AN ANALYSIS OF THREE EPITHETS

APPLIED TO THE SUDRAS IN AITAREYA

BRAHMANA VII. 29.4

BY

ARVIND SHARMA (Cambridge, U.S.A.)

I

The position of the Sadras in ancient India has been a subject of scholarly investigation for quite some time now 1). In these investiga- tions a passage from the Aitareya Brahmana has played a critical role 2). It is generally accepted that the position of the 8mdras in ancient India was relatively inferior to that of the other three var,na.r and that it was generally low 3). It has, however, been argued on the strength of the passage in the Aitareya Brahmana that the position of the Sadra, at least as depicted in that Brahmana 4), represents an absolutely servile

1) See James Mill, The History of India. London: 1 820 (or its recent annotated edition, The History of British India, New York: Chelsea Publishers, 1968) ; Mount- stuart Elphinstone, The History of India, London : 1 841 ; H. T. Colebrooke, Miscella- neous Essays, ed. E. B. Cowell, London: 1873; Alfred Hillebrandt, Brahmanen und Siidras, Festscbrift fur Karl Weinhold, Breslau: 1896; J. C. Ghosh, Brahmanism and the Sudra, Calcutta: 1 902 ;V. S. Bhattacharya, The Status of the 8rdras in Ancient India, T?ishivaBharati Quarterly, 19z4; P. V. Kane, History of Dharmafastra, Vol. II, part I, Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1941; B. R. Ambedkar, Who Were the Shudras? Bombay: Thacker and Co., 1946 and The Untouchables, New Delhi: Amrit Book Co., 1948; Ram Sharan Sharma, Sfidras in Ancient India, Delhi : Motilal Bararsi- das, 1 9 3 8etc. ; 2) Paficika VII. 29.4. 3) See P. V. Kane, op. cit., pp. 1 3 4- 1 64Ram ; Sharan Sharma, op. cit., passim, etc. 4) The condition of the Sudra could be discussed in the context of Hinduism in general or in the context of a definite historical phase of Hinduism such as the Vedic (e.g. R. C. Majumdar, ed., The Vedic Age, Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1965). Sometimes it is helpful to narrow down the focus even further, to a particular period of a more general phase. Thus one can distinguish between the Early Vedic and the Later Vedic period (e.g. A. L. Basham, The Wronderthat was India, New York: Haw- 301 position of the 83dra and a new and special low in his generally inferior position alluded to above. Thus it has been argued, on the basis of the Aitareya Brahmana passage under discussion, that whereas a wergeld is prescribed for the killing of the Sadra elsewhere 5) even if less than for the other three varnas, the passage in question refers to the 83dra as one who could be slain at will and therefore implies no wergeld at all 6). Similarly, it has been argued that whereas all the other varnas may have been subject to tenancy in ancient India, the 83dra was an unprotected tenant, a tenant at will, because in the aforesaid passage, he is described as one who could be removed at will 1). thorn Books, 1 96 3 p., 38). From the point of view of this paper it is useful to be even more specific and distinguish among four periods under the general rubric of the Vedic Age. Each of these four periods could be seen as corresponding to one of the four tiers of the Vedic corpus (see T. M. P. Mahadevan, Outlines of Hinduism, Bombay: Chetana Ltd., 1960, pp. 29- 3 0).Thus the condition of the Sudra could be surveyed in (i) the Samhita period; (2) the Brahmana period; (3) the l?ranyaka period; and (4) the Upanisad period. We are concerned here only with the Brahmana period. Now one further qualification needs to be made: in this paper we are concerned with some special aspects of the condition of the 83dra as implied in the Aitareya Brahmana. S) Apastamba Dharma Sutra 1.9. 24. 3 .etc. See P. V. Kane, op. cit., pp. 163-164. 6) Thus A. B. Keith (vide A. A. Macdonell and A. B. Keith, Vedic Index of Names and Subjects, London: John Murray, 1912, p. 389 and in E. J. Rapson, ed., The Cambridge History of India, Cambridge University Press, 1922, pp. 128-129). A. B. Keith clearly implies that the wergeld was absent though he nowhere explicitly says so. In the light of this conclusion that wergeld was absent he has trouble explaining the provision of a "wergeld of io cows" for the killing of a Sudra in the Sutras (e.g. Baudhayana Dharma Sutra 1.10.19.1). He tries to resolve the conflict in the following specific ways: (i) suggesting (diffidently) that this wergeld "is merely for the benefit of his master" (Cambridge History o f India, op. cit., p. 129) ; (z) suggesting (again diffldently) that "this wergeld was only due in case of murder by another than the master" (Tledic Index of Names and Subjects, op. cit., p. 389)' He is more confident of reconciling the two positions on the basis of the more general argument that the description of the Sutra period represents an improvement in the civil status of the Sudra. This argument is offered in two forms: (i) that now "the Sudra was approxi- mating more and more to the position to which the humbler freeman was being reduced" (Cambridge History of India, op. cit., p. 128) and (2) that now came about the abolition of "the relation of simple slavery" (Ibid., p. 1 29). U. N. Ghosal says what is here assumed and left unsaid, that, on the basis of the passage under investigation "at least in extreme cases" the Sudra was "without the right of wergeld" (A History of Hindu Public Life, Calcutta : Ramesh Ghoshal, p. 167). 7) Thus U. N. Ghosal. He comments thus on the passage under investigation: "These striking phrases probably mean that the 83dras formed a class of hereditary