Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India

______________________________________________
Contents
PART II
Chapter 5: The Decline and Fall of Buddhism
Chapter 6: The Literature of Brahminism
Chapter 7: The Triumph of Brahminism
CHAPTER 5
The Decline and Fall of Buddhism.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar had written "The Decline and Fall of Buddhism", as a
part of the treatise, `Revolution and Counter-Revolution '. We have found
only 5 pages in our papers which were not even corrected. Copy of this essay
has been received from Shri S. S. Rege, which shows some corrections in Dr.
Ambedkar's handwriting. This essay is of 18 typed pages which is included
here.' Editors.
1
The disappearance of Buddhism from India has been a matter of great
surprize to everybody who cares to think about the subject and is also a
matter of regret. But it lives in China, Japan, Burma, Siam, Annam, IndoChina, Ceylon and parts of Malaya-Archipalego. In India alone, it has ceased
to exist. Not only it has ceased to live in India but even the name of Buddha
has gone out of memory of most Hindus. How could such a thing have
happened ? This is an important question for which there has been no
satisfactory answer. Not only there is no satisfactory answer, nobody has
made an attempt to arrive at a satisfactory answer. In dealing with this subject
people fail to make a very important distinction. It is a distinction between the
fall of Buddhism and the decline of Buddhism. It is necessary to make this
distinction because the fall of Buddhism is one, the reasons for which are very
different from those which brought about its downfall. For the fall is due to
quite obvious causes while the reasons for its decline are not quite so
obvious.
There can be no doubt that the fall of Buddhism in India was due to the
invasions of the Musalmans. Islam came out as the enemy of the 'But'. The
word 'But' as everybody knows is an Arabic word and means an idol. Not
many people however know what the derivation of the word 'But' is 'But' is the

Arabic corruption of Buddha. Thus the origin of the word indicates that in the
Moslem mind idol worship had come to be identified with the Religion of the
Buddha. To the Muslims, they were one and the same thing. The mission to
break the idols thus became the mission to destroy Buddhism. Islam
destroyed Buddhism not only in India but wherever it went.
Before Islam came into being Buddhism was the religion of Bactria, Parthia,
Afghanistan, Gandhar and Chinese Turkestan, as it was of the whole of Asia.
In all these countries Islam destroyed Buddhism. As Vicent Smith points out :
"The furious massacre perpetrated in many places by Musalman invaders
were more efficacious than Orthodox Hindu persecutions, and had a great
deal to do with the disapperance of Buddhism in several provinces (of India),"
Not all will be satisfied with this explanation. It does seem inadequate. Islam
attacked both, Bramhanism and Buddhism. It will be asked why should one
survive and the other perish. The argument is plausible but not destructive of
the validity of the thesis. To admit that Bramhanism survived, it does not
mean that the fall of Buddhism was not due to the sword of Islam. All that it
means is that, there were circumstances which made it possible for
Bramhanism and impossible for Buddhism to survive the onslaught of Islam.
Fortunately for Bramhanism and unfortunately for Buddhism that was the fact.
Those who will pursue the matter will find that there were three special
circumstances which made it possible for Bramhanism and impossible for
Buddhism to survive the calamity of Muslim invasions. In the first place
Bramhanism at the time of the Muslim invasions had the support of the State.
Buddhism had no such support. What is however more important is the fact
that this State support to Bramhanism lasted till Islam had become a quiet
religion and the flames of its original fury as a mission against idolatory had
died out. Secondly the Buddhist priesthood perished by the sword of Islam
and could not be resusciated. On the other hand it was not possible for Islam
to annihilate the Bramhanic priesthood. In the third place the Buddhist laity
was persecuted by the Bramhanic rulers of India and to escape this tyranny
the mass of the Buddhist population of India embraced Islam and renounced
Buddhism.
Of these circumstances there is not one which is not supported by history.
Among the Provinces of India which came under Muslim domination, Sind
was the first. It was ruled by a Shudra king. But the throne was usurped by a
Bramhin who established his own dynasty which naturally supported the
Bramhanic religion a.t the time of the invasion of Sind by Ibne Kassim in 712
A.D. The ruler of Sind was Dahir. This Dahir belonged to the dynasty of
Brahmin rulers.

Heuen Tsang had noticed that the Punjab was in his time ruled by a
Kshatriya Buddhist dynasty. This dynasty ruled Punjab till about 880 A.D. In
that year the throne was usurped by a Brahmin army commander by name
Lalliya who founded the Brahmin Shahi dynasty. This dynasty ruled the
Punjab from 880 A.D. to 1021 A.D. It will thus be seen that at the time when
the invasions of the Punjab were commenced by Sabuktagin and
Mohammad, the native rulers belonged to the Bramhanic religion and
Jayapala (960-980 A.D.) Anandpal (980-1000 A.D.) and Trilochanpal (100021 A.D.) of whose struggles with Sabuktagin and Mahammad we read so
much were rulers belonging to the Bramhanic faith.
Central India began to be infested by Muslim invasions which commenced
from the time of Mohammad and continued under the leadership of
Shahabuddin Ghori. At that time Central India consisted of different
kingdoms. Mewad (now known as Udepur) ruled by the Gulohits, Sambhar
(now divided into Bundi, Kota and Sirohi) ruled by the Chauhans, Kanauj ruled
by the Pratihars, Dhar ruled by the Parmars, Bundelkhand ruled by
Chandellas, Anhilwad ruled by the Chavdas, Chedi ruled by the Kalachuris.
Now the rulers of all these kingdoms were Rajputs and the Rajputs for
reasons which are mysterious and which I will discuss later on had become
the staunchest supporters of the Bramhanic religion.
About the time of these invasions Bengal had fallen into two kingdoms,
Eastern and Western. West Bengal was ruled by the Kings of the Pal dynasty
and East Bengal was ruled by the Kings of the Sena dynasty.
The Palas were Kshatriyas. They were Buddhist but as Mr. Vadiya says
"probably only in the beginning or in name". As to the Sena kings there is a
difference of opinion. Dr. Bhandarkar says they were Brahmins who had
taken to the military profession of the Kshatriyas. Mr. Vaidya insists that the
Sena Kings were Aryan Kshatriyas or Rajputs belonging to the Lunar race. In
any case there is no doubt that the Senas like the Rajputs were supporters of
the orthodox faith.
"South of the river Nerbudda, then existed about the time of the Muslim
invasions four kingdoms (1) The Deccan Kingdom of Western Chalukyas, (2)
The Southern Kingdom of the Cholas (3) The Silahara Kingdom in Konkan on
the West Coast and (4) The Ganga Kingdom of Trikalinga on the East Coast.
These Kingdoms flourished during 1000-1200 A.D. which is the period of the
Muslim invasions. There were under them, certain feudatory Kingdons which
rose to power in the 12th Century A.D. and which became independent and
powerful in the 13 the Century. They are (1) Devagiri ruled by the Yadavas,
(2) Warangal ruled by Kakatiyas (3) Halebid ruled by Hoyasalas (4) Madura
ruled by the Pandyas and (5) Travancore ruled by the Cheras. All these ruling

dynasties were followers of orthodox Brahmanism. The Muslim invasions of

India commenced in the year 1001 A.D. The last wave of these invasions
reached Southern India in 1296 A.D. when Allauddin Khilji subjugated the
Kingdom of Devagiri. The Muslim conquest of India was really not completed
by 1296. The wars of subjugation went on between the Muslim conquerors
and the local rulers who though defeated were not reduced. But the point
which requires to bear in mind is that during this period of 300 years of
Muslim Wars of conquests, India was governed all over by princes who
professed the orthodox faith of Bramhanism. Bramhanism beaten and
battered by the Muslim Invaders could look to the rulers for support and
sustenance and did get it. Buddhism beaten and battered by the Muslim
invaders had no such hope. It was an uneared for orphan and it withered in
the cold blast of the native rulers and was consumed in the fire lit up by the
conquerors.
The Musalman invaders sacked the Buddhist Universities of Nalanda,
Vikramasila, Jagaddala, Odantapuri to name only a few. They raised to the
ground Buddhist monasteries with which the country was studded. The
Monks fled away in thousands to Napal, Tibet and other places outside India.
A very large number were killed outright by the Muslim commanders. How the
Buddhist priesthood perished by the sword of the Muslim invaders has been
recorded by the Muslim historians themselves. Summarizing the evidence
relating to the slaughter of the Budhist Monks perpetrated by the Musalman
General in the course of his invasion of Bihar in 1197 A.D. Mr. Vincent Smith
says :
"The Musalman General, who had already made his name a terror by
repeated plundering expeditions in Bihar, seized the capital by a daring
stroke. The almost contemporary historian met one of the survivors of the
attacking party in A.D. 1243, and learned from him that the Fort of Bihar was
seized by a party of only two hundred horsemen, who boldly rushed the
postern gate and gained possession of the place. Great quantities of plunder
were obtained, and the slaughter of the 'shaven headed Brahmans', that is to
say the Buddhist monks, was so thoroughly completed, that when the victor
sought for some one capable of explaining the contents of the books in the
libraries of the monasteries, not a living man could be found who was able to
read them. 'It was discovered', we are told, 'that the whole of that fortress and
city was a college, and in the Hindi tongue they call a college Bihar."
Such was the slaughter of the Buddhist priesthood perpetrated by the
Islamic invaders. The axe was struck at the very root. For by killing the
Buddhist priesthood Islam killed Buddhism. This was the greatest disaster
that befell the religion of Buddha in India. Religion like any other ideololgy can

be attained only by propaganda. If propoganda fails, religion must disappear.

The priestly class, however detestable it may be, is necessary to the
sustenance of religion. For it is by its propoganda that religion is kept up.
Without the priestly class religion must disappear. The sword of Islam fell
heavily upon the priestly class. It perished or it fled outside India. Nobody
remained to keep the flame of Buddhism burning.
It may be said that the same thing must have happened to the Brahmanic
priesthood. It is possible, though not to the same extent. But there is this
difference between the constitution of the two religions and the difference is
so great that it contains the whole reason why Brahmanism survived the
attack of Islam and why Buddhism did not. This difference relates to the
constitution of the clergy.
The Bramhanic priesthood has a most elaborate organization. A clear and
succinct account of it has been given by the late Sir Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
in the pages of the Indian Antiquary.
'Every Brahmanic family, ' he writes, ' is devoted to the study of a particular
Veda, and a particular Sakha (recension) of a Veda ; and the domestic rites of
the family are performed according to the ritual described in the Sutra
connected with that Veda. The study consists in getting by heart the books
forming the particular Veda. In Northern India, where the predominant Veda is
the White Yagush and the Sakha that of the Madhyandinas, this study has
almost died out, except at Banaras, where Brahmanic families from all parts
of India are settled. It prevails to some extent in Gujarat, but to a much
greater extent in the Maratha country; and in Tailangana there is a large
number of Brahmans who still devote their life to this study. Numbers of these
go about to all parts of the country in search of dakshina (fee, alms), and all
well-to-do natives patronize them according to their means, by getting them to
repeat portions of their Veda, which is mostly the Black Yagush, with
Apastamba for their Sutra. Hardly a week passes here in Bombay in which no
Tailangana Brahman comes to me to ask for dakshina. On each occasion I
get the men to repeat what they have learned, and compare it with the printed
texts in my possession.
'With reference to their occupation, Brahmans of each Veda are generally
divided into two classes, Grihasthas and Bhikshukas. The former devote
themselves to a worldly avocation, while the latter spend their time in the
study of their sacred books and the practice of their religious rites.
'Both these classes have to repeat daily the Sandhya-vandana or twilightprayers, the forms of which are somewhat different for the different Vedas.
But the repetition of the Gayatri-mantra 'Tat Savitur Vareynam' etc., five, then

twenty eight, or a hundred and eight times, which forms the principal portion
of the ceremony, is common to all.
'Besides this, a great many perform daily what is called Brahmayagna,
which on certain occasions is incumbent on all. This for the Rig-Veda consists
of the first hymn of the first mandal, and the opening sentences of the
Aitareya Brahmana, the five parts of the Aitereya Aranyaka, the Yagussamhita, the Sama-samhita, the Atharva-samhita, Asvalayana Kalpa Sutra,
Nirukta, Khandas, Nighantu, Jyotisha,
Siksha,
Panini, Yagnavalkya
Smriti, Mahabharata, and the Sutras of Kanada, Jaimini, and Badarayan.' The
point to be remembered is that in the matter of officiation there is no
distinction between a Bhikshuka and a Grahastha. In Brahmanism both are
priest and the Grahastha is no less entitled to officiate as a priest than a
Bhikshu is. If a Grahastha does not choose to officiate as a priest, it is
because he has not mastered the mantras and the ceremonies or because he
follows some more lucrative vocation. Under Brahmanic dispensation every
Brahmin who is not an outcast has the capacity to be a priest. The Bhikshuka
is an actual priest, a Grahastha is a potential priest. All Brahmins can be
recruited to form the army of Bramhanic priesthood. Further no particular
training or initiation ceremony is necessary for a Brahmin to act as a priest.
His will to officiate is enough to make him function as a priest. In Brahmanism
the priesthood can never become extinct. Every Brahmin is a potential priest
of Brahmanism and be drafted in service when the need be. There is nothing
to stop the rake's life and progress. This is not possible in Buddhism. A
person must be ordained in accordance with established rites by priests
already ordained, before he can act as a priest. After the massacre of the
Buddhist priests, ordination became impossible so that the priesthood almost
ceased to exist. Some attempt was made to fill the depleted ranks of the
Buddhist priests. New recruits for the priesthood had to be drawn from all
available sources. They certainly were not the best. According to Haraprasad
Shastri,
"The paucity of Bhiksus brought about a great change in the composition of
the Buddhist priesthood. It was the married clergy with families, who were
called Aryas, that took the place of the Bhiksus proper, and began to cater to
the religious needs of the Buddhists generally. They commenced attaining the
normal status of Bhiksus through the performance of some sacraments.
(lntro.pp.l9.7, quoting Tatakara Guptas' Adikarmaracana : 149, pp. 12071208). They officiated at the religious ceremonies but at the same time, in
addition to their profession of priesthood, earned their livelihood through such
avocations as those of a mason, painter, sculptor, goldsmith, and carpenter.
These artisan priests who were in later times larger in numbers than the

Bhiksus proper became the religious guides of the people. Their avocations
left them little time and desire for the acquisition of learning, for deep thinking,
or for devotion to Dhyana and other spiritual exercises. They could not be
expected to raise the declining Buddhism to a higher position through their
endeavours nor could they check its course towards its ruin through the
introduction of salutary reforms." It is obvious that this new Buddhist
priesthood had neither dignity nor learning and were a poor match for the
rival, the Brahmins whose cunning was not unequal to their learning.
The reason why Brahmanism rose from the ashes and Buddhism did not, is
to be accounted for, not by any inherent superiority of Brahmanism over
Buddhism. It is to be found in the peculiar character of their priesthood.
Buddhism died because its army of priests died and it was not possible to
create. Though beaten it was never completely broken. Every Brahmin alive
became priest and took the place of every Brahmin priest who died.
As to the conversion to the faith of Islam by the Buddhist population as a
cause of the fall of Buddhism, there can hardly be much doubt.
In his Presidential address to the early Medieval and Rajput section of the
Indian History Congress held at Allahabad in 1938, Prof. Surendra Nath Sen
very rightly observed that there were two problems relating to the Medieval
History of India for which no satisfactory answers were forthcoming as yet. He
mentiond two : one connected with the origin of the Rajputs and the other to
the distribution of the Muslim population in India. Referring to the second, he
said :
"But I may be permitted to deal with one question that is not wholly of
antiquarian interest today. The distribution of Muslim population in India
demands some explanation. It is commonly believed that Islam followed the
route of conquest and the subjugated people were forced to accept the faith
of their rulers. The predominance of the Muslims in the Frontier Province and
the Punjab lends some colour to this contention. But this theory cannot
explain an overwhelming Muslim majority in Eastern Bengal. It is quite likely
that the North-Western Frontier Province was peopled by Turkish folks during
the Kushan days, and their easy conversion to Islam may be explained by
racial affinity with the new conquerors; but the Muslims of Eastern Bengal are
certainly not racially akin to the Turks and the Afghans, and the conversion of
the Hindus of that region must have been due to other reasons." What are
these other reasons ? Prof. Sen then proceeds to lay bare these reasons
which are found in Muslim Chronicles. He takes the case of Sind for which
there is direct testimony and says :
"According to the Chachnama, the Buddhists of Sind suffered all sorts of
indignities and humiliations under their Brahman rulers, and when the Arabs

invaded their country, the Buddhists lent their whole hearted suport to them.
Later on, when Dahir was slain and a Muslim Government was firmly
established in his country, the Buddhists found to their dismay that, so far as
their rights and privileges were concerned, the Arabs were prapared to
restore status quo ante bellum and even under the new order the Hindus
received a preferential treatment. The only way out of this difficulty was to
accept Islam because the converts were entitled to all the privileges reserved
for the ruling classes. So the Buddhists of Sind joined the Muslim fold in large
numbers." Prof. Sen then adds this significant passage :
"It cannot be an accident that the Punjab, Kashmir, the district around Behar
Sharif, North-East Bengal where Muslims now predominate, were all strong
Buddhist Centres in the pre-Muslim days. It will not be fair to suggest that the
Buddhists succumbed more easily to political temptations than the Hindus
and the change of religion was due to the prospects of the improvement of
their political status."
Unfortunately the causes that have forced the Buddhist population of India
to abandon Buddhism in favour of Islam have not been investigated and it is
therefore impossible to say how far the persecution of the Brahmanic Kings
was responsible for the result. But there are not wanting indications which
suggest that this was the principal cause. We have positive evidence of two
Kings engaged in the campaign of persecuting the Buddhist population.
The first to be mentioned is Mihirkula. He belonged to the Huns who
invaded India about 455 A.D. and established their kingdom in Northern India
with Sakala, the modern Sialkot in the Punjab as the capital. Mihirkula ruled
about 528 A.D. As Vincent Smith says : "All Indian traditions agree in
representing Mihirkula as a blood thirsty tyrant. `The Attila of India', stained to
a more than ordinary degree with 'implicable cruelty' noted by historians as
characteristic of the Hun temperament."
Mihirkula, to use the language of Smith, :-"exhibited ferocious hostility
against the peaceful Buddhist cult, and remorselessly overthrew the stupas
and monasteries, which he plundered of their treasures".
The other is Sasanka, the King of Eastern India. He ruled about the first
decade of the seventh century and was defeated in a conflict with Harsha. In
the words of Vincent Smith3
"Sansanka, who has been mentioned as the treacherous murderer of
Harsha's brother, and probably was a scion of the Gupta dynasty, was a
worshipper of Shiva, hating Buddhism, which he did his best to extirpate. He
dug up and burnt the holy Bodhi tree at Buddha Gaya, on which, according to
legend, Asoka had lavished inordinate devotion; broke the stone marked with
the footprints of Buddha at Pataliputra; destroyed the convents, scattered the

monks, carrying his persecutions to the foot of the Nepalese hills ". The
seventh century seems to be a century of religious persecution in India. As
Smith points out :
"A terrible persecution of the cognate religion Jainism occurred in Southern
India in the seventh century".
Coming nearer to the time of the Muslim invasions, we have the instance of
Sindh where presecution was undoutedly the cause. That these persecutions
continued upto the time of the Muslim invasions may be presumed by the fact
that in Northern India the Kings were either Brahmins or Rajputs both of
whom were anti Buddhists. That the Jains were persecuted even in the 12th
century is amply supported by history. Smith refers to Ajayadeva, a Saiva
King of Gujarat who came to the throne in A.D. 1174-6 and began his reign by
a merciless persecution of the Jains, torturing their leader to death. Smith
adds, "Several other well-established instances of severe persecution might
be cited."
There is therefore nothing to vitiate the conclusion that the fall of Buddhism
was due to the Buddhist becoming coverts to Islam as a way of escaping the
tyranny of Brahmanism. The evidence, if it does not support the conclusion, at
least makes it probable. If it has been a disaster, it is a disaster for which
Brahmanism must thank itself.
CHAPTER 6
Literature of Brahminism
We have come across scattered pages of this essay, numbering from 6 to
14 and 17 to 39. These pages seem to be a continuation of the subject dealt
with under the title 'The Decline and Fall of Buddhism'. Some of the pages are
the first copies while the rest are the carbon copies. There are 14 more pages
dealing with the Vedanta Sutras and Bhagvat Gita. The size and quality of the
paper on which 3 chapters i.e. (1) The Decline and Fall of Buddhism, (2) The
Literature of Brahminism and (3) Vedanta Sutras and Bhagvat Gita are typed,
appear to be similar but distinct from the size and quality of other Chapters in
this part.Editors.
1
The facts which supply the reasons must be gleaned from the literature of
Brahmanism which grew up after its political trimuph under Pushyamitra.
The literature falls under six categories (1) Manu Smriti (2) Gita. (3)
Shankaracharya's Vedant (4) Mahabharat (5) Ramayana and (6) the
Puranas. In analysing this literature, I propose to bring out only such facts as

are capable of being suggested by inference, the reason or reasons for the
decline of Buddhism.
There is nothing unusual or unfair in this. For literature is the mirror in which
the life of a people can be said to be reflected.
There is one point which I feel I must clear up. It relates to the period when
this literature came into existence. Not all will agree that the literature referred
to came into being after the revolution of Pushyamitra. On the contrary most
Hindus, whether orthodox or not, learned or not, have an inerradicable belief
that their sacred literature is a very old one in point of time. Indeed it seems to
be an article of faith with every Hindu which necessitates a belief in a very
high antiquity of their sacred literature
As to the age of Manu I have given references to show that Manu Smriti
was written by Sumati Bharagava after 185 B.C. i.e. after the Revolution of
Pushyamitra. I need say nothing more on the subject.
The date of the Bhagavat Gita is a subject about which there has been a
difference of opinion.
Mr. Telang was of opinion that the Geeta must be older than the third
century B.C. though he was not able to say how much. Mr. Tilak. .........
In the opinion of Prof. Garbe, the Geeta as we have it, is different from what
it originally was. He agrees that the conviction that the Bhagwat Geeta has
not reached us in its original form but has undergone essential
transformations, is now, however, shared by many Indologists outside India.
According to Prof. Garbe, one hundred and forty-six verses in the Bhagwat
Geeta are new and do not belong to the original Geeta. As to the date of its
composition Prof. Garbe says that it "cannot possibly be placed before the
second Century A.D."
Prof. Kausambi insists that the Geeta was composed in the reign of King
Baladitya. Baladitya belonged to the Gupta Dynasty which supplanted the
Andhra Dynasty in the year. ........ Baladitya came to the throne in the year
467 A.D. His reasons for so late a date are two. Before Shankaracharya
who was born in 788 A.D. and who died in 820 A.D.wrote his commentary
on the Bhagwat Geeta, it was an unknown composition. It was certainly not
mentioned in the Tatvasangraha by Shantarakshit who wrote his treatise only
50 years before the advent of Shankaracharya. His second reason is this.
Vasubandhu was the originator of a school of thought known as 'Vijnyan Vad'.
The Bramha- Sutra- Bhashya contains a criticism of the Vijnyan Vad of
Vasubandu. The Geeta contains a referenceto the Bramha-Sutra-Bhashya.
The Geeta must therefore be after Vasubandu and after the Bramha-SutraBhashya. Vasubandhu was the preceptor of the Gupta King Baladitya. That

being so, the Geeta must have been composed during or after the reign of
Baladitya.
Nothing more need be said about the date of Shankaracharya. The age in
which he lived and wrote is now generally accepted. Something about his life
needs to be said. But I will reserve that for another place.
The question of determining the date of the composition of the Mahabharata
is next to impossible. Only an attempt to fix the period of its composition can
be made. The Mahabharat has undergone three editions and with each editor
the title and subject matter has changed. In its original form it was known as
'Jaya', Triumph.
This original name occurs even in the third edition both in the beginning as
well as in the end. The original edition of the book known as 'Jaya' was
composed by one Vyas. In its second edition it was known as Bharat. The
Editor of this second edition was one Vaishampayana. Vaishampayan's
edition was not the only second edition of the Bharata. Vyas had many pupils
besides Vaishampayana ; Sumantu, Jaimini, Paila and Shuka were his other
four pupils. They all had learned at the feet of Vyas. Each one of them
produced his own. Thus there were four other editions of Bharata.
Vaishampayana recast the whole and brought out his own version. The third
editor is Sauti. He recast Vaishampayana's version of Bharata. Sauti's version
ultimately came to have the name of Mahabharata. The book has grown both
in size and in the subject matter aswell. The 'Jaya' of Vyas was amall work
having not more than 8800 Shlokas. In the hands of Vaishampayana it grew
into 24000 verses. Sauti expanded it to contain 96836 Shlokas. As to subject
matter the original as composed by Vyas was only a story of the war between
the Kauravas and the Pandavas. In the hands of Vaishyampayana the subject
became two-fold. To the original story there was added the sermon. From a
purely historical work, it became a diadactic work aiming to teach a right code
of social, moral and religious duties. Sauti the last Editor made it an allembracing repository of legendary lore. All the smaller floating legends and
historical stories which existed independently of the Bharata were brought
together by Sauti so that they might not be lost or that they may be found
togeher. Sauti had another ambition, that was to make the Bharata a
storehouse of learning and knowledge. This is the reason why he added
sections on all branches of knowledge, such as politics, geography, archary
etc. Taking into account Sauti's habit of repetition, it is no wonder that the
Bharata in his hand became Mahabharata.
Now as to the date of its composition. There is no doubt that the war
between the Kauravas and the Pandavas is a very ancient event. But that
does not mean that the composition of Vyas is as old as the event or

contemporaneous with the event. It is difficult to assign specific dates to the

different editions. Taking it as a whole Prof. Hopkins says :
"The time of the whole Mahabharata generally speaking may then be from
200-400 A.D. This, however, takes into account neither subsequent additions,
such as we know to have been made in later times, nor the various recasting
in verbal form, which may safely be assumed to have occurred at the hands
of successive copyists."
But there are other circumstances which definitely point to a later date.
The Mahabharat contains a reference to the Huns. It was Skandagupta who
fought the Huns and defeated them in or about the year 455 A.D..
Notwithstanding this the invasions of the Huns continued till 528 A.D. It is
obvious that the Mahabharat was being written about his time or therefter.
There are other indications which suggest a much later date. The
Mahabharat refers to the Mlenchhas or the Muslims. In the 190th Adhyaya of
the Vana Parva of the Mahabharat there is a verse 29 wherein the author
says that "the whole world will be Islamic. All Yadnas, rites and ceremonies
and religious celebrations will cease". This is a direct reference to the
Muslims and although the verse speaks of what is to happen in the future, the
Mahabharat being a Purana must as in the case of the Purana be taken to
speak of the event that has happened. This verse so interpreted show that
the Mahabharat was being written after the date of the Muslim invasions of
India. There are other references which point to the same conclusion. In the
same Adhyaya verse 59, it is said that "Oppressed by the Vrashalas, the
Brahmins struck with fear and finding no one to protect them, will roam all
over the world groaning and crying in agony".
The Vrashalas referred to in this verse cannot be the Buddhists. There is no
particle of evidence that the Brahmins were ever oppressed. On the contrary
the evidence is that the Brahmins, during the Buddhists regime, were treated
with the same liberality as the Buddhist Bhikshus. The reference to the
Vrashalas means the uncultured must be to the Islamic invaders.
There occur other verses in the same Adhyaya of the Vanaparva. They are
65, 66 and 67. In these verses it is said that, "Society will become
disarranged. People will worship Yedukas. They will boycott Gods. The
Shudras will not serve the twice-born. The whole world will be covered with
Yedukas. The Yug will come to an end."
What is the meaning of the term ' Yedukas '? By some it has been taken to
mean a Buddhist Chaitya. But according to Mr. Kausambi this is wrong.
Nowhere either in the Buddhist literature or in the Vedic literature is the word
Yeduka used in the sense of `Chaitya'. On the contrary according to the
Amarkosh as commented upon by Maheshwar Bhatt the word Yeduka means

a wall which contains a wooden structure to give it strength. So understood

Kausambi contends that the word Yeduka must mean `Idgaha' of the
Musalmans before which they say their prayers. If this is a correct
interpretation then it is obvious that parts of the Mahabharata were written
after the invasion of Mohammad Ghori. The first Muslim invasion took place in
712 A.D. under lbne Kassim. He captured some of the towns in Northern
India but did not cause much destruction. He was followed by Mohammad of
Gazni. He caused great destruction of Temples and Viharas and massacred
priests of both religions. But he did not engage himself in building Mosques or
Idgahas. That was done by Mohammad Ghori. From this it can be said that
the writing of the Mahabharata was not complete till 1200 A.D.
It seems that like the Mahabharata, the Ramayana has also gone through
three editions. There are two sort of references to the Ramayana in the
Mahabharata. In one case the reference is to 'Ramayana' without any
mention of the author. In other the reference is to the Ramayana of Valmilki.
But the present Ramayana is not the Ramayana of Valmiki. In the opinion of
Mr. C. V. Vaidya :
"That the present Ramayana, even as it is approved and adopted by the
searching and all-respected commentator Kataka, is not the Ramayana
originally written by Valmiki, not even the most orthodox thinker will be
disposed to doubt. Whoever even cursorily reads the poem cannot but be
struck with the inconsistencies, the severances of connections, juxta-positions
of new and old ideas which abound so greatly in the present Ramayana,
whether we take the Bengal or the Bombay text of it. And one cannot but
come to the conclusion that the Ramayana of Valmiki was substantially
reconstructed at some subsequent date."
As in the case of the Mahabharata there has been an accretion to the
subject matter of the Ramayana. Originally it was just a story of the war
between Rama and Ravana over the abduction of Rama's wife Sita by
Ravana. In the second edition it became a story with a sermon. From a purely
historical work it also became a didactic work aiming to teach a right code of
Social, Moral and religious duties. When it assumed the form of a third edition
it was, again, like the Mahabharat, made a repository of legends, knowledge,
learning, philosophy and other arts and sciences.
With regard to the date of the composition of the Ramayana one proposition
is well established namely that the episode of Rama is older than the episode
of the Pandus. But that the composition of the Ramayana has gone on
paripassu along with the composition of the Mahabharata. Portions of
Ramayana may be earlier than the Mahabharata. But there can be no doubt

that a great part of the Ramayana was composed after a great part of the
Mahabharata had already been composed.
(INCOMPLETE)
II
The literature from which I propose to draw upon consists of (1) The
Bhagwat Geeta (2) The Vedant Sutras (3) The Mahabharat (4) The
Ramayana and (5) The Puranas. In analysing this literature I propose to bring
out only such facts as are capable of being suggested by inference a reason
or reasons for the decline of Buddhism.
Before proceeding to examine the subject matter of this lirerature I must
deal with the question of the period when this literature came into existence.
Not all will agree that the literature referred to came into being after the
revolution of Pushyamitra. On the contrary most Hindus whether orthodox or
not, learned or not, have an in-eradicable belief that their sacred literature is a
very old one in point of time. Indeed it seems to be an article of faith with
every Hindu which necessitates a belief in a very high antiquity of their sacred
literature.
(1) BHAGWAT GITA
Beginning with the Bhagwat Gita, the date of its composition has been a
matter of controversy. Mr. Telang was of opinion that we should "take the
second century B.C. as a terminous before which the Gita must have been
composed". The late Mr. Tilak was convinced that the date of the present Gita
must be taken as not later than 500 years before the Saka era" which means
that the present Gita was composed somewhere about. . . .. According to
Prof. Garbe the date of the composition of the Bhagwat Gita must be placed
somewhere between 200 and 400 A.D. There is another view propounded by
Mr. Kausambi and is based on quite indisputable data.
Prof. Kausambi insists that the Gita was composed in the reign of Gupta
King Baladitya. Baladitya belonged to the Gupta dynasty which supplanted
the Andhra Dynasty in the year..... Baladitya came to the throne in the year
467 A.D. His reasons for so late a date for the composition of the Gita are
two. Before Sankaracharyawho was
born in 788 A.D. and who died in 820 A.D.wrote his commentary on the
Bhagwat Gita, it was an unknown composition. It was certainly not mentioned
in the Tatvasangraha by Shantarakshit who wrote his treatise only 50 years
before the advent of Sankaracharya. His second reason is this. Vasubandhu
was the originator of a school of thought known as 'Vijnan Vad". The BrahmaSutra-Bhashya contains a criticism of the Vijnan Vad of Vasubandhu. The
Gita contains a reference to the Brahma-Sutra-Bhashya. The Gita must
therefore be after Vasubandhu and after the Brahma-Sutra-Bhashya.

Vasubandhu was the preceptor of the Gupta King Baladitya. That being so
the Bhagwat Gita must have been composed or at any rate portions of Gita
must have been added to the original edition during or after the reign of
Baladitya i.e. about 467 A.D.
While there is a difference of opinion regarding the date of the composition
of the Bhagwat Gita, there is no difference of opinion that the Bhagwat Gita
has gone through many editions. All share the conviction that the Bhagwat
Gita has not reached us in its original form but has undergone essential
transformations at the hands of different editors who have added to it from
time to time. It is equally clear that the editors through whose hands it has
gone were not of equal calibre. As Prof. Garbe points out
"The Gita is certainly `no artistic work which the all comprehending vision of
a genious has created.' The pla.y of inspiration is indeed often times
perceptible; not seldom, however, there are merely high-sounding, empty
words with which an idea that has been already quite often explained, is
repeated: and occasionally the literary expression is exceedingly faulty.
Verses are bodily taken over from the Upanishad literature, and this is
certainly what a poet filled with inspiration would never have done. The
workings of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas are systematized with a truly Indian
pedantry, and much indeed besides this could be brought forward to prove
that the Gita is not the product of a genuinely poetic creative impulse..."
Hopkins speaks of the Bhagwat Gita as characteristic in its sublimity as in
its puerilities, in its logic as in its want of it. . . .Despite its occasional power
and mystic exaltation, the Divine Song in its present state as a poetical
production is unsatisfactory. The same thing is said over and over again, and
the contradictions in phraseology and meaning are as numnerous as the
repetitions, so that one is not surprised to find it described as "the wonderful
song, which causes the hair to stand on end".
This is not to be rejected as the view of foreigners. It is fully supported by
Prof. Rajwade who goes to show that some of those who had a hand in the
composition of the Bhagwat Gita were ignorant of the rules of grammar.
While all are agreed that there have been different editions of the Gita under
different editors, they are not agreed as to what parts of the Gita are original
and what parts of the Gita are additions subsequently made. In the opinion of
the late Rajaram Shastri Bhagwat the original Gita consisted only of 60
Shlokas. Humboldt was inclined to the view that originally the Gita consisted
of only the first eleven Adhyayas (chapters) and that 12 to 18 Adhyayas were
subsequent additions made to the original. Hopkins" view is that the first
fourteen Adhyayas constitute the heart of the poem. Prof. Rajwade thinks that
Adhyayas 10 and II are spurious. Prof. Garbe says that 146 verses in the

Bhagwat Gita are new and do not belong to the original Gita which means
that more than one-fifth of the Gita is new.
Regarding the author of the Gita there is none mentioned. The Gita is a
conversation between Arjuna and Krishna which took place on the battle field,
in which Krishna propounds his philosophy to Arjuna. The conversation is
reported by Sanjaya to Dhritarashtra, the father of the Kauravas. The Gita
should have been a part of the Mahabharata, for, the incident which formed
the occasion for it, is natural to it, but it does not find a place there. It is a
seperate indepenent work. Yet there is no author to whom it is attributed. All
that we know, is that Vyas asks Sanjaya to report to Dhritarashtra the
conversation that took place between Arjuna and Krishna. One may therefore
say that Vyas is the author of the Gita.
(2) VEDANT SUTRAS
As has already been said, the Vedic lirerature consists of the Vedas, the
Brahmanas, the Aranyakas, and the Upanishadas. From the point of their
subject matter, this literature falls into two classes (1) literature which deals
with religious observances and rites and ceremonies technically called Karma
Kanda and (2) literature which deals with the knowledge about God to use the
Vedic equivalent; the Bramhanas, technically called 'Gnanakanda'. The
Vedas and the Bramhanas fall under the first category of literature, while the
Aranyakas and the Upanishadas fall under the second.
This Vedic literature had grown to enormous proportions and what is
important is that, it had grown in a wild manner. Some system, some
coordination was necessary to bring order out of this chaos. As a result of the
necessity for this coordination, there grew up a branch of inquiry called
"Mimansa" i.e. an inquiry into the connected meaning of sacred texts i.e. the
Vedic literature. Those who thought it necessary to undertake such a task of
systematization and coordination divided themselves into two schools, those
who systematized the 'Karmakand" portion and these who systematized the
''Gnanakand' portion of the Vedic literature. The result was that there grew up
two branches of the Mimansa Shastra, one called Purva Mimansa and the
other Ultara Mimansa. As the names suggest, the Purva Mimansa deals with
the early portion of the Vedic literature namely the Vedas and the Bramhanas.
That is why it is called Purva (early) Mimansa. The Uttara Mimansa deals with
the later portions of the Vedic literature namely the Aranyakas and
Upanishads. That is why it is called Uttara (later) Mimansa.
The literature connected with the two branches of the Mimansa Shastra is
immense. Of this, two collections of Sutras stand out as the principal and
leading works in this field of Mimansa. The authorship of one is attributed to
Jaimini and that of the other is ascribed to Badarayana. Jaimini's Sutras deal

with 'Karmakanda" and Badarayan's deal with 'Gnanakand'.There is no doubt

that there were prior to Jaimini and Badarayana, other authors who had
written treatises on these subjects. Nonetheless the sutras of Jaimini and
Badarayana are taken as the standard works on the two Branches of the
Mimansa Shastra.
Although the Sutras of both relate to that branch of inquiry called Mimansa,
Jaimini's sutras are called Mimansa Sutras while those of Badarayana are
called Vedanta Sutras. The term 'Vedanta' is taken to mean "the end of the
Veda", or the doctrines set forth in the closing chapter of the Vedas which
comprise the Upanishads and as the Upanishads constitute "the final aim of
the Vedas." The Sutras of Badarayana which go to systematize and
coordinate them have come to be called Vedanta Sutras, or the doctrines set
forth in the closing chapter of the Vedas which asked Sanjaya to report to.
This is the origin of the Vedanta Sutras.
Who is this Badarayana? Why did he compose these Sutras, and when did
he compose them? Beyond the name nothing is known about Badarayana. It
is not even certain that it is the real name of the author. There is a
considerable uncertainty regarding the authorship of these Sutras even
among his chief commentators.
Some say that the author is Badarayana. Others say that the author of the
Sutra is Vyas. The rest say that Badarayana and Vyas are one and the same
person. Such is the bewildering conflict of opinion regarding the author of the
Sutras.
Why did he compose these Sutras? That the Brahmins should undertake to
systematize the Karmakand portion of the Vedic literature one can quite
understand. The Bramhins were deeply concerned with the Karmakand. Their
very existence, their livelihood depended upon the systematization of the
Karmakand portion of the Vedic literature.
The Brahmins on the other hand had no interest in the 'Gnankand' portion of
the Vedic literature. Why should they have made an attempt to systematize it
? The question has not even been raised. But it is an important question and
the answer to that must also be very important. Why the question is important
and what the answer is I shall discuss later on.
There are two other questions with regard to the Vedanta Sutras. First is
this. Is this work theological in character or is it purely philosophical in its
nature? Or is it an attempt to tie down pure philosophy to the apron strings of
established theology and thereby to make it innocuous and harmless. The
other question relates to the commentaries on the Vedanta Sutras.

There have been altogether five commentaries on the Vedanta Sutras by

five eminent men all of whom are called Acharyas (doctors of learning) by
reason of their intellectual eminence.
They are (1) Shankaracharya (788 A.D. to 820 A.D.), (2) Ramanujacharya
(1017 A.D. to 1137 A.D.), (3) Nimbarkacharya (died about 1162 A.D.), (4)
Madhavacharya (1197-1276 A.D.) and (5) Vallabhacharya (born 1417 A.D.).
The commentaries of these Acharyas on the Vedanta Sutras have become
far more important than the Vedanta Sutras.
The point of some significance is that on the text of one and the same
collection of the Vedanta Sutras, an attempt has been made by those five
Acharyas to found five different systems of thought.
According to Shankara, the Vedanta Sutras teach absolute monism.
According to Ramanuja, qualified monism. According to Nirnbarka,
monodualism. According to Madhava, dualism and according to Vallabha,
pure monism. I will not discuss here what these terms mean. All I want to say
is why should five different schools should have arisen as a result of five
different interpretation of the same collection of Sutras. Is it a mere matter of
grammar ? Or is there any other purpose behind these several
interpretations. There is also another question which arises out of the plurality
of commentaries. While there are five different commentaries each
propounding five different ways of looking at God and the individual soul
really speaking there are only two, the view taken by Shankaracharya and the
view taken by the other four. For though the four differ among themselves,
they are all united in their opposition to Shankaracharya on two points (1) The
complete oneness between God and individual soul and (2) the world is an
illusion. Here comes the third question. Why did Shankaracharya propound
so unique a view of the Vedanta Sutras of Badarayana? Is it the result of a
critical study of the Sutras? Or is it a wishful interpretation designed to
support a preconceived purpose?
I am only raising this question. I don't propose to deal with them here. Here I
am concerned with the age of this literature, is it Pre-Buddhist or PostBuddhist.
As to the date of the composition of the Vedanta Sutras the initial difficulty is
that like the Bhagwat Gita it has also gone through several recensions.
According to some there have been three recensions of the Vedanta Sutras.
That being so nothing definite can be said regarding the date of its
composition. The views expressed are only approximations. There can be no
doubt that the Vedanta Sutras are composed after the rise of Buddhism for
the Sutras do allude to Buddhism. They must not be after Manu for Manu
refers to them in his Smriti. Prof. Keith holds that they must have been written

about 200 A.D. and Prof. Jacobi believes that the Sutras must have been
composed between 200 A.D. and 450 A.D.
(3) MAHABHARATA
The question of determining the date of the composition of the Mahabharata
is next to impossible. Only an attempt to fix the period of its composition can
be made. The Mahabharata has undergone three editions and with each
editor the title and subject matter has changed. In its original form it was
known as 'Jaya' Triumph. This original name occurs even in the third edition,
both in the beginning as well as in the end. The original edition of the book
known as 'Jaya' was composed by one Vyas. In its second edition it was
known as Bharat. The editor of this second edition was one Vaishampayana.
Vaishampayana's Edition was not the only second edition of the Bharata.
Vyas had many pupils besides Vaishampayana; Sumantu, Jaimini, Paila and
Shuka were his other four pupils. They all had learned at the feet of Vyas.
Each one of them produced his own edition. Thus there were four other
editions of Bharata. Vaishampayana recast the whole and brought out his
own version. The third Editor is Sauti. He recast Vaishampayana's version of
Bharata. Sauti's version ultimately came to have the name of Mahabharata.
The book has grown both in size and in the subject matter as well. The
'Jaya' of Vyas was a small work having not more than 8,800 Shlokas. In the
hands of Vaishampayana it grew into 24,000 verses. Sauti expanded it to
contain 96,836 Shlokas. As to subject matter, the original as composed by
Vyas was only a story of the war between the Kauravas and the Pandavas. In
the hands of Vaishampayana the subject became two-fold. To the original
story there was added the sermon. From a purely historical work it became a
diadactic work aiming to teach a right code of social, moral and religious
duties. Sauti the last Editor made it an all embracing repository of legendary
lore. All the smaller floating legends and historical stories which existed
independently of the Bharata were brought together by Sauti so that they
might not be lost or that they may be found together. Sauti had another
ambition, that was to make the Bharata a storehouse of learning and
knowledge. This is the reason why he added sections on all branches of
knowledge, such as politics, geography, archary etc. Taking into account
Sauti's habit of repetition it is no wonder that the Bharata in his hand became
Mahabharata.
Now as to the date of its composition. There is no doubt that the war
between the Kauravas and the Pandavas is a very ancient event. But that
does not mean that the composition of Vyas is as old as the event or

contempraneous with the event. It is difficult to assign specific dates to the

different editions. Taking it as a whole Prof. Hopkins says :
"The time of the whole Mahabharata generally speaking may then be from
200-400 A.D. This, however, takes into account neither subsequent additions,
such as we know, to have been made in later times, nor the various recasting
in verbal form, which may safely be assumed to have occurred at the hands
of successive copyists."
But there are other circumstances which definitely point to a later date.
The Mahabharata contains a reference to the Huns. It was Skandagupta
who fought the Huns and defeated them in or about the year 455.
Notwithstanding this, the invasions of the Huns continued till 528 A.D. It is
obvious that the Mahabharata was being written about this time or thereafter.
There are other indications pointed out by Mr. Kausarnbi which suggest a
much later date. The Mahabharata refers to the Mlenchhas or the Muslims. In
the 190th Adhyaya of the Vana Parva of the Mahabharata, there is a verse 29
wherein the author says that "the whole world will be Islamic. All Aryan rites
and ceremonies and religious celebrations will cease". This is a direct
reference to the Muslims and although the verse speaks of what is to happen
in the future, the Mahabharata being a Purana must as in the case of the
Purana be taken to speak of the event has happened. This verse so
interpreted show that the Mahabharata was being written after the date of the
Muslim invasions of India. There are other references which point to the same
conclusion. In the same Adhyaya verse 59 it is said that "Oppressed by the
Vrashalas, the Brahmins struck with fear, and finding no one to protect them
will roam all over the world groaning and crying in agony ".
The Vrashalas referred to in this verse cannot be the Buddhists. There is no
particle of evidence that the Brahmins were ever oppressed. On the contrary
the evidence is that the Brahmins during the Buddhist regimes were treated
with the same liberality as the Buddhist Bhikshus. The reference to the
Vrashalas which means the uncultured must be to the Islamic invaders. If that
is so, then part of the Mahabharata was certainly composed after the Muslim
invasions of India began.
There occur other verses in the same Adhyaya of the Vanaparva which
points to the same conclusion. They are 65, 66 and 67. In these verses it is
said that "Society will become disarranged. People will worship Yedukas.
They will boycott Gods. The Shudras will not serve the twice born. The whole
world will be covered with Yedukas. The Yug will come to an end".
Great significance attaches to the term 'Yedukas'. By some it has been
taken to mean a Buddhist Chaitya, on the ground that Yeduka means bone
and particularly the bones of Buddha and subsequently Chaitya because a

Chaitya contains the bones of the Buddha. But according to Mr. Kausambi2
this is wrong. Nowhere either in the Buddhist lirerature or in the Vedic
literature is the word Yeduka used in the sense of 'Chaitya'. On the contrary,
according to Amarkosh as commented upon by Maheshwar Bhatt, the word
Yeduka means a wall which contains a wooden structure to give it strength.
So understood Kausambi contends that the word Yeduka must mean 'Idgaha'
of the Musalmans before which they say their prayers. If this is a correct
interpretation then it is obvious that part of the Mahabharata was written after
the Muslim invasions, particularly after those of Mahamad Ghori. The first
Muslim invasion took place in 721 A.D. under Ibne Kassim. He captured
some of the towns in Northern India but did not cause much destruction of
Temples and Viharas and massacred priests of both the religions. But he did
not engage himself in building Mosques or Idgahas. That was done by
Mahamad Ghori. So that, it can well be said, that the writing of the
Mahabharata was going on till 1200 A.D.
RAMAYANA
It is a fact that like Mahabharata, the Ramayana has also gone through
three editions. There are two sorts of references to the Ramayana in the
Mahabharata. In one case the reference is to Ramayana without any mention
of the author. The other reference is to the Ramayana of Valmiki. But the
present Ramayana is not the Ramayana of Valmiki. In the opinion of Mr. C. V.
Vaidya :
" That the present Ramayana, even as it is approved and adopted by the
searching and all-respected commentator Kataka, is not the Ramayana
originally written by Valmiki, not even the most orthodox thinker will be
disposed to doubt. Whoever even cursorily reads the poem, cannot but be
struck with the inconsistencies, the severances of connections, juxtapositions
of new and old ideas which abound so greatly in the present Ramayana,
whether we take the Bengal or the Bombay text of it. And one cannot but
come to the conclusion that the Ramayana of Valmiki was substantially
reconstructed at some subsequent date."
As in the case of the Mahabharata, there has been an accretion to the
subject matter of the Ramayana. Originally it was just a story of the war
between Rama and Ravana over the abduction of Rama's wife Sita by
Ravana. In the second edition it became a story with a sermon. From a purely
historical work, it also became a didactic work aiming to teach a right code of
Social, Moral and religious duties. When it

assumed the form of a third edition, it was again, like the Mahabharata, made
a repository of legends, knowledge, learning, philosophy and other arts and
sciences.
With regard to the date of the composition of the Ramayana, one
proposition is well established namely that the episode of Rama is older than
the episode of the Pandus. But that the composition of the Ramayana has
gone on peripassu along with the composition of the Mahabharata. Portions
of Ramayana may be earlier than the Mahabharata. But there can be no
doubt that a great part of the Ramayana was composed after a great part of
the Mahabharata had already been composed.
PURANAS
The Puranastoday number 18. This is however not the original number.
According to traditions, there is no reason to doubt, there was only one
Purana to start with. Tradition alleges that this Purana was older than the
Vedas. The Atharva Veda refers to this Purana and the Bramhanda Puran
says that it is more ancient than the Vedas. It was a lore which the King was
expected to know for the Satapada. Brarnhana says the Adhvaryu was
required to recite the Purana to the King on the 10th day of the Yajna.
The origin of the 18 Puranas is attributed to Vyas who it is said recast the
original single Purana and by additions and substractions made 18 out of one.
The making of the 18 Puranas is thus the second stage in the evolution of the
Puranas. The edition of each of these 18 Puranas as published or uttered by
Vyas is called the Adi Purana i.e. the original edition as brought out by Vyas.
After Vyas composed these 18 Puranas, he taught them to his disciple
Romaharsana. Romaharsana prepared his own edition of the Puranas and
taught it to his six disciples. Romaharsana's edition of the Puranas thus
became the third edition of the Puranas. Of the six disciples of Romaharsana,
three: Kasyapa, Savarni and Vaisampayana, made three separate editions
which may be called the fourth edition of the Puranas which we call by their
names. According to the Bhavishya Purana, the Puranas came to be revised
sometime during the reign of King Vikramaditya.
As to the subject matter of the Puranas. The Purana from the oldest time is
a recognised department of knowledge. For instance it was distinguished
from Itihas or history. By Itihas what was understood was past occurances
connected with a ruling king. By Akhyana was meant the recital of an event
the occurance of which one had witnessed. By Upakhyana was meant the
recital of something one has heard. Gat has meant songs about dead
ancestors and about nature and universe.

Kalpashudi are ancient ways of acting regarding Shraddha and Kalpa. The
Purana was distinguished from all these branches of knowledge. The Purana
was concerned with five subjects. (1) Sarga (2) Prati Sarga (3) Vamsha (4)
Manvantar and (5) Vamshacharitra. Sarga means creation of the universe,
Pratisarga means the dissolution of the Universe. Vamsha means Geneology,
Manvantar means the Ages of the different Manus, particularly the fourteen
successive Manus who were the progenitors or sovereigns of the Earth.
Vamshacharitra means the account of royal dynasties.
There has been a considerable addition made in the scope and subject
matter of the Puranas. For the Puranas which we have are no longer confined
to these subjects. In addition to these subjects they contain other subjects
which fall entirely outside their prescribed scope. Indeed there has been such
a change in the fundamental notion regarding the scope of the Puranas so
that some of them do not contain any treatment of the regular subjects but
deal wholly with the new or extra subjects. The extra subjects include the
following main topics :
(I) Smriti Dharma which include discussion of:
(1) Varnashrama-dharma, (2) Achara, (3) Ahnika, (4) Bhashyabhasya, (5)
Vivaha, (6) Asaucha, (7) Shradha (8) Dravya-Suddhi (9) Pataka, (10)
Prayaschitta, (II) Naraka, (12) Karma Vipaka and (13) Yuga Dharma.
(II) Vrata DharmaObservance of holy vows and holy days
(III) Kshetra DharmaPilgrimages to holy places and
(IV) Dana DharmaGifts to holy persons. In addition to this, there are two
other topics the new subject matter with which one finds the Puranas to be
deeply concerned.
The first of these two topics relates to sectarian worship. The Puranas are
votaries of a particular deity and advocate the cause of a particular deity and
the sect devoted to his worship. Five Puranas advocate worship of Vishnu,
Eight worship of Shiva, One worship of Brahma, One worship of Surya, Two
worship of Devi and One worship of Genesh.
The second topic which the Puranas have made a part of their subject
matter is the history of the Avatars of the God. The Puranas make a
distinction between identification of two Gods and the incarnation of a God. In
the case of identification, the theory is that the God is one although he has
two names. In the case of an incarnation, God becomes another being of the
man or brute and does something miraculous. In reading this history of
incarnations the fruitful source is Vishnu. For it is only Vishnu who has taken
Avatars from time to time and done miraculous deeds and we find in the
Puranas this new topic discussed in all its elaborate details.

It is no wonder if by the addition of these new subjects, the Puranas have

been transformed out of recognition.
There is one other matter regarding the authorship of the Puranas which is
noteworthy. It relates to the change in the authorship of the Puranas. Among
the ancient Hindus, there were two separate sections among the literary
class. One section consisted of the Brahmins and another section called
Sutas who were non-Bramhins. Each was in charge of a separate department
of literature. The Sutas had the monopoly of the Puranas. The Brahmins had
nothing to do with the composition or the reciting of the Puranas. It was
exclusively reserved for the Sutas and the Brahmins had nothing to do with it.
Though the Sutas had specialized themselves in the making and the reciting
of the Puranas, although they had acquired a hereditary and a prescriptive
right to compose and recite the Puranas, there came a time when the Sutas
were ousted from this profession by Brahmins who took it into their own
hands and made a monopoly of it in their own favour. Thus there was a
change in the authorship of the Puranas. Instead of the Sutas, it is the
Brahmins who became their authors.
It is probably when the Puranas fell into the hands of the Brahmins that the
Puranas have been finally edited and recast to make room for the new
subjects. The editing and recasting has been of a very daring character. For
in doing so they have added fresh chapters, substituted new chapters for old
chapters and written new chapters with old names. So that by this process
some Puranas retained their earlier materials, some lost their early materials,
some gained new materials and some became totally new works.
The determination of the date of the composition of the Puranas is a
problem which has hardly been tackled.All history written by the Brahmins is
history without dates and the Puranas are no exception. The date of the
Puranas has to be determined by circumstantial evidence co-related with
events the dates of which are well settled. The dates of the composition of the
different Puranas have not been examined as closely as those of the other
parts of the Brahminic literature. Indeed scholars have paid no attention to the
Puranas at all certainly nothing like what they have done in the matter of the
Vedic literature. Mr. Hazara's is the only work I know of in which an attempt is
made in the matter of determining the date of the composition of the Puranas.
I give below the dates of the Puranas as found by him.
Puranas
1. Markendeya
2. Vayu
3. Bramhanda

Date of Composition
Between 200 and 600 A. D.
Between 200 and 500 A. D.
Between 200 and 500 A. D.

4. Vishnu
5. Matsya
6. Bhagwat
7. Kurma
8. Vamana
9. Linga
10. Varaha
11. Padma
12. Brahanaradiya
13. Agni
14. Garuda
15. Bramha
16. Skanda
17. Bramha Vaivrata
18. Bhavishya

Between 100 and 350 A. D.

Part about 325 A. D. Part about 1100 A.
D.
Between 500 and 600 A. D
Between 550 and 1000 A. D.
Between 700 and 1000 A. D.
Between 600 and 1000 A. D.
Between 800 and 1500 A. D.
Between 600 and 950 A. D.
Between 875 and 1000 A. D.
Between 800 and 900 A. D.
Between 850 and 1000 A. D.
Between 900 and 1000 A. D.
After 700 A. D.
After 700 A. D.
After 500 A. D.

No more. precise date can be fixed for the Puranas at any rate for the
present. New research in the field may narrow the higher and lower
limits of their composition. The difference will only be a difference of degree. It
will not be one of subversion of Eras.
This short survey is enough to remove any doubt as to the age of this
literature that it is post-Buddhistic. The survey establishes one more point of
great significance. This literature arose during the period subsequent to the
triumph of Brahmins under the leadership of Pushyamitra. The survey brings
out one other point. Vyas writes Mahabharata. Vyas tells Bhagwat Gita, and
Vyas also writes the Puranas. Mahabharata contains 18 Parvas, the Gita has
18 Adhyayas and the Puranas number 18. Is all this an Accident? Or is it the
result of a design planned and worked out in concert ? We must wait and see.
Ill
THE VEDANTA SUTRAS
The vedanta Sutras of Badarayana as has been pointed out already
constitute a department of study on the same line as the Karma Sutras of
Jaimini. It is natural to ask how the founders of these two schools of thought
comfort themselves towards each other. When one begins to inquire into the
matter one comes across facts which are revealing. In the first place as Prof.
Belvalkar points out, 'the Vedanta Sutras are very closely modelled upon the
Karma Sutras' In the matter of methodology and terminology, Badarayana
almost slavishly follows Jaimini. He accepts Jaimini rules of interpreting the

text of the Shruti. He uses Jaimini's technical terms in the sense in which they
have been used by Jaimini. He uses the very illustrations which are employed
by Jaimini.
This is a matter for small wonder. But what is not a matter for small wonder
is the attitude of the two schools towards each other in the matter of doctrine.
Let me give an illustration.
Badarayana gives the following Sutras as illustrative of the position of
Jaimini towards the Vedanta.
2. Because (the Self) is supplementary (to sacrificial acts), (the fruits of the
knowledge of the Self) are mere praise of the agent, even as in other cases;
thus says Jaimini.
"According to Jaimini the Vedas merely prescribe acts to attain certain
purposes including Liberation, and nothing more. He argues that the
knowledge of the Self does not yield any independent results, as Vedanta
holds, but is connected with the acts through the agent. No one undertakes a
sacrificial act unless he is conscious of the fact that he is different from the
body and that after death he will go to heaven, where he will enjoy the results
of his sacrifices. The Text dealing with Self-knowledge serve merely to
enlighten the agent and so are subordinate to sacrificial acts. The fruits,
however, which the Vedanta texts declare with regard to Self-knowledge, are
merely praise, even as texts declare such results by way of praise, with
respect to other matters. In short, Jaimini holds that by the knowledge that his
Self will outlive the body, the agent becomes qualified for sacrificial actions,
even as other things become fit in sacrifices through purificatory ceremonies.
3. Because we find (from the scriptures such) conduct (of men of realization).
"Janaka, emperor of Videha performed a sacrifice in which gifts were freely
distributed" (Brih. 3.1.1.); "I am going to perform a sacrifice, Sirs" (Chh.
5.11.5.). Now both Janaka and Asvapati were knowers of the Self. If by this
knowledge of the Self they had attained Liberation, there was no need for
them to perform sacrifices. But the two texts quoted show that they did
perform sacrifices. This proves that it is through sacrificial acts alone that one
attains Liberation, and not through the knowledge of the Self, as the
Vedantians hold. 4. That (viz, that knowledge of the Self stands in a
subordinate relation to sacrificial acts) the scriptures directly declare, "That
alone which is performed with knowledge, faith and meditation becomes more
powerful" (Chh. 1.1.10); This text clearly shows that knowledge is a part of the
sacrificial act. 5. Because the two (knowledge and work) go together (with the
departing soul to produce the results).
"It is followed by knowledge, work, and past experience "(Brih. 4.4.2.). This
text shows that knowledge and work go together with the soul and produce

the effect which it is destined to enjoy. Knowledge independently is not able

to produce any such effect." 6. Because (the scriptures) enjoin (work) for such
(as know the purport of the Vedas).
"The scriptures enjoin work only for those who have a knowledge of the
Vedas, which includes the knowledge of the Self. Hence knowledge does not
independently produce any result." 7. And on account of prescribed rules.
"Performing works here let a man wish to live a hundred years" (Is. 2.);
"Agnihotra is a sacrifice lasting up to old age and death:, for through old age
one is freed from it or through death" (Sat. Br. 12.4.1.1.). From such
prescribed rules also we find that Knowledge stands in a subordinate relation
ro work.
What is the position of Badarayana towards Jaimini and Karma Kanda
Shastras?
This is best illustrated by the reply which Badarayana gives to the attack by
Jaimini on Vedanta as formulated by Badarayana in the Sutras quoted above.
The reply is contained in the following Sutras :
8. But because (the scriptures) teach (the Supreme Self to be) other (than
the agent), Badarayana's (view is) correct; for that is seen (from the
scriptures).
"Sutras 2-7 give the view of the Mimamsakas, which is refuted by Sutras 817.
The Vedanta texts do not teach the limited self, which is the agent, but the
Supreme Self, which is different from the agent. Thus the knowledge of the
Self which the Vedanta texts declare is different from that knowledge of the
self which an agent possesses. The knowledge of such a Self, which is free
from all limiting adjuncts, not only does not help, but puts an end to all
actions. That the Vedanta texts teach the Supreme Self is clear from such
texts as the following; "He who perceives all and knows all" (Mu. 1.1.9.);
"Under the mighty rule of this immutable, O Gargi" etc. (Brih. 3.8.9.).
9. But the declarations of the Shruti equally support both views.
"This Sutra refutes the view expressed in Sutra 3. There it was shown that
Janaka and others even after attaining Knowledge were engaged in work.
This Sutra says the scriptural authority equally supports the view that for one
who attained Knowledge there is no work. "Knowing this very Self the
Brahmanas renounce the desire for sons, for wealth, and for the worlds, and
lead a mendicant life" (Brih. 3.5.1.). "We also see from the scriptures that
knowers of the Self like Yajnavalkya gave up work." 'This much indeed is (the
means of) immortality, my dear'. Saying this Yajnavlkya left home" (Brih.
4.5.15). The work of Janaka and others was characterized by non-

attachment, and as such it was practically no work; so the Mimarnsa

argument is weak.
10. (The declaration of the scripture referred to in Sutra 4) is not universally
true.
The declaration of the Shruti that knowledge enhances the fruit of the
sacrifice does not refer to all knowledge, as it is connected only with the
Udgitha, which is the topic of the section. (There is) division of knowledge and
work, as in the case of a hundred (divided between two persons).
"This Sutra refutes Sutra 5. "It is followed by knowledge, work, and past
experiences" (Brih. 4.4.2.). Here we have to take knowledge and work in a
distributive sense, meaning that knowledge follows one and work another.
Just as when we say a hundred be given to these two persons, we divide it
into two halves and give each man fifty. There is no combination of the two.
Even without this explanation Sutra 5 can be refuted. For the text quoted
refers only to knowledge and work, which concern the transmigrating soul,
and not an emancipated soul. For the passage, "Thus does the man who
desires (transmigrate)" (Brih. 4.4.6.) shows that the previous text refers to the
transmigrating self. And of the emancipated soul Shruti says, "But the man
who never desires (never transmigrates)" etc. (Brih. 4.4.6.). 12. (The
scriptures enjoin work) only on those who have read the Vedas.
"This Sutra refutes Sutra 6. Those who have read the Vedas and known
about the sacrifices are entitled to perform work. No work is prescribed for
those who have knowledge of the Self from the Upanishads. Such a
knowledge is incompatible with work. 13. Because there is no special mention
(of the Jaimini it does not (apply to him).
"This Sutra refutes Sutra 7. The text quoted there from the Isa Upanishad is
a general statement, and there is no special mention in it that it is applicable
to a Jnani also. In the absence of such a specification it is not binding on him.
14. Or rather the permission (to do work) is for praising (Knowledge).
"The injunction to do work for the knowers of the Self is for the glorification
of this Knowledge. The praise involved in it is this : A knower of the Self may
work all his life, but on account of this Knowledge he will not be bound by its
effects. 15. And some according to their choice (have refrained from all work).
"In Sutra 3 it was said that Janaka and others were engaged in work even
after Knowledge. This Sutra says that some have of their own accord given
up all work. The point is that after Knowledge some may choose to work to
set an example to others, while others may give up all work. There is no
binding on the knowers of the Self as regards work.
16. And (the scriptures say that the) destruction (of all qualifications for work
results from Knowledge).

Knowledge destroys all ignorance and its products like agent, act, and
result. "But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self,
then what should one see and through what" etc., (Brih. 4.5.15). The
knowledge of the Self is antagonistic to all work and so cannot possibly be
subsidiary to work. 17. And (Knowledge belongs) to those who observe
continence (i.e. to Sannyasis); because (this fourth Ashrarna is mentioned) in
the scriptures.
"The scriptures declare that Knowledge is gained in that stage of life in
which continence is prescribed, i.e. the fourth stage or Sannyasa Asrama. To
a Sannayasin there is no work prescribed except discrimination. So how can
Knowledge be subservient to work? That there is a stage of life called
Sannyasa we find from the scriputures themselves in texts like : "There are
three branches of duty; sacrifice, study and charity are the first;. . . . All these
attain to the worlds of the virtuous; but only one who is firmly established in
Brahman attains immortality" (Chh. 2.33.1-2); "Desiring this world (the Self)
alone monks renounce their homes" (Brih. 4..4.22). See also Mu. 1.2.11 and
Chh. 5.10.1. Everyone can take to this life without being a householder etc.
which shows the independence of Knowledge".
Many such Sutras can be found in Badarayana indicating the attitude of the
two schools of thought towards each other. But one is enough as it is so very
typical. If one stops to consider the matter the position becomes absolutely
clear. Jaimini denounces Vedanta as a false Shastra a snare and a delusion,
something superficial, unnecessary and insubstantial. What does Badarayana
do in the face of this attack? He defends his own Vedanta Shastra. What one
would expect from Badrayana is denunciation of the Karmakanda of Jaimini
as a false religion. Badarayana shows no such courage. On the contrary he is
very apologetic. He concedes that Jaimini's Karmakanda is based on the
Scriptures and cannot be repudiated. All that he insists is that his Vedanta
doctrine is also true because it has also the support of the Scriptures. Some
explanation is necessary for this attitude of Badarayana.
BHAGWAT GITA
The Bhagwat Gita forms part of the Bhishmaparvan of the great epic known
as the Mahabharat. The epic is mainly concerned with the struggle for
sovereignty between cousins, the Kauravas the sons of Dhritarashtra and the
Pandavas the sons of Pandu. Pandu was the younger brother of
Dhritarashtra. But as Dhritarashtra was blind the throne went to Pandu. After
Pandu's death there arises a dispute between his sons and the sons of
Dhritarashtra regarding the right of succession. The struggle for sovereignty
culminated in the battle of Kurukshetra (near modern Panipat). In this battle
Krishna sides with the Pandavas and acts as their guide, friend and

philohopher,--nay acts as the charioteer of Arjuna, one of the Pandava

brothers and who plays the part of the chief warrior in the battle on the side of
the Pandavas.
The two armies of the Kauravas and the Pandavas were arrayed for battle
on the field. Arjuna in his chariot with Krishna as a driver comes and takes his
place in front of the Pandava army. Strong and valiant he gazes at the
opposing army of the Kauravas and is struck by the horror of the dreadful
fratricidal war in which he will have to kill his cousins and slay those whom he
himself revers and to whom he is greatly attached and indebted, He becomes
dejected, lays down his weapons and refuses to fight. Krishna begins to
argue with him and provoke him to fight. This argument takes the form of a
question and answer of a conversation between Arjuna and Krishna at the
end of which Arjuna agrees to fight.
At the opening of the Bhagwat Gita we find old Dhritarashtra questioning
Sanjaya about the battle. This is because Dhritarashtra the father of the
Kauravas who though alive at the time when the battle was fought was a blind
man and could not see and know things for himself. For the knowledge of the
happenings he had to depend upon the reports of others. Anticipating the
difficulty of getting someone to tell Dhritarashtra the authentic story, Vyas the
author of the Mahabharata, it is said, bestowed on Sanjaya, the charioteer of
Dhritrashtra, the power of knowing all that takes place on the battlefield
even the thoughts in men's minds- that he may make a faithful report to
Dhritarashtra. That is why we find the episode of Bhagwat Gita related as a
reply by Sanjaya to questions by Dhritarashtra. But the Gita is really a
conversation between Arjuna and Krishna and is rightly called Krishana
Arjuna Samvad.
In this Krishna-Arjuna-Samvadwhich is the real name of the Bhagwat
Gita the main question over which there was disagreement was to fight or
not to fight. There was no other question. This was the one and the only
question which was the subject matter of discussion and argument between
the two. Starting from this point of view it is obvious that the Gita could never
have been intended by Krishna to be the occasion for moral instruction for the
general public or the doctrinal exposition of any religious system or the
catechism attached to any creed. Yet this is just what the Gita has come to
be. Although the occasion was to decide to fight or not to fight, the Gita is said
to contain what his religious doctrine Krishna is said to have preached to
Arjuna.
The first question that crops up is who is this Krishna. To this one gets quite
surprizingly a variety of answers from the Gita itself. At the start Krishna
appears as a mere man with a completely human personality. He is a warrior

by profession. He is a great warrior though he had chosen the humble duty of

driving the chariot of Arjuna. From man he grows into superman directing and
controlling the war and its frotunes. From superman he grows into a demigod
and dictator. When all his arguments fail to move Arjuna to fight, he simply
orders him to fight and the frightened Arjuna gets up and does his biddings.
From demigod he rises to the position of God and is spoken of as Ishwara.
This shows the growth of the personality of Krishna. But what is important is
that in the very same Gita, Krishna stands out a.s a representative of other
forms of God. Four such representative characters in which Krishna appears
are clear to any one who happens to read the Gita even casually.
Krishna is Vasudeo : Bhagwat Gita :
Ch.X.37. Of the Vrishnis I am Vasudeva; of the Pandavas, Dhananjaya; and
also for the Munis, I am Vyasa; of the sages, Ushanas the sage. Krishna as
Bhagwan :
Ch.X.12. The Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Abode, the Supreme
Purifier, art Thou. Krishna is an Avtar of Vishnu :
Ch.X.21. Of the Adityas, I am Vishnu; of luminaries, the radiant Sun; of the
winds, I am Marichi; of the asterisms, the Moon.
Ch.X1.24. On seeing Thee touching the sky, shining in many a colour, with
mouths wide open, with large fiery eyes, I am terrified at heart, and find no
courage nor peace, 0 Vishnu.
XI.30. Swallowing all the worlds on every side with Thy flaming mouths,
Thou art licking Thy lips. Thy fierce rays, filling the whole world with radiance,
are burning, 0 Vishnu. Krishna is also an Avtar of Shankara :
X.23. And of the Rudras I am Shankara; of the Yakshas and Rakshasas the
Lord of wealth (Kuvera); of the Vasus I am Pavaka; and of mountains, Meru
am 1.
Krishna is Bramhan :
XV. 15. I am centered in the hearts of all; memory and perception as well as
their loss come from Me. I am verily that which has to be known by all the
Vedas, I indeed am the Author of the Vedanta, and the Knower of the Veda
am 1.
XV. 16. There are two Purushas in the world,The Perishable and the
Imperishable. All beings are the Perishable, and the Kutastha is called
Imperishable.
XV. 17. But (there is) another, the Supreme Purusha, called the Highest
Self, the immutable Lord, who pervading the three worlds, sustains them.

XV. 18. As I transcend the Perishable and am above even the Imperishable,
therefore am I in the world and in the Veda celebrated as the Purushottama,
(the Highest Purusha).
XV. 19. He who free from delusion thus knows Me, the Highest Spirit, he
knowing all, worships Me with all his heart, 0 descendant of Bharata.
Ask the next question, What is the doctrine that Krishna preaches to
Arjuna? The doctrine preached by Krishna to Arjuna is said to be the doctrine
of salvation for the human soul. While the question dealt with by Krishna is
one relating to Salvation, Krishna teaches three different doctrines of
Salvation.
Salvation is possible by Dnyanmarg as propounded by Samkhya Yog.
11.39. The wisdom of Self-realisation has been declared unto thee. Hearken
thou now to the wisdom of Yoga, endued with which, 0 son of Pritha, thou
shalt break through the bonds of Karma. Thus is the concluding verse of the
discourse on Samkhya Yoga discussed in Chapter II, verses 11-16 and 1830.
(2) Salvation is possible by Karma marg,
V.2. Both renunciation and performance of action lead to freedom : of these
performance of action is superior to the renunciation of action.
(3) Salvation is possible by Bhakti Marg.
IX. 13. But the great souled ones, 0 son of Pritha, possessed of the Divine
Prakriti, knowing Me to be the origin of beings, and immutable, worship Me
with a single mind.
IX. 14. Glorifying Me always and striving with firm resolve, bowing down to
Me in devotion, always steadfast, they worship Me. IX. 15. Others, too,
sacrificing by the Yajna of knowledge (i.e. seeing the Self in all), worship Me
the All Formed, as one, as distnct, as manifold.
IX. 17. I am the Father of this world, the Mother, the Sustainer, the
Grandfather; the Purifier, the (one) thing to be known, (the syllable) 0m, and
also the Rik Saman and Yajus.
IX.22. Persons who, meditating on Me as non-separate, worship Me in all
beings, to them thus ever jealously engaged, I carry what they lack and
preserve what they already have. There are two other features of the
Bhagwat Gita which arrests one's attention.
(i) There is a sentiment of depreciation of the Vedas and Vedic rituals and
sacrifices.
11.42-44. 0 Partha, no set determination is formed in the minds of those that
are deeply attached to pleasure and power, and whose disctimination is
stolen away by the flowery words of the unwise, who are full of desires and
look upon heaven as their highest goal and who, taking pleasure in the

panegyric words of the Vedas, declare that there is nothing else. Their
(flowery) words are exuberant with various specific rites as the means to
pleasure and power and are the causes of (new) births as the result of their
works (performed with desire).
11.45 The Vedas deal with the three Gunas, Be thou free, 0 Arjun, from the
triad of the Gunas, free from the apirs of opposites, ever balanced, free from
(the thought of) getting and keeping, and established in the Self.
11.46. To the Brahmana who has known the Self, all the Vedas are of so
much use, as a reservoir is, when there is a flood everywhere.
IX.21. Having enjoyed the vast Swarga-world, they enter the mortal world,
on the exhaustion of their merit; Thus, abiding by the injunctions of the three
(Vedas), desiring desires, they (constantly) come and go.
INCOMPLETE
CHAPTER 7
The Triumph of Brahmanism : Regicide or the birth of CounterRevolution
We have found only 3 typed pages under this title. Fortunately, a copy of the
essay has been spared by Shri S. S. Rege for being included in this hook.
While examining the pages we have noticed that the copy given by Mr. Rege
also lacks page nos 3 to 7 and 9 to 17. The total typed pages of this essay
have been numbered 92 inclusive of the missing pages. The title on the copy
of Mr. Rege is the 'Triumph of Brahmanism'; whereas the first page of the
script in our papers is also entitled as ' Regicide or the Birth of CounterRevolution '. The classification of the subject into IX Chapters is noted in our
copy whereas it is missing from the copy of Mr. Rege. Both the titles and the
classification are recorded in the handwriting of Dr. Ambedkar. Hence, they
are retained in this print. Incidentaly, the page nos 91017 were found fagged
in other file. All those papers have now been introduced at proper place. Thus
except page Nos. 4 to 7, the script is complete.Editors.
I The Brahmanic Revolt against Buddhism. II Manu the apostle of
Brahmanism. Ill Brahmanism and the Brahmin's Right to rule and regicide. IV
Brahmanism and the privileges of Brahmins. V Brahmanism and the Creation
of Caste. VI Brahmanism and the degradation of the Non-Brahmins. VII
Brahmnism and the Suppression of the Shudra. VIII Brahmanism and the
Subjection of Women. IX Brahmanism and the legalization of the social
system.

Speaking about India, Prof. Bloomfield opens his lectures on the Religion of
the Veda by reminding his audience that "India is the land of religions in more
than one sense. It has produced out of its own resources, a number of
distinctive systems and sects....
In another sense India is a land of religions. Nowhere else is the texture of
life so much impregnated with religious convictions and practices... "
These observations contain profound truth. He would have given utterance
to truth far more profound and arresting if he had said that India is a land of
warring religions. For indeed there is no country in which Religion has played
so great a part in its history as it has in the history of India. The history of
India is nothing but a history of a mortal conflict between Buddhism and
Brahmanism. So neglected is this truth that no one will be found to give it his
ready acceptance. Indeed there may not be wanting persons who would
repudiate any such suggestion.
Let me therefore briefly recount the salient facts of Indian history. For it is
important that everyone who was able to understand the history of India must
know that it is nothing but the history of the struggle for supremacy between
Brahmanism and Buddhism.
The history of India is said to begin with the Aryans who invaded India,
made it their home and established their culture. Whatever may be the virtues
of the Aryans, their culture, their religion and their social system, we know
very little about their political history. Indeed notwithstanding the superiority
that is claimed for the Aryans as against the Non-Aryans, the Aryans have left
very little their political achievements for history to speak of. The political
history of India begins with the rise of a non-Aryan people called Nagas, who
were a powerful people, whom the Aryans were unable to conquer, with
whom the Aryans had to make peace, and whom the Aryans were compelled
to recognize as their equals. Whatever fame and glory India achieved in
ancient times in the political field, the credit for it goes entirely to the NonAryan Nagas. It is they who made India great and glorious in the annals of the
world.
The first land mark in India's political history is the emergence of the
Kingdom of Magadha in Bihar in the year 642 B.C. The founder of this
kingdom of Magadha is known by the name of Sisunag2 and belonged to the
non-Aryan race of Nagas.
From the small beginning made by Sisunag, this Kingdom of Magadha grew
in its extent under the capable rulers of this Sisunag dynasty. Under
Bimbisara the fifth ruler of this dynasty the kingdom grew into an Empire and
came to be known as the Empire of Magadha. The Sisunag dynasty
continued to rule the kingdom till 413 B.C. In that year the reigning Emperor

of the Sisunag Dyansty Mahananda was killed by an adventurer called

Nanda. Nanda usurped the throne of Magadha and founded the Nanda
Dynasty.
This Nanda Dynasty ruled over the Empire of Magadha upto 322 B.C. The
last Nanda king was deposed by Chandragupta who founded the Maurya
Dynasty. Chandragupta was related to the family of the last ruling emperor of
the Sisunag Dynasty so that it may be said that the revolution effected by
Chandragupta was really a restoration of the Naga Empire of Magadha.
The Mauryas by their conquests enormously extended the boundaries of
this Empire of Magadha which they inherited. So vast became the growth of
this Empire under Ashoka, the Empire began to be known by another name. It
was called the Maurya Empire or the Empire of Ashoka. (From here onwards
page Nos. 4 to 7 of the MS are missing.)
It did not remain as one of the many diverse religions then in vogue. Ashoka
made it the religion of the state. This of course was the greatest blow to
Brahmanism. The Brahmins lost all state partonage and were neglected to a
secondary and subsidiary position in the Empire of Ashoka.
Indeed it may be said to have been suppressed for the simple reason that
Ashoka prohibited all animal sacrifices which constituted the very essence of
Brahmanic Religion.
The Brahmins had not only lost state partonage but they lost their
occupation which mainly consisted in performing sacrifices for a fee which
often times was very substantial and which constituted their chief source of
living. The Brahmins therefore lived as the suppressed and Depressed
Classes2 for nearly 140 years during which the Maurya Empire lasted.
A rebellion against the Buddhist state was the only way of escape left to the
suffering Brahmins and there is special reason why Pushyamitra should raise
the banner of revolt against the rule of the Mauryas. Pushyamitra was a Sung
by Gotra.
The Sungas were Samvedi Brahmins,3 who believed in animal sacrifices
and soma sacrifices. The Sungas were therefore quite naturally smarting
under the prohibition on animal sacrifices throughout the Maurya Empire
proclaimed in the very Rock Edict by Ashoka.
No wonder if Pushyamitra who as a Samvedi Brahmin was the first to
conceive the passion to end the degradation of the Brahmin by destroying the
Buddhist state which was the cause of it and to free them to practise their
Brahmanic religion.
That the object of the Regicide by Pushyamitra was to destroy Buddhism as
a state religion and to make the Brahmins the sovereign rulers of India so that

with the political power of the state behind it Brahmanism may triumph over
Buddhism is borne out by two other circumstances.
The first circumstance relates to the conduct of Pushyamitra himself. There
is evidence that Pushyamitra after he ascended the throne performed the
Ashvamedha Yajna or the horse sacrifice, the vedic rite which could only be
performed by a paramount sovereign. As Vincent Smith observes :
"The exaggerated regard for the sanctity of animal life, which was one of the
most cherished features of Buddhism, and the motive of Ashoka's most
characterisitic legislation, had necessarily involved the prohibition of bloody
sacrifices, which are essential to certain forms of Brahmanical worship, and
were believed by the orthodox to possess the highest saving efficacy. The
memorable horse sacrifices of Pushyamitra marked an early stage in the
Brahmanical reaction, which was fully developed five centuries later in the
time of Samudragupta and his successors."
Then there is evidence that Pushyamitra after his accession launched a
violent and virulent campaign of persecution against Buddhists and
Buddhism.
How pitiless was the persecution of Buddhism by Pushyamitra can be
gauged from the Proclamation which he issued against the Buddhist monks.
By this proclamation Pushyamitra set a price of 100 gold pieces on the head
of every Buddhist monk.
Dr. Haraprasad Shastri speaking about the persecution of Buddhists under
Pushyamitra says :
"The condition of the Buddhists under the imperial sway of the Sungas,
orthodox and bigotted, can be more easily imagined than described. From
Chinese authorities it is known that many Buddhists still do not pronounce the
name of Pushyamitra without a curse."
II
If the Revolution of Pushyamitra was a purely political revolution there was
no need for him to have launched a compaign of persecution against
Buddhism which was not very different to the compaign of persecution
launched by the Mahamad of Gazni against Hinduism. This is one piece of
circumatantial evidence which proves that the aim of Pushyamitra was to
overthrow Buddhism and establish Brahmanism in its place.
Another piece of evidence which shows that the origin and purpose of the
revolution by Pushyamitra against the Mauryas was to destroy Buddhism and
establish Brahmanism is evidenced by the promulgation of Manu Smriti as a
code of laws.
The Manu Smriti is said to be divine in its origin. It is said to be revealed to
man by Manu to whom it was revealed by the Swayambhu (i.e. the Creator).

This claim, as will be seen from the reference already made to it, is set out in
the Code itself. It is surprizing that nobody has cared to examine the grounds
of such a claim. The result is that there is a complete failure to realise the
significance, place and position of the Manu Smriti in the history of India. This
is true even of the historians of India although the Manu Smriti is a record of
the greatest social revolution that Hindu society has undergone. There can
however be no doubt that the claim made in the Manu Smriti regarding its
authorship is an utter fraud and the beliefs arising out of this false claim are
quite untenable.
The name Manu had a great prestige in the ancient history of India and it is
with the object to invest the code with this ancient prestige that its authorship
was attributed to Manu. That this was a fraud to deceive people is beyond
question. The code itself is signed in the family name of Bhrigu as was the
ancient custom. "The Text Composed by Bhrigu (entitled) "The Dharma Code
of Manu" is the real title of the work. The name Bhrigu is subscribed to the
end of every chapter of the Code itself. We have therefore the family name of
the author of the Code. His personal name is not disclosed in the Book. All
the same it was known to many. The Author of Narada Smriti writing in about
the 4th Century A.D. knew the name of the author of the Manu Smriti and
gives out the secret. According to Narada it was one Sumati Bhargava who
composed the Code of Manu. Sumati Bhargava is not a legendary name, and
must have been historical person for even Medhatithe the great commentator
on the Code of Manu held the view that this Manu was 'a certain individual'.
Manu therefore is the assumed name of Sumati Bhargava who is the real
author of Manu Smriti.
When did this Sumati Bhargava compose this Code? It is not possible to
give any precise date for its composition. But quite a precise period during
which it was composed can be given. According to scholars whose authority
cannot be questioned Sumati Bhargava must have composed the Code which
he deliberately called Munu Smriti between 170 B.C. and 150 B.C. Now if one
bears in mind the fact that the Brahmanic Revolution by Pushyamitra took
place in 185 B.C. there remains no doubt that the code known as Manu Smriti
was promulgated by Pushyamitra as embodying the principles of Brahmanic
Revolution against the Buddhist state of the Mauryas. That the Manu Smriti
forms the Institutes of Brahmanism and are a proof that Pushyamitra
Revolution was not a purely personal adventure will be clear to any one who
cares to note the following peculiarities relating to the Manu Smriti.
First thing to be noted is that the Manu Smriti is a new Code of law
promulgated for the first time during the reign of Pushyamitra. There was a
view once prevalent that there existed a code known as the Manava-Dharma-

Sutra and that what is known as Manu Smriti is an adaptation of the old
Manava Dharma Sutra. This view has been abandoned as there has been no
trace of any such work. Two other works existed prior to the present Manu
Smriti. One was known as Manava Artha Sastra, or Manava-Raja-Sastra or
Manava-Raja-Dharma-Sastra. The other work was known as Manava-GrihyaSutra. Scholars have compared the Manu Smriti. On important points the
provisions of one are not only dissimilar but are in every way contrary to the
provisions contained in the other. This is enough to show that Manu Smriti
contains the new law of the new regime.
That the new regime of Pushyamitra was anti-Buddhist is betrayed by the
open provisions enacted in the Manu Smriti against the Buddhists and
Buddhism. Note the following provisions in Manu Smriti :
IX. 225. ". . .. Men who abide in heresy . . . the king should banish from his
realm."
IX. 226. "These robbers in disguise, living in the king's realm constantly
injure the worthy subject by the performance of their misdeeds."
V. 89. "Libations of water shall not be offered to (the souls of) those who
(neglect the prescribed rites and may be said to) have been born in vain, to
those born in consequence of an illegal mixture of the castes, to those who
are ascetics (of heretical sects) and to those who have committed suicide."
V.90. (Libations of water shall not be offered to the souls of) women who
have joined a heretical sect.....
IV. 30. Let him (the householder) not honour, even by a greeting heretics....
logicians, (arguing against the Veda).
XII. 95. "All those traditions and all those despicable systems of Philosophy,
which are not based on the Veda produce no reward after death, for they are
declared to be founded on Darkness.
XII. 96. "All those (doctrines), differing from the (Veda), which spring up and
(soon) perish, are worthless and false, because of modern date."
Who are the heretics to whom Manu refers and whom he wants the new
king to banish from his realm and the Householder not to honour in life as well
as after death? What is this worthless philosophy of modern date, differing
from the Vedas, based on darkness and bound to perish? There can be no
doubt that the heretic of Manu is the Buddhist and the worthless philosophy of
modern date differing from the Vedas is Buddhism. Kalluck Bhutt another
commentator on Manu Smriti expressly states that the references to heretics
in these Shlokas in Manu are to the Buddhists and Buddhism.
The third circumstance is the position assigned to the Brahmins in the Manu
Smriti. Note the following provisions in Manu :

I. 93. As the Brahmana sprang from (Bramha's) mouth, as he was the first
born,and as he possesses the Veda, he is by right the lord of this whole
creation.
I. 96. Of created beings the most excellent are said to be those which are
animated; of the animated, those which subsist by intelligence; of the
intelligent, mankind; and of men, the Brahmans.
I. 100. Whatever exists in the world is the property of the Bramhans ; on
account of the excellence of his origin the Brahmana is, indeed, entitled to it
all.
I. 101. The Brahmana eats but his own food, wears but his. own apparel,
bestows but his own in alms; other mortals subsist through the benevolence
of the Brahmana.
X. 3. On account of his pre-eminance, on account of the superiority of his
origin, on account of his observance of (particular) restrictive rules, and on
account of his particular sanctification, the Brahmana is the lord of (all)
castes.
XI. 35. The Bramhana is declared to be the creator of the world, the
punisher, the teacher, and hence a benefactor of all created beings; to him let
no man say anything unpropitious, nor use any harsh words.
Manu warns the King against displeasing the Bramhans in the following
terms:
IX. 313. Let him (the King) not, though fallen unto the deepest distress,
provoke Bramhans to anger; for they, when angered, could instantly destroy
him together with his army and his vehicles. Manu further proclaims,
XI. 31. A Bramhana who knows the law need not bring any (offence) to the
notice of the king; by his own power alone he can punish those men who
injure him.
XI. 32. His own power is greater than the power of the king; The Bramhana,
therefore, may punish his foes by his own power alone.
This deification of the Brahmins, placing them even above the King would
have been impossible unless the King himself was a Brahmin and in
sympathy with the view expressed by Manu. Pushyamitra and his successors
could not have tolerated these exaggerated claims of the Brahmins unless
they themselves were Brahmins interested in the establishment of
Bramhanism. Indeed it is quite possible that the Manu Smriti was composed
at the command of Pushyamitra himself and forms the book of the philosophy
of Bramhanism.
Taking all these facts into considerations there can remain no doubt; the
one and only object of Pushyamitra's revolution was to destroy Buddhism and
re-establish Bramhanism.

The foregoing summary of the political history of India would have been
quite unnecessary for the immediate purpose of this chapter if I was satisfied
with the way in which the history of India is written. But frankly I am not
satisfied. For too much emphasis is laid on the Muslim conquest of India.
Reels and reels have been written to show how wave after wave of Muslim
invasions came down like avalanche and enveloped the people and
overthrew their rulers. The whole history of India is made to appear as though
the only important thing in it is a catalogue of Muslim invasions. But even from
this narrow point of view it is clear that the Muslim invasions are not the only
invasions worth study. There have been other invasions equally if not of
greater importance. If Hindu India was invaded by the Muslim invaders so
was Buddhist India invaded by Bramhanic invaders. The Muslim invasions of
Hindu India and the Bramhanic invasions of Buddhist India have many
similarities. The Musalman invaders of Hindu India fought among themselves
for their dynastic ambitions. The Arabs, Turks, Mongols and Afghans fought
for supremacy among themselves. But they had one thing in common
namely the mission to destroy idolatory. Similarly the Bramhanic invadars of
Buddhist India fought among themselves for their dynastic ambitions. The
Sungas, Kanvas and the Andhras fought for supremacy among themselves.
But they, like the Muslim invaders of Hindu India, had one object in common
that was to destroy Buddhism and the Buddhist Empire of the Mauryas.
Surely if Muslim invasions of Hindu India are worthy of study at the hands of
the historians, the invasions of Buddhist India by Bramhanic invaders are
equally deserving of study. The ways and methods employed by the
Bramhanic invaders of Buddhist India to suppress Buddhism were not less
violent and less virulent than the ways and means adopted by Muslim
invaders to suppress Hinduism. From the point of view of the permanent
effect on the socia.l and spiritual life of the people, the Bramhanic invasions of
Buddhist India have been so profound in their effect that compared to them,
the effect of Muslim invasions on Hindu India have been really superficial and
ephemeral. The Muslim invaders destroyed only the outward symbols of
Hindu religion such as temples and Maths etc. They did not extirpate
Hinduism nor did they cause any subversion of the principles or doctrines
which governed the spiritual life of the people. The effects of the Bramhanic
invasions were a thorough-going change in the principles which Buddhism
had preached for a century as true and eternal principles of spiritual life and
which had been accepted and followed by the masses as the way of life. To
alter the metaphor the Muslim invaders only stirred the waters in the bath and
that too only for a while. Thereafter they got tired of stirring and left the waters
with the sediments to settle. They never threw the babyif one can speak of

the principles of Hinduism as a babyout of the bath. Bramhanism in its

conflict with Buddhism made a clean sweep. It emptied the bath with the
Buddhist Baby in it and filled the bath with its own waters and placed in it its
own baby. Bramhanism did not care to stop how filthy and dirty was its water
as compared with the clean and fragrant water which flowed from the noble
source of Buddhism. Bramhanism did not care to stop how hideous and ugly
was its own baby as compared with the Buddhist baby. Bramhanism acquired
by its invasions political power to annihilate Buddhism and it did annihilate
Buddhism. Islam did not supplant Hinduism. Islam never made a thorough
job of its mission. Bramhanism did. It drove out Buddhism as a religion and
occupied its place.
These facts show that Brahmanic invasions of Buddhist India have a far
greater significance to the Historian of India than the Muslim invasions of
Hindu India can be said to have produced. Yet very little space is devoted by
historians to the vissicitudes which befell Buddhist India built up by the
Mauryas and even where that is done they have not cared to deal in a pointed
manner with questions that quite naturally arise : questions such as, who
were the Sungas, Kanavas and Andhras ; why did they destroy the Buddhist
India which was built up by the Mauryas, nor has any attempt been made to
study the changes that Brahmanism after its triumph over Buddhism brought
about in the political and social structure.
Failure to appreciate this aspect of India's history is due to the prevalence of
some very wrong notions. It has been commonly supposed that the culture of
India has been one and the same all throughout history; that Brahmanism,
Buddhism, Jainism are simply diffeent phases and that there has never been
any fundamental antagonism between them. Secondly it has been assumed
that whatever conflicts have taken place in Indian politics were purely political
and dynastic and that they had no social and spiritual significance. It is
because of these wrong notions that Indian history has become a purely
mechanical thing, a record of one dynasty succeeding another and one ruler
succeeding another ruler. A corrective to such an attitude and to such a
method of writing history lies in recognition of two facts which are
indisputable.
In the first place it must be recognized that there has never been such as a
common Indian culture, that historically there have been three Indias,
Brahmanic India, Buddhist India and Hindu India, each with its own culture.
Secondly it must be recognized that the history of India before the Muslim
invasions is the history of a mortal conflict between Bramhanism and
Buddhism. Any one who does not recognize these two facts will never be able
to write a true history of India, a history which will disclose the meaning and

purpose running through it. It is a corrective to Indian history written as it is

and to disclose the meaning and purposes running through it that I was
obliged to re-cast the history of the Brahmanic invasions of Buddhist India
and the political triumph of Brahmanism over Buddhism.
We must therefore begin with the recognition of the fact : Pushyamitra's
revolution was a political revolution engineered by the Brahmins to overthrow
Buddhism.
The curious will naturally ask what did this triumphant Brahmanism do? It is
to this question that I will now turn. The deeds or misdeeds of this triumphant
Brahmanism may be catalogued under seven heads (1) It established the
right of the Brahmin to rule and commit regicide. (2) It made the Bramhins a
class of privileged persons. (3) It converted the Varna into caste. (4) It
brought about a conflict and anti-social feeling between the different castes.
(5) It degraded the Shudras and the women (6) It forged the system of graded
inequality and (7) It made legal and rigid the social system which was
conventional and flexible.
To begin with the first.
The revolution brought about by Pushyamitra created an initial difficulty in
the way of the Brahmins. People could not be easily reconciled to this
revolution. The resentment of the public was well expressed by the poet
Bana1 when in referring to this revolution reviles Pushyamitra as being base
born and calls his act of regicide as Anarva. The act of Pushyamitra was
properly described by Bana as Anarya i.e. contrary to Aryan law. For on three
points the Aryan law at the date of Pushyamitra's revolution was well settled.
The then Aryan law declared (1) That Kingship is the right of the Kshatriya
only. A Brahmin could never be a king. (2) That no Brahmin shall take to the
profession of Arms 2 and (3) That rebellion against the King's authority was a
sin. Pushyamitra in fostering the rebellion had committed a crime against
each of these three laws. He was Brahmin, and although a Brahmin he
rebelled against the King, took to the profession of Arms and became a King.
People were not reconciled to this usurption which constituted so flagrant a
breach of the law that the Brahmins had to regularize the position created by
Pushyamitra. This the Brahmins did by taking the bold step of changing the
law. This change of law is quite manifest from the Manu Smriti. I will quote the
appropriate shlokas from the Code :
XII. 100. "The post of the Commander-in-Chief of the Kingdom, the very
Headship of Government, the complete empire over every one are deserved
by the Brahmin." Here we have one change in the law. This new law declares
that the Brahmin has a right to become Senapati (Commander of forces), to
conquer a kingdom, and to be the ruler and the Emperor of it.

XI. 31. A Brahmin, who well knows the laws, need not complain to the king
of any grievous injury; since, even by his own power, he may chastise those,
who injure him.
XI. 32. His (Brahmin's) own power, which depends on himself alone is
mightier than the royal power, which depends on other men ; by his own
might, therefore may a Brahmin coerce his foes.
XI. 261-62. A Brahmin who has killed even the peoples of the three worlds,
is completely freed from all sins on reciting three times the Rig, Yajur or
Sama.-Veda with the Upanishadas." Here is the second change in the law. It
authorized the Brahmin to kill not only the king but to engage in a general
massacre of men if they seek to do injury to his power and position.
VIII. 348. "The twice born man may take arms, when the rightful occupation
assigned to each by Dharma is obstructed by force ; and when, in some evil
time, a disaster has befallen the twice-born classes."
IX. 320. Of a Kshatriya (Military man or king), who raise his arm violently on
all occasions against the Brahmins, Brahmin himself shall be the chastiser;
since the soldier originally proceeded from the Brahmin."
This is the third legal change. It recognized the right to rebellion and the
right to regicide. The new law is very delicately framed. It gives the right of
rebellion to three higher classes. But it is also given to the Brahmins singly by
way of providing for a situation when the Kshatriyas and the Vaishyas may
not be prepared to join the Brahmin in bringing about a rebellion. The right of
rebellion is well circumscribed. It can be exercised only when the king is guilty
of upsetting the occupations assigned by Manu to the different Varnas.
These legal changes were as necessary as they were revolutionary. Their
object was to legalize and regularize the position created by Pushyamitra by
killing the last Maurya King. By virtue of these legal changes, a Brahmin could
lawfully become a king, could lawfully take arms, could lawfully depose or
murder a king who was opposed to Chaturvarna and could lawfully kill any
subject that opposed the authority of the Brahmin. Manu gave the Brahmins a
right to commit Barthalomeu if it became necessary to safeguard their
interests.
In this way Brahmanism established the right of Brahmana to rule and set at
rest whatever doubt and dispute there was regarding the same. But that could
hardly be enough for the Brahmins as a whole. It may be a matter of pride but
not of any advantage. There can be no special virtue in Brahmin rule if the
Brahmin was treated as common man along with the Non-Brahmins having
the same rights and same duties. Brahmin rule if it is to justify itself, it must do
so by conferring special privileges and immunities on the Brahmins as a
class. Indeed Pushyamitra's Revolution would have been an ill wind blowing

no good if it had not recognized the superior position of the Brahmins and
conferred upon them special advantages. Manu was alive to this and
accordingly proceeds to create monopolies for Brahmins and grant them
certain immunities and privileges as may be seen from the Code.
First as to monopolies :
1. 88. To Brahmanas he assigned teaching and studying (the Veda)
sacrificing for their own benefit and for others, giving and accepting (of alms).
X. 1. Let the three twice-born castes (Varna), discharging their (prescribed)
duties, study (the Veda) ; but among them the Brahmana (alone) shall teach
it, not the other two; that is an established rule.
X. 2. The Brahmana must know the means of subsistence (prescribed) by
law for all, instruct others, and himself live according to (the law).
X. 3. On account of his pre-eminence, on account of the superiority of his
origin, on account of his observance of (particular) restrictive rules, and on
account of his particular sanctification, the Brahmana is the lord of (all) castes
(varna).
X. 74. Brahmanas who are intent on the means (of gaining union with)
Brahman and firm in (discharging) their duties, shall live by duly performing
the following six acts, (which are enumerated) in their (proper) order.
X. 75. Teaching, studying, sacrificing for himself, sacrificing for others,
making gifts and receiving them are the six acts (prescribed) for a
Brahamana.
X. 76. But among the six acts (ordained) for him three are his means of
subsistence, (viz.) sacrificing for others, teaching, and accepting gifts from
pure men.
X. 77. (Passing) from the Brahmana to the Kshatriya, three acts (incumbent)
(on the former) are forbidden, (viz.) teaching, sacrificing for others, and,
thirdly, the acceptance of gifts.
X. 78. The same are likewise forbidden to a Vaisya, that is a settled rule; for
Manu, the lord of creatures (Prajapati), has not prescribed them for (men of)
those two (castes).
X. 79. To carry arms for striking and for throwing (is prescribed) for
Kshatriyas as a means of subsistence ; to trade, (to rear) cattle, and
agriculture for Vaisyas; but their duties are liberality, the study of the Veda,
and the performance of sacrifices. Here are three things which Manu made
the monopoly of the Brahmin : teaching Vedas, performing Sacrifices and
receiving gifts.
The following are the immunities that were granted to the Brahmins. They
fall into two classes ; freedom from taxation and exemption from certain forms
of punishment for crimes.

VII. 133. Though dying (with want), a king must not levy a tax on Srotriyas,
and no Srotriya residing in his kingdom, must perish from hunger.
VIII. 122. They declare that the wise have prescribed these fines for perjury,
in order to prevent a failure of justice, and in order to restrain injustice.
VIII. 123. But a just king shall fine and banish (men of) the three (lower)
castes (varna) who have given false evidence, but a Brahmana he shall (only)
banish.
VIII. 124. Manu, the son of the Self-existent (Svayambhu), has named ten
places on which punishment may be (made to fall) in the cases of the three
(lower) castes (varna); but a Brahmana shall depart unhurt (from the country).
VIII. 379. Tonsure (of the head) is ordained for a Brahmana (instead of)
capital punishment; but (men of) other castes shall suffer capital punishment.
VIII. 380. Let him never slay a Brahmana, though he have committed all
(possible) crimes; let him banish such an (offender), leaving all his property
(to him) and (his body) unhurt. Thus Manu places the Brahmin above the
ordinary penal law for felony. He is to be allowed to leave the country
withdraw a wound on him and with all property in proved offences of capital
punishment. He is not to suffer forfeiture of fine nor capital punishment. He
suffered only banishment which in the words of Hobbes was only a "Change
of air" after having committed the most heinous crimes. Manu gave him also
certain privileges. A Judge must be a Brahmin.
VIII. 9. But if the king does not personally investigate the suits, then let him
appoint a learned Brahmana to try them.
VIII. 10. That (man) shall enter that most excellent court, accompanied by
three assessors, and fully consider (all) causes (brought) before the (king),
either sitting down or standing. The other privileges were financial
VIII. 37. When a learned Brahmana has found treasure, deposited in former
(times), he may take even the whole (of it) ; for he is master of everything.
VIII. 38. When the king finds treasure of old concealed in the ground, let him
give one half to Brahmanas and place the (other) half in his treasury.
IX. 323. But (a king who feels his end drawing nigh) shall bestow all his
wealth, accumulated from fines, on Brahmanas, make over his kingdom to his
son, and then seek death in battle.
IX. 187. Always to that (relative within three degrees) who is nearest to the
(deceased) Sapinda the estate shall belong ; afterwards a Sakulya shall be
(the heir, then) the spiritual teacher or the pupil.
IX. 188. But on failure of all (heirs) Brahmanas (shall) share the estate, (who
are) versed in the three Vedas, pure and self-controlled ; thus the law is not
violated.

IX. 189. The property of a Brahmana must never be taken by the King, that
is a settled rule ; but (the property of men) of other castes the king may take
on failure of all (heirs).
These are some of the advantages, immunities and privileges which Manu
conferred upon the Brahmins. This was a token of a Brahmin having become
a king.
Supporters of Brahmanismso strong is the belief in the excellence of
Brahmanism that there are no appologists for it as yetnever fail to point to
the disabilities which Manu has imposed upon the Brahmins. Their object in
doing so is to show that the ideal placed by Manu before the Brahmin is
poverty and service. That Manu has placed certain disabilities upon the
Brahmins is a fact. But to conclude from it that Manu's ideal for a Brahmin is
poverty and service is a gross and deliberate concoction for which there is no
foundation in Manu.
To understand the real purpose which Manu had in imposing these
disabilities, two things must be borne in mind. Firstly the place Manu has
assigned to the Brahmins in the general scheme of society and secondly the
nature of the disabilities. The place assigned by Manu to the Brahmins is
enunciated by him in unequivocal terms. The matter being important I must
quote again the Verses already quoted.
1. 93. As the Brahmana sprang from (Brahman's) mouth, as he was the first
born, and as he possesses the Veda, he is by right the lord of this whole
creation. Consider the nature of the disabilities.
IV. 2. A Brahamana must seek a means of subsistence which either causes
no, or at least little pain (to others), and live (by that) except in times of
distress.
IV. 3. For the purpose of gaining bare subsistence, let him accumulate
property by (following those) irreproachable occupations (which are
prescribed for) his (caste), without (unduly) fatiguing his body.
VIII. 337. In (a case of) theft the guilt of a Sudra sha.ll be eightfold, that of a
Vaishya sixteenfold, that of a Kshatriya two-and-thirty fold.
VIII. 338. That of a Brahamana sixty-four-fold, or quite a hundred-fold or
(even) twice four-and-sixty-fold; (each of them) knowing the nature of the
offence.
VIII. 383. A Brahamana shall be compelled to pay a fine of one thousand
(panas) if he has intercourse with guarded (females of) those two (castes) ;
for (offending with) a (guarded) Sudra female a fine of one thousand (panas)
(shall be inflicted) on a Kshatriya or a Vaishya.

VIII. 384. For (intercourse with) an unguarded Kshatriya a fine of five

hundred (panas shall fall) on a Vaisya ; but (for the same offence) a Kshatriya
shall be shaved with the urine (of a donkey) or (pay) the same fine.
VIII. 385. A Brahamana who approaches unguarded females (of the)
Kshatriya or Vaisya (castes), or a Sudra female, shall be fined five hundred
(panas); but (for intercourse with) a female (of the) lowest (castes), one
thousand.
Examining these disabilities against the background furnished by the place
assigned to him by Manu, it is obvious that the object of these disabilities was
not to make the Brahmin suffer. On the other hand it becomes clear that the
object of Manu was to save the Brahmin from falling from the high pennacle
on which he had placed him and incurring the disgrace of the non-Brahmins.
That the object of Manu was not to subject the Brahmins to poverty and
destitute is clear from other provisions from Manu-Smriti. In this connection
reference should be made to the rule contained in the Manu Smriti regarding
the course of conduct a Brahmin should pursue when he is in distres.
X. 80. Among the several occupations the most commendable are, teaching
the Veda for a Brahmana, protecting (the people) for a Kshatriya, and trade
for a Vaisya.
X. 81. But a Brahmana, unable to subsist by his peculiar occupations just
mentioned, may live according to the law applicable to Kshatriyas ; for the
latter is next to him in rank.
X. 82. If it be asked, 'How shall it be, if he cannot maintain himself by either
(of these occupations?' the answer is), he may adopt a Vaisya's mode of life,
employing himself in agriculture and rearing cattle.
X. 83. But a Brahamana, or a Kshatriya, living by a Vaisya's mode of
subsistence, shall carefully avoid (the pursuit of) agriculture, (which causes)
injury to many beings and depends on others.
X. 84. (Some) declare that agriculture is something excellent, (but) that
means of subsistence is blamed by the virtuous ; (for) the wooden
(implement) with iron point injures the earth and (the beings) living in the
earth.
X. 85. But he who, through a want of means of subsistence, gives up the
strictness with respect to his duties, may sell, in order to increase his wealth,
the commodities sold by Vaisyas, making (however) the (following)
exceptions.
It will be seen that the disabilities imposed upon a Brahmin last as long as
he is prospering by the occupations which belong to him as of right. As soon
as he is in distress and his disabilities vanish and he is free to do anything
that he likes to do in addition to the occupations reserved to him and without

ceasing to be a Brahmin. Further whether he is in distress or not is a matter

which is left to the Brahmin to be decided in his own discretion. There is
therefore no bar to prevent even a prosperous Brahmin to supplement his
earnings by following any of the professions open to him in distress by
satisfying his conscience.
There are other provisions in Manu Smriti intended to materially benefit the
Brahmanas. They are Dakshina and Dana. Dakshina is the fee which the
Brahmin is entitled to charge when he is called to perform a religious
ceremony. Brahmanism is full of rites and ceremonies. It is not very difficult to
imagine how great must this source of income be to every Brahmin: There
was no chance of a priest being cheated of his fees. The religious sense
attached to Dakshina was a sufficient sanction for regular payment. But Manu
wanted to give the Brahmins the right to recover his fees.
XI. 38. A Brahamana who, though wealthy, does not give, as fee for the
performance of an Agnyadheya, a horse sacred to Prajapati, becomes (equal
to one) who has not kindled the sacred fires.
XI. 39. Let him who has faith and controls his senses, perform other
meritorious acts, but let him on no acount offer sacrifices at which he gives
smaller fees (than those prescribed).
XI. 40. The organs (of sense and action), honour, (bliss in) heaven,
longevity, fame, offspring, and cattle are destroyed by a sacrifice at which
(too) small sacrificial fees are given ; hence a man of small means should not
offer a (Srauta) sacrifice. He even goes to the length of excusing a Brahmin
by declaring that anything done by him to recover his fees shall not be an
offence under the law.
VIII. 349. In their own defence, in a strife for the fees of officiating priests
and in order to protect women and Brahmanas ; he who (under such
circumstances kills in the cause of right, commits no sin.
But it is the provision of Dana which makes a fruitful source of income to the
Brahmins. Manu exhorts the King to make Dana to Brahmins.
VII. 79. A King shall offer various (Srauta) sacrifices at which liberal fees
(are distributed), and in order to acquire merit, he shall give to Brahmanas
enjoyments and wealth.
VII. 82. Let him honour those Brahmanas who have returned from their
teacher's house (after studying the Veda) ; for that (money which is given) to
Brahmanas is declared to be an imperishable treasure for kings.
VII. 83. Neither thieves nor foes can take it, nor can it be lost; hence an
imperishable store must be deposited by kings with Brahmanas.
XI. 4. But a king shall bestow, as is proper, jewels of all sorts, and presents
for the sake of sacrifices on Brahmanas learned in the Vedas.

This admonition by Manu to the King did not remain a mere hope for the
Brahmin. For as history shows that this exhortation was fully exploited by the
Brahmins as the number of dana patras discovered by Archialogists indicate.
It is astounding how the kings were befooled by the Brahmins to transfer
village after village to crafty, lazy and indolent Brahmins. Indeed a large part
of the wealth of the present day Brahmins lies in this swindle practised by wily
Brahmins upon pious but foolish kings. Manu was not content to let the
Brahmin prey upon the King for dana. He also allowed the Brahmin to prey
upon the public in the mattter of dana. This Manu does in three different
ways. In the first place he exhorts people to make gifts as a part of the duty
owed by the pious to himself at the same time pointing out that the highest
dana to a Brahmin.:
VII. 85. A gift to one who is not a Brahmana (yields) the ordinary (reward); a
gift to one who calls himself a Brahmana, a double (reward); a gift to a wellread Brahmana, a hundred thousandfold (reward); (a gift) to one who knows
the Veda and the Angas (Vedaparanga), (a reward) without end.
VII. 86. For according to the particular qualities of the recipient and
according to the faith (of the giver) a small or a great reward will be obtained
for a gift in the next world. In the next place Manu declares that in certain
circumstances dana to a Brahmin is compulsory.
XI. 1. Him who wishes (to marry for the sake of having) offspring, him who
wishes to perform a sacrifice, a traveller, him who has given away all his
property, him who begs for the sake of his teacher, his father, or his mother, a
student of the Veda, and a sick man.
XI. 2 These nine Brahmanas one should consider as Snatakas, begging in
order to fulfill the sacred law; to such poor men gifts must be given in
proportion to their learning.
XI. 3. To these most excellent among the twice-born, food and presents (of
money) must be given ; it is declared that food must be given to others
outside the sacrificial enclosure.
XI. 6. One should give, according to one's ability, wealth to Brahmanas
learned in the Veda and living alone ; (thus) one obtains after death heavenly
bliss.
The third method adopted by Manu to make the rule of Dana become a
source of secure and steady income is beyond question the most ingenuous
one. Manu linked up dana with penance. In the Scheme of Manu, an improper
act may be a sin although not an offence or it may be both a sin as well as an
offence. As a sin its punishment is a matter for canonical law. As an offence
its punishment is a matter of secular law. As sin, the improper act is called

Pataka and the punishment for it is called Penance. In the Scheme of Manu
every Pataka must be expunged by the performance of a penance.
XI. 44. A man who omits a prescribed act, or performs a blameable act, or
cleaves to sensual enjoyments, must perform a penance.
XI. 45. (All) sages prescribe a penance for a sin unintentionally committed ;
some declare, on the evidence of the revealed texts, (that it may be
performed) even for an intentional (offences).
XI. 46. A sin unintentionally committed is expiated by the recitation of Vedic
texts, but that which (men) in their folly commit intentionally, by various
(special) penances.
XI. 53. Thus in consequence of a remnant of (the guilt of former) crimes, are
born idiots, dumb, blind, deaf and deformed men, who are (all) despised by
the virtuous.
XI. 54. Penances, therefore, must always be performed for the sake of
purification, because those whose sins have not been expiated, are born
(again) with disgraceful marks.
The penances prescribed by Manu are many and the curious may refer to
the Manu Smriti itself for a knowledge of what they are. What is worthy of
note is these penances are calculated to materially benefit the Brahmin.
Some penances take the form of a simple dana to the Brahmin. Others
prescribe the performance of some religious rites. But as religious rites
cannot be performed by anybody except by a Brahmin and that the
performance of religious rite requires the payment of fees the Brahmin alone
can be the beneficiary of the dana system.
It is therefore absurd to suggest that Manu wanted to place before the
Brahmins the ideal of humility, poverty and service. The Brahmins certainly
did not understand Manu that way. Indeed they believed that they were made
a privileged class. Not only they believed in it but they sought to extend their
privileges in other directions a matter which will be discussed later on. They
were perfectly justified, in their view. Manu called the Brahmins the 'lords of
the earth' and he framed (the law) with such care that they shall remain so.
Having made full provision for Brahmin Rule and Brahmin dominance Manu
next launches out to transform society to suit his purposes.
The transformation of Varna into Caste is the most stupendous and selfish
task in which Brahmanism after its triumph became primarily engaged. We
have no explicit record of the steps that Brahmanism took to bring about this
change. On the contrary we have a lot of confused thinking on the relation
between Varna and Caste. Some think that Varna and Caste are the same.
Those who think that they are different seem to believe that Varna became
caste when prohibition on intermarriage became part of the social order. All

this, of course, is erroneous and the error is due to the fact that Manu in
transforming the Varna into Caste has nowhere explained his ends and how
his means are related to those ends. Oscar Wilde has said that to be
intelligible is to be found out. Manu did not wish to be found out. He is
therefore silent about his ends and means, leaving people to imagine them.
For Hindus the subject is important beyond measure. An attempt at
clarification is absolutely essential so that the confusion due to different
people imagining differently the design of Manu may be removed and light
thrown on the way how Brahmanism proceeded to give a wrong and
pernicious turn to the original idea of Varna as the basis of society.
As I said Manu's ways are silent and subterranean and we cannot give the
detailed and chronological history of this conversion of Varna into Caste. But
fortunately there are landmarks which are clear enough to indicate how the
change was brought about.
Before proceeding to describe how this change was brought about let me
clear the confusion between Varna and Caste. This can best be done by
noting the similarities and differences between the two. Varna and Caste are
identical in their de jure connotation. Both connote status and occupation.
Status and occupation are the two concepts which are implied both in the
notion Varna as well as in the notion of Caste. Varna and Caste however
differ in one important particular. Varna is not hereditary either in status or
occupation. On the other hand Caste implies a system in which status and
occupation are hereditary and descend from father to son.
When I say that Brahmanism converted Varna into Caste what I mean is
that it made status and occupation hereditary.
How was this transformation effected? As I said there are no foot prints left
of the steps taken by Brahmanism to accomplish this change but there are
landmarks which serve to give us a clear view of how the deed came to be
done.
The change was accomplished by stages. In the transformation of Varna
into Caste three stages are quite well marked. The first stage was the stage in
which the duration of Varna i.e. of status and occupation of a person was for
a prescrbied period of time only. The second stage was a stage in which the
status and occupation involved the Varna of a person ensured during lifetime
only. The third stage was a stage in which the status and occupation of the
Varna became hereditary. To use legal language the Estate conferred by
Varna was at the beginning an Estate for a term only. Thereafter it became a
life Estate and finally it became an Estate of inheritance which is tantamount
to saying that Varna became Caste. That these are the stages by which
Varna was converted into Caste seems to have ample support from tradition

as recorded in the religious literature. There is no reason why this tradition

should not be accepted as embodying some thing that is quite genuine.
According to this tradition, the task of determining Varna of a person was
effected by a body of officers called Manu and Sapta Rishis. From the mass
of people Manu selected those who were fit to be Kshatriyas and Vaishas and
the Sapta Rishis selected those who were fit to be Brahmanas. After this
selection was made by Manu and Sapta Rishis for being Brahmins,
Kshatriyas, Vaishas, the rest that were not selected were called Shudras. The
Varna arrangement so determined lasts for one Yug i.e. a period of four
years. Every fourth year a new body of officers known by the same
designation Manu and Sapta Rishi were appointed for making a new
selection. It happened that last time some of those who were left to be fit only
for being Shudras were selected for being Brahmins, Kshatriyas and
Vaishyas while some of those who were, elected last time for being Brahmins,
Kshatriyas and Vaishyas were left as being fit only of being Shudras. Thus
the personnel of the Varna changed. It was a sort of a periodical shuffling and
selection of men to take up according to their mental and physical aptitudes
and occupations which were essential to the life of the community. The time
when the reshuffling of the Varnas took place was called Manwantar which
etymologically means change of Varna made by Manu. The word Manwantar
also means the period for which the Varna of an individual was fixed. The
word Manwantar is very rich in its contents and expresses the essential
elements of the Varna system which were two. First it shows that Varna was
determined by an independent body of people called Manu and Saptarshi.
Secondly it shows that the Varna was for a period after which a change was
made by Manu. According to ancient tradition as embodied in the Puranas the
period for which the Varna of a person was fixed by Manu and Saptarshi was
a period of four years and was called Yug. At the end of the period of four
years there occured the Manwantar whereby every fourth year the list was
revised. Under the revision some changed their old Varna, some retained it,
some lost it and some gained it.
The original system seems to have in contemplation the determination of
the Varna of adults. It was not based on prior training or close scrutiny of bias
and aptitude. Manu and Saptarshi was a sort of a Board of Interview which
determined the Varna of a person from how he struck them at the interview.
The determination of the Varna was done in a rough and tumble manner. This
system seems to have gone into abeyance. A new system grew up in its
place. It was known as the Gurukul system. The Gurukul was a school
maintained by a Guru (teacher) also called Acharya (learned man). All
children went to this Gurukul for their education. The period of education

extended for twelve years. The child while at Gurukul was known as
Bramhachari. After the period of education was over there was the Upanayan
ceremony performed at the Gurukul by the Acharya. The Upanayan
ceremony was the most important ceremony. It was a ceremony at which the
Acharya determined the Varna of the student and sent him out in the world to
perform the duties of that Varna. Upanayan by the Acharyas was the new
method of determining Varna which came into vogue in place of method of
determination by Manu and Saptarshi. The new method was undoubtedly
superior to the old method. It retained the true feature of the old method
namely that the Varna should be determined by a disinterested and
independent body. But it added a new feature namely training as a prerequisite for assignment of Varna. On the ground that training alone
developes individual in the make up of a person and the only safe way to
determine the Varna of a person is to know his individuality, the addition of
this new feature was undoubtedly a great improvement.
With the introduction of the Acharya Gurukul system, the duration of the
Varna came to be altered. Varna instead of being Varna for a period became
Varna for life. But it was not hereditary.
Evidently Brahmanism was dissatisfied with this system. The reason for
dissatisfaction was quite obvious. Under the system as prevalent there was
every chance of the Acharya declaring the child of a Brahmin as fit only to be
a Shudra. Brahmanism was naturally most anxious to avoid this result. It
wanted the Varna to be hereditary. Only by making the Varna hereditary
could it save the children of the Brahmins from being declared Shudra. To
achieve this Brahmanism proceeded in the most audacious manner one can
think of.
Ill
Brahmanism made three most radical changes in the system of determing
the Varna of the child. In the first place the system of Gurukul as the place
where training to the child was given and its Varna was determined by the
Guru at the end of the period of training was abolished. Manu is quite aware
of the Gurukul and refers to Guruvas i.e. training and residence in the Gurukul
under the Guru. But does not refer to it at all in connection with the
Upanayan. He abolishes the Guru as an authority competent to perform
Upanayan by omitting to make even the remotest reference to him in
connection with Upanayan. In place of the Guru Manu allows the Upanayan
of the child to be performed by its father at home. Secondly Upanayan was
made into a Sanskara i.e. a sacrament. In olden times Upanayan was like a
convocation ceremony held by the Guru to confer degrees obtained by
students in his Gurukul in which certificates of proficiency in the duties of a

particular Varna were granted. In Manu's law that Upanayan was a complete
change in the meaning and purpose of this most important institution. Thirdly
the relation of training to Upanayan was totally reversed. In the olden system
training came before Upanayan.
Under the Brahmanism Upanayan came before training. Manu directs that a
child be sent to the Guru for training but that is after Upanayan i.e. after his
Varna is determined by his father.
The principal change made by Brahmanism wa.s the transfer of authority
from the Guru to the father in the matter of performing Upanayan. The result
was that the father having the right to perform the Upanayan of his child gave
his own Varna to the child and thus made it hereditory. It is by divesting the
Guru of his authority to determine the Varna and vesting it in the father that
Brahmanism ultimately converted Varna into Caste.
Such is the story of the transformation of Varna into Caste. The story of the
transition from one to the other is of course reconstructed. For the reasons
already given it may not be quite as accurate as one would wish it to be in all
its details. But I have no doubt that the stages and the ways by which Varna
ceased to exist and caste came into being must be some such as have been
suggested in the foregoing discussion of the subject.
What object Brahmanism could have had in converting Varna into caste it is
not difficult to imagine. The object was to make the high status enjoyed by the
Brahmins from ancient times the privilege of every Brahmin and his progeny
without reference to merits or to qualifications. To put it differently the object
was to elevate and ennoble every Brahmin, however mean and worthless he
may be, to the high status occupied by some of them on account of the virtue.
It was an attempt to ennoble the whole of the Brahmin Community without
exception.
That this was the object of Brahmanism is clear from Manu's ordinances.
Manu knew that making Varna hereditary, the most ignorant Brahmin will be
elevated to the status occupied by the most learned Brahmin. He feared that
the former may not be respected as much as the most learned, which was the
object of this attempt at the ennoblement of the whole class of Brahmins.
Manu is very much concerned about the ignorant Brahmina new thing and
warns people against being disrespectful to an ignorant and mean Brahmin.
IX. 317. A Brahmin, whether learned or ignornt, is a powerful divinity ; even
as fire is powerful divinity, whether consecrated or popular.
IX. 319. Thus although Brahmins employ themselves in all sorts of mean
ocupations, they must invariably be honoured ; for they are something
transcendently divine.

Such a warning was unnecessary if the object was to ennoble the whole
Brahmin class. Here is a case where vice refuses to pay to virtue even the
homage of hypocracy. Can there be greater moral degeneracy than what is
shown by Manu in insisting upon the worship of the Brahmin even if he is
mean and ignorant?
So much for the object of change from Varna to caste. What have been the
consequences of this change?
From the spiritual point of view the consequences have been too harmful to
be contemplated with equanimity. The harm done may perhaps be better
realized by comparing the position of the Brahmin as a priest resulting from
the law of Manu with that of the law of the clergy under the Church of
England. There the clergy is subject to the criminal law as every citizen is. But
in addition to that he is always subject to Church Descipline Act. Under the
Criminal Law he would be punished if he officiated as a clergy without being
qualified for it. Under the Church Discipline Act he would be lia.ble to be
disqualified as a clergy for conduct which would be deemed to be morally
wrong although it did not amount to a crime. This double check on the clergy
is held justifiable because learning and morality are deemed to be quite
essential for the profession of the clergy who are supposed to administer to
the spiritual needs of the people. Under Brahmanism the Brahmin who alone
can be the clergy need not possess learning or morality. Yet he is in sole
charge of the spiritual affairs of the people!! On the value of a creed which
permits this, comment is unnecessary.
From the secular point of view, the consequences of this transformation of
Varna into Caste has to introduce a most pernicious mentality among the
Hindus. It is to disregard merit and have regard only to birth. If one is
descended from the high he has respect although he may be utterly devoid of
merit or worth. One who is of high birth will be superior to the one who is of
low birth although the latter may be superior to the former in point of worth.
Under Brahmanism it is birth that always wins, whether it is against birth or
against worth. Merit by itself can win no meads. This is entirely due to the
dissociation of merits from status which is the work of Brahmanism. Nothing
could be better calculated to produce an unprogressive society which
sacrifices the rights of intelligence on the altar of aristocratic privilege.
Now the third deed in the catalogue of deeds done by Brahmanism after its
triumph over Buddhism. It was to separate the Brahmins from the result of the
Non-Brahmin population and to sever the different social strata of the NonBrahmin population.
Pushyamitra's Brahmanic Revolution was undertaken for the purposes of
restoring the ancient social system of Chaturvarna which under the Buddhist

regime was put into the melting pot. But when Brahmanism triumphed over
Buddhism it did not content itself with merely restoring Charutvarna as it was
in its original form. The system of Chaturvarna of the Pre-Buddhist days was
a flexible system and was an open to system. This was because the Varna
system had no connection with the marriage system. While Chaturvarna
recognized the existence of four different classes, it did not prohibit intermarriage between them. A male of one Varna could lawfully marry a female of
another Varna. There are numerous illustrations in support of this view. I give
below some instances which refer to well known and respectable individuals
which have acquired a name and fame in the sacred lore of the Hindus.
1. Shantanu
Kshatriya
Ganga
Shudra Anamik
2. Shantanu
Kshatriya
Matsyagandha
Shudra Fisher
woman
3. Parashara
Brahmin
Matsyagandha
Shudra Fisher
woman
4. Vishwamitra
Kshatriya
Menaka
Apsara
5. Yayati
Kshatriya
Devayani
Brahmin
6. Yayati
Kshatriya
Sharmishta
Asuri- Non-Aryan
7. Jaratkaru
Brahmin
Jaratkari
Nag Non-Aryan
Husband
His Varna
Wife
Her Varna
Should anybody retain doubt on the question that the division of the society
into classes did not prohibit intermarriages between the four Varnas let him
consider the geneology of the family of the great Brahmin sage Vyas.
GENEOLOGY OF VYAS
Varuna Mitra = Urvashi
Vashishtha = Akshamala
Shakti =
Parashara = Matsyagandha
= Vyas
Brahminism with the ferocity of an outraged brute proceeded to put a stop to
these intermarriage between the different Varnas. A new law is proclaimed by
Manu. It is in the following terms :
III. 12. For the first marriage of twice born men (wives) of equal caste are
recommended.
III. 13. It is declared that a Sudra woman alone can be the wife of a Shudra.
III. 14. A Shudra woman is not mentioned even in any (ancient) story as the
(first) wife of a Brahmana or of a Kshatriya, though they lived in the (greatest)
distress.

III. 15. Twice-born men who, in their folly, wed wives of the low (Sudra)
caste, soon degrade their families and their children to the state of Sudras.
111.16. According to Atri and to (Gautama) the son of Utathya. he who
weds a Sudra woman becomes an outcast, according to Saunaka on the birth
of a son, and according to Bhrigu he who has (male) offspring from a (Sudra
female, alone).
III. 17. A Brahmana who takes a Sudra wife to his bed, will (after death) sink
into hell ; if he begets a child by her, he will lose the rank of a Brahmana.
III. 18. The manes and the gods will not eat the (offerings) of that man who
performs the rites in honour of the gods, of the manes, and of guests chiefly
with a (Sudra wife's) assistance, and such (a man) will not go to heaven.
III. 19. For him who drinks the moisture of a Sudra's lips, who is tainted by
her breath, and who begets a son on her. no expiation is prescribed.
Brahmanism was not satisfied with the prohibition of intermarriage.
Brahmanism went further and prohibited interdining.
Manu lays down certain interdicts on food. Some are hygenic. Some are
social. Of the social the following are worthy of attention :
IV. 218. Food given by a king, impairs his manly vigour; by one of the servile
class, his divine light : by goldsmiths, his life ; by leathercutters, his good
name.
IV. 219. Given by cooks and the like mean artizans, it destroys his
offsprings : by a washerman, his muscular strength ;
IV. 221. That of all others, mentioned in order, whose food must never be
tasted, is held equal by the wise to the skin, bones, and hair of the head.
IV. 222. Having unknowingly swallowed the food of any such persons, he
must fast during three days; but having eaten it knowingly, he must perform
the same harsh penance, as if he had tasted any seminal impurity, ordure, or
urine. I said that Brahmanism acted with the ferocity of an outranged brute in
undertaking the task of prohibiting intermarriage and interdining. Those who
have doubts in this matter ponder over the language of Manu.
Mark the disguest Manu shows with regard to the Shudra woman. Mark
what Manu says about the food of the Shudra. He says it is as impure as
semen or urine.
These two laws have produced the caste system. Prohibition of
intermarriage and prohibition against interdining, are two pillars on which it
rests. The caste system and the rules relating to intermarriage and interdining
are related to each other as ends to means. Indeed by no other means could
the end be realized.
The forging of these means shows that the creation of the caste system was
end and aim of Brahmanism. Brahmanism enacted the prohibitions against

intemarriage and interdining. But Brahmanism introduced other changes in

the social system and if the purposes underlying these changes are those
which I suggest them to be, then it must be admitted that Brahmanism was so
keen in sustaining the caste system that it did not mind whether ways and
means employed were fair or unfair, moral or immoral. I refer to the laws
contained in the Code of Manu regarding marriage of girls and the life of
widows.
See the law that Manu promulgates regarding the marriage of females.
IX. 4. Reprehensible is the father who gives not (his daughter) in marriage
at the proper time.
IX. 88. To a distinguished, handsome suitor of equal caste should a father
give his daughter in accordance with the prescribed rule, though she have not
attained (the proper age), i.e. although she may not have reached puberty.
By this rule Manu enjoins that a girl should be married even though she may
not have reached the age of puberty i.e. even when she is a child. Now with
regard to widows Manu promulgates the following rule.
V. 157. At her pleasure let her (i.e. widow) emaciate her body, by living
voluntarily on pure flowers, roots and fruits ; but let her not, when her lord is
deceased, even pronounce the name of another man.
V. 161. But a widow, who from a wish to bear children, slights her deceased
husband by marrying again, brings disgrace on herself here below, and shall
be excluded from the seat of her lord (in heaven).
V. 162. Offspring begotten on a woman by any other than her husband, is
here declared to be no progeny of hers ; no more than a child, begotten on
the wife of another man belongs to the begetter; nor is a second husband any
where prescribed for a virtuous woman.
This is the rule of enforced widowhood for a woman. A reference may also
be made to Sati or a widow who burns herself on the funeral pyre of her
husband and thus puts an end to her life. Manu is silent about it.
Yajnavalkya an authority nearly as great as Manu says, she must not live
separately or alone.
86. When deprived of her husband, she must not remain away from her
father, mother, son, brother, mother-in-law or from her maternal uncle;
otherwise she might become liable to censure. Here again Yajnavalkya does
not suggest that a widow become a Sati. But Vijnaneshwar, the author of
Mitakshara a commentary on Yajnavalkya Smriti makes the following
observation in commenting on the above Sloka.
"This is in the case of the alternative of leading a celibate life vide the text of
Vishnu : "After the death of the husband, either celibacy or ascending the
(cremation) pile after him."

Vijnaneshwar3 adds as his opinion that 'There is great merit in ascending

the funeral pyre after him.'
From this one can very easily and clearly see how the rule of Sati came to
be forged. Manu's rule was that a widow was not to remarry. But it appears
from the statement by Vijnaneshwar that from the time of the Vishnu Smriti a
different interpretation began to put on the ordinance of Manu. According to
this new interpretation Manu's rule was explained to be offering to the widow
a choice between two alternatives: (1) Either burn yourself on your husband's
funeral pyre or (2) If you don't, remain unmarried. This of course is totally
false interpretation quite unwarranted by the clear words of Manu. Somehow
it came to be accepted. The date of the Vishnu Smriti is somewhere about the
3rd or 4th Century. It can therefore be said that rule of Sati dates from this
period.
One thing is certain, these were new rules. The rule of Manu that girl should
be married before she has reached puberty is a new rule. In Pre-Buddhistic
Brahmanism4 marriages were performed not only after puberty but they were
performed when girls had reached an age when they could be called grown
up. Of this there is ample evidence. Similarly the rule that a woman once she
had lost her husband must not remarry is a new rule. In the Pre-Buddhist
Brahmanism there was no prohibition on widow remarriage. The fact that the
Sanskrit language contains words such as Punarbhu (woman who has
undergone a second marriage ceremony) and punarhhav (second husband)
show that such marriages were quite common under the Pre-Buddhist
Brahmanism. With regard to Sati the position as to when it arose, there is
evidence to suggest that it existed in ancient times. But there is evidence that
it had died out and it was revived after Brahmanism under Pushyamitra
obtained its victory over Buddhism although it was some time later than
Manu.
Question is this, why these changes were made by the triumphant
Brahmanism? What did Brahmanism want to achieve by having girls married
before they had become pubert, by denying the widow to the right to marry
again and by telling her to put herself to death by immolating herself in the
funeral pyre of her deceased husband? No explainations are forthcoming for
these changes. Mr. C. V. Vaidya who offers an explanation for girl marriage
says that girl marriage was introduced to prevent girls from joining the
Buddhist order of nuns. This explanation does not satisfy me. Mr. Vaidya
omits to take into consideration another rule laid down by Manunamely the
rule relating to suitable age for marriage. According to that rule.
IX. 94. A man. aged thirty, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him,
or a man of twenty-four a girl eight years of age. The question is not why girl

marriage was introduced. The question is why Manu allowed so much

discrepancy in the ages of the bride and the bridegroom.
Mr. Kane has attempted an explanation of Sati. His explanation is that there
is nothing new in it. It existed in India in ancient times as it did in other parts of
the world. This again does not satisfy the world. If it existed outside India, it
has not been practised on so enormous a scale as in India. Secondly if traces
of it are found in Ancient India in the Kshatriyas, why was it revived, why was
it not universalized? There is no satisfactory explanation. Mr. Kane's
explanation that the prevalence of Sati by reference to laws of inheritance
does not appear to me very convincing. It may be that because under the
Hindu Law of inheritance as it prevailed in Bengal, women got a share in
property. The relations of the husband of the widow pressed her to be a Sati
in order to get rid of a share may explain why Sati wa.s practised on so large
a scale in Bengal. But it does not explain how it arose nor how it came to be
practised in other parts of India.
Again with regard to the prohibition of widow remarriage, there is no
explanation whatsoever. Why was the widow, contrary to established
practice, prohibited from marrying? Why was she required to lead a life of
misery? Why was she disfigured?
My explanation for girl marriage, enforced widowhood and Sati is quite
different and I offer it for what it is worth.
"Thus the superposition of endogamy over exogamy means the creation of
Caste. But this is not an easy affair. Let us take an imaginary group that
desire to make itself into a caste and analyse what means it will have to adopt
to make itself endogamous. If a group desires to make itself endogamous, a
formal injunction against intermarriage with outside groups will be of no avail,
especially if prior to the introduction of endogamy, exogamy were to be the
rule in all matrimonial relations. Again there is a tendency in all groups living
in close contact with one another to assimilate and amalgamate, and thus
consolidate into a homogeneous society. If this tendency be strongly
counteracted in the interest of Caste formation, it is absolutely necessary to
circumscribe a circle without which people should not contract marriages."
"Nevertheless this encircling to prevent marriages from without creates
problems from within which are not very easy of solution. Roughly speaking in
a normal group the two sexes are more or less evenly distributed, and
generally speaking there is an equality between those of the same age. But
this equality is never quite realised in actual societies. While to the group that
is desirous of making itself into a caste the maintenance of this equality
between the sexes becomes the ultimate goal, for without this endogamy can
no longer subsist. In other words, if endogamy is to be preserved, conjugal

rights from within have to be provided for, else members of the group will be
driven out of the circle to take care of themselves in any way they please. But
in order that the conjugal rights be provided for from within, it is absolutely
necessary to maintain a numerical equality between the marriageable units of
the two sexes within the group desirous of making itself into a Caste. It is only
through the maintenance of this equality that the necessary endogamy of the
group could be kept intact, and a very large disparity is sure to break it."
"The problem of Caste then ultimately resolves itself into one of repairing
the disparity between the marriageable units of the two sexes within it. The
much needed parity between the units could be realized only when a couple
dies simultaneously. But this is a rare contingency. The husband may die
before the wife and create a surplus woman who must be disposed of, else
through intermarriage she will violate the endogamy of the group. In like
manner the husband may survive his wife and be a surplus man whom the
group, while it may sympathise with him for the sad bereavement, has to
dispose of, else he will marry outside the Caste and will break the endogamy.
Thus both the surplus man and the surplus woman constitute a menace to the
Caste if not taken care of, for, not finding suitable partners inside their
prescribed circle (and they cannot find any, for there are just enough pairs to
go round) very likely they will transgress the boundary, marry outside and
import population that is foreign to the Caste. Let us see what our imaginary
group is likely to do with this surplus man and surplus woman. We will first
take up the case of the surplus woman.She can be disposed of in two
different ways so as to preserve the endogamy of the Caste."
"First : burn her on the funeral pyre of her deceased husband and get rid of
her. This, however, is rather an impracticable way of solving the problem of
sex disparity. In some cases it may work, in others it may not. Consequently
every surplus woman cannot thus be disposed of, because it is an easy
solution but a hard realization. However, the surplus woman (widow) if not
disposed of, remains in the group: but in her very existence lies a double
danger. She may marry outside the Caste and violate to endogamy or she
may marry within the Caste and through competition encroach upon the
chances of marriage that must be reserved for the potential brides in the
Caste. She therefore is a menace in any case and something must be done
to her if she cannot be burned along with her deceased husband."
"The second remedy is to enforce widowhood on her for the rest of her life.
So far as the objective results are concerned burning is a better solution than
enforcing widowhood. Burning the widow eliminates all the three evils that a
surplus woman is fraught with. Being dead and gone she creates no problem
of remarriage either inside or outside the Caste. But compulsory widowhood

is superior to burning because it is more practicable. Besides being

comparatively humane it also guards against the evils of remarriage as does
burning ; but it fails to guard the morals of the group. No doubt under
compulsory widowhood the woman remains and, just because she is
deprived of her natural right of being a legitimate wife in future, the incentive
to bad moral conduct is increased. But this is by no means an insuperable
difficulty. She can be degraded to a condition where she could no longer be a
source of allurement."
"The problem of surplus man (widower) is much more important and
much more difficult than that of the surplus woman in a group that desires to
make itself into a Caste. From time immemorial man as compared with
woman has had the upper hand. He is a dominant figure in every group and
of the two sexes has greater prestige. With this traditional superiority of man
over woman his wishes have always been consulted. Woman on the other
hand has been an easy prey to all kinds of iniquitous injunctions, religious,
social or economic. But man as a maker of injunctions is most often above
them all. Such being the case you cannot accord the same kind of treatment
to a surplus man as you can to a surplus woman in a Caste."
"The project of burning him with his deceased wife is hazardous in two ways
: first of all it cannot be done, simply because he is a man. Secondly, if done,
a sturdy soul is lost to the Caste. There remain then only two solutions which
can conveniently dispose of him. I say conveniently because he is an asset to
the group."
"Important as he is to the group, endogamy is still more important, and the
solution must assure both these ends. Under these circumstances he may be
forced, or I should say induced, after the manner of the widow to remain a
widower for the rest of his life. This solution is not altogether difficult, for
without there being any compulsion some are so disposed as to enjoy selfimposed celibacy or may even take a further step of their own accord to
renounce the world and its joys. But, given human nature as it is, this solution
can hardly be expected to be realized. On the other hand, as is very likely to
be the case, if he remains in the group as an active participator in group
activities, he is a danger to the morals of the group. Looked at from a different
viewpoint, ceilibacy though easy in cases where it succeeds, is not so
advantageous even then to the material prospects of the Caste. If he
observes genuine celibacy and renounces the world, he would not be a
menace to the preservation of Caste endogamy or Caste morals as
undoubtedly would be, if he remained a secular person. But as an ascetic
celibate he is as good as burned, so far as the material well being of his
Caste is concerned. A Caste, in order that it may be large enough to afford a

vigorous communal life, must be maintained at a certain numerical strength.

But to hope for this and to proclaim celibacy is the same as trying to cure
atrophy by bleeding.
"Imposing celibacy on the surplus man in the group therefore fails, both
theoretically and practically. It is in the interest of the Caste to keep him as a
Grahastha (one who raises a family) to use a Sanskrit technicality. But the
problem is to provide him with a wife from within the Caste. At the outset this
is not possible, for the ruling ratio in a caste has to be one man to one woman
and none can have two chances of marriage, for in a Caste thoroughly self
enclosed there are always just enough marriageable women to go round for
the marriageable men. Under these circumstances the surplus man can only
be provided with a wife by recruiting a bride from the ranks of those not yet
marriageable in order to tie him down to the group. This is certainly the best
of the possible solutions in the case of the surplus man. By this, he is kept
within the Caste. By this, this numerical depletion through constant outflow is
guarded against, and by this endogamy and morals are preserved.
"It will now be seen that the four means by which numerical disparity
between the two sexes is conveniently maintained are : (1) Burning the widow
with her deceased husband ; (2) Compulsory widowhooda milder form of
burning ; (3) Imposing celibacy on the widower ; (4) Wedding him to a girl not
yet marriageable. Though as I said above, burning the widow and imposing
celibacy on the widower are of doubtful service to the group in its endeavour
to preserve its endogamy, all of them operate as means. But means as
forces, when liberated or set in motion create an end. What then is the end
that these means create? They create and perpetuate endogamy, while caste
and endogamy, according to our analysis of the various definitions of caste,
are one and the same thing. Thus the existence of these means means caste
and caste involves these means."
"This, in my opinion, is the general mechanism of a caste in a system of
castes. Let us now turn to the castes in the Hindu Society and inquire into
their mechanism. I need hardly promise that there are a great many pitfalls in
the path of those who try to unfold the past, and caste in India to be sure is a
very ancient institutiion. This is especially true where there exist no authentic
or written history or records or where the people, like the Hindus are so
constituted that to them Writing history is a folly, for the world is an illusion.
But institutions do live, though for a long time they may remain unrecorded
and as often as not customs and morals are like fossils that tell their own
history. If this is true, our task will be amply rewarded if we scrutinize the
solution the Hindus arrived at to meet the problems of the surplus man and
surplus woman."

"Complex though it be in its general working the Hindu Society, even to a

superficial observer, presents three singular uxorial customs, namely :
(i) Sati or the burning of the widow on the funeral pyre of her deceased
husband.
(ii) Enforced widowhood by which a widow is not allowed to remarry. (iii) Girl
marriage.
In addition to these, one also notes a great hankering after Sannyasa
(renunciation) on the part of the widower, but it may in some cases be due
purely LO psychic disposition.
"So far as I know, no scientific explanation of the origin of these customs is
forth coming even today. We have plenty of philosophy to tell us why these
customs were honoured. (Cf. A. K. Coomaraswamy "Sati : a Defence of
the Eastern Woman" in the British Sociological Review Vol. VI 1913) Because
it is a"proof of the perfect unity of body and soul" between husband and wife
and of "devotion beyond the grave", because it embodied the ideal of
wifehood which is well expressed by Uma when she said "Devotion to her
Lord is woman's honour, it is her eternal heaven : and O Maheshwara", she
adds with a most touching human cry, "I desire not paradise itself if thou art
not satisfied with me! " Why compulsory widowhood is honoured I know not
nor have I yet met with anyone who sang in praise of it, though there are a
great many who adhere to it. The eulogy in honour of girl marriage is reported
by Dr. Ketkar to be as follows : "A really faithful man or woman ought not to
feel affection for a woman or a man other than the one with whom he or she
is united. Such purity is compulsory not only after marriage, but even before
marriage, for that is the only correct ideal of chastity. No maiden could be
considered pure if she feels love for a man other than to whom she might get
married. As she does not know whom she is going to get married to, she must
not feel affection for any man at all before marriage. If she does so, it is a sin.
So it is better for a girl to know whom she has to love, before any sexual
consciousness has been awakened in her". Hence girl marriage.
"This high-flown and ingenious sophistry indicates why these institutions
were honoured, but does not tell us why they were practised. My own
interpretation is that they were honoured because they were practised. Any
one slightly -quainted with rise of individualism in the 18th century will
appreciate my remark. At all times, it is the movement that is most important ;
and the philosophies grow around it long afterwards to justify it and give it a
moral support. In like manner I urge that the very fact that these customs
were so highly eulogized proves that they needed eulogy for their prevalence.
Regarding the question as to why they arose, I submit that they were needed
to create the structure of caste and the philosophies in honour of them were

intended to popularize them or to gild the pill, as we might say, for they must
have been so abominable and shocking to the sense of the unsophisticated
that they needed a great deal of sweetening. These customs are essentially
of the nature of means, though they are represented as ideals. But this should
not blind us from understanding the results that flow from them. One might
safely say that idealization of means is necessary and in this particular case
was perhaps motivated to endow them with greater efficacy. Calling means
an end does not harm except that it disguises its real character, but it does
not deprive it of its real nature, that of a means. You may pass a law that all
cats are dogs, just as you can call a means an end. But you can no more
change the nature of means thereby than you can turn cats into dogs ;
consequently I am justified in holding that, regard them as ends or as means.
Sati, enforced widowhood and girl marriage are customs that were primarily
intended to solve the problem of the surplus man and surplus woman in a
caste and to maintain its endogamy. Strict endogamy could not be preserved
without these customs, while caste without endogamy is fake." According to
my view girl marriage, enforced widowhood and Sati had no other purpose
than that of supporting the Caste System which Brahmanism was seeking to
establish by prohibiting intermarriage. It is difficult to stop intermarriage.
Members of different castes are likely to go out of their Caste either for love or
for necessity. It is to provide against necessity that Brahmanism made these
rules. This is my explanation of these new rules, made by Brahmanism. That
explanation may not be acceptable to all. But there can be no doubt that
Brahmanism was taking all means possible to prevent intermarriages
between the different classes taking place.
Another illustration of this desire on the part of Brahmanism is to be found in
the rule regarding excommunication promulgated by Manu.
Manu says that a person who is excommunicated by his Caste is an
outcast. According to Manu an outcast is to be treated as though he was
actually dead. Manu ordains that his obsequies should be performed and lays
down the mode and manner of performing these obsequies of the outcast.
XI. 183. The Sapindas and Samanodakas of an outcast must offer (a
libation of) water (to him, as if he were dead), outside (the village), on an
inauspicious day, in the evening and in the presence of the relatives,
officiating priests, and teachers.
XI. 184. A female slave shall upset with her foot a pot filled with water, as if
it were for a dead person ; (his Sapindas) as well as the Samanodakas shall
be impure for a day and a night. Manu however allows the outcast to return to
Caste on performing penance as will be seen from the following rules:

XI. 187. But when he has performed his penance, they shall bathe with him
in a holy pool and throw down a new pot, filled with water.
XI. 188. But he shall throw that pot into water, enter his house and perform,
as before, all the duties incumbent on a relative.
XI. 189. Let him follow the same rule in the case of female outcasts; but
clothes, food, and drink shall be given to them, and they shall live close to the
(family-) house.
But if the outcast was recalcitrant and impenitent Manu provides for his
punishment.
Manu will not allow the outcast to live in the family house. Manu enjoins that
XI. 189. .....Clothes, food, and drink shall be given to them (i.e. the outcast
members of the family), and they shall live close to the (family) house.
III. 92. Let him (i.e. the householder) gently place on the ground (some food)
for dogs, outcasts, chandals, those aflicted with diseases that are
punishments of former sins, crows and insects. Manu declares that having
social intercourse with an outcast is a sin. He warns the Snataka
IV. 79. .....not (to) stay together with outcasts. IV. 213. .....Not (to eat food
given) by outcasts. To the householder Manu says :
III. 151. Let him (i.e. the householder) not entertain at a Shradha.
III. 157. (A person) who forsakes his mother, his father, or a teacher without
(sufficient) reason, he who has contracted an alliance with outcasts either
through the Veda or through a marriage.
Manu ordains a social boycott of the outcast by penalizing those who
associate with him.
XI. 181. He who associates himself for one year with an outcast himself
becomes an outcast ; not by sacrificing, reading the Veda, or contracting
affinity with him, since by those acts he loses his class immediately, but even
by using the same carriage or seat, or by taking his food at the same board.
XI. 182. He who associates with any one of those outcasts, must perform, in
order to atone for (such) intercourse, the penance prescribed for that (sinner).
Then there are penalties against an outcast who defies his caste and
choses to remain an outcast. Manu tells him what will be his penalty in the
next world.
XII. 60. He who has associated with outcasts (will) become Brahmarakshas
(i.e. an evil spirit). Manu however was not prepared to leave the outcast with
this. He proceeds to enact penalty the severity of which cannot be doubted.
The following are the penal sections of Manu Smriti against an outcast.
III. 150. .....Those Brahmins who are .....outcasts .... .Athesists are
unworthy (to partake) of oblations to the gods and manes.

IX. 201. .....Outcast receive(s) no share (in inheritance). XI. 185. But
thenceforward (i.e. after the obsequies of the outcast have been performed) it
shall be forbidden to converse with him, to sit with him, to give him a share of
the inheritance, and to hold with him such intercourse as is usual among men;
XI. 186. And (if the outcast be the eldest) his right of primogeniture shall be
withheld and the additional share, due to the eldest son; and in his stead a
younger brother, excelling in virtue (i.e. who observes the rule of caste) shall
obtain the share of the eldest.
Such is the law of Manu against an outcast. The severity of the penalties
prescribed against him is quite obvious. Its effect is to exclude him from all
social intercourse, to suspend him from every civil function, to disqualify him
for all offices and to disable him from inheriting any property. Under these
pains and penalties the outcaste might as well be dead which indeed Manu
considers him to be, directing libations to be offered to the manes as though
he was naturally so. This system of privations and mortifications was enforced
by prescribing a similar fate to anyone who endeavoured to associate with an
outcast. The penalty was not confined to the: outcast. Nor was it restricted to
males. Males and females were both subject to the law of the outcast. Even
their progeny was subject to penalty. The law was extended to the son of the
outcast. Born befo son was entitled to inherit immediately, as though his
father was dead. Born after excommunication he lost his right to inherit, i.e.
he became an outcast along with his father.
The laws of Manu regarding the outcast are of course devoid of justice and
humanity. Some might think that there is nothing very strange about them.
That is because these laws are very similar to the laws against apostacy and
heresy to be found in all religious codes. It is unfortunately a fact All
religionsExcept Buddhism have used or misued the laws of inheritance
for enforcing adhesion and conformity to their codes. The conversion of a
Christian to Judaism or paganism or any other religion was punished by the
Emperors Constantines and Jul Emperors Theodosius and Valentiniaus
added capital punishment, In case the apostle endeavoured to pervert others
to the same inequity. This was borrowed by all the European countries' who
maintained a similar system of penalities to enforce the Christian faith.
Such a view of the law of the outcast would be quite superficial. First of all
the outcast is a creation of Brahmanism. It is a necessary coeffieient of caste.
Indeed once Brahmanism was determined to create the caste system the law
against the outcast was absolutely essential. For only by punishing the
outcast can the caste system be maintained. Secondly there is a difference
between the Christian or Mahomedan Law of Apostacy and the Brahmanic
law of caste. The disqualification under the Christian or Mahomedan law of

apostacy was restricted to want of religious belief or the profession of wrong

religious belief. Under the Brahmanic law the disqualification had no
connection with belief or want of belief. It was connected with the sanctity of a
certain form of social organization namely Caste. It is the act of going out of
one's caste that was made punishable. This is a very important difference.
The Brahmanic law of the outcast as compared with the law of apostacy in
other religions shows that a belief in God is not essential to Brahmanism; that
a belief in life after death is not essential to Brahmanism ; that a belief in
salvation either by good deeds or by a belief in a prophet is not essential to
Brahmanism; that a belief in the sacredness of the Vedas is essential to
Brahmanism. This is only one thing that is essential to Brahmanism. For it is
only breach of caste which is penalized. All else is left to violation.
Those who are not blind to these forces of integration will admit that this act
of Brahmanism in prohibiting intermarriage and interdining is nothing short of
a complete dismemberment of society. It is a deathknell to unity, an effective
bar to united action. As will be shown hereafter Brahmanism was keen on
preventing united action by Non-Brahmins to overthrow Brahmanism and that
is why Brahmanism brought about this segmentation of Indian Society. But
the fatal effects of a poison can never be confined to the limits of the original
intention of the perpetrator. The same thing has happened in the case of
Caste. Brahmanism intended to paralyse the Non-Brahmans for action
against Brahmins, it did not design that they as a nation should be paralysed
for action against a foreign nation. But the result of the poison of Caste has
been they have become stricken for action aga.inst Brahmanism as well as
against foreigners. In other words Brahmanism in instituting Caste system
has put the greatest impediment against the growth of nationalism.
In spite of what others say the Hindu will not admit that there is any thing
evil in the Caste system., and from one point of view he is right. There is love,
unity and mutual aid among members of a family. There is honour among
thieves. A band of robbers have common interests as respects to its
members. Gangs are marked by fraternal feelings and intense loyalty to their
own ends however opposed they may be to the other gangs. Following this
up one can say that a Caste has got all the praiseworthy characteristics which
a society is supposed to have.
It has got the virtues of a family inasmuch as there is love unity and mutual
aid. It has got the honour known to prevail among thieves. It has got the
loyalty and fraternal feeling we meet with in gangs and it also possesses that
sense of common interests which is found among robbers.
A Hindu may take satisfaction in these praiseworthy characteristics of the
Caste and deny that there is anything evil in it. But he forgets that his thesis

that Caste is an ideal form of social organization is supportable on the

supposition that each caste is entitled to regard himself as an independent
society, as an end in itself as nations do. But the theory breaks down when
the consideration pertains to Hindu Society and to the Caste-System which
goes with it.
Even in such a consideration of the subject the Hindu will not admit that the
Caste system is an evil. Charge Hinduism with the responsibility for the evils
of the Caste-system and the Hindu will at once retort. "What about the Class
System in Europe?" Upto a point the retort is good if it means that there exists
nowhere that ideal society of the philosophers marked by organic unity,
accompanied by praiseworthy community of purpose, mutuality of sympathy,
loyalty to public ends and concern for general welfare. Nobody can have
much quarrel if the Hindu by way of analogy were to say that in every Society
there are families and classes marked by exclusiveness. suspicion, and
jealousy as to those without: bands of robbers, gangs. narrow cliques, trade
unions. Employees' Associations. Kartels. Chambers of Commerce and
political parties. Some of these are held together by the interest and plunder
and others while aspiring to serve the public do not hesitate to prey upon it.
It may be conceded that everywhere de facto society whether in the past or
in the present is not a single whole but a collection of small groups devoted to
diverse purposes as their immediate and particular objectives. But the Hindu
cannot take shelter under this analogy between the Hindu caste system and
the Non-Hindu Class system and rest there as though there is nothing more
to he said about the subject. The fact is there is a far bigger question which
the Hindu has still lo face. He must take note of the fact that although every
society consists of groups there are societies in which the groups are only
non-social while there are societies in which the groups are anti-social. The
difference between a society with the class system and a society with the
caste system lies just in this namely the class system is merely nonsocial but
the caste system is positively anti-soicial.
It may be important to realize why in some societies the g,roup system
produces only non-social feeling and in some societies the group system
produces anti-social feeling. No better explanation of this difference can be
given than the one given by professor John Dewey. According to him every
thing depends upon whether the groups are isolated or associated, whether
there is reciprocity of interest between them or whether there is lack of
reciprocity of interest. If the groups are associated, if there is a reciprocity of
interest between them the feeling between them will be only non-social. If the
groups are isolated, if there is no reciprocity between them the feeling
between them will be anti-social. To quote Professor Dewey:

"The isolation and exclusiveness of a gang or clique brings its anti-social

spirit into relief. But this same spirit is found wherever one group has interests
'of its own' which shut it out from full interaction with other groups, so that its
prevailing purpose is the protection of what it has got, instead of
reorganization and progress through wider relationships. It marks nations in
their isolation from one another; families which seclude their domestic
concerns as if they had no connection with a larger life; schools when
sepa.rated from the interest of home and community; the divisions of rich and
poor; learned and unlearned. The essential point is that isolation makes for
rigidity and formal institutionalizing of life, for static and selfish ideals within
the group."
The question to be asked is not whether there are groups in a Society or
whether the Society is one single whole. The question to be asked is what
degree of association, cooperative intercourse and interaction exists among
the different groups : how numerous and varied are the interests which are
consciously shared by them : how full and free is the interplay with other
forms of Association? A society is not to be condemned as body because
there are groups in it. It is to be condemned if the groups are isolated, each
leading an exclusive life of its own. Because it is this isolation which produces
the anti-social spirit which makes co-operative effort so impossible of
achievement.
I his isolation among the classes is the work of Brahmanism. The principal
steps taken by it was to abrogate the system of intermarriage and interdining
that was prevalent among the four Varnas in olden times. This has already
been discussed in an earlier section of this chapter. There is however one
part of the story that remains to be told. I have said the Varna system had
nothing to do with marriage. That males and females belonging to the
different Varnas could marry and did marry. Law did not come in the way of
inter-varna marriage. Social morality was not opposed to such marriages.
Savarna marriage was neither required by law nor demanded by Society. All
marriages between different Varnas irrespective of the question whether the
bride was of a higher Varna than the bride-groom or whether the bride-groom
was of the higher Varna and the bride of the lower Varna were valid. Indeed
as Prof. Kane says the distinction between Anuloma and Pratiloma marriage
was quite unknown and even the terms Anuloma and Pratiloma were not in
existence. They are the creation of Brahmanism. Brahmanism put a stop to
Pratiloma marriages i.e. marriages between women of a higher Varna and
men of lower Varna. That was a step in the direction of closing the connection
between the Varnas and creating in them an exclusive and anti-social spirit
regarding one another. But while the inter-connecting gate of the Pratiloma

marriage was closed the inter-connecting gate of Anuloma marriage had

remained open. That was not closed. As pointed out in the section on graded
inequality Anuloma marriage i.e. marriage between a male of the higher
Varna and the female of the lower Varna was allowed by Brahmanism to
continue. The gate of Anuloma marriage was not very respectable and was a
one way gate only. still it was an interconnecting gate by which it was
possible to prevent a complete isolation of the Varnas. But even here
Brahmanism played what cannot but be called a dirty trick. To show how dirty
the trick was it is necessary first to state the rules which prevailed for
determining the status of the child. Under the rule existing from very ancient
times the status of the child was determined by the Varna of the father. I he
Varna of the mother was quite unimportant. I he following illustrations will
place the point beyond doubt:
Father's
Name
1. Shantanu

Varna of
father
Kshatriya

Mother's

Varna of

Child's

Varna of

Name

mother

name

child

Ganga

Shudra

Bhishma

Kshatriya
(Anamik)
2. Shantanu

Kshatriya

Matsyagandha

Shudra

Vichitra Virya

Kshatriya
(Fisher)
3. Parashar

Brahmin

Matsyagandha

Shudra

Krishna-

Brahmin
(Fisher)
4. Vishwamitra

Dwaipayana

Kshtriya

Menaka

(Apsara)

Shakuntala

Kshatriya

Devayani

Brahmin

Yadu

Kshatriya

Sharmishta

Asuri

Kshatriya
5. Yayati
Kshatriya
6. Yayati

Druhya

Kshatriya
(Nonaryan)
7. Jaratkaru

Brahmin

Jaratkari

Nag.

Asita

Brahmin
(Nonaryan)

The rule was known as the rule of Pitra Savarnya. It would he interesting to
consider the effect of this rule of Pitra Savarnya on the Anuloma and
Pratiloma systems of marriage.

The effect on Pratiloma marriage would be that the children of mothers of

the higher Varnas would be dragged down to the level of the lower Varnas
represented by their fathers. Its effect on Anuloma marriage would be just the
contrary. The children of mothers of the lower Varnas would be raised up and
absorbed in the higher Varnas of their fathers.
Manu stopped Pratiloma marriages and thereby prevented the higher from
being dragged to the status of the lower. However regrettable, not much
damage was done by it so long as the Anuloma marriage and the rule of Pitra
Savarnya continued in operation. The two together formed a very useful
system. The Anuloma marriage maintained the inter-connection and the Pitra
Savarnya rule made the higher classes quite composite in their make up. For
they could not but help to he drawn from mothers of different Varnas.
Brahmanism did not want to keep this gate of intercommunication between
the Varnas open. It was bent on closing it. But it did it in a manner which is
disreputable.
The straight and honourable way was to stop Anuloma marriage. But
Brahmanism did not do that. It allowed the system of Anuloma marriage to
continue. What it did was to alter the rule of determining the status of the
child. It replaced the rule of Pitra Savarnya by the rule of Matra Savarnya by
which the status of the child came to be determined by the status of the
mother. By this change marriage ceased to be that means of intersocial
communication which it principally is. It relieved men of the higher Varna from
the responsibility to their children simply because they were born of a mother
of lower Varna. It made Anuloma marriage mere matter of sex. a humiliation
and insult to the lower Varnas and a privilege to the higher classes to lawfully
commit prostitution with women of the lower classes. And from a larger social
point of view it brought the complete isolation among the Varnas which has
been the bane of Hindu Society. Notwithstanding all this the Orthodox Hindu
still believes that the caste system is an ideal system.
But why talk about the orthodox Hindus. There are among enlightened
politicians and historians. There are of course Indians both politicians and
historians who vehemently deny that the Caste system comes in the way of
nationalism. They presume that India is a nation and feel very much offended
if anybody instead of speaking of the Indian Nation speaks of the people of
India. This attitude is quite understandable. Most of the politicians and
historians are Brahmins and cannot be expected to have the courage to
expose the misdeeds of their ancestors or admit the evils perpetrated by
them. Ask any one the question, is India a nation, and all in a chorus say,
'yes.' Ask for reasons, they will say that India is a nation firstly because India
has a geographical unity of the country and secondly because of the

fundamental unity of the culture. All this may be admitted for the sake of
argument and yet it is true to say that to draw an inference from these facts
that India is a nation is really to cherish a delusion. For what is a nation? A
nation is not a country in the physical sense of the country whatever degree
of geographical unity it may posses. A nation is not people synthesized by a
common culture derived from common language, common religion or
common race.
To recall what I have said in another place "Nationality is a subjective
psychological feeling. It is a feeling of a corporate sentiment of oneness which
makes those who are charged with it feel that they are kith and kin. This
national feeling is a double edged feeling. It is at once a feeling of fellowship
for one's own kith and an anti-fellowship feeling for those who are not one's
own kith. It is a feeling of "consciousness of kind" which binds together those
who are within the limits of the kindred and severs them from those who are
outside the limits of the kindred. It is a longing to belong to one's own group
and a longing not to belong to any other group. This is the essence of what is
called a nationality and national feeling. This longing to belong to one's own
kindred as I said is a subjective psychological feeling and what is important to
bear in mind is that the longing to belong to one's own kindred is quite
independent of geography, culture or economic or social conflict.
There may be geographical unity and yet there may be no "longing to
belong". There may be no geographical unity and yet the feeling of longing to
belong may be very intense. There may be cultural unity and yet there may
be no longing to belong. There may be economical conflicts and class
divisions and yet there may be an intense feeling of longing to belong. The
point is that nationality is not primarily a matter of geography culture or"..........
In the declinging days of the Vedic Regime, the Shudras as well as women
had come to occupy a very low position. The rising tide of Buddhism had
brought about a great change in the status of both. To put it briefly a Shudra
under the Buddhist regime could acquire property, learning and could even
become a king. Nay he could even rise to the highest rung of the social ladder
occupied by the Brahmin in the Vedic Regime. The Buddhist order of
Bhikshus was counterpart of the Vedic order of Brahmins. The two orders,
each within its own religious system were on a par in the matter of status and
dignity. The Shudra could never aspire to be a Brahmin in the Vedic regime
but he could become a Bhikshu and occupy the same status and dignity as
did the Brahmin. For. while the Vedic order of Bramhins was closed to the
Shudra, the Buddhist order of Bhikshus was open to him and many Shudras
who could not become Brahmins under the Vedic Regime had become their
peers by becoming Bhikshus under Buddhism. Similar change is noticeable in

the case of women. Under the Buddhist regime she became a free person.
Marriage did not make her a slave. For marriage under the Buddhist rule was
a contract. Under the Buddhist Regime she could acquire property, she could
acquire learning and what was unique, she could become a member of the
Buddhist order of Nuns and reach the same status and dignity as a Brahmin.
The elevation of the status of the Shudras and women was so much the result
of the gospel of Buddhism that Buddhism was called by its enemies as the
Shudra religion (i.e. the religion of the low classes).
All this of course must have been very galling to the Brahmins. How very
galling it must have been to them is shown by the vandallic fury with which
Bramhanism after its triumph over Buddhism proceeded to bring about a
complete demolition of the high status to which the Shudras and women had
been elevated by the revolutionary changes effected by the vivifying gospel of
Buddhism.
Starting with this background one shudders at the inhumanity and cruelty of
the laws made by Manu against the Shudras. I quote a few of them
assembling them under certain general heads.
Manu asks the householders of the Brahmana, Kshatriya and Vaishya
Class:
IV. 61. Let him not dwell in a country where the rulers are Shudra.....
This cannot mean that Brarnhana. Kashtriya and Vaishya should leave the
country where Shudra is a ruler. It can only mean that if a Shudra becomes a
king he should be killed. Not only a Shudra is not to be recognized as fit to be
a king, he is not to be deemed as a respectable person. For Manu enacts
that:XI. 24. A Bramhin shall never beg from a Shudra property for (performing) a
sacrifice i.e. for religious purposes. All marriage ties with the Shudra were
proscribed. A marriage with a woman belonging to any of the three higher
classes was forbidden. A Shudra was not to have any connection with a
woman of the higher classes and an act of adultery committed by a Shudra
with her was declared by Manu to be an offence involving capital
punishment.
VIII. 374. A Shudra who has an intercourse with a woman of the higher
caste guarded or unguarded, shall be punished in the following manner if she
was unguarded, he loses the offending part. If she was guarded then he
should be put to death and his property confiscated.
Manu insists that a Shudra shall be servile, unfit for office, without
education, without property and as a contemptible person, his person and
property shall always be liable to be conscripted. As to office Manu
prescribes.

VIII. 20. A Bramhana who is only a Brahmana by descent i.e. one has
neither studied nor performed any other act required by the Vedas may. at the
king's pleasure, interpret the law to him i.e. act as the judge, but never a
Shudra (however learned he may be).
VIII. 21. The Kingdom of that monarch who looks on while a Shudra settles
the law will sink low like a cow in a morass.
VIII. 272. If a Shudra arrogantly presumes to preach religion to Bramhins
the King shall have poured burning oil in his mouth and ears.
In olden times the study of the Vedas stood for education. Manu declare
that the study of the Vedas was not a matter of right but that it was a matter of
privilege. Manu deprived the Shudra of the right to study Veda. He made it a
privilege of the three higher classes. Not only did he debar the Shudra from
the study of the Vedas but he enacted penalties against those who might help
the Shudra to acquire knowledge of the Veda. To a person who is previleged
to study the Vedas. Manu ordains that :
IV. 99. He must never read the Vedas...in the presence of the Shudras. and
prescribes that :III. 156. He who instructs Shudra pupils and he whose teacher is a Shudra
shall become disqualified tor being invited to Shradha. Manu's successor
went much beyond him in the cruelty of their punishment of the Shudra for
studying the Veda. For instance Katyayana lays down that if a Shudra
overheard the Veda or ventured to utter a word of the Veda. the King shall cut
his tongue in twain and put hot molten lead in his cars.
As to property Manu is both ruthless and shameless. According to the Code
of Manu :
X. 129. No superfluous collection of wealth must be made by a Shudra,
even though he has power to make it, since a servile man. who has amassed
riches, becomes proud, and, by his insolence or neglect, gives pain to
Bramhans.
The reason for the rule is more revolting than the rule itself. Manu was of
course not sure that the prohibitory injunction will be enough to prevent the
Shudra from acquiring wealth. To leave no room for the Shudra to give
offence to the Bramhins by his accumulation of wealth Manu added another
section to his code whereby he declared that :
VIII. 417. A Bramhana may seize without hesitation if he be in distress for
his subsistence, the goods of his Shudra. Not only is the property of a Shudra
liable to conscription but the labour of the Shudra. Manu declares, is liable to
conscription. Compare the following provision in Manu :

VIII. 413. A Bramhana may compel a Shudra, whether bought or unbought

to do servile work; for he is created by the creator to be the slave of a
Bramhana.
A Shudra was required by Manu to be servile in his speech. How very
servile he must be can be seen from the following provisions in Manu :
VIII. 270. A Shudra who insults a twiceborn man with gross invective, shall
have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin.
VIII. 271. If he mentions the names and castes of the (twiceborn) with
contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red hot into his mouth.
Manu's object was to make the Shudra not merely a servile person but an
altogether contemptible person. Manu will not allow a Shudra the comfort of
having a high sounding name. Had Manu not been there to furnish
incontrovertible proof it would be difficult to believe that Bramanism could
have been so relentless and pitiless in its persecution of the Shudra. Observe
Manu's law as to the names that the different classes can give to their
children.
II. 31. Let the first part of a Brahman's name denote something auspicious,
a Kshatriya's be connected with power, and a Vaishya's with wealth, but a
Shudra's express something contemptible.
II. 32. The second part of a Bramhan's name shall be a word implying
happiness, of a Kshatrya's a word implying protection, of a Vaisya's a term
expressive of thriving and of a Shudra's an expression denoting service.
The basis of all these inhuman laws is the theory enunciated by Manu
regarding the Shudra. At the outset of his Code, Manu takes care to assert it
emphatically and without blushing. He says :
I. 91. One occupation only, the Lord prescribed to the Shudra, to serve
meekly these other three castes (namely Bramhin, Kshatriya and Vaishya).
Holding that the Shudra was born to be servile, Manu made his laws
accordingly so as to compel him to remain servile. In the Buddhist regime a
Shudra could aspire to be ajudge, a priest and even a King, the highest status
that he could ever aspire to. Compare with This the ideal that Manu places
before the Shudra and one can get an idea of what fate was to be under
Brahmanism :
X. 121. If a Shudra, (unable to subsist by serving Brahmanas), seeks a
livelihood, he may serve Kshartiyas, or he may also seek to maintain himself
by attending on a wealthy Vaishya.
X. 122. But let a (Shudra) serve Brahmanas, either for the sake of heaven,
or with a view to both (this life and the next); for he who is called the servant
of a Brahmana thereby gains all his ends.

X. 123. The service of Brahmanas alone is declared (to be) an excellent

occupation for a Shudra: for whatever else besides this he may perform will
bear him no fruit.
X. 124. They must allot to him out of their own family (property) a suitable
maintenance, after considering his ability, his industry, and the number of
those whom he is bound to support.
X. 125. The remnants of their food must be given to him, as well as their old
household furniture.
Manu can hardly be said to be more tender to women than he was to the
Shudra. He starts with a low opinion of women. Manu proclaims :
11.213. It is the nature of women to seduce men in this (world); for that
reason the wise are never unguarded in (the company of) females.
II. 214. For women are able to lead astray in (this) world not only a fool, but
even a learned man, and (to make) him a slave of desire and anger.
II. 215. One should not sit in a lonely place with one's mother sister or
daughter; for the senses are powerful, and master even a learned man.
IX. 14. Women do not care for beauty, nor is their attention fixed on age;
(thinking), '(It is enough that) he is a man', they give themselves to the
handsome and to the ugly.
IX. 15. Through their passion for men, through their mutable temper,
through their natural heartlessness, they become disloyal towards their
husbands, however carefully they may be guarded in this (world).
IX. 16. Knowing their disposition, which the Lord of creatures laid in them at
the creation, to be such, (every) man should most strenuously exert himself to
guard them.
IX. 17. (When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed.
(of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice,
and bad conduct.
The laws of Manu against women are of a piece with this view. Women are
not to be free under any circumstances. In the opinion of Manu :
IX. 2. Day and night women must be kept in dependence by the males (of)
their (families), and, if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they
must be kept under one's control.
IX. 3. Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in
youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age: a woman is never fit for
independence.
IX. 5. Women must particularly be gurded against evil inclinations, however
trifling (they may appear); for, if they are not guarded, they will bring sorrow
on two families,

IX. 6. Considering that the highest duty of all castes, even weak husbands
(must) strive to guard their wives.
V. 147. By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must
be done independently, even in her own house.
V. 148. In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her
husband, when her lord is dead to her sons: a woman must never be
independent.
V. 149. She must not seek to separate herself from her father, husband, or
sons; by leaving them she would make both (her own and her husband's)
families contemptible. Woman is not to have a right to divorce.
IX. 45. The husband is declared to be one with the wife, which means that
there could be no separation once a woman is married. Many Hindus stop
here as though this is the whole story regarding Manu's law of divorce and
keep on idolizing it by comforting their conscience by holding out the view that
Manu regarded marriage as sacrament and therefore did not allow divorce.
This of course is far from the truth. His law against divorce had a very
different motive. It was not to tie up a man to a woman but it was to tie up the
woman to a man and to leave the man free. For Manu does not prevent a
man for giving up his wife. Indeed he not only allows him to abandon his wife
but he also permits him to sell her. But what he does is to prevent the wife
from becoming free. See what Manu Says :
IX. 46. Neither by sale nor by repudiation is a wife released from her
husband.
The meaning is that a wife, sold or repudiated by her husband, can never
become the legitimate wife of another who may have bought or received her
after she was repudiated. If this is not monstrous nothing can be. But Manu
was not worried by considerations of justice or injustice of his laws. He
wanted to deprive women of the freedom she had under the Buddhistic
regime. He knew, by her misuse of her liberty, by her willingness to marry the
Shudra that the system of the gradation of the Varna had been destroyed.
Manu wa.s outraged by her license and in putting a stop to it he deprived her
of her liberty.
A wife was reduced by Manu to the level of a slave in the matter of property.
IX. 146. A wife, a son, and a slave, these three are declared to have no
property, the wealth which they earn is (acquired) for him to whom they
belong.
When she becomes a widow Manu allows her maintenance if her husband
was joint and a widow's estate in the property of her husband if he was
separate from his family. But Manu never allows her to have any dominion
over property.

A woman under the laws of Manu is subject to corporal punishment and

Manu allows the husband the right to beat his wife.
VIII. 299. A wife, a son, a slave, a pupil, and a younger brother of the full
blood, who have committed faults, may be beaten with a rope or a split
bamboo.
In other matters woman was reduced by Manu to the same position as the
Shudra.
The study of the Veda was forbidden to her by Manu as it was to the
Shudra.
II. 66. Even for a woman the performance of the Sanskaras are necessary
and they should be performed. But they should be performed without uttering
the Veda Mantras.
IX. 18. Women have no right to study the Vedas. That is why their Sanskars
are performed without Veda Mantras. Women have no knowledge of religion
because they have no right to know the Vedas. The uttering of the Veda
Mantras is useful for removing sin. As women cannot utter the Veda Mantras
they are as unclean as untruth is.
Offering sacrifices according to Bramhanism formed the very soul of
religion. Yet Manu will not allow women to perform them. Manu ordains
that:
XI. 36. A woman shall not perform the daily sacrifices prescribed by the
Vedas. XI. 37. If she does it she will go to hell.
To disable her from performing such sacrifices Manu prevents her from
getting the aid and services of a Bramhin priest.
IV. 205. A Bramhan must never eat food given at a sacrifice performed by a
woman.
IV. 206. Sacrifices performed by women are inauspicious and not
acceptable to God. They should therefore be avoided. Woman was not to
have any intellectual persuits and nor free will nor freedom of thought. She
was not to join any heretical sect such as Buddhism. If she continues to
adhere to it, till death she is not to be given the libation of water as is done in
the case of all dead.
Finally a word regarding the ideal of life, Manu has sought to place before a
woman. It had better be stated in his own words :
V. 151. Him to whom her father may give her, or her brother with the father's
permission, she shall obey as long as he lives and when he is dead, she must
not insult his memory.
V. 154. Though destitute of virtue, or seeking pleasure elsewhere, or devoid
of good qualities, yet a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by a
faithful wife.

V. 155. No sacrifice, no vow, no fast must be performed by women, apart

from their husbands; if a wife obeys her husband, she will for that reason
alone be exalted in heaven. Then comes the choicest texts which forms the
pith and the marrow of this ideal which Manu prescribes for the women :
V. 153. The husband who wedded her with sacred Mantras, is always a
source of happiness to his wife, both in season and out of season, in this
world and in the next.
V. 150. She must always be cheerful, clever in the management of her
household affairs, careful in cleaning her utensils, and economical in
expenditure.
This the Hindus regard as a very lofty ideal for a woman!!! The severity of
these laws against Shudras and women show that the phenomenal rise of
these classes during the Buddhist regime had not only offended the Brahmins
but had become intolerable to them. It was a complete reversal of their sacred
social order from top to bottom. The first had become last and the last had
become first. The laws of Manu also explain, the determined way in which the
Brahmins proceeded to use their political power to degrade the Shudras and
the women to their old status. The triumphant Bramhanism bega.n its
onslaught on both the Shudras and the women in pursuit of the old ideal
namely servility and Bramhanism did succeed in making the Shudras and
women the servile classes, Shudras the serfs to the three higher classes and
women the serfs to their husbands. Of the black deeds committed by
Brahmanism after its triumph over Buddhism this one is the blackest. There is
no parallel in history for so foul deeds of degradation committed by a class of
usurpers in the interest of class domination. The collosal character of this
deed of degradation perpetrated by Barahmanism is unfortunately not fully
realized. It is concealed by those small monosyllablic words, Stri and Shudra.
Let those who wish to get an idea of the enormity of their deed think of the
numbers that lie behind these two terms. What part of the population do they
apply to? The woman represents one half of the population. Of the balance
the Shudra represents not less than two third. The two together make up
about 7590 of the total population. It is this huge mass of people that has
been doomed by Brahmanism to eternal servility and eternal degradation. It is
because of the collosal scale of degradation whereby 75% of her people were
deprived of their right to life. liberty and persuit of happiness that India
became a decaying if not a dead nation.
The principle of graded inequality runs through the whole of the Manu
Smriti. There is no department of life in which he has not introduced his
principle of graded inequality. For a complete and thorough exposition of it, it
would be necessary to reproduce the whole of Manu Smriti. I will take only a

few departments to illustrate how in the hands of Manu the principle of graded
inequality became imbedded in the social life. Take the field of marriage.
Observe the rule of Manu :
III. 13. It is declared that a Shudra woman alone (can be) the wife of a
Shudra, she and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Vaishya, those two and
one of his own caste the wives of a Kshatriya, those three and one of his own
caste (the wives of a Bramhan). Take the rules of Manu regarding the
treatment of guests:
III. 110. But a Kshatriya (who comes) to the house of a Brahmana is not
called a guest (atithi), nor a Vaisya, nor a Shudra, nor a personal friend, nor a
relative, nor the teacher.
III. 111. But if Kshatriya comes to the house of a Brahmana in the manner of
a guest, (the house-holder) may feed him according to his desire, after the
above mentioned Brahmanas have eaten.
III. 1 12. Even a Vaisya and a Shudra who have approached his house in
the manner of guests, he may allow to eat with his servants, showing
(thereby) his compassionate disposition. In the house of a Brahmana. nobody
except a Brahmin is to have the honour of being a guest. If the Kshatriya
comes in the manner of a guest to the house of a Brahmin he is to be fed
after all the Brahmins are fed and if the Vaishyas and Shudras come in the
manner of guests they are to be fed after everybody is fed and only in the
company of servants.
Take the rules of Manu regarding Sanskaras : X. 126. A Shudra has no right
to receive the sacraments. X. 68. The law prescribes that neither of the two
(that is those who belong to mixed castes) shall receive the sacraments the
first being excluded on account of lowness of his origin of his parents was
against the order of the castes.
II. 66. The whole series of sacraments must be performed for females also
in order to sanctify the body at the proper time and in the proper order, but
without the recitaion of sacred Vedic Mantras. Manu further lays down that :
VI. 1. A twice born Snataka, who has thus lived according to the law in the
order of householders, may, taking a firm resolution and keeping his organs in
subjection, dwell in the forest, duly (observing the rules given below).
VI. 33. But having thus passed the third part of (a man's natural term of) life
in the forest, he may live as an ascetic during the fourth part of his existence,
after abandoning all attanchment to worldly objects.
Even in law Manu introduces the principle of graded inequality. To take only
two illustrations, the law of defamation, abuse and the law of assault :

VIII. 267. A Kshatriya having defamed a Brahmana, shall be fined one

hundred (panas); A Vaisya one hundred and fifty or two hundred ; a Shudra
shall suffer corporal punishment.
VIII. 268. A Brahamna shall be fined fifty (panas) for defaming a Kshatriya ;
in (the case of) a Vaisya the fine shall be twenty five (panas), in (the case of)
a Shudra twelve.
VIII. 269. For offences of twice born men against those of equal caste
(varna, the fine shall be) also twelve (panas) for speeches which ought not to
be uttered, that (and every fine shall be) double.
VIII. 276. (For mutual abuse) by a Brahmana and a Kshatriya a fine must be
imposed by a discerning (king), on the Brahmana the lowest amercement, but
on the Kshatriya the middlemost.
VIII. 277. A Vaisya and a Shudra must be punished exactly in the same
manner according to their respective castes, but the tongue (of the Shudra)
shall not be cut out: that is the decision.
VIII. 279. With whatever limb a man of a low caste does hurt to (a man of
the three) highest (castes), even that limb shall be cut off: that is the teaching
of Manu.
VIII. 280. He who raises his hand or a stick, shall have his hand cut off; he
who in anger kicks with his foot, shall have his foot cut off. Everywhere is the
principle of graded inequality. So ingrained it had become in the social system
that the successors of Manu were careful to introduce it where he had failed
to give effect to it. For instance Manu had had recognized the system of
slavery. But had failed to prescribe whether the system of slavery was or was
not subject to the principle of graded order of insubordination.
Lest it should be understood that the law of graded inequality did not apply
to slavery and that a Brahmin may be a slave of the Shudra, Yajnavalkya at
once proceeds to clear the doubt. He expressly laid down that :"Slavery is in the descending order of the Varnas and not in the ascending
order" (XIV. 183).
Vijnaneshwar in his commentary on Yajnavalkya makes it concrete by his
illustrations when he says :
"Of the Varnas such as the Brahmana and the rest, a state of slavery shall
exist Anulomyena, in the descending order. Thus, of a Brahmana, a Kshatriya
and the rest may become a slave; of a Kshatriya, the Vaishya and the
Shudra; and of a Vaishya, Shudra, thus the state of slavery shall operate in
the descending order." Stated in the language of equality and inequality, this
means that the Brahmin is the highest because he can be the slave of nobody
but is entitled to keep a person of any class as his slave. The Shudra is the
lowest because everybody can keep him as his slave but he can keep no one

as his slave except a Shudra. The place assigned to the Kshatriya and the
Vaishya introduces the system of graded inequality. A Kshatriya while he is
inferior to the Brahmin he can be the slave of the Brahmin. While he is yet
superior to the Vaishyas and the Shudras because he can keep them as his
slaves; the Vaishyas and the Shudras have no right to keep a Kshartiya as
his slave. Similarly a Vaishya while he is inferior to the Bramhins and the
Kshatriyas, because they can keep him as their slave and he cannot keep
any one of them as his slave, he is proud that he is at least superior to the
Shudra because he can keep the Shudra as his slave while Shudra cannot
keep the Vaishya as his slave.
Such is the principle of graded inequality which Bramhanism injected into
the bone and the marrow of the people. Nothing worse to paralyze society to
overthrow inequity could have been done.
Although its effects have not been clearly noticed there can be no doubt that
because of it the Hindus have been stricken with palsy. Students of social
organization have been content with noting the difference between equality
and inequality. None have realized that in addition to equality and inequality
there is such a thing as graded inequality. Yet inequality is not half so
dangerous as graded inequality. Inequality carried within itself the seeds of its
own destruction. Inequality does not last long. Under pure and simple
inequality two things happen. It creates general discontent which forms the
seed of revolution. Secondly it makes the sufferers combine against a
common foe and on a common grievance. But the nature and circumstances
of the system of graded inequality leave no room for either of these two things
to happen. The system of graded inequality prevents the rise of general
discontent against inequity. It cannot therefore become the storm centre of
revolution. Secondly the sufferers under inequality becoming unequal both in
terms of the benefit and the burden there is no possibility of a general
combination of all classes to overthrow the inequity. To make the thing
concrete the Brahmanic law of marriage is full of inequity. The right of
Brahmana to take a woman from the classes below him but not to give a
woman to them is in inequity. But the Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra will not
combine to destroy it. The Kshatriya resents this right of the Brahmana. But
he will not combine with Vaishya or the Shudra and that for two reasons.
Firstly because he is satisfied that if the Brahman has the right to take the
right of three communities, the Kshatriya has the right to appropriate the
women of two communities. He does not suffer so much as the other two.
Secondly if he joins in a general revolution against this marriage-inequity in
one way he will rise to the level of the Bramhins but in another way all will be
equal which to him means that the Vaishyas and the Shudras will rise to his

level i.e. they will claim Kshatriya women-which means he will fall to their
level. Take any other inequity and think of a revolt against it. The same social
psychology will show that a general rebellion against it is impossible.
One of the reasons why there has been no revolution against Brahmanism
and its inequities is due entirely to the principle of graded inequality. If is a
system of permitting a share in the spoils with a view to enlist them to support
the spoils system. It is a system full of low cunning which man could have
invented to perpetuate inequity and to profit by it. For it is nothing else but
inviting people to share in inequity in order that they may all be supporters of
inequity.
There now remains to lift the curtain from the last act of this drama of
Bramhanism.
Bramhanism inherited from the Vedic past that system of Chaturvarna. The
system of Chaturvarna which the Hindus regard as the unique creation of
their Aryan ancestors is in no sense unique. There is nothing original about it.
The whole ancient world had stumbled into it. The Egyptians had it and the
ancient Persians had it. Plato was so convinced about its excellence that he
presented it as ideal form of social organization. The ideal of the Chaturvarna
is faulty. The lumping together of individuals into a few sharply marked off
classes is a very superficial view of man and his powers. The Ancient Aryans
as well as Plato had no conception of the uniqueness of every individual, of
his incommensurability with others and of each individual forming a class of
his own. They had no recognition of the infinite diversity of active tendencies
and combination of tendencies of which an individual is capable. To them
there were types offaculties or powers in the individual constitution and all
that is necessary for social organization is to classify them. All this is
demonstrably wrong. Modern science has shown that lumping together of
individuals into a few sharply marked off classes each confined to one
particular sphere does injustice both to the individual and to Socicty. The
stratification of Society by classes and occupations is incompatible with the
fullest utilization of the qualities which is so necessary for social advancement
and is also incompatible with the safety and security of the individual as well
as of Society in general.
There is another mistake which the Ancient Hindus including Plato made.
There is probably some truth in saying that there is among human beings a
dimorphism or polyformism in human beings as, there is among insects,
though in the former it is only psychological while in the latter it is both
physical as well as psychlolgical. But assuming that there is a thing
psychological dimorphism or polyformism among human beings, it is wrong to
separate them into those who are born to do one thing and others to do

another, some born to command i.e. to be masters and some born to obey
i.e. to be slaves. It is wrong to suppose that in a given person some qualities
are present and others are absent. On the contrary the truth is that all
qualities are present in every person and this truth is not diminished in any
way by that, some tendency predominates to the extent of being the only one
that is apparent. So well established is this truth that a tendency which may
be dominant in a man at one time may be quite different from and even the
direct opposite of the tendency that may be dominant at another time. As
Prof. Bergson in speaking of the Nietsche's false antithesis of 'men' and
'slaves' observes :
"We have a clear vision of this (falsity) in times of revolution. Unassuming
citizens, upto that moment humble and obedient, wake up one fine day with
pretentions to be leaders of men". The cases of Mussolini and Hitler are a
complete disproof of the theory of the Aryans and of Plato.
This Vedic system of Chaturvarna, far from being an ideal system was
made positively worse by the changes which Bramhanism made and which
have already been described. Every one of them was mischievous in
character is beyond question. The Buddhist order of Bhikshus and the Vedic
order of Brahmins were designed to serve the same purpose. They formed
the elite of their society whose function was to lead and guide society along
the right road. Although designed to discharge the same function the Budhist
Bhikshu was better placed to discharged it was the Bramhin. That is because
Buddha recognized which nobody either before him or after him has done.
Buddna realized that tor a person to give a true lead to Society and he its
trustworthy guide he must be intellectually free and further, which is more
important, to be intellectually free he must not have private property. An elite
charged with the care of his private property must fail to discharge his duty of
leading and guiding Society along the right road. Buddha therefore took care
to include in the Code of discipline for the Bhikshus a rule prohibiting a
Bhikshu from holding private property. In the Vedic order of Bramhins there
was no such prohibition. A Bramhin was free to hold property. This difference
produced a profound difference on the character and outlook of the Buddhist
Bhikshu and the Vedic Bramhin. The Bhikshus formed an intellectual class.
The Bramhins formed on the other hand merely an educated class. There is a
great difference between an intellectual class and an ducated class. An
intellectual class has no limitations arising out of any affiliations to any class
or to any interest. An educated Class on the other hand is not an intellectual
class although it has cultivated its intellect. The reason is that its range of
vision and its sympathy to a new ideology is circumscribed by its being
identified with the interest of the class with which it is affiliated.

The Bramhins from the very beginning therefore were inclined to be a purely
educated class, enlightened but selfish. This evil in the Vedic order of
Bramhins was extreme by the changes made in the old Vedic System. The
right of the Brahmins to rule and the grant of special privileges and immunities
made them more selfish, and induced in them the desire to use their
education not for the advancement of learning but for the use of their
community and against the advancement of society.
All their energy and their education has been spent in maintaining their own
privileges against the good of the public. It has been the boast of many Hindu
authors that the civilization of India is the most ancient civilization in the world.
They will insist that there was no branch of knowledge in which their
ancestors were not the pioneers. Open a book like "The Positive Background
of Hindu Sociology" by Prof. Benoy Kumar Sarkar, or a book like "The
Positive Sciences of the Ancient Hindus" by Dr. Brajendranath Seal one is
overwhelmed with data touching upon the knowledge their ancestors had
about various scientific subjects. From these books it would appear that the
ancient Indians knew astronomy, astrology, biology, chemistry, mathematics,
Medicine, minerology. Physics and in the view of the mass of people even
aviation. All this may be very true. The important question is now how the
ancient Indians discovered these positive sciences. The important question is
why did the ancient Indians cease to make any progress in the sciences in
which they were the pioneers? This sudden arrest in the progress of science
in ancient India is as astounding as it is deplorable. In the scientific world
India occupies a position which even if it be first among the primitive is
certainly last among the civilized nation. How did it happen that a people who
began the work of scientific progress stopped, halted on the way, left in its
incohate and incomplete condition? This is a question that needs to be
considered and answered, not what the ancient Indians knew.
There is only one answer to the question and it is a very simple answer. In
ancient India the Bramhins were the only educated class. They were also the
Class which was claiming to be above all others. Buddha disputed their claim
for supremacy and declared a war on the Brahmins. The Brahmins acted as
an Educated Classas distinguished from an intellectual classwould act
under the circumstances. It abandoned all pursuits and engaged itself in
defending the claim of supremacy and the social, economic and political
interests of its class. Instead of writing books on Science, the Brahmins
undertook to write Smritis. Here is an explanation why the progress of science
in India became arrested. Brahmins found it more important and more
imperative to write Smritis to repel the Buddhist doctrine of social equality.

How many Smritis did the Brahmins write? Mr. Kane a great authority on the
Smriti literature has computed their number to be 128. And what for? The
Smritis are called lawbooks which of course hide their nature. They are really
treatises expounding the supremacy of the Brahmins and their rights to
special privileges. The defence of Bramhanism was more important than the
progress of science. Bramhanism not only defended its previlege:s but set
about extending them in a manner that would cover every descent man with
shame. The Brahmins started particularly to expand the meaning of certain
privileges granted to them by Manu.
Manu had given the Bramhins the right to dana, gift. The dana was always
intended to be money or chattel. But in course of time the concept of dana
was expanded so as to include the gift of a woman which a Brahmin could
keep as his mistress or who could be released by the Bramhin on
commutation of money payment.
Manu designated the Bramhins as Bhu-devas, lords of the Earth. The
Bramhins enlarged the scope of this statement and began to claim the right to
sexual intercourse with women of other classes. Even queens were not
exempt from this claim. Ludovico Di Varthema who came to India as a
traveller in about 1502 A.D. records the following about the Brahmins of
Calicut :
"It is a proper, and the same time pleasant thing to know who these
Brahmins are. You must know that they are the chief persons of the faith, as
priests are among us. And when the King takes a wife, he selects the most
worthy and the most honoured of these Brahamins and makes him sleep the
first night with his wife, in order that he may deflower her. " Similarly
Hamiltonanother writer says:
"When the Samorin marries, he must not cohabit with his bride till the
Nambourie (Nambudari Brahmin), or chief priest, has enjoyed her, and if he
pleases, he may have three nights of her company, because the first fruits of
her nuptials must be an holy oblation to the god she worships."
In the Bombay Presidency the priests of the Vaishnava sect claimed the
right to deflower the women of their sect. This gave rise to the famous
Maharaja Libel case brought by the chief priest of the Sect against one
Karosondas Mulji in the High Court of Bombay in the year 1869 which shows
that the right to claim the benefit of the first night was certainly effective till
then.
When such a right to sexual cohabitation for the first night could be
extended against the generality of the lower classes the Brahmins did not
hesitate to extend it. This they did particularly in Malabar. There, Manu
designated the Brahmins as Bhu-devas, lords of the earth. The Brahmins

enlarged the scope of this statement and began to claim the right of
promiscuous sexual intercourse with the women folk of the other Classes.
This happened particularly in Malabar. There
" The Brahman castes follow the Makatyam System that is the system by
which the child belongs to its father's family. They contract within their own
caste regular marriages, with all the ordinary legal and religious sanctions and
incidents. But the Brahmin men are also in the habit of entering into
Sambandhan-Unions with women of the lower castes." This is not all.
Observe further what the writer has to say:
"Neither party to a Sambadhan Unions becomes thereby a member of the
other family; and the offspring of the Union belong to their mothers tharwad
(family) and have no sort of claim, so far as the law goes, to a share of their
father's property or to maintenance therefrom."
Speaking of the origin of this practice the author of the Gazetteer observes
that the origin of this institution :
"Is found in the claim of the Bhu-devas" or "Earth Gods" (that the
Brahmanas) and on a lower plain of the Kshatriyas or the ruling classes, to
the first fruits of lower Caste Womanhood, a right akin to the medieval droit de
Seigneurie."
It is an understatement to say that it is only a right to first fruits as the 'right
to the first night' was called in the middle ages in Europe. It is more than that.
It is a general right of the Brahmin against the lower caste to claim any
woman of that class for mere prostitution, for the mere satisfaction of sexual
appetite, without burdening the Brahmin to any of the obligations of marriage.
Such were the rights which the Brahmins the spiritual precepts claimed
against the laity!! The Borgese Popes have been run down in history as the
most debauched race of spiritual preceptors who ascended the throne of
Peter. One wonders whether they were really worse than the Brahmins of
India.
A purely intellectual Class, free to consider general good and having no
interest of a class to consider, such as the one contemplated by Buddha is
not to be had anywhere. For the limitations resulting from property on the
freedom of intellect of the elite have not been generally recognized until very
recently. But this want of an intellectual class has been made good in other
countries by the fact that in those countries each Strata of Society has its
educated class. There is safety, if no definite guidance, in the multiplicity of
views expressed by different educated classes drawn from different strata of
society. In such a multiplicity of views there is no danger of Society being
misguided or misdirected by the views of one single educated class drawn
from one single class of society and which is naturally bound to place the

interest of its class before the interests of the country. By the change made by
Brahmanism India ceased to have safe and sure guidance of an intellectual
class. But what is worse is that the Hindus lost the safety and security which
other peoples have and which arises from the multiplicity of views expressed
by various educated classes drawn from different strata of Society.
By the denial of education to the Shudras, by diverting the Kshatriyas to
military persuits, and the Vaishyas to trade and by reserving education to
themselves the Brahmins alone could become the educated classfree to
misdirect and misguide the whole society. By converting Varna into Caste
they declared that mere birth was a real and final measure of the worth of a
man. Caste and Graded inequality made disunity and discord a matter of
course.
All this disfigurement of the original Varna system would have been
tolerable if it had remained a mere matter of social practice. But Brahmanism
was not content to leave the matter there. It wanted to give the Chaturvarna in
its changed and perverted form the force of law. This new Chaturvarna the
making of Brahmanism occupies in the Manu Smriti as the Law of Persons
and the Law of Family. Nobody can make a mistake about it. Manu made it
an offence for a person of a lower Caste to arrogate to himself the status of a
higher Caste or to pass off as a member of the higher Caste.
X. 96. A man of low caste who through covetousness lives by the
occupations of a higher one, the king shall deprive of his property and banish.
XI. 56. Falsely attributing to oneself high birth, giving information to the king
(regarding a crime), and falsely accusing one's teacher, (are offences) equal
to slaying a Brahmana. Here there are two offences, General Impersonation
(X. 96) and impersonation by the Shudra (XI. 56). Note also the punishments
how severe they are. For the first the punishment is confiscation of property
and banishment. For the second the punishment is the same as the
punishment for causing the death of a Brahmin.
The offence of personation is not unknown in modern jurisprudence and the
Indian Penal Code recognizes it in section 419. But what is the punishment
the Indian Penal Code prescribes for cheating by personation? Fine, and if
imprisonment, then 3 years or both. Manu must be turning in his grave to find
the British Government make so light of his law of Caste.
Manu next proceeds to direct the king that he should execute this law. In the
first place he appeals to the King in the name of his pious duty :
VIII. 172. By preventing the confusion of Castes . . .. .the power of the King
grows, and he prospers in this world and after death. Manu perhaps knows
that the law relating to the confusion of Varna may not be quite agreeable to
the conscience of the king and he avoids enforcement. Consequently Manu

tells the King how in the matter of the execution of the laws the King should
act :
VIII. 177. Therefore let the King not heeding his own likes and dislikes
behave exactly like Yama. i.e. he should be as impartial as Yama the Judge
of the Dead.
Manu however does not wish to leave the matter to the King as a mere
matter of pious duty. Manu makes it a matter of obligation upon the King.
Accordingly Manu lays down as a matter of obligation that :
VIII. 410. The King should order a Vaishya to trade to lend money, to
cultivate the land, or to lend cattle, and the Shudra to serve the twice born
Caste. Again Manu reverts to the subject and say:
VIII. 418. The King should carefully compel Vaishyas and Sudras to perform
the work (prescribed) for them ; for if these two castes swerved from their
duties they would throw this whole world into confusion.
What if the Kings do not act up to this obligation. This law of Chaturvarna is
so supreme in the eyes of Manu that Manu will not allow himself to be
thwarted by a King who will not keep his obligation to maintain this law. Boldly
Manu forges a new law that such a king shall be disposed. One can imagine
how dear Chaturvarna was lo Manu and to Brahmanism.
As I have said the Chaturvarna of the Vedic system was better than caste
system was not very favourable to the creation of a Society which could be
regarded as one single whole possessing the Unity of the ideal society. By its
very theory the Chaturvarna has given birth to four classes. These four
classes were far from friendly. Often they were quarreling and their quarrels
were so bitter that they cannot but be designated as Class wars. All the same
this old Chaturvarna had two saving features which Brahminism most selfishly
removed. Firstly there was no isolation among the Varnas. Intermarriage and
interdining the two strongest bonds for unity had full play. There was no room
for the different Varnas to develop that anti-social feeling which destroys the
very basis of Society. While the Kshatriyas fought against the Brahmins and
the Brahmins fought against the Kshatriyas there were not wanting Kshatriyas
who fought against the Kshatriyas for the sake of Brahmins and there were
not wanting Brahmins who joined hands with Kshatriyas to put down the
Brahmins.
Secondly this old Chaturvarna was conventional. It was the ideal of the
Society but it was not the law of the State. Brahmanism isolated the Varnas
and sowed the seed of antagonism. Brahmanism made legal what was only
conventional. By giving it a legal basis it perpetrated the mischief. The Vedic
Chaturvarna if it was an evil would have died out by force of time and
circumstances. By giving it the force of Law Brahmanism has made it eternal.

This is probably the greatest mischief that Brahmanism has done to Hindu
Society.
In considering this question one cannot fail to notice that the obligation
imposed upon the King for the maintenance of the law of Chaturvarna which
is another name for the system of graded inequality does not require the King
to enforce it against the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas. The obligation is limited
to the enforcement of the law against the Vaishyas and the Shudras. Having
regard to the fact that Brahmanism was so intent on giving the system the
force of law the result has been very awkward to say the least about it.
Notwithstanding this attempt at legalization the system remained half legal
and half conventional, legal as to the Vaishyas and the Shudras and merely
conventional as to Brahmins and Kshatriyas.
This difference needs to be accounted for. Was Brahmanism honest in its
attempt to give the system the force of law? Did it wish that each of the four
Varnas be bound by it? The fact that Brahmanism would not bind the
Brahmins and the Kshatriyas by the law it made, shows that in this business
Brahmainsm was far from honest. If it believed in the system as ideal it could
not have failed to make it an universal binding force.
But there is more than dishonesty in this foul game. One can quite
understand why the Brahmins were left free and untramelled by the shackles
of the law. Manu called them Gods on earth and Gods must be above the
law. But why were the Kshatriyas left free in the same way as the Brahmins.
He knows that the Kshatriyas will not humble themselves before the
Brahmins. He then proceeds to warn them, how the Brahmins can punish
them if the Kshatriyas show arrogance and plan rebellion.
IX. 320 When the Kshatriyas become in any way overbearing towards the
Brahmanas, the Brahmanas themselves shall duly restrain them; for the
Kshatriyas sprang from the Brahmanas.
IX. 321. Fire sprang from water, Kshatriya from Brahmanas, iron from stone
; the all-penetrating force of those (three) has no effect on that whence they
were produced.
One might think that the reason why Manu does not impose a.n obligation
upon the King to enforce the law against the Kshatriya was because the
Brahmins felt themselves quite capable of dealing with Kshatriyas by their
own prowess and without the aid of the King and that they meant to put their
sanctions against the Kshatriyas when the time came and without fear of
consequences. All this could not have been meant by Manu. For after uttering
this vows of vengeance, and threats and imprecations Manu suddenly come
down and begins to plead with the Kshatriyas for cooperation and common

front with the Brahmins. In a verse next after the verse in which he utters the
threats and imprecations against the Kshatriyas Manu pleads :
IX. 323. But (a king who feels his end drawing nigh) shall bestow all his
wealth, accumulated from fines on Brahmanas, make over his kingdom to his
son and then seek death in battle. From imprecations to supplication is a very
queer cry. What is the explanation of this anti-climax in the attitude of this
strange behaviour of Manu towards the Kshatriyas? What is the object of this
cooperation between Brahmins and Kshatriyas? Against whom is this
common front to be? Manu does not explain. A whole history of a thousand
years must be told before this puzzle is solved and the questions satisfactorily
answered.
The history which furnishes the clue to the solution of this puzzle is the
history of the class wars between the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas.
Most of the orthdox Hindus are repelled by the doctrine of Class war which
was propounded by Karl Marx and would be certainly shocked if they were
told that the history of their own ancestors probably furnishes the most cogent
evidence that Marx was searching for support of his theory. Indeed there
have been numerous class wars between Brahmins and the Kshatriyas and
only the most important of them have been recorded in the ancient Hindu
literature. We have record of the conflict between the Brahmins and the Kings
who were all Kshatriyas. The first of these conflicts was a conflict with King
Vena, the second with Pururavas, the third with Nahusha, fourth with Nimi
and fifth with Sumukha. There is a record of a conflict between Vashishtha a
Brahmin and Vishvamitra an ordinary Kshatriya and not a king. Then we have
the record of the wholesale massacre of the Brahmins of Bhrigu clan by the
Kshatriya decendants of Kratavirya and then we have the record of the whole
class of Kshatriyas exterminated by Parashuram acting on behalf of the
Brahmanas. The issues that brought them in conflict extended over a wide
range and show how bitter and strained must have been the feelings between
Brahmins and Kshatriyas. There were conflicts over the question whether the
Kshatriya had a right to become a Brahmana. There were conflicts over the
question, whether the Brahmins were subject to the authority or not. There
were conflicts on the question who should salute first and who should give
way to whom. The wars were wars of authority, status and dignity.
The results of these wars could not but be obvious to the Brahmins.
Notwithstanding their boastful utterances they must have realized that it was
not possible for them to crush the Kshatriyas and that notwithstanding the
wars of extermination the Kshatriyas survived in sufficient numbers to plague
the Brahmins. One need not pay any attention to the filthy story told by the
Brahmins and alluded to by Manu that the Kshatriyas of the Manu's day were

not the original Kshatriyas but a race of new Kshatriyas begotten by the
Brahmins upon the widows of the old Kshatriyas who were massacred by
Parashuram. Blackmailing is one of the means which Brahmanism is never
ashamed of using to advance its own purposes. The fight of Brahmanism
against the Kshatriyas was from the very beginning a fight between a fool and
a bully. Brahmanas were fighting against the Kshatriyas for the maintenance
of the Chaturvarna. Now it is this very Chaturvarna which allowed bayonets to
the Kshatriyas and denied them to the Brahmins. How under this theory could
the Brahmin fight with the Kshatriya with any hope of success? It could not
have taken long for the Brahmins to realise the truthwhich Tallyrand told
Napoleonthat it is easy to give bayonets but it is very difficult to sit on them
and that as Kshatriyas had bayonets and Brahmins none, war with the
Kshatriya was the way to ruin. These were the direct consequences of these
wars between the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas. But there were others which
could not have escaped the attention of the Brahmins. While the Brahmins
and Kshatriyas were fighting among themselves nobody was left to check and
keep the Vaishyas and the Shudras under control. They were on the road of
social equality almost nearing to the status of the Brahmins and Kshatriyas.
To Brahmanism the possibility of suppressing the Kshatriya was very remote
and the danger of being overtaken by Vaishyas and Shudras were real and
very real. Should the Brahmana continue to fight the Kshatriya and ignore the
danger of the Vaishyas and the Shudras? Or Should the Brahmana give up
the hopeless struggle against the Kshatriya and befriend him and make with
him a common cause and suppress the growing menace of the Vaishyas and
Shudras? Brahmanism after it was exhausted in the wars with the Kshatriyas
chose the second alternative. It sought to befriend their worthwhile enemies
the Kshatriyas to work for a new ideal namely to enslave and exploit the two
classes below them namely the Vaishyas and the Shudras. This new ideal
must have taken shape some time when the Satpatha Brahmana came to be
composed. It is in the Satpatha Brahmana we find the new ideal expressed it
was well established. The language in which it is expressed, and the subject
to which it is applied are so telling that I feel it should be quoted in its original
terms. Says the author of the Satpatha :
"They then make the beast return (to the Ahavaniya) the he-goat goes first
of them, then the ass, then the horse. Now in going away from this
(Ahavaniya) the horse goes first, then the ass, then the he-goatfor the
horse corresponds to the Kshatra (nobility), the ass to the Vaishya and
Shudra, the he-goat to the Brahman and in-as-much as, in going from here,
the horse goes first, therefore the Kshatriya, going first, is followed by the
three others castes ; and in-as-much as, in returning from here, the he-goat

goes first, therefore the Brahman, going first, is followed by the three other
castes. And in-as-rnuch as the ass does not go first, either in going back from
here, or in coming back from there, therefore the Brahmana and Kshatriya
never go behind the Vaishya and Sudra ; hence they walk thus in order to
avoid a confusion between good and bad. And, moreover, he thus encloses
those two castes (the Vaishyas and Sudra) on both sides by the priesthood
and the nobility and makes them submissive."
Here is the explanation of the puzzling attitude of Manu towards the
Kshatriyas, attitude of willing to wound but afraid to strike, of wishing to
dictate but preferring to befriend.
It is these wars and the compromise that had taught Manu that it was no
use trying to coerce the Kshatriyas to submit to the domination of the
Brahmin. It may be an ideal to be kept up. But as practical politics it was an
impossible ideal. Like Bismark.. Manu knew that politics was the game of the
possible. What was possible was to make a common cause and to build up a
common front between the Brhamins and the Kshatriyas against the Vaishyas
and the Shudras and this is what Manu did. The pity of it is that it was done in
the name of religion. This need not shock anybody who has studied the soul
and spirit of Brahmanism. With Brahmanism religion is a cloak to cover and
hide its acquisitive politics.

Contents

Part III