Vol. 4 · pages 241–245

230 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES What does Manu do? The changes made by Manu in the law of the child’s Varna are of a most revolutionary character. Manu 1 lays down the following rules: 5. “In all castes (varna) those (children) only which are begotten in the direct order on wedded wives, equal (in caste) and married as (virgins) are to be considered as belonging to the same caste (as their fathers).” 6. “ Sons, begotten by twice-born men on wives of the next lower castes, they declare to be similar (to their fathers, but) blamed on account of the fault (inherent) in their mothers.” 14. “Those sons of the twice-born, begotten on wives of the next lower castes, who have been enumerated in due order, they call by the name Anantaras (belonging to the next lower caste) on account of the blemish (inherent) in their mothers” 41. “Six sons, begotten (by Aryans) on women of equal and the next lower castes (Anantara), have the duties of twice-born men; but all those born in consequence of a violation of the law are, as regards their duties, equal to Sudras.” Manu distinguishes the following cases: (1) Where the father and mother belong to the same Varna. (2) Where the mother belongs to a Varna next lower to that of the father e.g., Brahman father and Kshatriya mother, Kshatriya father and Vaishya mother, Vaishya father and Shudra mother. (3) Where the mother belongs to a Varna more than one degree lower to that of the father, e.g., Brahmin father and Vaishya or Shudra mother, Kshatriya father and Shudra mother. In the first case the Varna of the child is to be the Varna of the father. In the second case also the Varna of the child is to be the Varna of the father. But in the third case the child is not to have the father’s Varna. Manu does not expressly say what is to be the Varna of the child if it is not to be that of the father. But all the commentators of Manu Medhatithi, Kalluka Bhatt, Narada and Nandapandit—agree saying what of the course is obvious that in such cases the Varna of the child shall be the Varna of the mother. In short Manu altered the law of the child’s Varna from that of Pitrasavarna—according to father’s Varna to Matrasavarna—according to mother’s Varna. This is most revolutionary change. It is a pity few have realized that given the forms of marriage, kinds of sons, the permissibility of Anuloma marriages and the theory of Pitrasavarnya, the Varna system notwithstanding the desire of the Brahmins to make it a closed system remained an open system. There were so many holes so to say in the 1 Manu Chap. X verses 5, 6, 14 and 41, pp. 402, 403, 404 and 412.

231 RIDDLE NO. 19 Varna system. Some of the forms of marriage had no relation to the theory of the Varna. Indeed they could not have. The Rakshas and the Paisachya marriages were in all probability marriages in which the males belonged to the lower varnas and the females to the higher varnas. The law of sonship probably left many loopholes for the sons of Shudra to pass as children of the Brahmin. Take for instances sons such as Gudhajas, Sahodhajas, Kanina. Who can say that they were not begotten by Shudra or Brahmin, Kshatriya or Vaishya. Whatever doubts there may be about these the Anuloma system of marriage which was sanctioned by law combined with the law of Pitrasavarnya had the positive effect of keeping the Varna system of allowing the lower Varnas to pass into the higher Varna. A Shudra could not become a Brahmin, a Kshatriya or a Vaishya. But the child of a Shudra woman could become a Vaishya if she was married to a Vaishya, a Kshatriya if she was married to a Kshatriya and even a Brahmin if she was married to a Brahmin. The elevation and the incorporation of the lower orders into the higher orders was positive and certain though the way of doing it was indirect. This was one result of the old system. The other result was that a community of a Varna was always a mixed and a composite community. A Brahmin community might conceivably consist of children born of Brahmin women, Kshatriya women, Vaishya women, and Shudra women all entitled to the rights and privileges belonging to the Brahmin community. A Kshatriya community may conceivably consist of children born of Kshatriya women, Vaishya women and Shudra women all recognized as Kshatriya and entitled to the rights and privileges of the Kshatriya community. Similarly the Vaishya community may conceivably consist of children born of Vaishya women and Shudra women all recognized as Vaishyas and entitled to the rights and privileges of the Vaishya community. The change made by Manu is opposed to some of the most fundamental notions of Hindu Law. In the first place, it is opposed to the Kshetra-Kshetraja rule of Hindu Law. According to this rule, which deals with the question of property in a child says that the owner of the child is the de jure husband of the mother and not the de facto father of the child. Manu is aware of this theory. He puts it in the following terms 1: “Thus men who have no marital property in women, but sow in the fields owned by others, may raise up fruit to the husbands, but the procreator can have no advantage from it. Unless there be a special agreement between the owners of the land and of the seed 1 Mayne Hindu Law p. 83.

232 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the fruit belongs clearly to the landowner, for the receptacle is more important than the seed.” It is on this that the right to the 12 kinds of sons is founded. This change was also opposed to the rule of Patna Potestas. Hindu family is a Patriarchal family same as the Roman family. In both the father possessed certain authority over members of the family. Manu is aware of this and recognized it in most ample terms. Defining the authority of the Hindu father, Manu says: “Three persons, a wife, a son, and a slave, are declared by law to have in general no wealth exclusively their own; the wealth which they may earn is regularly acquired for the man to whom they belong.” They belong to the head of the family—namely the father. Under the Patna Potestas the sons earnings are the property of the father. The change in the law of paternity mean a definite loss to the father. Why did Manu change the law from Pitra-savarnya to Matra-savarnya ? zz

RIDDLE NO. 20 KALI VARJYA OR THE BRAHMANIC ART OF SUSPENDING THE OPERATION OF SIN WITHOUT CALLING IT SIN Few have heard of the Brahmanic dogma called Kali Varjya. It must not be confused with another Brahmanic Dogma of Kali Yuga. The dogma of Kali Varja prescribes that customs and usages which are valid and good in other yugas are not to be observed in the Kali Age. The references to these instructions are scattered in the different Puranas. But the Adityapurana has codified them and brought them together 1. The practices which are Kali Varjya are given below : (1) To appoint the husband’s brother for procreating a son on a widow. (2) The remarriage of a (married) girl (whose marriage is not consummated) and of one (whose marriage was consummated) to another husband (after the death of the first. (3) The marriage with girls of different Varna among persons of the three twice-born classes. (4) The killing even in a straight fight of Brahmanas that have become desperadoes. (5) The acceptance (for all ordinary intercourse such as eating with him) of a twice-born person who is in the habit of voyaging over the sea in a ship even after he has undergone a prayascitta. (6) The initiation for a sattra. (7) The taking of a Kamandali (a jar for water). (8) Starting on the Great Journey. (9) The killing of a cow in the sacrifice called Gomedha. (10) The partaking of wine even in the Srautmani sacrifice. This is a nine-page typed copy with several corrections by the author himself. For Notes on all 43 Kali Varjyas, please see Notes to Appendix I of this part.—Ed: 1 I have taken them from Mahamahopadhya Kane’s Paper on the subject.

234 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (11-12) Licking the ladle (sruc) after the Agnihotra Hoama in order to take off the remains of the offerings and using the ladle in the Agnihotra afterwards when it has been so licked. (13) Entering into the stage of forest hermit as laid down in sastras about it. (14) Lessening the periods of impurity (due to death and birth) in accordance with the conduct and Vedic learning of a man. (15) Prescribing death as the penance (prayascitta) for Brahmans. (16) Expiation (by secretly performed prayascittas) of the mortal sins other than theft (of gold) and the sin of contact (with those guilty of Mahapatakas). (17) The act of offering with Mantras animal flesh to the bridegroom, the guest and the pitras. (18) The acceptance as sons of those other than the aurasa (natural) and adopted sons. (19) Ordinary intercourse with those who incurred the sin of (having intercourse with) women of higher castes, even after they had undergone the prayascitta for such sin. (20) The abandonment of the wife of an elderly person or of one who is entitled to respect) when she has had intercourse with one with whom it is severely condemned. (21) Killing oneself for the sake of another. (22) Giving up food left after one has partaken of it. (23) Resolve to worship a particular idol for life (in return for payment). (24) Touching the bodies of persons who are in impurity due to death after the charred bones are collected. (25) The actual slaughter by Brahmanas of the sacrificial animal. (26) Sale of the Soma plant by Brahmanas. (27) Securing food even from a Sudra when a Brahmana had no food for six times of meals (i.e., for three days). (28) Permission to (a Brahmana) householder to take cooked food from Sudras if they are his dasas, cowherds, hereditary friends, persons cultivating his land on an agreement to pay part of the produce. (29) Going on a very distant pilgrimage. (30) Behaviour of a pupil towards his teacher’s wife as towards a teacher that is declared (in Smritis). (31) The maintenance by Brahmanas in adversity (by following unworthy avocations) and the mode of livelihood in which a Brahmana does not care to accumulate for tomorrow.