Contents part I religious

The division of society into four orders called Vamas is not the only peculiar feature of Hindu Society. What is called Ashram Dharma is another. There is however one point of difference between the two. The Varna Dharma is a theory of the organization of society. The Ashram Dharma on the other hand is a theory of regulating the life of an individual.

The Hindus believe that this institution of Ashram Dharma is as vital as that of the Varna Dharma for the well-being society. They call the two by a joint name of Varnashram Dharma as though they were one and integral. The two together form the steel-frame of the Hindu Society.

To begin with it would be better to have a full understanding of the Ashram Dharma before inquiring into its origin and its purpose and its peculiarities. The best source for an exposition of the Ashram system is the Manu Smriti from which the following relevant extracts are reproduced:

This is an 18-page Manuscript. This is the typed first copy with a title written in the author's handwriting.—Ed.

"In the eighth year after conception, one should perform the initiation (upanayana) of a Brahmana, in the eleventh after conception (that) of a Kshatriya, but in the twelfth that of a Vaisya[f21]."

"A twice-born man who, not having studied the Veda, applies himself to other (and worldly study), soon falls, even while living, to the condition of a Sudra and his descendants (after him). "[f22]

"The vow of the three Vedas under a teacher must be kept for thirty-six years or for half that time, or for a quarter, or until the (student) has perfectly learnt them. "

" Who has studied in due order the three Vedas, or two, or even one only, without breaking the (rule of) studentship, shall enter the order of householder." [f23]

"The student, the householder, the hermit, and the ascetic, these (constitute) four separate orders, which all spring from (the order of) householders."

"But all (or) even (any of) these orders, assumed successively in accordance with the Institutes (of the sacred law), lead the Brahmana who acts by the preceding (rules) to the highest state."

"And in accordance with the precepts of the Veda and of the Smriti, the housekeeper is declared to be superior to all of them; for he supports the other three[f24]."

" A Twice-born Snataka, who has thus lived according to the law in the order of householders, may, taking a firm resolution and keeping his organs in subjection, dwell in the forest, duly (observing the rules given below):

"When a householder sees his (skin) wrinkled and (his hair) white, and the sons of his sons, then he may resort to the forest[f25]."

" But having thus passed the third part of (a man's natural term of) life in the forest, he may live as an ascetic during the fourth part of his existence, after abandoning all attachment to worldly objects."

"He who after passing from order to order, after offering sacrifices and subduing his senses, becomes tired with (giving alms and offerings of food), as ascetic, gains bliss after death." "When he has paid the three debts, let him apply his mind to (the attainment of) final liberation; he who seeks it without having paid (his debts) sinks downwards."

" Having studied the Vedas in accordance with the rule, having begot sons according to the sacred law, and having offered sacrifices according to his ability, he may direct his mind to (the attainment of) final liberation." "A twice-born man who seeks final liberation, without having studied the Vedas, without having begotten sons, and without having offered sacrifices, sinks downwards'[f26]." From these rules it is clear that according to Manu there are three features of the Ashram Dharma. First is that it is not open to Shudras and women. The second is Brahmacharya which is compulsory, so is Grahasthashram. Vanaprastha and Sannyas are not compulsory. The third is that one must pass from one stage to another in the order in which they stand namely first Brahmacharya, then Grahasthashram, then Vanaprastha and lastly Sannyas. No one can omit one and enter the next stage.

A cursory reflection on this system of stages which may well be called a system of planned economy of the life of the individual raises many questions. First is what forced Manu to have such a system of planned economy. Referring to the Vedas, the theory of stages in life is quite unknown. The Vedas speak of Brahmachari. But there is nothing to show that Brahmacharya was regarded as the first and inescapable stage in life. Why did the Brahmins make Brahmacharya as the compulsory stage in the life of an individual? This is the first riddle about the Ashram Dharma.

The second question is why Manu made it obligatory to observe the order of sequence in the following of the different stages of life by the individual. Now there is no doubt that there was a time when it was open to a Brahmachari to enter any of the three Ashrams! He may become a Grahasthashrami or he may at once become a Sannyasi without becoming a Grahasthashrami. Compare what the authors of the Dharma Sutras have to say on the point. Vasistha Dharma Sutra[f27] says: "There are four orders viz. (that of) the student, (that of) the householder, (that of) the hermit, and (that of) the ascetic ".

"A man who has studied one, two or three Vedas without violating the rules of studentship, may enter any of these (orders) whichsoever he pleases. " Gautama Dharma Sutra[f28] says: "Some (declare, that) he (who has studied the Veda) may make his choice (which) among the orders (he is going to enter.)"

The four orders are, (that of) the student (that of) the householder, (that) of the ascetic (bhikshu) (and that of) the hermit in the woods (Vaikhanasa).

It is obvious from the views expressed by the Dharma Shastras that there was a time when the married state was an optional state. After Brahmacharya one would straight enter the stage of Vanaprastha or Sannyasa. Why did Manu remove the option and make the married state an obligatory state, why did he make the married state a condition precedent to the stage of hermit and the stage of hermit a condition precedent to the stage of a Sannyas?

After Grahasthashtram there remain two stages to complete the round of life—Vanaprastha and Sannyas. The question is why Manu felt the necessity of life of the individual after Grahasthsram into two stages. Why was one stage of Sannyas not enough? The rules of regulating the life of the Vanaprastha and the Sannyasi as laid down in Manu are so alike that they give some point to the question.

In the following table a comparative study is made of the Codes for the Vanaprastha and the Sannyasa as prescribed by Manu:

 

The Code for Vanaprastha	The Code for Sannyasi
"Abandoning all food raised by cultivation and all his belongings, he may depart into the forest, either committing his wife to his sons, or accompanied by her." Ch. Vl-3.	"Having performed the Ishti, sacred to the Lord of creatures(Prajapati) where (he gives) all his property as the sacrificial fee, having reposited the sacred fires in himself, a Brahmana may depart from his house, (as an ascetic)." Ch. Vl-38.
"Taking with him the sacred fire and the implements required for domestic (sacrifices) he may go forth from the village into the forest and reside there, duly controlling his senses." Ch. Vl-4	"Worlds, radiant in brilliancy, become (the portion) of him who recites (the texts) regarding Brahman and departs from his house (as an ascetic), after giving a promise of safety to all created beings." Ch. Vl-39.
" Let him offer those five great sacrifices according to the rule, with various kinds of pure food fit for ascetics, or with herbs, roots and fruit." VI-5.	" For that twice-born man, by whom not the smallest danger there will be no danger from any(quarter) after he is freed from his body." Ch. VI-40.
" Let him wear a skin or a tattered garment; let him bathe in the evening or in the morning and let him always wear (his hair in) braids the hair on his body, his beard, and his nails (being unclipped)." VI-6.	" Departing from his house fully provided with the means of purification (Pavitra), let him wander about absolutely silent, and caring nothing for enjoyments that may be offered (to him)." Ch. VI-41.
" Let him perform the Bali-offering with such food as he eats and give alms according to his ability; let him honour those who come to his hermitage with alms consisting of water roots and fruit." VI-7.	" Let him always wander alone, without any companion, in order to attain (final liberation) fully understanding that the solitary (man, who) neither forsakes nor is forsaken, gains his end." Ch. VI-42.
'" Let him be always industrious in privately reciting the Veda; let him be patient of hardships, friendly (towards all), of collected mind, ever liberal and never a receiver of gifts, and compassionate towards all living creatures." VI-8. " Let him offer, according to the law, the Agni-hotra with three sacred fires, never omitting the new-moon and full-moon sacrifices at the proper time." VI-9.	" He shall neither possess a fire, nor a dwelling, he may go to a village for his food, (he shall be) indifferent to everything, firm of purpose, meditating (and) concentrating his mind on Brahman." Ch. VI-43.
" Let him also offer the Nakshatreshti, the Agrayana, and the Katurmasya (sacrifices), as well as the Turayana and likewise the Dakshayana, in due order." VI-10.	"A potsherd (instead of an alms-bowl) the roots of trees (for a dwelling), coarse worn-out garments, life in solitude and indifference towards everything, are the marks of one who has attained liberation. Ch. VI-44. " Let him not desire to die, let him not desire to live, let him wait for (his appointed) time, as a servant (waits) for the payment of his wages." Ch. VI-45.
" With pure grains, fit for ascetics, which grow in spring and in autumn, and which he himself has collected, let him severally prepare the sacrificial cakes (purodasa) and the boilded messes (karu), as the law directs." VI-1 11.	" Delighting in what refers to the Soul, sitting (in the postures prescribed by the Yoga), independent (of external help) entirely abstaining from sensual enjoyments, with himself for his only companion, he shall live in this world, desiring the bliss (of final liberation." Ch. VI-49.
" Having offered those most pure sacrificial viands, consisting of the produce of the forest, he may use the remainder for himself (mixed with) salt prepared by himself." VI-12.	" Neither by (explaining) prodigies and omens, nor by skill in astrology and palmistry nor by giving advice and by the exposition (of the Sastras) let him, ever seek to obtain alms." Ch. VI-50.
" Let him eat vegetables that grow on dry land or in water, flowers, roots and fruits, the productions of pure trees, and oils extracted from forest-fruits." VI-13.	" Let him not (in order to beg) go near a house filled with hermits, Brahmanas, birds, dogs or other mendicants." Ch. VI-51.
"Let him avoid honey, flesh and mushrooms growing on the ground(or elsewhere, the vegetables called) Bhustrina, and Sigruka, and the Sleshmantaka fruit."VI-14.	" His hair, nails and beards being clipped carrying an alms-bowl, a staff, and a water-pot, let him continually wander 'about controlling himself and not hurting any creature." Ch.VI-52.
"Let him throw away in the month of Asvina the food of ascetics. which he formerly collected, likewise his worn-out clothes and his vegetables, roots, and fruit." VI-15.	" His vessels shall not: be made of metal, they shall be free from fractures it is ordained that they shall be cleansed with water, like(the cups, called) Kamasa, at a sacrifice." Ch. VI-53.
"Let him not eat anything (grown on) ploughed (land), though it may have been thrown away by somebody, nor roots and fruit grown in a village, though (he may be) tormented (by hunger)." VI-16.	"A gourd, a wooden bowl, an earthen (dish), or one made of split cane, Manu the son of Svayambhu, has declared (to be) vessels (suitable) for an ascetic." Ch.VI-54.
" He may eat either what has been cooked with fire, or what has been ripened by time: he either may use a stone for grinding or his teeth his mortar." VI-17.	" Let him go to beg once (a day), let him not be eager to obtain a large quantity (of alms); for an be ascetic who eagerly seeks, alms, attaches himself also to sensual enjoyments." Ch. VI-55.
" He may either at once (after his daily meal) cleanse (his vessel for collecting food), or lay up a store sufficient for a month, or gather what suffices for six months or for a year." VI-18.	" When no smoke ascends from (the kitchen), when the pestle lies motionless, when the embers have been extinguished, when the people have finished their meal, when the remnants in the dishes have been removed, let the ascetic always go to beg." Ch. VI-56.
" Having collected food according to his ability he may either eat at night (only) or in the daytime (only), or at every fourth mealtime, or at every eighth." VI-19.	" Let him not be sorry when he obtains nothing, nor rejoice when he obtains (something), let him (accept) so much only as will sustain life, let him not care about the (quality of his) utensils." Ch. VI-57.
" Or, he may live according to the rule of the lunar penance (Kandrayana), daily diminishing the quality of his food in the bright (half of the month) and (increasing it in the dark (half); or he may eat on the last days of each fortnight once (a day only), boiled barley-gruel." VI-20.	"Let him disdain all (food) obtained in consequence of humble salutations, (for) even an ascetic who has attained final liberation, is bound (with the fetters of the Samsara) by accepting (food given) in consequence of humble salutations." Ch. VI-58.
" Or, he may constantly subsist on flowers, roots, and fruit alone, which have been ripened by time and have fallen spontaneously following the rule of the (Institutes) of Vikhanas " VI-21.	" By eating little, and by standing and sitting in solitude, let him restrain his senses, if they are attracted by sensual objects." Ch. VI-59.
** Let him either roll about on the ground, or stand during the day on tiptoe, (or) let him alternately stand and sit down; going at the Savanas (at sunrise, at midday, and at sunset) to water in the forest (in order to bathe)." VI-22.	" By the restraint of his senses, by the destruction of love and hatred, and by the abstention from injuring the creatures, he becomes fit for immortality." Ch. VI-60.
" In summer let him expose himself to the heat of five fires, during the rainy season live under the open sky, and in winter be dressed in wet clothes, (thus) gradually increasing (the rigour of) his austerities." VI-23.	"When by the disposition (of his heart) he becomes indifferent to all objects, he obtains eternal happiness both in this world and after death." Ch. VI-80.
"When he bathes at the three Savanas (Sunrise, midday and Sunset), let him offer libations of water to the manes and the gods, and practising harsher and harsher austerities, let him dry up his bodily frame." VI-24.	" He who has in this manner gradually given up all attachments and is freed from all the pairs (of opposites), reposes in Brahman alone." Ch. VI-81.
" Having reposited the three sacred fires in himself, according to the prescribed rule, let him live without a fire, without a house wholly silent, subsisting on roots and fruit." VI-25.	"All that has been declared (above) depends on meditation; for he who is not proficient in the knowledge of that which refers to the Soul reaps not the full reward of the performance of rites." Ch. VI-82.
" Making no effort (to procure) things that give pleasure, chaste, sleeping on the bare ground, not caring for any shelter, dwelling at the roots of trees. VI-26.	" Let him constantly recite (those texts) of the Veda which refer to the sacrifice, (those) referring to the deities, and (those) which treat of the Soul and are contained in the concluding portions of the Veda (Vedanta)." Ch. VI-83.
" From Brahmanas (who live as) ascetics let him receive alms, (barely sufficient) to support life, or from other householders of the twice-born (castes) who reside in the forest." VI-27.	"That is the refuge of the ignorant, and even that (the refuge) of those who know (the meaning of the Veda); that is (the protection) of those who seek (bliss in) heaven and of those who seek endless (beatitude)." Ch. VI-84.
"Or (the hermit who dwells in the forest) may bring food from a village, receiving it either in a hollow dish (of leaves), in (his naked) hand, or in a broken earthen dish, and may eat eight mouthfuls. " VI - 28	"A twice-born man who becomes an ascetic, after the successive performance of the above-mentioned acts, shakes off sin here below and reaches the highest Brahman." Ch. VI-85
"These and other observances must a Brahmana who dwells in the forest diligently practise, and in order to attain complete (union with) the (supreme) Soul, (he must study) the various sacred texts contained in the Upanishads." VI-29.

 

Comparing the Vanaprastha with Sannyas and Grahastashram with Vanaprastha one sees some very striking resemblances between them. Comparing Vanaprastha with Sannyas there are only a few differences in the modes of life prescribed for them. Firstly a Vanaprastha does not abandon his wife or his rights over his property. But a Sannyasi must abandon both. Secondly, a Vanaprastha can have a fixed dwelling although it must be in a forest. But a Sannyasi cannot have a fixed dwelling not even in a forest. He must keep on wandering from place to place. Thirdly, a Sannyasi is debarred from expounding the Shastras while the Vanaprastha is not expressly placed under such a disability. As for the rest their mode of life is identical.

Having regard to these close resemblances between Grahasthashram and Vanaprastha and between Vanaprastha and Sannyas it is difficult to understand why Manu recognized this third ashram of Vanaprastha in between Grahasthashram and Sannyas as an ashram distinct and separate from both. As a matter of fact, there could be only three ashrams: (1) Bramhacharya, (2) Grahastashram and (3) Sannyas. This seems to be also the view of Shankaracharya who in his Brahma Sutra in defending the validity of Sannyas against the Purva Mimansa School speaks only of three ashramas.

Where did Manu get this idea of Vanaprastha Ashrarn? What is his source? As has been pointed out above, Grahasthashram was not the next compulsory stage of life after Brahmacharya. A Brahmachari may at once become Sannyasi without entering the stage of Grahasthashram. But there was also another line of life which a Brahmachari who did not wish to marry immediately could adopt namely to become Aranas or Aranamanas[f29]. They were Brahmacharies who wish to continue the life of Study without marrying. These Aranas lived in hermitages in forests outside the villages or centres of population. The forests where these Arana ascetics lived were called Aranyas and the philosophical works of these aranas were called Aranyakas. It is obvious that Manu's Vanaprastha is the original Arana with two differences (1) he has compelled Arana to enter the marital state and (2) the arana stage instead of being the second stage is prescribed as the third stage. The whole scheme of Manu rest in the principle that marriage is compulsory. A Brahmachari if he wishes to become a Sannyasi he must become a Vanaprastha and if he wishes to become a Vanaprastha he must become a Grasthashrami i.e., he must marry. Manu made escape from marriage impossible. Why?

 

MANU'S MADNESS OR THE BRAHMANIC EXPLANATION OF THE ORIGIN OF THE MIXED CASTES

 

A reader of the Manu Smriti will find that Manu for the purposes of his discussion groups the various castes under certain specific heads namely (1) Aryan Castes, (2) Non-Aryan Castes, (3) Vratya Castes, (4) Fallen Castes and (5) Sankara Castes.

 

Vratya Brahmanas	Vratya Kshatriyas	Vratya Vaishyas
1. Bhrigga Kantaka	1. Jhalla	1. Sudhanvana
2. Avantya	2. Malla	2. Acharya
3. Vatadhana	3. Lacchavi	3. Karusha
4. Phushpada	4. Nata	4. Vijanman
5. Saikha	5. Karana	5. Maitra
	6. Khasa	6. Satvata
	7. Dravida.

 

This is about 20-page MS on the origin of the mixed castes '. Through the original typed MS several handwritten pages are inserted by the author and the text has been modified with several amendments pasted on the pages.—Ed.

In the list of Fallen Castes Manu includes those Kshatriyas who have become Shudras by reason of the disuse of Aryan rites and ceremonies and loss of services of the Brahmin priests. They are enumerated by Manu as under:

1. Paundrakas 7. Paradas

2. Cholas 8. Pahlvas

3. Dravidas 9. Chinas

4. Kambhojas 10. Kiratas

5. Yavanas 11. Daradas

6. Sakas

By Sankara Castes Manu means Castes the members of which are born of parents who do not belong to the same caste.

1. 
   1.     PROGENY OF MIXED ARYAN CASTES
   

Father Mother Progeny known as Anuloma or Pratiloma

2. PROGENY OF ARYAN CASTES WITH ANULOMA-PRATILOMA CASTES

 

Father	Mother	Progeny Known As
1. Brahman	Ugra	Avrita
2. Brahman	Ambashta	Dhigvana
3. Brahman	Nishada	Kukutaka
4. Shudra	Abhira	Abhira

 

2. 
   2.     PROGENY OF MIXED MARRIAGES BETWEEN ANULOMA AND PRATILOMA CASTES
   

To Manu's list of Sankar (mixed) Castes additions have been made by his successors. Among these are the authors of Aushanas Smriti, Baudhayana Smriti, Vashistha Smriti, Yajnavalkya Smriti and the Suta Sanhita.

Of these additions four have been made by the Aushanas Smriti. They are noted below:

Name of the mixed caste Father's caste Mother's caste

The following four are added by the Baudhayana Smriti

 

Name of the mixed caste	Father's caste	Mother's caste
1. Kshatriya	Kshatriya	Vaishya
2. Brahmana	Brahmana	Kshatriya
3. Vaina	Vaidehaka	Ambashta
4. Shvapaka	Ugra	Kshatriya

 

Vashishta Smriti adds one to the list of Manu, namely:

The Yajnavalkya Smriti adds two new castes to Manu's list of mixed castes.

 

Name of mixed caste	Father’s caste	Mother’s caste
1. Murdhavasika	Brahmin	Kshatriya
2. Mahisya	Kshatriya	Vaishya

 

 

The Additions made by the author of the Suta Sanhita are on a vast scale. They number sixty-three castes.

Of the five categories of castes it is easy to understand the explanation given by Manu as regards the first four. But the same cannot be said in respect of his treatment of the fifth category namely the Sankar (mixed) caste. There are various questions that begin to trouble the mind. In the first place Manu's list of mixed castes is a perfunctory list. It is not an exhaustive list, stating all the possibilities of Sankar.

In discussing the mixed castes born out of the mixture of the Aryan castes with the Anuloma-Pratiloma castes, Manu should have specified the names of castes which are the progeny of each of the four Aryan castes with each of the 12 Anuloma-Pratiloma castes. If he had done so we should have had a list of forty-eight resulting castes. As a matter of fact he states only the names of four castes of mixed marriages of this category.

In discussing the progeny of mixed marriages between Anuloma-Pratiloma castes given the fact that we have 12 of them, Manu should have given the names of 144 resulting castes. As a matter of fact, Manu only gives a list of I I castes. In the formation of these I I castes, Manu gives five possible combinations of 5 castes only. Of these one (Vaideha) is outside the Anuloma-Pratiloma list. The case of the 8 are not considered at all.

His account of the Sankar castes born out of the Non-Aryan and the Aryan castes is equally discrepant. We ought to have had first a list of castes resulting from a combination between the Non-Aryans with each of the four Aryan castes. We have none of them. Assuming that there was only one Non-Aryan caste—Dasyu—we ought to have had a list of 12 castes resulting from a conjugation of Dasyus with each of the Anuloma-Pratiloma castes. As a matter of fact we have in Manu only one conjugation.

In the discussion of this subject of mixed castes Manu does not consider the conjugation between the Vratyas and the Aryan castes, the Vratyas and the Anuloma-Pratiloma castes, the Vratyas and the Non-Aryan castes.

Among these omissions by Manu there are some that are glaring as well as significant. Take the case of Sankar between Brahmins and Kshatriyas. He does not mention the caste born out of the Sankar between these two. Nor does he mention whether the Sankar caste begotten of these two was a Pratiloma or Anuloma. Why did Manu fail to deal with this question. Is it to be supposed that such a Sankar did not occur in his time? Or was he afraid to mention it? If so, of whom was he afraid?

Some of the names of the mixed castes mentioned by Manu and the other Smritikaras appear to be quite fictitious.

For some of the communities mentioned as being of bastard origin have never been heard of before Manu. Nor does any one know what has happened to them since. They are today non-existent without leaving any trace behind. Caste is an insoluble substance and once a caste is formed it maintains its separate existence, unless for any special reason it dies out. This can happen but to a few.

Who are the Ayogava, Dhigvana, Ugra, Pukkasa, Svapaka, Svapacha, Pandusopaka, Ahindaka, Bandika, Malta, Mahikar, Shalika, Shundika, Shulika, Yekaj, Kukunda to mention only a few. Where are they? What has happened to them?

Let us now proceed to compare Manu with the rest of Smritikars. Are they unanimous on the origin of the various mixed castes referred to by them? Far from it compare the following cases.

 

Smriti	Father's caste		Mother's caste
	1 AYOGAVA
1. Manu	Shudra		Vaishya
2. Aushanas	Vaishya		Kshatriya
3. Yajnavalkya	Shudra		Vaishya
4. Baudhayana	Vaishya		Kshatriya
5. Agni Purana	Shudra		Kshatriya
	11 UGRA
1. Manu	Kshatriya		Shudra
2. Aushanas	Brahman		Shudra
3. Yajnavalkya	Kshatriya		Vaishya
4. Vashishtha	Kshatriya		Vaishya
5. Suta	Vaishya		Shudra
	III NISHADA
1. Manu	Brahmana		Shudra
2. Aushanas	Brahmana		Shudra
3. Baudhayana	Brahmana		Shudra
4. Yajnavalkya	Brahmana		Shudra
5. Suta Sanhita	Brahmana		Vaishya
6. Suta Sanhita	Brahmana		Shudra
7. Vashishta	Vaishya		Shudra
	IV PUKKASA
1. Manu	Nishada		Shudra
2.Brihad-Vishnu	Shudra		Kshatriya
3.Brihad-Vishnu	Vaishya		Kshatriya
		V MAGADHA
1. Manu		Vaishya	Kshatriya
2. Suta		Vaishya	Kshatriya
3. Baudhayana		Shudra	Vaishya
4. Yajnavalkya		Vaishya	Kshatriya
5.Brihad Vishnu		Vaishya	Kshatriya
6.Brihad Vishnu		Shudra	Kshatriya
7.Brihad Vishnu		Vaishya	Brahman
		VI RATHAKAR
1. Aushanas		Kshatriya	Brahmana
2. Baudhayana		Vaishya	Shudra
3. Suta		Kshatriya	Brahmana
		VII VAIDEHAKA
1. Manu		Shudra	Vaishya
2. Manu		Vaishya	Brahmana
3. Yajnavalkya		Vaishya	Brahmana

If these different Smritikaras are dealing with facts about the origin and genesis of the mixed castes mentioned above how can such a wide difference of opinion exist among them ? The conjugation of two castes can-logically produce a third mixed caste. But how the conjugation of the same two castes produce a number of different castes ? But this is exactly what Manu and his followers seem to be asserting. Consider the following cases:

I. Conjugation of Kshatriya father and Vaishya mother.

1. Baudhyayana says that the caste of the progeny is Kshatriya.

2. Yajnavalkya says it is Mahishya.

3. Suta says it is Ambashta.

II. Conjugation of Shudra father and Kshatriya mother—

1. Manu says the Progeny is Ksattri.

2. Aushanas says it is Pullaksa.

3. Vashishta says it is Vaina.

III. Conjugation of Brahmana father and Vaishya mother.

1. Manu says that the progeny is called Ambashta.

2. Suta once says it is called Urdhava Napita but again says it is called Kumbhakar.

IV. Conjugation of Vaishya father and Kshatriya mother— 1. Manu says that the progeny is called Magadha.

2. Suta states that (1) Bhoja, (2) Mleccha, (3) Shalik and (4) Pulinda are the Progenies of this single conjugation.

V. Conjugation of Kshatriya father and Shudra mother—

1. Manu says that the progeny is called Ugra.

2. Suta says that (1) Daushantya, (2) Daushantee and (3) Shulika are the progenies of this single conjugation.

VI. Conjugation of Shudra father and Vaishya mother—

1. Manu says the progeny is called Ayogava.

2. Suta says the progeny is (1) Pattanshali and (2) Chakri. Let us take up another question. Is Manu's explanation of the genesis of the mixed castes historically true?

To begin with the Abhira. According to Manu the Abhiras are the bastards born of Brahmin males and Ambashta females. What does history say about them? History says that the Abhiras (the corrupt form of which is Ahira) were pastoral tribes which inhabited the lower districts of the North-West as far as Sindh. They were a ruling independent Tribe and according to the Vishnu Purana[f31] the Abhiras conquered Magadha and reigned there for several years.

The Ambashta[f32]says Manu are the bastards born of Brahmana male and Vaishya female. Patanjali speaks of Ambashtyas as those who are the natives of a country called Ambashta. That the Ambashtas were an independent tribe is beyond dispute. The Ambashtas are mentioned by Megasthenes the Greek Ambassador at the Court of Chandragupta Maurya as one of the tribes living in the Punjab who fought against Alexander when he invaded India. The Ambashtas are mentioned in the Mahabharata. They were reputed for their political system and for their bravery.

The Andhras[f33] says Manu are bastards of second degree in so far as they are the progeny of Vaidehaka male and Karavara female both of which belong to bastard castes. The testimony of history is quite different. The Andhras are a people who inhabited that part of the country which forms the eastern part of the Deccan Plateau. The Andhras are mentioned by Megasthenes. Pliny the Elder (77 A.D.) refers to them as a powerful tribe enjoying paramount sway over their land in the Deccan, possessed numerous villages, thirty walled towns defended by moats and lowers and supplies their king with an immense army consisting of 1,00,000 infantry, 2,000 cavalry and 1,000 elephants.

According to Manu the Magadhas[f34] are bastards born of Vaishya male and Kshatriya female, panini the Grammarian gives quite a different derivation of 'Magadha'. According to him "Magadha'" means a person who comes from the country known as Magadha. Magadha corresponds roughly to the present Patna and Gaya districts of Bihar. 'The Magadhas have been mentioned as independent sovereign people right from the earliest times. They are first mentioned in the Atharva-Veda. The famous Jarasandha was the king of Magadha who was a contemporary of the Pandavas.

According to Manu the Nishadas are the bastards born caste from Brahmin males and Shudra females. History has quite a different talc to tell. The Nishadas were a native tribe with its own independent territory and its own kings. They are a very ancient tribe. The Ramayana mentions Guha as the King of Nishadas whose capital was Sringaverapura and who showed hospitality to Rama when he was undergoing excile in the forest.

As to the Vaidehaka Manu says that they are the bastards born of Vaishya Male and Brahmin female. Etymologically Vaidehaka means a person who is a native of the country called Videha[f35] Ancient Videha corresponds to the modern districts of Champaran and Darbhanga in Bihar. The country and its people have been known to history from a very remote antiquity. The Yajur-Veda mentions them. Ramayana refers to them. Sita the wife of Rama is the daughter of Janak who was the king ol Videha and whose capital was Mithila.

Many more cases could be examined. Those that have been are quite sufficient to show how Manu has perverted history and defamed the most respectable and powerful tribes into bastards. This wholesale bastardization of huge communities Manu did not apply to the Vratyas. But his successors carried the scheme further and bastardized the Vratyas also. Kama in Manu is Vratya. But the Brahma Vaivarta Purana makes them Bastards and says that they are the progeny of Vaishya father and Shudra mother. Paundraka in Manu is Vratya. But in the Brahmavaivarta Purana he is a bastard born of Vaishya father and Chundi mother. Malla in Manu is Vratya. But in the Brahma Vaivarta Purana he is a bastard horn of Letta father and Tibara mother. The Vharjjakautakas are Vratya Brahmanas according to Manu. But in the Gautama Sanhita they are bastards born from a Brahman father and Vaishya mother. The Yavanas were declared by Manu as Vratya Kshatriya. But in Gautama Sanhita they are shown as bastards born of a Kshatriya father and Shudra mother.

The Kiratas are according to Manu Vratya Kshatriyas. But the Ballalacharitta makes them bastards horn from Vaishya father and Brahmin mother.

It is quite clear that some of the communities mentioned by Manu as being bastard in origin far from being bastard were independent in origin and yet Manu and the rest of the Smratikara's call them Bastards. Why this madness on their part? Is there a method in their madness ?

Having regard to all these considerations it is a riddle why Manu at all raised the question of mixed castes and what he wanted to sa\ about them?

It is possible that Manu had realized that the Chaturvarna had failed and that the existence of a large number of castes which should neither be described as Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras was the best proof of the break down of the Chaturvarna and that he was therefore called upon to explain how these castes who were outside the Chaturvarna came into existence notwithstanding the rule of Chaturvarnas.

But did Manu realize how terrible is the Explanation which he has given? What does his explanation amount to?

What a reflection on the character of men and particularly of women. It is obvious that the unions of men and women must have been clandestine because prohibited by the rule of Chaturvarna. Such clandestine unions could take place only here and there. They could not have taken place on a wholesale scale. But unless one assumes a wholesale state of promiscuity how can one justify the origin of the Chandals or untouchables as given by Manu.

The caste of Chandala is said by Manu to be the progeny of illegitimate intercourse between a Shudra male and a Brahman female. Can this be true? It means that Brahmin women must have been very lax in their morality and must have had special sexual attraction for the Shudra'[f36]. This is unbelievable.

So vast is the Chandala population that even if every Brahmin female was a mistress of a Shudra it could not account of the vast number of Chandalas in the country.

Did Manu realize by propounding his theory of the origin of the mixed castes he was assigning an ignoble origin to a vast number of the people of this country leading to their social and moral degradation. Why did he say that the castes were mixed in origin, when as a matter of fact they were independent in their existence?

RIDDLE NO. 19