Vol. 4 · pages 306–310

295 RIDDLE NO. 23 recognized as part of Aryan religion as may be seen in the hymn in Atharva-Veda X.7. Another instance of obscenity which disfigured the religion of the Ancient Aryans is connected with the Ashvamedha Yajna or the horse sacrifice. A necessary part of the Ashvamedha was the introduction of the Sepas (penis) of the Medha (dead horse) into the Yoni (vagina) of the chief wife of the Yajamana (the sacrificer) accompanied by the recital of long series of Mantras by the Brahmin priests. A Mantra in the Vajasaneya Samhita (xxiii. 18) shows that there used to be a competition among the queens as to who was to receive this high honour of being served by the horse. Those who want to know more about it will find it in the commentary of Mahidhara on the Yejur-Veda where he gives full description of the details of this obscene rite which had formed a part of the Aryan religion. The morals of the Ancient Aryans were no better than their religion. The Aryans were a race of gamblers. Gambling was developed by them into a science in very early days of the Aryan civilization so much so that they had even devised the dice and given them certain technical terms. The luckiest dice was called Krit and the unluckiest was called Kali. Treta and Dwapara were intermediate between them. Not only was gambling well developed among the ancient Aryans but they did not play without stakes. They gambled with such abandon that there is really no comparison with their spirit of gambling. Kingdoms and even wives were offered as stakes at gambling. King Nala staked his kingdom and lost it. The Pandvas went much beyond. They not only staked their kingdom but they also staked their wife, Draupadi, and lost both. Among the Aryans gambling was not the game of the rich. It was a vice of the many. The ancient Aryans were also a race of drunkards. Wine formed a most essential part of their religion. The Vedic Gods drank wine. The divine wine was called Soma. Since the Gods of the Aryans drank wine the Aryans had no scruples in the matter of drinking. Indeed to drink it was a part of an Aryan’s religious duty. There were so many Soma sacrifices among the ancient Aryans that there were hardly any days when Soma was not drunk. Soma was restricted to only the three upper classes, namely, the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas and the Vaishyas. That does not mean the Shudras were abstainers. Those who were denied Soma drank Sura which was ordinary, unconsecrated wine sold in the market. Not only the Male Aryans were addicted to drinking but the females also indulged in drinking. The Kaushitaki Grihya Sutra . I.11.12 advises that four or eight women who are not widowed after having been regaled with wine and food should be called to dance for four times on the night previous to the wedding ceremony. This habit

296 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES of drinking intoxicating liquor was not confined to the Non-Brahmin women. Even Brahmin women were addicted to it. Drinking was not regarded as a sin. It was not even a vice, it was quite a respectable practice. The Rig-Veda says: “Worshipping the Sun before drinking Madira (wine).” The Yajur-Veda says: “ Oh, Deva Soma! being strengthened and invigorated by Sura (wine), by thy pure spirit please the Devas; give juicy food to the sacrificer and vigour to Brahmanas and Kshatriyas.” The Mantra Brahmana says: “By which women have been made enjoyable by men, and by which water has been transformed into wine (for the enjoyment of men), etc.” That Rama and Sita both drank wine is admitted by the Ramayana. Utter Khand says: “Like Indra in the case of (his wife) Shachi, Rama Chandra made Sita drink purified honey made wine. Servants brought for Rama Chandra meat and sweet fruits.” So did Krishna and Arjuna. In the Udyoga Parva of the Mahabharat Sanjaya says: “Arjuna and Shri Krishna drinking wine made from honey and being sweet-scented and garlanded, wearing splendid clothes and ornaments, sat on a golden throne studded with various jewels. I saw Shrikrishna’s feet on Arjuna’s lap, and Arjuna’s feet on Draupadi and Satyabhama’s lap.” We may next proceed to consider the marital relations of men and women. What does history say? In the beginning there was no law of marriage among the Aryans. It was a state of complete promiscuity both in the higher and lower classes of the society. There was no such thing as a question of prohibited degrees as the following instances will show. Brahma married his own daughter Satarupa. Their son was Manu the founder of the Pruthu dynasty which preceded the rise of the Aiksvakas and the Ailas. Hiranyakashpu married his daughter Rohini. Other cases of father marrying daughters are Vashishtha and Shatrupa, Janhu and Jannhavi, and Surya and Usha. That such marriages between father and daughters were common is indicated by the usage of recognizing Kanin sons. Kanin sons mean sons born to unmarried daughter. They were in law the sons of the father of the girl. Obviously they must be sons begotten by the father on his own daughter

297 RIDDLE NO. 23 There are cases of father and son cohabiting with the same woman, Brahma is the father of Manu and Satarupa is his mother. This Satarupa is also the wife of Manu. Another case is that of Shradha. She is the wife of Vivasvat. Their son is Manu. But Shradha is also the wife of Manu thus indicating the practice of father and son sharing a woman. It was open for a person to marry his brother’s daughter. Dharma married 10 daughters of Daksha though Daksha and Dharma were brothers. One could also marry his uncle’s daughter as did Kasyapa who married 13 wives all of whom were the daughters of Daksha and Daksha was the brother of Kasyapa’s father Marichi. The case of Yama and Yami mentioned in the Rig-Veda is a notorious case, which throws a great deal of light on the question of marriages between brothers and sisters. Because Yama refused to cohabit with Yami it must not be supposed that such marriages did not exist. The Adi Parva of the Mahabharata gives a geneology which begins from Brahmadeva. According to this geneology Brahma had three sons Marichi, Daksha and Dharma and one daughter whose name the geneology unfortunately does not give. In this very geneology it is stated that Daksha married the daughter of Brahma who was his sister and had a vast number of daughters variously estimated as being between 50 and 60. Other instances of marriages between brothers and sisters could be cited. They are Pushan and his sister Acchoda and Amavasu. Purukutsa and Narmada, Viprachiti and Simhika, Nahusa and Viraja, Sukra-Usanas and Go, Amsumat and Yasoda, Dasaratha and Kausalya, Rama and Sita; Suka and Pivari; Draupadi and Prasti are all cases of brothers marrying sisters. The following cases show that there was no prohibition against son cohabiting with his mother. There is the case of Pushan and his mother Manu and Satrupa and Manu and Shradha. Attention may also be drawn to two other cases, Arjuna and Urvashi and Arjuna and Uttara. Uttara was married to Abhimanyu son of Arjuna when he was barely 16. Uttara was associated with Arjuna. He taught her music and dancing. Uttara is described as being in love with Arjuna and the Mahabharata speaks of their getting married as a natural sequel to their love affair. The Mahabharata does not say that they were actually married but If they were, then Abhimanyu can be said to have married his mother. The Arjuna Urvasi episode is more positive in its indication. Indra was the real father of Arjuna. Urvashi was the mistress of Indra and therefore in the position of a mother to Arjuna. She was a tutor to Arjuna and taught him music and dancing. Urvasi became

298 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES enamoured of Arjuna and with the consent of his father, Indra, approached Arjuna for sexual intercourse. Arjuna refused to agree on the ground that she was like mother to him. Urvashi’s conduct has historically more significant than Arjuna’s denial and for two reasons. The very request by Urvashi to Arjuna and the consent by Indra show that Urvashi was following a well established practice. Secondly, Urvashi in her reply to Arjuna tells him in a pointed manner that this was a well recognized custom and that all Arjuna’s forefathers had accepted precisely similar invitations without any guilt being attached to them. Nothing illustrates better than the complete disregard of consanguity in cohabitation in ancient India than the following story which is related in the second Adhyaya of the Harivamsha. According to it Soma was the son of ten fathers—suggesting the existence of Polyandry—each one of whom was called Pralheta. Soma had a daughter Marisha—The ten fathers of Soma and Soma himself cohabited with Marisha. This is a case of ten grand-fathers and father married to a woman who was a grand-daughter and daughter to her husbands. In the same Adhyaya the story of Daksha Prajapati is told. This Daksha Prajapati who is the son of Soma is said to have given his 27 daughters to his father, Soma for procreation. In the third Adhyaya of Harivamsha the author says that Daksha gave his daughter in marriage to his own father Brahma on whom Brahma begot a son who became famous as Narada. All these are cases of cohabitation of Sapinda men, with Sapinda women. The ancient Aryan women were sold. The sale of daughters is evidenced by the Arsha form of marriage. According to the technical terms used the father of the boy gave Go-Mithuna and took the girl. This is another way of saying that the girl was sold for a Go-Mithuna. Go-Mithuna means one cow and one bull which was regarded as a reasonable price of a girl. Not only daughters were sold by their fathers but wives also were sold by their husbands. The Harivamsha in its 79th Adhyaya describes how a religious rite called Punyaka-Vrata should be the fee that should be offered to the officiating priest. It says that the wives of Brahmins should be purchased from their husbands and given to the officiating priest as his fee. It is quite obvious from this that Brahmins freely sold their wives for a consideration. That the ancient Aryans let their women on rent for cohabitation to others is also a fact. In the Mahabharata there is an account of the life of Madhavi in Adhyayas 103 to 123. According to this account Madhavi was the daughter of King Yayati. Yayati made a gift of her to Galawa. Galva who was a Rishi as a fee to a priest. Galva rented her

299 RIDDLE NO. 23 out to three kings in succession but to each for a period necessary to beget a son on her. After the tenancy of the third king terminated Madhavi was surrendered by Galva to his Guru Vishvamitra who made her his wife. Vishvamitra kept her till he begot a son on her and gave her back to Galva. Galva returned her to her father Yayati. Polygamy and Polyandry were raging in the ancient Aryan society. The fact is so well known that it is unnecessary to record cases which show its existence. But what is probably not well known is the fact of promiscuity. Promiscuity in matters of sex becomes quite apparent if one were only to examine the rules of Niyoga which the Aryan name for a system under which a woman who is wedded can beget on herself a progeny from another who is not her husband. This system resulted in a complete state of promiscuity for it was uncontrolled. In the first place, there was no limit to the number of Niyogas open to a woman. Madhuti had one Niyoga allowed to her. Ambika had one actual Niyoga and another proposed. Saradandayani had three. Pandu allowed his wife Kunti four Niyogas. Vyusistasva was permitted to have 7 and Vali is known to have allowed as many as 17 Niyogas, 11 on one and 6 on his second wife. Just as there was no limit to the number of Niyogas so also there was no definition of cases in which Niyoga was permissible. Niyoga took place in the lifetime of the husband and even in cases where the husband was not overcome by any congenital incapacity to procreate. The initiative was probably taken by the wife. The choice of a man was left to her. She was free to find out with whom she would unite a Niyoga and how many times, if she chose the same man. The Niyogas were another name for illicit intercourse between men and women which might last for one night or twelve years or more with the husband a willing and a sleeping partner in this trade of fornication. These were the manners and morals of common men in the ancient Aryan Society. What were the morals of the Brahmins ? Truth to tell they were no better men than those of the common men. The looseness of the morals among the Brahmins is evidenced by many instances. But a few will suffice. The cases showing that the Brahmins used to sell their wives has already been referred to. I will give other cases showing looseness. The Utanka is a pupil of Veda (the Purohita of Janmejaya III). The wife of Veda most calmly requests Utanka to take the place of her husband and ‘approach’ her for the sake of virtue. Another case that may be referred to in this connection is that of Uddalaka’s wife. She is free to go to other Brahmins either of her own free will, or in response to invitations. Shwetketu is her son by one of her husband’s pupils. These are not mere instances of laxity or adultery. These are