CHAPTER I

.

THE ORIGIN OF CASTE.

There are few questions within the whole sphere of Indian sociology which present more difficulty than those connected with the origin of caste. If the native of the country has any idea whatever on the subject, it is sufficient for him to refer to a mass of texts which are, it is hardly necessary to say, of little or no scientific value. They merely record the views of various priestly schools from whom there is strong reason to believe that the system, as we now observe it, originated. It is on lines quite different from these that any real enquiry into the subject must proceed. It may be well here to give at starting the religious form which the tradition has assumed.

[Caste in the Veda.] 2. To begin with the Veda. In the hymns, the most ancient portion of it, we find the famous verse,—“When they divided man, how many did they make him? What was his mouth? What his arms? What are called his thighs and feet? The Brâhmana was his mouth, the Râjanya was made his arms, the Vaisya became his thighs, the Sûdra was born from his feet.” [1] “European critics,” says Professor Max Müller, [2] “are able to show that even this verse is of later origin than the great mass of the hymns, and that it contains modern words, such as Sûdra and Râjanya, which are not found again in the other hymns of the Rig Veda. Yet it belongs to the ancient collection of the Vedic hymns, and if it contained anything in support of caste, as it is now understood, the Brâhmans would be right in saying that caste formed part of their religion and was sanctioned by their sacred writings.” But he goes on to say:—“If, then, with all the documents before us, we ask the question,—Does caste, as we find it in Manu and at the present day, form part of the most ancient religious teaching of the Vedas? We can answer with a decided ‘No.’ There is no authority whatever in the hymns of the Veda for the complicated system of castes; no authority for the offensive privileges claimed by the Brâhmans; no authority for the degraded position of the Sûdras. There is no law to prohibit the different classes of the people from living together, from eating and drinking together; no law to prohibit the marriage of people belonging to different castes: no law to brand the offspring of such marriages with an indelible stigma.” [3]

3. We do read that men are said to be distinguished into five sorts or classes, or literally five men or beings (Pancha Ksitayah). “The commentator explains this to mean the four castes—Brâhman, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sûdra and the barbarous or Nishâda. But Sâyana, of course, expresses the received impressions of his own age. We do not meet with the denomination Kshatriya or Sûdra in any text of the first book, nor with that of Vaisya, for vis, which does occur, is a synonym of man in general. Brâhman is met with, but in what sense is questionable.” [4]

4. We do, of course, in the Veda meet with various trades and handicrafts which had even in this early age become differentiated. Thus in the ninth book of the Rig Veda we have the famous passage which has been thus translated:—

“How various are the views which different men inspire! How various are the ends which men of different craft desire! The leech a patient seeks; the smith looks out for something cracked. The priest seeks devotees from whom he may his fee extract. With feathers, metal and the like, and sticks decayed and old, The workman manufactures wares to coin the rich man’s gold. A poet I, my sire a leech, and corn my mother grinds: On gain intent we each pursue our trades of different kinds.” [5]

5. The present system of castes cannot, in fact, be dated before the time of Manu’s “Institutes” which “was originally a local code, embodying rules and precepts, perhaps by different authors, some of whom may have lived in the 5th Century B.C., others in the 2nd Century B.C., and others even later. It was at first current among a particular tribe of Brâhmans, called Mânavas, who probably occupied part of the North-Western regions between the rivers Sâraswati and Drishadvati, but afterwards became generally adopted.” [6]

6. As to the effect of these laws it may be well again to quote Professor Max Müller. [7] “After the victorious return of the Brâhmans the old laws of caste were re-enacted more vigorously than ever, and the Brâhmans became again what they had been before the rise of Buddhism, the terrestrial gods of India. A change, however, had come over the system of caste. Though the laws of Manu still spoke of four castes—of Brâhmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Sûdras—the social confusion during the long reign of Buddhism had left but one broad distinction: on the one hand the pure caste of the Brâhmans: on the other the mixed and impure castes of the people. In many places the pure castes of the Kshatriyas and Vaisyas had become extinct, and those who could not prove their Brâhmanic descent were all classed together as Sûdras. At present we should look in vain for pure Kshatriyas or Vaisyas in India, and the families which still claim these titles would find it difficult to produce their pedigree, nay, there are few who could lay claim to the pure blood of the Sûdra. Low as the Sûdra stood in the system of Manu, he stood higher than most of the mixed castes, the Varnasankaras. The son of a Sûdra by a Sûdra woman is purer than the son of a Sûdra by a woman of the highest caste (Manu, X., 30). Manu calls the Chandâla one of the lowest outcastes, because he is the son of a Sûdra father and a Brâhmanic mother. He evidently considered the mésalliance of a woman more degrading than that of a man. For the son of a Brâhman father and a Sûdra mother may in the seventh generation raise his father to the highest caste (Manu, X., 64), while the son of a Sûdra father and a Brâhman mother belongs for ever to the Chandâlas.”

7. And the same writer goes on to say:—

“Manu represents, indeed, all the castes of Hindu society, and their number is considerable, as the result of mixed marriages between the four original castes. According to him the four primitive castes by intermarrying in every possible way gave rise to sixteen mixed castes, which by continuing their inter-marriages produced the long list of the mixed castes. It is extremely doubtful, however, whether Manu meant to say that at all times the offspring of a mixed marriage had to enter a lower caste. He could not possibly maintain that the sons of a Brâhman father and a Vaisya mother would always be a physician or Vaidya, this being the name given by Manu to the offspring of these two castes. At present the offspring of a Sûdra father and a Brâhman mother would find no admission in any respectable caste. Their marriage would not be considered marriage at all. The only rational explanation of Manu’s words seems to be that originally the Vaidyas or physicians sprang from the union of a Brâhman father and a Vaisya mother, though this, too, is of course nothing but a fanciful theory. If we look more carefully we shall find that most of these mixed castes are in reality the professions, trades and guilds of a half-civilised society. They did not wait for mixed marriages before they came into existence. Professions, trades and handicrafts had grown up without any reference to caste in the ethnological or political sense of the word. Some of their names were derived from towns and countries where certain professions were held in particular estimation. Servants who waited on ladies were called Vaidehas, because they came from Videha, the Athens of India, just as the French call the “porteur d’eau” a “Savoyard.” To maintain that every member of the caste of the Vaidehas, in fact, every lady’s maid, had to be begotten through the marriage of a Vaisya and a Brâhmani, is simply absurd. In other cases the names of Manu’s castes were derived from their occupations. The caste of musicians, for instance, were called Venas from vîna, the lyre. Now, it was evidently Manu’s object to bring these professional corporations in connection with the old system of castes, assigning to each, according to its higher or lower position, a more or less pure descent from the original castes. The Vaidyas, for instance, or the physicians, evidently a respectable corporation, were represented as the offspring of a Brâhman father and a Vaisya mother, while the guild of the fishermen, or Nishâdas, were put down as the descendants of a Brâhman father and a Sûdra mother. Manu could hardly mean to say that every son of a Vaisya father and Kshatriya mother was obliged to become a commercial traveller, or to enter the caste of the Magadhas. How could that caste have been supplied after the extinction in many places of the Kshatriya and Vaisya castes? But having to assign to the Magadhas a certain social position, Manu recognised them as the descendants of the second and third castes, in the same way as the Herald’s office would settle the number of quarters of an earl or a baron.”

8. Before leaving the consideration of caste as found in Manu’s “Institutes,” it may be noted that we find side by side two discrepant views as to the connubium of the orders. According to the milder, and apparently the older view, caste is determined by descent from the father, and a Dvija or twice-born man may take a wife from among Brâhmans, Kshatriyas or Vaisyas. With a Sûdra woman alone he could not intermarry. By the other view a man was advised to marry a virgin of his own caste as his first wife, and after that he may proceed according to the rank of the castes. There is some reason to believe that under this rule he might take even a Sûdra woman as a second wife. [8] This, it is needless to say, represents a very different state of things from that which prevails under the modern rigid law of caste endogamy.

[Caste subsequent to Manu.] 9. It was caste in or about the stage of its development exhibited in the “Institutes” of Manu which Megasthenes, first of all the barbarians, observed in his embassy to the court of Sandrocottus or Chandragupta (306–298 B.C.). He found seven, not four, castes—the philosophers, husbandmen, shepherds, artizans, soldiers, inspectors and counsellors of the king. The philosophers were the Brâhmans, and the traveller indicates the prescribed stages of the Brâhmanical life. He distinguishes the Brachmanes from the Sarmanai, the latter of whom are supposed to represent the Buddhist Sramanas or monks, while the inspectors were the Buddhist supervisors of morals, afterwards referred to in the sixth edict of Asoka.

10. This hasty survey of the historical development of caste sufficiently disposes of the popular theory that caste is a permanent institution, transmitted unchanged from the dawn of Hindu history and myth.

[Caste not peculiar to Hinduism.] 11. Another and even graver misconception is to suppose that caste is peculiar to Hinduism and connected in some peculiarly intimate way with the Hindu faith. It is needless to say that caste as an institution is not confined to Indian soil. The Zendavesta shows that the early Persian community was divided into three castes or tribes, of which one lived by hunting, a second by grazing flocks, and the third by agriculture. “In this respect also,” says Herodotus, [9] “the Lacedaemonians resemble the Egyptians: their heralds, musicians and cooks succeed to their fathers’ professions: so that a musician is son to a musician, a cook, of a cook, and a herald, of a herald: nor do others, on account of the clearness of their voice, apply themselves to this profession and exclude others; but they continue to practise it after their fathers.” This occupational or hereditary guild system of caste, which, as will be seen, was the most important factor in the development of this institution, prevailed and still prevails, as a matter of fact, all the world over. Nor is caste confined to votaries of the Hindu faith. On the contrary it is in its nature much more social than religious. It has been one of the most perplexing problems which beset the Christian Missionary to reconcile the restrictions of caste with the perfect liberty of Christianity. Islâm has boldly solved the difficulty by recognising and adopting caste in its entirety. Not only does the converted Râjput, Gûjar or Jât remain a member of his original sept or section; but he preserves most of those restrictions on social intercourse, intermarriage and the like, which make up the peasant’s conception of caste. As Mr. Ibbetson remarks,—“Almost the only difference which the convert makes is to shave his scalplock and the upper edge of his moustache, to repeat the Muhammadan creed in a mosque, and to add the Muhammadan to the Hindu marriage ceremony. As far as religion goes he worships Khuda instead of Parameswar, keeps up his service in honor of Bhawâni, and regularly makes the due oblation for the repose of the sainted dead.” On the other hand, as will be seen everywhere in the course of the present survey, the members of orthodox Hindu castes worship the quintette of the Pânch Pîr, or famous local saints like Miyân or Mîrân Sâhib, Shâh Madâr or Sakhi Sarwar.

[Caste not immutable.] 12. By another popular theory caste is eternal and immutable. The ordinary Hindu will say that it has always existed, that it is based on what he calls the Shâstras, a vague body of religious literature of which he knows little more than the name. We have already shown that the vague reference to caste in the Vedas discloses the institution at a very different stage from what we see it in the “Institutes” of Manu or at the present day. Even in an age so comparatively recent as that of Manu, the rules of connubium and social life were very different from those which prevail at present. The modern Vaishnava, for instance, would shudder at the comparatively liberal permission given in these days for the use of meat. [10] But in addition to this we meet all through the range of Hindu history and myth with numerous illustrations of the mutability of caste. Thus in the Mahâbhârata Bhîma is married by his brother Yudhishthira to the Asura woman Hidimbi, and the marriage rites are regularly performed: while Draupadi, a Kshatriya girl, accepts as her husband at the Swayamvara Arjuna who pretends to be a Brâhman. Viswamitra, a Kshatriya by birth, compelled Brahma by the force of his austerities to admit him to the Brâhmanical order, so that he might be on a level with Vasishtha, with whom he had quarrelled. [11] It is even more significant to learn from the Mahâbhârata [12] that all castes become Brâhmans when they have crossed the Gomati on a visit to the hermitage of Vasishtha, and we are told that the country of the five rivers is contemptible because there a Bahîka or Panjâbi “born a Brâhman becomes afterwards a Kshatriya, a Vaisya or a Sûdra, and eventually a barber.” It would be easy to repeat examples of this kind almost indefinitely. [13]

[Modern development of caste.] 13. As regards the castes of the present day the case is similar. Instead of castes being a clearly-defined entity, an association complete in themselves, a trade guild the doors of which are rigidly barred against the admission of strangers, they are in a constant state of flux and flow. New endogamous groups are constantly being created, the process of fission is ever in operation, and what is more important still the novus homo, like his brethren all the world over, is constantly endeavouring to force his way into a higher grade and acquire the privileges of the “twice-born.” This process is specially observable among the Gonds and other Dravidian races of the great hill country of Central India. Thus the Râj Gonds who “in appearance obstinately retain the Turanian type, in aspiration are Hindus of the Hindus, wearing the sacred cord and carrying ceremonial refinements to the highest pitch of parvenu purism. Mr. Hislop says that not content with purifying themselves, their houses, and their food, they must even sprinkle their faggots with water before using them for cooking. With all this exterior coating of the fashionable faith they seem, however, to retain an ineradicable taint of the old mountain superstitions. Some of these outwardly Brâhmanised chiefs still try to pacify the gods of their fathers for their apparent desertion of them by worshipping them in secret once every four or five years and by placing cow’s flesh to their lips, wrapped in a cloth, so as not to break too openly with the reigning Hindu divinities.” [14] And Captain Forsyth writes:—“In Gondwâna numerous chiefs claim either a pure descent from Râjput houses, or more frequently admit their remote origin to have sprung from a union between some Râjput adventurer of noble blood and one of the daughters of the aborigines. Few of them are admitted to be pure Râjputs by the blue blooded chiefs of Rajasthân: but all have their bards and genealogies.” [15]

14. The same process of elevation of the aboriginal races has been going on for centuries throughout Northern India. To quote Mr. Nesfield [16]:—“Local traditions in Oudh and the North-Western Provinces abound in tales of Brâhmans being manufactured out of low caste men by Râjas when they could not find a sufficient number of hereditary Brâhmans to attend some sacrifice or feast. For example, the Kunda Brâhmans of Partâbgarh are said to have been manufactured by Râja Mânik Chand, because he was not able to collect the quorum of one hundred and twenty-five thousand Brâhmans to whom he had vowed to make a feast: in this way an Ahîr, a Kurmi or a Bhât found himself dubbed a Brâhman and invested with the sacred thread, and their descendants are Brâhmans to this day. [17] A similar tale is told of Tirgunait Brâhmans and Pâthaks of Amtara: [18] of the Pândê Parwârs in the Hardoi District: of the large clan called Sawalakhiyas in the Gorakhpur and Basti Districts, who have nevertheless assumed the high-sounding titles of Dûbê, Upâdhya, Tiwâri, Misra, Dikshit, Pândê, Awasthi and Pâthak. [19] Only about a century-and-a-half ago a Luniya, or man of the salt-making class, which ranks decidedly low, was made a Brâhman by Râja Bhagwant Râê of Asothar, and this man is the ancestor of the Misra Brâhmans of Aijhi.” [20]

[Brâhmans an occupational group.] 15. In fact there can be little doubt that the Brâhmans, so far from forming a homogeneous group, have been made up of very diverse elements, and this strongly confirms the occupational theory of their origin, to which reference will be made later on. There are grades of so-called Brâhmans which in appearance and function present little analogy to the pure bred Pandit of Benares or Mathura. Thus the Ojha Brâhman is the direct successor of the Dravidian Baiga, and of similar menial origin are probably many of those Brâhmans who live by begging, fortune-telling and the like, such as the Dakaut, Joshi, Barua or Husaini, and the Mahâbrâhman or funeral priest whose functions render him an abomination to all orthodox Hindus. The Bhuînhârs and Tagas, if they are really of genuine Brâhmanical descent, have in the same way differentiated themselves by function, and having abandoned priestly duties are agriculturists and landowners pure and simple. This separation of function must have prevailed from very early times, because it was specially laid down that each caste may adopt the occupation of another in case of distress, and thus a Brâhman may do the work of a Kshatriya or Vaisya, but not of a Sûdra. [21]

[Occupational origin of the Râjputs.] 16. Still less homogeneous is the mass of septs grouped under the name of Kshatriyas or Râjputs. We have already seen how the Dravidian Gond races have been in quite recent times enrolled as Râjputs. The Râja of Singrauli, in Mirzapur, nearly a pure Kharwâr, has within the last generation or two come to rank as a Benbansi Chhatri. Colonel Sleeman gives the case of an Oudh Pâsi, who within the memory of man became a Râjput by giving his daughter to a man of the Puâr sept. [22] The names of many septs again, such as the Baghel, Ahban, Kalhans, and Nâgbansi suggest a totemistic origin which would bring them in line with the Chandrabansi, who are promoted Dravidian Cheros and other similar septs of undoubtedly aboriginal race. Mr. Carnegy went perhaps too far in assuming a similar development of many of the Oudh septs; but the traditions of many of these, which will be found in the special articles dealing with them, such as the Bhâlê Sultân, Bisen, Chandel, Gaur, Kânhpuriya and Bandhalgoti, afford significant evidence that their claims to blue blood must be accepted with caution. The same inference arises from the fact, of which evidence is given elsewhere, of the impossibility of drawing the line between the Jât and Râjput of the Western Districts, and the Bhuînhâr and Chhatri of the East: in fact many of the septs of the latter claim indifferently to belong to both races, and some, like the Bisen, have an admitted Kurmi branch.

17. Among the Râjputs, again, this process of assimilation of lower races has been undoubtedly encouraged by the prevalence of female infanticide which renders it impossible for the poorer members of the race to obtain legitimately born brides. This has naturally led to cohabitation with women of inferior castes and the creation of definite classes of illegitimate Râjputs, such as the Gaurua of the Central and the degraded Chauhâns of the Upper Ganges-Jumna Duâb. A recent report on the outbreak of dacoity in the Agra and Rohilkhand Divisions shows that many of the perpetrators of these outrages were half-bred Râjputs, whose mothers were drawn from criminal or nomadic tribes like the Nat, Beriya, Sânsiya and the like, and the association of Râjput youths with women of this class has brought them into the companionship of their gypsy male relatives and driven them into a life of crime.

18. It is needless to say that the records of our courts swarm with examples of the association of men of the Râjput class with women of the lower races, and in this stratum of village society there is not even a pretence of moral continence. The effect of this state of things is obvious and requires no further illustration.

[The occupational origin of the Vaisyas.] 19. The same remarks largely apply to the so-called modern representatives of the Vaisya class, the aggregate of tribes now grouped under the general name of Banya. Some of these, such as the Agarwâlas and Oswâls, are in appearance perhaps among the best bred races of Northern India. Others are obviously occupational groups recruited from the lower races which have grouped themselves under the generic title of Banya or Mahâjan. The Bohra asserts Brâhmanical origin. Others again in name and function are in all probability connected with various classes of artizans—the Kasarwâni and Kasaundhan with the Kasera, the Lohiya with the Lohâr, and the same inference may perhaps be drawn from the grades of Dasa and Bîsa, “the tens” and “the twenties,” which appear among the Agarwâlas, and can hardly indicate anything but a gradation in purity of descent.

[The Sûdra group.] 20. As to the congeries of castes known to the early Hindus as Sûdras we find all the varying grades of social respectability from industrious artisans and cultivators down to vagrants like the Sânsya or Gandhîla and scavengers like the Dom or Bhangi. The word Sûdra has now no determinate meaning; it is merely used as a convenient term of abuse to designate persons who are, or are assumed to be, of degraded caste. It is probably a term derived from the languages of one of the inferior races. [23] As has been already remarked, it is a comparatively modern word and appears only once in the Rig Veda. It may have been a synonym for Dasyu, “those of the black skin,” who represented the contrast between the aborigines and the conquering Aryans. The stress that is laid in the old hymns on the breadth of their noses would perhaps go to identify them with the broad-nosed Dravidians. But the accounts of their forts and cities show that when they came into contact with the writers of the Vedic hymns they had already attained a considerable degree of culture.

[Anthropometry the only safe basis of enquiry.] 21. The only safe criterion of the relation of these races to the so-called “twice-born” tribes can be gained from the evidence of anthropometry, which must be left for another chapter.

[Summary of theories of origin of caste.] 22. Meanwhile to sum up the results of these remarks—

(a) The Vedas, as we possess them, give no clear indication of any form of caste, except that of the occupational or trade guild type. (b) The first trace of modern caste is found in the “Institutes” of Manu: but here the rules of food, connubium and intercourse between the various castes are very different from what we find at present. (c) Caste so far from being eternal and changeless is constantly subject to modification, and this has been the case through the whole range of Hindu myth and history. (d) Caste is not an institution peculiar to Indian soil; but in its occupational form at least is widely prevalent elsewhere. (e) Caste is in its nature rather a matter of sociology than of religion. (f) The primitive so-called division of the people into Brâhmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Sûdras does not agree with existing facts, and these terms do not now denote definite ethnological groups. (g) The only trustworthy basis for the ethnological survey of Upper India must be based on anthropometry.

##