Varna, Jati and Brahmanisation ( include women also)

RS Sharma mentions that land grants and subinfeudation led to unequal distribution of land
and power and created new social groups and ranks which did not quite fit in with the
existing four fold Varna system. Several texts try to reconcile the ranking based on birth with
that based on possession of land and power, such as Mayamata, an early medieval text
which prescribes varying sizes of houses for people of the four varnas including kings.
He mentions that constant land revenues and transfers in early medieval times led to the rise
and growth of kayastha or scribe community who maintained village and land records in
order to avoid and settle land disputes. They were known by various names like Karana,
adhikrta, pustapala etc. Initially, the kayasthas formed only one class of about a dozen kinds
of writers and record keepers however later all other record keepers came to be known as
kayastha. In the beginning only literate members of higher varnas were recruited as
Kayasthas but gradually they were recruited from different varnas and cut off marriage and
other social connections with the parent varnas and confined all their social intercourse of
the new community, they practised class endogamy and family exogamy. Since the
Brahmana lawgivers couldn’t find a place for them in the Varna system, they connected
kayastha with both the sudras and the dvijas (twice born). The rise of the kayasthas as a
professional literati caste undermined the monopoly of Brahmanas. Kayastha ministers
served the Chandela and Kalachuri princes in MP, etc. which was disliked by brahmanas. As
the kayastha maintained records of land grants they may have been a source of trouble for
brahmanas who formed a considerable class of assignees. Kayastha are represented by
Yajnavalkya as oppressors of subjects and their condemnation was done even in
Rajatarangini. Gradually, kayastha came to be divided into territorial subcastes for instance,
the ambastha kayasthas are divided into more than 100 subcastes, and it is taken into
account in settling marriages.
In the countryside in northern India there emerged a class of village elders and headmen
called Mahattaras, who had a considerable share in the land of the village and were
responsible for its administration. This substantial class found in village settlements from
Gupta times onwards, cut across Varna and caste boundaries and while it seems to have held
land in each village, it did not enjoy the same ritual status. Modern survivals of the title as
mahto, Mehta, Malhotra etc. are found among both the higher and lower castes in modern
times. Similarly, the Pattalikas (village headmen in western India) did not always belong to
the same caste and their modern descendants i.e. patils or patels do not constitute one
single caste. Similar is the case with the Gavumdas (village headmen in medieval Deccan)
whose modern representatives called Gaudas in Mysore are regarded as sudras.
The Varna system was modified not only by rise of various strata of landed gentry connected
with administration but also by the change in the relative position of the Vaishyas and
Sudras. In post gupta times, sudras no longer appear as slaves, artisans or agricultural
labourers but take the place of Vaishyas as cultivators and became dependant peasants.
Hsuan Tsang describes them as agriculturists and Albiruni points that both Vaishyas and
Sudras lived together in the same town and village. This change is also reflected in some
medieval texts, Abhidhanacintamani of Hemachandra defines farmers and cultivators as
kutumbins. In present times, Sudra castes called kurmis in UP and Bihar and kunbis in
Maharashtra are apparently the descendants of medieval kutumbins.
Skanda Purana predicted that the traders would decline in the kali age and some would
become oilmen and winnowers of grain and would seek refuge with the rajaputras and other
varnas. By 11 Th century Vaishyas came to be treated as sudras ritually and legally as Albiruni
mentions that both Vaishyas and Shudras were punished with amputation of the tongue for
reciting Vedic texts. This happened due to decline in trade and commerce in post gupta
period which undermined the position of those who practised it.
Although Hinduism spread far and wide it did not mean diffusion of the fourfold Varna
system. In northern India many castes are grouped under kshatriyas and Vaishyas but in
South India and Bengal we find mainly Brahmanas and Sudras to the exclusion of
intermediary castes. This peculiar phenomenon can be traced to early medieval period.
Brahmanism advanced in Bengal and South India, when distinctions between Vaishyas and
sudras were blurred and advent of Rajputs had thrown the original Kshatriya Varna into the
background. Hence, the tribal and non-Hindu people in peripheral regions were admitted to
brahmanical system mainly as sudras. They may have been conquered by the Kshatriya or
Rajput princes but their acculturation was carried out by Brahmanas who functioned as
literate, enlightened landowners in these areas. Anthropomorphic studies suggest that in
Bengal the sudras are indigenous inhabitants but brahmanas are not. RS Sharma points out
that in this period incorporation of foreign invaders and immigrant tribes added new castes
to the Kshatriya fold but Bengal and South India were not seriously affected by foreign
invasions and in these areas only local tribal chiefs were admitted as kshatriyas and the tribal
kinsmen were condemned to the position of Shudras. In the absence of intermediary castes
there was more of social polarisation in Bengal and South India than any other part of the
country.
The early medieval period was one of proliferation and fragmentation where existing varnas
split into many castes and numerous new tribes and castes were annexed to and
incorporated within them. The process of proliferation was most striking among the
Brahmanas. Many Brahmana castes were named after the type of ritual they practised or
branch of Vedic learning they cultivated, but the most important factor in multiplication of
their castes was growth of strong localism. In course of time, they came to be recognised
only by their gotra and mula, family and territorial affiliations. From Gupta period, a
brahmana is recognised by the village to which he belongs and villages are praised in
inscriptions because of their being the native land of brahmanas. By late medieval times, the
brahmanas of Radha, West Bengal were divided into 56 subcastes based on their original
villages. The Maithil brahmanas came to be divided into 180 original homes (mulas) and
eventually their total original homes or subcastes shot up to about 1000. Sometimes a
brahmana was identified by his connection with as many as three villages and every Maithil
subcaste based on one, two or three villages as its original home, refuses to have social
intercourse with subcastes considered to be inferior in the Maithil caste hierarchy .Thus, the
concept of grama dharma was popular among brahmanas, kayasthas etc. as they maintained
their genealogies as compared to lower castes such as goalas and kurmis who lack written
records.
In the Ksatriya community, proliferation was caused due to emergence of new people called
Rajputs. Some of them may have descended from original ksatriya stock but probably, the
Chalukyas, Chandellas, Palas were local tribes who were given respectable ksatriya lineage by
brahmana geneologists. The Bactrian Greeks, Sakas, Parthians, due to absence of any strong
culture of their own, were absorbed as second class kshatriyas and the Kshatriya castes
multiplied when the Hunas and Gurjars joined their ranks as Rajputs. Even the Chahamanas,
Paramaras, etc. had central Asian origins and also Jats had racial affiliations with central
Asian peoples, theirs was a composite caste of peasants and soldiers who were recruited
from Gurjara, tomar and other Rajput clans. Thus, not all foreigners were accepted as
kshatriyas and Rajputs, as the Gurjar people broke up into brahmanas, banias, potters,
goldsmiths, even herdsmen and cultivators who were looked upon as sudras.
Sudras came to have largest number of castes and earlier law books mention 10 to 15 mixed
castes and Manu enumerates 61 mixed castes, and this was the result of connection of
Vaisya women with men of lower castes i.e. due to Varnasamkara. Also, the conquest of
backward peoples living in forests by brahmanised princes from agriculturally advanced areas
enormously added to the number and variety of Sudra castes. The Abhiras couldn’t be easily
assimilated into the brahmanical order and so one of their village was conquered and settled
with Brahmanas and Vaishyas who inducted Abhiras into their cultural fold and taught them
plough cultivation, preservation of cattle wealth etc. They were not given the same place in
brahmanical order and even the tribe broke into many varnas and castes. We hear of Abhira
brahmanas, Abhira kshatriyas, abhirasvaishyas, sudras etc. However in all this, jatidharma
was strictly respected, and the Agaris, Bhilas, Candalas etc. were tribals who were
accommodated in brahmanical social framework as pure or impure sudras.
The middle ages saw a phenomenal growth in the number of impure sudras i.e.
untouchables. Medieval legal texts describe them as eaters of cow and list them as antyajas,
bheda, Chandala, dasa etc. and mention that there were twelve categories of untouchables
however actual number might be much more and even Albiruni mentions about them. They
were inducted into the Hindu system through Brahmanisation and also spread of hinduised
Buddhism. The domas, nisadas and Kapalikas lived on mounds outside villages, those who
were very backward or offered stiff resistance to Hinduisation were forced to settle outside.
This happened with Kaivartas and also the Domba tribe. Brahmanisation occurred on a large
scale and hence the number of untouchable castes increased substantially. Even some
agriculturalists castes who opposed the new order were reduced to this position. Thus, while
some Shudras went up the social ladder to the position of Vaishyas others were reduced to
untouchables. Thus, BD Chattopadhyaya rightly says that the use of the category Shudra is
entirely insufficient when explaining the composition and status of peasantry and agricultural
labour.
There was transformation of crafts into castes, guilds became stagnant, hereditary, localised
astrade languished and gradually constituted themselves into closed exclusive groups
resembling castes and their heads could reprimand wrongdoers. Napita, svarnakara emerged
as castes out of various crafts. Craft villages such as Kumbharapadraka belonged to potter
caste.
A factor which multiplied castes especially in Deccan and South India was their religious
affiliation. The multiplication of sects helped in the multiplication of castes. Shaivism,
Vaishnnavism, Buddhism, Jainism proliferated into numerous sects. In course of time,
members of the sect began to behave as members of a caste. The Jainas got divided into
subcastes and even Lingayats and Virashaivas formed separate castes.
Thus RS Sharma argues that all these societal changes can be understood in terms of a strong
sense of feudal localism fostered by closed economic units based on intense preoccupation
with land and also through process of Brahmanisation. BNS Yadava has linked these
developments with the coming of kali age and also highlighted slavery and peasant
subjection, urban decline. Even, BD Chattopadhyaya has highlighted the peasantisation of
tribes and caste formation as one of the important processes operative through all phases of
Indian history, and through early Indian history in particular. Also it is important to note that
while kali age is generally seen as a social crisis by scholars like RS Sharma, BP Sahu believes
that the idea of kali age was related to some kind of perception of threat to the established
order and was a product of the times and beautifully encapsulates the contemporary
historical processes of change in the regions. In context of societal change the role of women
and their position needs to be highlighted too.
Women did not have an honourable position in the patriarchal society caught in a stiff Varna
Jati order. They had little scope for education, and her role as a married wife was emphasised
and even the marriageable age of girls was lowered. Rakshasa and Gandharva marriages
were condemned as they yielded impure progenies like antyajas groups. Terms like prabhu
denoted husband’s control over his wife, who could give her for prostitution and even
procreation to strangers. However women could take divorce if their husbands were
impotent or were on the path of renunciation. Punarbhu or remarriage of widows was
objected by higher social groups it led to transfer of family property to the family of the new
husband. The practice of niyoga was now looked with disfavour and though women had little
economic rights, the Smritichandrika recognised women’s right to inherit property of male
relations, and a chaste and sonless widow could inherit the entire estate of her husband. The
practise of sati was mainly related to Kshatriya lineages but was not so prominent. Kumkum
Roy finds continuance of cross-cousin marriages in peninsular society and the entry of
women in matrimonial connections paved the way for their access to power at least on some
occasions.
Kalhan’s Rajatarangini even mentions about women rulers of Kashmir, Sugandha and Didda
who are portrayed by him in a negative light as cruel and greedy for power but also as
successful stateswoman. In Rajatarangini, there is mention of royal marriages with Domba
and Chandala women. Thus, Kumkum Roy argues for relative laxity of patriarchal and
orthodox Varna Jati norms. She suggests that less oppressive Varna Jati norms in medieval
Kashmir led to rise of women to political prominence. The portrayal of Rudramadevi, the
Kakatiya queen has been queried by Cynthia Talbott in historical sources. She is represented
in Kakatiya records as Rudradeva Maharaja, i.e. a male ruler. Talbott mentions that
Rudramadevi rose due to decentralised polity in 13th century Deccan that gave importance to
family and descent in socio-political system. Even the marriage between kin groups allowed
women to utilise the natal connections socially and politically.
The portrayal of women in south india offers an image of special association with bhakti
tradition and this has been illuminated by Vijaya Ramaswamy with reference to Andal, Akka
Mahadevi and Karaikkal Ammaiyar. The idea of complete submission and unquestioned
surrender of the devotee to the deity helped them to deviate from orthodox norms and
practices of patriarchical society. They wanted to be united with god and even shed their
clothes and shed their femininity as well thus shattering gender boundaries.
The temple women known as tevaratiyar (devotee of god), tevanar makal (daughter of god)
taliyilar (women of the temple) according to Leslie Orr were not the same as devadasis, but
they appear as donors which imply they had access and even control over resources part of
which they gifted to temples, which elevated their status and they got a special place near
the deity during ritual processions. Nonetheless these are exceptions and a large mass of
women were quite suppressed through societal norms
Thus, the early medieval period was one of interrelated and often overlapping changes and
developments in socio political and economic spheres but it certainly reflected a gradual
transition from older values and coming up of new and often opposing ideas and beliefs.