman and a {{kṣatriya}} or {{vaiśya}} male they cannot have {{upanayana}} and other rites of {{dvijas}} performed for them, though both parents are {{dvijas}}). {{Kauṭilya}}⁷⁴ (III. 7) also says that all {{pratilomas}} except {{cāṇḍālas}} are like {{śūdras}}; {{Viṣṇu}} says that they are condemned by all {{Āryas}}. {{Devala}}’s (quoted by {{Parāśaramādhavīya}} I. 2. p. 122) says that {{pratilomas}} are outside the pale of the system of {{varṇas}} and are {{patita}}. The {{Smṛtyarthasāra}} p. 13 says that {{anuloma}} sons and those born of the {{mūrdhāvasikta}} and other {{anuloma}} castes are {{dvijātis}} and are entitled to {{saṁskāras}} as {{dvijātis}}. Commentators like {{Kullūka}} (on Manu X. 11) say that, as no marriage is legally possible between a woman of a higher {{varṇa}} and a male of a lower {{varṇa}}, all the {{pratilomas}} are born outside lawful wedlock. Gautama (IV. 20) says that all {{pratilomas}} are {{dharmahīna}}, which is interpreted by the {{Mit.}} on {{Yāj.}} III. 262 as meaning that they cannot have {{upanayana}} and similar {{saṁskāras}} of {{dvijas}} performed for them, though they are amenable to the rules of morality and entitled to perform {{vratas}} and {{prāyaścittas}}. {{Vasiṣṭha}}, {{Baudhāyana}} and several others do not make it clear whether, when they speak of {{pratilomas}}, they contemplate offspring of legal marriages or only of illegitimate and adulterous unions. But it will be seen from the list appended below that {{Uśanas}} and {{Vaikhānasa}} almost always make a distinction between the caste assigned to the offspring of the union of parents of different {{varṇas}}, according as there is a marriage between the two or it is only a clandestine, illegitimate or adulterous union. For example, {{Uśanas}} says⁷⁵ that when there is a marriage between a {{kṣatriya}} male and a {{brāhmaṇa}} female, the offspring is called {{sūta}}, while the offspring of a clandestine union between a {{brāhmaṇa}} woman and a {{kṣatriya}} male was called {{rathakāra}}. So these two authors held that there could be a legal marriage when a woman of a higher {{varṇa}} married a male of a lower {{varṇa}}.⁷⁶ There were several other works like the {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} ({{Śivamāhātmyakhaṇḍa}} chap. 12. 12-48) where a similar distinction is made between the children of marriages and clandestine unions. The {{Mit.}} on {{Yāj.}} I. 90 says that such progeny as {{kuṇḍa}} and {{golaka}} (Manu III. 174), {{kānīna}}, {{sahodhaja}} (who are all not due to intercourse in wedlock) are different from {{savarṇa}}, {{anuloma}} and {{pratiloma}} and are to be treated as {{śūdras}} and that the {{kṣetraja}} son is to be treated as in a different category (since {{niyoga}} is allowed by the {{smṛtis}} and by the usage of {{śiṣṭas}}) and belongs to the caste of his mother. {{Aparārka}} (on {{Yāj.}} I. 92 p. 118) does not accept this view and holds that even {{kānīna}} and {{sahodha}} may be held to be {{brāhmaṇas}} (if the begetter can be proved to have been a {{brāhmaṇa}}); while {{Viśvarūpa}} on {{Yāj.}} II. 133 says that {{kānīna}} and {{gūḍhaja}} must be deemed to belong to the mother’s caste as the begetter may not be known and that {{sahodhaja}} (II. 135) is also to be so treated. These several kinds of secondary sons will be treated under inheritance.

Varna and jāti

A few words must be said about the word {{jāti}}. The idea of {{varṇa}} was as we have seen based originally on race, culture, character and profession. It takes account mainly of the moral and intellectual worth of man and is a system of classes which appears more or less natural. The ideal of {{varṇa}} even in the {{smṛtis}} lays far more emphasis on duties, on a high standard of effort for the community or society rather than on the rights and privileges of birth. The system of {{jātis}} (castes) lays all emphasis on birth and heredity and tends to create the mentality of clinging to privileges without trying to fulfil the obligations corresponding to such privileges. The word ‘{{jāti}}’ in the sense of caste hardly ever occurs in the vedic literature. In the {{Nirukta}}⁷⁷ (XII. 13) it is said ‘after {{agnicayana}} (the building of the fire altar), a man should not approach a {{rāmā}} (for sexual intercourse); {{rāmā}} is so called because she is approached only for pleasure and not for (accumulation of) merit; she is of a dark caste’. Here the word {{kṛṣṇajātyā}} occurs with reference to a woman of the {{śūdra}} caste. Almost these very words occur in {{Vasiṣṭha}} (18. 17-18)⁷⁸ where for {{kṛṣṇajātyā}} the word {{kṛṣṇavarṇā}} is substituted. {{Viśvarūpa}} on {{Yāj.}} I. 56 ({{yad-ucyate}} etc.)⁷⁹ quotes these words as a {{brāhmaṇa}} text, but there the word is {{kṛṣṇavarṇī}}. Therefore, the use of the word {{jāti}} in the sense of caste can be traced back at least to the times of the {{Nirukta}}. {{Pāṇini}} (V. 4. 9)⁸⁰ teaches the formation of words like ‘{{brāhmaṇajātīya}}’ derived from words ending in ‘{{jāti}}’ (in the sense of caste). The expression ‘{{jātidharma}}’ (rules of castes) occurs in Gautama XI. 20, {{Vasiṣṭha}} I. 17 and XIX. 7, Manu I. 118 and VIII, 41 and the word {{jāti}} (caste) occurs also in {{Āp. Dh. S.}} II. 3. 6.1, II. 1.2.3, Manu (IV. 141, X, 11, 18, 40, 97), {{Yāj.}} (I. 95, 361, II. 69, 206, III. 213), {{Nārada}} ({{ṛṇādāna}} 288) and in the {{vārtika}} on {{Pāṇini}} IV. 1. 137. {{Varṇa}} and {{jāti}} are sometimes clearly distinguished as in {{Yāj.}} II. 69 and 206. But very often they are confounded. In Manu X. 27,31 the word {{varṇa}} is used in the sense of mixed castes ({{jātis}}). Conversely the word {{jāti}} often appears to be used to indicate ‘{{varṇa}}’. Vide Manu III. 15, VIII. 177, IX. 86 and 335, X. 41 and {{Yāj.}} I. 89 (in which latter {{sajāti}} appears to mean ‘{{savarṇa}}’).

Even when {{anuloma}} marriages were allowed there is no unanimity among the sages and the {{smṛtis}} as to the status of the progeny of such unions. Three different views are found. The first view is that if a male of one {{varṇa}} married a female of the {{varṇa}} immediately after it, the progeny belonged to the {{varṇa}} of the father; e. g. {{Baud. Dh. S.}}⁸¹ (I. 8.6 and I. 9. 3) says that sons born to a person of a {{savarṇa}} wife or a wife of the {{varṇa}} next to his own are {{savarṇa}} i. e. the son of a {{brāhmaṇa}} from a wife of the {{kṣatriya}} {{varṇa}} is a {{brāhmaṇa}}. The {{Anuśāsanaparva}} 48. 4, {{Nārada}} ({{strīpuṁsa}} 106) and {{Kauṭilya}} (III. 7) say the same. Gautama IV, 15 as interpreted by {{Haradatta}} appears to say that the off-spring of a {{brāhmaṇa}} from a {{kṣatriya}} wife is called {{savarṇa}}, but not the offspring of a {{kṣatriya}} male from a {{vaiśya}} wife or of a {{vaiśya}} male from a {{śūdra}} wife. Fick (pp. 54-57) shows that even according to the {{Bhaddasāla Jātaka}} ’the family of the mother does not matter; the family of the father alone is important’. The second view is that the progeny of {{anuloma}} unions is in status lower than the father, but higher than the mother; e. g. Manu X. 6 ‘sages declare the sons begotten by {{dvijas}} on wives of {{varṇas}} immediately next to theirs as similar (to the fathers, but not of the same {{varṇa}} with the fathers) but tainted by the inferiority of their mothers.’ The third view (and this is the common view) is that the progeny of {{anuloma}} marriages is of the same {{varṇa}} as regards its privileges and obligations as the mother’s; e. g. vide {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} 16. 2⁸² and {{Śaṅkha}} (prose) quoted by the {{Mit.}} on {{Yāj.}} I. 91 and {{Aparārka}} (p. 118). A classical echo of this view is found in the {{Śakuntalā}} of {{Kālidāsa}} where king {{Duṣyanta}} exclaims aside to himself ‘would that this girl were born of the sage from a wife who was not {{savarṇa}}’.⁸³ {{Medhātithi}} on Manu X, 6 says that {{Pāṇḍu}}, {{Dhṛtarāṣṭra}} and {{Vidura}} being {{kṣetraja}} sons took the caste of their mothers. The {{Mit.}} explains the words of {{Śaṅkha}} by saying that the offspring of {{anuloma}} marriages such as {{mūrdhāvasikta}} are not really different from {{kṣatriyas}}, that they have the same {{saṁskāras}} but they do not become {{kṣatriyas}} etc. and are dubbed by these names to indicate their mixed origin and come to form separate sub-castes. The {{pratilomas}}, as said above, are lower in status than any of the two parents.

Varna and the enumeration of castes

The ancient {{dharmaśāstras}} mention only a few mixed castes. {{Āp. Dh. S.}} mentions only {{cāṇḍāla}}, {{paulkasa}} and {{vaiṇa}}. Gautama names five {{anuloma}} castes, six {{pratiloma}}, one and eight others according to the view of some. {{Baudhāyana}} adds to those mentioned by Gautama a few more viz. {{rathakāra}}, {{śvapaka}}, {{vaiṇa}} and {{kukkuṭa}}. {{Vasiṣṭha}} names even a smaller number than Gautama and {{Baudhāyana}}. It is Manu (X) and {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} (XVI) that for the first time dilate upon the avocations of the mixed castes. Manu refers to 6 {{anuloma}}, 6 {{pratiloma}} and 20 doubly mixed castes and states the avocations of about 23; {{Yāj.}} names only 13 castes (other than the four {{Varṇas}}). {{Uśanas}} names about 40 and gives their peculiar avocations. All the {{smṛtis}} taken together hardly mention more than about one hundred castes.

The number of primary {{anulomas}} is only six (vide Manu X. 10, {{Yāj.}} I. 91-92), but Manu names only three of them, viz. {{ambaṣṭha}}, {{niṣāda}} and {{ugra}}. The primary {{pratilomas}} also are six (vide Manu X. 11–12 and 16-17 and {{Yāj.}} I. 93–94) viz. {{sūta}}, {{vaidehaka}}, {{cāṇḍāla}}, {{māgadha}}, {{kṣattṛ}}, and {{āyogava}}. Further sub-castes are said to arise from the unions of the {{anulomas}} and {{pratilomas}} with the four {{varṇas}} and of the male of one {{anuloma}} and the female of another, from the union of {{pratilomas}} among themselves and from the union of a male or female of an {{anuloma}} caste and the female or male of a {{pratiloma}} caste. For example, {{Yāj.}} I. 95 defines {{rathakāra}} as the offspring of a {{māhiṣya}} male and a {{karaṇa}} female, i. e. it is a further mixture between two {{anuloma}} castes. The {{Mit.}} on {{Yāj.}} I. 95 says that {{upanayana}} and other {{saṁskāras}} are performed for the offspring of {{anuloma}} persons marrying among themselves. The {{Smṛtyarthasāra}} (p. 13) says the same.⁸⁴ Similarly Manu X, 15 says that {{āvṛta}} and {{ābhīra}} spring from the union of a {{brāhmaṇa}} with an {{ugra}} girl and an {{ambaṣṭha}} girl respectively (i. e. from the union of a {{brāhmaṇa}} with {{anuloma}} caste girls). Manu X. 19 says that {{śvapāka}} is the offspring of a {{kṣattṛ}} male (a {{pratiloma}}) with an {{ugra}} female (an {{anuloma}}). Manu X. 33 defines {{maitreyaka}} as the offspring of a {{vaidehaka}} male and an {{āyogava}} female (i.e. from parents who are both {{pratiloma}}). A {{smṛti}} verse quoted⁸⁵ by {{Viśvarūpa}} on {{Yāj.}} I. 95 says that there are six {{anulomas}}, 24 doubly mixed castes (due to the union of the six {{anulomas}} with the four {{varṇas}}), 6 {{pratilomas}} and 24 doubly mixed castes (due to the unions of 6 {{pratilomas}} with four {{varṇas}}) i. e, in all 60 and further mixtures of these among themselves give rise to innumerable sub-castes. Similarly {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} 16.7⁸⁶ says that the further mixed castes arising from the unions of mixed castes are numberless. This shows that before the time of the {{Viṣṇudharmasūtra}} (i. e. at least about 2000 years ago) numberless castes and sub-castes had been formed and the writers on {{dharmaśāstra}} practically gave up in despair the task of deriving them, even though mediately, from the primary {{varṇas}}. The same state of things was continued and was rather aggravated by the time of the {{nibandhakāras}}. {{Medhātithi}} on Manu X. 31 speaks of 60 mixed castes along with the four {{varṇas}} and adds that by the intermingling of these endless sub-castes are formed. The {{Mitākṣarā}}⁸⁷ on {{Yāj.}} I. 95 observes that since the castes springing from the double intermingling of {{varṇas}} are innumerable, it is impossible to describe or enumerate them. Similarly the {{Kṛtyakalpataru}} in its {{prakīrṇaka}} topic of {{vyavahāra}} section, when dealing with castes, merely quotes several passages from the {{smṛtis}} and does not add a word of its own about the castes, their names or avocations in its own day (first half of 12th century). The {{Mit.}} on {{Yāj.}} I. 94⁸⁸ expressly says that the avocations of the {{pratilomas}} (about which {{Yāj.}} is silent) should be understood from the {{smṛtis}} of {{Uśanas}} and Manu. Medieval writers on {{dharmaśāstra}} usually ignore the treatment in detail of the numerous sub-castes and content themselves with dilating upon the duties of the four {{varṇas}}.

Varna and sub-castes

There was great diversity of opinion among the {{smṛtikāras}} about the derivation and status of the several sub-castes. We find that the same sub-caste is known under five or six different names even so early as the present {{Manusmṛti}}. Manu X. 22 gives seven names for the same caste and Manu X. 23 gives five for another. {{Viśvarūpa}} on {{Yāj.}} I. 92 explains that these different names are due to difference of locality.⁸⁹ There is another difficulty. The same name given to a caste is differently derived by different writers (vide under {{niṣāda}} and {{pāraśava}} below). For the same sub-caste different names are given in different {{smṛtis}} (vide under {{kṛta}} and {{rāmaka}}). It became difficult to assign any peculiar derivation for groups of people and so Manu (X. 40), {{Vasiṣṭha}}⁹⁰ (18.7) and {{Anuśāsana parva}} 148. 29 laid down that men’s sub-caste was to be known from their actions and occupations. This shows that according to most writers castes in the times of the {{smṛtis}} were predominantly occupational.

One word that frequently occurs in connection with castes and sub-castes is {{varṇasaṅkara}} (or only {{saṅkara}}). In Manu X. 12 and 24 the word {{varṇasaṅkara}} is used in the plural in the sense of mixed castes, while in Manu X. 40 (and in V. 89) the word {{saṅkara}} seems to be used in the sense of ‘mixture or intermingling of {{Varṇas}}’. Gautama (VIII. 3) employs the word {{saṅkara}} and says ‘on the two (the {{brāhmaṇa}} and the king) depends the prosperity of men, protection, the prevention of mixture (of {{varṇas}}) and the (accumulation of) merit (or the observance of {{dharma}}).⁹¹ {{Nārada}} ({{strīpuṁsa}} 102)⁹² says ’to be born from a union in the inverse order of {{Varṇas}} amounts to {{varṇasaṅkara}};’ while {{Bṛhaspati}} quoted in the {{Kṛtyakalpataru}} appears to apply the word {{varṇasaṅkara}} to both {{anuloma}} and {{pratiloma}} castes. {{Baud.}}⁹³ {{Dh. S.}} (I. 9. 16) says that those who are born of {{Varṇasaṁkara}} are called {{vrātyas}}. The {{Mit.}} on {{Yāj.}} I. 96 applies the word {{varṇasaṁkara}} to both {{anuloma}} and {{pratiloma}} progeny. {{Medhātithi}}⁹⁴ on Manu V. 88 says that the word ‘{{saṁkarajāta}}’ indicates {{pratilomas}} like {{āyogava}} and that even though as regards {{anulomas}} there is intermingling (of {{varṇas}}), yet as they have the privileges of the caste of their mothers, even Manu himself does not apply the word {{saṁkīrṇayoni}} to them as seen above (Manu X. 25). Yama⁹⁵ quoted in the {{Kṛtyakalpataru}} says ‘{{Varṇasaṁkara}} arises by the violation of the restrictions (about marriage); if the proper order of {{varṇas}} (i. e. male of higher {{varṇa}} marrying a woman of a lower {{varṇa}}) is followed, (the offspring) is entitled to be regarded as belonging to the system of {{varṇas}}, but if the reverse order is followed it is sin.’ Manu (X. 24) says ‘mixed castes arise by members of one {{varṇa}} having sexual intercourse with women of another {{varṇa}}, by marrying women who ought not to have been married (such as a {{sagotra}} girl) and by neglect of the duties peculiar to one’s {{varṇa}}’. The {{Anuśāsanaparva}} 48. 1⁹⁶ remarks that ‘{{varṇasaṁkara}} arises from wealth, greed, desires, uncertainty about the {{varṇa}} (of a person) or ignorance about {{varṇa}}’. Even in such a philosophical treatise as the {{Bhagavadgītā}} (I. 41-43), it is said ‘when women become corrupt (or demoralised), intermingling of {{varṇas}} arises; {{saṁkara}} necessarily leads the whole family and the destroyer of the family to hell. By reason of these transgressions of the destroyers of families which bring about {{varṇasaṁkara}}, the ancient caste observances and family observances are subverted.’

Varna and varṇasaṅkara

On account of the great emphasis laid on the prevention of {{varṇasaṁkara}} the {{smṛtis}} ordain that it is one of the principal duties of the king to punish people if they transgress the rules prescribed for {{varṇas}} and to punish men and women if guilty of {{varṇasaṁkara}}. Gautama (XI. 9-10) says ’the king should protect the {{varṇas}} and {{āśramas}} according to the {{śāstras}} and he should make them conform to their duties when they swerve from them;’ {{Vasiṣṭha}} (19. 7-8) ’the king paying attention to all these viz. the observances of countries, castes and families should make the four {{varṇas}} conform to their duties and should punish them when they go astray’; {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} III. 3 and {{Yāj.}} I. 361, {{Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa}} 27, {{Matsyapurāṇa}} 215. 63 say the same. {{Nārada}} ({{strīpuṁsa}} 113)⁹⁷ says ‘when a {{brāhmaṇa}} woman goes astray a {{cāṇḍāla}} is born from a {{śūdra}} male (and the {{brāhmaṇa}} woman); therefore the king should specially protect women from {{saṅkara}}’. It is on account of this that so early as in the first centuries of the Christian era we see that king {{Vāsiṣṭhiputa Siri Pulumāyi}} is extolled as having prevented the mixture of the four {{varṇas}} (E. I. vol. VIII pp. 60-61, ‘{{vinivatita-cātuvaṇa-sakarasa}}’). That {{Varṇasaṁkara}} had gone too far in the opinion of the author of the {{Mahābhārata}} ({{Vanaparva}} 180. 31-33) follows from the following words which are despairingly put in the mouth of {{Yudhiṣṭhira}}⁹⁸ “It appears to me that it is very difficult to ascertain the caste of human beings on account of the confusion of all {{varṇas}}; all sorts of men are always begetting offspring from all sorts of women; speech, sexual intercourse, being born and death-these are common to all human beings; and there is scriptural authority (for this view) in the words ‘We, who ever we are, offer the sacrifice’. Hence those who have seen the truth regard character as the principal thing desired.” {{Śaṅkarācārya}} in his {{bhāṣya}} on {{Vedāntasūtra}} I. 3. 33 remarks that, though in his day {{varṇas}} and {{āśramas}} had become disorganised and unstable as to their {{dharmas}}, that was not the case in other ages, since otherwise the {{śāstras}} laying down regulations for them would have to be deemed purposeless or futile.⁹⁹

Gautama (IV. 18-19), Manu (X. 64-65) and {{Yāj.}} (I. 96) speak of a peculiar doctrine called {{Jātyutkarṣa}} and {{Jātyapakarṣa}}. These passages have given rise to some divergence of interpretation, but their general sense is clear. Gautama (IV. 18)¹⁰⁰ says that according to the {{ācāryas}} the {{anulomas}} when they marry in such a way that the bridegroom in each stage is higher or lower than the bride they rise to a higher or go down to a lower {{varṇa}} in the 7th or 5th generation (respectively). This is explained by {{Haradatta}} as follows: When a {{brāhmaṇa}} marries a {{kṣatriya}} woman the daughter born of this marriage is called {{savarṇā}}; if this latter is married to a {{brāhmaṇa}} and a daughter is born and this latter is again married by a {{brāhmaṇa}} and if this continues in the same way for seven generations, then when the 7th girl in descent marries a {{brāhmaṇa}}, whatever child is born of that union belongs to the {{brāhmaṇa}} {{varṇa}} (though in the preceding generations only the fathers were {{brāhmaṇas}} and the mothers were all not strictly {{brāhmaṇas}}, but only {{savarṇās}} if at all). This is called {{jātyutkarṣa}} (rise in status as a caste). On the other hand, when a {{brāhmaṇa}} marries a {{kṣatriya}} girl and a son is born who is called {{savarṇa}}, then that son marries a {{kṣatriya}} girl and has a son and this is continued for five generations, then when the fifth son (in descent) marries a {{kṣatriya}} girl, the child born belongs to the {{kṣatriya}} {{varṇa}} (though in all the preceding generations the father was higher than {{kṣatriya}} and the mother only was a {{kṣatriya}}). This is {{jātyapakarṣa}} (fall in status as a caste). The same rule holds good as regards a {{kṣatriya}} marrying a {{vaiśya}} female and a {{vaiśya}} marrying a {{śūdra}} female. The same rule applies among {{anulomas}} also e. g. if a {{savarṇa}} (as defined by Gautama) marries an {{ambaṣṭha}} girl and a daughter is born who again marries a {{savarṇa}} and this continues for seven generations, then the child of the 7th girl (in descent) from a {{savarṇa}} male becomes a {{savarṇa}} (rises in status); on the other hand if a {{savarṇa}} (offspring of {{brāhmaṇa}} male and {{kṣatriya}} female) marries an {{ambaṣṭha}} girl and a son is born and that son marries an {{ambaṣṭha}} girl and their son marries an {{ambaṣṭha}} girl and this goes on for seven generations, then the child of the 7th male (in descent) born of an {{ambaṣṭha}} wife becomes an {{ambaṣṭha}} (i. e. there is {{jātyapakarṣa}} as to {{anulomas}}).

Varna and jātyutkarṣa

According to Manu¹⁰¹ X. 64 when a {{brāhmaṇa}} marries a {{śūdra}} woman, the daughter born is {{pāraśava}}, and if this {{pāraśava}} daughter marries a {{brāhmaṇa}} and the daughter of this latter union marries a {{brāhmaṇa}} and this continues for seven generations, then the seventh generation will be a {{brāhmaṇa}} (i. e. there will be {{jātyutkarṣa}}). Conversely, if a {{brāhmaṇa}} marries a {{śūdra}} woman and a son is born, he is a {{pāraśava}} and that son marries a {{śūdra}} woman and their son again marries a {{śūdra}} woman and this goes on for 7 generations, the 7th generation becomes a mere {{śūdra}} (there is {{jātyapakarṣa}}). It will be seen that this differs from Gautama in several respects. In the first place for both {{jātyutkarṣa}} and {{jātyapakarṣa}} seven generations are prescribed, while in Gautama they are 7 and 5 respectively (according to {{Haradatta}}). In the second place according to Gautama the 8th in descent from the first {{anuloma}} marriage secures {{jātyutkarṣa}}, while according to Manu, the 7th secures it. Further Manu is silent about {{jātyutkarṣa}} when the original parents are {{anulomas}}. Besides, the commentators of Manu shorten the period for rise or fall in {{jāti}} as stated below. Manu X. 65 extends the same rules to the offspring of the marriage of a {{kṣatriya}} with a {{vaiśya}} woman and of a {{vaiśya}} with a {{śūdra}} woman. {{Medhātithi}} and {{Kullūka}} extend these express words of Manu further by explaining that if a {{brāhmaṇa}} marries a {{vaiśya}} female and a daughter is born and she again marries a {{brāhmaṇa}} then in the fifth generation there will be {{jātyutkarṣa}}; conversely if a son is born from a {{brāhmaṇa}} and a {{vaiśya}} wife, and he marries a {{vaiśya}} female and this goes on, then in the fifth generation the son will be a {{vaiśya}} (i. e. there will be {{jātyapakarṣa}}). Similarly if a {{brāhmaṇa}} marries a {{kṣatriya}} woman then there is {{jātyutkarṣa}} or {{jātyapakarṣa}} in three generations.

{{Yajñavalkya}} (I. 96)¹⁰² speaks of two kinds of {{jātyutkarṣa}} or {{jātyapakarṣa}} viz. one due to marriage (as in Manu and Gautama) and another due to the avocation followed. It should be understood that there is rise in caste in the 7th or even in the 5th generation; if there is inversion as to the avocations, then there is corresponding similarity (of {{varṇa}} in the 7th or even 5th generation). This is elaborated by the {{Mitākṣarā}} as follows: If a {{brāhmaṇa}} marries a {{śūdra}} woman and a daughter is born she is a {{niṣādī}}; if this latter marries a {{brāhmaṇa}} and a daughter is born and she in turn marries a {{brāhmaṇa}} and this goes on for six generations, then the child of the 6th girl (in descent) becomes a {{brāhmaṇa}} (he being 7th in descent); similarly if a {{brāhmaṇa}} marries a {{vaiśya}} woman and a girl is born, she is an {{ambaṣṭhā}}; if the latter marries a {{brāhmaṇa}} and a daughter is born and this goes on in the same way, then the fifth girl in descent has a child (from a {{brāhmaṇa}} husband) which is the 6th in descent from the original {{anuloma}} marriage and which then becomes a {{brāhmaṇa}}. If a {{brāhmaṇa}} marries a {{kṣatriya}} woman and a daughter is born who is called {{mūrdhāvasiktā}} ({{Yāj.}} I. 91) and she marries a {{brāhmaṇa}}, then the fourth in descent marrying a {{brāhmaṇa}} has a child (5th in descent), then that child becomes a {{brāhmaṇa}}. Similarly, if a {{kṣatriya}} married a {{śūdra}} female and a daughter was born, she was called {{ugrā}}, then {{jātyutkarṣa}} by marrying a higher male took place in the 6th generation. If a {{kṣatriya}} married a {{vaiśya}} woman, the daughter born was a {{māhiṣyā}} and {{jātyutkarṣa}} took place in the 5th generation. If a {{vaiśya}} married a {{śūdra}} woman, the daughter of the marriage is a {{karaṇī}} and if she marries a {{vaiśya}}, then in the fifth generation there would be {{jātyutkarṣa}}. Certain peculiar avocations and activities are prescribed for the four {{varṇas}}. Each {{varṇa}} may in times of difficulty follow the occupation peculiar to the caste immediately below it, but should not follow the avocations peculiar to the higher {{varṇas}}¹⁰³; he must however revert to his proper avocation when the difficulty is over (vide {{Vasiṣṭha}} II. 13-23, {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} II. 15, {{Yāj.}} I. 118-120, Gautama X. 1-7 &c.). If a {{brāhmaṇa}} begins to follow the avocations peculiar to a {{śūdra}} and has a son, who does the same and this goes on continuously for seven generations, the 7th becomes a {{śūdra}} (by caste). If a {{brāhmaṇa}} begins to follow the avocations peculiar to a {{vaiśya}} or a {{kṣatriya}} then in the 5th or 6th generation respectively there is fall in caste (i. e. the 5th or 6th becomes respectively a {{vaiśya}} or {{kṣatriya}}). Similarly if a {{kṣatriya}} follows the avocation of a {{vaiśya}} or {{śūdra}} and this goes on continuously, then the 5th or 6th (respectively) becomes a {{śūdra}} or {{vaiśya}}. Similarly if a {{vaiśya}} takes to the work peculiar to {{śūdras}}, then the fifth generation becomes {{śūdra}}.

{{Baud.}}¹⁰⁴ {{Dh. S.}} (I. 8. 13-14) gives another illustration of {{jātyutkarṣa}}. He says “if a {{niṣāda}} (the son of a {{brāhmaṇa}} from a {{śūdra}} wife) marries a {{niṣādī}} (and this goes on continuously), then the fifth generation becomes free of the taint of a {{śūdra}} status, he can have {{upanayana}} performed for him and his son (6th from the original {{niṣāda}} pair) can have a vedic sacrifice performed for him.’

These provisions would considerably lessen the rigour of the caste system based purely on birth. But one feels grave doubts whether such a method of {{jātyutkarṣa}} or {{jātyapakarṣa}} (particularly the one based on occupation) was or could be ever enforced in actual life. It would have been impossible to remember descent in a particular way for five or seven generations. The want of unanimity among the original {{smṛtikāras}} and the commentators also points in the direction that the method advocated, though it might have originally some slight basis in fact, was only a hypothesis and an ideal. Hardly any examples of {{jātyutkarṣa}} in the way set out by Manu or {{Yāj.}} occur in the literature on {{dharmaśāstra}} or in {{inscriptions}}. In the {{inscriptions}} we have authentic cases of intercaste marriages only, but hardly anything further.¹⁰⁵ From the Talgunda pillar inscription of king {{Kākusthavarman}} of the Kadamba family we learn that the Kadambas were originally of {{brāhmaṇa}} lineage, that the founder of the family was a {{brāhmaṇa}} {{Mayūraśarman}}, who became exasperated with the Pallavas of Kāñcipura and took up the sword to conquer the earth, that his descendants applied the affix ‘{{Varman}}’ to their names (as if they were {{kṣatriyas}}, according to Manu II. 32) and {{Kākusthavarman}} (4th in descent from {{Mayūraśarman}}) married his daughters to Gupta and other kings¹⁰⁶. This shows that an originally {{brāhmaṇa}} family came to look upon itself as {{kṣatriya}} by virtue of pursuing the profession of arms and governing the people. In the {{Mahābhārata}} we meet with stories of kings who became {{brāhmaṇas}}. For example, {{Anuśāsana}} 30 speaks of {{Vītahavya}}, a king, as having become a {{brāhmaṇa}}; similarly {{Śalya}} (39. 36-37) speaks of {{Arṣṭiṣeṇa}}, {{Sindhudvīpa}}, {{Devāpi}} and {{Viśvāmitra}} as having become {{brāhmaṇas}} at a sacred spot on the {{Sarasvatī}}. In the {{Purāṇas}} also there are stories¹⁰⁷ of kings like {{Viśvāmitra}}, {{Māndhātā}}, {{Saṁkṛti}}, {{Kapi}}, {{Vadhryaśva}}, {{Purukutsa}}, {{Arṣṭiṣeṇa}}, {{Ajamīḍha}} and others as having risen to the status of {{brāhmaṇas}}. These are mythical sages and their rise is not stated to have been due to the principle of {{jātyutkarṣa}}¹⁰⁸. Ibbetson (Report on the census of the Punjab 1881, pp. 174-176) notes that {{brāhmaṇas}} following certain professions became degraded and that the caste was changed.

That the professional castes were wealthy and well organized follows from the {{dharmaśāstra}} works and epigraphic records. In this connection the words {{śreṇi}}, {{pūga}}, {{gaṇa}}, {{vrāta}} and {{saṅgha}} deserve to be carefully studied. All these were called {{samūha}} (group) or {{varga}} according to {{Kātyāyana}}.¹⁰⁹ These words occur in the Vedic literature, but the sense is generally ‘a group’ and there is no special meaning attached. ‘{{Śreṇi}}’ occurs in the {{Ṛg.}} I. 163. 10¹¹⁰ (like flamingoes the horses press forward in rows or groups); both {{vrāta}} and {{gaṇa}} occur in {{Ṛg.}} III. 26. 6, V, 53. 11 and in numerous other places. The {{Kauṣītakī Br.}} 16.7¹¹¹ speaks of Rudra as {{pūga}} (as he is the head of the band of Maruts). {{Āp. Dh. S.}} I. 1. 3. 26¹¹² quotes a {{Brāhmaṇa}} passage about a group ({{saṅgha}}) of {{brahmacārins}} going about for alms. {{Pāṇini}} teaches¹¹³ the formation of derivatives from {{pūga}}, {{gaṇa}}, {{saṅgha}} (V. 2. 52), from {{vrāta}} (V. 2. 21). In his time it appears the words had acquired specific meanings. The {{Mahābhāṣya}} explains (on {{Pāṇini}} V, 2.21) that {{vrātas}} are groups formed by men of various castes with no fixed means of livelihood but subsisting by the might (or strength) of their bodies (by bodily labour of various kinds). The {{Kāśikā}}[^185] explains {{pūgas}} as associations of men of different castes with no fixed professions, who are solely bent on making money or seeking pleasure. {{Kauṭilya}} in one place distinguishes between soldiers and {{śreṇis}} (guilds) and in another place says that the guilds of {{kṣatriyas}} in {{Kambhoja}} and {{Surāṣṭra}} subsist by the profession of arms and {{vārtā}} (agriculture).[^186] {{Vas. Dh. S.}} XVI. 15 says that boundary disputes are to be settled by the evidence of the old men in the village or town or of guilds ({{śreṇi}}) when there is conflict of documentary evidence. {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} V. 167 prescribes banishment for him who embezzles the wealth of associations ({{gaṇa}}) and who transgresses the conventions made by them. Manu (VIII. 219) has a similar rule about village and local associations ({{saṅgha}}). The above words are variously explained by the several commentators (vide my notes to the translation of {{Kātyāyana}} verses¹¹⁶ 678-682 of that reconstructed {{smṛti}}). {{Kātyāyana}} says ‘{{Naigama}} is an association of citizens of the same city, {{vrāta}} is a company of soldiers carrying various arms, {{pūga}} is an association of traders and the like, {{gaṇa}} is a group of {{brāhmaṇas}}, {{saṅgha}} is a body of {{Bauddhas}} or {{Jainas}}; and bands of {{cāṇḍālas}} and {{śvapacas}} are called {{gulma}}.’ {{Yāj.}} (I. 361) directs the king to punish {{kulas}}, castes, {{śreṇis}}, {{gaṇas}}, if they transgress their rules (of conduct or business) and the {{Mit.}} explains {{śreṇi}} as a guild of sellers of betel leaves and the like and {{gaṇa}} as of ‘{{helābukas}}’ (horse-dealers); while {{Yāj.}} II. 192 and {{Nārada}}[^188] ({{samayasyānapākarma}}) require the king to prevent the breach of the conventions of {{śreṇi}}, {{naigama}}, {{pūga}}, {{vrāta}}, {{gaṇa}} and to confirm them in their traditional occupations. {{Yāj.}} II. 30 says that {{pūgas}} and {{śreṇis}} had authority to investigate disputes and that the {{pūga}} was a higher tribunal than the {{śreṇi}}. The {{Mit.}} on this explains that {{pūga}} is an association of people of different castes and different occupations that stay in one locality, while a {{śreṇi}} is a group of people of different castes, that subsist by the occupation of one caste and gives ‘{{heḍābukas}}’ ‘{{tāmbūlikas}}’ (betel sellers), ‘{{kuvindas}}’ (weavers) and ‘{{carmakāras}}’ (shoe-makers) as examples of {{śreṇis}}. In the {{Harṣa}} stone of {{Chahamāna Vigraharāja}} (E. I. vol. II. p. 124) there is a reference to one {{dramma}} for each horse given to ‘{{heḍāvikas}}’. In the Nasik Inscription No. 15 (E. I. vol. VIII p. 88) we are told that in the reign of the {{Ābhīra}} king {{Īśvarasena}} 1000 {{kārṣāpaṇas}} were deposited with an association of potters as a permanent donation yielding interest, 500 with a guild of oilmen and 2000 with a guild of watermen ({{udakayantra-śreṇi}}) for medicines to be given to sick {{bhikṣus}}. No. 9 and No. 12 of the inscriptions at Nasik also contain reference to deposits of money with the guild of weavers. The Mathurā {{Brāhmī}} inscription of {{Huviṣka}}’s reign mentions a guild of flour-makers ({{samitakara}}, vide E. I. vol. 21 p. 55 at p. 61). The Junnar Buddhist cave Inscription (A. S. W. I. vol. IV p. 97) refers to an investment of monies with the guild ({{śreṇi}}) of bamboo-workers and of braziers ({{kāsakāra}}). The Indore copperplate of {{Skandagupta}} (of the Gupta {{saṁvat}} 146) speaks of the deposit with the guilds of the oilmen of {{Indrapura}} for permanently securing a supply of two {{palas}} of oil (C. I. I. vol. III p. 70). Similarly it is said that a guild of silk weavers from {{Lāṭa}} (southern {{Gujarāt}}) came to {{Daśapura}} (Dasor in Malwa) and built a temple of the sun in the {{Mālava}} year 494 i. e. 437-38 A. D. (C. I. I. vol. III p. 81 = I. A. vol. 15 p. 194). These examples show that about the first centuries of the Christian era such castes as woodworkers, oilmen, betel sellers and weavers that are at present very low in the hierarchy of castes had very efficient caste guilds, so famous for their organization, integrity and stability that people deposited with them thousands for permanent services to objects of charity.¹¹⁸

We shall now append a list of several castes enumerated or mentioned in {{smṛti}} and other {{dharmaśāstra}} works from about 500 B. C. to 1000 A. D. in alphabetical (Sanskrit) order. They are not given in a tabular form owing to numerous contradictory statements in the {{smṛtis}} themselves. References are given only to a few {{smṛtis}}, the principal ones drawn upon being the {{Dharmasūtras}}, Manu, {{Yāj.}}, {{Vaikh. smārtasūtra}} X. 11-15, {{Uśanas}}, the {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} ({{Śiva-māhātmya-khaṇḍa}} chap. 12). It is hoped that the list is fairly exhaustive for the {{smṛti}} period. It will be noticed that many of the caste names collected here still occur under the same forms or under slightly modified forms of the names.

{{Andhra}}. Vide above note 118 quoting the {{Ait. Br.}} Manu X. 36 says it was a low subcaste sprung from {{Vaidehaka}} father and {{Kārāvara}} mother and that {{Andhras}} were to live outside the village and to subsist (X. 48) by killing wild beasts. In the edicts of {{Aśoka}} the {{Andhras}} are associated with {{Pulindas}} (vide Rock Edict No. 13). The {{Udyogaparva}} (160. 103) mentions {{Andhras}} (probably as people of {{Āndhradeśa}}) along with {{Draviḍas}} and {{Kāñcyas}}. In the Nālanda plate of {{Devapāladeva}} (E. I. vol. 17 p. 321) {{meda}}, {{āndhraka}} and {{cāṇḍāla}} are spoken of as the lowest castes. In Orissa one scheduled caste is noted as {{Ādi-Andhra}} (vide {{Sch. C. O.}} 1936).

{{Antya}}. According to {{Vas. Dh. S.}} 16.30, Manu IV. 79, VIII. 68, {{Yāj.}} I. 148, 197, Atri 251, Likhita 92, verse {{Āpastamba}} (III. 1) this word is a generic appellation for all lowest castes like the {{cāṇḍāla}}. Vide the chapter on ‘untouchables’. The word ‘{{bāhya}}’ has the same sense. {{Āp. Dh. S.}} I. 3. 9. 18 says that there is a cessation of Vedic study on the day on which {{bāhya}}s enter a village; vide also {{Nārada}} ({{ṛṇādāna}} 155), {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} 16.14.

{{Antyaja}}. This word is applied to all lowest castes like the {{cāṇḍāla}} in Manu IV. 61, {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} 36.7, {{Yāj.}} I. 273, {{Bṛhadyama}} (quoted in {{Mit.}} on {{Yāj.}} III. 260). In Manu VIII. 279 the word is used in the sense of ‘{{śūdra}}’. Various enumerations of the subdivisions of {{antyajas}} are found in the {{smṛtis}}. Atri 199 enumerates seven {{antyajas}} viz. {{rajaka}} (washerman), {{carmakāra}} (worker in hides), {{naṭa}} (dancer caste, represented in the Deccan by {{Kolhāṭis}}), {{buruḍa}} (worker in bamboos), {{kaivarta}} (fisherman), {{meda}}, {{bhilla}}.¹¹⁹ This verse is quoted as {{Āpastamba}}’s by the {{Mit.}} on {{Yāj.}} III. 265, while {{Aparārka}} p. 1123 ascribes it to Atri. The {{Mit.}} on {{Yāj.}} III. 260 distinguishes between two groups of {{antyajas}}, viz. the one quoted above which it says is not so low as another group of seven, which are called {{antyāvasāyins}},¹²⁰ viz. {{cāṇḍāla}}, {{śvapaca}} (eater of dog flesh), {{kṣattṛ}}, {{sūta}}, {{vaidehika}}, {{māgadha}} and {{āyogava}}. In the {{Mahābhārata}} ({{Śānti}} 101. 19) reference is made to {{antyaja}} soldiers and {{Nīlakaṇṭha}} explains that they were the {{kaivartas}} and {{bhillas}} of the border regions. According to the {{Sarasvatīvilāsa}} (p. 74) {{Pitāmaha}} speaks of the seven castes of {{rajaka}} and others as {{prakṛtis}}.¹²¹ Is it possible that the {{Prākṛta}} languages were originally so called because they were spoken by these castes called {{prakṛtis}}? In the {{Saṅgamner}} plate of {{Bhillama}} II dated {{śaka}} 922 (E. I. vol. II. p. 220) a village is granted with eighteen {{prakṛtis}} (meaning probably the eighteen guilds of washermen and others). The {{Vīramitrodaya}} ({{vyavahāra}} p. 12) explains that {{śreṇis}} mean the eighteen low castes such as the {{rajaka}}. This shows that these low castes had risen in social status in the medieval ages by their organization and wealth. The {{Veda-Vyāsa smṛti}} (I. 12-13) enumerates twelve castes by name as {{antyajas}} and adds that all those who eat cow’s flesh are also {{antyajas}}.¹²²

{{Antāvasāyin}} or {{Antyāvasāyin}}. Manu IV.79 separately mentions ‘{{antyas}}’ and ‘{{antyāvasāyins}}’ and Manu X. 39 says that the {{antyāvasāyin}} is the offspring of a {{cāṇḍāla}} male from a {{niṣāda}} female, that he is condemned even by all ‘{{bāhyas}}’ (untouchables) and stays in a cemetery. Gautama 20.1 and 23, 32 mentions ‘{{antyāvasāyin}}’ (and -{{yinī}}). {{Vas. Dh. S.}} 18. 3 holds that the {{antyāvasāyin}} is the offspring of a {{śūdra}} from a {{vaiśya}} woman. The {{Bhāradvāja-śrautasūtra}} (XI. 22. 12) forbids the study of the Veda in the presence of the {{antyāvasāyin}}. The {{Anuśāsana-parva}} (22.22) speaks of {{Medas}}, {{Pulakasas}} and {{Antāvasāyins}} (the printed text is corrupt). {{Śānti}} (141. 29-32) gives a graphic description of a hamlet of {{cāṇḍālas}} and calls them ‘{{antyāvasāya}}’ (in verse 41). {{Nārada}} ({{ṛṇādāna}} 182) says that an {{antyāvasāyin}} is not eligible as a witness. Some modern works like the {{Jātiviveka}} (D.C. Ms. No.347 of 1887-91) say that {{Dom}} in modern times is the {{antyāvasāyin}} of the {{smṛtis}}.

{{Abhiṣikta}} - See under {{Mūrdhāvasikta}}. {{Ambaṣṭha}} - (same as {{Bhojakaṇṭha}}). In {{Ait. Br.}} (chap. 39. 7) king {{Ambaṣṭhya}} is said to have performed an {{Aśvamedha}} sacrifice. In {{Pāṇ.}} VIII. 3. 97 the word {{Ambaṣṭha}} is derived and on {{Pāṇ.}} IV.1.170 {{Ambaṣṭhya}} (king?) is cited by {{Pat.}} as an example derived from {{Ambaṣṭha}} (a country). It is a question whether the caste of {{Ambaṣṭhas}} derived its name from a country. {{Karṇaparva}} (6. 11) mentions a king {{Ambaṣṭha}}. In {{Baud. Dh. S.}} I. 9. 3, Manu X. 8, {{Yāj.}} I. 91, {{Uśanas}} 31, {{Nārada}} ({{strīpuṁsa}} v. 107) {{Ambaṣṭha}} is an {{anuloma}} sprung from the marriage of a {{brāhmaṇa}} with a {{vaiśya}} woman, while according to Gautama 4. 14 as interpreted by {{Haradatta}} he is the offspring of a {{kṣatriya}} from a {{vaiśya}} woman. Manu X. 47 prescribes the profession of medicine for him and {{Uśanas}}¹²³ (31-32) says that he may subsist by agriculture or may be a fire-dancer or he may be a herald (? banner proclaimer) and live by surgery. {{Vaikh.}} 10. 12 has almost the same words; the {{Sahyādrikhaṇḍa}} (26. 40-41) says the same. {{Haradatta}} on {{Āp. Dh. S.}} I. 6. 19. 14 says that {{ambaṣṭha}} and {{śalyakṛnta}} are synonymous. The {{Baidyas}} of Bengal came to be the {{ambaṣṭhas}} of Manu (vide Risley’s ‘People of India’ p. 114).

{{Ayaskāra}} (blacksmith). In the Vedic literature we have {{Ayastāpa}} (heater of {{ayas}}, probably any metal). Vide under {{karmakāra}} and {{karmāra}}. {{Patañjali}} on {{Pāṇ.}} II. 4. 10 mentions him as a {{śūdra}} along with {{takṣan}} ({{Mahābhāṣya}}, vol. I. p. 475).

{{Avarīṭa}}. Devala quoted by {{Aparārka}} (p. 118 on {{Yāj.}} I. 92) says that he is born of the illegitimate connection between a married woman and a male of the same caste and he becomes a {{śūdra}}. The {{Śūdrakamalākara}}¹²⁴ (p. 247) cites from the {{Smṛtikaumudī}} a verse of the {{Ādityapurāṇa}} to the same effect.

{{Avīra}}. According to the {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a {{kṣatriya}} male and a {{vaiśya}} female.

{{Apita}}. According to the {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} he is the offspring of a {{brāhmaṇa}} from a {{Dauṣyantī}}.

{{Ābhīra}}. According to Manu X. 15 he is the child of the union of a {{brāhmaṇa}} with an {{ambaṣṭha}} girl. The {{Mahābhārata}} ({{Mausalaparva}} 7. 46-63 and 8. 16-17) states that the {{ābhīras}} were {{dasyus}} and {{mlecchas}} who attacked Arjuna after the great war in the land of the five rivers and carried away {{Vṛṣṇi}} women. The {{Sabhāparva}} (51.12) mentions {{ābhīras}} with {{Pāradas}} and the {{Āśvamedhika}} (29. 15-16) says (just as Manu X. 43-44 do) that the {{Ābhīras}}, the {{Draviḍas}} and others became {{śūdras}} by non-contact with {{brāhmaṇas}}. The {{Mahābhāṣya}} expressly states that the {{ābhīras}} are not a subcaste included under the genus {{śūdra}} but that they are a caste distinct from {{śūdras}}.¹²⁵ The {{Kāmasūtra}} (V. 5. 30) names an {{ābhīra}} king {{Koṭṭarāja}}. {{Daṇḍin}} in his {{Kāvyādarśa}} (I. 36) says that {{Apabhraṁśa}} is the appellation of the speech of {{ābhīras}} and the like in poetry. The {{Amarakośa}} says that they are cow-herds and that the {{ābhīra}} wife of a {{Mahāśūdra}} is called {{Ābhīrī}}. The {{Ābhīras}} became absorbed in Hindu society and we find that an {{Ābhīra}} {{senāpati}} {{Rudrabhūti}} in the year 103 (181-82 A. D.) under king {{Rudrasiṁha}}, son of {{Rudradāman}}, built a well (E. I. vol. 16 p. 235) and in the Nasik cave No. 15 there is an inscription of king {{Īśvarasena}}, a son of {{Ābhīra Śivadatta}} and {{Māḍharī}} (i. e. the mother was of the {{Māṭhara gotra}}). Vide E. I. vol. 8. p. 88. {{Ābhīras}} are called {{ahirs}} in modern times. Vide J. B. B. R. A. S. vol. 21 pp. 430-433, Enthoven’s ‘Tribes and castes of Bombay’ vol. I. p. 17 ff.

{{Āyogava}}. Vide {{Āyogū}} above (p. 43) from Vedic literature. According to {{Gaut.}} IV, 15, {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} 16. 4, Manu X. 12, {{Kauṭ.}} III. 7, {{Anuśāsana}} 48. 13, {{Yāj.}} I. 94 this is a {{pratiloma}} caste sprung from the union of a {{śūdra}} male and a {{vaiśya}} female; while {{Baud. Dh. S.}} (I. 9.7), {{Uśanas}} 12, {{Vaikh.}} X. 14 say that it springs from the union of a {{vaiśya}} male and a {{kṣatriya}} female. {{Vas. Dh. S.}} (18.3) gives {{antyāvasāyin}} as the name of the caste sprung from a {{śūdra}} male and a {{vaiśya}} female and {{pulkasa}} as the name of one sprung from a {{vaiśya}} male and a {{kṣatriya}} female. His avocation (Manu X. 48) is to pare wood, while {{Uśanas}} (verse 13) says he is a weaver or subsists by making vessels of bronze or by cultivating paddy or by dealing in cloth. According to {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} 16. 8 and {{Agnipurāṇa}} (151. 15) he is to make his living by going to the stage. The {{Sahyādrikhaṇḍa}} says (26. 68-69) that he works in stones and bricks, makes pavements and whitewashes walls i. e. he is the modern {{Pātharvaṭa}} (in the Deccan).

{{Āvantya}}. Same as {{Bhūrjakaṇṭha}} (Manu X. 21).

{{Āvṛtika}}. According to {{Vaikh.}} X. 12 he is the child of a clandestine union between a {{kṣatriya}} male and a {{vaiśya}} female and deals in horses.

{{Āhiṇḍika}}. According to Manu X. 37 he is the offspring of a {{niṣāda}} male from a {{vaidehī}} female i. e. he is a double {{pratiloma}} caste. {{Kullūka}} says that his avocation according to {{Uśanas}} is to prevent strangers from trespassing on places where offenders are kept imprisoned. Manu X. 36 shows that the same caste is called {{Kārāvara}} when it follows the craft of a {{carmakāra}}.

{{Ugra}}. For Vedic reference see above (p. 45). According to {{Baud. Dh. S.}} (I. 9.5), Manu X. 9, {{Kauṭ.}} III.7, {{Yāj.}} I. 92, {{Anuśāsana}} 48, 7 he is an {{anuloma}} offspring of a {{kṣatriya}} male from a {{śūdra}} woman, while according to {{Uśanas}} (verse 41) he is the offspring of the union of a {{brāhmaṇa}} with a {{śūdra}} woman. The {{Āp. Dh. S.}} (I. 2. 7. 20) allows a pupil to bring wealth from a {{śūdra}} or an {{ugra}} when the teacher is in distress or difficulties. {{Gaut.}} 4. 14 (as explained by {{Haradatta}}) says that {{ugra}} is the offspring of a {{vaiśya}} from a {{śūdra}} female. The {{Āp. Dh. S.}} (I. 6. 18. 1) says that a {{brāhmaṇa}} may accept the gift of money, corn like paddy, flesh of deer, house, field, hay for oxen from an {{ugra}}. Manu X. 49 says that the {{ugra}} should subsist by catching and killing animals that hide in holes, while {{Uśanas}} (verse 41) states that he is to be the staff-bearer of the king and to carry out the punishments inflicted on offenders. Vide {{Vaikh.}} 10. 13. According to the {{Sahyādrikhaṇḍa}} and {{Śūdrakamalākara}} (p. 255) he is called ‘{{Rajpūt}}’. In the {{Jātiviveka}} (the D. C. collection of 1887-1891 No. 347) he is called {{Rāvut}}.

{{Udbandhaka}}. According to {{Uśanas}} (verse 15) he is the offspring of the union of a {{sūnika}} and a {{kṣatriya}} woman, subsists by washing clothes and is an untouchable. {{Vaikh.}} 10. 15 says he is the offspring of a {{khanaka}} and a {{kṣatriya}} woman.

{{Upakruṣṭa}}. According to {{Āśv. śr. sūtra}} (II. 1) he does not belong to the {{dvijātis}}, but is authorised to perform the vedic rite of {{agnyādheya}} and the commentary explains that he is a {{vaiśya}} following the profession of a carpenter.

{{Oḍra}}. Vide Manu X. 43-44. {{Oḍra}} is a country corresponding more or less to modern Orissa. Most of the names of people mentioned in Manu X. 44 are derived from countries. Vide note on {{Khasa}} (p. 79) and see {{Sabhāparva}} 51, 23.

{{Kaṭakāra}}. According to {{Uśanas}} (45) and {{Vaikh.}} 10, 13 he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a {{vaiśya}} and a {{śūdra}} female.

{{Karaṇa}}. According to {{Gaut.}} (IV. 17 the view of some {{Ācāryas}}) and {{Yāj.}} I. 92, he is the child of the marriage of a {{vaiśya}} and a {{śūdra}} woman (i. e. he is an {{anuloma}}). Manu (X. 22) says that a {{kṣatriya}} who is a {{vrātya}} (i. e. for whom no {{upanayana}} has been performed) has from a similar woman a child variously called {{Jhalla}}, {{Malla}}, {{Nicchivi}} ({{Licchavi}}?), {{Naṭa}}, {{Karaṇa}}, {{Khaśa}}, {{Draviḍa}}. {{Ādiparva}} 115. 43 tells us that {{Dhṛtarāṣṭra}} had from a {{vaiśya}} female a {{karaṇa}} son named {{Yuyutsu}}. {{Kṣīrasvāmī}} on Amara says that {{karaṇa}} also denotes a group of officers like {{kāyasthas}} and {{adhyakṣas}} (superintendents). The {{Sahyādrikhaṇḍa}} (26. 49-51) says he is the same as {{cāraṇa}} or {{vaitālika}} and his business is to sing the praises of kings and {{brāhmaṇas}} and study the science of erotics.

{{Karmakāra}}. {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} (51. 14) mentions this caste. It is most probably the same as {{karmāra}}. But {{Śaṅkha}} (prose) quoted by {{Aparārka}} p. 115 separately mentions in the same passage {{karmakāra}} and {{karmāra}}.

{{Karmāra}}. For vedic references vide (p. 43) above. This caste appears in the {{gaṇa kulālādi}} ({{Pāṇ.}} IV. 3. 118). Manu IV. 215 mentions it. In Bengal the {{Lohar}} is a scheduled caste (vide Sch. C. O. 1936).

{{Kāṁsyakāra}}. (modern {{kāṁsāra}} in Marathi) Mentioned by {{Nārada}} ({{ṛṇādāna}} 274) and {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} X. 4 in connection with the balance ordeal.

{{Kakavaca}}. Mentioned in {{Uśanas}} (50) as doing the work of bringing grass for horses.

{{Kamboja}}. Vide Manu X. 43-44. The country of {{Kamboja}} was known to {{Yāska}} ({{Nirukta}} II. 2) and {{Pāṇini}} (IV. 1. 175). {{Udyogaparva}} 160. 103, {{Droṇa}} 121. 13 mention {{Kāmbojas}} with {{Śakas}}. Vide under {{Yavana}}.

{{Kāyastha}}.¹²⁶ Heated controversies have raged in medieval and modern times about the origin and status of {{kāyasthas}} and the bitterness is reflected in the decisions of the Indian courts also. In {{Bholanath v. Emperor}}¹²⁷ the Calcutta High Court held that the {{kāyasthas}} of Bengal were {{śūdras}} and went so far as to hold that a {{kāyastha}} could marry a {{Dom}} female. But in {{Asita Mohan v. Nirode Mohani}}¹²⁸ the Privy Council left open the question whether the {{kāyasthas}} of Bengal were {{śūdras}}. On the other hand in {{Tulsi Ram v. Bihari Lal}}¹²⁹ and in {{Ishwari Prasad v. Rai Hari Prasad}}[^181] the Allahabad and Patna High Courts respectively held that the {{kāyasthas}} were {{dvijas}} and not {{śūdras}}. In {{Subrao v. Radha}} 52 Bom. 497 at p. 504-506 this conflict of decisions is referred to. The word {{kāyastha}} does not occur in the ancient {{dharmaśāstras}} of Gautama, {{Āpastamba}}, {{Baudhāyana}}, or {{Vasiṣṭha}} nor in the {{Manusmṛti}}. The {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} VII. 3 defines a public document ({{rājasākṣika}}) as one written in the royal court or office by a {{kāyastha}} appointed by the king and attested by the hand of the superintendent of the office.[^182] These words suggest that the {{kāyastha}} was an officer and that there is nothing about a caste here. {{Yāj.}} I. 322 calls upon the king to protect the subjects from the harassment of {{cāṭas}} (rogues), thieves, bad characters, desperadoes and the like and particularly of {{kāyasthas}}. The {{Mit.}} explains that {{kāyasthas}} are accountants and scribes, are favourites of the king and very cunning. {{Uśanas}}[^183] (35) holds the {{kāyasthas}} to be a caste and gives an uncomplimentary derivation of the name by saying that it is compounded of the first letters of {{kāka}} (crow), Yama and {{sthapati}} to convey the three attributes of greed, cruelty and the spoliation (or paring), characteristic of the three. The {{Veda-Vyāsa smṛti}}[^184] (I. 10-11) includes the {{kāyastha}} among {{śūdras}} along with barbers, potters and others. {{Sumantu}} quoted in the {{Par. M.}} II part I p. 383 makes the food of a {{lekhaka}} along with that of oilmen and others unfit for a {{brāhmaṇa}}.[^185] {{Lekhaka}} is obviously a caste here, but whether it is the {{kāyastha}} caste is doubtful. {{Bṛhaspati}} as quoted in the {{Smṛticandrikā}} ({{vyavahāra}}) speaks of the {{gaṇaka}} and {{lekhaka}} as two persons to be associated with a judge in a court of justice and says they were to be {{dvijas}}. Vide also {{Aparārka}} p. 600. Therefore both these were only officers and not members of a particular caste. In the {{Mṛcchakaṭika}} (Act IX) a {{śreṣṭhin}} and {{kāyastha}} are associated with the judge. So the {{kāyastha}} seems to be the same as the {{lekhaka}} of {{Bṛhaspati}} and as a mere official. In the first centuries of the Christian era the {{kāyastha}} was merely an officer and the word was possibly derived from or is a Sanskrit approximation of some foreign word for an officer, though in some parts of the country (as shown by {{Uśanas}} and {{Veda-Vyāsa}}) the {{kāyasthas}} also had come to form a caste in medieval times. Though numerous officers are mentioned in the inscriptions of the first five or six centuries of the Christian era, the {{kāyastha}} hardly ever figures among them. One of the earliest inscriptions where the word {{kāyastha}} occurs is the Kanaswa Inscription of {{Śivagaṇa}} dated in the {{Mālava}} era 795 (i. e. 738-39 A. D.). Vide I. A. vol. 19 pp. 56 and 59. See also E. I. vol. X. p. 79 for {{Kāyastha Kāñcana}} in Balera plates in 994-95 A. D., E. I. vol. XI. p. 149 for {{Śāsanika kāyastha}} in Naraspatam plates of 1045-46 A. D., E. I. vol. XI. p. 20,25 for {{kāyastha Surāditya}} who was ‘{{Sarvaśāstravit}}’ in {{Govindacandra}}’s plate dated 1129-30 A. D., E. I. 19 pp. 209, 213 Amodā plate dated 1161 A. D. (for {{Vāstavya kāyastha}}), E. I. vol. 19 p. 45 Inscription of Hammira (dated 1288-89 A. D.), E. I. XII. p. 46 (dated 1328-29 A. D. for {{Māthura kāyastha}}), E. I. 20 Appendix No. 442 p. 64 (for {{Gauḍa kāyastha}}). In the {{Rājatarangiṇī}}[^186] (VIII. 131) {{kāyasthas}} and {{diviras}} are mentioned separately and in VIII. 2383 it is stated that the {{brāhmaṇa Śivaratha}}, who was a roguish {{kāyastha}}, was strangulated in the reign of {{Jayasimha}}. So in the 12th century {{kāyasthas}} were only officers in Cashmir and {{brāhmaṇas}} held such offices. Vide {{Rājatarangiṇī}} V. 180-184 for a bitter diatribe against {{kāyasthas}}.

The {{Śūdrakamalākara}} (pp. 279-280) speaks of three sub-castes of {{kāyasthas}}.

{{Kārāvara}}. According to Manu X. 36 he is a doubly mixed caste sprung from the union of a {{niṣāda}} with a {{vaidehī}} and his craft is that of a {{carmakāra}}. According to later digests like the {{Śūdrakamalākara}} he is called ‘{{kahāra}}’ or ‘{{bhoi}}’ and holds torches and carries umbrellas for others.

{{Kāruṣa}}. According to Manu X. 23 this caste springs from the union of a {{vrātya vaiśya}} and a similar female. This caste is also called {{Sudhanvācārya}}, {{Vijanman}}, {{Maitra}} and {{Sātvata}} (according to Manu).

{{Kirāta}}. Vide above (p. 44) for vedic references. {{Veda-Vyāsa}} speaks of him as a subdivision of {{śūdra}} (note 184). According to Manu (X. 43-44) he is a {{kṣatriya}} reduced to the status of a {{śūdra}}. {{Anuśāsana}} (35.17-18) says the same about {{Mekalas}}, {{Draviḍas}}, {{Lāṭas}}, {{Pauṇḍras}}, {{Yavanas}} and others. {{Karṇaparva}} 73. 20 speaks of {{kirātas}} as men of fiery valour. {{Aśvamedhika}} 73. 25 shows that Arjuna met {{kirātas}}, {{yavanas}} and {{Mlecchas}} when proceeding to the north with the {{Aśvamedha}} horse. The {{Amarakośa}} says that {{kirāta}}, {{śabara}} and {{pulinda}} are subdivisions of {{Mleccha}} castes.

{{Kukkuṭa}}. According to {{Baud. Dh. S.}} I. 8. 8 he is a {{pratiloma}} caste, but I. 9. 15 says that he is the child of the union of a {{śūdra}} with a {{niṣāda}} woman, while I. 8. 12 states that he is the offspring of a {{vaiśya}} from a {{niṣāda}} woman.[^187] Manu X. 18 agrees with {{Baud. Dh.}} I. 9. 15. According to {{Kauṭ.}} III. 7 he is the offspring of an {{ugra}} male from a {{niṣāda}} female. According to {{Ādityapurāṇa}} quoted in the {{Śūdrakamalākara}} he manufactures swords and other weapons and engages in cockfights for the king.

{{Kuṇḍa}}. According to Manu III. 174 he is the offspring of a clandestine intercourse between a married {{brāhmaṇa}} woman whose husband is living and a {{brāhmaṇa}} male.

{{Kukunda}}. According to the {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} he is the offspring of a {{māgadha}} from a {{śūdra}} female.

{{Kumbhakāra}}. This word occurs in the {{gaṇa kulālādi}} ({{Pāṇ.}} IV. 3. 118). {{Uśanas}} (32-33) says that he is the offspring of the clandestine union of a {{brāhmaṇa}} with a {{vaiśya}} female. {{Vaikh.}} (X. 12) agrees with {{Uśanas}} and adds that the offspring becomes either a {{kumbhakāra}} or a barber who shaves parts of the body above the navel. {{Veda-Vyāsa}} (I. 10-11) and Devala (quoted in {{Par. M.}} II. 1. p. 431 and {{Gṛ. R.}} p. 337) include the potter among {{śūdras}}.[^188] In the Central Provinces the {{Kumbhāra}} is a scheduled caste.

{{Kulāla}}. For Vedic references see above (p.43). {{Pāṇ.}} IV. 3. 118 explains the formation of {{kaulālakaṁ}} (made by a potter). The {{Āśv. Gṛ.}} IV. 3. 18 says that all earthen vessels ({{kaulālaṁ}}) of a deceased {{agnihotrin}} should be kept by his son. Why two names arose for the caste of potters it is difficult to explain.

{{Kulika}}. This caste is mentioned in {{Śaṅkha}} quoted by {{Aparārka}} p. 1175 (where {{Aparārka}} explains it as {{devalaka}}).

{{Kuśīlava}}. According to {{Baudhāyana}} as quoted in the {{Kṛtyakalpataru}} he is the offspring of an {{ambaṣṭha}} from a {{vaidehaka}} female. According to Amara he is the same as a {{cāraṇa}} (a bard). According to {{Kauṭ.}} (III. 7) he is the offspring of a {{vaidehaka}} male from an {{ambaṣṭha}} female (i. e. exactly the reverse of {{Baudhāyana}}’s view) and he gives the name {{vaiṇa}} to the offspring of an {{ambaṣṭha}} male from a {{vaidehaka}} female.

{{Kṛta}}. According to {{Gaut.}} IV. 15 he is the offspring of a {{vaiśya}} from a {{brāhmaṇa}} woman. {{Yāj.}} I. 93 and others call this caste {{vaidehaka}}.

{{Kaivarta}}. In the Assam valley {{kaibartta}} is a scheduled caste. Vide under {{antyaja}} (p. 70) above. {{Medhātithi}} on Manu X. 4 says that this is a mixed caste. Manu X. 34 tells us that the inhabitants of {{Āryāvarta}} employ the name {{kaivarta}} to denote the offspring of a {{niṣāda}} from an {{āyogava}} woman, who is also called {{mārgava}} and {{dāsa}} ({{dāśa}}?) and who subsists by plying boats. {{Śaṅkara}} on {{Vedāntasūtra}} II. 3. 43 says that {{dāśa}} and {{kaivarta}} are the same. Fick p. 302 notes that fishermen who work with nets and baskets were called in the {{Jātakas}} {{kevaṭṭa}}.

{{Kolika}}. Mentioned as one of the {{antyajas}} by {{Veda-Vyāsa}}. Vide note 173 under {{antyaja}}. {{Koli}} is a scheduled caste in the Central Provinces and {{Kol}} in United Provinces.

{{Kṣattṛ}}. For vedic references see above. According to {{Baud. Dh. S.}} I. 9.7, {{Kauṭ.}} (III. 7), Manu X. 12, 13 and 16, {{Yāj.}} I. 94, {{Nārada}} ({{strīpuṁsa}} 112), this is a {{pratiloma}} caste sprung from a {{śūdra}} father and {{kṣatriya}} mother. Manu (X. 49-50) prescribes for him the same avocation as for {{ugra}} and {{pulkasa}}. {{Vas. Dh. S.}} 18. 2 calls him {{vaiṇa}}. In the {{Amarakośa}} {{kṣattṛ}} is given three meanings, a charioteer, doorkeeper and the caste described above. In {{Chāndogya Up.}} IV. 1, 5, 7, 8 the word seems to mean only door-keeper. {{Pāṇ.}} notices the word (VI. 4.11). The {{Sahyādrikhaṇḍa}} (26. 63-66) says that {{kṣattṛ}} is also called {{niṣāda}} and that he is an expert in catching deer by means of nets, is a forester and kills wild animals, also rings a bell at night to remind people of the hour.

{{Khanaka}}. According to {{Vaikh.}} (X. 15) he is the offspring of an {{āyogava}} male and {{kṣatriya}} female and lives by digging.

{{Khasa}} or {{khaśa}}. According to Manu X. 22 this is another name for {{karaṇa}}; while in X. 43-44 he makes the {{khaśas}} a {{kṣatriya}} caste originally but reduced to the status of {{śūdras}} by the absence of {{saṁskāras}} and the absence of contact with {{brāhmaṇas}}. Vide {{Sabhā.}} 52. 3, {{Udyoga}} 160. 103.

{{Guhaka}}. According to the {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} he is the offspring of a {{śvapaca}} from a {{brāhmaṇa}} female.

{{Goja}} (or {{Goda}}). According to {{Uśanas}} (28-29) he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a {{kṣatriya}} male and a {{śūdra}} female.

{{Gopa}}. Vide note 184. He is the modern {{Gavli}} and a {{śūdra}} subcaste. {{Yāj.}} II. 48 says that debts contracted by {{gopa}} wives must be paid by their husbands as the latter’s profession and earnings depend upon them. The {{Kāmasūtra}} (I. 5. 37) mentions a caste called {{Gopālaka}}.

{{Golaka}}. He is the offspring of a clandestine intercourse between a {{brāhmaṇa}} widow and a {{brāhmaṇa}} male. Vide Manu III. 174, {{Laghu-Śātātapa}} 105, {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} ({{Śiva}}. 12. 12).

{{Cakrin}}. According to {{Uśanas}} (22-23) he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a {{śūdra}} male and a {{vaiśya}} female and subsists by (selling) oil and oilcakes or salt. He seems to be the same as {{tailika}}. {{Hārīta}} (quoted by {{Aparārka}} p. 279) mentions him. According to {{Brahmapurāṇa}} quoted by {{Aparārka}} p. 1177 he is one who presses sesame. According to {{Vaikh.}} (X. 13) he is the offspring of a secret love affair between a {{vaiśya}} male and a {{brāhmaṇa}} female and engages in the sale of salt and oil.

{{Carmakāra}}. Vide under {{antyaja}} (p. 70) above. He is mentioned in many {{smṛtis}} like {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} (51.8), {{Āpastamba}} (in verse 9.32), {{Parāśara}} (VI. 44). According to {{Uśanas}} (4), he is the offspring of a {{śūdra}} from a {{kṣatriya}} girl, while verse 21 says that those sprung from a {{vaidehaka}} and a {{brāhmaṇa}} girl subsist by working on hides. {{Vaikh.}} (X. 15) agrees with this latter. Manu IV. 218 speaks of him as {{carmāvakartin}} (cutter of hides). According to several {{smṛtis}} he is one of the seven {{antyajas}}. According to the {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} he is the offspring of an {{āyogava}} from a {{brāhmaṇa}} female. This name persists to this day as {{cāmbhār}} (in Western India) or {{cāmār}} in all other Indian provinces. This caste is often spoken of as {{Mochī}} (shoe-maker). Often the {{mochīs}} are Moslems. This is an untouchable caste and the population of {{carmakāras}} in India is very large. In the Bombay Presidency alone they are about two hundred and ninety thousand (in 1931).

{{Cakrika}}. According to Amara he is a person who rings a bell. {{Kṣīrasvāmī}} says that he announces the king’s arrival by ringing bells and that some regard him as the same as {{vaitālika}}. According to {{Śaṅkha}} (prose) and {{Sumantu}} quoted by {{Aparārka}} (pp. 1175–76) {{cakrika}} and {{tailika}} are separate subcastes. According to {{Vaikh.}} (X. 14) he is the offspring of a love affair between a {{śūdra}} male and a {{vaiśya}} female and his avocation is the sale of salt, oil and oil cakes.

{{Cāṇḍāla}} (or {{cāṇḍāla}}). For Vedic references see above pp. 44-45. Acc. to {{Gaut.}} IV. 15-16, {{Vas. Dh. S.}} 18.1, {{Baud. Dh. S.}} I. 9.7, Manu X. 12, {{Yāj.}} I. 93, {{Anuśāsana}} 48. 11 he is a {{pratiloma}} caste sprung of a {{śūdra}} from a {{brāhmaṇa}} woman. He is the lowest among men (Manu X. 12), beyond the pale of religious observances prescribed for the four {{varṇas}} ({{sarvadharma-bahiṣkṛta}}, as {{Yāj.}} I. 93 says) and often spoken of in the same breath with dogs and crows (e. g. {{Āp. Dh. S.}} II. 4. 9.5, {{Gaut.}} 15. 25, {{Yāj.}} I. 103).[^189] The word occurs in the {{kulālādi gaṇa}} ({{Pāṇ.}} IV. 3. 118). {{Veda-Vyāsa-smṛti}} (I. 9-10) says that there are three kinds of {{cāṇḍālas}}. viz. the offspring of a {{śūdra}} from a {{brāhmaṇa}} woman, the offspring of an unmarried woman, the offspring of a union with a {{sagotra}} girl. Yama quoted in {{Par. M.}} vol. II. part 1 p. 306 says that one born of a person who after becoming an ascetic turns back to the householder’s life, one born of a {{sagotra}} woman and one who is the offspring of a {{śūdra}} from a {{brāhmaṇa}} woman are all {{cāṇḍālas}}. {{Laghu-Śātātapa}} (59) has a similar verse. Manu (X. 51-56) says that {{cāṇḍālas}} and {{śvapacas}} should have their houses outside the village, vessels used by them cannot be used by others (even after putting them in fire), their wealth consists of dogs and asses, their clothes should be the garments on corpses, they should take their food in broken vessels, their ornaments were to be made of iron, they should incessantly roam, they are not to enter towns and villages at night, they have to carry the corpses of persons who have no relatives, they are to be hangmen when the king so orders, they may take the clothes, ornaments and beds of persons that are to be hanged. {{Uśanas}} (9-10) says that their ornaments are to be of lead or iron, they should have a leather thong round their necks or cymbal under their armpits, they should remove the dirt of the village in the first part of the day. According to {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} 16.11 and 14 their avocation is to be hangmen or to kill those offenders who are condemned to death and {{cāṇḍālas}} have to stay outside the village and to wear the clothes on corpses. {{Śānti}} 141.29-32 gives a graphic description of their hamlet. The classical description of a {{cāṇḍāla}} hamlet is in the {{Kādambarī}} of {{Bāṇa}}. In {{Anuśāsana}} (29.17) {{Mātaṅga}} is called a {{cāṇḍāla}} because he was born of a {{brāhmaṇa}} woman from a barber. {{Fa Hien}} (405-411 A. D.) describes how {{cāṇḍālas}} had to live apart and give notice of their approach when entering a town or market place by striking a piece of wood to make themselves known so that a man may avoid them and not come in contact with them (vide ‘Record of Buddhist kingdoms’ tr. by Legge, p. 43). In modern times {{cāṇḍālas}} are returned as a scheduled caste in Madras and Orissa.

{{Cīna}}. According to Manu X. 43-44 the {{Cīnas}} were a {{kṣatriya}} caste reduced to the status of {{śūdras}}. They are frequently named in the {{Mahābhārata}} e. g. {{Sabhā}} 51. 23, {{Vanaparva}} 177. 1, {{Udyoga}} 19. 15.

{{Cuñcu}}. According to Manu X. 48 the avocation of {{Meda}}, {{Andhra}}, {{Cuñcu}} and {{Madgu}} is to kill forest (or wild) animals. {{Kullūka}} says that he is the offspring of a {{brāhmaṇa}} from a {{vaidehaka}} woman.

{{Cucuka}}. According to {{Vaikh.}} (X. 13) he is the offspring of the marriage of a {{vaiśya}} with a {{śūdra}} woman and his avocation is the sale and purchase of betelnut, betelnut leaves and sugar.

{{Cailanirṇejaka}} (or only {{nirṇejaka}})-washerman. This occurs in {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} 51. 15 and Manu IV. 216. It appears that {{Viṣṇu}} who separately mentions ‘{{rajaka}}’ (in 51. 13) distinguishes between the two. {{Hārīta}} (quoted in {{Aparārka}} p. 279) also distinguishes between ‘{{rajaka}}’ (one who dyes clothes) from ‘{{nirṇejaka}}’ (one who washes clothes). Very often ‘{{rajaka}}’ means only ‘a washerman’ (as Amara says).

{{Jālopajīvin}} (subsisting by catching animals in a net) probably the same as a {{kaivarta}}. He is mentioned in {{Hārīta}} quoted by {{Aparārka}} p. 279.

{{Jhalla}}. Manu X. 22 says that it is another name for {{Karaṇa}} and {{Khaśa}}. In Bengal {{Jhalo Mālo}} or {{Mālo}} is returned as a scheduled caste.

{{Domba}} (or {{Doma}}) is the same as {{śvapaca}} according to {{Kṣīrasvāmī}} on Amara. {{Parāśara}} quoted by {{Aparārka}} (p. 1197) puts {{śvapāka}}, {{domba}} and {{cāṇḍāla}} on the same level. In the {{Rājatarangiṇī}} (V.354, VI. 182, VI. 192) {{dombas}} are spoken of as untouchables on the same level with {{cāṇḍālas}} and as following the profession of singers. In {{Rājatarangiṇī}} V. 389-394 {{dombas}} are spoken of as {{śvapacas}}. This caste is returned as a scheduled caste in Madras as {{Dombo}}, as {{Dom}} in Bengal, Bihar and U. P.

{{Takṣan}} or {{Takṣaka}} (Carpenter). For vedic references see above (p. 43). He is the same as {{vardhaki}} quoted above, under {{kāyastha}}. He is mentioned by Manu IV. 210, {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} 51. 8. According to the {{Mahābhāṣya}} on {{Pāṇ.}} II. 4. 10 the {{takṣan}} is a {{śūdra}} and on the same level with an {{ayaskāra}} (ironsmith) and excluded from sacrificial rites. Even so early as the {{Śat. Br.}} the {{takṣan}} was an unholy person ({{amedhya}}) and his touch made {{yajñapātras}} impure (I. 1.3. 12). {{Uśanas}} 43 says that {{takṣaka}} is the offspring of a {{brāhmaṇa}} female from a {{sūcaka}} (i. e. he is a {{pratiloma}}). He must be supposed to be originally different from the {{rathakāra}} (vide {{Tait. S.}} quoted above p. 43) who was allowed the vedic rite of {{ādhāna}} or probably in the time of the {{smṛtis}} the carpenter lost his former status. According to {{Vaikh.}} (X. 14)[^190] the offspring of a {{brāhmaṇa}} girl from a {{cucuka}} ({{sūcaka}}?) is a {{takṣaka}} who is untouchable or a goldsmith or blacksmith or worker in bell-metal. {{Bṛhaspati}} names the {{takṣaka}} as one whose food a {{brāhmaṇa}} could not eat.

{{Tantuvāya}} (a weaver), also called {{kuvinda}}. He is mentioned in {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} (51. 13) and {{Śaṅkha}} quoted by {{Aparārka}} p. 1175. He is regarded as a {{śūdra}} by the {{Mahābhāṣya}} on {{Pāṇ.}} II. 4. 10 and as excluded from sacrificial rites.

{{Tāmbūlika}}-seems to have been a caste. Vide {{Kāmasūtra}} I. 5. 37. {{Bāṇa}} refers to his house as stored with spices and betel.

{{Tāmropajīvin}} (coppersmith). According to {{Uśanas}} (14) he is the offspring of an {{āyogava}} from a {{brāhmaṇa}} woman. {{Vaikh.}} (X. 15) says the same and calls him {{tāmra}}. The {{Jātiviveka}} (D. C. No. 347 of 1887-91) gives the name as {{tāmra-kuṭṭaka}}.

{{Tunnavāya}} (a tailor). He occurs in Manu IV. 214. According to the {{Brahmapurāṇa}} quoted by {{Aparārka}} p. 1178 he is the same as {{sūcī}} (or {{saucika}}).

{{Tailika}} (oilman)-occurs in {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} (51. 15), {{Śaṅkha}} and {{Sumantu}} quoted by {{Aparārka}} (pp. 1175 and 1176).

{{Darada}}. Manu X. 44 names him. Vide note on {{khaśa}} above p. 79. Vide {{Mahābhārata}}, {{Udyoga parva}} 4. 15.

{{Dāśa}} (a fisherman). This occurs in an {{Upaniṣad}} passage according to {{Vedānta sūtra}} II. 3. 43. {{Veda-Vyāsa}} (I. 12-13) includes him among {{antyajas}} (vide footnote 173). Manu X. 34 says that {{mārgava}}, {{dāśa}} and {{kaivarta}} are the same and that he subsists by plying boats. {{Pāṇ.}} (III. 4. 73) derives the word. Vide under {{kaivarta}}.

{{Divākīrti}}-occurs in {{Mānava-gṛhya}} II. 14. 11. According to Amara both {{cāṇḍāla}} and {{nāpita}} are called {{divākīrti}}.

{{Dauṣmanta}}. According to Gaut. 4. 14 this is an {{anuloma}} caste sprung from the union of a {{kṣatriya}} male and a {{śūdra}} female. According to the {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} the name is {{Dauṣyanta}}.

{{Draviḍa}}. The same as {{karaṇa}}, according to Manu X. 22. According to Manu X. 43-44, this is a {{kṣatriya}} caste reduced to the status of a {{śūdra}}. Vide under {{khaśa}}, and {{Mahābhārata}}, {{Udyoga}} 160. 103, {{Droṇa}} 93, 43.

{{Dhigvaṇa}}. According to Manu X. 15 he is the offspring of a {{brāhmaṇa}} male from an {{āyogava}} female and according to Manu X. 49 he subsists by working on (and sale of) hides. {{Kullūka}} on Manu X. 49 quotes a text of {{Uśanas}} that {{Dhigvaṇas}} subsist by working on hides and selling them and distinguishes them from {{kārāvaras}}. This passage is not found in the printed text of {{Uśanas}}. In the {{Jātiviveka}} he is styled {{Mocikāra}}.

{{Dhīvara}}. Same as {{kaivarta}} and {{dāśa}}. {{Gaut.}} (IV. 17) indicates that this is a {{pratiloma}} caste sprung from a {{vaiśya}} male and a {{kṣatriya}} female (according to the view of some teachers). In the {{Tait. Br.}} III. 4. 12 {{Dhaivara}}, {{Dāśa}} and {{Kaivarta}} are separately mentioned, but how they were distinguished it is difficult to say. All caught fish in different ways. {{Dhīmar}} is a scheduled caste in the Bhandara District of C.P.

{{Dhvajin}} (seller of wines mentioned by {{Sumantu}} and {{Hārīta}} quoted by {{Aparārka}} p. 1176. The {{Brahmapurāṇa}} quoted by {{Aparārka}} (p. 1177) says he is the same as {{śauṇḍika}}.

{{Naṭa}}. He is one of the seven {{antyajas}} (vide note 170 above). {{Naṭa}} is a scheduled caste in Bengal, Bihar, U. P. and Punjab. {{Hārīta}} quoted by {{Aparārka}} (p. 279) distinguishes between {{naṭa}} and {{śailūṣa}} and {{Aparārka}} remarks that {{naṭa}} is a specific caste, while {{śailūṣa}} is one who though not a {{naṭa}} by caste makes a living by going on the stage. Manu X. 22 says that he is the same as {{karaṇa}}, {{khaśa}} (vide note on {{khaśa}} p. 79). {{Pāṇini}} knew of a {{Naṭasūtra}} composed by {{Śilālin}} and another by {{Kṛśāśva}} (IV. 3. 110 and 111), but whether the {{naṭas}} he meant were so by caste or whether he meant only actors in general is not clear. Vide under {{raṅgāvatārin}} for a quotation from {{Maitrī Up.}} Probably this caste is the same as the {{Kolhāṭis}} or {{Bahurūpis}} of modern times (in the Deccan) who are dancers, acrobats and jugglers by profession. Fick’s work p. 299 speaks of {{naṭakakulas}} mentioned in Buddhist {{Jātakas}} and at p. 294 he shows that in the {{Suruci Jātaka}} the {{naṭa}} is described as throwing up a ball of rope and climbing it and performing other tricks of jugglery.

{{Nartaka}}. According to {{Uśanas}} (19) he is the offspring of a {{rañjaka}} from a {{vaiśya}} woman and his profession is that of a singer. {{Bṛhaspati}} quoted in {{Par. M.}} (II. part I p. 380) separately mentions in the same verse {{naṭa}} and {{nartaka}} (both being {{abhojyānna}} to a {{brāhmaṇa}}). Atri VII. 2 also mentions the two separately. See note 189.

{{Nāpita}} (barber). The {{Sāṅkhāyana-gṛhya}} I. 25 refers to him (in {{cūḍākarma}}). {{Uśanas}} (32-34) and {{Vaikh.}} (X. 12) say that he is the offspring of a clandestine affair between a {{brāhmaṇa}} male and a {{vaiśya}} female and {{Uśanas}} derives the word by saying that he shaves the body above the navel of a person.[^191] {{Vaikh.}} (X. 15) says that the offspring of an {{ambaṣṭha}} male from a {{kṣatriya}} female is a {{nāpita}}, but he shaves the hair on the body below the navel. {{Parāśara}} (XI. 21)[^192] says that the offspring of a {{brāhmaṇa}} from a {{śūdra}} girl is called {{dāsa}} if {{saṁskāras}} are performed on him, but if they are not performed he becomes a {{nāpita}}. {{Pāṇ.}} (VI. 2. 62) specially provides for the accentuation of words meaning artisan ({{śilpin}}, like {{nāpita}} or {{kulāla}}) when compounded with the word {{grāma}}. The {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} ({{Śiva-chap.}} XII. 15) says that the offspring of the clandestine union of a {{brāhmaṇa}} male and a {{vaiśya}} female is called {{kumbhakāra}} or {{ūrdhva-nāpita}}, while verse 32 says that the offspring of a {{kṣatriya}} female from a {{niṣāda}} is called ‘{{adho-nāpita}}’.

{{Nicchivi}}. Manu X. 22 says that this is another name for {{karaṇa}} or {{khaśa}}. Probably this is a misreading for {{Licchavi}} or {{Licchivi}}. {{Kauṭ.}} ({{Arthaśāstra}} XI. 1) speaks of the oligarchies or corporations of {{Licchivika}}, {{Vṛjika}}, {{Mallaka}}[^193] etc. {{Vaiśālī}} was the seat of this oligarchy in the 6th century B. C. (Rapson’s ‘Ancient India’ p. 169). Vide Indian Antiquary vol. 32 p. 233 for their Tibetan affinities and I. A. vol. 9 p. 178 and vol. 14 p. 98 for inscriptions of this tribe and Indian Historical Quarterly, 1933, vol. 18 p. 439 ff. {{Fa Hien}} (in ‘Records of Buddhist Kingdoms’ translated by Legge, 1886, p. 71) says that the {{Licchavis}} of {{Vaiśālī}} were attached to Buddha and also speaks of {{Ānanda}} (pupil of Buddha) and the {{Licchavis}}.

{{Niṣāda}}. For vedic references see above (pp. 43 and 46). The {{Nirukta}}[^194] III. 8 while explaining the words ‘{{pañcajanā mama hotraṁ juṣadhvam}}’ in {{Ṛg.}} X. 53. 4 remarks that according to {{Aupamanyava}} the ‘five people’ are the four {{varṇas}} with {{niṣāda}} as the fifth. This shows that {{Aupamanyava}} regarded them as distinct from the four {{varṇas}} (including the {{śūdras}}). The {{Nirukta}} further says that according to the {{Nairuktas}} the {{niṣāda}} is so called because ‘sin (or evil) sits down in him’; from this it follows that in the times of {{Yāska}} the {{niṣādas}} had come to be looked down upon with scorn as evil people and were probably some aborigines like the modern Bhils. According to {{Baud. Dh. S.}} (I. 9.3 and II. 2.33), {{Vas.}} 18.8, Manu X. 8, {{Anuśāsana}} 48.5, {{Yāj.}} I. 91 the {{Niṣāda}} is an {{anuloma}} caste, offspring of the marriage of a {{brāhmaṇa}} with a {{śūdra}} woman. {{Baud. Dh. S.}} (II. 2.34), {{Kauṭ.}} (III. 7), Manu (X. 8) and {{Yāj.}} (I. 91) say that {{pāraśava}} is another name for {{niṣāda}}. Manu (IX. 178) derives {{pāraśava}} from the root {{pṛ}} (to go across) and the word {{śava}} (a corpse) meaning ’though living he is like one dead’. In a corrupt passage of {{Vas. Dh. S.}}[^195] (18. 9-10) the same derivation is accepted. {{Gaut.}} (IV. 14) distinguishes between {{niṣāda}} and {{pāraśava}}, the former (acc. to the com. {{Haradatta}}) being the offspring of a {{brāhmaṇa}} from a {{vaiśya}} woman and the latter being the offspring of a {{brāhmaṇa}} male and a {{śūdra}} female. According to {{Nārada}} ({{strīpuṁsa}} v. 108) and {{Anuśāsana}} 48.12, {{niṣāda}} is the offspring of a {{kṣatriya}} male and a {{śūdra}} female and he subsists by fishing (according to the latter). {{Nārada}} ({{strīpuṁsa}} 108) says that {{pāraśava}} is the offspring of a {{brāhmaṇa}} male and a {{śūdra}} female. {{Uśanas}} (36-38) says that the offspring of the marriage of a {{brāhmaṇa}} with a {{śūdra}} woman is called {{pāraśava}} and gains his livelihood as the worshipper of the goddess {{Bhadrakālī}} or by learning {{Śaiva āgamas}} or by playing on musical instruments, while {{niṣāda}} is the illegitimate offspring of a {{brāhmaṇa}} from a {{śūdra}} woman who subsists by killing wild beasts (such as elephants) and by selling flesh. The {{Vaikh.}}[^196] (X. 13) has practically the same remarks to make about {{pāraśava}} and {{niṣāda}}. {{Śāntiparva}} (59. 96-97) speaks of {{niṣādas}} as men with reddish eyes and with black hair. In the {{Rāmāyaṇa}} {{Guha}}, the king of {{niṣādas}}, helps {{Rāma}} to cross the river Ganges ({{Ayodhyā}} 50. 33). Here he is spoken of as belonging to the caste of {{niṣādas}} ({{niṣādajātyaḥ}}). We have historical evidence for the name {{pāraśava}} in the {{Harṣacarita}} (I, towards end), where {{Bāṇa}} tells us that he had with him two {{pāraśava}} brothers {{Candrasena}} and {{Mātṛṣeṇa}} in his travels.[^197] In the Tipperah copperplate of a chieftain called {{Lokanātha}} (about 650 A. D.) we are told that the king’s maternal grandfather {{Keśava}} was a {{pāraśava}} (vide E. I. vol. 15 at p. 307). The {{Mit.}} on {{Yāj.}} I. 91 cautions that this {{niṣāda}} (the {{anuloma}} offspring of a {{brāhmaṇa}} from a {{śūdra}} woman) is different from another caste called {{niṣāda}}, which is a {{pratiloma}} one and lives by catching fish. {{Medhātithi}} on Manu X. 8 does the same. {{Niṣāda}} occurs in the {{gaṇa kulālādi}} ({{Pāṇ.}} IV. 3. 118). The {{Vāyupurāṇa}} (vol. II. chap. 1. 120-121) narrates that the {{niṣādas}}, dark and dwarfish, were produced from the left hand of king Vena and they dwelt on the {{Vindhya}}. In the {{Bhāgavata-purāṇa}} we have the same story[^198] (IV. 14. 42 ff.) and we are told that {{niṣādas}} were dark like crows, of short stature, snubnosed, with red eyes and hair and that they dwelt in mountains and forests.

{{Pahlava}}–occurs in Manu (X. 43-44) as a {{kṣatriya}} caste reduced to the status of {{śūdra}}. Vide note on {{khaśa}}. The {{Mahābhārata}} several times mentions the {{Pahlavas}}, {{Pāradas}} and other non-Aryan people (vide {{Sabhā}} 32. 16-17, {{Udyoga}} 4. 15, {{Bhīṣma}} 20. 13).

{{Pāṇḍusopāka}}. According to Manu X. 37 he is the offspring of a {{cāṇḍāla}} male from a {{vaidehaka}} woman, who maintains himself by dealing in bamboos. He is the same as {{buruḍa}}.

{{Pārada}}. Vide Manu X. 43-44 and note on {{khaśa}} above. {{Pāradas}} are frequently mentioned in the {{Mahābhārata}}, generally as {{Mlecchas}} and non-Aryan tribes (vide {{Sabhā}} 32. 16, 51. 12, 52. 3; {{Droṇa}} 93. 42 and 121. 13). Vide under {{Yavana}}.

{{Pāraśava}}. Vide {{niṣāda}} above. In the {{Ādiparva}} 109, 25 {{Vidura}} is called {{pāraśava}} and he is said (in {{Ādi.}} 114.12) to have married the {{pāraśavī}} daughter of king {{Devaka}}. The {{Sahyādrikhaṇḍa}} (26. 43) says that he is called {{śūdra}} and is superior to a {{śūdra}} (in status) and that he was to live by the avocations prescribed for {{śūdras}}.

{{Piṅgala}}. According to the {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} he is the offspring of a {{brāhmaṇa}} from an {{āyogava}} female.

{{Puṇḍra}} or {{Pauṇḍraka}}. Frequently mentioned in the {{Mahābhārata}} among non-Aryan tribes e. g. {{Droṇa}} 93. 44, {{Āśvamedhika}} 29. 15-16. {{Medhātithi}} on Manu X. 44 remarks that the {{Pauṇḍrakas}} are spoken of as {{kṣatriyas}} in the {{Mahābhārata}}, so a man may be misled into thinking that even in the days of {{Medhātithi}} they were still {{kṣatriyas}} (but they were not so).

{{Pulinda}}. For vedic references see above (p. 47). They were a wild mountain tribe like the {{Kirātas}} or {{Śabaras}}. In the {{Vanaparva}} 140. 25 {{Pulindas}}, {{Kirātas}} and {{Taṅgaṇas}} are spoken of as dwelling on the {{Himālaya}}. {{Udyoga}} 160. 103, {{Karṇa}} 73. 19-20, {{Anuśāsana}} 33. 21-22 mention {{pulindas}}. {{Uśanas}} (16) says that he is the illegitimate offspring of a {{vaiśya}} male from a {{kṣatriya}} female and he lives by rearing cattle and by killing wild beasts. {{Vaikh.}} (X. 14) says the same and adds that he subsists on the produce of the forest and by killing wild animals. The {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} is of the same opinion as {{Vaikh.}}

{{Pulkasa}} (or {{paulkasa}}). The word is also written as {{pukkasa}}. {{Śaṅkarācārya}} on {{Bṛhadāraṇyaka Up.}} IV. 3. 22 says that {{pulkasa}} and {{paulkasa}} are the same. According to {{Baud. Dh. S.}} (I. 9. 14) and Manu X. 18 he is the offspring of a {{niṣāda}} male from a {{śūdra}} female. According to {{Kauṭ.}} (III. 7) he is the offspring of a {{niṣāda}} male from an {{ugra}} female, while {{Vaikh.}} X. 14, {{Uśanas}} (17) and the {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} say that he is the offspring of a {{śūdra}} male from a {{kṣatriya}} woman and that he makes his livelihood by manufacturing and selling[^199] liquors or natural intoxicating sap. The same is the view of some teachers according to Gautama IV. 17. According to {{Vas. Dh. S.}} (18. 5) and {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} (16.5) he is the offspring of a {{vaiśya}} male from a {{kṣatriya}} female and the latter adds that he subsists by hunting. The {{Agnipurāṇa}} (151. 15) says that {{pukkasas}} are hunters. Yama and {{Hārīta}} quoted in the {{Kṛtyakalpataru}} make him out as the offspring of a {{śūdra}} male from a {{vaiśya}} female. Manu X. 49 prescribes catching and killing animals that live in holes as the occupation of {{kṣattṛ}}, {{ugra}} and {{pukkasa}}. {{Kṣīrasvāmī}} (com. of Amara) says that {{pukkasa}} is the same as {{mṛtapa}} (which see below). {{Āp. Dh. S.}} (II. 1. 2. 6) says that when a {{Brāhmaṇa}}, {{Kṣatriya}} or {{Vaiśya}} is guilty of the theft of gold, of the murder of a {{brāhmaṇa}}, they undergo for some time in hell torments and then are respectively born as {{Cāṇḍāla}}, {{Paulkasa}} or {{Vaiṇa}}.

{{Puṣkara}}. Mentioned in {{Veda-Vyāsa-smṛti}} (I. 12) as one of the {{antyajas}}. Vide note 173 above.

{{Puṣpadha}}. Manu (X. 21) says that this is another name of {{āvantya}} (p. 73).

{{Pauṇḍraka}} (or {{Pauṇḍra}}). Vide {{Puṇḍra}} above. {{Anuśāsana}} 35. 17 and {{śānti}} 65. 13-14 have the form {{pauṇḍra}}. Vide Manu X. 44 for {{pauṇḍraka}} and note on {{khaśa}}.

{{Paulkasa}}. Vide {{pulkasa}} above. {{Bandin}}. See under {{vandin}} below.

{{Barbara}}. {{Medhātithi}} on Manu X. 4 says that the {{barbaras}} are {{saṁkīrṇayonis}}. In the {{Mahābhārata}} they are frequently mentioned among non-Aryan tribes along with {{Śaka}}, {{Śabara}}, {{Yavana}}, {{Pahlava}} etc. Vide {{Sabhā}}, 32. 16-17, 51. 23; {{Vana}} 254. 18 (as staying in the west); {{Droṇa}} 121. 13; {{Anuśāsana}} 35. 17; {{Śānti}} 65. 13.

{{Bāhya}}. Vide under {{antya}} (p. 70).

{{Buruḍa}} (worker in bamboo). He is one of the seven {{antyajas}} (vide note 170 above). The word is also written as {{varuḍa}} (vide below). {{Varuḍa}} occurs in the {{Kulālādigana}} ({{Pāṇini}} IV. 3. 118). {{Buruḍa}} is a scheduled caste in Orissa.

{{Bhaṭa}}. He is one of the {{antyajas}} according to {{Veda-Vyāsa}} (I. 12). Vide note 173 above and on {{raṅgāvatārin}} below.

{{Bhilla}}. He is one of the {{antyajas}} according to {{Aṅgiras}}, Atri 199, Yama 33. Vide note 170 above.

{{Bhiṣak}}. According to {{Uśanas}} (26) he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a {{brāhmaṇa}} and a {{kṣatriya}} girl and he maintains himself by studying the {{Āyurveda}} in its eight parts, or astronomy, astrology and mathematics (verse 27). According to {{Brahmapurāṇa}} (quoted by {{Aparārka}} p. 1171) he lives by surgery and by attending upon patients.

{{Bhūpa}}. According to Yama quoted in {{Kṛtyakalpataru}} he is the offspring of a {{vaiśya}} from a {{kṣatriya}} female.

{{Bhūrjakaṇṭaka}}. According to Manu X. 21 he is the offspring of a {{vrātya brāhmaṇa}} from a similar woman. In several countries he is called {{āvantya}} or {{vātadhāna}}, {{puṣpadha}} or {{śaikha}}.

{{Bhrjjakaṇṭha}} (same as {{ambaṣṭha}}). According to the view of some teachers mentioned in Gaut. IV. 17, he is the offspring of a {{brāhmaṇa}} male from a {{vaiśya}} female.

{{Bhoja}}. According to the {{Sūta-saṁhitā}} he is the offspring of a {{kṣatriya}} woman and a {{vaiśya}} male.

{{Madgu}}. Mentioned in Manu X. 48 as subsisting by killing wild beasts. {{Kullūka}} on that verse explains that according to {{Baudhāyana}} he is the offspring of a {{brāhmaṇa}} from a {{bandin}} female. {{Vaikh.}} X. 12 says that he is the offspring of the marriage of a {{kṣatriya}} male with a {{vaiśya}} female and subsists as a merchant ({{śreṣṭhin}}) and does not take to the profession of a warrior.

{{Maṇikāra}}. According to {{Uśanas}} (39-40) he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a {{kṣatriya}} male and a {{vaiśya}} female and he gains his livelihood by working on beads, by perforating pearls and dealing in coral and conches. According to the {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} he is the clandestine offspring of a {{vaiśya}} male from a {{vaiśya}} female.

{{Matsyabandhaka}} (a fisherman). According to {{Uśanas}} (44) he is the offspring of a {{takṣaka}} (carpenter) from a {{kṣatriya}} woman.

{{Malla}}. Vide Manu (X. 22) who says that it is another name of {{Jhalla}} etc.

{{Māgadha}}. According to Gaut. IV. 15, {{Anuśāsana}} 48. 12, {{Kauṭ.}} (III. 7), Manu X. 11, 17 and {{Yāj.}} I. 93 he is a {{pratiloma}} caste sprung from the union of a {{vaiśya}} male and a {{kṣatriya}} female; while according to the view of some teachers mentioned in Gaut. IV. 16, {{Uśanas}} (7) and {{Vaikh.}} (X. 13) he is the offspring of a {{vaiśya}} male and a {{brāhmaṇa}} female; but {{Baud. Dh. S.}} I. 9.7 says he is the offspring of a {{śūdra}} male and a {{vaiśya}} female and {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} 16.5 makes him the offspring of a {{śūdra}} from a {{kṣatriya}} female. Manu (X. 47) prescribes trade by land routes for {{Māgadhas}}; {{Anuśāsana}} X. 48 says that they maintain themselves on speech (i. e. by praise) and are also called {{bandin}}. {{Sahyādrikhaṇḍa}} (26. 60-62) also calls him {{bandin}} and says he is slightly superior to {{śūdra}} and that he is clever in ornate prose, in six languages, in {{kalās}} and he is a devotee of {{Kālikā}}. {{Vaikh.}} (X. 13) states that even {{śūdras}} cannot take food cooked by him, that he is an untouchable and maintains himself by praise, by singing or by being a messenger. {{Uśanas}} (7-8) says that he becomes the {{bandin}} of {{brāhmaṇas}} and {{kṣatriyas}}, he maintains himself by lauding (the deeds of others) or as a messenger or servant of a {{vaiśya}}. {{Pāṇini}} IV. 1. 70 derives the word {{Māgadha}} from the country {{Magadha}}, but apparently not in the sense of a caste.

{{Māṇavika}}. According to the {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} he is the offspring of the clandestine union of a {{śūdra}} male and a {{śūdra}} female.

{{Mātaṅga}}. The same as {{cāṇḍāla}}. The {{Kādambarī}} of {{Bāṇa}} (para 9) and Amara employ them as synonymous. Yama (12) uses the word {{Mātaṅga}} where we ordinarily find {{cāṇḍāla}} in other {{smṛtis}}. In the Bombay Presidency there is an untouchable caste called {{Māṅg}} which numbers about three hundred thousand. There are {{Māṅgs}} as a scheduled caste in Orissa.

{{Mārgava}}. Same as {{kaivarta}} (fisherman). Vide Manu X. 34.

{{Mālākāra}} or {{Mālika}}. Vide {{Veda-Vyāsa}} (I. 10-11) quoted above in note 184.

{{Māhiṣya}}. According to the view of some teachers mentioned in Gaut. IV. 17 and {{Yāj.}} I. 92 he is an {{anuloma}} caste sprung from the marriage of a {{kṣatriya}} with a {{vaiśya}} woman. According to the {{Sahyādrikhaṇḍa}} (26. 45–46) he is entitled to {{upanayana}} and his avocations are astrology, augury, prognostications due to {{svara}}. According to the {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} he is the same as {{ambaṣṭha}}.

{{Mūrdhāvasikta}}. This is an {{anuloma}} caste according to the view of some teachers in Gaut. IV. 17 and {{Yāj.}} I. 91 sprung from the marriage of a {{brāhmaṇa}} with a {{kṣatriya}} woman. According to {{Vaikh.}} (X. 12) the offspring of the marriage of a {{brāhmaṇa}} with a {{kṣatriya}} woman is the foremost among {{anulomas}} and is called {{savarṇa}}, while the offspring of the clandestine union of these two is called {{abhiṣikta}}. If crowned he becomes a king, otherwise he subsists by studying {{Āyurveda}} (Medicine) or the science of ghosts or astronomy, astrology and mathematics. In the {{Sahyādrikhaṇḍa}} (chap. 26. 36-39) more details are added. [[92]]

{{Mṛtapa}}. Vide {{pulkasa}} above. In the {{Mahābhāṣya}}[^200] on {{Pāṇ.}} II. 4. 10 this caste is mentioned as separate from {{cāṇḍāla}}, but both are included by the {{Mahābhāṣya}} under {{śūdras}} that are {{niravasita}} (i. e. those who are so low in the caste system that if a vessel is used by them for eating their food from it cannot be used by any one of the other castes even after the vessel is purified by fire &c.).

{{Meda}}. He is one of the seven {{antyajas}} (vide note 170). This is mentioned in {{Nārada}} ({{vākpāruṣya}}, verse 11). {{Anuśāsana}} 22. 22 speaks of {{medas}}, {{pulakasas}} and {{antāvasāyins}}, and the com. {{Nīlakaṇṭha}}[^201] explains that {{Medas}} are those who eat the flesh of dead cattle. Manu X. 36 says that he is the offspring of a {{vaidehaka}} male and a {{niṣāda}} woman, that he dwells outside the village and Manu X. 48 says that his business along with that of {{Andhra}}, {{Cuñcu}} and {{Madgu}} is to kill wild beasts. Vide under {{Andhra}} above and see E. I. vol. XX. p. 130 where {{meda}} and {{cāṇḍāla}} are named as lowest castes in a grant of {{Paramārdideva}} in {{saṁvat}} 1236. According to {{Śūdrakamalākara}}, {{āndhras}} and {{medas}} have to sweep dirty places, doorsteps and privies.

{{Maitra}}. Manu X. 23 says he is the same as {{Kāruṣa}}.

{{Maitreyaka}}. According to Manu X. 33 he is the offspring of a {{vaidehaka}} male and {{āyogava}} female and his means of livelihood are belauding kings and nobles continually and ringing a bell in the early morning. The {{Jātiviveka}} says that he is called {{Dhokanakāra}}.

{{Mleccha}}. According to the {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} he is the offspring of the clandestine union of a {{brāhmaṇa}} woman and a {{vaiśya}} male.

{{Yavana}}. According to the view of some mentioned in Gaut. IV. 17 he is a {{pratiloma}} caste sprung from a {{śūdra}} male and a {{kṣatriya}} woman. According to Manu X. 43-44 {{Yavanas}} were originally {{kṣatriyas}} reduced to the status of {{śūdras}} (vide under {{khaśa}} above p. 79). In the {{Mahābhārata}} {{Yavanas}} are almost always associated with {{Śakas}} and several other non-Aryan tribes; vide {{Sabhā.}} 32. 16-17, {{Vanaparva}} 254. 18 (as inhabiting the west), {{Udyoga}} 19.21, {{Bhīṣma}} 20. 13, {{Droṇa}} 93. 42 and 121. 13, {{Karṇa}} 73. 19, {{Śānti}} 65. 13. From {{Strīparva}} 22. 11 it appears that {{Jayadratha}} (king of the countries of {{Sindhu}} and {{Sauvīra}}) had {{Kamboja}} and {{Yavana}} women in his harem. {{Pāṇini}} (IV. 1. 49) derives the word {{Yavanānī}} from {{Yavana}} and a {{vārtika}} on that {{sūtra}} adds that {{Yavanānī}} means the {{lipi}} (the written alphabet) of the {{Yavanas}}. {{Patañjali}} in his {{Mahābhāṣya}} (on {{Pāṇ.}} II. 4. 10) indicates that he was prepared to regard {{Yavanas}} and {{Śakas}} as {{śūdras}} but as outside {{Āryāvarta}}. {{Aśoka}} in Rock Edicts V and XIII refers to the {{Yonas}} and {{Kambojas}} as nations on the borders of his empire. The {{Viṣṇupurāṇa}} IV. 3. 21 describes that the {{Yavanas}} shaved the head and also the beard, the {{Śakas}} tonsured their heads only, the {{Pāradas}} allowed the hair on the head to grow long and the {{Pahlavas}} grew beards and that all became {{Mlecchas}} because they gave up their original {{dharmas}} and because {{brāhmaṇas}} also left them.

{{Raṅgāvatārin}} (or -{{tāraka}}). According to Manu IV. 215 he is distinct from {{śailūṣa}} and {{gāyana}}. {{Śaṅkha}} (quoted by {{Aparārka}} p. 1175), {{Śaṅkha}} (17. 36) and {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} 51. 14 mention him. According to {{Brahmapurāṇa}} (quoted by {{Aparārka}} p. 1178) he is a {{naṭa}} who goes on the stage for livelihood and who introduces various changes in his appearance and dress. {{Raṅgāvatārin}} is mentioned in the {{Maitrī Up.}} along with {{naṭa}} and {{bhaṭa}}.[^202]

{{Rajaka}} (washerman). {{Dhobi}} is a scheduled caste in U. P., Bihar and C. P. and in Bengal (called {{Dhobā}}). He is one of the {{antyajas}} according to several writers (vide note 170 above). According to {{Vaikh.}} (X. 15) and the {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} he is the offspring of a {{pulkasa}} (or {{vaideha}}) from a {{brāhmaṇa}} woman, while according to {{Uśanas}} (18) he is the offspring of a {{pulkasa}} male from a {{vaiśya}} girl. The {{Mahābhāṣya}} on {{Pāṇ.}} (II. 4. 10) includes him under {{śūdra}}. {{Yāj.}} II. 48 mentions him as liable to pay his wife’s debts, because his livelihood depends on her. The {{Śūdrakamalākara}} mentioned another caste of {{rajaka}} (which is the offspring of an {{ugra}} male and {{vaidehaka}} female).

{{Rañjaka}} (dyer). Manu IV. 216 mentions him. According to {{Uśanas}} (19) he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a {{śūdra}} male and a {{kṣatriya}} female.

{{Rathakāra}}. Vide above pp. 43, 45 for Vedic references. According to {{Baud. gṛ.}} II. 5. 6 and {{Bhāradvāja gṛ.}} (I) his {{upanayana}} was to be performed in the rainy season. It appears he lost his status gradually. In the {{Baud. Dh. S.}} (I. 9. 6) he is the offspring of the marriage of a {{vaiśya}} male with a {{śūdra}} female. According to {{Yāj.}} I. 95 he is an {{anuloma}} doubly mixed as he is the offspring of a {{māhiṣya}} male from a {{karaṇa}} female and according to a prose passage of {{Śaṅkha}} quoted by the {{Mit.}} the {{rathakāra}} is entitled to have {{upanayana}} performed, to offer sacrifices and gifts and makes his living by learning the art of taming horses, of making chariots and building houses. According to {{Uśanas}} (5-6) and {{Vaikh.}} (X. 13) he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a {{kṣatriya}} male and a {{brāhmaṇa}} woman and he is to behave like a {{śūdra}}, he is not a twice-born ({{dvija}}) and cannot repeat Vedic mantras and makes his living by tending and driving horses and carts.

{{Rāmaka}}. According to {{Vas. Dh. S.}} 18. 4 he is a {{pratiloma}} sprung from the union of a {{vaiśya}} male and a {{brāhmaṇa}} female. This would be {{kṛta}}, according to {{Gaut.}} (IV. 15), {{vaidehaka}} according to {{Baudhāyana}}.

{{Lubdhaka}} (hunter of deer)-same as {{vyādha}}.

{{Lekhaka}}. Mentioned by {{Sumantu}} quoted in {{Par. M.}} II. part 1 p. 383. He is probably the same as {{kāyastha}}, if a caste is meant; vide under {{kāyastha}} pp. 75-76.

{{Lohakāra}} (ironsmith). Vide p. 75 under {{karmāra}}. {{Nārada}}[^203] ({{ṛṇādāna}} 288) recommends utilising the services of an ironsmith who is so by caste in the fire ordeal. He is mentioned by {{Hārīta}} (prose) quoted by {{Aparārka}} p. 1176. The Kamauli plate of {{Jayacandradeva Gāhaḍavāla}} was engraved by {{Lohāra Someka}} in {{saṁvat}} 1232 (E. I. IV. p. 127).

{{Vandin}} (a bard, written as {{bandin}} also). According to {{Hārīta}} quoted in {{Kṛtyakalpataru}} he is a {{pratiloma}} sprung from a {{vaiśya}} male and {{kṣatriya}} female. According to the {{Brahmapurāṇa}} quoted by {{Aparārka}} p. 1177 a {{vandin}} is one who sings the praises of men.

{{Varāṭa}}. Enumerated among the {{antyajas}} by {{Veda-Vyāsa}} (I. 12-13).

{{Varuḍa}} (worker in bamboo)–also written as {{buruḍa}} (vide above p. 89). The {{Mahābhāṣya}} on {{Pāṇ.}} IV. 1. 97 (vol. II p. 253) gives the instance {{vāruḍakī}} (from {{varuḍa}}). {{Bidalakāra}} (splitter of bamboo) occurs in {{Tait. Br.}} III. 4. 5. 1 and {{bidalakārī}} in {{Vāj. S.}} 30. 8.

{{Vātadhāna}}. According to Manu X. 21 he is the same as {{āvantya}}.

{{Vijanman}}. According to Manu X. 23 he is the same as {{kāruṣa}}.

{{Vena}} (or {{Vaiṇa}}). According to Manu X. 19 and {{Baud. Dh. S.}} (I. 9. 13) he is the offspring of a {{vaidehaka}} male from an {{ambaṣṭha}} female, while {{Kauṭ.}} (III. 7) makes the {{vaiṇa}} the offspring of an {{ambaṣṭha}} male from a {{vaidehaka}} female; and according to Manu X. 49 he makes his livelihood by beating musical instruments. {{Kullūka}} on Manu IV. 215 says that {{Vena}} is one who maintains himself by splitting bamboos and that he is the same as {{buruḍa}} according to {{Viśvarūpa}}. For {{Vaiṇa}} see {{Āp. Dh. S.}} quoted under {{pulkasa}} (p. 89). {{Kauṭ.}} (III. 7) adds that a {{vaiṇya}} follows the same profession as a {{rathakāra}}. {{Śaṅkha}} (17. 38), {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} 51. 14, {{Yāj.}} III. 207 place the {{vena}} alongside of {{carmakāra}}, {{niṣāda}} and {{pulkasa}}. According to {{Vas. Dh. S.}} (18.2) he is a {{pratiloma}} sprung from the union of a {{śūdra}} male and a {{kṣatriya}} female. {{Yāj.}} I. 161 has the form {{vaiṇa}} which the {{Mit.}} explains as meaning one who maintains himself by cutting and splitting bamboos. The {{śūdrakamalākara}} notes that according to {{Ādipurāṇa}} {{veṇa}} is a drum-beater to announce royal orders and edicts.

{{Veṇuka}}. According to {{Uśanas}} (4) he is a {{pratiloma}}, the offspring of a {{sūta}} from a {{brāhmaṇa}} woman, while according to {{Vaikh.}} (X. 15) he is the offspring of a {{madgu}} from a {{brāhmaṇa}} woman and his avocation is to play on a {{vīṇā}} and on flutes. According to the {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} he is the offspring of a barber from a {{brāhmaṇa}} woman.

{{Velava}}. According to the {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} he is the offspring of a {{śūdra}} from a {{kṣatriya}} woman by stealth.

{{Vaidehaka}}. According to {{Baud. Dh. S.}} (I. 9. 8), {{Kauṭ.}} (III. 7), Manu X. 11, 13, 17, {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} 16. 6, {{Nārada}} ({{strīpuṁsa}} 111), {{Yāj.}} I. 93, {{Anuśāsana}} 48. 10 he is a {{pratiloma}} sprung from a {{vaiśya}} male and a {{brāhmaṇa}} female; while according to Gaut. IV. 15 he is the offspring of a {{śūdra}} from a {{kṣatriya}} woman and according to {{Vaikh.}} (X. 14), the view of some {{ācāryas}} in Gaut. IV. 17 and {{Uśanas}} (20) he is the offspring of a {{śūdra}} male from a {{vaiśya}} female. According to Manu X. 47 and {{Agnipurāṇa}} (151. 14) his peculiar work is to attend on and guard women (in harems etc.), while according to {{Uśanas}} (20-21) and {{Vaikh.}} (X. 14) he is to tend goats, cows and buffaloes and to sell milk, curds, butter-milk and ghee. The {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} says that {{vaideha}} and {{pulkasa}} are the same.

{{Vyādha}} (huntsman)-mentioned by {{Sumantu}} in {{Aparārka}} p. 1176 and {{Hārīta}} (quoted by {{Aparārka}} p. 279), {{Āpastamba}} (Verse) 9. 32, {{Yāj.}} II. 48.

{{Vrātya}}. According to {{Āp. Dh. S.}} I. 1. 1. 22-I. 1. 2. 10, {{Pār. gṛ.}} II. 5 and other {{sūtra}} works a {{vrātya}} is one on whom and on whose ancestors the {{saṁskāra}} of {{upanayana}} has not been performed. But in other works like {{Baud. Dh. S.}} (I. 9. 15), the word {{vrātya}} is applied to all who are born of the mixture of {{varṇas}}.

{{Śaka}}. Manu (X. 43-44) mentions {{Śakas}} along with {{Yavanas}} and others as originally {{kṣatriyas}} reduced to the state of {{śūdras}}. Vide note on {{Yavana}} (p. 92) above. They are mentioned in the {{Mahābhārata}} along with {{Yavana}} and other non-Aryan tribes. Vide {{Sabhā}} 32. 16-17, 51. 23, {{Udyoga}} (4. 15; 19, 21; 160. 103), {{Bhīṣma}} (20. 13), {{Droṇa}} (121. 13). {{Śaka}} occurs in the {{kambojādigaṇa}} ({{Pāṇ.}} IV. 1. 175). Vide note 200.

{{Śabara}}. An aboriginal jungle tribe like the {{Bhilla}}. In the {{Mahābhārata}} the {{śabaras}} are frequently mentioned (e. g. {{Anuśāsana}} 35. 17, {{Śānti}} 65. 13).

{{Śālika}}. According to the {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} he is the same as {{Māgadha}}.

{{Śūlika}}. According to {{Uśanas}} (42) he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a {{brāhmaṇa}} and a {{śūdra}} female and his avocation is to impale those offenders who are sentenced to be impaled. According to {{Vaikh.}} (X. 13) and {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a {{kṣatriya}} male and a {{śūdra}} female.

{{Śaikha}}. According to Manu X. 21 he is the same as {{āvantya}}.

{{Śailūṣa}}. {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} 51. 13, Manu IV. 214, {{Hārīta}} quoted by {{Aparārka}} p. 279 distinguish him from {{raṅgāvatārī}} and the {{Brahmapurāṇa}} (quoted by {{Aparārka}} p. 1178) defines him as one who finds out employment for {{naṭas}}.[^204] {{Āpastamba}} 9. 32 (verse) speaks of him in the same breath with {{rajaka}} and {{vyādha}}. {{Yāj.}} II. 48 does the same and the {{Mit.}} thereon paraphrases the word by {{naṭa}}.

{{Śauṇḍika}} (wine-seller). {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} 51. 15, Manu IV. 216, {{Yāj.}} II. 48, {{Śaṅkha}} (quoted by {{Aparārka}} p. 1175) and {{Brahmapurāṇa}} (quoted by {{Aparārka}} p. 1177) mention him.

{{Śvapaca}} or {{Śvapāka}}. He is one of the {{antyajas}} enumerated by {{Veda-Vyāsa}} (I. 12-13). Vide note 173 above. He occurs in the {{gaṇa kulālādi}} ({{Pāṇ.}} IV. 3. 118). According to {{Baud. Dh. S.}} (I. 9, 12), {{Kauṭ.}} (III. 7), he is the offspring of an {{ugra}} male from a female of the {{kṣattṛ}} sub-caste, while according to Manu X. 19 he is the offspring of a {{kṣattṛ}} male from an {{ugra}} female. {{Vaikh.}} (X. 15) and {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} say that he is the offspring of a {{cāṇḍāla}} male and a {{brāhmaṇa}} female, while {{Uśanas}} (11) holds that he is the offspring of a {{cāṇḍāla}} male from a {{vaiśya}} woman. According to Manu X. 51-56 {{cāṇḍālas}} and {{śvapacas}} follow the same avocation and are governed by the same rules (vide p. 81 under {{cāṇḍāla}}). {{Uśanas}} (12) says that they eat the flesh of dogs and that dogs are their wealth, while {{Vaikh.}} says that they wear the same marks that {{cāṇḍālas}} have to wear (under the king’s order, as Manu says in X. 55), that they remove the filth of towns etc., stay near cemeteries, have to dispose of corpses of men that leave no relatives, have to act as hangmen for offenders sentenced to death and to take their clothes etc., have to take food in broken pots and to eat dogs’ flesh and to deal in hides and armour (or in armour made of hides). The {{Bhagavadgītā}} (5. 18) puts him on the same level with dogs. In the {{Mārkaṇḍeya-purāṇa}} (8. 81-83, 86, 96) a {{cāṇḍāla}} is called {{śvapāka}} (i. e. no distinction is made between the two). In the {{Jātiviveka}} he is identified with the {{Mahār}} and with the {{Māṅg}} of the Deccan.

{{Sātvata}}. According to Manu X. 23 he is the same as {{kāruṣa}} above.

{{Sudhanvācārya}}. According to Manu X. 23 he is the same as {{kāruṣa}} above.

{{Suvarṇa}}. According to {{Uśanas}} (vv. 24-25) he is the offspring of the legal union with Vedic mantras of a {{brāhmaṇa}} male and a {{kṣatriya}} female. It appears likely that the text is corrupt and we should read {{savarṇa}} for {{suvarṇa}}. He should perform rites prescribed by the Atharvaveda, he should by the king’s order ride a horse, elephant or chariot, may act as the commander of an army or may practise as a physician.

{{Suvarṇakāra}} or {{Sauvarṇika}} or {{Hemakāra}} (goldsmith). A {{hiraṇyakāra}} is mentioned in the {{Vāj. S.}} XXX. 17 and in {{Tait. Br.}} III. 4. 14. According to {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} X. 4 and {{Nārada}} ({{ṛṇādāna}} 274) a goldsmith or a dealer in bronze or a {{bania}} was to examine the balance in the balance ordeal. Manu IV. 215, {{Yāj.}} I. 163, {{Śaṅkha}} and {{Sumantu}} quoted by {{Aparārka}} (pp. 1175, 1176) treat him on a level with {{karmakāra}} (blacksmith) and {{niṣāda}}. Manu IX. 292 condemns him as the worst of all rogues ({{sarvakaṇṭakapāpiṣṭha}}). For the view of {{Vaikh.}} and {{Bṛhaspati}} vide under {{takṣan}} above (note 189). In the {{Mahābhārata}} it is said that after {{Paraśurāma}}’s alleged extermination of the {{kṣatriyas}}, some of them that escaped resorted to the castes of ironsmiths and goldsmiths.[^205]

{{Sūcaka}}. According to {{Uśanas}} (v. 43) he is an {{anuloma}} born of the marriage of a {{vaiśya}} male from a {{śūdra}} female.

{{Sūcika}} or {{saucika}} or {{sūcī}}-one who works with a needle, a tailor. According to {{Vaikh.}} (X. 15) and {{Uśanas}} (v. 22) he is a {{pratiloma}}, offspring of a {{vaidehaka}} from a {{kṣatriya}} woman and engages in the work of sewing with a needle. {{Saucika}}, according to the lexicon of Amara, is the same as {{tunnavāya}} (for which see above p. 83) and the {{Brahmapurāṇa}} quoted by {{Aparārka}} (p. 1178) also equates {{sūcī}} with {{tunnavāya}}.

{{Sūta}}. For vedic references see above p. 43. According to Gaut. (IV. 15), {{Baud. Dh. S.}} (I. 9. 9), {{Vas.}} (18.6), {{Kauṭ.}} (III. 7), Manu (X. 11), {{Nārada}} ({{strīpuṁsa}} 110), {{Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} (16.6), {{Yāj.}} (I. 93) and {{Sūtasaṁhitā}}, he is a {{pratiloma}} sprung from a {{kṣatriya}} male and a {{brāhmaṇa}} woman. {{Kauṭ.}} is careful to add that the {{sūta}} who figures in the {{purāṇas}} as the reciter is quite different from this. A {{vārtika}} on {{Pāṇ.}} (VI. 3. 70) teaches the formation of words like {{sūtaputrī}}.[^206] According to Manu (X. 47) and {{Viṣṇu}} the avocation of {{sūtas}} is driving a chariot (i. e. breaking and yoking horses). According to {{Vaikh.}} (X. 13) he makes his livelihood by reminding the king of his duties and by cooking food for him, {{Uśanas}} (v. 3) also says that his business is to remind (a king) of his duties. According to the {{Karṇaparva}} (32. 48) {{sūtas}} are the attendants of {{brāhmaṇas}} and {{kṣatriyas}} and the latter need not carry out what the {{sūta}} says. According to the {{Vāyupurāṇa}} (vol. I. 1. 33-38 and vol. II. 1. 139) the {{sūta}} was to preserve the pedigrees of kings and great men and traditions about learning or books, he is not authorised to study the Veda, the middling way of maintenance for him is to depend upon kings and to look after chariots, elephants and horses; an inferior way of maintenance is the practice of medicine. The {{Vaikh.}} (X. 13) and the {{Sūtasaṁhitā}} expressly say that the difference between the {{sūta}} and the {{rathakāra}} consists in this that the former is the offspring of a marriage, while the latter is the offspring of a clandestine union of a {{kṣatriya}} male with a {{brāhmaṇa}} woman. The {{Sahyādrikhaṇḍa}} (26. 53-54) says that he is inferior to {{kṣatriyas}}, but is entitled to do all the work of a {{kṣatriya}} and that he also performs the work of a charioteer, of taming elephants and riding horses.

{{Sūnika}} or {{Saunika}} (a butcher). According to {{Uśanas}} (v. 14) he is the offspring of an {{āyogava}} from a {{kṣatriya}} woman. {{Hārīta}} (quoted by {{Aparārka}} p. 279) speaks of him in the same breath with {{rajaka}} and {{carmakāra}}. The {{Brahmapurāṇa}} (quoted by {{Aparārka}} p. 1177) says that he is ‘{{paśumāraka}}’. {{Sumantu}}[^207] quoted by {{Par. M.}} makes his food unfit for {{brāhmaṇas}}. He is the same as ‘{{khāṭika}}’ according to the {{Jātiviveka}}.

{{Sairindhra}}. According to Manu X. 32 he is the offspring of a {{dasyu}} (as defined in Manu X. 45) from an {{āyogava}} woman and he makes his living by combing the hair (of men and women), he is not to be treated as a {{dāsa}} (i. e. he has not to eat {{ucchiṣṭa}} food), but is to perform menial work (such as shampooing the body) or is to subsist by catching deer etc. The word is included in the {{gaṇa kulālādi}} ({{Pāṇ.}} IV. 3. 118). From the {{Mahābhārata}} we see what duties {{Draupadī}} disguised as {{sairandhrī}} had to do for the queen of {{Virāṭa}} ({{Virāṭaparva}} 9. 18-19), viz. combing and arranging the hair, pounding unguents, making garlands. Similarly {{Damayantī}} became a {{sairandhrī}} to the mother of the Cedi king ({{Vanaparva}} 65. 68-70), but she refused to eat {{ucchiṣṭa}} food, would not wash the feet of anybody and would not allow any man to approach her. According to {{Ādipurāṇa}} quoted in {{Śūdrakamalākara}} he lives by hunting deer and guarding royal harems and women after delivery.

{{Sopāka}}. According to Manu (X. 38) he is the offspring of a {{cāṇḍāla}} male and a {{pukkasa}} female, subsists by the profession of being hangman to those whom the king condemns to death.

{{Saudhanvana}}. Vide note on ‘{{rathakāra}}’ above (45). Vide {{Kāmasūtra}} I. 5. 37.

It will have been noticed that some of the castes mentioned in the {{smṛtis}} such as {{ambaṣṭha}}, {{māgadha}}, {{malla}} and {{vaidehaka}} are connected with countries ({{Amba}}, {{Magadha}}, {{Videha}} etc.), that some others are based upon race such as {{Ābhīra}}, {{Kirāta}} and {{Śaka}}. Manu (X. 43-45) and the {{Mahābhārata}} ({{Anuśāsana parva}} 33. 21-23 and 35. 17-18) were prepared to admit that several foreign races like the {{Śakas}}, {{Yavanas}}, {{Kāmbojas}}, {{Draviḍas}}, {{Daradas}}, {{Śabaras}}, {{Kirātas}} etc. were originally {{kṣatriyas}}, but had been reduced to the status of {{śūdras}} by losing contact with {{brāhmaṇas}} or by not liking the idea of being subject to the {{brāhmaṇical}} system. The {{Viṣṇupurāṇa}} (IV. 4. 47-48) says the same. Numerous names of castes arise from the professions they follow, e. g. {{ayaskāra}}, {{kumbhakāra}}, {{carmakāra}}, {{takṣan}}, {{tailika}}, {{naṭa}}, {{rathakāra}}, {{veṇa}} etc. Even in ancient times {{brāhmaṇas}} followed so many different occupations almost as in modern times that the list of {{brāhmaṇas}} who cannot be invited at {{śrāddhas}} because they follow occupations other than those prescribed for them is rather very formidable (vide Manu III. 151 ff. and the remarks on {{paṅktipāvana}} later on).

It appears that comparatively very early many among the {{brāhmaṇas}} had given up the occupations peculiar to them and were entitled to be called {{brāhmaṇas}} simply because of their birth. The {{Mahābhāṣya}}[^208] of {{Patañjali}} quotes a verse ‘{{tapas}}, vedic study, and birth (from {{brāhmaṇa}} parents) these are the causes why a person is called a {{brāhmaṇa}}; he who is devoid of {{tapas}} and vedic study is a {{brāhmaṇa}} only by birth (and not a real {{brāhmaṇa}})’. Similarly in another place {{Patañjali}} quotes a verse ‘know this to be the auspicious sign of the best of {{brāhmaṇas}}, viz. whose lore, actions and birth are all three holy’ (vol. II. p. 220 on {{Pāṇ.}} IV. 1. 44). Though in the {{Mahābhārata}} it is often said that a {{brāhmaṇa}} is so by birth alone and that he deserves respect from all, still we meet several times with passages[^209] wherein there is a revolt against the caste system dependent on birth alone and where it is severely condemned and great emphasis is laid on the moral worth of a man. In the {{Vanaparva}} (181. 42-43) we are told[^210] ‘Truthfulness, restraint, {{tapas}}, generosity, non-injury to sentient beings, constant adherence to {{dharma}}-these always lead men to the fruition (of their goal) and not caste nor family’. {{Udyogaparva}} (43. 20 ff.) explains at great length what is meant by self-restraint. In the {{Śāntiparva}}[^211] (189. 4 and 8) ‘Truthfulness, generosity, freedom from hatred and wickedness, humility, kindness, and {{tapas}}–he is known as a {{brāhmaṇa}} where these are seen. If these signs are seen in a {{śūdra}} and they do not exist in a {{brāhmaṇa}}, then the {{śūdra}} would not be a {{śūdra}} and the {{brāhmaṇa}} would not be a {{brāhmaṇa}}’. In another place we are told[^212] ’there is no difference between the {{varṇas}}; the whole world is {{brāhma}} (the creation of {{Brahmā}}), since it was created by {{Brahmā}} in former ages and was evolved into {{varṇas}} by actions (or occupations).’ {{Udyogaparva}}[^213] (43. 49) remarks ‘Do not regard a person as {{brāhmaṇa}} by his talk; he who does not depart from truth is a {{brāhmaṇa}}’; {{Vanaparva}} (216. 14-15) ’that {{śūdra}} who is always struggling for self-restraint, truthfulness and {{dharma}} is a {{brāhmaṇa}} in my opinion, for a {{brāhmaṇa}} is so by his character.’ Vide {{Vanaparva}} (313. 108-111) and {{Yāj.}} I. 200 and {{Vṛddha Gautama}} p. 632. It has been seen above (p. 6) that Gautama laid the greatest emphasis on the eight qualities of the soul. But in spite of those sentiments the caste system dependent on birth has continued in all its strength and rigour for ages and writers like the {{Par. M.}} II. 1, p. 228 are emphatic in saying that between {{jāti}} and character one must look principally to the eminence of the caste.

In certain medieval works called {{Jātiviveka}} and in other works like the {{Śūdrakamalākara}} (first half of 17th century A. D.) several more castes are mentioned, some of which are set out below.

{{Āghūsika}} or {{Andhasika}}–from a {{vaidehika}} male and a {{śūdra}} female; sells cooked food; also called {{Randhavanu}}. {{Avartaka}}–from a {{bhṛjjakaṇṭha}} and a {{brāhmaṇa}} woman. {{Āhiṇḍika}}–from a {{niṣāda}} and a {{vaideha}} female; called {{Gāruḍī}} in Marathi. {{Aurabhra}}–called {{Dhaṅgar}} in Marathi (tends rams and ewes for their wool). {{Kaṭadhūnaka}}–from {{āvartaka}} and a {{brāhmaṇa}} woman. {{Kuntalaka}}–the same as {{nāpita}}. {{Kuruvinda}}–from a {{kumbhakāra}} and a {{kukkuṭa}} female. Same as modern {{sālī}}, according to {{Śūdrakamalākara}}. {{Gholika}}–from a {{Vyādha}} male and {{gāruḍī}} female. He is called {{Undiramāru}} (rat-killer) in the vernacular. {{Durbhara}}—from an {{āyogava}} and a {{dhigvaṇa}} woman; called {{Dohor}} (or {{Dhor}}) in modern times. {{Paustika}}–from a {{brāhmaṇa}} and a {{niṣāda}} female; called in modern times {{Kahāra}} or {{Bhoī}} (palanquin-bearer). {{Plava}}–from a {{cāṇḍāla}} and an {{āndhra}} woman; called ‘{{bādī}}’ in modern times. {{Bandhula}}–from {{maitreya}} and {{jāṅghika}} female; called {{Jhārekarī}} now (who takes out gold particles from the dust at the doors of goldsmiths). {{Bhasmāṅkura}}–from a {{Śaiva}} fallen ascetic and a {{śūdra}} prostitute; called {{Gurava}} by the {{Jātiviveka}}. {{Manyu}}–from a {{vaiśya}} and a {{kṣatriya}} female; called {{Tāvaḍia}} (thief catcher). {{Romika}}–from {{malla}} and an {{avartaka}} woman; called {{Loṇār}} in modern times (manufacturer of salt). [[102]] {{Śālakya}} or {{Śākalya}}–from a {{mālākāra}} and {{kāyastha}} woman; called {{Maniar}}. {{Śuddha-Mārjaka}}–called {{Maṇḍalī}} (who gains livelihood by singing and playing on musical instruments). {{Sindolaka}} or {{spandālika}}, from a {{śūdra}} male and a {{māgadha}} female; called {{Raṅgārī}} (dyer).

Varna and modern castes

In modern times each of the principal {{varṇas}} has numerous {{Bub-castes|sub-castes}}, based upon difference of country, occupation, sect and other causes. For example, {{brāhmaṇas}} are first divided into ten classes, five of them being {{Gauḍas}}¹³¹ and five {{Drāvidas}}. Among the {{Drāviḍa brāhmaṇas}}, the {{Mahārāṣṭra}} {{brāhmaṇas}} are again subdivided into numerous sub-castes such as the {{Citpāvana}} (or {{Koṅkanastha}}), {{Karhāḍe}}, {{Deśastha}}, {{Devarukhe}} {{sto|etc.}} It is said that in {{Gujerat|Gujarat}} there are 84 subcastes of {{brāhmaṇas}},¹³² {{as|and}} most of which do not interdine nor intermarry. There is often a further distinction among the members of the same subcaste, viz, those who follow the priestly occupation and those who do not. The spirit of exclusiveness and ideas of superiority that arose in {{vedio|Vedic}} times gradually led on to further and further {{divisons|divisions}} and subdivisions of people owing to geographical situation and other {{causes}}. It appears that probably even in ancient times the {{brāhmaṇas}} of the north looked down upon the {{brāhmaṇas}} in eastern countries like {{Magadha}}. Vide notes 31-32 above and Fick (pp. 213-214). The {{Matsyapurāṇa}} (16. 16) says that {{brāhmaṇas}} who dwell in {{Mleccha}} countries, in {{Triśaṅku}}, {{Barbara}}, {{Oḍra}} (Orissa), {{Āndhra}} ({{Teliṅgāna}}), {{Ṭakka}}, {{Draviḍa}} and {{Koṅkaṇa}} are not to be invited at {{śrāddhas}}.¹³³ [[103]]

Among {{kṣatriyas}} there are several subdivisions, such as those claiming descent from the Sun or the Moon and those that call themselves to be {{Agnikulas}} (vide Sherring, vol. I. p. 120 ff, and Tod’s Rajasthan vol. I chapter VII for lists of royal tribes). The {{Paramāras}} have 35 branches, {{Guhilots}} 24 branches, {{Chabmanas|Chahamānas}} 26 branches, {{Solankis|Solaṅkis}} 16 branches and so on.

Even among comparatively late works the total number of subcastes enumerated does not go beyond even two hundred. For example, Wilson in ‘Indian castes’ vol. I pp. 65-70 mentions only 134 castes with their Sanskrit and modern Marathi names as gathered from the {{Jātiviveka}}, {{Mādhava-kalpalatā}}, {{Paragu. rāma-pratāpa|Paraśurāma-pratāpa}} and other works. It is only in the census reports prepared at great expense by the British Government after elaborate efforts and organization that the great complexity of the caste system in modern India is laid bare to the eye. But this work cannot, by reason of its limited scope, go into these varied and complex details of the hundreds of castes that exist in the several provinces of India. [[104]]