Vol. 7 · pages 131–135

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES112 Then the leaders of each Varna and of the castes lower still, consecrated him with holy water. Then followed acclamation by the twice-born. 1 That the Shudras were invited to be present at the coronation of the king along with Brahmins is evidenced by the description of the coronation of Yudhishthira, the eldest brother of the Pandavas, which is given in the Mahabharata. 2 Shudras were members of the two political assemblies of ancient times, namely, the Janapada and Paura and as a member of these the Shudra was entitled to special respect even from a Brahmin. 3 This was so even according to the Manusmriti (vi.61) as well as to the Vishnu Smriti (xxi.64). Otherwise there is no meaning in Manu saying that a Brahmin should not live in a country where the king is a Shudra. That means Shudras were kings. In the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata, 4 Bhishma in his lessons on Politics to Yudhishthira says : “I shall, however, tell thee what kinds of ministers should be appointed by thee. Four Brahmins learned in the Vedas, possessed of a sense of dignity, belonging to the Snataka order, and of pure behaviour, and eight Kshatriyas, all of whom should be possessed of physical strength and capable of weilding weapons, and one and twenty Vaishyas, all of whom should be possessed of wealth, and three Shudras, everyone of whom should be humble and of pure conduct and devoted to his daily duties, and one man of the Suta caste, possessed of a knowledge of the Puranas and the eight cardinal virtues should be thy ministers.” This proves that the Shudras were ministers and that they were almost equal to the Brahmins in number. 5 The Shudras were not poor and lowly. They were rich. This fact is testified by the Maitrayani Samhita (iv.2.7.10) and the Panchavimsa Brahmana (vi.1.11). 6 There are two other aspects to this question. What significance can there be to the enslavement of the Shudras, assuming it was a fact? There would be some significance if the Aryans did not know slavery or were not prepared to turn the Aryans into slaves. But the fact is that the Aryans knew slavery and permitted the Aryans to be made slaves. This is clear from Rig Veda, (vii.86.7;viii. 19.36 and viii.56.3). 1 See Jayaswal, Hindu Polity (1943), p. 223. 2 Mahabharata, Sabha Parvan, Chapter XXXIII, Verses 41-42. 3 See Jayaswal, -Hindu Polity, p. 248. 4 Roy’s Translation, Vol. II, p. 197 5 Bhishma believed in communal representation. 6 Referred to in the Vedic Index, Vol. II, p. 390.

THE SHUDRAS : SHUDRAS AND DASAS 113 That being so, why should they particularly want to make slaves of the Shudras? What is more important is why should they make different laws for the Shudra slaves? In short, the Western theory does not help us to answer our questions, who were the Shudras and how did they become the fourth Varna? zz

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES114 CHAPTER VII WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS ? WHO were the Shudras if they were not a non-Aryan aboriginal race? This question must now be faced. The theory I venture to advance may be stated in the following three propositions: (1) The Shudras were Aryans. (2) The Shudras belonged to the Kshatriya class. (3) The Shudras were so important a class of Kshatriyas that some of the most eminent and powerful kings of the ancient Aryan communities were Shudras. This thesis regarding the origin of the Shudras is a startling if not a revolutionary thesis. So startling it is that not many people will be ready to accept it, even though there may be enough evidence to support it. My obligation is to produce the evidence, leaving the people to judge its worth. The primary piece of evidence on which this thesis rests is a passage which occurs in Verses 38-40 of Chapter 60 of the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata. It reads as follows : “It has been heard by us that in the days of old a Shudra of the name of Paijavana gave a Dakshina (in his own sacrifice) consisting of a hundred thousand Purnapatras according to the ordinance called Aindragni.” The important statements contained in this passage are three : (1) that Paijavana was a Shudra, (2) that this Shudra Paijavana performed sacrifices, and (3) the Brahmins performed sacrifices for him and accepted Dakshina from him. The passage quoted above is taken from Mr. Roy’s edition of the Mahabharata. The first thing is to ascertain whether the text is accurate or whether there are any variant readings. As regards the authenticity of his text, this is what Mr. Roy 1 says : 1 Quoted in Sukthankar Memorial Edition, Vol. I, pp. 43-44.

THE SHUDRAS : WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS ? 115 “As far as my edition is concerned it is substantially based on that of Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, published about forty-five years ago under the superintendence of a few learned Pandits of Bengal aided, as I believe, by an English Orientalist of repute. Manuscripts had been procured from all parts of India (the South unexcepted) and these were carefully collated. Although edited with such care, I have not, however, slavishly followed the Society’s edition. I have compared it carefully with the Maharajah of Burdwan’s text in the Bengalee character which was edited with still greater care. About 18 manuscripts procured from different parts of India (the South not excepted) were carefully collated by the Burdwan Pandits before they admitted a single sloka as genuine.” Prof. Sukthankar, the erudite editor of the critical edition of the Mahabharata, after examining many editions of the Mahabharata, concluded by saying that : l “The editio princeps (Calcutta—1856) remains the best edition of the Vulgate, after the lapse of nearly a century.” Although the authenticity of Mr.Roy’s edition of the Mahabharata cannot be doubted, it would not be unreasonable if critics were to say that they would like to know what other manuscript support there is behind this text, which is made the basis of this new theory of the origin of the Shudras. In undertaking such an inquiry it is necessary to point to two considerations. One 2 is that there is no such thing as a Mahabharata manuscript in the sense of complete sets of manuscripts covering all the eighteen Parvans. Each Parvan is treated as a separate unit with the result that the number of copies of the different Parvans to be found differ by a vast margin. Consequently, the number of manuscripts to be taken as a basis for deciding which is the correct text must vary with each Parvan. The second 3 consideration to which attention must be drawn is the fact that the text of the Mahabharata has been handed down in two divergent forms; a Northern and a Southern recension, texts, typical of the Aryavarta and the Dakshinapatha. It is obvious that an examination of manuscript support must be based upon collation from a fair number of manuscripts and a fair distribution of the manuscripts between the Northern and the Southern recensions. Bearing these considerations in mind, the results 1 Quoted in Sukthankar Memorial Edition, Vol. I, p. 131. 2 Sukthankar, op. cit., p. 14. 3 Ibid., pp. 9-42.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES116 of the collation 1 of the text of Shloka 38 of the 60th chapter of the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata with which we are primarily concerned from different manuscripts is presented below : 1. 'kwnz% iStouks uke (K) S Shudrah Paijavano nama 2. 'kwnz% iSyouks uke (M/1:M/2) S Shudrah Pailavano nama 3. 'kwnz% ;Syuuks uke (M/3 : M/4) S Shudrah Yailanano nama 4. 'kwnz% ;Stuuks uke (F) Shudrah Yaijanano nama 5. 'kwnzksfi ;tus uke (L) Shudropi Yajane nama 6. 'kwnz% ikSatyd uke (TC) S Shudrah Paunjalka nama 7. 'kw¼ks oSHkouks uke (G) N Shuddho Vaibhavano nama 8. iqjk oStouks uke (A, D/2) Pura Vaijavano nama 9. iqjk oStuuks uke (M) N Pura Vaijanano nama Here is the result of the collation of nine manuscripts. Are nine manuscripts enough for constituting a text which has a number of variant readings? It is true that the number of manuscripts taken for the critical edition of the different Parvans of the Mahabharata exceeds nine. For the entire Mahabharata the minimum number of manuscripts taken for constituting the text is only ten. 2 It cannot therefore be contended that nine is an insufficient number. The nine manuscripts fall into two geographical divisions, Northern and Southern. M1, M2, M3, M4 and TC belong to the Southern recension. A, M, G, D2 belong to the Northern recension. The selections of the manuscripts therefore satisfy the two tests which experts have laid down. 1 I am grateful to the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute for allowing me to use their collation sheet. Letters in brackets indicate the index number given by the Institute to the manuscript. N or S indicate whether the manuscript comes from the North or South. K is Kumbhakonam. 2 Sukthankar, Vol. I, p. 14.