Vol. 7 · pages 206–210

THE SHUDRAS : THE STORY OF RECONCILIATION 187 In the first place, the conflicts described in Chapter 9 between the Brahmins and the Shudra kings were not individual conflicts though they appear to be so. On the side of the Brahmins there is no doubt that the whole class was involved. Barring the episode relating to Vasishtha, all other episodes relate to Brahmins in general. On the side of the kings, it is true that the episodes mention individual kings as being involved in this conflict with the Brahmins. But it must not be forgotten that they all belonged to the same line to which Sudas belonged. In so far as Sudas is concerned, the conflict was between the Brahmins and the Shudra clan of Kshatriyas. Of this, there can be no doubt. We have no direct evidence to say that the other offending kings also belonged to the Shudra clan of Kshatriyas. But we have other evidence which leads to the conclusion that they belonged to the same line of descent as Sudas. Attention is invited to the following genealogical tree appearing overleaf which is taken from the Adi Parvan of the Mahabharata. 1 The inter-relationship of the Kshatriya kings who came in conflict with the Brahmins throws some interesting light on the subject, Pururavas 2 is the son of Ila and the grandson of Manu Vaivasvata. Nahusha 3 is the grandson of Pururavas. Nimi4 is one of the sons of Ikshvaku, who is the son of Manu Vivasvat. Trishanku 5 is 28th in descent from Ikshvaku. Sudas 6 is descended from Ikshvaku and is 50th in descent from him. Vena 7 is the son of Manu Vaivasvata. All of them claimed descent from Manu, some from him and some from Ikshvaku. Being descendants of Manu and Ikshvaku, it is possible to argue that they were all kindred of Sudas. Given the fact that Sudas is a Shudra, it follows logically that all these kings belonged to the Shudra group. We have no direct evidence, but there would be nothing unnatural in supposing that in these conflicts with the Brahmins, the whole Shudra community, not merely a few Shudra kings, was involved. This conflict, it must be remembered, has taken place in the ancient past when life was tribal in thought and in action, and when the rule 1 Muir, Vol. I, p. 126 2 Muir, Vol. I, p. 126. 3 Muir Vol. I, p. 307. 4 Muir Vol. I, p. 316. 5 Muir Vol. I, p. 362. 6 Muir Vol. I, p. 362. 7 Divodasa, the father of Sudas, is spoken of in the Rig Veda as king of Purus and Purus are described as Ikshvakus.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES188 MARICHI KASYAPA=Dakshayani (one of the daughters of Daksha Prajapati) Adityas Vivasvat MANU Yama (had 10 sons) Vena Dhrishnu Naushyauta Nabhaga Ikshvak u Karusha Saryati Ila Prishadra Nabhagaushla (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

THE SHUDRAS : THE STORY OF RECONCILIATION 189 was that what was done by one individual belonging to the tribe was deemed to be done by the whole tribe. In all ancient societies the unit was the tribe or the community and not the individual, with the result that the guilt of the individual was the guilt of the community and the guilt of the community was the guilt of every individual belonging to it. If this fact is borne in mind, then it would be quite natural to say that the Brahmins did not confine their hatred to the offending kings, but extended it to the whole of the Shudra community and applied the ban against Upanayana to all the Shudras. II As to whether there was enough provocation, the matter is hardly open to question. Tempers must have risen high on both sides. There was enough combustible material on both sides for an explosion to take place. On the side of the Brahmins, it is evident that their pretensions to social superiority and their claim for special privileges had become outrageous in character and unbearable in extent. The following is a catalogue 1 of the pretensions put fourth by the Brahmins : (i) The Brahmin must be acknowledged to be the guru to all Varnas by the mere fact of his birth; (ii) The Brahmana has the sole right of deciding upon the duties of all other classes, what conduct was proper to them and what should be their means of livelihood; and the other classes were to abide by his directions and the king was to rule in accordance with such directions; (iii) The Brahmana is not subject to the authority of the king. The king was the ruler of all except the Brahmana; (iv) The Brahmana is exempt from (1) whipping; (2) fetters being put on him; (3) the imposition of fines; (4) exile; (5) censure and (6) abandonment. (v) A Shrotriya (a Brahmana learned in Vedas) is free from taxes. (vi) A Brahmana is entitled to claim the whole of the treasure trove if he found it. If the king found it he must give half to the Brahmana. (vii) The property of a Brahmana dying without an heir shall not go to the king, but shall be distributed among Shrotriyas or Brahmanas. (viii)The king meeting a Shrotriya or a Brahmana on the road must give way to the Brahmana. (ix) The Brahmana must be saluted first. (x) The person of a Brahmana is sacred. No death sentence could be passed against a Brahmana even if he is guilty of murder. 1 This summary is based on the catalogue given in Kane’s Dharma Shastra, Vol. II (I), pp. 138-153.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES190 (xi) Threatening a Brahmana with assault, or striking him or drawing blood from his body is an offence. (xii) For certain offences the Brahmana must receive a lesser punishment than members of other classes. (xiii) The king should not summon a Brahmana as a witness where the litigant is not a Brahmana. (xiv) Even when a woman has had ten former husbands who are not Brahmanas, if a Brahmana marries such a woman, it is he alone who is her husband and not a Rajanya or a Vaishya 1 to whom she may have been married. After discussing these pretensions and privileges claimed by the Brahmanas, Mr. Kane says : 2 “Further privileges assigned to Brahmanas are : free access to the houses of other people for the purpose of begging alms; the right to collect fuel, flowers, water and the like without its being regarded as a theft, and to converse with other men’s wives without being restrained (in such conversation) by others; and the right to cross rivers without paying any fare for the ferry-boat and to be conveyed (to the other bank) before other people. When engaged in trading and using a ferry boat, they shall have to pay no toll. A Brahmana who is engaged in travelling, who is tired and has nothing to eat, commits no wrong by taking two canes of sugar or two esculent roots.” These privileges have no doubt grown in course of time and it is difficult to say which of them had become vested rights when these conflicts were raging. But there is no doubt that some of the most annoying ones such as (i), (ii), (iii), (viii) and (xiv) had then come into existence. These were enough to infuriate any decent and selfrespecting body of men. On the side of the Kshatriya kings they could not be supposed to be willing to take things lying low. How could they? It must not be forgotten that most of the Kshatriya kings who came into conflict with the Brahmins, belonged to the solar line. 3 They differed from the Kshatriyas of the lunar line in learning, in pride and in martial spirit. The Kshatriyas who belonged to the solar line were a virile people, while those who belonged to the lunar line were an imbecile lot without any self-respect. The former challenged the Brahmins. The latter succumbed to them and became their slaves. This was as it should be. For while the Kshatriyas of the lunar line were devoid of any learning, those belonging to the solar line were not merely the equals of Brahmins in the matter of learning, they were their 1 No. (xiv) is not mentioned by Kane, but is mentioned in the Atharva Veda V. 17. 8-9; see Muir, Vol. I, p. 280. 2. Ibid., pp. 153-4. 3. Only Pururavas and Nahusha belong to the Lunar line of Kshatriyas as may be seen from

THE SHUDRAS : THE STORY OF RECONCILIATION 191 superiors. Several of them were the authors of the Vedic hymns and were known as Rajarishis. This was particularly true of those who came into conflict with the Brahmins. According to the Anukramanika to the Rig Veda as well as according to tradition the following hymns are said to have been composed by the undermentioned kings : l “vi.15: Vitahavya (or Bharadvaja); x.9: Sindhuvipa, son of Ambarisha (or Trisiras, son of Tvashtri); x.75: Sindhukshit, son of Priyamedha; x. 133, Sudas son of Pijavana; x. 134, Mandhatri, son of Yuvanasva; x. 179, Sibi, son of Usinara, Pratardana, son of Divodasa and king of Kasi, and Vasumanas, son of Rohidasva; and x. 148 is declared to have had Prithi Vainya .” The Matsya Purana also gives the lists 2 of those who composed the hymns of the Rig Veda in a passage which says : “Bhrigu, Kashya, Prachetas, Dadhicha, Atmavat, Aurva, Jamadagni, Kripa, Sharadvata, Arshtishena, Yudhajit, Vitahavya, Suvarchas, Vaina, Prithu, Divodasa, Brahmasva, Gritsa, Saunaka—these are the nineteen Bhrigus, composers of hymns. Angiras, Vedhasa, Bharadvaja, Bhalandana, Ritabadha, Garga, Siti, Sankriti, Gurudhira, Mandhatri, Ambarisha, Yuvanasva, Purukutsa, Pradyumna, Shravanasya, Ajamidha, Haryashva, Takshapa, Kavi, Prishadashva, Virupa, Kanva, Mudgala, Utathya, Sharadvat, Vajasravas, Apasya, Suvitta, Vamadeva, Ajita, Brihaduktha, Dirghatamas, Kakshivat, are recorded as thirty-three eminent Angirases. These were all composers of hymns. Now learn the Kasyapas... Vishvamitra, son of Gadhi, Devaraja, Bala the wise Madhuchhandas, Rishabha, Aghamarshana, Ashtaka, Lohita, Bhritakila, Vedasravas, Devarata, Puranashva, Dhananjaya, the glorious Mithila, Salankayana,—these are to be known as the thirteen devout and eminent Kusikas. Manu Vaivasvata, Ida, king Pururavas, these are to be known as the eminent utterers of hymns among the Kshatriyas. Bhalanda, Vandya, and Sanskirti these are always to be known as the three eminent persons among the Vaishyas who were composers of hymns. Thus ninety-one persons have been declared by whom hymns have been given birth to, Brahmanas, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. the following genealogical tree :— Soma=Tara Budha=Ila Pururav as=Urvashi Ayus Nahusha If it is bome in mind that Ha the mother of Pururavas was the daughter of Manu Vaivasvata it will be seen that they too were the kith and kin of the solar Kshatriyas who came into conflict with the Brahmins. 1. Muir, Vol. I, p. 268 2. Muir Vol. I, p. 279.