CASTE

ORIGIN, FUNCTION AND

DIMENSIONS OF CHANGE

rnlti~1. CUGTURAI.
ficlrmrc'n T M a r Inditltn,
I,Z 9 8 A U Y
 CASTE
Origin, Function and
Dimensions of Change

SUVIRA JAISWAL

w~HAR
2000 h i :4 :ULTL~&AI. 1
u: se:,,LL, f-, r ~ i d n cl.!~t~ruw
1 : 3 R A K!'
1
Act. No. 1 oi3,,.,
.-- - .- -1,
-
 First published 1398
Reprinted 2000

C3 Suvira : a i m 1 1998

All rights reserved. No part or this publicationmay be

reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without prior permission ofthe and the publisher

EflN 81-7304-238-1
IIa~dbdck:
Paperback: ISBN 81-73M-334-5

Publtsbed by
Ajay Kurnar Jain Fbr
M~naharPublishers & Distributors
4753123 Ansaii Road, Daryaganj
New Delhi 110 002

Tseset by
P .K,Goel for
Aditya Parkashan
F 14/65,Model Town LI
Delhi 110 009

Prlnted at
Rajkamal Electric Press
B 35/9 G T Kmal Road Indl Area
Dclhi 110 033
 To
the memory of
my pa r a t s
 First published 1998
Reprinted 2M0

@ Suvira Jaiswal 1998

All rights resewed. No pan of h i s publication may &

reproduced or uansrnitted, in any form or b y any means,
without prior permission of the author and the publisher

Wardback: ISBN 81-7304-238-1

Paperback: ISEN 81-7304-334-5

PubIIshed
Ajay KurnarJain for
Manohar Publishers B Disrributors
4753/23Ansari Road,Daryaganj
New Delhi 110 Oo2

w e t bY
P.K. Goel for
Aditya Parkashan
F 14/65,Model Town I1
Delhi 110 009

Printed d t
Ra jkarnal Electric Press
B 35/9 G T KamaI Road Indl Area
Dellli I10 033
 To
the mernoy of
mypa rents
 Contents

PREFACE

1. INTRODUCIION
On defining !be instilt~bionof cmce
Euidence of Vedic Imls orz palriorcky
and social hierarchy
Cmte character of later Vedic m m a
Prolveratio~aof jitis, rhc emergence of
segjneri ted icienlitiw in the vmya smnictrire
me clms rAakof c u t e anrzd Ibe dile

2. CASTE Ah9 GENDER: HISTORlOGRAFfIY

Sowle sociol~yi~aI theories on the
ortgirz of caste
FIistorical wrilirzg~of the
post-ik~d~pe~dzrtceparioGi
l71e brkbmarzn, balriyn and
hrdbtna-Jquirucatqaries
The ~~ai.i.yauj id d ~ J'Gdl-n
e
Roots afec~~tozrcbabilily
Wotnec k i n d i p arid caste

3. STRATIFICATION IN KGVEUIC SOCIETY:

EVIDENCE AND PARADlGMS
Appendix: host?fii?zg!he AT# r t . ~
viii CON^^

4. SOCIAL. STrIATIFICATION IN FARLY

BUDDHISM AND THE CHANGING
CONCEPT OF GRHAPAW GAHA12ATI

5. CASTE AND HNDUISM: TfE CIUNGING

PARADIGMS OF BMIMANICAL INTEGIIA'IION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDR: OF S M G S K I U T , PAL1 AND TAMIL WORDS

INDm OF ORlGlNAt SOURCES AND AUTHORITIES

 Preface

The pertinacity of tbc institti~ionof paste conlinues ro pose

serious problems in Ille resrrr~cturingof Indian society into
a more eg;llir;~d;msysrem I>y eljmjnarjng rl~etr~diljondpractice
of c~iscrilninalionon account of birth and gentler. TO unclerstand
die reasons of its continued smnglehold, it is ntcessaq c . ~
111; conrcxtual nature of i l s dynamics, which has rrgulared
social rernrions ancl shaperl consciousness of its constituents.
The prcsent work is an aacrnpr in thst direclion. has gl.own
out of some of the articles I had writren over the years on
the rhcme of social stratiFic:ttion aixl these have l>een
incorporu~cdbere with some additions. Chapter 1 21nd lnuch of
Chkipter 4 have been especially wrimcn for the nionograpl~.
The work begins with a criticrue of the current theories of
cnslo systerll. which locate its essence in endogamy, and
argtles that the present mo~pbologyof caste is the result of
transitions and transtbrrnations ihe institution had to undergo
in specific social canrexls fhsough ccniuiniesof its existence;
Illit its origins are cmbedderl in the processes of patriarchy
a n d srate formation froin which it cannot be clelinked.
Endogamy is seen not as a Irarrcrwirrg or. scrrcoivalof PC--4qan
01. tribal practices hut as intrinsic to h e process of ~mlrific~rion
and establishment of a patriarchal society. It is nrguecf tflat
V&ic ritunls provide enough evidence 10 jllstif~h i s ;lssertiofl.
~ to dilincate 1 1 1 ~origins of rhc vafna cas[e stnlc~u~'e
1 I l a vtried
h.amits Vedic beginnings to its dcveIoprnc~lCinto a Pan-
Incljan phenomenon and arguecl that llle st-pararion of Ihe
hrCabrna and ,+$d!twelite categories :rnd ascription of'hifiller
sL3tusto I]le former, wIllcf~featrrre f ~ r m thes Ixdr0clc Lo'''s
Dullloun~'sHmno IIieraruhiczrs and is crucial for his ideological
rnicrpreialion cf caste, has its roots in the ecology of [he early
Z'c5dir cattle-keepers. India has had an ~lnbrokenhiao~yfrom
the early Vedic rilncs, and hence religious and cultural syrnbols
inay suggest continuity but &eir real significance has unrlcfgone
fundamental changes.
The work exa~rinesthe hist~rtcalspecificilies which Ied to
the emergence of the varnas anr: their crystallization in10 castes.
The PTDCVSS nf t l ~ ccnnsrnlction of segmen\ed identides sv~tMn
each varna careg~l.y,wliicl~accornrncldateil ~+egional clivel+g~nr~s
and allawed sufficient flexibility to suit politico-economic
recluiremenls, is also indicated. It is pointed ou: that in lllnny
a r e a the role of the agenL in spreading the vaqa sysle1r.1was
played not so mudl by the members of tile Ix5hma1~acaste as I>y
thc dominant r,on-lxiihmanacommunity or.rile ruI~ngelite, ~vllich
benefited from 111e notions of hierarchy. This circumstance is, in
my opiniorl, largely responsible for ~11epl~enorl~enon cf 'ilnity
in diversiiy'. These developments had i~nportanti~llplicationsat
the IeveI of social relations as well as theory. Caste ideology has
undergone significant ronceptu~l~nodific~~ions over tbc ccnt~iries
wi~hout,however, abandoning its hasic principles. Thus, for
example, t h e meaning of r l x wrm '5uds-a' shows considerable
variation 110th in time a n ? space.
Chapter 2 OF ihe monograph is devotcd to s re-evalua~ionof
historical and sucio1ogical writings d the post-lndependence
period on exile; and amurlp other things. it seriously contests
certain ideological inrerprctations of the roots of untoucl~abiiity.
Chapter 3 along will1 its appendix exasnines tke evidence and
paridigms used for the study of s~r:~ri!'icntionin Illgvedic socieiy
~ avant-garcle concepts of 'line%$: society' and
and s u l ~ j c c tlhe
'lineage mode of prnriurtinn' to :I criticnl analysis. It is pointed
o u l that the exploita~ionof biologically detcrtnineri 'junior' age
and scx groups by the elders of he same lineage is qilalitaiively
very cliffertn~from lhe exploitation of junior lineages l y genic>r
~ ~ ~ Y A Rin a slra~ificdsnciery,where kinshir is merely a metaphor
C S
for class. imporrilnllc of [his distinction is 10 be kept in
while reconaruQin~:I picture nf Rgverlic socie~y.The cllapler
disc~lsseslhc question of e t h n i c i ~nF ljlc @jlIs,
 PREFACE Xi

The Eourch chapter deals with t h e social stratification in

early Buddhist sources and highlights the changing concept of
grhapatU&aBapaticategory. It is shown that the early Vedic
g~hapaliwas not an ordinary householder but a leader of rhe
emended kin-group which constituted a unit of production as
well as consumption, and as such he, along with his wife
g~bapatrzi,was responsible for its ritual and material needs.
But in the earIy Buddhist sources rhe gyhapclti emerges as an
important entrepreneur who organizes the cultiv.ation of
large tracts of land with slaves and hired labour and is
an important tax payer. He is not a n ordinary llouseholder
or peasant and the category is nor to he confused with that
b a . is a gradual degr;tdation of the grhapati
of ~ ~ b a ~ fThere
class in the subsequent epoch, which may be connected
with the processes leading to the ernergenre of segmented
identities within the broad category of the Vaiiya varna. The
pal'adignl of v q a / j a l i is wdl established by [he early centuries
of the Christian era.
The final chapter argues that it was the bmhmanical paradigm
of social integration formalized as caste which came to d e h e
the Hindu idenrity as it emerged in with the
'olher' in medieval rimes. Hence, not only the religious
and the social are closely intertwined in Ninduisnl but Caste
continues to be its constitutive element and its identificalian
mark. Failure to corlfront directly h e reality of multiple
Fragmented identities and artenlpts to unify them only
through religious-cultural ultimarely defeat the
lofty aims OF socja] movements, as in the case of the Arya
Samaj, which despite its theoreticaI denial of caste could
n o succeed in establishing an egalitarian, universal Arya
brorherhood.
Substantial portion of Chipters 2 and 3 wem ~ublishedin the
lndia~lHis&rica[ &?view, Vols. VI, XVI and XX. Much of the
Chapter 5 had appeared in the Sociul ScielitiFT, v01.mq NO. 12
a e c . 1991). Permission to reprint these with additions, wherever
necessary, is duly acknowledged.
I hope the work would bc of inrerest to stuclenrs of history
and socidogy as weit as to general lraders.
xii PREFAC:

I wish to thtk Shri P.N. Sahay, Librarian, Indian Council of

Historical Research for prompt assistance in locathg the books
and jaurmzls. The smff of the JNU Library and CHS DSA Library
also deserve my thanks. I am parrirrilariy thankfill to my student
Ranjan Anand for preparing the bibliography and to my
publishers for bringing out rhe book expeditiously.
 Introduction

CAS. IDENWES HAVE SURFACED AS

E
I
" Powerful force in contemporary Indian politics and demands
rdressal of the inequalities nnd exploitation engendered by
institution have stimulated much fresh thinking in
academic circles a heqquestian ofthe essence and dynamics of
yte. It is often assumed h a t a mste mentalicy is e~nbeddedin
.the Indian psyche'. Hence even as ~raditionaln d o u s of its
'ntcjiration with religion, morality law sre being increasindy
challcngeci (and even repudiated in modern circumstnnces), the
Castestructure continues to sumivc ns a snlient feature ofIndian
"Ciety.' This inference is fudter strengtliened by the studies2of
a e Indian Diaspora wI1ei-e despite the absence of notions of
hiel'archy and heredibry occuparional specjalizacion-features
to the lradition31 ca.5t.esystem--the morpllolofl d Caste
is seen to prevail owing to the 'separation', 'repulsion' or
recognitiotl ofLdifference' of one caste from another. Castesrehin
separate identities but are ro e ~ c hother as constituent
llnils of a wider Hindu communily, Thus,it is claimed,' elnpirid
studies h a v e demonstrated the inndequ3cics of earlier
I n d ~ ~ ~ ~ i c ~ l forlnulations
- s ~ ~ i ~of l c~s ~r r ias~ ;1~hiernrchical
~
social system rooted in a religious principle that imputed
inherently pure or palluting sratus to s o c i ~ goups,
l ledtimized
hy the dactrfne of karnza. Theories which looked the
institution as a aysrenl devised to ensure harmonious functioning
of a non-competirive, inrerdcpendcnt process of production,
which obviated econonlic, ala.ss-confliclSin a pre-capidiscsocial
Formation are also faund ro be inadequate. The ConccPr ofcaste
llas been and Dipankar Gupta defjnes it as a 'form
af diffsren~iarior, wherein the constituent units of system justify
endogamy on the basis of putative biological differences which
fire semaphored hy h e rin~alizationof multiple social pnctices'.4
This definition according ro him gives h e 'essence' d o. system
co~nposedofdiscrete categories and not a c o n h ~ l o ~hierarcl~y.
ls
Thus recent changes in the caste system Iixve led sociologists LO
revivewh.dtDumon~had~etmedthe'ntonthic'~ view afcstc, with
the rider lhat although discrete, castes do not exist in isolation but
fonn part ofa systeln which gives them meaning and sus~'~ins their
exisrence. Legitimation and of endogamy become the
basic characteristics, the 'essence' of caste, in this perception.
Celestlne Rougle's6precise clefinition of caste epitomizing its major
featurcs into three sahences,cccupationa1specializationon hereditary
LI

hasis, himchical status gradation, and 'repulsion', is, separation

ofeach social group fromthe others throuj$ commensal ;mrl connubiil
restrich, WE, redtrcedb Louis Durnan~'to me 'hiesar~~~y' derivhg
from the apposition ofthe pure afid the impure. Far,according to
Dumont other feaures of caste were subsumed within this basic
principle. The trend is now to regard the feamre of 'repulsion'
or 'difference' or 'division' as 13e key conccpt, supposedIy
maintained through 'Iiyper-symbolism', a cluster of characteristics
differentiating each caste From the other in social and rilual
malters buc not occuparion, he crilerion laid down in the
Indological works.'
However, the history of the caste system shows h a t txlief in
'putative hioIogical differences', which are expressed through a
ritualization of divergent social practices, has nor acted as an
i mpediinent in transcending the rules of cndogamy and the
formation of n m castes when material conditions bring ~ o ~ e t h e r
families of d~versecaste origir: but similar sacio-economic
background. The formation of thc K S y a s ~ h acaste in early
medieval times is a case in point, as lite~atcprofessionals drawn
from different varnas/castes crystallized into a caste of scribes.
For a correcr understanrlin~oftlre d y ~ ; m lofi ~the caste system
we must pay artention not only to 'repulsion' or 'fragmentationn
of castes 1x1also to the processes of fusion whir:? allow this
insflmtion contlnue :lnd even sIrengthen irsclf as
~olilicaland econolnic ci~+curnsrances For oxample, in
 [he overseas context, in Trinidad varna categories have come to
replace caste as the endogamous unit and status referrent." No
d o ~ t b endogarny
t is basic io the morphology of caste bur For its
origin and sustenance one has to look beyond hypersymbolic
manifestations and other ideations1 explanations which merely
1% the question by making it an attribute of the Indian mentality.
A s we shall try to show, endogamy evolved gradually and
acq~lircdrigidity with the growth of patrinrchy in a varqa-based
class sociely.
A major problem is chat evenMrr~xjstllrstorians who regard caste
2-F class on a primitive level ofproduction'" have ignored the role of
Patriarchy nnd subjugation ofwornen in its ideolom and rules of
Endogamy is looked upon as a borron~ingor survival of
pre-Aryan or non--wan tribd pmcu'ces. D.D. Ibsambi writes that
fi~sionof lrib;ll into societ). xt large lies ; ~ the
t very
Foundaiionofthe ~ n s system;"
a hbn Habib concurs." suggesting
when rribes were absorbed they brought with them their
cnd~gamouscustoms and his happened 'only after the division of
lakllr hadmchedn @cuhrlml ofclrvelopinmt within the "gened
"ciery"'. l r Perllaps this means that after stratifiation bad emerged
in the fonn of vEirnadivisions,s s i d a t i o n ofuibal groups led to the
institution ofmendogamous mste stlaccure. Kosambi h more s ~ c i f i c
Wilh regards to the tilne fmnle and he mces rile origin of endogamy
to the incarlmtrrtionofmansand pl;e-ArycmI-Iarappansin one rivd
satiety.
I have shown e]sewhel.e'l illat the views of D.D. Kosatnbi on
the origins ofthe caslc system are more in llle nnture of tentative
probinEs, TheJ, arc conuadictoiy :~nddifficult to sust3jn jn the
Fxce of rigorous analysis. The f a c ~that in larcr times incorporation
of tribal groups in ro t h e 'general society' meant the
Lransformation of tribes inrn endogamous castes rtrel~ly$1-tows
that xssjlnilatjon could take place only on terms and Panems
of caste society. The assumption that the social Structure 3s a
whole became stnlified into endogamous units owing lo the
entry of tril>:l] groups is perilously ciose lo the ~~acinl explanxtion
ofcasre 5 0 propounded by FIcl.bet-tHisley. " Iqosanibi's
pel+ccp[ionof he unchanging nature nf Indus v a i l q c i v i l i ~ ~ i o f l
11:~s been riglltly crilicizedih by Morton Klass, whose own
hypohesis repding the origin of L S S ~explains ~ endoga~nyas 1
fossilization ofa prehistoric South Asian aboriginal practice. The
work of Marton .Klass has been acclaimed1' as a major study
providing a materialist explanation of the origin of caste ancl
hence deserves a detailed scrutiny. I
laass nises a peninent point in his debate with socinlogists
('the apostles of synchrony or even achrnny'), asking whether it is
Ixossjbleto know what h e caste system is without first asking how it
ame to he. He emphasizes the interdscip~inarynature ofrhe problem.
is own search, however,leads hun beyond all ~ ~ l l m e n ~ e d w i d e n c e
four or more millennia ago, to 'totemic', 'eq~ditarian'clan groWs.
Klass suggesw that in prehistoric times South Asian regians were
inhabited by a galaxy ~Fequaiimrimendogamous social groups, each
internally characterized by full and undifferentiated membership and
constituting a singk a6'marriage-c$c\e', in which prospzriv and
misfomne were shared by all. Many of these endogamous societies
were c o q m e d of equalitarianexoajrnous segments or dam. Initidy,
dwere atthe gaheringandhuntingstage,with n~ signiF~~rheconorrd~
specialization or exchange of goods and services. In the following
millennium food pr~duclionbegan in the favourable ecolbgical
zones, with the cultivation d rice of hard grain, and plants and
animals were domesticated. The new technoIogy pravided these
areas with 'absolute surplus', that is, the ability to produce
conrinually more than what was required for subsistence. TJlis
development placed those corporate groups, who were in
possession of cultivable Iand in an advantageous position vis-a-
vis those who did not have such land. The latter began to
exchange their labour and services for access to cultivable land
and crops,Since both the possessors and non-possessars were
stnrcmred in egalitarian clans, the network of exchange hod a
corporate character. Labour and services were provided not on
individual but corporate basis with prosperity and misfamne
being shared equally by all members of the clan. nlusa hierarchy
of corporate groups developed owing to unequal access and
control of economic resources. This Led a transition from clan 4

to caste' or from 'Bear to Barber', borrowing the language of

Stmuss. Mass traces not only caste endogamy but even
jajmanf relations t0 prehistoric times. According to him
 INTRODUCTION 5

system emerged not in any one specific region but over heentire
subcontinent almost ~ifndbneously.For, white wheat and orher h a d
grains +ere being cultivated in the north-western part of the
subcontinent,rice was cultivated in the eastern and southern regions.
'The caste system came into existencenorin Bengal or the Malabar
Coast or Ihc Indus Valley, but over the entire subcantinent' about the
same time.'"
No doubt Klass is right in emphasizing the important role of
differential access to basic resources and economic inequality
corporate groups in the emergence of file ca-te system; hut his
assumption that the system originated in prehistoric times when
tribes living in 'unfavourable' zones migrated in search offertile
land and crops and almost. voluntarily entered jnro subordinate
or 'service' relations with h e communities In possession of the
basic resources and practising new technology,is not only
conjecrur;tl but goes against the well-documented panern of
agricuI~rdexpansion in ancient as well as more recent times.
The introducti~nof agriculture by nedithic-chalcolithic peoples
on the ~ ~ b c o n t i n e nalso
t involved clearing the primeva]
vegetation and forests, which would destroy the habitats of
hunters and gatherers, The latter had to come to terms with the
new way of life by either adopting h e new technology or
becoming margi~>ali~ed as nlcnial labourers or predators sticking
to their eulierway of life. The process accelerated wirh the advent
ofiron re.&noloa, For instance,in the Mewar region of Iiajasthan
a section of Bhils has adopted agriculture and become the peasant
caste of Gamits, which no longer has any social interaction with
he ~ h d of s the hills and forests. This Is a classic example of the
disintegration or fission of a tribal comnlunity with one of its
searents transfGming itself into an endogamous caste, not
because the segment had been earlier an endogamous marriagc-
circle, but because ir htegrared with a stratdied, fragmented caste
society which practised endogamy and as such provided ic a
separate niche. '"
Moreover, it may be pointed out that agricultural sufplus
became in several tribal regions of the subcontinent
heir developing a caste System, untiu the introduction
ofbrahmanical culture and ideology.TO give one example, recent
 suggest 11' that the Assam plains had a tribal puasanlr'
consisting of rhe ~ i k i r sKukis,
, Khasis,and Kochch-Kxchariswho
practised cultivation on a permanent b:isis in lhe pre-Ahom
period; but their assirnilation in dle caste system apparentIy took
piace with the 'creation of a dominant class of brah~nin
landhrrldeis' and penetration of brahmanic ideojog~,
Further, Klass' hypodlesis of 'clan to caste' does no[ explain the
emergenccc of the piestly caste of brzlrma~>as fronl he ' cho' sbgc.
They could hardly have cons~ituteda separate ' marriage-circle' in
prehistoric societies,unless we attribute to them sufficient advance
in the sptcia1izationofservices and exchange ofgoods to maintain a
non-food producing 'marriage-circle'. To sustain a specialized
endogamous 'clan'or 'marriage-circle'of priests, and not just one 0s
two priesdy lineages of a tribal commnunity, &re to be sufficient
'absoluteS L I ~ I U S'
available. On the other hand, ifthe formation of the
behrnana caste is explained fls coging together of the 'exajpmaus
segments' of prehistoric endogamous communities and their
crjrsdlization into a sacred caste, this would imply fission and hsion
cfinneaedwid1 occupationd specializationand s~ntif1~'1don. Such a
developmentn.ould hardly becodwed to priestcrafidone, partimlady
as stratification was not just a matter OF 'difference' but the
consequenced growing conm and manipulationof the sacred and
temporal domains by a few uibal lineages. Klass is certainly correct
in endorsing the view of Barth that dre value sys~ern or 'the cognicirre
changes follow upon the social and interactional changes'," bur this
does not explain the existence of a large caste of hrlh~manasfrom
the very beginning;the casre sysrem can hardly an~edatethe mste of
briihma~ns!~~
In hcc the evolution of the caste system cannot be delinked
Fsom the emergence of pmiarchy, class divisions, and slate; and
as chis did nor happen at the same time all over the subconrinenr,
one cannot speak of its simultaneous appearnnce in different
reglam of the country. I have argued hat regional variations in
t The argument
he system may be partly explained by the t i r r ~ lag.
which locates its essence in endogamy overlooks the f a a rhat
occupation*l s~ecinlizarlonand hierarchical gadation along
n a class have played a no less crucial
the suppression of ~ 0 m e as
S Q ~in formalion of caste sociery and in regulating its
 INTRODUCTION 7

intercommunal relationship^.^ If endogamy alone out OF its three

defining characteristicsz4endures in contemporary times, the
phenarncnon rteeds ro be explained with reference to changing
relations of production in a cl~angedmaterial miIieu 25
Recently the theory of the Dravidian origin of caste has been
revived on 1 x 0grounds: First, it is assumedahchat the sct-teme OF
fznwtsmentioned in the sangam litemture represents a casre-like or
'pro~o-ate' stageas itspeaks offivedifferent~ p eofenvironmenta[
s
zones peopled by divergent communitiespractising Merent modes
of production, d e p e n d q on the nature of their basic resources, I l u s ,
the inhabitants of hmrcji-te'naiwere Kgnavar, Kunuvar and Vetar
subsisting on hunting and gathering, those of the@!aior descn-land
lived by plunderand cat& mids, and were knclwn asKa]abyar,EyinJr
and Mafavar. The ~ y a and r Idiayar occupied the mulhi-tinai or
pastorat tract and practised shifting agrjcuIture and animal husbandry,
whereas plough cultivation was the technology used by the Ulavar
and Toluvar in the marutam-tivuiorfertile wedand, a l e f ~type h
dtinwiam the neitdor castal tractspeopled by Pararaw, J r d ~ ~ ~
and Kmwar, who depended on f~~ishing and salt extraction.I n m i n g
intemctiorl and irl:erdcpendcnce among these sociocultu~algruup
with 'fundamentally different systeinsof senlement and subsistence'
is seen as resulting in rhe caste system in which each community
r e m a w enc3psulated, retaining its iden~ryeven as it e n t d
into intercommunityrelationships.
Nevertheless,u n k e the castesystem,the concept nf lirmin relates
to physiographical divisions with h e inhabitants of each region
practising a different mode ofprod~~ction. They are not p m oftl~e
same civil society. Economic nee& did requite a certain amount
of interntion (exchange of goods), but &ere is no statusgradation
or hierarchy of tinu8 or of communities although the polity and
subsistence pattern of different regicns does show a great deal of
uneven &velopment wirh some s d at rhe seatllentq h e a g e stage
and the regim d naamlcam supported a much more cnmplex
organization verging on stace formarion. The notion of
~ n a i ~ y suggestsn ~ ~hat m at the ideological level the process of
integrating diverse cornunities intoQfle cultural whole had k g c ~ r ,
but the absence of any notion of hiemchy and the iocatim of
communltjes jn different eco-zones makes this mechanism of
integration essentially differentfrom the brahmani-1 caste system
which nad already taken firm shape in the Gangedc region when
Sangam literature w a s being composed.The presence of brahmanas
fouowins~edictraditionsin the tribal chiefdm5 iswell attested in rhe
hngslm classics;and it seemsplausible that h e northern caste ideology
found a fertile ground in the fluid social condilions of the sobrh to
grow and evolve into specificforms in the subsequent centuries.
The arl~erargument in favour of Dravid:an origins l-ests-on the
assumption that the idm of pollurion from certain social groups d e r h
from Dravidian culture which visualized the sacred as something
malevolent and dangwous, a q u a l i tha~ ~ could be mnsmi~ted 10 all
who mediated with it. Hence contact with aborighal shamans and
musicians wm considered harmful and 'polluting' and to be avoided
by re1egahg them to a Iow-te status. Women too were considered
as polluted and polluting ax h t i s , for d ~ e were
y deemed as possessed
with 'sacred power' manifested in their capacity of reproduction and
a different biological rhythm. Therefore,various taboos-were imposed
#nthan~cmt~o\S_eir&i~mdkeepthminp~Mbondage.
George L.Harta is the principal exponent of this view, which 1
criticized in detail elsewheremand will not repeat except to add a
coupk of points. I ~eesterman has shown that the J + Ca consecrated
person engaged in the performance of a Vedic sacrifice), too was
conceived as possesskg'dcng~ous sacredness''' ar lea9 inhe h i h i d
stages ofthe development of vedic sacrifice. The Srauta SGrrasql
lay down that one should nor accept the f a d of a dkira,nor wear
his garments nor touch him, not because it would defile the
consecrated one but because the 'evil bEp~mn)'or 'guilt' nF rhr
&&itca would fall on the one who eats his food, touches him and so
on. Heesterman is of the view that the diksilu darlyregarded as
'impure''22nd Gondajf agsees. Apparendy with h e grtmJrh of a moxe
complex society m d h e emergence of the brshmanas as exclusive
ritual specialists and Idt?ologues,such ideas were inverted ro suit a
hierarchical social strLlcture and what was earlier a magical,+i
'hngeruus' and 'impure' slate came to be seen as the purest stare,
h e ~ ~ ~ oofgthe~highesr ~ vsocial e group Although Vedic sacrifice
could be performedby a11 the three upper vargas, h e sfitras
clearly state that the coasect.atedperson wen if he belofigsLo
raianW orvaigy~varna should be proclaimed a, brihmaIla as long
 as he remains in d ~ i ss r n ~ e Incidentally,
.~~ this aIso shows that
the idea of sacredness as potentially dangerous and h a d l was
not confined to the Dravidian ethos; traces of it are found among
'authentic Aryans'.
mthregards to women m,recentstudiefiRave shown that femde
sexualicy posed both 'physical and metaphysical' problems to Vedic
priesthaod, which invented devices to minimize and displace h e role
of the female in the systematization of Vedic rituals in heir Srauta
form. The notion of [he female biolagical rhythm being inherently
impure is the outcome of a pakhrchal ~ u t l m kand ; ethnological studies
have shown that many Indian tribes do not observe the menstrua[
&boo,until the rribe b inregrated inso ~ ~ e s m i e r y . 3 7
It appears that patriarchy was not supwadded to the varna/class
structure in Vedic rimes but was inlrinsic to he process of
stratification; and caste endogamy was not just a bornowing o r
continuation of aboriginal tribal practices, but canle to bc
constructed in an e f f mto regulale and reproduce patriarchy as
well as the hierarchy of social groups. The Rgvedic evidence is
clear on patriliny and patrilocality but patriarchy is nor well-
csiablished. Hence, we come across contradictory evidence
suggesting egalitarian gender relationsB on the one hand and
arrempcs to reslrict and deride m i e n on the other,tQe arc told in the
tenth mnlzdala of the &zleduthat in ancient times women used to
go to the conlmunal sacrifice ( s c i ~ z h o and ~ 3 colnnluniv fesrival
(sarna~1aj.3~ridr~~i, the wifc ofTndn, is described not only as the
rnolher of brave sons but also as d ~ maker c of ??a,:' interprered
variously as 'Iaw', 'tribaI law', 'mh' and 'sacrifice'. Similarly,
SinivSlT is described as r~fipntrt< the protector or mistress
of rhe 11G.u TJle hymn praises her as he sister of pods (stmas&),
indicating the inlportant position of the sisrer as ~ t @ n b l iThat the
idea ofconml pssasion or protection was implied in the telnlpcitvi
is wident in A V, I I.12.1 which speaIrs of k~@tl~~.~)a-pal?zi, Lhe
mistress of h e k i d . A verse'zfound in the scklenth t17a!adnlaof he
&~,p& d e S C f i b9~young woman b t # r ~ t fgoing i to [he powerful
fire rnornin~~ and nigh[ of her own accord Csl'd,10 offcr
c
ob]arhm j2aI~&) ghee (gl~rtdcr)with d c v ~ f i o Cntnmar~?,n in ller
search for wenith ( I I G ~ F ~ ~ JA~ umaiden
! ~ ) . gr~winfi old in heF'mnU1
lwme is s i ~to entitled to ZI ammured prtion of wealth w-@W1:3
10 CASTE

and 3 p a y e F is offered for both sons and daughrers by the side

of h e d~irnpatidecked wid1 ornaments of gold. Such passages
give the impression that. unlike later times, daughters were not
unwelcome and enjoyed a degsee uf freedom .and autonomy.
' ~the +'g!~eduseem to present il
everth he less, a few p a s ~ i g e sof
brotlzerless girl in an unfa~oumbleligl~t.She is described as pursuing
men in search of a husband, AccorLing ro Hnnns-Peter ~chrnidi.~"
girl without a brother found it difficult io get mnrried: her son would
kc13imed by herfatherto continue his lineage andwouid hereby be
lost to her husband's lineage. ~~cinsli~tiondimtion uf this custom is
evident in later Vedic which speak of the appointillent of a
brotherLcss daughter aspeclrlkfiso that her son Cptlrrik2pzltrS may
inherit her father s property, carv Eomzrd his lineage. and p c h r n l
ritual services for h i s maternal grandfathef. Schmidt notes the
prevalence of similar customs among d ~ ancient e Greeks, Komans
and Persians despite there being cer~ainimportant differences in
marriage rules. s ~ c ash exogamy in India, which rne,mt that the girl
would have to be married loan outslder and die: wmlth i ~ hf e sonless
Fatherwould go to a differentfamily. This accounu for aversion for
girls without brothers in the Indian sources. acc0rdir.g10 Schmidt.
He suggests that the disapproval d law-givers such :w Gautama,
Manu and Yijiia~alky~, of marriage with a p~ttrikaindicates their
suppon of h e claims of h e extended fanlily over the ~ d t orhestale
of the sonless father,whichattitude goes back to Rgvedic tlmes, if
this inte~recatimofrhe bvedic passages i s accepted, ir would
mcan that a woman's paramount obligition was to reproduce all4
continuethe lineage of her husband ancl In exceptional ~ i r c u m s ~ n c e s
that of her father, but h a t hersexualitjrwas a l r a d y under ~ x t r i a r & ~ l
control.
Eariier, Irawati XawP had explained Rgvedic descriptions of 3
hmherless maidcn'satternptsat husband-hunting 12)) visualizing an
archaic stage inwhich sisters and brothers were mmarriage m-,
terms 'hrallier' and 'sister' being used in ;1 classificatory sense
denoting young boys and girls of the same generation in lhe clan,
Tllus brotherlcss women had to look for husl~andso u ~ i d e their clan.
She supports her argurncnts with examples culled fromVedic
~ mhoo on hrdhPsjmcr
Puranic litera~ureand holds, t h a the
was later extended 10 clnssifica~or~ bruthers, lllt endogamous
 patriarch31 clan becoming stricdy exugamnous. In Karve's view
the instirution of putrlkd-putt-rt initially invoIved incestual union
bemeen father and daughter in exceptional circumstances, and
did not imply a gener~lstage of promiscuity. Sinlilar customs
prevailed among the commoners of ancient Iran to0.4~'The
process of esralishing jnresruo~rstaboos unmvels before o u r
eyes in Vedic liternlure', she remarks.49
me questim oFthe~vnlution~ f c l n ~nX ~ E I I Ranmng
I}' VecIichyxns
is a h i ~ h l yconuoversial one. ScIlolars such as S.V. KarancIikar,s1'
Irawati Knrvei' and G.S. Ghurye5' have ForcefuI[y argued that
group or clan exogamy was unknown to the Vedic Aryans when
they came to ~ndiaand that they borrowed it fromthe indigenous
people: for clan exogamy is found among almost all Wbes of the
subconrinent Ghurye! poinu out ~ h x no t other speakers of the
Indo-Eurol~ean1angu;lge.s are known to have practised p o u p
exogamy and. the Roman gens were not exogamous units. On
rht. other hgnd Bmven~sse5~and John BroughS4maint;liR hat
cliln exogamy prevailed in Rgvedic times and that the brahmanic
gotm exogamy was inherited from Indo-European €or&cass.
Whatever may bc rhe case, the establish~nentof patrilacality and
chn exogamy would no doubt have resulted in [he strengthening
of patriarchal trendsrSand increased subordination of q ~ ~ l r l e r ~ .
Thc &ztedci provides clear evidence of thc fact that a girl had to
c of her maternal residence on innrriage and live with
~ r l ~ vout
her husband's people. In my opinion the descriptionjGof the
members of the bridegroom 's prjrty asj q ~ 8 (persons4 belonging
to a different js?an), in the At11nn'~ltaduniay suggest that the
bridegroom belonged to a ditferest j a m . Elsewhere, I have
retcrred to the interpretation of rile rerm f n ~ ) w m i t r uby
~ interesting that in
Ijecsreman as a relative by ~ n a r r i a # eIt. ~ is
such passages the term used 1s juua and not 'vif'. whiclz is
g e n ~ n l l yinLerpretedas 'clan'. It may not be wihout signiticance
lhtlr hewife Is cl]]ed,jn~zz I n the conlext of marriagc,luna seerns
to have had special significanm.
nlonR widI begftlld~ ~ f ~ a m i ~ l 'later
d ~ yVedic, sources provide
dear tor h e splitting of Vedic l ~ . i i > rand
s tfic cmcrjience
caregoriesrhruug)l pmesse.5 offusion 2nd f5s$Jon,borll
l,orizt,~ltaland vertical, The &!led# 0cmdonally speaks of YGj*
 but this need not be construed ss the skuct~ring
in the p l u r a ~
of Vedic u i k s into senior and junior lineages, as d ~ caregory e of
rfijk may h;lve merely referred to the heid or ' c h i d d a clan or
lineage for deliberations, witha ut implying the
of lineages. Ttse use of rdjur~y:~, a diminutive of r Z p i z ,
in the ~ u r u s a - s u k m~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ " J I ( ~ clearly
L ' v L ' slrvws
I - , the
emergence of the kinsmen of the rdjZi as a distinct sochl category,
standing above the colnmon tribesmen, the USor the vai5yas.
This is a conspicuously recognizable category in the nrhcanraueda
and other l a ~ e Vedic
r sources. Nevertheless, the extent ro which
rhe principle of seniority in genealogical reckoning contributed
to this phenomenon is disputable. Thc sct/ciputl~nBtiihnialan,
which belongs to the latest stratum of later Vedic literature and
makes little disrinction between the rGjdlzyn and the ksatriya,
,conbins :;erne passageswherein i~is stated that the k~a~ua arose out
of the tGYd' and for the sake of victory the k~utraand rhe vdshould
eat from the same vessel." These statcmenE are interpreted as
reminiscent of earlier closer genealogicai links oFtRe ~-eqordlwtriya
wit11the zrE Yet, i r i s significant that the term rajuvayn was gndually
replacedb y 'ksatriya'. Whereas h e former stressed kinship with the
M j ~ orn ruler, h e lerm ,h-,npdaor k~atriyareferred to'rulmhip',
'power'or ' control' over the dofinion, and suggeststhe emer,nence
ofthis vama categoiy hrough the fusion of h e r c i j t ~ t z plineages 0f
several tribes.
Brabmanical sacrificial seems tn have played a c r u c b l
role in tl-us dwebpment R.S.~hacmpoiritsout that 'the geneabgid
superiori~yofthe vajuny~over the 11l:r'isnor.advanced as a ground
forchiming tributa', and in his opinion 'forcihlc:methods adopted
by the descendants of the ebzted cliefs lcd lo social diswncing which
was frozen into genealogica1 ideology at a 111uch larcr stage'.'"
By thc close of the later Vedic period the varuas w e e being
clearly dlstinguisl~edon the basis of the three fundasrenla]
characteris~icsof' castr o r g a n i t a ~ i o n.Ilierarchy,
: in1lerited
accupninnd spcciallzation and endoganly. Bdhman3 lineages
were systerna~izedinto germ-prazral-ci categories i n the
Bu~~dha@nw Srcwta S?ilra, and rfie iataptjjn ma?;a tells
us hat a kwriya IS h r n of a ksmiya, a vaisya ftonl a vaigya and
a gGdratro[na gfidn.'' The Cuncrele iden\i~yuf\lrjhmana. [he
 time of Alexander's lnvasian is attwrd in Greek accounts of'a
coontry of Bracl~mafisconquered by Alexander. K.P. Jaygsw3lr"
identified this land with he jn?acapnda named Brahmanaka
m e n t i o n e d by Paranjali. However, in~er-vargamariages of
hypergarnous type were allowed to roya!ty and the thtce wives
OF the later Vedic king at whose residences he offeredoblations
to approflriale deities are supposed rr! have bel~ngedto lhree
rltfi>im~ntv ~ r g a a . 'Even
~ in the time of the Buddha, marriage
between bdhmapa and ksatriy.~famiiies was permissible.
Jlitis emerged withm he vama system through fragmenracion
as well as the incorporation of tribal conlmunities within a
strllcture w h j d ~regulared hierarchy rhrough marriage rules and
endogamy. and privilegedheredity or bird1in a particular lineage,
lendmg to tlte use of the term @ti' for indicsting men-rbership in
3 particular c o m r n ~ n i r yT1111s
. ~ varpns were extended to prnvicl~
the institutional and ideological base for the growth o f ' a wider
socie~y.To quote Mcillassoux, 'contradictians inherent in the
co-existence and dcveIopment of the rival classes' and Foreign
inuusians and conquests led lo the rise of a new stahls sYsIem
of ja!is deriving froin the earlier varna system, and it was at once
'moreflexiMeand arhimry' and could be applied 'ton fragmented
society by any fractions af'the dominant rlnsses whatever their
origin'.'^
The earliest use of the lerm .idti in connection with a vama is
found in the Nintkta '"which is regarded 3s pre-Plnini and spydcs
of 2 woman of a Sfirlra .jr;iti. I t i s not c l e x wher11e1- this ja r l
reference to the vaqs;caste, or to a t r i b ~OF the same name, for
a [nhe of d~isname existed in the north-west dawn co the rime of
~ l ~ ~ invasion. ~ ~ &Ther tmnsform~tion
' ~ nf hi< tribnl name into a
generic v m a mtegory is elalwniely delinmted by R.S.Shamla in his
cl:lssic w ~ r l i sadrm in Ancien! Irtdic~.I-Iuwe~r,clear e~tidenceof
~h~existence of dislincr social groups subsumed within the &Ira
mma in a hierarchiml relarionshjp is to be seen in a s d t n of Piinhi
which spcaksT1 of crfiirazrastta;Ctdras. C o n ~ i n e n u ~o~ngthe S U ~ M
PanfipIi cxpiains &at r h metal vesqels fbreating ~ U V S E ~by
GIIZiPat,GU.j~td~fidras s u r h as the Gandikm, 5akas and Yavanas
purified (by fire, erc.1, bur those t~sedhy die rtt'ra~fmttfi zfidras
cannor purified through any ~ C O C ~ S S ,and
" Cgt?@las and
Mrrapis arc cited as e x a m p l e s of the latter g r o u p . Thus
of the Sbdras and a hierarchy of their relative
impurity is clearly enunciated in lhis rext of he second century
uc. In the eyes of rhe orthudox brlhmana all those who were
or at the margin of brahmanical sociely could be none
other than Sfidras, for the vama system was a universal concept
defining no1 human I>ur also h e divine and vegecarional
' ~ widely divergent social, econo~micand cuhural levels
~ o r l d s . Yer
of assirnihting groups and material expediencies led to the
invention of the concepts of ~)mtya and t)arqzma~?~karn, that is,
formation ofseparate castes due co non-~erfonnanceof the sacred
or because of the mixed marriages of original founder
couples; and these theoretical devices were highly surcesful in
extending the varna system i n t o the j 5 t i system. Thcse
explanations also led to a dilution or modification of h e varna
concepts and we have how tlle notions of 'vaiiya' and
'Sudra' acquired new meanings i n the changed material
conditions, which favoured a shift from thc relative puricy of
function to relative purjv of binh implicd in the lransition from
varna to juti.'?
I k w v e r , aydiIabLee v i h e sujgpisthat tcrricorialand uccu@anal
dit'rences played 3 malor mlc in the mergence of segrnentcdidentitia,
particularly within thc brjhmana and the vaiiya v a q a s , as castcs
rankedw ihin&secategOr:es g e n e d y emphasize heir ~pxi~1irrarion
in :I particular craft or tradition of learning7" or their terrltoria177
affiliation. Adoption in the ksatriya varna was necessita~cdby the
arrival of new ruling and powerful groups, Foreign as well as
indigenous, which required constgnt ndlustrneilts. The presence of
descendants of dominant ruling lincages of the latr-r Vedic age in the
no&-wrst is indicated hy ~ ~ r t atribali n coins of the seco-oildand first
centuries sc which carry the legend 'ofr l ~ ucountv of ~qjavt,yrds'
I riijaGaja~ltrpad&).~ The raj~~zy#swould have contributed miinly
LO the formation of professional armies of the post-Vedic monarcllies.
A distincrion is made sometimes between the rij/iiriymnnd k3atriyas,
which fact suggests t h a h ~ e formcr were splinter groups vedic
rrihcs proud of heir linmges, and the littler a mure general ntegory
bringing logether those who had access to powel., status and m r L
like ~rofcssions.For example, the kbut~iyu,brPhmana and
 vdjufifia (rEijczrzya) are enumerated separateIy in a passage of
the Mu~tlimu-Nihdjr61*which contrasts them wirh the low-barn
Candiilas and nesGdm. The Kaikc?. commenting on a sfim of
Plpini explains t h a ~although the hdl~aka-Vmniswere kgatriyas,
the term rfijanya was applied nnly to thnse who belonged ta
specially cansecr~tedfamilies."'It cites the example of Dvaipya
and Haim3yana, who were not called riija~zymeven dlough rhey
were obviously kyarriya~.~'
The ruling groups of chc gwaa-r+yus of h e age of h e Buddha
were very conscious of their ksatriya ancestry. Thus the remark
of the Burldba t h a ~although bfihmapas could adopt a son wllo
had partial non-bralun~nablood from either parent, the k~triyas
would refuse to accept as their equal anyone who was not of
pure birth for sevengenerations on either sidcs2P u r i b ofdescmr
was of viral concern to the ruling class of the gava-~ajym,as
access to polirical power depended upon il. Thus, whereas
identity of interests and professional solidarity led co the
integralion of ru1ir.g segirients of tribes into a Mjajiya/ksatriy2
vama, excessive emphasis on the purily of lineage c w l d also
contribute to the forn~alionof subdivisionswithin its fold.The specitic
lineage names OF the ruling groups of the gana-rfifias are of~en
coupled with the rerm j c i ~ i ~ ~ l lpli,
r y a Liccf~avijfiti, IIdiyajcitiand
soon).These are ranlcedds kptriya ingemml, bur annor be seen as
constituting ksatriyajurisin the later sense of the term, as they were
not separare endogamous unirs b u inarrled
~ freely among themselves
wirhoul notions OF hierarchy or h y ~ e r ~ a nwithin
ly their own ranks.H
In tlus contexljitfseems to have been used in a pureIy 1itel;ilsense EO
emplmsi;?e dle 11eredtw s ~ uofsh e lineage.However Manu provides
clear evidenceK'~f *e existence 0fjutBwithh the k~atriyavama and
thejcitdsrrutrture wifhin lhe fold of tile varga system seems to have
evolved a few centuries before h e beginning of the Cllristian era.
MuteipIc fstcrorsmntributerl to i& eh'pmsionover the su bcontinent in
hec a u m of'tirile.A recent survey lisls many 353'3 conlmunities
a re eupilemisticaily called SL?tnudd~mavoicling t m . j u f 1 3
axnong present-day 111indus."'
~ iule pmlifcmtion
~ ~
of castesm ~ medieval
in early ~ tirlles ~ i ~ ~
R,S.Shsma arrrjbures ro the practice of [making landgranw to
brahrnapas in aborjpiD;rlawss, ~ h Filncrion
c ofa c a t v s t : to h c
M ~ t a p i sare cited as examples of the !a:ler group. Thus
subdivisions d the iikdras and a hierarcl~yOF their relative
impurity is ciearly enunciz~cdin this text of the second century
nc. In the eyes of the orthodox hrhrnar?;l all those who werc
outside or at the margin of hrahmanical society could be none
other than Siidras, for the varna system was a universal concept
defining nor only human hut dso the divine and vegetational
worlds,'' Yet widely diveqent social, econo~nicand cultural levels
of assimilating groups and materiat expediencies fed to the
a ~ a ? ~ a s a l n h r[hat
invention of the concepts of ~ l r d b ~and n , is,
Formation of separate castes due to non-performance of the sacred
duty" or because of the nixed marcpages of original foundcr
couples; and chese thearetical devices were highly successful in
extending the varna system into the j d t i system. These
explanations also led to a dilution or modiFicntion of h e varw
concepts ;ind we have shown7<Ilow the notions of 'vaiSya' arid
'Shdra' acquired new meanings in the changed rnacerial
conditions, which Favoured a shift from the relative puriv of
function to relative pririv of birth implied in the transition from
varna to jitti?'
However,available evidence ~ggesb that territorial and O C C U ~ K ~ O ~ ]
&Tcrcnccs pllqcd a major role in the enlergene of segmentedidenlitim,
particularly within the hrihnlana and he vaiiya varnas, as castes
nnked within these caicgoriesgenerally emphas~zetheir specialization
in a particular craft or tndition of learning7"or iheir territorialT
affiliation. Adoption in the ksatriya varna was necessitated by [he
arrival of new ruling ar,d powerful groups, foreign as well as
indigenous, which requin-cl constant adjus~rrlcnts.The prcscncc
descendan~of dominant ruling lineages of the lilter Vedic age in thc
north-west is indicated b y certain bibal coins of the second and first
centuries trc which carry the Iegend 'ofthe country of ~-$an-yas'
Thr
(rajaiiir j n ~ ~ a ~ d t w '~ wolild have contributed mai*
> , rdja~zyas
to formationof ~ofessionalarmies ofh e p~s~-V~dicmonarcllies.
A distinction is made sametimesbetwen h e r2& r z y ~ l s a ~ d
b3triyas,
which Fact s u g s s m h a t the former were spl~ntergroups of Vedic
trihcs~roudoftheirlinezges, and the latter a more general ategory
brirginf5Weher dl those who had access lo power, status and will.-
like I'rofessions. For cxaltlple, the khclt!iya, bralllnann and
 rujniifitaCrcljanpu) arc enumerated separately in a passage of
the Mw1~t~ima-Nik2ya~ which contmsts them with the low-born
Ca!l@las md ~ze$dczs. The KhEikQ,commenting on a s&a of
PSnini explains that although the Andhaka-Vrstis were ksarriyas,
the term rdjanya was applied anly LO those who belonged co
specially consecrated farniliesnR" It cites the example of Dvaipya
and Haimiyana, who Rere not called riijanyaeven though they
were ~bviouslykatriyashB1
The ruling groups of the ga~cr-r5jiynsofthe age of the Buddha
were very conscious of their katriya ancestry. Thus the remark
of the Buddha that although bfihmanas could adopt a son who
had pxtial non-briihrnana blood horn either parent, the ksatriyas
would refuse to accept as their equal myone who was not nf
Pure birth for seven generations on &her side."2Purity of descent
IviLS of vital ConCCm to rhe nrling class of the gflt~a-ra&us,as
access to political power depended upan it. Thus, whereas
identity of inieresrs and professional solidarity led to [he
integration ofruling segments of tribes into a raju?zydk~atriya
varna, excessive emphasis on the purity of lineage corlld also
contributelo rhe formation of sltbdivisiom within its fold.The specific
lineage nnmes of the ruling groups of the g a n n - r t i j ~are often
coupled with the lennjfiti (S5kyal'citi,i,Licchavijabi, Kdiyajatiand
so on). These x e ranked as k~atriyain geneml, bur cannot be seen as
constituting batriyajGtisin the later sense ofthe term, as they were
not separate endogamous units bur married freely among themselves
without notions of'hierarchy or hypefgamy within their own
h this contextjtiriseems to have been used in a purely l i t 4 .em
emphasize tile hereditary shlus ofrhc lineage.However m u provides
clear evidence afthe existence ofjatiswithh the batriya mw and
t h e jgfistrucmrc within the fold of the vsma Sy5tenl seems tQ
cvolt~cda few centuries before the beginning ofthe Chrislian em.
MulBpIe factorsco.ontributedto is expansion over the subcmtinenc in
the course of t h e . A rccentsurvcyIbffias many as 3539 comunjties
(which e u p h e m i d d I y ciIled samud2~avoidingtheferm.jiin)
among presen~ilayHindus>>
13iscussing rhe proliferation of caslcs~in ?srly medicval times
R.S. Sharma attributes to the practice of making Iandgrants to
t n ; i l l ~ nin
~ .qbofiSiEil
s areas, the funcriull of2ntlyst: it led to ria.
brllploymenl of thc backward local people z landless 1:lbourers
2nd 3gricul~urisrsin a hnd-based feudal system of production.
and lo thcir ~Iassificationas ibdra castes by the hmhmanical
law-givers The agency of brihmapas in imposing varua-~;l~l;te
categories is emphasized, a l t h a u g h i t is recognized thar
acculturation was not one-sided. Shnrma explains the rise of
Tantricism :IS a consequence of br~hmana-tribeinteraction. But
in several areas the initialive sccrns to l ~ a v ccome from a rising
class of uibal nobility when certain communiucs were exposed
LO socio-econotnic 2nd poIi~icaIstimuli fro111 more advanced
regions and began 10 go through :I process of scare formation.
Kulkeq calls this 'k~atriyaiaation',which, he carefully explains,
does not mean merely imitating the ksatriya w:~yof lifc but social
change 'from above' initi~:tedkn ~ r i b a lareas 'by the k+;ltl<yas,
chat is, zamindars, chiefs, or r;ijiis, in order to svcngthen their
legitimation as Hindu rijiis in their own society and to broaden
the basis of lheir economlc and political power',hY in other words,
by tribal nobili~yto further [heir own rnalerlal interests. Kulke
paints out that in many areas Iocal languages were f ~ m r ore
important than Sanskrit in spreading this cult'~ralpattern and
that the agents of 'Br~hmaniz~tion' wcrc: not :ilways briihmanas.
Kulke's remarks are l>ased on his study of rnedievaI Orissa, but
[nay zpply to other regions going thro~tghthe process of spate
formation in early medieval tjlnes. A recent st~dy*'has shown
bow the Ihyalaseema area of south-western Andhra Pradesh,
which lwd been papulatcd by hunters and gatherers, acquircd n
stralu~licimportance in he regional power slrugglc heiween ole
Cjlukyas of Rldarni in north Karnataka ancl the Pallnvas OF 1C;bcT
in the e i ~ h r hand n i n ~ hccnluries and was thus txpused to the
influence of advanced cul1urt.s. There graclually unfolded
transiticn from rrihe to state, leading LO the rise of tribal
chieftaincics; and the ~ribalcomrnunitic.~were transfonnt_.dInto
a arrtified sociely w i ~ hihe growth uf a pulil~calnobility exercising
control over land. This new class patterned itself 013 tile
I'1ahm~fiicalmodel,which t d p c d Iegitimizc {heirsep~ralionfrom
comlnonality of tribesmen and de~nnndediheir allegiance.
No less Important lhe faci that it p y t : ~ i l c m to
un a I:rriVr social space'. Thus, the varn;l/caae tll&l of
 stratification was adopted by the rising elite which also
deliberately promoted the regional language, in this case Telugu,
as it gave a new sense of unity cutting across earlier tribal
affiliations a n d enabled them to face the ckallengc of
neiphbouring Calukya and Pallava powers. It is argued that at
least in the initial stages h e presence ofbrihmanas in dle region
was insufficient to esablish strong bases of Sanskritic teaming
and that [he Jainn and ~ a i v asects played an inlportant role in
the development of Telugu language ancl tlre spread of a pan-
Indlan 'grcat culture'. We may add that. by this time Jainisrn too
had thoroughly imbibed the vnrna ideology'x' and while one
occasionally comes across passages which challenge caste
hierarchy, caste identities are taken for granted.
Tllus the adopticln of the brahmanical social scheme in diverse
regional conditions resulted in different culture zones having
widely divergent scructural categories of caste. Uniry in this
diversiry mras provided by the cxste ideology, which, as we have
shown, unclewent certnin conceptual modifications in a changed
tnacerial milieu without needing to alter its basic principles. Many
factors contributed to the nlultiplicity of castes. The splitting of
immigrant groups from parent bodies, crpstallization of new
professiond groupsv1into new uniw,differencesintribal mdiguncions
of various regions, and historical specitidtiesall generated hgmented
identities who* number and morp~lologiesare astounding but reflect
centuriesof historical development under the influence OF b d m a n i d
cullui-c. Caste ideology provided an inregrating mechanism that did
not rcqrrire uniformity orreplicarion of the fourfold vama structure."'
This may be illustrnicd by a study of the Vel!i!a caste. I have
argued tllat owing LOthe changed perception of rhe functional role of
the vaiiyn and Sfidra vargas in rhe early centuries of the Christian
em, l a n d - b u d agricuitunl communitiesof the south were placed
in tile Sudrj varqa and they stood next only to b~hmwas. This
was due to he failure ofthe emergence of viable socid groups to be
identifiedas kptriyas anti vai6ps in the specific material conditions.
By this tinte h e bnl~rnanicaitheory too had begun to measure the
reiaave puriy and rank of a con~municyin l e m s OF d ~ myth e d
a~zr~[o>na and pratibna ~narriagesof the o~.iginalfounder
couples, Hence, the Ve!!Zjns who were landowners and fillers
of the soil 3rd held offices pertaining to land were ranked as
jiidrasw but nevertheless became a stalus category at the regional
o r sub-regional level. This caste has a very wide geographical
spread. It is painted outM thal land-based coinmunities quite
distincr from the Ve!!ala have claimed Ve!IZla status and in the
course of time have gained acceptance and intermarried with
alder Ve!!5]ar families. This is reminiscent of the formation of
the Rajput caste in the north. Thus caste ideology could even
transcend vama categories while retaining notions ofhierarchy,
endogamy and functional similarities to organize varied structural
forms.
An exploitative system which has the capacity to enrol the best of
whaiever uaiglrl ~ I Ii b own service is far more pc~niciousand long
lasting than one char is closed andstatic. VamJ suatification received
strong justification from the doctrine of karma,which was an
invention of the elitex in later Vedic times and tried to explain the
inequalities of the vama order from the view point of its own class
position. The class role of caste ideology has not been camouflaged
too well: it has been an instrument of power hierarchy; and field
studies h a v e ~ h o w n ~ a correlation between caste and class may
that
be seen ina large measure even in modemtimes. This was even more
true In pre-colonial times, when case rules had the sanction ancl
supportofthe ruling dasses."The religious cloakingofcaste ideology
begins with the justification of varna divisions in later Vedic texts,
where it plays an important role in legitimizing the transition from
tribe to state.The mechanism wns perfected and proved very helpful
to the indigenous ruling elite of later centuries- for cuItural as well
as politico-economic reasons.Brahmanirrl Iaw-givers enjoined upon
the ruler to ensure proper obsenrance afcaste duties, and inscriptional
evidence shows that brahmnized rulers took pride in championing
the !larva-ciharma and actively intervened in regulating caste
hierarchy .*.liFrer all, ir was a sums system which could not be delinked
from h e question of power." I r has been that polalcal
histories of local level chiefs in pre-colonial times vitally transformed
caste structures of their region and the dichotomy of religion and
~obticsis 'inappropriate at the level of ideological or miturat
in Indian social thought'. TO the extaL [llattlgs view seeks emend
hdological interpretations of caste, which conceived it as a
 static socio-cultural pllenornenon ignoring the political and
economic underpinnings, it may be seen as an important
corrective. However, lhe recent attempt of Ronald Indenlo' to
' retheorize''['* castes as 'subject-citizenries' constituting the
territorial associadons d paura$~napadas,and 3 5 'conlplex
;(gents overlapping wilh one another and with royal courts' in
an !imperial formation' which 'reconstituted' or 'reproduced'
Itself, or more accurately, its ruling cIass 'as a self-ruling society'
through the annual holding of the 'ceremonial bath' or ahh$ek
of the king,Io3 the entire polity being 'constituted' or 'canducted
in dye language of the major religious orders',lMis an astonishing
exercise in ohhscation. In cIre name of resroring 'agen~y"."~ to
Indian (read 'Hindu') people and to show that their 'rationality'
was different From that of the Western mind it i s argued that in
the Indian context socio-economic categories of anaiysis, the
probIematic of inequitable structuring of castes and other social
groups, the sysrems ofproduction, distribution, erc., are
irrelevant. a m a t makes sense is that w h i d ~is located,firrnly in
the Imtional: rituals, religious processions, discourses on the
divine will, and so on.Bur the post-modernist jargon ill-conceals
the neecolonialist agenda which, as Shrirnali has righfl)?pointed
n ~ t , " ~isf i10 resurrect James Mill's 'Hindu' and 'Muslim'
periodization ofIndian history by attributing the formation of
'castes1in something resembling their modern form to the collapse
of Hindu 'kingship','o7 Apparently Indcn's argument is that during
h?uslim castes lost heir so-called 'subjecr-citizenry' character
and became autonomousand inward-looking, reduced to merely
'subjects', as the new rulers followed a different religion; but no
attempt is made to show how dominant cares were made to
lose their political or socio-economic privileges or rights of
'citizenship' with d ~changed
e religion of the ruler. By attributing
the dynamics ofsocial change to the advent of Muslim rulers on
the scene, taking a static, unchanging view of the entire pre-
fourteenth century Indian society, codaring pazdmjitinapatlns
as caste n~sociations~'~and ignoring the question of nlenkd castes
and tribes, hden seeks to emphasize dte Hindu-Muslim divide
rather than promote any logically consistent and scientific
,understanding of India's past.
 H m e v e r , India is a land of long continuities (which does not
mean that it h w been static). The history ofcaste shows that nnt
only did i t play an impofiant role in the p l i t i a l economy of the
day, but it has been modifying, changing and adapting icself to
suit material conditions prevailing in the course of its Iong
existence. The crucial question is raised by Irfan ~ a b i b : who "~
were its main beneficiaries7 His answer is that no doubt
brihmanas would benefit to the extent that every ~riesthood
benefits from the success OF the religious system it upholds. But
the main beneficiarieswere the ruling classes as the system helpecl
generate larger revenues from the countryside by reducing the
cost: OF peasant subsistence. The repression of menial czstes and
securing their strucrurerl dependence"" made agricultural labour
cheap and it also reduced the cost of artisanal products and
services; for anisin castes had a depressed status with rcs~icted
mobility; and hereditary transmission of skills reduced the
expenses on trainlng, etc., lowering the wage-cost as a whole.
Hence, Habib points out, while differentiation in terms of caste
was alien KOIslamic law, MusUm rulers and writers never question
the inequities of the caste system. Their cridcism of Hinduism
concentrates a n its alleged polytheism and idol worship. 'So
long as "petty production" remained the dominant form, the caste
system retained its inestimable value far every regime', whether
the rulers were situated within the caste society or outside it"'
Modern industry has replaced petty production which favoured
craft-exclusiveness on a non-competitive basis. It has eroded the
notions of caste hierarchy and untouchability, and the taboos on
interdining at lcast in urban arcas. But thc prohibition ofinter-
caste marriages isstill ob~ervedwidel~, for it i s not in conflict w i t h
the apitaalis mode ofproduction. On h e contrary, endogamy almost
invariably means arranged marriages an cansiderations of wealth,
power md status, and as such IS well impregnated with h e capiblis~
value system, As a matter offact in some aspects the strength ofhe
caste system has even Increased in modern times; and caste &ology
~ Y W be ~ undergoinghrther
U rndiFrations. Tnepatron-chen[ nexus
of the jajmdfli type (service relationship) which existed in h e
tmditi~nalvillage community, is being increasingly replaced by h e
conmaal,rsecuaiar~and impersonal forms of exchange under he
 influence of market forces, wirh rile result thar in fimes of
adversity an individual has to depend all the more on the
members ofbis own cask for group support. Present day politics
too allow the elite of casie to exploit the caste-consciousness of
their cascemen in order to compete with the elite of other castes
and communitics for politicai power. Thus caste ideology bas
gained strength both for political and economic reasons, in spite
of the fact thar rhcre are increasing differentiations of wealth
and status of individuals within each caste. Inks-casw relations
are now marqed by cleavages and conflicts replacing the
traditional erhos that gave the communities a sense of
togetherness in the countryside. Thus cask ideology has become
a nlaterial force impeding the growth of class consciousness.

NOTES

1' Andre Beteille, 'The Reproduc~ionoflnequality: Occupntion, Caste

and Family', Contribtdtions to Indian Sociology W.S.), VoI. 25
(1 991), pp. 3-28, reprinted in K.L.Sharnra, ed., Socia{~nqwliry
in &I& (New DeIhl, 19353; pp. 1 15-47.
2 David F. P~ocock,'Differencein Enm ~frica:A Study of Caste and
Religion in Modem Indian Society', .Yo!dth-1P/estemJoumaI 0f
~ 13 (1953,pp. 2S9-300.
A n t h m . 0 1 ~Vul.
3 Dipankar Gupta, 'Continuous Hierarchies and Discrete Castes',
Ecocoleomic and Polilical Weekly, Vol. 19, No. 46 (17 November
1984), reprinted in idem, Social Stl-utffccrtion IDelhl, 19911,
pp. 112f.
4 Ihid., p. 137.
5 Infra, Chap. 2, sec, i.
6 Ibid
7 Lods Durnonr, hbmo Hh?mrP7kim (Del hi, 19701.
8 Dipankar Gupla, ~ p cit., , p. 131.
3 Steven Vertovec, 'HJnduism in Trinidad: The Transfarmation of
Tndttion in Trinidad' in Gunher D. Sontheirnet and Hemnnn
Xulke, eds,, N~nduirmReconsidered (Delhi, 19911,p. 169.
1 fl I3.D. Kasarnbi, 7?3e Ctrlture nnd Civrlhtiorj ofAncient Iltdla i n
Historical Outline (London,1965j, p. 50;lrfan Habib, Itnrerpn?ring
Indian History (Shillong, 1985). p. 17.
11 D.D. Kosambi, intmdtrcrio~l to the Study of Indian H ~ t o r y
[henceforth ISJH) (Mumhi, 19563, p. 25.
1 2 I r f ~ nHhih, Essays in Indian Histoy (Delhi, 19951, p. 165.
1 3 Irfm It-ibi b, Ixterpreti~gIndian H&toq p, 2 7.
1 4 Infra, Chap. 2, sec. si.
15 The disproportionate influence ofRisleyls theory on historical and
sociologinl writinp on caste (as well as on pnpuhr perception^)
has heen largely due to the misreading of the h a / ~ ~ s a - ~ a s y ~
and Arjan/Dravidian dichotomies in h e Indological texts and
their concordance with the v a q m a ~ k a r arheorj, which is the
Dharm%tric view of the origin of lower ranking 'mixed' castw.
However, the view that the Dasas constituted an earlier pre-Vedic
wave of the Aryans seems now to be gaining ground in aciademic
circles. See ibid., sec, i. For che W a d D m v i d i a n issue, see Suvira
Jaiswal, 'Studies in the Social Structure of the Early Tamils', in
R.S.Sharma and V. Jha, eds., Indmn SocieQ: Histaricnl Probiqs
(In Memory of D D . Kosamhfi (Delhi, 1364), pp. 124-55,
1 6 Caste: The Emergence of the South Asian Social System
(Phik~delphia,1980), pp 57-8.
17 Satya P.Sharma, 'A Marerialist Thesis on the Origin and Continuity
of the Caste System in south h s k ~ ' ,The Easten1 Anlhmpologist,
Vvl. 36,No. 1 Qanuary-~arch1983), pp. 55-7;Dipankar Gupta,
op cit., p. 111;Gail Omvedt, Daiits anti theDenzocrar~cRevob~tion
(New D m ,19341, p. 32.
18 Morton H a s , op. cit., p. 175.
19 Distinguishing between tribe and caste, M i x LVeber wrote that :I
tribe, unless i t has bect,me a 'guest' or 'pariah people', usually has
a f w d territory ancl practises exogamy at the level of the totem,
the village, and the sibs, Endogamy mists only under certain
conditions. Caste however does not have a ~ L Y C terr~rory :~ and
endogamy forms the essential basis of :i caste [The Religion of
India, translatedand edited by Hans H. Gerth and Don Wdrtindlkle
(New York, 19681, pp, 30-31,
20 N , Lahiri, Pre-Ahom Assam: Studies i7z the Inscrlptlom oj'Assan1
Behucen the Psftb and the Thirtemth CmturfesA D IDclhi, 1991),
Chap. 4; also see idem, 'Landholding and Peasantry in [he
Brahmaputra Valley, c 5th-13th Cenmries AD', .T~~rrrai of the
Economic omd Soda1 History of the Orient, Vol. 33 (19901,
pp. 157-68.
21 M.Hass,op.cIt.,p.f85,
22 The p i n t is not rebutted by the example of ancient Sinhalese
society which had caste without the presence af br5hmanas, and
 few untouc hsl>les, except Fort he Rr>diswho were itinerant b t g ~ ~ r s
nnd wry small in number. It is held rhat the SinhaIyse LYlae system
1s 'historically and conceptually cclaterl to the Indian' [Richard F.
GnmhSich, Bud& is#Precept and Practzce: TraditionalBzcddh isnr
in the Rural Highlands of Cqdon [Delhi, revd. edn., 1W1),
P. 3451. The smcturing ofSiqha1e.w ~ i kinlo s a czste sjrstem took
place under Buddhist influence, Buddhism had nn need for the
ritual role of the hdhnlanas :mcl disclnimed the rele~;mctof ckste
forthe pursu~tof salvauan,wen as it accepted casre as a Pdcr of life.
The Pnli canonical literature shorn upper clxss prejudices against
low occupationsand this is refkcred in the Sinhalese system which
is based on a h i e m h y of acwp3tir?ns hur not norinns of ritual
impurity ofsocial group.;.
23 E.R. Leach, ed., Aspects of CQFbe irn Sorith ~ n d ~ h ,
Ceylon and
4Voflb-West Pakhtan CCambridge, 19711,p. 10.
2 4 A.L. Kroeber in David L.Sill, ed.,Erlcy~Id@ucdi~1 of SocfiaI Sciepzces
aondan, 19301, p. 259
2 5 Suvira Jaisn.31, 'Studies in Early Indian Social History: Tends rind
Possihilirie,~',LHR W (JuI y 1379danuary 1980), pp. 5-6.
26 Gnil Omvedt, op. cit., pp. 34f.
27 Fur the frnni concept see K. Sivzttha~nhy,'Early South Indian
Society and Economy: The Tifi:~i Concept', Sociul Scientbt,
No. 29 (lW4), pp. 20-37;h i a n GarukhI, 'Forms of Production
and Farces of Chzange in Ancient Tarnil Sr?ci~ry',
SftrdiminHd.ctw,
V, 2 , n.s. (1989), pp. 164-5. I l ~ a da useful discus~ianwjth
C,N, Sul>ramaniam (of Ehlavya, Bhopal) on the subject.
28 George L.Hart 111, The Poems of {he Anciertr TanaiL 7 k i r Milieti
and The+ Sanskrit Colmistpa (Berkeky, 19751, pp. 119F.
29 Suvh Jakml, o p cit., pp 45-8.
30 j.C. Heesremao, 'Vr'rHtyn and Sacrifice', Itzdo-lmrrian ,]ournu/,
Vol. \rI 0%-31, p p 11-15.
33 A ~ n m b a$kalrta-sfiWcz, X.13: 1-2; 15.5 quote~lin iLid,, p. 12:
R N.DantJekar, SraurakoSa,Val, 11, Pt 1 ( P u ~ e 19731,
, p. HI.
32 Heeslerman, op. cit., p. 12.
33 j.~on~a,~h~~~eandCantinirltyinInclianReli;gion~eAague,
19651, p. 326.

p. 80.
36 See Ftedrick M. Smith, 'Tndra's C w , Varupa's Moose, imd he
Suppression of Women in the Vedic Smur;i Ritual' in Julia Leslie,
ed,,Roles and Riltdalx for Hilrdu Women (Dclhi, 1792),
 pp. 17- 45. For the use of sacrifice as an occasion far defining
~ n The En~ergencaof
gender-based rclaLionsl~ipssee K u n ~ h Ruy,
Monarchy in North India: Eighth to Foz~rihCenIltries B.C.
ReJlecled in the Brahmanical T~wciltion(Delhi, 19941,p. 67.
37 For example, the Kocb Rajbangsliis. This point was made by
Vasanthi Raman. See Vaskar Nandy and Vasanthi Itlman, 'The
Long T~nsitlon:The Case of the ~och-Kalhnnghisaf North-Eastem
India', paper presented at the Seminar on 'FromTribe to Cnste', I
Indian institute of ~ d v a n c c dStudy, Simh, 8 1 2 November 1993
38 .
S. Jaiswal, 'Suatification.. ', pp. 29P; Irawati Karvr, ' K i n s h l ~
Terminology and Usages in &u&a and ~ l h n m ~ u e d n ~ :n n a of
k
the Bhanhrkar Driental Research Insritfrte (hereafter M O R b
XX (1938-91, pp. 219f;Kumkum Ray, op. cit., pp. 246-7.
37
40
41
Pt; X. 86.10.
Vedhd rlclsya ~ i r i n iibid.
Rv II. 32.7.
, Ii
42 flVVI1, 1.6,
43 RV) A. 17.7. Compare this with AV;I. 14.3 where such a maiden is
called the kulapa of the rajan (or Yama?). RV, X. 179.2speaks of
ktsh@s, heads of families, attending upon the chief Ctfijapnti).
44 @V,W[. 31.8,
45 For emmple, N.5.5.
46 Hanns-Peter Schmidt, Some Women's Rites andXtghts in rhe
Veda (Pune, 19861,pp, 3075.
47 Inwati Karve, 'Kinship Terminology and Kinship Usage in R g t l e h
;md Atbaluauedd, ABOIU, ,XX (1938-31, pp. 109-44; idem, 'The
Kinship Usages and the Family Organization in ~guedaand
Aihawrav~da',MORT, XX (1938-91, pp, 213-14;'idem, 'Kinship
Terms and the Family Organization as found in the Critical Edition
of h e Muhc2bbbratca', Bullelin of the Dcccan College Research
Itastittire,V (1743-43, pp. 61-148.
4 Idem, ADORI; *YX (1738-9), pp. 216F. Abo see Sarva Daman Slngb,
Polyandry in Ancient India (DellG, 1978), pp. 19, 3%.
49 Karve is aware thar the stories ofYama-Yami and the Sun-god's
incestwith his daughter may have other meanings and nlay not be
literal evidence for the prevalence of marriage hemeen siblings
or promiscuity. But she says [Kinship Oqanizatfon in India
(Bom5ay, 3rd edn., p. 3211that not all referenc~can be dfsmissed
in hLs manner. For example, Jv X. 162,5,which is an incanmtion
to drive away the demon causing abortion goes as follows: 'He
whosleeps wirh you hecorning your hrorher, husbandor lover and
who kills yourprogeny, him I clestrr~.'Appnrendy here the demon
 i s supposed to take the form of a person to whom the woman
would be sexually nccw.sible, the husbfid, lover or brother!Grifirh
exdudes this hymn from his EngIish trdnslation, providing a ati in
wmslntiun In dre Appendix.
jO S.V. Ii:lrandik?r, flndri kogatnjr IhIu m h i , 1928).
51 h w a t i Kame, KitzSh9 Oqanizalian in Indr$, pp. 51f.
52 G.S.Ghurye,TtuoBrabina?~tmlInslilr~tions: G~tmaytdChnrag~
(Mumbai, 1972), pp. 293f.
53 Emile Benveniste, Itido-Eunpean hngiiage ondSociety(London,
19731,p. 303.
54 JohnBrough, ~ @ & ~ ~ B m b n ~ a 7 ~ oifcF~i~l.ralad&tllr~
~/~~fern
A Translation of the Gotra-Fru~~u!am-~Maiij~~ri af P ~ ~ w o t t a m a
Pactdita mtb nn Introdtiction (Cambtidge, 1953).
55 Genda Lerher, l7~eCteaaion of Pnlriarcby (Oxfmd, 1986).
56 A~ ~ ~ 8 . 3 .
57 S,];liLmai, ' S t u d i e in Esrl y Indiun Shcinl Histuty...I, p, 14, h.4.
58 eK 1~92.6; X.97.6. Also see 1.40,8, and X 42.10.
59 RV; X.70.12; A x m.6.6.
60 $~tuprhaBruhn~nntl,XII. 7.3.8.
6 1 Ibicl., W .3.3.15;seelaginj Basu, India oj'rhe4e affheBtri.hmra!m
(Calcu~ta, 19691, pp. 115-19.
62 It is interrsting Ihru the tcnn .kp~r~'k~z~riy:t is derived E a r n the
root ki,which also has the sense of 'dwelIing' :~nd'movement'
[Monier-WiIlbms,SED, Ss,v.ki,Ngbay!ld,II.J-4,.hriinrktu,11.4; n.21).
Thus kpzya meaning 'dwelling' or nhodr and &ti meaning
'hahimli~n'are also deriv~dfrom the same rout which also has
the sense o f 'to moxte, g ~ 'Apparvntly
. af une rime dwellings or
tr:thit:ttions were mobile, 2nd chnse who pmtected them were
known its kytt'a. The task uf protection was associated with
,power1,'might' and 'gover~uzce'.Far a movable dwelling see
the A IX.32.4 which says 'Like 3 bride 0 dwelling, we LXIWthee
where we desire' (vndhilnlim #uu 5u~e.wlrnh~tnuty bhar~inl~&i).
(i3 R.S,S h u l a , AspacB of hiifi~-icczl
f d ~ arrd
w i~h'&liansit? Aitcienr
~ ~ 3rd dn.. 19911, pp. 178-9.
I I P(Delhi,
64 &tap&bn B~hnlflrra, XN.4.2.27, also 11. 14.4.
65 Arrlan, VI,lG;Dicldarus, XVIII, CU quoted 17)' K.P.]ayawal, ~ n f l ' u
Polily (tlangnlrxe, 4th edn., 1968)- pp. 65-6;PataRj:ilils
Mabfibh@~, VOI. 11, quoted by Jay~%\rdl,1). 66.
66 lofJir~'J.i cjt.. p, 37; SuviraJaisrv21, ' C S l e in theSrwb-
(jp,
~ ~ ~d E a r l y Inclin',
~ Presidential
~ Arldress,
~ Sccliou
~ ~ j ~ ~
1, procpedlnfir 0J the Irldimn Ifistor?l Collgres.~,38th S~ssIon
( ~ 1 9 ~ 7 )pp.
, ~ 32, 34-6.~ Also see ~ ~ Stirh'8 hf?l
R.S. Shnrma, ~ ~
 Ancient India ( D ~ l h i2nd , edn., 19801, pp. 69-70.
67 5. Jaiswal, 'Studics .,.'. IIrR, VI, Nos. 1 2 (1379 80), pp. 9-13.
68 daude Meillassoux, 'Are There Casre in India?' Eco?iomy and
Soci&&; VO~.11 (1973>, pp. 92-3.
69 Ninrkta,XII.13.
70 Slidr~nhmanimua~iifin~m,Pd., 11.4.10.
7 1 ~ a b d b h f i g aedited
, by Keilhorn (Bornlxiy 9ar.skrit Series, Murnhai,
18921, Vcrl. I, p. 475.
72 The BrAadarragaka Upan&ad speaks of tIx gads helon~ingto
the I>rahrnq k.ptn,vaiGy1 and Aildra varnas, ~4~11-15, R.E. Hume,ir.,
7hirtern principal U&znea& CDelhi, 2nd edn., 1969), pp. 845.
73 Manmafli, X.20-3.For the existence of four vargw n~nongtrees
and the animal worla see C.G. Kashikar, ed., ~rnrl!nkoi;a, Vnl. 1,
Pt 11 Wune, 1962j, p. 1156.
74 Suvim Jaiswal, 'V;lrr)a Ideology and Social Chinge', SocialSckntirl,
Vol. 19,Nos. H (March-April 1991)~pp. 41-8; idem, 'studies ...I,

Section IV, pp. 70f.

7 5 Dipankar Gupta, 'From V a ~ ato J+iti: The Indinn Caste System
from [he Asiatic to the Feudal Mode of Prnducrion', Joiirnal o]'
Contemporay AslQ, Vd. X (1380), pp. 249-71.
7 6 P.V. Kane mentions some br3hman.a castes carnedfifter the Vedic
3ikhis studied by their ancestors, such as Unvas, Mailriynniyas,
a r a k a s , etc., Hiitogt afDbann~~$#lra, Vul. 11, Pt 11, p. 976. Gonda
relies o n 13. Rhattsr.h:lrya i n Ftlizdn~llendnl Themes of the
A ! h a # a ~ e ~ i u((Pine, 1968), p, 39, for the smccmenr that the
brihtnapas of the oher Vedas do no( pra~tiwcr~rnmensalil~ or
connuhiurn with the htharvanic briih~nays1Paippaladins)of Orissa;
J. Gonda, Vedic Litmhrre A I.fistory of Indian Literaftlre,VoI. I
(Wieshaden, 19751, p. 267. Far a hieriirchical zurangement of
brshrnafla lineages named after land muasurtrs, such as Bis UihwI
(lineage with 20 measures r>F 1:md) md Snhh Uisw;i ( l i n a g e wi111
16 nleasures af iand) among the Kanyakubja brlhm,inaq, see R.S.
Kh:lre, 'Thc Kanyakuhja Uiah~nansanciVTht.irCask Qr~anization',
Soutbnuesle~nJnlrrnal of Anthropulogj~,Vol. 16 (1960),
pp. 348-67.
77 For llrahmanas see B.P.Mazurndar, Socio-Economic I-lis{aly of'
Northern Indiu urum A . D . 1030 ro I1941 (C;ilcutta, 1960), p. 81.
For vaigyas, K.C. Jain, Malam n7rotgh I J J ~Ages (j:mnl the Ear.licsl
Time lo 1305 A.D.) (Delhj. 19721, p. 4%.
7 8 J. man, C#talogue of Ihe Coirls o]'A~lcn'e~~! India (ijz the &it&,$
Mirsetrml (London, 1933,pp. wiiit; 164.
79 Ma'lli~naNiMya (edited by MahHpi~nditr~ Mhula Sankrityayana
 INTRODUCTION 27

and P.V. Bapat, 3 vols, Nalanda Dcvanzgari Pdi Series, 1958),

VoL 11, p. 447.
80 KrSiikauiuarann-paFzjika (edited by Srish C. Ci~ahavarti),Vul. 11,
p. 3-43 quoled by B.P. Miizuiiidar, 'Polity OF the Andhaka-Vrvni
Sangha', Dr Salkrrr-i Mookerji Fellci&atiopl Volicrne (The
Chorvktiarnbn Sanskrit Studies, VoI. UIIX, Varmasi, 1969), p. 207.
81 Ihid.
8.2 T.W. Rhys Davids nnrlJ,E. Carpenter, eds., DTghn Nikclya, Vol. 1
(London, 18901, p. 97; Narendra Wiglr, SucCljl a1 the Time oj'the
B~rdcir'~a (Murnhai, 19661, pp. 102-3. Co~nparcthis with the
sutement in the P~6cuuit?aSa Brfihtlraqu (XlI~.G.G)that Vawa, the
son of sage Kaova from :Ii d d r ~wire, prover! to he bettu br3hmana
than his other son Medhirithi, For :i u d u l discussion of the early
Buddhist nrtit~~de to caste see Richard F. Gombrich, op, cit.,
pp. 354-8.
H3 Tridalii, rheshterof the Licchavi r5jii Cei:~kah;rd married thej7icitdkn
d j 3 Siddhlrthi, father uf the J:tin:~Iirtl-rahkara Mal13vim. Cetakn's
d:iughter Chclan3 kid nrarried the kssriya king l3imbisBr:t of
Magadha. Accurding to the iW&bdvastu the Kaliyan nnd Licd~;ivi
princes hod competed with prince Siddhilrtha ( h e Buddha) for
the hand o1 the Siikyan princes YaSodharil, A c;ueful scrutiny of
the rerms relilting to kinship and rn:irriage in the early Pali sources
lejds Wagit. to conclude t h . ~ t'endogamy and comnlensalicy, [he
two fund:lmenral clr;incteristi~% of modern caste', were absent.
)I= fuflherwritrs d ~ amarriage
t 'with a ncin- Gati that is, one ourside
the "rxtentlcd kin-grc>upUwas permissible c~uwidethe caste'
especially when it took place trewcn the high vamn-carrgories.
Thus rnkirriage 1,etween kbcritiqn and hrihmana mees no strong
dis:lpprwal, unlilce the mimiage rd:i l-rrrihm:una with n dtisiwhich
w.1~ strongly disapprovecl. N,Wagle, SclcieZy nl the Time oj'tba
Briddi~a,pp. 132-3.
84 fi/ovn is~nyli,X.43-4 sptrnics of ji?;l~li~:~-jdtis
in plurd.
85 K,S. Singh, IJeap/r rfDrJlcl: Arz Inlrodi~criotl(L'ulcu~rn, 11)92),
pp. 2dF.
86 R.6, Shamla, Social L'kotrgta dn Early Medieval Indin (dm A.D.
500-]2m),First Dev~ajCh;lnana Memorial Lccture Inelhi, 1963).
87 Merm>lnn Kulke, Kings larid Ciiith: Stnle Formntion and
%Wmntion fndic4 m d Suttfh~nstAsia IDeihi, 1L3331, pp. 82-93,
Kt; Ihid., p. 85.
89 S. Nagar;iju, 'Cmergmce of Kegicmal Icientiw :rl~dBeginnings of
Vemacuj:lr Lilen~mre:A Case Sturls d Telugu', Social Scic)llMq
vol. 23, 1-3-12 (ocrober-December 19'95), PP. H-13.
28 CASTE

90 Nagaraju argues that Jaina and Saivi orders a1 least ideologically

'did nu$subscrjhe' tn h e varnadGtihiernrch1structure and hence
had 'an easy and, mumally benefici:il incer~ctionwith the new
social class'. Even if thcsc religious sects were more open than the
Vedic orthodoxy, rhe Jaina recorcls nf the ninth 3nrl tenth centuries
from Kmnataka in fact show strong caste prejuclices. The Adi
&iru?za of Pampa attri'nules the creation uf the four v:im:is to
ti~bankaraAdin;ithaand his cakraun~isonDhar;~~?, and describes
Adinatha as forbidding the mixing of castes [vct~nsaqkara). K.L.
Narnsimhn S&s.tri,ed, and u., ~ dAir&iqn
i oj"Pnam/~n(Bangalore,
1780),VIII. 64 and m,G- 12 quoted in U. Malini Bh:it, 'Religion and
Society in Southern Earnataka in thc Early Mediev:~! period',
unpul~IishcdPh.D. thesis (Jawaharlal Nckru university, Dclhi,
1996), p. 327. The Ahkanathapura melnorkll of Carnaltkahbegal
describes her and her two sons as suppclrters of the ciitilrr,nr??a
and the Sravana Samgha, and the C r i v u ~ ~ a r uP~rrciqzuya explicidy
denies artisans and urher low-caste groups the right to he initi:ited
in the Jaina ritual vow of sanymana. S. Scuar, Rrrsnri~tgDeath:
PhIIosophy and Practice of rbe Volt1nrary Tern1inarlon of Lqk
(Dhawdd, 1990}, p. 251. The Lakpmdvilcr inscription of the reign
ofVikram5ditya VI (nn 1081) describes a distinguished piouslaina
Family of Dinakarn, k~jumayyaand DDdama, and speaks of
Dinakara as 'the sun in the sky of the hdh.ln:i race'. Dnqlarna too
is a 'scion of worthy briihrnapas' (EI, WI, p. 9). It was correct
observance OF caste rules and not adherence to a belief system
l ~ uruuial to Indiv!dual idcnliry. Even 11ubhi11Ji11ldw i k
w i ~ i c was
could be follnwers OF different religious kriths depending nn their
indivictual inclhx~tion,withou~ creating discord or contndictions.
Thus, for example, t h e inscriptions or the Nolamha ruler
Mahendridhirhja,who lived in ~ h rlxst . qli;lrter nf the ninth century,
describe him as a st:iunch Sniva whrl built rhc temple nf
Mthedret~~wk at B:ir:tgclr {Efiigmphiu C~rrtnticca, XI, uld edtr.,
51.381,llur his queens Elij:kya Pvlahddevi, Paranla Mahaclevi,hkkabbe
~ Jninas and p:ltrr~nized the Jaina basadis
and ~ o r n a b t l t lwere
(EC, MI,old edn., Si 24 nf c.nn 880).Sirnilnrly Eluky;l hhhisnrnnnlr~
Durg:~(tenth century) w t s a Ssivil, and his wiFe Pi[!nbl~ca Jaina.
A,M. Shah writes that in Gujarat a Vania rxste may have both Ijindu
and Jaina memhe:s without restricric>ns nn intermarriage, and
freqilently husl~anrland wife t ~ a v edifferent religious i3ffjlia~nns
(DiuisiaJzand H i e r r t ~ / ~ .fJi:n Overtriel11oJ'Cme Grcjarai, nelhi,
15388, PPh 1-39, reprinted in K.L. Shanm, ed.,S~cicrlIneqllalityin
India, b i p ~ r 1995,
, p. 225, n. fi}.
 71 Fur wimple, the csste of scribes knc~wn3s K3y;rsthns.
92 Richard G. FOX,'Yarn4 Scl~emesand Idrdagic~lIntegmrjon in
IndL~nSociety', Compnmtius Studirrr in Sotie5 a n d H b t o v ,
Vol. XI (19631, pp. 2745.
93 Gira Dl~armapaI-Prick,'Shifting Cntegories in the Discnurse
on Cnsie: Some Historit21 Ohserv;ltiomt in Vasudh D n h i a and
H. von Stietencron, eds., Representing Fii.linduluinn (New Delhi,
15'951, p p 82-100, refers ro a T~nrilpoenl, EwrrrMzr, cited by
Ziegenl~lg,a seventtenth-wn~ivPietist-Luthemn mission;iry
b a ~b d D:~ralshrndave of Tracquehr. The pmm & jn praise
~ rhe
of the plough and plzces rhe lddm Vt.!!ila on a ped2st;ll even
higher than the bdhnann. She quotes: 'Even being b m a BmhIqin
does not by far endow one with the s;lme wceIIence :E when one
is born into a Ve!!ab hmily.' Such Lhgh pr;iisr p m i n d ~us of tile
panegvsc d Singaya Miydka of ~ k a l a p u n d gmnr, i chimed
t which his patron bt.longcd
that the SGdm v a r ~ ;ED higher ch:m
the other rhree Vxgas, it came on1 of d ~ fee1 e of vjsou gloa%
with the holy river Gang3. This tmly goes to sub~ti~ntiat~ my
cc~ntentiont h t , at beast in the south and in Rengal, the BCdrit s~nnd
next only to the bdhmana and was not a degraded ardtus as was
the in the Gangtic mlley, the crxllt: of the fourfrrld v;lma
system. It is for this reason that Ziegcnhalg's wrihg gives the
impression that the Sddras represented the 'genuine mass d r : t n ~ i l
sociefy', which iatter cxtegory would d c-our-ve, have excluded
the outcastes or atrrmFa The scheme ofswfal fnllonhed
in the Aparbjita-p,ri~'cch a rwelfth century work on architccmre
cn~nposrclin Gujar~t,sticks to the convehtirlnal enurnemtion of
v:imas in descending orcler. W h ~ 5 t more significi~nt,hwever,
the Eict that SGdr:is are placed ahove k a w k o s and prakr4tis,
interpreted as rkpend~ntpeasantr and serving c;lslrA ofcrdkrnen
respccfivefy.B.,\'.S, kr;rd;tvii,msid~:~tirttAddruw, Inban H ~ S O ~ ~
&ngrt.s<, 53rd S6,sinn ( \ v : ~ r d ~ f i ; l l1993J
, p. 3 7,fnJ1. PerQfi the
c~~npjlarjon rlI' Census Kepwtti in cobnial titnes mr~ded ~ people e
[hc$e arc;Ls more conscious of the pejonuive rnemir.g OF the
tertn 'Sfidn'.Infr~, Chap. 2, secs. iii, iv.
94 S. Anpayjmam, 'Sockal tIistury nFa narninanr CIS=Sockty: T'he
of N ~ &Ceylon {Sri 1.nnka) in the hMh LenlW', ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ t J
Ecanorjlic orrd frrcifll ifirtl~ryRe~li@rJ!Vd. d w m , Nos. 3 ;Ind 4
uulyLDmembr ] 981j, pp. 37-91. Also see E. Thurston. C m t e ~
adm ~ k cs ? f , y ~ ! t tI ~H~~~&(Chennai,
~ 19W, V ~ I m[,
J P.376.
95 ~h~dr,r.trine c,f karnia is for tile tillle in the
[,,pnnWd(111,Z). which refis
Br~JaLlarayz-wIka that [[l@se who
 ple;tst: he gtlds hy gald conduct are rehorn into the three higher
viamas hut host: who:;: cr~nductis cvil cntcr intr?;I Foul and stinking
wrm-d,, s11chas that rll a hitch, :t pig clr :in I )utc:isre (V.10.7-8). For
the origin of this dochint. in the elile circles c?F the later Vedic :tge,
src A.L. Basham, The Origfrz n t ~ dDuuelofli~~e~zt ?/' Clnssiun/
Hi?rdilis?n, eclited :ind annt>t;ltrrl hy Ken~lethG. Zysk (Dc-lhi,
19901, Chap. 3.
9h K.L. Sklarm:~,'S~reqse'iinCaslc, Str:~lifimtit,n:A Study of SixVillages
in R.~j;isda~n', E~ononlica17d Polificcrl Wpck!y, 4 3 1 , 1969,
97 I n h . &Is(> see R.S. SIxtrrna, 'Vnrnii in Relarioi~to Law i ~ n dPr)lilics';
idc-m, AS~L'CIS ~ P o l i l i c nI~iem
l arid l r l s ~ i l i i l i o u sirz A~rcienfI>lclict,
Chap. XVI.
9 H Thct <aka rulers Rudradirn:!n and Us:~vnci;ita wcrc greilt parrons of
hriliman~s,Frrr the daims of:[ numher of lrings to h:ive rcg~lilted
the r)rder of wstes set: ihicl., pp. 234-5, K ~ ~ l kpr~ints e c~utd ~ i ~ t
S o r n a c k ~ t who
~ ~ , rulwl in nnrth 0riss;i in tl:e first quarter r>f the
s r v r n ~ hc,mttjry linrler thr ovrrlorclship t ~ king f S:rEink:~o f 1leng:ll.
explicirly stares in his Midnapur inscriplion t h l t he frlllr>wcd
laws o f Manu; ~nncharlrlltEsuhm:~nn,Herln;~nnK ~ ~ l kand z GIya
Chnran Triparhi, cds., Tbe CIA^ oJjaga11~1crth and ill@ R P ~ ~ O I Z C ~
7)nrlition nf Orism (Dclhi, 197W, p. 127, fn. 5.
99 For:i critique cjf Dumont's view wl~ichsep:tr;lres ritu;d stdtus froln
pc1wt.r l>y interpreting hmhrnn :is rlenoting h c f o r m e r and kxrtzsr
:is clennting tht: 1:itter categclry, see Suviril J:tisw:11, 'Varn;i
Idcolcgy ...', .TnciaIS'zicn!isi, VoI. 19, Nns. 3 I , p. $4;idcrn, 'Snl~1it.s
in Early 1ndi:in S{>cinlI~Iistc,rj',IHR, VL, pp. 3-7.
100 Nichol:~~ Dirks: 'The 0ri~in:llCaste: Powc-r. History and liierarchy
in Soulh Asia', Co~:lr-ihrrtiunsto 11lrlirtr-m Socinlqyy, Occasit r1~;11
Papers. Vol, V t 1990), pp. 57-77,
1 0 1 Ronald hlclen, J1>1~&i?:1'~ling (Oxford, 1,990).
I~l~di~l
102 Ihid., p. 227.
1 03 lhirl., 13. 229.
104 Ihid., p. 36n.
105 For ;in excellent critiquc trTRrrm~lclInclc-n'h work see Aiidz Ahm:~d,
'Urtwc.cn Orienralisnl i~ndIlistt>ricism:A~~thrt~y)r~logic*.~I Knrnvlcrlge
r)f Inclia', .Yl'ludie~iir JIi.rtoty, Vr)l. 7,No. 1 (j;lnu;lry-Jiint. 19$1),
pp, 1521. Ahlnac! remarh, 'cjnly the rni11c1lrs.s l ~ a v eever ;tsscrted
that Icings and clomin:lnt castes lacketl " ; t g ~ ' n ~ -in" ,the hense of
c:lp;lcity rrl :tct pilrposefully tcl change tlleir ow^^ cit.cumst;lnces,( ~ r
h a t lhe lndi:in Was ~onsLituti~n;llly irr~tioll:ll'(illid,,p. ]GO),
106 K.M. Shr~mali,' lleflectir)ns on Recent I+l.cc.rtir)ns clfEarlyMeclieval
Indkl', Prt.sidenti:~lAddre.w, Sechon JV, A n ~ l h r ;pr;,dt.sh ~ liistl,ry
 Congress, XVUI, Anl-iunl Sessioll (K9 Janu;lry 1994), p. 8.
107 R. Inden, up. cit., p. 82, is wrong in assuming t I i ; ~c;1.~tesbecame
;lutr,nt,mr)lls structures im h e d e d n e OF Hindu kingship. Long
hef(lre the advent ctf Muslims r>nthe sceile Manu zclvised rhe ruler
to respect thy laws nl' c:lStt.s C~Won?rs~n!fi,
ViI.203; VI11.41), which
were ;tlrcady :cutl)nomolrs drcisio~l-makinggroups. T20r cal(7ninl
intcrvcntit>munclrrrnining rhc tr:iclirion:~l:tutonrlmr)usj~lrisrlictio~
c ~ fc;iste groups
- .
over their own nfhirs :inrl thrir resismnct. i t ) this
p r t w c ~ Kjnnhlnthd hlukuncl, 'Caste Cl)nfljcl in Stiuth Incliii i n
E n l . 1 ~Cojrlni3I Port Cities: 1650-lKOD', Stl~diesin I'listo~y,Vctl. ,w,
No, 1, n.s, (199j), pp. 1-20.
1 0 X On the charilcter und h~ncritrnof pnumlj~rzapadaaasseml~lics,
R.S. Sllarrnil, clp. cit,, p. HZ.
109 Irf;~nHabib, AlefprefirtgAadh8z Hirroq: p, 13.
110 inFr:t, Chap. 2, sec. ii.
1 1 1 Even Ir~rthe earlier period [here is little evictenue to KIIOWth;~ttile
iak:t and KuyJfla nllers, ' h e heroric:~l .<iirlr;~kings' of hrahrn;lniLxl
perception, F~~cernized with low-castc di~clraslaves :tnd Ilirrd
kihot~rers(]wing to thrir n r m - c t r m m i t ~ ~ ~tcre nvarna ~ ideology, as
R.S. S i ~ : ~ r rsuggt.sL5
n~ (J'irdmr i n A I I C ~ P H I~rbitl.
I p. 235). O n the
utjntr:~rythrir quick :~hsorptirmt>f varna iclcrdagy 1s well :~ttcsrt.cl.
See n. 98 of this d~:~plt.r. 'I'lre f ~ that l scjrne i$ them p:rtronized
B~ltjrlhisnld ~ not ~ pr(ovc
s h e i r antipathy [ t i the vam:l sysretn. ?'he
~uridhisttexts of the ~:lrly centuries c)f the Christi:ln era, such as,
1hr ktilitrdap~~nbu and lhc Bucldhncarit~tj f A,ndvagllr>+:~, art ilnhu~d
with circa irlttoll)g~.Jncitlunnlly, Lht: nuthor r f t h c I~cjt-miicizerms
to h:~vt:been diffel.cnt froin ttlc author of the Uldtla'h~~c~ttYta, and
I;ller i l l dnk. He rcpjlcirs tu Iuve belr mgccl to eksrern Jncli:~.Whereas
t l ~~~ ~~ c j d h f l c ~ d c~c?eipftc~thet norms o f rhc v:tma system, lire
V~~j,~sstlccicriticiz~ls il.At any r:lte, althougll irlaolr~giu~lly Buddhism
..
t~':ls(ir)pt>sed t t ) C;ISIC I ~ i e r ~ r c anti
h y :is -.iu~.h ciliild 11:1ve had special
fippe;il ttr those wlio were irs vjcti~ns,in 1lr:Icticr vilrna/c:istc
I,rej~ldjceis evirlen~even in the c x l y I'ilti L-ilnon. ?'he rn:~jn thnlsl
i,f pLrssagrSde:lling with t l ~ equesticln r l t ' ~ r t s t in r these texts is ir,
prove illr. supcl.ic~rifynf thc kpttiy;~.st l w r rhtl hrihm:uniih. In Sri
kanka nrhew u1,qe structuring t o t k 13laoeunder Buddhist inhpir:irinn
:Ire ridh;rf,I \+-as 111~"];~wfulactivily 1 7 t ' thcbki~lgC I ~ Kandy ' 'I(,
<)rrlairlappnjpri;ltr htnc.til:mtov;~rir~ttS L L S ~ ~ . <~: ) ( ~ ' C O U ~ ~dcgr,kcic
:~SLI
certsin i~illagc.hrlrf;rmilie.; ofhigh c:Iste t t j :1 I<l~vt.l. stxlcrs ..,' , R;~lph
IYicris, SirJba/cseSocial Oyqnniz~ilion: The M vq!ycrn I'Wiod
(Colomboc 13;6), p. lsfl,qucred in Rich:li.rl F, Gomhrioh, rip. cit..
 Caste and Gender: Historiography

T l f B TR~DSIIONAL I N D I A N SOC1El3'
has been studied by a large number of scIlolars colning from
various disciplines and profi.ssions, such as Indologists,
historians, ~ n h r o ~ o l o g i s ts~ciologists,
s, economists, students
of Indian religions, not to mention rcfornlers and politicians;
and the beginnings of these studies are traced as far bad< as the
eighteendl century. The multitudinous literatitre produced on
he subject makes any attemp[ at a comprc~~ensive biMiographicd
survey a Herculean task and may not be worth the labour required.
Even so rhe contribution of s c : ~ o l a r s t ~ini ~the field of ancient
Indinn hisrory, the small fraclion as ic is on tlic sociological
historical aspects ofcaste, can be neglec~edonly at peril, given
t h canvcrgence
~ of all sturlies. A fcw historiographical articles
and trend reports on various aspects of social history have
sippearcd' in recent years exanlining the approaches and
assumptions of earlier scholar5 and t11cir social a d intcllectwl
moorings, and these serve as useful guides for 3n undcrsmncling
of the scien~ificvalue ns wdl as the Iinlitations of various
researches conducted under different icleolngic~lperspectives.
The presenf study is an atiempt to add to and supple men^ work
in this direction I>yfocusing altention on h e rnn~lnerin which
certain fundamental problems OF early 1ndi:rn social history Inve
been or may he handled. There is greater foct~son north India,
as a survey d work on the social I~istoryof e:lrly Tanlils has
heen pub1 isl~eclelsewhere , I

Since h e most obvious feature of Hindu society was irs division

into castes. the pioneering studies of missiunucies, colonial
ancl c.tIlnogl-aphers not merely
adniinis~ra~ors-turnerl-historinns
 recorded their field-observations, but also tried to explain tile
origin d this system by identifykg what they cansidered to be
its essential concributoy element or elements.' Thus, accorcling
to Nesfield,-' hereditary s p ~ r i a l i ~ a t i nnf
n armpation at dlc
ruat d the caste sys~em;guilds h;td petrified inro msre in a
hierarchical order, and the more primitive and ancient an
occupation, the lower was its ranking. Rislep,?on tlte odler hand,
regarded caste chiefly as an aspecl of race, and he claimed d ~ a t
the caste starus had a simple correlation with the nasal index of
its members, Senart on his p r t emph~sizedthe occuparimal
hctor in the origin of caste, but his main conuibucion lay in the
fact that he cIrarIy dislinguished between varna and jati,
identifying castes with the latter and interpreting the fomer as
'elms'. Tile ~nstitutiorlsofjatiand varns were for Senan inessence
independent of each other, but :atcr became incorporated. TJle
~ d t fwere
i grafted on rbe varons by the br5hmaaas to maintain
their superiorit)., b r ~the
l v a q a scheme never curre3;londed to
reality, and the origin of the jitis should be traced to Indo-
Ebropean kin groupings corresponding to the Roman gens,
Smart's attempt to relare caste to the kinship system 0:" d ~ Indo-
e
Europeans came in for much criticism at the hands of the later
sociologists, but llis arguments gar ding tlze fictitious reality of
the varga llave been carried further by s o n v schnlars.
Another early theoretician of the Indian cawc system was
Celestine Bougle,b who asserted t h t the four varqa syslem had
never been more than an ideal; the ,real groups were jcitis or
castes which, in his view, formcd part of a system hsed on
three fundamental principles-hercditary specialization,
hierarchy and repulsion or isalation of one gmup from another,
The t h e principles are found interrelated as a system in India
only; hence, [he institution of caste is unique ro India, Baugle's
definition eruphasjzes sirnulrancty of rlle three characteristics
and IIe criticized the eighteenth-cent~v'anificialist' error which
saw h e M s t e system as the mulr ol'premditarion ofthe priess,
voIunrary mation, and remarked that we must no[ 'exaggemte
the ofreligion Hindu CiviIizati0n7and W e n:USt study
the ecmomic life 'if we wish to discover the forces which
elabomted h e ske]etonof Hindu He however pointed
[hat the hier;tr&y of caste avas determjnecj less the
 I
usehlness or difficult nature of occupations than by h e i r relative I
purity and impurity.' The idea that the concept of purity and 1
pollution, and not racial difference, was at the root of caste
~xclu~iveness w ~ further
s stressed by Ketlcnr."Eaier Ibbetson,]"
while recognizing the role of guilds and of religious expioilation
by the brfihmanas, had laid great emphasis on the tribal origins
ofcastes. Hutton ar b e end of his reviewl1of existing tbeories of
caste remarked that although most of these theories had made
a contribution to the subject, they generally emphasized the
pl~enomena'rather than the causes of the caste system and hardly
anyone with the exception of Sarat Chandra Roy has given due
importance to the role of primitive conceptions of taboo, maria
and soul-stuff in the formation of the caste system'.12Hutton

I
hlrnsdf lists roughly more than fifteen 'more obvious factors'
contributing to the 'emergence and development d the caste
system', such as ecological isolation, magical beliefs about certain
',
crafts, primitive ideas regarding 'the power of food to transmit
qualities', tribal concepts of taboo, mapaa, soul-stuff, totemism,
pollution, ceremonial puriry, belief in the doctrine of karma,
clash of races and colour prejudice, and deliberate exploitation
by a h i e r a r ~ h y . ' ~
Hutton was the last ofthe administrator scholars, and his
concept of caste has come in f i r severe criticism ar the hands of
leading social anthropologists after the Second World War.I4 It
is contended that in trying to define caste with reference to a
number of cu\mral-behavioura1viou traits and isolating its essential
characteristics, Hutton overlooks the fact that caste is primarily a
system of interrelated groups in which differences in the
distribution of economic and political power are expressed
Lhrough a culrural language such as restrictions on commensaliry
and connubium. For Pocock, Hutron's w o r k is based on
nineteenth-century evolutionism and erhnography and is an
'amorphous dossier of fact^','^ backing in any guiding theory.
Durnont criticizes Hutton For taking an 'atomistic' view of caste
and neglecting to study the system as a whole (not however in
any empirical sense of the Eerrt?but in an ideological sense), for
according to Durnont, 'caste is above all a system of ideas and
values' .'' o n e m a y nor agree with Hurton's crilics in blaming
 CAS1E AND GENDER 35

him for his failure to create a ~heoryof nsre by giving primacy to

just one factor, ideoIogicnI o r empirical, as his study s h w s very
well that caste is not a sudden, artificial creation bur an organism
which evolved gradually through a multiplicity of factors. Even
lhough Hutton regards the car;te system as 'a composire unit of
many individual cells, each functioning independently' and as
such undt~lyrninimfzes tlrc importance cE rho,= socia-scunulrric
and cultural bonds which susrain the system nlnking it an organlc
whole, his study remains a classic irivesrigation into the origin,
nature and function of caste.
Later snciologists have shihed the focus from a search into
fizjgjns which rhey regard as 'specd3tive'to spchronic studies
of caste based on Field work. However, in recent years Louis
Dumant has re-emphasized the need ofjxiterdcpendence between
Indology and social anthropology'' and although in fie preface
to the French edition of his monumental work on caste,
Hierarchictls, h e dearly sraLes that he has 'not ser out to provide
a histo~yaf the cas:e system', he frequently uses liis~oricaldata
lo prove his point and rnnkes a number of assertions regarding
Lhc origin and naturc ofthc casrc systcm, whicl~are probierns of
funciamenral interesr to a historian of ancient India. As such,
unless it is kept in mind that the main aim of Dumant is lo build
a model of caste with (ritual) hierarchy as its central idea in
order ro mnrrast it wj~brhe Western w~rld-viewsupposedly
based on 'egalitarian' values-and to this end lie has subordinared
a11 other aspeas of [he systetrr no matter how i r n p o m t these
may have been in its formation and Functioning-Dumont's
interpretation of the evidence derived from ancient Indian history
may be quite misleading to one who wishes 10recomtruct and
interpret Lhat past. At a time when Chcre is growing amreness of
the need for inrerdjscjplinary approach to h~sto~.icnl problems, it
is irnporlant lo bear in tnind he limitations and differences
between the nl&odology nf history and suciol~gy.and soda1
anthropology. EJ. ~ o b s b a w npoints
l our that d ~ models
e and
analytical f m m e m ~ k sofsociologists and social anthropalogisfi
'have been develaped sysrematicaily and most praficably by
~ b ~ r m ~ tfrom
i n g historical cfinnge' and these are of no use 'for
[he studyoflong-mnhjstorical soci0-eConomic uansfornlationst-IR
36 CASTE

If we accepl the view ihat 'history in its essence is change,

rnovernent1,'"then such 3nalyticaI abstractions o r models may
be interesting scholastic exercises but are of little use in providing
us an undersianding of rhe'historical reality of social formations.
Beginning with the initial assumption that 'ideology is central
w i ~ respect
h to social reality as a whale', Dumont tries to interpret
the reality of the caste system as deriving from the concept of
hierarchy which he defines as 'the principle by which the
elements of a whole are ranked m relation to he wh~le'."' Thus,
for him caste is an organization of hierarchical relationships,
and he describes it as a stfucture in which the interdependence
of the elements conrained within it is so great that the system
canno1 exist without this interdependence. In this way the basic
unity of the whole is emphasized against the 'atomistic'
conception of caste, and it is sought to be ?roved that the
hierarchical society is anti-individuaiis~cas it is a non-competitive
ranking system which does nor permit individual initiative in
interest of the unity of a higher order, Since hierarchy is a
religious principle based on the opposition of the pure and the
impure and this is supposed to lie at the base of the caste system,
It is not surprising that Dumont is led to conclude that from a
dialectical point of view the hierarchical model of hdian socicty
over the ages represents smgnation. The hierarchy absorbs or
ra~her'encompasses' all contradictions or 'complementarities'
within it; hence, 'there can be no development in dialectical
terms, for what the dialectical movement should produce was
already tl~erefrom the outset, and everything is forevercontained
witliia it'." This inexorably logical framework neatly denies the
need LO look for slgnlficanr changes in class contradiftions in
the development of Indian history over a vast stretch of time
(post-Vedic times to b e present day), for 'the castes are still
present, and untouchability still effective', and the technico-
economic changes have nor brought about a change in the oveml!
framework.
Criticizing the abservarlon of Marx that the growth of
the railway system and modern industry would dissolve
the system based on a heredirary division of labour,
Dumonc writes that 'caste society has managed digest
 what 'was thought must make it burst asunder1.'2 Dumont's
explanation is that in ~rladernIndia changes are confined to
the politico-econ0mic spheres which are 'both insulated
from and contained w i t h Lhe system of v a l ~ c s ' .The
~ + system of
values has not changed apparently. From the tradirionaj
perspective social and economic developn~cntsare seconhry;
(hey do not govern the resr of social life. I-lence, caste rerains its
essence hy 'encompassing' the politico-econamic domain in
'an overall religious setting'. Interestingly, Dumont accepts
the.nssessrnent of G . S , Ghurye and E.K. Gough" t'hat caste
no longer determines occupation, caste inhibitions regarding
Food and drink are very much on t l ~ edecllnc and the notions
of puriry/impurity and hierarchy of castes have weakened
considerably in recent times. Yet he does not draw the logical
inference from lfiese ten& that the institution, by his definition
basiaIly a system of relationships rooted in the concept of purity
and is in the process of dissolution. Since endogamy
is [hemain bond now holding a caste toged~er,Du~nonrmaintains
that the 'strucmral' characler of caste is becoming 'subst3ntinlized1
but its Fundamental character, its religfous basis, remains intact
'even when there is a weakening of the opposition between
pure and irnpure'.15
Modern sociologists are studying changes in the econo~llicand
political roles of caste under Lhe capitalis1 111ode of production,
and are generally of the view that the laner 113s traniforn~ed
casre from 3 non-competitive ranking systenl to a sysrem of social
stratification in which group-c~nsciousnessof each caste is
utilized nnd fosrered by its elite LO vie with other elite for
maximum economic and political gains, but have perhaps not
given adequate attention to the reasons for the survival of
endogan~ywhich is mainly responsible for the continuance of
caste di\*isians. It rs not generally realized tl~atthe traditional
caste system not only sanctions the subordination and
exploitation of lower castes by the higher, but also OF women in
general wllo are to be 'given away' in a nlanncr which would
enforce caste relarionships. Mer dl, those aspects of caste which
arc not in conflict with h e capitalisr social formation need not
change under itf impact, and caste endogamy is quite in hamlony
38 CASTE

tvith mPimlist notiotls of private property. Only free participation

of women in social produclion m an equal footing with men
can create the conditions f ~ grcater
r freedom of sexes withoul
the traditional mstrainls of clste; and the institulion can disappear
completely. A deeper probe into this aspect of caste would rcvenl
that endogamy persists not because of the irrational persistence
of certain religious values hut because of the continuing socio-
economic subordination of women which keeps hem dependent
and segregated and enforces a system OF arranged marriages
con~actedthrough traditional channels. Among the progressive
urban elite where women choose to follew independent
professional careers, inter-caste marriages are not uncommon
and these are not leading ro the formation of new castes as
conceived in the t)arnasa+zra theory of the DharmaSistras hrlt
only to thc dissolution of caste in certain circles.z"
But the phenomenon of the continuation of case ran hardly
be explained by Louis Dumont owing to the lirnita~onsof his
initial assumptions. Forhim 'it is sornefl~ingto h o w that hierarchs
is a universal necessity, it will become manifest in some Way, in
covert, ignominious or pathological forins in relation to
uppuacd ideals in force'." ~y way ot exalnple Dumont rekrs tu
the Cbourgeois) dcmocrary the United States where the
abolition of slavery was followed by lhe emergence of racisln, a
reasser,tion of the principle of hierarchy. Tt is impossible f0:
Durnont to conceive of a genuinely egalitarian, classless society.
And since the West has faired miserably in eliminating inequality
in spite of ib professed faith in moral and political eaalitarianism,
the Indian variety OF hierarchy is to be viewed wit11 much snore
sympathy and understanding. A certain amount of idealization
of caste is evidenc. Gerald a.Berreman's clcscripri~n'~ of
~urnont'srheo~yas 'the hrahmanical view of caste' is singularly
apt. One may compare it with the opinion of Pnndurang Varnan
Kanc, who chastized the critics of casle with the remark that
Lhey k v e not pointed o u t 'what social nrgartimtian is to bc
substituted in its place nnd how'. Kane thought that most critics
ofcaste had 'the Weaern social system based on wealth and the
indwtr;al revolution', that 1s the capitalist social formation, in
view, and warned that 'thar social system ::[so is as evil as or
 CATIF AND G3NDER 39

13erJzsps nro1.sethan tile modeln cqte sysrernf.-"'

Not rarely, [he objective fact of tilt continuliy of the varna
system over a long period of tinie and the ~mditionalacceptance
of thc high status of brihmanas is regarded as proof of rhe
soundness of the system; thus P.A.Sorokin argues that the vama
systern rvorrld trot hsve existed fur hearly tnro thousand years if
it cIid not have a satisfactory 'social distribution' of individuals.''
Again such appreciative estimates are based on a view of caste
;is static and attaches excessilieimportance to the coniinuation
of its religious aspect. It ignores historical changes in the nature
and functioning of the system as a whole as well ns in its
c~nslitucnlelerr.ents in h e coune of its long history.
Nirmnl I<umarBose$'sought to explain the swengtll of;he caste
system from a differenr point of view. According to him, caste
was basically a non-competitive system of production which
safeguarded monopolistic hereclitq rightsiLto occupation. TIris
is surely only a parrial explanation, which does not look u p n
the systenl i n i l totality, NO doux the system assured the
inonopoly of nccupatian 10 rhose who hnd specialized skills
acquired ~liroughfieredily. It may he even argued tllat caste
provided a sense of security LO its n~enibers.Very often lower
casres observe cnste rules with greater vehenlence than rhe upper
castes. But apart from tile factors of insecurity and exploimrian
lending greater cohesiveness, two more facrors should be raken
into account. Fint, the integration of IOWCC ca~te ~o society at:
int
large is minimal; in mosr cases they retain a strong sense of
solidnrity, exclusiveness and taboos inherited horn a tribal psst
Second, rhere is a tendency ta jmlrate upper caste notions of
puniy/pollution to elevntc their status. This may be at the rDQt
of tile fact that unroi~chablesi n Uttar Pradesh regard tlre
washerman as ~ntouchabie.Since the untou&ables hardly
require the ser~i:es of a washerman, their attitude cannot be
as a tribal relic. I-lonerrex, w11en we h k e an werall
of the cnste system, therc is no tinuht that Its essential
function has heen to ensure the suppIy of handicrafts a n d
agrjalmral labour, a non-specialized task, to upper castes by
making mobility practically impossible for the lnenial
casws.
 CASTE

We bave examined the major sociological theorics of cnsle

in order LO note h e i r contribu~ionro and extent of influence
o n historical studies of the ?osr-independence period.
We need not confuse 'the ideological or political n~otivationof
research or its utilization, with its scientific value' ,'+ although
an awtlreness of a scholar's Frame of reference certainly gives a
better undermnding of a contir.uing debate. It is well known
that Rislcy was an imperialist and was influenced in his
formulations by the practice of racial segregation prevailing in
i
the USA and South Africa." But the theory of racial origin was I
accepted with some modificatinns by a n ~ i r n l x nF
r whnlars like
R.P.Chanda,3jN.K. D.N. Majum&r4' and G.S. ~ h u r ; e , ' '
whose writings otherwise reflect the sentiments of nationalism
and social reform. Most of these scholars explained h e origin of
the c a s k system in Lerms of the conquest of Aryans over
Dravidians and of Dravidians over pre-Dravidians, and their views
continue to be cited in recent publications.Y'The theory ofracial
origin irnplicd a conscious c f f o r t an the parr of the Aryan
conquerors ro keep their blood unsullied by aboriginal
concaminarion; Ghurye en~phaslaedthe role af the brshmanas
in developing the caste system for maintaining such purity.
According to him, Risiey's anthropometric tests showing
correspondence between the social ranking of a case and na=l
index of its members was b r ~ a d l yvalid for north& India.
This was queslioncd Ly other scholars who pointed out that an
equally valid and perhaps even better case could be made for
differentiating Indian physical types on the basis of region rather
than caste."" After a detailed anthropornetric survey of the
population of UP in 1941, D.N. hlajurndar came LOthe conclusion4'
that the population was largely homogcncous and it was not
possible to deny that the caste system with the brahmanas at its
apcx was cornplecciy devoid of racial significance. The tlibal
groups had not contributed to fne formation of the caste system
as such, although one could notice that the proportion of
aboriginal blood in castes (the extent of their 'hybridization')
had an inverse relationship to their position in the social
hierarchy. Neverrhelcss, alrempts at identifying specific varqas
 or castes wirh pafticuIar races or 'intem~ixtur~ of ceaain races1
in a givun region may still be detected in a few schoinrly
~ r i t i n g s . ' ~ Tinterpretation
h~ ofcaste in [emsof Aryan-Dravidian
opposjtjon bccamc Yer). popular in tl>econtexl of sout11 Indian
~~olitics where it was seen as a clever device of the bdhmanas
for imposing their racial ~uperiorily."~
111 recent years :here h:ls been an incressed awarene%$of the
t ~ r c dtu del'itlt: a i d clarifi tllc cu~lccptsused cur inierpreting
India's pasr. Thus Tr~utrrrann"" criticized' cliose who confused
varna wid1 'caste' or 'class' and rernarked chat varna is a s a t e d
concept which is better understood with reference to 'estate3in
medieval European rhought than in terms or 'class' whicl] is 'roo
objective, scientif~cand modern to represent adequately ~h~
n0fh-i ofvitrqa'. The v z r p s are a divine creation and ilmnutabje,
~ L I L castes may fuse together or split into smaller castes; new
castes may also be enrolled. Thus he relation of varga to caste
Is lllat of 'sacrcrl and enduring ro t11e ~11;pjj-jalj and ephemer21i.
Iicnee vnrna should be translated as 'ordur' 01- 'estate' and nor
'u:~stc'or 'class'. This conlrovcrsy is nut new. As we h:lve men,
Senart was the First ro distinguish between varqa ancl caste and
1 lu tton e ~ ~ d o l s ethe d dis~inctlon.Max We!>erl;stressed that v a q a
wns 'starus group' or 'estate' and not 'dsss' with its ecancnic
referents. Even so, Weber freely used the word 'caste' for varqa,
npparently influerlced by the wrilings of early lndologists; the
pxicljcc continues to ~lljsday as r~earlyall the standard text books
of ancient Indian history hrginning with i11r Cn?nbndgeHistag)
~ L I),~ to L he
o / / J I ~(Vol. I -Bt o !q{htriid
C U ? I ~ ~ V ~ ~ P L SJ~I f' ~ ~f (Vo!. 111,
rn;llce no distinctior. bem'ccn varna and rasrr, Sociologists point
rjui that tlle studie? o f ancient Inciian nrlture and sociery have
largely projected a 'book-view' based on S m s k ~ i1~x1s t md his
has led to the cunclusian lI1at lhe lnodern tnultiplicity of casres
hns grown out of the fourfold varpa divisinn af society in Vcdic
times. Theyi{'areof h e view thnt the v a m concept is inadequate
to explain dIc fact of cares as these exisr roday in various regions
{ndin, and tIley have d r ~ w nnlrentinn to dirferences between
vill.pil and ,@ti; the larter is shown to operate at ~ I L l~al. level,
bul tllc valy:, nlodt.j remains the S J ~ Cfill o$m+India. Furtllcr,
tjleo,.cIjcnily ~h~valhnasam rlivided on ihe basis of their hnctions,
t , u ~ 1 1 , ,fit/
~ llicl.arcl~yis organized on the principle of absfilutc
42 L~SI'E

purity of the hriihrna~acaste and the relative impurity of all oher

C3SLCS.
There is no doubt that in modern times a distinction beween
the ,j&i and the v a r p is easily pcrceptihle as varnas are broad
categories subsuming within them a large number of jfitis in a
rather loose fashion. Nonc the less, in spite of Trautmann's
assertion" that Sanskrit literature scrupulously observes n
distinction belween the N o words, detailed studies of the early
uses uf rhe rerlns lead to a \.cry different conclusion.
In the A~tndhyayiof Pznini the tcrm varna is used rwice for
groups rncntioned in later law-books as jcltis or mixed castes
and the tcrm jiiti is a p p i i d to the brdh~nanavarna.IH In the
Brhalsuvhita of Variihamihira both varpa nnd ,jirti are used to
denote the fourfold division of castes.'" P.V Kane has si~own'"
that altliough t l ~ cYaj1intwlk~~a~711r1~ makes :I distinction between
varqa and juti in two passages, often the two are confounded
and tlie term varna is applied to the so-called 'mixed castes'
which were evidently jatis or endogamous craf~-exclusive groups
closely corresponding to die rnocicrn usngc of the 1e1.m.~ a g l e , ' '
in his comprehensive analysis of ~ h ckinship and stratification
terminology in the early Buddhist tcxts, conles to the conclusion
that ,j&i was a concept which ascribed status to birrh; hence t l ~ e
texts speak of exccllcn~jdiirlis and low jfiii,c Occasionally, j d i is
applied lo the varqa clivisions z~lso,but is generally used for
well-rlemarcated, excliisive social groups of tribal origin sucll :is
the CiindaIa jdti, the Veqa j E l i , the Nisrlda fdli, tllc P u k k u ~,jiili,
[he h k y a j d ; , the Licchnvi p i , and 5 0 on. To me [his evidence
strongly suggcs~sthat ~ h assii~lilation
c of tribal groups into the
Indo-Aryan social wrgani~alionpopularized t l ~ euse of the wwd
I
,juti in thc sense of castu It is asserted tilat not a single a ~ z z ~ l o ~ ~ ~ c ~
or prutilorncc jciti bearing u tril~aln;tmc can bc located wirllin thc
region of irylvnr~;l:IS descril3ecj by Miluu. Furiller, there is a
statement of Baudhsyann t l m the mixcd castus lived outside
~ r ~ i v a r rina the countries of Avanti, hhga, PvIagadha, Sur;is!ra,
Lhksiniipatha, Upabl~rt,Sindhu and Saiivin, that I S 'in ~hc.I~clt
' . ~ ]nay
surrounding ; i ~ ~ i v a r t aWe ~ arld tbnl since [he division of
Lthour envisaged in rhc vnrna org~ni.r=itinnumpl~asizecl\he
principle of heredity from its very inucpiion," varoa could also
 (:AS11 ,!KD GENDER 43

signify J U ~and
J h e two terms could be used interchangeably.
The indiscriminate use of the two in popular usage is reflected
in the name of a viIkrge h a m 3s G.dj~tchlSottir~~n~:za (il village
inhaljred by rbjrryaix varqas] ~~~enrjarled in a temh-cenrrlry
copper plale inscription from BmgaI.i5The basic identity of t11y
concepts of rrarp:l and #ti in the perception of pitrticip:inrs
i~~clicatesthat v u r p and ,jGri did nut ~urrstilutr:~ w odiflerent
systems bill one,v'and it is well knulvtl thar Hindus rhemsdves
even today zpply the terr11j2ti10 311 the leveIs aCthemstc system
beginning witl~v : p 3 10 whaf is described by the sodologists ;IS
the'subc;~ste'.~~
Thus il is obvious thal the occurrencr of the tern1j i r r in posh
Vedic brahmaniml and Budcihlst Literature oecd not necessarily
i n r a n that a casw sysicm I3ascd on values and p r ~ ~ t i c eather
s
l h m hose inherent in b e V Z - ~ ~ sysser~l
P was alrmdy npcrsting 3
few centuries before lhc bcgiming of hcChristian era, solme
scholnrs, Faced by d ~ bewildering
e cwmple&y of the caste system
in 1noder11times, prcfer to attribute it LO the Indian ethos, than
study rhe ruaferial, hisroricai process which may I13vc led to its
origin and g~owth.Thus Ira~vntiIiawe rtmarks t11.tt untouchabiliv
is i1 chnrac\eristic of' the c:lste stnlaure from lop lo and
h a t the system goes h:~cIc to I-lirrappn culti~rein which h c jar1
specializing in puunding grain lived in 3 cell-like isolaciotl, which
facl was niisinterpreled by nrchaeoIogivs 3s cvidence of slavery."
Spcaking as the Prcsidenr of the Ancient India secciun of the
Indian Histmy Congress in 1569, Ronlila T l ~ r l expressed ~r the
view"" ~ h n varnas
i represenled t h e theurctical and j k l i the
f'unciionalaspect of caste, ~ h former c WJS :in 3tfcnlpt to explain
tbr: cxis!in~reality which in its essentials ought to I>etl-~ccdlo
]ii~rappacult~~re. TIlcsc esscnti3ls wcre defined as first, tlru
cxistencr: herL'dilsry g ~ x ~ jivverning
~ps 1n;lrriaxr rcli~tions;
:j ]ljcr:lrcbical division of labour bnscd un scrvire
rt.l:Llionsllipswllich later came Lo bc knuwn .IS thi. Jcrintflftr
d , idea of rim31 ~)urill;2nd ilnptlrity 0 f 3 0 ~ i d
systcm:lli ;I1,d ~ l ~ i r[Ill.
~n Thapar's view tllc Great B.l[h at hlolrerljociaw L - ~ T J K ~ ~
illdica[cd uhsrn/ance r]!' ' ~ ~ u I ~ o Irilu:ll
Y which !>roh:11~l}'
centr31to tht. ~ j o ~ iofmr i t ~ l dpurily'.''
i ~ lIild carlicr \>ern developed
~ l , lhesis 137 Y.C. M d i k n'ho
described caste as the 'Indian style of life', already evolved
before the corning of the Aryans, in I-Iarappan ~ociety."~ The
advent of the Aryans only brought about organizational changes
in Indian socieq; the basic srrucwre, that is, the Fundamenhl
aspects of the Harappan socio-economic institutions, remained
intact. These bold assertions were made on the basis of the
settlement pattern of the Harappan ciries which uncloubtedly
ind~catedt h e exlstence of class difft.rt.r~ccs3 r d separalc
iocalization of well-to-do classes, rulers and workmen. However,
we may point out that this is not unique to the Harappa culture.
As Gideon Sjoberg remarks," segregation dong ethnic and/or
occupstional lines is a cornInon feature of the ~rz-industrialcities
of Asis as well as Europe, and even though the b}~pothesis~~
rhxt the ruling 'elite' of [Harappa combined in itself religious
and political authority may be plausible, it does no1 mean that
a luerarchy of endogamous divisions which had cvalved a system
of economic interdependence had alreacly co1r.e into exisknce.
Malik tries to prove that although the large cities nf the Indus
valley disappeared, the Harappan pcasxnr-urban system wirh its
specific settlement pattern reflecting occupational and social
difkrcritiatiu~iburvivcd and was adupled I jy Ult: Aryar IS, a11d the
second phase of urbanization in the Gangetic valley shows 'clear
resemblance to the basic planned partern of the older Harxppan
urban arcas'." This view is convincingly refuted by A Ghosh,"'
who rlemonstrates that no Iiarappan Fearure can be detected in
t h e early cities of the Ganga basin.
Just as ir is unhistorical to explain the origin a€numerous c;qstes
through the uncritical acccplance of the classical theory wIlicll
regards them as the procl~lcror conFusio11 of the four primaq
varnas,'"so it is wrong lo foist un ;inancient past a pllcnomenon
obserxtd in modern times without working out intern~ediate
stnges or seeking alterni~tiveexplanalions. The study of
contemporary d a is~ undoulxcdly
~ useti11in ~~nderstandingtile
Function of ancirnr tools, r i ~ u a l sor custnms, ilems whose
docur~lenution1 ~ been ~ s traced lo a his~oricdepodl wit11 a
reasonablt. amount of certainty, bur opriol./;lss~rrnptionsderived
solrIy from the situation oh~ainingtoday may even prove he 2
handicap Lo our correct understanding of the past since there is
 WSlE rWD GENDER 45

a n in herent danger of reading lm much of the presmt into d-re

unspecilicd past. \#herher certain developments go back to one
thousand or three thousand years or to the stalic Hanppan or
dynamic Aryan culture can be determined only on the basis d
available evidence, arcl~acologicalo r literary, wjthaut which any
generalization degenerates into speculation and falls into the
hllacy of pt~tt'iioprfndpii
The transposition of lhe jajmsnisy stem or 'service relationships'
into the Harappa period ignores the most significant aspect of
the system, h e relationship of thejajmfina,the central figure of
the system, with land. The entire nexus of jwjmani relatianshjps
in a village community as described by WiseTM is built not around
the priest but around [he Iandfiwner or agriculturist who need
not be ofthe h~ghestritual status. As Oscar Lewis in his foEword
to Wiser's book remarked7"nwitha great deaI d perception,
'lanrbwnership is dearly the sfngIe nrost impormnt detenwant
of power in rl~ejujm&ni sysrem'. In my opinion, the later
j~rjnzbni71 systeni t1ii1izedthe concept of rlrual ranking to resMct
the inability of dependent people. but it cannol be seen as the
survival of a culture in which d ~ priesthood
e is supposed ro
have occupied the apex position by v i r t ~ ~OFe his in her en^ sacred
powers.
Again, to lrold that jatr represents the titnctional and v a g a
the theoretical aspect of caste is a statement which lacks
conceptua1 clarity ancl supportive evidence. As Wagle has
shown,iz in ihe early Pali literau~rejcibi is not used to empha.sizc
bon& of 1I;insiup bill to indicate status posilion, A more logical
distinction bemeen the ~ w tern~so e attemrped hy Dumont who
argues tIr:it the underlying principles of varna and jdti arc
diffeTeRr-the tarna Iljcrarchy D b 3 s d on funct~onbur the ~ 3 r i
emphasizes d ~ relative
e puriry/impuriry of castes, From this point
of view, both rernls have theorelicaf as we11 as pncticai or
function$) dimensions. However, jl may well he that the notion
d purity/impnrity described as characteristic of the jdti system
was in fact an rlnborali~nof vama ideology in h e hce of 3.
&[criomcion and hardtdng C ~ S relations.
S
t~lcsurvival of some elements of
While tile possibi]fty
advwdkd DV sotl~ei ~ ~ ~ ~ c o l o ~ i s ~ . ' '
ljarnppe a l u r e is
 I
it is strerched too far by those who asserr hat h e advent of d ~ e
Aryans meant only organizational [and not stnictural) change in
'the Indian style' which has had an uninterrupted existence from
the days of Harappa and Mohenjodaro. Such a view derives from
the concept of a aatic Indian sociely presumed to be incapable
of any fundamental change. Whatever changes did lake piacc,
according LO this view, were extrinsic, leading at the most to a
reorganization, An assumprion of [his kind attributes to ideology
instead of ~naterialFactors thc role of determinant in the formation
of a social structure. Dumont's study of caste also rests on this
premise, hut he has shown s better appreciation uf the historical
wldence by regarding the system of ranking endogan~ousgroups
I~ierarchicallyon the principle of purity/pollution as a pst-Vedic
developn~ent.~'
However, Malk quotes extensively in support of his view from
U.U. Kosambi, who propounded the theory that h e brlhrna~a
caste was formed with the fusion of Harappan and Aryan priestly
elements. Kosambi also held that the beginnings of the caste
system should be waced to the Formation of a s m i l e castc from
the Disas, 'the descendants of Indus settlers who had provided
lhc surplus for Indus cities, being therc~ob y some
method other than force, say rdigion' 75 It is nor clear whether
by 'religion' Kosambi-meant the concept of purity/poliuti~nof
hereditary social groups, Nevertheless, mrr may point out h a t
the Diisas became servile after therr conquest by rhe Aryans;
there is nothing to show thal they had a servile status in a n
earlier cul~ure.In several vgvedic passages [hey arc descrrbed
as owning considerzbie wealth and in some dfi~zcdstri~is some
D 5 ~ achiefs are praiscd for their liberal g~ltslo hrahrnanas h
srgued elsewhere,7"the caste ideology was not static and the
concept of purity/inipurity of social groups d~.vtlopedin historical
Iimcs with the intensifica~ionof class exploitation. It is a mistake
to Iook upon caste ideology as a constant despite changes in
social conlea.
Kosambi was a pioneer whose insigf~ts,provided a general
hypothesis for the study of u s t e within the framework of
hisiorical materialism, He does spcak of Ensre as not
which had had a uontiin~ausexistence f r ~ n the
l time of Harappa
 CASTE AKII GENDEK 47

culture but as a new social organization which grew in the

Gangeric basin under totally 'different techniques of production1
than thosc ofthe Harappa c u l t ~ r eHe. ~ traced the origin of caste
endoganly to rhe assimilation ofthe Aryans and the pre-Aryans
in one civil and regarded 'the introduction of new
relations of production, on a scale vast enough to make
subs~antia!difference of qualiv', the chief contribution of the
A l ~ a n sAccording
.~ to him, the formarion of a servile caste from
1h.e defeated DSsi and Sfidra tribes led to the development of
new relations of production in Aryan society. This was the origin
of '(he older northern caste system', evidently varna, from wirkin
[he But in peninsular India caste-cum-class developed
under externaI stimulus owing to t h e c o n f r ~ n r a t i o nand
assimilation of the materiaily and technologimlly superior warn
and the aborigines of varied c.uItura1 levels and Lerrftories. Casre
a l bea~rnerigid only in rI~estagnant Lndian
and ~ c m p a t i ~ nrules
vilkges the emergence of Feudalis~n.~' It is obvious that as
far as Kosambi is concerned, the later jr?ti system is a further
d~veIopmenIof the olcler caste/closs system which assimilated
hew tribal and professional groups and adjusted d ~ e mto existing
relations ofproduction, At one place he expresses regret over
the fact that most book..;on the caste systelrl 'neglect changing
Productive reladons, h e influence of tribal contact and endogamy.
formation of from tribal fmctions and castes fmnl both'."
Kosambi that a social formation based on the slave
Inode of production in the classical European sense never existed
in India any and the role of chaltel 5 l : l v e ~ was
aefiligible.M Marxis1 historians in India gcnemlly endorse ttte
view dlat slavery did not constlrure the main llasis of produclkn
at ilny stage, alhougll Dwraj Chanann*' and R.S. Sharrnitw'hase
shown t h f i ~ were emplayed in large n u ~ n b e rin [he
production process in certain regions of India in post-Vedic 2nd
Mauryan tiInes, f-rowcver, it is remarked th:rt the rltajor qucsli~n
cclncemlng s{;[v~ry is nwl the n u n ~ e r i n lim120rtance of slaves,
l>ut 'how slaveryfunctioned in the tfanstbrnIiItiol1 from c ~ ~ T x T I u ~ ~ ~
to class sOciety'.fl The role of slavery in introducing ec~nolnic
differentiations in an egliruian sociel~lW a s clearfy recognized
Kosambi. Fie qrnrcied the assign!nml.nL by the lrih:1l alltlloritY
of 'cne o r more desasro labour for a partici~larsub-group' of the
Ary;n uibe as an important contribulory f4ctor 10 the growth of
economic disparity and rise of privale property OF certain sub-
. ~ 111m this marlced the beginning of
groups or family g r o u p ~Far
h e original cdste/classsystem. The decline of tcibaI egdilarianisrn
and differentiarion wilhln the tribe paved be way for a dass
society wider than lhc kibr- in which, despitc continuing tribaI
influences, ' h e priests and w~rriorcastes united to repress and
exploit the Aryan peasant ( ~aiijw) ."'
and non-Aryan helot ( S i i d t . ~ ) '
The prohlerrr of class formation in Indian socie~yhas palziculariy
attrzcted the attention of R.S. Sharma, who is of the view'"' that
IIgvedic society was ranked; but as it w ~ as p ~ s ~ o csociety,
il il
could not develop class diti~rentiationin the a b ~ n c of
e a s~lrplus-
Some warrior and priestly families employpd slave labour-
mostly of women captured in war-in heilvy dolilestic work;
and wornen of the inirr,ical D ~ t ~Li h c sWCK d m captured to
meet the shortage of women in the conqucrmg ~ribes.But slavcry
of this Lypc could only give prestige nrld comfort ra sonre high
ranking persons; it could not provide the base for a social class
of exploiters. Tl~isconception of Vpedic horiety may pr~virIca
better cxplanadon of the evidence on Dasas zmd D;isTs in the
early Vedic pass:iges than looking on these caprives as serfs.'"
Slave labour could ht. usefill economicalIy only iF it could pioduce
surplus beyond the cost of ils own maintexance. But d~iswas
nor pos~ibicin the nomadic pns~oralconditions. Hence, wherens
women of rI~cDisa tribes were taken lo rcstore the balance of
population, thcir children dirl not suffer from a n y disabiiilies
and could he fully integrated into the lineage and amain thc ranks
of prieqts or w:irriors. 1 t is possil>lelo cxplr~in~ h rise
c to eminence
of persons of D k a origins such as BalbC~ilr~~ Taruksa, Kavnsa
Ailub~,Mahidam, Uivoda.sa and Knk~ivantAuSiia on this basis.
To cxplain it in terms of hypergamy or the Flexibility of the caste
systetny2IS to mistalrc the nalure of Rgvedic sociely.
Shanna argues ~ h a rw e n laccr Vedic sou,cty was not 3 Full-
fledged class soclely ')' ~ l t h o u g hthc fnur vargas I ~ a dert~ergeed
valnas Iivcd ofF h e e x p l d ~ a t l ~ofn peasanlry
a i d [he f i ~ a t~ w u

(vaiiya varna) a n d serv~lclalmur (Si~dravarp), separate socio-

ecnnornic classes, in d ~ esense ~ h : sn~nc.
~ r owned ihe tncans of
 CASTE AND GENDER 49

production and others were campietely deprived of these, had

not come into existence. Sharrna charac~erizeslater Vedic society
as a 'small-scale non-monetary peasant society' in which there
was unequal distribution of the produce of land but which
nevertheless retained prominent tribal chanctelistics. It was ody
with the greater utilization of iron for craftsand ~griculturearound
500 sc in eastern UP and Bihar that larger surpluses became
available, and this provided rhe material foundarion for the
enlergence and stabilization of class society and its instrument,
the state. Sharma suggesrs that the social structure in mid-India
fro? the sixth century BC to the fifrh century AD may be called
'~aigya-iiidrabased society In the sense that vaidyas were
Peasants and Sddras were artisans, slaves and hired labourers'.
From about the fifth century significant changes begin to appear
in h e nature and relationship of social classes and rhese usher
a ieudal social f ~ r r n a t j o n . ~
T ~ L IR,s,
S 5hrma' has explored the panorama of early Indian
Social history with a rhoroughness which combines a clear
thcorerical w i b a deep study of sources. ff his frame
of reFerence has stimulated controversy, he has persistently
directed attention t o ~ a r d s ~ m e a n i n gproblems
f~l arid exhorted
historians to avoid the temptations of fshronable phraseology
and model building.* H e does not hesitate to borrow conceplual
tools from orher disciplines ~rovirledthey help in revealing the
possible pattern of social structure under study and indicate the
dynamics of its social and disrribution. tn his recent
studies of Vedic society h e derives help from social anthropology
on the structure and functioning d tribaI communiries, and dle
~ombIncdmethod enables him to conclude that in Pgvedic society
redistribution of food was made rhrough kin-based units. He
also SUggeSE the correspondence of certain Rgvedic social unib
with socia)-anthropologi~alcategories of tribe, h = a $ e and
segment. such a mechodobgy needs to be pursued, for generally
11istorfcdstudies have used such terms *s uibc, clan, ecc., rather
indiscriminately withour attention to the inner structure of the
socielies discussed.
Perhaps the first serious arrernpt to Use the sociologiml terms
scientific precision was made by Narendra Waglev who
appliedK;the phrase 'extended kin group' to the Licchavis, Mallas,
Sgkyas and other kinship groups mentioned in the early Pali
texts. Wagle poin~edout that society :it that time had an extensive
division of labour and hence was not tribal. The use of the
terminology derived from tribal organizacian, therefore, was
misleading for h e age ofthe Buddha. Wagle shows a great deal
of originality in using the techniques of modern sociology for
analysing the dam from early Pali texts. His painstaking study of
the forms of address and greeting used by persons of different
groups reinforces and lends greater accuracy to our knowledge
of the 'defact0 socidl groups' existing ar the rime. However, h i s
analysis of inter-personal relationships in the social, religious
and political spheres fails to bring out their congruence with the
system of cconornic relations, with the result that whereas he
speaks of the 'threefold system of ranking' (social, political and
religious), he ignores the evidence on wider socio-economic
classes in a post-tribal society. In h e Pali texts these appear to
be well marked and polarized, as indicated by the regular
clubbing together of the vessa-suddas, peoples engaged in the I
task OF production. But, as WagLe follows the analytical rnodel
of Radcliffe-Brown, who analyses structure by abstracting it 'from
any changes that it may be undergoing', 1us work becomes more
'a backward projection of sociaiogy' than social history; the latter 1
can ill afford to ignore h e process of change and social tensions
generated by change.
Earlier, a few studies of the Ijuddhist sources did attempt to
emphasize the influence of economic Factors on cente~nporarj I

social relations, but owing to the early stage of historical

knowledgein this area, these suffered as much From the problems
of textual chronology, etc., as from vague gencrali~ations.~
Although A.N. Base published his two-volume Social and &ml
Economy of Northern ~ n d i u (c.600B.C. to A ,D.200) in the crucial
years of the independence struggle, he boldly ridiculed the 'pet
patriotic' notion of a supra-mundane Indian culture and drew
attention to hard n~aterialfacrs at the root of Indian ci~ilkation.~
In his opinion the brahmanical social philosophy provided
only a veneer of 'external hnrmony' while class interests based
on the production and distribution of wealtll relnained
 CASE AND GENDER 51

'essentially hostile'.yJAnother Marxist scholar, B,N. Dutt,llxl

aL about the same time discussed tile class cIlaracter of social
2nd political institutions from the Oqvedic age to he end of the
uarly ~l~edieval period. His writings are marked more by his
'enthusiasm' than the 'scientific method', bur served to challellge
certiiin sedulausly cherished myths of nationalist historiognphy
such as tl~cprenlence of social harmony in the early periods
of Indian history and the use OF governmental organization for
[he well-being and prosperity of all classes.
It is only in the late sixties or so that efforts began to study
changes in the social order in the context of the mode of
production, and an ourline has emerged. The researches1"' of
R.N.S. Ydava have not only corroborated the views of R.S.
Sharnla but )lave also extended o u r knowledge on significant
aspects of the problem. I-Ie has drawn'"' attention to certain
technological and economic changes, which expanded the scope
for individual enrerprise in the fieId of agriculture in the early
centuries of h e Christian era and which obviated the need for n
Mauryan type of stare control. These changes provided the
ccanon~icfoundation For the emergence of a ruial arislocracy,
which was a n e w pheno~nenon,Tlte process was further
accelerated by che entry of a large number of Snh-a and Kus5na
foreign hordes, who established theinselves as a ruling class
0 ~ 1a.considerable part of northern and western India. It 1s
furthm argued that economic change together with the presence
of large, dominant foreign groups and the activhies of
h-etical sects, sucll as Buddllism andlainism. crearcd a crisis in
the established and led to tlle loosening of control ovel'
the fifidras, heir transfar~nationinto sharecroppers and a
class dependent peasantry on the one hand and greater
cxploitacion and decline in the status of the free pcasnntr).
represented by vaidyas on the other. The feudal tendencies
of heK u ~ ~ qperioda became mare and more pronounced in
later centuries with the grant of land and villages to religious
and secular beneficiaries and the abandonment of fiscal,
admhisbativc judicial rights by the slate over lhe donated
area, file process led to the rlivision of the soil among [llegredtest
llDssib]e nunlber of sub-feudatories of interrn~Jia~ic$,.lndian
!'. - ,\.., ,< L.L!l:*

j ,. 1: * '
feudalism reached i b climax in the eleventh-twelfth centuries
over a major part ofthe s~bcontinent;after h a t a decline set in
for a nunlber of economic and politica1 reasons.
The characterization of the early medieval period as 'feudal'
bas been challenged no1 only by those1'" who are accustomed
to look on early Indian society as unique and changeless but
also by those who identlfy feudalism with serfdom and regard
it as specific to Western Europe.""' We need not repeal the
arguments in favour of adopting the conlparative historical
method for building a model ~hrougha study of the relationship
of rhe direct producers with [he owners of the means of
~ r o d u c t i o nto reveal the hidden basis of social structures,
which may have infinite variations and gradations in appearance
but none the less show fundamental similarities, The chief merit
of this exercise lies in the fnct that it underscores the universal
laws of social change underneath the specificities of individual
cultures. The methodology is adopted unhesitatingly for tbe
study of prehis~oxicsoc~eries,'['~ and 'rhere is no reason for
abandoning it once we reach the historic phase. I t may be argued
that not all the links in the chain of arguments advanced infavour
of Indian feudalism are equally strong; the concept needs
to be strengthened both theoretically as well as in demii."'"
None the less, the use of the feudal modcl has made a significant
contribution towards the study of the agrarian cIass strucrure by
Focusing on the changes :n rhe nature of h e class of exploiters
and the peasantry and thc methods of surplt~sexpropriation,
I t i~ arguedlf17with some force that the use of t h e term
'dependent peasantry' in the lndian contexr is wrona, for
'dependence' means '&version of at I e x r p1r1of prasanr'slabour
from his own process of production to that of the lord', m other
words,forced labour; bur although the evider.ce cited by Sharma
and Yadava shows increasing exploitation of the peasanmy,
it does no1 prove its subjection to forced labour For agricultural
production. Jn our view this is a very narrow interpreta~ionof
dependence. Discussing 'labour rent', Marx remarks thar in- dl
forms 'in which the direct labourer remains the 'possessor' of
the means of production and lobour condilions necessary for
the production of his own means of subsistence', the property
 CASTE AND GZNDER 53

relationship must simultaneously a ~ p c uas 'a direct relationship

uC luidsl~ipandse~vitt~dc', tl~alis, ufdcpcrldtlr~ce;and 'Ate dlrecr
producer is not free: a lack of freedom which may be reduced
fro111 sertiJom with enforced labour to a mere tributary relation-
shipi."*Apparently, R.S. S h r m a ltas used the krm dependent
or 'subject' peasantqtin h e sense Lhaz ~ h peasantry
c was coerced
to par[ wit)]rhe surplus rhrough exrra-ecbnomjc compulsion;
and rhe lnechanisrn of exploitation W ~ dS l r ~ and ~ t clearly
pcrccptible to the peilsant. Sharrna argues that in heavily
populated areas the rights of he peasantry were deeply eroded
through the undercutting OF communal rights to forests, pashres,
water-reservoirs, etc.; the practice of subinfeudalion and the
threaL ofForcible eviction huther reduced tIlern to the position of
lenanls-at-will.But serfdom seems to have previlcd in backward
trihnl :wezw where there was a scarciv of labmrr. Yadavn Roes
furfiler and says~")thar the number of dependent peasang must
have exceeded rhat d f e e peasants in h e early Middle ~ g mHe .
includes sharecroppers and agr;cu]rur~llabourers in his
definition of the dependent peasanuy and concludes that the
most common farm of dependent peasantry was that of the
sharecroppers.""
In the absence of slallsllc~1dab it is difficult to form an exact
conceptron of the major form of landholding at a given time; and
the problem oflhe uncvtn rfeve{oprnt;n~ of rWerent regions makes
such generalimcions even more hazardous. liawever, in my
opinion, rhe general absence d forced Inbour in [he agriculturd
sector in [he old caste d o ~ r ) j ~ a l esrms
d nlay be explained not in
terrrls of the lack of' interest on the part of Feudal landlnrds 10
orginizc the cultivarion of large landholding directly, but with
reference to d ~ structt~red
e dej%erzderzce of thr group of
untouchables and other nlenial castys whose number increased
considerably From early n~edievajtimes. They could not tremine
independent hrmers bur wcrc often employ4 aJ sl13recroPFrs
and formed an essenrial ingredient of the land system which
required 9 depen&nt labo~~rforce. Tile rO~relAti0nof Caste with
landlessness and various types OF sen.itude has been adequakly
demonstrated In the czse of the major regions of the south; and
it is shownlll b a t h e pattern goes back to pre-British times. It is
possible to work O U a~ similar correlation between the hierarchy
of agrartan structure and the hierarchy of caste for the other
regions OF India too; and the process may be traced to early
medieval times. It is significant that an early medieval text, the
ParZal-mnzrli, speaksH2of the nrdhasiril7s and [he drdhikas as
a [nixed caste belonging to the s'fidra varna, nnd these terms
denote sharecroppers in the contemporary i n s c r i p t i ~ n s This .~~~
texl further telIs us that a briilirnaqa, along with the performance
of the satkamzas (six traditional acts), rnzy also have agricultural
work done and shculd see that his bullocks which are yoked to
the plough are not thirsty, hungry, tired or sick. However, a
brfihmana who is himself engaged in agricultural operations
commits a great sin (rnabddos&.l'4 It is in this context that the
widespread practice of establishing b r i h ~ n a ~agrahdras
a and
the grant ofland t~ individual scholars for the pursuit of Vedic
studies and other religious activities becomes intelligible.
Researches into the nature of class contradictions prevailing
in early Indian society nsc still in their infanq; and, gcneraUy
speaking, the concept of social histow seen in h e books dealing
with 'society' or 'social condirions' is that of 'residual history'
covering a variety of human activities such as dress, manners o r
customs, with politics and economics left out. Social differentiation
is examined in the frameworlc of v q a s . 'lhjs rs partly due to the
nature of our literary sources which provide s a c i o l ~ ~ i cdata
a l in
the framework of m r p , but it is also par~lydue to the general
assumption that class contradictions did not develop in a varqa-
divided sociery"' based on n harrnnn:ous division of labour
which emphasized cooperation and not cornpl-tition, Thus, in
overlooking the class character of caste, excessive emphasis was
l a d on rts rltual aspect, whrcl~became the main poinl of reference.
Even the questions of social mobility were largely viewed as
nlatrers ofinternal adjustment of ambitious groups of individuals
within a static varna system that allowed limited mobitity without
loss of e q ~ i l i b r i u m ; ~ ~ % Romila
nd Thapar remarks that social
mobility 'in Indian society did not necessarily mean a change in
the actual slams ofa caste but perhaps more often the attempt to
improve the ritual starus U I else to den!, iis irripurrance.'"'
To ignore the class role of caste and co interpret it mainly 3.5 3
 matter of endogamy anci rirual rankinguHoften amounts to ib
defence and idealization, o n e more step in the s m e direction is
to trace its rigidity and eviI aspects lo soine external corn~nunal
factors. It is often held that the vama system became rigid due to
'Muslim' invasions, for I*Iinduismtried to protect its culture from
the onslaught cf Islam by laying stress on che purity of birth and
blood."' However, deeper anarysis of the socio-economic roots
of caste may reveal hat the caste system becomes rigid in settled
conditions when caste and class coincide; but in times of crisis,
when class hegemony is threatened, class differentiation begins
to cut across and into caste formations and the process of fusipn
and fjsicln of cares is accelerated. The fern expressed in the
P u t i n a s over confusion of the v a r ~ a - d b a m a
as a result of
foreign invasions reflects a concern for h e maintenance of a
stalus quo threatened by change in the ruling class and the
consequent possibility of newr social groups acquiring pom.er
and prosperity. It is curious that whereas much is made of he
allrrsio~sin the brahmanical texts to the confusion created by
the Turkish invasions to vam~ramadhnrmcr,similar statemena
regarding native rulers are quietly ignored.'*' War conditions,
whether caused by internecine warfare or the inmslon of the
Turkish rulers, must have creared upheavals in h e established
order, but if the Muslims were indeed viewed as the 'common
enemy' a n d a threat to 'Indian independence', the natural
reaction of the brahmanical society would b a w been to unite
rather than intensify the segregation of communities. CIenrly the
problem of rigidity/nlobility weds to be explained with reference
to sodo-economi~developments and not simply as c ~ r n m u n a l
respnsm to situarions needing ritual adjust~~lent.
N o ~ i t k s t a n d i n ghe analytical limitations indicated above,
much useful idcrmatian is naw available on the various aspects
of early Indian society from a considerable body of liteiature.
Some smdfes cmcmrra~eDn a specific lime bracket,lzlsome are
regiond sm&es'?a and some have aken up a particular type of
source materia] (Dvddhisr, Jain) or a branch of brahrnanical
saurces.1'3 A @owing trend whIch has perhaps yielded the largest
nun-lberof.monographs and still hs potential for micro-level
research is take up a particular text or texts d o n e author and
56 CASTE

LO discuss the socialogical data contained therein.I2' The merits

af such hooks differ widely, and although most of them run the
risk of drawing a rather static picture of he society in question,
they have brought to light many useful details which help to
build a base for deeper analyses.

m
As brahmanical religious literfi~urecomprises a major part of our
source material, it is not surprising I]~aro u r most detailed picture
is OF the briihrnana varqa. Most studies follow the ~ e n e r apalrern
l
of information found in the Dharmaiktm discussing the duties
and privileges of the bdhmanas, h e occupations open to them,
[heir idenlngy and mrial and r~lieiousc~starns.~ccasidnaUy,
attempts are also made to collate this information with other
contemporary literary and epigraphic records. None the less, we
srill lack studies analysing elements of change and continuity in
each of these spheres against the background of socio-economic
changes. Recend y Romila Th3par12jhas applied the formularims
of Marcel Mauss on gift-exchange to the ritual of making d a m
a n d d n k ~ i l dtn hrzhmaqas with remarkable results. She argues
[hat in the tribal and predominantly pastoral society of the m e d i c
period dfina and d a b i ~ ldidi not serve merely magico-reli@aus
functions b u t were also the m e a n s of exchanging and
redistributing wealth and of conferring status on donor and
recipient. With the transition from a pastoral to agricultural
economy and From gift exchange co a tnarket system the purpose
of gift and gift items registered n corresponding change. Gifts of
land took precedence over all other items in an expanding
agrarian economy, and &na ceased to be form of gift exchange.
The full Implications OF this change in the self-perception of thc
hrshmanas and their role in society nccd LO be examined.
According to'the DharmaSiistras the ideal livelihood for
brlhmanas comprised receiving gifts (pratigruha), teaching the
Veda (adhyipana) and sacriFice for others lyujunn). In later
Vedic times these appear to have been t h e main sources oftheir
subsistence because of the large-scale performance of Vedic
sacrifices. I t is not surprising that with the decline in the
 CASlE AND GENDER 57

popularity of Vedic sacrifices briihmaqns should be seen In

increasingly secular professions. What is however, is
the fact that in early medieval Limes b ~ o s cbdhnlaeas who *lade
a living our of priesthood by :~cceptinggifts and perfolming
sacrifices for rhe nluItitudes Cgatzns) or villages C.r~may&~nka~~)
that is, for ordinary folk and the Edras, were d e g l ; l d ~ - d , ' ~ w i ~ i l ~
no stigma att:lched to those who accepted high zdrninisrrative or
military posts, which fell in the sphere of acrivities traditionally
meant for batrillas and were open to bbrilrmanas only in trmes
of distress. The texts openly recommend the appointnlcnt of
Ixfihrnanas of high birth to sucll po~itions.~'TTt~e situntion
corresponds closcly to modem field otrsewntionsl-"'which reveal
tllat everywhere in India briihrnanas who :~ccepigifts( p m t i g ~ b a )
at places of pitgrimage or rcreive payment (or officinu'ngas priesls
(pt~rabilm1,orfuncriun as iemple-priests (&lojris, de?~~Iako-~ of
IIIL' Smytls), h a w a slatus inferior to tllose who hold pow,=*]
secular affices. The traditionnl explanation ljlnt 'sellinguof
priestly duties and the acceptance af gifts indiscriminately have
dnwngmrled them, indirectly highlights the fact that a section of
Sf hmanns was able to live of(1Ile rent rcceiveci from land donated
h y the nobility; this land became its patrimony, obviatina
drpcndencc on rcgular pmrgruhcl and ritual service. Thus, for
exa~nple,the Parag:~onp1arc~~~'of Prthividev:~I1 of the K&icuri
dynasty daled ~ ~ 1 1 record4 6 the grant oFa village to a bdhmnna
named Padmanibha and praise hi111not rxlly for his unpan~lelcd
'L7rdicscbdnrship hilt also for nprnlgraha or non-acccptaoce of
. very term which earlier defir~udt11r appropriate
g i f ~ ~The
li\~~iihooil for a b19hn-inn.7was now stigmatized. The contempt
for hrshmanas who 'peddled' or 'cornnierciaIized' Lhtir priestly
servlcesl" w3s an extension of ~ h contempt
c of the upper classes
for phl,sical labour. The lrlaterial basis for rlxs nT:lsprovided I y
the ilccluisition of superior rights in land hy brflhtilanas as a
for learrling or participation it1 administration and
t,y lrhc Esp;lblishment of [he ~~gv#b#rm- f01'grt%I'iya br-1maqas,
as mL,y bc seen in [fie Sasana vilhgcs of rhc Vedic b r i h r ~ ~ a n sof s
Orissa. '"
~ 1 datarrom
, ~ Orissa fuflher helps us to unders~andthe seeming
contmdjccionin the I,,rahmanicd religious lircrature which extols
58 CASTE

the gift of land to brlhrnanas but regards h e bdh~nanasengaged

in agricultural operations Ikpiksmw) as degraded. W e learnljj
that a large subdivision of Oriyd briihmanas known as Balarbrna-
gosfhiaresettled in areas which must have been the 'tribal frontier'
in earlier times. These brihmaps played a pioneering role in
changing the politicat economy of the region by introducing
plough-cultivation in place of the tribal slash-and-burn; and this
produced h e necessary surplus for the rise of regional kingdoms
in subsequent centuries. Nevertl~eiess,these 'plough-priests',
who worship the plough, are ritually inferior to SCisana
br5hrnanlts, who would nor touch the plough and who represent
a later wave of immigrants. The latter played a significant part in
strengrhening the politico-administrative structure of the regional
kingdoms and their high status coincided with their access tu
polirico-arlministrativ~power and control nvcr ernnomic
resources. A significanr point made by Kulke and his colleague^'^'
in their study of the regional hislory of Orissa is rllat landgrants
co brshmanas during the 'heyday of political feudalism' between
1000 and 1200 did not in themselves initiate the process uf
feudalization of the state apparatus; rather these were ineant to
curb the power of feudal forces'j5both in coun circles and in the
peripheral regionslMby providing the central power with 'agroup
of not yet feudalized administrative and ideological specialisrs'.
From this point of view, tho creation of a briihmana elite in Orissa
through land grants was in response to d ~ political
e expressions
of feudalism and it was naturally based on the feudal modes of
expropriating surplus; but the emergence of 3 feudal social
formation there eed not be traced direaly to the practice of
3
making land grnn to brihtnanas. From the standpoint of social
stratihcation, land grants to briihlnaqas had i m p o r t a n t
consequences.The practice involved them with agriculture and
brought them in close contact with t h e tribal, Sbdra or
untouchable labour, and many might not have been able to
avoid physical labour completely owing to demographic and
economic factors. Such brshtl~anasthen stocd degraded in the
eyes of the Vedic or ~ r o t r i ~brahrna~as
a who also enjoyed
income from land but, being closer to the political power in
the nuclear region, became active participants in politics and
 C k ' E AND GENDER 59

administration and established thcir claims to ritual superiority,

On the basis OF field work in Madhya Pradesh it is argued in a
rccenr s~ildy'~~that not onIy do the main subdivisions of t h e
briihmana varna have a territorial ~ r j g i nbut ~ each bfihmana
' ~ also
subcaste region has settled wirhin ir one numerically dominant
brzhrnana subcaste, apparently of indigenous origin,and one
or more small immigrant bdhmana subcaste groups; in terms
of power and wealth the latter are often stronger and more
influential. On the basis ofthis srudy, we may suggesr:that in d ~ e
initial stages Aryanization chiefly meant rhe spread of varga
idealogy and the technology associated wit11 it, and rhere may
not have been extensive physical migration of the people from
MadhyadeSa. Hence, brihmanas werc known by che name of
heir counlry, and broad territorial subdivisions emerged on [Ilis
basis. Later, in early medieval times when indigenous chieftains,
in the so-called absence of local 'pure' brshmanas, began to
send for briihmanas from elsewhere to earn religious nlerit
(in reality to create a class of loyal inccnnediarics and idedogucs),
the process of subcaste Formation within the brjhmana vama
received a fillip. Im~nigmntbr5brnaa!as genemiIy retained a distinct
identity and in some rare cases continued to have links w i h h e
parent group, but in most cases loss of contact with the original
home and interaction with the local culture tnnsfonned them
into new brzhrnana subcas~es,such 3s the Kanyskubja or Gauda
sections of Bengali briihmanas. Sectarian, ritualistic and
occupational differences conrributed Further to create a very
complex picture of the caste organization. The result was that
later myths about the origin of bdlmana and non-brlhmaga
casres rarely refer to theprtn~mr2ktramytlland are not concerned
wid1 the origin of the vmqa as a whole but oniy with a subdivision,
caste or subcaste of a particular varna ~ateg0J'y.''''
Weher held that social differentiuions within the briihmarp
varga arose from the fact that many tribes, when tmnsformed
inro castes, retained their tribal priests for lraditional ritual
services, and these came ta be recognized as dcgrrded brsh-
man;ls,l,~~ ~h~ remple-priests were also degraded For the same
T~ some extent this may explain con#.ie~ation of the
gavg.pjdkm b1,the law i,ooks, obviously written h e Vedic,
Srotriya brzhmanas. Legends such as the one regarding certain
~ a by ParaSur5ma
Kaivarta Families being raised LO b ~ j h r n a statcs
to act as he priests of Kai.jartasl." may be interpreted in this
light. But !his would be applicable to the priests of only such
tribal castes as had improver1 their socic-economic s~autsthrough
participation in tile production process but hntf not acquired a
suficienrly superior position in the contemporary politico-
economic power structure. We may cite historical instances to
show that, when linkedwith grmtps which had acquired politico-
economic dominance, trilsal priests could even gain recognition
as high ranking Srotriya bAhma~as.Inscriptions of the Eaaern
CiiIukyas speak ofa number of Boyiibrihrnaqa donees helorzglng
a s ir prominent non-
to different schools of the V e d a ~ . ' ~ ~ B o yare
brihmaqa community inhabiting the Nellore-Guntur rugion of
Andhra Pradesh and a r e identifier1 with the Bedars of the
Kanaresc regions.14' Howevcr, in early medieval times some Baya
chiefs seemed to havc becornc a significant political force1."and
a few of their priests could even rise to t h e status of Vedic
briil-imanas. The Fact that there are no Boy5 bral~manastoday
need not mean that these priestly groups were 'de-brahmani~ed''~~
later. It is quite likely that in course of rime traces of Boy5 origin
were erased and they were fully among the lzigh
ranking brahrnanas. It is a well known historical phenolnenon
that wl-ien a tribe is assilniIatcd caste society, some leading
families find entry into (he higher a s t e s of brihrnnqas, Rajputs
or k$atriyas as the case may be, but the rnajoriLy not sharing in
the politico-adniinistm~iveor economic privileges continues lo
retain its separate identity and is reduced to the Siidra
The NisPda-golm menrjonrd in the _4s!dcIbyE!j~i of P i d n j suggests
similar absorption of some Niskda priests to briihmana
I'erhaps Kadamba MayfiraGr~nr~an, ihu h i h u i ~ a n awho e n t e ~ r d
the gha;ik OF KIdci for mastering the totality of the Vedas but
later exchanged h e 's+crcrilicialladle For tbc sword"" and becarne
a feudarory of h e Pallavas, also had a rrilral anrecedent,""'His
successors assumed the title of 'Varman' proclaiming their ksatriya
status. The point .I wish to make is that it was nu1 ~k~ purity of
blood or tribal origin which was the crucial &terminant in [he
'ascriplion of low rank lo hriihm;i~nsearning [heir living Cl,rllj)
 CA" AND GENDER 61

through the performance of priestly duties, but differential access

to economic and politial power. It derived From those culmral
values which were sustained bg the acquisition of superior rights
in land by a section of the briihrnanas and iheir clme coll-
aboration with the ruling classes.15"
Rccendy an attempt has been made to study h e inner tensions
and distinctions of rank developing within rhe bAhmann v a r y
as a result of economic compctjrion for patr~nage.'~' This marks
an advance over studies which treat the category as an un-
differentiated whole. However, as pointed out else~~here,li> vama
categories were actusl conlpact identities in small-smle societies
of later Vedic times, and differendarions grew within each of the
four varnas as br5hmfinical society expanded. Thc process of
hierarchical gradation within each vartp cannot be explained
simply in terms of ethnic accretions,even though such expansion
has been continuous in Indan history. It was largely d ~ to~ the e
unequal accessibility of polilical and economic power that
hier~rchicalstatus distinctions crysbllized. Webcr was right in
llis view thnt the brihmanas had never been a tribc; the synthesis
of anumber of priesdy fi~niiliesdeveloped into 3 hieroctxtic caste
of cultured men.15-lHence, hypergamy would be quite normal in
the initial stages OF the formation of the caste system and even
later when a tribe assimilated into cnsre society and its priest
was recognized as a brahmana. This appears to be at the basis
ofthe strange phenomenon that in the rhcory ofmixed castes of
the law books, the purest and the highest vaqa appears 'in a
sense t h e most lax of the twice-born strata1.l5' The tribal
'hr5]lmapa1could continue receiving wives from '5ilcha' tribes-
men,since the majority of he tribesmen would be reduced to
s'tidra statlls.
Frequently newly emerged dynasties would 'And a respectable
source'j55 of ksauiya ranking by linking themselves to a legendary
ksarfiya ]lero.lsh Yet among a number d early medieval ruling
families t[lere were dain~st o bdhrnana ancestry or brahma-
ksntriya status, Such hbrication of regular or indirect connections
he b r j h m a p vama'5' n u y be evidence that it was sometinles
the p~estlyclans aillong tribes which were acrively involved in
state formarion.""
 The caregory of bmhinrr-ksatriya ha; drawn the attention of a
number OF scholars. According to one view,'5' it indicates the
adoption of rulership, the tradirional occupation of a kgatriya,
by a brahmaqa, thc change in occupation finally leading to a
permanent change in status. h o t h e r view"" regards brahma-
k~atriyasas descendants of mixed marriages between the
briihmanas and the ksatriyas; and it is held that rulers showed a
preference for the k5atriya rank. A third view traces the origin of
the historically known brahrna-ksatra families to the line of P f i r ~ ,
as according to the P u r i i n s both briihmanas and katriyas were
horn in this line. Thus, recently i t has been argued"' that the
progenitor of the Visnukundi branch of he Andhras was a
descendant of Pfiru and therefore a hrahma-ksatra; and the
Vi~nukundTswere the first to claim a b r a h m - k ~ b aorigin. It js
further argued that the brahma-ksatra ktlln started with the
adoption of BhZradvIja by Bharata in the line of Puru; and,
therefore, the brahma-ksatra Pallavas were ofthe ~ h ~ r a d v s j s
gotrfi.
However,the treatment of P u r j n k stories as authentic historical
records is a trap into which hislorians fa11 too often. The
possibility of genuine historical material existing alongside
mythical nzrrative is not denied, but it is rightly remarked that
the purpose of rhe authors of the puriinas was not to write
'objective hisrorj'. 'To see ccnfused hlstory in hese texts 1s 10
misinterpre; the rationale of the documents'[['Land &is rationale
must be ascertained before we can proceed wih in~erpretation.
I would suggest that it is much more likely that the Purjna writers
were trying to explain a n d aurhenticate the brahma-kgtra
phenomenon through the genealogy of PGru and the story of the
adoption of rhe br5hmana child Bh5radviija than rlica Ljprsa.'6'
This bccomts more probable in view of the fact that the Purfipas
narrating these storics are dated approximately in the period
between AD 4 0 and 900.The accounts contain several identical
verses and It would be an interesting exercise to coilate these
and to work out the original source. Of the four texts
cited in this context, h e &Iarim@u, the i/iSyzl, the Matsya 2nd
the Rhagazmta f i r a n a s , at least the last LWC) are known ro h a w
been composed in central India and the souil~, wllere the category
of brahma-ksatra had emerged.
 CASTE AND GENDER 63 '

Only in early medieval times did a dynasty claiming a

brjhmaqa faunder changt. over ro kqtriya mnk, as happened in
he c s c of the h a n d a s , the Kadwnbas and h e Pallavas.ltANo
such change is seen in the case of earlier briihrna~adynasties
like the Sungas, K%vas and Wklhkas. The Amamkka, wtitten
about the fifdi century,"' gives rcija.lh$ and ?fijiar~a~iya as two
synonyms for 3 briihmaqa born in n royd fanril y,'(& which shows
h a t bdhmanas becoming rulers were nor rare and did r~otmean
a fa11 in stalus. The attempt to interpretthe b d h m a - k a t n category
as arising solely out of bdhlnaqa-ksatriya mixed marriages would
involve rationalizing on euherneristic iines genealogical myths
about the union between a bdhmana parenr and a N5ga king m
princess of the underworld, a%is done in the case of MZyidepd,
the feudatory of the Kadamba king, K l m a d e ~ n'7 . ~ ~inscription
~
of ~ ~ 1 2 describes
16 Mriyidcva as a brahma-karra belonging to
h e dynasty which sprang from he union of' a br5hmana girl
wirh the NSga king of the underworld. It offers a close parallel
LO the origin myth of the Chhotanngpul- chiefs who Lmce heir
dcsccnt from the union of the serpent god Pundnrika N5ga w i u ~
a I~r211mrrnsgirl.'" The latter claim to be NGgiivarpdi ksatrips
b u ~heir tribal origin is not in doubt. Such myths have beell
widely used by those autocl~rl~onous kingdom-builders who
played a crucial role 2s agents of culture-change in their tribes,"'"
and cm hardy be treated as evidence of' genurne matrimonid
all iancc between brshmava and katriys fm~ilies.Hence, even
though we have a few historical examples of briihrnanas marrying
batriya17"and even lower c u l e women in the manner approved
h), the Smytis, it is difficult to attribute the emergence of the
brahma-ksatra cutegoy to sudi rnari-is@. The illvention of a
flar~rjngand mjmculous i n y h oforigin is one of the techniques
of severing bonds with the uibe.In
-l-hus tile category of brahma-kgatra seems to hnvt had a
lnuILipleorigin. it may have included tribal priests, who g r ~ d ~ r t ~ e d
to pmiloria/ kingship hraugh in~ernaldevelopments within the
~ ~ i itb ~ ; also acconrmodotc an occasional br5hmapn
immigrant who succeeded in estzlblishing his power
in a tribal lerrirory by & p i n g himself wich influenlJal tribal
segmenrs, In some cases ii could hwe heen pure fabrication
I,ece,Fsnry to provide for a ~lliraculousa11cestrY7
+ri1j-itlfions
hence prestige and legitimacy, for a ruling c h l e f ~ ~ i'1nhis
. would
be especk~llyso once the device had become well known and
convenrional. The important point however is that the brahrnn-
Iqatra model like the later Rajput model is used in the context of
smre formnrion in rhe trjbal perjphery or p ~ r r l ybr~frmrrjzed
regions
Two o t h e r significant aspects of thc b r a h ~ n a - k ~ a t r a
phenomenon need to be emphasized. First, as Yadava rernarks,IT'
it shows ~Iledoseness of the brzhmana and k~atriyavarnas.
Second, ir is a transitional category'7i in whrch preference is given
to t h e lgatriya s ~ h ~ s The
. lsltcr lendcncy appears ro me to b@
:i projection of feudal values :hat at~achspecial importance l o3
rank connected with the ownership and control OF land, h e
prerogative of k s a ~ r i y a sin the traditional v a r p scheme.
Tnterestingly the Arab writers of the tenth-ekeventh centuries l i s t
twu l>road divisions of k.;atc'iyas as Sabkufriya or Sakriya and
Kataria or Kastaria (idcntificd as sat-ksnfriyas a n d ordinary
ksatriyas by Altekar), placing the farmer category evcn h i g I w
than the hrzhmana. We are further told rhat kings were chosen
trom t h e Iormer dass."' According 10 C.V. Vaidya, the former
category rtpresentcd the 'ruling ksatriyas' and the latter ordina~y
'agricult~ri?ts'.'~'; Yadava agrees that t l ~ c'ruling landed aristocrdcy
of ksntriyas' claimed a superior status within the casre but adds
that the distinction was not sn tnuch economic as reHecting the
dislike of the older aristocracy of upst~rts.'~' However, this need
not mean that the higher mnk was derived from descent from
the ancient kzatriyn clans. Claims to pure k~atriyastatus partly
derived 'from the priority of their entrance to lqiatriyahood' but
also From 'the size of territories pulitically and economically
conuollcd' "* The list1") OF ll~irty-sixktili~lnr)~rl?lim(pure clans)
of thr rcrJcip~t!ras given in the Var!za Rcrllrnhnra includes
Candellas (connected with the Kusinas) ;~ndCilukis (Solankis)
ot doubttul origin. The displacement ofold ksalriya ruling houses
by ncw ones would ultimately result in the former being reduced
to ordinary status wl~ilethe latter would rise to higher rank.
The close correspundcnce hetween politico-economic stalus
and social mnking is the inosl pronounced arnnng the Rajputs/
, even in theory h c i r high srariis derived from temporal
k ~ l r i y a s1s
 power. Recent studies have shown that the Rajput lineage
structure is characterized by a high degee of internal stratification
in which the splitring inro the 'elite' and 'common' Rajputs i s an
ongoing process. Owing to inheritance by primogeniture in the
r-oyal fanriiies, junior bmnches became commoners in the course
OF a few generarians, with die resultant econonlic and social
differentiations, I"' T11i.s process may be ~rncedback to e:dy tjn~es,
3s is indicaled by reference"! 10 ksatriyas engaged in trade and
agriculmre, practices sancrioned by the law-books as approved
behaviour for ksatriyas in critical times.
The Rajputs have received a greal deal of attention from
Indologisw, historians and stlcialogists; and a vo[uminous
liter3Lure'HLexists on their origin 2nd role in Indian history, Their
.?~Jffresisunce 1 0 Turks and Mugha1 mrraders p.ovided the idea]
material for those looking for n~odelheroes ro booSIour morale
in the smggle for independence. As a result, the main focus was
on heroic exploits and problems of ancestry, especidly in view
of the theary put forward initially hy some Western Indologists
that the Rajputs were Indianized foreigners. T h e debare
c~ntinues'~'alrhoughthe consensus seerris to favour a mixed
origin of the Baiput caste developing out of 3 blcndhg of
Indianized foreigners, indjgenouskgtrjyas and members of oher
v a r p z as well as some aboriginal clans. Yet, the socio-economic
processes which gave rise to this cisre are only now beginning
to receive a~ention.''' The emerging picture discloses a landed
aristocracy of disparate origins consolidating itself through a
of status-oriented hienrch~caImarriage alliances and
poIiiiraI ties, which develop~nentfinnlly mrrsforms it into a mste.
fire tern1 ra~~pufrn initially denrxed pperty chief holding mltf
or more villrigcs, Llnder feudal conditions such chiefs farnted a
fajrl)r large class d in~errnediaricscnjoyiilg considerable social
prestige.Hence, even when crystallized inlo a ksatripa caste,
preference was shown for he title r i i j c ~ p t b f(corrupted
~ into
~ ~ j ~which ~ r )had , secular rather than ritual connomions. We
need not deny b e m e n d r achievemclnt
~ ofpolitical
power and the bnrriyaizaunn or Rajp~rieaSIvnof a f~lrrily ur
clan, but, as pinred ~ It Ielsewhere,'" the assertion of B.D.
~ h ~ ~ t ~ ~h ad t ]f e~u d~a ~a ~smms yl ya was 'incompatible' nritll
 CASTE

the detailed fabrication of a respectable anceary-such claims

being made on behalf of only the 'sovercign familie~''~'-is
contradicted by a number of epigraphs. What is more, the
assumption ignores an important feature of the 'political process'
it seeks to explain, thac is, the great amount of power and prestige
enjoyed by the feudatories in the absence of a strong centralized
power structure. In fact the power of feudatories was more
tangible at the local level than that of the overlords, and once
the device of establishing one's blue blood througll invented
relationship to old 'batriyn dynasties came in vogue, powerful
local-level chiefs could nat be lagging behind. For example, a
family of local chiefs ruling in Maharashtra and owing allegiance
to the Ciilukya king Someivara (I or ~ l ?claimed
) to have belonged
to the Agni-kula, being the descendants of the hero who was
cieared out of the firepit by the sage Agasrya to bring back his
kcimadhmu cow after killing the evil minded rulers who had
snarched it away.ImSimilar myths are recorded about Mlyideva,
a feudatory of the Kadarnbas and BecirZja, a 'feudatory minister'
of RZcamaHa of the Sinda family.18n
Iris curious that the phenomenon of brahma-batm is especially
evident in the Deccan and the south in early medieval times.
It was not confined to a few major ruling houses like the
Vi~nukundins,Kadambas and Pallavas, but also invoived
feudatories and officials.~"This suggests-in spite of t h e general
scarcity of evidence--that it was not an isolated phenomenon
b u t affected a section of the ruling class and was connected with
the emergence and stabilization OF a political structure.
ConceplualIy it re-emphasized the unity of the brHhmana and
the batriya elements.
Burton Stein, however, has argued'"'that in early south Indian
hisrory there was no coiiaboration between warriors and
brzhmanas. The bfillmanas had been Iivmg as spirituat guides
and neighbours of the 'respectable' peasant communities on the
Coromandal plains long before the rise of he Pallavas, and the
brPhmaga-peasant alliance was 'voluntary' and 'of mutual
benefit'. As there was no need for brahrnagas to collaborate
with warriors, there is no viable k~atriyacaste in south India.
But Stein's dichorornization of the warrior and the peasant is
 misleading. The culturallp advanced agrarizn societies of the
south were naturally in opposi~irionto p r d t o r y hill ~ i b m for
whom war and cattle raids were important 2s supplements m
uncertain means of Urelihoud. But chis does not m a [ha€ h e
peasant communities supporting a non-producing priestly clss
n r ewithout internal di£ferenriations.These conaincd specific
groups, exercising control over basic economic resources through
poiilical power and force of arms, and ochers in subordinate
pusiliuns withuut sucll curlhul. h1 fat[ in suurli Indian history,
as ISthe case wirh pre-apicalis[ social farmations,it is not possible
to dissociate economic from politid conaol. Stein is aware of
the 'existenceof asymmetrical refalionships';~ n later
d ''lile used
the terms 'dominant peasantry' and 'depnderxt peasantry' which
indicate sharp cleavage in terns ofpower and status wihin the
agrarian structure. In T ~ m i Nadu
l h e 'C'ei/a!as mnstikrred the
d~rtlinant~easantry; the leading men of the &du,
a d the FG{{~<
belonged to this caste. They owned lznd and performed
administrative and military functions. The point is furlher
strengthened by Stein's suggestion that a large purrion of the
atniy of RSjarija Cola was raised and commanded by the
'dominant peasanuy','" the Ve!jd!as. In view d t h i s it is diftlcuh
ra rcgard dre Ve!!ila as antipodal to tlte warrior category. Like
the batriyas or Rajputs of che north, che Vejlgas, ~ e # # y sand
Kamrnas d the south were landow~inggroups. The)' formed
EIle ruling srrztum and were in allbnce wjrh bzjhmanas. The
dependence of br5hmsnas on rhe agrarian secror and rheL
conten?prfar 1he hill v k s and their way of lift: can h a d l y be
intrrprcled as evidencr:of rhdr lndiflcre~~ce to h e warrior Or
nding class elernent in gcned. The ruling class took keen hterest
in exrending agriculrure and patronizing the bdhmanas. This js
evident From the example of the Pallavas. The founder of his
dynasty Is said to hatre disrributcd free hundreds of thousands
of ox-plough s.
Thlls, n v a i l a h l ~evidence suggests that although a few
br;ihmaqas hool the nmth had infillrated into-the peasant
communjries, adopting the role of their priests and preceptors
and spreading the idea of vntqm among [hem even in pe-pallava
dm,=,s, exdusive brihrnaga villages known as flgrahEla~ came
i n t o existence largely through the patronage of klngs and their
jeudatories in the Pallava and post-Pallava periods. The ~ a ~ a r n
literature contains some evidencel"%f the patronage of briih-
manas by ruling chiefs; and their close ties are exemp!ified in
h e story of Vc! P k i and KapilPr.'m None the less, it is rightly
remarkedlV5that the Sarigam chiefs were semi-tribal chieftains
who derived lheir legitimacy not from briihmanas b u ~ from the
possession of tri'jal symbols such as the drum,tutelary tree, or
staff and from the panegyrics of bards. But the accumulntion of
surplus in rhe agrarian communities gradually led to the
emergence of social differentiation and provided the base for
the establishment of large territorial kingdoms. Varna ideology
was needed to provide social cohesion I~eyandtribal ties, and
inscriptions provide ample evidence of the collnboration of
br5hmanas with rulers. Brjhma~aswere invited and settled in
Karnataka;'" ~t is likely that such irnmigrancs were setrled in the
Tamil country too.'" BULthis does not mean that all or even a
majority of the brshmanas were from the north, for once the
idea of varna became locally acceptable there was not much
difficulty in the acceptance of the indigenous priesrly class as
brahmanas.
D.D. Kosambi and n.5. Sharma have scrcsscd the role of
brihmanas in the expansion of agricultural settlements and
acculturation of backward tribes. Br5hmana -\rillageswere often
created in new areas to extend cultivation, but occasionally they
were also superimposed over existing settlements. However, it
is clear h a t the main contradiction was not between bihrnanas
and t h r Ve!!?i!as who owned the I s n d , hut berwccn the
I ~ d ~ m a nand
a s the Ve!!ijas on the one hand and the depressed
cIass of un~aucbables-now known as bdi Dravjdas-and lower
caste non-bdhrnapas f r ~ m the backward hill tribes (Paday5chi,
Kanar, MuppanPr or Vanniyir), o n thc other. Whereas the Ldt
Dravidas supplies agricultural labour as adr'lnai (serfs?),the lower
ranking non-brjhma~aswere reduced to the position of tenants
leasing the land of brahlnana or high caste aon-briihmaaa land-
~ ' ~ was the nature of the agrarian settlements
o w n e r ~ . Such
supported by brihmanas through the ideology of caste, In active
alliance with the VeIlPjas and o;her high caste landowner-
 CASTE AND GENDER 69

cultivators. Most rulers, ciiieftains and officials belonged to the

Vejli]a and similar hlgh-phced communities in mdy south Indian
kist~ry.=*~
Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Ve!!lJas in genera]
were regarded as iiidra~,~'"'and a viable ksauiya v-a did not
emerge in the south. It is sometimes argued2"'that although
brihmanas migrated east and south from the north India under
the inccniive of land grants as teachers and 'enlightened
landowners' there was no bulk migration of the Vedic vi$or the
Aryan masses. Therefore, the non-Aryan populaUon of these
regions was ranked mainly as Sudras and these areas canie
have only two vapas-the br5hrnana and the Siidra. Migration
was not however the significant factor in the spread of the varr;ra
system,which was flexible enough to accommodate tribal segments
at various levels, not only as Mdras but also as vaiSyas, k ~ t r i y a s
and brzhrnanas. The problem is to explain the general absence of
both the ksatriya and [he vili6ya v w a s in eastern and southern
India.
It is rightly mah[ainedz"that the nun-emergence of the ksatriya/
hjput varna in the souch Gnd, we may add, in other regions of
the periphery) was due to the fact chat in these areas there was
'no conquering elite which mighr seek to presetve its identity
through putative kgatriya status' and by establishing kinship
relations forged by widespread marriage networks rather than
vertically in the absence of traditional local roots. Moreover,
whereas the category of b r s h r n ~ aremained exclusive even in
the larger and mare complex sociery of early medieval times
because of its nlanopoly of the ritual and priestly function-and
as such could not he nlisdsen even when individual members
of this vama rook up other respectabIe occupation+secular
power could change hands and cut across caste lines. This
milimred against the clear identificarion of a ksauiya caste in
areas where there were no ancient ksatriya clans to provide the
base. In the nor&, h e four-tiered v a p a system had developed
through the fission and fusion of later Vedic tribes in which the
brihmaqa, the k~aujyaand the defeated Sadra were clearly
identifiable and the vsgya was a residual category of artisans,
herdsmen, peasants and other independent produers. Yet by
the Gupta period Sfidras had became pasants and artisans even
in the n~rth,~'"thecradle of the varqa system, and the term vaiiya
denoted primarily a trader. Therefore, the extension OF the varna
syslem to ppredoninantly non-brahmanical areas in the south
and east meant the categorization of peasant communities such
as the VejlP!as, Kammas"" and K51itasz'" (of Assam and Orissa)
as ibdra despite feeble claims to ksatriya stalus owing to h e
strong position ofthese cornnlunitics in the tlgrarian structure of
these regions. These areas had two clearly identifiable v a r n z
on the basis of their profession, the brihmaqa and the Sudra;
the category of waiiya emerged only occasionally in Limes of
uadeJfiandthat of k+at.riyacould not take deep root even though
it affected some sections of the ruling class. To explain the
anomalous ranking of the landowning peasantry as Sddra, We
will have to examine the history of the concept of [he vaiSya arid
Sbdra varnas.

R.S. Sharma has shown that in later Vedic rimes 5iidras constituted
a small servile dass of defeated and dispossessed Aryans and
non-Aryans employed in domestic labour. In post-~edicand
Mauryan times they were employed in agricultural labour on a
large scale and their disabilities and servility increased. During
this perid some indigeno~stribal g r o u p were absmbed jnro
[he category of 50dms, but many other were accommodated in
the second and third wrata of society os warriors and peasants,
that is, as ksatriyas and vaiiyas. The situation changed ir, the
succeeding epoch when wit11 the weakening of state control and
a flourishingtrade and commerce the wages and living condition
of SCdra labourers and artisans improved considerably. Crisis
gripped the old order, as shown by the lamentalfons about the
Kali age in the trxts of his period, and it became increas~ngly
difficult to collect taxes from primary producers, the vaidyas and
the 4Cidras. So the religious services ar-d probably administrative
services too began to he remunerated through land arants. Land
grants to brahrnams in backward and aboriginal areas led to
the spread of iron-plough agricul~urcand the conversion of
 CASlE AND GEKDER 71

aboriginal rribes into Sudra castes engaged in agriculture.

Therefore bnhmanical tern of tile Gupta and post-Gupta times
assign he varna duty of agriculture to Audras, and brahmanisrn
assimilated h e religious practices of d~esenew entrants and made
then1 respectable. This development, coupled with improved
material condition of Sfidns, resulted in a more liberal altitude
towards them in religious matters and conferttient of new
religious rights on ~hthern,"'~ Beginning In rhe early cenwries d
the Christian era this process continued through the early
m e d i e a d period and reached irs culmination in rhe late medieval
period."'H
?his neat hypothesis-no doubl convtncrrrg in its broad
essentiak-nevertheless leaves 3 few questions unanswered. It
is srgued h a t the settlement of hriihmanas in the aboriginzl areas
Ied to the transformation of tribal pzople into agticulmrists who
were given the rank ofSubs, but ic is not explained why they
could no1 be included in the third varqa, for traditionally
agriculture and cattie-rearing were the specific duties ofthe vaiSya
~ e s rrlore striking as S h a m a accepcs that
val-a. This b c c o ~ ~ ever1
tribal agriculturists were accommodated as vaiSyas in the earlier
epoch. The change in atritude towards pexsant cornmunities in
Gupta and post-Gupta times requires explanation.
tr may be argued that the status of communities im7olvedin
manual work in agriculture and crafts declined in a feudaI
economy which developed a hierarchy OF intermediaries deriving
ihelr hcorrit: fru111land tilled by d ~ primary
e producers. Thc ruIing
d3.s dcveloped a contempt towards manual labour and exploited
lhose engaged in it, This was reflected in h e social degradation
of the peasant comrnunides of rhe vijsya Y a r n 3 and their
approxinlnlion to iadras in the S~nrtiliterature. Those tribes
which entered the bmhm:~nicfold a1 rhis stage and subsisted on
agricultural labour came to be regarded as Siidrds rather than as
iuw{v vxi$jas ;n o d a r to emphssi,re their & & p j r n to senre>he
higher varnas through performance of manuallabour. But this is
only a esplanation. Wc may poinl out that from the
beginning of the Cbrisrian era there is a clear tendenclr to regard
trade and commej-ce as t]lc distir~liwO C C U0f ~ the
~~ rt3i$'m,
~~OII
The tr3Jition of enull~emting agric~~ltureand caltle-reafindamon~
72 CASTE

their vama-duties is maintained in the early Sm~tisof this period

in cunformity to em-Eer idcais; but evcn this is abandoned in a
number of sources of the early medieval period, such as the
DetlibbfigavataZnJand h e Brhnddhmmu F~riina.~l'' DerreMZ"is
right in his assumption that the original varna-duty of agriculture
was no longer associared with the vaiiya, who n s now looked
upon chiefly as a wader. This shift was primarily responsible for
the categorization of peasant communities in h e Gupta and post-
Gupta periods as Siidras. At the root of the changc lay Contempt
for manual labour and depression of the peasanrrg. Hence
communities like the KinZa, which continued to depend on
agriculture, were degraded from vaisya to Siidra statu~;~'' and as
t h e distinctions between vaiSya agricuI~uristsand Sfidra
agriculturists began to blur, well-ro-do vaiSyas turned Lo trade
and commerce. We may suggest that one of the reasons of h e
popularity of Jainism nmong vaisyas was the fact that it
emphasized their dissociation from agriccrl~reto which they had
been devoted earlier. Moreover, the subdivisians of the n1Sya
varna mentioned in the early medieval sources of north India
have either a territorial or occupational basis and none of these
indicate a n aboriginal tribal This suggests
fragmentation of the vaidya vawa In the north fnllowing h e 10%
d stahls nf ~ ~ O Swho P were still dependent on agriculture and
cattle breeding. The influential sections d [he vaiiya comtnuniy
engaged in trade and coinmerce in western India consciously
emphasize2'" their subcaste affiliation ratIier than their varrp
ranking.Some prosperous sections af h e community even began
to claim ksatriyn origin215andhad access tr, political roles.2'"
This argument derives additional support from thc chronviogy
of brahmanical expansion as reflected in inscriptions. The regions
of Maharashtra and Gujarat appear to have been acaiI~ura~ed in
the period between 200 R C and AD 500, when rrade was an
important factor in the economy but the peasantry had begun to
be depressed, and agriculture had come to be associated with
the Siidras. These areas developed a Four-riercd wrqa system,
but the third stratum consisted of the mercantile classes mainly.
The spread of brnhmanic cuiture to the major portions of southern
and eastern India appears to have raken place a little later in
 CASTE ANI, GENDER 73

circumstances characterized by a genera1 decline in trade.

Therefore a vaidya varqa did not emerge in rhese areas and non-
&fan peasan f communities were assimilated as Siibras, although
trading communities often made use of be concept of as
is indicated by the Tamil classic Sika~adikiirarnwhich has the
~ U y Kovalan
a 2s its hero, and the Ptlt-d~a compscd in
I the h d h n country in n~edievalrimes,217
We may further assert h a t it is a mistake to rhink of southern
and eastern lndia as having two-tiered social structures repre-
senred by the briihmnna and the Sikh. In lerms of power and
prestige early inedieval India as a whole developed a social
syslcrn wirh three b r a d stmra-he bfihmaga, tke k-sstriya or
Rajput and the gudra in ttle north and the b ~ r n a n a ,the sat-
n d The vaiSya
5Gdn and the asat-5fidra in the s o ~ t h ~ ' ~ neast.
varna appears ro have shrunk considemhly in numeficai srrengrl~
and was confmed to specific areas. The difference in the =ma
ranking ofthe middle srraturn appears to have been more a matter
of historical herirage than of acrual significance in terms d socjd
status. For theoretically the contradiction was no longer between
[he 'twice-born' and the 'once-born', but between thase casres
which were created out wf approved unions (hence 'pure') and
those originalin& from undesirable unions ('impure'). 'Pure'
castes inciuded not only the four principal vamas but alI chose
non-brshmana castes of high status, wllich were described as
scar-96dras or ttttamasamkarwz A distinction between the
aniravaila and niravasifa&dm appears in the north as eady
as Ihe time of P5ninibz1%butas Patafijali's commentary indicates,
even in the secand century nc higher Siid.dras,who could eat Food
fmnr h e plate of an &yil wiw'rhorrt ddling it permanently, were
foreigners settled in India [Sakas or Yslvanasl or black-
smiths washermen or carpenters, froin whom the n i ? ' ~ V ~ t a
Sudras, such as ilrc Cjqdilas and the Mrtapas, were clearly
sepilrated, However, in the soul11 and tile easr the distinction
t>et.iveenh e snr and tllc usat $Qdmslay in the demarcation of
pe;lsant conmunities fro~nthe culrurally backward tn'bes and
arbsan groups dependent on the Iandownhfi peasantry for their
subsistenct, The p l f was wide enough fbr t$ pasLuIaci0n of-a
f ~ b-2rna,
h as is indjc3td by a comnlent ofSankaddyaz" and
74 CASTE

a passage of the Sumha PTt~!?n."l11 is significant that whereas I

the former source reflects the trend in south India,"'he latter
very likely represents Orissa, as this Pur5na is especially devoted
to Sun worship. A number of epigraphs s h o ~that hirrh in the
I
high ranking GGdra castes was not considered low at all-in
actual practice SEdrails ranked next to briihrnanns. The Siidra ~vlers I

appear as zealous patrons of the institution of caste and of

brjlimanas and express pride in l ~ v i n gbeen horn from the f c e of ~
Visn~.''~ Some even assumed bra t~rnanicalg o r n ~ ~ ~
The accretion of powerful peasant comlnunities lo rhe S d d n
vargn had important consequences. It rneant cleveloprnent of
regional variations and divergence in ac~unl?ractice from the
rvurrolcl gmclatiu~~ still iirairi~airlcdin ~hcory.Puther, it upgraded
h e SGdra status and it became necessary to clearly distinguish it
frorn the lowly depressed castes. Since the idea of a p r i m a v
pnilca:na varna had no Vedic or scriptural auhority, it was not
vely successf~rland rho brahmanical law-givers used the device
of n t ~ u l o n t aand prcitt'lonzcl to rank hicrarchicaliy the non-
hrZhmana castes and t o rzlionnlizc and e x p l ~ i nideologically
the wide gulf uf sranises among them. In a remarkably perceptive
article, 'from V a r p to Casce through Mixed Unions', S.J.
T;~~nbiah""uints oilt that the lawgivers were preoccupied with
permuting pruirlo17zn type unions generating 2 large number of
degraded castes, showing little concern with the results of the
permutation of the unions cf the approved ~nrilo??zn type. The
rntinnalp nf this r r a t ~ ~ rc e~ fthe ~ h e o r yof mixer1 rasrtb< was
grounded in a hierarchical society 'which had steep gradation of
statuses' with a vely large number of casles occupying lowly
positions ~nactliality. TO me this means grealer polarization of
thc numerlcally snixll upper arstes and t h c Inrge number oFlower
castes: consider, for exan:ple, t h e stalemen( in some early
~t~edreval tern ahout ngl-cr!mclnCI~ighvapa) and the hirzalmq7n
(low v s q a ) constituting two Ix-ond divisions OF society.22',
Most hiitorians dealing with the post-Vedic socicly have tried
to explain the significance of the nntilonla and 111epmtllonlca
castes; and although Ltie DhannaSastr:t accounb of thcir- origin
through mixed unions are still bken at lheil. face vjIue in somu
~ r i t i n g s , there
'~ is a general awareness that the 11ieol.yof ,nixed
 castes is a priestly inven~ion.~~"t was devised ro explain Lhe
existence of numerous endogamous groups of diverse o ~ g i n and
10 mnk them in a hierarchy according to [heir actual stams nrirhin
the hame of varna. Of course, due allowance has to be made m
priesfly bias and uneven development in different regiom while
dralirrg wirIi specific cases Nevertheless, it is signifir~ntthat
in the fmr!~mu~~~kczrn llleo~ythe impurity of castes docs no1 arise
from tlleir adoption of low professions, but h e reversc: those d
impure binh are condemned LO nccupatinns of low status. Ir is
dghlly argued2"Qthat in the four-vargn theory thc higher n n k
enjoys gre:iter ;~ccessibility10 non-polluting occupations, and
'power' and 'scatus' coincide. I may add that the lheoly of purity
and pollution xrising from birlh tllrough approveci or disapproved
unions further affirms the basic principles inl-lercnt in the v a e a
system by denying access to social prestige and power to so-
otlled impure castes through non-polluting occupations, The
d abondon of he varIJa s c l ~ e n ~withe an accent on birch ratl~er
than funcrion was made to provide ideological support to tI~e
three-ticred slratification of thc medievaI period.
Coi~~pamrive sfudies of the vartp system in regions like Bengal
a ~ l dh e south could be rewarding ns they offer a number of
parallels. \We may not agree with N.K. D u ~ t ~t' h' a ~the 'jeaIousy'
Ijecween the hdhmana and ~ h batriya c vart;l:is Icd the former to
suppress and abulisll the latter category o12c.e p w e r passed into
!he hands ofbluslim conquerors;for even in the: thirteenth century
in the B!.I~addburnroPtrr@aa Cwhich reflects conditions in
Uengal), the 1.~Vap1rrl.a cwte figures ns tr ltunrma ~ k r r r aChiilr
mixed c:~ste) of Sijdra slatus, entilled to priestly services frnn~
LII~ gro~riyabfihmmqa~."~ Nevertheless, the fact remains ~ h n l
despite the claims ol' I:lte14 Pila, Scna and Varmnn kings to
kwtri yrhaod, not on1y did :Lclezrl y defincd kytrjjla. mste fgil to
en~ergein Ben&, Imt even hose kings were described as ofthe
K h y a s h s caste by file informmt cited in the - 4 1 1 1 - i - A k / ~*"? iIt is
pointed that in the sixteenrfl-scvenreeilth Cen~~i-I'cs, (he
vaj,$/as 2nd KSymtilas of Bengal had no ohjeclian being
as sfidlas."' process uf improving the Status af the
$fjdrasreuched its culmination in such medieval te~ts'" obviously
fur drc widance of rhe 2Cdr;~sas ~iidrfl~rit.fl j'il~mnlli,
76 CASTE

written by ~ e s aECrsna,23"who states2+'that although ordinarily

h e Siidras are not allowed s u ~ k d r a san, exceplion is made to
this general rule Cprafiprasava) by allowing them the righl to
~ e r f o r mthe paficamahfiyajfins, Sraddha, garbhadhdna,
n~inrctkarnnfl,ni-lzranragcr, nrcnnpr~Sanczand k q n ~ j e d h aTt
is f~rrtheradded that the k a y a l ~ e d h araker the plnce OF t h ~
yajsopnuila in the case of iiidras.23n It is inlesesring that the term
pupic~am~buyajfiu, which earlier denoted the five &il y sacrifices
performed by a briihrnana,29 were later suitably modified and
recommended for a Siidr;l.2"['
The contmdictory nature ofour evidence on h e SGdm varna
in different regions and for the extensive period OF medieval
bdran hiswry shows [hat the term was used to denole widdy
disparate and unequal groups such as the outcastes, the
ardhmin'n sharecroppers,anisans, peasants, myashas, Vaidyas,
Regdys, VellP!as, ctc. Some OF the Ianer groups bad even given
rise to important ruling dynasties. It has been pointed out that
feudal hierarchy cut across varna lines All this shows that
secular factors had placed the varna theory under severe strain
and the four-varna hierarchy was rransfarmed into a hierarchy
of numerous endogamous groups of diverse origins. The basic
principle, the intertwining of the pure and the dominant, how-
ever, remained unchanged.
In a thought-provoking study Debiprasad Chat topadhyaya""
has argued that those physicians whose 'soence-consciousness'
went ag?inst the requirements of social hferarchy were con-
demned as Sfidras b y the briihrnaga lawgivers, and it was laid
down that rhe twice-born shoulcl not rake up the physician's
profession, that is for the Arnba~thas.Since knowiedge and
expertise in ancient rimes generally passed from father to son,
the degradation of the physician may have led to h e formation
cf the Vaidya caste in Bengal deriving from divergent sources
and ranked as a dean-Sddra caste. Bralunanicsll prejudice i s salcl
to be at the root of ranking the K5yastha caste too as S u d ~ . ~ ~ "
But i t needs to be pointed out that no amount of brShmaqa
prejudice would have made their regulations acceptable ro the
people at large without a major chznge having ukcn place in
the meaning and significance of the '<9draTwhich could
 C A Y E AND GENDER 77

ac~umrnadatcK;ir;rstha~,~~ Vaidyrrs, Ve!!3!as and Rrddys at one

end of the speccrunr, and C i g @ l a ~at the orher. The norion that
a ifidra was born for the service of rhe dvfjmmuId mean only
clle p a m a g e uoE br3hmap;rs in the case of the well-to-do high-
caste Gfidras, the term di~ijubecoming synanyruous n-ith
I-lrihrnana;but rhc brahmanical theury of the pure and ike impure
provided a strang ideological instrument for ensuring that
depressed p u p s renrained so4

I v
Tho history of 'impure' castes or u n t a u c h n b l e ~did
~ ' ~not r e c c i 5 ~
much 3pention in rhe nationalist phase of Indian historiography
which was more in~eresredin rhe glorificaci~nd dte past and
preferred to stay dear of the unmvoury aspects. It is remarked2'5
that the lack of interesr in the foriunes of lower communities
ivfis due ro the vision of rhe bistosians being lilnired by tl-tejr
nnln dominant-dass outloalr. None he less, h e idea and prgcrice
of untouchal>ility in I-Iindu sodery was srriking enough to
given rise ta a number ofrheorjes regarding it?origin. The D.R.
~mbedkartheory that the roots of untouchability lay jn [he
deliberate pdjcy nf b e b f i h r n a n ~FJJlo
~ were full of conrempt
2nd hatred rowardr; those who conrjnued ro eat bed, ,and isolslred
themselves from the brabrnanjcal tradition by embracing
Buddhism, has besn surcehslulIy rc1uwd Ly Vivekanand Jha an
h a rejectsi" the theory of N.K. Dutt who
cogent g r ~ u n d s . ~ " J also
ihoug111 thal the spirit of toncempl culminating in untouchability
Rras borrow~dby the hryans from the Dravichans who wt-re
culturally far superior ro the pre-Dravidian aborigine and who
rrcaled tllern as 'pariahs'. Dun had asserted that untouchability
not a part nf t h e original I n d o - M n instituti~ns,~~" it has
bcea p j n l e d outr4" d~atthere is nothing la show that D~nvidjnns
prxcljsed before their coming in contact with
A y a n culhrre, or that the southerners bad a more conservative
conrempruous attitude towards i i i b n s , which category.
subsumed the untouchable groups in the centuries preceding
the Chrisdan era. Neveriheless, the ternpration to treat the
of Impurity to social groups as a unique phenomenon
78 CASTE

rather thanas an extreme form of class exploitation often leads

scholsrs m tmre !his prartice ta thc prr-A~yanperind a n t i 3s
sornefl~ingendemic to 'the ~ n d i a nstyle of life'.
Some rin~eago Fiirer-Hairnendorf put forwnrci a n interesting
hypothesis in favour of the urban origin of u n t ~ ~ c h a b i l i l I-It.
y.
remacked'9' that the un~auchabIeshave no particularly close
connection with the soil; they are generally craftsme11 Iikc leather
workers a n d weavers, or menials wurking a s watchmen,
swcepcrs, L'LC., whose scrvices are essential to urban life but
may not be needed in the rural areas; and hc points out thal
even today there is no need for scavengers in the smaller Indian
villages. Further, where:ls in the villagus nearly everyone is
engaged ia ag~iculrureand here is less contempt for manual
labour, towns have greater economic and c~~ltural disp~rityand
poor people living in squalor and conipeIled 10 pursue 'unclean'
occupations are inevitably segregated and banished to the urban
periphery in a sociay which identifies personal cleanliness w i ~ h
purity. Furer-I-Iaimendorf concedes lhar once rhe idea of
untouchability developed in urban or semi-urban settlement5 it
could spread to villages as well, as 'it is everywhere the towns
which set the standard' IIe even venture2 to suggesr a link
'between untouchable craftsmen of Dravidian India and tllc
"indus~ial"proletariat of the ancient Indus lowns, wliose ultimate
l~reak-uprnighc even acwunl for the dispersal of untaucl~ables
throughout o ~ h e rparcs of ~ n d i a ' .But hc admits that 'such a
hypothesis would be little more tlun speculation' and nld~ough
evcryhing suggcsts thc urban origin of untouchability, it is not
yet pnssible LO pin it down to a specific period of Indian history.
As we have seen already, the putativc polluring nature of
crafisrnen in the Indus culture has not a shred of evidence in its
supprjrt; t h e work~ncnliving in separate qunrtcrs resembling
modern coolie lines were apparentty engaged in pounding grain,
3 non-polluting occupatlnn. As LO the suggcstcd urban origin of
untouchability, we may point nut that in spite ol' [he inadequacy
of our researches, it is well known that the ideas of ilntouch:tbility
and unapproachability of certarn social groups deriving frorn
the conccpt of ritual poilution were developed and carried to
the extreme in rural India in the Middle Ages. ~ e d i l - v a writers
l
 rnsking prescriptions in chis ~ e r almost
d int-~riabfyhave .e;r rural
setting jn mind. Would the practice have become so rigorous
and deep-seated if its raoa lay in an urban environment?
Nevertheless, we have no besitation in accepting Furer-
Haiinendorf's coral rejedim of the views of' those who regard
untoucl~ablesas remnants of a conquered aboriginal population
and his emphatic assertion that on the whole here is closer
racial approxirnation berwcen the local I-Iindu castes and the
untouchables than between the untouchabies and the surviving
aboriginals.
George L. Hart25'h:is suggested that we can trace the o r i ~ i naf
the concept of pollution inhering in certain social grorlps 10 Ihe
ancient Tamils, more specifically to the ancient Tanlil idea of the
sacred which, in his opinion, was conceived as a apriciaus and
potential1)' malevol:nt power. It represented death, desmction
2nd anarchy. From this COnCept developed [Re idca ulat those
wIlo controlIed the sacred and came in contacr with it were
rjlen~selyes dangerous and had the poafer to ~ 1re 1 ~
Lonsequently, they occupied n Iow status in the z c i e n t Ta~rlil
world. According to Hiart's jnterpreta~jon'~'of rerrain p e m s of
the Puranii?rti!~rcollection, the Pipan is, the hard1 the
TULiyan (one who played the tuji drum), h e Paritiynn lone who
played d ~ eki?lui drum) and the K;~tan~pan (very roba ably the
priest of h e god Murugan) were low casre people, and in his
opinion this was bemuse they were involved in con~ollingthe
;nalevolent supernatural torces by playing the Iute or VdTlm~s
lypes of dnmms during battle and odler solem occasions such
as bird1 and death, Hart asserts that earlier scholars such as
Nilakanta Sasrri and finila~apathy-'~' b:~ve either ignored or
wrongly undrsrsroodthese passages, and in anciennr T;lmil soder~
the puriqr/pol/uti~~ principle functioned mnje manna' as
it did in later bmhmanical society. He is c e r ~ i n the ancient
~ ~ ~ ~eslrjcrions
j t or~1 curlrluLiurn as well as corn-
mensality long hefoz conling under brahrnanic influence, and
cvm thaugfl mles regarding contact were not as rigid in later
times, as now, a persun of higb Late would not food
froin tile hands of someone of low casle'."'
In spiteof lilese bolci and original assertions, the evklence
p r o d u c e d hy Hal-t is naL only extrernely weak h u t 3150
contradictory. He acknowledges drat at least one-ten111 of [he
P u l a v a n ~ ,that is, the composers of ~ a r i ~ a npoetry,
i wcre
briihrnanas and he regards this estimate very much on the low
I n of h i s it is difficult to accept that the society
~ i d c . ' ~ ~view
reflectedin the sarigarn literature is co~n~letcly free of brahmanical
e . doubt brahmanical hold became stronger in Inter
~ ~ r e j u d i c No
cenluries bur the very k t that the briihmanas were highly
honoured and enjoyed the Ilighest soci:rl stkitus indicates that
he process of brahmanizatian (will1 its corolI;lry, [lie concept of
social hierarchy) lmd already begun to take root in zncierri Tamil
society. Further, connubial restrictions are not typical of casre
sociely alone, they prevail in tribal societies also. The contention
h a t among he ancient Tatmils these were based not on lhe tribal
notions of kinship but on caste 11ierarch)r is yet to h e proved.
With s e g d to cornmcnsality, on the hasis of a pocnl'i" which
describes the feeding of a corpse hy a Pulaiyan, Hart draws the
inference that the food louchcd by a Pukiyan must h ~ been w
c~nsidcst.dpolluted and unacceptable to rnen of higher rdsles.
But this is evidently an unwarranted rtssunlption deriving from
our knowledge ok what happened in Liter .rimes. On the other
h m d , Harr himself quotes pwms which speak of kings ealing
and drinking in the company of bards, supposedly of ]OW caste,
and remarks that [he commensal taboo was not univcrsally
observed.
I h r r i s on surer around when IW sIx~ks2" nf rile prevalence of
ceremonial bathing, t h e t;iboo o n mrnstruating w o m e n ,
pucrperiurn. etc., among the ancient Tiiniils. Iqt: has p r o d ~ ~ c e d
enough data to show that these taboos dcrived ~nainlyfrom the
helicf tl~acat cmain times women possesserl 'sacred power'
which could be dangerous tc) othcrs and therefore had to be
carefuIly controlled. M e furlhel- argues thru as according to 111e
Tamils contact with the 'sacred' was pollu~ing,they regarded
women 2 s renlpwarily polluted but caydin social groups 3 5
permanently pclllutcd owing to their constant dealings with d ~ e
'sacred' I t is nften arguecl diW~arlernpal.ar)l :ind permanent
i~npuritiesare identical in n:lturc and rrmtinuous :issoci:uion
with p ~ l l u t ~~hings
d resulu in pcrmancnl impurity, This point is
 CASTE m GENDER 82

emphasized by Louis Dumont, who remarks that ormnic activities

muse only remporay impurity in individutrl life, hence, a
member of the 'clean' caste gets polluted only temporarily. But
constant involvementwith impure tasks because of the hereditary
nature of professions and c r a b in ancient India led to 'massive1
or permanent impurity ofcertain ~xsks. Hart's,argument is based
on similar assumptions For him, the notion af pollurjon springs
from the dangerous nature of the sacred power. Hence, a woman
is defiled temporarily and a Paraiyan permanently; and their
power to harm ochers was sought to be controiled by keeping
them at a distance. However, I may point our that contact witb
the dangerous sacred would not necessarily lower the sub of
the people involved, if it were merely a question of religious
feelings. On the contrary, i t would have most likely conferred
superior power and status on them. Among African tribes the
female gene~atjvepower was linked wirh f m a l prestige and
power and the African priestessqueen enjoyed superior authority
which rested on her supernatural role as rainmaker ensuring
the fertility of plants and It is rightIy aasserted that
initiaIly women were profane and uninitiated with r q a d to
merl's rjmals and men were profane and uninitiated with regard
to women's rituals, bath sexes enjoying complete a u t m o n ~ y
within the imperatives of r e c ~ ~ r o c i tIt~ .was ~ ' ~only with
differentia1 access to economic resources and the cisc of private
properq t l n t h e subordination ofwoman begm and her sphere
of the sacred came to be looked upon not only as dangerous for
men t 3 ~ 1also 'polluting'. The subordination of the female sex is
already cornpIete even in the earliest Tamd paerry, and a similar
process s e e m to have begun in the w e of indigenous Dravidian
shamans and musicians, since music is an i m p o m t means of
canrrolling the sacred in primitive societies. Hart concedes that
vela^, priest of the god Murugan, is nwcr described as Iow or
b a z in Sariern paems but his descendanrs now Form a subcaste
nf h e lowly pmiyans in nrodern Kernla. The traditional bostllity
of the Par;liyans rn the bdhmanas reflected in their 'ceremonial
antipathy' towards the latter, as recorded by Th~rston,"~ and
[heir creation myths suggest that the custodians of he Aryan
mdj~jonplayed a crucial mle in the degradation of
peoptes. D.D. Kosambi has shown haw brahmanical ideology
was instrumental in introducing a cInss structure in tribal societies
and in validating the domination of the tribal chief and his
nobility aver the rest of the tribe. Ic is not without significance
that the Tamil king, the highea rgresentative of the sacred, 'the.
central embodiment OF sacred powers that had to be present
and under control for the proper Functioning o l society' in the
words of art,^^ had no stigma of pollution attached to him. But
the Paraiyan, in spite of his retaining the traditional rolem in
controlling the indigenous sacred powers on several occasions
and sacred spots, was degraded and condemned to certain menid
and unclean tasks on a perpetual basis, Besides, not all sections
of Paraiyans perform the priestly Functions or act as grave-diggers.
In the time of Rjjariija Cola their two main subdivisions are said
to have been weavers (Nesavu] and ploughmen (uI~vu].~''
Obviously the condemnation ofthese people as impure and theii
hereditary pursuit of the pr~fessionof scavecging were not h e
causes but the consequences of their
In fact the very idea of what is polluting evolved over a long
span of time in which material factors such its depression of a
cvmrnurrity rrlgagrd in a p r t i ~ u l a type
r af irranual tabour appears
to have played a majar role. This is well illustrated by the case
OF carmuk~rasor leather-workers. The PaEcmiWa Br&mqa
(XVI.13,13) speaks of milk in 'leather bags' used in sacrificial
r itc~nl.and the Ruudhayuna ircautasiitrckl'~refers to hundreds of
lei~tter ags filled with clarified butter (gbee),honey, rice, fried
grain, erc. Enough evidencefi7has been produced to show that
the profess~onof leather work was not considered low in later
Vedic times. Contemporary Hindu prejudice against IeatIler as a
polluting substance is obviously a later development.
Earlier, Hutton had expressed the vie~"~tlrar the taboo on
accepting food coolred by a person of another casft was the
'keystone' of the whole system, rhe taboo on marrying outside
the caste being an inevitabIe outcome of the farmer prejudice.
Tliis has been reileraied in some recenr historical analyses and
an attempt is rnade to explain untouchahlity as deriving from
deep-rooted 'psychological' i n h i b i t i ~ n s . ~ ~ ~ I n dthis
e e dview
acquires some appare~zrcredibility from the modern experience
 WIE AND GEPL13ER 83
which show; the wide prevalence of elaborate and divergent
rules regarding UIP acccpnbilizgf of k m ~ d and ~ ' ' pg,+kbpxfa&
among both so-called 'high' and 'low' castes. But a closer scrutiny
of tlre regulations governing the cooking and partaking of a meaI
in a traditional set-up reveals that these are a curious amalmm
of the brahmanicaI concept of hierarchy and certain primitive
ideas which regard eating and drinking as r n a g i c ~ r e l i g i ~ ~ ~
activities of mysterious significance. Thus to the latter nexus n ~ e
mag.assign the o&odox praclice di-egard hg rooked Lwccd food
as contaminated if touched by a person who had not had a bath
and put on fresh clothes even though heishe was perfecdy
eligible to do so otherwise. Obviously in this case the act of
caring is viewed as a sacrament, a rcliglws rite for which utmosi
purity has to be observed. AS has been pointed out, such ideas
are not confined to Hindu society and may be traced among
other pewples as wellnZBut ia regard such norions of puny as
primary factors in the evolution of a social system h which social
groups or castcs were isolared, ranked and interrelaced an h e
basis of mutual accepnbility aT food and water is to put the mrt
before the horse. Further, it ignores the cruciai fact that the entire
network of purity/pollution functioned with the bdhrna~aas its
point of reference. The crux of the problem is not that certain
natiolls of cumlr~ensality and connubium have tribal roots, but
t h t these sl~ouldhave been woven into the social bbric in such
a manner as to ihstitutionalize inter-group hequalhy by p v j d i n g
religiuus sancdon to the crassest form of cIass exploiration.
I have cited eIsewhered'g a number of Vedic passages which
indicate che absence ofprejudice a ~ i n s accepting
t cooked food
liom members of another tribe or caste. For example, according
to t l i ~ a s , performer OF the
prescription of some S r a u t ~ s i ~ ~ r the
~ G l q j i sacrifice
r must live wid, the Nisidas in their village lor
three nights and ear their food. The N1~5dasWere a non-Aryan
tribe living on heperipheries af Aryan sertlements in later Vedic
tfrnes, but were condemned 3s unrouchaMes in larer law-books.n"
R. S. Sharlna bas drawn attentioniy5to the Scltiyatljn Brfihjnagcf
passage which insc~uctsrhe k ~ ~ j 3yr da to e3t fiolnh e same
vessel. Thr Aptlsfamk ~ba,mu.sGlralays dawn t h a ~ when sudras
work as cooks in a bishn~anahousehoId. LhX"work should be
84 CASIT

supemised by a member of any of the three upper v a q m a n d

the 9iidra cooks should shave their hair and heard and pare
their mils every day and also bathe with all heir clothes on.";''
The AmarakoSa mentions synonyms for those of the Vaidya t ) q a
who cook and refers to the siipak2ro and hallar)a,mwho cooked
vegetables, according to the commentator Qinsvamin, and
foI1ows ir up with fnur nther synonyms, 6ndbcrsi6a, scda,
s~tdtlnibaand guns?" Of hese, dndhasikn and audanika were
evidendy those who cooked or boiled rice, which the current
orthodox pracrice would describe as kacct?food acceptable only
If cooked by one belonging to one's own caste or by a brZhmana.
But the Amarfikoha evidence suggests that the cooks employed
in h e kitchen of well-to-do peaple belonged to the vaiiya caste.
Ister in the ~ a g h At ~~ ; ~ a ~ ~ ~ , a ~generally
z a ~ m , rascribed
t to the
period AD 700 to 900, it is prescribed that a brshrnana should
take only that food ;vhich is cooked by himself or one of the
following persons: his wife, daughter-in-law, son, pupil, teacher,
2nd che son of his te~her.~XThis text lays down thnt a brshrnaqa
may accept from anyone milk and sugarcane products and items
cooked in oil, milk and clarifiedbutter, but not lhose with which
water is mixed."' Here we have a clear textual prohibidon OF
what is now known as a b c c a meal. Such notions developing
among the bdhmana circles were gradu~llyadopted by other
castes and rigidity in such matters became a symbol of high status.
Nevertheless, a number of documents of the thirteenth cenrury
included in the Lefihupaddhati,&'a collection of modd docurnenw
for the use of scribes compiled in the stxteenth or seventeenth
century, show the employment of female slaves simultaneously
in all cypes of work, 'clean' and 'unclean', as a matter of course
without any inkling of Ule idea that a person obliged ED carry
out ' impure' jobs prafessiondly bemmes defilecl and unfit for
'pure' work like cooking food. Interestingiy a document dated
1230-1 speaks ofthe sale of a Rajput girl named SampDri to a
merchant on account of a terrible famine. It is agreed &at she
will perform 'the duties of cutting, grinding, sweeping, fetching
drinklng water, smearlng h e Roor with cawdung, throwing away
human excreta (and) a11 orher household duties, and (engage
in) outside work Guch as) cultivation, other field work, ecc.,
 CASTE AND GENDER 85

zealously perform all these tasks during three seasons, miny,

winter and summer, throughout the day and night, untiringly
and wjthaul giving any reply'."
It may be argued that since law-books are brahmanical
compositions, we tend to attribute a brahmanical origin to even
those concepts mphich in fact may have been borrowed from a
non-brahmanical source. Nevertheless, we may point out that
the b&anas as a priestly class had always been preoccupied
with ri~ualsand external religious observances. The priestly
outlook invested every human action with religious significance
and gradualiy woIved an ideology which made the preservation
of the purity of the brshmana varna from external contact its
primary concern. These ideds, developing w i t h the hierarchical
social fixmework of Lhe varna order, not only led to the concept
of the brshmana 2s the purest, but also that purity/impurity of a
paruc*lar social group had to be measured in rems of its ritual
distance from the brbhrnana varna. This undoubceay proves that
[he ideology originated and developed in brghrna~acircles. We
need not necessarily view it as a sudden invention or 'a &bolical
contrivmce'of malevolent brlhmanas, for the roots of this
ideolom lay in the growth and intensjfimtion of class rclarjons
with the emergence of a ruling class exercising contra1 aver land
and the labour of he cxpluhed classes. BrBhmaqas were, by
and large, both active rnenrbers as well as ideologues af h i s
ruling class and perfected a theory which expressed donzinslnt
material relatiomhips in ritual tern15 with (hemselvesas the point
of reference. It is indeed indicarive of the dominance of the
brillmana v a q a in he socio-economic context of early medieval
rimes ~ h a i&
r idedogy became the j h J w g y d all md emularion
of its customs (the process of Sanskriti-rarinnl hecame an
important vehicle far social mobility.
This is not to irr.ply thar there were no poor br~htnanasin
early medieval society or even earlier. In fact, poverty had obliged
some bfihmagas to trade on their rilual purity and earn their
ljve1ih4 by serving athers and cooking for them, as is indicated
by a tenth-century inscriptioll."'Yet the theory of puriry/pcUution
was not product of such brfhmana commoners. It was
developed by those who engaged in the smdY and
86 CASTE

teaching of bcriplures and lived in ~{gr~rbfircru J u n a k J by thc

ruling powers. And this explains the material foundations of
this ~deology.It grew out of the same social conditions which
gave rise to Tantricism in the early medieval period. Suz~clicfira,
the ideology of pure/impure, and Tzntriasm were two sides of
the same coin produced by interaction with aboriginal tribal
population and their assimilation, The former reflects the pre-
occupation d the orthodox with the preservation of puriry by
maintenance OF social distance, the latter invoIved breaking of
social taboos and incorporated social protest ro brahmanical
orthodoxy. Both were responses to the deepening of class
contradictions. The Function of the ideology of purity/pollution
was to legitimize the low status and cxploiration of a large section
of tke population, segregated and fragmented to the advanbee
of the ruling ~ l a s s e s . * ~
Had the ideology of purity and impurity been a simple outcorn?
of the primitive fear of pollution through indiscriminate
cornmensality, we would expect greater rigidity and exclusiveness
in tlre earlier stages of the caste system. But as we have secc,
both early Tamil as well as Sanskrit suurces indicate h a t rules
regarding interdining and intermarriage became more stricr will1
the passage of timema5Theideology of puri ty/pollution pre-
supposes the existence of impure groups, but i t ran hardly be
denied that the emergence of the so-called impure or untouchable
groups is a later phenomenon in the history of the caste system.
In an illuminating study2" "of the history of untouchables
in India up to AD 1200 Vivekanand Jha has distinguished four
major developmental stages. H e points out that the &ueda shows
no knowledge of people who must not be touched. Neither do
the later Vedic give any indication of untouchabilitS.',
although tbe tribal groups of the C i n G l a s and the Pulkasas are
mentioned with malice and revulsion, In the second phase,
extending up to AD 20C1,certain tribal groups like the Ciindllas
and the Pulkasas emerge clearly as untouchables. The thud phase,
being a continuatian of the second,throws up some more ethnic
groaps as untouchables, but the peak i s nmined in the fourth
phase from AD 600 Lo 1200, when a number of occupationai
groups such as the carmukfims and the rajakas are degraded
 C ~ S I EAND GENDER 87

to untouchable starus and several new ethnic groups are added

to the list.
Commenting on Jba's conclusions, B.N.s. Yadava emphasizesm
the material roow of tile institution ofuntouchabiliry. He agrees
with Jha in linking the increase in the number OF ~ntouchable
groups in earIy medievaI times to h e stagnant village econonly
which allowed little mobility to artisans and craftsmen.
Yet Yadava pofnts out that the resistance to the process of
Hinduizarion by aboriginal people and their consequent
degradation to the position of untouchabies presents only
one side of h e srory; we should also investigate the extent to
which closer i n r e g d u n meant greater economic dependence
and exploitation. I may add that this line of argument is fuUy
backed by contemporary field experience. Ffirer-Haimendorf
observes:
n whole it i s not the a b o r i g i n i sunding ouaide h e mqte sysrem
[ ~ l rhe
who suffer from he must severe social dlsahilities, hut the depressed
clilsses whrr for centuries have lived in clt~sestassociation with ctste-
Hindus. Many abariginds eat heef and fullow other habits objectionable
to Hindus without heing treated :~suntouchahIes, wherens members of
depressed classes cannr~tg i n admittance to Hindu swkp even though
they mdy 11lavc perst~nallyabandoned such custc>ms. , . the aboriginai
uultivator,be he Gond or Munch, looks down upon the unrauclmble in
the same manner as dues any ~ m i eHilldu.IBB
This is not to deny that many aboriginal groups have indeed
been assimilated as untouchables or Biidras depending upon
the degree of socio-econornic backwardness. Hutton'a rernarkw
that when primicive tribes come within the Hindu fold they form
outcastes or depressed casres may be correct to a large extent,
even though his attempt to explain this as a consequence of
their lack of preludice agalnst certain occupations and certain
kinds of food abhorred by the Hjndus is u m ~ c e p t a b f eWe .~~
]lave seen that caste hierarchy deveIops earlier but that prejudices
against certain types of food, drinks and occupations are oflater
grad. Besides, quite often a depressed peaple has no alter-
native but to follow occupatians of low social esteem. Once again
one findshere effect being mistaken as Cause.
11ere is no doubt that the impingemenE of brahmanlcal society
88 CASTE

on tribes often results in their being deprived of their earlier

means of production and ensuing dependence. This is particularly
true of the earlier period of Indian history when much of the
land which was earlier the habitat and means of sustenance of
the aboriginal tribes &as brought under cultivation chrough land
gmnrs to brshrnanas. The impact of hrahmanical culture helps
the process of social stratification and disintegration of egalitarian
tribal structures. It may allow iiodividual families or lineage
segments access to higher social status, dissociating them from
the main body of the tribe, which in turn may be subjected to
rigid socio-economic exploitation. Humn points out that 'socially
superior individuals' belonging to those very tribes which are
reduced ro the position of 'exterior castes' were frequently
incorporated as Rajputs or k~arriyas.This process has been very
well illustrated by a study of the Bhumij tribe whose: members
rose to Rajput Bhumij status at one end of the social scale and
fell to 'Nichu' Bhurnij ar the other.#' Equally revealing could be
studies of a number of other depressed communities, as for
example the Doms, who are at present regarded as the lowest
even among the untouchables. But they are known to have
founded kingdoms in the Himalayan foothills in the thirteenth
n d def-r ofan aboriginal Dom chiefis menrioned
c e n t ~ r y , ~ a the
in an inscription from Karnataka.a3 The need for using the
combined methods of anthropology, archaeology and Indology
cannor be overscressed with regard to the history of the
'untouchable' communities. Analyses based solcry on the
DharmaS3stra material wri~renby and meant for the upper castes
tend ~ogive a distorted and one-sided picture.

The beginnings of women's studies in 1ndologic;llliterature may

be traced to Ramrnohun Roy's first tract on sari in which he triecl
to prove that the burning of widows was not an ancient custom
prescribed by the DharmaS2stras but a later evil linked to widow's
right d jnherirance. Similar1y jn 1855 Tmarachandra Vidyasagara
wrote two brief rreatises, in support of remarriage of Hindu
widows, quoting passages from Kritysyana, Parljara and other
 C1.TIE Am GENDER 89

S I I ~ Iwriters.
~ The context of social rcForm and rhe nationalisr
quest for indiger~ousmodels f u ~the rrvitilizarion of Indian scciery
provided strong impetus for the study of CIrc condition of women
in ancient India. Useful manographs s u ~ has B.S. Upadhyaya's
1Vomevz i?z &t~ed$)~ and A.S, hltekar's me Position of IVome~a
in fiin&r Ciui1!izalionn5seem have been penned under such
scimul~~s. ?r B sugqesred2&rllar Urimtalhschnlsw such as Cluise
13aderf17and JJ, Meyer were: drawn towards the study of ancient
~ e ~ ~the
India11 suciety owir~gto their d i s i l l u s i o r ~ r ~with ~ gross
~naterialismof industrial society, which had eroded Family ties
in tl1c Wesr and admired the archetypal self-sacrificingwoman
con~pletelgsubordinating herself to the interests of tlTe family.
hrotwithstanding: tllc Orientalisl bias in such reconstructions,
much inforlnation was hrougI-lt to light through diligent research
rhnt was l a m supplen~entedby studies on the condition ofwo~nen
in a particular type of source or sub-period and with womcn's
juridical and ritualistic position or some o ~ h e rspccific'mle in
rnind.rJA
Most of these studies were however descriptive, rarely
nladiFying the picrure dnwn by A.S. AIrekar in his classic work;
and his views continue to exercise deep influence on lacer
i a n scholars too are accused of depending
s c h o l a r ~ , ~ ~ ) I n dEvlarxisl
o n the outdated Lhmries of uineteentll-century anthropologists
because of h e smong impacloEF. Engels' %"ne Ongt?zof t1IJeFnnrib
Privatepmperfy and the! Stare, Larer researches have pointed out
certain emors made by Morgan and Engels and a reassessment
OF :heir theories has been ~ndertaken.~'"' The result is rhal
url?crcash e b d c ida.5 of Engels regarding [he r e l a t j ~ n s h iof
~
property to class and sex stmd reinforced, many OF tiis views
regsrding [hestngcs nl>avagrry,group-marriage3"and matriarchy
are now abandoned. Even so [he influence of Morgan and Engcls
on studies of women, famdy or kinship in ancient India has
bccn rxtrenlely limited;little effort has Ixen made LOsee wherher
the structural position ofwomen and the institutions and customs
affecting [hem were expressions of the s0c:o-economic set-up in
which women were s i w t e d
Nevertllcle~$,it is genenIly recagnjzecl Lhat the situation has
progressivuly deterlorated From the ~irneof the &teda when
women enjoyed more rights and freedom. Alrekar thought that
primitive conlnlunities which had ' n o t ye1 emcrgcd from
barbarism' evolved fcw checks on the tyranny of men over
women, and in these communities wo~llenmere underfed and
; he felt a deep satisfaction over the fact that the
o v e ~ o r k e d so
position of women in h e Vedic age was 'much better than what
we ordinarily expect it to have been1.-""Sirnilnr sentiments were
expressed by other writers.""Nane he less, such remarks reflect
only popular misconceptions about so-cplled tlarbaric or primitive
peoples, not a scientific antluopological understanding. Even
lhose anthropologists who argue that women have been sub-
ordinate to men in early societies that subsisted on hunting and
ga~heringdo not draw such a dismal picture as imagined by
Altekar.
It is being increasingly demonstrated that the role of woman
as gatherer has been grossly underestimated omring to a lnale
bias in a n t h r o p o l ~ g y ; ~and
" ~ while some antl~ropologists
enlphatically maintain that early societies were sexualiy
egalitarian, having relations of reciprocity rather than
subordination, others point out that hunting societies did
subordinate women to men in ce~gainrespects, but men did not
exercise the amount of controI over women as they did in class
~ocieties.''~Society in the Rgvedic period had certainly gone
beyond the state of garhering and hunting; but for an assessrncnt
of ihe position of women as reflected in the earliest portions of
lhc Rg~~'etiu, an understanding of heir place in pradiiction is
necessary.
I F we regard ~Ilei)idufhaas the earliest folk assembly of thc
Indo-Aryans with dislributive as well :LS o ~ h e rf u t ~ c r i o n s , " ~ ' ~ t ~ e n
the rlilcslion ofwornen's participation in it ill Iuve to he related
LO their role in food production. Our data :Ire meagre, hut it is
important lo raise significant questions. According to Irawnti
Karve, in the carly passages d the Rgf'ed~ta common word For
father and mother, that is, parents, could he derived From either
the dual form of miit!*or ofpitr; borh h e lerlns conveyed the
same meaning, hut later, only he dual form of pit? was used
while referring to the two parents.3'" Tl~isst~ggestsdl@rransition
of vedic society from an egalitarian organization LO a paviarchal
 G1'F AND GENDER 31

structure. MOW research Is obviously needed to establish this

hypothesis an n firill basis.
Related to the question of women's status are Lhe problems of
kinship struclure and the narure of the faniiIy organization. A
number of Indolagirally-orim~cdsociologists such as Ghurye,m
Ka~andikar,3~~ k a r ~ eand~ ' ~ICapadia'll have done useful w r k
in this field, bur they have generally underplayed the role OF
socio-economic factors in the develaprnent of these institutions,
giving more emphasis to ideaclonal ancl cuItura1 influences.
h'evertheless, ~Ileyhave provided enough evidence to support
the view that kinship usages and the institution of the family
among the Vedic people Izave not remained static but have
undergone significant chiinges. It is often charged that the early
sociologis~,md Marxist historians worked within the frat~lew~rk
of the nineteenth-century evolu~ionism.Yct evolutionary theory
has been under at~qckmore on account of irs pditical implications
than for h e use of faulty data, and it is possible ro n~odifyrile
views of these scho1ars in the light of larer researches without
giving up rhc basic historical and evolutionary angle and without
resorting lo the metbod that explains away the vestiges of earlier
forms as inexplicable 'historical accidents'. Evduri~narytl~eory
[nay need correction in speciFic details but the broad fact of
evolution cannot be denied. Thus for insrmce, the philological
evidence citecl for postulating an earlier stage af promiscuity
among the vgvedic people may be reinterpreted in terms of not
z ~ c n i dor potential biological re[cztio~~hips, picselab orpast, but of
c~ngoingsoci:11 relarionshipswhich suggest collective functioning.
If we agree hat the h s h i p ~erminologyof the @uedn and the
.ct/hutz,nveclcl shows an evolution from a system which did not
distinguish between relatives of difyerent generations to a system
did:" the conclusion is inescapable that the earlier systcti~
reflectscarnmuna~functioning, whereas in the Inttcr we detect
emergcncc of the joint Fanlily wid1 three or fourgentrarions
living logehcr, an institution which bec.~mc the norm in liner
times, Later evolution ofrhe pardarcl~al join1 Faii~iIyanimg Vedic
people is further suppol~eclby h e evidence produced by K.M.
~ h ~ that ~ in~t ld~ eh ~ u itgis~[he
a coinlnon ancestors, collfctively
known as pi1p, nt]~o are offered worship, whereas i l l the
Athare~azredaoffering is made to an ancestor three generations
away in the name of h e pit,rs or manes."'
Furd~er,h e evidence of patrilineality and the desire for sons
in the early portions of the Rgl~etiadoes not necessarily prove
the existence of a patriarchal joint family at the time; the i~nporlant
point is to examine whether the dksire was to d d new members
of a group,or to have private heirs and dependent workers as
would he the case in a patriarchal family. In other words, rhe
crux the question is wherher women's reproductive labour,
like labour in were meant Far social or for private
ends. Hence the 'pa~riarchaI'assump~ion"~ that sons were treated
as items of properv will have to be c~refullyre-examined as it
has serious implica~iunsfor the position of women and he familial
structure and functioning of the early Rgvedic society. Relations
of subordination are not likely to develop be~weenFalher and
son or between the sexes in a sociery in which the producdoll
unit is co-extensive with the consumption unic, and references
of this kind are cited generally from the later books of the azteda
and the Atharl~a~eda. The application OF the term Jampari,
meaning the owner of the house, indiscriminately to both wife
and husband, suggests an egalitarian sociely in which relatinns
between the sexes were based on reciprocity a n d autonomy in
lheir respective spheres of activity. The dependence of women
is closeIy related with the growth of private property and rhe
emergence of class which development ensured ihe withdrawal
of women from 'public produclion Lo private household sen~ice'."5
Altekar's p.dinstahg sludy of the problem doesImd him to
the vicw4'"hat che participation of women in production
iagriculture, rnanuhc~ureOF cloth, bows, arrows, etc.] was at
the root of the Freedo~nand better status of women in the Vcdic
age; their posilion began to decline when =heap'forced' labour
of the cont~ucrcdpopulation or of the Sudras hemme
But contention'" that 'the introduc[ion non-hryan wife
into the Aryan household is the key to tlw genera] deterioration
of h e position of women' V ~ Sthe lawgivers, inslead of making
on!)' the n o n - w d n wife ineligible fur Vedic studies and
duties, nlade the wliole class of women ineligible hatthe
husband who might he favouring [he non-Aryan wife would nor
 CASIT AND GENDER 93

be offended at the discrimination against her) is entirely

I~~pothetical lacking in Itis usual dismrnmen~.Sirriiiarly, h e
lowering of the marriageable age of women and the
discontinuance of their tipanayane (initiation), which was
essential far acquiring Vedic haoatledgeand thus for higher stams,
were obviously consequences of [he deterjoratjon d n70rnen's
status; religio-juridical injunctions in this regard were merely
reinforcing and trying to perpetuate the structura1 inequalities
hat had already developed.
In fact, most studies including that of Altekar approgch h e
woinen's question almosl entirely from the point of view of the
upper castes. This could be partiy due to the nature ofthe sources
which, whether h~ahmanicdor Buddhist orJaina, have a distinct
upper caste bias, but it is also partly because it has been assumed
h a t the ideal was the norm and questions of gender qualily
were non-issues iin the Indian context. Our sources provide ample
evidence ofthe Fact that in framing the rules of hypegamy and
punishment for sexual ofknces brahrnanical theury wzs heavily
weighted in favour of upper caste men and ensured double
espkimtion of the female both on account of her gender as well
as sution in life: yet no serious study has heen underhken of
Lhese issues.
Flowever, Altekar convincingly eskiblishes that from 500 ac to
roughly AD 1801) the story of women in lndia i s that of a
progressive decline and reduction to the status of Stdra~.~'"The
only feature was the improvement in their propre*
rights, especially in the csse of widurrs, n~ispoint is noted by
ather wrirers3'" too and is genenllv explained either in terms of
social reform, as is done by Altekar, or as an iilfluence of
Dnlvidiancusloms. Bur ihc possibiliry ofa linkage wid1 rhe gr~.Nch
of hdivjdual ~.jghrsin land in an agr~riansociety has yeL to be
explored. Failure to do so makes writers regard changes in
familin! organization and the concept of inciividua1 property as
completely irrational. +lt1However, yaddaw has arguedq2'!bar r l ~ c
development of productive rorces in the early ccnturi~sof the
Cbistian era iniliatcd a social process leading LO the break-UP
of large fanlily mmfilurrilies into small nuclear hn~dies,and rllis
ncccssit;ltecla cIlange in the DharrnnSistra law allowing sons
 right to partition the anceswal land even ifthe rather
to have the
was unwilling. B.13. M a z u ~ n d a r j ~shows
? that ~nernbersof a
brihmana family were not often given land in contiguous areas;
this led to the splitti~lgof the joint household making 'dents in
the age-old concept of the join1 family'. In my opinion the division
of property among brothers, which practice rcp!accd the earlier
custorn of the eldest brother inheriting the enlire patrimony'"
and bearing the responsibility of maintaining the joint patriarchal
I~ousehold,weakencd the lies wiih the recugnition of the rights
of close female relatives, especially the widow A stlidy of the
changes :n the kinship patterns and family org~nizationd [he
upper classes as documented in the nharn~aGstrasand
contempwary epigraphs could yield interesting results if he
material background of the change is kept in view.
m~erca rnnsiderahle literahire nn the brahrnanic inaitution
~ , ' inform us that the 'mass of material on gotra
Kane
of g ~ t r a . ~
and prar.nl-a in the Siitras, Puranas and digests is so vasl and so
full of contradic~iansthat it is almost an impossible task to reduce
it to order and c ~ h e r e n c e ' . 'C'otm
~ is found in several place in
the &ueda but according to Kane, there is no positive indication
[hat the word was used to denote 'descenclanls of a colnmon
patriarchal itncestor', altl~ough' h e conception undcrIying the
idea uf gorra' was then well knuwn."Wowever, John Brough
thinks lhal clan-exogamy niny go hack to the Indo-European
period; it certainly existed in Rgvedic tilrles and goiras were
always This is contested by Iramrati I<arve4" and
in much greater detail by Ghurye, who re-emphasizes the rhesis
of S.V. Karandikar that brzhrnanas borrowed gotra exogamy from
the indigenous non-Aryan population and that Indo-Europeans
did not prdctise clan-exogamy; even the Roman Fells were not
exogamous units.'" Ghurye asserts that g ~ t r c l sas kin-units were:
formed around 800 ac in the age ofrhe D r s h m a ~ ;and ~ ~ wcrt
stereotyped in h e SGua perlod; got,zr cxog:uny was 'a develop-
ment elf the househoId znd hrniIy exogamy of the rJrirnitrve~ n d a -
Aryans in unison with the growth of ancestor worship and t h e
use of surnames or family nanles'.""According to Ilim, wllen the
Indo-Aryan sages 'searched for their origins and though[ of fixing
heir kin-unils' they chose to classify bdl1mana famUics into eight
 C4qE AND GENDER 95

groups named nFcer h e seven sears of Urs Malor CsaptapO and

t l ~ ebright star Cmapus or Agastya: Tlius idle scheme originated
in the c~smogmphicaland astronomiml view which the Arlr;rns
had acquired in their new home in the post-Atharvavedc times.
This makes brahrnanic gopa exogamy conlpletely artrFici31 and
~ " only 117 n ~ o d e r ntimes but e v m in its
' n ~ n - r a t l ~ n a f ' , not
jnceprion.
None the less, il is well known that archaic practices which
have long lost any real significance continue to survive by virtue
of their connection with some faith which stilI represents a living
ideal. This would be especiaIly no~iccablejn h e a s e of a pried y
caste, which is generally more tradition bound. According
to Kosnmbi, the gotra system was rooted in joint property
o ~ n e r s l t i ?"'
. ln early Vcdir- times the term meanr a 'cow-prn' us
'Ilerd of catde'. Ic was bansferred 10die group of people who
common owners of the herd. Later, when che unit of
common hoIding becalm the joint patri~rcI~al Family, the got?rr
came ro mean rhe famD y as wclI as the elm. In suppod, Kosan~bi
quotes the Smrti nlIe that in default of the immediate relatives of
a deceased person, his property should p s s on 10 rhe menlbers
ofhis g0t1.~1.111 madern times the galm no longer hncLians as a
group in reiation lo properry, but if still relains its collectjve
function h r ritual and ceremonial purposes.
TIle identification of gotrn with 'clan' is qucstianed'" on the
basis oftieid ohervations [hat he bmllmanic gvtm is nut 3 kin-
firotlpofany kind. Insome h d h m q a communities. as for inscanre
tllc ICashmiris, the g o r ~1s acquired at tire rime of irpa~lnjmrari
(initiation!, whereas some orher bdbmana castes even allow
rnnrrioge crffhin the goiru. Pro!~'aMy the key to the cmrradicrion.s
in the goIra sysiern lies in the fa:au~r l ~ ahere ~ can t ~ cseen a
remarkable example of the transformation of a structural
phenonlenon jnro a cultural one. &spire Ghrliye's ~ n c l u s i o n
lo the conlj-ary, I ]lave noriced earlier that his otvn evidence on
thr worship offile nlanes {as cited from Kapadia) shuws that h e
worship of communal ancestors preceded the worship of h e
anccstom of individual fjmilia '" Hence the S$+Illlent thal the
system developed in harmony with ancestor worship
indicates the direction of cl~xngeFrom clan to ps~ilinea[joint
fanlily and not rlicc versa. D.C. Sircar has shown that4$ even a s
late as the fifth century a woinan did not change hcr gatm upon
marriage, it became thc normal practice only later. The change
r e f l e c ~rkl- transition from pa~riI~neage
to the ptrilineal joint
f i l ~ l ~ i I~ y~ c I ~ J , ' as
" the latter rccruils rncmbcrs both through
descenl as well as marriage. This is significanr from the poinr of
view of the posirion of-women in sociely, for it implies their
abandonment of all rights in heir own patrilineage, which itself
is symho1ic OF the complete triumph of 111cpatriarchal system. In
course of time, gotrm bccame symbols of high cultural scatus,
empty of any smctural significance, and were zealously retained
by h e brahrnanas as a IIieans of es~al~listling ~ l a i m sLU ancient
and pure ancestry. Although a number of learned disquisitions
on this subject. have brought to light a wealth of dab, the process
of change in the institution of the gotra has not received the
attention it deserves.
It has been pointed O L I ~that apart from the neo-bdhmans,
many non-briihmana hmilles and groups adopted traditional
brahlrrdrlic guftus to gain prestige, and t!lc go#ru 11adb e ~ u ~ na e
useful tool of social The possession of a hrahrnmi~
gotro in h e age of the Buddha by an 'extended kin-group' such
as the Mallas is interpreted as brahmanic influence.'39IIowerrer,
rhe affiIiation of non-brihmana conlmunities lo gotrcrs narned
after eponymous sages may have been largely ~ m a m e n r s l .
According to anthropologists, clan exogamy was a widely
prcvalcnt feature of h e indian al~originaIpopuiation and it i s
quite likely that non-brihmana com~nuniticswere also divided
into a variety of exogamous iinlts,"" which arc simply recorded
as gnlrns or kukiku IsecuIar) gotrcE in o u r s ~ u r c r s .~~u] s ast
new castes fsrmcd, new kin groups and clans c ~ u l dalso grow;
the course of their development wauld be influenced b y
corresponding condirions and necessities. Despite the geneml
scarcity of documenttry cvidrnre, i t may he possible to work
out the srructural development of certain better documented
communities such as the Rajp~ts''~ and the K;ly;lsrhas and arrive
at interesting results.
A recent s o c i o l u ~ i c astudy"'
~ has questioned the g e n e ~ l l y
accepted Indological view that the p.~via~cly~l joint family was
 G1SE AKD GENDER 97

the common norm. It shows that the hgher and more Sanskritizcd
castes place much greater emphasis on joint family households
than clre lower and less Sanukrirized; and the joint kmiiy
household is rare among unt~ucl~ables. It Follows thar [he
patriarchal joint family existed only in a small section of the
population; Lhe majority lived in snlall households corresponding
lo the nuclear or elementary Famrly. !n rnp opinion the joint family
system i s closely linked wilh ownership of land or property in
which all members have rights of one kind or the other. It is
Likely that in the lower castes and untouchabIes, among whom a
msn's snns move ~nto s e p m r e tiho~rseqalrer marriagr, rhe p~ttern
of the simple household based on nudear families prevails chiefly
on account of their being dependent on individual labour. Here
the question of joint income does not arise. The lower incidence
of the joint family or 'complex household' among the
lbwer castes, rherefore, may not be sfmply linked to the lack of
Sanskritizing influence but also to the manner of subsistence. At
any raie, thc juirrl family systcrr~dc~cribedin [he DhmaS3sms
reed not be looked upon n~erelyas a patrilineal coparcenary or
property-owning group or as a group which was united only for
common family worship, at least in the period with which we
are concerned. Generally spalung, this group mmt have had
residential unity too, with its members living under one roof
'eating food cooked at one hearth'. The sep;lration OF the 'simple
household' f a m the 'complex household' is usually a transitional
srage in rhc break-up of a joint family. Thus historians and
Indologists do not seem to have been won8 in adhering to a
composite dehnilion of the joint family and regarding it as a
r.ulti-functionai unir. The error lies In inadequate emphasis on
the relationship ofh i s type offm~lilyswcture wilh the ownership
of property, and the possibility of its ahsence arnnng those W~IO
did have landed propcrry and did nac earn their livingthrough
p i n t enterprise.
The influence d sociology has stimulated the historical study
of ancient kinship usages in recent years. This has led to a re-
examinationof a nunrber of stereotypes as well as search for
new data. It is argued"4 that the earller ~enenrionof 5chol3rs
,$scovered traces ofcross-cousin marriage ill ;lrrcicnt north India
owing to their perspective of nineteenth-century evolutionism;
but their inrerprebtion of data was faulty. References to cross-
cousin marriages quoted in this context from the epics, Puranas
and other texts may be explained on the basis of the fact h a t
these texts were either composed or redacted in south India or
Sri Lanka where the Dravidian kinship system ~ r e v a i l e d .
However, in spite of these scholarly attempts it is not possible co
brush aside all the evidence of matrilineal descent and crosz-
cousin marriage-whch is generally associated with the former-
in same regions of the north. A passage of the M#babblimta
shows"> that property in the Mstdra country""assed on to sisters
and not to sons; and the MabiibhLirata, the B.mhwtsamhitB and
the Rfijataradgf?zispeak of rhe prevalence of pronliscuous
relations and st14rZijyw among the people of Madra, B*lf a and
GlndhSra. It is possible that the authors of these text.s, imbued
as they were with a patriarchal autlook, looked on the
rnatrilixleal custotns as relations of prumiscuity. It i s difficult to
interpret these references which relate specifically to northern
localities as a southern influence. It is suggested that some areas
of norchern India may have been under 'possible Dravidian
influence'M7in an earlier period,which could explain references
to crass-cousin marriages. Modern anthropologists are of the
view t h a ~matriliny is a stage nf 'specific' evnlution and not
of 'general' ev01ucion.j~It is generally accepted that the gentile
organization was characteristic of a certain stage in general socia1
evolution, but whether the gens were structured mavilineally or
patrilineally depended upon technology, division of labour,
organization of work groups, control of resources, types of
subsisrcnce activities, etch"' However, the use of metrany mics in
the case of the first thirty-six Vedic teachers mentioned in the
succession lists'5'' of the Brahmanas and Upanisads has been
recently interpreted as an indication of the prevalence of
polyandry among the highest and the most orthodox of the Vedic
A strong case is made for the existence of polyan dry
among Vedic Aryans and some other Indo-European cornmunil ies
and it is argued that the practice was rooled jn socio-econon~ic
needs, It fell into desuetude in a changed ma~crialmilieu a t d
was condemned by later rnoralisrs. But the Kl~asas,the
 CASlE AND GENDER 93

descendants of the m a n s in rile b a c h d r d Himalayan regions,

still practise it.
As E.H. Carr puts it, history 'is a continuous process of inter-
action berween the historian and his fac~'.5~Wjstorical problems
can hardly be solved by replacing one stereotype with another
without a simultaneous 'dialogue wit!a fads and more facrs'.
While there is no denying rhnr what can be attempted by a
student OF history is largely determined by the range of tlie source
material the picture derived from documents may be collated
and even supplemented with field-data, provided thar necessary
caution is exercised against the tendency lo foist on che past
comparatively recent developments. I would also argue that while
underscoring the interdisciplinary approach we must beware of
uncritical acceptance of sociological models which may have
same validity for contemporary soclety but may not be applied
to earIier periods with equal justification. For example, when
w e use ~c concept of Sanskritlzation far the early period of
Indian history we should be aware of the fact tkat the concept
gives excessive e~nphasisto ritual or cultural emulation and
minimizes the importance of poli~co-economicfaccors, although
in the ulrimate analysis it is the latter which provide the frame
within which Sanskritizatjon operates, at least in pre-British times.
R.D. Sanwal has shown353 in the case of Kumaon-and M.N.
Srinivas who defined and the term agrees with
him--thar the reguladon and assignment of status to goups or
even individuals by the state through the post of dbarm#dbfkafi
was the 'lynch-pin' ofthe caste hierarchy. Once the system broke
down as a result of the British conquest of Kurnaon, the ritual
basis of caste gained primacy over 'criteria of p!itfcal privdege'
and secular mobiiiq could not be legitimized through state
action but had to resort to purely ritual channels such as the
Sanskritization of lifestyle. It appears that Kumaon was not
atypical. The post of dbamcidhtkciff existed in a number of
regions,"4especia]ly in the peripheral areas where the caste
hierarchy was still fluid. Instances are not wanting to show that
politicd was expected to setde disputes regarding caste
status; the king could excomniunicue, upgrade or dowflgrade
an individual or group in the hierarchy. The custom was so well
98 CASTE

owing to their perspective of nineteenth-century evolutionism;

hut their interprehtion of data was faulty. References to cross-
cousin marriages quoted in this contexr from the epics, P u d ~ a s
and other texts may be explained o n the basis of the fact d~at
these texts were either composed or redacted in south India or
Sri Lanka where the Dravidian kinship system prev~iled.
However, in spite of these scholarly attempts it is not possible to
brush aside all the evidence of matrilineal descent and cross-
cousin marriage-which is generalIy associated wilh the former-
in some regions of the north. A passagc of thc Mnh&bbdrata
shows"5thar property in theMadra country9"passed on to sisters
and not to sons; and the Mahabhurata, the Bmhatsamhita and
the R2jjabararigi??i speak of the prevalence of promiscuous
relations and strfrSjya among the people of Madra, BPhlika and
Gindhira. It is possible that the authors of these texts, imbued
as they were with a patriarchal outlook, looked on the
matrilineal customs as relations of promiscuity. I[ is difficult to
interpret rhese references which relate specifically to noahern
localities as a southern influence, It i s suggested that some areas
of northern India may have been under 'possible Dravidian
influence'37 in an earlier period, which could explain references
to cross-cousin marriages. Modern anthropologists are of the
view that matrilmy is a stage of 'sprcific' evolution and not
of 'general' e v a l ~ t i o n . "It~ is generaliy accepted that the gentile
organization was characteristic of a certain stage in general social
evolution, but whether h e gem were structured matrilineally or
patrilineally depended upon technology, division of labour,
organization d work groups, control of resources, types of
subsistence activities, etc.MWowever, the use of metrony mics in
the case of the first thirty-six Vedic teachers mentioned in the
succession 11st5r50 of the Briihmanas and Upani+ads has been
recently interpreted as an indication of the prevalence of
polyandry among the highest and the most orthodox of the Vcdic
pop~lation.~5~ A strong case is made for the existence of polyandry
among Vedic m a n s and some other Indo-European cornmuniries
and it is argued thar rhe pracuce was ruuied iri bvciu-econo~ilic
needs. It fell into desuetude in a changed material milieu and
was condemned b y later moralists. But rhe Khasas, tt;re
 CASTE AND GENDER 99

descendants OF the Aryans in the backward Himalayan regions,

still practise it.
AS E.H. Carr puts it, history 'is a continuous process of inter-
action bemeen the historian and his facrs'.~+Historical problems
can hardly be solved by replacing one stereotype with another
without a simultaneous 'dialogue with facts and more facts'.
While there is no denying that what can be attempted by a
student of history is largely determined by the range of the source
material the picture derived horn documents may be collated
and even supplemented with field-data, provided that necessary
caution is exercised against the tendency to foist on the past
carnparativelyrecent developments. I would abo argue chat while
underscoring the interdisciplinary approach rvc must beware of
uncritical acceptance of socioiegical modeis which may have
some validity for contemporary sociely but may not be applied
to earlier periods with equal justificarion. For example, when
we use the concept of Sanskritization for the eariy period of
Indian history we should be aware of the Fact that h e concept
gives excessive emphasis to ritual or cultural emuIation and
minimizes the importance of politico-economicFactors, although
in the ultimate analysis it is rile latter which provide the frame
within which Sanskritization operates, at least in pre-British tirnes.
R.D. Sanwal has shown35' in the case of Kumaon-and M,K.
S h i v a s who defined and popularized the term agrees with
him--that aeregulation and assignment of sratus to groups or
even individuals by the smre through the post of dbunniidbthafi
m s the 'lynch-pin' of be caste hierarchy. Once the system broke
down as a result of the British conquest of Kumaon, the ritual
basis ofcaste pined primacy over 'criteria of political privilege'
and secular lnobiliv could not be legitimized through state
action bur had to resort to purely ritual channels such as the
hnskritization of 11festyle. It appears that Kumaon was not
atypical. ~h~ of dbamiiadhikdri edsted in a number of
t.egions,"4 especially in the peripheral areas where the caste
hierarchywas still fluid. Instances are not wanting to show that
polhicalauhoricy was expected ro serde disputes reguding caste
s ~ t u s ;dIe king could excommunicdte, upgrade or downgrade
an individualorgroup in the hierarchy. The custom was so well
established that ocrasionalIy even Muslim rulers had to perform
such tasks.j5'It is in tliis ser.sethat one should view the frequently
expressed concern of early medieval rulers with the maintenance
and regulation of the vama order. Social institutions of early
India may have been given a ritual language, but they originated
in and were susrained by secular and politico-economic factors.

NOTES
M.N. Srinivas and others, 'Caste:A T e n d ~ e p o rand
t Bibhogmphy',
Current Socio/ogy,WII, PP~ 3 (19591, pp. 135-83;R.S. Shams,
'fIisroriographyof the Ancient Indian SociaI Order',Light on Ear0
Jwdzan SocaeQ and Economy ( ~ u m b a l*6), ~, pp. 1-18; RomIla
Thapar, 'Interpretation.?of Ancient Indian History', H i ~ t o t yand
Theuty, VII, Pt 3 (19681, pp. 318-35; Barrie M.Morrison, 'Sources,
Methods and chncepts in Early Indian His~ory', Pacfic Affais,
XU,Pt 1 (September 19681, pp. 71-85.
S u v h Jaiswd, 'Studies h the Social Structure of the Early TamBs' in
R.S. Sharma and V. Jha,eds., Indian Society: HLrtoricaL Probing~
on Memoty oJ D.D.Kusurnhi) (I~e~raftetcrH i ~uricuI i Prubir~gs)
(&hi, 1974), pp. 124-55.
Fw an interesting critique of the Western perceptions oE rgste, see
Louis Dumont, Hotno Nierarchic~fi(Delhi, 1970), pp. 21-33.
Dumunt calls them 'ethnocentric', springing from the egalitiian
world-view of the Western civilization. However,as G.D. Berreman
remarks, Dumunt's own interpretation, bn.wd as i t is on highly
selective dam, is no less cthnoccntric and dceply influcnccd by
to Indlau Soctology,
the French intellectual tradition, Cu>atnb~~ttolzr
New Series, NO, V ( D ~ e m h e r19711, pp. 16-23. Also see Ron:ild
Lnden, Imagining India [Oxforcl, 19901, Chap. 2.
J.C. Nesfield, A Brief V i w of the Caste system of tbe North-.West
Provinces a d Otcdh (.4lla habad, 1855).
H.H, Risley, Mbes and Castes of Bmgal: Anthmpometn'c Data
(Cdcutm, 1981);idern, n e Ppople of Indin (london,1908)
Cclestin Bougle, on ibe Caste System, tr. D.F. Pocock
(London, 19711
tbid., pp. 30-2,
Ibid,, p. 38.
S.N. Ketkar, Hktory @Caste an India, 2 vols (London, 1911).
U ~ (Lahore, 1916).
D.IBhetson, P U ~ J Cmtes
 CASE AND GENDER 101

11 J.H. Hucton, Caste in fndia (Cambridge, 1946), Chap. XI.

12 Xbid.,p. 156.
13 Ibid., pp. 164f.
14 R.D. Sanwal, Socin~Strutficutiortin RznaiKumcrola(Delhi, IQ76),
p. 5.
15 D.F. Pocock, Preface to Celestlne Bougle's b a y s on #he Cmte
s_vstm, p. k
16 Louis Dumont, ap. cit., p. 35.
17 Louis Dumont and D.F. P O C O C ~'Far
, A Sociology of India',
Contriburions Co Inn'ia?~Sociology. No. 1 Paris and The Hague,
1957).
18 E.J. Hobsbawm, 'From Social History to the Hlsmry of Society',
Deadalrcs {Wifcr 1971; rpt., The Americm Academy of k t s and
Sciences, 19711, p. 9.
19 E.H. OK, What is History(Harmondsworth, 1971), p. 132.
20 Homo Hierurckicw, p. 66.
21 Contribuiiotts lo Indim Sociology, New Series, No. V (December
1971), p. 78.
22 HomoHiemrcbicrw,p. 218
23 Ibid., n. l l l b .
24 Ibid., p. 232;n. 112b.
25 Ibid., p. 228. In a note (112~)Durnont admits that the available
evidence suggests that 'what used ro be the caste system with a
religiousbasis is tending to become a C O ~ C of~ dosed
Q ~ grouping
tomspon&g to modem i d a s of social smtiflcati~n'.
26 What F. Engels says regarding monogamy is perhaps no less
applicable to endogamy. This form of marriage arose out of
properly relationships-women rbemsclves beins a form of
property-and the dominance of men. 'Thus, full freedom in
marriage can become genemlly operative only when the a b o l ~ o n
of the capinlist mode of pductian, and of the Property relations
crcared by it, has removed a)! those secondary efo*omIc con-
sidentionswhich still exert sopowerfill an influenceon h e choice
of a panner. ' F. Engek in the Origrn oflbepafliib'om u o r e f i ~ ~ - ' Y
and the State IMmcow, 19701,pp. 253-4-
27 lbid.,p.237,
28 Contrib~drbmto Indian Socialogy, New S~des, No. (December
19711, pp. 16F.
23 P.V.Kane, History ofDba~aSfislra,11, Pt 1 (Pone, 19411,
p. 22, fn. 511 also see Preface, pp. fi-13.
JQ PA.Sorokin, Social otzd C t ~ l # dMobility (New York, 19591,
p. 531.
102 CASTE

Nirrnal Kumar Bme, Culmre andsociety in In&{Cdcutm, 1967);

idem, Man in India, LI (December 1971), pp. 400f.
Cf. J.D.M. Derrett, Religion, h w and the State in India (London,
1968), p. 182.
EJ. Hobsbawm, op, cit, p. Z .
R.S. S h m a , op. ci:., pp, 5-6;Louis Dumonc, Homo Hierarchicus,
p. 28; Su-Jaiswal, op. cit., pp. 126-7;S.C.Malfk, h d h n Civil-
izarran: The Formative Period (SImla, 14681, p. 106.
R.P. Chanda, The Indo-Awn Races: A Study of the Indo-Aym
People and In~fftutions(Rajshahi, 1916,
N.K. Dutt, O r t g i ~and Growth of Caste in India, Vol. I (Cdcuna,
1931).
D.N. Mulajumdar, Races and Cultures lndh (Lucknow, 1944;
rpt., Mumbai, 1958).
G.S. Ghurye, Cafe and Ciass in I d i a (Mumbal, 1957). This is
the revised edition of Caste and ace in h d h , published 1932.
Also see hb 'Ethnic Theory of Caste', Man in India, IV 11924),
pp, 203-71.
For example,SanndhyaMukerjee reiterates the views of R.P.Chanda
without maklng any attempt at collaring them with irchaeologicd
and literary evidence produced since hi h e , Some Aspects of
Social Ll@ In Ancimt India (325 B.C.-A.W. 2001 (Mahabad,
1976).
Suvira JaIswal, op. cit., ppa 126-7;Bas.Guha, 'An Outline of the
Racial Ethnology cF India' In An Outline of the PreId Scr2nc8.5 d
Indh (Calcutta, 19313, p.129.
D.N, MajumdarllTheRacial Bask, of Indim Social Structure',
Eastern Anthropologist, 11, No. 3 (Lucknow, September 19481,
pp. 145-52.
P.C.ChaudhurI, i%eHistory dClvilkufion q t b e People OfAssarn
to the T w p h Centuy A.D. {~uwahati,19591, pp. 106f,337.
S u v h Jaiswal, op,clt.
'On the Translation of the Vaqa', Jouml of the Economic a??d
Socfal History of the Orient (hereafter JESHO], WI 119641,
pp. 196-201.
Max Weber, The Religion of India: ne Sociology of Hindudm
and Buddhism (New York, 19681,
M.N.Srlniuas, Cafe in Modem India and Othw Essays (Mumbai,
19701,pp. 63-9,
Op, cit., p, 197. It has the merlt of concurrence with a slmllar
general statement made by A.L.Basham In fie Wondw That Wm
Indh (Calcutta, 1971), p. 149.
 WZE AND GENDER 103

48 V.S. Agrawala, India As Known to Prig Ini (Lucknow, 1953),

PPb 15, 93s.
49 Aiay Mitra Shastri, India As Seen in the Brbafsavhitn of
Varriba~nibira(Varanasi, 19691,p. 132.
50 P.V.Kane, H b t o y of DburmaSk~m,11, Pt 1 (Pune,1941), p. 55.
51 Narendra Wagle, Society at the Time of ibe Buddha (Mviumbai,
19613, pp* 1ZZf.
52 D.C, S i m r , Society and Admlnislration fnAncient and Medieval
mdh, 1CCalcum, 19671, pp. 103-5
53 Sudhakar Chaaopadhyaya, Social Id& in Ancient Indb (7n ~ b e
BacJgmmd of tke Y c i j ~ ICalcutix,
~ ~ 1*S),~ ~ p, 25.
O
54 Dumont thinks it wrong to assume that in the varqas 'b.eredi~h
mare impmhnr than fundan, whkh b true of as& but nm of
vamas', and that it is the wrong concept of varqa which prevails
today, even among anthropologists (HomoHierarcbfcus,pp. 73-
4). However, we may point out that even in the later Vdic age
membershipof any of the four varqa.was theoreBcally dependent
on birth (Kane,Hfsdoly ofDbamd2isCT~,II,P t 1,p. 48) and In the
early Buddhst literature the hereditary basis of vama Is taken for
granted, even though the Buddha tried hard to refute It. Dumonr
criticizes those who regard accession m the dgnlty oi the batflyas
by dynasties of a different origin as an 'imgulaiy' and who say
that true kvatriyas have been long extinct; far In his view
& a & l y a h d depended on function and nor herediy, Yet he
s fxt that the rhe to tyatrlyia status of people of unknwvn
l g n o ~the
&gin was iwelf dependent on their achieving putatlve heredikuy
ltnka with the older ksaalyas though invenred genealogiesl and
chose who did not seek such validatlon continued as members of
the lower vaqias (for emmple, Haryvardhana oPKannauj and the
Reddy K i n g of Andhra). In practice as well as In theory, therefore,
heredity was no Ies Important thanfunctlon fn the varga concept,
as It evnlved in a society where heredity was an important factor In
the division of labur, The m n ~ d i c d o nin Dumont Is due to his
methodology of building different modela of caste and v q a in
accordance with a preconrehed r h e q
55 Pushpa NlyogI, Brahmanic S~errIsmenhin memt St4 bdiuisions
o f B q a l (Calcutta, 19671,p. 55.
56 Cf.SJ. Tambiah, 'From Vama to Caste through Mixed Unfons' in
Jack ~ o o d yed.,
, Character of Kimh@ (Cambridge, 19731,
ppa 3911. ,&,o see F,A. Marpllln, 'Power, PUrlty and PcUUUO~:
Aspects of the Caste System Reconsideted', Cantrlburfonr fo
Indun Socio13@, nn.;V O ~1,I, NO,2 Il9T'I1 pPb 245.70,
Adrian C.Meyer, 'The Indian Caste System' In David L. Sills, ed.,
Jnternatioml Encyclopaedia afthe Social Sciences, II (New York,
1958, rpt., 17721, p, 340.
Iraw~riKarve, Kinship Qrgonizarian In l n d h (London, 1965,
3rd edn., Mumhai,l96@,p. 7.
Kame, Hindu Society: An Inteprekztion (Pune, 2nd edn., 1968),
p4 55.
Proceedings of the Indian Histoty Congress (hereafter PIPIQ,
31st Session (Varanasi, 19691, pp. 27f.
Rornila Thapar, me Pasl and Prejudice (Delhi, 19751, p. 29.
PIHC(29691,p. 36. The sumestion seems to have been originally
made by A.L. Basham, n e Wonder n u t Was A d i a , p. 18.
S.C. Malik, Indian Civilization: me F o m t i v e Period, pp. 59,
100F.
The Pre-Industrial Crty: Past and P r ~ c n (New
t York, 13651,
pp. 1mf.
S.C.MaIik, op, cit.,pp. 10%
Ibid., p. 146.
A. Ghosh, me City in Ear& India (Simla, 19731, Chap. VI;
R.S.Sharrna, 'Iron and Urbanization in the Ganga Basln', IHR,
Vol. I, Na. 1(March 19741,pp. 98-103.
Infra. pp. 74-5;also notes 227 and 228 below.
W.H. Wiser, f i e HinduJajmani system (Lucknow, 1936;rpt.,19581.
Ibid., p4xIi,
R.S. Sharrna points out Clndian Feudalism ~ctouched', MIv o 1,
No. 2, September 1974, p. 326, fn. 2), that it Is only for the priest
j~ ayp.nana. The extenson
and rhe! barber h a t the peasanr~cfipnr
of this term ro include other service relarionships is not quite
justilied. Also see Claude Meillassoux, 'Are There Castes in
India?' Economy and Society, vol, 11 (1973). pp. 102f. In facr
the very notion of jujnmnt system regulating the relationship
between artisans and thejajmanaupper aste families in uaditiond
village society h~sI x e n quesrioned and it is shnwn that the
jqmanl theory i s applicable only to family priests. Artisans, the
traditional twelve bdlutm in a Mahanshtrifin village, were servant<
providing 'dcmiurg~callabour' rather than jajmani. H. Fukazawa,
'Rural Servants in the Eighteenth Century Maharashtrian
Village--Demiurgic or Jajtnani System', Hitotsubaski Journal cf
Economics, Vol. XII, No. 2 (19721, pp. 14-40; Irfan Rabib,
Essays rn JndfaflHistory, Towards a Marxist Perception
(DeIhi, 1995), pp. 170-1.
 CASE AND GENDER 105

N.Wngle, op. cit., p. 131. For the use of the term jatiutida in the
sense of 'the theory ofjalf in the Pali tern, p. 122.
Bxidget and Raymond Allchin, me
Birth of Indfan Civiiization
(Hnrmonclswonh, 1968>,pp. 324-5.
Homo Hierarchicty pp. 71, 148. Basham also thinks that castes
developed later than ~e vamas cop, cit., p. 150).
Inlwdzictior~to rbe S ~ d yof Indian History (hereafter ISIH)
(Mumbal, 19561, p. 93.
SuviraJaiswal, Presidentid Address, Ancient India Section, Indian
History Congress, 38th Session (Bhuhaneswnr, 1977).
Cllkllt't' nnd Cila'vilization oJAncient India in H&tot.ical
Outline (hereafter Cult~ire)(London,196j), p. 51.
'On the Origin of the Brahmin Gotras', JEBAXS, XWI ('19591,
p. 50.
ism p. 79.
Cufilrre3p, 51 {emphasisadded). In opposition to this well-known
Mnrxisrview which =plains the origin of mtagonistic classes from
among the members OF the same community 2s a result of the
developn~rntflf prcxluc~iveforces 2nd the emergence of surplus,
Romila Thapor wggests iln alternative hypothesis which seems ro
make conquesr nr force the primary factor in the development d
the vma/class system. Thus shemites thm 'theoriginti1 referenccq
m the rCiyunynsand ksatriyas r n ~ ynor have been to ~ u c hgroups
wi~hineach trihe, but to an entire tribe which ws referred to hy
eirhcr of these names', ancl 'the rcrm rkjany (and later batriy:~)
nnd Cudra are either bib31 names or words qudifying a caregory
of tribes (Romifa Thapar, 'Social Mobility in Ancient India
with Special Reference tn Elite Gmups', Historical Probirrys,
pp. 101-2; reprinted in Ronlila Thapar, Ancient Indim Social
Hisory: Some mtepPeturiom,Delhi, 1978, pp. 1289). Th'.is leaves
our only Ixihm~nauand vais"yas who are snid LO be 'people with
~ f i d ~ - &v ro c a t i o n ~ h especial prie~thotldin the one case, the
mmmoners of the uihe glven to :igriculturt:and tracle in the other'.
She clues not explain whether Lhese tribt3s whose 'comnlonefi'
wme known as vaiSyus had higher ranking sections roo, and if so,
how chese were known. In Iny opinion, he existence of some
nligarchicai 'clans' or 'tribes' chiming rijunJw t,r kyatriya status In
the age uf [he B u d d ~ aand Id~erdoes not prove h a t these terms
denoted speafic trihcs at the oiarset. The term r a j u ~ t poccurs
tjnly once in the Bwdu in t hepiirpasitXltlrhymn: but njjan, from
which the firmer is derived, is mentioned a number of Umes in the
 plural in the sense of tribal chiefs. The tern balm is used in the
sensc of valout and is also applied 10 the gods. In the Aitnqm
B f i h m a ~ arkjanp
, stanh for a member of the second v x * and
k!atriya for a king (P.V. Kane, op. cit., 11, Pt 1, pp. 30-2). Large
extended kin groups of rajalayas came to be formed in the later
Vedic age cutting acrcss t s i h I lines. We have widen cf: of a nurnbes
of tribes coalescing in later Vedic times and of the emergence of
territorial kingdoms with a varna strucmre. In thk later Vedic royal
consecration ceremony the jatayamifra, the ruler-ally from a
differenttribe, has a spec& role to play. According to Heesterman,
the janyamitra was ,s relative by marriage, and In the W i l e
Ya~irwedathe tern1 is replaced by mitrarajanya U. Heestermnn,
Tke Aacient Indian Royal Co~zsecration,The Hague, 1957,
pp. 114fl.A network of alliances was essential for the rising nobility
of the tribal kingdoms. Hence the janyamrtra had a prominent
place in the saptB~gatheory of later Vedic trmes. Later, pme~fuful
tribes which could establish their political dominarrcr over the
local population were also given the k g t r i p or rajanyastatus and
the process contrnued well into the early medieval period.
8? Journal ofArnericnn Oriental SocOly, W , pp. 235f, fn. 20.
82 bid.
83 See hi5 sound bur scathing criticism of S.A. Dange's nzdIcl.fiPm
Prirniiiue Communism to S l n ~ r y(Mumbai, 1949), published in
the Annals ojthe Bhana'arhr OrlentnI Raearch Imldtute CPune,
19471, pp. 271-7.
8h Lirlture, p. 23. Recently 3.N.S.Yadava has examined certain texrual
passages suggeskg the wu~~formation of slaves into dependent
workers approximahg more or less to the position of serfs, and
. he argues that the decline and diminution of slavery was one of
the trends leading to the transition from Antiquity to the Middle
Ages in India. Yadava has to admit nevertheless that 'the instilutinn
was never a major factor in the system of production In ancient
India' even as it was 'by no means negligible'. Refer to 'The
Accounts of the Kali Age and the Social Transition from ~ntiquiry
to h e Middle Ages', IT%, Val. V,Nos. 102 (1978-91, pp. sf.
85 Dwraj Chanana, Slauey in Ancient I71d1h(Delhi, 1960).
86 Saciras in A ~ c i g nIndia
t [hereafter Stidrus) (Delhi, 1st edn., 1958;
2nd edn., Delhi, 1980). Unless specified otherwise references are
to the Grsr e d l r i i ~ n ) , '194f.
~~
87 EIeanor 3.Leacock in her Inuoduction to P. En&, The On'k,i?tof
the Famfiy, M a t e Pmperry and !he Szcdfe ~London,1972. rpt.,
13771, pp. 53-4.
 LWE AND GENDER 107

88 Ism, pp.93; Culturc, p. 86,

89 ISIH, p. 104.
90 R.S. Sharma, 'Conflict, Distrihu~anand Pierentiation in Rgvedic
Sociev', PmG 38th Session IHhubanwar, 19~1, 17-91, w,
91 Icanr, up. it., U, PL 1, 181; Jugiraj Basu, rnda ~ r rt h e @ 01
Btrihrnanas CCalcurta, 19691,p. 11, Cambridge H&tory of India,
i, p. 85.
9 2 Jogimj Basu, op. cit,, pp. 29-31; SA. Dange, Ciiituml Sourcesfmm
the Veda (Mumhi, 1977l, p. 55.
43 'CIass Formation and Its Ma tcrial Hmis in the Upper Gangeric asi in
(10W50(7B.C)', H R ,VoI. 11, No. 1 (k11y 19751, pp. If.
9 4 Indrhn FeudalisPn c30& 72OUAD. fllniversicy of Calcum, 1865);
Social'Chunges in &T@ M e d i a l India (a'rca A.a. fl&I2Oo>,
The First Devraj Chanana Memorial Lecture (hereafter Social
Chccrtges (@)hi, 1%9).
95 'Pr&lems d k i a l Fomriirion in Ewtty Indlr ', P r ~ i d e tial
n Address,
P m 36th Session (Aligath, 19751, p. 3.
3 6 Wzgle, op. c i ~p., 35,pdssin~,
3 7 Thus R.N. Mehra (Pre-Buddbir1In&, Mumbaj, 1939) wruk tlut
lhe ordinary people did nmwany about f l ~ ccfite ofan individual,
imd economic c~qiderationswere almys in Lhe f o r d m i (p. 265)-
He stated that he was chiefly interested in the class structure of the
times (p. 245); but this does nQt emerge clearly in his wirings.
Also, his use bf the entire body of theJltak~ literature fur a period
prior to the sixth century ac wn be hardly justified.
98 Social and ff~iral Economy uf Nonberrl India 12 voIs, 1st edn.,
1942-6, Calcutta, 2nd edn., 1961-?>, n, 276.
99 Ibid., pp. 254-5.
100 3 . N . Durta, Xtudjes in Indian Sacra/ Polity (Calcutta, 1944);
Di#/,qctj~sOf Hindu Rittrraltsm (Cdcutta, 19521.
10 1 Socicg and Culruw in Nonbcrn India in rhe T W @ ~C~zruty
(herdter sCl@ (Mahabad, 1973) 'TmrnubilIty and Subjection of
Indian Pasanw in E3rly Mediem1 Complex', m, Vd,1, No. I
( ~ a ~1974),
& pp. 18-27; 'Problems of the Interaction Bemen
Socio-EconomicC l s s e s in the Early Efdieval C ~ m p k ' B , 'R,
VO~. rrI, NO.I uuly 1970, PP. 43-58,
102 'Some Aspem of & Chan&ing Order in India during rhe Aka-
AS' in G.RS ) t ? m , ed.,Kwh??# smdies(Allahabad,
pp. 75-97,
103 D.C.Slrmr, ra~dIor&m rind T m n q in Ancdenr and MedfewI
Indl0 ~'e6p.aIpdby Epigmpbi~REO& (Lucknow,1%9)-
$04 JJarhansMukhja, 'Was There ~ ~ ~ t d n l iin s mIndian History?',
 Presidential Address to Medieval India Secdon, Indian History
Congress Waltdr, 19791.
105 For example, the use of such universal cdregories as 'hunting and
gathering', 'food-producing' or 'horticultural sa~iery'andso on. It
is wrong to rnnknd as Mukhia dws that to idedfy a pre-capi~alist
formation in terms of a universal mtcgarj is ro iden* it as a world
system in the sense that capitalism is a world system dmwing the
whole world within its nexug. The use of universal categories to
analyse specifjc societies is made with a view to establishing the
universal character of the I a ~ ofs their development in contmst LO
the so-called 'historical' school which emphasizes the uniqueness
of each people's history, thus denying the existence of m y
objective laws of development. For h a t matter even the capi~list
mode o f production has irs specific peculiarities in different
countries. According to Bottomore the epuch of socio-economic
formarion outlined by Marx and Engels constitute the major types
and within each of rhese it is possible to disringuish a number of
subtypes. Thus European Rudnlism andJapan from the eleventh
LO the nineteenth century constitute two different subtypes of
feudalism. Within capitalism Bottomore nates 'early liberal
competitive capitalism and later oligopclistic capitalism
characterized by [he pre-eminence of Ixrge corporations' as
difft.renr subtypes CSocioIogy A rid' to Pmblems and
Literaium, London, 1969, p. 116).
Mukhia regards the application of the model of feudalism to the
early medieval society as Eurocentric, This is a double-edged
argument which cuts bothways. It may equally he said tllat to
regard European developsenrs as exceptional and unique is
Eumcentric.
For discussion on the debate, TJ.Byres and Harbans Mukhia,
eds., Feudalism and Non-&ropean Socieh'e~(special issue of
the Journal Df~earinntStudies, Vol. 12, Nos. 2-3, London, 1985);
D.N. ]ha, cd., Fettdal Sociral I;ormution in Early India elhi hi,
1987); B,D. Chattopadhyaya, The Mukirzg oJEcrriy Medieual ~rrdia
CDelhi, 15@4), Invocluction.
106 Susobhan Sarkar, General President's Address, PIHC(Muzaffarp~r.
1972), ?p. 7-10, D.M. Jha, 'Early Indian Peudaljsm: A nisrasio-
gtiiphi~11Critique', Presidenti:il Address, Ancient India Section,
PIHC IWalcair, 1979. In an important study Tarafdar b s shown
h a t the exjstence of trade :ind .n currency system do not at all
negate h e prevalence of an agrarian feu&! economy as reflectecl
 CME ANC GENDER 109

in the land grants, The kind of commercial ac~vitieswe find in

certain regions of the e z l y medieval period were incapable of
generating a process of urbanization and creating a 'stable
commercialized middle class'. The profits from trade were eirher
taken away by foreign merchants or Frittered away by feudal lords
giving no incenrive to artisans who were attached to feudal or
religious stablishments with little scope for mobility. See M.R.
Tarafdx, 'Trade and Society in Early Medieval Bengal', m,
vol. IV, NO. 2 (Jmuary19781, pp. 274-86.
I07 H.Mukhia, op. cit., pa31.
108 Karl Mam, Czpitu!, III (Moscow, 19771, p. 790.
109 'Problem ofthe I n ~ d r t i o Between
n Socio-EconomicClasses',
vol. rn,NO. 1 Ouly 19761,p. 48.
110 Mam regarded sharecropping as a Wdnsitory form hemeen the
original Form of rent and the capitalist renr (op. cit., p. 803).
Sharecropphgflourhhing in a natural economy may he cornpdred
to the payment OF rent in kind. The sharecropper is the direct
producer notwithsmding his juridial position. Ms entire lahour-
suvlus is received 177 the landlord in the form ofthe mtunl p d u c t ;
and his labour for himself arid his lnbour for the landlord are not
separared by time and space.
111 Dharma Kurnar, 'Caste ant1 Landlessness in South India',
Colnparariue studies in Sa&g and Hica~p,IV, 1961-2, pp. 337-
63.
112 parciSlrrmmfll Chowkhmha edn. (Vannasi, 1968), XI.22, p. 25.
113 s.v. Indian E;b$yaphical GIossary by D.C. Sircar (Delhi, 19GG).
114 Pnr&amnnyti, II, 2f, 8 n.
1 15 However, some pioneeringwark Ims been done in recent yeus
focus on class contradictions and peasant struggles. See David
Ludden, Peasant Histo y in Sutrlk I d l a Princeton, 1965); R.S,
S h m a , 'Peasant Ymresr in Early Medieml In&', Social Scimui,
Vol. 16, No. 9 (September 19881, pp. 1-16.
1 16 S.C. Bhartacharya, Some AspecL~of Tdiatf Socie[v: Pmm c. 2nd
Cmltiry B.C. to c. 4th Centltqj A.D. (Gllcutta, 19781, pp. 231f.
117 Rnmila Thapar, 'Saclal Mobility in Ancient India with Special
Reference ro E l i h Groups',in HkforicalFTobings,p. 203; reprinted
in Romila Thapar, Ancimt Indian Social Hfstory, p. 129. This
remark lgnnres the Fact that tht: attempt to imprnve ritual status
could hardly he made until a change in 'actual sktw' hadoccumd.
Later, it is added in the same pxwage that the non-DharmaSatm
sources indicate that 'in terms of acntal stzitus there witq mobility'.
110 CASTE

The article is full of contradictory staternen&.It is said, 'Members

of the brihmaga group because of their ritual status wt>rrld
automatically be a part of rhe elite irrespective of tbeir economic
slatus' Cibid., p. 127; emphasis added). But the same paragraph
continues: 'non-brahmanicdl lilerature does however refei to
impoverished bfihmanas in the early part OF our period. I t would
seem therefore that rltual status was not sufficient for membership
of the elice'. The confusion may be partly due to the Iack of a clear
definiuon of the category ot 'elite' which is sought to be analysed.
118 S.C. Bhattachqa, op. cit., p. viii; Dashamt? Sharma, Rajastban
Through theAges, Val. I (Bikaoer, 19661, pp. 528F; B r i j e n h Na[h
S b a , Social and C~ItrrraiHSOY of ~orrbernIndia c.1000-
1200 A D . (New Dclhi, 1973,p, 1.
119 DuharithSharma, op. cit.,pp. 444,535; U.N ~ h a r m aup. , cit., p. 9;
KaiIash Chand Jain, .WaIw ~3rowgb!be ~ges,Fmnt the Earliest
Times to U 0 5 A . D .(Dalu, 1373,p. 182; R.C. ~ajumdar,ed , 7Ae
S W U for ~ Empire,
~ 2nd edn. (Mumbai, 19661, p. 498* I3.N.S.
Yadava is aware of the fact thar a 'conuacting economy with ifi
emphasis on agrarian and Iocal character' was reflected in rhe
growing rigidiry of mste, Nevertheless, he repeats the views of
A.L. Srivasrava and holds thar the growing power of Muslims was a
'contributory factor' to the growth oE the rigidity of caste rules
CSCM, pp. 6-7,61).
120 For example, an inscription from Dharwad district of the time of
Saty-%rapCdukya and dated in h k a Era 929, s p e A of the C o b
king RZjarBja I as one 'who has ravaged the whole country
perpetnting murders of women, children and brZhmanas, seizing
women and overthrowing the order of caste' CjatinciSal, El, XVI,
No.11A. Rijarija himselfis known to h ~ v builtthe
e famous temple
of Tanjore and performed the rul2bhdm ceremony, making
abundant glfts to brihmanas.
121 For example, P.L.Bhargava, Indla In #be Vedac Age aucknow,
1971,; M M. Sin@, Lfe in North-Easlern Ivd& In pre-Mauryan
Times (Varanasi, 1967); B.M.Puri, India Under the Ku@pmr
(Calcutta, 1963); R.N. Saletore, Llfi In [be Gupta Age (Mumbai,
19.43); Brij Narayan Sharma, Sodad Lve fen Nortbem India:
A.D. 6 U U + I W O (Delhi, 1966); Brijendra Nath Sharma, Social and
Cultural History of Northern India, c.1090-1200A.D. (New
Delhi,1972). Also see the works of Sudhakar Chartopadhyaya,
Sandhya Mukej e e and Sibesh Bhattachaq2 mentioned above.
B.P. Mazurndar 'sSocio-Econo~w lc History of Northern India vmnl
 A.D-103040IJ%>fCalcu~, 1964)cmr;tins much materiaI,
Besides tht* we may mention rhe chapters on social ~ m d i u o ~ ~
in Tbe History and Culture of the I n m n People, v&. 1-V,
published by Bhancifl Vidya Blavan and edited by RC. Majumdar.
Also see K A. Nilakanta SasYi, ed., A Compmbmke H b t o ~ ~f
India, Vol, LI (Calcutta, 1757).
1 2 2 See Pramode La1 Paul, TkeliQrlylIistoy ofBeggal(~alcutu, 1940);
P.C. Chaudhury,op. dr.,DasharathSharrna,op. cit.;h i f a s h Cband
Jam, ap. da. Ako R.C. Majurndar, ed., i'b~H W y qtBeqg~I,Vd.I
(Dhaka, 19433; G. Yazdani, The Early Hlrlory of the Deccan,
Vols. I and U (London, 1960); R.R.Dlwakar, ed., Bibar Tkmugb
the A g a {Chennai, 19581; Anantald Thakur, ed., Comptebensi~p
flist~q* urnbar; VQJ- 1, Prs 1 and 2 & m a , 1974).
12 3 We have already refened to some interpretations of the Buddhist
rna~eriol.To quote some earlier writings, T.W. fiys Davids,
BuddbSl lndia @ondon, IYUjj; R. Ftck, Ibe iebctal UrgnntSalfon
In Nmfb-EBFI I n d b in 5 1 r M ak Time r d a t e d i n 1 English
~ by
S.K.Maim (Calcutm, 1920). For Jain sources, see J.C. Jh, LiJe in
Ancient Indh As &Bicted in tbe jain Canons (Mumbai, 19-47),
For studies of individual bmches of b r a ~ ~ cliterahre,
a i see
for m m p k Ramgopal, Inrda of V&ic K w t r m (Delhj, 19B3).
This list is not exhaustive.
124 A.D. Pusalker, Bb&m A Slu+ (Lahore, 1940); B.S. Upadhyaya,
rndid i~1Ki!l&a (Allahitbad, 1947); V.S. Agmala, India As
Known to Prjnini ILucknow, 1953); idem, Havcari#a. ~ k a
Sriwkrtfka Adbyayana (Patna, 1953); idem, Kudambati. E h
Surnskyrtku Adbyayana Waranasi, 1958); idem, ~arkca?t$eya
Putrina: Eka SdvskfhOa Adh-tza {Mahabdd, 1%1); idem,
Ind& & Darw'bPd by Afanu Waranasi. 1970); A.B.L. Avasthi,
Shldia i n Skarrdu Purlirm, Pt. 1 (Lucknow, 1965);K.K. Handiqui,
~aimtitokaaad h d k n Cdtrdr-e,jivadja Jalna ~ r a n b i kNo. , 2
(ShoIapur, 1849); 13.N. Puri, Itadi~i?l t h T~~ W Co?f PfftdfiJiili
(Mnmbai, 1757); Sarvmanda Pfithak, Vi.yu mr6pa kd Bh&ru!a
varanasi, 1967); Ajay Mitra Shastri, India As Seefa i n tho
BTbatsatpbitd of' Varabamrhira; idem, India As Smtz fA the
Kuwnh~#r@ of m ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ Inelhi,~ g u 1p 975f):a D.K Gupm,
sociefyand Ctcltrce zn the T i m o~f h ? l d i n (Delhi, 1972):J b k u
y a d y , ~amamiccahbiicE h Samk.* Adb-yrrya~awarmasis
1 ~ 1simdn , sm&s have been made ofa number OF urher CPxB,
1 2 5 ' D a a and D ~ ~AS~~ o : nHmdE~changc',Intfica,m1,Nos. 1 *nd
2 (19761,pp. 37-48.
126 B.P. Mnzumdar, Soc~o-EconomicF I i s l o ~of~ Nortbcrra India,
p. 77.
127 Manrrsmyti, KI.151-2,154, 1CA.
128 Ibid., VII.58, WU.9-10; Agnf Pnrruva, CCXX.l-6; Malsya Puenu,
CCXV.8-10. A.S. Altekar observes that the injunctians ofthe Smrtis
against br%hrnaaxsgoing into ernploymenc perhaps had 'non-
gavernrnenal ' service i f i view. See his R&!ra&rm a?& meir
Times (Pune, 2nd edn., 1967), pp. 325-6.
129 M.N. Srinivas, Introduction in R.D. Sanwal, Social Strcrlfication in
Rtlml Ker muon; B.N .Sams~ati,Bmhn~anicRiLraal Tr~dfbiom in
the Cnccible oj' Time (Sirnla, 19771, p p 39, 73-4.
130 V.V. Mirashi, ed., CII,TV,~ iNo, , 123, p. 623, line 17.
131 R.D.S;mwal, op. cit., pp. 112-13,
1 3 2 G. Pfeffer, 'Puri's Vedic Bnhmins: Continuity and Change in heir
TradilbnaI Instltutlvns' In Anncharlotl Eschmam~,Hen11arn1 Kulke
and Giya Charm Triparhl, eds., B e Cult of Jqan~cithaand the
Regional Tradition of O&a @elhi, 19781, pp. 421-37.
133 Ibid., pp. 425f.
134 ffermann Kulke, 'Royal Temple Policy and the Structure of
Medieval Hindu Kingdoms', ibid., pp. 125f;Pfeffer, np. cit.
135 For a similar role of brahmanas in the Tamil country in checking
the ptnver of h e taug'us, see K~chard5. Kennedy, 'The King in
EarIy South India As Chieftain and Emperor', IHIP, VoI. 111, No. I
Quly 19761, p. 11.
138 B.P. Mazurndar argues that in the early medieval period in Assam,
Orissa and Madhya Pradesh kings sometimes tried to protect the
Fronri~ d their kingdoms by sertlmng bbnhrna~asin disputed and
vulnerable areas. Hence land grants were made colIectively to
groups of bdhmanas. See 'Significance of Collective Land Grslnts',
PIHC (Bhng~llpur,19681, pp. 64-72
137 B.N. Saraswari,cjp. dt., CkLap.11.
138 Wr [he growth of territorial subdivisions among hrimanas and
otller high castes, see R.S Sharma, SocicaI Cbanga, pp. 13f.
139 For example, Brilhtnanotpatrimartnnda discussed by B.N.
Siu~swati,op. cit., pp. 21&lr); Dbarmkmnya Puraw discussed
by Veena Dm,SImct!dte and Cogrzition. Aqects of Hindu C u t e
and Ritual (Delhi, JPm, pp. I3f.
14 0 Max Weher, Relg fan of h d i ~ 7bc: Sociology of Hinduism arad
Buddhism, p. 62.Ire refers to the priests of the Paria uibes and of
the anisan cdsas such as the Kammi!ars.
1 4 1 Skonda Ptirdva, Sahyjdri Khanda, Ut~irSrdl~q 1,35. For legends
 explaining the low rank of the priest families ofh e Mishmi, ~ b ~ ~ ,
Dabla and Miri tribes with reference to a cuw o f P a u r k a , see
N.N. Vasu,So~~HisloryufKc~~nurr~pa, I, quokd in P.C. cboudhury,
Qp. tit., p. 3Q3.For PnmLmSma settling the h@hnlaF& nr;m rhe
prt.sm? Par@SurS~-ku~$i in&,wm, see K.L.B m 7 , Ear&N&doT
ofk3ntatm3pn CShillong, 19331, pp, 22-3.
1 4 2 .El3Vim, No. 24; No. 1: XXXI, No. 2.
1 4 3 E. Thurston, Castes and Tribes of Southern India, Vol. I
(Chennai, 1909), p. 183.
144 R.N. Nandi, 'The Boyas: Tmsformation of A Tribe into Caste',
Pa-IC (Bhagatpur. 1968). pp. 97f.
145 Ibid., pp. 101-2.
146 For the disintegration of the Abhfra tribe into jibhim brihmnnw,
&him barrips and &him s'irdras,see B.Suryavanshi, a e k b b i r ~
&ir HBdury a& CuI&m tV3cFodara, 19621, pp. 39f.
147 D,D. Kosarnbi, 'The Basis d h c i e a ~Indian YiTtor)~'(I), J A ~ ,
WDIV,No-1C1955), 44; V.Jh,' V q ~ w y k a r ian rhe DhamasUrms:
T h e o ~and Practice', JESHO, XIII, Pt 3 t197'31, p. 284,A Saka
devotee of Buddhsm, tipdsaka~ y i r u l uc ,zllls hlrnsclf a ' bmunhana '
( = b d h m a ~ a )in an inscription at Kudi. See K. S-dtyanarayana,
A Study 01the Hirrogr and Cultuve the Andbras, Vol. I (From
Stone Age to Feudalism) Klelhl, 1975), p. 165.
148 a, MIX,NO. 5.
149 R.N.&ndi, 'Qan Name and Socis1 Mobility in the D e c ~ n 'PP?c ,
33d Session IMuzaffaarpur, 19721,pp. 2 1 If
1 50 For an e x c d ~ exposition ~ ~ t uf the process, see R.D. Sanwal,
op. cir, sstnrvd has shown that the present Chauthani brihrnaga
subc&e, which was Farnred through tile Intennhre of imrnignnt
families of various brGhmann s u l ~ s t e ~, i s political
d power w
cnntrcl ~>asicecmomic mources and imposed inferior ritual-1eg:d
stntlis on people who did not have political power 'in order ttr,
securls social, economic and riwd prestige and privileges for
themseives' (p. 184). Thus, Chull~anisarehi811rdnkilll: hdhmaq&;
hut the ~arnbudlr~s, wlro d r e tridirionally regqrdcd its 'Iredic
behmapas and migrated to Kumaon lo an m prjf3t.s in the remples
ht.lieved ro have been founded by Safikmidrya, ;ire regarded as
having [he s ~ socbl e status the Khasis, who approximate to
the level of dean S u b s .
151 RN,Nan&, 'Some social bpecrs of the G+IT&~WS', PJFIC,38th
Session (Bbubaneswar, 1977), pP. 1 6 - 7 7 ,
15 2 suvkll Jaiwal, pHG 38th Srssion CBhutrane.ccvaf, 19771,pp. 33f.
I 53hiax Weber, up- cic., p. 58.
154 SJ, Tambiah, op, cir., p. 208.
155 Thus, among h e Bhurnij, the priests of their guardian goddess
Kotdvari belong to the Gulgu clan which has also given rise to the
Raj family of Bmbhum; Surajit Sinha, 'State Formation and Rajput
Myth In Tribal Cenual India' in Mun ha I~djC7,XII, No. 1 C1%2},
PP. 35-80.
156 B.D,Chattopadhyaya, 'Origin of the Rajputs: The Political,
Economic and Social Processes irl Early Medieval Rajasthan', IRR,
V0l. 111. No. 1 uuly 19761,p. 69.
1 57 D.RBhmdarkar has &o suggestedhe probablllty ofthe absorption
of the priestly class of some foreign tribes as kgatriyas, 'Foreign
Elements in the Hindu Population1(hereafter 'Fo:eign Elements'),
IA,Vol. x,rpt. ICalcutta, 13681,p. 26,
1 5 8 For example, the Kaiacijri kings meed their originfrom the creator-
god BrahmH to Mrtavjla Sahasfijuna, the founder of the Haihaya
dynasty. The Ei~trak@asclaimed descent from Yadu and SZtyaki,
J.N. Asopa, Origin of the Rajpuk (Delhi, 1970, pp. 172, 194.
MSrtaoda, a feudal chief of the Pallava k h g Nrpakthgavarman,
described as 'the great chief of Vesall famlly' in the ~ a h u plates,
r
claimed lo be a descendant ofthe Kurus of epic fame (Bahurplates,
verse 18, U; XVIII, No. 2). But nor much enrlrer an official of
Nandivar.man Pallava, BrahmaSr-~ja,w a s described as 'onewho
possessed the fill m d unshakable splerrdour of the barn-a and
kwtriya castes' (Kqakudl plates, Sg 111, 350-I),Thus both the
kgatrlya and the brahma-kpatrlya models prevailed almost
conternporan~ouslyin the same reghn. The %hsms, who ruled
over ~ o h k a nand south Maharashtra, descrlbed themselves
as kqatriyas (Karnataka Inscriptions, 11, 4 5 , lnscriptlon
No, 12 of 1940-11.
1 5 8 D.R. Bhandarkar, ]ASS, NS, V (1909), 186; also see 'Foreign
Elements', rpt., pp, 35f,
160 D.C. Slrcar, 7 % Guhilas
~ ofKi$indba(hereafter Gukilrrs)(Calcutta,
19651, pp, 3-11.
16 1 S. Sankaranarayanan, 7be VFrhvukuqdls and meir Times @elhi,
1977), pp. 24-6.
162 Veem Das, Stnccture and Cognition: Aspects of Hindu Cmte
and Rthra(, pb13.
1 63 It b curious that S. Sankaranarayananquotes the Sinti Parva account
speaking ofthe Andhras as born of brahma-k$atra Family lop, cit.,
 m GENDER
C~STZ 115

p. 30,fn, 111.1, but ignores rhe refmenses ro h d h ~p&&m

and obrahmanyasin those very Puranic chaptus which gjve he
genealogy of Pfiru, for example, hfnbsya Purripa, 50, 75-6;
Bk@auuta P l l M m , IX, 20,30.
144 In the Chemla inscription C m W, No.594) the hands kings
said to have sprung 'from rhe lineage of the great sage handa'.
Later khgs of this dynasty assumed the title 'Varman' indicative of
their k8atriya status. The Pallava kings dalmed descent Emm
Brahrni and the bfihrnwa herb ASvatLhimH and belonged to the
Bh-dvija gotra. Not only do most of the Pallava khgs have the
Qatriya tide Vatman', NmshpbavarrnanII and Nmdivarmm, are
dso desa-ibedas&trac4Gma~iand &mjwmaIbin them&&
plates ISII, 11, Pt 3, No+ 73; EI, XIX, 108. The Pallava king
Dantivarman claimed the brahma-baa status (Sn, I,I, No.48;88
of 1910 and 529 of 19051, EK. Pillay argues (inhis article, 'Were
the Pallavaas Brahrnins?',Joumal of Oriental Resen~b,University
ofMadras,SilverJubileeVolume, 1975,pp. 242-5) that the Pallavas
were originally kgatriyas and were later eIevated to bdhrnana
s t a m , But thls cleady pes agaim the wldence of insalptionr;
which suggest a transition from bdhmga t~ hatrlya sratus, and Is
also agalnsr the bmhmanlcal norms.The ody example of a k $ n e l y
becoming a b d h m v a is that of Vf§virnitra, bur he had to dve up
Ms Mngdom and adapt the prisuy functions. This cannot be said
of h e Pallavas,The successors of the Kadamba king MaflraSarman
assumed the title of 'VarmB' Indicative of their baaiya status, For
the claims of Kadambas cn bmhma-@am scams, see J,F. Fleet,
'Sanskritand Old Canarese InscrlpCtons',& N,208F.
165 Suvira Jaiswal, O@in and WIopment of VaMa&m IDelhl,
19671,pa 27.
166 RtnamMa, ed.,V~rnanachazyaJtaalakikar SMmbaf, 3903,IL 7,2.
167 D.C. sircar, Guhilas, pp. 7-8.
168 S u n j t Sinha, op. dt.,pp. 60-1.
169 The Cheros of Shahabnd, who claim ta be Rajputs an amunt of
descenr f m Cyavana pi and the daughter OF a Rajpu t khg of
~undelkhand,provide another such m m p l e from recent history,
K. Sure& SIngh, ' A Study in Stare-Formadon Among Tribal
~ommunltks',Histon'~~I R&ws, 332
170 J.F. Fhet, LA, X\r (18m, Pp. 223-4.
171 Surajlt Slnha, op. tit,, p. 42.
172 Yadava, Xfi5 p. 30,
173 Ibid. B.D. Chaltopadhyaya, op. cit., p. 69.
174 D,C. Sircar, Gubilas,p. 10.V,S. Parhak,An.cienii-Tisiorig92.iof~ndja
(Calatta, 19661,p. 146.
175 A.S. Atekar, 7be R+trakir?m and 7heir Times, pp. 117f;Yadava,
S r n l p. 12.
176 C.V. Vaidya, History of Medleual Hindu India, lU Bune, 19621,
p. 374
177 Yadava, SCM, pp. 35-6.
178 Surajit Sinha, op. ciL, pp. C9f.
179 Quuted by Yadava, SCNdp. 37.
180 Prances Taft Plunket, 'Roysl Marriages in Rajasthan', Contributions
to Indzan Sociology,New Series, No. 7 11973, p p 64-80.-
181 For information regarding some batriya merchane in the Andhra
counlryin the m i y centuries of the Christian efa,seeK. GopaIachari,
&rb Histoy o f l b e h d b r a Counhy{Chennsi, 19411, p. 91. B.D.
Chattopadhyaya cites two tenth-century inscrlptions From
Rajasthan and U.P. Referring to a ksalriya sG#mdharaandaksa~iya
vaqzik lop, cit., p, 773.
182 For bibliography, see ibid.; Dasharath Shnrma, op. cit.
183 J.N. Asopa, op. cit.
184 B.D.Chanopadhyaya, op,dt.;B.N.S. Yadava, SCM, pp. 32F.
185 Suvira Jaiswal presidential Address, Ancient India Section, PIHC
(19771, p. 44a
186 B.D. Chattopadhyaya,op. cit.; idem, l"keMdkmg oj&r&~edf#al
rndifi (Delfii, 19%), p. 71.
187 EI,XXXV,pp.159f:D.C. Sircar, G&i(as,pp.21.
188 For MGyidata, ibid., pp. 7-8.For Beckgja, infra, n. 204.
189 D.R.Bhandarkar(F0~eig~Elemm&,rpt.,p.65)pointsoutthatrhe
Jdin ninister aT Cirnundariip of the Ganga kir.g Racamalla was
from s brahrna-ksatra family. So were the G a n g chief Udiyaditya
and Srigirin~rhaOrleyar, the glvernorof Arariga under kvaraya II
nf Vilayanagara. All these were From the Karnataka region.
Inrerectingly, r h Sena
~ kings nF Bengal, who are described as
brahrr1.d-k+atriy;ts, also came from Ibmataka. To these examples
we may add that of maMsumantadh@ati S3n1ivarman, ruler OF
Banawsi 1203,said to be born in the brahm-batriya MJFra family
(a XI, No.I, 1,1.5). The inscriprion is datable in the tenth century.
W e have already referred to Mlyideva, a feudatory of the
Radambas. The Kasakudi plares ofNandivaman Pallava speak of
a Pallava nffwial, Rrakm~firidja,a< 'nne whrr pns.cessed the full and
utishakeable splendour d the brhimana and kgatriya mstes'
(HuIt~sch,Si( 11, Pt 3, pp. 340-1).
 190 Burton Stein, 'Brahman and Peasant inEarly south h,-Jlan
~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ,
The Adyar Library Blclletin, XXXI-XXXII [Chennai, 1367-81,
pp. 229-69.
191 Bumn Stein, Peasanf State and Sociefy it: Medp'maJso,~tb
rIndjR
(Delhi, 1980).
192 Ihid., p. 188.
193 N. Subrrl~rnanian,Sangram Polfry [Chennai, 1966), pp. 57, 59;V.
Kanakasabhai, Ttamrls Egbteen Hundred Yeam &o (Chennai,
19741, p. 106.
194 Ibid., p. 104.
195 Richard S. Kennedy, op. cit., p. 2.
196 Sister M. Liceria, A.C., 'Emergence of Brahmanas as Lmdcd
Intermediaries in Karmtaka: A.Da1000-130CP',m,Val. 1, No. 1
(March 19741,p. 29.
797 Richard S. Kennedy, op. cit., p. 3.
198 This type of village stnlcture continued to exist until recent times.
See Kathleen Gough, 'The Social Structure of A Tanjore Village' in
M.N. Srinivas, ed,,India is Vilkages(Murnbai, 2nd revd, edn., lSGO)j
pp. 90f.
199 M. Arokiaswami, 'The Origin d the Ve!!4ut, j o r r m l oJIndiatt
Nislory, XXXIlI Cl9551, pp. 25-9; (19561, pp. I9lf; V.
~anakasabhai,op, cit., pp. 113f.
200 SuvjraJziswal, 'Studies in the Social Structure of the Early Tmils',
His!orical h b i n g s , pp. 130, 140.
201 R,S, Sharma, Social Changes, p. 12.
2 02 Burton Stein, The Adyar Ltbraty Buk/in, XXXI-XXXII (Chennai,
1967-81, pp. 237-8: Idem, Peasant, State amiSoc~tyin Medieval
Smith India, p. 71.
203 R.S. Sharmz, $r2dm, pp. 3lf.
204 The Kamas, a Teiugu~jpeakingcaste, daim lo be katriyas, but
[hey are primarily agriculmr&Lsand appear 10 have heen so long
before being infected by the varp ideolugy. This is evident fro~n
their marriage ritual which requires the bridegroom to perform a
mimic ploughing ceremony (Thurston, op, tit., 1111 P. 103). An
inscription of $aka Era 1095 speaks of Becifija [Becarasa or
Becaiya), a 'high mnister' of~lcamalia1,of the bmily of h e
Mah;imlqdal&aras, as one who was horn in cadra-m* in
l ~ tothe Karnma
H C m h j a and was 'acreeping plant d g o ~ dfame'
(caste). See, EI, XIV, En. 19E3, 1: 31. App2=ndy Beci*ja claimed
descent fmm the lunar line of the kSacri~asb
205 P,C. Chaudhury, op.cit., P.340.
206 Suvira Jaiswal, PINC(19771,pP, 40-1-
207 Referring to Lhc view 0fR.S. Sharm~ that in spite ofM1nrl's diatrtrihes
against the Sudras,theIrshlus had :mproved in post-Mauvan times
;md rhar rhey had acquired new rjghrs in the Guptz period, Durnonr
remarks, 'If his phenomenon were corrol~omted,it would have to
he more strictly linked ta the co~npetitinnhetween Hind~ismand
he mure or less heretical SYCF,' LOwhom the S i r h s were indebted
fnr lheir 'promotion' (Homo Hiewrckicus, p. 284F, n. 32g ). Once
again Durnonc tries to explain modifications in the sratus sfs'ildns
in terms of sectarian rivalry, without going into the roccs of the
problem. Durnnnt does not explain why neo-brahmanism o r
Hinduism considered ir i m p o m c to compete with the heretical
sects to win influence among rhe 3udras whm Vedic brahmanisrn
had not hesitated to ignore them and condemnthem to life 'without
gods', unfit for sacrifice and salvation. ~ i v e k a n a n dJha has shown
that the Buddhist attitude tawatcs the lower castes was hardly
different from the brahmanical attitude ('Stages in the History of
Untouchables', H R ,Vnl. 11, No. 1,July 1975, pp, 21-21. The point
is Further developed in his ~inpubllshedthesis, 'Early Hktory of
Untouchables in Indla' Qatna University, 1972). The same can be
said abautJainism.
208 RS.Sharrna, ftldrm, 2nd edn., pp. 30jf.
209 DeviBhagavata, V. 20,46; IX,8.62.quoted in B N.S.Yadava, SCN,
p. 13.
2 3 0 Bj-bnddhamn PIrr6nn, p. 389, w, 7-8, quoted in B.N.S, Yadava,
op. cit.
2 1 1 J.D.M. Derrett, &!&ion, & .?
.I%
. ond b h finkc JJI J d h , p. 172.
z r z U.N.S. YaYaJi~va,11-n;: vol. 111, No. 1 Uulg 19761, p. 17.
2 13 B.N.S. Y a d ; % ~ i ~ , pm38.
SCM,
2 1 4 K.C. Jnin, It!aiau~a771m-rtgbthe {DeIhi , 13721,p 485
2 1 5 Dashasatha Sharma, Rujastkan Through the Ages, Vol. I Bikaner,
19661, p. 438. He i s llowever wrrmg in saying that rhe contention
that rhc vaiSyaa were levelled (o the posirion of Siidr;is in mrly
medieval times is baser1 on. the evidence of Abemni only. The
dubbing of vaiSyas and Cifidras i s h u n d in early Uuddl~istPiili
sources
2 16 Two vaiSya brothers, Tejabkila and Vastukala of the Prigvqa b d y
were ministers under Hhima I1 of Gujarat who ruled from 1178 tc1
1239. B.N.S Yadava, SCIVI, p. 25.
217 R. Narasirnha Rao, Corpomre LiJo i n i&fedieval Andhradejo
(Secunderabad, 19671, p, 34,
218 I n hasYeasant, Sdarea~~clSocte~yin.WeclreuwESourbInc~ia,Burton
 Stein : I ~ P Onotires the three strata (pp. 85, 103). hecording to him,
lht:middle s w a b included must of rhe pm'imtry, and ~ m kwihin i ~ ~
i ~ e'The d u d division into ngll[ and left
i t Was XU C ~ l n ~ i i tthat
h:md c x r a heramc an ijnp~rmnrsmcrurgl mdlhry.' Howerpefer,
he writes that '111e V~j!il:~s, Ldclys and Kammx, .wught to remain
nhove h e d ~ i ddivision, along with Brihrnans' (p. 85). This would
he in keeping wirh the high position ai these cornmuniries in Ihe
south Indian socia1 order. But Iater {p. 187) Stein categorically
speaks of rhr Vct!!i!as as 'the chmhanr pe;~%~nts ofrRe right &ision,
the xtjarigai'.A~urdingraJ.H. Hutton, roo, the J7e!1;i!asbelonged
ro the right hand dieidon lop cit.,p. 60). Inspite ofthis confuslan
Stein's work is an important contrilsution,
219 As!&db@yi, 11.4.10.
221) Snhknr&c3rya1scommentary on Btmbma Stiiilfra, 1.4.12.
22 1 Xdrnbrr Puraqa, 66.10.
2 2 2 A peculiar f ~ d t u r eof soudl Indian sockiy is dle dvisiun of non-
bdmtaga castes k x o 'Righr Hand' and 'Lrft H:md', nvo ve&all~.
cliv~dedsodalities.Although tradition attributes the creation of[his
division to the legendary king Karikila Coin, it does nor seem
to haye been a fanre of Tamil sodeiy In the <airearn perid but
is well-attested in inscriptions from the eleventh century onwards
@h hxiakanta
i. Sasrri, The C G ? University
~, of M a h s , Chennai,
1975, pp. 550-2). T h e divide was marked hhyicute hostility
resul~ingin bI~70dy~ o n f l i c particubrly
~. In the t~nleof East
[ndia Company ( k m : ~ k ~ l hMukund,
a 'Caste Conflicr in South
India in Early Colonial Pon: Ci:ies: 1650-1800', Sttrdies in Histoty,
Vol. M,No. 2 , July-December 1 9 5 , pp. 1-27). Hulton traced its
origin to conflict b e m e n the nvatrilincal (nmtutrdkkaibayatn)
md p a ~ I i n e 1(ltta&*aIbajnml
1 systems. He s u g g m d chat chose
nth0 changed over In rhe Aryan patrilineal system came to be
known ns 'Lrft Hand' :~ndthose who stayed with the original
martiiineal practices came to be known ns 'Right Hand'. The
division 1;a~virmally disappeared now b u ~ was very sharp and
:~n~~gonisric in earher tima. Some see in it the rebellion of [he
artisan classes who belonged rcl the Lefr Hand against the
dnmrnatinn of rht. Righr Hand Vejlila landlards (Brynn
Pbffenberger, C a f e In Tatnil Cldrutr, SYGILUS~, 1982,pP. 83-41,
But Karashima attributes i t lo the contending claims In an a w i a n
econrlmy ( H u b u , ~Kanshimn. 'The Uprising of the ~ # f d f i g ~ V
idfifigriGmups:Confiict in anAgMriSn Socliety ' in Q

fin,rgtiofi ( ~ e l f i1992,
, pp. 161&. tl~esjsis flawible, hut
 the quwtian of origin remains obscure and conjecrural owing to
the lack of concrete data. The formation of n sodality slurring over
suatiF~edrelations within iI:could be a ruling class elite manoeuvre
creating the 'other' and thus bifurcating common concerns and
interests of the labouring classes, already fragmented into castes.
This would be parricuhrly necessary in a society marked by sharp
cleavages. From this point of v i m the traditional v i m ascribing
the creation of the dual division to a Cola monarch is perbnent. At
the same time, the collective identity, as Mukund writes, could I
also provide 'access to decision-making power centres in caste
society as well as a channel for articuIation of the grievances' to
the deprived castes. Her dam shows that conflict between rwo
depressed castes such as Right Hand Paraiyar and the Left nand
Palli (Vagniyar) b r h agricultural castes dTamihadu and, similarly
between the M S a and the Miidiga of Andhra Pradesh, hwe been I
the most violent fearures of the Right-Left division. For more
bibliographieaI references see Mukund, op. clt.
223 See, for instance, the inscriptions of the Reddy kings (El,VIII,
No. 3.11.2-3). The panegyrist of Singaya Nayaka's Akkalapuqdi
grant even goes to ehe extent of saying that the Sildra vaqa is
purer rhan the other three as it was horn from the Feet of Visnu
along with the rivet Bhgirathi. For this and several other examples
of the Siidra rulers' parronage of the briihmanas and the
vam~sramadharma, see H.S. KotiyaI, 'SCidra Rulers and OfficiaIs
in Early Medieval Times', PIHC, 334th Session (~hanrtigarh,19731,
pp. 80-7.
2 2 4 MasuIipatam plates of AmmJraja 11, lines 39-51, EI, XXTV, No. 38.
225 lack Goody, ed., Character of Kimbip pp. 191-229.
2 26 SkuncCa PuMr~a,VII.166.124; A.B.L. Avasthi, Studics fa Skanda
Pzdr&ya, Pt 1, p. 291.
227 Accordin8 to Ajay Mitra Shastti, the terms Ugra, Neida, gvapica,
etc., refer to the offspring of intercaste unions and indicate the
prevalence of Inter-CB* m a d p e s (op cP, p. 202, fn.9). Also see
J D.M. Derret, Relfgloq Law and the State in I d & , p. 175;K.C.
For similar views on the origin ofthe GpdBla
Jain, op, cit., pp. 134-9.
caste, see S a n d h p Mukegee, op. cit., pp. 27-9; Brij N a n i n Sharma,
op. cit., pp. 61, 88.
228 P,V,Ehne, op, cit., 11, Pt 1, 51; K.A. NiIakanta Sasui, E3e Co@
(Chennai, 29751, p, 549; R.C.Majurndar and R.C. Hazra in The
H i s f o y ofsmgal, Vol. I, p. 566. For a detailed discussion of the
problem, we Vivehnand Jha, ' V a r n a s q k a n in h e Dhwaduuas:
Theory and Practice',JBIIO, B I I , No. 3, pp. 27388#
 CX7IE AND GENDER 121

7-23 Thus ir ~ not bias which makes Mnnu describe t h e M r r a and s

hledas as 'Iow castes' following the profession of hunting
< M n 7 7 ~ 1X,, 48-91. It appears char in eastern hdia u&al groups
of the h d h r a s m d the Medas continued to live in forem areas hy
hunting and food-gathering down ro h e time of Lhr p2hs. The
Plla landgrmts are addressed to them 3s well. But, as we have
already seen, in h d h Pr~deshrhe Visnukun@m of the h h n d k~
origin claimed a brahiim-kyrriya status.
230 F . k M:lrgIin, up. cir., p. 255.
231 N.K.Durt, up. cir., 11, pp. 89-90.
232 R.C. Majumdar, ed , Hbloty of Bengcll, VuI. I , pp. 569f.
233 N.K. Dutt, np. cit., 11, 8S.
234 Ibid.
235 Kine, Hhfory aj'Dbant~aj&tra,1, pp. 640-1.
236 Edited by Gupinath Kavimj, with inu~7ductIcmby N~rayanaSastri
Khiste, 2 vok CVaranasi, 1933 m d 1936). S'qa e s n a ntrore his
work in the time uf Pillji RIO, a king of da&i@tp. According to
Khiste, gesa ms~iialso wrnte Kntpauadhanr at the behest of
Tudarmal's son Giridhirl.
137 Ibid., I, pp. 68-9.
238 Ibid., pp. 79-80.
239 buli, cant, mifuadeva,agnil~otmand atihirnentioned in E(, XUE,
L'II, If, 4, quored in D.C. Sircar, I ~ ~ d i a&;biqraphical
n Glassary, S.V.
pn3cu-mahc?yajGa. In the Manusrnrti, 111, 69-71, these are
mentioned as brcrhma1nj3a,pitfyajiio dwayajn'n, bbritayujria
and n,ryjiia and explained as rhe teaching and study of the Vedas,
the sacrifice to b e manes, the sacrifice to thegod, the bsrliufEering
to the bhi7tu.s (creatures), and h e hospitable reception of guesb.
Later, as applied m Sudns, these came to Incan the worship of h e
bdhmqas, of the mimes, of [he g d s , offerings to creatures and
honouring tile guests.
2 4 0 Frlr si~nilaviews exprussed I2y U~nakikarilBhalp, the author of
the Niqzajasindbti, and Iiaghunsndana in the $tihwkfljlal~nitca,
see Kme, op. cir,,11, Pt 1, 19s. P.V. Kant' en11meratt.sa5 m+anyas
thirty hrnhmanical law-hooks crrrnpclsed herween the fourretinrh
and st.vcnteenth uenturie? dealing with rhe ~ l e of s ~wnductfor
the Giidns. He quotes VcSveSvnn Bhnrra who writes In his Smrtr
K ~ ~ ~ h, a~t the ~ Ienrlier
~ & law-givers have genemlly clealt wirh the
ofb e upper Lhree varpas snd have not paid m y attention
thp dhmla nf the Suclres, hence he wishes to 'clearly expound
&e a- the la.ur v m p ' (N&foryqf Db~m2a.<&tm,Vol. 1.
pp. 3~3-41,Bha!fa gives a deculed account of Lhe rights of 'simple'
 CASTE

diichs and S i i d r ~horn of 'mixed marriages'. The work w z mitten

in the latter half OF the Fourteenth century at the behest of klng
mdanap;il:i who ruled river a petty kingdom nwir Delhi,
Irfan Hahib has shown that the establishment of the Delhi
SuItanare was a srimulus to urbanization :!nd cerinin saci:il and
economic chminges owing to dw infusion OF new teclrnology and
increased denland for artisanal sen-ices. The artisan c;lstes in
particular faced socio-economic disparities and resultant social
tensions were art1cu1ateclby thc hhrrhisaints, such as Kakrr, Dadu
and Nanak IIrfan Wabib, 'Economic History of thc Delhi Sultanate:
An Essay in Interp~etation',IHR, Vol. R7,No. 2 (January 1978), pp.
287-303;idem, 'Medlelnl Popular Monotheism and i f i Hum:inism:
The Historical Setdng', Soc~alScienlLst, Vol. 21, Nos. 3-4 (March-
April 19931, pp. 78-88. The mateiial environment povided the
incentive to bnl~rnanicalintellectuals ancl drew their attention to
the religious needs of the Siirlra casres; it prompted them LOmake
adjustments within the traditional F~meworkand adopt more
flexible and liberal attitudes,
Scf nce and Socieg uz Ancient Itz& (Calcuttn, 19771, pp. 223-
16, 220-2.
R,S. Sharrna, Socfal Changes, pp. 9-10.
It is cunous that Rornila Thapar r e ~ r d sthe rise of the KiiyasLha
caste as ' a good example of the upward lnobility of an occupational
group' (Historical Pmbtngs, p. 112; reprinted m Rornila Thapar,
Ancwnt Indian Socid IJistoy4 p 138). The caste mainly drew
upon the literate rnemhcrs nf the upper three twice-horn casres
but the Puri.jnas gave it a di~drastatus. Flence, so far :IS the riiuai
ranking is concernetl, it is a mse of downward rnobil~ry.Accordiny:
to N.K. Dun, Klyasthifi were recruited mosrly from the tNiihrnnn:l
and the ksatriya vamiu (op. cit., 11, fillcutta, 2nd edn., 1969,
pp. 3-61.
The exact Sanskrit paralirl of the Cngl~shword 'untnucl~able'
(aspyj7m)is found In the Vs.ylcsrnr;i, V. 104, where he law-giver
goes LO the extent of prescribing death tn an untnuchal>le rf he
deIiIwratuly touches one who is not.
R.5. Sharma, $Griras, p. 4.
IHR, Vol. IT, NO. 1 Uuly 19751, pp 21-2,31.
Ihid., p.17
N.K.Dutt, op, cil.
R.S. Shxrna, Stia'rn.~,p. 131.
Christc~phvon Furer-~aimundorfin his rorcword to Stephen F d ' s
The C h i i d m of Hari (Vienna, 1943), pp, vi-viii.
 WXE AND GENDER 123

25 1 George L. Hart 111, The Paenrs of Alacirtr! Tamil [Berkeley, 19751.

252 Ihid., pp. 119f.
253 IC. Oililsapathy, Tcr~nilHemk Poetr~{London, 19&).
25.4 Hart, op. cit., p, 129.
-755 Ihid,, p. 149.
256 Pzlprhirz~ini,363, quoted, ibid., p. 1274.
257 lbid , pp, 93F, 126
258 Durnonr, Ho???oHier'czrcbic~ts,p. 47; Kane, op. cit., 11, pi 1,
pp. 168f.
2 5 9 Eleanor B, Le;~cock'sRevlew of Steven Golrlhcrg 's V~eIrreui/utubility
of Patrfrrt*chy,in Anlerican A~ithl~Jo~~giEI,
LX)M,NO. 2 (1974),
p. 365
260 Ibid.
26 1 Thurston inFornls us t h ~aP;uaiyan
t npillnever ailow a bdhrnana to
enter his habi~it.If a h d h a n a does venture in, water mixed with
cowdung is rlirown at hrs l i e d and he is clrir+enout. The IJanipms
cl;~irnthat [hey were the F i t to bc created and to wear tht. sacred
cl-iread and that they are crlusirrs of the b d h m a n a (np. cit., v,
84t1,
261 Hart, op, cit., p 13.
263 A Par~iyanhas to pel-form the ritual nf tying n tdiraund the neck
ofthe Black Mother-gddeu in Chennai. Tlie Paniyxns are n)lnn,ed
to pull the c ~ ofs the idols doring the great festivals held at
Kumbhakonam, Sri~illiputrurand Kmchipuram. ln T~njow,during
the great Festival c ~ Sivn
f at Trivaiur, rhc headnlxn of the Par:~i);xns
is 1nr)unted on the elep11;mt with rhe god and carries his cnrrri
(Thurston, op. nt., V1, 843.
264 hid.
1765 Abo see supra, pp. 7f. A typi~xlCLT~PIC OF mnhgng effect with
cjuse is pmvided by Sudhik.u Chattopadhyay~who believes rhzt
h e custclm of untoucl~nhilitywas introduced into the Aryan world
I,y tile aboriginal tribes. He writes t h t ;irnong h e aborigines '11
mtn follmving low prnlesion, s~rc11=dre me working in uemntion
gmund, elc., era worn;tn in her periods, or persons cilrrying deild
hotlies are regurderl :ISuntouchables, in thc last t ~ r-~ses'
c ~:It ie:~sr
temporari1y1[c~p.cir., pp. 1510. \.Vlwn the nccupnricln:tl groups
becanle hererlitary, tllase who pursued lhesc '[OW'professians
hec;imc untnl~ch:kbIes 'under rhc influence of the sbnrigrn;~l
cusrr,rns'. Bur Ire does not expI;lln why certain social groups
fuJlowedurese polluring oocllpation<on ;I l~ereditaryhilsis ewn
rn,lWn i t m:& then, 'impure' :md Lotvwerl their srxiai smnts. In an
u,lwiouse h r t m present the pmctice of untuuchabili~in 3nrient
India in less objectionablecolours; Chxttopadhyayarefersto a verse
in the Vrufs!ba Dbarmm-Eih-a, which describes othelsts, misers,
ungrateful persons and people who cherish their anger for Long as
s condvc!, ~ hCJqdSIa
C ; ? ~ @ l by r by birth heing the fifthtype. He
comes to h e conclusion that in ancient India untouchahil~tywas
usociated not only with birth and profession but aLso with the
'mental states of persons'. In his view the above-quoted verse
clearly illusmtes that of the five classes of untouchables ( C B ~ ~ i l a s )
blur were determined t ~ cy o n d u ~alune
l (ibid., pp. 160,161). Such
attempts at interpreting the brahrn:lnicaI denunciations of the non-
conFotmistsand socially unclesirab:e persons too literally and king
these as proof ofthe wisrence of ~ertaincatrgories of u n m u c k d b 1 ~ ~
farmed on he hasis af had conduc~alorte nre too naive to descwe
serious consideration. Chattopadhyaya's explanation wt>uuldhave
hardly merited mention if there were no inherent dmger of its
heing urikzed by the obscurantist e l e m e n ~to ideillize the ancient
epoch.
Bazdhay&a 3raurl1Sfiira (edited by W. Caland), XV 6.
S.K. Das, The Econornlc ?Iistory af*lfic?en~India, pp. 139f quoted
by R.S. Shama, jridrm, p. 53.
Hutton, op. cit., p. 62.
Vivekannnd h a , 'Scages in the History of Untouchables' IHRa
VoI. 11, No. 1 Uuly 19751, p. 24.
Food prepared with water wirhnut the use of clarified butter.
Food cooked with clarified but:er, as, for example, piiru or
sweetmeats.
Hutton, op. cir., pp. 163-4.
Suvira Jaiswal, Presidential Address, Sec-tion I, PIliC, 38th Session
(Bhubaneswar, l9m, pp. 30f.
ripastarnbaSrartrra-siitm,XYII, 26.18; Ltigdyutla halttrn1tm,VIII,
2.8; Vivekaniind Jha, 'Prom Tribe to Untouchable: The Cnse of
Nisidas', Visiorfcal Pmhirgs, p. 63.
LYR, Vol. 11, No. 1 (July 19751, p. 12.
Kane, op. cit., 11, Pt 1, 791.
Amarakoia, I[, 9 27,
Ibid., II, 7.28.c2ndhasnb means 'thc scum of boiled rice'. Hcncc
andhasib is one who cooks rice.
~ a ~ h u - ~ f v a l ~ ~ u n1.176
a s m[in
~ ~ Stnytindqa
i, Sanartccuyuh,
hand%rama-sanslqta Granthiva'iNo. 48, 1918). Guru4 sutab
is evidently a corruption for gurob surab. Kane apparendy used
some other edirion which rnentfoned 'elderly relative' in place of
'tuacher'sson' Cop, rfr, ! I , Pt IT, 791).
 CASTE AND GENDER

280 Op. cit., V. 173.

26 1 See Pushpa Prasxd, ' Femaleslavery inThirfeenth Century Gujarat:
Documents in the &drhapaddhnri: lii2,Vol. AT, Nos, 1-2 (19%-
33, pp. 27@5.
282 Ibid., p. 273.
283 H,W,XV, No. l , H , pp. 67-8.
284 Sornctimcs it is argued that the Siidra was bettcr o f f than the
bfihrnana as prescriptions for purificatory rites were Jess rigorous
for him th:m for the b r i h a t p , and what others regarded his
disabilities, the SGdm might have regarded as 'boons'. See Brij
Nwdin Shnma, Social Life fin Northern Iridfa Illelhi, 19661, p. 55.
This is, to say the least, a superficial view. In a societywhichplaced
a premium on the observance nf purificatoryrites, saclnl recognition
ofthe comparative laxity of a community in these matters meant
Inw srarus, and as M.N.Srinivs has shown, lower cammiinities
tried to improve [heir social sratus through a process nf
Sanskritization, i.e. by adoptlng the btlhaviour pattern of higher
communities and emulating them in rnacters of food, drink m ~ d
marriage. According Co Brij Narain Sharma the srnrti rule illat a
Sfidr;l who has taken water polluted by h e touch nf a Cindgla
hemmes pure by observing a fast for that clay, but a briihmana hm
to fast for three days, is a n exarnple ofthe 'concessions' given to
the Sfidras. He docs not realize that this so-called concession
originared From rhe concept of relative impurity of h e .%dm and
his comparative prmirnity to rhc Cin~blain the social scale. Once
the ideology of puriry/poll~tiondewlapd in the suciaI f ~ e w o r k
nf the v q i a s it was further elabnratrd in a logim~llyconsistent
manner by Ihe I~rahmnnicdthinkers.See Henry Oremitein 'Logicll
Congruence in Hindu Sacred Law: Anarher Incerpretarinn',
Cbtltribtttiom to bdiun Suciulagy, N.S., No. 4 (19701,pp. 22f.
But we must not forger [hilt even though the ideologies evolve
thmugh individu~1inventions, these arise out of the p ~ v a i l i q
material conditions and as such reflect the ideas ofthe dominant
class. Further, it is the mle of ideology to secuw the a~repunct.of
the explolred.
285 A.S. Alteker (The RdstrakP;us and Tbefr Times, Punc., 1934,
p. 338) ancl P.V. Kane (Ifistoly of ~hamd&rrn,LI. Pt I, pp. 787-
90) have sho~rnthal the early law-givers such as Gautama,
hpastarnba and Baudhlynne impose no resrrlctions an a bfihmana
raking food cooked in rhe housw of the mernlsea nf the other
three v q a s hut a gmdn;ll innrense is noticed in later texts such as
those of Mgim, Yamli and Vyasa. B.N.S. Yxdava points: out CSC;M;
 p. 7) that according to rhe TanhzrvddikaoFICurnsiritaBhatta dining
in the company of one's relations and friends of a different v x p a
did not cause contamination down to the eighth cenrury. The
brallrnanical law-hot>h nor only p r ~ v i d edjffcren~ialrules of
inherimce for sons born of wives nf different varrds, but even
prescribe differenr per.ods of rerernrmial purity and jmpuriry
he rihserved on the dcath of a relative belonging to a different
(An??.Alrebr, P!?.~idiu?zof w'ome12 i72 Hindti C i v i I ~ ~ ~ f i m ~ ,
Delhi, 3rd edn., 1862, pp. 75-1,). AII this cannot be dismissed as
l?rahmanic~lpropensity to beorjzation wirh no basis in reality,
Tor literary texts and inscriptions of early medieval times do
conrain riTerences to in~er-varnamarriages of specific individuals.
Thus Bipa Bhatta mcnrinns a PBrak~v;lbrother, born of the Af1clra
wife of 'hisfather. A copper-pIfire Rijadia Devrndnmm~fi
31th century) spraks d the donee as thc son of a hr6hm;ma frnm
vaiiyyl sir[. Refer C V. Rnmuckfindm Ran, -Adn~tni~rrrr/fon nplci
Society In Medieval ~ a c i h m(A D. 2038-15381 I r r z c h the
Eastern Umigns rand h e S f i t y a ~ a y bGajapnlfs (Nellore, 1~761,
p. 318.
286 Vivekanznd Jha, 'Early History of ~ n t o ~ i c h a b l eins India', un-
published Ph,D. thesis, Patna U n i v c ~ i t y1972.
,
287 TJ-JR, Vol. II, No. 2 u a n ~ a r y1970, pp, 514-15.
288 Fiiml-Hni~nt.rrclulf,op.cit., pp. viii-ix.
289 Xutton, op. cit,, p. 171.
290 R.D. Sanwal has shownthat w h e r e ~ the s palitiweconomic fficloa
were crucial determinants, 'ritually edifying' pr:!ctlces such as
vegeiarianism, teetotalism, religious nustertty a n d connubial
exclusiveness had low smais connections in Kumaon. I f e d rh:~tthe
operation [IF ritual filcturs Iyas heen g r a t l y e x ~ ~ e m t cini lstudies
on caste. Even wine does ntJlseem to have heen a rahno for upper
casle women as Lie as rile time of Kumirika: he djsapproves of the
practice, but admits th:i( Isrihmana wrjmen of Alicchatta nnd
.Uarh~iraoften clrank wine (see his Tntzlmua~?ika,hdhyaya I,
?ada iii, klhikarana 4 ($1;see alst~the English Trihshtion, p. 1941,
Huwever, KunGrjIa prohjhj~son1y hrihmapas from drinking any
kiid of wine; he :illr~wsk::~triyas and vaiSyas tn drink nladhla(wine
distillrd trr~mgrapes ar anyurl~erfmj~)and .suth~,11 (wlne dlsrilled
from molasses) hur condemns srmi (wine distilled From gr;kin)
apprenrl y taken by poorcr peqde [it7icJ,,p. 133). The h k p f l t h ~
~ r i h m a(XI.
~ i 8,1.6),Imwcver, alInws tkt. viijortyn to take s~rrb.
F<>rthe gradual rwcgnirion of veg.etnri;tnism 3s it syrnlxd OF 'pure'
 CASTE AHD GENDER 127

conduct and irs :lcceptance as a religious principle, see suvira

Jaiswd,Ongin mndDeuelopmmrt oJ'Va+!7amsm,(&]hi, 2nd rev,j,
edn., 1981), pp. 127-9.
231 Surajit Siaha, op. cit., p. 35-80.
292 K. Suresh Singh, ' A Study in State Formation Among Tribal
Communities', Hisra?icalm b i n g s , p- 38, fn. 2.
293 Fleet, brdrarl Antiq!t~?y, XI, 9f; Griersan, ihid., XV (lam,15.
294 Firsr publislled in 3933; revised and enlarged in 1956.
295 First published in 1938.
296 R.S. Shanua, Perxpectim5 in Socinl aud Economic Hisstoq~of
Early Indin (Delhi, 19831, p. 10.
237 CIarise Bader, W'on~elai ? e Apzcirnl J!rrdia (London, 1925).
238 For woks published till 1975, secA Sel~ctBi~~liogrflphj~ ott Wcrmsn
of lndz'a (S.N.U.T IVomen's Universiry, Mu~nbai).Also see Suvim
Jaiwal, 'Women in Early India: Problems and Perspectives',Pfi?C=
(Bodh m y a , 19811, pp. 54-60; Uma C h a h v a r t i , 'Note Beyond
the Niekarian Paradigm: Tmards A New Und~rstanding~FGender
Relations in Early Indran H'htory', Socia!Scie~llhr,Vul. XVI, No. 8
(August 19881, pp. 46-52.
299 ftjr example, see Shahmbhui J~nsal,72xSratus of Women irt Be
Fpics(Delhi, 19661, pp. 25,70. Compare pages 29lfwith AItekar's
fisttrorr of IY'ornr??;, pp. 337f; Sudhakar Ch;lttupadhyaya, ap, cit.,
pp. 109f.
300 For 3 debate on this, see Morpan and Engrls, Souid Strrdia in
ffistoty,Vol. N (New York, 1966).Elesnor B. Leacock,Lntmducrion
to F. Engek, The Orgin oxthe Faazily, Pri&ote Pmpm[y and the
State idem, lntroducrinn to Lewis Henry Morgan's Ancient Socie*
(Glouccscer, 1974); Ihthleen Gaugh, 'An Anthmpalog~stLook at
Engels' in Nona Gla~r-Millbinand Helen Youngchon tVaehrer.
ds., IVon~cndn n Man-Mude Work( (Chi~ilh.0,1972); idem, 'The
Origin tlf the Family' In Rayn:i R. Keiter, ed., Tolw-d A n
Anlbmpoiogy 01'IVonzsrt (London, 19751,pp. 51-76;Uren Sacks,
'Eweis Revisited; Wmrien, the Orgmizi~tionof Production and
private Property', ihid., pp. 211-34.
301 Kathleen Gough in 'The Origin of the Fzrnif)". Cf. Y.1. Samynov,
'GroupMamidge, Its Narure and Role in the Eyoludon o f h h i a ~ e
.mclFamily Rekttions' in VKI fnremat~onalConpss afzl~~thro-
pological ntzrl E&?~a~ogic#l Sfl'mces, Vc)). (h.loscow, 1967).
For 'A Marxiat Reappraisai of tlte hl:~triarchnte', C';lr~llyn
Fluchr-Lobhan, Czdmnt Atrlhmpalog~XX, Nu. 2 Uunl: 19791,
pp. 341f.
302 Op. cit.,p.337.
303 I3.S.' J ~ a d h ~ a Women
~a, in J7gwda(Delhi, 3rd revd. edn., 19741,
pp. LZUf; Shakuntala Rao Shxstri, Wornen In the V~riicAge,
(Mumhai, 1969); P L. BhArgava, India in the Vedic Age, p. 245;
P.C. Dhsrma, 'The Snrus of Women in the Vedic Age', .Tournal oj'
Indian Higo y, XW <1%8),pp. 249f.
304 Sally Slocurn, 'Woman the Gatherer: Male Bias in Anthropology',
in h y n a K. Reitcr, cd., Totuards an ,4ntkmp0!0gy of IVunrm
aondon, 13751, pp. 35-50.
305 Kathleen Gough, 'The Origin of the ~ a m l l g ' ,in I b w a d an
Antbropo[ogy of Women, p. 70.
306 R.S. Sharma, 'Vidatha: the Earliest ~olk-~ssemhly of the Indo-
Aryans', A p x & of PoIitimJ~h arad Jp2~litt~liom- in Aflcjenf
In& (Delhi, 1968), pp. 78-35;Charles Drekrr..eir, Ic'iingshl;o and
Community in Earlj~I d i a (London,1968), p. 53. J.W. Spellman
(Politl'cal Kbeorp of Anciejzr India, London, 1964, p. 9-513 r d
J.P. Sllarma (Rqpubiics irr Ancient Indin, Leidm , 1968, pp. 78-91
have tried to refute his view un the ground that the term v i d ~ l h ~ ,
meaning 'fit for the vidutl~a', shows that the vufatJ!n ws a, more
selecl body. But since the term occurs in the first rnaykla which
is later than the Famiiy BooI~s,it cines not controvert R.S. Sllarma's
thesis (op. cit., p. 92) which concedes h a t thc viclnrha may have
become a more select body in lnter times. Spellman and 1.P. Shzirma
regard the uid~tknas a non-tribal, loml nnd rel~giausbody which
did not k ~ v political
e or distributive functions. This is not the phce
to examine their arguments in detail, hut there LS nothing to show
h a t there were rue11 es~ablisbedferrihmalgroupsfar any purpose
transtending tribal boundaries in h e Vtvlic period. The functional
pulyvaIencc d the u(rln1hamay he mathema to J.P, Sharma who
discc>vrrsthe exiw=nreof several ryprs t ~ stites,l republics and
mon:lrchies in the Rgvedic age, but in my opinian the rarly Vedic
period should be characterized as a 'stateless'or 'pre-snte' sociefy
which harl nut developed a clear-cut distinction hutween the ritual
and the political.
307 'Kinship Terrnincdogy and Kinship Usages in Rgvecia and
Afbaruavedn', Annals oi r h p Bhnndurkar Oriental Rexeurch
Institrrte, XX (1938-91, p. 219.
308 Family and Ktn i n Indo-Eliropean CattlturcCMumbni, 2nd edn.,
1962).
309 Hindu .!3ogan?y (Murnbai, 19293,
3 10 'KinshipTerms and the Parnily ~rganizalionas Fnund in the Critical
Editicrn of r l ~ eMuhdbhiimtn', Blilietfn of the Deccan Coll~ge
 CkFlF rWU GENDER 129

Research htsfitfcte, V (1943-41, pp, 61-148; idem, Kinsbq

Organazatiorz in Indra, 2nd revd, edn.
3 1 1 I-iiurd~rK r ~ r b p(Murnhiu, 1947); idem, ~Warn'ageand Fami& in
India (1st edn., 1955,Delhi, 3rd edn., 1968).
3 1 2 W e in ABORI; m, 218.
313 Kapndia, Hindu Kitiship, pp. 745, 222, 307-9: Ghurye, Farnib
and Kin ilr Azdo-Eitmpean Ci~ltum,pp. 8f, 58-9.
3 14 R.S. Sharma, 'Forms d Property in the Early Portions of the
Rgueda', Esrsys in H~onol~r oJ'PmJessorS.C. Sczrkar (Delhi, 1376),
PP. 434,
31 5 Eleanor B.Leacock in Introduction to F.Engels, BE- Ongin of the
Family, Private Propetty and #he Sfare, pp.35.
316 Position of Women, pp. 342f.
317 Ibld., pp. 3451
3 18 Ihid., p. 354; see also R.S. Sharrna, 'SomeJoint Notices of Woman
and Shdra in Early Lndian Literature',Lgbr on EarIy Inrdian Sociely
and Economy, pp. 29-33.
319 J.D.M. Dcrrett, Religio,~,Law and the Slate in Ivdia, pp. 413,
fn,2, 414; U.N.Ghoshal in R.C.Majumdar, ed , The Hislory and
Crdtiire oJrbe A~dianPeople, Vol. V (hlumbai, 19653,p. 484.
3 2 0 Ghurye, Family and Kin in Indo-European Ctihrre, pp. 22X
321 SCNl, p. 140.
322 LHR,Vof. V, Nos. 1-2 (July 1978-Jmuary1979), p. 74.
3 2 3 ~rfairatslcsrnji~iX,104-5.
324 For a critique ofthese views, see G.S. Ghusye, Two Brahnlanicd
Insriturions: Gorra and Charu!za(Mumbai, 19721,Chap. I.
325 Op.cit.,n,Ptl,p.483.
326 Ibid., p. 479.
327 1. Brough, 'The Early History of G o t r ~ ' ,JRAS (1947), pp. 85f;
idem, The Ear[y Brnbntanical S~~stern of Gotrn und Prsvam:
A T ~ n ~ h l t ' ooif?the Corm-Pru-stwrn-Mafijariof Par@ottan;a
Pa&ita tutfh an Inrmdrccrion (Cambridge, 1953). Also see A.C.
Banerjee, Studis in the BtLihmanas (Delhi, 19631, Chap. 11.
328 Inwati Kawe, Kinship Otganrrarion in In&, pp. 51-2.
329 TUD Bmbmnnt'cal rnstidurions: Golra and C b u m ~p. , 280.
330 Ibid., p 308,
331 [bid., pp. 309-10.
33 2 'Ofigin of B M n Gowas', ,Journal of Ihe Bombay Branch of
Royal ,4sinlic Society, XXVI (19501, pp, 21-80;'DerrelopmenrOF
the Gotra System', P.K. G d e Cornmemoralion Va'a(lrnie(Pune,
1960), pp, 214f.
333 f . ~Madan,, 'Is [he Bnhrnanical Gom a Grouping of Kin', Sou!h-
 Wesfern]olcrnal of ~nthropoiogy,X W f I (Albuquerque, 19621,
pp 59f.
334 For example, Sakadvipis. The Sakadvipis or Sakaladivipis are
divided into a number of pumi and marriage within the picrus is
pruh ihited, J.N. ~hattachrrrya,ffitzbts Ca.~tesand Sects, rpt.
(Calcutta, 19681, p. 38. .
33 5 GIlurye, Two Brahman ical Insti:rrlioss: Gorra nnd Charapa,
p. 307.
336 'Gotfiinrara or the change of a wornfin's Gotra', PKHC (~nnamalai
h'agar, 19451, pp. 48-52; cf. Society nard A d m ~ n l s t m l i a n~ I I
Ancient a n d Medieval India, 5 p p 203f.
337 For the difference between the ma, see A.M.Shah, 77?eHou~@hold
Dlrnmiofi of Family in In& (Delhi, 19731, pp 11415.
338 N. Nandi, 'Gotramand Social Mobility in the ~ e c c a n ' ,PIHc
UabaIpur, 19701, pp. 118-24.
339 wagle, op. cit., p. 70.
340 H.N. Risley classifies five types of exogamous uni-totemic,
territorial, titular, eponymous and local, communal Or family,
The Tribes and CCISI~S of B~ngal,I, i-lxxi.
341 In the Katbakoj.clprak~mpathe uamk.as [ell a vaiSya merchant
that his daughter wil[ have to be given in marrlage to someone
who does not belong to his gotrn (Dasharath Shanna, op. t i t . ,
p. 4521. P g ~ i n ilists a number of kptriya gotrm W.S. Agnwala,
India As Kmm lo Pii~zrni,p. 773.
342 For an interesting attempt, see B.D. ~bnttopndhyaya,op. cit.
343 A.M.Shah, op, cit.,pp. 124f.
34 4 T.R. Traurmann, ' Cmn~s-CousinMsrrjage in Ancient North India' in
Trautmann, cd., Kin&@ and Histoqt in Sor~thAsia (Michigan,
19741,pp. 61-103,
345 Pur this and other references, see R.S,Sharma, Light ori ~ d r b
Irzdinn Society and Economy, p. 20,Aca~rdingto Rajbrili Pandey,
a supplementary hymn of the Rgwda sllows that marriage with
the daughter of one's maternal uncle and paternal aunt was
permissible, Ht~zduSmpskdras (Delhi, 2nd edn.,16691,p. 174.
346 The northern Madras are generally located in Rshrnir and the
southern Madras in c e n ~ aPunlab,
l H.C. ~ycl-laudhuri,politicdl
History ofdncienl hdia (Calcuna, 5d1 edn., 19501, p. 64.
347 Romila Thapar's review of T.R. TrauCmann's K~mhipand Histo0
in Soerth Asla, In IHR, Vnl. m,No. 1 UuIy 19761,p. 149.
34 8 David F.Alberle, 'Matrilineal De,cent in Cross- CuJhmIP J ? ~ s I > ~ c ~ v ~ '
 in D:i rrid hi. Schneider and K a t l d ~ nGough, eds., &fatfi'Iinra(
Kinsbp (Berkeley, 19611, p. 65%
349 myna R. Reirer, ed., Towards an A n t b r o p o l o ~ lVomen
ondo don, 19751, Introducdon; Eleanor B. Leacock in Introduction
to Pt 11 of Lewis Henry Morgan, A n c i a l Soctely (GIouccster,
Mass., 1974).
350 U.N.Ghoshal, Sfudies in Indian Ifislary and Cu(ture
19651, p. 2.
35 1 Sarva Daman Singh, Polya~dvin Ancient I . d & {Delhi, 1978).
352 Op. d t . , p. 30.
353 Op. cit., p. 32.
35 4 For the office ofdbar~laclhikarmikuinAssam, see "KarnauliGnnt
of Vaidyarlew', El, 1T, pp. 347f. This ofiudl is also mentioned in
the Benares copper plate nf the Cedi king Karnadeva (AD 1042).
King BaILaljsena, credited with the systematization of caste
hierarchy ln Bengal, had dticial hto wn as dbannridkya&a who
m3 y have dischargt.d similarhrlions INaiharj g m r dBall~l~wna,
l ; pp. 156f, 1603. The Maisycl P t d ~ n a( C W . 2 4 ) saps that
~ XIV,
the dJ~a'lamGdhikriCmusr be a brihmn~aand a kulinq quoted by
P.V.Kane, op. cit., In, 126,
355 ~n interesting c u e of change ofcaste hy way of punishment at
the orders of a Tughlriq king is brought to Gght in a copper pIate
inscriprion of Kijra 822 (AD 1414). Tlre ins~ription~ ~ ythat
? i twelve
k s a r d ~-1to
~ were pezmml attendants af the king of Delhi
commltred 3 serious offence. For [his they were ordered to he
shar, hut Pandit Nsnda Rania Chaube ofJaunpur, the priest of the
treasurer Serh Manirarn of Sarkar Shahi, intervened ancl had
the punishment conlmuted to a change of caste to that of the
gal&mithu. The kptriya offenders and their descendants were
forbidden to wmr arms and the dress of kprriyas and w s e forced
ro earn heir livelihaoa as workers m gold and silver. They had to
give up heir ~ w gadmn and asswlne the Wynp:~gotra.For rhis ac:
of kindnas the fallen kqatriyas agreed to pay certain dues to the
Chauhe and his descen&n&,R.K. Chaube, PIHC < ~ l l a h a b d1,938),
pp. 147-8
 Stratification in Rpedic Society:
Evidence and Paradigms

EvaR SINCR THE APPLICATIONOP

modern historical and philol~gicalmetho& of criticism to rhe
mdy ofancient Sanskrit texts a large number of reconstructions
of early Vedic society have been rtrempted on che basis of the
&vedu. Set the picture ofthe Rgvedjc society continues ro be
hazy and controversial. In recent years in a short span of five
years three eminent s c h d a r s , G.S. G h u q c , R.S. Shama and
Romila Thapar, have published monographs1 dealing with the
subject and each ofthem h a used tools prwided by history and
social anthropology. Needless to ssy, they arrive at vew different
candusions. The work of Bruce L i n c ~ l n published
,~ about h e
same time, exemplifies the continuing interest of Wesrern
anthropologists in the theme. I t adds a new dimension by
attempting to establish the ec~logicalcontekt of Rpedic reugion
and society through the cross-cultural method. The multiplicity
of paradigms and conflicting interpretarions of evidence rnake
an assessment of the theoretical and empirical bases of these
hisrorlcal-anthropological constructs essential.

Ghurye belongs ro that rare breed of socislogists who interfuse

their knowledge of ethnography with an extensive study of
histaricd records. His Vedic Jndid .is a volbminous work which
use5 a wide range of literary, archaeological and ethnographic
da# to study almost every aspect of Vedic r n d i ~beginning with
the cultural complex of the early Indo-Ellropenns to the non-
 literate peoples of the areas not covered by Vedic cultuie, 1 3 ~
begins with the statement3that the Vedic pe~jjodexre& fm
about 2Sb0 Bc to 600 BC, but modifies chis view later to conclude
that the 8gvedic Indo-Aryans enrered India around 2200 ~ ~ . 4
According to him, the bulk of qpedic hymns were composed in
the h e r half of t f ~ fouiteenth
e and the first half of hethirteenth
centuries BC; some were composed around 2000 BG md a few
late ones around 1000 BC. He agrees with Pargiter [hat the
compilation of the &veda took place about 980 ~ c and ; on
linguistic evidence supplemented by 'traditional history1 culled
From theVedic and epic-Pud~icsources he postulates the mivat
of an earlier wave of pre-pgvedic Indo-Europeans, who migrared
to the east settling in rhe regions of Magadha and Kosala. ~h~
bmhmanical culture ofpost-Vedic times, in his view, was mi*
the result of interaction between these two waves of Aryans. In
his discussion of the archaeolaglcal sites of the Harappa culture
he leaves out those located outside India, that is, Bham, and
although he regards the early Vedic phase a late contemporary
of the 13ara.ppa culture, he does not chink that the latter influenced
the former; for in his view the ,cultural environment of the two
were di~tlnct.~
It is strange chat although Ghurye's comprehensive probings
into the archaeological materid clearly indicate that there i s scant
trace of urbm settlement6 in the areas inhabited by the Sedic
tribes, he has no hesitation in asserting, solely on the basis of
his interpretations of the Rgvcdic hymns, that the culrure of the
Ggvedic society was 'essentially an urban ~ n e 'But . ~ the hytnns
cited in tkIs connection may be interpret~ldifferently, conforming
to the picture derived ftom archaeologlcd sources, Some d his
infemnces are flimsy, yet given weight in argumentation. Thus
Ghuve argues that references to two-horse and even four-horse
chariots in the @ve& indicate that S U C ~vehicles ~ were fnir[y
numerous and this presupposes the existence of 'fairly wide and
gd roads' 2nd *fajrjlr large sedernents'."~o~er, h e use of
the horsedram chariot as a mobile fighting platfom andal'ehicle
for the warrior nobiliv spread with the Inda-Europem both to
the east and lo the west; and whatever be place of their
origin, diere is doubt that they were not an urban ~ U I cartie-
 134 CASTE

tending nomadic people moving with their carts and chariots

search of better paslures. Ghurye quotes~acdonelland Keith,
the authors of the Vedic Index,'" to assert that horse-raring was a
favourite pastime of the Vedic Indians. But [he recent research
ofXuiper," H e ~ s r e r r n aand ~ ' ~ Sparr~hoom'~
has established that
competition and rivalry formed an intrinsic part of the original
yajga ri~ual,which was closely connected with the trekking and
resetding a ~ t i v i t ~oefs the Aryan nomads. Chariot-racing was not
a form of papular festivi~or sport, j u t a serious concern. 11 was
interwoven with the Aryan ritual of sacrifice and played a
fundamental role in resolving such issues us the question of
group leadership, selection" of a suitable site for temporary
residence in the course of wandering, and so on. The sacred
and che mundane were integrated and inseparable at his stage.
Ghurye is not deterred by the Fact that excavalions at
Hasrinlpura failed LOprovide evidence of urban life in the Ganga-
Yzrnuna region in the Vedic age or that the dates of Paifited
Grey Ware, which is linked by some archacologis~"with the
Vedic Aryans, cannot be pushed back beyond 1100 BC even at a
most liberal estimate. Most PGW sites have yielded dates
between 800 and 500 BC and as such are rightly associated with
the later Vedic peoples.'"n any case, the PGW sices were small
settlements far from h e 'fairly large settlements' of G h u ~ e ' s
conception. As for the copper hoard cultures of UP, Ghurye
disputes the notion of their users being 'uncivilized' and
'nomadic', wen as be concedes that h e y were not urbac.I7 Fro111
Ghurye's point of view excavations at Noh In Bharatpur district
and A h a r in Rajasthan are more important, far in his opinion
Bharatpur was occupied by the Matsyas in Rgvedic times; but
these. again, do not support his urban hypolhcsis. The Banas
culture of Ahar, dated around the eighteenth century 3c at its
earliest levels, is distinctly ;icopper age culture wit11 no twce of
iron. Iran objects at Noh are datable to 725 B C . ' ~ Despite these
lacunae Ghurye asserts that h e Rgvedic Aryans were not only
farililiar wid1 iron, but even posaesscd (or at least desired to
possess) iron forts.'"
References to iron in h e @zleda a:e perceived by interpreting
the term uyas as iron. Initially Ghurye shows some hesiratiofl,
 as h e uanslares ayasmap as made of 'either bronze or iron',%
But as hc visualizes a highly sopfiisticaredsedentary urban culmre
of the m e d i c period with towns adorned wich beautihl swmes
of women in the nude, he becomes more and more convinced
that the ayas should mean only iran." However, an e4umination
of the crucial passages in the Rgveedn leads S.A. Dange, a
Sanskritisc, to conclude that Eayas in the Bveda 'does not seem
.
to indicace iron . . Tit] clearly indicates the reddish brown meral
(copper or bronze)'.22
There persists a major problem inthe recons~ctionof Rgvedlc
society. Although it is generally accepted that the period of the
composition of vgvedic hymns spans more than five hundred
years extending from roughly 1500 to 1000 BC-4huryeexten&,
it to a thousand years-few attempts have been made to sift the
internal evidence on socia1 developmenrs on the basis of the
relarive chronology of the hymns To some extent this may have
been due to the fact that, as Bloomfield poinred out,"the &Vedic
hymns are largely epigonal in character 'manufsctured out of
fragments of a floating anonymous literature'. This is indicated
by the frequent occurrence of the phrase nauyam sanyase,
'renovating the old song for an ancient god'. BloomfieId warns
that even the family books should not be taken as chronological
units, for older and newer hymns are contained in ea& one of
them. Even 5 0 , It would not be appropriate to abandon all
attempts at a relative chronoIogy of the hymns, and making
generaiizations on that basis. An exercise of chis kind would
necessarily be based on certain theoretical premises which,
hon~ever,have to be in conformity with the available empirid
evidence. For example, Bmce Lincolnz' shows that the myth of
the killing OF the primordial being in the first sacrifice and the
fashioning ofthe cosmos from his disnlernbered body goes back
to Indo-European times and may be traced in its Norse, Roman
and Indo-Aryan versions, the last being the famous pacpusmirtru
hymn in the tenth mandala of the @twdu. A1tllough the myth is
undoubtedly old, i t does not mean that all Lhe ideas expressed
in it have an Indc-European past. This IS the only hymn in the
entire &*~ecl'a which speaks of the well-known Fourfold v a g a
divisions ofsociery and mentions the terns rLijursya a d 'Sndra'.
 Clearly the composer of thjs hymn remodelled an old mydl to
explain and provide religious sanction for a new social
It is generally accepted that the ten& ?nngdtcla and the first 1
fifty hymns of [he first mn?~dctlaof the pguedn are late
composition3 separated from [he family books (the second lo
seventh rnan&lnlnsl, by about five hundred years or sonEThe
family books on ttlc whole comprise the earliest layer. There
was also an intermediate shge when the S a d i t 5 callection ended
with the eighth m a ~ d d aand a suppletnent was attached to it
after a time in the Form of V51akhlya hymns. Hymns 51-191 of
the first mfl?zdaIaare considered to he of h e same date as the
eighth manduhand the ninth mandala is resumed to be closer
in date to the tenth man&la.2"eferences to agriculturaI
activities are found mostly in Books I and X and some of these
reflect a pre-plough stage as these refer ro the turning of the soil
with a vyka (a digging stick or hoe, often translated mistakenly
as plough)." A hymn of Book TV dedicated to Qetrapati (Lord of
the Fields), $un~-<ra@ersonificarinns of 'plough' and 'share'
according to Monier-Williams) and Sit5 (krrow) is regarded as a
late interpolation by H ~ p k i n s ,any
~ ~ rate,
t the use ofnon-Aryan
loan worclsa in connection wjrfi plough agricuIture occurring in
the later sections of h e Qeteclcd suggests that the ~ p e d i Aryans
c
learnt plough cultivation from the indigenous peoples, though
such borrowings are not sufficient to build a theory of 'the
convergence of the m a n and the n o n - ~ r ~ a in n ' the &e!eda, as
has been ably dernonsuated by Madhav M. Deshprrnde." There
is evidence uf sorr,e contact, codlict and confrontation wirh the
non-Aryans, but the Rgrdeda remains preeminently an Aryan
document. This is also confirnled by F.B.J. Kuiper.'' who has
shown that the boar mydl in the eighth ma?zdala is an ~ryanized
version of an Austro-bialic myth. Kuiper wales h a t although
I
I
there is some evidence of the assimilation of non-Aryans inlo
brahmanical circtes and adaptation ofsome Foreign myths in the
later ma~dalmof the Qzeda, 'we have no reason to believe
that such corpora aliena had really been naturalized already in
the Rgvedjc period'. In his view while the names of the priestly
Families who are atuibuted the autllarsh~pof Books 11-VII are
Aryan, Kaqva, attributed authorship of the eighth ~~za?x&ub, is
 clcurIy a non--wan name and thc boar myth, tvhicl~retains traces
of proto-Munda origin, is found exclusively in the hymns the
ICsnva fa~nily.rt is also interesting thzt the mention of
rice-milk (k~irapakamodanar?a} occurs only twice32and in
connection with this myth alone. Non-Aryan foreign names are
more nutncrous among the authors OF he tenth mdjgzdnb hymns
given in h e Anukramagi, but the 'aboriginal influence on the
Rgvedic myhoiogy has hardly been very extensive'.
Thus the long span covered by the composition and compilation
of h e Rgvedic hymns makes it imperative that one tries to
distinguish different layers of Rgvedic evidence a n d weigh
carefully all dic arguments before concluding what constitutes
an Indo-European heritage and what cannot be explained in
tcrrns of the internal dyna~nicsof ggvedic society, but is to be
seen as a borrowing from a non-Aryan source. The problem is
compounded by the fact that words change their meanings wirh
the social contexl and acquire different nuance^.^^ Yet Vedic
scI~olarshipoften suffers from a static viewpoint and looks on
changes in Iater Vedic times as matters of detail alone or as
'ordered development' widlout any fundanrenlal clifferen~~.~'
Recent studieg5 nf Vedic ritual llnve begun to reveal that
significant changes in Eacr look place both in the realm of ideas
and practices, that were closely connected with nfaterial changes
in the life of a semi-nomadic pasroral people who were in the
process of lrnking the transition to sedentary life and an agrarian
economy. Pnctices intrinsic ta Ihe exrlier mode of subsistence
received formalization in Inter Vedic ritual, and analysis of rhese
pmvides interesting clues to their original significance. It IS
d that tawnrds thc close uf the ligvcdic period some of
p o i n ~ ~out
the hymns had become unintelligiblr ellen lo those who had
grown in tl.aditian.'"lT this is the situation in the field of
ritual irnd sacred lore. it is all the nlore neces.ar). t~ guard against
the temptation of projecring lawr social and emnolnic featurm
to a n past. Enlile Benvcnistc has argued'7 thilr rhe notions
of and crnerged anlong dle Indo-Europeans in
[ h e c~nremr of sa]c Ily auction of nlen who 1n;ly Ilavc been
prisoners of n.ar or mb]~u [nay have lost their l i b e q in gambling.
E ~ ycdic ~ data
I ~ this.lHTcrn~sS L I C as
~ !W.Vl# and .tli!kct,
which denote 'price' or 'value' in the &p/eda,+garc used not in
connection with merchandise or goods but human beings and
gods who are modelled after humans. ~ h u isn one place4"two
Dgsas, Varcin and Sambara, are described as rmsnuytarat&
'demanding ransom', apparently for having n k e n some prisoners
ofwar, and are kilIed by Indra. Elsewhere'" zlmua occurs in the
context of a hymnist's bid to sell and repurchase his Indra after
the latter has slain h e urtrm (demons or cnernies) of the one
who buys him. The significance of the hymn remains obscure,
bur die nature of transaction is clearly modelled after the sale
and redemption of tluman beings. 12 In a hymn of the rl-tird
ma?.rdalaSoma Is reques~edro give salulaly food to the devotees
and their 'tethered animals' ( p a ~ ~ v ewhich
), term included
bipeds and quadrupeds.$' Refercnccs to Flzn or dcbr generally
pertain to those con~actedar dicing and the authors of the V d i c
Badexspeak of it as 'a normal condition of Vedic ~ndians'."It is
rightly held4Fthat there is no evidence of coiiimercial activities in
the (?sued# There may have been simple barter of surplus goods,
especially to obtain precious metal or 'pretige' goods, but no
merchant.@ or intermediaries playing a role in the circulation
and production ofwealth. Sometimes thc Panis, described in
the &r:eda a s rich, selfish, 'of hostile speech' and greedy, are
interpreted as 'merchants par e~cellence*,"~ who practised usury.
But this view has no solid basis.40One is inclined ta agree with
Macdonell and Keirh that 'it is hardly necessary to do Inore tllnn
regard the Panis generally as non-worshippers of the gods
Favoured by dle singers'; che term is wide enough to incorporate
aborigines, hostile Aryans, as well as dern~ns.~"
Thus a more searching and rational interpretation of the
Rgvedic data does nor support Ghurye's view of economy and
society in early Vedic times; his assertion that the brahmaqa,
ksatriya and vaigya were rrlreacly 'almost' castes a r class-like
categories in R~wedictimesH'cannol be sustained. The problem
is viewed from a differcnr perspecrive by K.S. Sharma and Earnila
Thapr, both of whom loolr on the socie~yas essentially pastor;zl.
Nevertheless, there are i~llportantdifferences in heir views
the extent to which social differentiation had taken placc znd
~heseare now examined in some detail.
 ~ l l F l C h 7 7 O NIN RGVEDIC SOCIETY 139

Sharma argues h a t evidence for 'band' organization (a pe-viba]

stage in which a group of people not necessarily related by
!)load come together for food-garhering, hunting or fighting)
notwithstanding, Rgvedic society on the whole was 'tribal,
p:istoral and largeiy egalic~rian'.~' The main source of subsistence
was cattle and not agricultural products. Apart from cattle-herding
raids were a major source of livelihood I3e quotes the well-
knuwn remark of M:~rxthat man-hunting was the logical
extension of animal-hunting and contends that the egalitarian
ethos of the Bgvedic tribes was undermined by the unequal
disrribution of booty by the cribal chief.??The &tada refers to
rich people ridng in chariots and possessing a large number of
cattle; but society was arganized neither on differences of wealth
nor on the social division of labour. The social strurrure was
kin-based, with kin unirs of various shapes and sizes depending
an the functional rcquirernen~.~%erewas a differentiation of
ranks, but no class differentiation. In short, this was a pre-state
polity, moving gnduatiy towards greater differentiation, as is
indicated by h e d h z a s ~ r r f i sbelonging to the larest stratum af
Rgvcdic littrrture. These indicate that a major share of h e spoils
was cornered by chiefs and priests Icading co an incquimbfe
redistributive system; but the phenomenon of one class living
oE the labour of another in 'any considenble degree' was yet to
enrerge.
In broad outline Sharrna's reconstruction of the &pedicsociety
is plausible. Recently* an attempt has been made to reject the
economic significance of war and 'booty-production', as ~harrna
calls it, in @petIicsociety on the ground that n;ar could not have
heen a matter of daily routine. It involvecl destruction OF Life and
prop'rry, Neve&eJess,the notiail has theoretical as weti as data-
based support, their discussion of Greece of the Heroic age
Mcrmand Engels speilkr5 of 'military democracy' as a Stage when
tlze old gentile system was still fill1 of vigour, hut demy had set
in and inlernal had degenerated into systematic raids
&for(he puTose of capturing cattle, slavcs and treasure as a
means of a livelihood'. Marshall D. Sahlins
develops this concept further by arguing h a t the segmentary
lineage w a s a n orzani7:11inn nF p r ~ r l a t ~ expansion.'"
ry ~h~ term
'segmentary lineage' is the modern antI~ropoiogicaIequivalent
of the 'gens' in the narratives ofMarx and Engels.
The importance of cattle raids is cmplmsized by Romila Thapar
too, and in her monograph Fronz Lineage 10 State she makes a
pioneering attempt ro apply certain anthropoiogical rr~odelsand
concepts to R~vedicsociely. Shc avoids the use ofthe term "tribal",
agreeing with hose anthropwIogiscsj7 w l ~ oregard this concept
as one of little analyrical value. But the alrernativc 'lineage
society' concept t l ~ a rshe uses appears no less vague for she
stretd~csit to mean not only a system wiul lineal descent groups
precisely d e f i n c 6 position
~ she adopts the beginning ofher
work-but also clanw and other kin-groups, 'lineage sociel~'
becoming merely a verbal subsLitute far 'kin based' or 'tribal'
society. A.M. Shahs9 has questioned the validity of the model
of 'lineage society' for the ~ g v e d i c~ e o p l efrom a social-
anthropoio,aical perspective but has not given particular attcntian
to the allied concept of tl~elineage mode of production. Shah
:~cc:cepmthe data cited by Thapar on the gmund that he is not a
l . the very nolion of the lineage tnode of production
I ~ i b ~ m i a rYrt
as applied by Thapar to egvedic society is flawed on account of
both the imprecise use of the concept and tIlc inacc~r;tqof the
uata.
Thapar begins with a precise definition of lineage as given by
Middlctm and Tait:

The lineage iq a corpnnte group clfu~~ilineal kin with a formalized system

of authority. It has rights and duties and accept.; genr:dc~gimlreliirionships
as the binding kllctclr. It can he clivided ink, smaller groups or segments,
Several unilineal dcscent grnups gc) to make up a clan which tr~ccsits
origin to an acrual or tny:hial ancesror. The basic unit in such a system is
thy extttndecl h m i l y 1:aserI o n a i11rt.t. or four generariun line:lp
ctrnrmlled hy t h e rlrlest m:dc who represents it o n hoth ritual 2nd
political occasion^.'^'

The widest politics1 unit in such a systen~is called the jurd

communily. Thapar obscwes:
 The jural corninunity ukcs decisirlns and is uanstirured from the domlnanr
aurhentic lineage segments.... In the 1ine:lge mode of prclducti~~ the
jui;ll community has some control over production and irs inhurenr
cxpbitative tendencies tlifferentiate it from the more rgalitwk~nbands
and rankccl society. ExploitaLion titkes the hxrn of those in authorit);
claiming power on the basls nf kin connections and we3ltl1and excluding
those who are unrelated. n i s mcis,%-isioncodd he mprvssecf in laan-kin
g~nzpslnbotrn'?zgfor others." In such a systenl the produce, whether
acquired through I:ihour t.rr from raids, is rlivided o n rhe hasis nf
recliqtnbutir,n in which voluntilry tril~uteand gift-giving plays :i central
role. KInshrp relations hive 3 gt.ne;llngicxf base and nr the s:imc rime are
a unit dproduction in accordance with lineages, segments and extended
€;im~lies.In a clear separation hemeen elite groups and cummuners,
k ~ n s h ~constitures
p a charter For esk~blishingrhe auth~rityof the ruling
tincage Ihrcjugh genealngical ccl~lnections"'

Tllapar acknowledges her debr to Ern~r~anuel Terray,''?who

pronounced the concept of cl~elineage mode of prodticlion,
and the views of P.P. Rey,"" Maurice Godclier" 'and Claude
Meillassoux,'* who cornmcnted upon it. But, it is obvious that
her notion of the lineage mode of production is different from
theirs. For example, in Termy's model d ~ e r cis no room For the
c~ploitationof 'non-kingroups labouring for the others' while
excjuded from power and wealth. Borh Terray and Meil1assou.u
clearly state that the lineage mode is based on self-subsis~encc
and short-term production rechniques. the units of
production and consumption arc homoIogous, constituted on
the same principles through the same mecltanisrn, and 'exploir-
ation of labour' is conspicuously absent. Terrdy regards these
featurcls as a 'necessary condilion fnr kinship to act as an elemen1
in the iealizarion of the mode of production'.'"
The problem of exploitation within t h e lineage inode of
production is raised a n d debaled in cor~ncctionwith the
prlvllegcd positi~r!of d ~ eelders or old rnen vis-a-vis dle junior
tnemhers of'rheir own lineage, and of men as opposed to worllen,
seen as separate classes hr analyticnl purposes. T l ~ question
r of'
exploitalion peruins more 10 xproduction rhan producrion, and
t h e debate centres on the role of eiders in cor~trullingthe
repmduction of the social srructure &rough their control aver
 marriage and exchange ofwomen, Differing positions arc [&en.
Whereas some have tried to argue that exploitation 3s defined
by M a n may be seen in these relationships, athers have rightly
asserted that groups I~asedon the biological phemmcnx of age
anti sex rm hardly be considered as classes in the same sense
as the classes of the proletariat nnd thc ci~pitaIistarc in industrial
society. But nowhere in these discussions is tilere any mentian
of the senior ruling lineages of a clan Iiving off the tribute given
by (he junior linuages or ' c o i ~ - l working
m ~ ~ ~un ~ clan
~ ~ lands
and producing pastorai and agricul~uralitems for the consumption
of the former, as is the caze with Thapar7spziradigm. In other
words, whereas thc French anrbropologists limil social dif-
ferentiation in lineage society to that hemeen the elders of the
lineage a n d the juniors, Thapar extends it ta include dlstinctiy
stratified groups of rulcrs and commoners, the lacter being
subjected ro a form of redistributive exploitation. NO wonder
that Thapar's narralive leads A.M. Shah to suspect hth the warrior
group of rdjctnyas and he r~i&carnmoners%ere aIready vama-
like strata in Rgvedk perio~i'.'~
Thapar's concept of the lineage mode of produclion has more
in corninon with the paradigm of h e chiefd don^"" and 'conical
clan'7''than wi~h[he I j n e 2 ~mode of production proposed by
Tcrray. In a chiefdom lineages and not just a few individuals are
paded in a hicmrchical order and men are 'chiefly' or 'commoner'
by birth regardless of their personal cnpablli~ies.Sahlins regaids
this 'a stage beyond primitive equalilarianisrn', but not yet a
class society; 'it is not divided into a ruling stratum in corn~nand
nf the sm~egicmeans of production or political cocrcion and a
discnfranchiscd underclass' Nevefiheless, ic has a scrtrcture in
which rank is linked to descent, real or fictive, and access to
nreailh and p a r e r , o r rlairns to other's services are baser1 nn
'familial' priorities.
It has been pointed out" illat the term rdju17yadoes not occur
anywhere in the flgl~ecla except in the pti?-1,isasfikta This is
admiaedly a late ~ ~ i n p ~ ~ iroughly
t i o n of the same date m- later
portions of h e Alhcrnlai~da.The term rfiju11,honrever, occurs a
number of times even in the Family hooks d h e $gilecln, aithough
in most cases it could simply mean the 'effulgent onet, as it is
 applied to one or the ocher principal godU7j ~t any rate, the
occurrence ofthe term rfijula in rhe Rgvedic hynm merely shows
h e Rpedic clans had 'big men', leaders ar cltiefs; it does
trot automatically prove th3t the r-djuruwere representatives
lhc senior r;ijanya lineages. A few verses of the tenth mq&/,g
mention rdjmn in the plural. 'Being foremost may we win the
treasures through the chiefs (ri?jakhi+)and through our band
(of Fighters, PI-J?~~Z~I~~)!'~'
Another verse speaks of thc presence
of chiefs in the sflmili, a tribal a~sembty.'~ Bur none of these
references can be construed to prove the existence of senior
lineages existing above the rest of the tribee7('
The absence of the term rcijatzya, wllich means kinsmen of
the r~jma,and as suclz emphasizes the genealogical link with
the chid, i s crucial in this respect. Even the Lerm l~U?.@d,equared
by Thapar wih 'iineage', is conspicuous by its absence in the
Qt~edc?.The term gotru, which signifies 'tineage'or 'clan' in later
literatilre, in the Ryfedu generally means 'cotupen' rather than a
patrilineal desccnt group, Besides, in Thapar's opinion the gotm
system was specific to br5hmapas and he brZhm~naswere an
'addendum' to the Aryan lin~2gesociety consisting of the rf!lanjjcar
:~ndthe rlii, the so-called senior and junior lineages. The
insritutiorl of lineage in that case w o ~ l dhe without any
identification mark in the (&[:eda.
TO support her thesis Thapar produces evidence not from
the %up&, but almost entirely from rhe later Vedic
particularly the S~trapatlx~ Ortibmnncr The O ~ Wedic Y

cited in of the v i m that 'chose who chose the d j d are

distinct from fie is ~ 1 7 3 . 1A, close examination clearly
[hat such inference can be drawn on the basis of this
verse in h e pries1 pronounces, 'I have consccnted thee
ct.n;lj, come anmngsl us, be steady and unvaciuatine; may all
these subject desire thee (for their king) {trrzasfllksflrrrfi
l,3izcbalzfrc), -
may the kingdam (or rulership?74bMv1) never fa11
from thee!'n
Anolher argument put forward in supprt of the view that ' h e
passesnors of were distinguished f m n ~the resc of rhe
tribe' is based on a misundersranding ofsnnle &tn produced by
H,w+Bailey.*lfiapu h a t Bailey's annlyrlls 'leads him
144 CASTE

to state that c?ryja referred to the owner or possessor of wealth',

t fact Bailey attributes this meaning ta the Indo-Iranian blya
I ~ u in
or n y d and not to the elongated uqw. He states chat the term
d ya (wid1 a short 'a') was too narrow to denole an ethnic name,
hut was suitable for a rich class like the vaisya in India and is
explained as such in the N&I~ny!u(11.61 and Pinini's ~ . g ~ d h ~ d y T
filrlller adds h a t dryacanlc to have the secondary
IIII.1.103).HLJ-le
meaning of 'well-born' or 'noble' in an ethical sense. In other
wards, according to Bailey, 8rya originally denoted a nobleman
who 'possessed wealth' but later came to m a n onc who had
noble virtues. The elongated W~yaderived by urddht F r m dgfa
rneanr 'connected with nobles'. Bailey clearly states that as far
as d~ is concerned, a n 'early meaning connected with nobles'
has thus derived to an ethnic name znd to non-ethnic use'. Thus
Bailey connects li y c z with the secondary meaning of d ~ and a
not with its primary meaning of 'owner, possessor of wealdl'.
Thapar is confused about this distinction. Shc then proceeds to
argue [hat since in these texts h e term ' h a ' means a possessor
of wtal~l-1,or member of a nobility, this meaning is apparen~lya
survival from Rgvedic times, and Xrya in the Rgl:ecln canstiruted
a nobility distinct from the ordinary tribesmen-comn~oncrs.Thus
she concludes t h z ~~e term 'Aryai was related to 'social s ~ [ u s
and wealth and not to race'.
Bailey's interpremion of bqm-and daha-is connected wit11 his
vision of the hryxn Great T-Iouse, d~yci(witli a short 'a') was the
'possessol.','holder of property' contrasling neatly with the
Iranian dabs-or old Indian Disa meaning 'servant' or 'the
subservient o n e ' . Yet the 'vision of Zoroaster', as he calls it, may
no1 reflect he socieiy of Rgvedic India, for 111eAlws?rlcais far
removed from the Rgtleda in point of time. Bailey docs not rake
into account the changes that nray have laken place b y d ~ end e
of h e early Vedic phase, and his thesis resls on projectirlR
biclcward nations found in later texts.
Nevertheless, Bailey's tracing of Rgvedic DAsa and Dasyu In
the Indo-Lranian base dadckjhn is convincing. In ancient Iranian
dahn means 'man', and dul~yrr'land' or 'country'. Duhn as be
elhnic name of3 people is mentioned in an inscriplion of Xerxes,
i d Bailey cites several examples of words meaning 'man' or
 'hero' giving rise to ethnic names. &b~tzc, which must have
designated the habitat of rhe Daha, became 'Dasyu'in the
and referred to hostile Iranians, who were regarded as barbarians
and 0ursiders.~5This suggests that the DPsas and Dasyus
represented an earlier wnve of the Aryans." It is held that the
term nlzlis, applied to the Dasyus in the @wda, V.20.10, does
not mean 'noseless' or 'flat-nosed' as was once rhought, but
'without a mouth', implying merely t h a ~these people spoke an
alien language (not necessarily non-Aryan), and were described
canrernpt~ously.~~ Even the epithet mr~ibrcrndcn$applied to
DasyusMmay not indicate rhcir non-Aryan character, for it is
applied ta Purusuitoo, and evidently means 'speakersof a corrupt
or evil rongue'. Nevertheless,the &z~daspeaks twiceesofpeople
of black skin Cltaca?n k.q!zarrt) and at least in one of these the
succeeding verse dearly shows that the Dasyus are meant. In
another placeu 'lndra, the destroyer of forts ylrirandara), is said
to have scattered the black-wombed (k.qgayonib)(Fortresses) of
the Diisas and it is possible to see in it a reference to the dark
skin of the Disas. [r is suggestedw'that the Disas and Dasyus
were a pre-Rgvedic group of Indo-Aryan speakers and had come
in contact with the people of the Harappa Culture. There had
been a racial and cultural fusion which explains h e dark skin
rtllour of the Diisas. According Co another view, at least some of
the Dasyus were Austro-A~iacics,~ A $strong ethnic conrrasr
between the h a and the Esa-Dasyu peoples is indicared by
&LJP&, V.30.9, which informs us that 'rhe Dlsa made women
l1iTweapons' (strf~n hi d&u ~yytldhi3nicakre).Consequently Indm
remarks, 'What Mn his feeble (abdi2) army (serfah1do to n~c',
and we are cold h a t 'having discovered the two female breasts
of this one, (Indra) advanced to f i ~ h tthe Dasyu'. This verse
reflects h e contempt of the patriarchal Aryans for the Dasns and
nasyus wltose armies contained women warriors. This is con-
fjrnled by another verse in which Indra asserts chat withoul a
fight he will divide the riches of his adversary, who has Conic
with wanlen (sMbhib) to fight here."-'Apparent!yamong h e I3is-a.
and Dasyus women took part in warfare. They may have? had
certain wits. TIX &zed& rnentionsY3 only one woman
warrior, Vigpalg, who jost her leg in a 'battle of thusand
combats' (sclhasramiChw), elsewhere called Khela's batdeVwThe
twin gods ASvins gave her a metal leg at the prayer of Agastya,
enabling her to move about again. This event was important
enough to be celebrated in a number of l ~ y m n s D. ~o we have
here a myth of DIsa origins foisted upon the Uvins? It appears
significant that the myth is mentioned only in the fils1 and \entA
mandalas.
How eva , whatever the ethnic identityMof h e Dgsas and the
Dasyus, differences between them and the Rpedic Aryans are
clearly ethnic at in the initial smge~~ and not a matter of sociai
hierarchy differentiating between the possessors and rhe non-
p~ssessors.'~ Prayers far the killing of h y a as well as Dasa
enemies,and references to the fort of %sslsm indicate that the
h a and the DIsa were two distinct ethnlc groups and not parts
of one civil stratified societynY3 It is only towards the end of the
%Vedic period thgt the Dasa is compIetely subjected, enslaved
and assimilated, and the rerm begins to mean a slave,1ix'

~1-r evidence for a threefold social differentiation comes from

Book VIII of the Qwda where a prayer is offered to the ASvins
to ' promote CJi-rrwtam)our brahma (prayer) and animate our
thoughts, kill the demons (rcikamsz? and drive away disease ..,
promore our katra {ruling power), promote our heroes ( n . ~ ) ,
kfil h e demons and drive away disease ... promote our rnilch-
kine (dhentsjinvataml, promote our viiab, kill the demons and
drive away disease'.""Here we see a tripartite functional division,
presumably in hierarchical order. The term varna is nol used in
this context. The 8gzreda knows of onty two varnas, the Arya
and the Dlsa; as Kane holds, varoa means 'colour' or 'light' in
most passages of the @veda and 'both the Aryas and DBsas
were designated varqas On account of the colour of their skins'.""
In one D5sa is opposed to vamam, whtch is used to
sign~fythe bans apparently in allusion to their good colour or
complexion.'MHowever, elsewhere vama is qualified by d k m m
and Indra is praised For having placed the I)$sa varna a low
hidvlg pIace (adharam g ~ h u k a b ) . ~ ' ~
 D~meu'l''~ and Benvenistel'" have argued that priests, mr;lrriors
and =omnloners formed three distinct social groups among the
Tndo-Iraim and early Vedic people and the tripartite social order
was a characteristicof Indo-Europem societies,However, as G.S.
Kirk remaks, d h o u g h the division itself is 'hardly surprisingi,
most prominent Indo-European culture, the Greek, 'is an
embarrassing exception to d ~ tripartite
e division of functions+
The division simply does not occur at least in any form spedfic
enough to be significant in Greek culture and rnyth~lo&y.'~~~ on
the other hand, John Brough has shown that such a threefold
division may be seen in Semitic societies portrayed in the Old
Testament."" Bruce Lincoln 3rgues1'"that the third functional
category Is too general to be regarded as a specialized vocation
and is tantamount ra 'comnloners'; and as far as the distincdon
between priestfy and warrior classes is concerned, it is found
among the pastoral Nilotic tribes of East Africa too, with priests
enjoying a hierarchical superiority over warriors. Lincaln asserts
that the separation of priesdy and warrior groups has irs roots in
the C C D ~ Oof~ the
~ religion of cattle keepers, and goes on to
build a paradigm of binary oppositions In the organization of
Indo-Aryan society.11i
However, building paradigms on inadequate and mis-
understood dam is risky. Lincoln rests his theory an a separation
of priesfly and warrior groups among ancient Indo-Iranians that
is to the level of the gods: in the dichotomy between
what he terms as the 'sovereign gods', the &%fm(Skt muru =
AV. &urn-) and '.~slrrior-gods',the dairms(Skt d ~ f l Av.
- darn-
old Persian &+'a). Among the celestial sovereigns described as
merrm were the sky-god nyaus, the dual deiry Mitra-Varu~a,the.
idiVassnd h e &miurge Was![. Among [he warrior gods (de~asl
[he most important was Indra. Others were V3yu, the
personificationof d n d , dxc Maruts and the Rudm. However,
recentresearchl'2 has exposed the fallacy of the dichotomy of
deva versus jn do-Iranian times. Tndra, regarded as a
deva by ~ i ~being ~ the i ~ , par eXCeii@nCe,is
~ warrior-god
as no less rhrn four tlrne~;"~and at least in
nine hymns o~ the &fedd he is described as having the qualities
of an muran114 That does not compare u n f a v ~ ~ bwith
l y Varur?a
who is rnnked as the chief 'celestial sovereign', an mttrcf,by
Lincoln. He is called an srszdra about five times115 and the
derivatives mistir-ydrnand asrimare applied to hhn M two
In sonle lly-s the dual diviniiy Mitra-Vamna is called mastlra or
amibu~edthe quality of asurnship."' But SO too with Rudra1IH
;md he ~~ruts,""ho in the opinion of Lincoln are projections
of eart'n\ywarrim bands the divine Izvel.'" Exp~ssionssuch
as det,dyjfi?n nsllra,'J' asuras of the gods, and mabad-
~ e e , ~ n ~ m ~ s x m l r ~ a ~ 'great
e b a mis, the
'LL unique asur~shipof the
gods', wcruld b e difficult to explain l f devas and asurns
represented two mutually exclusive groups of deities belonging
10 differen1cycles of myth-making. In fact, in a Rgvedic hymn
Rudra is called both derm and asurn at the same time."' ale is
right in asserting that initially astir# meant simply a 'lord' ,'I4
human or divine, and also applied to the human adversaries of
Indra such as Varcin,"j PipruIu;and Vckadvara,'" Same of these
are also identified as Disas.IZR But later when the historical nature
aE Zndra's conflict with these human asuras was forgotten and it
was attributed a mythological meaning, the term masurn acquired
a pejoratbe sense and began to signify a demon. Papular
etymology took il to be a negative word and even invented
its positive counterpart sum, meaning god+'2q Hale thinks that
the semantic changes in det)ddae'vaand asrtrdabum in India
and Iran were independent af each other, and his suggestion
deserves further scrutiny. There appears to have been yome
infiltration of old Iranian idess in Later Vedic times,'" but Hale
has esnblished qulte convincingly that rhe muraldew dichotomy
cannot be traced back to h t e d i c times.
Benveniste found that although both the ancient Iranian as
well as the Homeric languages draw upon Indo-European lexical
roots to form words designatmg family, clan, tribe, etc., they arc
not identical and show independent development.14l ~t follows
that each Indo-European language group came to evolve social
institutions in its own specific manner and drew upan ~ ~ d ~ -
European roots to formulate the re quisitc word5,butthere
be no un:formity in this respect. The hypothesis of an Indo-
Europeafi heri~agewould not be adequate [he
existence or non-existence of characteristic social groupings or
 units of social organizarion. The Rgueda does indicate the
e~istenced 3 funcfional grouping OF and warrjms and
the evolution of an embryonic priesthood into a full-fledged
specjaljzed ~ 1 2 of s ~priests, but as Benveoiste remarks, [his
. P u p i n a was not on 3 'political' basis, or genealogically deter-
mined. Social organization proper rested on a different type of
classification, that of family, clan, tribe and country in the the
manner ofconcentric circles. The problem of social stratification,
on the other hand, is linked with the emergence of a specialized
priest!y class among the Vedic people.
There is evidence to show that dthaugh the ritual ofj~ajea
goes back to Indo-European times, the functiun uT priehdruod
was not confined to any particular person, hmily or hage.In
several hymns men in general are said to be offering oblations
and performing the sacrifice.*" At one place &heFive Tribes or
pafico jan@ are credited with bringing sacrifice to A ~ i . l It? is ~
intcresLing thar the plural of the words ' B h m b ' and 'Kuru' are
given as synonyms of the term rm'j in the N#gbanp,'"and .*dj
in Vedic Sanskrit meant 'sacrificing at h e proper season or
regularly'.135It teems to have been the earliest term used Far a
priest who officiated at a sacriFice. It has its cognate twtbwi in b e
~ u e s t aand may have Indo-Europeanroo~s.The mention of the
Bharatas and the Kurus as synonyms of ~tnqinthe traditional
list of words culled from the S w h i ~ is s rightly taken to indicate
that alone time m y membef of these tribes could perform priestly
functions.'* Some of the Sraurasiitras mention 2 varietgr of the
DvHdaSiha sacrifice, the Bhamta DvSdilSfiha, apparently named
afrer the Bhara t2 &naar iw eponymous founder. We are inhrned
that the DvZda55ha can be an abinu as well as a salh-a; the
&feence hemreen the mo types OF sacrifice lies In the fact that.
a satl~ncan be perforrtled only by brshmaqas but my of h e
thxc u p p * -vawss
~ mnperfnrm akina.137 However, both involve
group participation. In our opinion lhis distinction is of Iarer
origin, created with the crystallizalion of die V a V * sptem m
explain away beearlier practice which rnay have concirrued
among the Bharatas. In h e Muhribkurab and the Purgnas, h e
Bharaus and the Kurus appear as b l ~ i y adam, but traces
t ) ~ eeziier custom survive in the of Cedpi and Smtanu
150 CASTE

f i e Rgveda speaks of Devipi as the b ~ t r of ' ~Santanu

~ and h e
pumhita (chief priest) who invoked the gods to release the rains.
yzskaw) tells u s &at aevapi was the elder brother of Santanu
and had gone to the forest to pmcrise austeritieswhen f ~ YOufliFr
s
brother, taking advantage of his absence, usurped the throne.
This the gods who withheld he rains. Santanu then
reques~ednevapi to accept the kingdom, but the latter refused
2nd the gods on behalf of his younger brother acting
as his priest. The story is repeatedM0in the Byhaddeejat2, the
M#bfibhhra!a and several PurZnas, which invent various devices
to account for the unusual practice of a Kuru 'prince' acling a s
the priest of his brother, but the contrived efforr of the later
sources to explain away Devapi's role as the priest of his brother
indicates that the legend had a basis in fact and had to be
explained away in the changed conditions when the priesthood
had become the exclusive function of a hereditary class.
fie case af DevZpi and gantanu is not h e only instance of its
kind. The @veda records another,which has somehow escaped
the attention ofscholars. DevaSravas and DevavPta, regarded a s
composws of the threnry-third hymn of h e third naaq.rduIa and
described as Rharatas (belonging to the Bharata jnnaJ in the
hymn, are said to have been brothers. As the name ofDevaSravas
is given precedence"i' over Dcvavsta, it may be presunled that
DcvaSravas was the older. The next verse urges Devairavas to
praise Agni Daivavita, chat is, the sacrificial Fire of DevavZ~~,
which i s cdled 'the lord of the people', jmaanarnfisad u d i . In
my opinion, the sacrificial Fire of he tribe was generally identified
by the name of the tribal chief and hence in this case we find
that Devavzta, the younger brother, was acting as the tribal chief
while his elder brother officiated as his priest. &nim dnitrau&am
of the verse cited here may be compared with h e expression
da~t~cadffsongnib,'" fire of Divodisa, occurring elsewhere. In
anather cantext the fire of Divod3sa is called sawaft, the lord of
his band.'" '1 i s significant that Di~odHsa,too, was a chief of
the Bhiraras. Agni is often called bhfirata after nanle of
the eponymous founder chief of h e Bharatas.14.' TIle sacrificial
fire of Trasadasyu of the P b r u line, too, is called the
. ' 'cusrornary
r r ~ a ~ ~ a v a It~was ' to describe the sacrificial fire
 of the clan by the name of the chief md Devavita was the clan
chief. fie hymn speaks of him as kindling h e sacrificial Fire
assisted by his elder broher Devairavas, who acted x his priest.
Although tradilbnally borh Devahavas and Dcvav51a are
regarded as brothers and composers of :he hymn, only the name
of DevaSravas appears in the list of the Pravara cis of rhe family
of the ViSvSmitras given in the Baudb~yana~rnutas~itra.'~~ On
h e other hand, the Rgveda speaks of Sm:aya, the son ofDevil.v&a,
too, as a warrior ch:eF, He is described as kindling the fire,which
in ancient times was kindled by De~avita.'''~ SFiijaya, the son of
Devavita, defeated the VycTvants.'"' These references indicate
that at least in some cases succession to chiefship was hereditary.
Thr: trend crystallized by later Vedic ttnles and in later Vedic
- ~ r x ~ s ' ~ " eSyfijayas and thc Kurus are mentioned togethm as
k+auiya lineages. But the earlier kinship of chief and priest is
reflected in a hymn which describes the descendahts of
ViSv;?niitM, the Famous priest of the Bharatas, as bharartaqw
putriih, sons OF the eponymous Bharata.15"Another Vedic seer
parushepa, author of a number of h y m s of the li'rsr ma@&,
describes himself as the clansman of Divo&sa,I5' the chief ofthe
Bharatas. Ji thus appears that at least among the Bharatas the
priest and the chief initially belonged to the same c I ~I would
.
suggest that this lies at the root of the Pur5nic myth about
VidvZmitra's birlh as a kgatriya prince and his becoming a
br511mapa sage by practising severe austeritits.
I t may be argued that although zt some remote period
par ricipation in tfiejajfia may have been an egalitarian communal
activity, as is suggested by salbrdabina sacrifices, the examples
of Dev$ipi-Sanlanu and DevaSravas-Devavita suggest that thc
of the priest and the chief inhered in cer~ainprir4Iegcd
fami]ies,l'z which may have enjoyed higher status, as is the cusc
in many tribal societies. Indeed the Qrt~th jn four instances
;applies the epithet sicjct~dmeaning 'well-born' ca inen who a r e
vafious]y sE&,15q nard3*md t ~ i r a s land ~ ~ are described
as sitting togelher and t e n h g sacrificial f i e . However, ~16jk!tZ
in these passags need not necessarily mean 'h&h born' or 'noble
lineageq,'5"~ believed by Griffith; it may a physical sense
'wcll-builr', 'beautif~lP,
'well-gown', 'tall', Thus i t is
152 CASTE

saidfar h e of purfiravas and UrvaSi that 'from the waters be

b ~ a ~sbang,
n young (sujatd hero Cnavubl'.'j7 Agni is called
sujata a number oftimm,'ZHand is once expressiy described as
*well-born' (raazta stljfita).'~"lsewhere t h e ' p u r e ones'
( ~ ~ u a ~ uapparently
&), the M a r u a , are said to have made their
bodies well-developed (tanvdb ~~CJfitabl by worshipping Agni,
thus exchanging their perishable bodies for immortal ones.'"
Apart from Agni and the Marucs, several other gods, too, such as
~itra,'" 'amna,'" 'aman,'" Bhagal" find Indras(fiare called
mjdta and so are the goddesses Aditi,'" Rodasi'" and ~?i.''&
But there is no doubt h a t the poets had in mind the well-formed
physical appearance of lhese deities a11d nor t h e i r 'rlolllr:
ancestry'.
References to &utm and k~atriyain the Rgvedic hymns have
often led ca the conceptualization of a 'warrior aristocracy' or
'nobiliy' going back to prcrto-Indo-European tirnes.l@Never-
theless, it is righrly held'"' that-in this text &atrastands for 'valour'
and 'kvtriya' For 'ruler' or authority, human or divine.17' It is
almost synonymous with rrijun, but emphasizes the flghflng
qualities of the individual, who was no mere warrior b u t a person
of high rank fighting along with the other membcrs of his clan
Ordinary fighters are designated as balam, that is, force. There
is hardly any evidence of 'k~atriya'being used to denote a
compact Faup, c k or cask in the R g z ~Ir. is significant that
when the varndcaste structure emerges, it is initially rItjalzya,
emphasizing kinship with thu rGjan, a i d n o t 'ksatriya' thar
denntes the second varqa. RepIacemen~of 'rciljunya' with
'ksatriya' in the vama scheme is syrnpcamatic of a horizontal
and perhaps also vertical widening of he exploitarive social
order, in terms ofspace as well as people.
It is held that h e bgvedic rhju~zwas a tribal chief whose
functions were largely confined to providing protection ro his
clan and its cattle and leadership in wars and cattle rai&.17' H ~ :
also distrih~ted"~ booty or spoils of cattle raids, apparently
retaining a larger share for himself. That there were persons
who possessed more wealth than others is indicated by the
mjagbauan. Sik! W a s another term d distinction and is
interpreted in the sense of 'chief'. However, points oupd
 thar in the prayers when long ljfe Is expected the rwm eri b
used, but when food or wealth is prayed for mrtgbavan is used.
Both fimw as the pawns of pries@.In several verses the tern
asura, loo, closely approximates to the Rgvedic rlijan. Asuraship
a d &fftr# are attained simultaneously in some GTSCS,'" and in
one hymn the laara d the people L also descrjbed as the
'cli~ttiburor'.~~k.cisa~has his wwn t ~ j ~ m ( m d r m vy Ta ~ ~ a + ) , ~ ~ H a l ~ ' ~
conclusions are worth noting. In his view in the earlier portions
of rb,e Qwda a man was an asura not by birth or qualities but
became so 'by the consent and support of chose who foIlowed
him'. He was a chiefw 'lord'w ? i hsome kind of military force at
his command.
\Vtiereas nsura, maghrauan, s i i r i and raja71 are all terms
indiding high rank,mrriors in general are nnras or ~ i r m / ~ u v ; ~ a s ,
which mean powerful men or heroes.17p Apparendy war rvag
mainly the concern of young men of the pah.iarchal Aryan tribes.
Lincoln drawsLmartention to two interesting terms signifying
warrior bands, mlalyalsLand vrka, which have thcir cor-
respondence in the ancien~Iranian ~ ~ S ~ I GLiterally,
LS. the former
meant 'young man' and tht Iatter 'wow. This WE- particularly
significant in thc mntext of cattle-mi&, since rhe warrior had
to be a rurhless preda~ar.The warrior band had its own
c h a n c t e r i ~ i cemblems such as 111emace (vajral and banner
(dhuaja or dmpsc].'" Lincoln even suggescs that the warrior had
to go through some Form of initration. None Lhcs less, he admits
that i! is nnr clear whether these bands nrcreorganized as og+
Sets, secret societies, or along wholly different lines', although
the fact that the Marurs are all of the same age would point 10 an
age-set The emphasis on youtl~would lend to
make their recruitmehi open and not confined to cei%~in so-called
rajaqa lineages, especially as demogapbically it was still a
snlnll-scale sodery praying for ever far the increase of its
manpower.
The impression created bp the Rgvedic dam is fiat ranks
were not and anyone could aspire co becorn a prim ar
a w a d o r &ef, fn an oftenquored verse the poet says: 'A bard
nm 1, my dad [tatah) is a leech, mommy (nfln&) cam upon
the Striving for wealth, wich varied plans, we follow
desires like kine.'lR4In the earlier third Tnan&h 143.5) a
addresses Indra: 'Would you make me a protector (gopal of rhe
people Cjzrnasyal, their ruler (ruj8nam), 0 c o n q u e r i n g
Maghavan? Or would you make me a .qihaving drunk the soma
juice? Or would you give me everlaskifig wealth?' Such geneid
statements may not re11 us much about the organizational structure
of Rpedic tribes, but the lack of rigid demarcation between
social echelons suggests that although the social organization
had progressed beyond a purely egalitarian stage, it was by no
means stratified. Ranks were still largely a matrer of achievemen1
rather than inheritance, although descent had begun ro count-
Rrferences to Kuiikas, Viivimitras, Vasis!has and Kiit~vasin the
plural suggest famiIies or clans engaged in priestly functions
through generations, b u ~all such references need not be
interpreted as speaking of priestly lineages exclusively. As we
shall presently see, the Bhfgus--and perhaps the Arigirasas too-
were initially a 'whole tribe' rather than priestly lineages. It is
held that the names of many a tribe now survive only in
hr;iktna~gatras, Nevertheless, claims of descent from ancient
sages who had already acl~icveda myhical, semi-divine starus
would confer high prestige and additional advancage and at one
place the Rpedic pmt claims a hereditary gift of poetry. 'On
account of our descent from our ancient father (pi~ub), we arc
speaking; our tongue, when we behold the Soma, stirs itself,'18i
As r i ~ a lbecame
s mow specializedand knowledge oftl~ernsecret,
the trend would be towards he growth of a hereditary priestly
class. The process is still in its formative stages the Queda
and hence we find a fluid social situation.

n c question arises: what was d ~ process

e which led to a precise
defming and insticdtionalization of statuses, their crystallization
into vama mkgories:' D.D. Kosambi was of the view that the
hrihmana v a r y with its gotm organization developed as 'a result
of interaction between the Aryan priesthood and [he ritually
superior priesthood of the lndus Culture'.'" The survivors of
the Harappa Culture were absorbed at various levels in the
 tolnposite Aryan sociery, which evolved a fourfold v m a struaure
as a consequence. Most crucial was the assimilation of the
I-Imppan priesthood, Small groups of pre-Aryan priests joined
the conquering Aryan patriarchal clan-groups offering them their
priestIy services. This resulted in these priestly group.; aciopting
the same clan name as that of their patrons, which would explain
the survival of Vedic cIan names (for emrnple, Vik~rqa,Matsya,
Kursa, Vitahaya, etc.) among the brahmanical gotrm listed in
[he Srnut:isfitras and the Mcrtsyn Prlrd!ia. Tile recoinbined
priesthood transfarmed the original Vedic priesthood,
accelerating its separatioil I'rorn tllc kzzrrip elitc, a struciur~l
developnrenc which was prt~lielKO the emergence of the Dim/
9iidt-a c;lsle and 1 4 to endogamy.'n7I~dividualpropetry had not
developed stlfficjenrly among the nomadic pssronl Aryans. he
subjng;l~edH:rrappn agr:u'ian pqmlarion lidcntified as D3sa.s
by Xosambi), ~hcrefnre,belonged to the conquering rribm 3s 2
whole constituting a separare group. This was the origin of 3
Disa/ifidr;l varna and an endogamous caste system.
Koszmbi's thesis is brilliant and persuasive and nlrhougk some
OF his argumenw appear far-ferched, unlike Ghurye he trim lo
provide a rationnl explanation d the origin of tlle bnhmanical
golt'ns. Tl~ilparacknowledge^'^ her indebtedness to Kosambi in
drawing her model of 'lineage society' in which h e bdhmana
and the Sfidra are ualted as addenda; but she ignores the most
important aspect af his thesis, which explains cbe Internal
stratification of the Aryan tribes as the orrtcorne of the fornlatian
ofa DBa/sGdm varpa, the 'surplus producing labour', and the
assirnila~ionof ~ h Aryan
c and the pre-Aryan priesdwud resulting
in the separation of brai~manaand ksacriy~,a social pattern
in rhe hyrnns of the Y ~ ~ j t c r r ~ofc itlre
c ~ later V d i c phase
and not in the ~ Q c ~ e (wid1
c k ~ the except ion ofthe pltl~yart5kra).
We need not rule out survivn) of same H a r ~ p den~mts p or
their in the expanding Aryan society, hut Koslrnbj's
sssulnption thar the 'prjal class of the Aryan conrluerors was
largely recmited frojn the c ~ n q u e r e d "Is~not convinicing. Some
ycdic sdgps such 3s ~ v a s aAiI6sa and Dirghatamas aw sdd to
havebeen rf&purra, sons of DC5a wotncn, but the iden~fication
of tilrl J 3 3 ~ws i h tjle pmple of d ~ riarappa
c cubart: remains
156 CASTE

problematic, and Kosambi's view that of the seven sages r%ardcd

as primary foundcrs of the brahmanical gotra-lineages
(ViSvadtra, lamadagni, Bhnmdvitja, Eautama, Avi, Vasi~lkaand
G<yapa),':itVi~gmitrawas 'the one real inclubitable man' and
the rest non-Aryans,is pure sepculatian. W e do no1 know W~IY
Bhq&u, the father of Jan~adagni,is given a secondaq pasitton in
h e gotra l i s ~but
, SD also is KuSika, the father ofVigvSmitra.
Perhaps Kosambi's reasoniwfar regarding the Bhrgujarnad~gnis
as non-Aryans b that in h e battle of 'ten k'mgs' rhe B h W s appear
as the enemies of Sudss, the Ieader d the T F ~ ~ uwhom s, ~ndra,
'thefriend of h c Aryans', helps.lYaBut the hastiliq of tndsa is
not certain evidence for a non-Aryan identity, for at several places
I n d a is praised for having killed Aryan enemies.'"! Kosambi is
of course right in regardig the Bhrgus as 'a complete cribe' in
the Rgtadn w$h afull range ofactivities including warfare, ctrariat
manufacture and pottery-xpertise in the latter accounting for
the word bbdrgatra, meaning Fouer, both in % ~ ~ s l c rand l t Pali. It
is apparent that because of lhis multi-dimensionality of the
Bhygus, Macdonell and Keith could nor decide whether they are
priests or warriors. ""
Traditionally the hiigirases are closely associated with the
Bhygus. Two of h e primary g~lrwkaras,B h a r n d ~ iajn~d Gautama,
figure as hgirases in the goha lists, and Viimadwn, attributed
authurship of the fourth ntup&da, speaks of Gotam2 as his father.
In several hymns higirascs ;Ire described tnystically as ~~in+as
Ch-wing various forms1 and sons of god (der~aputm,diuas
putrdso1,"'l But in one hymn")" they appear as the patrons of
Viivimitm and are said 'to have prolonged their life by giving
him rich gifts at the thousandfold soma pressings, d ~ a tis, the
horsc sdcr~fice.The verses'" thar follow make it clear that it was
the horse sacrifice of Sudiis, the chief of the Bharat*~,at which
the K u G k 3 ~officiated.V'iSv%mitmoffered prayer to 1ndra For [he
protcc~onof Bharata jar;& Thus, at least in this hymn the
f i ~ i r a m cIasely allied to the B ~ I ~ A jfI ~no1 s , idenl&d with
Ehem, and are patrons bestowing riches an Vigvjmitra and not
officiating priests. There is little indicative ofa riun-Avan origin.
Kosatnbi regards the nljT11 aF the r n i r a c u l o ~bidl of Vas$balW
in the seventh nzandnl~tas a sure sign of iis, ahP\ion
 Wan 1ineage;he argues chat the h c t tlmt Vasisfha was adoprcd,
not in rhe Kuiika goIra, 'the gens of the original tribal pricsr
Vigvzmitra', but into the Trtsu-Bharata tribe, shows that
'Fhhinanisrn was foreign to the original Aryan system'; far
Vigvstnitra, though a priest, was not the first brahmana. He was
a ksatriya who acwined L>fihmagahood by practising severe
austerities according lo later legends, which speak of his r i ~ l r y
nlth Vnsi~tha.It is Vasigha who is thc first brlhmaga.Iw I-~ere
Kosnmbi seems to imply that the very idea ofa separate br5hmana
varga was borrowed from the Harappa culture. This goes zagifinst
his own view that the beginnings of the vama/caste organization
arc to be traced to changes in relations of production and he
formation of a servile class of D%a/s'udn vama. 'Dasa' in fact
became a servile category after the defeat of the D5sas at the
hands of the egvedic q a n s . 11 was not a continuation of their
pre-existing position in an earlier network of p r o d ~ i c t i o ~
relations. The &c:eda knows of several DCsa chiefs t v h o , ~ 3 1 t h
was coveted by the Aryans. Besides, even if ir is gramed that
Vnsistha was a pre-Aryan priest patronized by the Bharatas, it
would not explain the puzzling feature of endogamy; for the
ViSv;imitras and chc Vasi.sthas, the so-&led Aryan and pre-Aryan
priests of ICosamhi's thesis, assirnilate to form one endogarnous
caste unit having exogamous gottzrs or clans within i t In the
gotra system of the hriihrna~asthe ViSv5mitras occupy a
,considerable space and endogamy does not mark hem o f ffroill
thc VnsistJ~as;they together form a single whole, constituting
one varpa, separated from other occupationi~lgroups which
intn distinct varnas and endoga~nousunits. It is
possibleto argue that the description of Vasi?~hans the 'first
brghmanau is in tile sense of his being ~ 1 1 f~ ~. r e t l l ~ or ~t.
alwmativcly that it is an allusion to his h v h g been the first of
those wllo were later designated Brc7hl?aqriccba?nsjn and
mentioned as ' b d h n ~ a ~in
a '&tledu 1.15.5, since he
was allotted the special cup called ' h r a ~ m ~for ~ ~drinking
n'
sonza,'tjfl The assimikatioil and accommodation of aboriginal
wihh f - ~ o r k ofthe br3hmaaa vwa is a process
whidl has taken place throughout lhe period of expansion of
the aste qstem, but the emergence ofendWalnous subcastes
158 CASTE

within the brfihrnana vama i s a post-Vedic, presumabl). early

phmomenon. Eihnic ~ ~ p i ~ \ors ii s~~nh \ i ~df i ~ not
s
rhe emergence of an endogamous brshmnna varnn in
the V d i c pried. If there was assinlilation of the Arynn and the
pre-Aryan at the level OF pries~hood,h e r e arc swongrsr grounds
to hold that i+ere was assimilation at the levels of ruling lineages,
he and the 5iidr;rs too. But this would not explain e he origin
of the v a r ~ asystem w d endogamy. In our opinion endogamy
should be seen as an extreme manifestation of class and gender
exploitation which go togetl~erin che caste system. The system
has adopted certain primitive rcligio-social notions of con]-
mensaliq and connubium to serve its own end.""
Identifying specific items of he sorio-cultural milieu of Vedic
and post-Vedic times as survivals of the Harappa Culture is a
hazardous exercise. It is worthwhile to keep in mind the remark
of Stuart Piggon, 'the absecvational data of prel-iistory seem to
ine in almost every way tn be more ambiguous and more capable
of varied interprctatiuns than t h e normal rulj of marerial aviiil-
abie to h i w ~ r i a n s ' . ? Theories
''~ regarding the socio-politicrtl
organizarion of the Harappans often use rile same artifacts to
arrive at contradictory ~onclusians.~[~ As for religion, ICosarnbi
did nor have thc advantage of the excavation reports of
Kalibangan (Rajasthan) and Lothal (Gujarat), which have brought
to light the exisrence of fire-al~arsand a firc-ritual in thc Harappan
cultural milieu. But i t is pertinent h a t none of he north-western
sites ofthe H a m p p Culture such as Mohenio-d:iro, Harappa or
Chanhu-dam provide any indicntion of a fire-cult. The regional
divcrgencc may be explained as due to some intrusive Indo-
Iranian or Aryan elements rnceling the Harappan people which
rewired in a culturnl synrhesis, but is not sufficienl to warrant
the supposition that Harappan priests took charge of the Aryan
fire-ritual and played a key role in the st~cial:lntl religious
reorganization of the Rgvedic Aryans, Marshall's hypothesisA''
hat HaflPpans worshipped the ftmalc-princip)e $&ti in the
form of a mother-goddess, as we11 as the male principle, the
ProtolYPc of god i j v a , in both heir snthropotnorpl~icas well as
3niconic forms, has been widely accepted w i t h o u ~
a n d el3h0ratt. ~ h e o r i e shave hujlr on [be
 assufnption that [hc Harappan religion was a direct progenitor
of 1-linduism. Thus Wheeler,"f w h ~ l eimp[icitIy accepting
Marshall 's jnr~rpretationof rhc & a , hyporhesjzed that the culr
of Me mother-goddess was observed by the lower clzsses and
II'le higher clxsses worshipped the male deily, the ' p r ~ t ~ - & \ . a '
reprcsentcd on thc seals, It is irlteresting that the Last Cur ~ f l e
'pr~ro-Siva'ident~ficationrests on the intepremtion of n sin&
seal found at Mohenjo-daro by Marsh~[I.Twoothers discovered
I)y Ma~kay?'~'and regarded by him as similar to thc 'proto-Siva'
seal show important variations, The figure on the firsr wears a
bufhla-horn heaudre"~~, nunleraus bracelets and, according to
MarsI~all, has rhr- b c ~ nnd
s is ithyphnlIic; hut thew f ~ n t ~ l r c ~
arc absent on the oher two. Refwing to Lhe views of various
archaeologists a n d historians, Ghurye shows that there is no
urranirnity ofopiniun about the last nrectioned features and
concludesur thxt not only is ~ h c'so-called ithyphallism of the
figure ahlost a fiction or an act of imaginntion' but h e ascription
of three faces to is unwarranted. I-le also draws attenlion to the
fact that whereas the historic ~ i v ais closely connected with the
bull, this animal is conspjcuously ahssen t arnong rile anjmslls
surrounding the deity on the seal. Thus, Ghurye is justified in
rejecting the thesis of tile Marappan origin of the ~iva+ult.
hlorc rhan n decade earlier, H.P. SullivanJuxhad questioned
M3rsl1all's identifiation and assumprions regarding Himppan
t figure Qn the Mohenjo-
icligion. IIc: is quitc crnphutic r h ~ the
d:iro seal is neither ithyphallic nor tl-lreehradcd; it is in hct- a
fe~llaIe&it)', the srirle great goddess of%-eg~stion : m d krliliiy
wflo rl,anifestcd herself in 113e mcrcd rree and is shown nre:tring
:I 1hrec-pointed heacldress. Hc paints oul thal Marshall hirnseif
had adInittcd that v;hat appenred tu him ro be an erccr
cnuld be in pn[ily 111e enrl of he waistband. In 5ulIiv;tn's view
wzisthands and girdles Ire f n l ~ n donly on fc'em:!lefigurincr; a17d
arm bangles and i~dornlavishly the fenlalc figures in
Harappan arl. .hccording to him, the coif and the pigtail worn by
[lie two otller so-cal[c-rf4prota-Siva' figures rcsrrtrble ~ I O X t u m r
bp (hefernakfigulicrsan J 1hrre is scant evidrnre of the worshi23
a nyaIe deity in the 1,Iarappa culrure The idcntifiulttion of[he
numerous conical sIonr3 r ~ u n dat lhc Indus sites as ph3[[us ell.
I60 CASTE

Iftiga is also doubtful and it has been riglit1y held that even if
'phallus worship' is assumed to have been a part of the I-Tarappan
religion it would not prove the prevalence of Siva-worship, for
Siva's connection with the lirign symbol is post-Vedic and
pcrhaps later than the secund ccnmry BC.
Thus the arguments of Sullivan a n d Ghuryc sufficiently
demonstrate the fallacy of broad generalizations in the sphere of
religious beliefs and practices on thc basis of a few nlaterial
artihcs of d o u b h l impart. Those who trace the epic-Puranic
cults cf iiva and h k t i as well as the caste system ro h e Harappa
period ignore the fact that the cults of both these deities appear
to have been originally hostile lo brahmanisrn and the varna
system. Both Siva and the mother goddess ~ u r ~ g - s a kmake
ti a
late entry into the brahrnanical pantheon. The story of Siva's
destruction OF the yajiia sacrifice of Daksa-~rajzpatiand his non-
inclusion among he godswho receive a share of yajl^ct-offerings
clearly establishes his anti-brahmanical ancccedents. Similarly
t h e worship of rhe mother goddess in Indian villages retains
mces of an earher tradilion when it was free of varqa bias. +&US
it is dlfficul~to maintain that the roots of these anti-brahmanic~l
cults a s well as of the varr;la system go hack rc, the Indus civil-
ization, and were laler manipulated by [he brihmana priests
through religion and ritual. A more reasoned approach would
be to look forexplanations in the internal dynamics of the Rgvedic
sncicty3''

The Cevelopmenl of a powerful prieshood and the formation of

lhe hriihlnana varna not be simply n case OF e t h n i c
predisposirion; grcater availabiiity of surplus and enforced leisure
are necessary conditions for the proliferation of rituals and the
growth of a class of spccialins who firs1 establish [heir control
over the grcat fertility rites and then assume the role of
interlnediaries between clans and ancestors and deities. T h e
process may be seen in the Qtlecla. I t is generally held that the
earliest tcrrns to denote a priestly Functionari, are ?tv!j and but5
bnth with cognates in the A1:estr.z-as Rarbtilland Xaotar. The former
 tern1 is connecred with seasonal sacrifices offered at regular
intervals and we have already shuwn Ihai initially d ~ functiun c
of t h e ~rzrtlrijwas not confined to any priestly lineage. These
sacrifices were perhaps performed ~ollectiwlyby h e tribe hence
the Bharata tribe as a whole couId be known as ,dtli~~'" Later,
Wllj' became the general designation for a priest officiating at a
sacrifice.L11 A similar development occurs in the case of the 1 3 0 ~ :
The word derives from an Indo-European root bu meaning 'to
pour'. Thus,rhe original function ofthe holywas to pour libations
into the fireh2l2Hotr also means one who invoked the gods by
reciting the hymns and is regarded by some as the earliest
p ~ i e s t .In
~ 'ancient
~ Iran Zaotar was the designation of a ciass of
priestsa2'" However, originally does not seem to have
belonged to a distinct priestly class bur was Identical with
yajarnkn~,~'5 the sacrificer, and this pnsitinn he retains in thp
paka yajfins ofthe g.rbya rihlal. Later, with the growth oFa more
complicated sacllficial ritual, bo$.bccomes one of four ~Qlijswifi
three priest assistants or helpers.21"n some hymns of h e @fteda,
Lhe hala and the yajcana2na are clearly distinguishedn' and at '
rwo places he is o m of the seven priests named along with
hrahman.6'a
It is interesting that priestly specialization was rnmifesr not in
the monopoly of or greater expertise in warsllipping cersajn
deities or in officiating for certain specific clans or peoples but
in such matters as the use of specific vesselsfi9for offering soma
to various divinities. This seems to suggest that elaboration of
ritual, rather than assimilalion of differen[ elhnic groups, resulted
in the deveiopment of a category of specialists thar w a s to
crysiallize as the brlhrnapa v a q a . The earlier terns used for the
s ~ ~ cashSSOC?;,prit~ut;Dra, ku~i,pf md hrahtnn~~ in rhe
nlasculine are conncctcd with the Function of composing or
singing of the hymns or prayers. 'B&manal is of rare occurrence
in the and with the exception of rhtpunqasGktd hymn it
does nor seem to have been used anywhere else to denote n
rncmber of h e priestly c i a ~ s . ~ ' A t in two places it means
least
the cup to the brahmasa priesr for drinking soma. At
places it is used as an a d j e ~ d v e . Slrnilar
~' is tile
of ~,, ap , which larer came to nlmn exfIusjvely a
terln
162 CASTE

memberof the briihrnana varna but is often used as an adjective2"

in the ~ l , e $ signiFylng
a a state of exllilarated ecstasy o r inspired
~ l n r p e n c e .Oncc the term seems to stand for I3rhaspatit" and
at anorher piace the u+ras and odhz~ayusare clearly dis-
~ i n ~ u i s h e d .A~ "semantic studyZZ~ of the four key worcb, vpra,
??it @ z ~ r ~ band i f u hrahlnan concIudes that a professional elms of
priests evolved gradually in h e Pgvedic period 'from functional
notions of sacerdocy' and only towards the end of this period
does it become a closed order known as the brjhma~aV a V .
The beginnings of this process may be seen in those hymns
which clearly distinguish between 'singers' Cstot~)and bounteous
patrons (maghavwns w szirrs), and thank tbc gods for bringing
'food' (aniidu)to b~ch.~~"hev@ras create hymns2j7and are
contrasted with the n a r d w or v i r d 8 who go ro the battlefield
and fight hand to handlWwhile h e i r chief rides a horse or, more
Iikcly, a chariot. Su t l uccupatiu~lal
~ calegory uf composer-
chanter-priest is well-marked. In a hymn of the eighth rnaadala
the viprasclaim LO be "kinless' ( a b a ~ d h a v a @and~ ~pray to Indra
who has 'numerous kin' (hxdhumanttsm) to prorecr them. This
statement seemingly significant may show that priestly
functionaries were the firs1 co renounce or transcend kinship
ties. Their activities were not confined to a particular clan or
tribe and in a verse of the ninth mandalala the seven priests are
described as 'united in consanguineous brotherhood'.^'* Another
verse of the tenth mu?zdala clearly distinguishes between the
vipra and the yajamancr."+Thus in the la~cststratum of the
Rgi~ecfathe priesthood may be said to have se&irated into a
distinct order claiming the highest position in society by virtue
of its mntrol over ritual. It is argued'" that the term 'brahmana'
was referred to other terms to indicate the generality of
priesthood, for its etymon h r a h m n was more comprehensive
and covered every type of priestly activity. Its use also emphasized
the factor of Iteredity, so tkat whereas hrahmatz was o n e ofthe
seven priests, 'brahmana' was an inl~eritedstallis.
The tranqitinnal character of M e d i c society mny h e no~iced
in ihe changing paltern of the family. Qvedic Falnily, as
reflected in the earlier stratum of the text, was nuclear or
'eiemcnwr~'consisting of not more than two generations; and it
 was integmted into a wider grouping, h e 'clan', The auhors of
the Vedic b z d ~ ~ e x p r ehs se view dial h e &vedic does
not show whether a son when grown up set up his own house
or continued to sray with his father, his wife becoming a member
of the father's hou~chold;perhaps the custom varied."' ~~t
s a joint family system occur in the in[erpaJated or
~ ~ ~ u s ~ o I Y to
latest stratum of the euedannd I may not he wrong in advancing
a rather uncommon view: that the joint family emerges only
towards he close of the Rgvedic phase.
Although Fgvedic society was dearly patrilineal, &ere is scant
evidence for the 'patriarchal' auhority or control of the father or
head of rhc family. The of h a h i e p a occurs in later Vedic
rexts. The bUnJing of RjrriSva by his fiather mentioned in two
hyrnn~,~~"s sometimes cited as proof of a developed pamh
potesrc~;but, as Macdonell and Keith caution, 'to lay stress on
this semi-mythical incident would bc unwise'. They point out
that there is nothing to show that a father controlled the rnaMage
of his son or daughter. 'Any excessive esrirnate of h e faher's
powers over a son who was no longer minor and naturally under
his control must be qualified by the fact that in his old age h e
sons rnighl divide their farher's property,,.. '*47 In support
Macdonell and Keith refer to a verse"' addressed to Agni:
'Dividing you (uiliui), men have served you attentively (sfipczgan)
at many places (punttrd] just as the goods of an aged hther are
carried away (bharanta).' This verse dIudes not merely to the
division of an aged father's possessions among his sons, but
dso indirectly to their separate househdds.
References to individual couples Cmitbunti, d a n p t b washing
and pressing out soma julce, offering obl:~tionstogether and
tending the fire in their houses Idama) are numerous in the
Rg~,g&.L4JAt one plxe A ~ nisi called carnnlon to all, the protector
of the t& and of &>?patis.'"' Another hymn speaks of h e equal
age ~~a~,a~,ms) of a tnitbunn dwelling in the same place and
lending the sncrifici;rl fire night and day.24' Benvuniste has
shown21'h a ; chc Indo-European roou of early Vedic d~rnpt~lf
and wjpald *&nzan<l * v ~wire , initially genealogical terms, which
Ialcr assumed the meaning ofphysical habitat. Thus cfanzawould
mean fzmily h e master of the house qua fadly.
~Jaallzpoli
This was the smallest social unit, an elementary Family.
Another crucial word conveying the sense of 'family', 'house'
or 'household' is gyha. In many Rgvedic passages it is clearly the
material abode or place of r e s i d e n ~ e . The~ ' ~ gods are described
as going to the grkn of the benefactor.244Agni is in every d a m
(ho~se).~ Huwever,
"~ in one place grha, too, appears to be a
consanguineous unit."%e usage of gybipi (housewife) and
gyhmtha (householder) continues to this day in Hindi, The terms
gyhapariand grhapatnihave been translated as head and mistress
of h e household. Sharma is of rhe view rhat the grha in the
a u e d a was the smallest social unit but was a 'large family
conraining rnembers offourgenemrions'.247Thus gyhaptiwouId
be the head of one such family, although elsewhere Sharma
suggests that the tribal c h i e k u l d have been known by the tide
of g r h a p ~ t i , "Rornila
~ Thapar thinks thar in the Bueda gyhaputis
were of 'higher', that is to say rlij~dnya,lineage, 'since the term
is brought in when describing the nuptials of the daughter of
Sfirya.... Agni is called the gyhapati and the sacred household
fire is gyh~pasyd;'"~ grbctpam here is obviously an error for the
gGrh~pwtpEire and not for gyhydgrad. The garhapatya fue was
not a sacred 'houschald fire', but one of the three frauta or
public fires, the other iwo being iihavaniya and dalqiqagni. Tt
is always differentiated from grkyagni, the household fire, also
called uafi~abika or smZirtligni. The latter is meant for offerings,
made every morning and evening. It i s significant that the
Grhyasiitras speak of it as the nuptial (r)ai!~&hik#) fire to be
kindled on the day of marriage by the newly married couple,
who are to keep it burning constantly. It may be allowed to go
our when the wife dies and the man wishes LO remain a
widower.2H' Thus the distinction between the grhycigni and the
gGrhapawgnl lies not. in the Fact that one represenrs 'ppuIar'
and the other 'elite' piety, hut that the fomer is the fire of the
individual household for the purposes of daily offehgs, and
the latter a communal fire meant for seasonal or occasiond
Purposes. In the y#lsaStmx, which were long sacrificial sessions
rimalizing the eastward rnoverneni of the Vedic Aryans, the
@rhaPfiga fire is 10 be built on the place where heyoke-ph
the chariot ciamy& comes down.&'[t is conrendedZ12 that the
 g.rhyu rlrual bug[ around rile Jurrlestlc Fire was a 'subsrirute' or
'replacement' ofthe cumbersome and elaborate Srautaritual, as
there is a basic similarity ofstrumre acd procedure. Neverheless,
the practice of making daily offerings to the domestic fire may go
back to 4 g v d c times. Jt was, however, quite distinct from the
fire of the grhapntl or girhappdgni, which is mentioned in
cormecrion with the seasonal son= sacrifice in a Rgvedic h y m
addressed to Rtu h e personified
The clue ra rhe original significanceof grh#@tt may be found
in the collective sanra sacdices performed by a group of men
l~emen the age of .seventeen and twenw-four in company with
their wives, who are given di@ along with their husbands. In
n. srrth~? sacri£ice there ore no priests, the p,&amGnws or the
sacrificers themselves oficiate and choose one among cl:em as
h e i r gyhapadi ro perform all necessary sacred acts in Ehe
course ofthe sacrifice, others merely touching him. Nevertheless,
the merit accruing from the sacrifice is supposed ro go ro aIi of
them equally."4 A passage of the Athan~aa~rdd~~ says that rhe
~tzttrd~s had become tcrsmrnq n7ere no Iunger in vague. This
confums their archaic character. The rule that a sattra is to be
performed on1y' by the brShmapas was apparenrly formulared
when the priestly function was confined to the brahmana varga.
But [he fact dlat rhe sacrificial u r ~ s i l sprepared for use m the
course of the sacrifice were common to all sacnficers, arid aIso
the sllpulation in some stmas thnt all participants of a sattm
shouId belong FO he same gotra, indicate that originally the sattrm
must hare been performed by a group united by kLnship. The
gy/~apatiwasthe leader or d~ief of one such group. This inference
rdlies with des:scrjptian ofAgni-g~h@atiin the first h ~ n nof
the sevenh in which well-formed men ( t l d d @n!j&a@)
2nd I>rzye heroes (strrirab] sit togedler around a fire in the
dwelling. P e r h a p h e offeringof the grbdrnedbP sacrifice LO
the h r u ~ who , arc described as g!*hamedh~a,2'7 sharers of
grhamedha, is significant, ns they are *I1 Young and form a
co]lectivity (ga?ja)and as such are especislly connected with
&?a.
Rgvedic vocabulary is poor in those tcrms denoting an
extendecl or joint fanllly system. The wedding hymn f0ur.d in
the tenth mavdalca, in which it is wished [hat the bride may
preside over 3 large joint family consisting of father-in-law,
mother-in-law, sister-in-law and other kinsmen, appears to have
heen recast more than once by priesdy hands and it has been
puinted uulaSB e the later section of the hymn
dint 111cl a t ~ ~ u a gof
(which contains alfusions to the joint family structure), is more
akin to modern Sanskrit than to the Vedic. A solitarj description
of a large household yirh farher, mother, kinsmen ~ f i ~ ~ ~ ~ & ~
and a number OF wornen sleeping in a courtyard is found in a
hymn of the seventh rna?rdcila,but hate quotes it as an example
of later interpalation??}lt is also found in the ~thnwaueda.It is
l ~ ~ lthac
d ~kin-based
~ ' collectives are prunllncnt in the Rgueda,
even if their precise nature is difficult to define. Yet unlike the
Atha~~vedh a ,e Ilgveda has very few words expressive of an
extended famiIy sysrem. We may suggest that owing to the
solidarity of the clan as a social and functional unit it may not
have been very necessary m have spcafic t m ~ distinguishiw
s
elders and juniors of different generations and lineages. Hence,
gpedir kinship rcrminology is classificarory. The term pit~stands
for bthers or ancestors as a whale, and fanit!' is added to
distinguish one's own fatherV2"' Similarly, while the t e r m sfirzt~,
tanaya and putra are used in the Rgrreda to denote all
descendants, the Afbamauedti uses them in a more restricted
sense. The latter text has specific :erms for grandfather
ipiti?maba), grandmother Cmfitdmahal, great-grandfather
Cprapit&nahd and grandchild CnliPty),abscnt in the & ~ d a . & ~
Kapadia has shownL"'that whereas in the &ada offerings are
made to rhe coliectivity of ancestors kilowr~as pi[rs, the
~ l a down in a more specific manner that three
n l l ~ r n a z ~ e iays
ascendant ancestors of the ego consrimre his pips and they are
ra receive oTfering5 for t h e manes. A kioship (emlinology is a
mmns ofordering rd~rionshipsfor social purposes. T ~ RPp ~ c i i ~
social structure seems 10 have been what tl~esociologists call
the Omaha IYW, in ufllichancestral 1 ineages af several generations
constih~teda single united group, the principle of the unity of
lineage-generations being ' a method of expressing and
evhasizina the unity and the soIidarity oFlhc pa(rilhea1fineage
i 4 r o ~ ~ 'In
~ any
~ ' ' case, tilere is noihing warrant tlhe assertionl'"
 that sons were ueared as items of property for the labour power
h e y provided for the family, for it h not shown that the family
was h e basic unit of production and h e head of the famay had
patriarchal aulhority. References to pitpi#t&"F o r &patrimonial
wenlth' should not be inrerprctcd & rhe sense of indivjdurtl
inheritance, but related to the conception of pi!? in the ~ ~ , ~ h
and hence would mean the 'wealh bequearhed by the ancestors'.
The cl:~n,also called 'sib' or 'gens3,,isthe basic social unit
among the people who are relarively sealed but have not yet
developed sufficient agricuIture to support a full-fledgedpolitical
organizati~n.~"The use ofthe term 'clan' in he context ofRgvedic
society has recenrly been questioned on the ground that [he
case ofexogamy is not proved. The objection is not very serious.
In anthropol6gical usage this term has beer applied to societies
whch have gone beyond the 'band'stagebut have not developed
3 uniliaeal lineage strncr~rc.~" In his definition of the 'clan'
Radcliffe-Brown remarks that the term 'should be used only for
3 group having unilineal descent in which all the members regard
one another in some specific sense kinsfolk. . . . Frequently,
hut-~a~t-tc~zit~~fsc11~, the recognition of the kinship bond uniting
rhe members of the clan takes the farm ofa rule of exogamy
which forbids marriage between the members ofthe Yame
J have avoided the use of the term 'Iineage'in the Rgvedic context
as here is greater sense af genealogy and unilincal descent in
that term than in 'clan', though both models crace the descenl
front a real or mythical ancestor. In the wedif t ' o c a b u l q it is
t)ii which seems to approximate to 'clan, and Is generally
jnlerprrted as such b y h e Vedic scholars alrhougb some would
prefer to interprer it simply as 'people' or 'aetde~ucnr'.But the
general trend of evolution being from a soud entity to a physical,
lerriloridentity, as demonsrrated in the case of dczrrtn,rhr:r i i i -
seems to have been a kin unit. Ln the nncient Iranian its cognate
f r f i denotes 'clan ' or a group of several f3rnilies,"' and ir is quite
likely that this was 111e case with early ~ e d i too. c On the other
hand, the lerm jarla, which could meanii' both 'a person' as
well as ' c u ~ l l r ~ l u l i t yis' ,also samctiines used in llle sense of an
exogamous unil, at leas[ ~nthe later Vedic sources. The
L d v f i ~ ~ jraelfmatm
~ifl equates s#golrb with :a7lldnajdlad'' and
168 CASTE

the janya o r janyamitra mentioned in connection with the

consecration ceremony is taken to smnd for a person allied by
The wife is called pni in the j ? g u e d ~ . ~ ~ '
The case for exogamy among h e Indo-Aryans has been argued
by a number of scholarsn5including B ~ n v e n i s t ewho , ~ ~ remarks
that the term ari has a rather ambivaient meaning in the Rgueda;
it is used in the sense of a 'friend' or 'ally' in one context and
'cnerny' or 'stranger' in another. This suggests that ari formed a
rnoiery in an exogamous society and hence the relationship was
sometimes friendly and somerimes one d rivalry. ' h a ' was the
common reciprocal term used by the members of moieties
constituting one community to designate each other and ' A W ,
which meant the descend;lnt d *arla '&Jxz', came to sign* all
those tribes which belonged to the saine cullural complex,
recognized the same ancestors, and worshipped the same gods.
Benveniste holds that Aryaman is the god of marriage and
hospitality in the Rgueda and his function is to admit individuals
into an exogamous community through marriage. 'Aryaman
intervenes when a woman taken from outside che clan is
introduced for the first time as a wife into her new Family.' In
support of his lhesis Benveniste cites a versem of the Rgrleda in
which Indra's daughter-in-law states'that all the arkl~avearrived
but her father-in-law Indm is yet to come, meaning thereby that
Indra was to her an nri, member of an exogamous clan. The
meaning of the term arJ6tyn continues to rouse controversy,
and although some attribute to it the meaning of 'owner or
possessor of wealth', Paul Thieme's interpretation of the rerm as
'foreigner' or 'stranger' has given rise to a ~uggestion"~ that the
h - y a l ~ i s adichotomy should be seen as thar bemeen 'invader'
and 'dweller' or 'native'.Whatever the case may be,1 have already
shown that h e conmsr becween h a and msa at least in the
initial stagcs is of an ethnic nature, the latrer term acquiring a
pejorative connovation due to this conflict. It could hilve been
only with the complete subjugation of the DAsas h a t the term
acquired the generic significance of 'slave' or servant and may
have included such aucochd~onsas the Tbhyas, who are said to
receive the reward of their labour once the charioteer is back
and setded 21 home presum~blyafter a hunting expeditionnF)
 To conclude, Rgvedic society was a simple society in which
ranking depended more upan personal qualities and skills, not
wealth or status inherited at birth. However, 'what w a s derived
ti-om achievement and e.periencel came to be based 'on heredity
by the end of the Rg-
and rnythical/ritualiscic ~onsiderations'~~~
vedic period, a development which receives explicit authenti-
cation in the later Vedic sources.

NOTES

1 G.S. Ghurje, V c i c India (Mumbai, 1979); R.S Sharmn, 1 M a t ~

Cnlllrire and Social Forsmtiom in Ancient India (henceforth
M C S ~{Delhl, 19831, Rorniia Thapar, From Lirreage to State
(henceforth F . (Delhi, 19M).Copious lirerarure exists nn thc
Vedas: see Louis k n o u , BibIiogrnpJ~icVediqrle (Paris, 1331) m d
R.N. Dandehr, Vedic Bibliograph-y, 4 vols. (Punel 1946, 1961,
1973, 1985).
2 Priests, Warriors akd Cattle: A Sludy in the Ecology of R c l & i ~ ? ~
(BerkeIcy, 1381).
3 Ghurye, op. cit., p. 1.
4 Ibid., pp. 365-9.
5 Ibid., pp. 173, 323, 324, passim.
6 The only exception is that of Kalibangan WB-I), which according
ro Ghurye shows a 'la~vscale of urbanization In what was ur what
was very shortly to be Rgvedic Aryimdom' (ibid., p. 379). H e
thinks that KLB-I represaw a culture different from KLB-[I, which
was ;m exrension of the Hanppa Culture.
7 Ihid., p. 318. Also see p. 284, p : a i m .
8 Ibid., p. 311.
9 Ibid., p. 260.
10 A.A. Macdonell and A.B. Keirl~,VedicIndex of Names ur7dSzibjects
(heredter Vedic Ituiex), 2 vols. (London, 1912; rpt, Delhi, 1982).
II F,BJ. Kuiper, 'The Ancirnr Arym Verbd Contests', Indo-lmnia~r
]ottrrlcs!, vol. IV U%O), pp. 217-81.
12 J.C. Heesterman, The A?tcien#lndian Royal C ~ n s e ~ r ~ t i ~ f t
(?'he Hague, 1857); 'Other Folk's Fire' in F. Stad, d.,&ni: The
~ i l u aoJFire
l Altar, Vol. I1 (Berkeley, 1983>, pp. 76-94;
' ~ ~ ~ and ~ Wanderer',
~ 1 ~ Cnnlnbtttiotls
~ l & f0 ~ Indian S O C ~ O @ ~ ,
Vo1. XV (19811, pp. 250-714
13 M. Sparrehorn, Chario! in the Veda Geiden, 1985).
14 Ibid., pp. 76, 119-20. Spiirreboom draws attention trl h e frequenI
equation of yajfia with mrha in [he Vedic and, more par~iculiirly,
VgvcJic literature and thinks that the imgery had a his~orird
connection, '. . . for ultimately the chariot and the sacrifice were
inseparable; heing the instrument for ~ht:w.nning of booty and the
conquering of new land', ihid., p. 82. From this point of view
Heeslerrnan's analysis of rhevratya ritual is particularly interesting
He has shown that :he Vrityas were 'authentic Aryans', ethnically
connected with the Kum-PSfic5l~and the originnl Vfirya rit~ial
W.&S direcdy connected with their miding expeditions to Capture
cattle and barley, activities which were integral to their way of life.
The Vritya-stomas of the Srauwffitc~ssubstituted systernatir~-dlly
in an s b s ~ form ~ c ~h e olcler ceremnnies such 3s 'the cumbersome
mabuurata and its uhrana rites*.j.C.Hzesterlnan, 'V~tyil md
Sacrifice', Inclo-Iruniran]ournal, Vol. VI (1962-3), p p 1-37. Ah0
see Ganesh U. Thite, 'Vrityastoma Sacri:icei, oriental Jatlrnal
(Oriental Researcll Institute, SriVenkateswar~University, Tin~patil,
VoIs. XU-XXXI (1987-8), pp. 63-8. Thi;e also argues that the
Vriitya-stomaritual was to be performed 'not For discontinuing the
life of a Vtitya' hut for entering into ' Vl.d~~~~&h~)od'. He howevec
in1erpret.s Vratya lire as the earliest form of snnyha.
15 B.B. h l , 'Excavarion at Ilastinapur and other ~xplontirlnsin the
Upper Ganga and Sutlej Basins, 1950-2', Ancient ~ndin,Nos. 10
and 11 (1954-5), pp. 5-151.
16 R.S. Sharmu, 'The h t c r Vedic Phase and the Painted Grey Ware
Culture', Pur&tafiva,No. 8 (19751, pp. 63-7.
17 Ghurye, up. cir., p. 389.
18 I d i u n ArckaeolcgpA Reuielu, 1371, p. 86.
19 Ghurye, op. cit., pp. 310, 311. Also see p , 307 where Ghurye
quotes hymns referring L r j the loss of \rLSpd:i's leg ina h ~ t d and
e is
substitution with an 'iron leg' by he ASvins enabling her to walk
again. Ghurye does not consider fl~cpossibility of this story heing
a mythical inventinn g l o i i l n g the gods' healing powers, but takes
it literally. For him the slory shows 'the high stare of perfection'
achieved by the science of surgery in Qvedic times, see infm.
20 fbid.,p.220;&pda,v.30.15.
2 1 Ghurye. np. cit.,pp. 31213,
2 2 S.A. Dange, Culltlral S~uvcesJronl the Veda (Mumb:~i,19771,
p. 42. Sometimes it is: arguer1 tllar Fer~nnne i s m , phnnetically
similar to ayas, means iron or any insrrument made of iron (ibid.,
p. 411, hut ss A.L. Rasham points out, Vedic ayas is abo akin co
 l a t i n taes, meaning bronze. In [he @@da it ~ e r t a i d y d e neither
~l~~
copper or bronze. i%c Wonder Tbat IVas hadid (Calcutta, 1 9 7 ~
p. 38. The terms k,!y.rCij~as#Gf M,pnayasa, used in later Vedic
bterdlure 10 indicate iron do not occur In the jQuen'n, as ;l&$"med
by Tlmpar, FU, p. 94.
23 Maurice Bloomfield, &wda &peti#ioiol3s, H m r d Oriental Series,
Vol. 20 (1916), pp. 20-1; dso see B.K. Ghosh, Chap. XU, 'Vedic
Literature: Generdl View', R.C. Malumdar andA.D, Pusalker, eds.,
2 % ~Vedic Age &ondon, I951), p. 227.
24 Op. cit., pp. 69f.
25 Sukumari Bhattacha j i , however, envtsdgcs a minimum gap of@o
hundred years, Literaturn in Ibe VedicAge, Val. k (Caicum, 198.41,
p. 6.
26 B.K.Gbosh,op.cir.,p.228.
27 For example, yavd? ~r-keflci.f~b~ri vapanic, &vadq I.117.21, is
cited by Thnpar zs an e.mmple of plough agriculture (FU,p. 26,
fn. 28). Fur the uarrccr incerpremtiun of the term vyka, see
S.A.Dange, op, cit., pp. 7-6,and M.K.Dh:rvalikar's review of
S,h.Dange's Culrtirni Satrrces Jrom Cbe Veda, Tbe Indiagr
Hij-foliml Rm'w fiereaflrr VtRI, Vo!. IV, No. 1 (IgnJ, p. 115.
~,+a&o means wolf and is used in this sense at mmy places.
211 Queda, W.57. E.W. Hopkins, 'PngShikiini',]ordmdof4mericfln
Drfmtal S~ciely,Val. XVll /im6], p. 85.Hopkf- is OF the view
Book N of the Rg&wLais much later &'in the other family
hooks and is of the snnle date :IS Book VIII, 'Numerical Fomi~laein
the Vc& and Their Bearing on Vedic Criticism',]ADS, Val. TN1
(18961, pp. 27531.
29 ~orwample,&lt~~h(plough), k word in&[&,
a p r o t e ~ u n loan
rv.57.4,and ttlirkbalaln~ortxr],the Dravidian loan wordin~ueria,
r.za.6.
30 Genes$ of Rgvdic Reuwflexion:A Histoti~~l and Sock-linguiSrIc
hveshgaion' in Madhilv hl. Deshpande and PeCer Edwin Hook,
&., A w n and Nan-A~y~rz bz India, Michigan Papers on South
and South-East Asia, No. 14 (Ann Arbor, 1979))).pp. 235-315.
Dcshp;indc pain&out thnr reFerences to the killing of rhe Dasyus
are Found masdy in Books I and Xof the @u&. The influence of
non-Arym elements increases in rhc post-Vedic penod.
31 F.BJ. Kujper, 'An Austro-Asiatic Myth in the e t ' e d a ' In
Mededelzprgan der Konitrklqke Nederlnrrcfse Akadcn~isufan
Irf&-m~bappen (AM. Letterkunde N.R deel13, no. 7)(Amsterdam,
I950>,pp. 163-82.
32 e g w d ~VIII.66
, (77) 6;10.
33 See my discussion on changes in the meaning of bh%auat, bhak~i
and hhaktafram v;uly Vedic to post-Vedic times in Suvh Jaiswal,
Origin arrd Reuel~pmenloJ Va&mukn~ (Delhi, 19811, pp. 37-7,
116-18.
34 A.B. Kcith, Tbc Rcliginn nvrd PhiIosophy of tbo Veda and
UpanGads, Vol. 1,Rnward O r i e n ~Series,
I Vol. 31 (Oxford, 1975).
p. 252.
35 JX. Heesterman, op. cit.; J. Gonda, 'Adhvan nnd Adhvaryu',
V ~ h v ~ s h u ~ r a n abtdologicfl/
nd Journal (hereiifter WJ, Vol. 3
(1955)~pp 163-77;also ~ a i e s h Thite, 'Contribution of Western
Scholars to the Study of Vedic 3lu:Il', a Val. 18, PP. 43-57.
K.R. I'otdar, Sacr$ce in ihc a u e d a (Mumbai, 19531, p. 3.
EmiIe BentenisW, Inda-Etsmperrn hng1iclh.e attd ~ o c i e ~ ~ ( L ~ ~ n d o n ,
19732, pp. 105-12.
Rgueda, X.34.4, refers tc> the bincling and t:lkrng awny of a g ~ m b l e r
as a slave.
Vedic Indm, Vol. 11, pp. 278,387.
Rguda, VI.47.21.
h'gwda, TV.24.9-10. For the use of 3 u l h in u sirnikr context, see
&v&a, \r1[1.1.S. The highiulknof Varun:~is mentioned in &mah,
WI.82.6.
[n e u e d a , X.343;vasnya qualines n horse, The grnhlcr Inrnentq,
'like :l uc1snyc1(worthy) horse grown old, r Find no use of the
gamester'
aueda, 1II.62.14.
VedicIvdu, Val. I, p. 109.
R.S. Slmrma, MCSF, p. 31,
The term navy occurs twice Ln thc i@uedu.In 1.112.11 the Mvims
are requested to give sweet rain far vantf Dirghairavas, the son nf
Ugii, :IS thy twd helped Kak?ivin Canotherst>nof Mj and composer
of seven1 hymns) in die past. !n V.45.6, itg:~in,there is a reference
to the uantj who gained obsructerl waters of rhc! heavens. This,
accordingto Sayapa, a a reference to K3kSvAn for whom the h4vins
had sent :he raim. ' hin~ hoth the passaga h e term wguj k
applied to the &onof USii. Potdar (op. cit., p. 146) takes 'Uiij' 10 be
a proper name, hut T.B u ~ o w ; ~ nH.W. d Bailey are of the view ~ a r
the term mcant ' I n c m W t o r ' and 'USij' was a type of priest (qur,ttrd
hy Lincoln, op. tit., p. 61, fn. 70). Lincoln t h i n k that the
chief Function of the USij priestwas LCI assist warriors on cattle
He nflteS that the term appears thirty tiincs in the &wdd and in
one-thd of these references the uSij is seen helplugin the cattie-
 rai(% adviry. KaksivIn A~Sijawas a famous seer and descenbmt
of Pa@ (&mda, i.16.1; 1.116.7and elsewhere). TIlcre js nosing
to show h t he was a merchant or trader and the
may
have meant simply 'wanderer'. Madhav M.Deshpande thinks hat
the Skt V W q is relared to Vedic ' P ~ N ' ,which in Ilk view was the
name of a non-Ary;m trading tribe (up, st., p. 306, n. 83). ~~t the
Qveda has borh vnnij and Pwi without l i n h g the myway
or showing their connecuon wit11 trade. See n. 48 below.
47 A. D.Pusalkar, Chap. XII, 'AryanSetdementsin Indij ' in The Vpdic
Ag4 p. 249.
48 Pani is a derivative of the root pan which means tu k t , to lay3
wager, and pana means saming, playing fur a stake (Monier-
\Villiams, Smskril-BngIisb Dictfonaty,5.v. pan ahld pana).ticnce
it i s possible that the term initially mmnt a person who m n his
ricl~esby gambling and not through tr~de.I'ani nppcars as an
adjective of Dasyu in Rguen'a, VII.6.3. Divodlse, the son of
Vridhryaki,who is riescrlhedasfiacyurd, h e csu~cellorof all d & ~ ,
is also cxllcd the opponent or the Pilnls (Qveda, v1.61.1).Debr in
the &ued~t refers mainly to gambling debts and not to any trade
loans. P.V.Kane (ffhiaty ~[DhnrntaSdt~a, Vol. U1, Pune, 1946,
pp 414-15) and Ghurye Cop. tit., p. 246) quote twu Rgvedic
verses which in rheir view indic~tethe pmcuce of usury in Qvedic
times. & d 4 V1I1.66.10, says: 'Tndri overcomes with his power
21) 111e living hekandps and Panis' (indm uis'wn h~lkana?&z
ahan(& tlta krarua panimbhi). Y2ska explnins that bebndrrr
means a usurious person identical with the Panis (quoled in Vcdrc
lndm,s.v. kkanci!~].But ~t is :1 non-Sanshic word of uncertain
ongin and meaning and r>ccxrsiusl once in the &rjeda. The other
versc,$7&tleda,WI1.47.17,speaks ofthe paying ofthe one-eighth
or onez5ixteenth pfirt of the debt. Thk refers 10 tlle obligation tu
Il"Y hack a debt or at least n fraction uFit under the noms of tribal
reaprod[y.Ghurye ;~ndKane see here :In :~llusiunto the nte of
intcresl, but see Mcdr~neIland Keith, Vedyc Index, s.v. pnn
~ i ~ i l' ~~ ~~~ l~ ~q ,y noccurring d a ' , In & ~ d c [ 4 , 11I.53.14,mwlls,
acmrdiq to K ~'lmm ~ of~a family , thar is exrremely usurious'.
But as ~ ~ ~ d ~find n 1~~1th
e ] lpoint out, it is a proper name of the
leader of ule KikaIas and has nothing to do with usury (Vedic
ln,&~, vol. 11, s.v. ~rdrnagnnda).
44 vELfic filcler, ss.v.P;mi; ~ 0 r i . ~riniv~val~
y regards the m ~ i of h S;lmms
a few other
and pnajs nasnted in &&a, XlW, and hinted
places as a bychic htcm$lics[ion of an actual l'a~i'. 'hiych of
 Panis in the Rgveda'JAOS, Val. 93 (14731, pp. 44-57.
j0 Ghurye, op. ci[., pp. 298-301. On the Ibasis of Rgvedu, ~ 1 ~ 1 0 4 . 1 3
and X.71.81, Ghurye argues that the q v ~ d knows
a even pesons
who made false claims to heing bnkmnnas or kvrrlyss, which
shnws thnr these were well-cshblished cate~ories.However, the
correct interp:etation elf these verses is given by P.V. Kane
(op. cit., vol. I:, Pt I, I1oona, 1941, pp 311-321,who ably refutes
Ghurye's contention.
5 1 R.S. S\larma, K S F , p. 159.
52 Ihid., pp. 28f;ako seeR.5.Sharma,'Pmrn Gopati toBhupati', Studia
in His~oly,Vol. 11, No. 2 (July-December 19801, pp. 1-11;R.Thapas,
R.5, pp. 24-5.
53 h t h p o l n g i s t s ttginning r1or11hfurgar~tr) Sill~linsand Gucelier
have rrnpha~i2edthe domimnt and multi-functional role ofkinship
relations in uibaI societies.Foran interesting discussion, see ~ a r s h a l l
D.Sahliis, Tribesman (Pnundation of Modem Anthrupolc~gySeries,
1968); Maurice Godelrer, Pet-spcctiues in Mumist Anthl-op3logy
(Cambridge, 13771, pp. 7Qf.
54 R.N. Nandi, 'AnLhrapolr%y and the Study nf the &ve&', IHR,
Vol. XUI, Nns. 1-2(July 1986 and January 19871, p. 164.
55 P. Engels, i?i-&in of the Fanllly, Primte Propet-y lrnd Statc in 6.
Marx and F. %pels, Seleclecl IVorks, VoI. I11 (Moscow, 19701,
pp. 273-5.
56 'The Segmentary Lineage: An Organization OF Predatory
Expansion', American Antbropolag&t, Vol. 63 (1961), pp. 322-
45.
5 7 A. Beteilk, 'On hConept ofTribe', bz&rrml~anaI Social science
] 0 ~ ~ 7 2 d fV01.
, 32, NO.4 CIFIRO), pp 825-8: M Pried, Tbe Evo,'u!ion
oJPoli#icalScciely,quoted in R. Tllapar, FLli, p. 1K, fn.42. Also see
Maurice Godelier, 'The Concept of the Tribe: A Crisis involving
merely a Concept or [he Empirical Foundations of A n t i i m ~ l n f l
TtseK', Pmpectiucs in Mamisf Anrl~ropology,PP~ I, Chap. 3.
5 8 Elsewhere Thapar writes: 'Vedic society of the earlier half LF:Fh e
fust millennium BC can he characterized as a lineage-based society.
The unit was the clan, m d this formed the essentia1 structure at
many Icvck', 'Statc Formation m E n ~ ! yIndia', IratemulzonulSoc~sl
SdmceJorrmal. Val- 32, Nn. 4 (19SO), p. 656. I n FLT, the g n ! ~ a -
sawhm of he srxth century K and later are said to have heen
characterized hy the 'lineage system' (p 78).Such ambgunus
use of the term 'lineage' hnngs under one heading sptems whose
ch3sicter and funnhons diffu widely.
 SIR4JTFIC4TIQNIN RGvEMC SOCIETY 175

59 Shah, ' T ~ a r dASflciological

s Understanding ~ f ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ' ,
Review of R. Thapar's FFLS, C~?intn'btrtio~zs to Irrdinn socioloa,
New Series, Vol. 22 <1986),pp. 117-33.
60 Th:lpar, F a , p, 10; J. Middleton and D. Tair, Tril~eswjthozrt
h'ufea (London, 18%; rpr, 1p70), pp. 34.
6 1 Emphasis added.
6 2 Ibid., pp. 10-11.
6 3 ~ w ~ ~ nnd k r P?fmibive
n Societies (London, 1972).
64 'Class Contradiction in Lineage Societies', Cdiquc of Antbm-
polo~v,Vol. 4, Nos. 13 and 14 119791, pp. 41-60; 'The Linr~ge
hIude ofProduction', Cntfr$(e ofAntbmpuIog):No. 3 (Spring 19751,
pp 27-79.
65 Op. cir
6 6 'From Reproduction LO Pmducrion', Ecouomy drtd S o c i q , ~01.I,
NO. 1 11972), pp. 93-105.
G7 Op. cit., p. 156.
68 Op.cit., p. 120.
6 9 Kent V.Flannery, 'The Cuitural Evolution of Civilizations', Civilizations',~n~lr'a(
Review o/Eco!ogy and Sysrernatlcs, Vul. 3 119721, pp. 339-426,
reprinted in Ancienf Cilies oj'the lndrfi, cd., Gregory L. Passehl.
(Qelhi, 19771,pp. 27-43.
70 Conical c l n s are 'kinship units which bind their rnembers with
cor-llmon fi~milialties I~urwhicll d~suibureivealrh, social s ~ n c l i n g
m d power mtxc unequally amow the member of the pseudo-
hmily. Such kin unim mce their descent hack [cr m original imwslnr,
real or fictitious, bu: at the s-me time they regularly favour his
lineal descendam over the junior or 'cadet" lines in regulating
access to social, cconnmic or politi~dprerogatives', Eric Wulf,
Sam of rhe Shaking Earth (Chicago, 19591, p. 136.
7 1 Marshal! D. SahlIns, f i i b n e t l , p. 24.
7-7 R.S. Sharma, 'Rom Kin m Class', review of R. Th:lparbs FLSin
Ecorromic and ~oliiicnlWwkIy, Vol. 20,Nt>.22 Uunr 19851.
p. 961.
7 3 R.N. Xlndi, ~ pcit., , p 157. However, Nand's msertion that rijarl
iq 'inva~nbly' applied to gods only in the family books is not mrrect.
A verse of the fourtb may&la (50.8) speakq elf peopk ~ u G u ~ )
homage of lheir own free will {smw?nednanlante)
he ~ j a n'with whom the Brahman hath precedence' (b~ahmri
rajani p i i m eti]. The Fnilawing verse as transln[~dby R.T H.
~ ~ i f f i reads:
th 'The Gotls uphold that K h g I G J ~114th ) rh~ir
rJroce,-tion who heip.5 the Brahman when he seeks his hvour'
 I%e flymns of lhs Delhi, rpt., 17%, p. 232). rt m - q he
argued-that since rhe hymn is ~ddressedto Byhspati, i t is of a 1:der
date. But Nandi's conlention thattheearher family buok5 'represent
egalitarian folkdoms without a chief or hng' (p. 155) is confusirlg.
Both Sharma and Thapar convincingly establish that the Pgvedic
tribes were swteless societies. The tribal chief may not have been
anything more thiln a war leader providing protectinn ro his
tribesmen and their cattie and leading cattle raids. The term salp~sfi
occurring in V.27.1 would confirm [his, if I. Kiihn's interpretation
of it as 'the I&der of the raid' is accepted (quored by Wash ~ d w a r d
Hale, Asura in Early VedicRe!igion, Delhi, 1936, p. 48). No doubt
there is a ge~eralabsence n l centralized politi~~11 organizabon in
the &vet&. For gopa and gop~rtiasthe lrader of the tribe, see R,S.
Sharma, Studies in Nistdry, Vul. 11, No. 3 (19801, pp, 1-10.
74 Rgw&, X.42.10.TIlevellie is repeated in the following two hymns.
Rar the various meanings of the term tqhnn,see5.v. uijana, Monicr-
Williams, ScrmktittE~aglirbDiclionay, arid Macdonrll and Keith,
Vcdk Ifidex,Vol. [I. Also see 11.5.Slurma, hfCXF,p, 27.
75 Bnedn, ~ ~ 9 7 .For
6 . sa~nili,see R.S.Sharrna, Aqec!s of Polilicnl
Ideas and Imtitutfon~in At~cienrIndia (Delhi, 3rd edn., 1931),
pp. 1051.
76 $gucdcr, X.78.1, s ~ ~r;>fkthe?g ~ c ltlnksd of the chiefs <riijm~o na
curd! s t ~ s u m d . ~ u t ~ ~ .
77 See, h r example, f:U, notes on pp. 30 a n m .
78 Ihid., p. 35,fn.69.
79 The English sendaing ia frum H.H. Wilsnn's translation of the
&veda (DeIln, 19771,p. 401. That the uii nr rhe clans choose their
rdjun is rnen~nneldin Ifgvedra, X . l l 4 . 8 , regardcd as a later addition.
For discussir~n,Mle, clp. cit., pp. 88f.
80 'Iranian hrja-md Diih*' , ~ r a ~ ~ ~ a c01 z ithe
a mPkilological Sociep
(19531, pp. 71-115.
81 Fl3, p. 43. Alsrl see R , Thapar, Altcienl I~zdianSocial History
(Delhi, 1978), p. 111.
82 H;liley, op. rit., pp. 84, 94.
83 E. Benveniste, clp. ci[,, pp. 260-1.
84 M.U. E m a n e ~ uhas shijwn that several r)ld Indo-Aryan dialects
existed in India even i n Rgvedir times; classical Sanskrit has
descended from a dialect which in nrlme respects was even more
archaic *an the Rgvedic, See 'The DiaIccrs r ~the
f Olcl IndrrAryan'
in H. Uirnhaum and J . Puhvel, eds., Ancienf Indo-Er~mpedn
Dfalecf~ (Berkeley, 19661. pp, 123-38, ql~nredby hsko Parpola in
 'The Pre-Vedic Background of the grautsl Ritual' in Fritz s t a ~ed,,
,
&ni: The Vedic Ritual of Fiw Altar, vol. LI, p, 43.
85 W.E. Hale, ap. UC., pp. 146, 151, AlsosteS.A. Dange, op, cit.,
p. 37.Dange asserts that Yadu and TurvaSa are clearlycalled D;isa
in Rgueda, x.62.10.But the verse is interprered generally to mean
that Yddu and TuwdSa gave away tnn DZsas along with cattle.
86 Bveda, W.6.3.
87 Qwdtr, Vn.lR.13.
8 8 Rguedn, 1,130.8; IX.41,1,In the latter verse Suma Pavamsna is said
m drive the 'black skin' a m y and the very next verse speaks of
the quelling of the vowless (avrata) Dasyus.
89 Quedcr, 11.20.7.
90 Askn Parpo1.d in the artide cited In note 84 above. However, h,s
main thesis identifying Harappans as Dravidians and DAsas as
Asum-worshippers rests on weak grounds, sw infra.
91 Kiiiper thinks that Samhara is a proto-Munda name (op,tit.,
p. 177). He is L H I I E ~ a Dasyu in @wed# N.31.4 and a Dssa in
N.30.14a?d VI.47.21. Incidenruily this shows the vimal identity
of the Disas and Dasyus. Also see note 97 helow.
92 pgveda, X.27,10. Tndra's claim to have taken away the manliness
(npnnam) of the Dnsyus (X.48.2) may be an oblique reference to
this feature of the D5sn-Dahyus.
93 1.112.10.
94 1.116.15.
95 SeeaboL117,1lII.118.ti;X.39.H.
36 This shadd not be mistaken as posmlating the Arpns as a 'race'.
The basic criterion for identifying ethnicity would be a common
cultural tradition m u3 a sense of identity. It is held that ethnic
1
identities emerge in the context uf intense sucial intmctian with
groups chnrac~rizedby culturd differences. See Fwdrik tlarth,
ed., Bbt~icGmttp und Boundanies (Londtm, 19691,Inttaduut on.
37 flgwda, X,22,8, Identifies the D~syuwith D.is;~and rralls him
akaka~man(withrut rituals), unthinking Icm~anhil,having other
VOWS (anyavmM~md inhumnn (arnGntqah).Tht: DJsas had heir
own f o m e ~which , were broken down lyy Indra OQp?dQ,1.103.3:
11.10.7),and their own t.3 (11.11.4; IV.U3.4;VI.25.3;and X.148 2).
Some D;is~swere very rich and extollcd highly by the poers. D2s;l
BulbOtha Tarukya made a gift of one hundred (unws?)to the pwt
of VIU.46.32.
g~ ~ g w d a111.12.G;
, W.60.6.
2nd revd. edn.. 19RO, pp. 7/10,
gg I,-, & d r . A X . ~ ~ . ~ncld.~{Dellii,
~PI#
 R.S. Sharma expresses the view that originally &?a and DPTJ were
two sepante bibal groups distinguished from each ather on the
basis of colour, language and religion, hut later merged to form
one composite whole and some Dasas even obtained high sarus.
This is pkdusible, but 8gveda, VI.22.10, can hardly be rc~ardedas
indirdtive nf this prr~vss.Skarna quntcs Pippa's interpremhn
to hc~ldthat the verse in question spmks rflndra converting DJsas
into h a s libid., p. 21); but in my opinion the verse simply prays
to Indra 'togrant v~stuncxhausting lu& to make the Disic, Aryan
and Nihusic enemies flee' myri d d s a n w ~ i nui f l r ~b r o vajdnt
, Hale, op, t i t . , p. 166.
sutuka n a h ~ l i n f isee
100 Rguedar, VII.86.7; VIII.56.3.
1131 V111.35m~6-~8.
102 P.V,ICane,apmcit.,Vnl.TI,PtI,p.25.
103 Rgzwda, L104.2.
104 Acording to Moniet-Williams, v a F a mrms colnur, especially good
colour or complexion, lustre, beauty, Stznskrit-English Ddcriona y,
s.v. varaa.
105 Rguedu, 11.12.4. R.N. Nandi's assertion on the basis of this verse
that 'Alreadyin the seccmdbooklndra is credited with the confining
of h e subjugated d&a people to a lowly place within the C3rya)
mrga' (np.cit., p. 1621 is hardy acceptable, as varpa here does nnt
stand F c , ~&ya. Ir Is qualified hy &am and hence refers to the
D3sa people. The assumption that varQa already denoted a system
of stratification with the Dasa occupying a lnwly place, is not
warranted. The phrase adhara~ngubakak drw-s nnt mean 'a lowly
place in the varga system (fiWatibcation' , but speaks of a 'lowly
hiding place' in the physial sense. This act may be compared
with Indm's fear of throwing rhe Dlsa-Dasyu Sarnbara dnwn from
a lofty mountain (Hgveda,W.30.14). Again, Nandi's interpretaticln
of janrnan6- and prajci as 'servants' and 'slaves' is quesstionable.
The Vedicisa generally translate these words in ;he sense of
'offspring', 'progenypur 'descendants'. We a n n o t just assume
of mn-kin
t h a t h e prrstrice rfi Dasyu girls implied 'rn~lti~iicatir~n
labour', unlrss it is shown that the children of ~,ryianmales from
DHsa-Day females cmld not l x absorbed intcr the Aryan lineage
system. But the stories nf K3va.sa AlJu~a,DTrgh-~WmasandMahi&lsa,
son uf Ir;ira, suggest that illthnugh some stigma m;ly have hcen
arrached to such al~ianves,mixed parentage did nnt neessdrily
glve rise tr~'nun-kin' lahrwr exploited by the Aryan kin groups, at
least in FJgvedic rimes. On h e other hand, Divodasa, the famous
 king of the Bhamtas, may have been an adopted D&z (D.D.
Kosambi, An In#roductiun lo rhe Trudy o J ~ n d i a nffislory
(Mumbai, 1956, p. 89).
106 See C. Scott Littleton, Nwr Conrparotiue ~ ~ t h ~ l ~ ~ :
Anlhropologicn[ Assessment of the Tbearim of Dumed
(Berkeley, 1973).
107 E.Benveniste, op. cit,p. 227.
1 08 G.S. Kirk, My&: I.@M~eaningand Function in Ancient and Other
Crrltlrm (Cambridge, 19701,p. 210.
109 John Brough, 'The Tripartite Jdeology of the Indc-Europeans: ~n
Experiment in Method', BuIktin of tbe School of Oriental
Afncarr Stdies, Vol. 22 (19591,pp. 69-85.
1 10 Bruce Linmln, op. cit., p. 51, h.6.
111 Ibid., pp. 13%
11 2 W.E. Hale, op. cit.; P.L. Bhargava, 'The Word cratlra in ewdu',
Annals of the Bbandarhr Orimtal Rerearcb Institute, VOI.
(1983, pp. 119-23.~ccordlng 'to Bharpm, Indra is called an asum
or is said to possess 'asurnship'In sixteen hymns of the Rgte&
(p. 120). Also see Hukum Chand Patyai, 'Etymology and Sanskrit
Dictfomry on Historical Principles', Iridian Linguistia, Vol. 40
(19791,p. 120.
1 1 3 Bt~eda, 1,174.1; ~ll1.90.6;x.98.11;X99.12. In @w& m.38.4 it i s
not clear whether usurn is used for Indra m Tvasq.
114 &&a, N.162;M.20.2; V1.30.2;M.36.1; VII.21.7;W.22.5;X.SQ.3;
X.54.5; X.lO5.11.
11s 1.2$.14;II.Zf.l0; II.29.7;WJI.42.1;X.132.4.
1 16 IV.42.2; V.85.5.
117 V.66.2;vrr.36.2;vn.65.1, 2; W.66.2.
1 18 11.1.6; 11.33.9; V.42.11; WI.20.17.
119 1.64.2. In VIII.27,20\'i.i-vedevas are called astrras, providing
protection to the pious one &OlrlB trt or ~3'f1ce.
1 2 0 Lincoh, op. cit., p. 129.
121 &mda, VLI.65.2.
122 111.55.1.
123 V.42.11.
124 Hale, op. &., p. 180P.L. Bhargava thinks that he orighl meaning
was 'spjfited' or 'uourdgeous',OP. tit, P P 119-20.
125 aueda, WI.99.S.
126 X.138.3,He is wlled a D i a in this verse,
127 r1.30.4.
1 2 8 Varcin is called D&a in &u& V1.47.21, and Pipru, dong with
 D&a khisuva, figures among those vrho were killed by Indra in
&&a, WI32.2.
1 2 9 A.A. Macdonell, Vedic Mythology, pp. 156-7, quoted in P.L.
Bhargan, wp. cit., p. 123.
130 f i r example the athramanprie~trr,rr~=,pnndsto Avmtan orbmmn
and makes a late appearance in the evedm He is mentioned id
three hymns, two from the ninth and tenth mandalas (IX.11,2;
X.14.6)and one danmluliinserted in a hymn of the sixth nrandala
(VI.47.24). See Sukumari Bhattacha~ee,Lilelature fn the V e d c
Agp, Vol. 1, pp. 121-2,Unlike his Avestan counterpart, h e Vedic
ntharuan is not connected with fire. Benveniste is of the view that
athawon in theVedas is a late borrowing from Iran, op. cit.,p. 228.
Similarly the three orders of old Inolan society known as
piftra meaning 'craft'. Etymo1ogic;llly the word meant 'colour'.In
Lran the three cla5st.s werp distinguished by the cdour of their
clothew-white for pries&, red for warriors and blue for Farmers/
cattle herders, According to Benveniwe, the coIour classific'dtion
had s profound symbolism and was related to cosmolr)gical
concepts which asmciated a particular activirywith a certain colouf
cop. cit., p. 227). Howma, theIndian termvama has no philologicd
correspondence with the Iranian plitra and although i t has the
primary meaning ofcolour it was us& ioit~allyin a physical sense
distinguishi~gtwo groups of people on h e bash of the colour of
their skin. Its use to demarcate hiemrchical social ~zitegodeais a
iatw devdopment and is found ir. the l~~tr=r Vedic tex~q.The
Mahfibbarard (Critical Edn., XII.181.10-13)ascribes different
culours to d~fierentuumas-red to the ksarriyn, yellow to the vaiiya
and black tu the 3fidr;l. This is perhaps ndditltmal cvidence of thc
late infiltm~onof Iranian ideas.
\31 Op.cit., pp.259f.

133 X.45.6.Soma pressing is said to kke place among the pariccijunas

in IX.6j.23
134 Nighantu, 1It.lX.
135 V.S. Aplr, ~ u n s k n t - ~ ~ gUiclromy,
lnh s,v. r ~ u i ~ .
13 6 Padma Misra, Evoltdrion qf &heBrabman Class ( ~ the n Perspecriw
of Vedx Period), Ilanaras Hindu University Sanskrit Series,
Vrjl. XI11 (1978), p, 141.
137 P.V.Icslne, op cir., Vol 11, Pt 2, pp. L212r13.
138 Natr is one who invokes gods and nffers oblations. It i s derived
 from the root hue, to call, or hu, lo pour obktions, ibid., p. 138,
fn. 4.
139 Nindkla, II.10.
140 J.W. SpelIman, 'The Legend of Devipi', JR4Sdondon, October
1359), pp. 95-9.
141 @v&, 111.23.2,
1 4 2 VI11.103.2.
143 VI.16.19. For s a p t i , see n. 73 above,
1 4 4 Bveda, 11.7.1; IV.25.4;VI1.8.4.
145 VIlI.19.32.
146 Baudbajdnra &auto-sictra list quared in C.G.Xashikar, ed.,
a , I, Pt 11 (Pune, 19621,pp. 1007, 1008.
S r a u r ~ ~Vol.
3 47 ~ ~ t IV
~15.a
d q
148 W.27.7.
149 V e d I~n d a , Vol. TI, S.V. Smjaya. 7be &tapatha & r ~ ~ t n11.4.4.5,
a ~ ,
stares that Deva bhsga ~ r o was m the fiumhita of the Kurus and
Smjayas.
150 -0, IlI.53.24.
15 r 1.130.10.
152 The legend of Devapi and .hnranu, hawever, do& not show that
the tribal leader combinedthe fUnCti0r3 ofboth priest and warlord',
R.S. S h m a , Sildii in tabtoy, VoI. 11, No. 2 (19801, p. 2.
1 5 3 @yedu, U.Z.11; V.6.2.
154 W I . 1 , 4 .
1 5 5 vlI.1.15.
I j r j ~t is curious Ih'dt Thapar does not refer to t h a e verses or to the
term sujritain suppori of her thesis ofsenior and junior lineage in
Rgvedic times.
157 Rgwda, X95.1C.
158 r.G5.2;U.1.15; 11,6.2;V.21.2;VII.8.j;YILI.74.7;X.5.4;X.79.7.
159 III.15,2.
160 1.72.2-j.For the Manib being described ;zs WfJrn,3150 see 1.88.3;
~ ~ 5 7 .v.59.6;
5; cm,20.8.See AV.n.13.5 for the use ofthis term in
the senst: d being phiysically 'well-born'.
I61 VI.51.S.
112 Ibid.
163 rbtd., vr1.M.1.
164 V1.51.3.
165 X.93.7,
166 V.51.3,
167 v.56.9,
182 CASTE

168 V 77.1-10; V.123.3; ~11.76.6;NI.77.6. Also see XI72 4.

169 Bruce Lirtcoh, op, cir., p. 134, passim; Ghurye, Op. cit., p. 300.
Ghurye refers to aueda, VIt. 104.13, which mentions the ' k ~ u i y a
who bears false' (&a~ri_yam mithuya dhfimyanlam), and says
that if there were persons falsely assumlng h e title of bauiya, it
must have been 'almost a caste'. But n.s Kane points out (op. cit.,
Val. 11, Pt 1, pp. 31-2), the v m e speaks of the 'kptriya who bears
False words', or a b a t r i p 'whoI a i no strength as a batrip should
have'. In mmy later Vedic rext 'batriya' is synonymous wirh rsjk
or 'hief'. There is no implication of varna/caste in this m e d i c
hymn, As Kane points out, 'unless w e project our notinns of the
later state of soaety and h e caste system when considering this
.
verse, it is hardly possible to hold that this verse . . refers to
persons making a false claim to an entrance into a compact body
of k~awiyasby bkh' (ibld., p. 32).
Rgveda, VI1.104.13, is exactly the same as Atbarvuveda,
VIII.4.13, and accordlo2 to V.S.Ghate, the occurrence of a Rgvedic
hymn in the Athamwda is astrong indication of its later character,
k c t u r n s on the $gvecia, revised and edited by V,S. Sukthankar,
Poona O r i e n ~Series
i 12 (Pune, 19661, p. 69.
170 W i c Index, Vol. I, sv. ksatriya; Potdar, op. cit., p. 141;Kane,
op. cir.,Vol, n, Pr I, p, 30.
171 Xgveda,VII.&.2:Vm.25.8;X.66.8.
172 See n.73 above.
173 R.S.Sharma, MCSF,p.42.
174 Potdx, op. cit., p. 171
175 Ipsueda, V.66.2;Vn.21.7,
176 ] a n d G v yo asuro u i d h a r t , Rgueda, VlI.56.21.Also see.VI.36.1
and W.21.7,where t'ac distribution of booty is connected wirh
asuraship, Hale, op. cit., p. 60.
177 Rgveda, 111.53.7; IIt.56.8.-
178 Hale, op. cit., pp. 67,193.
179 FN some interesting descrlptions of the vir&nnra, see @ve&,
1.73 andm.75.At two places (X.47.4and X.104 1) powerfulsingers
are described as v@rauiras.
180 Bruce Lincoln, op. cit, pp. 125E.
IH1 $gveda,V.59.5;WI.43.25.Also see X.78.1,
182 S.A. Dange, 'hpects of War from the ~gveda',jouml o , ~ n d b f i
H&v, VoI. 44 (1965), pp. 125-38.
183 in PrSriPh~alegend to he recited during the perfnrmance nf
Mvamedha, a specific age and sex group m s to I , ~ hc,nour&
 each day. Thus actlording to h e JatffpathaBrcihmnn, XII1.4.3.6-
8,on the second day d the PaHpplavn a11 elder men (sthacrFas)
assemble, on t h t third day young handsome boys c v u v d ~ t
fwbhatad&17 and an rhe fourth day pretiy young girk (yuua;aygh
Xohhandi?: (Jataparba Brirhmnna, edited by G ~ n g aPrasad
Upadh y q w , Vul.1II, Dr Rxna Kumari PubIi.cntion Senes No. 3, The
RescslrcIl Institute OF Ancient Scientific Studies, New Delhi, 1970).
184 @ueda, IX.112,13, Griffirh's tnnslatlon.
185 Rgv.edu, 1.87.5. Griffith's tnnslarion with slight modification.
1 86 D,D. Kosambi, AIZIntmdiiciio~rto the S!u& oJAzdian Hlsbory,
p. 96,For n detlileddir;cusinn, idem, 'Origin of rfie Bnhrnin G o ~ L s ' ,
Jorrn~alof the Bo??rbayBmncb 6f the Royal Asiaric Society, Vol.
26 (r9so1, pp. 21-80.
187 According to Kosainbi, 'The fcrmatinn of an internal, Aryan caste
~sysrem,essenrjally the sepamtim cf the whnjn in firnrrlon and
discipline from the Kgatrlya cnd setting of both above the
householder Vaiiya, after the dhas hnd been conquered, musr
have been accelerated by the :~ssimilationof a subjugated
prlrsiI~ood;lur uthenvisc t11ere i s nu reawl1 for de~~ianxtiou
Into
endogamous castes', JBBMS, Vo1. 26 IIBiO), p. 50. Also An
Introduction to {he Study of India11 Hislo y, pp. 94.5.
188 b m i h Thapr, 'A Response to PmfessorbM Shah ', CvsMb~~tium
lo Jndiar~Socialogy, New Series, Vol. 20,No, 2 QYR61, p. 292,
Aso see R.S. Sharma, dWCP,pp. 73-4
189 /BBRAS, V O ~22 119461, P. 35.
130 Ag'tstya is ILted zs the 'eighth' and was 2ppawn:ly a late entrant
amwng the p r i m a r y g ~ t m k alnterestifigly,
~ he is connected with
tl~eonIy femdle warrior ~nentionedin dte & w ~ u VGpaI3, , whose
1% w u uitt o f fin IChda 's battle nnd re5tord at -4ga.*Vtl's PElyFT,
see n. 19 xbwc.
191 JBBRAS (1950) pp. 6, 50.
192 awda, \TI, 18.6-7.
133 kiUs m a and Cimradw, both '+sf, on the lrrnnks of
Also see m.22.10
samyh, s u e & . N.30.17. (n 99 above); m.33.3;
X.XO2.3.
f 94 h [he battle d r e n kings Bhcgus dung with rhe D w h W V ~ a r a s
w i b l albcs of Tun.3~1 (Rgi~edq~11.18.6); but ill m-39 and 6.18
[hey are a~vjburedthe priestly function of pmisinE bdn togehe*
with the ,l)aji;(ascet~cs), kpdk h l d e ~S.v,
, Bh~~ll.
195 &q:da, 111.53.7; x.62.4; X.67.2.
196 [11.53,7.
-
184 CASTE

197 Ibid., versa 11-12.

198 Nueda, VU.33.10-13.
193 Kosarnbi, JBBRAS, Vol. 26 (1950), p. 37.
100 Henk W. Bodewitz, " f i e Fourth Priest (The Brahman) in Vedic
Ritual ' in Seleched Studies on Ritual in the Indian Religions Essays
presented KI DJ,Hoens), in Ris ~loppenhorg,ed., (Leiden, 1983),
pp. 33-68.
201 Supra, pp. 83-5.
202 Ancieut Europe jam the Beg innitzgs r$ Ag~.icubiure10 Classical
Antiquity (Edinburgh, 1965), pp. 4-5, cited in Brtlndan O ' Lj,
~
7 % ~Asiatic
- Mode of Proditction (Oxford, 19891, pp. 278-9.
203 Ibid.
204 John Marshall, Mohenjo-daro and t l ~ alndzls Ciuiiiration, Val. I
(London, 1931), pp. 521.
205 R.E.M. Wheeler, The Indw Ciuilization, (Cambridge, 3rd cdn.,
19681, pp. 108-10.
206 E. Mackay, Further Excavations, at ~tlohe?~jodaro {Delhi,
1931Jl,V0l, 11, PIS W I I , pp. 222, 235.
207 Ghurye, op, cit, p. 157,
208 Herbert P. Sullivan, 'AR~-examinationof iheReligion of the ~ n d u s
Civilization', HFsrory of RelQions, Vol. IV (1964-j), pp. 115-25.
Also see A.L. Basham, The O r i ~ i nand Development of ~ ~ r a s i c n l
Hinduism (Delhi, 15901,p. 4.
209 Professor B.P. Mazumdar was of the view that the history of
technology indicates a break from Harappa to historic times. HP:
cited Ancientlndin, No.8 (1952, pp. 51-21 to point out that faience
beads made in Harappan times reappearedaftera Lang gap around
the First csnturym atTaxli and still later at Charsada and Ahiccham,
'Continuity and Chmge in Ancient a n d Early Medieval India
(6.2300 RC-1200 AD)', typescript, Also see Suvira Jaiswd, 'Caste in
h e Socin-Ec~nornic Framework crf Early Indiai,Presidential Address
to h e Andent India Section, published in the Proceedings oJthe
Indian Hislory Congwss (Rhuhaneswar Session, 1977).
219 Supra, n. 134.
2 11 flvifuc1;iiink~d~cy.ate, cited in V.S. Apte, Su~zskvt-EnglBhDictionn?y,
s.v, f l t ~ f ,aIsn see &wda, I. 1.I.
2 1 2 Bruce Lincoln, op. cit., p. 62.
213 Path, op. tit., p. 161; Keith, Religion and Phi/osopiJy of the
Vedu und Llpani~rhF,p. 254.
2 14 He is now known as Zot or Zotl, the chief priest whose sacred duly
is to recite the invocation from h e gcitbci during a ritual ceremony.
 2 15 Henk W. Bodwitz, op, cir,, p. 35.
216 Interestingly in ancient Iran h e Hathw~rlr Rathwiskcrr was an
3 u ~ k i r Ypriest n r h O Usisted Zmrar, the chief priest, and did tfLe
manual work at 21esacrifice, Gajaraltna M. Patil, 'pfiesthond i n A m a
and IQueAa' , ~ d l e r i ~01 z the Deccmt CwIIcge Resenrch Inditidrg,
Vol. 18, Tnrporewda hfemorial Volume C1957), pp. 221-5.
217 For example, III.29.8.
2 18 The seven are boll; pair, ne.!ly, ag'lliclA,~5l-dustcadhvalyu an3
brahmuq @ueciq l,I.1,2; X.91.10.
219 Thus holm, poira, neq!-csancl hr-iih~~~a?ru were cups allotird t
priests designated correspondingly.
220 P a d m bhsra, op, cit., p. 198. Infa, pp. 192-3.
221 Ibicl.,p. 159.
2 2 2 In & a ~ d ~Y1.45.2
, and m1.61.9 rhc re;m nr,ipra uc~ursin h e
sense d dull, uninspirccl.
223 X.67.2: W.E. H a l ~op. , cit., 11, 72.
2 24 I$?ved, 111.7.7.
2 2 5 P:~rlrn:iMisra, op. cit.
226 &pe~Ia,171.7.7.11 is repeated in tTl1.7.7 ft3r ii7rkand sfom see
a L r ~11.3.12.
227 VI1.22.9.
228 1.8.6.
229 VI.7.3.
230 t ,8.2. Indra is dcsclrihed as :issisring them f r m It13 r3r (arzwtaJ,
GriFfifith, The H y n r w g l h c #LW&, p. 5.
23 1 Qcerla, VI1I.21.4.
232 sdrrri~-f~rCisu &wle b f f f ? a.+-upLqja#ud?,
b IX.10.7.
2 3 3 X.40.14.
234 l'adnin M i ~ r &op. cit., p. X U .
, I, pp, 526-H,s ,v, pfl,r.
23 j VpdiL' l n d ~ xVt11
236 Rgvcn'n, 1.116.16; 1.117.17.
2 37 Vedic Azdex, op. cit.
2 j H ~ ~ d f c I r r ~ t e x g&fiedo,
i v r ~ 1.70.10.This is,I-ir)nrcver,a misprint for
1.70.5.This error recurs in a number of p u h l i c ~ ~ t i o n ~ n * i t h o u t
rr.&lowjeigt.mtlf:t t o MacdoneU 2nd Keich!
238 e m d o , 1.83.3; ij1.3: 11.39.2;111.53.4;V.3.2; V111.31.5-6.diirhutln
is used lo denote dc.~runle' in the fi&~Iz'rl, 5.A.
~ ~ ~fiarrl b t+dfcl Ritual
i ~ ~ 1979A PP. 51-2.
(Delhi,
240 1.127.8.
241 1.144.4.
241 Benvc~liste,op, tit., pp. 2514.
24 3 @jyBdn,1.49.1;1.110.2; 1.124.11; 1.1 35.7;LIl.fi0.5: W.49.6;VI1.53.10.
Also see r .15.5;wr ,~B.I;
x.lk0.3.
244 v.11.4alsn
; see 1,71.4; I.124,ll.
24 j v.1.5;v.6.B.
246 ayam nirbhit uadati vakzl uo grhc, 'he speaks here nicely in
consanguinity in your house', X.62.4.
247 AICSF) p. 48.
248 ~t,id.,p. 51.
24r) F],.s, pp, 36-'7. In this work references are ofre11mixed up and
incorrect.In this prticular case, p. 37, n.76 cites references for the
gyhnpazya [$id fire as Rgvecia, 1.12,6;1.36.5; 1.60.4; and ~1.48.8.
These verses drscril~eAgni as g-rhaJaii,but make no mention of
the g&haPc~tyBre. On the other hand, p:~gc336 has n.75 quoting
~ , for the occurrence of gri~npntl.Again, tbr word
~ u e d c X.85,
gyhn]~utidoes not occur at ill1 in this hymn. It has grhnpatni once
(verse 26) and gfirJ-~upcityu twice C\.erses 3 ancl 36). The iattcr
lcrm is generaily interpreted here in thesense uf 'control over the
household'. But see inha pp. 209-10.
250 P.V.Kane, op. dt.,Val. 11, Pt 1 , pp. 678-3.
25 1 Sparreboom, op. cit., pp. 80-1.
2 5 2 B r i m K. Smith, 'The Unity or Kira:il: Tile P1:ice of Domestic
Sicrifice in Vedic Ritualism', Indo-lm~~ia~ijol~rnn[, Vol. 3 {1986),
pp. 80-1.
253 flgvedu, 1.15.12.
254 P.V, Kanu, op. cil.,Vd. I1,Pt 2, p, 2241.
25 5 All~aruaveh,XI.7.7-8, quoted by N.N.B h a t ~ ~ c h a v dllcienL
a,
Indian Rltuais land Their SocicrI Contents (Delhi, 1975) p. 64.
256 &ueda, Vn.56.14.
257 V11.59.111,
2 5 X Sllakr lnta1:i R : I I~S11:1slri, IVOIIIBII
lrf AgC (Murnhai, 1969,
\Jc~lic
pp.13-18.
259 V.S. Gh:itc, op, cit., p. 69.
260 B.S. Sl-iarma,MCSF, pp, 43-9,
261 Ir~iwatiKame, ' +fishipTerminolr>gy K I ~ in Rgzwdi4
md I C ~ ~ S usages
m d Afbnwf~vedc~', Annals of the Ebc~udarkat.O~dmalai~pscarch
Ifislitrrte,Vol. XX (1938-9).
262 VL&C Il~tIex,Vnl. I , p. 525.The !Igvedu has no separait. word for
'uncle'. Ahbriitpjn, tl-itl negative form of bhrEitmyd, is Fouflrl in
Rgwd~1,VJ11.21,13, in Ihe .sense of 'nnr h:~ving no rival' and is
appked to lnd~a. The vwse is repented in Albawc~t~~da, XX.114.1;
:!nd in currainly r$ late origin.
 ZG5 Hindtr K i ~ s h WEMumhai, 19*i7), pp. 7-45, 122, 307-9; Suvjra
l , VOI. VT, Nos. 1-2.p, j5.
J d ~ t ~ aIHR,
7 64 A.R. Rldcrife-Hrtlwn in Ridcliffe-Brown and nary11 F<lr&, ,=&<, ,
A f SYsfentS
~ of- ~ a n d~ ~bfar~-irge
~KifTsht$ ~ (London, 4 0th
irnpressicln, lWO), pp. 33-5.
2 6 5 R.S. Shnrma, MCSE, p. 29.
266 @I:E& 1.73.1, 9.
267 Eleanor B. Leacock in Introduction to F. Pngels, me O*in O Jtbe
Fonl ily, Pri~wtePwperly ntzd the Stow (London, 1972,rpt., 19771,
I'r II, p, ii. For the connection hetween the jaintktn~ilpancl onae&jj,)
or wntml of land, see SuvirnJai~wal,IM7, Vol. VI, Nos. 102, p. GO.
268 SahBns, up. cit., p. 49. WIins :11so speak5 of thc 'coni~zilclan',
which in his view were neither enclogumous nor exogamous.
For Polynesian clans without a unilineal lineage structure, see
hf. Gndclier, op dt., p. 89.
269 k~clcJiffeBrownand D, Forde, op, cit., p. 40; italics mine.
2 7 0 Btlnveniste, up. cit., pp. 239f.
271 Xefm Zin1~11e~, 'On A Special Meaning of ,/DJILI in the &ZIP&'
hldo-i~a~zinlzJorrt.ncrl Val. XXIlE (1586)- pp. 109-15.
172 QuotcdinI'.V.K~ne,op,cit.,Vol,n,PtI, p . 4 8 ~ .
2 7 3 J , Heesterman, n ~ Aencietlt hrclfnrt Rou)lfllConsecration,pp. 118-
19, Fn,24.
274 flgvenZr, 1.71.1;7.112.15; f,11.18.2;X.lR.3.
275 J , Brough, 'The Early Hisrrjry of rile Gorns', JRAS (1946), pp. 32-
45; (1947), pp. 76-99; A.C. Bnnejec, Stlidks itr the B S h n ~ ~ v a s
(mllti,19631<
276 E. Benveniste, up. cit., p-303-
177 @tbedn,X.28.1.
278 m r . e Linct~in,r~p.cit., p. 7 35, fn. 5-
279 R~L,C&, X.114.10. They arc :11wmentioned in 1.64.4.The Ibhya,
tr:inslnred mis~kcnlyas 11uhIcn:en ur rich prhvn.s, W:S:tn
a130riginfil trille with the eleph:mt totuin, pcr11np.r equiv:ilenr d
~;it;,fi~fi, ,nodern Mang, see D.D. Ka<tmhi,'Cnmbined Methods
in lI,dology h?&-lrflai#n J O Z J I ~VoJ.
I, , VJ ( IgMj, IT. 3 4-
R , ~~ , h : ' ~~i , - , ct,nnick;
~ ~ ~ and , Rise of Flierzrchy i l l L:~tcr'Vedic
Timw,, A,$ecls o ~ p a l i t i Idem ~ ~ l ntld rristifrtrions i ~ rBfictstz!
777dj62,3rd p h . , Chilp.
 APPENDIX

Myst*ing the Aryans'

A suhs~mtialportion of tl-rc foregoing chapter hi~clappenred in nc I r ~ d i ~ l l

Ilislotical Reuiw {Vui. X U , Wrrs. 1-2, jury 19H%J;1nuary1990, pp. 1-
34). h response From Prt~fessorRnmila Thapar was pul~lis1rt.din IEIR,
\ h l . XVIII ( N r x 1-2, July 1331-January 1992, 1111. 1713-99)under rhu
caprion 'The Aryans R i c k Again'. As the dehatc is hnsicr~llyon the
:~pplicahilityof thc concepls r,F 'lineage society' and '[inrae mocle nt'
prrxlucrinn' ro society rtlf1ectt.d in the Rgvedic dnta, 1 am giving tleInw
the text of my rejoinder Ipul>lisl~cd
in IJIR, Vol. XX,N m . 1-2,July 1 9 9 5
January 1 9 4 , pp. 219-281, which raises a number of additinn~lpoints
and will hdp in uk~rifyingthese cclncepts and Ins rhjections furlher.

In her 'response' Prol+esmrThapar wriles that [he @ve& i s not

central to her thesis, which sceks to contrast lineage society with
state system, and hence it has been necessiiry f ~ her r LO move
back and forrk among the literary sources without worrying about
'accepted chronology'; for her main concern is to use 'concepts
from theories emerging from other disciplines'. '3;'ithout
nlinirnizina the value- of I n interdisciplinary r~!ldr~starlcli~~g I
would like Lo asscrt that h e boundaries d t i n ~ eand space are
crucial to the discipline of history and any methodoiogy of
historical reconstrticliol~-no matter how i n n o v ~ t i v e - i f ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ i ~ e d
on the anachronis~ituse of hisrurical evidence, would have only
doubtFul validity.' Moreovvr, a paradigmatic ch~tlgewould be
justified if i t prvidcs I3cttrr insight or grealer precision. But, as
1 hnve argued earlfcr, Thapar uses 'lineage' sornenmes For 'clan'
and some:imes for e1m$$uL This can harclly hc regarded as less
codusing rhan the concept of 'trillc', which continues 10 find
h v w r wrih many historians and ~ociologis~s. Overc~nphnsison
the lineage principle leads to the glossing over of the distinction
berween societies h a t are well-advanced towards a class system
 and political organisation and tbosc which are sriI1 largely
egalitarian, subsisting on hunting,' gatylerjng, pfisroral rind
horticultural activities.
The term 'tribe' derives from the Latin 't,+ibru3or Umhrixn 'trifir4,
which, as Gadelie~.points our, were terms &noting Indo.
European institutions of great anriquicy, According to hiIn hc
CQncepr oftribe 'in lhe language and thought of I ~ ~ ~ - E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
was n 61ct of heir experience, 2nd zn ohen7ab1eone'.' Thap;rr
is right in holding that antl~ropologicalconcepts are invented
for analytical purposes and need no1 necessarily be derived
frnnr any term or 'description wltIclr the society might give of
itself'. She cites the example of 'feaddlism' in this connection,
Nevcrrflcless, I would like to point out that unlike rbe coclncept
of 'feudalism', which is nrr abstmbian KOdenote a specificmode
of production, ~ h c ' l i n ~ gisc '3 much nlore concrete and real
phenomenon. In Inter Vedic tiines' ~ v h c nrril~eswere clearly
seaincnteci into rmked lineages, rile tenn gotra came ro signify
'lineage' or even a broader kin-unit tracing its descent from a
rcal ur fictive progcni~or,bur i t is not withoi~~ significnnce that in
llle R~wdcigotm stiII menns 'cow-pen' and not 'lineage'.d
On the concept offineage lnodc of production T h a p ~ wrires r
111at my understandins is based on 'inadequate reading' and 1
hilve only quotcd from Emmanuel Terray's earlier work ~ W a m h n
a,td f l - i ~ a i t i'tSociflies,
~ but in her grnemlj~arjonsshe ' nFas
drawing morr on R ~ l yIllall on others'.' Hcnce, it is necessary to
quote in some detail what Pierre-Philippe Rey says in 'Class
Con1r;rdiciion h Lineage Socieries '. In response to hlcil fassous'Y
foilo\ving criticism: (quoted by R t y I 'In conrrasl to lley's sug-
gestions c-sses :Ire not created by tllu two categories that he
proposes: the gmup of c t t d-ie c/ders anrl cite group of d l the
young~ n e nin tIlr same co~urnunity,'Rey replies: 'tht. juniors are
cle;irly not the only people who i w esploirccl the elders. J'tlir
lurr i o n rM lo z r r ~ d ~ ~ t ~dodescent
zrrci ~ ~ ~vuiIei-~ufllen
a f ~ ~ ~ l ~
,Ind chilclrcn land where they exist, shved flre exploit4 Itsst
as sevtrelg, 11 is for this reason d~arthe group ~ v ~ i chm h 10 be
definerI 3s a do~ninnteticlnss is tile entire IfXXf group r s d u d i n ~
~ ~ n llle
l y elcler.'"
lLisobvious thal h e debiltc i s over rhc ~ ~ p l o i t a t i o n the
junior 'adolescent'. 'adult males' of the same lincagc by the elders
and not over the exploitztion of junior lineages of a stratified
segmentary society. In Fact Rey accuses Meillassoux himself of
'having concenlrated roo exclusively on the opposition elders:
juniors-, and writes that in a pahiljneal or patrilocal sociev here
is a possibility of dependent cadets' succeeding to the position
of elders. He, however, a d s :

In the case d a patrilinr~land ptrilor~lsacicty tk.c juniors whcl are

going ro inherit the ancesual Iznd of the lineage live md producc on the
lineage land, but the other producers, women and slaves arc in no
circumstances able tu inherit this land. I was thus able to mnclude that
this allows us ro dismiss the hnnal objection that is usually made to he
rxistence n f classes in linrage society: 'Hrlrv can the:c he classes when
everyme will ultlrnaleiy become a lender'' Such an nbjection is c\carly
unjustified since (1) slaves, (2) nearly :111 worncn, and 13) whatever is
.s;~id,most men will never hccome Iwders.1"

Rey hcilds that in a lineage sociely 'the division of labour resls

primarily on the sexual division of labour 2nd the division
relating to social age'," wP,ich in turn is 'determined by the age
of marriage'." These divisions of labour in Iineage society are
de~errninedby the 'system of npproprintion'. Rey argues that
'since :he age division, while keeping stsnlc jabs exclusivel~~for
women and for cIlildren is also h e hilsis for their exploitarion,
we can conclude that them is formal subordindion uf the group
of producers as a whole to the exploitatinn of the lineage'" and
in his view 'the marriage sysretn is h e central means by which
the dominant class exercises i t s power over h e daminaced'."
Thus, in Tangui Pannu and Kuni societies
the dependence nf juniors on the clhrs (wirhi~ithc patrilocal, and nclt
rile matrilineal group) fnr h e acquisition of l~ridcwtlalthis one of the
crucni zrhwments which Imds them LCJ prnvidc h e elder with permanent
gifts of kdhmrand o f k ~ n d(cxlltd Pawu). At die beginning of rhe coloni:~!
pcriod h i s Pawu was ohtsin~dthrough silver which was earned hy the
junir~rswb}sold rheIr pmdure c)r heir labour prjwer, and bridewealth
continued 1r.r be given ru tht: Sthw.

With regard to the Gagam saciely of nard~ernTogo,Rey writes.

 the sexual division of labour imposes on the juniors the neessity of
staying in the eldest brother's unit of production, for 2s long as thy
remahi unmsrried. Moreover hesociulclivis~onoEIabuwregrdv all non-
marrjedmen as 'juniors'and iris these young men who have m . roundemkc
ill1 the hardest tasks (digging furrows for ummpIe1 while the elders
perfr~nnjots which have important symbolic vilue (broadcasting [he
'fonio') bur which require much less work,'s

and be concludes that 'in this case there is exploitadon of juniors

by the e1ders1,
I have quoted Rey's article at lengch to darify the meaning of
'juniors'and 'elders' or 'seniors'in the debate. However, what I
seriously conrcst is h e analytical validjry af a modej which WUrs
the qualitadve distinction between exploitation of biologically
determined age and sex groups by h e elders of the same lineage
nnd the exploitation of junior lineages based on fictive or real
genealogical connections by senior lineages 0f3. stratifiedsociev
wherc kinship is little more than a n~ctapharfor cIass.I6 In bcc
by s(retcl1ing the canfept of Iirreage society ro cover ciass
exploitatian Tltapar has ta abandon the very criterion of the
I inezge principle nrhfieexcluding rhe Siidras From lineage =jety.
In ller view SCidras and Dlsas were 'outside h e lineage system7I7
not because the internal structure of thcse comrllunities could
nor have had lineage elemenis but because they were o u ~ i d e
what is conceived as the mainstream 'Linage society' of senior
and junior lineages and were exploited by the latter who 'denied'
them 'a lineage form'.'"
Coming to ~ b specifics,
e Thspar cllarges me of being
' ~ d t ~ r i c regarding
sl' the dzronula# of the&~~e&andignoring
the cavcat 06B.X. Ghosl~about its uncertainties. On the collk~ry,
1 quored Bloomfield, who wrote much before GI~osh,to
our that older and newer hynlns are to k found in rich
movdala.Following this logic 1tiad also s h o w how the P1djWu-
sijksa hymn of the mnth ma+$nla refashions an old Indo-
European nly& to justify the fourfold s ~ a ~ c a t i owhich
1 1 canles
ilhout towards the close of dre wcrlic p e ~ d T. h a p s l o o has
con&e (p. 194) that ' a major pit nf h e !@@& docs not
arliculate hisstra]jfjcadon' and that there is 'i!cncfal W c e m ~ n t '
h a t the tenth n z c r ~ d n band a part if not all of the first 'appear to
be later rhan the rest, however small the time-gap' Ip. 173).
Thapar suggesu that in the editing of the hymns the chr~nology
might have been upset and the t e n h rncln@ah'can be used to
reflect o n perspectives relating to both the earlier and laler
society'. tIowever, the addition of the Vslakhilya hymns at the
end OF the eighth wzandaln in the form OF a supplement suggests
[hat thcre have been at least three stages in the editing and
compilation oF~he~ u l n h f fthe d , closing with the eighth mandala
reprcscnting an intermediate stage. Hencc the time-gap does not
appear to he ns small as vlsualizccl by Thapar. J. Gondal" wrote
'there is much 10 be said for the supposition that n good deal of
the contents of the ~glledais separated from the remaining Vedic
literature by a cumpnratively wide chronological distance ....' We
should distinguish between the time of the compbsition of hymns
and that oi their ultimate codification and try to identify the new
elements, the manner and purpose of their induction and also
see diachronically wl-ral preceded and Followed such inductiofl.
n l a t such an exercise need not be meaningless or Futile may be
seen with reference to my remarks on the remodelling of the
Prtmsa-sGkta and the Apda hymn.
A study" of che occurrence of the term 'brzhmnna' in the
Pgvedic rura~&las would both confirm and illustrate the
chronological perspective I have adopted. The term, derived horn
hmhl?ta?r(in the masculine), indicates the crystallization of
priestly groups in one generic strati~m,and is not found in the
third, fourth, fifth and ninrh nza!zqiulur. A solitary occurrence"
(in its declensional form Irrriibrnanfit) in tile second ~rzcr!t&Ia
rcfrrs to tht. cup in which soma is offered 11y the hrai~mn~a priest
(one of the seven ritual specialists who gritdually cmcrge as h e
ritual of sacrifice becomes more and more clabar3re).2d111 the
sixth mnvdaln the term is used only once and that loo as an
adjecrive af'fathers' I f ? i r c r ~ b and
) ~ $not:as a runctioning categov
among priests' as is assu~nedby Thapar. The only place in the
f'amily books Where 'briihmana' denoted the priesrly class and
i s mentioned in the plural i8 the w e l l - k n o ~ vfrog
~ llytnn,zj wl>ic]~
'evidently belongs LO a late period of Vedic poeuy4.25I-Iowevtr,
six hymns the tenth and one of the first ~ncr,l&la clearly refer
 to b r 2 h r n a ~ a sThis
. ~ ~ class appeared towards the end of [he
R ~ e f i period
c merging the ritual specialists into one kinAgroup
as the process of social &hentiatinn deepened. The process
also led to the eventual emergence of a kin-based rGjaqrca
nobdiry, distancing irLdffrom rhe ufi commoner as is reflected
in the Puwa-.Gktfa hymn. The chronology of chis development
is based on the genewlly acrepred chronology af the Rgwdic
mondcifs and does not conflict with t l ~ eview of Thapar, who
in any case speaks of 130th the brghrnaga and che Giidra as
'adclcnda' ca the 'initial strumre ofthe v a q a systemynconsisting
OF the ksatriys and vG lineages, which in her vlcw formed the
core of she rnajnsrmrn Vedic society.
Neverheless, Thspar's dismissal of my argument, that
mention of rhc BharzEas and the Kurus as synonyms of rjij in
the N~khag~tr suggests that in earlier ames my nremher of tlrese
tribes could function as a rtui+which term has Indo-European
roots but Iater becomes the designation of the officiating priest
at grand s a c r i f i c e ~ nthe gimund that it is based on a late t e a
is hardly justified. My inference is drawn by reading against the
p i n of the later Vedic texts, where such pieces of evidence can
be explained only bn remm of survival of earlier pracrices, Jnthe
JaiminFp Br&hmt~%Divod5s2, the son DF V~dhryaiva,is said
to have expressed the desire 'Itfay I obtain both: priesthoad and
nabiliry, may I who am king become a seer (16jd saps~tap-i&
qlam ifiJ.'?IJWeare told that he saw or composed rhe a ~ a b h a
sGman. Thus nor merely the performance OF the rite of sacrifice
but b e priesdy function of composition ofa chant is attributed
to J3ivodba, the chief of the Bhararas. PK Vl661.1 clearly speaks
him as tile son af Vadhryaka, who also has a son in Sumitm.
Sumima and his descendan~sare drscrjbed keeping the FW of
vadhryagva khdled and arc crllkd ViidhryaSt:a, i.e. belonging
to the [ineagc of ~ ~ d h r y i ~Thus i w .the
~ case of Deviipi and
gantanu is not an iso[atcd inscznce rrnd has its psralleis in
~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ v a s - a and
~ v a~umitra-Divodiisa.
vsla AS to che 'gmdr~al
emergence of2 body of priests' anlong the Vedic P ~ o P (I~could ,
more, This is precisely what I have vied to show *nd
it to greater availability of surplus, growhg inWuaIit~
and *he mnvemenl ~owar&,state formation, in which the ritual
specialists played an important ideological role. It was however
the internal dynamics of a society in transition rather than the
'addenda' of ~nrrusiveelements which were crucial for the
process.
The view of Thapar on this issue is quite ambiguous. In her
'Response' she wri~es:'My contention is nut that the br31mana
and dGsa continued from Harappan times .., ' but suggests, 'some
elements of an earlier system may have persisted but were given
Form and body in a different context with the eventual emergence
of the four varqas: that there ]night have been two dichotomies
which cohered to form the four varna+-the br5hrnana-ddsa/
ilidra and the ksatriya-uls" (pp. 193-41. The problematic of 'when'
and 'what' elements is left rather vague. If it is not the bdhmana
and the DPsa [peoples?) who continue but the conceptual
dichotomj1 of the brlhmaga-DPsa/SBdra, what was the dis-
tinguishing feature of this dichot~my?~' It could not be wealth or
power, for the brshmanas could not have been denied ~hese
and Thapar speaks of wealthy Diisa/Sfidra chiefs. Was it then
the notion of ritual impurity of the D&a/Sndra social
Elsewhere she has been more specific and suggested that the
essentials of the caste system, endogamy, [he idea of ritual
impurity of social groups, etc., might have been present in the
Harappa culture?' I have already critiqued these views in detail32
and need not repeat my arguments here. In any case these may
be regarded as part of the 'hackneyed items' listed several
decades earlier. Thapar recommends that we should 'investigate
what might have been close relationships between Harappan
religious practices and their induction at some point into Vedic
ri~uai. . . and rhc possible continuity, but not altogether un-
changed, of some ritual activities from Harappan times to that of
the Pg~edcd:(p, 1941 and to substantiate this she refers to an
article on the Agnicayana rite by Conversei' where it is
that the altar construcred OF baked bricks as well as the use of
ukbli and ~nahavil-cnpots in this rite represent the pre-Vedic,
presumably Harappan' elemenn. Ifere again evidence derived
from the Yajumedu is being Foisted on the Rgpedu. S t a d shows
that whereas the Agnicayana ritual is the m a t celel3rated of the
rituals in the Yajzdnwda 'it is not n ~ n t i o n e din the Rpixda at all'.
 According lo him 'the gap between the Rg&a and h e Yajufieda
is wide4The former is largely Indo-Iranian, the latter only loa
5malI extent. . . . The altar of the Agnicayana is not only abbent
from the Rgueda, ~ U itL is very diKererent from anything We l-et
wivith there.'s
mint is, I have nowhere denied d ~ cpo$sibilicy dlt.
sul~jvald f I a r a p p 3 ~eiements and h e fusion of h e A m
rile non-Aryan, and have cited h'uiper's views on the Austm
kjatic origin of the Boar Myth3$and the non-*an mmes d
certain priesdy families attributed with the authorship of he
hymns of the eighth and some ofhe tenth tna?z$uinla But for me
'when', 'what'. 'how' and 'why' are important questions whirh
deserve consideration, I do not see either the 'essentials of the
caste system' or the 'brahma~a-I)%a/S~dra dichotomy1 as
continuing elements of a pre-wedic culture. Referring to Bruce
Lincaln's study of rhe Nilatic tribes of East Africa and John
Brough 's thesis on the prevdlence of a rhreefold division m o a
the Semirjc pasrmal cmmunities of the Old Tesmenr, 1h a w
argued that the separation of the bmhma and the k8at.m
elements-the ritual-specialists and the warriors-is rooted in
the material-ideologicalrequirements ofthe pastomi tribes, which
tend to develop two kinds of specialists, cjne claiming to increase
the cade-wedth of the tribe through offering sacrifices to gods,
and rhe other through cattle-raids. Initially these groups are not
diffcrcntiated on the basis of their lineage connections and I
have cited the view of Brrrveniste to slrow drat although he
t j d o l d functianal grouping ofpriests, warriors and commoners
be mced to rhe Indo-European srage, social structure w a
organiszed or, a different vpe of classification, that of family,
,-Ian and tribe in the mannet d concentric circies. Thus, the
division ofbrahma and bawd belonged to the fUnclibn
md not lineage and these were still open categories not ~ c t u s i v e
to certain lineages.
1 consider it very significanr that later when the lineage
does begin to ensure superior mnk and privilege &e
r~janya rneanhg &men ofthe ri@ is used to denate h i s
than dte: term kwrnjm, In characrcrizing @medic
society ma njust hear in mind the main b d y of the te* and [lot
196 CASTE

get cwirried away by one or two isolated passages which may k

seen clearly as late or intrusive clernenw. I have called the society
'simple' as opposed to a 'complex' hiearchically stratified one
since, despite evidence of a gradual growth of inequality among
the tribesmen, ranks were still open based on personal achiwe-
men& and had not stabilized as genealogically closed categories,
which development is clearly seen in later Vedic times.
Differentiations in ggvedic society are to be seen in this light.
view: I have referred to its transitional character
This is not fi sta~ic
and the changing pattern of the family. There are references to
polygamy particularly of the chiefs in later books. As R.S. Sharrna
Iias shown,%unequal distribution of cattle-wealth captured in
frequent cattle-raids had begun to erode the egalitarian ethos of
Rgvedic tribes as seen in the danastutts which constitute the
lanst swaturn of he text. This development would also influence
the pattern of family and klnship, leading to the emergence of
the patriarchal joint family. As to my interpretation of the terms
gyha and gghrapati,I hove discussed the issue in detail elsewhere"
and constraints of space would not allow me to repeat them
here.
Nevertheless, mention af the division of an aged father's
possessions among his sons (RT.: 1.70.53 has to be interpreted
with reference to the nature of properry and the extent of its
privatization. A father may distribute his personal possessions
among his sons even in an egalitarian band or a hunting and
gathering society. The verse in question speaks of the distribution
of sacred fire at many places, presumably households and I have
suggested d ~ ahl i s may reflect not a patriarchal jornt family system
which is getting split in the aged father's lifetime but the
establishment of separate households by adult sons, a picture
consisrent with he cmbeddlng of the nuclear families in the
clan structure, thraugh which the network of production and
distribution of goods operated. Admittedly this is only a
suggestion. However, one need not makc much of R1/; III.31.2,
which according to the aulhors of the Vedic Index refers 'to the
legitimate son who does not leave the herirage d his father's
share to his sibling'. The two verses in question, f and 2 of his
hymn are obscure and unrelated to the subsequent verses,
 Macdonell and Keith have depended on rI~ecumments d ysska,
who sees in them a reference to the institution of pulrifi-putm
h e appointment of the daughter to bcget a 50n for continuhg
the Iinrage of her father, and the denbl of Ehe right to inheritance
to Female relatives; but most schoiars regard the explanations
gjven by Yisks and Ssyaqa as arbiwav, and in the omion of
Hanns-Peter Schmidt 'No really plausible interpretxion has been
offeredso Verse 2 gives nadlam in the dual to denote both
parents, suggestive of a very different gender equation and
perhaps proof of the very ancient origin OF the two verses.
According to one viewjPthey refer to a mnsition from matri-
archate ro pa piarchate, and the first is suggestiveofincesr4"ather
than of the later patriarchal cust~r~r OF appointing a bmtherless
daughter a s pzitriki. It has been pointed our" that naptror naJdt
usually means 'son'in the &vedn, hence nffptyam here may
refer to the 'son' and not 'grandson'. At any rate, t h e e is no
jusdication for perpehiating the error of mistrw7slating @k: 1.65.4,4'
con~mittedby mmt scholars including Geldne~,w11o fook h e
term ibhyn to mean 'a rich person' or 'vassal' and interpreted
the verse to mean that the fire consumes he foresr as a king
consumes the rich. This leads Thapar to conclude 'that the
consumption of wm1d1 on rituai occasions was a statement of
status and polirical power'.43 En 1963 D.D.Kos~mbi*had traced
thehistory o f ~ h word
e in Vedicmid Pall texts and the inscriptions
of ASoka and shown that ibhja refers to an aboriginal tribe with
an elephant totem. The 'Aryan king' of the j7gveda no doubt
'would eat up tribal savages merciIessIy', he remarked.
Findly, the passages quoted from Bailey's by y a p a r
only confirm my point rhar Bajley attributes the meaning of
' o m e r ' or 'possessor' of weaith ro d y a and not to aya. He is
clear on h i s issue and writes 'It would be unexpected if the
primary stage d y a from which ajya was derived by ~ ) . d bwere i
unknown in the sense of'nof~Ie',Sonle crass of ayd- 'noble'
c;m be tired bur cannor casilp be distinguished from
-
ag,d G p m e ~ (pp. o ~ q103-4). About the elongated Ebnu fiya
he writes commenting on RV) 1.59.2:

Clearly h e dqvl arc the party or tile poeu, and ~efilinlyir is a budara~y
epithet. The d&a- is hardly a proper name in the Indian rexts. It
would equally suit to take civa here as an epithet meaning 'nobIr'
as at a sec~~ndary stage from a y - t h a t b, rather 'connected with
nobles'. . . .The ethical vnlue then appears cleasly in the later wzdition of
the Arymurici rjl rhe brdJ~mn!?m.. .
As a laudatory word without ethnic vfilue ury+i?; frequent in later
texts Buddhist andJaina. . , . An early meaning 'connected wwi nohIes'
has thus derived to an ethnic n:lrnt: and tr, a nnn-ethnic use. . . .'"

It wmld be clear that Bailey is connecting u y a with what he

r ~ l l sthe secondarymeaning of the term 6ya,that is 'noble' in
an ethical sense and not with its primary meaning of 'posswsar'.
The arguments of Bailey have been critiqued by Gherardo Gnoli,
who writes emphatically, 'The earliest documented uses of
ay+always have afi ethnic significance . . , the attempt to give
a meaning other ~hanethnic one to OP (= Old Persian) ava-
are based on uncertain, dubious, etymalogical reconstructions
and must necessarily be reje~ted.'~'The evidence in his view
is 'unequivocal'.Expressing agreement with Benveniste he writes
that the Iranian a y a 'serves only to designate those who belong
to single ethnic group!'.
The use of the term ' Arya' to denace a branch of Indo-Europeans
in the ethnic sense is funher c ~ ~ r r n bye dthe fact that when the
Aryans were defeated and cnshved by the people of Finland,
the Finnish term ' ogh' which is derived from ' arya' came to mean
s h e In the Finnish language." H e process leading to this change
in the meaning ofthe term u?ydo@~has a parallel in the semantic
change occurring in the meaning of 'dfisa', which from the
designation of an ethnic group came to mean 'slave' towards the
close of the Pgvedic period. Otherwise thp transition from
denoting 'a person of highstatus' or 'possessor' to 'slave' would
be inexplicable. At m e plzce in tIte &veda lndra dearly says 'I
did not turn the @an name over to Dasyu' Ota yo mtw dryam
. ~ ~ says h e quotation from Psnini in her
nLinaa d q n ~ e lThiipar
book was a 'typographical error'. If so,what is the relevance of
the passage for interpreting a7ya as svdrni, the possessor, or
'vaiSya'? The error i s repeated In two ditferenl ways in rwo
different publications."
 With regard to Lhe antiquity of the saltvn sanifire, Tbap;lr 113s
ignored Ihe evidence of the Atha?+u~ver(R, whew already it is
dcscrihed as a sacrifjre which llas blleo in dimsc ( ~ r s a , r # ~ ] . 5 ]
Nor does she rake into account the v i e ~ OF ~ sHeeslcrman
~ ~ and
Sparreboom who have shown that the yihuttras were in fact
ritlralizations of the nomadic activiries of the Aryans. The ardlaic
nauire of a snlrm involving fertility rites is indicated by RV,
W1.33.13, which tells us t h MIna ~ (Agascyal and Vasi;lsisybawere
horn from the pitcher into which Miua and Varuna had dropped
lheir semen in h e course of a sasra sacrifice."
AS to tile recclns~uctiond archaeologilul cultures 'LO invest-
igate the contours of pgvedic society', how does this go aminst.
my perception of Rgvedic society?As Professor Shereen R a t n a g ~
pertinen~lpremarks, 'culture as used in a r c h a e o l a ~is isan
archaeological construct: you equate it with the sociologist's or
anthropologist's "tribe" or "people"or "society"at risk, leave
done the k n o w problem of ethnicity. . . . In fact the entiries
wit11 which archaeology deals car1 have no connection whatever
wirh race or language labels, when as we saw, to translate
"culture" in archaeology into "saciery"or "state" or "people" is
itself tricky.'" She remarks that lhe quedon of i~nmigntionand
not "invasion" of should more properly be addressed ro
historical linpislics for the 'languages da not spread out unless
their speakers do',Thc remarks cohld I)e applied with equal
j u s r i f i ~ t i c n to the nature of stratificalioi~among d ~ r Rgrledic
.
people, which problem has 10 he explorrd largely on h e basis
of pgvedic rn~terial.'~

NOTES

1 In t:lkng :\ holistic view uf entirc V ~ d i period

c Romila Thnpar
iras: t r ~tnnFcendthe Ixwnd:~ricsd ~ i n 2nd ~ e s p ~ c imposed
c by h e
sours~s.She v i s ~ ~ l i z note s only t l ~ cexistence i)f senior :~ncljunior
l i f i i g e s hut also rhc use oikpnriJmritnang drc Ogvtulic p p k .
('I:=, D&i, 1984, p. 94), 1-Inwevet, it is well-known t l l altho~igh ~
the eg"pda often Int.ntions qm, it is nuwhere clescrfbrd rts &,F!z#-
aim, ,.rheblack me~ai'.That term occurs for h e first time in the
 vajtltrvada. It would hc more acceptaI3le to cr,nclude that ayfls,
describtlcl irs 'golden' i l l ;L fen. Rgvedic passages, iniitialy denoted
copper or brrmze and tk~twhen iron h e c a w known iL was first
called ky~na-ayas.Later, w i h rhe grater use of this meu!, awS
cflme to mean iron. For references :~ndfull discussion see Dilip
~hakrabarti,The Early Uslse of'lron ill Indiu (Delhi, 1992:1, p. 9,
n.58.
2 pU, p. 46; also see IHR, XW, p. 9, fn. 58.
3 Hunting is still an impurtanr occupatiun in the Jguecia. For the
image ofa huntsman setting a kap nr laying a snare see Saul Migran,
' pV vaa An Old FEIunting Term', In&-lra~zianJwnlal,VOL 22
113881, p. 173.
4 Maurice Godelicr, Perspecliues iin Marxist ~ r ~ t h v o p o ! o g y
(Cambridge, 1977), p. 72.
5 Bermam Kulke writes that the mndel of the clan bifurcating inta
senior and junior lineages provides a p k ~ ~ s i hexplanation
le of die
structutrl c k m p s in lateiVec1ic society, 'p:uticularlyh e new social
stratification d ~ ~ r i nthe
g Brahmana period'. 'The Rajasuya:A
Pi~radigrnor Early Slale Formation?' tn Ritiml, State and h'isrory
in Soiltl~Aria, Essays in Honour o f J C. Heestermiin, in A.\V. Van
Den Hock, D.Hsl. KolR :ind M.S. Qort,eds, (Leiden, 19923,p. 189.
6 Macdonell and Keith, VedicI ? ~ d aS.V,, goIra; P.V.Kme, Hh-tory of
Dh#rm~Sti.~tra,V~~. 11, Pt 1, p. 47% D.D.Kosdml~i,AnInirodz!ctbn
to the Sr~ddyof hldiun Histoy {Mu~nbai,19561, p. 96. On Lhe
transformation ofthe inslilution ofgotra (lineage)from n structuml
to a cul~uralphenomenon see Suvira Jaiswal, IJ{R, Vol. V1 (1979-
$01, pp. 57-60.
7 I H R , W I , p . 183.
8 Italics added.
3 Pierre Philippe Rey, 'class Contradicrion in Lineage societies',
y , 4, Nos. 73 and 14 (1979), pp. 51-2.
Crittqire ~ f A l ~ i h v o l o gVol.
Pora review dhlarxist ilnthr~po~c~gical writings see Maurice Blnch,
Marxism and Aratbropology; The History o J A Reldiia~zsbiJ
(Oxford. 1983).
10 P. Rey, op.cit., p. 52.
II ihic\,,p.51,
12 Il~id.,p. 58.
13 Ihid.
14 Il~id,,p. 51,
IS Ih'icl . pp 55-h.
I6 J~St:~ci~tehec~mes:~met.aphorFc~rclassinth~~ncient~lndearly
 medieval periods, linen# eiernenh sulvivu and play :i even
in feudal and contemporary India, bur lhis docs not mt.;in fi
continualion td the lineage mode of procluction. Fox speaks of
'srratified 1ine:iges' which ure econo~nicnllpand pnlirically
differentiated i : ~the Rljput kingdoms OF early medieval times,
Richard G ,Pox, Ki~a,Chn. Raj~:rand Rirle (Berkeley, 1971),
pp. 23f.
17 FLS,pp.33.
18 Ihid., p. 1H.
19 J. Gondz, Vedk L~IPYo!u)P: A A b ~ oj y J~dm Ll't~~a!m.e,
Ihl. I
(Wieshiden, 19751, p. 23.
20 This is based cln Vjsllva Mndhu, ud., j?guecl#, Pr VIlI, Indices
fi'is!n~eshn~~mnand lmstlr~jte,H o . ~ l ~ i ~ p19.66).
us,
2 1 !@m~ia,n. 36,s.
2 2 See K.R. Porrlilr, SacrzYice in !he Rgnecln (Mumb;~i, 1853);
5. )ajsn.al, 'Srmljfjca~inn. . .', /HI{, XW, pp, 37-3. Gandz exprct.s~l
rtie view rh:~t rhe ritual k n w n ro the poets of the hymns was not
identical with ~ h complicartd
c ccrcn~onicsof tlw later period; il
grenrerrcn nrl~iluthe hymns were k i n g mnrpmed, 2nd thc coqx~s
was in L I I ~prtlcws of u~mpihtion, op. cit., p. 81.
2 3 ~gmdta,V1.75.10,
24 Vil. 103.1; 7;H.
2j Ralph T.1I.Griffith, The I[yr~r?tsoJ'16~R~wdclCDell~i,rpt., 19861,
p. 384.
26 1. 164.45;X. 16,d;71.H;Htr.lg; 90.12;P7.22, 107.4. In1. 15,51hc
tcnn refers to rhc hfibmn~~cacchnr!~sirt.
27 FlS,p.%.
28 d izz P ! ? ? ~ z . ~ i @
Quoted hy I'd7.C;~!:ln B#Y + ~ R (IC~l r ~
h tL , 1933 >,
t nJ
p, 202.
11) See RIG, X, 69.1. 5.9.
30 Cuficrrrsiy, in art ;irtide pr~hli.sheilin k ~ I l r ~ s ( S p r i n1975),
g , and
reprinrvd ill :jncre~ztIrirIinn Sncirrl H i ~ t ~ CDchi,qj 1978. p. 47)
Thnp:lr wrc~tcin connection with post-Vedic clevelopmmts 'The
t ~ ~ n l yfrmn ethnic, hguistic, and ~ulruml
~ n - c & c a t i i ~ I ~ ( ~ &ritring
diffewncfi in the vgverlic text< w:ls nonorcplnced by the 5rya-
ifidGIdichott3my. ~ b tW,ln.: . hnppened UJ he riding :rt the time!
31 "&scuc1rJf~metp in ~ ~ c i eIndia',
n t l'reirlentill Addre-59, ~hcient
InrJilln Seclion. Indian History C(>ngre~S (December 19fi9,
V:lr~n:tsi),reprinrt.d in A,lcierzl h t d i ~ i l.?0cinlI g d t 0 1 P- L20-
32 'Strtbie.; in E;trly 1ndi:ln Social Mjsrory , ITJRR, ( 1973-801,
PF, 11-13, 14, cn. 3. hlsl, s~ Ide~)Iogy und S ~ ~ i ; l ~ C h : ~ n g ~ ' ,
 S.g~idLScknlkr (Vol. 19, Nos. 3-4, March-April lggl), pp. 4 l f .
33 I-Iykr Stuntz Cnnverue,"The Agnicapna Rite: h d i g ~ n o u sOi~gin?',
Histoy of Rel~giotfi, I'd. XIV, No.2 (November 19741, pp. 81-95.
34 Fritz Stxal, We Science of Ritual (Professor PD. Gune Menlorial
Lecturw, 1st Series, Bhandark* Oriental Research Institute, Punc,
1982), pp. 46f. He quotes the view OF Louis Renou that thc h&udd
\US 3Ivmys remained 'cunnusly &en to Indb',ihic\., p. 41.Also see
Ksherresh Ckmdm Cha~top;~rlhy:iyi~, Siftdres Vedic atrd Ijzdua
Iranlnn Religion cir?d Li!emturc, Viclya Niwas hIisn, ed. (Dclhi,
197&, who writes (p. 99) that in early Vedic times the fire-nltaf
was a simple chamber niacle of e:trh ancl the alt:ir c~fAgnicay~nn
m;tdt: nf bricks is a later development.
35 'Stratifcatinn . . .', IfIR,XVI, p, 5.Like the Boar Myth nf the eighth
m u g & h the story tif ~tlt:ApLlii too, found in the same rrlu++b
(VIII. 911, seems to have derived from a nun-Aryan source. Hnnns-
Peter Schmidt (Some Women's Riles slid Rights in /he Veda,
UORI, Pune, 1987, pp. 1-29) convincingIy shows that the Ap3li-
sfiktz refers to a fern:~le puberty rite hut rymarks that 'ns :in
independent female puberty rite the Ap311-sfikta would be ;in
isol~teda s t l within the whole of l n d n - ~ u r o ~ e tmditic~n
an . . . and
pas~oralsocieties show litllc evidence For femzle puberty rites'.
Hencc: hc 11r;tkehii rorccd arlrlripl tu cu~iriectit wit11 the ~ r ~ n i i a g E
ritrlnl and Is h-xd put tn mphin tlw etymo~rigy(of 'Apil.3'. H e
rejects vnn Schroed-r's suggestion that pirlfi means 'pro~ector'
: ~ n dsa ApJlA IS 'a woman withour a protector' on the ~ ~ o u that nd
is not a Vedic w ~ r d I-Ie
, tnkcs i t ro he a phc>nnetic vari:inl of
apirra rneaning 'brlundless'. TI-iis is far-fetched. The n;!nle rnay
I~aveheen nnn-Aryan and the hymn which also spctks of rl~e
ctm-field indicates a~si1nil:uionof non-hry:~aelcrnunts. Could it
refer to nisn culturc?We htve referred Lr) scjme rn:~tri:rrchnl rr;uw
of h c Diis;ls who arc said to have hd women-warric~rsin ltleir
army ( H R ,XVI, Kos. 1-2, p, 14).
36 R.S. Sharrna, Material C'lrllrlw cllzd Social l;w!)~ciliunsi n Ancient
Indin, Chaps. I1 :tnd 111.
37 'The Changing Cunctpr o f Grhapnti', in Society a d Ideology irl
India, Essays in Ifonour nF Prnfessr~rR.S. S ~ ~ mD.N. a , Jha, cd.
CDclhi, 17961, pp. 29-37. InFr21,C h p ,IV.
38 Wanns-PeLerSchmidt, up. clt., p, 34, n. 5. Schnliilt infomx u s t l ~ n r
Gelclner had ar firs^ accepted Viskx's inierpret;l\ion hut rejected i t
h u r i n his Lnnsl-dinn uf tile &ue&, Also sw R:ilph T.H. GritTilh,
i%e Iwrns oJtbc i&ucda (Dclhi, rpt., i[IXEj), pp. 175-6, n s 1 and
Z for the views t > f different ~ c h o l a ~ s .
 39 Erich FParold, 'Social Significance of a Vedic dIegov (PV; 111,
31.1.2)', Arthiv Orie)ttallni,Vnl. XXVI (19J81, pp. 81-7. ,415n see
B.5. Upadhyaya, Won~elnis2 the @guedn,Introduction.
4U r r d ~ a UKarve, 'Tern~inoIogy ;~ndKinship Usages in and
Atfifiwaued~f:v0l. (1938-91, p. 2x6; Pdrva Daman Singh,
I V $ I , Q ? ~ ~itt A~cigttf(lrdia,pp. ITF, 39-49,
41 K.C, Chgrlopadhp y : ~ OF, , cit., yp. 184-5; Monier-ITrjIliams3
D i c t i n n q gives ththe meaning d ~ @ f , rmpt? and mptdrwni 2s
'descendant', 'offspring','son' in the @wda and says rhaiin Iarw
language the me:~ningc:ime to he restricted to 'grandson', s.v.
nap#!.
42 In the IQucda Sur~bildpublbhed by Chaukhamha Vicll?i BI~avan
(Varan:~si,1991), this xppatrs iIs 1.65.7.
43 Romifa Tbapar, F a 11. 66.
44 D.D,Ros;rmbi, 'Comhiried Merhocb in Induiagy', rtl&~Jj-a~ j~~
JOIA'YIU~ V01. k7 17~9631,
pp. 181-4.
45 H. IT.Bdjley, 5 r m ~ m d b ~OX
w the Pbil~JagicdSociep (1 959),
pp. 71-115.
46 h i d , , pp. 102-4.
47 Gherrudn Gnnli, Thu I& of lmrt: An &sny on Its O@in (Serie
Orieiltale Roma W I (Rome, 1989), pp. 311.
48 Aska I'arpui;~,'The Coming of the Aryans to k i n and India and the
CultumI and Ethnic idenrity of th Dfis:~~',rlz~eran/ionnl]o~rmal
oj'fl~lnl~ridinrrLirrgtil:$/ic?!.Wl, Nn.2, p, 123, fl. 203; R.S.Sk~rlnn,
Lookitrgjbr the A y m (Chennai, 19951, p. 4.
49 PI{ X.49.3.
50 Ccrmp:lrc Romil;~Th:~par, 'Dlnzand Dak3i1)l ns Forms uf
Exchange', Indim, Vol. 13 !t976), Nos. 1 a ~ l d2,p. 43, reprinter1 in
idem, Ancie~atbrrltca-n Jhcinl Histury(lYM), p, 111 with idem,
FIS, p. 43. In ITS (p. 3 )she livritcs 'In onc hymn of the Qzlecirr it
is vL;ir rhme who cI~ose[Ire ?ijjdaredistinct from the vW' and
I(,Rt: X.173.1.She asserts Lbar [he verse in quesrirrn shnwn
I,ifurc:~lion I~ulweensenior 2nd junior lir~eagesand h t ~ t r v
~ i s t i w u i . q l ~!~nv.een
s thrlse wlla -~eh:hr>sr' he r6$;1nrl rhe gcnrml
t ~T11j5 , IM tfl r~ex;lminethe vcac :lnJ L painted rml that in
fact il is ( 1 1 prirst
~ nvho pronounces ' I have mnwccratud t h ~ 'nntl ,
[here fin [eft.rencc lo rijdnyas o r a gmup nr poplc as diqincr
from [he Igntrrinp tllis, Th:ipar refers to tlifFt.l~nc~s in tile
ti-Jnsl:.tir,n of cle ~ - I I , & ' c o n ~ ~ ~ f a 'thouse',
tc', or 'felcll'.
The questiun, ~ v h odoes this, IS nrjr e n ~ w c Ttic ~ d
comlnenmry <,i' S:iy;lna tcln exp1;lins tllis :Is ; I t 1 1 l t t t l r : ~ ar l~~~
hencjictirm given hy l i l ~prjesl. I \ ~ L A ~I ~ use Y of [he sin~ul:lr,
 '1 consecrate thee' ('I have chosen thee'--GriffitW.
5 1. u ~snlanayajfia-sattrri~~i,
Atha?unveda,XI.9(7).7.See Athn~uaveda
(Saunak;~), ed., Vishva lk~ndhu,VisI~veslw:iranandaVedicResearch
Inslitute, iloshinrpur, 1961.
j2 For rrferences see 'Stratification ...', H R , XVI, p. 2 , ns. 12 am1 13,
p. 31, n. 250.
53 For rhr archaic nature of thcpaficaratrasartm ofpzirrrfl N S r j y a n ~
mentioned in the $f?tapn/l~n Briih~rla~cr,see SuviraJaistval, Orrgll?
a d UeueloJmenl uJ' lfu&!rauis~?iCDelhi, 2nd revd. edn., 19811,
pp. 54-40.
54 Shereen R a t n a p , 'Archaeology; In Search of the ~ ~ n y o s s ~ h l e ' ,
B c o ~ ~ o m racn d Political IVcek{y, V o l . =IV, Nns. 45-6
(5-12 Nove~nhcr1994), pp. 2901-2. Also Idem In D. Man~lai's
Ayodhp: Arci~aeologya f i r Den~olitiot?(Dclhi, 1993), p. 4,
jj C:iulrous u s e d I1istorical1exicnlngy and scm:!n1i~sis un;lvoidat~le
fr>ran investigation into thme aspects (IF social history and nced
n c ~ the dismissed as 'cunjectural history', it phr;ise coined by
Rndcliffe-Brown. The criticisin 1s countered by Trautmann
succincdy, 'this of course is pi>lcrnicsi~nplific:~tion, for orveery science
finds conlecture ~ndispemahle;and the exa~nplcof histor~cd
linguistics, which is surely a fonn ofconjecturill history, shows rhat
historical conjeciures, no less than function:tlist ones, need no[
lack internal rigor or ernpiric:t1 vcrifi~~ticln,
R:idcliffc-Uiown'sslc~gan
amountedton denral ufi l ~ epos~ibili~y of an l k s t o r i ~anthrapolr~gy
~l '
(T.T. Tnutmann, Drflfiidiavl Kil?sl~ip,Caml~ridge,1981), p. 74.
 Social Stratification in Early Buddhism
and the Changing Concept of
Gyha-tUGahapti

T H E CONSOLIDATION OF ~ R I F - ~ T L Y
:ind ruling lineages as briihrnana and #j'dr1y~f/ks~t~i~~ varea
catcgorics w n s accomplisI~edin the later Vedic age lhmlLgh
processes of fission and fusion of l:~terVedic tribes. C o ~ n m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
engaged in agriculture and cattle-rearing were iclentiFiecl 15
vaiiy, the members of the urL It is held thur in the poa-Vedic
Pnli sources the briihmana and he k~airiyaare verifiable
caregories, having acquirccl the chamcteristics d,jtiai; but such is
not the case will1 llle ~mcd(Skt vaiiyal and fud& (Skt Sfidra)
calegories oftl~ebrah~nanicalvama scltemc. The latter two t i p r e
merely as heo ore tical concepts not iderltifiable in real life
siti~aiions.'So js rhc case with CfinJlla, which is used in an
abstract scnsc ta represent the idca a€Iow as n value.' Such n
rending of the texrs suggests [hat the Siidras and t l ~ cc;?1;d5las,
~ 1 1 0were originally tribes oulside or on tl~cmargins of Vedic
socicry, became generic terms now; and so did the L.PLW wliicll
not have been 3 llonlogencous category, as it cncompassecl
commrmers of vzrrous tribes orjurlas. Eve11ht tlled/bnnnuld~z
there is mention of tribcs speaking different tongues and
fojlowing diffelden~ custonls ( ntinud/~nmzc?!?am).' The hereditq
,-hanctcr of cnf[ specialization and O C C U ~ : ~ ~ would
~ O ~ S further
'v~iw'
conlrlbute to I[$ferentintions among them; but rht. terms
J S G ~ ~ ~ ' to haye relevance for social interaction
witll oher groups. 1 flavc cliscussed llle cvidcnce of Piaini on
the hjerarc]]iaalion of con>inuniries dubbed a s giidra by
hrallm;~niralwriters For 1 1 3 ~study of Lhe'vni+nE cl~egoly, the
evidence of early Buddhist lexb is illuminating.
The cnrly Buddhist sources display a paradoxical atlitude
towards the 'vaiSya' of the hrahmanical scheme. On the one
harid h e E e s s a and h e suddd are regularly clubbed together,
indicating their low position, and contrasted with thc superior
varn;i catego:ics of k h d l t i j ~($kt, ksatriyal and ~ r i i h r n a ~ aon
s;
the other hand, agriculture, catlle-keeping and mde-occupations
assigned to vaiiyas in the brahnanicai ~heory-are consistently
raled high and described as ucca knmma, work nf high s t a t ~ s . ~
These were the functions of gahapnlis, an influential and
prestigious c l z s in rhe Pali sources. They are oilen looked upon
as n counterpan of or inembers of the v ~ i i y avar1>a5and similar
to Goyigiin~i,the superior caste of agriculturists in Sinhalese
society." To explain this wt have to examine carefully
thc significance of 'gnhnpti' and tllc vcssn varna in t h e early
Buddhisr sources.
Frequent rererences to gtthupa!i in the UuddI~istPali liternnlre
have prompted a number ofcontextual analyses' to bring out its
variuus cannoralions. The plcture presented is s.ill not witl~out
certain ambiguities. Moreover, llat m u c h attention has been given
to the Sanskrit etjrnon gfi~4pdoccurring in the Vedic literature,
and it is assumed that since the tern] literaily rncans tl~ehuad of
'mrrsler' of gvhn or hnusel~old,it must have been the designation
of the head of a joint patriarchal farnily or hottseI~oldand ~ h c
inslitution can be traced back to [lie &'g~tecl~i, where the term
occurs a number of limes. Flowever, long survival d this term in
ils Sanskritic and nunSanskririr forms (l'ali g o h a p i , Prakrit,
gahnuclt) and brahrnsnic;ll 3ncI non-hrabnlanical contexts nialces
it imperative 11nt we guard against reading later nieanings into
earlier passages and look for both textual and contextual s~~pport-
In d ~ &z~edn
e Akni is descrilsed asgrhapl>fia~ nhmerous placesn
l y as a refe'clrtlnrl-to b e sncred
and the epither is g e n e r ~ ~ l seen
h~i~sohold-Fire which musl h:~ve been maintained in each
houseliald crr grhd At one place Agni is s:~iclto have grown
'bright' and 'nol)le' in every gyha, stirred h y hlkt;lriSvan.' Bur
the precise nature nf KgIredic grha is difficult to define. 11 11.2s
hcen assumedt" hat it must have consisted of r,emhers of four
 generations living togeber heded a P~f~farnilm, who was
known a3 the grbdparb Neverlheless, the presumption ofsuch
heal extended families constituting single households among
the early Vedic people appears to be a prachronism not backed
by the i n t C r ~ s l 1cvidcn~cuf r11eR g r l ~ d a . " The only verses cited in
support of this view are from {he wedding hymn found in the
knlh rna?z&Iu, adnllnedly one of the latest and largTst hynms,
which appears lo have beer1 rdashioned a number of tirnes by
lhc priestly hand. The language of the later verses of the hymn
which expresses the wish that the bride may rule over her father-
in-law. morhcr-in-law and sister-in-law(verse 46)and sport with
her sons and grandsons [verse 421 is closer to classical Sanskrit
h a n Vedic') and may have been added when the instihtion of
patrilineal extended Family household WJS ~ e l l - e s t a b i j ~ h ~ d
among Vedic Aryans. But, a?we shall see, even this hymn retdns
traces OF a dif?erent and earlier conception of the g , r b e ! i
his househdd, which does not correspond to an extendedline;ige
1 3 ~ 1suggesb r~sidentialunity {clansmen living under rhe
roof w in dose proxjmjryj as also a rimal and econonljc enpy.
$\Ie Imvc 3rgrred ~ a t l i c r 1ha1 ' ~ :he pgvedir kinship smlcrurt.
suggests he e~isrencrof "eemes~ary'ur n u d e ~bmilies r cl-1 y
embedded in rbc larger clan, whicl, was .!he basicsocicr-economic
unit. Thrrc are frequent references ro couples washihmg and
pressing rhe wmcs Juiceand t n d l n g tyre in their houses (doma),
jusr;rs thwe are: numerous indications of the caliectivehnccioninR
0 E groups called simply jand&, or u& or by nanle. But there is
hardly any indicztian of cotnpjex patrilinesgeu constituting
househaids in early Vedic times. The g~hap#liof tlrc &~PL/O
l v : ~not~ a householder Ircading ;i patriarchal join1 b n ~ i l ybut the
fjeadof an e x ~ n d e dkin group u~hichlrad a residential unity
md formed one unit for sock~l,emnomic and ritual ~ U T ~ O S E ~ S .
seerlls hatone of h e sip~ificmlaEritruWs of ~ I C8gw;dic
g!-haFrjis his youtfilness. Sevcnl passages which speak OF
Agni as grhcrpari also describe him as wise or YounR. or the
youngest of ule gods, at the sanre time. one verse" of h e
7na,;#&, which is also repeated in the ei6hh ~ ~ * f i ? d ~ ~ ~
~~~i is idenw~edwith different cnleprie of Priests along n'ith
grbflpari,rile n.cu~ive is r e m i n i g e ~ of ~ t rhr M f i G s ~ c r 10~ ? ~ ~ ~
a snrll-n sacr$ce not only do a11 parricipanu tkemselves perfornl
[he runctions of various priesls, bur they also choose o n e of
hemas heir grhnptpcrri, who leads the rituaI. It is interesting that
for a 5altra the age ofthe pol ticipa11kincluding rhar of the grhnpati
has to be between seventeen and twentyfour yeilrsIs and h t ~
perform the sacrifice jointly along with thcir wives who are also
given dbii or iniriation for the purlloose. In a critical s~udyof the
.tmrrtn ritual Heesterman concluded h a t originally the grhc$ati
was the leader of a band of 'tfekking sacrificers' who ~erforrned
the mobile sacrificial session<, the so-called y&#suttms,which
invokged booty-winning expeditions and collection of goads For
the sacrifice (saniy#mnul; and rhe entire sacrificial activity was
interwoven with the trekking and resettling acrivities of nomadic
Aryan bands." This view finds same supporr from the fact h a t
in the &ueda the grhczpu:i is conceived of as yomg, manly, and
bountiful1' and the househaid accoutrement (g&+hwpa~fi~lfi of
(he non~adicgrbrbapwti i s described :is the &jEyi, a Cart d r a m
by more than one l~orse.'~
Thc irautmiltras lay down that only members of the bfihmanfl
one view
varna may parricipate in a sflttm sacrifice; according to
311 the parricipants should be members of the same gorm.w
Another view"' reco~nnrendsthat if members of different g o ~ t s
join in a suflrd d ~ ritual
e procedure should be regulated by
gormof the gyJ~upcatlThe cnlergence of separate varna categories
is a later Vedic phenomenon, but such rides b c m y the original
clan-based cornposition af early Vedic scrttras. Thus origindy
the g.hapnli seems to ha.,e been the lcacler of the youdl of his
clan, responsible for ~ h wcI1-l~cing,
c protection and prosperity
nf his kin-group.
It may he noted that the sacred Fire of the grhapati, the
garhapnt.yi7gnf, was one of the kree Srauta fires, the other two
being he ~ h a e ~ a n i yand
n the daksi~*g,~i, These were kindled
later, after the es~ablishmentof the ~drhcrpat-yafire."
CiErhupat.vagni is not to be confused with the grbyagni, also
known as s?nt3?T&gnl,~ : urub f fkagrai or Eilagrzi in die g~i~J~mtilra-as"
The latter was the domestic lire of [he individual hausebold
established by a househclder described as ~ y bor i grhmll~afor
lhc purposes of gybyclkarma or pcikajiqjfias.fi The rules and
 ~ ~URI.Y
SOCIAL S ~ T I F I C A TN K UUDD~SM
209

r &
s t n ~ c ~ ~ofr the . drjmd
~ were morlelled along the s;rme lines
3 s those of the Smsdarr but the conccxt of tilc firre
different. Thus, both the smart# g.hyQ~g,rl~and the $rauta
~dykapfltj~Lignfwere established in the same manner and were
to be maintained only by a b f i ~ e h o l d e rwha.~err+fewas
alive; these could not be established or maintained by an
unmarried perssn or a widorver.Whereas the snlcim grhhyagni,
however,was established co meet- the religious needs of an
individusl I~ouseholderin !he second s ~ g of e life &<rhmt,+cr),
the Smuts gcirhapa[y5gni,being the fire of g!+hwpa!i,had a very
different concern. It was meant to secure the n>ell-heing,fefiiiv
and wealth of an extended kin-group, ofwhich che grbaptiwas
d~c
Hence rhe brjde of a grhapati was implored to be wcr vjsilant
over the gdrhapa5~ufire:'"[ was to maintain it that the gods had
bpsmwed the h i d e on the husbmd.' She was asked ro go to
the houses of lis kinsmen so that she could discharge her duries
as the g?.lmpalrli,and having controI over the housrs &T/IR>Q,
speak up in the council (ufdallsal.~ The mention here of houses
in the plural indicates the special position of the g.rhparni with
regard to the mended kin group of her Irusbmd. The verse js
in the Athcirt~ci~rerln,
which in an ensuing hymn" clearly
enjoins upon t h e bride to worship the sacred h~uscholdfire,
thus making fie connecrion clear. T21cbride is described as
r houses (pratarilzi g.rbZt?zimjn'and not just one
c ~ e n d e of
house.We fud here a reference to *e families ofher husband's
clansmen and b e wife is repeatedly advised to go to their hausedl
so that she may Aa\*e 'easy ~ ~ n t' of t ~the! houses ( J Z J J W ? ~ ~
a n d to speak in the clan-council, the
g T + d ~ ~ Y m ~ ) ' ~candnue
ddnr~24 her ripeold age? Obvio~~sly, this is an ordinary
bride but he wife of a grhapnti3one with subskintin1 P w e r m d
authority.
Incidentally, these two hymns of the ~1han)at~edaals:, pcovjde
unmistakable ev:dence of Fraternal polyandry." It appears that
[he young gybapntf, head of u hausehold. war QleeWn
brothzr and his en@& ~ c d a l
the g!j!dP~tfli, and
wSsCeSfijhle to [he younger brolhers. The impomna of being
the son is indicated by prayer. 'here give bitdl to
210 CASTE

progeny for this husband, may this son of thine be of good

(sujyais#~yobhauat pul rusla e.~bY.~"he role of
the g?-hapatni in the redistributive economy of the rimes is
inhcated by a versej7 in which a cultivator sets aside three
measures of grain For the Gandharvas and four for the grbapat~zi
at the harvest. It is in rhls context that the prayer for becoming
g~bnmedhigrhapari, the grhuppatl who performs the household
sacrifice, becomes intell~gible,"
In a hymn of h e 8gueda dedicared to the Season (ptu) as a
persodied deity, Agni guides rhe sacrifice through the season
Crtuna) with the g8rhapatyah3Thismay he linked to the
conception of Agni as the gybapdti. Kane" rightly sees in this a
clear mention of the Sratsfa Fie, the gGrhapayGgjzi, The hymn
invokes Agni to escort the gods KO the three appointed places,
apparently the three irauta Fires, and speaks of the offering of
soma in rheporra, nv{m and brabnaana cups41obviously by the
ritual experts designated correspondingly. The sacrificial ritual
is well developed, hut there is nothing to show that the &vision
of the soma sacrifices into ahina and sckrtra based on varna
discrimination had already occurred. The priests had not yet
become a hereditary, exclusive class and yajiza was a group
act~vitydirected towards sodetal objective.
~t any rate, the description of the Marurs as performers of the
grhamedhd2 reveals through projection at the divine level the
concept of a household sacrifice pelformed by a band ofqoung
warriors acting themselves as priests. The Maruts are young and
of ;he same age and being the sons of Rudra constitute a single
kisship unit. They act as warriors as well as priests.4' In rhe
Baudha~ana~rue~tasutrn,~'' they are said to have Visou as their
srbapati. It appears that sthapaffand grhapati are somermes
used interchangeably to describe the same phenomenon. At one
place the Paficaviwa Briihrnal;ta45speaks of Vratyas as having
held a sacrificial session (satbra) with Bu&a as their sthapati.
Elsewhere, it mentions Dyiitiina MEruta as the gThapaN of the
~ratyas.l*~e learn that he was the leader of the M a r u t s
According to Heestermano the Maruts were the mythical prototype
ofthe Vriltyas and the ~nstitutionof gfiapati was diStincrive of
the sdtm sacrifice as we11 as that of thc Vrdtyas, A sarw
 SOCIAL STMnFIG9TION IN E&&Y BUDDHISM
211

designated as Stbapc?t&auaor ~ijjasava is mentioned in a number

of srau!nsatrta~and on this basis Caland''nsurmises tllat the
sthapfJtiwma vai8ya. in later times the insritutions of hesfhapafi
and h e g?-&Wh'CPaJi, gabupat9 were found anlong hose who
were engaged in cultivation, crafts or architectural activities,lg
The Bahuvedaniyasurta of the Muahima I V ~ & Ymendons ~ a
Paiicakiriga thrpuli (sthapah7 in its subsecGon on h e gabam&
{Guhapnii-rmgga).
Romila Thapar is of h e view9' that initially 'the I ~ o u s e h ~ l d i ~ ~
system' was common to bath the r ~ j a n y m and the r ~ i j ;but later
with the changeover to agriculture and the d e ~ r e a s i n g i m ~ ~ ~ . r a ~ ~ ~
of pastoralism, cattle raids ofthe *j!'carayas no longer produced
as much wealth as eadier. So the n3janya.sacquired power and
converted themselves into k~atriyasliving off the prestarions
received from the rll3, who cultivated land. Gradually 'the
householding economy came to be associared with the lineages
of the LISrather than those ofthe k~atriyas'and the household
became the unir of agriculmral production. This eventually gave
rise to the $!%lapatias a social category.
This perceptive reconsrruction requires some modification.
Thapar seems to be making a subtle distinction between the
householding system and a llausel~oldingeconomy based an
agriculture5'but docs nor clarify the concept of 'householding
system'. ~pparentlyshe means the presence of the inslimtion of
g4&ap~ti; for she wrjces that the principal ritual role of Lheg,&ap~i
was that of theyajimztina' (he who orders the sacrsce) and in
later Vedic cexts Idlere are references to grbapatfsand y~famcl.nas
which suaest ksauiyas but do no1 preclude t ' a i ~ y a s 'What . ~ ~ js
is that in the larer Vedic text5 the slams of gyha~att
is not clldIned to tile raja?zpasand the saiiyas; it is open to all
the hree upper vamas, who h v e the right to perform Vedic
sacrifices.The Inter Vedic texts, highly conscious of the varw
distinctions, even classiFy the sacrifices into the ahinn and
[he,jallm calegories, limi~ingthe latler LOthe b ~ h n l a o av m a . It
been shown rhal grbfipatl is indispensable in a sflfirfi Nor i5 ir
possible to a r s e h a t in every case h e blrihmana ~ r ) J ~ P * i w a s
only officjnunp for a lqatnya p 3 M h The int~malS ~ c c U of r ~

[he clearly shows that h e ~rbflpali was not a

212 CASTE

substitute f a r the yajaln27zn or pztron. ?he benefit accruing OU:

of a ,~al~t.cd
w a s s~~pposed to Ile shared cqunlly try the participants
of the sntrrq and the gl-hnpatiwas onIy their leader. In fact, the
instltuticpn of rhe swtrra as well as that of the ghapn!i reda ate
v a q a divisions and relate to the coIlective fr~nc~ioningof the
clans or extended kin-groups of the Rgvedic people,''
we may nole that even Iater in a changed economy when
gyknputi is seen as the head of n pntrinrchnl household based
on ~ ~ r i c u l t u r earnings,
al the brihn~ana-g!.h@ntis are no less
prominent. Besides, the instiurrion of grhnplarr also characterize^
h e Vrstyas in later Vedic litelature; rhcy are genemlly regarded
as hnving been oulside the varna system. According to the
a , Vrstyas neither smdy the Vedas nor
pcli?cccvi@a B ~ i i h n z a ~ the
prectise trade or agric~lture.~'
The transformation cf g y i ~ o p tfrom
f a leader of the exrcnded
Irin-group raking care of its ritual and material needs to the head
of a complex household structured on patrilineal principles is
no doubt connected with the shift from nomadic pas~oralistnLO
sedentary agriculture. I have argued elsewhere" that the existence
ofcomplex households in ancient times, whelher matrilineal or
payriiincal, was closely linked wilh the ownership of agricuItural
land. Land was heid jointly and provided joint income and
support to the members of the household even as it was managed
or conuolled by the head. Agriculture required the colledive
labour of family members or slaves and bired labourers; and as
such complex households were more suited to this form of
~roduction.However, the grbapnti docs not seem to have been
the hcad of an ordinary peasant household, He was a man of
prestige and sonic auihority, even in the age of the Buddham
Perhaps he was Ihe leader or a leading member ofan agri,=ult~ral
community.
In a scholarly study of the social environment of earls
Buddhism m a Chakravarti has argued that the grhapcift of the
Pzli texts was not merely the hcad of the househa]d, but the
'head of h e househ0.d as a producrion un~r'.'"llis is 3 veqT
impomnt climension and in my opinion even in early Vedic times
the grhapcrsi headed a production unit, even if the natare of
production as well as that of the 'householdpwas quite different
 in that age. The shift in ~neaningwas nor fronl 'denoting a
householder to denoting an agriculturist357but from the head of
a production unit of one ppe to another. In rhe Inter bm it was
a patrilineal joint household which included both kin and son-
kin such as slaves and hired labourers. The link betnrcen he
two appears in a slaternent of the AQzc!/arn Nikdya5"that he
gubafluli had to maintaln the sacred fire ~ a b a p a n h ~ sThe].
Virzayu definition of gabapnti, which according KQW~agle
indirectly refers to his ownership right over rhe gt-ha by the use
of rhe term ajjbaonsrari, reiterates rhe continuation of his
prerogative from early Vedic times. Sirictly speaking, gabapati'
should not be translated as 'householder', which is the sense
conveyed by such t e n s as grbastha or grhi. C?.hapnn'was the '
'master of the unit known,asgrba' and as such conveyed a sense
of authoriry. Thus, the well-known Snilarwldi inscription59
describes a peasant who works in his own fields as kelgrnbika
but speaks OF his son as the gabapan. Apparently the son had
atrained the position of a 'squire' or leader of the peasant-
cultivarors. The Upilisutta of the Majbinza Ari'&i7yd'speaks of
gahapuli Upili of the BZlaka village sitting with the gi/~i-parisap
[grhi-parisad), which seems to have been the assembly of
ordinary peasant householders. The clear differentiation of
gnha-ati from gilbi and krrtwnbika in these passages is striking.
Gohapnthare always identified by the name of their localitits
and it may not be wirhout significance that the Pali texts do not
mendon Inare than one gabapafi hailing from the same village
or locality. Fick sees in them 'the gentry of the land, the tower
land-owning nobility in contrast with the nabilily which is related
to princeIy houses, the khattiyas'." %q are invariably depicted
3s men of substance, located mainly in the countryside. Gahapati
MeI?daka, who employed as many as 1250 cow-keepers
(gopbiika),whom he ordered to provide fresh milk to the Buddha
md his followers, is described as a resident of Bhaddiya Nagam,"
but nagam PpparentIy meant a fortified place and not a town ac
stage." There are frequent references to store-llouses of
gahapat& and these must have been constructed at fortified
The g&~patis donated such stare-houses, known as
8abapa[i-&app&~bhr;Imi-ku{i or gabaparika, to Buddhist
214 CASTE

safigha.HThe work (kamma) of the store-room keeper was 'low'

aalld he must lrave been a dependent
in the ~ u d d t i i I~ercepti~n"
s~
employee of the gabapati. Thus i t is incorrect to view the
gabapnpatis as ''subsistence farmers' and confuse this category wirh
that of the ordinary peasant or grba~lhrr!~ The gabupati's special
position and authority was inherited by his son, hence the
gabapaci-puttw had a special status. According to Piiqini the
younger brother of a grhmpati was known simply as yuuli and
the status ofgrPlapaf2passed on to the eldest sorr Su~irc~rnes it
could also be enjoyed by a woman: in the Anguttam Nikfiya
ViS&hfi MigHramit5 belongs to the gnhapati category. She was
an eminent follower of the Buddha and was even asked to give
her advice on disciplinary matters in the ~ a h g h a . 'Of
~ the ten
stories of pious Jaina laymen narrated in the UvLisagadwsa~,~ as
many as nine deal with the lives of gahapafk, described in a
stereotyped manner as possessing vast agricultural lands, herds
of catde and hoarded wealth.
It has been pointed out7"that although gahapati frequently
occurs in the inscriptions of western India, an inscription from
Karle uses the term gahatu krhnstha) to indicate an ardinary
householder. ~ccmdingto Wagle ic was the more prosperous
heads of households who were known as gakupatis.7' Yet Sibesh
Chandra Bhattacharya is right in asserting hat the ghapati was
more than a mere head ofa household. His view that a 'gahapati'
might have been the leader and representative of the traders of
a village community is based on post-Maurya and pre-tupta
sources and there k no doubt that with the accumulated surplus
from agriculture many gabnpcl.Xs had turned to trade, which was
flourishing in the centuries preceding and succeeding the turn
of the Christian era The Vinnj~a Pl!aba mentions setchi-grshapris
a number of times, but this is regarded as a l ~ t edevelopment.*
r
However, this does not negate the view that: in the preceding
period gabapatirwere notable entrepreneurs who organized the
cultivation of large tracts with hired labour and slaves, and were
the imporrant tax payers.73Such gahap~ztiswerealso foundamong
I~rlhmanaswho owned and supervised the cultivation of
bruhwzddeya lands and had to pay taxes to the kingn74This
instirurion survived until the time of KumHri]a who states that
 SOCIAL SlaAllFICAllON IN WRLY BUDDHIShl 2 15

the b'fli~upflfidoes not work on his Iand hims& but ernploys

hired lsbwrers or itwrrnaki~ns.~~ The B u d d h i ~sourctls do
provide a single inshnce of a gabrapafi c u l t i l ~ t j nI ~~ fi&l
P with
his own or his family's labour, although IKJ doubt he bad to be
famiIiar with the process and would have to see that tile work d
preparing the field, sowing seeds and watering was done an
tinle.'' An agricu1tur:st gahapaticouId be described as LwCIka-
guhaptijVas discincr from se[[hi-gahapatr'~' who were located i rl
lawns.7n(We may compare this to the term bmsnka-brdhnapx.
In a ]Staka story a k~ssrska-br&hm~?m I S the owner of one
thousand karIsas of land. He goes to the field a l o q with his
workmen to supervise p l o ~ g h i n g l However,
.~~ ~~bsistcnc~
farmers are descrikd simply as kassakas In the Digha iVik&yaB1
Wagle pointed our that the term gahapnti was not generally
appiied co rhe members ofk g ~ y a dans, or the king's servants.
Uma Chakravafli explains thls on the grand rhtlt he k+atriya
clans d the gurru-riijw llelrl Iand irl wmIuvn and there was no
private ownership. A gabapati was in I~erview an independent
owner-cultivator using his family labour as well as that of hired
warkers and slaves, depending on his means. Hence, she argues,
rhe calegory of jiahczpa~i\vas conspicuousiy absent in h e gtztza-
,@&asandthere were no ' k b ~ ? t t j ~ - g ~ b w pOn ' . odler hmd,
t &the
the bulk of land in h e conrernpo~.arymonarchies was in the
of guhapnris whcre they constituted the domjnant
peasantry. Alrhough it is quite plausible chat the collective
should have iB roo* in
functioning of the ga~zcrt.ci~jKls
camniund ownership of land, a continuation of tribal rmdjtions
in pre-sott: polities, available evidence is more in f a v m r of the
thesis ofWslter RuknH1who hdd thar the n~mnbersof the ruling
k~.~rfiya in the north-eastern repub,lics had their own
separate estates, ~n the Vh~a,yc~ Pi;ak"' the ~ i k ay rdjri ~ h a d d i ~ a
speaks of tl~nsferringhis estate to his sons and brodlers before
ilccepti% monkhood. The title raja, in h i s context docs not
mean a monarch, for the Reads of d rhe f;~milies ofa ruling clan
heid chis tide. <walher&kya, htab3n:ima, 21.50 tool< the
mamgement hjs esrale after the denth ofhis father and
gave detoiled instructions bout Its agriculmI management [o
his younger brother hniruddha when kc lhought of joining the
216 CASTE I

smigha. It seems likely that the ownership of land in the gaga-

rlijj,ar was confined to members of [he ruling clan and it could
not be alienated without the consent of the clan, Since t h e heads
of the househoIds of the ruling clan preferred the title of rtija or
,k.~atriycr',as [hey enjoyed political power coo, they w e l r
obviously disringuished froni the gahapatis. Nevertheless, i~lcya I
hkahaniima is mentioned in the sul~sectionof the gahapatis
(gabapati-tmgqa) owing to h e similarity of his occupation with
that of a gahafiutf; and Suddhodana, the father of the Buddha,
is described ploughing his field--even if only as a rituaLB3The
linguistic expressions kunr gdl-hapatam mentioned by ~ ~ n i n i ? '
and Vg-jii-gcirhapatammentioned by his commentator Etyiiyana
1
while explicating on the former, clearly refer tc the instilution of
grhaputi among the Kurus and Vrjjis, who had gfir7arBjym in the
time of the Buddha. Pinini, who is generally placed bemeen
500 and 300 sc, referred to a contemporary practice. The phrases
need not be interpreted to imply the existence of a distinct
gahnpatrlg~happaticlass in these oligarchies, the heads of the
households of the ruling clans of Kuru and Vajji gwnnrajyns
themselves followed the g~hclpa~itwdition of 'householding' and
like the gahapadis managed their agricultural lands w i ~ hhircd
and slave labour.
Large farms worked with sIave and hired labour characterized
the economy of large parts of eastern India In the age of the
~ the system seems to have contirlued into the early
~ u d d h a ;and
centuries of the Christian era in north-eastem andwestern India.
It becomes much less conspicuous in the subsequent cenruries.
The ArthaSastrw of Kau!ilya recommends h a 1under the direction
of the Administrator Cscrm5bnrtT)secret agents disguised as
gg.hapaE.7 s110uld find nut the number of fields, houses and
families in those villages in which they are stationed In the
Dufaktmiiracarflad Dandh and the Mychakabtka of kdraka
the grkaputf appears as the head or judge of a
Gabawai, the Prakrit fom of grbapatf,occurs In a number of
versesw of the GBthri-saptduti and in one" he is also described
as a hcilia or ploughman It appears that there was a
lowering d the gyhdpan status and the term became divested of
ih earlier meaning (as happened with the word dam). It came to
 applied to ordinary peasant householders, an equivalenl af
z early medieval tinles.9' ~ u rj~e
Ihe k u t u n ~ b i ~of r notion of a
difference continued colinger and jt is p o i n t d rhat in son=
earl nredjeval 'sources while thc family k 3 d is call& g.pIrapati,
llle wife is described w brtilmhin~"The disappeaMnce of
gabflflnris may be connected with structural change in he
countryside .n~oducedby the system of land granrs along with
fiscal and administrative rights and dlc enlelgerlce uf Indian
feudalism.
Neverrheiess, in the rime d the Buddha gahaputt was an elire
cl~kgoryconlparable to d ~ br3hmana
e and the l~>atr:ya,and Fiures
as one of t l ~ seven
e ~ewelsof the king. TIlc I/i~zaya yLmy.s,
'excepting rhe king and h e who js in rke king's service, and rkc
hrshrnana, he who renwins is rallcd a g a l ~ p n d i :This is s n m e
rimes quoted to shunv that gnbmpoti here refers to thc class of
cultivators, But in my opinion this pasage is is incc en~rnem~ing
~ h cIi~e
c groups. It is incorrect to regard gabcipn!is as a group
similar to Goyigsmfs, who constitute a numcmus mste of land-
owning agriculturists in Sri tanka, as mien within the gnhupati
family the stakls of gabnpcili w.s confined to jusr one member,
thc head.
T11r OF wide ecclnamlc disparities and upper-class
conrempr for h s e who had to depend on manual Idhour nlusr
hale awclcra tcd t l prmea~ of rage form:^ tion among h e Vedic
m s E s , known as the vaiips in hter Vedic dmes. The tendency
of joining togedrer the and SO& categori~sis evident
even in s o m e iacer Vedic sotrrrc-s2nd R.S. Sharrilav.' quatm :I
passage from the Ybf~cs. c~Llecaonswhich starrs that (he wiiyas
and ifidras were created together Cconrrq to [he P ~ c n ~ a -
sckta view which gives prioricy tu the cf~ationof vaigya and
him lligher than the diidn). The clubbing co$elhcr of the
and l ~ ~ & dIS
' CO~SP~CLIOU inS the early Pali texts showing
a general fall in social status or those who were engaged in
manual work. Divergent socio-xonomic SLxtllS ~f crafts ant1
orctrparionlls nlua I l a v ~encouraged fisstoninfi a l ~ dIht: fu-m~tion
of separgte castes :Imong rhe gme~al~le,@i? of vdibps. 1 have
+quggc.qedearlier that one ofthe reasms for ; I C S ~ P ~ofJainisn1
~ ~ W
by tn&fi could be the hct dlat Jainisnl furelmde agriculture 3 s
musing him.4 (vialcnce) LO insccts in tillage. This cmphasixd
dissociation from low-status manual agriculrural work. The I

changed material environment also affected the brahrnanical I

as agriculture was increasingly assigned to Siidra
mrqa and the tllird varna came to be looked upon prin~arilyas
the trader. The lacer Dharmlsutras and Smrti literature canrinuc
to repeat the later Vedic formulation about agriculrure as the
function of the vaiSya. Neverthelesi, it is given low prioriry; trade,
commerce and financial transactions become 111e main vaigya
occupations. It is pointed out that in the enumeration of the
I
&[ties of a vaiSya in he M ~ ~ t ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ i a gcomes l t ~and
r i c ulast r e is
usual\y quaiified IT the expression 'and also' ( e ~ c lcd."
I
In pointing out changes in the concept of h e duries of vaiSyas
and SGdras we do not wish to imply t h n ~this symbolizes a
deliberate change of occupations on account of status con-
sidcrations. Such nlobility would depend largely on material
circumstances. iV11at is intended is to account for the shift in the
conceptualization of varnrt categories, as these had to be in
harmony wit11 d ~ changing
e niaterial milieu and emerging social
groups which acquired their identity on a regional and occu-
pational basis rather rhan in terms of varga. Thc proliferation of
j&is within thc vawa system has been a g r ~ d u i process
l aided
by fission and by expinsion into tribal areas and induction of
new groups into the system. But in the early cenluries preccciing
the Christian era, the siluarion was still nuid. It is heldg5 that in a
number of later Vedic texts marriage hetween vaiiya alld Siidra
is considered normal, but perhaps these reflect the early stages
of the assimilation of non-Vedictribal 9ijdras in h e Vedic society.
Wagle's study of early Pali sources does not suggest a casre
society compartmeotnlized into a Pirgu number of endogamous
groups, h e term jtitl being used in the literal sense of 'birth'
rather than 'caste', bur the fact thal marriagcsg%ere orranged
un considcratian of birth, lineage and status through nlediators
even among non-hrihrnana and non-k~atriyagroups provides
[he appropriate background For the growl11 of jcitrs, hilly attested
in the later Dharrnasihra and Srn~tiliteralure. Subdivisions wihin
the kba~iiya,VL'SSU and sitdd~lgroups art. mentioned in the
Brshmanadharnmika Sutt;i of ~iikri~cigg~i.'"
 SOCIAL 5"IXATlRCATION IN EARLY BUDDHISM
2 19

NOTES

I Uma Chakramrti, The Socfc~lDimemions of ~ a r l yBacldbism

(DeJhi, 13871,pp 104-8.
2 Jbid.,p. 106,fn.69. Nevenheless, Gnd2lasare mentioned regularly
as a specifjc hTnn jciri along with the W)ZLI, tlesdda, t.afthak&o
mdptr&usa in h e Pali texts. That they were originally anabrigiml
tribe is siiown by the fact that they bid their own dialect. R.S.
Shiirn~il,& d m . . . , p. 139.
3 Atbarvauedta, XII. 1.45.
4 vimya Pi!aku, W.6, quoted R.S. Sharrnit, op, cit.,p. 137; Uma
Chxkmvarti, op.cit.,p. 112.
5 R.S. Sharma, Jirdrax, p. 9B; idem, AfaterlcII C14hure and Social
Fo~mationi l r Ancicnl India, pp. 141, 165; S.C. Bhattzcharya,
Some Aspects of I ~ ~ d i aSociety
n CCalcuctu, 1978), p. 117.
6 Um:1 Chakravarri, op. cit.,p. 116.
7 R~rhardFick, 7 %Socid
~ Or,ymglsatio~rit1 Illorth-Ec*f India (tr.
Sishh Kurnar Maitfa, Cnlcutta, 1920) emmined h e data from the
Jitskns. Narendra Wagle, Society al the Time of rbe Bi~ddba
(Mumbai, 19-56)makes a meticulous snidy of h e term as it ncLvm
in early c-nonical litcrnhrre ofthe Duddhjstq. Other nomblc studies
are Sibesh Chandn Bhatt:ichalya, Sonme Aspects of Rdzar~Society
,from c. 2nd Centttgr B.C. lo c. 4rh Century A.D., and Uma
Chakmvarti, ap. cit,
8 1.12.6; 36.5;60.4; 11.1.2; IV.9.4; 17 5; V.8.1; 2; VI.15.13:
i6.42, 48.8; MI.1.1; 15.2: 16.5; VII1.60.13; 102.1; X.91.10; 118.6;
122.1.
9 [hid., 1.71.4 M;ltari$van is :L senlidivine being who is supposed to
h v e hro~lghrAgnl to Rkgu. Wlph TH.Griffith, me Hyttlr~s4'
rhe &we& (Delhi, rpt., 19861, p. 473, n. 4,
10 R.S. Sharma, Material Girllure and Social Fomarions in Ancicnt
]nd{n, p. a;A.A. hkicdonelI nnd A.B. Keith, Vedic Index oJNaaes
av~dStrbjecfi, s.r7.,grbapati.
11 SUPIA, pp, 162f.
la j+~&ex.f15. See S h ~ k l ~ n t aRan
l a Shasrri, IVo'omm in /he Vedic
Age (Mumhai, 13541, pp, 13-18.
13 k~~~/rgrbapatiry~dtlrs,
&I&. 1.12.6; Vn. 15.2; m.lo2.l. M see
VI.48.8.
14 @uecr'a, 11.1.2 nnd X.91.2.
15 p , ~Iclnr,
, ff&ory ofDbn?rnraSktm,11, PI 2 pune. 1041), p. 1241.
16 J.C. Heesterman, 'finusehokler and Wandrwr', Corlfifhtions lo
22 1) CASTE

~ ~ ~ z XV (1981), pp. 251-71.

~ n d j Suctology,
17 VI.53.2.
1 pgceda, V.12.6 s p e a k of the movahle abr>deIk~aya)of
18 ~ 1 .j.19.
bc\vsndcring hwid, tlie offspri~~g uf Naliuyz. A vivid picture uf
mr,vzlhlr dwelling which provided shelter not only to the
huusehold fire hut ti, men together with their cattle, :~ndwas rich
in kine, horses -sand prtlgeny, is found in the Atba?vaueda. A s
mwMedby Whitny this re:~cls: 'Home tc~kine, to horses,wharever
is hnrn in the dwelling; ~ h r urich in hirths (uyii-) rich in progeny
(praja-) we F~,qtenthy fewrs. Thou iw~~erest witlain the Eire, tile
men tc>gct\icr thou rich in births, rich in progeny,
with cultlc (paSi~);
we unfasren thy fetlers.' Athamvedu, IX.3.13.-14. Also 'Like a
woman (t)rrdh$, 0 dwelling, we carry thee where we will.' Ibid.,
1x.3.24.
19 P.V.ICdne,op.cit.,p.1242.
20 Tbid.
2 1 Ibid., pp. 3345.
22 \hid.,v~l.n,Pr1.pp.b7&9.
2 3 Manusm j i , IlI.67; KliIbcikuflhj~fi~ii~~~~, 47.1-2; K;lhe, rip, cii.
2 4 Brian K. Smith, 'The Unily of Rilual: Tl~t:P1:~cecenf ~ o m e s t i sacdice
c
~ u, i1986,
in Veclic Ritualism', I n d o - l r ~ ~ n i a n J o u ~X~m , pp. 7946
25 g~hu#aiivi.%m,$pcda, W. 43.8.
26 asml~zgrhegurhapaQGyajiigrl~i,&g.uerki, X.85.27. AIsrl sec
A t h a ~ ~ t e XIV.I.21.
d~,
2 7 hkago a y u ~ n asavitti pcim ? i c l b i ~ ~ ~ ~ a hload~~~ga~'hap~@dya
yarn
dwiib, @ m h , X35.36; Athnrvauedn, X1V.1.50.
2 K g~hdlzgaccba gf%rapnt~ziyc~~hiiso vru'inl tur~nuidat/~arndvodc?sl,
Rgueda, X.FIi.26. It is also Found in Athatvirueda, XN.1.20.
a

2 9 ~yune~ncr~nngnl~ignrbapa~~m sapmy#, ihid., X1V.2.18and yczda

giir~~apaiyflmasurp~y~!I, verse 20. Also stle ihid., verse 23.
3 0 lbid., verse 26.
31 Ibid., verse 75.
32 Ihid., verse 17.
33 &vcd~,X.R5.27;Athum1~uedu,~1V.1.2~.
34 Sawd Daman Sinsh, Po(yfindy in A ~ l c i ~ ?fndia,
!! pp. 58f.
35 The high srah~scnjoyed by D r ~ u p a d iin the htlusehr~ldof the
Pir;ldavas reflect$ this tr;~dirion.
56 A d h n n ~ a ~ dXIY
a , .2.24. 'Tra11sl:ltedhy Wbirilcy.
37 [hid., 111.24.6.
3x gfiamdel~igyhoputirn lnri kp,zu,ihid.. XM.31.13.
39 &vei~a,I,I5.12.
40 Kane, rq,. cit., p, 9Hl.
 See verses 2, 5 2nd 9 r~fthe hymn.
Quea'a, 56.14, Vl1.59.10
A.A. Macdt)nell, The Vedic Mplbclogy Delhi, rpr., 1971), p. 80.
Bcivrdbaytir~nsraura SGrraled. \V.Caland, 3 vols., Calcutta, 1904-
24, rpr., New Delhi, 19821, XVIU.26.
Paficaui@a Brbbm!za~tr. W. Gland, 'Calcutta, 1931),XXIV.18.2.
Ibid., XVIl.1.7.
Tait!irTjm Sa?,nbitd,V.5.9.4 quoted by f . ~ Heatcm:~n,
. 'Vfiry.4
and Sacrifice', bdo-hzsniat~Jour~1al,W(1962-3), p. 17,
Caiand, op. clt., p. 466.
1" 111e ~~~rr&!armoirarm PulGncr, 11.24.39 sthapall IS the Imder
of the architecrs. Sudnd:rnSc9rya, the cominenralor of the .
&asiambngr/~ycrstifrcfidennfies slbpatl as il viiisya. See his
mmrntlnt nn Apusmmhcrgrbyrnjrra,XI1.5 3 IFhaukk~mhas~inukrit
Series, V;lranasi, 2nd edn., 19711,p. 207.Alsosee Afa$bzvm h'ikiiyn
{rr, Ihhula Ssnkricyayana, 2nd edn., Nalsnda, 1964), p. 233, In 1
Nikaya fed. L. Feer, 6 vols, PTS, London; 18K4
; ~ n dSatsy~~ttcl
lpOCi), Vol. V, pp. 348F, For PurAtyi and isid~rta,the two hrotbe~.,
hoth Iwjng rl~clputi(archirects).
50 FZS, pp. 36-8.
j1 Bur aer ibld., p. 39 where it is said in the context d past-Vedic
qyjcultural economy, 'The vii a-ds hy now ch:lracrerized liy the

52 Ibid., p. 37.
53 Hcestt.rm;ln has argued that (he instimiion of ciri&i?tri reflects an
artier suge when rhe entire clan p3rticill:ltd in the ritual, and
was sl~ared.J.C. I-leestrrmnn, 'Hcflections o n the
Signfiance of the Dalqinj', hdo-lrarrifl?~ .IoIuY~c~~. III (19~9-60),
pp. 241-58.
54 pu3cuviplia Brcihmtlna, XVJI.1.2. For an original altemi~rivc
interpretation of the VrJtya, see Heesleman, flcltr 47 abr>ve.
5j Suvin jaiswa1, 'Studjes in Early Indian Social Ilistor)..:Trends
,md Pr~ssihilities',IHR, Val. VI, Wus. 1-2 UU~V
1979-January 198U),

57 [hid., p. 86.
38 ~ ~ j ~ ~ f~ R.
~ r ~j & l(ed. : tMorris
~ ~ and
~ ~E. Wads, 5 tpnts,m,Limdun.
1fi~5-1900), v, pp, 4 - 5 . N. m~gle.op cit., pp. 151-1.
j9 j : j s LlurGess
~ h : ~ # ~ ~Inrtritji ?i.vttp/es01' WYfe.~!ern
n i a , t Ct3:'r~l'u
hrdia {Deihi, rp,., 137fj), 17. 38. D.U. Kns:lrnhi, ./RBfiI$ 30, 1957,
pp. 50-71.
~ ~ ~ j b~LJp:Tli-Surta
~ ~ b ~ (Nr,, , 561,
i ~ Pitaka
i:infl~ln ~ led. 1-1.
 ~ I d c n h e r g 5. v d s , London, IK:g-R3), Vol. I , p. 350, Arigrsthrw
N i k q a , 11, p. 182.
6 1 ltichard Flck, op. cit., p. 253.
6 2 dizguitc~ro:Mkiiya, V.117; Mncryn Piluku, I, pp. 240-44, 274.
63 N.Wagle, up. cit., pp 23-7.
6 4 Srctfa Pitaka, 11, pp. 1163-4.
6 j Vinuya Pi[ako, I V , p. 6 .
6 6 Uma Qy&ravarti, Socirtl Dimensions oJ'En~lyBrid&inn, pp. 92-
9, 178; idem, 'Tuwdrcls A I-listnri~dSrlcir)li)gy of St~uifisatitmin
Aficien~~ n d ~Evidence
a, from ~uddhistSources', Econoinlu and
political Weekly, m, NCI.9. 2 March 1985. p. 359.
67 Aspdhyityi, N,4.% N .I .a.
68 ~r&lrtfarxi ,Vikdya, Vol. I, pp. 26-7; Ulna Chakrdvarti, op, rit.,
pp. 136-7.
6 9 A.F. Rudolf Hnerdc, ed., Lbasagfldasrro ICalcutn, 1960.)
7 fl S C.B h a r t d ~ t r y aop.
, cit , p. 131.
71 N. W:igle, op. cit., p. 156.
7 2 UmaChakravarti,r)p.cit.,pp.73f.
7 3 kossaho gabapat~boCiirakcirako r-usiv#ddako, D k h a Nikaya
U.W. Rhys Ddvids and JE. Carpenter, ~ h .3 ,vclls, PTS, Lundon,
pp. 1HBO-19111, Vol. I, p. 61; tr T-W. N1.j~David, 'Tbc Ditrlogus
of the Wrddha (Lr~ndcm,rpt., 1373), Vo1. I, p. 77.
7 4 Unla Chxkrdvdsti cites the MaMsudashana Sutta d the DQha
Nfkiiya, which describes hr)th g ~ b u { ~ c2s- ~ ~ as l2r~hmngssas
i l well
tax payer.6, op. cit., p. 73.
75 Tarztru-Virr-tliliku of Kumarlla (Eng. tr. Pune, 191D1, 11. 33#5; Uma
CbkravnrL, np. cit., p. 80, fn. 69.
76 ~ r i g u r l a Nfkay~i,
l~ I, pp. 230,239-411.
77 Ibid., pp. 241-2.
7 K Unlike [he guhnpcilis, se!!br-gahdplir were locared i t 1 the urh:~n
centres. Uma Chakravartl, c)p. clit., pp, 765.
79 Jirluka, 111.293; Pick, op. tit., p. 243.
80 DIghuNik~ya,ll,p. 131.
H 1 Wdter Ruben, 'Sane Probkms of the Anrrirnt Indian Rq,uh\i~%' in
K.M. Asbraf Cornmemomflo~zVolunre (Berlin, 1965), pp. 5-29.
82 Vinaycl Pi!aku, Vrrl. 11, p. 1HZ.
83 Niddna Kalbfi I r d . I3harrnan;lndn ICt~samhi,Pune, 19151,
pp. 72-3.
8 4 A.$tCidbyuji,VI.2 42.
H5 Devci] Chanana, S l a t ~ e rIta~ ~Ancient Indra (New Delhi, 1960).
86 R.P ~dng~e,ed.,~1cK~~rr~tli.vrdAr?~~~~~t1a,11.35.8~r~l.I,Mumhd,
 SOCIM .SIRA'IIFlG\TION IN EARLY BUDDHISM 223

1970). Earlier, Freepeaants clr suhsistencr fzrmers are designntd

krr>~akasand clubbed together with the cc~wherds,tmdea, ;rrtisam,
labourers :~ndslavus. Cf. 11.35.4. For references to g,@ap/issee
ibid., V.3.22;XI1.4.1; XIII.3.44.
87 D&&t.lima~nc~rira,WI.2OT; ~W?+cc!~aBc+iko, I1.14/15.K qut>tedin
Monicr-Willi;ims, S a ~ k r f t - E n g k Dicliosraty,
b s.Y.,g~hnpati.
RH G81bciSaptdmi(ed. :md tr. Radhaguvind:~Basak,Catcurta, 1971),
11.72;III.97; IV.59; V.7;VI.100.
H9 lt~ic!,,11.7.
9U (8.6) ( ~Pu*pdant:i
Tjle ~l'!~bii#~~rfi?~c~ f (rcnth century) describes
stjcial and econtrmic status elf cbeirrr~ais(Ski. k;etrapot&,
Lltvners of plors) as superior tn that of ghcirnvais (gahapulis>.
Quoted in B.N.S. Yadava, 'Histuricd Investigafion into Sacin11
TenninolOgy in Literatur~-: A 13roblemoldie Study of Srxicial Change
(hfninlp in the Context of Early Medieval Northern India)',
Presidential hddrcss, Indian Histnqz Cnngress, 53rd Session
(W=ing:il, 19931, p. 25.
91 Gy. IVojtilln, Les Cunlnzuvtuates Rurnks (Paris, 19#2), p. 1 2 j
quoted in R.S. Shxrma, U~IMIP Decay in Irrdfu (Delhi, 19871,
11. 175.
92 Virraycl Pi#ka, V d , n1, p. 222: I.B. Homer, Book oj-!beDisciplitze,
Val. 11. p. 67.
gj .
K.S.S h r m o , Silu'rfi~.. , p, 6R.
94 rjfanllsmyti, 1.90; \'Ill, 410; X.79 qurtred t,y S.C. Bf~irttachava,
clp. cit., pp. 120, 259.
9j R.S. Sharma, &drrrs . . . , pp. 68-70;S.C. Bhntrachtry:~,(lp. &.,
p, 112.
96 N,Wgle, op. rit., pp. P&lW.
97 Emm d h ~ ~ n t m
m:japt'?ttze
e ulbbitmri srrddnuwikcipirhir uibhinnZj
~bartilla righteousness being dcstroyerli rbe GBdras and
vaiSy~q r[ividcd, tilt. kgatriy:is wcrc alsn divideti into mnny
ways', C ~ I a u led.~ n and tr. Sister Viiira, bIah:~hodhiSuciery,
Sarnarh, U.P., 1942), (?p.150-1.
 Caste and Hinduism: The Changing
Paradigms of Brahmanical Integration

Is [here then no principle in Hinduism Itol which all Hindus, no

maIIcc w h r thei~ottler d~fferenware, ftxl h u n d to render
wi)!ing obedience? It seems to rnr there is, and (hat principle is
the of caste.
B.R.A P A u W ,
'Revolution and Coun~er-Revolulionin
Ancient India', Wrltings and Speecba,
Vol. 3,1387, p. 3%.

IN THE LAKr QuArI+ER -rtw

century A. Earth asserted1d ~ aczste
nincteent?~ t was d ~ 'express
e
badge of Hinduism . , . a religious Factor of the first order'. The
point was made even more forcefully by Max Webet, who
regarded caste as fund~mentalt r ~Hinduism, providing the
instituti~nalEmmework. Weber, however argued2that
was not a religion in the Western sense of the term, as the concept
of 'dogma' was missing from it. This laner idea continues to be a
central point of discussion. It is argued that Hinduism, like
Buddhism, is nor a religion but a way of life.' The concept of
religion its understood in the West involves the notion of
exclusive Lruth b1 his is noI the case with Vedic, Brahmanicdl,
Buddhist or Tsntric sysrems, where what counts is lineage,
affiliation, cult o r tradition, not dognla. It is asser~edlhnt
orthopraxy and not orthqdoxy is the operative concept and in
Fact rhere are no ' t r u e religions' in India.4 However, such
statements representing the Christian theviogical view-point may
 be regarded as hardly adequa~eFrom a socia:-anthropological
perspective, as this means thc denial of the universality bf
religion. On the other hand, rehgion is counted among the
u n i v e ~ la l e g ~ f i eof~culture and it is argued that in he pas[
there has never been a society wichoul reiigion.' In nly opinion,
if in modern societies beliefs and prescribed doctrines are given
greater importance than the ritual, ic is because of the receding
social role of ritual. tn pre-modem societies rirual was a tool far
social cohesion and control. In modern s ~ i e r i attzese aims are
achieved through orher methods, and religion becomes more
and more a matter of individual concern.
However, in Hinduism orthodoxy is to be proved in the realln
of ritual and social behaviour, albeit qualified by aste and region,
hut there is no such insisrence in the r e a h of ideas and beliefs.
This has led Heinrich van Stierencron ro ague that 13hduism is
not one religion but an association of the Vafsnava, Saiva, SmBrta,
and other religions.Qur such fragrnencatian would amount to
equating 'religion' with 'sect or 'cult'. Surely the concept of
'religion' is nrider and while j1 pmvides SpQce fur the existence
of a nunrberof sects ar culrs within irs Fold,it is distinguished by
certain normative moral codes and perceptions which embrace
almost all areas af life and reveal irs cuItural unity. NO[-
the multiplicily of the forms and perctptians OF the
&\pine, ir Is he unlEying ptrern ofsocio-religiausrelations which
Hirrduism its essentid univ7 2nd esrsblishes its claim
be idenrified as a religion.
Let us elaborate. Hinduism shows a remarkable flexibility in
assimilation of even contradictory religious and philosophical
conceprs. me coexistence of prehistoric Forms OF worsbip (of
the sacred tm, animals, anthills, etc,) along with the sopphisri-
,-ation of Ve&nta and Slrpkhya is not merely a question of long
continuities and tolerance of alI viewpoints. [ t ~roots iie in the
developmen[ of a hierarchical social structure to which
BrAmaojsm povided ideological support by denying the
equalitgf of men .n inis world even in theoj. Thus it was easy to
a u n t e n a n e divergent customs and beliefs as long as their
practitioners could be fittedinto the mosaic of Memrch~
which power and purity W M hhand in hand in o~posldo*to
those who were dependent and impure! The system evolved
through the cenhlries in specific historical conditions; and its
beginnings are embedded in the ecology af the Aryan cattle-
keepers, who I lad devrluped twu d i s t i r ~cla>bes~ ~ of qleuialisL5,
warriors and priests."The former speciaiized in cattle-raids and
thus increased the cade-wealill of their tribes and the Ialter
claimed to do so by securing the blessings of the gads through
their specialization in the sacrificial ritual. Thus, the separation
of the bvahma CpriesllyI and the ksah-a (warrior) eiements and
the superior status of the former, which Dumont1" explains in
terms of t h e religious mentality of the Indians, is in fact a
cofitinuation of an old pastoralist tradition, not unique to the
Aryans and with a perfectly rational explanation.I1India has had
a contifluous history for thousands of years and as such has
carried the weight d long traditions, but this does not mean that
it has remained static. While maintaining the semblance of
continuity it has made significant transitioris and cransrurm~ions
in the spheres of ideology and social organization in response
to changing material-and so~ial-conditions.~~
Thus our defini~ionOF Hinduism takes an intcgated view of
Hindu beliefs 'sd practices and regsrds the social system not
only as an underpinning providing support to the edifice af
Hinduism h u t as its important constitutive element. Such a
perspective is sometimes criticized a n the ground that it involves
conflation of Hinduism with the social orpnization of Hindus,
and goes against the auronomy of religious studies by making
the study of religion 'entirely encompassed wlthin the study of
sacie~'.'~ As an alternative, Brian K. Smith proposes define
Hinduism as 'the religion of those btsmcans who ceare,petpehmfe,
and twnsforftr f~.adftionswith i c g f t i m ~ i ~rcferencc
zg to !be
~ u t h o r f wof the Veda'.14H e finds those thematic definitions of
Hinduism &at lay emphasis on the doctrine of transmigration,
h a m a or dbama as unsatisfactory for they do not enable us to
differentiate between Hinduism and other Indic religions, such
as Buddhism or Jainisrn, which share these concepts. O n che
other hand, he also rejects the views of tkose15 who give t!.xe
cistt: syslern a uenual place in rhelr definillon of Hinduism or1
he ground Lhat 'within he discipline of academic and lrumanistic
 CHANGING PAMDIChlS OF NLWbiAMW\L IN1EGRIPTION
227

*dy of religion thwe is n difference bemeen religion and he

soda1 SlrUctvre i t kgitimises' and 'Hinduism ,-/eddy far
mare than caste'.'"
It may be argued, however, that the so-cdIed 'tolerance1of
HirJuisrn n ~ i diLs amorphaus, all-lndusive character c-or be
understood unless the social structure of those who came to be
known as 'Hindu ' and were regarded as the believers be &ken
Into consideration. For, the uniFylng and idenh@lng faactor was
the instihrtion of caste which had the power to excommunicate
or admit a n individual or group, nor acceptance or rejection of
any moral or philosophical &ckine.17 There is much truth in the
remark of Louis D u m a that in India all Qat appears to be social
is in fact religlo~sand 'all rhst appears DI be reljgjous bs in ha
sacial '. 'Vna way Brian Smith makes a concession to this faa bp
agreeirtg with Wilfred Smith drat then is no Hinduism apart from
rhe Hindus and incorporating this idea into his definition of
Hinduism, But his insistence chat all Hindus call upon the
authclrity of the Vedas to legitimize their doctrhes and practices
and hence 'Ieg!timisi?grqerence to the dutbori!~~ ofthe Veda, is
defrfiisiveof Hinduism' does nor bear deeper suutiny. There
have been rnovemcnls within the fold of Hinduism which have
rejecreci not only the authority of the brZhmaqas, a paint Brian
K. Smith is willing to cbncecle, but also that of the Vedas. For
example, he Lingiiyats, who constitute an important Saivite sect,
not only rejected rhe authority of the brihmanas and ritualism
but g l s o the Vedas. T!le Celanrabusauapur&za speaks of an
incident in which LingSpts, in order fo humiliare a Vedic schdar,
had the Veda retired by rhe dogs." IVlthin the fold of $KT-
v*ispavism, fie Tamil sect of the Teriglai renounced he
veda.2"~f later a section of the Ling3yats claiming to be htddbbn
or 'puw' Wagaivas begn ta seek lcgirimation from the Veda, it
ws because ]jke dI oother prorest movements originaring 3s a
reacri~n brahmanic~lorrl~opraxyand asre Inequlrics h e
~ingsyatmvcment s m failed ro establish 3 fmemal c n m u f i t y
devoid of caste distinctions md dcvelopd 2 par3Hel cask-5j'srcm
with the Ayyss ( A c ~ ~ aor s )Jang3ma pries& am.
Snlih's argument that the caste syslelu is not exclusive cu
I-lindus in India and followers of other reIiaions in [ndia s u d 3s
the Buddhists, Jainas, Muslims and Christians roo have caste
divisions is not quite valid. For whereas in the n o n - ~ i n d u
communities the system uf ~ i l b l eis an aberration, a survival
among converts from Hinduism, retained and fostered by the
continuation of earlier patterns of sociar relations even after
conversion, in I-Iinduism caste is central. Not only does it have
religious sanction but it has provided the trcisonfir mistence-
The religious pluralism evinced by Hinduism is a consequence
of h e brahrnanical integrative process wbich allowed freedom
uf belief and worship but insisted on conkorrnity in praxis, which
alone was crucial for the maintenance of soc.al hierarchy. T h s
does not mean h a t doctrinal issues have been non-existent. These
have been hscussed and debated in various schools and sects
of Hinduism and even define its sa~npradciym,but it is impossible
to e&blish a criterion of orthodoxy applicable to all Hindus on
the basis of docuinal principles derived from a canon or scripture-
Brinn Smirh puls forward an interesting reason for rnakmg his
definition of Hinduism centre on the legitimizing reference ro I
the Veda. By doing so, he explains that Hinduism ceases to be
t ~ ~ l different
l y from Western religions rooted in a fwed canon
like the Bible or Koran. Thus, he wishes to avoid the general
orientalist approach of viewing Asian religions as 'whoily other'
and 'exotic'. In the process, he over-valorizes Vedic metaphor in
laier rex~s,ignoring changes in the structure of brahmanical
beliefs and practices. He provides Hinduism with a canon which,
I
unlike the Bible or h e Koran, is not read or reinterpreted by the
believers, but is used only as a category for crearing orthodoxy
He admirs that Hindus 'appear' to use only the 'outside' of the 1
Veda, oblivious to what j s 'inside'.z1Such arbitrary sernitizati~n
of Iqinduism is an epistcrnalogical necessity for Smith'sdiscourse,
but does Iiltle justice to the texrual evidence or the historical
process through which H~nduismevdved. Me could well argue
II
that this attempt constitutes Orien~alismin the reverse: for
separating the religious From the social is alien co Hindu tradition.
The very term dbanna, generally translated 'religion', has bofi
religious and social dimensions in indigenous usage.
Moreover, although it may not be his~oricallycorrect to say
that the concept of a Hindu religiort evolved as a resul~of b
 confrontation with Christianity, h e religion of the rolmjol mlers
in the nineleenth we would not be wrong jn asserfing
that confrontationwith Islm, anodrllerSemitic religion, introduced
a cu~turaland religious din~msipninto term ~ k dwhich~ ,
~figjnally]lad a geographic connmrion. 'Hindu' seems to have
heen u ~ inda negative sense in mdy medieval Persian soures
to denote rndigenous peoples Fallawing rr non-lslamic &@on
and was accepted by the people themsetves as interaction with
the Musiirn ruling class led to a growing awareness of differences
in religious and cuI~uraIpractices. Tt has becn pointed oucL3that
the ~ersio-Turkicculture dominated t h e court of Indian
Muslim rulers who regarded il a mdtter of prestige to claim Imnian
connections. In limes of peace ttle interaction between the Turks
and the indigenous population would lead to 3 culn~nlsynthesis
and appropriation of the behaviour pattern d the new d i n g
class, but in a situation ofpolitical antagonismand socic-economic
tension h e feeling of being ' h e other' would be intensified,
gcncmtjng awareness of a separate identity. D e s ~ c t i o nand
desecration of bra hmanicd shrines by some Musli~nrulers,
even if for politicaI expediency mrhur than reljgious conviction,
m u l d nltur3ll y cre3L.e a feelling of unity among 311 those con--
mrrnities which regarded tl~ese&ices as s u e d and s ~ n g t h e n
h e notion of a sirzml mdition. The idea ofa Hindu religion in
n Islain is found in the bhnkti poetry af
~ ~ n r r a d i s t i n c l i oLO
n~edievaIsaints suck as Kahir and Oadu and is Iilusw~tedclearly
in thc ' Hindu-Turk S a r n ~ S d ' , ~n ' poem of the M;lh:trashtri3n
saint EknSUla, who lived in the sixteenth century. The poem
shows the Hindu castigating theTurk on the ground rhalaIrhough
\loth 'k]indu1 and ' Mussalman' are Gud's creatmn, the Turk
has lo catch P Hindu and make hitn a Muslim. Tfle Turk, on
the otIlcr hand, ridicules tl~cHindu for his adherence to mste
rules, image warship and belief in the Vedas and Puriigas.
Later In h e same region he poet Bhiisana LOO speaks OF the
long-s~ndmgenmity beween he H~nduand Muslin1 religions
(diva) 2nd aedils ~ i v j i and j Chauas5h Dundcla with having
preserved sl,ficJhanriafind ~indxlerfini.~~ Such senlinlt.nts even
if by a court poet point to an asserricm of Ijindu
cornmunjv identity in thc face of an ext@m;ll re^^.
230 CASTE

of course, the Hinduiin? and Hindu clhcrmla of ~ h i i ~ a n a ' s

conception was a typical upper caste notion which referred to
the authority of the Vedas, the PurLnas and Srnltis and laid stress
an growing a choiiand wearing the-juneyii (yajfiopaztita).Political
rivalry and loss of royal patronage would havc spurred assertions
ofantq,oonistic culture traits among hsaffected nobles and priests.
But there was no artemptto merge either venically or horizon~aily
the fragmented identities of indigenous cornmunities by invoking
a communal or religious issue. It i s rightly held that h e ideology
of communalism is a modern phenomenon. In any case, as many
Indian Muslims were converts from the Jower castes, the Islamic
community too did not present a monoIithic whole. It has been
arguedah that the caste hierarchy was beneficial for the ruling
classes, it allowed the land-holding peasant (0 have cheap
labour and craft services from depressed menial castes in the
petty mode OF production and thus created greater surplus ro be
mopped up by the rulers, Hindu or Muslim. Hence, there is ,no
attack on the caste system even Far the purposes ofproselytizati~n
in medieval Muslim sources. I may add h a t hrahmanized rulers
of thc carly medieval pcriod oRcn claimed LO be thc protectors
of the varna system a n d regulated its f u n c ~ i o n i nthrough
~ the
office of file dhnrnmddhfkc3rTheid by a learned, kallirza briihmana.
The role of the ruling aurl~orityin this regard had become So
conventional that even h e Muslim rulers a n d British officers of
the East India Company were sometimes called on to adjudicate
in castc d i s p u ~ e s . ~
The ilrahmanical paradigm of social integration was well
established. It operaled through thc varqa ideology. Alien and
marginal groups were incorporated into the network of castes
without damage LO their intcrnal kin-stmclure, customs or belief
systems, and they attained a status commensurate with heir socio-
economic condition. Endogamy along w i ~ hhypergamy h d
characterized the v a v a differentiation since its inception in Iater
Vedic times. The principle emerged not Fron~racial exclusiveness
or irreducible notions of purity/pollutionm but with ;he widen-
ing of social distance between dominant and subservient
communities, Thb is clearly indicated by a study" of the process
which led to the crystalliza~ionOF priestly groups into an
 endog;irnous br5hrnana varga towards the end of h e medic
period. E n d o g a ~ ywas buttressed by the growing strengh of
p3triarchy4''and proved to be a firting tool for hierjrchical
expansinn. Agrarian Conlmunilies of the age of [he Bu Jdha
appropriated forest lands of hunters and foodgatherers and
denounced them as impure and polluting; and this is for the first
time in llis~oricalsources that we conle across the notion of
pollution inhering in certain communities. Gradually this led to
a shifi of emphasis in the varqs rheory from 'function' to 'purity
of descent' and explication of the notion of r ~ u ~ a s a ~ ~ ~ k a m , ~ ~
which was again an argument in favour of endogamy. The
brahrnanical paradigm of social inregration was flexible enough
to allow the absorption of influential chiefly or priestly lineages
of tribal origin into kgtriya and brPhmapa castes, but the majority
of the tribal groups being economically backward inflated the
rank of the Zudras. By early medieval times the disparities in
certain regions were so steep that the concept of a pcaficama
(fifth) varna or rurp?raras (outcasres) ntas floated. We have
shown32that caste ideoIogy has not remained stalic. Ir has
undergone importmt lnodifications in different epochs to adapt
to cl~angedmarcri:~l conditions. But the inlegrative principle
relnained hierarchical, legitimizing social inequality. [r is
notcwarchy that the Detjaln Sa?rtr3 which tries LO lnett the
challenge OF Islam and prescribes expiatory rites for llle
reassimi)ationofthose men nnd women n1howere Forcibly made
10 live with the mleccbas and parake of tlre forbidden food,
does so within the fmn~ervorkof the varnl rules.
T ~ Lsituation
. changed in colanial times. It is held h a t thc
inrraduction of Western education exposed the Indian
intelligentsia lo the ideas of social cqualily, democracy and
humanism, and this made the111acurely aware of rhe evils
among themselves. The activities of Christian
missiomries too put Hindus on the defensive. The orientalisl
discovery ofd x civilization and culture of ancient India, however,
crenerated ~ h cEvivali$r-refOrmisr movements
r#
Wteeflth
cenrur)., These sougilt to identify an original u n i t q ' vetsfon of
Hinduism consisting of Iturnanistic, universal principles and
denounced h e asre system, child muriage, the custom of sol?,
etc. Thus, whereas Ra~nmohunRoy refcrred to the authority of
tile Upanisads, Dayananda Saraswati gave a call to go back to
the four Vedas. Bah rejected idolatry and Purznic riluals.
The main contribution of h m m o h u n Roy lies in encouraging
a ra~ionalizticworld-view and the uplift of Wbmen. But while h e
casre disrinc~ions,he did not enlrust anyone but a
brnbmana with the duty OF reciting he Vedas and tlpanigads in
llis Samaj, The activities of the Brahnlo Samaj were mainly
=onfined to the educated tnjddle dass; it did not involve the
lmasse4 However, nayananda Saraswati, che founder of the Arya
Samaj was more Forthright and attempled to unite the Hindus by
rejecting the cxisung case system and transforming polytheistic
~induism inro a monotheistic, 'pristine' Vedic religion, organized
and proselytizing. Thus he provided a new paradigm of I-Iindu
integration related to the acceptance of a belief system which
was to be d ~ ebwis for internal cohesion and assimiiation of
outsiders.
It is generally held that the Arya Saniaj w~ a thoroughly
indigenous movement and :ts doctrines owed nothing io the
West.+' In this respect it represents an anlilhesis 10 llie Bnihmo
Sarnaj, which had tried co combine w h a ~it considered best in
~ h cn7es1cm and eastern ideologies. Neverrhelcss, ord dens'^ is
r i g h ~to hold that in formulating his unique doctrine that ~ h four
c
Vedas are revelations containing the eternal wisdom of God and
h e only authentic source of uncorrupted ~ r y Dbarma,
a Dayananda
was decisively influenced by the dogma OF Protestant missionmies
and Muslim theologians that God has reve~lcdI ~ i m s d in f a book.
There had certainly been a Iong tradition of regcrding the Vc&s
as etcrna! knowledge revealud by God in philosophial systems
such as Yoga and Nygya,'' lbut Dayanandn's exclusive emphasis
on the hymns to the exclusion of thc rest of Vedic literarure was
n nave[ innovation and he went Far hcyond the orthodox
traditional belief in asserting that d ~ Vedic
e Samhitjs were the
epitome of ail Imowledge, physical and mer;lphysjcal.
Dayaaanda's concepl of what constitrrtes the Veda, liis
unorlhodox incerprefaiion of the Sanlhi~as,tlis theory of creation
and the myrh of an egalitarian, unlvcrsal golden age in pre-
M~bcihhlirrrtatimes, were all significanr ideologjc21 tools fnr
 denouncing evil customs and idolarmus beliefs and pr~chccs
later accretions, and these prepared the around for a new
*atioml and communal awakening He rmllrl also r ~ j p r trh,
Pludistic interpreiztians ofNirrcluim and cxpliate [heexc[usive
[ruth of the Veds, bringing it in accord wit11 reason and availabie
scientific knowledge 1Jejs criticized for 11 b 'narrow exrl bsivism',
which rnacle lrirn condemn all ocher religions ofthe d x y , Jainism,
Idam and Christianity, but it is lo be kept in mind that he was
reacring to the 'selective Chrisrinnity consciously adapted for
coIoni-dl cunsurllptivn' by Cliristian nlissionaries, and the atla&
of Muslim maulavis in a hostile competitive amospbcre created
by cuIonial rule. Follorving h e pplogjr of religion as schema-
tized by Bruce Lin~oln'~ onc may argue h a r a narrowly puritanical
attitude is lypica! of the 'religion of resistance', which defines
itself in opposition to the 'religior; or !he stnrus quo'.In rhis
case, traditional Hinduism represcntcd the 'religion of the slarus
quo' which was promoted and upheld by the orthodox Hindu
elite, who manipulated the Hindu authoriry structure and felt
sufficienlly threatened by the anti-ritual and anti-caste leachings
of ~ b y a n a n d aLO denounce him as the destroyer of the Vedas.
His trxnslaiion ofh e V d a s into I-Tindi to make hem accasible
to all. wirhout discrimination, was a w ~ l u t i o n a r ystep for Ihe
~ r l ~ Jt w:ls a direct-attack on rhe special privileges
n i n ~ t ~ erpntmy.
h e tmdirion;tl elire, s~ppingthe foundations of their auihoriv.
Dxyananda's support came largely from the 'marginal
jn~elljgcn~sin', which could include s u ~ n emembers of the
rcr didanal elirc disylnrred by colonial rule, h t 12rgeIy consiszed
of a new eiite arising out of the middle srratulll which had
)~nE.fjred10same extent from the processes of modernization
alld was bccornti~gaware of the need for ~ o c i a wfanz
l 2nd se&
respect.
Jardens 113s sl~orvnth31 t l ~ efounding nlemhers of the Mya
sarn~jin Banrbay {I6753 were moder;trel}l t.?.drluc;lredF-on.5
engaged in uade or cicrical senlic-es and ocher prnfessiam. HE
also explares the wste identities of h r s c rneinbers and points
EIUt I~adcrshetonged m d y In d ~ e rrfiding caslcs which
had reccnrly acquired prosperity f l ~ ~ Lu hedd ~e v e l o ~ ~of
~la~
die coiton trade and ip,dusv. The number of brihnlnw mt-mks
234 CASTE

too was not inconsidenble, but they mostly belonged to the

lower strata of school teachers and clerks and not to the
htahmana inteliig<ntsia. Twenty-eight per cent of the brdlsnana
members were siudents; and briihrnana membership declined
over the years. Later when Dayananda shifted his scene oFaclivity
to Punjab, there too the majority of his supporters came from 111e
khatri caste, which had benefited in recent decades by education,
professional jobs and uade, but in the traditional sbtus hierarchy
held an intermediate position ranking below the brPhmnnas and
the aristocracy. In western U.P. the movement had a broader
base as the modernizing process had affected a Inore diversified
section of society; hut the trading classes continued LO pre-
ponderate. l i u s it was basically a movement of the litcrate, urban
classes, winning a large number of adherents among those who
had particular reason to bc dissatisfied w i ~ hthe traditional taboos
and hierarchical aspects of [he caste systcni.
Dayananda denied the validity of jciti divisions and spolce only
of the vamas, which in Ilis view were secular categories, a
rational division of labour into four func~ionalclasses bilsed
orizinally on merit and clualifications of the individual, bur later
degenerating into hereditary casks. He nlmed al malcing his ~ r y a
Dharnla a universal religion based not o n birth 1,ut on the
acceptance of general principles. The [en rundarnc~ltairules of
the Arya Samaj, although couchcd in very broad tcrms,
nevcrcheless emphasize the missionary spiril of the rnovelnent
in laying down h a t one shot~ldnot remain satisfied with one's
own progress I'rut ~ h o u l dmake an active effort ta destroy
Ignorance and uplift all. The movement since ib inception ;li~ned
at proseiytization. Dayananda reinterpretell the s~i~rddi~i ritual and
madc il an instrument of conversion tn [Iinduisrn redefining its
essence as belicf no1 I~irth.Thus in theory now h e whole world
caulcl be converted 10 the Arya Dhartna.
Nevertheless, [he actual cases of Srtcldhi in the life-time of
Dayananda were of a f e w apnslare H i n d u s who sougllt
readmission to thc Hindu Faith, 11e irlddhr movcmeni gained
molnentuin in ihe early twentieth century when communities
nnd not just individuals wcre targeted for conversion to rneet
the l h r c a ~of Christian missionary activities and increase the
 CHANCING PARADIGMS OF BRAMMPdlCAL lMiTGPS1?111N
235

numerid SEngCh ofHindus, who had been registeringa

in h e Census rpporrs Sonw Rajpur groups such as behfnl~dsarrs,
who had converred 10 Islam but retained a good d p ~of l
Lll~irfinccaml fajth, were prslladerl [areturn ra t f ~Hindu
e fold,
hut{[ was maidy he oukastes Or low caste groups among whom
&e hddhi movenlent made a greater imp;la.
fllus the consciousness that polilicd battles can no longer be
fought out ~ivirhinllze elik, that numbers mean access to power
and ecunorrric upponuni ~jcs,brough~h t v fur us castes rvhlch
were regarded hitherto as outside the vaqa system or too lowly
to be raken in to reckoning. Thdr conversion ro islam or Sikhism
docs nor seem to have aroused much resentment or a sense of
loss in the tarller centuries, but tile political situation had nozv
changed, It is said that in order to stop their conversion [a other
faiths and forge closer links with the wider Hindu carnunicy
the Arya Samnji propagandists adopted the same metho& as
chose of Christian missionaries and achieved :~ppreciahlcsuccess
in Punjab and western Ultar P r a d a h where Iage nun~bersof
low ~ t s wcurnrnunities such as rhe Rabtias of Jullundlmr and
Lahore dbrricrs, the Meghs of Sjallro~region ;indodes of Mulkn
and the 'Chul~ras'of Khalapur (north-western Uftar Pracleshl,
rhe Shjlpnkars of Kuo~aonclnd ro same exrenr The Jalav.?ofAgril
c i v , and tl~eNonias of Senapurwcre convenedto the Arya Samai,
Kenneth 3'.Jamswrites h a t this c h a n - d the social c n m p ~ ~ i o n
of ~e Samaj in the Punjiib. 'The educated elite, the urban vaiAyya
and bnhrnnnical castes becnmc a minoritg.nrirhin he movement,
allhough they nlainlained ~ I i e i rleadership, if not unchallenged,
;it leas[ undihzinished. ''"
~t is not withnl~rsignificance tIi3t [he ~r~cidhl movement
until time a£ partition and petel ed out thee3fter.
Moreover, jr hi]ecl to evolve a specific 'Krya' S O C ~ ~identityI
restnlctuKd on the prin~~pirs of social nnd secure
pjmanenl ndhermcc oflow castes to Nil S.lmai, even tho'~gh
in many c;ises in itfative for bddcIhi h d heen laken hl' h e
leaders lhex cadrs. m an interesting S ~ U L ~ Y *of ' [be W a S3mai
and rhl-low cast= Ursula Sharmt P x p l ~ m1)le reawns R F ~ YInI
spire of jts m t j - a r e jdeolom, fbp Ssnrdj %'as flat ~~~~
proselylize win pemnent attachment of lhe casle3.
she argues h a t whereas the urban ~nitiatorsof rhe ~ztddbi
can~paignswanted to rejuvenate Hindu sodety and establish a
truly 'narional Hindu culture', the aims of the members of the
law castes were more specific. They wished to inl-provcthe status
of rheir caste through a process of Sanskritizntion Feneratcd by
h e i r association with h e Arya Samaj, This created a paradox.
The ritu31 symbols reinterpreted by h e A ~ y aSamaj for abolishing
5latus l ~ i e r a ~ c hwere
y underslood differently by low casLc
audiences who adopted them in the hope of obtaining higher
stams. When this did not happen they moved towards more
secular and political action, associating with polincal padies
forming bodies like the Schedilled Caste Federation For
purposes. Further, the Arya Samaj dirl not have a rural base. It
could provide only moral support to rhe law castes in their efforts
to rnise thcb stnlils in thc villagcs but could not be very effel~ive
once its missionaries withdrew from the tacality to their urban
base.
However, we may point out that even in urban arcas the Ar)la
Samaj has not been able to rtolve a distinct s o c l ~identiy;
l and
staunch hya Sarnajis often lament the engulfment by ~ i n d u i s m
l l c real rcason for the Failure of the Arya Samaj to establish a
scpnrarr id~nriiylies in the fsct that i l could not abolish the
casle identity of ils members. This reduced it to a Inere reformist
sect of Hinciuis~n.Hinduism has infinite capaci~to toler~tenny
kind of hedogy as long as its casce structure remains unharmed.
Nu doubt the Arya Samaj helped in weakening the nations of
caste hie~archyor commensaI raboos, but the lor s~ich
social change was prepared by the processes of industrializption7
which delinked the caste and occ~lpa~ion and l - ~ a d rules
t
iigainsl interdining and intermixing difficult to al'lserve. There
W ~ 1S10 such inherrnt contradic~ionwith regard TO[he observance
of the rules of endogamy which had h e force nf a long lradi~ion
and continued subordination of women, Moreover, in rural areas
where industrialization has not n ~ a d mucht impact, the earlier
structural relations are baund to prevail and these could no1
have been :~holishedmerely h r o u g h the ideological pl-opaganda
of the A r p Salnajis. T t ~ cus2 of rraditional symbols such as the
Vedic ho~nctor thc sacred thread for divergent and contradi~torj
 purposes by low caste men on the one hand and he &ya S a m 4
rnisirnafies on rhe other highlights an essential aspect of be
pmblern; despite the professed objective wFesmbIjjhwa casteless
society the Arya Samaj could not move out of tile errdogmaus
casre s~rvctureand iw artitude towards she low c s t w remained
paternalistic rather than egalitarian. Hcncc the programme of
evolving a fraternal brotherhood was rcduced to the consoLi-
dalion of a Mndu communal identity, basically an upper caste
agenda.
Today, the votaries of ISlndutva iue floating anoher model of
integratian, that of 'Rima-Dhakti' which is supposed to be h e
raiiying point for Hindu integration and aimukaneously a Iiunus
test For luyal~ytu dre nation. But his ha5 little to do wldl history
or the p r d e m ofsoci31 inregration of Hindu cwmmunides. I t is
frankly acknowledged Ily [he leadership of this mavemenr thar
the aim is to ensure a proper place For Hindus in Lhe publlc
realm. And jr is no less significant rha t the symbol chosen for
[his prtrpose is one who is famous For uphaldhg rhe pakiarchtil
norms and the varqa system,who went to he extent of beheading
a 6Gdra for practjsing austerities and aspking for heaven-IN
that act of Crmsgressbn of wma ducks had rcsutted in rile
premaure death of the son of a bdhmaca in his k i n ~ d o r n . ~

NOTES

1 A. B ~ d r77j@R~i&iu~nJf&&Cbglis-h
, tr. hy Rerr.J.W i d , Lrmrlm,
18811, 17, xvii.
2 \Sle\ler, m,a Rel&iorz qrltrdia, and c&. H.H.Gerrh and
Don b4:1rrind:dl:(Glcncrx< 19511J,p, 21.
g R.C. ZacImcr, ~r .~tdrz<(ryTtmm [London, 175s), P 20; idem,
fiitlrl~~krn (London, I9631.
4 &P R ~ ~ U I I O ~ F I WVUI.
Fritz ~ r l I.a- in 4 -- i . T ~ V A~W 11 (~erkek~,
;
1983J p. 2.
j Hmri Bergspn, Ttun Sortxos dhfomli(yand RBIigion (New York,
19%). p, 102,quored in Syed Hussein AI'~ta.5,'Problems of nefmiryl
Ruligi:ion', ~ ! ~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ u ~ S O C C ~ ~ ~ Nn. & #2,1977,
? I C O , ~ ~ E M ~ ~ ,
p. 214.
6 Henrich van SKie~encorn,'Hinduism: O n the proper Use of A
Deceptive Term', in Gunther D. Sonlhcimer and Hermano Kulke,
ed., Ifind~cimtReconsidered (Delhi, 1989),pp. 11-28.
7 Madeleine Biardeau, Hindt~isnr, Tbe Anthropology of A
Civilization (Delhi, 1989).
8 F.A. Marglin, 'Power. Purity and Pollution: Aspects of the Caste
Systeni Reconsidered', Contriktrtions fo Indinn Swioiogy, n.s.,
Vol. 11, NO, 2 (1977), pp. 245-70; Suvira Jaiswal, 'Studies in Early
Indian Soc.al IIistory: Trends and Possil>ilitics', 7 ? ~ eIrtdinn
Historical Revfew, Vol. VI (July 1979-January 19803, pp. 1-63,
reprinted in R.S. Sharma, ed., S i l n v y of Resea~zbin Economic
alzd Social History of India {Dclhi, 198b), pp, 41-108. Page
numbers of h e latter are mentioned in the foilowing references.
9 Brucc Lincoln, Pries%, Warriors,and Caifle:A Studj in iht!EcokW
of Religio~s.
1 0 Louis Dumont, Homo FIierarcbkus.
I I SuvimJaism~l,'Varna Ideology and Social changer,~ociaiSci~zZfit,
Vol 19, Nos. 3-4 (March-April IBl), pp. 41-8.
1 2 Ibid
13 Brian K. Smith, Re=ectiam 012 Rese~nblnnce,Ritual and RcIigiari
(Delhi, 19891, p. 11, fn, 22. Also see Joseph M. ICitgawa, 'The
Making of m l Historian oF Religions', t'ifiedoq Yol. 7 (1978).
14 Brkm K. Smith, op. cit., pp. 13-14.
15 Accorcling to R.C.Zachner, IIinduisnl ir as I I I U L ~ Ia ~ ~ ~system
i a US
l
a religion. See IIindttisrn, p. 8. A h ) see S. bdhakrishnnn,
Hindu Viclu of Lijk (New York, 1973).
16 W a n K.Smith, up. cit., p. 11.1~~1ics as in Lhe original.
17 The early Pursnas often counterpoise Vedic and Tantric without
regarding the latte~as a 'heresy' pnctised hy thr~sewhrl were
ourside h e pale. 11 is recomtnended b a t women and SDdr;ls may
worship Puranic deities thnlugh d i e T;~ntricn~udeof worship 3s
the Vedic mode c)f worship is open only to the male rnen~bers
of the upper three vargns. See Suvira J;~iswnl, Ortgin
Deuelopm~nr01V a i ~ n u ~ 2nd m , edn., pp. 152f. Whnt is involved
here is the notion nf hierarchy of religious levels zq a reflection of
rhc ernpir~dreality of social hierarchy and not the other WAY
round
18 Religion, Politics and H i s l w irn IndSa (Delhi, 197Q),p. 16.
1 7 Cennab~~suunptrrdna, Chap, 1,VI;L. jolrmal d t h e ~nmhcay~ m n c b
of Ro.p! Asiatic SocieIy (1363), p. 173.
 20 L*uk Renou, Destiq the V @ ~ Uin J X ~ &(T>elhi, 1 9 ~ 5 ~
P-2. Among o*m f i ~ r+~Wiin&
k rhe authority of heved.R a n u
tmntions he Mahaubhilva sect of brhamhtra m d S h q i y u d
Benfd. According 10 bmakrishna, 'the iy m r in the vdas;
unesllouId act accardin~to the Tantns, not accordmgto thevedas,
the latter are impure frr)~:the very fact of beiw pronwnced'
(qur~tec)in ibid., p. 3).
21 Bdan K.Smith, op. tit., p. 217.
22 J. Larne, 'The Nolion of "Scripture" in Afodern Indian Thought',
Alznnb @the Bhandarhr U m t d i~psedrchIrititrr te, 64 0 9 8 3 ,
PP. 165-79.
23 Muzaffar Alam, 'Csmpetitlon and Co-exisrente: Indo-Islamic
Intemclion in Medieval Ntxth India', jiinemdo, Vol. .UB,Nn. I
CXSX9j, p. 55.
24 Quoted in N.K. Wagfe, 'Hindu-Muslim Inremctions in Mediev~l
iel&amshtm3, in Snnthelmer md Kulkrz, eds.,op. dt.,pp. 55-6.
25 See, for example, kallfttn, Nos. 420 and 421 in Bhilsal~a
Gmn&&ali, ed., Visranarh:~P~ils3daM~STJIVarafizc~,3rd dn.,
Sarnvat 2026l, p. 203.
26 Jrfnn Hebib, I~zln;?preIt~~g hzdian H i . ~ b o y(Shillong, 19851,
pp. 20-1; Suvira Jiiswal, 'Studies in Elirly Indian Sociel Msto'y',
pp 43, %, 71-2.
27 1hid., p. 89; dssa see H. Fukkaznwa, 'S~ilr:snd Cxste System Qari) in
rile Eightwnth Century Mar~fl~:i Kingdom ', I-ldrotreihsTri]oz~maI
o,fEconomics, V M IX, ~ . Nu. 1, ly.32-5.
28 Suvir:~J:liswal, Presidentin{ Address, Ancient India Section,
P r . ~ c ~ ~ d a~fn!be
g s h~diwtlfflsrory C'o'atigress, 38kh Session
CBh~lnncsw~r, 1777).
29 sup^, pp. 11-13; 53-6.
30 Suvkr Jai$nal, ' S ~ d i Ine ~lady Indim .Sodr~lIlis1or)la,pp. 42-4,
7349.
31 I M d , pp. 70-3.
32 Suvis:+ Jaiswnl, *VdrpaIdeology and Suck11Change' pr. 41-9.
33 ~ ~ ~ in Smrndrnir?l
~ n j l Sam~racsqctb,
~ j AnanUr-anla Sanskrra
Gr,~ntlldva:i,No. 48 .Punt, 19250, pp. 85-9
34 .r. h i n e , up. dl.,p.173,
35 j . ~F., J f l r ~ p n s~, a ~ y f i n r i n dSa~ ~ . a v a Hn
t i . Life and f-'flrdsesq
(Delhi, Istrnl.
36 L. Renou. up,cit , pp. 31-2.
37 t l r t r ~ p1jincnln, ' ~ o l etsn w a r k ~A Theory of keligiurl zlnil
 Revolution', in Bruce Linuuln, ed., Re!igiola, Rebel-
i o n York, 1985).
lion, R ~ ~ ~ l u t(New
38 A y a Dhamn, Hindu Consciousness in 1!7tb-Ccnitoy Pt~niab
03elM, 1976) p. 214.
7 9 Ursul:! Sharma, 'Status Striving and Striving tn ~holishS ~ L U SThe
:
Arya Samaj and the Low Castes', Social Action, V(d. 26 (July-
September 1976), pp. 214-35.
4 0 This rerers to the story Sarnb~kanarrtltcirl in the Rcinrdyc~nad
Mlmilti (Giu Press edn,), Uttara kind:^, s : l r p 756.
 Bibliography

f R~? mGp I ed.d tr. K L Nnrasimha S;is[ri, Bangalore,

Adi P u ~ o~
1980.
A g n i P r r d ~ qed. Ha6 W d y n n a Apw, Amnd;~c~ma Press, Pune,
tr. M.N, nun, 2 VOIS., C ; ~ I C U I ~39034.
~,
Afffdreya Bnihmma, wfrh the conlrnentary nf Siiy:ina, ecL T. Weher,
B m n , 1873, U. Marlin Haug,hfu~l~bni, 1.863.
Allan,J., ~btrriogrieoJlbe C o t ~aj";lncimr
r Indin (Inthe British Museum),
London, 1936.
An~arakaia,ed. Vamanachawa JhnIakiknr, Murnbal, 1907: with the
cotnmennry d Ehat(il-K.!Fdmimin,4 s . H.D. Shama :ind MG.
Sardesai, Pune, 1941.
Atitpttum Nikriyq e&. A. biurrtr and E , I l a d y , 4 vrrls., PTS,Ltmndon,
1885-1800.
Apardjtta-p!rcba uf B h u ~ d ~ a c i e m , no. C d W ,V d d o d m , 1950
GOS
44pas~i~n~bn G.~b,yb~-satrra, wirb thp cornmen klry of Su c.nr.Saniidryrr,
aaukhdmha S:~nskriiSeries, 2hd edn., Varanmi, 1971.
Aprx~/c]t??ba $#?dla-.$iilffl,ndth dlr cnmmenl.wy Ruchirhttn, cd. R.
Garbc, 3 vats., Cs:alcurm,IM2-IWZ; rd. and a. W. Cniand, 3 vcrk,,
G:jtlingn-Leipig and dni.srt.rdem, 192 1-8.
ArIbdftm oj'Kolifi[ya3Ptu. I and 11, ed. and tr. R.P h n y k , Lfnlvursity
crf Bombay, Mumhni, lPm.5.
A Selecs Bihlfogt-aphyon Women 171 In&, S.N.D.T.\Vornen's Uniwrsity,
Mwnhni (undated].
&radhbv$t'i ofPdpini, ed. mrt tr. Srisa Chandm X~su,~ t a h a i n dIHBI-7.
,
Ape, V.S.,7h= Pr.-xtical Sans~-E#gIishDchilnaty, eds P.K, Gnde
and C.G. Kanre, 3 vols., Pune, 1957-9,
~ f f i a m p d &unzh),
n ed. Vishm Bandhu, W, ~n?!~isrpw, 11961,
 rr. w.D. Whitncy, I-larvard Orien~nlSeries, vols. VI1 and
~ a r v a r d 1905.
,
fihtlgaaata PttrEiya, Gila Press, Gankl~pur,Samwrr 2010,
B h i ~ ~ a t Granthauali,
?n eed. V~.wanathaPmsad:~Misr:~,Van~nasi,3rcl edn
Samv:~r2026.
BihIiogrnphie Vediqzte, ed. Louis Rcnnu, Paris, 1931.
Brl~adaratgmhUpzr?$dd with the cninrnentary of ~;1nk;lrk5irya,ed-
and tr. Swami Madhavannnda, hlmon, 1950.
Bfiatscmlhita of Vurihamihir-a,ed. H , Kern, Bi11Liothoc:i Indica, Gilcutta,
1865.
Burgess, Jas and B h;~gxwanIalIndciji, Caue Temples 01' Weslem Irzdja,
rpt., Delhi, 1976,
CClauagqu, rd. and tr. Sister Vnjira, Mahahodhi Sodety, Sarnath, 1942.
Colp~lsIr~scfiprionl~m, Indicrimm, vols. 111 and W ,
DaSnkumaracarira of Daqdin, ed. M.R. Kale, Oriental publishing
Company, Mu rnhal, 1917.
Dharrnn~ucrasof ~ ~ a s m r n hGautama,
a, Vasisthx :~ndB:~udhayuna,U. (3.
Buhler in SBE, voLc. 2 and 14, Oxford, 1873-82.
, T.W. Rhys Davids snd J.E. C~rpenter,
Digha N ~ k a peds. 3 vr~ls.,PTS,
London, 1890-3312; tr. T.W. Khys Dm,uids, The Dinlognle 01 the
Biiddba, 3 vols., SBB, London, 1899-1721
Diksh:!t;tr, V,R,R., Tbe Psdrdna Index, vclls. I-[I], Chennni, 1751-3.
Epigraphin Carnulica.
Epigraph fa Iridica.
Gfilhu Saptduli, ~4. ancl W. kdhagovinda Baxlk, Asiatic Sociev, Calcutt:L
1371.
Grhyasfik~qof hikhiiy:lna, ~ < v a l : i ~ a nP>rask~r;l,
:~, Gohhrl:~,
Kty~~[ifil,
kIiranyake9in and past am ha, tr. H. Oldenberg, SBE, vols 27 and
30,OxFrjrd, 1886-92.
Itzdlinn Atzliq~iary.
I17diaj7 Ard~aeologp-AReui~o,1971.
Indra?~Bplgrophtcnl Glossar3: hy D.C. Slrrar, Mntjial Unnnrjsidass, D e l h
1966.
J d a h s , ed. Fawhi,ll, 7 vols. with Index, L~rlndun,1877-97; rr. various
hands under the ediliorship of E.B. Cowell, 7 ~01s. with Inclex,
Camhridgc, 185);-1907.
~ag'hll-A~unl~yanasrnyli, in S ~ n y t i ~ ~ l jSanztdccayah,
nl Anand;iSramd-
sanskrm Granthavali no,48, 1919,
Lnfyd,~ana Srat~tasfirr.a,with the comrncnt:iry of Agnisv5mi, ed.
Anandachandr:~Vedintav.;lgiiin, Bihliothec;i Indica, Ca1curra, 1872,
hkhapnddhati, Gayakwnd Orrental Srries, Vndrjdnrj, 1925,
Mnrdonlrll, A.A. and A.D. Ke~rli,Vedic Index NQ,>~P~ SlihjeCls,
 2 wls., Londnn, 1312, rpl., DeIhi, 1982.
, f i t r7hr.r EKcnvariow al M~bmjo&m,Govr P r s ? , Deflli,
~ n c k e y E.,
1938.
MnBcibbGrotcl (critical edn.1, ed various hand? P ~ t r r ,19x7-M.
Mn&bb&m of kz'nuftjafi,&I.P. Xielhrrm, 3 vols.,hiu~lrbai, I&IZ-l$'W.
iP!~~$imtt ~ M b i i jr~~, kM. a b p ~ c tKhula
i ~ Sankrityayana and P.V. Bgpa t,
3 vols., Naland;~Devan:lguri Pali Series, 1858, tr. Rahul
Sankriryiryana, Mahabodhi Sahha, 2nd edn., 1964
Miihlasekaa, G.P.,A IIicIionRg gf'PnljPqpmNarnrs, 2 vals.,London,
1337-8.
Mc~uu.5mrii( w j ~ hMedl1srirhi-hhBs~3~ erl, Mah3mahopSdhy;i)ra
Gang:~narh]ha, 2 vols , Asiatic: Sclclirty,C:tlcutta, 1932 anrl 1939,
t m s G. BuIder, SBE, vt-I. 25, OxFord, 189!34.
Mmirr-Willkrns, Murder, ri Strtzskn'ttEt8&dkhDicfrol~oy, OhEd, 295 I .
ed. and tr. R.D. Karm;ukar, Pune, 1937.
M,i-ccj~aka;fka,
M n l ~ Puruva,
p An:lnd,?satm:~ Press, Pune, Szrnvat 1957: rr. Ram Prnrn p
Tripndu Shais~i,Pmyag, Samvat 2003.
AYdbim KgIhijt ed. Dhasmzmd;i Knm~nbi,lsr P&., P u n 5 1915,
,$fgba!~(u and Ninchta,ed, and tr. L~akshmanSimp, Tcxt, Urliversity of
Punjab, Lahore, 1927, Eng. tr. and Notes, Oxfort!, 1921.
Pctiicmhp.h B7GI~trra[m~ Lr. W. C:ihtrd, k s i ; ~ t i ~ S ~ i ~Beng11~
T y v f Cril~ult;~,
1931.
~dni>~i-St2!rcc-~~fi/kfl ffndP.i+@!ar wirh Woril t l ~ d e xromp.
, S, lbthak
and S. Cl~iuilo,Pune, 1935.
p ~ r ~ ~ r a r n CJ~orvlthamb~
~'?f;, edo., V;lr~na.si,1968
I':~th;lk and Lh:tr:~o,IVordrndf:rroPaUrijali'~Ipijbmgn,tfuhciOh&:~.~~,
I'une, 3927,
RFmui~d?lrrqf V~hifLv;edd,ancl cr.Jnaki D-~s 2 vu18.,GiCi I'rc%s3
Sl~arn~:~,
Gor:ikhp~r,S;lmval 2017; tr, blph T,H. GriCfith, Lrrndun, 1876.
& t d a Sur?bi!&, wilh the nlmnzynrary r ~ fSly:lpa, 5 ~ r J s . ,V:~idl!a
Sa~nzl~urfll:~n:~ blandah, Pune, 1933-51: wirh Hindi tr. Pandit
Vjd>%D~UV;III,k i n l r u i ,
R:jrngo!:ilk.d Trj~wcIi,9 I ~ O ~ SCh:ll~kl>;l~?h~
.~
1991.
&zxd#> tr. Rdpll TH.Griffitll, 7bc IXy~ltnsrd'the ! & f d u , rjlt., Delhi,
1986.
SiinrhnI'r~r&,zn,puhlisherlfly Ei~mur3ju<ri:rikrsqtlii1,$:1,Venkitdvi~nPwss,
B n r t t h ~ yi,a k g S:tmcxt, 1821. Hindi tl: VJl>r,JChidnth Shriviistava,
Indnlrrgical PuhlicLir~ns, Ailal~xhacl,1975.
Samytrrra h:ih@jq 4. L.Feer, 6 wls., PTS, Lrmdrln, 1884-19M.
~ ~ l t a ~W.ci.bnruqla(ktadlr5:rndina
alb~ reCwsid>n),wl.~.\I, R~arrnaGW&I
and G.D, Sh:~nua,Kwi. 1994-7.
Sn[Lp/haBrtihrrraf?#~ tul. Ily Cinng? I'rii.sltl UpatUly:l)'a, Ikirna Kum:lri
 Publi~:nions Sertes no. 3, The Research Institute of ~nc.erIt~ c i e n t i f i c
Sudies, New Delhl, 1970. I

Sircar, D.C., Select Inscriptions Bepring on Indian Hislory a d

Ciuiliralion, tal. 1, Calcutm, 1942.
Snari &&? Sllrntrccaph, k a n a ~ r a r n bnshtil
a l i , a,
~ r ~ n t k i v a1x0. Pune,
1929
Sorencen, S.,An Index Lo [he Abmm iri [he Mahabhcimtcr, London,
1904.
South Itrdian Inscn$tions, vols. 11, VI and XII.
I
I

~rarttakoia, vol. I, pt. 11, etl C.G. Kashikar, Widika ~ansodhanaMandala, I

Fune, 1962.
Srimradcleuibj~@matarn, Pandit Pushkglaya, Kwi, Vikram Saml.Jr 2019.
j ~ d r i i c d r uSzrun~o<if of Sesa Kbsna, ed. Gopinarh Kiiviraj wilh
intrariucticln hy NarLiyanwb s t r i Khkte, 2 vds., V~cmnasi,1933 and
1336.
Su~i~-iVPdi.lcr, pdq I and 11, ed. 2nd tr. Sister K~jin,~ a h a b a d hSocietY,
Sarnath, 1941, 1942.
Tailtirip Sdmhilri, ed. Sripadn Sharmj, Mum[,ai, 1945, tr. A.B. Keith,
Hsrvard Orienul Series, voIs. 18 and 19, Carnhriclge (Mass I, 1914,
Tnntra Viiriniku uf Kz!mafi/a,Eng. tr , Pune, 1910.
T ~ Thirteen
E Princapal Upanisad, s,. R E, Humc,Oxford, 1931.
Ira?-!a l?a~rzirkuraofJyotireSv;lra KnviSekharac:irya, eels. S.K. Cbktterji
2nd B, Misn, khaIic Society of U m p l , Calcutu. 1940.
Vus&bcr D b a r m a J ~ t r ued, , A.A. Fbhrer, Mumhai, 191h.
Vcc#~r~tfi-sii tm of Badcmrl!ya~with the commentary of hhk;ui&rya,
2 vols., Bihliothcca Inclin, Calcutta, 1863, ~ rGeorge . Thihaut, SBE,
vt>l. 34, Oxford, 1890.
Virlay Yi!ak#, ed. N.Oldenherg, 3 t o l London, ~ 1879-83.
V ~ p r d h r i r m o t t Pctmipla,
n~ Vunk;~tesvar:iPress, Mumhai, S:~mvat1969
I;isyius~twri,eti.1. Jolly, BI, Gilcul~i~, 1881, Lr. J.Jr)lly, SEE, vvl. 7,~ x F n r d ,
'IR80. '

ed. A.F. Rurlulf Hoernle, Calcutta, 1960.

Ur)?isng#rJ~,c#~,

hgrriw a h , V,S. Ifur~czcarila:fib SdntsNika A~clhva-yar~u, Patnn, 1 953.

-, India -4s Kno?un lo Puqirti, Universily of Lucknow, 19i3.
-, Eka S d p k l ? i k a Ac[hyr~yrar?a,
Kcilianzl~aarT: XTaramnsi, 19511.
, Marka ydeya Pldri?na: Ehz Snmsk$ika A A d h ~ y c ~ ~Allahahad,
~ra,
1961.
, India As Described by Mnna, Wrannsi, 1970,
 Allcl~in,13ridget and Rq.o~ond.MlL.hh, iTLe B177h #Imdim CiariIizatiu~z,
Harmnndsworth, 1968.
Altekar, A.S., 7h.e Position of IVornen iin Ni??c!~rC~urliration,1st edn.,
1938, 3rd edn., Del.lhi, 1962.
, T h Rc3stmkfi@s and Their Times, 1st edn., 1934, 2nd edn.,
Pune, 1367.
Amhetkar, B.R., Who w ~ r ethe Sh~ddms?Mumbai, 3 346.
, Writings and Speeches, vols, I-VII, Education Dept., Fovt. of
Maharashtra, 1785-1990.
Asopa, J.N., origin oftbe R~fltits,Delhi, 1976.
Avasthi, A.B.L., Studies tn !he Sknnda P U r c i : ~pt. 1, Lucknow, 1965.
Banerjee, A.C.,St~adiesin the Brubm@as, Delhi, 1963.
Earth, A , , % ReJzgiom qflndia,Eng, rr. Rw.J . IVood, L o n d w ~ ,1x91.
mrth, Frecltick, ed., Ethnic G m t p and Bout~daries,London, 1969.
Barua, K.L., Early Hktoy wJK&nanipa, Shillcmg, 1933.
Basham, A.L., D e Iva)?& maJ W a India, Calrutn, 1971.
,- The Otigipa and Deuelopme~rtof Classical Hmdirism, ed. and
annotated by Kenneth G. Zysk, Delhi, 1990.
Basu, Joginj, Itzdia in khe Age 0187k?h~1a7n~s, Cdcuttn, 1%9,
Benveniste, Emile, Indo-Etrropean Langiwge and Society, London,1973.
~ ~ ,York, 1954.
Bergson, Henri, Rm Sollrces of'MomIity and l < e l ~ g i oNew
,!.jharg~w,P.L,, India is l b 1~T~di.C&el Luckn~w,1971.
Uhat, U. Malini, 'Religion and Soclety in Southern b r n a t a k ~in the Early
Medlwil Period', unpublished Ph.D, thesis, Jawnhorlal Nehru
University, New Deihi, 1996
Bhattacbarya, D., Fzdndat~~enmI Themes of the Atharvauedu, Pune, 1968
Bhattacharyn,J.N., Hindu Castes and Sects, rpt., Cakcutta, 1968.
Bhat~acharp,S.C.,S D ~AWCB P ofIndian Sacrely..Fmm c 2nd Cmnrty
8.C.to c. 4th Centt~ryAD., Calcurta, 1978,
Bhntmdiarjl, Sukumari, Litemhtm tv t l ~ eVedicAge, vo1. I, Cnlcuua, 1984.
?3hnrt~chary)r;i,N.N., Ancienr I d m n JEifudc and n d r S ~ c k dC~vtlents,
Delhi, 1975.
Biarde;iuu,hlaadleein, Ellncltrrsm, The Anthrnpology oj'A Ciuiliznzron,
Delhi, 1389.
Wirnhaum, M, and J. Puhvel, eds, A?lcrettl Indo-E~sropeonDialects,
Berkeley, 1966.
Blodl, Maudve, ,Warnism and A ntk~*opolugpThe History @- a
Rekationsbip, Oxfurd, 1983.
BIonnifielcI, Ml~urice,~ g c e d aR~peillions,~arvilrdOrienrdl Series,
voi. 20, 1916,
Br~se,A N . , Social and &dm1 Econgm-y of firthern ~ n d i a2, vob , 1st
 edn., 1942-6: 2nd edn., C a l c u t ~ 1961-7.
~,
Base, N.K., Cullurn1Anthropology and DtberEssa~s,~ n d i a n~csociation
Puhlishirig Co.,Calcutb, 1353.
, C~altureand Society In India. C:~Icutta, 1967.
Bottomore, T.B.,Sociology:A Guide to P t v b l e m u ~ ~ di f e r a f Londi~n,
u~, I
1969.
Bougle, CeIestin, Essays on [IIC Caste System, tr. D.F. poco&, London,
1971.
Brough, J., f i e Earlqr Brahmanical Syssn~of Gotm a ~ l dPrawm: A
Translation of the Gotm-Pravara-&?'ij~ri oJ Pum~ottanla
1
Pagdita with an Inlraduction, Cambridge, 1953.
Byres, T.J. and Harbws Mukhia, eds., Feudalism and h'on-Elaropeaa
S~ietSes,special issue of the loumal of Peasant Studies, vol. 12,
C‘ nos. 2-3, London, 1985.

' Carr, E.H., k Hicloty, Harmoncisworth, 1971.

Chakrabarti, D.K., me Ebrly Use of Iron in Inrdia, DelM, 1932.
Chaknvuri, U r n . Ibr Social Dlmettsionr $Early B ~ d d b i ~Delhi,
1987,
m

Chanana, Devrai, Slavery In Ancient iadia, Delhi, 1960,

C handa, R.P., n e I n d o - A w n Races: A Study of the ~ n d o - ~ r yPeople
~lt
Rajshahi, 1916.
and Insti~u~iolzs,
i c s , 1994
Chttopadhydya, B.D., m e M a k r e ofEarly M ~ d i ~ ~ l l t n dDelbl,
chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad, Sciene and Sociery in Ancient India,
Calcutta, 1977.
Cha ttopadhyaya, Kshetresh Chandra, Studies zn Vedtc and lnclo-Iranian
Refigion and titemtun?,ed.Vidya Niwas Misra,Varanasi and Dclhi,
1776.
Chattopadhyaya, Sudhakar, Soclai Life in Ancient Indtcr (In the
Background of the Yrijiiuwlkyasm.~G, Calcutta, 1965
Clraudhuri, P.C., 7he Histoty of Ciuil!zatlon of the People of Assam
the TwelB Cmtuty A.D., Guwahati, 1359,
Dmdekar, R.N. V d i c Bibliography, 4 voB., h n e , 1346,1961, 1973,
1985.
Danye, S.A.,In#fca&?n Prlniiriue Conmmunhm to S l a w , Murnbai, 1949.
Dange, Sadashive Ambadas, Cultural Sources Jmm the Veda, Mumbai,
1977.
-, Sexual SymboIhm Jrwm Vedic Rirwl, Uelhi, 1979.
Das, S.K, 7%e F m o m i c History 01'Ancient India, Calrutta, 1929.
Das, Veena, Structure and Cognitton: Aspects oj' Hindu G a t e and
Rftuui, Deihi, 1977.
Derrett, J.D M.,Rdigion, U w and Iks Slate In hadia, Lc~ndon,1968.
 Diwkar, R.R., ed., Bibnr 7brough the Agrs, Chennai, 1958.
Drrkmeir, Chnrles, Kingship and Cornrnlt nity in Ear+.v India, Lundon,
1968.
Dumont, Louis, Homo Hlerarchrctis: The Caste Sysletn and Its
I?nplicaitom, Dehi, 1370,revd. edn., Chicago, 1980.
, BeJ~@ov,. ' , d f C ~ ~ sand Htsto~ym lndw Welh~,197I.l.
Dutr, N,K , Origi~tand Gmwrh cf Castes in India, vol. I, Calcuth, 1931,
rpt., 1968.
Dutra, B.N., Sdudies in I~cfjar? S o c d P ~ Q Calcurta,
, 1944.
, DIaIecltcs of Hindu Ritualbm, Calcutta, 1952,
Engels, P., i%e Origin of tbe FzmiCy, PPrlvatE! Pmperty and the Stare,
wirh Inuoduction and Nores by Eleanor B. Leacock, London,1972,
rpt., 1977.
Eschmann, A , H.KuIke, and G.C. Triparhl, eds., 7be Cuft offagannath
and the Regional Tradition of Onksn, Dclhi, 1978,
Fick, R., The Social Ovganisation in North-East h d i a in Bitddha's
TItIpe, (r. S.K, hbitm, University dCalcutta, 1320
Fox, Richard G., Kin, Clan, Raja and Rule, Berkeley, 1971.
Fuchs, Stqhen, f i e Childwra ojHan', Vienna, 1949.
Gb:ite, V.S.,Jew ES on th&Wa, revised and 4.hpV.S.Sukhthankxr,
Pnona Oriental Series, 12, Pune,1966.
Ghosh, A., f i e City in Early h~dia,Simla, 1973.
E , 196j
Ghnshal, U.N., S ~ d f E sih h i a n Hbtory and L ~ I I U YDelhj,
Ghurye, G.S., Carte and Ckas in India, Mumbai, 1957,
-, Fatnily and Kin iri Indo-Eiiropean fiilflrw, 2nd eedn,,Murnhai,
1962.
, Trvo Brabmanrcal I~utitrrtlomGotra and Cbnraw, Mumhi,
1972.
1979.
, Vedic India, Ml~rnh:~i,
Glazer-Malh'm, Nona and Helen Youngelson, eclu., Women {w Man-Mode
IYo'orid, Chicago, 1972.
Gnoli, Gherardo, The Idea OJIYUW AnEssnyonJU On'gi6,Serie Orientale
Rnma LXII, Rome, 1989.
odelier, Maurice, Pe+ciiaw in MamW AnthwIogs, Cgmhridge,
1977.
Gombrlch, Richard F., Buddbid Precept and Practice: TracCltional
BrrddbLrm f m jhe Ruml N~gbtandrqf C ~ ~ Crevd. . , Delhi,
I ~ Iedn
1991.
Conch, J , Change and Colztintrir;, in fndik~~~
&1'@0tk The hag^, 1965.
-, Vedic Literature: A History of I ~ d i a nLfterature, vol. 1,
Wiesbaden, 1975,
Cr:,pabchari,K.,E d y Hislog1 of tha And11rn Counrty, Chc.nn:~i, 1941.
Guph, D.K., Society and Ciilt~~re ill t l ~ eTime of Dnndin, Delhi, 1972.
H:thib, Irfin, Irrterprelirrg rndinn Hbtoq~,North Eastern piill University
PuhLirfiinns, Shillmg, 195.
, h a y s it2 rndian Histo~y,Towards o kia~xistPerception, Dclhi,
1395.
H;ile, Wish Eclmrd, Asltra in Eflr!y V~clicReleion, Delhi, 1986.
Hilndiqui, K.K., Yai~s!ihbuand Il?dinlz C!iltuue, Jivariijn Jnina
Grantharniiii, nu.2, Sholapur, 1949.
Hanummthan, L.R. Un!ouchdhilily:A Hktoricnl Sttidy zipto 1300 A , D .
(with special reference to Tamil Nadu), Madurai, 1379,
Bart, George L.,111, n 5ja Poenls a f A n c i e ~ t Tamil: Their Milierr and
Their Sanskl?t Cortnterpnrts, Berkeley, 1374.
Hazra, R.C., Studies itn the ,Prlranrc Record3 of) Tizndil Rires and
CUS~ORK, University o f Dacca Bulletin no.m),D a s c ~ 1, 9 4 .
Heesterman,J.C., j%;t7& Ancienr Indian Royal Consdcmtion,The H z ~ u e ,
1957.
3 m k , Pecer Edwin, ed.,Arynn andNon,-Aq~m Michigan papers
in i~rdia,
on South and Sadth-Ea5t Asia, no. 14, The Urliversity of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, 1979.
I-lutton,J.H., Caste in India. Cambridge, 1946,
Ibhewon, D.,Punjah Cr*rres, Lahore, 1916,
Inden, Ronald, Imagining I n d b , Oxford, 1590.
J:iin,j ,C.,
tije l i ~ Ancient
2 f i n d i a h Depicted in the.7din Canon.,Mumbai,
1347.
Jain, K.C.,Mfllowa Through the Ages, Fronl the Eafliest Tirns to
1305 A.D., Delhi, 1972.
Jaiswal, Suvim, Origin and I7Evelopmenr of Vafqg'dvisnl,2nd revd. edn.,
Dclhi, 1981.
Jha, D.N., ed., F~tidu[ Social Formdtfon in Ear@ Indin, Delhi, 19fi7.
, ed.,Society andIdeologi inIndia. Essays in Honour of professor
R,S.Sharma, Delhl, 1 9 6 .
Jhil, Vivekananda, 'E;.rly Htstory of Untouchables in India', unpublished
Ph.D. thesis, Patrn Unlvwsiv, 1372,
Jayal, Shakarnhhari, me Status 01'Women in the Epics, Delhi, 1966.
Jones, Kennerh W . , Atya Dharma, I3'lndu Comciousncss Its 19lh
Centuly Punjab, Uehr, 1776,
Jnrdens, J,T,F,,Dapnandn Sflrdsunti: His LiJe and Cm~dses,Delhi, 1981.
Eaildsapathy , K., Tamfl He role Pwty, London,196%.
Kanakasahhai, V., 7mmfIsE&hteru H u n d t d Years Ago, vt,,Chennai,
1974.
 f i ~ n e P.V.,
, Hislory o J D b n r w ~ ~ & t m vols.
, I-TV, Pune, 1930-53.
K;rp:idia, K.hi., Hrrzdu KiPr~hip.IW~lnb:li,1947.
, ~Mmriflgeand Fa~~zilyin indin, 3rd d n . , Mumbxi,1968.
Fhmndiknr, S.V., Hindtt Exoganly, Muinbai, 1325.
Rirvc, Irawnti, k S ' ~ ~ hOfgnlrizalto~z
jp in hdib, 3rdedn., hTumbai, 1956.
. J J i ~ d t <Society: An I~ii~tprelfltion, 2nd edn., Pune. 1968.
Keith, A B . , ?be Xeligior~and Pl~ilosop,I~y of the V& n ) ~ dUpan@ci&,
vol. I, Hxvard Oriental Series, vol. 31, Oxford, 19775.
ISerk;u, S,N., Hfiror~poJ GmIc i18 India?, 2 vvds., Lr~ndun,1311.
Itirk, G.S., i\fylb: Its Meanirzg ar~dFlr>lclions i n Ancient and Other
Culti~res,Gimbriclge, 1970.
Kiass, hPr)rtc~n,Caste; The Eme?get?ceof So?rt.!!Astan Sucfui Jysrptr,
l'hiladelphin, 1980.
[ ~ l o p ~ e n h o rRitI,
g , cd.. Se~rctedY l i f i ~orr
s RifzraI i?l the I ~ d i c d ~
Reldgioru;
a
&uLys p r w n i ~ dto DJ.fZoo~tzs,7 - d e n , 3 983.
K(nnrnbi, D.D., An I?1r,ndtrclion to lbs S!udy of J~?diarzF I t s t ~ p ,
Muml>:u, 19%.
-, fie Ctiltfrrearid Ciuiiizatiou oj'd~~cielzi
India i ? z Historical
01itlinq London, 1965.
Kulke, Hermann, Xirtzs and Culh: State For:ltnrion u nd Legitinlalion
111 Indin a d So~lthenslAsia, Delhi, 1933.
L:~hiri, N., Pre-Ahom AS.W m; Stlldl'cs irz the Inscripriom oj'ilsm12
Betnaerz the FiJih a17dthe irbiricentb Centtrries AD, Dehi, 1991.
Lei!ch, E.R.,cd., Aspects of Caste in Solllb hldin, Ceylon and tVortk-
!V& Pakistfin, C:~rnlx-irlge,1371.
Lemer, Gentla. f l ~ eCreorio~aof P#t~fiycbbyy Oxford, 1986.
Lincoln, Bruce, Aiesls, IVoniom, and Cattle: A Slrici'y iil7 the Ec~lw$yof
Re!tgiof'q Berkdcy, 1% I .
-, ed,, aclt~ion,Rebeilion. Revoltrtion, Yew Yijrk, 1985.
Liirlutr)n, C . Scot[, The ~ i k ~Conrpnmlfw
rr ~lfythfilugp:A ~Ar~~~~mpologiccrl
L
Rd~mx~lre?rt cf l/!e 7 7 m t Y ~tf'~ Gm%7e Drtmerrl, Uerkcley, 1973.
Luclden, David, P u a m l Hbtoly i n Sotttl~Itlri'ir~,t3rincetcln,198.5.
M.laccl(lnell,A.A., The y~rdicMj~thology,rprpr., Dell~i,lwl.
itIaiumdnr, U.N., RLYC~Y arrd CtdIL~ursoj'lrrd~. qll., M u m h i , 19.58.
Maj~irndar,R.C., ed., n u Hisrot? q/'.Be~r#al,vol. I , Dhaka, 1943.
-, ed., HUory cind Criltiwe of thc Rzrlian kuple, vvok. I-V,
hiurn!rai, 1953-66.
Mi~lik,S.C., Irzclinti Civiliz~itiutz~ TT;ra Fornlntita Puriod Siml:~, 1968.
M;~nd:~l, O R ) Jm?)lolirion, elh hi, 1W3.
D., Aj~adiya:A I ~ ~ C ~ L ' O Iufler
~ ~ l r t ; h ; l fJohn,
i, Itf~beqpda n t h fi7thts
tul ~ l LI ~ L'iuiZjzdrbrr, vol. 1, Londcm,
1931,
MZX, ml, Capital, Moscow, 1977.
Mazumdx, B.P., Socio-Econonzic Hislo y of Northern India Cjko~J
A.D. 1030 to 11W), Catcuth, 1960.
bkht;~,R.N., Pix-Buddhist India, Mumhi, 1939.
Middleton, J. m d D. Tgit, Tt?hes WlfholrtRuleq rpt., London, 1970.
Miism, I'adma, Evolution UJ rbe Bmbmlcn Class (in the Pcrspactiue d'
Vedic Period), vol. XIII, Banaras Hindu University 21nskritSedes,
Vxanasi, 1978.
hIrrrg:in, Lewiq Henry, Ancte~~l Society, ecl. E,B. Lcktcknck, Gloucester,
1974.
Mukherjee, Sandhyz, Some Aspecls oJ Socia! LYE irz Ancian! 7ndia:
325 B.C.-A.D. 204 Allahidbad, 196.
Ncsf~eld,J.C., A Brid' Vietu of Ibe Ccrste System 01the North- wesf
Provi?acesnnd Otldh, Allahahad, 1855.
Kiyogi, Pushps, Brahmanic SetlEenlenh in Diflmn! Srrbdivlr.io?u of
, 1967.
Berzgd, Calcutr;~
O'kary, Brmdan, 7L-e Asictric Mode qf'Pmsiuclion, Odord, 1989.
Omvcdt, Gail, Dulifs and the Deulocmtic Reaulutiutt, New Dclhi,
1994.
I'andeya, mjbali, Hindu Sapkaras, 2nd e h , , Drlhi, 1967.
Pathnk, Sm:inanda, V&zu Piir@m M Rhdmtra, kimnasi, 1967.
of India, Calcutta, 1966.
Pathak, V.S., Ancient I3~to~Yfllclns
Paul, Pramode Ldl, The Early fir!ory of Bengal,Calcurt:~,1940.
Pfaffenl-]erg=,Bryan, Cmte in TamB L'trDtri~,Syyractise, 1982.
, The Relkiorts Founrlufiom oJ.7uudra Dorninacfon in filnzil Sri
h l ~ k aDelhi,
, 1982
Picri.5, ~ a l p h Srrzhalcse
, Socicii Organ ixarton. The K~i?jdy#71Period,
Ceylon University I'ress Uw.~rd,Ccllornho, 1856.
Piggott, Stuart, Ancie~ztI:iit.ope Jhnz !be Beginnings oJ'A,gnctrltrl?~lo
Classical rlnriqltii,y, Eclinhurgh, 1965.
I'ill:~y, K K., A Sucfal Ifklory 7iarnils, pt. I, University or M:lclrxs,
Chrnna:, 1969.
Posschl, GrcgnFj L., ttrl., Ancicnl Ciks oj' 3730 frtrfLts,Delhi, 1973.
l'rjtds, K R , SacHfie in the Rgwdu, Muml-r:~i,1953
Pirri, B.N., India in the Tinre of Pcilalijcrli. Muml-rdi, 1957.
, Irlcfia Under the Ka~ftnns,Calcutta, 1963,
Pt~silkar,A.D., BblhiEsd: A Slrtcby,L~ahr,:~, 1940,
Raclhakrishn:~n,S., me H l n h Vicu) of Life, New Ynrk, 1973.
l~dcliffe~Brc~wn, A.B. i~ndDaryll Rlrcle, AJi-icnn Sjrrlems oJKinship arid
MapTPqe, 10rh impressinn, London, 1970,
Rarngjpdl, indiu uJ' Vedic Kuipasrlr~as!D e l h ~ ,1 yKj.
 R;lt), C Y . Rxmacha~~dra, und%iocfe@ in ~ e d i w a~l n d k ~ a
~dmirzislratio?~
(A.D. 1038-1538J Lfnckr Ibe U t c r Eastern Guligas and the
Stiynucz~SuGajapnSis, NeLlore, 1976-
Rae, R , N q r ~ s i m h a , Corporate L@ i n ~*feedisuu!Anbhmdeft-r,
Secundenhdd, 1967.
A:I ychn udhuri, !-I.C., P d i d d c a I l f ~ ! ~ ~ o f A ~ i e n iDl)
I ~e~hd.i,#Calcutrz,
,
1350.
oJ- IVonzeq London,
ReiLer, Ragna R., etl., Tuz~wt'ckclsn A~zfbmpolog~
1375,
Renou, Louis, The Destiny of [he Ire& irz India, Delhi, 1965.
Ri~ysDavirk, T.\V., Brlddbtst Indfa, London, 1903.
Rslcy, H.H,, ne Pmple ofInd& Landon, 190H.
-, Tt-ibes and Castes of BewaI: Anlhropol?zesric Data, Calcutta,
1981.
Kay, Kuinkurr 1, ~ " P : L ' I I G L ~ ~ / ' [ l f u r i c ~ ~irr ~ ~ y Inclta: figbib ro
r '~Vurlh
Fotui'lJ Cenfrrrt~~s B.C.LIJ K~Jrcy:t& in ihe L4mh~r<drrfccr~ Ttwdiilion,
Ddhi, 1994.
S;)hljm,M;lrsh~UI).,Trihcsnlcn,Founda~icmnf Mr~rlemA n t h r o p o l r ~ ~ ~
Series, New Jersey, 1968.
Saletore, R.N., Lfc in the G~lptaAge, Mumhai, 1943.
S:~nkalia,H.D., Stttdiw in the I-listo!.icnl crncl CillkdraI Geography and
Ethlrnlflgy nJ Crrjnlwt, P l ~ n e ,1949.
Sank:lr:m;lr,iyr\nan, S.,Tbc Vt3b~uktrn&sutld 71~eir'Tines, Dclhi, 1977.
SanwiiI, K.U., Social StmtFccrti011 irz Rr~tniK I ~ ~ + ~ LDellii, I D I T ,1976.
Stli-;rsw:\ti,B.N., Brah nlcirric 4iilrnl TrracCfllol~s in fha CitcihCe of Teme,
Sirnh, 1977.
Sxstri, K , A . Nibbnt:~,MI., A Com~r~hem'tx HLriory q/'lrtdialvul. 11,
La1cu1!:1, 1957.
, Tiw CO~CLF, rpt,, Chmn;li, 1475,
-
, k~ty:ln;l~lyun:~,R., A S ~ I I of~ Y!he Hislogt ctnd C~tlittmf l i b p
Anrir~rcls,Vtll. 1 (Pn~niStone Age tcl Peu&~lism),Delhi. 1975.
Schnc-icler, David M. and Kathleen Grwgb, eds., rllutrili~rmlKinshQ,
Berkeley, 1961.
Schlnid~,Elanns-Petcr, Sottle Woinmz's Rites n t d R&bts in the Veda,
H11anclark:~rOrientd Rcsr,~rch Institute, Pune, 1 9 ~ 6 .
Sexirt, Eniilr, Cnsfe in I??dtu,tr. Devison Rusx ; s ~ ~ttie r n Frenclr edn.
(I%i5s lX%C.), Lonrkm, 1930.
,kttsr, S,, P I I ~ I ; DYeI~~~ f h P: I ~ ~a d~ Pmr:licc ~ ~ # ~ the) VI b I ~ r t ~ f q ~
Tcrnlinullon r$L~h,Dlr;ivad, 1'30.
Slr;~h,A.M., Tbe Holfich'old Dil?tsnsio~lof lhe FLI~TI~!~' in India, ~ e l h t ,
1973.
Shanna, Urij N x a p n , Social Lgh ill Nortj~elnIl~cbia:A.D. 600-IUDO,
UcIhi, 1966,
Sh:irmn, ~rijzndri!Wth, Soci~Zaizd Ctdl!rr~zllHktoly o ~ ' i ~ u r ~ b1?1dia
ern
c. 1000-12008.D.-New Dell~i,1372.
h Age.s, vvol. I, Uik~ncr,1366.
Slrarma, Dash:lrath, R G $ L I S TT~hUr o~~ ~ g[he
Slurma, J.p., Rq~lrhlfcsii1 Arzciuttt I~diw,Lfidcn, 19fifi.
Sharin:l, R.N., C'IAIIIA AS Rz~!@nJ@c!
re C I I Cicli?iz~lli~n
~ in the irflirtnsil~m-~.
Dclhi, 1977.
'jh;~mn~a,R.S., lrldinn Fetidnlisrn: c. 300-2 20IlA.D., Unive~sitfcf Cnlcubta,
Calcutta, 1365.
-L&bf on Earb,dzdiun Socl~iyanrl Euu~lo~n,~),
b l ~ n h : l i ,1966.
, Sacid1 Chctngex in Early Medicuul hdin (circa A. D. 50G1200),
The First Devraj Ch:in;in;i hleri~orialLecture, Dclhi, 1969.
, S i i J v a in Ancicnl Ilzdita, 2 ~ edn.,
d Delhi, 1980.
, Mute~r'aiCldiirre a12d Social Fortnntiolzs irz Atlcierrr India,
Delhi, 1983.
, Pefil~ectiwesin Svcial and Eco>zoniic History 01Eoc?rlyhzdit!,
Delhi, 1983.
- , ed,, Slrruey of Reseciwb in Ecuno~nicand Social IJtifo?y of
India, ICSSK, Delhi, 19t36,
, Urbw? Decay in India, Dclhi, 1987.
, Aspects of'P d i ~ i c dIdem and I i ~ ; r ' t i I ? l l i ~it3, ? ~Ancieril Ipldin,
3rd e h . , Be\hi, 1'368.
- , Looking for h e A y a l i s , Chenn:~i,1995.
S:I;I~tri, A jay Mitra , Inb'ia As Seen in the Brbalsntcbiid of Vcirdhunzihirfl,
Varannsi, 1369.
, Indin As , S n in the Krr!!nni~?iat(~ ~ J D d ~ l o l b r i x ~ r r pDcllu,la,
1975.
Sh:lsrri, S11:ikuntala Rdo, IVonien ;I? tile GWiu A ~ Pbiumh:li, , 15.59,
~ , Social L ~ r$P lhe Tuu~ils:C:lc~s.~iiccll
S i n g x r ~ v e l S. Pel-iud, University (if
Malay;i, K u a h Lumpur. 1966.
Singll, K .S., T,'ll?cd Society in I>tdlcz;A )I Ajt!hropn-llistoricalPerspLctit~,
Delhi, 1'185.
- , Penpk qf' Ir?dia, Ax Irltroducrta?~,A n l h r o p l r ~ i ~Survey ~ i l nu
Indi:~,Calcrlrr;l, 13r>2.
Sinfill, M.M.,LiJi iir Norlb-Euslern It7dlu i n /be Ptz.-Mrlrrgar? Y'it~ies,
V,irxr,~si,1967.
Sing!\, S ; I ~ VD:km:tn,
:~ Polyandry in At~cictlcItldia, U r l l ~ i 1978. ,
Sircar, D.C., 'fie G~rbilnsoj'K&kin'ihci, C;tIcutta, 1965.
- , Socic!~a d Ad?nintslrafiotl in Anoie~z;rind Medipucii irzdtd, 1,
C;tlcvttik, 1957.
 , LandIordfi~nand Tmancy in Anckw n>~ii ,Med&~uIjndj&
by Epiglnpbic RLYLOI.&,L u c ~ I I ~1969
Re~~eflled ~ ~ ,
City Pus{ arid mese~zl,N ~ Wltlrk,
Sirlllrrg, Gidenn, 7&@-ntr-h?dl~~-IrPid
1965.
Smith, Brian K., Rijleclium on Resenlhla~~ce, RitunZ andRd@iotl, Dtllhi,
1989.
Sontheimer, G.13. 2nd Hernxmn Ilulku, eds., Hinindriisln I<ecoonAydpr&,
Delhi, 1983.
hguhilily, New Yurk, 1959.
Sornkin, I'.A., Sucinl arrrl C;ilttrr-~~l
Sparrehor~rn,M., Cbario! i ) tho~ Veda, Leiden, 1M5,
Spellm:\n, J.W., Potilical i%eoqr of Ancient Irjdin, Lclndon, 1964.
Srinivas, M.N., ed., India3 Vilkcrges, 2nd rcvd. ecln., Mumhai, 1960.
Srinivas, M.N., C W iti~ Modfln Jndifi n?rdOlhcr k q y s , hhlu~nb~i,
1970.
Srinivas, M.N., M.S.A. Raa and A.M. Shah, cds., A Stlrwej~uf Research in
Sociuiogy anti Socia! A~zthropob~& vtlk.. I :tnd II, ICSSK, R~PW
Delhi, 1974.
St:1[1,Fritz, The SuiPnce oJRirual: ProfessorP.D. Gune Memorial Lectures,
1st series, BORI, Pune, 1982.
, ed., Agui. Thr Vcdic Ritrial 0j'Fit-e Atfa?: Z vols., BerkIey,
1983.
Stein, Burtcln, P e m n r , Slals atrd So~iei~yin r > f ~ d i Solath
c ~ ~ l I?tdia,
Ddhi, 1980.
Suhr:~limanian,N.,Snnymn Poli(y, Chenmi, 1966,
Srrrynv:lnshi, B , The AbAim! T h ~ iHHisttl~y
r 1962
trrrd Citltzt~r.,V:~rlc~d:~r:~,
l'crr;[y, Elnmanuel, ~l.~utx-isttr otld Primilivz SoiioZies,Nen*Yilrk, 1972,
T l ~ ; ~ k uA~~anr;~l:il,
r, rcl., Corrrprebc~tiirre Hisloly oj' B i h r , vol. I , pts. 1
and 17, P m u , 1774.
T l ~ n p ~Rt~inil:~,
r, 7 7 ~ ePtst uracl Pwjrlcdiuc, Delh~,1975.
, Afrctenl Zrrcti6irr Sactul fli.stoly; So~safufetpretutio?;,,;Dclhi,
1978.
-, Froitr Litrcage to State; SOC~#/ Fur-~nniiorisin /be ~llicl-Ft'rlrt
Millrrliiitlt BC irr t h p Grdnga I,hZlqy, Delbi, 1984,
Thurstnn, E., Wblz~grapbic,Voles i l l S u t ~ t l ~ ehlrfin.~ ) ? Cl~ennsi,1906.
ThursrOn E , and g. X:~ngach~ri,C ~ S I Pfaad - S Trl!: #+ ,!-bil tf3crn I u f i i n
(7vols.), voi. 1, 1911'9.
7-rautm;~nn,T.R.,cd., li'irislrip arrd I ~ W u r j lit! Sorrrh Asia, Uichig;in,
1974.
-. D~ntiidinrrITirrsl~ip,C;iml>ridpc, 19H I .
Upxil~Juy'.lya,B.S.,IVo~nen I&~vdu,3rd revd, edn., Uelhi, 1374.
-, I??dinin Khlidcirn, hlkihilb:ld, 1947.
\~;tkly;l,C.V., fJis;aqr aj.41gdieval H i n d r ~Itldiu, H I , I'ullc, 1962.
\V~gle,Narendra, Societ-y a t the Time oj'tbe Bzl~idba,Mumbai, 1966,
Weber, Max, 73s ReIis,jo~aoJ' India: meSoci~logyoJ Hi?~duisnla?zd
Btlddbhtn, trs and fids. Gerth and Martind:llc, Glenco, 1358.
Wheeler, R.E.M., The b~dzisCivilizatio~~, 3rd ecln., Carnbriclge, 1968.
\vih~r,\V.H., E!w H:ndir Jaj~naniSystem, Lucknrrw, 1936, rpt., 1758.
Wolfe, Eric, Sans of the Shaki~~gEarth, Chicago, 1959.
Yi~dnvn,B.N,S., Soclefy a?ld C~iliurein .Worther12 hrdia 81!he T t ~ v I h
Ce~~tury, XLhhabq~d,1973.
Y:I&Jv,jhinku, Sd?naraiccaknbii.Eka Shmsk.r~fkn Aclhjtayana,V~ranasi,
1977.
Yazclani, G . ,erl,, TheEnrly Hisloy)r of theneccnn, vds. I and 11, ond don,
1960.
Zxhncr, R.C., A; Sirnclg Tinles, London, 1958.
-- , Ifi~cdtrism,Lnndon, 1962,

Ahmad, Aibz, 'Berween Orienmlis~nand Itistoricism: ~nthropological

knowledge oi India', Studies fnHistoy, vol. 7,no. 1,januxydune
1991, pp. 135-63.
Alam, M u z ; ~ k ~'Cornpetillon
r, :tnd C~exiutencc:Indo-Islamic Inremcrion
vt >I. XIII, no, 1, 1989, pp. 37-
in Medieval North india', I!i?~emr-io,
59.
AIatns, Syett Husscin, 'Prrihle~nsof Defining Religion', I # l t e ~ t ~ t i ~ ? l f l l
Sucinl Science Jotlrncd, XXIX, nil. 2 , 1377, pp. 213-33.
hlherle, U;ivicl F.,Tvlatcrilineal DL-scentin Cross-Cultural Perspective' in
Ddvid M.Schneidet :inrl Kathleen G o u g i ~ells.,
. ~ W adt i n m i Kf~zship,
Burkclcy. 1961.
Arasaratnnrn, S., 'Si>cialI-listory nf a Dnmin:~ntC.artr Sncirry.The VrI!:i!:tr
nf Nonh Ceylon {Sri Lanka) in rbc- 18th Century', 7%. hidinn
Economic and Svcfmi Ifislory Revie~rj,vnl. XVIII, nos. 3 :mcl 4,
July-Dcceml~cr 1981, pp. 377-91.
Arukinsu*arni,M.,'TheOrigin of the Ve!!:ijas'.-fu~lmul ofIndian Historll,
XXXLII, 1955, pp. 25-9; XxWV, 1956, pp, 191f.
H~iley,H.W., 'Iranian AQTI- ilnd D n h - ' , Trnnsrrclrn?ls ?[the Pbilulr~giucrl
Soci?!y, 1959, pp. 71-11j.
Bc~tlillc,hndre, ' O n 1he Conccpr r ~ Trilw-',
f ir~ferwciiionalSocia[ Sciell~e
Jorirnal, vi.)l. 32, no. 4 , 138U, pp. 525-8.
, 'Thc Reprt~ducrionr)f Inequality: Oucupatir~n,Cas!e:tnd Family',
Cofflribirldonsio Irrdiun Sociolox]),n-s.,vol, 2 5 , 1991, pp, 5-28,
reprinted in K,L. Sharwi~,ed,, Socinl Ir~eyrrnlii-yi n Il~clia,Ncw
Dclhi, 1995, pp. 115-47.
 Bh;tndarkor, D.R., 'Foreign Elcments in tlic: HInJrr Pupulatin~~',Tri,
Vol. XL, rpt., Calcutta, 1968.
Uhargav:~,Iy.L., 'The 'Word m 4 t s in Qwda', ABORJ, vol. 64, 1983,
pp. 119-23.
Uclclewitz, Henk \V., 'The Fourth Pricst (The Brilhman) in Vedic Ritual',
in Rix Kloppenborg, ed., Selectrd Sttrdies on Ritrral in the
h?sijon Red&i~,s,Es~iys~r~wrterl to n.J, Ehms, Leiden, 1383,
PP. 33-68,
Ikough, john, 'The Tripartite Ideology flf the Indo-Europeans: A n
Exp.rrjrnen.nrin bJerl~ocI',Brdllejin Q,~IAGSchool of Orfdn!ai und
Afr~can Studia~,vol. 22, 1959, pp. 63-55.
Ch:tkr,~varti, Uma, 'Towards a Historical Sociol(>~yof Strati firxion in
Ancient b d b , Evidefl:ncefrom B~ddhs1SDUTC~S', E c ~ ~ r o mand ic
Politltal \VcehIy, v d l ., no. 8, 2 Mnrch 1985, pp. 356-60.
A Kumkum.Hoy, 'In Search ot Our Past: A Review of
C l ~ ; t h v a r t i ,U ~and
the Li~nitationsand Prasibillties ?sf the Historiogrnphy of \Yomen
in Early India', Econo?nic n?ldPoliticacalWeekly, vol. XXUI, no. 18,
1988, pp . ITS-2-WS- 10.
C!~:~ttopdhyayn, B.D., 'Origin of the Rajputs: The Political, Economic
and Social Processes in Early ~ e d i e Rajasthan',
~~l Ih?R, VOI, UI,
no. 1 , July 1776, pp, 59-82.
Converse, Hyln Stuntz, 'The Agnicaydna Riw: Indigenous Origins',
History afRel&io?~s,vol. XIV, no. 2 , ?Ic)vernher 1974, pp. 81-95.
D:ing~,S.A., '~LspecTsof War h ~ the m Rgw~l'a', Jur~trrdofifrdiwHislory,
voI. 44, 1366, ppb125-98.
Deshpandr, lulurlhw M.,'Genesis of pgvedic Raroflection: A Hiwdcal
a~ndSndo-Lingrrisric Inwstigrion' in h.f.xlhavM, Deshpande and
Peter Edwin [.loot, eds.,Aryan anti Nun-Aryan i!r fltdicr,Michigan
P:lpers on Suuth nncl South-East h i d , no, 14, A m hrhur, 1979,
pp 2j5-315.
Dhermg, F,C,,'The Slarus of Wr~menin theVedic Age', ~oimtaioJ'Indian
Histog: W, 134H, I-rp. 243r.
Db:lrm;lp~l-Frirk, Gil;i, 'Sj1ij3ng G~Iegorjrsin lho nismursr on TJ~L.:
St~rneH~storicalOl~sevi~lions' h : ~ ;ind H. vnn
in k ~ ~ d Dn11ni:l
Slietencton, eds,, Represunttrig fftiin:f~ifs?n,New Dcihf, 1995,
pp. 82-100.
13irks, Nich(~lasB., 'Political Authmity ;!ncl .irruulur;d Change in E:irly
Svu th 1ndi;l,-t riistory ', Indiurr &'~-o~rornru
and J'ocid Mkmry
Heuleri~,MII, no. 2 , April-June 1976, pp. 125-58.
-, 'Thc Original Caste: Power, History and Himdnrily in Snurh .Uin',
Cuntrih~~tiorz to indirt71 S~lciologl:Occ~sirmi~l PaPL.rs, ~ 1 V,.
Dellli, 1990, pp. 59-77.
Dumont, Louis iindI3.F.Pocack, 'Fma Sociology ot'lndi:l', Catrtribiltions
to Indian Socioloa, no. 1 , Paris and The Hague, 1957.
Emaneau, M.B., 'The Dialects of thc Old Indo-Aryan', in PI, Birnblum
and J. Puhvel, eds., Atzcte?lt mdo-Eliropeata Dialects, U f l k d c y ,
1966, pp. 123-8.
Flannery, Kent V., 'The Culturn1 Evolution of Civilizations', ~ 1 2 ~ ~ r l f l l
Reeuielu of ~?cologynnd Symrnntiy vol. 3, 1972, pp. 399-426.
Pluehr-Lobhan, C;lrnlyn, 'A Marxist Reappr:\is;il nf the ~:itri:lrchnte',
Ci~rrentAnihropolo,g~,XX, no. 2, J~me1979, pp. 341f.
Fox, Richard G , , 'Varnil Schenies nnd 1delogic:il Intc'gmtian in Indian
S o ~ i e r',y C o m P w r ~ i Stetdies
i~~ ira Saciczy anti History, vol. 8

1969, pp. 27-45.

Pukazam, H., 'Rural SenxhLs in the Eigh~eenthCentury M a h a ~ ~ s h t r h n
Village-Demiurgic or Jnjrnani Systein', I ~ ~ t o r s ~ i h n s l ~ i ~01'
[ot~ma~
Economics, vol. XI, no. 2, 1972,pp. 14-40.
Gonda, J., 'Adhvan :~ndAdhvaryu', Vishucsh~wrand~zda htclologicfJl
Journal, vol. 3, 1965, pp. 163-77.
Gr~ugh,Kalhlecn, 'Caste in a Tanjore Village', in E.R.Leach, ed., Aspects
uf Caste in Sotrth Indin, Ceylon ci,z$ Nor&t~-wesr PcrBista~l~
Cambridge, 1971, pp. 11-64.
, 'An Anrhropnloght L n n b at Engcls' in Nona Glszer-Malhin 3 r d
Helen Y(~ungelsonWaehrcr, eds., \Vowen, in Man-Made world,
Chicilgc), 1972.
, 'The Origin of the R~mily',in myn;t R. Fgiter, c-d., ~orr~arll an
Arrtb>wpolog)~uf I v ~ t ~ lLondrm,
~n, 1975, pp. 51-76.
Guptn, Dipankxr, 'Prom V a r q : ~ J.;lti: The Indian Caste System from
the Asi:lric tr, the Fr~ldillMrlrJr of p r r l d u c t i o n 8 ,J o l ~ r l l f J0l1'
C~~lte~~Porary Asia< vot. X, 138Q, pp. 249.71.
, ' C o n [ i n u ~ ~Hiearchies
s and Discrere C;\stesP, Eco~?ol?ric
F'dilic~!We~kly,vol. 19, no. 46, 17 N o v ~ m h e r19ti4, reprinted in
idem, Social .!ilml$icnriun,Dclhi, 1991, pp. 110-41,
Curuklcal, Rajan, 'Forms uf Produc~ionant1 Farccs of Ch:1nge
in Ancient Tamil Suciety', St~rrlics in fltilury, V, 2, n.s., 1989,
pp. 159-75.
H:ibih, Irfan, 'Econtmic lris~rayc ~ fme Uelhi Sultan:htc: An Essay ih

- tnterprrtation', IHR, vrll. IV, nn. 2, Janu;~ry1978, pp 287-303,

,'Medieval Pdpular Monc>thcismand its FIum;~nism:Ttrr ~isrnricrll
Seking', Social Scierllisl, vol. 21, nos. 3.4, ltlarch-April 1993,
pp,78-88.
Harold, erich, 'Stxial Signifiunce of a Vedic Allegory (&T. Ill. 31.1.2)',
Avchiu Qrlentalini: v d . XXW, 1958, pp. 81-7.
 , 'Refleciiul~su r ~[heS~gnificancesof the D;l@inJ', Indo-
H e e h t e r m ~ nJ.C
,
rraninn Jonrrnal, vol. 111, 1959-60, pp, 241-58,
-, 'Vfitya and Sacrifice', I n d o - l r u n i ~Jotlnzal,
~z val. Vi, 1962-3,
pp. 1-37.
, 'Householder and Wanderer', Curzlributbnsto Indian Sociology,
vol. Av, 1981, pp. 251 -71.
+ 'Other Folk's Fire' in P. Sbal, ed., e n t ; me RiIual oj'W8 Altar,

vol. 11, Berkeley, 1983, pp. 7694.

Hobsbi-iwm,E.J., 'From Social History to the History ofSocietyT,hdulis,
Winter, 1971; rpt,, The American Academy of Arts and Sciences,
1971.
Hopkins, E.W , 'I'rag;itl~ik,hi', Jortrnal of Arne;-tun Oriental Society,
vol. XVII, 1E9-5.
-, 'Numerical r-om~ulat:in the k c l a and Their Bearing on Vedic
Criricism', JAOS, vol. XVI, 1896,pp. 274-81.
I~dradevn, Shrjfirna, 'The S m s of Women in Annenr lndb: C ~ ~ p l ~ i u e s
of the Patriarchal Order', D~ogenes,Spring, 1976, no, 93, pp. GB
80,
Jaiswal, Suvira, 'Studks in the Social Stwc~u~e
of the Eady Tamils', in
US. Sharma and V. Jha, eds., Indian Society: Histotical Probiwgs
[In Mmzaty qfn'D.D. Kos~mhi)> Delhi, 1974, pp. 124-55.
-, 'Caste in the Socio-Economic Framework of EarIy India',
Presidenlid Address, Section I, PHG 38th Session, Bhubmesmr,
1377.
-, 'Studies in Early Indian Social History: Trends xnd Possibilities',
VIR, v d l.,nos. 1-2,July 1979-January 1980, pp. 1-63.
-, 'Women in Early India: Problems and Perspectives',PI=, 42nd
Session, Bodh Gays, 1981, pp. 54-60.
-, 'Varqa Ideology and Soda1 Change', Social Sci~ribist,vol, 19,
nos,3-4, Mnrch-April 19'91,pp. 41-8.
-, 'The Ckdnging Concept of Gqhnpati' in D.N. Jha, ed,, Society
and Jdeology in India, Essiys in Honour uf Professor R.S. Sbarma,
Dellhi, 1996, pp. 29-37.
Jha, D.N., 'Early Lndian Feudalism; A Historiographical C ~ i t l q t l e ' ,
Presidential Address, Andmt Indin Sectim, PHC, Wdt;zir, 1979,
pp. 15-45.
jha, Vivekananda, 'Vaqasgmkara in the Dhgrmasfitras: Theory ancl
Practice', JESHO, XISI, no.3, 1970,p p 27388.
-, 'From Trike to UntouchabIe: The Case ofNisdas ', in R.S. Shama
and V.Jb, eds., Indian Sociep: Hktaricul Pmbings, ~ e l h l1974,
,
pp. 67-84.
-, 'Stages in theHisary of U~touch$ble$',PIR, Vol. 11, na.1, July
1975, pp. 14-31.
~ n r ~ ~ h i r nNobaru,
a, 'The Uprisrng of the Vcrlclngai~idtlrigraiGroups:
Conflict In an Agrarian Society' in Toluards a Nmu Fon~711C1tt01h
&\hi, 1992, pp. 141-58.
flarve, Irawati, 'Kinship Terminology and Kinship Usages in &vedaimd
Athawoveda', Annak of the Bha~zddrkcrrOrfenfa!~ e s e a w h
Im&itule,Vol, m,1938-9, pp. 103-44; 213-31.
, 'Kinship Terms and the PdmiIy Organization as Pound in the
Critical Edition ofthe MahcibhBmta',Bulletin oJ't~eDecmn College
Jesecrrcb Institute, V, 1943-4, ppa 61-148
Kennedy, Richard S., 'The King in E a ~ i ySouth India As C h i e b b 'md
Emperor*, IFZA, III, no. I , ~ u f 1976,
y pp. 1-15,
Ithare, R.S., 'The Kanyakubja Brahmans and Their Caste 0r6anization1~
Sourbwesren Joumdl of Anthmpoio@, vul 16, 1960,pp. 348-67.
KiEgawa,Joseph M., 'The Makingd an Hiaasian of Religions' , CriteHml
vol, 7, 1378.
Kusa~nbi,D.D,, Review of S.A. Dange's India from prirnitiue
Communtstn to SIac~y,AABORI, vol. 29, Pune,1349,pp. 273-7.
, 'Origin of Brahmin Gobs', Jolsmd of the Bombay lymflch of
Royal As&tic S ~ c i ~ tVol.
y , 26, 1950, pp. 21-80,
, 'Brahmin Clam', Jo~rnsrloj the American ~ r i g n t dS0Ciet-X
vol. 7 3 , 1953,pp 202-8.
, 'The Basis OF Ancient Indian Histoy', Jorcrraalof the Ame~rica7z
Orielltal Society, v d . 75,nos. 1 and 4, 195j, pp. 3545, 226-57-
, 'Combined Mahods in Indolog-{', Indo-~raniLIYl~ourn"[$
vol. VI, 1963, pp. 181-4.
Koripd!, H.S., 'Sirdra~ulersand Off~cialsin Early Medieval ~ i m e s 'P, m
34th Session, Chandrgarh, 1973, pp. 90-7,
Kuipcr, F.B J ., 'hAustrn- Asiatic Myth in the huedabh ~ededelttega~
der Koninklt/keNe&rIan&~: A kadernie L I . W~fet~~sha:pPm
~ (~fd.
Lerterkunde M R . deel 13, no,71, Amsterdam, 1950,pp. 163-82.
, 'The Ancient kyan Verbal Contesb' , ~ndo-Iranian .{a~nzd~t
V O ~ .IV,1960,pp. 217-81,
Kulke, Hermann, 'Royal Temple Policy and the Structure of ~ediavfll
Hindu 'rEingdomx'. In Anncharlrnt Esthrnann, Hermann Ku1Iie 'dd
Gaya Charan Tripathi, cds., Tbe Cull of Jugasznatba and the
Regional Tradition of D m a , Delh:, 1978, pp. 125-37,
,'TheRSjsaya: AParddigm of Early Spate Formailon?' in A , w .van
Den Hock, D.H.A. Kolff m d M S . Oon, eds., Ritual, $tat# rind
his to^^ in h u t b Asrs, Essays in Honour of 1.C. Heesterman,
Leiilen, 1992, pp. 189-98,
 Kumar, Dharma, 'Caste and Lnndlessness in South India', Cotnpam/io~
Sltad~esi12 Society arrd History, IV, 1961-2, pp. 337-63.
hhiri, N.,'Undhaldjng m d P e w n q in ttheBnhm~purmV:9ey,c. 5rh-
13th Centuries AD',Joul-nal of !be Economic alad Sucial Histoy
u f t k Onmtr,.MI, 33, 1390, PF. 157-6s.
Laine, I., 'The NoLon of "Scripture"in Modern lndisul Thought', Annab q'
the Bbandarkr Oriental Research InsriruIe, 64,1983,pp. 165-79.
Lxl,B.H., 'Excavationat Hastlnapur and Other Explorations in the Upper
Ganga and Sutlej Basins, 1950-52',Ancfmd kdia, nos. 10 and 11,
1954-5, pp. 5-15
Leacock, Eleanor B., Review of Sccven Goldberg's, The Ineurtabilfay
of Patn'rch3: in Artrencm AntbropotogLsr, LXXVI,no. 2, 1974,
pp. 363-5.
-, Women's Status in EgaIItarian Society: lmpIicatlons for Social
Evolution', C u m t A1~lhmpologv,vol. 19, no. 2,June 1978.
Llceria, Sister M.,'Emergence of B r a b a n a s as Landed 1nkrmedi;~~ies
in Karnltaka: AD 1000-13001, IHR, Vol. I, no. 1, March 1974,
pp. 28-35.
Afzdan, T.N.,'bthe Brahmanicd G O K a Grwping
~ of KIn ', South- Watertr
journal ofAnthmpolo,g, XVIII,Albuquerque, 1962,pp, 59f.
hfajumckir, D.N., 'The Racid Basis ofIrrdinn Social Structure',TBeEuste17~
Atetb?vpologtrt, 11, no. 3, Lucknow, Seprember 1948, pp. 145-52.
Marglin, F.A., 'Power, Purity and Pollution: Aspeca of the C:ute System
Reconsidered', Conbrfbliliom lo Indian Sociology, n.s., vol. 1I,
m. 2, 1977, pp. 245-70.
hbzumdar, R.P., 'Pdiry of h e Andh;~ ka-Vy?nj .%ntyhs ', in D Saikmj
Mookeqi Feltcfl~lfion Volrclne,The Chowkhamha Sanskrit Scudlcs,
vol, m,Vannrlsi, 1 9 3 , pp. 206-16,
-, pi graphic Records on Migrant Udhmavas in Xorth India
(A.D. 1030-1225)', W?, V, nos. I, and t ,July 1978-Jnnwlry 197y,
pp. 64-86.
-, 'Significance of Collective Lmdgrants', PJHC, Bl~agalpur,1968,
pp. 64-72,
, 'Continuity and Chage in Ancient and Early Medieval India
Ic. 2300 nc-12W n d ' , lypcscrip.
Meillassoux, Claude, 'Prom Reprodudon LO Production', Economy and
SocP'e& VOI. I, no.1, 1972,pp. 93-105.
, 'Are There Cash in India?',Economy and Society, vol. 11, no. 1,
Fehmarj 1973, pp, 89-111.
Meyet, Adrian C.,'The Indian Caste System' in David L. SflIs, ed.,
Intern~tbnalEsacyclopcredifi of the Social Scfences,11, New York,
1958. rpt., 1!372, pp. 3 9 - 4 4 ,
Morrison, Barrie M.,'Sources, Methods and Concepts in Early Indim
Hisrorq', Paci$c Aflairs, XU, pt. I, September 19&, pp. 71-85.
Mukhia, Ha~bans,'Wiu There Feudalism in Indian ~istnry7', residential
Address to Medieval Indla Secrion,PIHC, Waltalr, 1979,pp. 15-39.
Mukund, K.nakaIatha, 'Caste Conflict irl South India in Early cc~lonid
Port Cities: 1650-1800', Shidies i?zHistory, vol. 33, no, 1,n.s.19'95,
pp. 1-20.
Nagaraju, S . , 'Emergence of Regional Identi~yar.d Beginnings of
Vernacular Literature: A Case Study of Telugu', Social S~iefitfir,
vol. 23,nos. 10-12,October-December 1995, pp, 8-23*
Nandi, R.N., 'Gouaand Social Mohlity in the Deccan', PIIHC, Jabalpur,
1370,pp. 118-24.
, 'ClanName and %xidl Mobility in the D e m n ' , PMC, M U L ~ I C P W
1972, pp. 111-17.
-, 'Some Suci-dlAspects of the G~hyasutras',PLHC, Bhubaneswar,
1977, p p 167-77.
, 'Anthropology and the Sh~rlyof the Egueda', IIIB, vrll. XlIIq
nos. 1-2, July 1986 and January 1787, pp. 153-65.
Nandy, Vaskar and Vasnnhi Raman, 'The Long Transition:The Case of
the Kcch-Rajbangshis of North-Eastern India', Faper presented
the Seminar on 'From Tribe la Caste', Simla, 8-12 November %"3'?.
Orenstein, Henry, 'Logical Congruence in Hindu Sacred Law:
Another Interpretation', Contrvibutlons to Indim Soczolagy, n.s.,
no. 4,1970, pp. 22f.
Parpala, k k a , 'ThePre-Vcdic Background of the S r r l u t ~ R i ~ ainl 'F,Stall,
, 11, Berkeley, 1983,
ed., Agni: Tbe Vedic Rltal of Fim ~ l t a rvol.
pp, 41-75.
,'The Corning of the Aryars to Iran and India and the Cultural and
Ethnlc Identity of the DLas', ~ n t e m a f i o n n l j ~ ~ ofDmvitlfafi
trn~l
Linguistics, XVII, no. 2, 1938, pp 85-215.
Patil, -janGna M., 'Priesthood In A w ~ t nand &uedan, B1611~1h1of the
Deccan College Research Institule, vol. 18,T-anp3rewala erno or id
volume, 3957,'pp. 221-5.
Pstyal, Hukum Chand, 'Etymology and Sanskrit Dictionary on ~lstnricd
Principles', bditrn Linglristics, vol, 40, 1979.
Pfeffer, G.,'Puri's Vedic Brahmins: Continuity and Change in their
Traditionallnstirutions'in AnnchatIott E s c h m , Henann K d k e
and Gaya Charan Tripathi, eds., TRe Cult of Jagantldtba and b Q
Regional I radition DJ Orissa, Delhi, 1978, pp. 421-37.
Pillay, K.K.,'Were the Pallavas Brahmins>',Journal ~ J ~ r i e n r ~ l ~ e s e a r c h ,
University ofMadras, Silver Jubilee Volume, 1975, pp. 242-5.
 Plun ket, Frnnrres Ti~ft,' Rnyal Marriaga jn hjasrhan ', CanlHbua'am 10
IlldZan Sociolow, n.s., 110. VII, 1973, p?. 64-80.
F < J c o c ~David
~, F., 'Differcncc in East Africa: A Sludy of Cilstt. uld
Rvligion in Mrjdern Inclian Society', South- Western fournai @'
Anlkropolog~,ml. 13, 1957, pp. 289-300.
t'rasad, Pusllpa, 'Fem:ile Slavery in Thifleench Cencury Grrjmr:
Documents in the Lekhapaddhali', IT-m,vol, l ., nm.1-2, 19889,
pp. 270-5.
Ratnagat, Shereen P., 'Archaealogg: In Search of the Impossihl~',
Ecomornic mid Politlca~ \weekly, vol. XXIV, nos. 45-6, 5-12
Novcmber 1934, pp. 2801-2.
Rtddy Y.Copsla, 'Smial-Ecc?norniuTernionsin the Co!n Ireriod,]oumd
of the Orienial Imtitliie B u d d , vtll, 29, nos, 1-2, 1379, pp. 74-
84.
Rcy, P.P., 'The Lineage Mode of Produc.rion', Cribq~iec ~ J A ~ h * a p d ~ ~ ,
no. 3, Spring 1975, pp, 27-79,
-, 'Class ContrarIiciion in Lineage Societies', Crittqlle of
An!hropology, vd. 4, nus. 13 :tnd 14, 1979, pp. 4160.
Kuhen, Wdlter, 'Some Problems of the hncicnu Indian Republics',
ur Ar.M dshng"Cnmrttmiu~wh'ur~ k'oirtrtre, Berlin, 1965, pp. 5-23.
Sacks, Karen 'Engels Revisited; Women, l h e 0rg:mization of
Production and Prime property' in hynil R. Reiter, ed., Townrd
an R n t h ~ v p d .~ofylr'omm, London, 1375, p p 21 I -34.
Sahlins, Marshall D.,'The Segmentary Lineage: An Organization of
Prek~rorjExpansion', Anlericcan Antbmpohgisl, voI. 63, 1961,
pp, 32-45,
Pm~~ynnv. Y.I., 'Group-Marriage, Irs Nature, and Role in rhe Evnlutioa
of Marriage and Family Rek~tions'in IqIhalenzalionaf Congt'~m
n ~ Erhnologicd
a$ A~?thropologtca~ d Scin~cw,vol. W , Rloscow,
1767.
A;rrknr, Susohhan, Gener;il i)wsideni's iiddwss, PHCi 1\11umfkarp~1r,
1972,
IIP, 7-10.
Sh;[l~.A.hj., 'Tc>w:irclsA Socio1r)gic:il Unclerstnotling of Ancient
India ', C o f i f H h i d t ! ~10
~ ~I?zdirm
. n.s., vnl. 22, 1986,
SocdnJ~g~r,
pp. 117-33.
Sllarlna, K.L., 'Srresses in Cvute Srra~ific:lti(>n: A Smtly of Six Villages in
R:rj:ish:m', Ec~nonajcn r d polilfc~dlv~i!!~, 4(3), 1969.
R.S.,'lrnn :mcl Urhmimti(ln in h e G : I ~ gasin',
sh:~r~n;i. I Im, Vtd. I
no. I , Mnrch 1974, pp. 98-103.
- 'Indian Feudali3m R~tcluchtld',H R , I, no. 2 , September 1974,
pp- 320-30.
-. ' C . i : m Formation and ir; Material Basis in he Upper GangetiC
Basin 11000-500 B.C.)', fiW, 11, no. 1 , July 1975. pp. 1-13.
, 'Problems ofSoclialFormdtionin Early India', Presidential Address,
PIHC, 36th Session, Aligarh, 1975, pp. 1-14.
, 'Tine Later Vedic Phase and the Painted Grey culture',
Pu6ta&lva,no. 8,1975, pp. 73-7,
,'Forms of Prc~pcrtyin the Early IJnrtions of the egwcla', in Essfl.pS
in Honoirr ojPmfcssor S.C. Sarku~;Dulhl, 1976, pp. 39-5".
, 'Conflict, Distribution and Differentiation in ppedic Society',
PINC, 38rh Session, Bhubmeswar, 1977, pp. 177-91.
- , 'From Gopati to Bhupati', Sttrdies in H&tory, VOI.11. no. 2,
July-December 1980, pp. 1-11.
, 'Pmm Kin to Class', Econotrlic and Politka! Week@,vol- 20,
no. 22, June 1985.
-, 'Pensant Prates1 in Early MedievaI India1, Social ScienfiIl,
vul. 16, no. 9,September 1988, pp. 1-16.
S b r m a , S.P,, 'A Materialist Thesis on the Origin and Contitluity of the
Caste System In South Asia', Review Article in The Eastern
An#/3wpologist,vol. 36, no. I , January-March 1983, pp 55-7.
Shrtrma, Ursula, 'Status Striving and Striving to Ahnlish Srarus: The A T ?
Samaj ancl rhe L r m Casres', Social Actio~z,vol. 26, ~ u l ~ - ~ e p t e r n b r r
1976 pp. 214-35.
Shrimali, K.M.,'Reflections on Recent Perreprirlns ; ~ Early f Medieval
India', Presidential Acldress, Seolion TV,hndhn Pradesh Histury
Cr~ngrcss,XVlII, Annual Stssian (8-9 Janunty 1994).
Singh, Ku:nur Suresh, ' A Study in State Formation Among Tiihal
Communities', in R.S. Skirrn:~and V. Jh:t, eds., htdirrn Society:
Hzktorical Probdl?gs, Delhi, 1974, pp. 337-36.
-. 'Twhndogy :lnd AccuIturation: The l3ralir1laniuaiModel Re-
cmsklercd', Sociul Scie~accfhbiqgs, vvr>l.11, nu. 1, 1985, pp. 20-36.
Sinha, Surajit, 'State Fornutinn nd R;iiput Myth in Tribal Central tndia'.
M a n in Ittdio, XLLI, no. 1, 1962, pp. 35-80,
Sircar, D.C., ' G o t f i n t t r ~or 111eCh:~ngeof A Woman's Gotra', PIHC,
Anna~naIainagar,1945, pp. 48-52,
Siskind, J a n u ~ ,'Kinship a n d M o d e of production', Atnericart
Antbropologkt, vol. 80. 1978, pp,860-72.
Sivathamtrf, K.,'Early South Indian Society ancl Economy: The Tin:li
Cnn~epl',Social Scientkt, no. 29, 1974, pp. 2&37.
Sl(lcurn, Sally, 'Woman the Gatherer: M:lle Bias in hthropulngy', in
Baynil R.Reiter, ed., Turuardart Anrhropnlo~ojWor~rer~,
Lrjndan,
1975, pp. 36-50.
 Smirh, Brian K., 'The Unky d Rinral: The Place of Domestic Sacrifice in
Vedic ltim8lism ', J/~doJ>nrjiomJounzaJ, vol. 29, f B G , pp. 79-95
Smith Fredrick M., 'Indm's Curse, Iraruna's Noose, and the Suppression
r ) f Women in the Vedic Srduta Ritual' in Julia Leslie, ed., R h and
Ritunk for Hindxi Wolncn, Behi, 1992, pp. 17-43.
Spellm~n,J,W., 'The Legend nf Devipi', JiUS, London, Octoher 1959,
pp 95-9.
Srinivas, M.N el a!., 'Caste: A Trend Report :lnd Hihliograhpy', Cz~rreftl
Sociology, VIII, pt, 3, 1359, pp. 13583.
Srinivman, Doris, 'Mytl~of the Pitpis in the Ppeda',JAOS,vol. 93, 1973,
pp. 44-57.
Stein, Burcon, 'Brabman snd Peasnnt in Early South hdian History',
Btrllelin, XXXI-XXXII,Chennni, 1967-8,
The Addpar Librrsr~~
pp. 229-69.
Stictencorn, Henrich van, 'Hinduism: On the Pmpcr Use of A Deceptive
Term', in Gunther, D. St~nthelrnerand Hermsnn Kulke, eds.
I9indi~ismRecmsidered, Delhj, 1989, pp. 11 -a.
Sulllvnn, Herherr P.,'A Re-examination of the Religion of the Indus
Civilization', Histoty of Relfgions, vol. lVl 1964-5,pp. 115-25.
Tanibiah, SJ.,'From Vama LO Caste throughMixcd Unions' inJack Goody,
ed., Cbaracter of Kinship, C~tnbridge,1973, pp. 171-229.
T;lrafdar, h l , R . , 'Trade and Sor.iety in Ezrly Plediev:ll &"ngnI3, JHR,
vol. TV, no. 2, Janunv 197th pp. 274-86.
Thnpar, Romila, 'The Study of Society in Ancient India', presidential
Address of rhe Andent India Section r,F the lndian History Congress,
PINC, 31st Sttssian, V:lran;ui, 1969, pp. 15-39,
-, iv
'Social Ilfuhil in hncienr I n d b with Speri:il Reference ID Elire
Goups' in R.5, Sllarnia, ;ind V. Jh:$, eds., Irzdia~Society: Historical
Probings, Dell~i,1974, pp. 95-123.
,- Review of T.R. T ~ ~ u l m a n Kinshfp
n, atld HiFtory it1 Soulb Asia,
in I ~ MVol.
, 111, no. 1,July 1976, pp. 143-50.
- 'D.?na and D;jk.?i?d :IS Fmms of Excllal~ge',Jnclica, Vol. 13,
nos. 1-2, 1976, pp. 37-48.
, 'A Response to Profasor A.M. Shah', Contributions 10 Indian
Saciolom, n,s., vul. 20, no. 2, 19n6 pp. 28'9-95.
Thite, G U., 'Vfiyasron~aSacrifice',OrfP?ztd.Jotlnldl,Orien~alResearch
ln.Glure,M Venk.q[eswan ~nivkrsiy,T~imp;lli,~ 0 1 sX . XX-m.
19874, pp. 634.
, 'Contrihutian of Western Scholars the Study of Vedic
awjl', RshvwAunranandn ~ndoto$r'c~l + r ' o ~ w~t , l 18,. 1980,
pp. 42-57,
Trautmann, T.R., 'On the Translation of the Term Varna', JESHO, VLt,
1964, pp. 196-201.
, 'Cross-Cousm Marriage in Ancient North India' in Trauunann,.
ed., Kinship and History in Soilth Asla, Michigan, 1974
pp- 61-303.
Vertovec, Steven, 'Hinduism In Trinidad: The Transformation of Tnclition
i?Trinidad' in Gunher D. Sontheirner and Hermann Kulkr, prls ,
Hindidism ~econsidered,Delhi, 1991,pp. 157-86.
Wagle, N.K.,' ~ i ~ d ~ - M u s Il ni m
t e r a ~ t b n sin Medieval Maharashtral,
Sonthcimer and Kulke, eds., Hindriiqnl Rocomidered, Delhi,
1989,pp. 51-66.
W~jrilIa,Guyb ,' Indian Village Community According to KySipariS;m.
and Some Other Contemporary ~iterary Sources', Les Cornmu nates
Rurales, Troisieme partie: Asie et Islam, Paris, 1982, pp. 119-29.
Yadam, B.N.S., 'Some Aspects of the Changing Order in India During
the S a k a - ~ u s ~ nAge',
a in G.R. Sharma, ed., Klcsdno Studies,
.Ulahabad, 1968, pp. 75E.
,'Immobility and Subjection of hdianpez~anuyin Early Medieval
Complex', A%?, I, no, 1, March 1974,pp. 18-27,
, 'Problems of the Interaction Between Socio-Economic Classes
in the Early Medleval Complex', I R , III,no. 1 , July 1197,pp. 43-
58.
, 'The Accounts of the Kali Age and the Social Transition from
Antiquity to the Middle Ages', H R ,V+nos. 1-2, 197&9, pp. 31-63.
, 'Historical Investigation into Social Terminology in Literature: A
Problem of he Study of Social Change (Maidy in the Context of
Early Medieval Northern Ifidia)', Presidential-Address, Indian
History Congress, 53rd Session, Warangal, 1993.
ZirnrLer, Stefan, 'On a Specral Meaning of jana in the Bueda', Indo-
Iranian Journal, vol. IWX,1986,pp. 109-15.
 Index ofSanskrit, Pali and
Tamil Words

abbrat,wya 186 n 262 brab~na146, 195,226

&ht$eka 19 btabnran, priest 161, 162,192
adilnni 68 brrihlna~a(cup3 157,161, 192,210
udhmyu 162 brdnna?zGcchatpsin 157,201n 26
aglzihotrw 121 n 239 bra6tlrajajfia I21 n 233
agrcrtwnia 74 B~hatckstIiua?zga 43
cihquailiya 164,208
akfna, sacrifice 149, 151,210 a ~66
c r l t r r ~ c 82, ~
an& 145 canr 121 n 239
84
litzdf~usika
oxira~mfJa 13, 73 w i v a 56
annaprciF^tlr?a76 dk&!zag~zi164,208
anulonta 17,42,74 &napti 10,92, 163
cipratt&raba 57 ddna 56
ardhcrsildn 54,76 d&rrasiutis46,139,196
riudhikm 54 dh-27 n 83,48
ali 16R d.4~ipith-a155
a v o 144,168,198 d w h k a 57
asat - siiclra 73 I21 n 238
cie~'~~ynjiia
mpwa 122 n 244 dhawna 226, 228
audunika R4 dh~1t1i2dhikam!?ib 132 n 354
a s u d d ~ u r a147,148,153 dbartniidl~ikdri100, 132 n 354
atharz~tm180 n 130 dl~amzddh~akp 132 n 354
U Y 134-5,
~ 170-1n 22, 199-200 n 1 dikcri 165,208
dikira 8
halar~152 dc.ifa 77
b a N 121 n 239
hallam 84
bkurgutm (potter) 156
bb?ctajujfia12 1 n 239
266 OF S A N S K R ~ ,PAU AND TAML WORDS
I~DM

nznghnvan 152, 133, 162

nrahnvim (pot) 194
1riakkatl>ayanl119n 222
lnana 31
marunzakkuthaywln 120 n 222
tilaqu 153
1nirry90;mdcum 197
milbtrna 165
tnltrnr~jmiycx1054 n 80
145
rnj~fl~ravicnb

jana 11,156,167,205,207
jani 11,168
ja~zitr166
jnnyamirva 11, 105-6 n SO, 168
j a d r 161
jari l3f, 33,42,43,45,
205,234;
eariiesr use of the term 13;
prr~liferationof 14f, 218
lNDW OF S4hrSKRI1', P A U AND 'I'AhnL \WORDS 267
 Index of Original Sources
and Authorities

kdi Purcina of Painpi 28 n 90

AgriiPuruna 112 n 128
Afn-i-Akbnri 75
A i ! u r ~ aB ~ f i h n l a y a105-6 n 80
Amnrakoiu 6J,84
A~gtutaraM k y a 213,214, 221-2
as GO and 62
ApdlS-sii kta 202 n 35
jpasiarn ba Dharniaslitra 83
Apn~2jiffl-pyccbe29 n 93
&samba G&u-siirra 221 n 47
&wsln~zba~raritaS0rt-a 23 n 31,
l24n 274
Arlhai&tra 216
&?adh@yi 42,60
Atbarva~vdn9,11, 12,24 n 47, $2,
142,165a166,182 n 169,188
n 18
n 262,199,206,209,220
A 1 x s t u l 4 ~1&
,
 ~ N D U OF ORIGINA~.
SOURCESAND A U I ' H O ~ E S 269
KsTrasvJmin 84 Samba Prirupa 74
K~im%rila125-6n 285,126-7 n 290, Saribrjc%va T3
2 14 Samy~rtta~VjLdyrs221 s 49
Sdtapatbu BrTihw#ra 12,83, 126
k g b u A.tvu/~~).nnmt,pi84 n 290,143,182-3 n 183,204n 53
Lri~vayamajrauta Sir Ira 124 11 371, 198,2034 j~
167 SeF K l ~ n 76,121
a n 236
Lakhapaddljati Xai S'ilappadikerant 73
Skanda Pum?#n120 n 226
24 n 47,98, 149,180, Snl,m m,,l,lud; 121 aO
fifc~brihl~irrr;rtcc
n 130 Sm!linSnl S~Cial~zuccu~ya 124 n 279
,l.ldhavaslu, 27 n 83 J m i t a k ~ a23 n 31, 181n 1.16
itfadhirim AT&Jw I S , 21 2 , 223, 221, j ~ d ~ jlmnrayi
d ~ a ~7S~
n 49 ~ilclrakr~wtatruu 121 n 240
h f ~ n u , M a ? I r i s n ~ r ~ i 1 0 , f i , ~ ~ n~1 0 7 , ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~
42,121 n 229,218,ZZOn 23
M a t ~ ( P u ~ i ~ d ) 6 2 , 1 3 1 n 3 5 4 , 1 5 5nj1djfijwSran2hj,G231n47
:ViI~ndnpnBo31 n 111 Tcrt~trordrCa!m125-6 n 285, 126
~ r t c / j c r k n t i b216
n3 0
NidG~raKuIII~223 n 53
U~6-~garimao
214
~Wgharfu 25 n 62,193
Nlnwyasinn'hu 121-2 n 240
V ~ L I Purd?la
~U 73
a 25 n 62
~ i n t h #13.
Vfljm3trci31n 111
pgircardr!jia Driihnrq~n82,210, Vdv Rat'1irk(ira64
211 Vusi+;haDhar n~curitra1234 n 265
PjOini 13, hO,73, 198, 206, 214, 216 Vi1td.wPifd~213,214,215,217,
Parrisamtnrtl 54 218 n 4,222m 62,65,8,7
Palafijaif13,73 V<<~LN
(Pudnn) 62
79, 123 n 256
p~~~mf~artz~~~~ V i ~ t l d h a ~ ~ nPtrrz?!la
u t t 221
p;rnr?uirk!rr12-59, 105-6n 80, 135, n 49
-155,161, 191, 1$2,217 y r i n 244
V ~ f ~ i s n ~ 123

bghundndana 121 n 240 Y i j F ~ ~ v x l k yS: ~:, I I~n

Riijnturari.gf?li38 YdjiLc~~lLyr~sn~$I ~$2

&ywdn7, 10, 11, 24 n 37,46,89, 90, ~ ~ !1 W 6 n 80,155, 194,
I ~ J ~ @ ~ ~

91,YZ.94,1054n BU, IfOn 345, '959 199-200n I

132-20.4, 206,207 ~ a s k n150,197,202 n 3H
 Author Index

Agmwala, V.S. 103 n 48,112 n 124, n 159,116n t89

130 n 311 Sharpva, P.L. 110-11 0 121, lZ8
Ahmecl, Aiiaz 30 n I05 n333.179 n 112
Alnm, MuzafP~r239 n 23 13h;it, MaIini 28 n 90
A k ~ h s Syed
, Hussain 237 n 5 Hha~~acharji, Sukumari 171 fl 25 3

All)erle, David F. 13Dl n 348 180 n 130

Akin, J. 26 n 78
Altckiir, h.S.61, 89, 90,92,93, 112
n 128,125-6 n 285
Amheckar. U.R. 77.224
s n29
A r : ~ ~ ; ~ r w nS. ~ . n 94
Aroki;rsw:rlni, M. 117 11 199
Asnpa, I.N. 114 n 158
Avasthi, A.B.L. 111 n 124
Batlcr, Clrrrise 89
k i i l r y , f4.W. 143, 172-3 n 46, 197-8
Banerjee, B.C. 129 n 327
Ikirfh, A 7?1
Narllr, F. 6,177 n rpb
k t m a , K.L 113-13 n 141
U;ldubrn, A L. 29-30 n 95,101 n 17.
I04 n 62.105 n 7 4 , 110-1 n 22,
IWnW
Hihui, Jogiraj 25 n 61, 107 ns 91, 92
Uenven~sk,Emlr 1 1, 137, 147,148,
146, la.176 n 83, let) n 130.
188 n s 270 and 27h, 195
Uzrgsnn, Henri 237 n 5
Bermman, Gerald D. 38
Beteille, Andre 21 n I , 174 n 57
Uh;~nd~rkar, D.R. 114 n 157. 114
Bhfinaci~;~rj~, D. 35 n 76
Uha~t:ich;irya,J,X. 130 P 334
Uh;ittad~;ir-yy;i,K.N. 186 n 245
Uh;itrach;iq-:I, S.C, 109 n 116, 110
ns1lX11nrlli1,219n7
Iliardcau, %ladeltinu238 n 7'
I3loch, Maurice 200 n 9
Blrlornfleld, Macricr 135
Bodewitz, Hrnk XV. 184 n 200
Bnse, A.N. 50
Bosr, Nirm;~lKurnar 39
Ilr~rlornorc,T,B. 108 n 105
Boi rgle, C ~ l r r ~ i n2 ,r33
Brwgh, Juhn 11,94, 147, 135
Cdanrl, W ,201 n lt;,211
Carr, E.I-I. 91, 1Cl n 19
Ch:lkra\~ai-ti.Uilip 1m-2W n 1
Cl~akravar~i, IJma 127 n 298, 212,
21j,219 ns 1 , 4 ;tnd 6,222 ns 66,
72.78
dranana, Drv:ir;tj 47, 222 n A5
Ch:tnd;i, R.P. 4C, 102 n 37
Chduopadllyaya, R.D. 65. 114 n
156, 116ns 175, 181, 183 and
186
 AUTHOR I.VDF;;T
Cha ttnpadlly~ya,K.C.202 n 34,203
n 41
Cfi:~ttopadhyaya,Dehipr~sad76
Chattopadliyaya, Sudhakar 103
n 53, I10 n 121,123-4 n 265
Chaudhury, P.C. 1 ;l n 122
Converse, K S . 194, 202 n 33
n:mge, S.A. 107 n 92, 135, 182
n 182, l#j n 335
h~ri, S.K. 124 n 267
Day. Veena 112 n 139,114n 162
D e m t , J.D.M. 72,102n 32,120
n 227,129 n 319
Desllpanck, Madhav M.136, 172-3
n 46
Dhnm~a,P. C. 128 n 393;
Dharniap;il-Frick, Gta 29 n 93
DIrav~likar,IL1.K. 171 n 27
Dirks, Nichokas 30 n 100
Diwakar, R.K. 111 n 122
Drekmeler, Chnrles 12s n m6
~ u m e z i l .Georgrs 147
purnonr. Lollis I , 21 n 7,34-8. 45,
45,81, 100 n 3, 101 ns 16, 1 7 , 2 S ,
103n 54, 118 n 297, 226,227
Dutt, I3.N,, 51
Uutt, N.K,40,75,77
E~n;ine;tu,bI.8. I76 n fi#
Enguls, P. 89,101n 26,139, 1-40
Fick,R,111n123,2!3,219n7
Flannrry, lCt7nt V. 175 n 69
F l w , J.F. 3 15 n 170,127 n 293
Fliiehr-Luhhan 127 n 701
F a , Richard G.29 n Y2,2W1 n 16
Piirer-Hairncndnrf, ~hrisrophvun
7#, 79.87
, 166, IN2 n 169, In6
G h ~ r cV.S.
n 259
271
Ghosh, A. 44
Gl~osh,B.K.171 ns 23 and 26, 191
Choshd. U.N. 129 n 319,131 n 350
Gl~urye,G.S.11,37,91,94,95,132-
8,155,159,1@I,182 n 169
Gnali, Gherartlo 198
Godtlier, Maurice 141,174 n 53
and 57,200 n 4
Gomllrich, Richard F. 22-3 n 22, 32
n I11
Con&, J. 23 n 33, 192,201 n 22
Goudy, Jack 120 n 225
Gnpnlacari, K, 116 n 181
Gough, E.B. 37, 117 n 198, 127
ns 300-1,128 n 305
Grierson, 0 . 127 n 293
Grjffirh, B.T.H. 151,201 n 25,202
n38,219n3
Gupa, Dipnlcnr 1 , 21 11 3
Gupta, D.K. 111 n 124
F u n i k b l Rnjan 23 n 27
Ftahib, h k l l l j , 20,22 ns 17, 13,
n 71, 121-2 a Z:10.339 r~ 26
H ~ l cW.E.
, 153, 179 n 112
IIandIqui, K.K. I l l n 124
Haruld Erich 203 n 39
I-lnrt, Getlrgt. L, 8,79, SO, 113
ns 254-7
Hc.:sterm;~n,J.C. 8, 11, 105-6 n SO,
134, 170x1 14, 210, 31?-20nIS,
Ihhmun, D- 34
{~ldm,Rortnld 13, 30 ns 1m-5, 31 n
107,100n 3
lain, K.C. 26 n T , 2 7 n RO, 110 n Lahiri, X , 22 n 20
119,118n 214,120n 227 hint., J. 239 r~ 22
Jaisrval, Suvin 22 n 15,23 n 29,25 Lal, B.B. 170 n 15
n 66,30n 99, loO n 2,102 n 34, Lclch, E.R 23 n 23
102 n 40,105 11 76,113 n 152, Leacock, Elcanor B. 106 n 87,123
115 n 165,126-7n 290, 127 n 2j9<127 n 300,131n34D- 187
n 298,184 n ZW,239 ns 26, n 267
28,30,32 krner, Genda 25 n 55
Jordens,J.T.F. 232, 233 Lrqlie, Jt11ia 23-4 I 36
Sayal, Shdcamhhari 127 n 299 Ltwis, Oscar 45
Jayasw~l,K.P. 13 Liceria, A.C.. Sister M, 117 n
Jhl, D.N. 10H ns 1 U j and 106 Lincoln, brucc 132, 1354 1473 '531
.Ih;i, V. 22 n lj,77,87, 113 n 1-47, 172-3 n 46,182 n 169, 187 2781
1 I8 n 207,124 as 219 and 274 195,233,238 n 9
Ludden, D : ~ v dI09 n 115
Kailasapathy, K. 79
Ihnakasabhiii, V. 117 n 193 bktcdonell, A A. 134,156,163, 19"
h n e , P.V. 26 n 7G,3%9,42,94, 103 219 n 10
n 54, 107 n 91, 121-2 n 240, 123 Mackay, E. 153
n 258,124 n 279, 125 n 285, 131 Madun, T.N.129-30 n 333
n 354,182 n 163,186 ns 2% and M;lj~~rndar,D.N. 40
254,20o r~6,219 n 15,220 n 19 Majumd:lr, I1.C. Ill) n 119, 121
Kapadb, K.M.91,92,95, 166 n 237
Karandikar, S.V. 11, 31,94 Malik. S.C. 43.16
Kar~sbimnNolloru 119 n 222 Marglin, P.h. 103 n 56,7 21 n 230,
Kxrvc, Irawati 10,11,24-5 n 49,43, 238 n H
31,94.1R6 n 261 M;iwh;~ll,John 1 3
Keith, A B. 134,156, 163,184 n 213, hfarx, R ~ r l 3 6109
, n 110,139, 140,
197,219 n 10 142
Kennedy, Richard S. 112 n 135 Ma~rss,Marcel 56
Khare, R.S. 26 n 76 M:~zun~cl;~r,B.P. 26 r; 77,94, 110-11
Ketk~r,S.N 34 n 171, I12 ns 12Gand 136,184 n
Klrk, C.S. 1.17 203
Kitg:rwa, Jo.sephM ,238 n 13 Mqllr;~,R.N. 107 n 97
Klasri, Mortnn 3-6 hlrrillassoux, C1:iudv 13, 26 n 68,
Kt~?iamhi,D.U. 3,12 n 11, $6-8,&, 104 n71, 141. 189, 190
82.95, 113 n 147. 154-8,183 n Meyer, Adrian C. ID4 n 57
1H7,197,200n 6 Mryer, JJ. 89
Ktjtiyal,H.S. 120 n 223 Middleton, J. 140
Kuiprr, F B.J. 134, 177 n 91, 195 hligran. Soul 200 n 3
Kulke, H r m a n n 16, 30 n 98,58, Mill, Jnmes 19
200 n 5 Mirashi, V.V 11 2 a 1311
Kumar, D h a t m 109 n 11 1 Mfsra, Padlrla 1I;O n 176, 185 ns
 AUTHOR WDM
220, 225 and 23-9
Monier-WiiIkims, M.25 n 62,136
Morgan, L.89,I74 n 53
Morrison, Barrie, fd- 1100 n 1
Mukerlee, Sandhya 102 r~39,110-
11 n 121,120n 227
MllkI~ia,Harbnns 107-8 a q 104 and
105
M~lkund,kanakalatha 119 n 223
N:~ganju,S. 27-8 n 80 and 90
Nandi, RN. I13 ns 144 and 151,
130 n338,174 n 54,175 n 73,
178 n 105
Nnndy, Vaskar 24 n 37
Ncslield, J.C. 53
Ornvdt, Gail 22 n 17,23 n 26
Orenstein,Henry 125 n 284
Pandey, Rajl~di130 n 345
Parpola, Asko 176-? m 84 ancl90,
203 n 48
~ath:ik,Sarvitnandri 111 n 124
Path;tk, V.S. 116 n 174
Patll, G~fmlna M. 185 n 216
Patyal, Ilukum Chand 179 n 112
P3r11, Pmn~odeLnl 11 I n 122
Pfafknl>crger,Bryan 119 n 222
pfeffer, G. 1 1 2 n 132
Piggo:ott,Stuart I58
I'iIl:ty, K,K.115 n I64
I'lunker, Fc1nue.9'raft 116 n 180
Pc~clcock,David F. 21 n 5, 34
Potdar, K.R. 152, 172-3 nd 3 and 46
Prasad, Pushpn 125 n 281
t'uri, B.N 110-11n 121, 1 I l n124
Pi~salkur,A.D. 111 n 124, 173 n 47
R;ldcIiffe-Hmwn,A.F. 50,167, 187
n Z M , 2&n55
Radbakrishnan, S.238 n 15
R~man,hs~nthi 24 n 37
273
hn, C.V.R,rmnchmdta 125-6 n 155
Ran, R. Nawsimh:l 118 n 217
R~tnagar,Shercen 1 9
Raychaudlluri, H.C.130 n 346
Renou, Louis 202 n 34, a9 n 20
Reitur, Ibyn-J R 131 n 349
Xey, P.p, 141, 189, 190-1
-3Jlys r~xvidaT.W* 11 1 n
Risley, Herbelt 3,22 n 15,33,40,
1-30 n 340
Roy, Runihum 234 n 36, 24 n 38
Roy,Sent Cflandrd 34
Ruben, W ~ l t c 215
r
Sacks, K:~ren127 n 300
hahlin~.kIarshall D. 139-40. 142.
174 n 53,187 11 268
Salelore, ILK. 110 11 121
S:trnynov, Y.1. 127 n 301
SLi~ikaranar~yanan, S. 114 ns 161
and 163
Sanwal, R.D. 99, 101 n 14, 112
n 131, 113 n 150
Sarasw~ti,B.N. 112 ns 123 and 137
S;lrk.dr, Susu1,h:in 108-9 11 106
Sdstil, K.A. Niiaknnt:! 79,110-11 n
121,113-20 n 222
Schmidl, Hanms-Peru 14 137, 202
h s 35 :mcl 38
kn:irt, E 3.3, 41
Settar, 5. 28 n 90
Sl~;ih,A.hl. Zg n 9U, 1.70 ns 337 and
313,140, 142
S h i m a , Driietldr~N;ttfl 110 ns 118
and 121
Sharnln, tlrij w~rain110-11n 121,
120 n 227,135 n 2%
S l l ~ u ~nahlrar~rh
n~, 110 m 118 and
113, 118 n 215
Sh trnln, J.P, 128 n 3@5
Sh~rma,K.L.21 n 1,30n 96
Sli~rma.R.S. 12, IS,22 n 1% 25
11553ondL6,30n !?7,)7,3In 1 1 1 ,
274 A U ~ O RINDEX
47-54, 68,70-1,83, 100 n 1, 104
n71,112 n 138.118 n 207,128
n 305,173 ns 314 and 318,130
n 345, 132, 138, 139,164, 175-6
ns 73 and 75,177-8n 99, 187
n 280,196, 217,219 ns 4,5and
10,223 ns 91,33 and 35
Shnrma, S<tyaP. 22 n 17
Shsnn:~,Ursula 235
Shas~ri,Aiay M i m 111 n 124, 120
n 227
Shastri, Shakuntala RLO128 n 303,
186 n 258,219 n 12
Shrii-nal~,K.hl. 19, 30 106
Singh, K. Suresh 27 n 85,115 n 169,
127 n 232
Singh, M M. 110-11n 121
Singll, .s:lw:l D:irn:ln 24 n 4K, 131
n 351,220 n 34
Sin11.1, Surirjit 114 n 155, 115 n 171,
f 16 n 178
Sircar, D.C. 96, 103 n 52, 107 n 103,
114 n 160
Sivarlramby, K. 13 n 27
Sjolxrg, Gitlcnn 44
Slocum, SalSy 128 n 504
Smith, Brkin K. 186 n 2 5 2 , 220 n 2 4 ,
226,227,228
Smitll. Fredrii-k hl. 23 n 16
Srlnjkin, P.A. 3'1
Spirrclxx~m,h.1, 134. 186 n 251
Spell~rl;tn,1.W. 128 n 3Mj
Sriniv;!~,M.N, 99, 100 n 1, I07 n 46.
112n128
Sriniv:isan, Doris 173-4 n 49
~ r a a l~, r i 176-7
k n 84, 194, 237 n 4
Stein, Uurtim 6-5,117 ns 190 and
191, IlH-19 n 218
Steilrncron, lIeinric11 von 225
Strauss, Levi 4
Suhnmanian, N.117 n 193
SuIlivm, 11 I>, 159
Thit, U. 1411
Tanbi:~h,S.J. 74, 103 n 56, 114 n 154
Tarnfdar, M.11. 10E-9 n 106
Terray, Emmanuel 1-11, 142, 189
Thakur, Annntlal 11 1 n 122
43. 54, 100 n 1, 105
n ~ a p a r Rclrnil:~
,
n HO, 109-10 n 117, 122 n 243,
130 n 347, 132, 138, 1404,155,
164, 174 n 58, 175-6 n 73, 181 n
156, I8BJ 21 1
TIlieme, Pairl 16s
Thite, Ganesh, I]. 170 n 14
Thurstcm, E. 29n94,81, 113 n 143,
123 nq 261 a n d 263
Trdl~trnann,T.R. 41, 130 n 344, 204
n 55
Up:idlly:iy:~,B.S. 89, 111 n 124
Vaidp, C: C. a
XISU, N.N., 112-13 n 141
Verlovec, Steven 21 n 9
W:~gle.N:lrrnrlm 27 n 82. 42, 4 j.50,
103 n 51,213,21'1,215,719n 7 ,
239 n 24
\Vclxr, Max 22 n 19, 4 I, j'),60, 1 12,
n 140,114 n 153,224
Wheeler, R.E.M. 159
Wiser, W.1 I. 45
Wolf, Eric 175 n 70
YIICISV,
Jliinku 1 11 n 121
Eidav;~,H.N.S. 51- 53, 64,K7. ')j,
1061184,115 n 172, 12-5-6n 285. I
223 n 9U
Y~ztl:lni,G. 11 I 11 122
Zarllncr. 11.C.737 n 3 , 23s n 17
Zirnlner, Stefan Itr7 n 271
 Subject Index

~bIlir;ls113 n 146 Shurnii 114 n 155

xdi D r ~ v i & d68
~ Bhfipav;~,pmt 229, 230
Aditi 152 bcthma-kyatriyii 62-Go1l j ns 158,
Ag~t)'1'",sage 66, $5,146, IS3 n 190, 163 anrll(i4,116 n 1119
199 11Ahm;1~:1s 6, l l f , $ 6 4 2 , 64-6, 68-9,
Agni, god 152, 163,206,207,219 113 n 150,205; Bnya 11. do;
n9 Ch:~uthnnih. 114 n 150;
Agnic~y:lna194, 195 Narn?~~ld:rri b. 113 n 250;
A m l ~ a ~ t h a76
s Saktdvipi 11. 130 n 334; S3s:tna
hndlrikr-Vcynis 15 I,. 58; Srorrip 11. 58,60,75;
n s 1.56
i i ~ ~ i r a s 154, sul>dlvisions of b. 53-61, 157-8;
&,I 22 1115,73, l&F, 197f, 235; pn~wssd formation IhOf,
etknjcity d 168, 177 n 96, 198; 230-1: 11. $@Tic 143<154, 133,
wnvex 01 133, 145; hvaniza1i{)n 156; I) ka~xczkci215
53 Urd!~mna.Cririp1 14 n 158
A y x n ; ~ n152, 168 Br;khmo S:undj 232
Arja Sa~n;ij2jZF; and c a s k , 3 3 - 7 Brh;~~-puri 162. 175-6 n 7.3
AAv;imtdh:! 182-3 n IS3 Buddll:~13, 212, 213, 214,116, 217,
A<wttfl:iln:i 115 n I64 23 1
,Wins, gods 146 Budha 210

U;llhSth:~Tnn~k$a(it;, 177 n 97 C:in&ilas 13, 15,42,71-77, 123-4

~ucirij:r;feudatr,iy G,116 n IHX
Bhaddhiya, %@a 21 5
Ullaga 152
Bharadviija, gown 67, 115 n 164,
156
Bharata, king 62, 151; Bharata,
tribe, 149,131, 156,157, 17E-9
11 103,193
BhUs 5
Bl~ygm1 5 4 , 376, 18jn 194 219n 9
n 265, 125 n 284,205
Oste, and Duddhism 31 n 111, 103
n 5.4, 113 n 147,118 n ?07; and
class 3, 1s-21. 41f,48, 49, 54-5,
8j;:mcl ieudati?irn51-458-9, 64,
66, 71-2. 108-9 n 106; -and
Jainiqm 17, 28 n 90,72,217-18;
2nd t r i k 3,5, 22 n I9,34, 42-3,
60-1,63-4, 79, 121 n 229;
-m&lir): 40,55, 109-1011 117.
 131 n 3j5,218; pralifer~tionof exogamy 10.11,167,168
ljf; theory of Dmvidk~norigin
7-3,7 8 ;Ri~hhrHand and LeFt F~rnily,institution nF 962 ~ g v e d i c
Hand 118-19 n 218,119-20 162-7, 196-7,206-7; post-vedic,
n 222; Untouch;lbles 77T 212
CaStc, in the age of the Buddhi 15,
27 n 83,50-1, ?05F,231;attitude
rif Sakas and Ku$ipas 30 n 38,
31 n 111; Arab writers on 64;
-and M u s h rulers 55, 100,230
Caste, in A n d I ~ ncountry 16-17, 60,
62,73, 116 n 181,121 n 22% in
Bengal 43, 75-7;in Qrissa, 57-8,
74; in Western Tndb 72-3;in the
South 17-18,29n 93,63-70,73f,
119-20 n 222
&!aka 27 n 83
charrasiln BundeIa 229

Didu 229
~akyd-Pra j5parl 160
Dantivarman, Pallava k. 115 n 164 Kabir 229
Dlsa 46,47,48, 144-6,148,155, L~ivanas60
I&, In ns 90 and 97,l7%9 Kdqiv;in AuSija 48, 172-3 n 4.5
n 10j, 191 K i l W 70
D:lsyu 144-6, 177 n s 92 and 97,178 Kumadwa, ada am ha k. 63
n 105 Kpmmi!nrs 112 n 140
D:ryananda Saraswati 232-3, 234 K:rrnln;is 67,70,117 n 204, 118-19
dm:dcIaiucz 147, 148 n 218
Deviipi 149,15b, 151 Kanva, sage 136; Kinvils 154
Duva6ravas 150, 151, 193 Kapilir 6n
DevavJta 150, 151, 193 Kariklla, Cola k. 19-20 n 222
Dirghatamas 155, 178 n 105 Kiirtaviva S:ihasriir~una114 n 158
Divtxlisa 48, 150, 178-9 n 105, 193 WCamvan 78
Doins 8H Kav;lga Ailfiga 48, 155, 178-9n 105
Dyaus, god 147 KWyastha c:rste 2, 29 n 91,76, 77.
Dyutina Miruta 210 96,122n 243
Kl~asis6,113 n 150
K h a ~ a s98
Korh bjl~anphis24 n 37
ksatriya (caste) 12, 14, 31 n 111, 62,
64,65,67,70,72,10~ n 54,105
 n 80,114n 15?,195,205, Pigan 79
211,231; engaged in trade 65; Panis 138, 172-3 ns 46 :~nd48
-gorr-as 130 n 311; - j Z h 15; Paraiyan 79,81, 119-20n 222, 123
Niigavanlsl k. 63; ksatriyaization ns 2.51 and 263
16,65 prirda vz 1 2 5 6 n 285
Qetrapsti 135 Paniurjrn:~60
Kukis 6 Pnrriarcl~y3, 6, Y , f O , 11,163, 206-7,
Kuru 149 231
Kus'ika, sage 156; Kusikas 154 Pipm 148
concept of 8-9,3439,
M;idanap$la, k. 121-2 n 240
Midig2 1l%2O n 222 46,'Ygf,230,231
~ m l ~ q nyd2QP10
i
Mahinilnu, g:ikya 215,216
Prtliivideva IT, K;l!ac~ri57
Mahzvira, xrtrtharikara 27 n 83
Pulaiyan 80
!A hidisa 4& 178-9 n 105
&
M5li 119-20 n 322 Puru, k. 62
Pudravas, k.152
,ifirtan&i, feudatory 114 n 158
t ~ a r u 147,
i 148,152,153,210
MititriSvan 206
hliltsyaa 134
Mfiyideva, feudatory 63,66,116
Rijarija, Co!a 67, 82
ns IB8 and 189
IMa>4raSarrnan, Kadamb;~k. 60
Reddys 67,76,77,118-19n 218
vjriiy~163
Menda ka-gahapnil 213
Rodasi l j 2
Mikirs 6
Roy, Rsm~nohun88, 232
Mitril, god 152
RIU 165
Mitra-Varuwd 147, 148
Rudr~. 148
Mohenjodaro 43, 4
A?lvxpZr 14, 73
k k t i 136-60
Murugin, god 79, 61
Sarnbar:~138,177 n 91
Nandivam~n,Pallava k. I14 n I58 Sarnllirka 240 n 40
11511164,116n189 5anskritiz:ition8599, 125 n 284, 236
N;lrs.sizpharrsrm;lnII, P a l b ~ ~k.a 115 gantdnu 149, 150,151
n 164 $:intivarman 116 n 189
Niiraya;! 204 n 53 Sjngqa xnynka 120 n 223
Niyidas (ne~aclas) 15,42,83: ?Ji$idu Sinivili 9
gotra GO Siti (f~rrow)136
Nrpaturigavarrnan, Pilllava k. 119 ha{158-61,
11 158 Sivjii 229
sI;lvery 47-8,R4, 106 n 84,216;
in lineage society 1X9. 190
SnmeSver:i, Ci!ttky~k, 66
Srfijaya 151 Viimadeva 156
Sudiis 156 Varcin 138,148
Suddhodhana 216 Varuna, god 147,152
Gudm caste) 12-13,14,70-7,9z, VaiSya 8,12, 69, 70,71, 118 n 216,
93,135, 155, 205;cre~tedwith 131 n 355.20'J[;cllange in the
vai$y$217; c h a n g in the concept or 14,?1-3, 217-18;
concepI or 14,71-3; rights of 121 degradation of 77, 118 n 215,
ns 239, 240,125 n 284; -rulers 217; s ~ h c ~ i v(IF i 72-3
~ i ~ ~ ~
120 n 223;s~bdivisionsor 13; VasisJxa 156, lj7 199; Vasi$;;!h:is
Ve!!iIas as- 69, 76 1Sd
Sfitln (tribe) 47,191, 205 %yu, gad 147
S~~dclbg rnovernm~5234-6 Vi<&hi .Iligiramid 214
Surnitra 193 Ve!!ii!as 17-18, 29 n 93,67,69, 701
3 u n a l ) ~ ~763
a 77; 11%19 n 218
Suni-sici 136 vc.1 I'Zri 6s
Y.~idy:~s 76. 77
Tr:~sad~sp 150 Xipaii 145, 170 n 19,183 n 190
'LIntricism 85,238 n 17 sage 115 n 164, 151,
Vi.iv$in~i~r:~,
lrihe, eoncepi af 140. 189 156, 157; Vl<vimitr:~s15'1
Tri6a6 27 n 83 Viivrdevns 179 n 119
Tu~iyan79 vriity;is 210,212
Tvas~r147 Vrbdvara 148

43,77f, 1234 n 265;

~rnto~~ckihili~y wnmen, in h e \Fedic age 9-1 1,
url~anorigin? 78-9 68-90;in caste society 3,8, 37-8,
UrunGi 152 80-1,93, 236;in Iinea~esociety
us1 152 189. 190-1; in hrya Samaj; 236-7;
nf Disas 145, 178-9 n 105; golrus
Vndliraya<va 173 n 48, 193 of 96
 Intouchability and the Depressed

4m
edsw!d
the Saxylbg