Chapter 3.2 - Caste System (Introduction)

In the Vyavahārādhyāya of the Yājñavalkyasmṛti, there are clear traces to the existence of caste system in the society of that time. The caste system is a unique and important concept of ancient India, origin of which can be traced to the Vedic period. The Puruṣasūkta of the Ṛgveda enumerates the Brāhmaṇa, the Rājaṇya, the Vaiśya and the Śūdra as the mouth, the arms, the thighs and the legs of the Supreme Puruṣa.^[1] The personification of these four divisions into various limbs of the Puruṣa, allegorically represent the functions or occupations, hierarchy of them and indicates that they are essential parts of social organization. As in case of human beings, all these parts are necessary for the proper functioning of the body, in the same way, the perfect coordination of the functions of the four divisions of the society keeps the society in proper order. Thus, the hymn of the Ṛgveda may suggest that these four divisions of the society, as distinct caste, have occurred at very ancient time and evolved naturally. The Brāhmaṇa, the Rājaṇya, the Vaiśya and the Śūdra are expressly stated as four varṇas in the Śatapathabrāhmaṇa.^[2] The caste system has become more prominent and established in the Dharmasūtras and the Dharmaśāstras.

The Smṛtis are found to have clearly demarcated the duties, rights and privileges of various castes in the social structure, in accordance with the place and time of its compositions. The regulations of the Smṛtis are dominated by the framework of the varṇas. The caste system has been so rooted in the society, is evident in the Vyavahārādhyāya of the Yājñavalkyasmṛti that even in the context of the vyavahāra also, it is taken into consideration. The members belonging to different castes have not been treated alike, which throws a light on the different status of the castes.

Yājñavalkya has mentioned both the varṇa and the caste as two distinct entities, which reads-

yathājāti yathāvarṇaṃ sarve sarveṣu vā smṛtāḥ/ (2.69).

The Mitākṣarā commentary while commenting on the relevant context, makes it clear that yathājāti denotes castes such as the Mūrdhāvasikta and others born of ascending or descending unions, and yathāvarṇaṃ means classes such as, the Brāhmaṇas and others.^[3] In the Acārādhyāya, Yājñavalkya lays down the four varṇas respectively as the Brāhmaṇas, the Kṣatriyas, the Vaiśyas and the Śūdras, and that among them, the first three varṇas are designated as dvijas, i.e., the twice-born.^[4] Thus, categorically varṇa stands for the Brāhmaṇas, the Kṣatriyas, the Vaiśyas and the Śūdras, on the other hand jāti is the name of product of the mutual interaction of these four varṇas. It seems during the time of Yājñavalkyasmṛti, the caste system did not confine to the four varṇas as found in the Vedas, rather, it asserts coming into existence of numerous castes and sub-castes.

The Vyavahārādhyāya of the Yājñavalkyasmṛti reveals that the four varṇas have enjoyed a descending scale of social status. Legal punishment and gravity of crime are dependent on the castes of the offender as well as of the victim. The punishment increases respectively from higher caste to the lower caste. Hence higher the caste, lower is the penalty and vice versa. For instance, in case of the rate of interest on an unsecured loan, an ascending scale of fine is prescribed in accordance with the order of the castes.^[5] The Mitākṣarā, explaining the provision, states that in case of Brāhmaṇa debtor, the rate of interest per month is two per cent, in case of a Kṣatriya the rate of interest is three per cent, for a Vaiśya the rate of interest is four per cent and in case of a Śūdra that is five per cent.^[6] This distinction is visible in other penal provisions of the Yājñavalkyasmṛti. Thus, the discriminatory treatments received by the caste, indicate their position, privileges and disabilities in the society.

It appears that Yājñavalkya, in many aspects, tries to restrict the influence of caste in the administration of law and justice than that of his predecessor Manu. Manu requires the King to examine the causes of suitors according to the order of the castes.^[7] Yājñavalkya has not entertained such a rule concerning the examination of plaint. In the matter of witnesses (2.69) also, he does not seem to be very much strict regarding castes of the witnesses, as he allows all the castes to be witnesses for all, irrespective of castes, in absence of the witnesses from the same caste.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

brāhmaṇo’sya mukhamāsīd bāhū rājaṇyaḥ kṛtaḥ/ ūrū tadasya yadvaiśyaḥ padbhyāṃ śūdro ajāyata// Ṛgveda, 10.90.12

[2]:

Śathapathabrāhmaṇa, 5.4.6.9

[3]:

jātayo mūrdhāvasiktādyāḥ anulomajāḥ pratilomajāśca/… varṇā brāhmaṇādayaḥ/ Mitākṣarā on Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.69 Also vide, Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 1.91-96

[4]:

brahmakṣatriyaviṭśūdrā varṇāstvādyāstrayo dvijāḥ/ Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 1.10

[5]:

Ibid.,2.37

[6]:

brāhmaṇe’dhamarṇe dvikaṃ śataṃ kṣatriye trikaṃ, vaiśye catuṣkaṃ śūdre pañcakaṃ māsimāsītyeva dvau vā trayo vā catvāro vā pañca vā dvitricatuḥ pañcā asmin śate vṛddhirdīyati iti dvitricatuḥ pañcakaṃ śatam/ Mitākṣarā, Ibid.

[7]:

varṇakrameṇa sarvāṇi paśyetkāryāṇi kāryiṇām// Manusmṛti, 8.24