Chapter 16 Shudras and the Counter-Revolution

Shudras and the Counter Revolution This is a 21-page foolscap typed manuscript. The cover page is having a title ‘Shudras and the Counter-Revolution’ and the text on next page starts with the same title. All these pages were loose and tagged together. Unfortunately, only 21 pages are available and the latter pages seem to be lost. — Editors. The laws of Manu relating to the Status of the Shudra make a very interesting reading for the simple reason that they have moulded thed psychology of the Hindus and determined their attitude towards the Shudras who forms at the present and at all times the most numerous part of Hindu society. They are set out below under separate heads so that it may be possible for the reader to have a complete idea of the status given by Manu to the Community of Shudras.

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. A Shudra is not to be deemed as a respectable person. For Manu enacts that:

XI. 24. A Brahmin shall never beg from a Shudra property for (performing) a sacrifice i.e. for religious purpose. All marriage ties with the Shudra were proscribed. Marriage with a woman belonging to any of the three other 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 1 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. As to office Manu prescribes.

1 Guarded means under the protection of some relation. Unguarded means living alone.

SHUDRAS AND THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION

VIII. 20. A Brahmana who is only a Brahmana by decent i.e. one who 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 Brahmins the King shall have poured burning oil in his mouth and oars. In the matter of acquiring learning the knowledge Manu ordains as follows:

III. 156. He who instructs Shudra pupils and he whose teacher is a Shudra shall become disqualified for being invited to a Shudra. IV. 99. He must never read the Vedas…. in the presence of the Shudras. Manu’s successors 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 pour hot molten lead in his ears.

As to right to property by the Shudra Manu enjoins as follows: 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 Brahmans.

VIII. 417. A Brahmanas may seize without hesitation if he be in distress for his subsistence, the goods of his Shudra. The Shudra can have only one occupation. This is one of the inexhorable Laws of Manu. Says Manu:

I. 91. One occupation only, the Lord prescribed to the Shudra, to serve meekly these other three castes (namely Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishyas).

X. 121. If a Shudra, (unable to subsist by serving Brahmans) seeks a livelihood, he may serve Kshatriyas, or he may also seek to maintain himself by attending on a wealthy Vaisya.

X. 122. But let (Shudra) serve Brahmans, 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.

Service by Shudra is not left by Manu to be regulated as a free contract. If the Shudra refuses to serve there is a provision for conscription which runs as follows:

VIII. 413. A Brahmana 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 Brahmana.

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 suport.

X. 125. The remnants of their food must be given to him, as well as their old household furniture.

A Shudra is required by Manu to be servile in his speech and manner towards the other classes.

VIII. 270. A Shudra who insults a twice-born 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 (twice-born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red hot into his mouth.

Manu is not satisfied with this. He wants this servile status of the Shudra to be expressed in the names and surnames of persons belonging to that community. Manu says:

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 Brahman’s name shall be a word implying happiness; of a Kshatriya’s word implying protection; of a Vaishya’s a term expressive of thriving and of a Shudra’s an expression denoting services. What was the position of the Shudra before Manu? Manu treats the Shudra as though he was an alien Non-Aryan not entitled to the social and religious privileges of the Aryan. Unfortunately the view that the Shudra was a Non-Aryan is too readily accepted by the generality of the people. But there can be no doubt that this view has not the slightest foundation in the literature of the ancient Aryans.

Reading the Religious literature of the ancient Aryans one comes across the names of various communities and groups of people. There were first of all the Aryans with their fourfold divisions of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. Besides them and apart from them there were (i) Asuras (ii) Suras or Devas (iii) Yakshas (iv) Gandharvas (v) Kinnars (vi) Charanas (vii) Ashvins and (viii) Nishadas. The Nishadas were a jungle people primitive and uncivilized. The Gandharvas, Yakshas, Kinnars, Charanas and Ashvins were professional classes and

SHUDRAS AND THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION

not communities. The word Asura is generic name given to various tribes known by their tribal names of Daityas, Danavas, Dasyus, Kalananjas, Kaleyyas, Kalins, Nagas, Nivata-Kavachas, Paulomas, Pishachas and Raxasas. We do not know if the Suras and Devas were composed of various tribes as the Asuras were. We only know the leaders of the Deva Community. The well known amongst them were Brahma, Vishnu Rudra, Surya, Indra, Varuna, Soma etc.

Due mostly to the ignorant interpretations of Sayanacharya some very curious beliefs prevail even among the best informed people about these communities namely the Aryans, the Asuras and the Devas and their inter-relation and their consanguinity. It is believed that the Asuras were not a human species at all. They are held to have been ghosts and goblins who plagued the Aryans with their nocturnal visitations. The Suras or Devas are understood to be poetic deifications of nature’s forces. With regard to the Aryans the belief is that they were a fair race with sharp nose and had a great deal of colour prejudice. As to the Dasyus it is asserted that a Dasyu is only another name for a Shudra. The Shudras it is said formed the aboriginals of India. They were dark and flat nosed. The Aryans who invaded India conquered them and made them slaves and as a badge of slavery gave them the name Dasyu which it is said comes from the word Das 1 which means a slave.

Every one of these beliefs is unfounded. The Asuras and Suras were communities of human beings as the Aryans were. The Asuras and Suras were descended from a common father Kashapa. The story is that Daksha Prajapati had 60 daughters, of them thirteen were given in marriage to Kashapa. Diti and Aditi were two among the 13 of Kashapa’s wives. Those born to Diti were called Asuras and those born to Aditi were called Suras or Devas. The two faught a long and a bloody battle for the soverignty of the world. This no doubt is mythology and mythology though it is history in hyperbole is still history.

The Aryans were not a race. The Aryans were a collection of people. The cement that held them together was their interest in the maintenance of a type of culture called Aryan culture. Any one who accepted the Aryan culture was an Aryan. Not being a race there was no fixed type of colour and physiognomy which could be called Aryan. There was no dark and flat nose people for the Aryans to distinguish themselves from 2. The whole of this edifice of colour prejudice as being factors for division and antagonism between Aryans and the Dasyus is based upon a wrong meaning given to the two words Varna and Anas which are used with reference to the Dasyus. The word Varna is taken to mean colour and the 1 According to Nirukta, Das means to destroy.

2 On the whole of this subject see a brilliant discussion by Mr. Satvalekar in Purusharth Vol. XIII. p.

word Anas is taken to mean without nose. Both these meanings are erroneous. Varna means Caste or group and Anas if read as An-As means uncultivated speech. That statement that the Aryans had a colour prejudice which determined their social order is arrant nonsense. If there were any people who were devoid of colour prejudice it is the Aryans and that is because there was no dominant colour to distinguish themselves. It is wrong to say that the Dasyus were non-Aryans by race. The Dasyus were not a pre-Aryan race of aboriginals of India. The Dasyus were members of the Aryan community who were deprived of the title of Arya for opposing some belief or cult which was an essential part of the Aryan Culture. How this belief that the Dasyus were Non-Aryans by race could have arisen it is difficult to understand. In the Rig Veda (X. 49) Indra says: “I (Indra) have killed with my thuderbolt for the good of the man, known as Kavi. I have protected Kupa by adopting means of protection. I took up the thunderbolt for killing Susna. I have deprived the Dasyus of the appellation of Arya.”

Nothing can be more positive and definite than this statement of Indra that the Dasyus were Aryans. Further and better proof of this fact can be had in the impeachment of Indra for the various atrocities he had committed. In the list of atrocities for which Indra was impeached there was one charge namely the killing of Vratra. Vratra was the leader of the Dasyus. It is unthinkable that such a charge could be framed against Indra if the Dasyus were not Aryans.

It is erroneous to believe that the Shudras were conquered by the Aryan invaders. In the first place the story that the Aryans came from outside India and invaded the natives has no evidence to support it. There is a large body of evidence that India is the home of the Aryans. In the second place there is no evidence anywhere of any warfare having taken place between Aryans and Dasyus but the Dasyus have nothing to do with the Shudras. In the third place it is difficult to believe that the Aryans were a powerful people capable of much military prowess. Any one who reads the history of the Aryans in India in their relation to the Devas will be reminded of the relationship that subsisted between the Viellens and their lords during the feudal times. The Devas were the feudal lords and the Aryans were the Villens. The innumerable sacrifices which the Aryans performed have the look of fudal dues paid to the Deva. This servility of the Aryans to the Devas was due to the fact that without the help and the protection of the Devas they could not withstand the assualts of the Asuras. It is too much to presume that so effete a people could have conquered the Shudras. Lastly there was no necessity to conquer the Shudra. They were Aryans in the only sense in which the word Aryan is used,

SHUDRAS AND THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION

namely, the upholders of the Aryans Culture. Two things are clear about the Shudras. Nobody has ever contended that they were dark and flat nosed. Nobody has contended that they were defeated or enslaved by the Aryans. It is wrong to treat the Dasyus and Shudras as one and the same. As a people they may be the same. But culturally they were quite different. The Dasyus were Non-Aryans in the sense they had fallen away and rebelled against the Aryan culture. The Shudras on the other hand were Aryans i.e. they were believers in the Aryan way of life. The Shudra was accepted as an Aryan and as late as Kautilya’s Artha Shastra was addressed an Arya.

The Shudra was an intergral, natural and valued member of the Aryan Society is proved by a prayer which is found in the Yajur Veda 1and which is offered by the Sacrificer. It runs as follows: “……….. O Gods Give lustre to our holy priests, set lustre in our ruling chiefs, Lustre to Vaisyas, Shudras: Give, through lustre; Lustre unto me.” It is a remarkable prayer, remarkable because it shows that the Shudra was a member of the Aryan Community and was also a respected member of it. That the Shudras were invited to be present at the coronation of the King along with Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas is proved by the description given in the Mahabharata of the coronation of Yudhisthira the eldest brother of the Pandavas. Shudra took part in the consecration of the King. According to ancient writer called Nilkantha speaking of the coronation ceremony expressly says: “that the four chief Ministers, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra consecrated the new king. Then the leaders of each Varna and by the Castes lower still consecrated him with the holy water. Then followed acclamation by the twice-born. In the post-vedic period preceding Manu there was group of the representatives of the people called the Ratnis. The Ratnis played a significant part in the investiture of the King. The Ratnis were so called because they held the Ratna (jewel) which was a symbol of sovereignty. The king received his sovereignty only when the Ratnis handed over to him the jewel of sovereignty and on receiving his sovereignty the King went to the house of each of the Ratnis and made an offering to him. It is a significant fact that the Shudra was one of the Ratnis.

Shudras were members of the two political Assemblies of ancient times namely the Janapada and Paura and as a member of this he was entitled to special respect even from a Brahmin.

1……… White Yajur Veda p. 200.

That the Shudra in the Ancient Aryan Society had reached a high political status is indisputable. They could become ministers of State. The Mahabharata bears testimony to this. Enumerating the different classes of ministers within his memory the writer of the Mahabharata mentions a list 1 of 37 Ministers of whom four are Brahmins, eight Kshatriyas, twenty-one Vaishyas, three Shudras and one Suta.

Shudras did not stop with being ministers of State. They even became Kings. The story of Shudras which is given in the Rig Veda stands in cruel contrast with the views expressed by Manu regarding the eligibility of the Shudra to be a King. The reign of Sudas if referred to at all is referred only in connection with the terrible contest between Vashishtha and Vishvamitra as to who should become the purohit or Royal priest of King Sudas. The issue involved in the contest was as to the right to officiate as the Purohit or the King. Vashishtha who was a Brahmin and who was already an officiating priest of Sudas claimed that a Brahmin alone could become the Purohit of a King while Vishvamitra who was a Kshatriya contended that a Kshatriya was competent for that office. Vishvamitra succeeded and in his turn became the Purohit of Sudas. The contest is indeed memorable because the issue involved in it is very crucial although the result has not been a permanent deprivation of the Brahmins. But there can be no doubt the story is probably the best piece of social history that is to be found in the ancient literature. Unfortunately nobody has taken serious notice of it. Nobody has even asked who this King was. Sudas was the son of Paijavana and Paijavana is the son of Devodas who was the King of Kasi i.e. Benares. What was the Varna of Sudas? Few would believe if they were told that King Sudas was a Shudra. But that is a fact and it can be proved by the testimony of the Mahabharata2 where in the Santipurva a reference is made to this Paijavana. It is stated that Paijavana was a Shudra. In the light of this the story of Sudas sheds new light on the status of the Shudra in the Aryan Society. It shows that a Shudra could be a reigning monarch. It also shows that both the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas not only saw no humiliation in serving a Shudra King but they with each other to secure his patronage and were ready to perform vedic ceremonies at his house. It cannot be said that there were no Shudra Kings in later times. On the contrary history shows that the two dynasties which preceded Manu were dynasties of Shudras Kings. The Nandas who ruled from B.C.413 to B.C. 322* were Shudras. The mauryas who succeded 1 Jaiswal—Hindu Polity Part II. p. 148.

2 Muir Sanskrit Texts Vol. I. p. 366.

*Figures are incorporated by Editors as they are not in the M.S. —Editors.

SHUDRAS AND THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION

the Nandas and who ruled from 322 3.C, to 183 B.C.* were also Shudras. What more glaring piece of evidence can there be to show the high dignity enjoyed by the Shudra than to point to the case of Asoka who was not merely the Emperor of India but a Shudra and his Empire was the Empire built by the Shudras.

On the question of the right of the Shudra to study the Vedas a reference may be made to the Chhandogya Upanished (V. 1.2). It relates the story of one Janasruti to whom Veda Vidya was taught by the preceptor Raikva. This Janasruti was a Shudra. This story if it is a genuine story leaves no doubt that there was a time when there was no bar against the Shudra in the matter of studying the Vedas. Not only was Shudra free to study the Vedas but there were Shudras who had reached the status of Rishis and has been composers of the Hymns of the Vedas. The story of the Rishi Kavasha Aliusha 1 is very illuminating. He was a Rishi and the author of several hymns of the Tenth Book of the Rig-Veda. 2 On the question of the spiritual eligibility of the Shudra to perform the Vedic ceremonies and sacrifies the following data may be presented. Jaimini3 the author of the Purva Mimansa mentions an ancient teacher by name Badari—whose work is lost as an exponent of the view that even Shudra could perform Vedic sacrifices. The Bharadvaja Srauta Sutra (v. 28) admits that there exists another school of thought which holds that a Sudra can consecrate the three sacred fires necessary for the performance of a Vedic Sacrifice. Similarly the Commentator of the Katyayana Srauta Sutra (1 & 5) admits that there are certain Vedic texts which lead to the inference that the Shudra was eligible to perform Vedic rites. In the Satpath Brahmana (I. 1.4.12) there is enunciated a rule of etiquette which the priest officiating at the performance of a sacrifice is required to observe. It relates to the mode in which the priest should address the Haviskut (the person celebrating the sacrifice) calling upon him to begin the ceremony. The rule says:

“Now there are four different forms of this call, viz. ‘Come hither’ (Ehi) in the case of a Brahmana; ‘approach’ (Agahi) and ‘hasten hither’ (Adarva) in the case of a Vaishya and a member of the Military caste and ‘run hither’ (Adhava) in that of a Shudra.”

In the Satpatha Brahman 4 there is evidence to show that the Shudra was eligible to perform the Soma Yaga and to partake of the divine drink Soma. It says that in the Soma Yaga in place of a ‘payovrata’ 1 Aitercya Brahmana Vol. II. p. 112.

2 Max-Muller— Ancient Sanskrit Literature 1860, p.58. 3 See Kane—History of Dharmashastras.

4 Quoted by Kane—History of Dharmashastras.

5 Figures are incorporated by Editors as they are not in the MS. —Editors.

(vow to drink milk only) Mastu (whey) is prescribed for the Shudra. In another place the same Satapatha Brahmana 1 says:

“There are four classes, the Brahmin, Rajanya, Vaishya and Sudra. There is no one of these who dislikes Soma. If any one of them however should do so, let there be an atonment.”

This means that the drinking of Soma was not only permissible but it was compulsory on all including the Shudra. But in the story of the Ashvins there is definite evidence that the Shudra had a right to the divine drink of Soma. The Ashvins as the story 2 goes once happened to behold Sukanya when she had just bathed and when her person was bare. She was young girl married to a Rishi by name Chyavana who at the time of marriage was so old as to be dying almost any day. The Ashvins were captivated by the beauty of Sukanya and said “accept one of us for your husband, it behoveth thee not to spend thy youth fruitlessly.” She refused saying “I am devoted to my husband.” They again spoke to her and this time proposed a bargain—“We two are the celestial physicians of note. We will make thy husband young and graceful. Do thou then select one of us as thy husband.” She went to her husband and communicated to him the terms of the bargain. Chyavana said to Sukanya “Do thou so” and the bargain was carried out and Chyavana was made a young man by the Ashwins. Subsequently a question arose whether the Ashwins were entitled to Soma which was the drink of the Gods. Indra objected saying that the Ashwins were Shudras and therefore not entitled to Soma. Chyavana who had received perpetual youth from the Ashwins set aside the contention and compelled Indra to give them Soma.

All these provisions can have no meaning unless the Shudra was in fact performing the Vedic ceremonies to which they relate—there is evidence to show that a Shudra woman took part in the Vedic sacrifice known as the Ashwamedha. 3 With regard to the Upanayana ceremony and the right to wear the sacred thread there is nowhere an express prohibition against the Shudra. On the other hand in the Sansakara Ganapati there is an express provision declaring the Shudra to be eligible for Upanayan. 4 The Shudra though belonging to a lower class was nonetheless a free citizen in days before Manu cannot be gainsaid. Consider the following provisions in Kautilya’s Artha Shastra:

1 Quoted by Muir Sanskrit Texts I p. 367.

2 V. Fausboil Indian Mythology pp. 128-134.

3 Jaiswal Indian Polity Part II. p. 17.

4 Referred to by Max-Muller in Ancient Sanskrit Literature-(1860)—p. 207.

SHUDRAS AND THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION

“The selling or mortgaging by kinsmen of the life of a Sudra who is not a born slave, and has not attained majority, but is an Arya in birth shall be punished with a fine of 2 panas.”

“Deceiving a slave of his money or depriving him of the privileges he can exercise as an Arya (Aryabhava), shall be punished with half the fine (levied for enslaving the life of an Arya).” “Failure to set a slave at liberty on the receipt of a required amount of ransom shall be punished with a fine of 12 panas; putting a slave under confinement for no reason (samrodhaschakaranat) shall likewise be punished.

“The offspring of a man who has sold himself off as a slave shall be an Arya. A slave shall be entitled without prejudice to his master’s work but also the inheritance he has received from his father.” Why did Manu suppress the Shudra?

This riddle of the Shudra is not a simple riddle. It is a complex one. The Aryans were for ever attempting to Aryanize the Non-Aryans i.e. bringing them within the pale of the Aryan Culture. So keen were the Aryans on Aryanization that they had developed a religious ceremony for the mass conversion of the Non-Aryans. The ceremony was called Vratya-stoma. Speaking of the Vratya-Stoma Mahamahopadhyaya Haraprasad Shastri says:

“The ceremony by which these Vratyas were purified, and which is described in the Pancavimsa Brahmana differed at least in one particular from other great ceremonies of the Vedic times, namely, while other ceremonies had only one sacrificer and his wife in the hall of sacrifice, this ceremony had thousands of sacrificers. One of them, the wisest, the richest or the most powerful acted as Grahapati or Patriarch and the rest simply followed him. The Grahapati had to pay a higher Daksina or fee than the rest.”

“I consider this to be a device by which thousands and thousands of Vratyas were admitted to the society of the Rsis by one ceremony, and such ceremonies were of frequent occurrence, thus admitting hordes after hordes of nomadic Aryans into settled habits. The purified Vratyas were not allowed to bring their possessions in Vratya life with them in settled life. They had to leave them to those who remained Vratyas still or do the so-called Brahmins of the Magadha-desa, which, as I have elsewhere shown, was mostly inhabited by men whom the Rsis looked down upon.”

“But when the Vratyas were admitted to settled life, they were admitted as fully equals. The Rsis used to eat food cooked by them, and they used to eat food cooked by the Rsis. They were taught all

the three Vidyas, Sama, Rk, and Yajus, and they were allowed to study the Vedas, and teach them, and to sacrifice for themselves and for others, that is, they were considered as fully equal. Not only were they treated as fully equal but they attained the highest proficiency of a Rsi. Samans were revealed to them, and even Rks. One of the purified Vratyas, Kausitaki was allowed to collect Brahmans of the Rig-Veda, which collection still goes under his name.” The Aryans were not only converting to their way of life the willing non-Aryans they were also attempting to make converts from among the unwilling Asuras who were opposed to the Aryans, their cult of sacrifice, their theory of Chaturvarna and even to their Vedas which according to the mythology the Asuras stole away from the Aryas. The story of Vishnu rescuing Pralhad by killing his father the Asura called Hiranya Kashapu on the ground that Pralhad was willing to be converted to the Aryan Culture while Hiranya Kashapu was opposed to it is an illustration in point. Here are instances of Non-Aryans being naturalized and enfranchized. Why was an opposite attitude taken against the Shudra? Why was the Shudra fully naturalized and fully enfranchized, denaturalized and disfranchized? The treatment given to the Nishadas gives a point to this riddle which should not be overlooked. The Ancient Sanskrit Literature is full of reference to the five tribes. They are described under various appellations1 such as Panch-Krishtayah, Panch-Kshitayah, PanchKshityas Manushyah, Panch-Charshanayah, Panch-Janah, Panchijanya viz., Pancha-Bhuma, Panchajata. There is a difference of opinion as to what these terms denote. Sayanacharya the Commentator of Rig Veda says that these expressions refer to the four Varnas and the Nishads. The Vishnu Purana gives the following story about the Nishads:

“7. The Maiden named Sunitha, who was the first born of Mrityu (Death) was given as wife to Anga; and of her Vena was born.”

8. This son of Mrityu’s daughter, infected with the taint of his maternal grandfather, was born corrupt, as if by nature.

9. When Vena was inaugurated as king by the eminent rishis, he caused this proclamation to be made on the earth; “Men must not sacrifice, or give gifts, or present oblations. Who else but myself is the enjoyer of sacrifices? I am for ever the lord of offerings.”

10. Then all the rishis approaching the king with respectful salutations, said to him in a gentle and conciliatory tone: 1 Source not quoted. — Editors.

SHUDRAS AND THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION

11. ‘Hear, O King, what we have to say:

12. We shall worship Hari, the monarch of the Gods, and the lord of all sacrifices with a Dirghasattra (prolonged sacrifice), from which the highest benefits will accrue to your kingdom, your person and your subjects. May blessing rest upon you? You shall have a share in the ceremony.

13. Vishnu the Lord of sacrifices Male, being propitiated by us with this rite, will grant all the objects of your desire. Hari, the Lord of Sacrifices, bestows on those kings in whose country he is honoured with oblation everything that they wish.” Vena replied: “What other being is superior to me? Who else but I should be adored ? Who is this person called Hari, whom you regard as the Lord of sacrifice? Brahma Janardana, Rudra, Indra, Vayu, Yama, Ravi (the Sun) Agni, Varuna, Dhatri, Pushan, Earth, the Moon,— these and the other gods who curse and bless are all present in king’s person: for he is composed of all the gods. Knowing this, ye must act in conformity with my commands. Brahmans, ye must neither give gifts, nor present oblations nor sacrifices.

14. As obedience to their husbands is esteemed the highest duty of women, so is the observance of my orders incumbent upon you.” The Rishis answered. ‘Give permission great kings: let not religion perish: this whole world is but a modified form of oblations.

15. When religion perishes the whole world is destroyed with it, When Vena although thus admonished and repeatedly addressed by the eminent rishis, did not give his permission, then all the munis, filled with wrath and indignation, cried out to one another, “Slay, slay the sinner.”

16. This man of degraded life, who blasphemes the sacrified Male, the god, the Lord without beginning or end, is not fit to be lord of the earth.’ So saying the munis smote with blades of kusa grass consecrated by texts this king who had been already smitten by his blasphemy of the divine being and his other offences. The munis afterwards beheld dust all round, and asked the people who were standing near what that was.

17. They were informed: “In this country which has no king, the people being distressed, have become robbers, and have begun to seize the property of others.

18. It is from these robbers rushing impetuously, and plundering other men’s goods, that this great dust is seen ?” Then all the munis, consulting together, rubbed with force the thigh of the king, who was childless, in order to produce a son. From his thigh when

rubbed there was produced a man like a charred log, with flat face, and extremely short.

19. “What shall I do,” cried the man, in distress, to the Brahmans. They said to him, “Sit down (nishida); and from this he became a Nishada.

20. From his sprang the Nishadas dwelling in the Vindhya mountains, distinguished by their wicked deeds.

21. By this means the sin of the king departed out of him; and so were the Nishads produced, the offspring of the wickedness of Vena.” This is a mythological origin of the Nishads. But it contains historical facts. It proves that the Nishads were a low, primitive jungle tribe living in the forests of the Vindhya mountains, that they were a wicked people i.e. opposed to the Aryan Culture. They invented a mythology for explaining their origin and connecting them with the Aryan Society. All this was done in order to support the inclusion of the Nishads into the Aryan fold though not in the Aryan Society. Now there is nowhere any sort of disabilities imposed upon Nishads a low, uncivilized and foreign tribe. Question is why were the disabilities imposed upon the Shudra, who was civilized and an Arya?

zz