Vol. 4 · pages 236–240

225 RIDDLE NO. 18 The Kiratas are according to Manu Vratya Kshatriyas. But the Ballalacharitta makes them bastards born from Vaishya father and Brahmin mother. It is quite clear that some of the communities mentioned by Manu as being bastard in origin far from being bastard were independent in origin and yet Manu and the rest of the Smratikara’s call them Bastards. Why this madness on their part ? Is there a method in their madness? Having regard to all these considerations it is a riddle why Manu at all raised the question of mixed castes and what he wanted to say about them? It is possible that Manu had realized that the Chaturvarna had failed and that the existence of a large number of castes which should neither be described as Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras was the best proof of the break down of the Chaturvarna and that he was therefore called upon to explain how these castes who were outside the Chaturvarna came into existence notwithstanding the rule of Chaturvarnas. But did Manu realize how terrible is the Explanation which he has given? What does his explanation amount to? What a reflection on the character of men and particularly of women. It is obvious that the unions of men and women must have been clandestine because prohibited by the rule of Chaturvarna. Such clandestine unions could take place only here and there. They could not have taken place on a wholesale scale. But unless one assumes a wholesale state of promiscuity how can one justify the origin of the Chandals or untouchables as given by Manu. The caste of Chandala is said by Manu to be the progeny of illegitimate intercourse between a Shudra male and a Brahman female. Can this be true? It means that Brahmin women must have been very lax in their morality and must have had special sexual attraction for the Shudra 1. This is unbelievable. So vast is the Chandala population that even if every Brahmin female was a mistress of a Shudra it could not account of the vast number of Chandalas in the country. Did Manu realize by propounding his theory of the origin of the mixed castes he was assigning an ignoble origin to a vast number of the people of this country leading to their social and moral degradation. Why did he say that the castes were mixed in origin, when as a matter of fact they were independent in their existence? zz 1 Megasthenes records that the ancient Brahmins were distrustful of their wives and did not communicate their metaphysical doctrine to women on the ground that being talkative they would communicate their knowledge to those who had no right to it which probably means the Shudras.

RIDDLE NO. 19 THE CHANGE FROM PATERNITY TO MATERNITY. WHAT DID THE BRAHMINS WISH TO GAIN BY IT? Mr. Mayne in his treatise on Hindu law has pointed out some anomalous features of the rules of Kinships. He says: “No part of the Hindu Law is more anomalous than that which governs the family relations. Not only does there appear to be a complete break of continuity between the ancient system and that which now prevails, but the different parts of the ancient system appear in this respect to be in direct conflict with each other. We find a law of inheritance, which assumes the possibility of tracing male ancestors in an unbroken pedigre extending to fourteen generations; while coupled with it is a family law, in which several admitted forms of marriage are only euphemisms for seduction and rape, and in which twelve sorts of sons are recognized, the majority of whom have no blood relationship to their own father.” The existence of this anomaly is a fact and will be quite clear to those who care to study the Hindu Law of marriage and paternity. The Hindu Law recognizes eight different forms of marriage, namely (1) Brahma, (2) Daiva, (3) Arsha, (4) Prajapatya, (5) Asura, (6) Gandharva, (7) Rakshasa and (8) Paisacha. The Brahma marriage is the gift of a daughter, clothed and decked to a man learned in the Veda, whom her father voluntarily invites and respectfully receives. The Daiva marriage consists of the giving of the daughter by father to the family priest attending a sacrifice at the time of the payment of the sacrificial fee and in lieu of it. Arsha marriage is characterized by the fact that the bridegroom has to pay a price for the bride to the father of the bride. Prajapatya form of marriage is marked by the application of a man for a girl to be his wife and the granting of the application by the This is an eleven-page typed chapter. Except the title of the chapter no other additions are found in the handwriting of the author.—Ed.

227 RIDDLE NO. 19 father of the girl. The difference between Prajapatya and Brahma marriage lies in the fact that in the latter the gift of the daughter is made by the father voluntarily but has to be applied for. The fifth or the Asura form of marriage is that in which the bridegroom having given as much wealth as he can afford to the father and paternal kinsmen and to the girl herself takes her as his wife. There is not much difference between Arsha and Asura forms of marriage. Both involve sale of the bride. The difference lies in this that in the Arsha form the price is fixed while in the Asura form it is not. Gandharva marriage is a marriage by consent contracted from nonreligious and sensual motives. Marriage by seizure of a maiden by force from her house while she weeps and calls for assistance after her kinsmen and friends have been slain in battle or wounded and their houses broken open, is the marriage styled Rakshasa. Paisacha marriage is marriage by rape on a girl either when she is asleep or flushed with strong liquor or disordered in her intellect. Hindu Law recognized thirteen kinds of sons. (1) Aurasa, (2) Kshetraja, (3) Pautrikaputra, (4) Kanina, (5) Gudhaja, (6) Punarbhava, (7) Sahodhaja, (8) Dattaka, (9) Kritrima, (10) Kritaka, (11) Apaviddha, (12) Svayamdatta and (13) Nishada. The Aurasa is a son begotten by a man himself upon his lawfully wedded wife. Putrikaputra means a son born to a daughter. Its significance lies in the system under which a man who had a daughter but no son could also have his daughter to cohabit with a man selected or appointed by him. If a daughter gave birth to a son by such sexual intercourse the son became the son of the girl’s father. It was because of this that the son was called Putrikaputra. Man’s right to compel his daughter to submit to sexual intercourse with a man of his choice in order to get a son for himself continued to exist even after the daughter was married. That is why a man was warned not to marry a girl who had no brothers. Kshetraja literally means son of the field i.e., of the wife. In Hindu ideology the wife is likened to the field and the husband being likened to the master of the field. Where the husband was dead, or alive but impotent or incurably diseased the brother or any other sapinda of the deceased was appointed by the family to procreate a son on the wife. The practice was called Niyoga and the son so begotten was called Kshetraja. If an unmarried daughter living in the house of her father has through illicit intercourse given birth to a son and if she subsequently was married the son before marriage was claimed by her husband as his son. Such a son was called Kanina.

228 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES The Gudhaja was apparently a son born to a woman while the husband had access to her but it is suspected that he is born of an adulterous connection. As there is no proof by an irrebutable presumption so to say the husband is entitled to claim the son as his own. He is called Gudhaja because his birth is clouded in suspicious, Gudha meaning suspicion. Sahodhaja is a son born to a woman who was pregnant at the time of her marriage. It is not certain whether he is the son of the husband who had access to the mother before marriage or whether it is the case of a son begotten by a person other than the husband. But it is certain that the Sahodhaja, is a son born to a pregnant maiden and claimed as his son by the man who marries her. Punarbhava is the son of a woman who abandoned by her husband and having lived with others, re-enters his family. It is also used to denote the son of a woman who leaves an impotent, outcaste, or a mad or diceased husband and takes another husband. Parasava1 is the son of a Brahmin by his Shudra wife. The rest of the sons are adopted sons as distinguished for those who were claimed as sons. Dattaka is the son whom his father and mother give in adoption to another whose son he then becomes. Kratrima is a son adopted with the adoptee’s consent only. Krita is a son purchased from his parents. Apaviddha is a boy abandoned by his parents and is then taken in adopted and reckoned as a son. Svayamdatta is a boy bereft of parents or abandoned by them seeks a man shelter and presents himself saying ‘Let me become thy son’ when accepted he becomes his son. It will be noticed how true it is to say that many forms of marriage are only euphemisms for seduction and rape and how many of the sons have no blood relationship to their father. These different forms of marriage and different kinds of sons were recognized as lawful even up to the time of Mana and even the changes made by Manu are very minor. With regard to the forms of marriage Manu 2 does not declare them to be illegal. All that he says that of the eight forms, six, namely, Brahma, Daiva, Arsha, Prajapatya, Asura, Gandharva, Rakshasa and Paisachya are lawful for a Kshatriya, and that three namely Asura, Gandharva and Paisachya are lawful for a Vaishya and a Shudra. 1 He was also called Nishad. Jimutvahana seems to make a difference between Parasava and Nishad. Parasava he says is the son of a Brahmin by an unmarried Shudra woman while Nishad is the son of a Brahmin by his Shudra wife. 2 Manu III. 23.

229 RIDDLE NO. 19 Similarly he does not disaffiliate any of the 12 sons. On the contrary he recognises their kinship. The only change he makes is to alter the rules of inheritance by putting them into two classes (1) heirs and kinsmen and (2) kinsmen but not heirs. He says 1 : 159. “The legitimate son of the body, the son begotten on a wife, the son adopted, the son made, the son secretly born, and the son cast off (are) the six heirs and kinsmen.” 160. “The son of an unmarried damsel, the son received with the wife, the son bought, the son begotten on a remarried woman; the son self-given and the son of a Sudra female (are) the six (who are) not heirs, (but) kinsmen.” 162. “If the two heirs of one man be a legitimate son of his body and a son begotten on his wife, each (of the two sons), to the exclusion of the other, shall take the estate of his (natural) father.” 163. “The legitimate son of the body alone (shall be) the owner of the paternal estate; but, in order to avoid harshness, let him allow a maintenance to the rest.” There is another part of the law of consanguinity which has undergone a profound change but which has hardly been noticed by anybody. It relates to the determination of the Varna of the child. What is to be the Varna of the child? Is it to be the father’s Varna or the mother’s Varna? According to the law as it prevailed in the days before Manu the Varna of the child was determined by the Varna of the father. The Varna of the mother was of no account. A few illustrations will suffice to prove the thesis. Father Mother Child Name Varna Name Varna Name Varna 1. Shantanu Kshatriya Ganga Unknown Bhishma Kshatriya 2. Parashara Brahmana Matsyagandha Fisherman Krishna Dwaya Brahman 3. Vashishtha Brahmana Akshamala Payan 4. Shantanu Kshatriya Matsyagandha Fisherman Vichitravirya Kshatriya 5. Vishwamitra Kshatriya Menaka Apsara Shakuntala Kshatriya 6. Yayati Kshatriya Devayani Brahmin Yadu Kshatriya 7. Yayati Kshatriya Sharmishtha Asuri Druhya Kshatriya 8. Jaratkaru Brahman Jaratkari Naga Astika Brahmin 1 Manu IX. 159-160: 162-163: pp. 359-60.