Early Arya vs shUdra conflict
- Arya-s and dAsyu-s/ dAsa-s (mentioned int he Rg-veda) were enemies - differentiated by race(?) and culture. PV Kane’s opinion: After subjugating the latter, they became shUdra-s in early Aryan society.
“The post R^igvedic texts allude to the Arya vs shUdra conflict and the brazhma+kShatra vs shUdra conflicts. The mAnava dharmashAstra (manu smR^iti) and allied material alludes to the same 2 above-mentioned conflicts. … Yet it is fairly plain from the manu smR^iti that the shUdra is feared as a danger to brAhmaNa-s. The same is true of the vaguer vedic allusions, where they are a threat to the Aryas or the brahma-kShatra aristocracy. " [MT1]
“It should stated here that this clearly contrasts the situation with the vaishyas. They are after all the “vish (people)” or the laity who function as traders and cultivators and should have the resources to for the brahma-kShatra or brahmin overlord to exploit. Further, given their resources they could actually mobilize a threat to the dominion of the aristocrats. Yet, there is no sense of hostile interactions vis-a-vis the vaishyas in the texts under discussion. They are discussed, variously, as Arya insiders or miscellaneous dvijas using a neutral or common-place terminology. This presents a major contradiction, for why should the brahma-kShatra, who were believed to be in power in Hindu society, fear the lowest group rather than the potential more dangerous vaishyas whom they are believed exploit. This is also in contrast with the generally neutral or positive treatment of the “low caste” trades which may be at the border of vaishya and shudra functions. The texts both vedic and the MDS, consider these trades and their practitioners a necessary feature of society that needs protection. So the sense of threat from the hostile shUdra suggests that term ‘shUdra’ was not merely applied to the lowest caste but actually extended to enemy of the brahmin or the brahma-kShatra alliance.” [MT1]
“MDS 10.129 warns that shUdras on acquiring wealth could harass brahmins. Importantly, this is never stated of vaishyas who have the potential to do so. MDS 8.22 warns that a kingdom teeming with shUdra-run courts rapidly degenerates as though over-run by enemies of dvijas. MDS4.60-61 again mentions that the brAhmaNa should avoid residence in a shUdra kingdom, which is described as being over-run with inimical people and having practitioners of fake religions.” [MT1]
“The redaction of the ancient law-books, which were in their core kuru-pa~nchala documents (as supported by their definition of Aryavarta=the kuru-pa~nchala realm; the territory of the bhAratas or sometime their feudatories and allies, the yadus and matsyas), seems to have occurred during the maurya, shu~Nga and kANva periods. These redactions were characterized by inclusion of negative references with respect to shudra, a term which specifically subsumed the recent hostile elements that the brahma-kShatra alliance had faced. However, the vedic references suggest that the redactors were not being innovative in this regard. It is clear that there was an ancient hostile sub-text to the shUdra term, as enemies of the Aryas. This parallels the term dAsa, that in ancient sanskrit literature was typically an individual or group hostile to the Aryans, but later also came to mean slave. These terminologies definitely have a link to the subjugation of hostile enemies and their eventual assimilation at the lower social rungs. So in conclusion, I would state that the entire enterprise of searching for a doctrine of oppression in negative statements regarding the shUdras in the MDS and allied texts is a rather misplaced venture. These texts are a product of a certain historical conflicts, where the brahma-kShatra alliance is merely seen to be defending its interests against competitors and threats. Whether, their texts or their interpretations based on misunderstood terminologies were basis of social inequities, which are very natural in primate societies, is highly questionable.” [MT1]
-
People living outside the domain of early Aryan society (south Indians, persians, chinese etc..) were considered fallen kShatriya-s, and now shUdra-s and called dasyu-s; having lost their saMskAra-s. [PVK_IMG, MDS 10.43-45]
-
shUdra-s of early Aryan society had very low status, with their main profession being the service of the dvija-s.
-
BR Ambedkar’s summary seems mostly correct :
“for the Shudras of the Indo-Aryan Society are absolutely different in race from the Shudras of the Hindu Society. The Shudras of the Hindu Society are not the racial descendants of the Shudras of the Indo-Aryan Society. This confusion has arisen because of the failure to realise that the meaning of the word ‘Shudras’ in the Indo-Aryan society is quite different from the meaning it has in the Hindu society. In the Indo-Aryans the word Shudra was proper name of one single people. It was the name of a people who belonged to a particular race. The word Shudra, as used in the Hindu society, is not a proper name at all. It is an epithet for a low uncultured class of people. It is a general cognomen of a miscellaneous and heterogeneous collection of tribes and groups, who have nothing in common except that they happen to be on a lower plane of culture. It is wrong to call them by the name Shudras. They have very little to do with their namesakes of the Aryan society, who had offended the Brahmins.”
“We do not know exactly whether the Shudras were a tribe, a clan or a moiety or a group of families. But even if they were as big as a tribe, they could not have been larger than a few thousand. The Bharatas are being expressly spoken of in the Rig Veda, vii.33.6, as being small in number.”
Racial angle
- Steppe mostly lacked light hair and eyes. The blue eyed blond nordics is only a trope among the among less aware.
In my reconstruction the later parts were composed after the Arya-s had conquered & settled in northern India. At that time they definitely encountered peoples who were more melanized than them :e.g. nishAda & kirAta & probably the original shUdra who were perhaps an antagonistic fraction of the Harappan/Harappan periphery people (in the old context not what the term meant later as a hold all 4th varNa).
However, contrary to occidental indologists whom he’s evidently following, I have strong reasons to argue that the earlier layers of the veda were not composed in India but on the steppes. Even in those layers we find references to dark skin in an inimical sense e.g. manave shAsad avratAn tvachaM kR^iShNAm arandhayat | For manu [indra] smote the non-ritualist & rent the black-skinned. But we should be careful to jump to the conclusion that this necessarily reflected the melanization of opponent of the Arya-s because:
- In similar contexts the Arya-s are associated with jyotis (light) and the dAsa with darkness. So it could simply be a light vs darkness metaphor.
- the blackness is attributed to dAsa/dasyu who from ethnonym evidence and positive usage on Iranian side was likely an Iranic tribe who was hence similarly colored as the Arya.
- In the context of the dAsa the term black might be applied to the womb as black-wombed beyond black skinned. Hence, it is conceivable that it was indeed merely a negative color metaphor.
- Among indo-europeans more broadly we have ideas like the thrall being black in color and the jarl being white in the Germanic world. Hence, it is conceivable that it was deeper negative epithet that need not have strongly aligned with melanization albeit having some alignment – as humans are visual like other primates and use color in distinguishing the other.
Finally coming to snub-nose Max Mueller interpreted the term anAs as a-nAs - without nose or subnose. While that is plausible it is not aligned with usual grammatical formation in Sanskrit and the traditional interpretation as an-as = without mouth. While that looks equally anatomically strange, it is entirely aligned with the more common term mR^idhravach (slurred speech) used for the enemies of the Arya-s. Hence, the idea that subnosed people were referred to is at best dubious.
Putting these together. IEans like other primates being were probably prone to making visual distinctions of self & other based on color but that the references to black skin in the earliest vedic texts was a reference to the hypermelanized pre-Aryan populations of India should be treated at best with caution and probably not at all. But it could have referred to other non Aryan people outside or on the fringes of India.