The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India Volume I (of IV)

R >> R.V. Russell >> The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India Volume I (of IV)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42

7. Tests of what a caste is.

It would appear, then, that no precise definition of a caste can
well be formulated to meet all difficulties. In classification, each
doubtful case must be taken by itself, and it must be determined, on
the information available, whether any body of persons, consisting
of one or more endogamous groups, and distinguished by one or more
separate names, can be recognised as holding, either on account of its
traditional occupation or descent, such a distinctive position in the
social system, that it should be classified as a caste. But not even
the condition of endogamy can be accepted as of universal application;
for Vidurs, who are considered to be descended from Brahman fathers and
women of other castes, will, though marrying among themselves, still
receive the offspring of such mixed alliances into the community; in
the case of Gosains and Bairagis, who, from being religious orders,
have become castes, admission is obtained by initiation as well
as by birth, and the same is the case with several other orders;
some of the lower castes will freely admit outsiders; and in parts
of Chhattisgarh social ties are of the laxest description, and the
intermarriage of Gonds, Chamars and other low castes are by no means
infrequent. But notwithstanding these instances, the principle of
the restriction of marriage to members of the caste is so nearly
universal as to be capable of being adopted as a definition.

8. The four traditional castes.

The well-known traditional theory of caste is that the Aryans were
divided from the beginning of time into four castes: Brahmans or
priests, Kshatriyas or warriors, Vaishyas or merchants and cultivators,
and Sudras or menials and labourers, all of whom had a divine origin,
being born from the body of Brahma--the Brahmans from his mouth,
the Kshatriyas from his arms, the Vaishyas from his thighs, and the
Sudras from his feet. Intermarriage between the four castes was not
at first entirely prohibited, and a man of any of the three higher
ones, provided that for his first wife he took a woman of his own
caste, could subsequently marry others of the divisions beneath his
own. In this manner the other castes originated. Thus the Kaivarttas
or Kewats were the offspring of a Kshatriya father and Vaishya mother,
and so on. Mixed marriages in the opposite direction, of a woman of
a higher caste with a man of a lower one, were reprobated as strongly
as possible, and the offspring of these were relegated to the lowest
position in society; thus the Chandals, or descendants of a Sudra
father and Brahman mother, were of all men the most base. It has been
recognised that this genealogy, though in substance the formation of
a number of new castes through mixed descent may have been correct,
is, as regards the details, an attempt made by a priestly law-giver
to account, on the lines of orthodox tradition, for a state of society
which had ceased to correspond to them.

9. Occupational theory of caste.

In the ethnographic description of the people of the Punjab, which
forms the Caste chapter of Sir Denzil Ibbetson's _Census Report_ of
1881, it was pointed out that occupation was the chief basis of the
division of castes, and there is no doubt that this is true. Every
separate occupation has produced a distinct caste, and the status of
the caste depends now mainly or almost entirely on its occupation. The
fact that there may be several castes practising such important
callings as agriculture or weaving does not invalidate this in any way,
and instances of the manner in which such castes have been developed
will be given subsequently. If a caste changes its occupation it may,
in the course of time, alter its status in a corresponding degree. The
important Kayasth and Gurao castes furnish instances of this. Castes,
in fact, tend to rise or fall in social position with the acquisition
of land or other forms of wealth or dignity much in the same manner
as individuals do nowadays in European countries. Hitherto in India
it has not been the individual who has undergone the process; he
inherits the social position of the caste in which he is born, and, as
a rule, retains it through life without the power of altering it. It
is the caste, as a whole, or at least one of its important sections
or subcastes, which gradually rises or falls in social position,
and the process may extend over generations or even centuries.

In the _Brief Sketch of the Caste System of the North-Western
Provinces and Oudh_, Mr. J.C. Nesfield puts forward the view that
the whole basis of the caste system is the division of occupations,
and that the social gradation of castes corresponds precisely to
the different periods of civilisation during which their traditional
occupations originated. Thus the lowest castes are those allied to
the primitive occupation of hunting, Pasi, Bhar, Bahelia, because
the pursuit of wild animals was the earliest stage in the development
of human industry. Next above these come the fishing castes, fishing
being considered somewhat superior to hunting, because water is a more
sacred element among Hindus than land, and there is less apparent
cruelty in the capturing of fish than the slaughtering of animals;
these are the Kahars, Kewats, Dhimars and others. Above these come the
pastoral castes--Ghosi, Gadaria, Gujar and Ahir; and above them the
agricultural castes, following the order in which these occupations
were adopted during the progress of civilisation. At the top of the
system stands the Rajput or Chhatri, the warrior, whose duty is to
protect all the lower castes, and the Brahman, who is their priest and
spiritual guide. Similarly, the artisan castes are divided into two
main groups; the lower one consists of those whose occupations preceded
the age of metallurgy, as the Chamars and Mochis or tanners, Koris
or weavers, the Telis or oil-pressers, Kalars or liquor-distillers,
Kumhars or potters, and Lunias or salt-makers. The higher group
includes those castes whose occupations were coeval with the age
of metallurgy, that is, those who work in stone, wood and metals,
and who make clothing and ornaments, as the Barhai or worker in wood,
the Lohar or worker in iron, the Kasera and Thathera, brass-workers,
and the Sunar or worker in the precious metals, ranking precisely in
this order of precedence, the Sunar being the highest. The theory is
still further developed among the trading castes, who are arranged
in a similar manner, beginning from the Banjara or forest trader,
the Kunjra or greengrocer, and the Bharbhunja or grain-parcher,
up to the classes of Banias and Khatris or shopkeepers and bankers.

It can hardly be supposed that the Hindus either consciously or
unconsciously arranged their gradation of society in a scientific
order of precedence in the manner described. The main divisions
of social precedence are correctly stated by Mr. Nesfield, but it
will be suggested in this essay that they arose naturally from the
divisions of the principal social organism of India, the village
community. Nevertheless Mr. Nesfield's book will always rank as a
most interesting and original contribution to the literature of the
subject, and his work did much to stimulate inquiry into the origin
of the caste system.

10. Racial Theory.

In his Introduction to the _Tribes and Castes of Bengal_ Sir Herbert
Risley laid stress on the racial basis of caste, showing that
difference of race and difference of colour were the foundation of
the Indian caste system or division of the people into endogamous
units. There seems reason to suppose that the contact of the
Aryans with the indigenous people of India was, to a large extent,
responsible for the growth of the caste system, and the main racial
divisions may perhaps even now be recognised, though their racial
basis has, to a great extent, vanished. But when we come to individual
castes and subcastes, the scrutiny of their origin, which has been
made in the individual articles, appears to indicate that caste
distinctions cannot, as a rule, be based on supposed difference of
race. Nevertheless Sir H. Risley's _Castes and Tribes of Bengal_ and
_Peoples of India_ will, no doubt, always be considered as standard
authorities, while as Census Commissioner for India and Director of
Ethnography he probably did more to foster this branch of research
in India generally than any other man has ever done.

11. Entry of the Aryans into India. The Aryas and Dasyus.

M. Emile Senart, in his work _Les Castes dans l'Inde_, gives an
admirable sketch of the features marking the entry of the Aryans
into India and their acquisition of the country, from which the
following account is largely taken. The institution of caste as it
is understood at present did not exist among the Aryans of the Vedic
period, on their first entry into India. The word _varna_, literally
'colour,' which is afterwards used in speaking of the four castes,
distinguishes in the Vedas two classes only: there are the Arya Varna
and the Dasa Varna--the Aryan race and the race of enemies. In other
passages the Dasyus are spoken of as black, and Indra is praised
for protecting the Aryan colour. In later literature the black race,
Krishna Varna, are opposed to the Brahmans, and the same word is used
of the distinction between Aryas and Sudras. The word _varna_ was
thus used, in the first place, not of four castes, but of two hostile
races, one white and the other black. It is said that Indra divided
the fields among his white-coloured people after destroying the Dasyus,
by whom may be understood the indigenous barbarian races. [2] The word
Dasyu, which frequently recurs in the Vedas, probably refers to the
people of foreign countries or provinces like the Goim or Gentiles
of the Hebrews. The Dasyus were not altogether barbarians, for they
had cities and other institutions showing a partial civilisation,
though the Aryas, lately from more bracing climes than those which
they inhabited, proved too strong for them. [3] To the Aryans the word
Dasyu had the meaning of one who not only did not perform religious
rites, but attempted to harass their performers. Another verse says,
"Distinguish, O Indra, between the Aryas and those who are Dasyus:
punishing those who perform no religious rites; compel them to
submit to the sacrifices; be thou the powerful, the encourager of
the sacrificer." [4]

Rakshasa was another designation given to the tribes with whom
the Aryans were in hostility. Its meaning is strong, gigantic or
powerful, and among the modern Hindus it is a word for a devil
or demon. In the Satapatha Brahmana of the white Yajur-Veda the
Rakshasas are represented as 'prohibiters,' that is 'prohibiters of
the sacrifice.' [5] Similarly, at a later period, Manu describes
Aryavarrta, or the abode of the Aryas, as the country between the
eastern and western oceans, and between the Himalayas and the Vindhyas,
that is Hindustan, the Deccan being not then recognised as an abode
of the Aryans. And he thus speaks of the country: "From a Brahman born
in Aryavarrta let all men on earth learn their several usages." "That
land on which the black antelope naturally grazes, is held fit for
the performance of sacrifices; but the land of Mlechchhas (foreigners)
is beyond it." "Let the three first classes (Brahmans, Kshatriyas and
Vaishyas) invariably dwell in the above-mentioned countries; but a
Sudra distressed for subsistence may sojourn wherever he chooses." [6]

Another passage states: "If some pious king belonging to the Kshatriya
or some other caste should defeat the Mlechchhas [7] and establish
a settlement of the four castes in their territories, and accept the
Mlechchhas thus defeated as Chandalas (the most impure caste in ancient
Hindu society) as is the case in Aryavarrta, then that country also
becomes fit for sacrifice. For no land is impure of itself. A land
becomes so only by contact." This passage is quoted by a Hindu writer
with the same reference to the Code of Manu as the preceding one,
but it is not found there and appears to be a gloss by a later writer,
explaining how the country south of the Vindhyas, which is excluded by
Manu, should be rendered fit for Aryan settlement. [8] Similarly in
a reference in the Brahmanas to the migration of the Aryans eastward
from the Punjab it is stated that Agni the fire-god flashed forth from
the mouth of a priest invoking him at a sacrifice and burnt across all
the five rivers, and as far as he burnt Brahmans could live. Agni, as
the god of fire by which the offerings were consumed, was addressed as
follows: "We kindle thee at the sacrifice, O wise Agni, the sacrificer,
the luminous, the mighty." [9] The sacrifices referred to were, in the
early period, of domestic animals, the horse, ox or goat, the flesh of
which was partaken of by the worshippers, and the sacred Soma-liquor,
which was drunk by them; the prohibition or discouragement of animal
sacrifices for the higher castes gradually came about at a later time,
and was probably to a large extent due to the influence of Buddhism.

The early sacrifice was in the nature of a communal sacred meal at
which the worshippers partook of the animal or liquor offered to the
god. The Dasyus or indigenous Indian races could not worship the Aryan
gods nor join in the sacrifices offered to them, which constituted
the act of worship. They were a hostile race, but the hostility was
felt and expressed on religious rather than racial grounds, as the
latter term is understood at present.

12. The Sudra.

M. Senart points out that the division of the four castes appearing
in post-Vedic literature, does not proceed on equal lines. There were
two groups, one composed of the three higher castes, and the other
of the Sudras or lowest. The higher castes constituted a fraternity
into which admission was obtained only by a religious ceremony of
initiation and investment with the sacred thread. The Sudras were
excluded and could take no part in sacrifices. The punishment for the
commission of the gravest offences by a Brahman was that he became
a Sudra, that is to say an outcast. The killing of a Sudra was an
offence no more severe than that of killing certain animals. A Sudra
was prohibited by the severest penalties from approaching within a
certain distance of a member of any of the higher castes. In the Sutras
[10] it is declared [11] that the Sudra has not the right (Adhikara)
of sacrifice enjoyed by the Brahman, Kshatriya and Vaishya. He was
not to be invested with the sacred thread, nor permitted, like them,
to hear, commit to memory, or recite Vedic texts. For listening to
these texts he ought to have his ears shut up with melted lead or
lac by way of punishment; for pronouncing them, his tongue cut out;
and for committing them to memory, his body cut in two. [12] The Veda
was never to be read in the presence of a Sudra; and no sacrifice
was to be performed for him. [13] The Sudras, it is stated in the
Harivansha, are sprung from vacuity, and are destitute of ceremonies,
and so are not entitled to the rites of initiation. Just as upon the
friction of wood, the cloud of smoke which issues from the fire and
spreads around is of no service in the sacrificial rite, so too the
Sudras spread over the earth are unserviceable, owing to their birth,
to their want of initiatory rites, and the ceremonies ordained by the
Vedas. [14] Again it is ordained that silence is to be observed by
parties of the three sacrificial classes when a Sudra enters to remove
their natural defilements, and thus the servile position of the Sudra
is recognised. [15] Here it appears that the Sudra is identified with
the sweeper or scavenger, the most debased and impure of modern Hindu
castes. [16] In the Dharmashastras or law-books it is laid down that
a person taking a Sudra's food for a month becomes a Sudra and after
death becomes a dog. Issue begotten after eating a Sudra's food is of
the Sudra caste. A person who dies with Sudra's food in his stomach
becomes a village pig, or is reborn in a Sudra's family. [17] An
Arya who had sexual intimacy with a Sudra woman was to be banished;
but a Sudra having intimacy with an Arya was to be killed. If a Sudra
reproached a dutiful Arya, or put himself on equality with him on a
road, on a couch or on a seat, he was to be beaten with a stick. [18]
A Brahman might without hesitation take the property of a Sudra; he,
the Sudra, had indeed nothing of his own; his master might, doubtless,
take his property. [19] According to the Mahabharata the Sudras are
appointed servants to the Brahmans, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. [20]
A Brahman woman having connection with a Sudra was to be devoured by
dogs, but one having connection with a Kshatriya or Vaishya was merely
to have her head shaved and be carried round on an ass. [21] When a
Brahman received a gift from another Brahman he had to acknowledge it
in a loud voice; from a Rajanya or Kshatriya, in a gentle voice; from a
Vaishya, in a whisper; and from a Sudra, in his own mind. To a Brahman
he commenced his thanks with the sacred syllable Om; to a king he gave
thanks without the sacred Om; to a Vaishya he whispered his thanks;
to a Sudra he said nothing, but thought in his own mind, _svasti_,
or 'This is good.' [22] It would thus seem clear that the Sudras
were distinct from the Aryas and were a separate and inferior race,
consisting of the indigenous people of India. In the Atharva-Veda
the Sudra is recognised as distinct from the Arya, and also the
Dasa from the Arya, as in the Rig-Veda. [23] Dr. Wilson remarks,
"The aboriginal inhabitants, again, who conformed to the Brahmanic
law, received certain privileges, and were constituted as a fourth
caste under the name of Sudras, whereas all the rest who kept aloof
were called Dasyus, whatever their language might be." [24] The
Sudras, though treated by Manu and Hindu legislation in general as a
component, if enslaved, part of the Indian community, not entitled to
the second or sacramental birth, are not even once mentioned in the
older parts of the Vedas. They are first locally brought to notice in
the Mahabharata, along with the Abhiras, dwelling on the banks of the
Indus. There are distinct classical notices of the Sudras in this very
locality and its neighbourhood. "In historical times," says Lassen,
"their name reappears in that of the town Sudros on the lower Indus,
and, what is especially worthy of notice, in that of the people Sudroi,
among the Northern Arachosians." [25]

"Thus their existence as a distinct nation is established in the
neighbourhood of the Indus, that is to say in the region in which, in
the oldest time, the Aryan Indians dwelt. The Aryans probably conquered
these indigenous inhabitants first; and when the others in the interior
of the country were subsequently subdued and enslaved, the name Sudra
was extended to the whole servile caste. There seems to have been some
hesitation in the Aryan community about the actual religious position
to be given to the Sudras. In the time of the liturgical Brahmanas
of the Vedas, they were sometimes admitted to take part in the Aryan
sacrifices. Not long afterwards, when the conquests of the Aryans were
greatly extended, and they formed a settled state of society among
the affluents of the Jumna and Ganges, the Sudras were degraded to
the humiliating and painful position which they occupy in Manu. There
is no mention of any of the Sankara or mixed castes in the Vedas." [26]

From the above evidence it seems clear that the Sudras were really
the indigenous inhabitants of India, who were subdued by the Aryans as
they gradually penetrated into India. When the conquering race began
to settle in the land, the indigenous tribes, or such of them as did
not retire before the invaders into the still unconquered interior,
became a class of menials and labourers, as the Amalekites were to the
children of Israel. The Sudras were the same people as the Dasyus of
the hymns, after they had begun to live in villages with the Aryans,
and had to be admitted, though in the most humiliating fashion,
into the Aryan polity. But the hostility between the Aryas and the
Dasyus or Sudras, though in reality racial, was felt and expressed
on religious grounds, and probably the Aryans had no real idea of
what is now understood by difference of race or deterioration of
type from mixture of races. The Sudras were despised and hated as
worshippers of a hostile god. They could not join in the sacrifices
by which the Aryans renewed and cemented their kinship with their god
and with each other; hence they were outlaws towards whom no social
obligations existed. It would have been quite right and proper that
they should be utterly destroyed, precisely as the Israelites thought
that Jehovah had commanded them to destroy the Canaanites. But they
were too numerous, and hence they were regarded as impure and made to
live apart, so that they should not pollute the places of sacrifice,
which among the Aryans included their dwelling-houses. It does not
seem to have been the case that the Aryans had any regard for the
preservation of the purity of their blood or colour. From an early
period men of the three higher castes might take a Sudra woman in
marriage, and the ultimate result has been an almost complete fusion
between the two races in the bulk of the population over the greater
part of the country. Nevertheless the status of the Sudra still
remains attached to the large community of the impure castes formed
from the indigenous tribes, who have settled in Hindu villages and
entered the caste system. These are relegated to the most degrading
and menial occupations, and their touch is regarded as conveying
defilement like that of the Sudras. [27] The status of the Sudras
was not always considered so low, and they were sometimes held to
rank above the mixed castes. And in modern times in Bengal Sudra
is quite a respectable term applied to certain artisan castes which
there have a fairly good position. But neither were the indigenous
tribes always reduced to the impure status. Their fortunes varied,
and those who resisted subjection were probably sometimes accepted as
allies. For instance, some of the most prominent of the Rajput clans
are held to have been derived from the aboriginal [28] tribes. On the
Aryan expedition to southern India, which is preserved in the legend of
Rama, as related in the Ramayana, it is stated that Rama was assisted
by Hanuman with his army of apes. The reference is generally held to
be to the fact that the Aryans had as auxiliaries some of the forest
tribes, and these were consequently allies, and highly thought of,
as shown by the legend and by their identification with the mighty
god Hanuman. And at the present time the forest tribes who live
separately from the Hindus in the jungle tracts are, as a rule, not
regarded as impure. But this does not impair the identification of the
Sudras with those tribes who were reduced to subjection and serfdom
in the Hindu villages, as shown by the evidence here given. The view
has also been held that the Sudras might have been a servile class
already subject to the Aryans, who entered India with them. And in
the old Parsi or Persian community four classes existed, the Athornan
or priest, the Rathestan or warrior, the Vasteriox or husbandman,
and the Hutox or craftsman. [29] The second and third of these names
closely resemble those of the corresponding Hindu classical castes,
the Rajanya or Kshatriya and the Vaishya, while Athornan, the name
for a priest, is the same as Atharvan, the Hindu name for a Brahman
versed in the Atharva-Veda. Possibly then Hutox may be connected with
Sudra, as _h_ frequently changes into _s_. But on the other hand the
facts that the Sudras are not mentioned in the Vedas, and that they
succeeded to the position of the Dasyus, the black hostile Indians,
as well as the important place they fill in the later literature,
seem to indicate clearly that they mainly consisted of the indigenous
subject tribes. Whether the Aryans applied a name already existing
in a servile class among themselves to the indigenous population whom
they subdued, may be an uncertain point.

13. The Vaishya.

In the Vedas, moreover, M. Senart shows that the three higher castes
are not definitely distinguished; but there are three classes--the
priests, the chiefs and the people, among whom the Aryans were
comprised. The people are spoken of in the plural as the clans who
followed the chiefs to battle. The word used is Visha. One verse
speaks of the Vishas (clans) bowing before the chief (Rajan), who was
preceded by a priest (Brahman). Another verse says: "Favour the prayer
(Brahma), favour the service; kill the Rakshasas, drive away the evil;
favour the power (_khatra_) and favour the manly strength; favour the
cow (_dherm_, the representative of property) and favour the people
(or house, _visha_)." [30]

Similarly Wilson states that in the time of the Vedas, _visha_ (related
to _vesha_, a house or district) signified the people in general;
and Vaishya, its adjective, was afterwards applied to a householder,
or that appertaining to an individual of the common people. The Latin
_vicus_ and the Greek o>=ikoc are the correspondents of _vesha_. [31]
The conclusion to be drawn is that the Aryans in the Vedas, like other
early communities, were divided by rank or occupation into three
classes--priests, nobles and the body of the people. The Vishas or
clans afterwards became the Vaishyas or third classical caste. Before
they entered India the Aryans were a migratory pastoral people,
their domestic animals being the horse, cow, and perhaps the sheep
and goat. The horse and cow were especially venerated, and hence were
probably their chief means of support. The Vaishyas must therefore
have been herdsmen and shepherds, and when they entered India and took
to agriculture, the Vaishyas must have become cultivators. The word
Vaishya signifies a man who occupies the soil, an agriculturist, or
merchant. [32] The word Vasteriox used by the ancestors of the Parsis,
which appears to correspond to Vaishya, also signifies a husbandman,
as already seen. Dr. Max Mueller states: "The three occupations of the
Aryas in India were fighting, cultivating the soil and worshipping
the gods. Those who fought the battles of the people would naturally
acquire influence and rank, and their leaders appear in the Veda as
Rajas or kings. Those who did not share in the fighting would occupy a
more humble position; they were called Vish, Vaishyas or householders,
and would no doubt have to contribute towards the maintenance of the
armies. [33] According to Manu, God ordained the tending of cattle,
giving alms, sacrifice, study, trade, usury, and also agriculture
for a Vaishya." [34] The Sutras state that agriculture, the keeping
of cattle, and engaging in merchandise, as well as learning the
Vedas, sacrificing for himself and giving alms, are the duties of a
Vaishya. [35] In the Mahabharata it is laid down that the Vaishyas
should devote themselves to agriculture, the keeping of cattle and
liberality. [36] In the same work the god Vayu says to Bhishma:
"And it was Brahma's ordinance that the Vaishya should sustain the
three castes (Brahman, Kshatriya and Vaishya) with money and corn;
and that the Sudra should serve them." [37]