Vol. 7 · pages 201–205

182 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Kayastha and therefore a Kshatriya but not of Shivaji who was Shudra. Gagabhat did not stop there. He again turned round and gave his opinion that Shivaji was a Kshatriya and that he was prepared to perform his coronation and even went so far as to write a treatise known as Gagabhatti in which he sought to prove that the Kayasthas were bastards. What do these twists and turns show? Do they not show he was a most unwilling priest and that his willingness has had to be bought by cash? If this argument is sound then there is no doubt that his decision that Shivaji was Kshatriya was sold by him for illegal gratification. 1 Lastly Shivaji’s case is important because it shows that the Brahmins in the matter of status did not recognize as being bound by the principle of res judicata. They regard themselves as free to reopen a case already decided by them. For how long did the Brahmins respect their decision that Shivaji was a Kshatriya? Shivaji started a new era from the day of his coronation, namely, 6th June 1674 which he called the Rajyabhisheka Era. How long did it remain in vogue? Only so long as Shivaji and his descendants remained as active rulers on the throne. The moment effective sovereignty passed into the hands of the Brahmin Peshwas, they issued an order 2 to discontinue it. Not only did they stop the use of the Era, they began using the style of the Muslim Emperors, namely, the Fasli year. The Brahmins did not stop there. They went further and began to question the very status of Shivaji’s descendants as Kshatriyas. 3 They could do nothing to the two sons of Shivaji, Sambhaji and Rajaram. Shivaji had their Upanayana performed in his life-time by Brahmins with Vedic rites. They could do nothing to his grandson, Shahu because the Brahmins had no ruling power in their 1 For facts about Gagabhat’s twist’s and turns stated above, I have drawn on K. S. Thakare’s Marathi booklet Gramanyacha Itihas. Thakare has in his turn drawn upon the Bakhars or Chronicles. How far they are reliable it is difficult to say. It must however be admitted that the twists and turns of Gagabhat appear to be true because without them it would be difficult to explain certain relevant and disturbing facts. For instance, take the following question : Did Gagabhat change after coming to Raigad and if so, why? The change and the reason for it is to be found in the discovery by Gagabhat that another Brahmin by name’ Moropant Pingle who was no less than the Prime Minister of Shivaji was deadly opposed to Shivaji’s claim to be a Kshatriya. It is likely that the two Brahmins on meeting together saw eye to eye which make Gagabhat change. Why did Moropant who was a strong opponent became later on a strong supporter of Shivaji’s coronation? If it is a fact that Gagabhat did propose that Balaji should be proclaimed king it gives a complete explanation of Moropant’s change of front. Balaji being Kayastha and the Kayasthas being the deadliest enemies of the Brahmins, Moropant consented to Shivaji’s coronation as a lesser of the two evils. 2 Sardesai, Marathi Riyasat, II. p. 363, and Vaidya, Shivaji, p. 251 3 What follows is taken from Siddhanta Vijaya, edited by Rao Bahadur Dongre.

183THE SHUDRAS : THE DEGRADATION OF THE SHUDRAS hands. The moment Shahu transferred his sovereign powers to his Brahmin Peshwa their road to repudiation became clear. There is no evidence whether Ramjee Raje the successor and adopted son of Shahu, who was minor and whose guardians were the Peshwas, had his Upanayana performed and if so, whether it was performed with Vedic rites. But there is definite evidence that the Upanayana ceremony of his successors, Shahu II, who was adopted in 1777 had been performed with Pauranic rites and by the direction of the Peshwas. 1 The performance of Upanayana of Shahu II with Pauranic rites was tantamount to his being regarded by the Peshwas as a Shudra. For it is only in the case of a Shudra that the ceremonies are performed with Pauranic rites. What happened to Maharaja Pratapsing who succeeded Shahu II in 1808 whether or not his Upanayana was performed and if performed whether it was performed with Vedic rites or Pauranic rites it is not possible to be definite. One thing, however, is definitely known that in about 1827 the Shankarcharya of Karvir in his judgement about the status of the Kayasthas of Sangli stated 2 “that there were no Kshatriyas in the Kali age and that documents showing that neither Shivaji, nor Sambhaji nor Shahu were Kshatriyas exist in his Daftar”. It is alleged that this statement is not to be found in the original judgement but was interpolated by the Brahmin Raja of Sangli. Be that as it may, it was a direct challenge to the status of Pratapsinha as a descent of Shivaji. Pratapsinha had to put the issue to a conference of Brahmins which was held in Satara in 1830. The majority gave a decision in favour and saved Pratapsinha from being degraded to the status of a Shudra. Foiled in their attempt to level down one line of Shivaji to the status of a Shudra, the Brahmins began their attack on the status of the second line of Shivaji which had established itself at Kolhapur. In the reign of one of the rulers of Kolhapur by name Babasaheb Maharaj, the Palace Priest by name Raghunath Sastri Parvate took into his head to perform all ceremonies in the Palace with Pauranic rites. It is said that he was stopped from continuing the practice. Babasaheb died in 1886. From 1886 to 1894, all rulers were minors and the administration was in the hands of the British. There is no direct evidence as to the exact manner and mode of ceremonial performances adopted by the Palace priest. In 1902, the late Shahu Maharaj issued order to the Palace priest to perform all ceremonies 1 Dongre Siddhanta Vijaya, Introduction, p. 6. 2 Dongre, Ibid., Introduction, p. 9.

184 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES in the Vedic manner. The priest refused and insisted on performing it in the Pauranic manner suggesting thereby that the rulers of Kolhapur were Shudras and not Kshatriyas. The part played by Sankaracharya of Karvir Math in this affair is very noteworthy. At the time of the controversy the head of the Math called Guru, had adopted a disciple (Sishya) by name Brahmanalkar and had given him all the rights of the head of the Math. At first both the Guru and the Sishya were on the side of the Palace Priest and against the Maharaja. Later on, the disciple took the side of the Maharaja and accepted his status as a Kshatriya. The Guru who remained on the side of the Priest excommunicated the Sishya. The Maharaja later on tried to create his own Sankaracharya 1 but he too proved false to the Maharaja. Shivaji was recognised as a Kshatriya. Obviously, that status was not a personal honour conferred on him. It was a status in tail and belonged to his family as well as to his descendants. Nobody could question it. It could be lost by a particular descendant by doing some act which was inconsistent with it. It could not be lost generally. No act inconsistent with the Kshatriya status was attributed to any of the descendants of Shivaji. Yet the Brahmins came forward to repudiate the decision on their status. This could happen only because the Brahmins claimed the power to do and undo the status of any Hindu at any time. They can raise a Shudra to the status of a Kshatriya. They can degrade the Kshatriya to the status of a Shudra. Shivaji’s case proves that their sovereignty in this matter is without limit and without challenge. These instances 2 are no doubt drawn from the Bombay Presidency only. But the principles from them are clear and general in their application. They are : (1) That the Brahmins have the exclusive right to perform the Upanayana. Neither Shivaji, nor Pratap Sinha nor the Kayasthas, Panchals or Palashes wanted the Upanayana to be performed by a non-Brahmin. It is only once that the Kayasthas resolved to have their ceremonies performed by Kayasthas. But it was only a paper resolution. (2) The Brahmin has the right to say whose Upanayana he will perform and whose he will not perform. In other words, the 1 He is known as Dr. Kurtakoti. 2 For details of each see a Marathi publication, Gramanyacha Itihas, by K. S. Thakare, published in 1919.

185THE SHUDRAS : THE DEGRADATION OF THE SHUDRAS Brahmin is the sole judge of deciding whether a given community is entitled to Upanayana. (3) The support of the Brahmins for the performance of Upanayana need not be based on honest grounds. It could be purchased by money. Shivaji got the support of the Brahmin Gagabhat on payment of money. (4) The denial of Upanayana by the Brahmins need not be on legal or religious ground. It is possible for the denial to be based on purely political grounds. The refusal by the Brahmins of Upanayana to Kayasthas was entirely due to political rivalry between the two. (5) The right of appeal against the denial of an Upanayana by a Brahmin is only to a Vidvat-Parishad and the VidvatParishad is an assembly for which a Brahmin alone is eligible to be a member. From the foregoing discussion, it must be clear to all that the Brahmins did possess the power to deny Upanayana. Given the powers and the motive, there is nothing strange if they used it against the Shudras. zz

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES186 CHAPTER XI THE STORY OF RECONCILIATION SO far I have attempted to establish the following propositions : (1) That it is the Brahmins who brought about the fall of the Shudras from the second to the fourth Varna in the IndoAryan Society; (2) That the technique adopted by the Brahmins to degrade the Shudras was to deny them the benefit of the Upanayana; (3) That this act of degradation was born out of the spirit of revenge on the part of the Brahmins who were groaning under the tyrannies and oppressions and indignities to which they were subjected by the Shudra kings. While all this is crystal clear, there may be some who may yet have some such questions to ask, namely : (i) Why should a quarrel with a few kings make the Brahmins the enemies of the whole Shudra community? (ii) Was the provocation so great as to create a feeling of hatred and desire to seek vengeance? (iii) Were not the parties reconciled? If they were, then their was no occasion for the Brahmins to degrade the Shudras. (iv) How did the Shudras suffer this degradation? These questions I admit have in them enough force and substance to call for serious consideration. It is only proper that they should be answered. I The question why the Brahmins, because of their quarrels with a few kings, should proceed to degrade the whole community of Shudras is not only relevant but is also very pertinent. There would, however, be no difficulty to answer this question if two things are borne in mind.