An Outline of the Aryan Civilization

R.N. Nandi

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351588218
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Indian & South Asian History
• Index: History

In a first of its kind, this book attempts a comprehensive account of the old Vedic society with particular focus on the physical conditions of life during the Bronze Age in north western South Asia. Based primarily on textual evidence, the narrative relates wherever necessary to the known archaeological information from the area.

With territorial kingdoms, walled urban places, specialized production of craft goods, large scale trade by land and sea, a broad spectrum service sector and a high end surplus producing peasant economy supporting all of these situates the Aryan discourse on an entirely different platform. The book shows that the Aryans of the Rigveda with diverse forms of speech, physical features and funerary behaviour were far from the monolithic concept of a single people and a single culture.

Hopefully, the book will help readers to escape the broad misinformation long circulating in history texts for schools, general readers and specialists. Extensive citations are also intended to enable interested readers to access the text on their own and ascertain for themselves what is true and what is false.

CHAPTER 1

The Nature of the State

The Political Spectrum

The political process in the Ṛgveda reveals several layers some of which can be clearly outlined. These different stages may have been synchronous but disparate. But these could also have been different chronological stages in the same or different regions. One of these stages may relate to a system of government in which community elders selected from amongst themselves, men with extraordinary leadership qualities to manage the affairs of the community and the territory settled by it. Such a system seems to be outlined by several hymns of the Second Book (2.1-2) which relate to a group of priestly functionaries collectively described as chants men (stotāraḥ) and a group comprising householding chiefs characterized as lords (sūrayaḥ). The former performed different priestly functions at the sacrifice and depended on the latter for rewards in return for these services. The latter were instrumental in the organization of sacrifices and distribution of sacrificial fees suggesting that the lords also controlled the generation, extraction and distribution of resources by the community. Such extraction of resources is outlined by a passage of the First Book (1.70.5: viśve naḥ svaḥ bali bharanta) which shows that the resources were brought by the community for a group of chiefs and not just for one person.

A different form of political arrangement may relate to tribal chiefs with a subject population and a habitat, sedentary or shifting within the territory of the donor king. This is well suggested by the expression janarājñaḥ meaning ‘chiefs of people’, who appear to have been subordinate to a king and whose loyalties could be transferred to a strong man patronized by the king. This happened in one instance in which an overlord transferred ten of his radiant subordinate kings (daśa janarājñaḥ) to provide patronage and protection to a poet who had found special favour with a king named Caidya Kasu (8.5.38). The person who received this patronage must have been a man of some strength to make things fall in line though in case of insubordination the donor king could always undertake punitive action. The tribal chiefs once again surface in a passage of the First Book in which king Suśravas is said to have annexed the localities ruled by as many as twenty such rulers (dvidaśa janarājñaḥ, 1.53.9). The concerned tribes appear to have been confined to forests, hill tracts, and deserts depending on the ecological advantages of the surrounding area.

The other form of government relates to chiefs or kings, elected or hereditary and ruling over a territory with well-settled population. Such a political order evolved from independent village localities administered by rich and powerful village chiefs gradually marked by a networking of such localities bound by common interest and ruled by a chief elected by a council of village chiefs. The importance and influence of the king varied in accordance with the territory ruled by him, amount of revenue gathering and the nature of coercive power. The networking may also have followed as a result of a rich and powerful chief and his armed companions trying to subordinate village localities as far as he could and establish dynastic rule. Such a political arrangement was more consensual than coercive in view of the fact that all village communities wanted to fend off marauding free booters who, in traditional societies always occupied the fringes of civilized space.

As these small and big political domains began to mobilize resources depending on their geographical locations, agricultural, agro-industrial, forest and marine resources in the wake of external demand, interaction with distant communities and political entities increased rapidly. As interaction grew fast and revenues multiplied, security concerns took a front seat. As a system of armed guards proved ineffective, need for fortification increased. In the beginning the fortification may have been simple mud walls around the villages that mattered, but later on use of mud-brick, red-brick and stone became normal. The width and the height of the surrounding wall also gradually increased. Since the political coordinates of a people are beyond archaeological reconstruction, one can assuredly fall back on textual information which is scattered but substantial.

Any discourse on the political process in the Ṛgveda needs to begin with some understanding of the text composition itself. Unlike the much later Brāhmaṇa texts, which are largely documents making political statements in the form of certain rituals, the Ṛgveda is a vast oral literature with a millennial timeframe, encapsulating a large mass of knowledge texts of uneven size and quality which comprehend every aspect of human life. These texts were orally composed, preserved and transmitted through generations and in the process many were lost, disfigured and frequently mixed-up. A good look at the word structure of the stanzas reveals that most of the compositions were disjointed half sentences frequently with unrelated information clubbed together with the help of comparatives like na and iva. The similes and metaphors are sometimes outrageous and tend to destroy whatever little historical significance a part of the stanza may contain. Sometimes even these are missing and the reader has to construct the likely sequence on the basis of his own judgement. However, there are occasions when full sentences are provided and the sequence made unmistakably cleared.

Political Terminology

Settling down to a detailed analysis of the political system outlined in the text, we may focus on the wide spectrum of political terminology. Terms like rājā, rājñī, rājya, rāṣṭra, rājanya, rājaputra, mahiṣī, samrāṭ, samrājñī, sāmrājya, kṣatriya, senānī and grāmaṇī come as a matter of asking, sometimes in direct signification of the political structure and sometimes as divine manifestation of these structures. The term rājā meant a king who could be of varying stature while the term rājya meant kingdom, which too could be of uneven size and importance. The term sāmrājya meant a very large kingdom or empire just as the term samrāṭ meant a great king or emperor. The term mahiṣī represented the chief queen, the same as rājñī or samrājñī, an important constituent of royal authority during the old Vedic times and later. The term rāṣṭra, which is frequently used in relation to the dominion governed by higher gods like Mitra and Varuna may have been somewhere between the rājya and sāmrājya or the same as either of the two. The term rājaputra, which occurs twice in the text, means a prince though the concerned passages do not furnish any information about their powers and functions in relation to the kingdom. The term rājanya represented armed companions of the king while the term kṣatriya signified a powerful person possessed of royal authority. The former may have been associates of the king in matters of military offence and defence whereas kṣatriya was a potential ruler though such a distinction is not invariably tenable. The term senānī relates to the chief military officer who is praised in about four passages of the text and his exploits adequately extolled. The term grāmaṇī or the village chief, who represented the lowest rung of king’s administration, appears in two passages which sanctify his precedence over others in the matter of offering oblations.

Another term which underlines the essence of royal authority and appears more than 50 times in the text is kṣatra. This is the nearest approximation of the word ‘sovereignty’ which increased or decreased according to the ability of the king to overcome enemies and protect the kingdom against all types of danger. Any one possessed of kṣatra was a kṣatriya signifying a potential ruler. The term kṣatriya itself occurs in this sense several times in the text. Attainment of kṣatra or sovereign power was also the principal objective of Aśvamedha sacrifice which was widely known and practised (1.162.22: haviṣmān aśvaḥ naḥ kṣatraṃ vantām) during the Ṛgvedic period. There is hardly any divinity who is not prayed for the acquisition of ruling power (1.157.6; 1.160.5; 4.21.1; 4.4.8; 4.12.3; 4.42.1). Varuṇa himself is described as the lord of warrior might (1.25.5: kṣatra śriyaṃ naram). Political supremacy came through military conquests and territorial acquisitions like in the case of Brahamaṇaspati (1.40.8). The term kṣatra also occurs in the sense of warriors, who, when nourished by plentiful butter and honey easily overcome the enemies (1.157.2: madhunā ghṛtena naḥ kṣatram ukṣatam pṛtnāṣu). Another functionary of the state who is not always on view was the dūta (messenger), the life line of communication between the king and his people as well as between one king and another.

The administration of the kingdom during the old Vedic as well as later Vedic times would, however, remain incomplete and ineffective in the absence of a religious functionary who not only sanctified the power of the king but even exercised great authority in matters of general political concern. In certain contexts this religious functionary appears under the name brahmā, the high priest and the chief counsellor of the king deriving his authority from the podium of a politico-religious assembly called vidatha. Apart from sanctifying the power of the king, the high priest also helped in bonding different organs of the state with the king at the top. Besides brahmā, adhvaryu and ṛtvij who make nearly seventeen and sixteen appearances respectively also represented the high priest for the greater part of the Ṛgvedic polity. Originally it was adhvaryu literally going towards (yu) the place of sacrifice (adhvar) who performed all the sundry jobs associated with the sacrifice. But as the community became more resourceful, the priestly functions became unbundled and several functionaries already make their appearance in the Second Book. The ritual also devolved from mere word oblations (kavya-havya) to elaborate rituals like the lighting of sacrificial fire, pressing of the soma juice, inviting the gods, chanting of prayers, supervision of the entire activity, heralding the dignitaries like the king and the queen to the place of sacrifice and so forth. The appearance of ṛtvij (calendar man) also shows that great care was taken to ascertain and compute the right days and time for performance of particular rituals.

Though scattered throughout the text and in unrelated contexts, this comprehensive vocabulary signifies every aspect of a political dominion known as state. As data recovery proceeds along with sequential reconstruction, the old Vedic state shows up with all the essential features which characterized a modern state, a fixed tertiary, a subject population, a reasonably structured organization of government and sovereign political authority exercised by the chief executive. Interestingly, the monarchical state had several gradations like sāmrājya, svarājya, rājya and petty kingdoms ruled by insignificant kings called rājakā. Sāmrājya or the great kingdom was made of several kingdoms (rājya) just as rājya was made of several smaller monarchical domains. The kings of smaller political domains were pejoratively described as rājakā (kinglings). Probably another unit of monarchical rule was svarājya, which may have been lesser than the sāmrājya but greater than rājya. In one instance Varuṇa is called samrāṭ but Indra a svarāṭ (7.82.2).

The King and his Palace

Though the hymns of the Ṛgveda do not say much about day-to-day life of kings, their attire or ornaments and palaces, some idea can be formed on the basis of the co-relation of textual and archaeological information. Textual material also needs to be carefully handled since much of the information comes in the shape of comparison, in this case between the gods and their earthly counterparts. Frequently gods are said to show up with the assets and attributes of prominent mortals like kings but sometimes it can be the other way round as well. For instance, Maruts are frequently described as dressed like kings (rājānaḥ iva, 1.85.8; 10.78.1; 8.5.38) with spear or axe in hand, wearing shining necklaces, ear ornaments, armlets, a golden cloak, bangles and a gold helmet on their head. Wearing necklaces of gold (niṣkagrīva) was commonplace in old Vedic society. Just as it was with the important members of Harappan society. A male figurine from Harappa, probably an important person like a king or a merchant shows up with three or four graduated necklaces with beads of gold and stone (Kenoyer, 1998: 52). Though most of the male figures on Harappan glyptic art are bare headed showing combed hair braided in the middle of the head and tied in the shape of a bun at the back of the head, there are some which show up with a turban or head band, probably representing an important person like the king. The use of armbands can also be noticed on the Harappan figurines as well as in the statue of the so-called priest king.

Gods like Varuṇa and Indra who shared the attributes of great earthly kings and flaunted their lifestyle are said to dwell in huge palaces provided with a thousand doors and a thousand pillars (2.41.5; 7.88.5). The palaces of earthly rulers may also have been provided with numerous doors, gateways and pillars, the likes of which existed during different stages of Harappan urbanization particularly the structures in the citadel area. The walled Harappan settlements were frequently provided with more than one main gate on different sites of a sprawling campus so that people could find easy access to different parts of the enclosed area from different directions. Besides, a large number of doors and doorways were provided to different structures in different parts of the walled campus. Since these massive structures, like the so-called assembly hall at Harappa needed a large number of pillars for support, the references to palaces with thousand pillars need not be unrealistic. The Vedic-speaking chiefs, who possessed such fortified settlements and aspired to capture others could surely motivate their poets to describe these structures as forts with a thousand pillars (sahasrasthūṇa). The kings who lived lavishly in such massive buildings were natural objects of admiration and eulogy. The admiration relates to people in general but the eulogy was part of choir singing by professional chants men and the king woke up every morning listening to his praises by singers at the gate of the palace. The practice is well attested by a passage of the Tenth Book (10.40.3) which refers to Aśvins who are praised every morning like a king (jaraṇā iva kāpyā prātaḥ jarathe).

Though the text is not always explicit, the royal entourage must have been varied and a sizeable one. Apart from the princess (rājaputra) mentioned in similes in connection with Aśvins and Aditi (10.40.3; 2.27.7), the chief queen, who constituted an important segment of royal administration was a fabulous occupant of the palace. Besides there must have been a large number of palace officers entrusted with different types of function and a horde of servants and attendants, both male and female.

In the matter of physical appearance like hairdo, there exists striking similarity between what the poet says and what the Harappans show in their glyptic art. Take for instance the Tṛtsu people and their chief priest Vasiṣṭha who flaunted braided hair with a knot at the back of the head. This anticipates the kācchikā cūḍā of Pāṇini and resembles the Harappan hairdo in terracotta figurines from most of the sites. These figurines show that men always braided their hair in the middle of the head and tied the locks in the shape of two buns at the back of the head. These bunshaped knots may have been used to wear special ornaments. The bust size statue of the so-called priest-king, a robust person with braided hair, combed beard and wearing a wrapper over the left shoulder also falls in line. Several male figurines from different sites show that the men kept long spread out beards well combed. An archetypal representation in the bardic contexts relates to Indra who kept a long flowing beard and had to clean them of drops of soma after each drink. Keeping beard and moustaches was favoured as a sign of masculinity in South Asia till recently. As for hair braided in the middle of the head and locks bound in the shape of a bun at the back of the head, the practice since to have been fairly widespread during the Bronze Age but was gradually confined to the Kutch region as new peoples with new ideas of fashion moved in or as indigenous cultural processes underwent radical transformation.

The King and his Territory

Since kings and emperors cannot exist without a kingdom or empire, there should not be any hassle about the territorial character of the old Vedic state particularly in view of affirmative textual data, whether relating to divine rulers or their earthly counterparts. Take the example of divine rulers like Mitra and Varuṇa who are described as the Lords of the World asya bhuvanasya samrājā (5.63.2). Elsewhere the world is described as a dominion and also as a house ruled by Mitra and Varuṇa (sāmrājyasya dhīrghaśrut varuṇasya, 8.25.17).

Coming to earthly rulers, there are quite a few who controlled a vast stretch of territory and are described as a great lord or samrāṭ. ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Introduction
• 1. The Nature of the State
• 2. The Form of Government
• 3. The City and the Citadel
• 4. Merchants and Moneylenders
• 5. Cruising the Blue Water
• 6. Caravans on Dusty Tracks
• 7. Crafts and Craft-working
• 8. The Story of the Cow-tale
• 9. Peasants and Plough Lands
• 10. Crops and Consumption
• 11. Drainage and Discord
• 12. Language and Ethnicity
• 13. Ethnicity and Afterlife
• Bibliography
• Index