Vol. 12 · pages 736–740

715MISCELLANEOUS NOTES Satakarni and it was the former which arranged it, when Rudraman, the Satrap of Ujjayini conquered the Andhra King. The antagonism between the eastern & western states seems to have been accompanied by a difference of ideals. The Sakas, like all the Scythians of India or Serindia, such as the Thorkhans, retained from their foreign origin a sympathy for Buddhism, whereas the Andhras were keen supporters of Brahmanism. The Guptas The events of the third century are unknown to history and we have very little information about the Kushan empire. Day light returns in 318-19, when there arises in the old country of Magadha a new dynasty-Gupta. The Guptas-Chandragupta II conquered the country of Malvas, Gujrath and Surashtra (Kathiwar) overthrowing the 1st great Satrap of the Saka dynasty of Ujjain. As an extension of his territory westward he made Ayodhya and Kausambi his capitals instead of Pataliputra. About 155 (B.C.) he conquered the whole of the lower Indus and Kathewar, waged war in Rajputana, and Oudh but took Mathura (Muttra) on the Jumna, and even reached Pataliputra. He was severely defeated by Pushyamitra (?). Bactriana was at least in the north, a barrier between Parthia and India. India was therefore less exposed to attack from Parthia. Nevertheless, there was at least one Parthian ruler, Mithradates I (171-136) who annexed the country of Taxila for a few years, about 138. End of the independence of Parthia and Bactria The event that put an end to the independence of Parthia and Bactria was a new invasion, resulting from a movement of tribes, which had taken place far away from India in the Mongolian steppes. About 170 (B. C.) a horde of nomadic Scythians, the Yuch-chi or Tokharians, being driven from Gobi, the present Kansu, by the

716 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Hiang-nu or Huns, started on a wild migration which upset the whole balance of Asia. They fell on the Sakas, who were Iranianized Scythians dwelling north of the Persion empire and settled in their grazing grounds north of the Jazartes. The expelled Sakas fell on Parthia and Bactriana, obliterating the last vestiges of Greek rule, between 140 and 120 (B. C.) Then the Tokharians, being defeated in their turns by the Wu-Sun tribe, established themselves on the Oxus, and after that took all the country of the Sakas in eastern Iran at the entrance to India. That entrance was found in the first century after Christ. The conquest of India was the work of the Kushans (Kushana), a dynasty which united the Yue-Chi tribes and established their dominion both over their own kinsfolk the Sakas of Parthia and over peoples of the Punjab. The accession of the principal King of this line, Kanishka, was placed at uncertain dates between 57 B. C. and A. D. 200. Pushyamitra—a mayor of the Palace as Sybrani Livi called him. The Seleucid Empire ruled by Antiochos III (261-246 B. C.) and lost two provinces Parthia and Bactriana which emancipated themselves simultaneously. The Parthians whom the Indians called Pahalvas, were related to the nomads of the Turkoman steppes and occupied the country south-east of the Caspian. The Bactrians bordered on the Parthians on the north-east and were settled between the Hindu Kush and the Oxus ; the number and wealth of their towns were legendary. These two peoples seem to have taken advantage of the difficulties of Antiochos and his successors, Seleucos II (246-226 B. C.) and III (226-223 B. C.) in the west to break away. The Parthian revolt was a natural movement, led by Arsaces, the founder of a dynasty which was to rule Persia for nearly 500 years. The Bactrian rising was brought about by the ambition of a Greek satrap. Diodotos, represents an outbreak of Hellennism in the heart of Asia.

717MISCELLANEOUS NOTES There is no doubt that the formation of these enterprizing nations on the Indo-Iranian border helped to shake the empire of Ashoka in the time of his successors. The Punjab, once a Persian satrapy and then a province of Alexander, was to find itself still more exposed to attack, now that smaller but turbulent states had arisen at its doors. After Diodotos I & II, the King of Bactria was Euthidemes, who went to war with Antioches the Great of Syria. Peace was concluded with the recognition of Bactrian independence about 208. But during hostilities Syrian troops had crossed the Hindu Kush and enterning the Kabul valley had severely dispoiled the ruler Subhagasena. Demetrius, the son of Enthidemos, increased his dominion not only in the present Afghanistan but in India proper, and bore the title of King of the Indians (200-190). Between 190 and 180 there were Greek adventurers reigning at Taxila, named Paleon & Agathocles. From 160 to 140 roughly, Kabul and the Punjab were held by a pure Greek, Milinda or Minander, who left a name in the history of Buddhism. III Huns In the last years of Kumargupta new Iranian peoples assailed the empire, but they were kept back from the frontiers. Under Skandagupta, the first wave of formidable migration came down upon the same frontiers. This consisted of nomad Mongoloids to whom India afterwards gave the genuine name of Huna, under which we recognised the Huns who invaded Europe. Those who reached India after the middle of the fifth century were white Huns or Ephthalites, who in type were closer to the Turks than to the hideous followers of Attila. After a halt in the valley of the Oxus they took possession of Persia and Kabul. Skandagupta had driven them off for a few years (455 A. D.) but after they had slain Firoz the Sassanid in 484, no Indian state could stop them. One of them, named Toramana, established himself among the Malavas in 500 and his son Mihirgula set up his capital at Sakol (Sialkot) in the Punjab.

718 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES A native prince Yeshodharman shook off the yoke of Mihirgula. The expulsion of the Huns was not quite complete everywhere. A great many resided in the basin of the Indus. At the beginning of the 7th century a power arose from the chaos in the small principality of Sthanvisvara (Thaneshwar, near Delhi). Here a courageous Raja Prabhakar Vardhan organized a kingdom, which showed its mettle against the Gurjars, the Malwas and other neighbouring princes. Shortly after his death in 604 or 605 his eldest son was murdered by the orders of the king of Gauda in Bengal. The power fell to his younger brother Harsha. zz

4 MANU AND THE SHUDRAS [This is a 31 page handwrittten Ms. of Dr. Ambedkar. The chapter has no title. It is also left incomplete. The title is suggested—editor.] I The reader is now aware that in the Scheme of Manu there were two principal social divisions: those outside the Chaturvarna and those inside the Chaturvarna. The reader also knows that the ; present day Untouchables are the counterpart of those outside the Chaturvarna and that those inside the Chaturvarna were contrasted with those outside. They were a composite body made up of four different classes, the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas, the Vaishyas and the Shudras. The Hindu social system is not only a system in which the idea of classes is more dominant than the idea of community but it is a system which is based on inequality between classes and therefore between individuals. To put it concretely, the classes i.e. the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras and Antyajas (Untouchables) are not horizontal, all on the same level. They are vertical i.e. one above the other. No Hindu will controvert this statement. Every Indian knows it. If there is any person who would have any doubt about it he can only be a foreigner. But any doubt which a foreigner might have will be dissolved if he is referred to the law of Manu who is the chief architect of the Hindu society and whose law has formed the foundations on which it is built. For his benefit I reproduce such texts from the Manu Smriti as go to prove that Hindu society is based on the principle of inequality. II It might be argued that the inequality prescribed by Manu in his Smriti is after all of historical importance. It is past history and cannot be supposed to have any bearing on the present conduct of the Hindu. I am sure nothing can be greater error than this. Manu is not a matter of the past. It is even more than a past of the present. It is a ‘living past’ and therefore as really present as any present can be.