Chapter II. Varna

Volume II: Part I pp. 19–104

Chapter II. Varna

The number of works dealing with the origin and characteristics of the caste system in India is legioṇ Most of them, however, concern themselves with the detailed description of the bewildering variety of castes and subdivisions of castes in modern times and their present religious and social customs and usageṣ The origin of caste has given rise to great speculation and several schools of thought have ariseṇ Generally individual authors lay undue emphasis on one element or attach far too much importance to one point in tracing the origin of the caste system and its ramifications, such as race (Risley), tribe (Ibbetson), occupation (Nesfield). The study of the origin and development of caste in India is one of deep and absorbing interest to all students of sociology. A complete and critical examination of the several theories of caste advanced by distinguished authors and a detailed description of the hundreds of castes and subcastes now found in India is far beyond the scope of the present work. For those who want to make a thorough study of the most important works on caste a modest list is given in the footnote below.¹ The caste system has been highly eulogised and also most severely condemned by Western writerṣ Sidney Low in his ‘Vision of India’ (pp. 262-263, 2nd eḍ of 1907) speaks of the beneficent aspect of the caste system in the following eloquent passage: ‘There is no doubt that it is the main cause of the fundamental stability and contentment by which Indian society has been braced up for centuries against the shocks of politics and the cataclysms of Nature. It provides every man with his place, his career, his occupation, his circle of friendṣ It makes him at the outset a member of a corporate body, it protects him through life from the canker of social jealousy and unfulfilled aspirations; it ensures him companionship and a sense of community with others in like case with himself. The caste organization is to the Hindu his club, his trade union, his benefit society, his philanthropic society. There are no work-houses in India and none are as yet needeḍ’ Abbe Dubois, who wrote about 130 years ago after being in close touch with Hindus of all castes for 15 years as a missionary, remarks (in his work on the character, manners and customs of the people of India, translated into English and published in London in 1817) ‘I consider the institution of castes among the Hindu nations as the happiest effort of their legislation; and I am well convinced that, if the people of India never sunk into a state of barbarism, and if, when almost all Europe was plunged in that dreary gulf, India kept up her head, preserved and extended the sciences, the arts and civilization, it is wholly to the distinction of castes that she is indebted for that high celebrity’ (p. 14) and he devotes several pages to the justification of this remark. Maine in his ‘Ancient Law’ ( new edition of 1930 p. 17 ) characterises it as ‘ the most disastrous and blighting of all human institutionṣ’ Sherring in ‘Hindu tribes and castes ’ vol. III p. 293 says ‘ it is the most baneful, hard-hearted and cruel social system that could possibly be invented for damning the human race’. On the other hand Meredith Townsend in ‘Europe and Asia’ (edition of 1901 p. 72 ) wrote ‘I firmly believe caste to be a marvellous discovery, a form of socialism which through ages protected Hindu Society from anarchy and from the worst evils of industrial and competitive life—it is an automatic poor law to begin with and the strongest form known of Trades Union’. There are others,³ though their number is small,’ that believe that the caste system was an invention, an artificial product, due to the machinations of crafty brāhmaṇaṣ Every great institution has its extremes of good or evil. This work will endeavour to steer clear of downright and hypercritical condemnation of the caste system due to relying on modern stand-points and conditions of society and unthinking adulation thereof. It will try to present and balance facts and though it cannot help passing judgments it will leave the reader free to judge for himself as far as possible. In the present work the discussion will be mostly confined to the evidence of Sanskrit literary monuments, ancient and medieval. An attempt will be made to trace the origin of caste from Vedic times, to exhibit theories of the Dharmaśūtrakāras, other smṛtikāras and com-mentators on the subject and to describe the peculiar ceremonies, privileges, duties and responsibilities of Hindu castes as gathered from these works in Sanskrit. To discuss the feasibility or desirability of totally destroying the caste system or the ways and means of attaining that end is deemed to be outside the legitimate limits of this volume. It may, however, be expressly stated as the author's opinion, in order to avoid misunderstand-ings or fruitless speculations about his personal views, that he does not think that the caste system was an artificial product due to the intrigues, greed and cunning of brāhmaṇas, nor does he hold that it is feasible to destroy the whole edifice of the caste system in the near future. In the cities we may find some people taking their food together but the real India is in the villages, where in spite of the loud denunciations of reformers for a hundred years, the restrictions on taking food and inter-caste marriages are almost as rigid as they once were. Our efforts must be directed to wide and rapid spread of literacy among the village people, the diffusion of the idea of one people and one nationality and gradual fusion of small subcastes into larger-similar unitṣ We in India have no doubt reached a critical stage in our history when old ideals, institutions and habits are being shattered by the impact of new ideas and by the onrush of world forceṣ We have to decide whether we shall make or be able to make a clean sweep of all old ideals and institutions as so much debris and rubbish or whether while keeping the old ideals and some of the old institutions as foundations we shall build up a new social order and create and foster new habits of thought and actioṇ It is beyond the scope of the present work to write more on this point.

A sort of caste system based on birth and occupation did prevail in many countries in ancient times as in Persia, Rome and Japaṇ But in all these countries it hardly ever made any near approach in rigour and complexity to the caste system that we have in India and instead of ramifying into divisions and subdivisions, it dwindled and disappeared in the course of time. No unanimity seems possible as to the several causes and circum- stances which led in India alone to the evolution of the stupendous structure of caste. Not only is it impossible to hold that the origin of the modern complexity of the caste system is to be traced back to one single cause, but it is difficult to accept that even all the origins that have been postulated by the several authors can adequately and satisfactorily explain the modern caste systeṃ

In most of the works on the castes in India a few features are pointed out as the characteristics of the caste system and as common to all castes and sub-casteṣ They are: (1) heredity i. e. in theory a man is assigned to a particular caste by birth in that caste ; (2) endogamy and exogamy i. e. restriction as to marrying in the same caste and not marrying certain relatives or other persons, though of the same caste ; (3) restric- tions as to food (i. e. what food and water may be taken or not taken and from whom) ; (4) occupation (i. e. members of most castes follow certain occupations and no others) ; (5) gradation of castes, some being at the top in the social scale and others being deemed to be so low that they are untouchable. Some authors⁴ like Senart add another characteristic, viz. the caste council with its chief having in meeting assembled among other matters the power to regulate the conduct of its members, to impose the penalties of fine or excommunication for lapseṣ It may be said at once that this last is a feature that is not found among most of the brāhmaṇa and kṣatriya castes even in modern times and is not dealt with by dharma-śāstra workṣ Endogamy is now the most prominent characteristic of caste and so is the theory that it is by birth. The other three are more or less fluctuating from province to pro-vince and age to age). In this work the first five characteristics of the caste system set out above will be subjected to a close critical examination on the basis of the Vedic and dharma-śāstra material. We must also remember that the attributes of caste have not been the same throughout the ageṣ There is great difference between the popular conceptions of modern caste and the conceptions about it embodied in the ancient and medieval dharmaśāstra workṣ In the twentieth century caste in India is a matter of marriage and to a much lesser extent of food and drink. As to avocations any one can at present follow any profession without fear of loss of caste excepting a few believed to be very impure and very degrading ones (like those of sweepers, butchers, tanners &c. ). It is also not possible even now for any one to be generally accepted as a priest, unless he is or claims to be a brāhmaṇa. The old barriers that separated one caste or subcaste from another have been greatly shaken by the influx of modern ideas and the exigencies of the times and one may hope that in a few decades more caste will remain as a purely social institution regulating marriages and to a lesser extent commen-sality (and not a religious one). Western scholars, in spite of their most commendable patience and industry, often present, through ignorance or lack of first-hand knowledge, the number of castes as larger than what it actually iṣ For example, Sherring (vol. II. Introduction pp. XXII-XLVI) gives an alphabetical list of brahmanical tribes and remarks (XLVII) 'Hundreds of these tribes, if not at enmity with one another, cherish mutual distrust and antipathy to such a degree that they are socially separated from one another as far as it is possible for them to be-as much as brāhmaṇas are from the lowest outcastes-neither eating nor drinking together nor intermarrying'. The list he gives is most misleading. To take only a few examples, he enumerates Athavle, Achwal, Abhyan-kara, Apte, Agashe, Bhanu, Bivalkar, Badye, Bhide, Bhagvat, Bhuskute, Bhat, Bodas as separate tribes; but it is well-known to people in Western India that these are the surnames ( not subcastes ) of the Konkaṇastha or Citpāvana brāhmaṇas, who not only interdine, but also inter-marry among themselves, provided there is no bar on the ground of sameness of gotra and pravara.

The word varṇa means 'colour' or 'light' in most passages of the Ṛgveda (e. g. I. 73.7, II. 3.5, IX. 97.15, IX. 104.4, IX. 105.4, X. 124.7). But in some verses of the Ṛgveda⁵ the word varṇa is associated with groups of people having a skin of a dark or fair colour. For example, we read in Rg. II. 12.4 (Indra) who placed low the dasa colour in a cave (or darkness)'; in Rg. I. 179.6 'the fierce sage (Agastya) cherished both varnas'; in Rg. IX. 71.2 'like one (a fighter) who strikes the people he (Soma) who is powerful goes giving out frequent roars; he exposes the Asura colour'; in Rg. I. 130.8 'Indra helped in battles the Arya sacrificer..... Indra punished for the sake of Manu (the dasas) who do not observe the ordinances and subdued (or killed) the dark skin'; (Indra having killed the dasyus protected the arya varṇa (Rg. III. 34.9); 'You (Indra) subdued for Rjisvan, the son of Vidathin, Pipru and powerful Mrgaya; you mowed down fifty thousand dark (men), you shattered cities as old age does shatter good looks' Rg. IV. 16.13; 'Somas, which strike away the dark skin' Rg. IX. 41.1. In Rg. I. 158.5 a certain dasa is called Traitana which name has a Persian ring about it; In Rg. I. 104.2 varṇa seems to be placed in opposition to dasa. These passages make it clear that the Aryas and dasas were two opposing camps and both were designated 'varnas' on account of the colour of their skinṣ The Tai. Br. I. 2. 6 (with reference to the Mahavrata in which there was a mock fight between a brāhmaṇa and a śūdra) says 'that the brāhmaṇa and śūdra is the asurya varṇa⁶. If we can interpret the Ṛgveda verse by the help of the Tai. Br. then in Rg. IX. 71.2, the words 'asuryam varnam' mean 'śūdra tribe'. There is no doubt that the word asura when applied to gods like Varuna has another meaning also in the Rg. In numerous places in the Ṛgveda the antagonism between the āryas and dāsas or dasyus is emphasized and prayers are offered to Indra and other gods for having subdued or for subduing the dāsa in favour of the Ārya. Rg. I. 51.8; I. 103.3; I. 117.21; II. 11.2, 4, 18, 19; III. 29.9 ; V. 70.3 ; VII. 5.6; IX. 88.4 ; VI. 18.3 ; VI. 25.2. In Rg. I. 51.8 Indra is requested to mark who are āryas and who are dasyuṣ This does not mean that there was difference between the two in bodily appearance only; on the contrary the antithesis between the ārya who is referred to as ‘barhişmat’ and the dasyu who is styled ‘avrata’ clearly shows that the emphasis was rather on the difference of their cultṣ That dasyu and dāsa are identical in meaning follows from the same epithets being applied to both and from the fact that dasyu and dāsa occur in the same verses as applying to the same enemy.⁷ In Rg. X. 22.8 dasyu and dāsa are used in the same verse as applicable to the same enemy. In Rg. X. 99.6 and 8 Indra is represented as killing both dāsa and dasyu respectively. The dasyus are described as ‘avrata’ (not obeying the ordinances of the gods) in Rg. I. 51.8, I. 175.3, VI. 14.3, ‘akratu’ (who perform no sacrifice) in VII. 6.3,⁸ ‘mṛdhravācaḥ’ (whose speech is in- distinct or soft ) in VII. 6.3 and V. 29.10, ‘anāsaḥ’ (snub-nosed or dumb ) in Rg. V. 29.10. It appears that dāsa and dasyu are synonyms and were sometimes styled asuraṣ For example, Śambara is called dasyu and dāsa in Ṛgveda VI. 31.4 and dāsa in Rg. VI. 26.5 and is also associated with asuras like Pipru in VI. 18.8; Pipru is spoken of as a dāsa in Rg. VIII. 32.2 and as an asura in X. 138.3. Varcin is styled dāsa in Rg. IV. 30.15 and VI. 47.21 and asura in VII. 99.5. In Tai. S.⁹ (IV. 3.11.3) also it seems that they are held to be identical. The enmity between dāsa and ārya is breathed in such verses as the following: Rg. II. 11.4 ‘vanquish the tribe of dāsas by the sun (i. e. by the help of a brilliant weapon); Rg. I. 174.7 ‘You made the earth a pillow for the dāsa (i. e. you laid him low on the ground ); Rg. III. 12.6 ‘Oh! Indra and Agni, by one effort together you shook ninety cities that had dāsas as overlords'. It is not possible to say that dāsas or dasyus were some Aryan tribes that had fallen from the worship or culture of the Aryan singers of Vedic hymnṣ In many places the sage refers to the conquest for him by Indra and other gods of dāsas as well as Aryan foeṣ For example, 'Protectors of the good! you (two) killed Aryan foes and dāsa foes' Rg. VI. 60.6; 'Oh Indra and Varuṇa! you killed dāsa foes and also Arya foes and helped Sudās with your protection' Rg. VII. 83.1. Vide also Rg. VI. 22.10, X. 69.6, X. 83-1, X. 102-3. This shows that though the āryans had become divided and fought among themselves, they kept āryas and dāsas quite distinct. The foregoing shows that in the times of the Ṛgveda there were two antagonistic camps, of the āryas and dāsas or dasyus, they differed in the colour of their skins and also in worship, speech and bodily appearance. Therefore, in the earliest period we find the word varṇa associated only with dāsa and with ārya. Though the words brāhmaṇa and kṣatriya occur frequently in the Ṛgveda, the word varṇa is not used in connection with theṃ Even in the Puruṣasūkta (Ṛgveda X. 90) where the words brāhmaṇa, rājanya, vaiśya and śūdra occur the word varṇa is not useḍ Hence, one may reasonably say that the only watertight groups that are positively or expressly vouchsafed by the Ṛgveda are ārya and dāsa or dasyu. (It is often argued that as the word brāhmaṇa denotes a caste in later literature, in the Ṛgveda also it must be presumed to have the same meaning. But this begs the whole questioṇ No one denies that brāhmaṇa denotes a caste in later literature.) But whether the same sense in the Ṛgveda must be determined on the materials furnished by the Ṛgveda itself. Some rely on the word 'brahmaputra' in Ṛg. II. 43. 2 as showing that a brāhmaṇa became so only by birth in the Ṛgveda. But the verse begins by saying that 'you sing a Sāma like the Udgātṛ priest' and so 'brahmaputra' must mean a ṛtvij whose duty it was to recite śastras (the Brāhmaṇācchamsin as Sāyaṇa explains). It is generally conceded that the Puruṣasūkta is a much later hymn than most of the hymns of the Ṛgveda. In the whole of the Ṛgveda the words vaiśya and śūdra do not occur except in the Puruṣasūkta, though both of them occur in the Atharvaveda (V. 17.9 for vaiśya and IV. 20. 4 and 8 for śūdra and ārya) and very frequently in the Tai. S. Besides we cannot forget that the final redaction of the Ṛgveda must be held to have been separated from the composition of the individual hymns by several hundred years (if not more) and that even if it be conceded that at the time when the Puruṣasūkta was composed, the four varṇas had been constituted and had become castes, yet the same cannot be affirmed for the time of the original composition of the other hymnṣ The word brāhmaṇa occurs several times in the Ṛgveda: ¹⁰ ‘Oh brāhmaṇas, Oh pitṛs fond of soma! May the sinless Dyāvāpṛthivī (Heaven and Earth) tend to our welfare’; in the Atirātra where soma is to be drunk, uttering (words) round a lake full of water you have, Oh frogs, gathered together on that day of the year on which the rains begin’ (Ṛg. VII. 103. 7 ); ¹¹ ‘The brāhmaṇas, who drink soma, reciting prayers of the yearly sacrifice, have sent forth their speech’ (Ṛg. VII. 103. 8 ). In this verse brāhmaṇas are expressly said to be getting ‘brahma’ ready. ‘May Agni who devours every-thing make that (dead body) free from disease and (may) soma also (do the same) who entered into the brāhmaṇas’ (Ṛg. X. 16. 6 ). ‘When the brāhmaṇas worship together as friends in hymns (lit. speed of the mind) that are fabricated from their hearts’ (Ṛg. X. 71. 8 ). In Ṛg. VI. 75. 10 brāhmaṇas are invoked for welfare along with pitṛṣ This shows that the brāhmaṇas were highly venerateḍ The other verses establish that they were the reciters of hymns (brahma) and drank soma. In Ṛg. VIII. 35. 16–18 we read ‘You (Aśvins) urge on (or inspire) brahma, you urge on our thoughts (or actions), you kill the evil spirits and subdue diseases; (17) you urge kṣatra (valour) and also men, you kill evil spirits (same as 16); (18) you urge on the cows and also the Viś (the rest is same as 16).’ Here it seems that the groups of people (viz. those who think and make songs, those who show valour and lead men, and those common people who tend cattle) are clearly meant. These verses may be conceded as pointing to the existence of three groups (brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and viśaḥ) but there is nothing in them to show that these three had crystallised into somewhat like the castes of later timeṣ In Ṛg. VII. 33. 11 Vasiṣṭha is addressed as brahman, but that does not mean that he was a brāhmaṇa (by birth), as he is said to have been born of Urvaśī from Mitra and Varuṇa. Similarly, in Rg. IX. 96. 6 (Brahmā devānām) the word brahma¹² does not certainly mean ‘brāhmaṇa by birth’, nor does ‘viprāṇām’ mean ‘brāhmaṇas by birth’. In that verse one who is super- eminent among a group is specified, just as the buffalo among animals, the hawk among carnivorous birds &c. In Rg. VIII. 33. 19 ‘look down and not up; bring your feet close together; may thy kaśaplakas (legs ?) be not seen, for though a brahmā, thou west born a woman’, it is impossible to hold that the last words mean ‘thou west a brāhmaṇa woman’. If it is only intended to refer to the fact that she is a brāhmaṇa woman, there is no reason why the Perfect tense (babhuūvitha) is used and not the present. Here ‘brahmā’ most probably means ‘a priest of that name’, as that is the meaning in Rg. II. I. 2 (brahmā cāsi grhapatis-ca no dame). The word ‘brahmajāyā’ in Rg. X. 109. 2, 3, 6 and 7 does not mean the wife of a brāhmaṇa by birth but rather ‘wife of Bṛhaspati’. The whole hymn is obscure and more or less enigmatic or allegorical. In the Aitareya-brāhmaṇa¹³ 35. 2–4 it is said that soma is the food of brāhmaṇas and that a kṣatriya was to press the tendrils of the Nyagrodha tree and the fruits of Udumbara, Āśvattha and Plakṣa and drink the juice so pressed instead of soma. It appears, therefore, that the brāhmaṇas were a distinct group even in the earliest period of the Ṛgveda. Whether they were hereditary is certainly not clear; nor is there anything to show that there were restrictions as regards partaking of food from persons other than brāhmaṇas or as to marriage. That brāhmaṇas in the Ṛgveda were a class by themselves may be conceded, but whether they had become a caste by birth is a matter of opinion dependent on the connotation given to the word caste. Dr. Ghurye (‘ Caste and race in India’ p. 42) thinks, probably following the Vedic Index (vol. I on Kṣatriya), that the reference in Rg. X. 71. 9 to a false claim for being regarded as a brāhmaṇa points to the conclusion that brāhmaṇas had become a caste. The verse literally translated means ‘these (persons) who do not move below nor beyond, who are neither brāhmaṇas, nor engaged in pressing soma—they being ignorant and having resorted to speech in sinful (or coarse) language take to ploughshares and engage in (agricultural) operations’. It is difficult to see how there is here any false claim to be regarded as a brāhmaṇa. This verse means apparently that those who are not composers of prayers or drinkers of soma (because they are ignorant) are men of low speech and have to turn to agriculture. Even in the days of the dharma-sūtras restrictions as to food and marriage for brāhmaṇas were not at all as rigid as they became in medieval and modern times; but even when these restrictions were not rigid it was clearly laid down that a brāhmaṇa is so by birth alone. The word ‘brahma’ generally means in the Ṛgveda ‘prayer’ or ‘hymn’. Vide¹⁴ Ṛg IV. 6.11, VI. 52.2, X. 105.8, X. 141.5 (‘Oh Agni, make our prayer and sacrifice prosper by your flames’). Ṛg. III. 53.12 is ‘this brahma (prayer or spiritual power) of Viśvāmitra protects the Bhārata people’. In the Atharvaveda II. 15.4 (as brahma and kṣatra entertain no fear, nor are they harmed) brahma seems to mean ‘the class of brāhmaṇas’. The transition of meaning from ‘brahma’ (prayer) to ‘brahma’ meaning the class of those who composed or recited prayers is natural and easy. In the Ṛgveda I. 157.2 both brahma and kṣatra occur¹⁵ in the same verse where they probably mean ‘prayer’ and ‘valour’ respectively. In the Atharvaveda III. 19.1 both words occur and probably mean the same thing as in Ṛg. I. 157.2. In some Vedic works brahma and kṣatra stand collectively for brāhmaṇas¹⁶ and kṣatriyas (e. g. Tai. Br. II. 7.18, Br. Up. I. 4.11, Kathopaniṣad I. 2. 24). The word kṣatriya is very frequently applied as an epithet to several gods; e. g. Ṛg. VII. 64. 2 and VIII. 25. 8 (in both to Mitra and Varuṇa), Ṛg. VIII. 67. 1 (to Ādityas), Ṛg. X. 66.8 (to gods in general). In some verses kṣatriya means ‘a king or a nobleman’; e. g. Ṛg. IV. 42.1 ‘the kingdom on both sides (heaven and earth) belongs to me, who am a kṣatriya and who holds sway over all living persons, so that all the immortals (gods) are ours (on my side)’;¹⁷ Ṛg. X. 109.3 ( = Atharva V. 17.3 ) ‘the domain of the kṣatriya has been protected ( from the sight of enemies )’. ( The word ‘rājanya’ occurs in the Ṛgveda only in the Puruṣasūkta. It occurs in the sense of kṣatriya in the Atharvaveda V. 17.9. The same remark applies to the word kṣatriya as to brāhmaṇa. It is difficult to say whether kṣatriyas were so by birth in the times of the hymns of the Ṛg. or were only a class more or less fluiḍ We find that the Ṛg. speaks of Devāpi as the purohita of Śantanu who became a king. The story¹⁸ is that both were sons of Ṛṣṭiṣeṇa and that Śantanu, though a younger brother, became king as Devāpi was not willing to be a king. The result was a famine due to Śantanu’s transgression and so Devāpi performed a sacrifice to induce rainfall. This shows that out of two brothers one became a king and the other a purohita. So kings and purohitas did not depend on birth. In Ṛg. IX. 112. 3 a poet exclaims ‘I am a reciter of hymns my father is a physician and my mother grinds ( corn ) with stoneṣ We desire to obtain wealth in various actionṣ ’¹⁹ In Ṛg. III. 44.5 the poet wistfully asks Indra ‘O, Indra, fond of soma, would you make me the protector of people, or would you make me a king, would you make me a sage, that has drunk of soma, would you impart to me endless wealth ?’ This shows that the same man could be a ṛṣi or a noble or a king. Dr. Ghurye ( in ‘Caste and race in India’ p. 41 ) thinks that the kṣatriyas had become a compact body and he particularly relies on Ṛg. VII. 104. 13 ( = Atharvaveda VIII. 4. 13 ) which is cited in the Vedic Index ( vol. 1, p. 207 ) for the same purpose. That verse literally means ‘Soma does not urge on the crooked one, nor the kṣatriya who bears false. He strikes the rakṣas, and strikes him who speaks falsely ; both lie in the bonds of Indra’. The words ‘kṣatriyam mithuyā dhārayantam’ are explained by Sāyaṇa as ‘Kṣatriya who bears false words’. The 2nd half is only an expansion of the first half and so ‘vṛjina’ corresponds to ‘rakṣas’ and ‘asad vadantam’ is only a paraphrase of ‘mithuyā dhārayantam’. They may mean this that one who is a kṣatriya, but has no strength as a kṣatriya should have, is at the mercy of Indra. Unless we project our notions of the later state of society and the caste system when considering this verse, it is hardly possible to hold that this verse indicates that it refers to persons making a false claim for entrance into a com- pact body of kṣatriyas by birth. Dr. Ghurye also says (p. 44) ‘The 2nd order in society, the kṣatriya, is known in the earlier portions of the Ṛgveda as rājanya.’ I have not been able to find the word rājanya in the Ṛgveda any where except in the Puruṣa- sūkta. In the Aitareya brāhmaṇa (chap. 34. 2) the word ‘rājanya’ stands for a member of the 2nd class in society, while kṣatriya means a king of whom land (for sacrifice to gods) is asked for by brāhmaṇa, rājanya or vaiśya.

Though the word vaiśya occurs in the Ṛgveda only in the Puruṣasūkta, the word ‘viś’ is very frequently employed in it. It generally means ‘people’ or ‘group of people’. In a large number of cases we have the words mānuṣīr-viśaḥ or mānuṣīṣu vikṣu or mānuṣīnāṁ viśām, e. g. Ṛg. III.5.3, III.6.3, III. 11. 5 (invincible Agni goes in front of human groups), IV. 6. 7 and 8, IV. 9. 2, V. 1. 9, V. 8. 3, VI. 48. 8, VI. 47. 16 (viśo mānuṣyau), X. I. 4, X. 69. 9. In some places we have ‘dāśīr viśaḥ’ (the dāsa hordes) e. g. IV. 28.4, VI. 25-2. In²⁰ Ṛg. III. 34-2 we have ‘Oh Indra, you are the leader of human hordes as well as of divine hordes’ (where we have daivinām viśām). Ṛg.²¹ VIII. 63-7 (when loud invocations were sent towards Indra by the people consisting of five groups) shows that ‘viś’ means all the Aryan people. In Ṛg. V. 32. 11 Indra is styled ‘pāñcajanya’ (favourable to the five people) and in IX. 66. 20 Agni has the appellation ‘pāñcajanyaḥ purohitaḥ’ (the purohita of the five peoples). Sometimes jana and viś seem to be contradistinguished as in Ṛg. II. 26. 3 (sa ij-janena sa viśā vajam bharate dhanā nṛbhiḥ). But the very fact that viś is qualified also as pāñcajanya shows that there was hardly any distinction between jana and viś. In the Ṛgveda frequent reference is made to five people (pañca janāḥ); vide Rg. III. 37. 9, III. 59. 7, VI. 11. 4, VIII. 32. 22, X. 65. 23, X. 45. 6. In the same way the words kṛṣṭi (II. 2. 10, IV. 38. 10), kṣiti (V. 35. 2, VI. 48. 7, VII. 75. 4), carṣaṇi (V. 86. 2, VII. 15. 2 ) are employed along with pañca. We have also pañcajanyāsu kṛṣṭiṣu' in Rg. III. 53.16. So it is clear that viś cannot in almost all hymns of the Rg. mean 'vaiśya' but means the 'people' or 'āryan people' when no epithet like 'dāsīḥ' or 'daivīḥ' is prefixeḍ²² The Ait. Br. (I. 26) says that 'viśaḥ' means 'rāṣṭrāṇi' (countries) when explaining Rg. IV. 50.8 (tasmai viśaḥ svayam-āvānamante ).

The word 'dāsa' in later literature means 'a serf or a slave.' It follows that the dāsa tribes that we see opposed to the Āryas in the Ṛgveda were gradually vanquished and were then made to serve the Āryaṣ In the Manusmṛti (VIII. 413 ) the śūdra is said to have been created by God for service (dāsya) of the brāhmaṇa.²³ We find in the Tai. S., the Tai. Br. and other Brāhmaṇa works that the śūdra occupies the same position that he does in the smṛtis Therefore it is reasonable to infer that the dāsas or dasyus conquered by the Āryas were gradually transformed into the śūdraṣ From being enemies they were brought into friendly relations and given a very subordinate positioṇ Traces are visible even in the Ṛgveda that friendly relations had begun to be established between certain dāsas and the priestṣ For example in Rg. VIII. 46. 32 we read 'the singer took a hundred (cows or other gifts) from the dāsa Balbūtha and from Tarukṣa.' In the Puruṣasūkta (X. 90. 12 ) the brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya and śūdra are said to have sprung from the mouth, arms, thighs and feet of the supreme Puruṣa. In the very next verse the sun and the moon are said to have been born from the eye and mind of the Puruṣa. This shows that the composer of the hymn regarded the division of society into four classes to be very ancient and to be as natural and God-ordained as the sun and the mooṇ

We shall now see what position was assigned to the śūdra in the Vedic Saṁhitās and Brāhmaṇaṣ In the Ṛgveda the Ārya is contradistinguished from the men 'of dark skiṇ' In the dharmasūtras we find the śūdras spoken of as ‘dark varṇa.’ Vide Ap. Dh. S. I. 9. 27. 11 which is the same as Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 1. 59.²⁴ The śūdra among men and the horse among beastṣ Therefore those two, the horse and the śūdra, are the convey- ances of beings; therefore the śūdra is not fit (or ordained) for sacrifice' (Tai. S. VII. 1. 1. 6).²⁵ This shows that the śūdra could not perform the Vedic sacrifices and that he was employed for carrying persons in a palanquin or otherwise. In Tai. S. V. 7. 6. 3-4 we have 'put light (glory) in our brāhmaṇas, put it in our chiefs (or kings), (put) light in vaiśyas and śūdras, put light in me by your light.'²⁶ This is a sure indication that the śūdra who took the place of the dāsa is here placed on the same level with the other three classes in the matter of the receipt of light from God and that far from being looked upon as an enemy, he had come to be looked upon as a member of the society (though the lowest in the scale). 'The śūdra is a moving burial ground; therefore one should not study the Veda in the vicinity of a śūdra.'²⁷ 'He created the brāh- maņa with Gāyatrī, the rājanya with Triṣṭubh and the vaiśya with Jagatī; but he did not create the śūdra with any metre.'²⁸ The Tāṇḍyamahābrāhmaṇa says²⁹ 'Therefore a śūdra, though he may have many beasts, is not entitled to perform sacrifice, he is godless as no deity was created after him (as in the case of the other varṇas); therefore he does not go beyond washing the feet (of the three other varṇas), since he was created from the feet' (this last being an allusion to the Puruṣasūkta X. 90. 12 padbhyāṁ śūdro ajāyata). This shows that the śūdra, however rich in cattle he might be, had to perform the menial duty of washing the feet of dvijaṣ The Śatapatha Br. says that ‘the śūdra is untruth’ (S. B. E. vol. 44. p. 446), that ‘the śūdra is toil’ (S. B. E. vol. 44 p. 410), and that a dīkṣita (one who was initiated for a Vedic sacrifice) was not to speak with a śūdra (S. B. E. vol. 26 p. 4). The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa remarks that ‘the śūdra³⁰ is at the beck and call of others (the three varṇas), he can be made to rise at will, he can be beaten at will.’ When the father of Śunahśepa³¹ (who had sold Sunahśepa for 100 coins and had shown himself ready to kill him as a paśu for another hundred coins) urged his son to come back to him after the boy had been taken into favour by Varuṇa and Viśvāmitra, he contemptu- ously discards his father's proposal with the words ‘one who commits an an evil deed once may commit another sinful deed thereafter; you did not leave aside the śūdra’s line of conduct; you did what leaves no door for reconciliatioṇ’ These passages show that the śūdra, though he had ceased to be an enemy of the ārya and had been allowed to be within ‘the pale of society, was looked down upon, was assigned a very low position, had to perform work of toil as a menial and was not allowed to perform Vedic sacrificeṣ A clear line of demarcation was kept between the Ārya and the Śūdra in the times of the Brāhmaṇa works and even in the dharmasūtraṣ The Tāṇḍya Brāhmaṇa³² speaks of a mock fight ‘the śūdra and ārya fight on a hide, out of the two they so arrange that the ārya colour becomes the victor’. The Āp. Dh. S. (I. 1.3.40-41 says³³ that a brāhmacārin, if he cannot himself eat all the food he has brought by begging, may keep it near an ārya (for his use) or he may give it to a śūdra who is a dāsa (of his teacher)’. The same Dharmasūtra³⁴ (II. 2.3. 1 and 4) says ‘Āryas who are pure (by bath) should prepare the food for Vaiśvadeva;.....or śūdras supervised by āryas should prepare it’. Similarly Gautama X. 69 uses the word ‘anārya for śūdra and Gautama 12.3 prescribes heavy punishment for a śūdra having sexual intercourse with an ārya womaṇ Jaimini in his Pūrvamīmāṃsā sūtra (VI. 1.25–38 ) establishes after elaborate discussion that the śūdra has no adhikāra for the performance of Agnihotra and Vedic sacrificeṣ It is, however, somewhat gratifying to find that at least one ācārya, Bādari, espoused the cause of the śūdra and propounded the view that all ( including śūdras ) were entitled to perform Vedic sacrifices ( VI. 1.27 ). In the Vedānta-sūtras also ( I. 3.34–38 ) it is established that the śūdra has no adhikāra for brahmavidyā based on Veda study, though some śūdras like Vidura might have been endowed with the knowledge of brahma owing to saṁskāras of former birthṣ In the smṛti literature, however, a few passages are found allowing marriages of āryas with śūdra women ( which will be discussed later on ). Similarly sexual relations ( illicit ) between a śūdra woman and a man of higher varṇa are alluded to even in the Samhitās e. g. Tai. S.³⁵ VII. 4.19.3 ‘ when a śūdra woman has an ārya as her paramour she does not seek wealth for the prosperity ( of her relations )’. In Ait. Br. ( 8. 1 ) there is the story or Kavaṣa Ailūṣa, who was driven out from the sacrifice on the Sarasvatī with the words ‘Oh, son of a female slave, you are a rogue and not a brāhmaṇa; how did you take the dīkṣā ( initiation ) as one of us and they carried him off to a sandy desert with the idea that he might die of thirst there. He when tormented by thirst ‘saw’ the hymn Ṛg. X. 30 and Sarasvatī came rushing to hiṃ³⁶ Further discussion about the śūdra and his disabilities will follow in another section later.

The position of the three varṇas inter se ( called collectively ārya ) now requires consideratioṇ It is clear that the Samhitās other than the Ṛgveda and Brāhmaṇa works show that the three classes of brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas had become differentiated and their privileges, duties and liabilities had become more or less fixed in those timeṣ In Rg. IV. 50.8 we read ‘that king alone who places brāhmā first (i. e. honours him) dwells happy in his house, for him the earth always remains prosperous and to him all the people (or kingdoms) bow down of their own accord’. ‘Brāhmaṇas³⁷ are gods that are directly seen’ (Tai. S. I. 7. 3. 1); ‘there are two kinds of gods; for indeed the gods are gods and the brāhmaṇas who have studied and teach the sacred lore are the human gods’ Śat. Br. (S. B. E. vol. 12 p. 309, vol. 26 p. 341). In the Atharvaveda V. 17. 19 there is an assertion of the pre-eminence of brāhmaṇas and the consequences of harming them or their cowṣ ‘Therefore the brāhmaṇa is the foremost’ (Tai. S. II. 6. 2. 5, V. 2. 7. 1). ‘Therefore the brāhmaṇa shows his might by his mouth, since he was created from the mouth’ (Tāṇḍya Br. XI. 1. 2)³⁸. In the Ait. Br. (33. 4) Varuṇa, when he was told that a brāhmaṇa boy would be offered in place of the son of the king Hariścandra, is made to say ‘a brāhmaṇa is indeed preferable to a kṣatriya’. The mere fact of birth as brāhmaṇa's son is represented here as giving to the boy pre-eminence over a king's soṇ On the other hand the Śat. Br. says (V. 1. 1. 12) ‘a brāhmaṇa³⁹ is not adequate to (competent to manage a kingdom’. In the Tai. Br. it is said that playing on the vīṇā (in the Aśvamedha) is to be done by a brāhmaṇa and a rājanya (and not by two brāhmaṇas), since wealth does not find delight in the brāhmaṇa. The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa⁴⁰ (XI. 5. 7. 1) lays emphasis on the four peculiar attributes of brāhmaṇas viz. brāhmaṇya (purity of parentage as a brāhmaṇa), pratirūpacaryā (befitting deportment or conduct), yaśas (glory) and lokapakti (the teaching or perfecting of people). ‘When the people are being perfected or taught by him, people endow him with four privileges viz. arcā (honour), dāna (gifts), ajyeyatā (freedom from being harassed) and avadhyatā (freedom from being beaten ). The Śatapatha (V. 4. 6. 9) expressly mentions that brāhmaṇas, vaiśya and śūdra are the four varņaṣ Teaching had become so much associated with the brāhmaṇas that when the brāhmaṇa Gārgya approached king Ajātaśatru for the knowledge of brahma, the latter replied “this is contrary to the natural order that a brāhmaṇa should approach a kṣatriya with the idea ‘ he (kṣatriya) will propound to me brahma’. ” In a separate section below all the privileges enjoyed by the brāhmaṇas will be set out at one place.⁴¹ The position of kṣatriyas and their relation to the brāh- manas falls to be considered now. First of all with reference to the king several important passages may be citeḍ In some cases ‘rājan’ means only ‘a noble’ or ‘chief’, as in Rg. X. 42. 10, X. 97. 6. In many passages ‘rājan’ means ‘king’. The government often seems to have been tribal, such tribes as Yadus, Turvaśas, Druhyus, Anus and Purus ( Rg. I. 108. 8 ) being frequently mentioned ( vide Rg. VII. 18. 6 for Bhṛgus and Druhyus and VII. 18. 7 for Tṛtsus, VIII. 6. 46 for Yadvas ). Whether kingship was by election it is not necessary here to discusṣ The king was regarded as keeping the people within boundṣ⁴² When a king was crowned, it was thought that ‘a kṣatriya was produced, a lord of all beings, the defender of brāhmaṇas (or of holy texts) and of dharma.’⁴³ The Sat. Br. says ‘for these two (śrotriya and king) are the upholders of the sacred law among men’ ( S. B. E. vol. 41 p. 106).⁴⁴ That the co-operation between brāhmaṇa and kṣatriya results in glory and success is frequently emphasized e. g. ‘therefore a brāhmaṇa must certainly be approached by a kṣatriya who is about to perform some act, for indeed that act of a kṣatriya which is sped on by brāhmaṇa succeeds’ (Śatapatha, S. B. E. vol. 26 pp. 270–271 )⁴⁵. The purohita of a

( Continued from last page )

claimeḍ But they never claimed to be treated in a court of law as above truth and justice. If they had taken the Tai. S. passage in the sense in which Dr. Ghurye takes it they would never have scrupled to say so in smṛti works and would have quoted the Tai. S. in support. Hence the meaning is different. There is no question here of an arbitration or judicial decisioṇ In Rg. I. 100. 19 there is a similar expression ‘May Indra speak in our favour on all days’ ( विश्वाहेन्द्रो अधिबक्ता नो अस्तु ). Vide Rg. X. 63. 11 and Vaj. S. 16. 5 for the verb ‘vac’ with ‘adhi’ in the sense of ‘speak in favour of’ or ‘blesṣ’ kṣatriya came to occupy a very high positioṇ The Śatapatha (S. B. E. vol. 26 p. 270) lays emphasis on the importance of the purohita and cautions a brāhmaṇa against being the purohita of any king he meets with and adds that a brāhmaṇa may remain without a king, but a king should not be without a brāhmaṇa. Even the gods required a purohita, as the Tai. S. II. 5. 1. 1. says ‘Viśvarūpa son of Tvaṣṭr was the purohita of godṣ’⁴⁶ Śaṇḍa and Amarka were the purohitas of the Asuras (Kāṭhaka S. IV. 4). Agni is often called purohita (Ṛg. I. 1. 1., I. 44. 10, III. 2. 8). ‘May we, purohitas, be awake in the kingdom (for its welfare)’ says the Tai. S. (I. 7. 10. 1). The Ait. Br. (chap. 34. 8) says⁴⁷ ‘the purohita is half the soul of the kṣatriya’ and contains an eulogy of purohita in the following words (40. 1) “for indeed the gods do not eat the food of a king who has no purohita; therefore a king when about to offer a sacrifice should have a brāhmaṇa as his purohita with the idea ‘may the gods eat my fooḍ’” The combination of the brāhmaṇa and the rājanya is said to be most desirable and that it is conducive to the eminence of both is declared in the Tai. S. (V. 1. 10. 3)⁴⁸ ‘Therefore a brāhmaṇa who is supported by a rājanya is superior to another brāhmaṇa (not so supported), hence a rājanya who has a brāhmaṇa (to help him) is superior to another rājanya’. The Śatapatha (V. 4. 4. 15) declares ‘that king indeed who is not powerful to the brāhmaṇas (i. e. who is humble before the brāhmaṇas) becomes more powerful than his foeṣ’⁴⁹ It is not to be supposed that this attainment of the supreme position by brāhmaṇas was an affair of plain sailing. Sometimes kṣatriyas claimed higher position and also paid scant respect to brāhmaṇaṣ In the Śatapatha we read ‘whence the brāhmaṇa is an object of respect after the king’ (S. B. E. vol. 41, p. 96); ‘hence the people here serve, from a lower po-ition, the kṣatriya seated above them’ Śatapatha (S. B. E. vol. 12 p. 94); ‘hence when a nobleman approaches, all these people, the subjects crouch down by him on the ground’ Śatapatha (S. B. E. vol. 26 p. 228); ‘ therefore there is nothing higher than the kṣatra; therefore the brāhmaṇa sits down below the kṣatriya in the Rājasūya ⁷³ ( Śatapatha 14. 4. 1. 23 = Br. Up. I. 4. 11 ). In the Atharvaveda several verses occur which declare the harm that results from disrespecting or injuring a brāhmaṇa or from rob- bing him of his cow. ‘ He who regards brāhmaṇa as food drinks of the poison of Taimāta; he who injures a brāhmaṇa, the rela- tive of the gods, does not attain to the world of pitṛs ’ ( Atharva- veda V. 18. 4 and 13 ). ‘ Those who spat on a brāhmaṇa or those who sent to him mucus remain biting the hair in the midst of a stream by their mouth; that kingdom sinks as water sinks a shattered vessel, where ’ they injure a brāhmaṇa; that wicked act strikes that kingdom ⁵⁰ ( Atharvaveda V. 19. 3 and 8 ).

The stories of king Kārtavirya and Viśvāmitra who respec- tively carried off the cows of Jamadagni and Vasiṣṭha narrated in the Mahābhārata ( Śānti 49 for Kārtavirya; Ādi. 175 for Viśvāmitra ) and the Purāṇas show how several kings were high-handed and treated brāhmaṇas with no respect whatever. It appears that even the wives of brāhmaṇas are not quite safe at the hands of kingṣ ‘The chamberlain ( kṣatṛ ) of that king in whose kingdom the wife of a brāhmaṇa is thoughtlessly put under restraint does not march in front of cooking vessels with a golden ornament on his neck ⁵¹ ( Atharva V. 17. 14 ). The somewhat mystical hymn ( Ṛg. X. 109 ) where ‘brahmajāyā’ figures prominently probably hints at the same fact ( viz. the kidnapping of the wives of brāhmaṇas ).

The Tai. S. says that ‘the vaiśya indeed sacrifices, being desirous of cattle’ and that the gods having been defeated were reduced to the condition of being the vaiśyas or ‘viś of asuras’ ⁵² ‘the vaiśya among men, cows among beasts, therefore they are to be enjoyed ( to be eaten, to be subsisted upon ) by others; they were produced from the receptacle of food; therefore they exceed others in numbers’ ⁵³ The Tai. Br. says ‘the vaiśya class is said to have been born from ṛk verses, they declare the Yajur-veda as the origin of the kṣatriya, the Samaveda is indeed the source of brāhmaṇaṣ⁵⁴ The same Brāhmaṇa further says 'the viś go away from (reside separately from) the brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas'. The Tāṇḍya Br. says⁵⁵ 'Hence the vaiśya, though being eaten (i. e. subsisted upon) by others is not exhausted, since he was created from the prajanana (from the sexual parts of Prajāpati); therefore he has numerous cattle, he has all the gods (as his patrons) and was produced with the Jagatī metre, his season is the rains, therefore he is to be eaten by the brāhmaṇa and the rājanya, since he was created as lower (than those two classes)'. The Śat. Br. (S. B. E. vol. 26 p. 335 ) says 'He thus assigns to the Maruts a share therein after Indra, whereby he makes the people (viś) subser-vient and obedient to the nobility'.⁵⁶ According to the Ait. Br. 35. 3 the vaiśya is one who is the food of others, who pays taxes to otherṣ These passages show that vaiśyas were entitled to sacrifice, reared cattle, were far more numerous than the other two classes, they had to bear the brunt of taxation, they lived apart from brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas and were obedient to theṃ

The system of the four varṇas had taken such deep roots in the period when the Brāhmaṇa works were composed, that we often meet with Vedic passages saying that it extended even to the gods, Agni and Bṛhaspati being the brāhmaṇas among gods; Indra, Varuṇa, Soma, Yama being the kṣatriyas; Vasus, Rudras, the Viśve Devas and Maruts being the viś, and Pūṣan being the śūdra.⁵⁷ Similarly it is said 'the brāhmaṇa is really spring, the kṣatriya summer, and the viś are the rainy seasoṇ' That there were other professions and crafts with specific names (which in later times at least became castes) even in the times of the Saṃhitās is quite clear. The Ṛg. speaks of `vaptā` (barber) in X. 142.4, `taṣṭā` (a carpenter or maker of chariots) in Ṛg. I. 61.4, VII. 32.20, IX. 112.1, X. 119.5; `tvaṣṭā` (a carpenter) in VIII. 102.8; `bhiṣak` (medicine man) in IX. 112.1 and 3, `karmāra` or `kārmāra` (iron-smith) in X. 72.2 and IX. 112.2, `carmamna` (tanner) in Ṛg. VIII. 5.38.

The Atharvaveda mentions `rathakāra` (III. 5.6), `karmāra` (III. 5.6) and `sūta` (III. 5.7). In the Tai. S. (IV. 5.4.2)⁵⁸ mention is made of `kṣatr` (royal chamberlain or doorkeeper), `saṃgrahatṛ` (treasurer), `taksan` (carpenter) and `rathakāra` (maker of chariots), `kulāla` (potter), `karmāra`, `puñjiṣṭa` (fowler), `niṣāda`, `iṣukṛt` (maker of arrows), `dhanvakṛt` (maker of bows), `mṛgayu` (hunter) and `śvani` (those who lead packs of hounds). These also occur in the Vājasāneyī-saṃhitā 16.26–28 and these and a few more in Vāj. S. 30.5–13 and in Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā 17.13. In the Tai. Br. (III. 4.1 and the following anuvākas that deal with Puruṣamedha) we have `āyogū`, `māgadha` (bard), `sūta`, `śailūṣa` (actor), `rebha`, `bhimāla`, `rathakāra`, `taksan`, `kaulāla`, `karmāra`, `maṇikāra`, `vapa` (sower or barber), `iṣukāra`, `dhanvakāra`, `jyākāra` (maker of bow-string), `rajjussarga`, `mṛgayu`, `śvani`, `surākāra` (vintner), `ayastāpa` (heater of iron or copper), `kitava` (gambler), `bidālakāra` (worker in wicker-work), `kaṇṭakakāra`. The Śatapatha Br. XI. 8.1. speaks of `kaulāla-cakra` (the potter's wheel). The Tai. Br. III. 8.5. mentions also `rājaputra ugra`. The Śatapatha (S. B. E. Vol. 44 p. 397) speaks of Marutta `āvikṣita` as an `āyogava` king. This latter is a `pratiloma` caste according to the `dharmasūtras` (vide below). Whether that word has the same sense is doubtful. The Tai. S. I. 8.9.1–2 mentions among the '`ratnas`' (the jewels), the `sūta`, `grāmaṇī`, `kṣatr`, `saṃgrahitṛ`, `bhāgadugha` (collector of taxes), `akṣāvāpa` (superintendent of gambling). Vide also Tai. Br. I. 7.3. In the Tāṇḍya Brāhmaṇa (19.1.4) it is said that 'eight brave persons hold up the kingdom viz. the king's brother, the king's son, the purohita, the crowned queen, the `sūta`, the `grāmaṇī`, `kṣatr` and `saṃgrahatṛ`'. Therefore it looks likely that `kṣatr` and `saṃgrahatṛ` were high officers of state and not casteṣ In the Śat. Br. XIII. 4. 1. 5 among the guards of the horse let loose in the Aśvamedha there were ‘a hundred sons of kṣātra-saṁgrahitṛs carrying clubs’. As the word ‘kṣātra’ is prefixed to ‘saṁgrahitṛ’ it follows that ‘saṁgrahitṛs’ were officers who may have belonged to any varṇa. In the same passage mention is made of a hundred guardians who were the sons of sūtagrāmaṇīṣ In another passage of the same brāhmaṇa ( XIII. 2. 2. 18) the sūtas and grāmaṇīs are said to be no kings and yet are rājakṛt (i. e. king-makers).⁵⁹ This means probably that they are the principal persons on whose support the king dependṣ The Śat. Br. V. 4. 4. 15–19 arranges brāhmaṇa, king, king's brother, sūta or sthapati, grāmaṇī, sajāta in a descending scale of powerfulnesṣ So the sūta appears to have been originally an important officer. It is hardly possible to say with assurance that all these had become petrified into castes in the modern sense, particularly when several persons associated with these in the Vāj. S. and elsewhere were not castes such as the thief (taskara), the impotent (klība), humpbacked (kubja), dwarf (vāmana) ; but most of the avocations and crafts referred to above have corresponding castes and subcastes for hundreds of yearṣ It is therefore possible to say that in the times of the Saṁhitās and Brāhmaṇas these were groups founded on occupations that had become castes or were in process of developing into casteṣ The Tāṇḍya Br. speaks of Kirātas (who were and are non-Āryan and were aboriginal tribes).⁶⁰ The Vāj. S. (30. 17) speaks of Paulkasa in connection with bībhatsā (nauseating filth) and of cāṇḍāla (in 30.21) in connection with vāyu (wind). The paulkaṣa and cāṇḍāla occur in Tai. Br. ( III. 4. 14 and III. 4. 17 (respectively). In the Chāndogya Up. (V. 10.7)⁶¹ the cāṇḍāla is ranked with the dog and the boar. ‘Therefore even if one knowing thus were to give the leavings of his food to a cāṇḍāla that would in his case be an offering made into the Self as Fire—Cāndogya V. 24. 4. This shows that the cāṇḍāla was the lowest in the social scale. ‘Just as a pāsya or vaideha, or the son of an ugra, after having made his bow strung &c.’—Br. Up. III. 8.2. In the Br. Up. IV. 3.22 mention is made of both cāṇḍāla and paulkasa and in IV. 3.37 it is said⁶² that ‘just as when a king pays a visit, the ugras, pratyenasas (thief catchers), the sūtas and headmen of the village make arrangements for him with food and drink and with pavilionṣ’ Here ugras seem to be a group of nobles subordinate to the king. In later literature ugra is the offspring of a kṣatriya from a śūdra woman (Yāj. I. 91). In the Rg. X. 97. 12 the word ugra occurs ‘You destroy disease just as an ugra who is a mediator or arbitrator (removes dispute).’ What ugra means here cannot be said with certainty. It may only mean a ‘formidable chief or king.’

The rathakāra and niṣāda deserve a passing notice. The Tai. Br. I. 1. 4 after stating that the brāhmaṇa should conse- crate sacred fires in the spring, the kṣatriya in summer, the vaiśya in autumn, ordains that the rathakāra should consecrate sacred fires in the rainy seasoṇ The question arises whether the rathakāra is a member of the three higher castes who has taken in economic distress to the profession of making chariots or is a person belonging to a caste other than the three higher varṇaṣ Jaimini in his Pūrvamīmāṁsā-sūtra (VI. 1. 44–50) discusses this question and establishes⁶³ that the rathakāra is a member of a caste other than the three higher varṇas, that he has on account of the express words in the śruti the privilege to consecrate sacred fires with vedic mantras, that the mantra for the consecration of rathakāras is ‘ṛbhūnāṁ tvā’ (Tai. Br. 1. 1. 4) and that the rathakāras are the caste called Saudhanvana which is neither śūdra nor one of the three higher ones, but is slightly inferior to the three higher varṇaṣ Viśvarūpa ⁶⁴ (on Yāj. I. 10) notices that in some smṛti the rathakāra though not belonging to the three higher varṇas, was allowed the privilege of upanayana, but adds that this dictum of the smṛti is due to mistake, it being misled by the fact that he is allowed the privilege of ādhāna ⁶⁵ (consecration of sacred fires). In modern times the members of the carpenter caste in certain parts of the Deccan at least are in the habit of performing the upa- nayana and wearing the sacred threaḍ With reference to an iṣṭi offered to Rudra a Vedic text says ‘one should make a niṣādasthapati perform this iṣṭi.’ The Pūrvamīmāṃsā sūtra ⁶⁶ (VI. 1. 51–52) discusses the question whether this authorises a niṣāda who is himself a chieftain or a chieftain (who is a member of the three higher varṇas) of niṣādaṣ The established conclusion is that the iṣṭi is to be performed by a niṣāda who is a chieftain though he be beyond the pale of the three varṇas, as the Karmadhāraya compound is the proper way of dissolving the compound and not the genitive Tatpuruṣa. The Ait. Br. (37. 7) says ⁶⁷ ‘just as the niṣādas, or selagas (thieves) or evil-doers seize a wealthy man in a forest and throwing him in a well run away with his wealth.’ The Śāṅkhāyana Br. (25. 15 ) allows one who had performed the Viśvajit sacrifice (in which everything is given away ) to stay in a settlement of niṣādas whose food is the lowest that he is allowed to take. The Kātyā- yanaśrauta-sūtra (I. 1. 12–14) says ⁶⁸ that ‘the chieftain who is a niṣāda can offer a caru of Gavedhukā corn to Rudra, but this offering is to be made in ordinary fire (and not in the fires consecrated with Vedic mantras) i. e. the permission to offer Raudra iṣṭi does not entitle him to perform Vedic consecration of fire (ādhāna). But according to Satyāṣāḍha ⁶⁹-kalpa III. 1 both the niṣāda and the rathakāra are entitled to perform Agnihotra and Darśa-pūrṇamāsa. The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa ⁷⁰ narrates that Viśvāmitra cursed his senior fifty sons, when they did not agree to his proposal to treat Śunaḥśepa (Devarāta) as his son, that they would associate with the lowest castes and that they became the Andhras, Puṇḍras, Śabaras, Pulindas and Mūtibas who are among the lowest of society and are mostly composed of dasyuṣ It is probably owing to this legend that the Manusmṛti ⁷¹ (X. 43-45 ) is prepared to regard the Pauṇḍrakas, the Odras, Drāvi- ḍas, Kāmbojas, Yavanas, Śakas, Pāradas, Pahlavas, Cīnas, Kirātas, Daradas and Khasas as being originally kṣatriya castes, but later on reduced to the position of śūdras by the non- performance of Vedic saṁskāras (like upanayana) and by the absence of contact with brāhmaṇaṣ Manu further adds that the various castes that are outside the ( influence of the ) four varṇas are all known as dasyus whether they speak the language of Mlecchas or of Āryaṣ

One very important question is whether the theory of the four varṇas with their peculiar privileges and duties described in the dharmasūtras and other smṛtis was merely a theory even in the most ancient timeṣ When the Puruṣasūkta of the Ṛgveda speaks of Brāhmaṇa, Rājanya, Vaiśya and Śūdra or when the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa expressly says that they are four varṇas, it appears to me that they speak of facts existing in their times and not merely of a theory which was to be striven for as an ideal. Smṛti writers try to place all their dicta in the frame-work of the varṇas because the four varṇas and their duties and privileges had been more or less clearly defined in the times of the Vedas and Brāhmaṇas, which according to the authors of the smṛtis were śruti, eternal and infallible. They tried to approximate the state of society existing in their times to the varṇas which they held were of hoary antiquity. But there is nothing to show that the same difficulties were felt by the authors of the Vedic hymns and the Brāhmaṇaṣ The manner in which they refer to the privileges and disabilities of the several varṇas have such a deep ring of actuality that one must concede that the varṇas spoken of in them represented the real divisions of society at least to a very great extent, if not cent percent.

The preceding discussion renders the following propositions most probable; (1) that in the earliest times about which we have literary records there were only two varṇas, the āryas and their opponents the dasyus or dāsas; that the difference between the two was based on difference of colour and culture and was thus more or less racial and cultural; (2) that centuries before the saṃhitā period closed the dasyus had been conquered and were given a position subservient to the āryas; (3) that the śūdras were the dasyus so subjugated and made subservient; (4) that the spirit of exclusiveness and pride of superiority existing among the āryas with reference to dasyus soon extended to groups among the āryas themselves; (5) that by the time of the Brāhmaṇa Literature, brāhmaṇas (men supposed to be devoted to learning and priesthood), kṣatriyas (kings, noblemen and some warriors) and vaiśyas (the artisans and common people) had become separated into groups more or less dependent on birth and that the brāhmaṇa ⁷² had come to be regarded as superior to the kṣatriya by the fact of birth; (6) that even such low castes as cāṇḍālas and paulkaśas had been evolved long before the end of the Vedic period; (7) that owing to cultural advance, division of labour arose and numerous arts and crafts had been developed and they were in process of contributing to the complexity of the system by creating numerous sub-castes based upon occupations; (8) that besides the four varṇas intermediate castes like the rathakāra had been evolved; (9) that there were certain non-Aryan tribes which were supposed to have been originally kṣatriyas but fallen later oṇ The close of the Vedic period is here taken as being not later than about 1000 B. C. How much earlier it may be placed it is not possible to say.

The following is a list of persons engaged in professions and crafts, which had probably become castes or were in the process of becoming castes, before the close of the Vedic period, as seen from the Vāj. S., Tai. S. and Tai. Br., Kāṭhaka Saṃ (17. 13 ), the Atharva-veda, the Tāṇḍya Br. (III. 4.), the Ait. Br., the Chāndogya and the Br. Up. The meaning of some of the words is not quite clear and it is possible that some in the list were not at all castes or professionṣ They are arranged in the alphabetical order of Sanskrit (though transliterated). The meanings of most of them have been given above. Where the meaning is doubtful a question mark has been made.

Ajapāla (goatherd) Dāśa Andhra Dhanuṣkāra Ayastāpa or Ayogū or Āyogū Dhanvakāra Avipāla (keeper of ewes) or Āṇḍa (?) Dhanvakṛt Iṣukāra Dhaivara Ugra Niṣāda Kaṇṭakakāra or Kaṇṭaki- or kāri (in Vāj. S.) Naiṣāda Karmāra Pumścalu Kāri (dancer ?) Puñjiṣṭa Kitava or Kirāta Pauñjiṣṭha Kināśa (cultivator ?) Pundra Kulāla or Kaulāla Pulinda Kevarta Paulkasa Kośakāri (blower of bellows) Bainda (catching fish in nets) Kṣatṛ Bhiṣak Gopāla Bhīmala (timid ?) Carmamna Maṇikāra Cāṇḍāla Māgadha Jambhaka (?) Mārgāra Jyākāra Mūtiba Takṣan Mṛgayu Maināla (catcher of fish ?) Rajayitrī (dyer) Rajjusarga or-sarja Rathakāra Rājaputra Rebha (?) Vaṃśanartin Vapa (barber) Vaṇija Vāsah-palpūlī (a washer-woman) Vidalakārī or Bidala- Vrātya Śabara Śabalya (?) Śailūṣa Śvanin (or Śvanita) Saṃgrahitṛ Surākāra Sūta Selaga Hiraṇyakāra

Several centuries before the Christian era there were several casteṣ This follows not only from the dharmaśūtras but also from the ancient Buddhist works and from the meagre existing fragments of the work of Megasthenes on India. Though Megasthenes was confused in his statements about the caste system as prevalent in his day, some propositions are clearly deducible therefroṃ He states ( pp. 40 ff ) that the whole population of India was divided into seven castes, (1) philosophers, (2) husbandmen, (3) neatherds and shepherds, (4) artisans, (5) military, (6) overseers, (7) councillors and assessorṣ Out of these 1 and 5 correspond to brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas, 2-3 to vaiśyas, 4 to śūdras; 6th and 7th correspond to adhyakṣas and amātyas (as in Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra) and are not really castes but occupationṣ He probably regards them as castes because the offices of the adhyakṣas and amātyas were generally hereditary or at least he gathered that they were so. Megasthenes' further statement ( pp. 43-44 ) that 'no one is allowed to marry out of his own caste or to exercise any calling or art except his own' shows that the prevailing tendency was that caste had become exclusive and mostly occupational in his day, though there must have been exceptions of which he was not informeḍ

The ancient writers on dharmaśāstra strive very hard to account for the bewildering ramifications of the caste system from the four varṇas that were spoken of in the śruti (revela-tion). There is unanimity on the theory that the numerous castes actually found in the country arose from the unions of males of different varṇas with women belonging to varṇas differing from their owṇ The divergences ( and they are many ) among the several smṛtikāras relate only to detailṣ The smṛti writers had before them the hoary theory of four varṇas vouched for by infallible Vedic authority, but they were at the same time quite cognisant of the realities in society viz. the separate existence of numerous castes and sub-castes that had varying claims as regards social status and that were based in popular estimation on birth alone. Therefore, when one criticizes the smṛti view of the derivation of numerous castes from the mixture or confusion ( saṁkara ) of the four varṇas as purely hypothetical and imaginary, the criticism is true only partially. The smṛtis were composed in different parts of India at different times and they were meant to supply a popular want, to guide the people and to reflect the prevailing state of society and popular feeling. Therefore, it must be admitted that the numerous castes mentioned in the smṛtis did exist at the time of the smṛtis, that the social status of the several castes might have varied from country to country or from epoch to epoch, that the peculiar avocations and means of livelihood assigned to the various castes reflected the real state of thingṣ The element of hypothesis and speculation lies only in the theory of a particular sub-caste having sprung from the union of two persons belonging to two particular varṇas or casteṣ⁷⁴ This description of the origin of the several castes was only indicative of the author's view or of the accepted view about the social status of those castes in particular localitieṣ There is here, as a matter of fact, great divergence of views among the several authorṣ

In the first place all writers on dharmaśāstra start with the propositions viz. (1) that the four varṇas, brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya and śūdra, are arranged in a descending scale of social status; and (2) that marriage is or was permissible between a male of a higher varṇa with a woman of a lower varṇa, but the union of a woman of a higher varṇa with a male of varṇa lower than her own is reprehensible and not permitteḍ There is a third proposition advanced by many writers that a man belongs to a particular varṇa or jāti by birth only i. e. if born in lawful wedlock of parents both of whom belong to that varṇa or jāti.⁷⁵ This is the view held by all medieval writers and digests and it is expressly said that a man belongs to a caste by birth and no actions of his can alter that fact, that several castes are like the species of animals and that caste attaches to the body and not to the soul (vide Sūtasamhitā). When a male of a higher varṇa marries a woman of a lower varṇa, the marriage is said to be anuloma (lit. with the hair, in the natural order) and the offspring is said to be anuloma; when there is a union of a woman of a higher varṇa with a male of a lower varṇa, it is said to be pratiloma (against the hair, i. e. against the natural or proper order) and the children of the union are said to be pratiloma. These two words anuloma and pratiloma (as applied to marriage or progeny) hardly ever occur in the vedic literature. In the Bṛ. Up. (II. 1. 15) and Kausitaki Bṛ. Up. IV. 18 (quoted in note 89 above) the word ‘pratiloma’ is applied to the procedure adopted by a brāhmaṇa of going to a kṣatriya for knowledge about brahman. From this it may possibly be inferred that pratiloma and anuloma might have been employed with reference to marriages also (in the days of the Upaniṣad). Pāṇini (IV. 4. 28) teaches the formation of words from anuloma and pratiloma. They occur in Gautama (IV. 14–15), Bauḍ Dh. S. (I. 8. 8), Vasiṣṭha (18. 7), Manu (X. 13), Yāj. (I. 95) and other smṛti workṣ

One important question is whether the theory of anuloma or pratiloma castes presupposes a marriage or only a union (outside marriage) of a man and a womaṇ The Ap. Dh. S. (II. 6. 13. 1, 3–4) lays down ⁷⁶ that a man must marry a virgin of his own varṇa with the rites prescribed by the śāstras and only the son born of such a marriage is entitled to the privileges and occupation of his father, that sexual intercourse with a woman who has been married by another or on whom the proper ceremonies of marriage are not performed or who belongs to another caste is condemned and that the son (and not the daughter) born of such an union is condemned (through the sin of the parents). So Āpastamba looked with disfavour even on marriages called anuloma. He is entirely silent about anuloma and pratiloma casteṣ It is no doubt true that most ancient writers like Gautama (IV. 1), Vasiṣṭha (I. 24), Manu (III. 12–13), Yāj. (I. 55 and 57) prescribe that a person should by preference marry a girl of his own varṇa but also allow the marriage of a person with a girl of another varṇa lower than his owṇ Yāj. (I. 92) expressly says that the six anuloma castes, mūrdhāvasikta, ambaṣṭha, niṣāda, māhiṣya, ugra, and karaṇa are so called only when they are the offspring of women married by men of higher varṇas. Manu (X. 41) says that the six anuloma castes are entitled to the rites ( saṁskāras like upanayana) performed for dvijas, but that the pratiloma castes are like śūdras (i. e. even when a pratiloma caste springs from a brāhmaṇa woman and a kṣatriya or vaiśya male they cannot have upanayana and other rites of dvijas performed for them, though both parents are dvijas ). Kauṭilya⁷⁷ ( III. 7) also says that all pratilomas except caṇḍālas are like śūdras; Viṣṇu says that they are condemned by all Āryaṣ Devala⁷⁸ (quoted by Parāśara- mādhavīya I. 2. p. 122) says that pratilomas are outside the pale of the system of varṇas and are patita. The Smṛtyarthasāra p. 13 says that anuloma sons and those born of the mūrdhāvasikta and other anuloma castes are dvijātis and are entitled to saṁskāras as dvijātis. Commentators like Kullūka (on Manu X. 11) say that, as no marriage is legally possible between a woman of a higher varṇa and a male of a lower varṇa, all the pratilomas are born outside lawful wedlock. Gautama (IV. 20) says that all pratilomas are dharmahinā, which is interpreted by the Mit. on Yāj. III. 262 as meaning that they cannot have upanayana and similar saṁskāras of dvijas performed for them, though they are amenable to the rules of morality and entitled to perform vratas and prāyaścittas. Vasiṣṭha, Baudhāyana and several others do not make it clear whether, when they speak of pratilomas, they contemplate offspring of legal marriages or only of illegitimate and adulterous unionṣ But it will be seen from the list appended below that Uśanas and Vaikhānasa almost always make a distinction between the caste assigned to the offspring of the union of parents of different varṇas, according to as there is a marriage between the two or it is only a clandestine, illegitimate or adulterous unioṇ For example, Uśanas says ⁷⁹ that when there is a marriage between a kṣatriya male and a brāhmaṇa female, the offspring is called sūta, while the offspring of a clandestine union between a brāhmaṇa woman and a kṣatriya male was called rathakāra. So these two authors held that there could be a legal marriage when a woman of a higher varṇa married a male of a lower varṇa. ⁸⁰ There were several other works like the Sūtasamhitā (Śivamāhātmyakhaṇḍa chap. 12. 12–48) where a similar distinction is made between the children of marriages and clandestine unionṣ The Mit. on Yāj. I. 90 says that such progeny as kuṇḍa and golaka (Manu III. 174), kānīna, sahodhaja (who are all not due to intercourse in wedlock) are different from savarṇa, anuloma and pratiloma and are to be treated as śūdras and that the kṣetraja son is to be treated as in a different category (since niyoga is allowed by the smṛtis and by the usage of śiṣṭas) and belongs to the caste of his mother. Aparārka ( on Yāj. I. 92 p. 118 ) does not accept this view and holds that even kānīna and sahodha may be held to be brāhmaṇas ( if the begetter can be proved to have been a brāhmaṇa ); while Viśvarūpa on Yāj. II. 133 says that kānīna and gūḍhaja must be deemed to belong to the mother's caste as the begetter may not be known and that sahodhaja (II. 135) is also to be so treateḍ These several kinds of secondary sons will be treated under inheritance.

A few words must be said about the word jāti. The idea of varṇa was as we have seen based originally on race, culture, character and professioṇ It takes account mainly of the moral and intellectual worth of man and is a system of classes which appears more or less natural. The ideal of varṇa even in the smṛtis lays far more emphasis on duties, on a high standard of effort for the community or society rather than on the rights and privileges of birth. The system of jātis (castes) lays all emphasis on birth and heredity and tends to create the mentality of clinging to privileges without trying to fulfil the obligations correspond-ing to such privilegeṣ The word ‘jāti’ in the sense of caste hardly ever occurs in the vedic literature. In the Nirukta⁸¹ (XII. 13) it is said ‘after agnicayana (the building of the fire altar), a man should not approach a rāmā (for sexual intercourse); rāmā is so called because she is approached only for pleasure and not for (accumulation of ) merit; she is of a dark caste’. Here the word kṛṣṇajātiyā occurs with reference to a woman of the śūdra caste. Almost these very words occur in Vasiṣṭha (18. 17-18)⁸² where for kṛṣṇa-jātiyā the word kṛṣṇavarṇā is substituteḍ Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 56 (yad-ucyate etc.)⁸³ quotes these words as a brāhmaṇa text, but there the word is kṛṣṇavarṇīyā. Therefore, the use of the word jāti in the sense of caste can be traced back at least to the times of the Nirukta. Pāṇini (V. 4. 9)⁸⁴ teaches the formation of words like ‘brāhmaṇajātiya’ derived from words ending in ‘jāti’ (in the sense of caste). The expression ‘jātidharma’ (rules of castes) occurs in Gautama XI. 20, Vasiṣṭha I. 17 and XIX. 7, Manu I. 118 and VIII. 41 and the word jāti (caste) occurs also in Āp. Dh. S. II. 3. 6. 1, II. 1. 2. 3, Manu (IV. 18, X. 11, 18, 40, 97), Yāj. (I. 95, 361, II. 69, 206, III. 213), Nārada (rṇādāna 283 ) and in the vārtika on Pāṇini IV. 1. 137. Varṇa and jāti are sometimes clearly distinguished as in Yāj II. 69 and 206. But very often they are confoundeḍ In Manu X. 27, 31 the word varṇa is used in the sense of mixed castes (jātis). Conversely the word jāti often appears to be used to indicate ‘varṇa’. Vide Manu III. 15, VIII. 177, IX. 86 and 335, X. 41 and Yāj. I. 89 (in which latter sajāti appears to mean ‘savarṇa’).

Even when anuloma marriages were allowed there is no unanimity among the sages and the smṛtis as to the status of the progeny of such unionṣ Three different views are founḍ The first view is that if a male of one varṇa married a female of the varṇa immediately after it, the progeny belonged to the varṇa of the father; e. g. Bauḍ Dh. S.⁸⁵ ( I. 8. 6 and I. 9. 3 ) says that sons born to a person of a savarṇa wife or a wife of the varṇa next to his own are savarṇa i. e. the son of a brāhmaṇa from a kṣatriya varṇa is a brāhmaṇa. The Anusāśana- parva 48. 4, Nārada ( stripumsa 106 ) and Kauṭilya ( III. 7 ) say the same. Gautama IV. 15 as interpreted by Haradatta appears to say that the off-spring of a brāhmaṇa from a kṣatriya wife is called savarṇa, but not the offspring of a kṣatriya male from a vaiśya wife or of a vaiśya male from a śūdra wife. Fick ( pp. 54-57 ) shows that even according to the Bhaddasāla Jātaka 'the family of the mother does not matter; the family of the father alone is important'. The second view is that the progeny of anuloma unions is in status lower than the father, but higher than the mother; e. g. Manu X. 6 'sages declare the sons begotten by dvijas on wives of varṇas immediately next to theirs as similar ( to the fathers, but not of the same varṇa with the fathers ) but tainted by the inferiority of their mothers'. The third view ( and this is the common view ) is that the progeny of anuloma marriages is of the same varṇa as regards its privileges and obligations as the mother's; e. g. vide Viṣṇu Dh. S. 16. 2 ⁸⁶ and Śaṅkha ( prose ) quoted by the Mit. on Yāj I. 91 and Aparārka ( p. 118 ). A classical echo of this view is found in the Śakuntala of Kālidāsa ⁸⁷ where king Duṣyanta exclaims aside to himself 'would that this girl were born of the sage from a wife who was not savarṇa'. Medhātithi on Manu X. 6 says that Pāṇḍu, Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Vidura being kṣetraja sons took the caste of their motherṣ The Mit. explains the words of Śaṅkha by saying that the offspring of anuloma marriages such as mūrdhāvasikta are not really different from kṣatriyas, that they have the same saiṁskāras but they do not become kṣatriyas etc. and are dubbed by these names to indicate their mixed origin and come to form separate sub-casteṣ The pratilomas, as said above, are lower in status than any of the two parentṣ The ancient dharmasūtras mention only a few mixed casteṣ Ap. Dh. S. mentions only cāṇḍāla, paulkasa and vaiṇa. Gautama names five anuloma castes, six pratiloma, one and eight others according to the view of some. Baudhāyana adds to those mentioned by Gautama a few more viz. rathakāra, śvapāka, vaiṇa and kukkuṭa. Vasiṣṭha names even a smaller number than Gautama and Baudhāyana. It is Manu (X) and Viṣṇu Dh. S. (XVI) that for the first time dilate upon the avocations of the mixed casteṣ Manu refers to 6 anuloma, 6 pratiloma and 20 doubly mixed castes and states the avocations of about 23; Yāj. names only 13 castes (other than the four varṇas). Uśanas names about 40 and gives their peculiar avocationṣ All the smṛtis taken together hardly mention more than about one hundred casteṣ

The number of primary anulomas is only six (vide Manu X. 10, Yāj I. 91-92), but Manu names only three of them, viz. ambaṣṭha, niṣāda and ugra. The primary pratilomas also are six (vide Manu X. 11-12 and 16-17 and Yāj. I. 93-94) viz. sūta, vaidehaka, cāṇḍāla, māgadha, kṣatṛ, and āyogava. Further sub-castes are said to arise from the unions of the anulomas and pratilomas with the four varṇas and of the male of one anuloma and the female of another, from the union of pratilomas among themselves and from the union of a male or female of an anuloma caste and the female or male of a pratiloma caste. For example, Yāj. I. 95 defines rathakāra as the offspring of a māhiṣya male and a karaṇa female, i. e. it is a further mixture between two anuloma casteṣ The Mit. on Yāj. I. 95 says that upanayana and other saṁskāras are performed for the offspring of anuloma persons marrying among themselveṣ The Smṛtyarthasāra (p. 13) says the same⁸⁸. Similarly Manu X. 15 says that āvṛta and ābhīra spring from the union of a brāhmaṇa with an ugra girl and an ambaṣṭha girl respectively (i. e. from the union of a brāhmaṇa with anuloma caste girls). Manu X. 19 says that śvapāka is the offspring of a kṣatṛ male (a pratiloma) with an ugra female (an anuloma). Manu X. 33 defines maitreyaka as the offspring of a vaidehaka male and an āyogava female (i.e. from parents who are both pratiloma). A smṛti verse quoted⁸⁹ by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 95 says that there are six anulomas, 24 doubly mixed castes (due to the union of the six anulomas with the four varṇas), 6 pratilomas and 24 doubly mixed castes (due to the unions of 6 pratilomas with four varṇas) i. e. in all 60 and further mixtures of these among themselves give rise to innumerable sub-casteṣ Similarly Viṣṇu Dh. S. 16. 7 ⁹⁰ says that the further mixed castes arising from the unions of mixed castes are numberlesṣ This shows that before the time of the Viṣṇudharmasūtra (i. e. at least about 2000 years ago) numberless castes and sub-castes had been formed and the writers on dharmaśāstra practically gave up in despair the task of deriving them, even though mediately, from the primary varṇaṣ The same state of things was continued and was rather aggravated by the time of the nibandhakāraṣ Medhātithi on Manu X. 31 speaks of 60 mixed castes along with the four varṇas and adds that by the intermingling of these endless sub castes are formeḍ The Mitākṣarā⁹¹ on Yāj. I. 95 observes that since the castes spring- ing from the double intermingling of varṇas are innumerable, it is impossible to describe or enumerate theṃ Similarly the Kṛtyakalpataru in its prakīrṇaka topic of vyavahāra section, when dealing with castes, merely quotes several passages from the smṛtis and does not add a word of its own about the castes, their names or avocations in its own day (first half of 12th century). The Mit. on Yāj. I. 94⁹² expressly says that the avocations of the pratilomas (about which Yāj. is silent) should be understood from the smṛtis of Uśanas and Manu. Medieval writers on dharmaśāstra usually ignore the treat- ment in detail of the numerous sub-castes and content themselves with dilating upon the duties of the four varṇaṣ

There was great diversity of opinion among the smṛtikāras about the derivation and status of the several sub- casteṣ We find that the same sub-caste is known under five or six different names even so early as the present Manusmṛti. Manu X. 22 gives seven names for the same caste and Manu X. 23 gives five for another. Viśvarūpa on Yaj. I. 92 explains that these different names are due to difference of locality.⁹³ There is another difficulty. The same name given to a caste is differently derived by different writers (vide under niṣāda and parāśava below). For the same sub-caste different names are given in different smṛtis (vide under kṛta and rāmaka ). It became difficult to assign any peculiar derivation for groups of people and so Manu (X. 40), Vasiṣṭha⁹⁴ (18.7) and Anuśāsana-parva 148. 29 laid down that men’s sub-caste was to be known from their actions and occupationṣ This shows that according to most writers castes in the times of the smṛtis were predominantly occupational.

One word that frequently occurs in connection with castes and sub-castes is varṇasaṅkara ( or only saṅkara ). In Manu X. 12 and 24 the word varṇasaṅkara is used in the plural in the sense of mixed castes, while in Manu X. 40 and (and in V. 89 ) the word saṁkara seems to be used in the sense of ‘mixture or intermingling of varṇas’. Gautama (VIII. 3) employs the word saṁkara and says ‘on the two (the brāhmaṇa and the king ) depends the prosperity (of men), protection, the prevention of mixture (of varṇas) and the (accumulation of) merit (or the observance of dharma).’⁹⁵ Nārada (strīpuṁsa 102 )⁹⁶ says ‘to be born from a union in the inverse order of varṇas amounts to varṇasaṅkara;’ while Bṛhaspati quoted in the Kṛtyakalpataru appears to apply the word varṇasaṅkara to both anuloma and pratiloma casteṣ Bauḍ⁹⁷ Dh. S. (I. 9. 16) says that those who are born of varṇasaṃkara are called vrātyaṣ The Mit. on Yaj I. 96 applies the word varṇasaṃkara to both anuloma and pratiloma progeny. Medhātithi⁹⁸ on Manu V. 88 says that the word saṃkarajāta indicates pratilomas like āyogava and that even though as regards anulomas there is intermingling (of varṇas), yet as they have the privileges of the caste of their mothers, even Manu himself does not apply the word saṃkirṇayoni to them as seen above (Manu X. 25). Yama⁹⁹ quoted in the Kṛtyakalpataru says ‘Varṇasaṃkara arises by the violation of the restrictions (about marriage); if the proper order of varṇas (i. e. male of higher varṇa marrying a woman of a lower varṇa) is followed, (the offspring) is entitled to be regarded as belonging to the system of varṇas, but if the reverse order is followed it is siṇ’ Manu (X. 24) says ‘mixed castes arise by members of one varṇa having sexual intercourse with women of another varṇa, by marrying women who ought not to have been married (such as a sagotra girl) and by neglect of the duties peculiar to one’s varṇa’. The Anuśāsanaparva 48. 1¹⁰⁰ remarks that ‘varṇasaṃkara arises from wealth, greed, desires, uncertainty about the varṇa (of a person) or ignorance about varṇa’. Even in such a philosophical treatise as the Bhagavad-gītā (I. 41-43) it is said ‘when women become corrupt (or demoralised), intermingling of varṇas arises; saṃkara necessarily leads the whole family and the destroyer of the family to hell. By reason of these transgressions of the destroyers of families which bring about varṇasaṃkara, the ancient caste observances and family observances are subverteḍ’

On account of the great emphasis laid on the prevention of varṇasaṃkara the smṛtis ordain that it is one of the principal duties of the king to punish people if they transgress the rules prescribed for varṇas and to punish men and women if guilty of varṇasaṃkara. Gautama (XI. 9-10) says ‘the king should protect the varṇas and āśramas according to the śāstras and he should make them conform to their duties when they swerve from them; Vasiṣṭha (19. 7-8) ‘the king paying attention to all these viz. the observances of countries, castes and families should make the four varṇas conform to their duties and should punish them when they go astray’; Viṣṇu Dh. S. III. 3 and Yaj. I. 361. Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa 27, Matsyapurāṇa 215. 63 say the same. Nārada ( stripuṁsa 113 )¹⁰¹ says ‘when a brāhmaṇa woman goes astray a cāṇḍāla is born from a śūdra male ( and the brāhmaṇa woman ); therefore the king should specially protect women from saṁkara’. It is on account of this that so early as in the first centuries of the Christian era we see that king Vāsiṣṭhiputa Siri Puḷumāyi is extolled as having prevented the mixture of the four varṇas ( E. I. vol. VIII pp. 60–61, ‘ vinivatitacātuvaṇa-sakaṛasa ).’ That varṇasaṁkara had gone too far in the opinion of the author of the Mahābhārata ( Vanaparva 180. 31-33 ) follows from the following words which are despairingly put in the mouth of Yudhiṣṭhira¹⁰² "It appears to me that it is very difficult to ascertain the caste of human beings on account of the confusion of all varṇas; all sorts of men are always begetting offspring from all sorts of women; speech, sexual intercourse, being born and death–these are common to all human beings; and there is scriptural authority ( for this view ) in the words ‘We, who- ever we are, offer the sacrifice’. Hence those who have seen the truth regard character as the principal thing desireḍ” Śaṁkarācārya in his bhāṣya on Vedāntasūtra I. 3. 33 remarks that, though in his day varṇas and āśramas had become disorganised and unstable as to their dharmas, that was not the case in other ages, since otherwise the śāstras laying down regulations for them would have to be deemed purposeless or futile.¹⁰³

Gautama (IV. 18-19 ), Manu ( X. 64-65 ) and Yaj. ( I. 96 ) speak of a peculiar doctrine called Jātyutkarṣa and Jātyapakarṣa. These passages have given rise to some divergence of interpreta- tion, but their general sense is clear. Gautama (IV. 18)¹⁰⁴ says that according to the ācāryas the anulomas when they marry in such a way that the bridegroom in each stage is higher or lower than the bride they rise to a higher or go down to a lower varṇa in the 7th or 5th generation (respectively). This is explained by Haradatta as follows: When a brāhmaṇa marries a kṣatriya woman the daughter born of this marriage is called savarṇā; if this latter is married to a brāhmaṇa and a daughter is born and this latter is again married by a brāhmaṇa and if this continues in the same way for seven generations, then when the 7th girl in descent marries a brāhmaṇa, whatever child is born of that union belongs to the brāhmaṇa varṇa (though in the preceding generations only the fathers were brāhmaṇas and the mothers were all not strictly brāhmaṇas, but only savarṇās if at all). This is called jātyutkarṣa (rise in status as a caste). On the other hand, when a brāhmaṇa marries a kṣatriya girl and a son is born who is called savarṇa, then that son marries a kṣatriya girl and has a son and this is continued for five generations, then when the fifth son (in descent) marries a kṣatriya girl, the child born belongs to the kṣatriya varṇa (though in all the preceding generations the father was higher than kṣatriya and the mother only was a kṣatriya). This is jātyapakarṣa (fall in status as a caste). The same rule holds good as regards a kṣatriya marrying a vaiśya female and a vaiśya marrying a śūdra female. The same rule applies among anulomas also e. g. if a savarṇā (as defined by Gautama) marries an ambaṣṭha girl and a daughter is born who again marries a savarṇā and this continues for seven generations, then the child of the 7th girl (in descent) from a savarṇā male becomes a savarṇā (rises in status); on the other hand if a savarṇā (offspring of brāhmaṇa male and kṣatriya female) marries an ambaṣṭha girl and a son is born and that son marries an ambaṣṭha girl and their son marries an ambaṣṭha girl and this goes on for seven generations, then the child of the 7th mal ent ) born of an ambaṣṭha wife becomes an ambaṣṭha ( i. e. there is jātyapakarsa as to anulomas ).

According to Manu¹⁰⁵ X. 64 when a brāhmaṇa marries a śūdra woman, the daughter born is pāraśava, and if this pāraśava daughter marries a brāhmaṇa and this latter union marries a brāhmaṇa and this continues for seven generations, then the seventh generation will be a brāhmaṇa ( i. e. there will be jātyutkarṣa ). Conversely, if a brāhmaṇa marries a śūdra woman and a son is born, he is a pāraśava and that son marries a śūdra woman and their son again marries a śūdra woman and this goes on for 7 generations, the 7th generation becomes a mere śūdra ( there is jātyapakarsa ). It will be seen that this differs in several respectṣ In the first place for both jātyutkarṣa and jātyapakarsa seven generations are prescribed, while in Gautama they are 7 and 5 respectively (according to Haradatta). In the second place according to Gautama the 8th in descent from the first anuloma marriage secures jātyutkarṣa, while according to Manu, the 7th secures it. Further Manu is silent about jātyutkarṣa when the original parents are anulomaṣ Besides, the commentators of Manu shorten the period for rise or fall in jāti as stated below. Manu X. 65 extends the same rules to the offspring of the marriage of a kṣatriya with a vaiśya woman and of a vaiśya with a śūdra womaṇ Medhātithi and Kullūka extend these express words of Manu further by explaining that if a brāhmaṇa marries a vaiśya female and a daughter is born and she again marries a brāhmaṇa then in the fifth generation there will be jātyutkarṣa ; conversely if a son is born from a brāhmaṇa and a vaiśya wife, and he marries a vaiśya female and this goes on, then in the fifth generation the son will be a vaiśya (i. e. there will be jātyapakarsa). Similarly if a brāhmaṇa marries a kṣatriya woman then there is jāyutkarsa or jātyapakarṣa in three generationṣ

Yājñavalkya (I. 96)¹⁰⁶ speaks of two kinds of jāyutkarṣa or jātyapakarṣa viz. one due to marriage (as in Manu and Gautama) and another due to the avocation followeḍ ‘It should be understood that there is rise in caste in the 7th or even in the 5th generation; if there is inversion as to the avocations, then there is corresponding similarity (of varṇa in the 7th or even 5th generation).' This is elaborated by the Mitākṣarā as follows:— If a brāhmaṇa marries a śūdra woman and a daughter is born she is a niṣādī; if this latter marries a brāhmaṇa and a daughter is born and she in turn marries a brāhmaṇa and this goes on for six generations, then the child of the 6th girl (in descent) becomes a brāhmaṇa (he being 7th in descent); similarly if a brāhmaṇa marries a vaiśya woman and a girl is born, she is an ambaṣṭha; if the latter marries a brāhmaṇa and a daughter is born and this goes on in the same way, then the fifth girl in descent has a child (from a brāhmaṇa husband) which is the 6th in descent from the original anuloma marriage and which then becomes a brāhmaṇa. If a brāhmaṇa marries a kṣatriya woman and a daughter is born who is called mūrdhāvasiktā (Yāj. I. 91) and she marries a brāhmaṇa, then the fourth in descent marrying a brāhmaṇa has a child (5th in descent), then that child becomes a brāhmaṇa. Similarly, if a kṣatriya married a śūdra female and a daughter was born, she was called ugra, then jātyutkarṣa by marrying a higher male took place in the 6th generatioṇ If a kṣatriya married a vaiśya woman, the daughter born was a māhiṣyā and jātyutkarṣa took place in the 5th generatioṇ If a vaiśya married a śūdra woman, the daughter of the marriage is a karaṇī and if she marries a vaiśya, then in the fifth generation there would be jātyutkarṣa. Certain peculiar avocations and activities are prescribed for the four varṇaṣ Each varṇa may in times of difficulty follow the occupation peculiar to the caste immediately below it, but should not follow the avocations peculiar to the higher varṇas;¹⁰⁷ he must however revert to his proper avocation when the difficulty is over (vide Vasiṣṭha II. 13-23, Viṣṇu Dh. S. II. 15, Yāj. I. 118-120, Gautama X. 1-7 &c.). If a brāhmaṇa begins to follow the avocations peculiar to a śūdra and has a son, who does the same continuously for seven generations, the 7th becomes a śūdra (by caste). If a brāhmaṇa begins to follow the avocations peculiar to a vaiśya or a kṣatriya then in the 5th or 6th generation respectively there is fall in caste (i. e. the 5th or 6th becomes respectively a vaiśya or kṣatriya). Similarly if a kṣatriya follows the avocation of a vaiśya or śūdra and this goes on continuously, then the 5th or 6th ( respectively ) becomes a śūdra or vaiśya. Similarly if a vaiśya takes to the work peculiar to śūdras, then the fifth generation becomes śūdra.

Bauḍ ¹⁰⁸ Dh. S. (I. 8. 13-14) gives another illustration of jātyutkarṣa. He says ‘if a niṣāda (the son of a brāhmaṇa from a śūdra wife) marries a niṣādī (and this goes on continuously ), then the fifth generation becomes free of the taint of a śūdra status, he can have upanayana performed for him and his son (6th from the original niṣāda pair) can have a vedic sacrifice performed for hiṃ’

These provisions would considerably lessen the rigour of the caste system based purely on birth. But one feels grave doubts whether such a method of jātyutkarṣa or jātyapakarṣa ( particularly the one based on occupation ) was or could be even enforced in actual life. It would have been impossible to remember descent in a particular way for five or seven generationṣ The want of unanimity among the original smṛtikāras and the commentators also points in the direction that the method advocated, though it might have originally some slight basis in fact, was only a hypothesis and an ideal. Hardly any examples of jātyutkarṣa in the way set out by Manu or Yāj. occur in the literature on dharma-śāstra or in inscriptionṣ In the inscriptions we have authentic cases of intercaste marriages only, but hardly anything further ¹⁰⁹. From the Talgunda pillar inscription of king Kākusthavarman of the Kadamba family we learn that the Kadambas were originally of brāhmaṇa lineage, that the founder of the family was a brāhmaṇa Mayūraśarman, who became exasperated with the Pallavas of Kāñcīpura and took up the sword to conquer the earth, that his descendants applied the affix ‘varman’ to their names (as if they were kṣatriyas, according to Manu II. 32) and Kākuśtha- varman (4th in descent from Mayūraśarman ) married his daughters to Gupta and other kings¹¹⁰. This shows that an originally brāhmaṇa family came to look upon itself as kṣatriya by virtue of pursuing the profession of arms and governing the people. In the Mahābhārata we meet with stories of kings who became brāhmaṇaṣ For example, Anuśāsana 30 speaks of Vītahavya, a king, as having become a brāhmaṇa; similarly Śalya (39. 36–37) speaks of Ārṣṭiṣeṇa, Sindhudvīpa, Devāpi and Viśvāmitra as having become brāhmaṇas at a sacred spot on the Sarasvatī. In the Purāṇas also there are stories¹¹¹ of kings like Viśvāmitra, Māndhātā, Saṁkṛti, Kapi, Vadryāśva, Purukutsa, Ārṣṭiṣeṇa, Ajamīḍha and others as having risen to the status of brāhmaṇaṣ These are mythical sages and their rise is not stated to have been due to the principle of jātyutkarṣa¹¹². Ibbetson ( Report on the census of the Punjab 1881, pp. 174-176 ) notes that brāhmaṇas following certain professions became degraded and that the caste was changeḍ

That the professional castes were wealthy and well organized follows from the dharmaśāstra works and epigraphic recordṣ In this connection the words śreṇī, pūga, gaṇa, vrāta and saṅgha deserve to be carefully studieḍ All these were called samūha (group) or varga according to Kātyāyana¹¹³. These words occur in the Vedic literature, but the sense is generally 'a group' and there is no special meaning attacheḍ 'Śreṇi' occurs in the Rg. I. 163. 10 ¹¹⁴ (like flamingoes the horses press forward in rows or groups); both vrāta and gaṇa occur in Rg. III. 26. 6, V. 53. 11 and in numerous other placeṣ The Kausi- take Br. 16. 7¹¹⁵ speaks of Rudra as pūga (as he is the head of the band of Maruts). Āp. Dh. S. I. 1. 3. 26¹¹⁶ quotes a Brāh- mana passage about a group (saṅgha) of brahmacārins going about for almṣ Pāṇini teaches¹¹⁷ the formation of derivatives from pūga, gaṇa, saṅgha (V. 2. 52), from vrāta (V. 2. 21). In his time it appears the words had acquired specific meaningṣ The Mahābhāṣya explains (on Pāṇini V. 2. 21) that vrātas are groups formed by men of various castes with no fixed means of livelihood but subsisting by the might (or strength) of their bodies (by bodily labour of various kinds). The Kāśikā¹¹⁸ explains pūgas as associations of men of different castes with no fixed professions, who are solely bent on making money or seeking pleasure. Kauṭilya in one place distinguishes between soldiers and śreṇis (guilds) and in another place says that the guilds of kṣatriyas in Kāmbhoja and Surāṣṭra subsist by the profession of arms and vārtā (agriculture).¹¹⁹ Vaṣ Dh. S. XVI. 15 says that boundary disputes are to be settled by the evidence of the old men in the village or town or of guilds (śreṇi) when there is conflict of documentary evidence. Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 167 prescribes banishment for him who embezzles the wealth of associations (gaṇa) and who transgresses the conventions made by theṃ Manu (VIII. 219) has a similar rule about village and local associations (saṅgha). The above words are variously explained by the several commen- tators (vide my notes to the translation of Kātyāyana verses¹²⁰ 678–682 of that reconstructed smṛti). Kātyāyana says ‘Naigama is an association of citizens of the same city, vrāta is a company of soldiers carrying various arms, pūga is an association of traders and the like, gaṇa is a group of brāhmaṇas, saṅgha is a body of Bauddhas or Jainas; and bands of cāṇḍālas and śvapacas are called gulma.’ Yāj. (I. 361) directs the king to punish kulas, castes, śreṇis, gaṇas, if they transgress their rules (of conduct or business) and the Mit. explains śreṇi as a guild of sellers of betel leaves and the like and gaṇa as of ‘helābūkās’ (horse-dealers); while Yāj. II. 192 and Nārada¹²¹ (samayasyānapākarma 2 ) require the king to prevent the breach of the conventions of śreṇi, naigama, pūga, vrāta, gaṇa and to confirm them in their traditional occupationṣ Yāj. II. 30 says that pūgas and śreṇis had authority to investigate disputes and that the pūga was a higher tribunal than the śreṇi. The Mit. on this explains that pūga is an association of people of diffe- rent castes and different occupations that stay in one locality, while a śreṇi is a group of people of different castes, that subsist by the occupation of one caste and gives ‘hedabukas’ ‘tāmbū- likas’ (betel sellers), ‘kuvindas’ (weavers) and ‘carmakāras’ (shoe-makers) as examples of śreṇiṣ In the Harṣa stone of Chāhamāna Vigraharāja (E. I. vol. II. p. 124) there is a reference to one dramma for each horse given to ‘hedavikaṣ’ In the Nasik Inscription No. 15 (E. I. vol. VIII p. 88) we are told that in the reign of the Abhīra king Īśvarasena 1000 kārṣāpaṇas were deposited with an association of potters as a permanent donation yielding interest, 500 with a guild of oilmen and 2000 with a guild of watermen (udaka-yantra-śreṇi) for medicines to be given to sick bhikṣuṣ No. 9 and No. 12 of the inscriptions at Nasik also contain reference to deposits of money with the guild of weaverṣ The Mathurā Brāhmī inscription of Huviska’s reign mentions a guild of flour-makers (samitakara, vide E. I. vol. 21 p. 55 at p. 61 ). The Junnar Buddhist cave Inscription (A. S. W. I. vol. IV p. 97 ) refers to an investment of monies with the guild (śreṇi) of bamboo-workers and of braziers (kāśakāra). The Indore copperplate of Skandagupta ( of the Gupta samvat 146 ) speaks of the deposit with the guilds of the oilmen of Indrapura for permanently securing a supply of two palas of oil (C. I. I. vol. III p. 70). Similarly it is said that a guild of silk weavers from Lāṭa (southern Gujerat) came to Daśapura (Dasor in Malwa) and built a temple of the sun in the Mālavā year 494 i. e. 437–38 A. D. (C. I. I. vol. III p. 81 = I. A. vol. 15 p. 194). These examples show that about the first centuries of the Christian era such castes as woodworkers, oilmen, betel sellers and weavers that are at present very low in the hierarchy of castes had very efficient caste guilds, so famous for their organization, integrity and stability that people deposited with them thousands for permanent services to objects of charity.¹²²

We shall now append a list of several castes enumerated or mentioned in smṛti and other dharmaśāstra works from about 500 B. C. to 1000 A. D. in alphabetical (Sanskrit) order. They are not given in a tabular form owing to numerous contradictory statements in the smṛtis themselveṣ References are given only to a few smṛtis, the principal ones drawn upon being the Dharmasūtras, Manu, Yāj., Vaik. smārta-sūtra X. 11-15, Uśanas, the Sūtasamhitā (Śiva-māhātmya-khaṇḍa chap. 12). It is hoped that the list is fairly exhaustive for the smṛti perioḍ It will be noticed that many of the caste names collected here still occur under the same forms or under slightly modified forms of the nameṣ

Andhra. Vide above note 118 quoting the Ait. Br. Manu X. 36 says it was a low subcaste sprung from Vaidehaka father and Kārāvara mother and that Andhras were to live outside the village and to subsist (X. 48) by killing wild beastṣ In the edicts of Aśoka the Andhras are associated with Pulindas (vide Rock Edict No. 13). The Udyogaparva (160. 103) mentions Andhras (probably as people of Andhradeśa) along with Draviḍas and Kāñcyaṣ In the Nālanda plate of Devapāladeva (E. I. vol. 17 p. 321) meda, andhraka and cāṇḍāla are spoken of as the lowest casteṣ In Orissa one scheduled caste is noted as Ādi-Andhra (vide Sch. C. O. 1936).

Antya. According to Vaṣ Dh. S. 16.30, Manu IV. 79. VIII. 68, Yāj. I. 148, 197, Atri 251, Likhita 92, verse Āpastamba (III. 1) this word is a generic appellation for all lowest casteṣ like the cāņḍāla. Vide the chapter on ‘untouchables’. The word ‘bāhya’ has the same sense. Āp. Dh. S. I. 3. 9. 18 says that there is a cessation of Vedic study on the day on which bāhya santer a village; vide also Nārada (ṛņādāna 155), Viṣṇu Dh. S. 16.14.

Antyaja. This word is applied to all lowest castes like the cāņḍāla in Manu IV. 61, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 36.7, Yāj. I. 273, Bṛhad-yama (quoted in Mit. on Yāj. III. 260). In Manu VIII. 279 the word is used in the sense of ‘śūdra’. Various enumerations of the subdivisions of antyajas are found in the smṛtis Atri 199 enumerates¹²³ seven antyajas viz. rajaka (washerman), carmakāra (worker in hides), naṭa (dancer caste, represented in the Deccan by Kolhāțīs), buruḍa (worker in bamboos), kaivarta (fisherman), meda, bhilla. This verse is quoted as Āpastamba's by the Mit. on Yāj. III. 265, while Aparārka p. 1123 ascribes it to Atri. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 260 distinguishes between two groups of antyajas, viz. the one quoted above which it says is not so low as another group of seven, which are called antyāvasāyins,¹²⁴ viz. cāņḍāla, śvapaca (eater of dog flesh), kṣatṛ, sūta, vaidehika, māgadha and āyogava. In the Mahābhārata (Śānti 101. 19) reference is made to antyaja soldiers and Nīlakaņțha explains that they were the kaivartas and bhillas of the border regionṣ According to the Sarasvatī-vilāsa (p. 74) Pītāmaha speaks of the seven castes of rajaka and others as prakṛtiṣ¹²⁵ Is it possible that the Prākṛta languages were originally so called because they were spoken by these castes called prakṛtis ? In the Saņgamner plate of Bhillama II dated śaka 922 (E. I. vol. II. p. 220) a village is granted with eighteen prakṛtis (meaning probably the eighteen guilds of washermen and others). The Vīramitrodaya (vyavahāra p. 12) explains that śreņis mean the eighteen low castes such as the rajaka. This shows that these low castes had risen in social status in the medieval ages by their organization and wealth. The Veda-Vyāsa smṛti (I. 12-13) enumerates twelve castes by name as antyajas and adds that all those who eat cow's flesh are also antyajaṣ¹²⁶

Antāvasāyin or Antyāvasāyiṇ Manu IV. 79 separately mentions 'antyas' and 'antyāvasāyins' and Manu X. 39 says that the antyāvasāyin is the offspring of a cāṇḍāla male from a niṣāda female, that he is condemned even by all 'bāhyas' (untouchables) and stays in a cemetery. Gautama 20. 1 and 23. 32 mentions 'antyāvasāyin (and -yini). Vaṣ Dh. S. 18. 3 holds that the antyāvasāyin is the offspring of a śūdra from a vaiśya womaṇ The Bhāradvāja-śrauta sūtra (XI. 22. 12) forbids the study of the Veda in the presence of the antyāva- sāyiṇ The Anuśāsana-parva (22. 22) speaks of Medas, Pulkasas and Antāvasāyins (the printed text is corrrupt). Śānti (141. 29-32) gives a graphic description of a hamlet of cāṇḍālas and calls them 'antyāvasāya' (in verse 41). Nārada (ṛṇādāna 182) says that an antyāvasāyin is not eligible as a witnesṣ Some modern works like the Jātiviveka (D. C. Mṣ No. 347 of 1887-91) say that Dom in modern times is the antyāvasāyin of the smṛtis

Abhișikta — See under Mūrdhāvasikta.

Ambaṣṭha — (same as Bhṛjjakantha).

In Ait. Br. (chap. 39. 7) king Ambaṣṭhya is said to have performed an Aśvamedha sacrifice. In Pāṇ. VIII. 3. 97 the word Ambaṣṭha is derived and on Pāṇ. IV. 1. 170 Ambaṣṭhya (king ?) is cited by Pat. as an example derived from Ambaṣṭha (a country). It is a question whether the caste of Ambaṣṭhas derived its name from a country. Karṇaparva (6. 11) mentions a king Ambaṣṭha. In Bauḍ Dh. S. I. 9. 3, Manu X. 8, Yāj. I. 91, Uśanas 31, Nārada (stripuruṣa v. 107) Ambaṣṭha is an anuloma sprung from the marriage of a brāhmaṇa with a vaiśya woman, while according to Gautama 4. 14 as interpreted by Haradatta he is the offspring of a kṣatriya from a vaiśya womaṇ Manu X. 47 prescribes the profession of medicine for him and Uśanas ¹²⁷ (31-32) says that he may subsist by agriculture or may be a fire-dancer or he may be a herald (? banner proclaimer) and live by surgery. Vaik. 10. 12 has almost the same words; the Sahyādri-khaṇḍa (26. 40-41) says the same. Haradatta on Āp. Dh. S. I. 6. 19. 14 says that ambaṣṭha and śalyakṛnta are synonymouṣ The Baidyas of Bengal came to be the ambaṣṭhas of Manu (vide Risley's 'People of India' p. 114).

Ayaskāra (blacksmith). In the Vedic literature we have ayastāpa (heater of ayas, probably any metal). Vide under karmakāra and karmāra. Patañjali on Pāṇ. II. 4. 10 mentions him as a śūdra along with takṣan (Mahābhāṣya, vol. I. p. 475).

Avarita. Devala quoted by Aparārka (p. 118 on Yāj. I. 92) says that he is born of the illegitimate connection between a married woman and a male of the same caste and he becomes a śūdra. The Śūdra-kamalākara ¹²⁸ (p. 247) cites from the Smṛti-kaumudī a verse of the Ādityapurāṇa to the same effect.

Avira. According to the Sūtasaṃhitā he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a kṣatriya male and a vaiśya female.

Apita. According to the Sūtasaṃhitā he is the offspring of brāhmaṇa from a Dausyanti.

Abhira. According to Manu X. 15 he is the child of the union of a brāhmaṇa with an ambaṣṭha girl. The Mahābhārata (Mausalaparva 7. 46-63 and 8. 16-17) states that the ābhiras were dasyus and mlecchas who attacked Arjuna after the great war in the land of the five rivers and carried away Vṛṣṇi womeṇ The Sabhāparva (51. 12) mentions ābhiras with Pāradas and the Āśvamedhika (29. 15-16) says (just as Manu X. 43-44 do) that the Ābhiras, the Draviḍas and others became śūdras by non-contact with brāhmaṇaṣ The Mahābhāṣya expressly states that the ābhiras are not a subcaste included under the genus śūdra but that they are a caste distinct from śūdraṣ ¹²⁹ The Kāmasūtra (V. 5. 30) names an ābhira king Koṭṭarāja. Daṇḍin in his Kāvyādarśa (I. 36) says that Apa-bhraṃśa is the appellation of the speech of ābhiras and the like in poetry. The Amarakośa says that they are cow-herds and that the ābhira wife of a Mahāśūdra is called Ābhiri. The Ābhiras became absorbed in Hindu society and we find that an Ābhira senāpati Rudrabhūti in the year 103 (181-82 A. D.) under king Rudrasimha, son of Rudradāman, built a well (E. I. vol. 16 p. 235) and in the Nasik cave No. 15 there is an inscription of king Īśvarasena, a son of Ābhira Śivādatta and Mādharī (i. e. the mother was of the Māthara gotra). Vide E. I. vol. 8, p. 88. Ābhiras are called ahirs in modern timeṣ Vide J. B. B. R. A. S. vol. 21 pp. 430-433, Enthoven’s ‘Tribes and castes of Bombay’ vol. I. p. 17 ff.

Āyogava. Vide Āyogū above (p. 43) from Vedic literature. According to Gaut. IV. 15, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 16. 4. Manu X. 12, Kauṭ. III. 7, Anuśāsana 48. 13, Yāj. I. 94 this is a pratiloma caste sprung from the union of a śūdra male and a vaiśya female; while Bauḍ Dh. S. (I. 9. 7), Uśanas 12, Vaik. X. 14 say that it springs from the union of a vaiśya male and a kṣatriya female. Vaṣ Dh. S. (18. 3 ) gives antyāvasāyin as the name of the caste sprung from a śūdra male and a vaiśya female and pulkaśa as the name of one sprung from a vaiśya male and a kṣatriya female. His avocation (Manu X. 48) is to pare wood, while Uśanas (verse 13) says he is a weaver or subsists by making vessels of bronze or by cultivating paddy or by dealing in cloth. According to Viṣṇu Dh. S. 16. 8 and Agnipuraṇa (151. 15) he is to make his living by going to the stage. The Sahyādrikhāṇḍa says (26. 68-69) that he works in stones and bricks, makes pavements and whitewashes walls i. e. he is the modern Pātharvaṭa ( in the Deccan ).

Āvantya. Same as Bhūrjakaṇṭha (Manu X. 21).

Ātvika. According to Vaik. X. 12 he is the child of a clandestine union between a kṣatriya male and a vaiśya female and deals in horseṣ

Āhindika. According to Manu X. 37 he is the offspring of a niṣāda male from a vaidehī female i. e. he is a double pratiloma caste. Kullūka says that his avocation according to Uśanas is to prevent strangers from trespassing on places where offenders are kept imprisoneḍ Manu X. 36 shows that the same caste is called Kārāvara when it follows the craft of a carmakāra.

Ugra. For Vedic reference see above (p. 45). According to Bauḍ Dh. S. (I. 9. 5), Manu X.9, Kauṭ. III.7, Yāj. I. 92, Anuśāsana 48, 7 he is an anuloma offspring of a kṣatriya male from a śūdra woman, while according to Uśanas (verse 41) he is the offspring of the union of a brāhmaṇa with a śūdra womaṇ The Āp. Dh. S. (I. 2. 7. 20) allows a pupil to bring wealth from a śūdra or an ugra when the teacher is in distress or difficultieṣ Gaut. 4. 14 (as explained by Haradatta) says that ugra is the offspring of a vaiśya from a śūdra female. The Āp. Dh. S. (I. 6. 18. 1) says that a brāhmaṇa may accept the gift of money, corn like paddy, flesh of deer, house, field, hay for oxen from an ugra. Manu X. 49 says that the ugra should subsist by catching and killing animals that hide in holes, while Uśanas (verse 41) states that he is to be the staff-bearer of the king and to carry out the punishments inflicted on offenderṣ Vide Vaik. 10. 13. According to the Sahyādrikhaṇḍa and Śūdrakamalākara (p. 255) he is called ‘Rajpūta’. In the Jātiviveka (the D. C. collection of 1887-1891 No. 347) he is called Rāut.

Udbandhaka. According to Uśanas (verse 15) he is the offspring of the union of a śūnika and a kṣatriya woman, subsists by washing clothes and is an untouchable. Vaik. 10. 15 says he is the offspring of a khanaka and a kṣatriya womaṇ

Upakruṣṭa. According to Āśv. śr. sūtra (II. 1) he does not belong to the dvijātis, but is authorised to perform the vedic rite of agnyādheya and the commentary explains that he is a vaiśya following the profession of a carpenter.

Oḍra. Vide Manu X. 43-44. Oḍra is a country correspond-ing more or less to modern Orissa. Most of the names of people mentioned in Manu X. 44 are derived from countrieṣ Vide note on Khāśa (p. 79) and see Sabhāparva 51. 23.

Katakāra. According to Uśanas (45) and Vaik. 10. 13 he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a vaiśya and a śūdra female.

Karaṇa. According to Gaut. (IV. 17 the view of some ācāryas) and Yāj. I. 92, he is the child of the marriage of a vaiśya and a śūdra woman (i. e. he is an anuloma). Manu (X. 22) says that a kṣatriya who is a vrātya (i. e. for whom no upanayana has been performed) has from a similar woman a child variously called Jhalla, Malla, Niccivi (Licchivi?), Naṭa, Karaṇa, Khāśa, Draviḍa. Ādiparva 115. 43 tells us that Dhṛtarāṣṭra had from a vaiśya female a karaṇa son named Yuyutsu. Kṣirasvāmī on Amara says that karaṇa also denotes a group of officers like kāyasthas and adhyakṣas (superintend-ents). The Sahyādrikhaṇḍa (26. 49-51) says he is the same as cāraṇa or vaitālika and his business is to sing the praises of kings and brāhmaṇas and study the science of eroticṣ

Karmakāra. Viṣṇu Dh. S. (51. 14) mentions this caste. It is most probably the same as karmāra. But Śaṅkha (prose) quoted by Aparārka p. 115 separately mentions in the same passage karmakāra and karmāra.

Karmāra. For vedic references vide (p. 43) above. This caste appears in the gaṇa kulālādi ( Pāṇ. IV. 3. 118). Manu IV. 215 mentions it. In Bengal the Lohar is a scheduled caste ( vide Sch. C. O. 1936 ).

Kāṁsyakāra. (modern kāṁsāra in Marathi) Mentioned by Nārada (ṛṇādāna 274) and Viṣṇu Dh. S. X. 4 in connection with the balance ordeal.

Kākavaca. Mentioned in Uśanas (50) as doing the work of bringing grass for horseṣ

Kāmboja. Vide Manu X. 43-44. The country of Kamboja was known to Yāska (Nirukta II. 2) and Pāṇini ( IV. 1. 175 ). Udyogaparva 160. 103, Droṇa 121. 13 mention Kambojas with Śakaṣ Vide under Yavana.

Kāyastha.¹³⁰ Heated controversies have raged in medi- eval and modern times about the origin and status of kāyasthas and the bitterness is reflected in the decisions of the Indian courts also. In Bholanath v. Emperor¹³¹ the Calcutta High Court held that the kāyasthas of Bengal were śūdras and went so far as to hold that a kāyastha could marry a Dom female. But in Asita Mohan v. Nirode Mohan¹³² the Privy Council left open the question whether the kāyasthas of Bengal were śūdraṣ On the other hand in Tulsi Ram v. Bihari Lal¹³³ and in Īshwari Prasad v. Rai Hari Prasad¹³⁴ the Allahabad and Patna High Courts respectively held that the kāyasthas were dvijas and not śūdraṣ In Subrao v. Radha 52 Boṃ 497 at p. 504-506 this conflict of decisions is referred to.

The word kāyastha does not occur in the ancient dharma- sūtras of Gautama, Āpastamba, Baudhāyana, or Vasiṣṭha nor in the Manusmṛti. The Viṣṇu Dh. S. VII. 3 defines a public document (rājaśāsika) as one written in the royal court or office by a kāyastha appointed by the king and attested by the hand of the superintendent of the office.¹³⁵ These words suggest that the kāyastha was an officer and that there is nothing about a caste here. Yāj. I. 322 calls upon the king to protect the subjects from the harassment of cāṭas (rogues), thieves, bad characters, desperadoes and the like and particularly of kāyasthaṣ The Mit. explains that kāyasthas are accountants and scribes, are favourites of the king and very cunning. Uśanas¹³⁶ (35) holds the kāyasthas to be a caste and gives an uncomplimentary derivation of the name by saying that it is compounded of the first letters of kāka (crow), Yama and sthapati to convey the three attributes of greed, cruelty and the spoliation (or paring), characteristic of the three. The Veda-Vyāsa smṛti¹³⁷ (I. 10-11) includes the kāyastha among śūdras along with barbers, potters and otherṣ Sumantu quoted in the Par. M. II part I p. 383 makes the food of a lekhaka along with that of oilmen and others unfit for a brāhmaṇa¹³⁸. Lekhaka is obviously a caste here, but whether it is the kāyastha caste is doubtful. Bṛhas- pati as quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (vyavahāra) speaks of the gaṇaka and lekhaka as two persons to be associated with a judge in a court of justice and says they were to be dvijaṣ Vide also Aparārka p. 600. Therefore both these were only officers and not members of a particular caste. In the Mṛochakaṭika (Act IX) a śreṣṭhin and kāyastha are associated with the judge. So the kāyastha seems to be the same as the lekhaka of Bṛhaspati and as a mere official. In the first centuries of the Christian era the kāyastha was merely an officer and the word was possibly derived from or is a Sanskrit approximation of some foreign word for an officer, though in some parts of the country (as shown by Uśanas and Veda-Vyāsa ) the kāyasthas also had come to form a caste in medieval timeṣ Though numerous officers are mentioned in the inscriptions of the first five or six centuries of the Christian era, the kāyastha hardly ever figures among theṃ One of the earliest inscriptions where the word kāyastha occurs is the Kanawa Inscription of Śivagaṇa dated in the Mālava era 795 (i. e. 738–39 A. D.). Vide I. A. vol. 19 pp. 56 and 59. See also E. I. vol. X. p. 79 for Kāyastha Kāñcana in Balera plates in 994–95 A. D., E. I. vol. XI. p. 149 for Śāsanika kāyastha in Naraspatam plates of 1045-46 A. D., E. I. vol. XI. p. 20, 25 for kāyastha Surāditya who was ‘Sarvaśāstravit’ in Govindacandra’s plate dated 1129–30 A. D., E. I. 19 pp. 209, 213 Amodā plate dated 1161 A. D. (for Vāstavyya kāyastha), E. I. vol. 19 p. 45 Inscription of Hammīra (dated 1288–89 A. D.), E. I. XII. p. 46 (dated 1328–29 A. D. for Māthura kāyastha), E. I. 20 Appendix No. 442 p. 64 (for Gauḍa kāyastha). In the Rājataraṅgiṇī (VIII. 131) kāyasthas and diviras are mentioned separately and in VIII. 2383 it is stated that the brāhmaṇa Śīvaratha, who was a roguish kāyastha, was strangled in the reign of Jayasiṁha. So in the 12th century kāyasthas were only officers in Cashmir and brāhmaṇas held such officeṣ Vide Rājataraṅgiṇī V. 180–184 for a bitter diatribe against kāyasthaṣ

The Śūdrakamalākara (pp. 279–280) speaks of three sub-castes of kāyasthaṣ

Kārāvara. According to Manu X. 36 he is a doubly mixed caste sprung from the union of a niṣāda with a vaidehī and his craft is that of a carmakāra. According to later digests like the Śūdrakamalākara he is called ‘kahāra’ or ‘bhoi’ and holds torches and carries umbrellas for otherṣ

Kāruṣa. According to Manu X. 23 this caste springs from the union of a vrātya vaiśya and a similar female. This caste is also called Sudhanvācārya, Vijanman, Maitra and Sātvata (according to Manu).

Kirāta. Vide above (p.44) for Vedic referenceṣ Veda-Vyāsa speaks of him as a subdivision of śūdra (note 184). According to Manu (X. 43–44) he is a kṣatriya reduced to the status of a śūdra. Anusāsana (35.17–18) says the same about Mekalas, Drāviḍas, Lātas, Pauṇḍras, Yavanaṣ and otherṣ Karṇaparva 73. 20 speaks of kirātas as men of fiery valour. Aśvamedhika 73. 25 shows that Arjuna met kirātas, yavanaṣ and Mlecchas when proceeding to the north with the Aśvamedha horse. The Amarakosa says that kirāta, śabara and pulinda are subdivisions of Mleccha casteṣ Kukkuṭa. According to Bauḍ Dh. S. I. 8 he is a pratiloma caste, but I. 9. 15 says that he is the child of the union of a śūdra with a niṣāda woman, while I. 8. 12 states that he is the offspring of a vaiśya from a niṣāda womaṇ¹³⁹ Manu X. 18 agrees with Bauḍ Dh. I. 9. 15. According to Kaut. III. 7 he is the offspring of an ugra male from a niṣāda female. According to Ādityapurāṇa quoted in the Śūdrakamalākara he manufactures swords and other weapons and engages in cockfights for the king.

Kuṇḍa. According to Manu III. 174 he is the offspring of a clandestine intercourse between a married brāhmaṇa woman whose husband is living and a brāhmaṇa male.

Kukuṇḍa. According to the Sūtasamhitā he is the offspring of a māgadha from a śūdra female.

Kumbhakāra. This word occurs in the gaṇa kulālādi ( Pāṇ. IV. 3. 118 ). Uśanas ( 32-33 ) says that he is the offspring of the clandestine union of a brāhmaṇa with a vaiśya female. Vaik. (X. 12) agrees with Uśanas and adds that the offspring becomes either a kumbhakāra or a barber who shaves parts of the body above the navel. Veda-Vyāsa (I. 10–11) and Devala ( quoted in Par. M. II. 1. p. 431 and Gr. R. p. 337 ) include the potter among śūdraṣ¹⁴⁰ In the Central Provinces the Kumbhāra is a scheduled caste.

Kulāla. For Vedic references see above(p.43). Pāṇ IV.3.118 explains the formation of kaulālakam ( made by a potter ). The Aśv. Gr. IV. 3. 18 says that all earthen vessels ( kaulālam ) of a deceased agnihotrin should be kept by his soṇ Why two names arose for the caste of potters it is difficult to explaiṇ

Kulika. This caste is mentioned in Śaṅkha quoted by Aparārka p. 1175 ( where Aparārka explains it as devalaka ).

Kuśīlava. According to Baudhāyana as quoted in the Kṛtyakalpataru he is the offspring of an ambaṣṭha from a vaidehaka female. According to Amara he is the same as a cāraṇa (a bard). According to Kaut. (III. 7) he is the offspring of a vaidehaka male from an ambaṣṭha female ( i. e. exactly the reverse of Baudhāyana’s view ) and he gives the name vaina to the offspring of an ambaṣṭha male from a vaidehaka female. Kṛta. According to Gaut. IV. 15 he is the offspring of a vaiśya from a brāhmaṇa womaṇ Yāj. I. 93 and others call this caste vaidehaka.

Kaivarta. In the Assam valley kaibartta is a scheduled caste. Vide under antyaja (p. 70) above. Medhātithi on Manu X. 4 says that this is a mixed caste. Manu X. 34 tells us that the inhabitants of Āryāvarta employ the name kaivarta to denote the offspring of a niṣāda from an āyogava woman, who is also called mārgava and dāśa ( dāśa ? ) and who subsists by plying boatṣ Śaṁkara on Vedāntasūtra II. 3. 43 says that dāśa and kaivarta are the same. Fick p. 302 notes that fishermen who work with nets and baskets were called in the Jātakas kevaṭṭa.

Kolika. Mentioned as one of the antyajas by Veda-Vyāsa. Vide note 173 under antyaja. Koli is a scheduled caste in the Central Provinces and Kol in United Provinceṣ

Kṣatṛ. For vedic references see above. According to Bauḍ Dh. S. I. 9. 7, Kaut. (III. 7), Manu X. 12, 13 and 16, Yāj. I. 94, Nārada (strīpuṁsa 112), this is a pratiloma caste sprung from a śūdra father and kṣatriya mother. Manu (X. 49-50) prescribes for him the same avocation as for ugra and pulkasa. Vaṣ Dh. S. 18. 2 calls him vaina. In the Amarakośa kṣatṛ is given three meanings, a charioteer, doorkeeper and the caste described above. In Chāndogya Up. IV. 1. 5, 7, 8 the word seems to mean only doorkeeper. Pāṇ. notices the word (VI. 4. 11). The Sahyādrikhaṇḍa (26. 63-66) says that kṣatṛ is also called niṣāda and that he is an expert in catching deer by means of nets, is a forester and kills wild animals, also rings a bell at night to remind people of the hour.

Khanaka. According to Vaik. (X. 15) he is the offspring of an āyogava male and kṣatriya female and lives by digging.

Khāśa or khasa. According to Manu X. 22 this is another name for karaṇa; while in X. 43-44 he makes the khāśas a kṣatriya caste originally but reduced to the status of śūdras by the absence of saṁskāras and the absence of contact with brāhmaṇaṣ Vide Sabhā. 52. 3, Udyoga 160. 103.

Guhaka. According to the Sūtasamhitā he is the offspring of a śvapaca from a brāhmaṇa female.

Goja (or Goda). According to Uśanas (28-29) he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a kṣatriya male and female. Gopa. Vide note 184. He is the modern Gavli and a śūdra subcaste. Yaj. II. 48 says that debts contracted by gopa wives must be paid by their husbands as the latter's profession and earnings depend upon theṃ The Kāmasūtra ( I. 5. 37 ) mentions a caste called Gopālaka.

Golaka. He is the offspring of a clandestine intercourse between a brāhmaṇa widow and a brāhmaṇa male. Vide Manu III. 174, Laghu-Śātātapa 105, Sūtasamhītā ( Śiva. 12. 12 ).

Cakri. According to Uśanas (22–23) he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a śūdra male and a vaiśya female and subsists by (selling) oil and oilcakes or salt. He seems to be the same as tailika. Hārīta (quoted by Aparārka p. 279) mentions hiṃ According to Brahmapurāṇa quoted by Aparārka p. 1177 he is one who presses sesame. According to Vaik. (X. 13) he is the offspring of a secret love affair between a vaiśya male and a brāhmaṇa female and engages in the sale of salt and oil.

Carmakāra. Vide under antyaja (p. 70) above. He is men-tioned in many smṛtis like Viṣṇu Dh. S. ( 51.8 ), Āpastamba ( in verse 9. 32 ), Parāśara (VI. 44). According to Uśanas (4), he is the offspring of a śūdra from a kṣatriya girl, while verse 21 says that those sprung from a vaidehaka and a brāhmaṇa girl subsist by working on hideṣ Vaik. (X. 15) agrees with this latter. Manu IV. 218 speaks of him as carmāvakartin (cutter of hides). According to several smṛtis he is one of the seven antyajaṣ According to the Sūtasamhītā he is the offspring of an āyogava from a brāhmaṇa female. This name persists to this day as cāmbhār (in Western India) or cāmār in all other Indian provinceṣ This caste is often spoken of as Mochi (shoe-maker). Often the mochis are Moslemṣ This is an untouchable caste and the population of carmakāras in India is very large. In the Bombay Presidency alone they are about two hundred and ninety thousand (in 1931).

Cākrīka. According to Amara he is a person who rings a bell. Kṣīrasvāmī says that he announces the king's arrival by ringing bells and that some regard him as the same as vaitālika. According to Śaṅkha (prose) and Sumantu quoted by Aparārka (pp. 1175–76) cākrika and tailika are separate subcasteṣ According to Vaik. (X. 14) he is the offspring of a love affair between a śūdra male and a vaiśya female and his avocation is the sale of salt, oil and oil cakeṣ Cāṇḍāla (or cāṇḍāla). For Vedic references see above pp. 44-45. Acc. to Gaut. IV. 15-16, Vaṣ Dh. S. 18. 1, Bauḍ Dh. S. I. 9. 7, Manu X. 12, Yāj. I. 93, Anuśāsana 48. 11 he is a pratiloma caste sprung of a śūdra from a brāhmaṇa womaṇ He is the lowest among men ( Manu X. 12 ), beyond the pale of religious observances prescribed for the four varṇas ( sarvadharma-bahi- skṛta, as Yāj. I. 93 says) and often spoken of in the same breath with dogs and crows (e. g. Āp. Dh. S. II. 4. 9. 5, Gaut. 15. 25, Yāj. I. 103 ).¹⁴¹ The word occurs in the kulālādi gaṇa ( Pāṇ. IV. 3. 118 ). Veda-Vyāsa-smṛti ( I. 9-10 ) says that there are three kinds of cāṇḍālaṣ viz. the offspring of a śūdra from a brāhmaṇa woman, the offspring of an unmarried woman, the offspring of a union with a sagotra girl. Yama quoted in Par. M. vol. II. part 1 p. 306 says that one born of a person who after becoming an ascetic turns back to the householder's life, one born of a sagotra woman and one who is the offspring of a śūdra from a brāhmaṇa woman are all cāṇḍālaṣ Laghu-Śātātapa ( 59 ) has a similar verse. Manu (X. 51-56) says that cāṇḍālas and śvapacas should have their houses outside the village, vessels used by them cannot be used by others (even after putting them in fire), their wealth consists of dogs and asses, their clothes should be the garments on corpses, they should take their food in broken vessels, their ornaments were to be made of iron, they should incessantly roam, they are not to enter towns and villages at night, they have to carry the corpses of persons who have no relatives, they are to be hangmen when the king so orders, they may take the clothes, ornaments and beds of persons that are to be hangeḍ Uśanas (9-10) says that their ornaments are to be of lead or iron, they should have a leather thong round their necks or a cymbal under their armpits, they should remove the dirt of the village in the first part of the day. According to Viṣṇu Dh. S. 16.11 and 14 their avocation is to be hangmen or to kill those offenders who are condemned to death and cāṇḍālas have to stay outside the village and to wear the clothes on corpseṣ Śānti 141. 29-32 gives a graphic description of their hamlet. The classical description of a cāṇḍāla hamlet is in the Kādambarī of Bāṇa. In Anuśāsana (29.17) Mataṅga is called a cāṇḍāla because he was born of a brāhmaṇa woman from a barber. Fa Hien (405-411 A. D.) describes how cāṇḍālas had to live apart and give notice of their approach when entering a town or market place by striking a piece of wood to make themselves known so that a man may avoid them and not come in contact with them (vide ‘Record of Buddhist kingdoms’ tr. by Legge, p. 43). In modern times cāṇḍālas are returned as a scheduled caste in Madras and Orissa.

Cīna. According to Manu X. 43-44 the Cīnas were a kṣatriya caste reduced to the status of śūdraṣ They are frequently named in the Mahābhārata e. g. Sabhā 51. 23, Vanaparva 177. 12, Udyoga 19. 15.

Cuñcu. According to Manu X. 48 the avocation of Meda, Andhra, Cuñcu and Madgu is to kill forest (or wild) animalṣ Kullūka says that he is the offspring of a brāhmaṇa from a vaidehaka womaṇ

Cucuka. According to Vaik. (X. 13) he is the offspring of the marriage of a vaiśya with a śūdra woman and his avocation is the sale and purchase of betelnut, betelnut leaves and sugar.

Cailanirņejaka (or only nirņejaka)—washermaṇ This occurs in Viṣṇu Dh. S. 51. 15 and Manu IV. 216. It appears that Viṣṇu who separately mentions ‘rajaka’ (in 51. 13) distinguishes between the two. Hārīta (quoted in Aparārka p. 279) also distinguishes between ‘rajaka’ (one who dyes clothes) from ‘nirņejaka’ (one who washes clothes). Very often ‘rajaka’ means only ‘a washerman’ (as Amara says ).

Jālopajīvin—( subsisting by catching animals in a net ) probably the same as a kaivarta. He is mentioned in Hārīta quoted by Aparārka p. 279.

Jhalla. Manu X. 22 says that it is another name for Karaṇa and Khasa. In Bengal Jhalo Malo or Malo is returned as a scheduled caste.

Ḍomba (or Doma) is the same as śvapaça according to Kṣīra-svāmī on Amara. Parāśara quoted by Aparārka (p. 1197) puts śvapāka, ḍomba and cāṇḍāla on the same level. In the Rājatar-aṅgiṇī (V. 354, VI. 182, VI. 192) ḍombas are spoken of as untouchables on the same level with cāṇḍālas and as following the profession of singerṣ In Rājatarangiṇī V. 389-394 ḍombas are spoken of as śvapacaṣ This caste is returned as a scheduled caste in Madras as Ḍombo, as Dom in Bengal, Bihar and U. P.

Takṣan or Takṣaka (carpenter). For vedic references see above (p. 43). He is the same as vardhaki quoted above, under kāyastha. He is mentioned by Manu IV. 210, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 51. 8. According to the Mahābhāṣya on Pāṇ. II. 4. 10 The takṣan is a śūdra and on the same level with an ayas-kāra (ironsmith) and excluded from sacrificial riteṣ Even so early as the Śat. Br. the takṣan was an unholy person (amedhya) and his touch made yajñapātras impure (I. 1. 3. 12). Uśanas 43 says that takṣaka is the offspring of a brāhmaṇa female from a śūcaka (i. e. he is a pratiloma). He must be supposed to be originally different from the rathakāra (vide Tai. S. quoted above p. 43) who was allowed the vedic rite of ādhāna or probably in the time of the smṛtis the carpenter lost his former statuṣ According to Vaik. (X. 14) ¹⁴² the offspring of a brāhmaṇa girl from a cūcuka (sūcaka ?) is a takṣaka who is untouchable or a goldsmith or blacksmith or worker in bell-metal. Bṛhaspati names the takṣaka as one whose food a brāhmaṇa could not eat.

Tantuvāya (a weaver), also called kuvinda. He is men-tioned in Viṣṇu Dh. S. (51. 13) and Śaṅkha quoted by Aparārka p. 1175. He is regarded as a śūdra by the Mahābhāṣya on Pāṇ. II. 4. 10 and as excluded from sacrificial riteṣ

Tāmbūlika—seems to have been a caste. Vide Kāmasūtra I. 5. 37. Bāṇa refers to his house as stored with spices and betel.

Tāmropajīvin (coppersmith). According to Uśanas (14) he is the offspring of an āyogava from a brāhmaṇa womaṇ Vaik. (X. 15) says the same and calls him tāmra. The Jātiviveka (D. C. No. 347 of 1887–91) gives the name as tāmra-kuṭṭaka.

Tunnāvāya (a tailor). He occurs in Manu IV. 214. According to the Brahmapurāṇa quoted by Aparārka p. 1178 he is the same as sūci (or saucika).

Tailika (oilman)—occurs in Viṣṇu Dh. S. (51. 15 ), Śaṅkha and Sumantu quoted by Aparārka (pp. 1175 and 1176).

Darada. Manu X. 44 names hiṃ Vide note on khasa above p. 79. Vide Mahābhārata, Udyogaparva 4. 15.

Dāśa (a fisherman). This occurs in an Upaniṣad passage according to Vedānta sūtra II. 3. 43. Veda-Vyāsa (I. 12–13) includes him among antyajas (vide footnote 173). Manu X. 34 says that mārgava, dāśa (dāśa ?) and kaivarta are the same and that he subsists by plying boatṣ Pāṇ. (III. 4. 73) derives the worḍ Vide under kaivarta. Divākirtya—occurs in Mānava gṛhya II. 14. 11. According to Amara both cāṇḍāla and nāpita are called divākīrti.

Dausmanta. According to Gaut. 4. 14 this is an anuloma caste sprung from the union of a kṣatriya male and a śūdra female. According to the Sūtasamhitā the name is Dauṣyanta.

Draviḍa. The same as karaṇa, according to Manu X. 22. According to Manu X. 43-44, this is a kṣatriya caste reduced to the status of a śūdra. Vide under khaśa, and Mahābhārata, Udyoga 160. 103, Droṇa 93. 43.

Dhigvana. According to Manu X. 15 he is the offspring of a brāhmaṇa male from an āyogava female and according to Manu X. 49 he subsists by working on (and sale of ) hideṣ Kullūka on Manu X. 49 quotes a text of Uśanas that Dhig-vaṇas subsist by working on hides and selling them and distinguishes them from kārāvaraṣ This passage is not found in the printed text of Uśanaṣ In the Jātiviveka he is styled Mocīkāra.

Dhīvara. Same as kaivarta and dāśa. Gaut. (IV. 17) indicates that this is a pratiloma caste sprung from a vaiśya male and a kṣatriya female (according to the view of some teachers). In the Tai. Br. III. 4. 12 Dhaivara, Dāśa and Kaivarta are separately mentioned, but how they were distinguished it is difficult to say. All caught fish in different wayṣ Dhīmar is a scheduled caste in the Bhandara District of C. P.

Dhvajī (seller of wines)—mentioned by Sumantu and Hārīta quoted by Aparārka p. 1176. The Brahmapurāṇa quoted by Aparārka (p. 1177) says he is the same as śauṇḍika.

Naṭa. He is one of the seven antyajas (vide note 170 above). Naṭa is a scheduled caste in Bengal, Bihar, U. P. and Punjab. Hārīta quoted by Aparārka (p. 279) distinguishes between naṭa and śailūṣa and Aparārka remarks that naṭa is a specific caste, while śailūṣa is one who though not a naṭa by caste makes a living by going on the stage. Manu X. 22 says that he is the same as karaṇa, khaśa (vide note on khaśa p. 79). Pāṇini knew of a Naṭasūtra composed by Śilālin and another by Kṛśāśva (IV. 3. 110 and 111), but whether the naṭas he meant were so by caste or whether he meant only actors in general is not clear. Vide under raṅgāvatārin for a quotation from Maitri Up. Probably this caste is the same as the Kolhāṭis or Bahu-rūpīs of modern times (in the Deccan) who are dancers, acrobats and jugglers by professioṇ Fick’s work p. 299 speaks of natakakulas mentioned in Buddhist Jātakas and at p. 294 he shows that in the Suruci Jātaka the nata is described as throw- ing up a ball of rope and climbing it and performing other tricks of jugglery.

Nartaka. According to Uśanas (19) he is the offspring of a rañjaka from a vaiśya woman and his profession is that of a singer. Bṛhaspati quoted in Par. M. (II. part I p. 380) separately mentions in the same verse nata and nartaka (both being abhojyānna to a brāhmaṇa). Atri VII. 2 also mentions the two separately. See note 189.

Nāpita (barber). The Sāṅkhāyana gṛhya I. 25 refers to him (in cūḍākarma). Uśanas (32-34) and Vaik. (X. 12) say that he is the offspring of a clandestine affair between a brāhmaṇa male and a vaiśya female and Uśanas derives the word by saying that he shaves the body above the navel of a persoṇ¹⁴³ Vaik. (X. 15) says that the offspring of an ambaṣṭha male from a kṣatriya female is a nāpita, but he shaves the hair on the body below the navel. Parāśara (XI. 21)¹⁴⁴ says that the offspring of a brāhmaṇa from a śūdra girl is called dāsa if saṁskāras are performed on him, but if they are not performed he be- comes a nāpita. Pāṇ (VI. 2. 62) specially provides for the accentuation of words meaning artisan ( śilpin, like nāpita or kulāla ) when compounded with the word grāma. The Sūtasaṁ- hitā (Śiva—chap. XII. 15) says that the offspring of the clandestine union of a brāhmaṇa male and a. vaiśya female is called kumbhakāra or ūrdhva-nāpita, while verse 32 says that the offspring of a kṣatriya female from a niṣāda is called ' adho-nāpita '.

Nicchivi. Manu X. 22 says that this is another name for karana or khasa. Probably this is a misreading for Licchavi or Licchivi. Kaut. (Arthaśāstra XI. 1) speaks of the oligarchies or corporations of Licchivika, Vṛjika, Mallaka¹⁴⁵ etc. Vaiśāli was the seat of this oligarchy in the 6th century B. C. (Rapson's ' Ancient India ' p. 169 ). Vide Indian Antiquary vol. 32 p. 233 for their Tibetan affinities and I. A. vol. 9 p. 178 and vol. 14 p. 98 for inscriptions of this tribe and ' Indian Historical Quarterly,' 1933, vol. 18 p. 439 ff. Fa Hien (in 'Records of Buddhist Kingdoms' translated by Legge, 1886, p. 71) says that the Licchavis of Vaiśāli were attached to Buddha and also speaks of Ānanda (pupil of Buddha) and the Licchaviṣ

Nīṣāda. For vedic references see above (pp. 43 and 46). The Nirukta ¹⁴⁶ III. 8 while explaining the words 'pañcajanā mama hotram juṣadhvam' in Rg. X. 53. 4 remarks that according to Aupamanyava the 'five people' are the four varṇas with niṣāda as the fifth. This shows that Aupamanyava regarded them as distinct from the four varṇas (including the śūdras). The Nirukta further says that according to the Nairuktas the niṣāda is so called because 'sin (or evil) sits down in him'; from this it follows that in the times of Yāska the niṣādas had come to be looked down upon with scorn as evil people and were probably some aborigines like the modern Bhilṣ According to Bauḍ Dh. S. (I. 9.3 and II. 2.33 ), Vaṣ 18.8, Manu X. 8, Anuśāsana 48.5, Yāj. I. 91 the Niṣāda is an anuloma caste, offspring of the marriage of a brāhmaṇa with a śūdra womaṇ Bauḍ Dh. S. (II. 2.34 ), Kaut. (III. 7), Manu (X. 8) and Yāj. (I. 91) say that pārāśava is another name for niṣāda. Manu (IX. 178) derives pārāśava from the root `party` (to go across) and the word `śava` (a corpse) meaning 'though living he is like one dead'. In a corrupt passage of Vaṣ Dh. S. ¹⁴⁷ (18. 9-10) the same derivation is accepteḍ Gaut. (IV. 14) distinguishes between niṣāda and pārāśava, the former (acc. to the coṃ Haradatta) being the offspring of a brāhmaṇa from a vaiśya woman and the latter being the offspring of a brāhmaṇa male and a śūdra female. According to Nārada (stripumsa v. 108) and Anuśāsana 48.12, niṣāda is the offspring of a kṣatriya male and a śūdra female and he subsists by fishing (according to the latter). Nārada (stripumsa 108 ) says that pārāśava is the offspring of a brāhmaṇa male and a śūdra female. Uśanas (36-38 ) says that the offspring of the marriage of a brāhmaṇa with a śūdra woman is called pārāśava and gains his livelihood as the worshipper of the goddess Bhadrakālī or by learning Śaiva āgamas or by playing on musical instruments, while niṣāda is the illegitimate offspring of a brāhmaṇa from a śūdra woman who subsists by killing wild beasts (such as elephants ) and by selling flesh. The Vaik.¹⁴⁸ (X. 13) has practically the same remarks to make about pārasava and niṣāda. Śāntiparva (59. 96-97) speaks of niṣādas as men with reddish eyes and with black hair. In the Rāmāyaṇa Guha, the king of niṣādas, helps Rāma to cross the river Gaṅges (Ayodhyā 50. 33). Here he is spoken of as belonging to the caste of niṣādas (niṣādajātyaḥ). We have historical evidence for the name pārasava in the Harsacarita (I, towards end), where Bāṇa¹⁴⁹ tells us that he had with him two pārasava brothers Candrasena and Mātṛṣeṇa in his travelṣ In the Tipperah copperplate of a chieftain called Lokanātha (about 650 A. D.) we are told that the king's maternal grandfather Keśava was a pārasava (vide E. I. vol. 15 at p. 307). The Mit. on Yāj. I. 91 cautions that this niṣāda (the anuloma offspring of a brāhmaṇa from a śūdra woman) is different from another caste called niṣāda, which is a pratiloma one and lives by catching fish. Medhātithi on Manu X. 8 does the same. Niṣāda occurs in the gaṇa kulālādi (Paṇ IV. 3. 118). The Vāyupurāṇa (vol. II. chap. 1. 120-121) narrates that the niṣādas, dark and dwarfish, were produced from the left hand of king Vena and they dwelt on the Vindhya. In the Bhāgavata-purāṇa we have the same story¹⁵⁰ (IV. 14. 42 ff.) and we are told that niṣādas were dark like crows, of short stature, snubnosed, with red eyes and hair and that they dwelt in mountains and forestṣ

Pahlava.—occurs in Manu (X. 43-44) as a kṣatriya caste reduced to the status of śūdra. Vide note on khaśa. The Mahābhārata several times mentions the Pahlavas, Pāradas and other non-Aryan people (vide Sabhā 32. 16-17, Udyoga 4. 15, Bhīṣma 20. 13).

Pāṇḍusopāka. According to Manu X. 37 he is the offspring of a cāṇḍala male from a vaidehaka woman, who maintains him-self by dealing in bambooṣ He is the same as buruḍa.

Pārada. Vide Manu X. 43-44 and note on khaśa above. Pāradas are frequently mentioned in the Mahābhārata, generally as Mlecchas and non-Aryan tribes ( vide Sabhā 32, 16, 51. 12, 52. 3; Droņa 93. 42 and 121. 13 ). Vide under Yavana.

Paraśava. Vide nisāda above. In the Ādiparva 109. 25 Vidura is called pāraśava and he is said (in Ādi. 114.12) to have married the pāraśavī daughter of king Devaka. The Sahyādri-khaṇḍa (26. 43) says that he is called śūdra and is superior to a śūdra (in status) and that he was to live by the avocations pre-scribed for śūdraṣ

Piṅgala. According to the Sūtasamhitā he is the offspring of a brāhmaṇa from an āyogava female.

Pundra or Pauṇḍraka. Frequently mentioned in the Mahābhārata among non-Aryan tribes e. g. Droņa 93. 44, Āśvame-dhika 29. 15-16. Medhātithi on Manu X. 44 remarks that the Pauṇḍrakas are spoken of as kṣatriyas in the Mahābhārata, so a man may be misled into thinking that even in the days of Medhātithi they were still kṣatriyas ( but they were not so ).

Pulinda. For vedic references see above (p. 47). They were a wild mountain tribe like the Kirātas or Śabaraṣ In the Vana-parva 140. 25 Pulindas, Kirātas and Tāṅgaṇas are spoken of as dwelling on the Himālaya. Udyoga 160. 103, Karṇa 73. 19-20, Anuśāsana 33. 21-22 mention pulindaṣ Uśanas (16) says that he is the illegitimate offspring of a vaiśya male from a kṣatriya female and he lives by rearing cattle and by killing wild beastṣ Vaik. (X. 14) says the same and adds that he subsists on the produce of the forest and by killing wild animalṣ The Sūtasamhitā is of the same opinion as Vaik.

Pulkasa ( or paulkasa ). The word is also written as pukkasa. Śamkarācārya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Up. IV. 3. 22 says that pulkasa and paulkasa are the same. According to Bauḍ Dh. S. (I. 9.14) and Manu X. 18 he is the offspring of a nisāda male from a śūdra female. According to Kaut. (III. 7) he is the offspring of a nisāda male from an ugra female, while Vaik. X. 14, Uśanas (17) and the Sūtasamhitā say that he is the offspring of a śūdra male from a kṣatriya woman and that he makes his livelihood by manufacturing and selling¹⁵¹ liquors or natural intoxicating sap. The same is the view of some teachers according to Gautama IV. 17. According to Vaṣ Dh. S. (18. 5) and Viṣṇu Dh. S. (16. 5) he is the offspring of a vaiśya male from a kṣatriya female and the latter adds that he subsists by hunting. The Agni purāṇa (151. 15) says that pulkasas are hunterṣ Yama¹⁵² and Hārita quoted in the Kṛtya-kalpataru make him out as the offspring of a śūdra male from a vaiśya female. Manu X. 49 prescribes catching and killing animals that live in holes as the occupation of kṣatṛ, ugra and pulkasa. Kṣīrasvāmī (coṃ of Amara) says that pulkasa is the same as mṛtapa (which see below). Āp. Dh. S. (II. 1. 2. 6) says that when a Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya or Vaiśya is guilty of the theft of gold, of the murder of a brāhmaṇa, they undergo for some time in hell torments and then are respectively born as Caṇḍāla, Paulkasa or Vaina.

Puṣkara. Mentioned in Veda-Vyāsa-smṛti (I. 12) as one of the antyajaṣ Vide note 173 above.

Puspadha. Manu (X. 21) says that this is another name of āvantya (p. 73.)

Paundraka (or Paundra). Vide Pundra above. Anuśāsana 35. 17 and Śānti 65. 13-14 have the form paundra. Vide Manu X. 44 for paundraka and note on khaśa.

Paulkasa. Vide pulkasa above.

Bandiṇ See under vandin below.

Barbara. Medhātithi on Manu X. 4 says that the barbaras are saṁkīrṇayoniṣ In the Mahābhārata they are frequently mentioned among non-Aryan tribes along with Śaka, Śabara, Yavana, Pahlava etc. Vide Sabhā, 32. 16-17, 51. 23; Vana 254. 18 (as staying in the west); Droṇa 121. 13; Anuśāsana 35. 17; Śānti 65. 13.

Bāhya. Vide under antya (p. 70).

Buruḍa (worker in bamboo). He is one of the seven antyajas (vide note 170 above). The word is also written as varuḍa (vide below). Varuḍa occurs in the Kulālādigana (Pāṇini IV. 3. 118). Buruḍa is a scheduled caste in Orissa.

Bhāṭa. He is one of the antyajas according to Veda-Vyāsa (I. 12). Vide note 173 above and on raṅgāvatārin below.

Bhillā. He is one of the antyajas according to Aṅgiras, Atri 199, Yama 33. Vide note 170 above.

Bhiṣak. According to Uśanas (26) he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a brāhmaṇa and a kṣatriya girl and he maintains himself by studying the Āyurveda in its eight parts, or astronomy, astrology and mathematics (verse 27). According to Brahmapurāṇa (quoted by Aparārka p. 1171) he lives by surgery and by attending upon patientṣ

Bhūpa. According to Yama quoted in Kṛtyakalpataru he is the offspring of a vaiśya from a kṣatriya female.

Bhūrjakaṇṭaka. According to Manu X. 21 he is the offspring of a vrātya brāhmaṇa from a similar womaṇ In several countries he is called āvantya or vātadhāna, puṣpadha or śaikha.

Bhrjjakaṇṭha (same as ambaṣṭha). According to the view of some teachers mentioned in Gaut. IV. 17, he is the offspring of a brāhmaṇa male from a vaiśya female.

Bhoja. According to the Sūta-saṃhitā he is the offspring of a kṣatriya woman and a vaiśya male.

Madgu. Mentioned in Manu X. 48 as subsisting by killing wild beastṣ Kullūka on that verse explains that according to Baudhāyana he is the offspring of a brāhmaṇa from a bandin female. Vaik. X. 12 says that he is the offspring of the marriage of a kṣatriya male with a vaiśya female and subsists as a merchant (śreṣṭhin) and does not take to the profession of a warrior.

Maṇikāra. According to Uśanas (39-40) he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a kṣatriya male and a vaiśya female and he gains his livelihood by working on beads, by perforating pearls and dealing in coral and concheṣ According to the Sūtasamhitā he is the clandestine offspring of a vaiśya male from a vaiśya female.

Matsyabandhaka (a fisherman). According to Uśanas (44) he is the offspring of a taksaka (carpenter) from a kṣatriya womaṇ

Malla. Vide Manu (X. 22) who says that it is another name of Jhalla etc.

Māgadha. According to Gaut. IV. 15, Anusāsana 48. 12, Kaut. (III. 7), Manu X. 11, 17 and Yāj. I. 93 he is a pratiloma caste sprung from the union of a vaiśya male and a kṣatriya female; while according to the view of some teachers mentioned in Gaut. IV. 16, Uśanas (7) and Vaik. (X. 13) he is the offspring of a vaiśya male and a brāhmaṇa female; but Bauḍ Dh. S. I. 9. 7 says he is the offspring of a śūdra male and a vaiśya female and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 16. 5 makes him the offspring of a śūdra from a kṣatriya female. Manu (X. 47) prescribes trade by land routes for Māgadhas; Anušāsana X. 48 says that they maintain themselves on speech (i. e. by praise) and are also called bandiṇ Sahyā-drikhanda (26. 60-62) also calls him bandin and says he is slightly superior to śūdra and that he is clever in ornate prose, in six languages, in kalās and he is a devotee of Kālikā. Vaik. (X. 13) states that even śūdras cannot take food cooked by him, that he is an untouchable and maintains himself by praise, by singing or by being a messenger. Uśanas (7-8) says that he becomes the bandin of brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas, he maintains himself by lauding (the deeds of others) or as a messenger or servant of a vaiśya. Pāṇini IV. 1. 70 derives the word Māgadha from the country Magadha, but apparently not in the sense of a caste.

Mānavika. According to the Sūtasamhitā he is the offspring of the clandestine union of a śūdra male and a śūdra female.

Mātañga. The same as cāṇḍāla. The Kādambari of Bāṇa (para 9) and Amara employ them as synonymouṣ Yama (12) uses the word Mātañga where we ordinarily find cāṇḍāla in other smṛtis In the Bombay Presidency there is an untouchable caste called Māñg which numbers about three hundred thousanḍ There are Mañgs as a scheduled caste in Orissa.

Mārgava. Same as kaivarta (fisherman). Vide Manu X. 34. Mālākāra or Mālika. Vide Veda-Vyāsa (I. 10-11) quoted above in note 184.

Māhiṣya. According to the view of some teachers mentioned in Gaut. IV. 17 and Yāj. I. 92 he is an anuloma caste sprung from the marriage of a kṣatriya with a vaiśya womaṇ According to the Sahyādrikhaṇḍa (26. 45-46) he is entitled to upanayana and his avocations are astrology, augury, prognostications due to svara. According to the Sūtasamhitā he is the same as ambaṣṭha.

Mūrdhāvasikta. This is an anuloma caste according to the view of some teachers in Gaut. IV. 17 and Yāj. I. 91 sprung from the marriage of a brāhmaṇa with a kṣatriya womaṇ According to Vaik. (X. 12) the offspring of the marriage of a brāhmaṇa with a kṣatriya woman is the foremost among anulomas and is called savarṇa, while the offspring of the clandestine union of these two is called abhiṣikta. If crowned he becomes a king, otherwise he subsists by studying Āyurveda (Medicine) or the science of ghosts or astronomy, astrology and mathematicṣ In the Sahyādrikhaṇḍa (chap. 26. 36-39) more details are addeḍ Mṛtapa. Vide pulkasa above. In the Mahābhāṣya¹⁵³ on Pāṇ. II. 4. 10 this caste is mentioned as separate from caṇḍāla, but both are included by the Mahābhāṣya under śūdras that are niravasita (i. e. those who are so low in the caste system that if a vessel is used by them for eating their food from it cannot be used by any one of the other castes even after the vessel is purified by fire &c.).

Meda. He is one of the seven antyajas (vide note 170). This is mentioned in Nārada (vākparuṣya, verse 11). Anusāsana 22. 22 speaks of medas, pulkasas and antāveśāyins, and the coṃ Nīlakaṇṭha¹⁵⁴ explains that Medas are those who eat the flesh of dead cattle. Manu X. 36 says that he is the offspring of a vaidehaka male and a niśāda woman, that he dwells out-side the village and Manu X. 48 says that his business along with that of Andhra, Cuñcu and Madgu is to kill wild beastṣ Vide under Andhra above and see E. I. vol. XX. p. 130 where meda and caṇḍāla are named as lowest castes in a grant of Paramardideva in saṁvat 1236. According to Śūdrakamalākara, andhras and medas have to sweep dirty places, doorsteps and privieṣ

Maitra. Manu X. 23 says he is the same as Kāruṣa.

Maitreyaka. According to Manu X. 23 he is the offspring of a vaidehaka male and āyogava female and his means of liveli-hood are belauding kings and nobles continually and ringing a bell in the early morning. The Jātiviveka says that he is called Dhokanākāra.

Mleccha. According to the Sūtasamhitā he is the offspring of the clandestine union of a brāhmaṇa woman and a vaiśya male.

Yavana. According to the view of some mentioned in Gaut. IV. 17 he is a pratiloma caste sprung from a śūdra male and a kṣatriya womaṇ According to Manu X. 43–44 Yavanās were originally kṣatriyas reduced to the status of śūdras (vide under khasa above p. 79 ). In the Mahābhārata Yavanas are almost always associated with Śakas and several other non-Aryan tribes; vide Sabhā, 32. 16-17, Vanaparva 254. 18 (as inhabiting the west ), Udyoga 19. 21, Bhīṣma 20. 13, Droṇa 93. 42 and 121. 13, Karna 73. 19, Śānti 65. 13. From Strīparva 22. 11 it appears that Jayadratha (king of the countries of Sindhu and Sauvīra) had Kāmboja and Yavana women in his hareṃ Pāṇini (IV. 1. 59) derives the word Yavanānī from Yavana and a vārtika on that sūtra adds that Yavanānī means the lipi (the written alphabet ) of the Yavanaṣ Patañjali in his Mahābhāṣya ( on Pāṇ. II. 4. 10 ) indicates that he was prepared to regard Yavanas and Śakas as śūdras but as outside Āryā-varta. Aśoka in Rock Edicts V and XIII refers to the Yonas and Kambojas as nations on the borders of his empire. The Viṣṇupurāṇa IV. 3. 21 describes that the Yavanas shaved the head and also the beard, the Śakas tonsured their heads only, the Pāradas allowed the hair on the head to grow long and the Pahlavas grew beards and that all became Mlecchas because they gave up their original dharmas and because brāhmaṇas also left theṃ

Raṅgāvatārin ( or-tāraka ). According to Manu IV. 215 he is distinct from śailūṣa and gāyana. Śaṅkha (quoted by Aparārka p. 1175 ), Śāṅkha (17. 36 ) and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 51. 14 mention hiṃ According to Brahmapurāṇa (quoted by Aparārka p. 1178 ) he is a naṭa who goes on the stage for livelihood and who introduces various changes in his appearance and dresṣ Raṅgāvatārin is mentioned in the Maitrī Up. along with naṭa and bhaṭa.¹⁵⁵

Rajaka ( washerman ). Dhobī is a scheduled caste in U. P., Bihar and C. P. and in Bengal (called Dhoba). He is one of the antyajas according to several writers (vide note 170 above). According to Vaikh. (X. 15) and the Sūtasamhitā he is the offspring of a pulkasa ( or vaideha ) from a brāhmaṇa woman, while according to Uśanas (18) he is the offspring of a pulkasa male from a vaiśya girl. The Mahābhāṣya on Pāṇ. (II. 4. 10 ) includes him under śūdra. Yāj. II. 48 mentions him as liable to pay his wife's debts, because his livelihood depends on her. The Śūdrakamalākara mentioned another caste of rajaka (which is the offspring of an ugra male and vaidehaka female). Raňjaka (dyer). Manu IV. 216 mentions hiṃ According to Uśanas (19) he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a śūdra male and a kṣatriya female.

Rathakāra. Vide above pp. 43, 45 for Vedic referenceṣ According to Bauḍ gr. II. 5. 6 and Bhāradvāja gr. (I) his upanayana was to be performed in the rainy seasoṇ It appears he lost his status gradually. In the Bauḍ Dh. S. (I. 9. 6) he is the offspring of the marriage of a vaiśya male with a śūdra female. According to Yāj. I. 95 he is an anuloma doubly mixed as he is the offspring of a māhiṣya male from a karaṇa female and according to a prose passage of Śaṅkha quoted by the Mit. the rathakāra is entitled to have upanayana performed, to offer sacrifices and gifts and makes his living by learning the art of taming horses, of making chariots and building houseṣ According to Uśanas (5-6) and Vaik. (X. 13) he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a kṣatriya male and a brāhmaṇa woman and he is to behave like a śūdra, he is not a twice-born (dvija) and cannot repeat Vedic mantras and makes his living by tending and driving horses and cartṣ

Rāmaka. According to Vaṣ Dh. S. 18. 4 he is a pratiloma sprung from the union of a vaiśya male and a brāhmaṇa female. This would be kṛta, according to Gaut. (IV. 15), vaidehaka according to Baudhāyana.

Lubdhaka (hunter of deer)—same as vyādha.

Lekhaka. Mentioned by Sumantu quoted in Par. M. II. part 1 p. 383. He is probably the same as kāyastha, if a caste is meant; vide under kāyastha pp. 75-76.

Lohakāra (ironsmith). Vide p. 75 under karmāra. Nārada¹⁵⁶ (ṛṇādāna 288 ) recommends utilising the services of an ironsmith who is so by caste in the fire ordeal. He is mentioned by Hārīta (prose) quoted by Aparārka p. 1176. The Kamauli plate of Jayacandradeva Gāhaḍavāla was engraved by ‘Lohāra Someka’ in saṁvat 1232 (E. I. IV. p. 127 ).

Vandin (a bard, written as bandin also). According to Hārīta quoted in Kṛtyakalpataru he is a pratiloma sprung from a vaiśya male and kṣatriya female. According to the Brahma-purāṇa quoted by Aparārka p. 1177 a vandin is one who sings the praises of meṇ Varāta. Enumerated among the antyajas by Veda-Vyāsa (I. 12-13).

Varuḍa (worker in bamboo)—also written as buruḍa (vide above p. 89). The Mahābhāṣya on Pāṇ. IV. 1. 97 (vol. II p. 253) gives the instance vāruḍaki (from varuḍa). Bidala-kāra (splitter of bamboo) occurs in Tai. S. III. 4. 5. 1. and bidaļakārī in Vāj. S. 30. 8.

Vātadhāna. According to Manu X. 21 he is the same as āvantya.

Vījanmaṇ According to Manu X.23 he is the same as kārūṣa.

Veṇa (or Vaiṇa). According to Manu X. 19 and Bauḍ Dh. S. (I. 9. 13) he is the offspring of a vaidehaka male from an ambaṣṭha female, while Kaut. (III. 7) makes the vaiṇa the offspring of an ambaṣṭha male from a vaidehaka female; and according to Manu X. 49 he makes his livelihood by beating musical instrumentṣ Kullūka on Manu IV. 215 says that Veṇa is one who maintains himself by splitting bamboos and that he is the same as buruḍa according to Viśvarūpa. For Vaiṇa see Āp. Dh. S. quoted under pulkasa (p. 89). Kaut. (III. 7) adds that a vaiṇya follows the same profession as a rathakāra. Śaṅkha (17. 38), Viṣṇu Dh. S. 51. 14, Yāj. III. 207 place the veṇa alongside of carmakāra, niṣāda and pulkasa. According to Vaṣ Dh. S. (18. 2) he is a pratiloma sprung from the union of a śūdra male and a kṣatriya female. Yāj. I. 161 has the form vaiṇa which the Mit. explains as meaning one who maintains himself by cutting and splitting bambooṣ The Śūdrakamalākara notes that according to Ādipurāṇa veṇa is a drum-beater to announce royal orders and edictṣ

Veṇuka. According to Uśanas (4) he is a pratiloma, the offspring of a sūta from a brāhmaṇa woman, while according to Vaik. (X. 15) he is the offspring of a madgu from a brāhmaṇa woman and his avocation is to play on a vīṇā and on fluteṣ According to the Sūtasamhitā he is the offspring of a barber from a brāhmaṇa womaṇ

Velava. According to the Sūtasamhitā he is the offspring of a śūdra from a kṣatriya woman by stealth.

Vaidehaka. According to Bauḍ Dh. (I. 9. 8), Kaut. (III. 7), Manu X. 11, 13, 17, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 16. 6, Nārada (stripuruṣa J11), Yāj. I. 93, Anuśāsana 48. 10 he is a pratiloma sprung from a vaiśya male and a brāhmaṇa female; while according to Gaut. IV. 15 he is the offspring of a śūdra from a kṣatriya woman and according to Vaik. (X. 14), the view of some ācāryas in Gaut. IV. 17 and Uśanas ( 20 ) he is the offspring of a śūdra male from a vaiśya female. According to Manu X. 47 and Agnipurāṇa (151. 14) his peculiar work is to attend on and guard women (in harems etc), while according to Uśanas (20-21) and Vaik. (X. 14) he is to tend goats, cows and buffaloes and to sell milk, curds, buttermilk and ghee. The Sūta-saṃhitā says that _vaideha_ and _pulkasa_ are the same.

_Vyādha_ (huntsman )–mentioned by Sumantu in Aparārka p. 1176 and Hārīta (quoted by Aparārka p. 279 ), Āpastamba (verse ) 9. 32, Yāj. II. 48.

_Vrātya_. According to Āp. Dh. S. I. 1. 22–I. 2. 10, Pār. gr. II. 5 and other sūtra works a _vrātya_ is one on whom and on whose ancestors the _saṃskāra_ of _upanayana_ has not been performeḍ But in other works like Bauḍ Dh. S. (I. 9. 15), the word _vrātya_ is applied to all who are born of the mixture of _varṇas_.

_Śaka_. Manu (X. 43-44 ) mentions Śakas along with Yava-nas and others as originally _kṣatriyas_ reduced to the state of _śūdras_. Vide note on Yavana (p. 92) above. They are mentioned in the Mahābhārata along with Yavana and other non-Aryan tribeṣ Vide Sabhā 32. 16-17, 51. 23, Udyoga ( 4. 15; 19. 21; 160. 103 ), Bhīṣma ( 20. 13 ), Droṇa ( 121. 13 ). Śaka occurs in the _kambojādigaṇa_ ( Pāṇ. IV. 1. 175 ). Vide note 200.

_Śabara_. An aboriginal jungle tribe like the _Bhilla_. In the Mahābhārata the _śabaras_ are frequently mentioned ( e. g. Anuśāsana 35. 17, Śānti 65. 13 ).

_Śālika_. According to the Sūta-saṃhitā he is the same as _Māgadha_.

_Śālika_. According to Uśanas (42) he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a _brāhmaṇa_ and a _śūdra_ female and his avocation is to impale those offenders who are sentenced to be impaleḍ According to Vaik. (X. 13) and Sūta-saṃhitā he is the offspring of a clandestine union between a _kṣatriya_ male and a _śūdra_ female.

_Śaikha_. According to Manu X. 21 he is the same as _āvantya_.

_Śailūṣa_. Viṣṇu Dh. S. 51. 13, Manu IV. 214, Hārīta quoted by Aparārka p. 279 distinguish him from _raṅgāvatārī_ and the Brahmapurāṇa (quoted by Aparārka p. 1178 ) defines him as one who finds out employment for _natas_¹⁵⁷. Āpastamba 9. 32 (verse) speaks of him in the same breath with _rajaka_ and vyādha. Yāj. II. 48 does the same and the Mit. thereon para- phrases the word by naṭa.

Śauṇḍika (wine-seller). Viṣṇu Dh. S. 51, 15, Manu IV. 216, Yāj. II. 48, Śaṅkha (quoted by Aparārka p. 1175 ) and Brahmapurāṇa (quoted by Aparārka p. 1177 ) mention hiṃ

Śvapāca or Śvapāka. He is one of the antyajas enumerated by Veda-Vyāsa ( I. 12–13 ). Vide note 173 above. He occurs in the gaṇa kulālādi ( Pāṇ. IV. 3. 118 ). According to Bauḍ Dh. S. ( I. 9. 12 ), Kaut. ( III. 7 ), he is the offspring of an ugra male from a kṣatr female of the sub-caste, while according to Manu X. 19 he is the offspring of a kṣatr male from an ugra female. Vaik. ( X. 15 ) and Sūtasamhitā say that he is the offspring of a cāṇḍāla male and a brāhmaṇa female, while Uśanas (11) holds that he is the offspring of a cāṇḍāla male from a vaiśya womaṇ According to Manu X. 51–56 cāṇḍālas and śvapacas follow the same avocation and are governed by the same rules ( vide p. 81 under cāṇḍāla ). Uśanas (12) says that they eat the flesh of dogs and that dogs are their wealth, while Vaik. says that they wear the same marks that cāṇḍālas have to wear ( under the king's order, as Manu says in X. 55), that they remove the filth of towns etc., stay near cemeteries, have to dis- pose of corpses of men that leave no relatives, have to act as hangmen for offenders sentenced to death and to take their clothes etc., have to take food in broken pots and to eat dogs’ flesh and to deal in hides and armour (or in armour made of hides ). The Bhagavadgītā ( 5. 18 ) puts him on the same level with dogṣ In the Mārkaṇḍeya-purāṇa ( 8. 81–83, 86, 96 ) a cāṇḍāla is called śvapāka ( i. e. no distinction is made between the two ). In the Jātiviveka he is identified with the Mahar and with the Mang of the Deccaṇ

Sātvata. According to Manu X. 23 he is the same as kārūṣa above.

Sudhanvācārya. According to Manu X. 23 he is the same as kārūṣa above.

Suvarṇa. According to Uśanas (vv. 24–25) he is the offspring of the legal union with Vedic mantras of a brāhmaṇa male and a kṣatriya female. It appears likely that the text is corrupt and we should read savarṇa for suvarṇa. He should perform rites prescribed by the Atharvaveda, he should by the king's order ride a horse, elephant or chariot, may act as the comman- der of an army or may practise as a physiciaṇ Suvarṇakāra or Sauvarṇika or Hemakāra (goldsmith). A hiranyākāra is mentioned in the Vāj. S. XXX. 17 and in Tai. Br. III. 4. 14. According to Viṣṇu Dh. S. X. 4 and Nārada (ṛṇādāna 274) a goldsmith or a dealer in bronze or a bania was to examine the balance in the balance ordeal. Manu IV. 215, Yāj. I. 163, Śaṅkha and Sumantu quoted by Aparārka (pp. 1175, 1176) treat him on a level with karmakāra (blacksmith) and niṣāda. Manu IX. 292 condemns him as the worst of all rogues (sarvakaṇṭakapāpiṣṭha). For the view of Vaik. and Bṛhaspati vide under takṣan above (note 189). In the Mahā-bhārata it is said that after Paraśurāma's alleged extermination of the kṣatriyas, some of them that escaped resorted to the castes of ironsmiths and goldsmithṣ¹⁵⁸

Sūcaka. According to Uśanas (v. 43) he is an anuloma born of the marriage of a vaiśya male from a śūdra female.

Sūcika or saucika or sūci—one who works with a needle, a tailor. According to Vaik. (X. 15) and Uśanas (v. 22) he is a pratiloma, offspring of a vaidehaka from a kṣatriya woman and engages in the work of sewing with a needle. Saucika, according to the lexicon of Amara, is the same as tunnavāya (for which see above p. 83) and the Brahmapurāṇa quoted by Apar-ārka (p. 1178) also equates sūci with tunnavāya.

Sūta. For vedic references see above p. 43. According to Gaut. (IV. 15), Bauḍ Dh. S. (I. 9. 9), Vaṣ (18. 6), Kaut. (III. 7), Manu (X. 11), Nārada (strīpuṁsa 110), Viṣṇu Dh. S. (16. 6), Yāj. (I. 93) and Sūtasaṁhitā, he is a pratiloma sprung from a kṣatriya male and a brāhmaṇa womaṇ Kaut. is careful to add that the sūta who figures in the purāṇas as the reciter is quite different from thiṣ A vārtika on Pāṇ. (VI. 3. 70) teaches the formation of words like sūtaputrī.¹⁵⁹ According to Manu (X. 47) and Viṣṇu the avocation of sūtas is driving a chariot (i. e. breaking and yoking horses). According to Vaik. (X. 13) he makes his liveli-hood by reminding the king of his duties and by cooking food for hiṃ Uśanas (v. 3) also says that his business is to remind (a king) of his dutieṣ According to the Karṇaparva (32. 48) sūtas are the attendants of brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas and the latter need not carry out what the sūta sayṣ According to the Vāyupurāṇa (vol. I. I. 33-33 and vol. II. I. 139) the sūta was to preserve the pedigrees of kings and great men and traditions about learning or books, he is not authorised to study the Veda, the middling way of maintenance for him is to depend upon kings and to look after chariots, elephants and horses; an inferior way of maintenance is the practice of medicine. The Vaik. (X. 13) and the Sūta- saṃhitā expressly say that the difference between the sūta and the rathakāra consists in this that the former is the offspring of a marriage, while the latter is the offspring of a clandestine union of a kṣatriya male with a brāhmaṇa womaṇ The Sāhyādrikhaṇḍa (26. 53-54) says that he is inferior to kṣatriyas, but is entitled to do all the work of a kṣatriya and that he also performs the work of a charioteer, of taming elephants and riding horseṣ

Śūnika or Sauṇika (a butcher). According to Uśanas (v. 14) he is the offspring of an āyogava from a kṣatriya womaṇ Hārita (quoted by Aparārka p. 279) speaks of him in the same breath with rajaka and carmakāra. The Brahmapurāṇa (quoted by Aparārka p. 1177) says that he is 'paśumāraka'. Sumantu¹⁶⁰ quoted by Par. M. makes his food unfit for brāhmaṇaṣ He is the same as 'khāṭika' according to the Jātiviveka.

Sairindhra. According to Manu X. 32 he is the offspring of a dasyu (as defined in Manu X. 45) from an āyogava woman and he makes his living by combing the hair (of men and women), he is not to be treated as a dāsa (i. e. he has not to eat ucchiṣṭa food), but is to perform menial work (such as sham- pooing the body) or is to subsist by catching deer etc. The word is included in the gaṇa kulālādi (Pāṇ. IV. 3. 118). From the Mahābhārata we see what duties Draupadi disguised as hair- andhri had to do for the queen of Viraṭa (Virāṭa-parva 9. 18-19), viz. combing and arranging the hair, pounding unguents, making garlandṣ Similarly Damayanti became a sairandhri to the mother of the Cedi king (Vanaparva 65. 68-70), but she refused to eat ucchiṣṭa food, would not wash the feet of any- body and would not allow any man to approach her. According to Ādipurāṇa quoted in Śūdrakamalākara he lives by hunting deer and guarding royal harems and women after delivery. Sopāka. According to Manu (X. 38) he is the offspring of a caṇḍāla male and a pukkasa female, subsists by the profession of being hangman to those whom the king condemns to death. Sadūhanvana. Vide note on 'rathakāra' above (p. 45). Vide Kāmasūtra I. 5. 37. It will have been noticed that some of the castes mentioned in the smṛtis such as ambaṣṭha, māgadha, malla and vaidehaka are connected with countries (Amba, Magadha, Videha etc.), that some others are based upon race such as Ābhīra, Kirāta and Śaka. Manu (X. 43-45) and the Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana-parva 33. 21-23 and 35. 17-18) were prepared to admit that several foreign races like the Śakas, Yāvanas, Kambojas, Drāviḍas, Daradas, Śabaras, Kirātas etc. were originally kṣatriyas, but had been reduced to the status of śūdras by losing contact with brāhmaṇas or by not liking the idea of being subject to the brahmanical systeṃ The Viṣṇupurāṇa (IV. 4. 47-48) says the same. Numerous names of castes arise from the professions they follow, e. g. ayaskāra, kumbhakāra, carmakāra, takṣan, tailika, naṭa, rathakāra, veṇa etc. Even in ancient times brāhmaṇas followed so many different occupations almost as in modern times that the list of brāhmaṇas who cannot be invited at śrāddhas because they follow occupations other than those prescribed for them is rather very formidable (vide Manu III. 151 ff. and the remarks on paṅktipāvana later on). It appears that comparatively very early many among the brāhmaṇas had given up the occupations peculiar to them and were entitled to be called brāhmaṇas simply because of their birth. The Mahābhāṣya¹⁶¹ of Patañjali quotes a verse 'tapas, vedic study, and birth (from brāhmaṇa parents)—these are the causes why a person is called a brāhmaṇa; he who is devoid of tapas and vedic study is a brāhmaṇa only by birth (and not a real brāhmaṇa)'. Similarly in another place Patañjali quotes a verse 'know this to be the auspicious sign of the best of brāhmaṇas, viz. whose lore, actions and birth are all three holy' (vol. II. p. 220 on Pāṇ. IV. 1. 44). Though in the Mahābhārata it is often said that a brāhmaṇa is so by birth alone and that he deserves respect from all, still we meet several times with passages ¹⁶² wherein there is a revolt against the caste system dependent on birth alone and where it is severely condemned and great emphasis is laid on the moral worth of a maṇ In the Vanaparva (181. 42–43) we are told ¹⁶³ ‘Truthfulness, restraint, tapas, generosity, non-injury to sentient beings, constant adherence to dharma—these always lead men to the fruition ( of their goal ) and not caste nor family’. Udyogaparva (43. 20 ff.) explains at great length what is meant by self-restraint. In the Śāntiparva ¹⁶⁴ (189. 4 and 8) ‘Truthfulness, generosity, free- dom from hatred and wickedness, humility, kindness, and tapas— he is known as a brāhmaṇa where these are seeṇ If these signs are seen in a śūdra and they do not exist in a brāhmaṇa, then the śūdra would not be a śūdra and the brāhmaṇa would not be a brāhmaṇa’. In another place we are told ¹⁶⁵ ‘there is no difference between the varṇas; the whole world is brāhma (the creation of Brahmā ), since it was created by Brahmā in former ages and was evolved into varṇas by actions (or. occupations ).’ Udyogaparva ¹⁶⁶ (43. 49) remarks ‘Do not regard a person as brāhmaṇa by his talk; he who does not depart from truth is a brāhmaṇa’; Vanaparva (216. 14–15) ‘that śūdra who is always struggling for self-restraint, truthfulness and dharma is a brāhmaṇa in my opinion, for a brāhmaṇa is so by his character.’ Vide Vanaparva (313. 108–111) and Yāj. I. 200 and Vṛddha Gautama p. 632. It has been seen above (p. 6) that Gautama laid the greatest emphasis on the eight qualities of the soul. But in spite of those sentiments the caste system dependent on birth has continued in all its strength and rigour for ages and writers like the Par. M. II. 1, p. 228 are emphatic in saying that between jāti and character one must look principally to the eminence of the caste.

In certain medieval works called Jātiviveka and in other works like the Śūdra-kamalākara (first half of 17th century A. D.) several more castes are mentioned, some of which are set out below.

Āghāsika or Āndhasika—from a vaidehika male and a śūdra female; sells cooked food; also called Rūndhavavu. Āvartaka—from a bhrjjakanṭha and a brāhmaṇa womaṇ Āhitunḍika—from a nisāda and a vaideha female; called Gārūḍi in Marathi. Aurabhra—called Dhangar in Marathi (tends rams and ewes for their wool). Kaṭadhānaka—from āvartaka and a brāhmaṇa womaṇ Kunṭalaka—the same as nāpita. Kuruvinda—from a kumbbakāra and a kukkuṭa female. Same as modern Sāli, according to Śūdrakamalākara. Gholika from a Vyādha male and gārudi female. He is called Undiramāru (rat-killer) in the vernacular. Durbhara—from an āyogava and a dhigvana woman; called Ḍohor (or Ḍhor) in modern timeṣ Pauṣṭika—from a brāhmaṇa and a nisāda female; called in modern times Kahāra or Bhoī (palanquin-bearer). Plava—from a cāṇḍāla and an andhra woman; called 'hāḍī' in modern timeṣ Bandhula—from maitreya and jāṅghika female; called Jhārekarī now (who takes out gold particles from the dust at the doors of goldsmiths). Bhasmāṅkura—from a Śaiva fallen ascetic and a śūdra prostitute; called Gurava by the Jātiviveka. Manyu—from a vaiśya and a kṣatriya female; called Tāvaḍia (thief catcher). Romika—from malla and an āvartaka woman; called Loṇār in modern times (manufacturer of salt). Śālāḱya or Śākalya from a mālākara and kāyastha woman; Śuddha-Mārjaka—called Māndalī (who gains livelihood by singing and playing on musical instruments). Sindolaka or spaṇḍālika, from a śūdra male and a māgadha female; called Raṅgārī (dyer). In modern times each of the principal varṇas has numerous sub-castes, based upon difference of country, occupation, sect and other causeṣ For example, brāhmaṇas are first divided into ten classes, five of them being Gauḍas¹⁶⁷ and five Drāviḍaṣ Among the Drāviḍa brāhmaṇas, the Mahārāṣṭra brāhmaṇas are again subdivided into numerous sub-castes such as the Cit-pāvana (or Koṅkaṇastha), Karhāḍe, Deśastha, Devarukhe etc. It is said that in Gujerat there are 84 subcastes of brāhmaṇas,¹⁶⁸ most of which do not interdine nor intermarry. There is often a further distinction among the members of the same subcaste, viz. those who follow the priestly occupation and those who do not. The spirit of exclusiveness and ideas of superiority that arose in vedic times gradually led on to further and further divisions and subdivisions of people owing to geographical situation and other¹⁶⁹ causeṣ It appears that probably even in ancient times the brāhmaṇas of the north looked down upon the brāhmaṇas in eastern countries like Magadha. Vide notes 31-32 above and Fick (pp. 213-214). The Matsyapurāṇa (16. 16) says that brāhmaṇas who dwell in Mleccha countries, in Trīśaṅku, Barbara, Odra (Orissa ), Andhra (Telingaṇa ), Takka, Drāviḍa and Koṅkaṇa are not to be invited at śrāddhaṣ¹⁷⁰ Among kṣatriyas there are several subdivisions, such as those claiming descent from the Sun or the Moon and those that call themselves to be Agnikulas (vide Sherring, vol. I. p. 120 ff. and Tod’s Rajasthan vol. I chapter VII for lists of royal tribes ). The Paramāras have 35 branches, Guhilots 24 brancheṣ Chahmanas 26 branches, Solankis 16 branches and so oṇ

Even among comparatively late works the total number of subcastes enumerated does not go beyond even two hundreḍ For example, Wilson in ‘Indian castes’ vol. I pp. 65–70 mentions only 134 castes with their Sanskrit and modern Marathi names as gathered from the Jātiviveka, Mādhava-kalpalatā, Paraśu-rāma-pratāpa and other workṣ It is only in the census reports prepared at great expense by the British Government after elaborate efforts and organization that the great complexity of the caste system in modern India is laid bare to the eye. But this work cannot, by reason of its limited scope, go into these varied and complex details of the hundreds of castes that exist in the several provinces of India.