Āryas, Dāsas and Dasyus in the Rigveda
Shrikant G. Talageri
Three
very important words in the Rigveda are ārya, dāsa
and dasyu. They are at least very important in the historical
interpretation of the Rigveda, and it is necessary to understand exactly what
they mean.
I
have given the meanings many times in my books. In fact, in my third book,
after the twelve chapters, I added a "postscript" chapter
"Identities Past and Present" (TALAGERI 2008:355-370) specifically
for two issues: first, to clarify the exact meaning of the words ārya,
dāsa and dasyu in the Rigveda, and second, to
clarify that the ancient clans, tribes and communities named in the Rigveda
cannot by any stretch of the imagination, after so many millenniums and so
many historical and ethnic changes in the country, be identified directly with
any castes, territorial groups and communities in present-day India, not even
if they bear the same names: e.g. the Yadavs of today are not
the descendants of the Yadu of the Rigveda. Nor are the people of Haryana
descendants of the Pūru of the Rigveda or the people of the Punjab
the descendants of the Anu of the Rigveda. Nor, as I pointed out, are
the different Brahmin communities in India―which claim descent from
actual rishis of the Rigveda through gotras and pravaras―their
actual descendants: there have been so many ethnic admixtures and co-options
down the long and eventful millenniums that connections, if any,
can only constitute a tiny fraction of the ancestry.
As
I put it to make things very clear: "take a direct example, the
Saraswat Brahmins of the south (to which community this writer belongs) have a
strong traditional history of having migrated from the areas of Kashmir and the
Sarasvatī river, and even the name of the community testifies to this claim.
Moreover, a linguistic analysis of the Konkani language spoken by the Saraswats
shows different archaic features (pitch accents, an inflexional morphological
structure, and many crucial items of vocabulary) which corroborate this
tradition. But are the Saraswats themselves actually direct ethnic linear
descendants of the Pūrus or their priestly classes? Clearly not: the physical
features of the Saraswats are clearly identifiable with the physical features
of other castes and communities of Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka.
In
short, the history of Vedic times is just that: the history of Vedic times. It has to do with the history of
civilizations and language families, and must be recognized as such; but it
does not have anything whatsoever to
do with relations between different ethnic, linguistic, caste or communal
groups of the present day. The biases and the conflicts of ancient times are
the biases and conflicts of ancient peoples with
whom present day peoples have no direct ethnic connections."
(TALAGERI 2008:365-66).
But
to return to the main point of this article, the question of the exact identity
of the ārya, dāsa and dasyu in the
Rigveda is one which keeps on popping up in any discussions on
"Aryans" or Rigvedic history, including in comments and queries on my
other articles. I have already dealt with it in detail, but then I cannot
expect that everyone has read all my books and articles and, further, learnt
them by heart. I myself sometimes have to do quite some searching to trace out
something that I know I have dealt with in my earlier writings but require the
exact quotation or details.
So
this article will deal only with the issue of the ārya, dāsa
and dasyu in the Rigveda:
1.
The ārya in the Rigveda.
2.
The dāsa and dasyu in the Rigveda.
I. The ārya in the Rigveda
A
great deal of energy is usually spent on trying to uncover the etymological meaning
of the word ārya. Koenraad Elst, in an article on the subject,
has pointed out some of the attempts by scholars in this direction:
1.
From the root *ar-, "plough,
cultivate" (cf. Latin arare, aratrum), which would make them
sedentary people as opposed to the nomads and hunter-gatherers.
2. From the root of Latin ire,
"to go", so as to make it an apt name for a nomadic population.
3. From a root *al-,
"other"
(greek allos and Latin alius, 'other'), then turned round to mean
"hospitable" (those who are hospitable to strangers or others)!
4.
From a root *h2er- (connected to Arabic-Hebrew root hrr, "to
be free")
5. From a root *ar-,
"possess, acquire, share".
6. From a root *ar-,
"orderly, correct, dexterous".
It does not really matter at
all from which of the above roots (or if from some other root) the word is
derived. What we require is to understand what the word means in the
Rigveda.
There are basically two
opposite viewpoints: the view of the Indologists who back the AIT, and the view
of Indian scholars opposed to the AIT:
The western Indologists have
interpreted the word as referring to "Aryans" who invaded, or
migrated or trickled into, India in 1500 BCE from Central Asia.
The Indian scholars opposed
to this have interpreted the word to mean "noble" or "good",
as it indeed does in later times.
The two views then get
expanded: those in the Rigveda who are not ārya (there is no such word as anārya in the Vedic texts) or are opposed to the ārya, then become non-Indo-European "natives
who were invaded by the Aryans" in the eyes of the supporters of the AIT,
and "bad people" (or, in the words of many such
scholars, "fallen Aryans", a term I have never been able to
understand) in the eyes of
its opponents.
It will be seen that the
AIT-supporters give an ethnic meaning to the term, which is then
variously expanded to include skin-colour, colour of the eyes and hair, and
other distinctly racial characteristics. Even those scholars who are cautious
in emphasizing such racial aspects, or even outright reject them (e.g.
HOCK 1999b), continue to
use the term at least in the linguistic sense: ārya
means "Indo-European", and the word refers to an original linguistic difference between incoming
“Indo-Aryans” and native “non-Aryans”.
Many
even give it a twist to suggest that the term may have been extended by the
invaders to co-opt within its framework even some natives who adopted the
language or Vedic religion of the invaders. In any case, for the actual
interpretation of the Rigveda in invasionist terms, it is more convenient to
suggest linguistic, religious and cultural factors rather than directly
racial ones such as skin, hair, eyes and physical characteristics.
This
is clearly ridiculous: the concept of "language families" is a modern
concept discovered by modern linguists. Although the difference between
"Indo-European" languages and languages from other families is a real
one, it is impossible that ancient people could have looked at other people as
"speakers of languages belonging to our language family" and
"speakers of languages belonging to other language families". Ancient
Mesopotamia was a hotbed of different warring ethnicities: it is impossible
that the Mitanni and the Hittites, among them, could have regarded each other
as "Aryans" and the other Semitic, Elamite and Sumerian language
speaking people as "non-Aryans". Even in the twentieth century, long
after the linguistic theory was established, Hitler and the Nazis, who
considered Germans to be the purest "Aryans", massacred
Aryan-speaking gypsies in concentration camps, and treated Aryan-speaking Slavs
as an inferior race, but the Uralic-speaking Finns were considered (by, for
example, the Nazi theorist Himmler) as among the purest of "Germanic-Aryan"
races and Finland as part of the Original Indo-European Homeland!
The
opponents of the AIT, naturally, reject any ethnic associations with the term,
and insist that the term refers to "good people". But the truth is
that the word ārya is definitely used in the Rigveda by its
composers to refer to themselves. And it cannot be in a purely
moral sense, since many references also refer to enemies: these
could hardly be references to "good enemies". At the same
time, as we will see presently, the opposite term is even used for the patrons
being praised by the composing rishis in some hymns.
The
word is used 36 times in 34 hymns:
I.51.8;
59.2; 103.3; 117.21; 130.8; 156.5.
II.11.18,19.
III.34.9.
IV.26.2;
30.18.
V.34.6.
VI.18.3;
22.10; 25.2; 33.3; 60.6.
VII.5.6;
18.7; 33.7; 83.1.
VIII.24.7;
51.9; 103.1.
IX.63.5,14.
X.11.4;
38.3; 43.3; 49.3; 65.11; 69.6; 83.1; 86.19;
102.3; 138.3.
A.
So what is the exact meaning of the word ārya as used in the
Rigveda?
The
word ārya in the Rigveda is nowhere
used in reference to Indo-European language speaking people as opposed
to non-Indo-European language speaking people. It refers to Pūru
as opposed to non-Pūru.
In
the Avesta, the same word (airya)
is used in reference to Iranians (or perhaps the particular Iranian
group composing the Avesta) as opposed to non-Iranians (or
Iranian groups other than the particular Iranian group to which the composers
belong).
As
we will see presently, the main rivals of the Vedic Indo-Aryans (Pūru)
in the Rigveda are the proto-Iranians (Anu). So how could
the same word in two different texts refer respectively to the two rival
entities?
The
answer is simple: the connotation of the word, whatever its etymological
origin, is “belonging to our tribe/community”, and in that sense
it is a “communal” word.
Among
the Saraswats of Karnataka, there is a word "amchigelo" which
is used in exactly this same sense of “belonging to our community”.
In earlier, more parochial, times, a Chitrapur Saraswat would refer to another
Chitrapur Saraswat as "amchigelo", but to a Gaud Saraswat as
"not amchigelo"; and, at the same time, a Gaud
Saraswat would refer to another Gaud Saraswat as "amchigelo",
but to a Chitrapur Saraswat as "not amchigelo"―now, the
term has become a more liberal one, and is used by most people in both the
communities to include each other as well.
Basically,
ārya in itself did not mean Pūru:
it was used in the Rigveda in that sense because the composers and their
tribes were Pūru.
The
word is generally found in the hymns in general contexts where it is not
identity-specific, except that it is clear that it is used for the People of
the Book. However, when it is used in specific contexts, it is clearly in
reference to Pūrus:
a)
In reference to individuals, it refers to Divodāsa in I.130.8; IV.26.2
and VIII.103.1.
b)
In a tribal sense, it clearly refers only to Pūrus: in I.59.2,
Agni is said to be produced by the Gods to be a light unto the ārya, and in the sixth verse of the
hymn, in I.59.6, it is
clear that the hymn is composed on behalf of the Pūrus. Likewise, in VII.5.6, Agni is said to drive away the dasyus and bring forth broad
light for the ārya, and in the
third verse of the hymn, in VII.5.3, the deed is categorically said
to be done for the Pūru.
c)
The word is never used for non-Pūrus:
e.g. although the Tṛkṣi kings Purukutsa and Trasadasyu are praised to
the skies, and Trasadasyu is even described as a “demi-god” in IV.42.8,9,
in recognition for some crucial help rendered by them to the Pūrus (I.63.7; IV.38.1; VI.20.10; VII.19.3), neither of them is ever called an ārya. Nor are any of the other non-Pūru
patrons of the rishis in the New Books (VIII.1.31; 4.19; 5.37; 6.46,48; 19.32,36; 65.12, etc) ever referred to as ārya.
B.
Who are the Composers who use this word?
Of
the 34 hymns which use this word:
a)
It is used in 28 hymns by composers belonging to the Bharata
family itself or its two closely affiliated rishi families, the Angirases
and the Vasiṣṭhas: I.51.8; 59.2; 103.3; 117.21;
130.8; 156.5; IV.26.2; 30.18; VI.18.3;
22.10; 25.2; 33.3; 60.6; VII.5.6; 18.7;
33.7; 83.1; VIII.24.7; X.11.4; 38.3;
43.3; 49.3; 65.11; 69.6; 83.1; 86.19;
102.3; 138.3.
b)
It is used in 3 hymns by partially affiliated families like the Gṛtsamadas
and Viśvāmitras: II.11.18,19; III.34.9; V.34.6.
c)
And it is used in 2 hymns by totally neutral families like the Atris,
Kaṇvas, Bhṛgus and Agastyas: VIII.51.9; 103.1.
d)
The 1 last reference, by the most unaffiliated and ritualistic families
of composers, the Kaśyapas, represents the first and only use of the
word in the Rigveda in a purely symbolic and non-personal sense (the exact
sense of which is widely debated): IX.63.5,14.
Both
the references by the neutral families are by Kaṇvas, and the two
references again emphasize the fact that the āryas are the Pūrus: the Kaṇvas were a neutral
family with numerous patron kings, named in the New Rigveda, from all
the different (non-Pūru) tribes, and:
a)
VIII.51.9 diplomatically refers to both the āryas and the dāsas as being the beneficiaries of
Indra’s bounty, while
b)
VIII.103.1 refers, as we saw, to Divodāsa―so that even Kaṇvas,
who never refer to a single one of their numerous non-Pūru
patrons as an ārya, reserve
the word for Pūrus.
C.
Who are the enemy āryas in the
Rigveda?
Even
more significant is the fact that there are nine hymns which refer to āryas among the enemies of the particular hymns.
These
references make little sense in the AIT interpretation, except for the
generalized conclusion that the “Aryans fought among themselves” as also with
the "non-Aryans". What the AIT scholars fail to realize is that all
these hymns establish a pattern, which logically shows that there was only one section, from among the people (the Pūru)
calling themselves (and recognizing each other as) ārya, which were the real People of the Book in the
Rigveda, while there were other sections, also recognized as ārya, which were not.
Of
course, those determined to find “complex”
situations in the Rigveda could argue that the different hymns referring to ārya enemies could each have a
different group of protagonist āryas
and enemy āryas, so that the
protagonist āryas of one hymn could be the enemy āryas of another, and vice versa.
But logic shows that this would be unlikely, since the hymns are clearly a
collection belonging to one
particular group of people.
.
The
references, however, make sense in our analysis, where the particular People
of the Book are the Bharata Pūru alone, so that there
are other sections of Pūru, also recognized and referred to as ārya, who are not directly among the
People of the Book. These references to enemy āryas prove our case to the hilt: of the nine references
to enemy āryas (IV.30.18;
VI.22.10; 33.3; 60.6; VII.83.1; X.38.3;
69.6; 83.1; 102.3), two are by Bharata composers, and
all the remaining seven by the two rishi
families closely affiliated to them, the Angirases and Vasiṣṭhas.
This
is not only by chance, or simply
because most of the references to āryas
(also by chance?) are by these three families of composers. There are seven
other hymns which again refer to the same situation in different words: they
refer to jāmi (kinsmen) and ajāmi (non-kinsmen) enemies. Of
these seven references (I.100.11; 111.3; IV.4.5; VI.19.8; 25.3; 44.17; X.69.12), one is by a Bharata composer (a descendant of Sudās, who
attributes this late hymn, X.69, to
Sudās himself; and this same hymn, it may be noted, also has one of the ārya-enemy references; see above) and all the remaining six are by Angirases and Vasiṣṭhas.
In addition, one more (VI.75),
by an Angiras, likewise refers to sva araṇa (hostile kinsmen) and
niṣṭya (non-kinsmen) enemies.
There
is more. There is one hymn which refers to the same situation in yet other
words: X.133.5 refers to sanābhi
(kinsmen) and niṣṭya
(non-kinsmen) enemies. This single
reference is by a Bharata composer.
The
force of all this evidence will be even clearer when we see that there are
only 19 hymns composed by Bharata composers out of a total of 1028 hymns in the
Rigveda. But 3
out of 34 hymns in the Rigveda which use the word ārya, 2 out of
9 hymns in the Rigveda which refer to "both ārya and dāsa
enemies", 1 out of 7 hymns in the Rigveda which refer to "jāmi
and ajāmi enemies", and the only hymn which refers to "sanābhi
and niṣṭya enemies", are directly by Bharata composers: in
all, 4 out of 18 such references are by actual Bharata composers, and
the rest by their affiliated rishis, the Angirases
and Vasiṣṭhas.
Finally,
as if all this were not clear enough, we have one more reference, this one by the Viśvāmitras, which
clinches the case: it is in one of the two hymns (III.33, 53) which directly refers to
the period when the Viśvāmitras, before
the Vasiṣṭhas, were closely affiliated to the Bharatas as the
priests of Sudās, and it is the only hymn in this Book which actually mentions
Sudās by name. It refers to prapitvam
(relationship) and apapitvam
(non-relationship). The last verse, III.53.24, tells us that the Bharatas
(specifically named as such) do not recognize non-relationship or
relationship when dealing with their enemies in battle.
Note
that the Rigveda refers to the Pūru
(meaning particularly the Bharata Pūru) throughout the
Rigveda in a benevolent and first-person sense. But in two cases, where
there is some conflict or difference of interest between the Bharata Pūru
and the other or non-Bharata Pūru, to whom the word then
refers, the references are critical: VII.8.4 and VII.18.13.
One of the two references is in the battle hymn.
Therefore,
it is clear that the protagonist āryas
of the Rigveda are the Bharatas,
and the enemy āryas in a few
hymns are the other, non-Bharata,
sections among the greater
conglomeration of tribes of which the Bharatas are a part, i.e. among
the Pūrus, who are otherwise
clearly the People of the Book in a broader sense (which the Anus,
Druhyus, Yadus and Turvasus are definitely not)
So the word ārya in the Rigveda has neither a
racial-ethnic meaning nor a linguistic meaning, and nor does it have any kind
of moral-ethical or qualitative meaning: it is simply a "communal"
word meaning "of our community" and referring to the Pūru in
general and the Bharata Pūru in particular.
Added 23-1-2022: I just came across this wonderful quotation from Mallory-Adams which completely confirms my analysis above. I don't know how I missed out on it, but a twitter reference by Rahul Chawla brought this to my notice:
"The most loaded term in the inherited lexicon is *h4erόs or *h4eryόs 'member of one's own group' which in Indo-Aryan is generally represented as 'Aryan'. From *h4erόs we have Anatolian, e.g. Hit arā- 'member of one's own group, peer, friend' [….] Av. airya- 'Aryan', Skt aryá- 'kind', ārya- 'Aryan' [….] The evidence suggests that the word was, at least initially, one that denoted one who belongs to the community in contrast to an outsider" (MALLORY-ADAMNS 2006:266).
In short, the Rigveda shows the original PIE (and Hittite) meaning.
II. The dāsa and dasyu in
the Rigveda
The
two words usually, and correctly, pitted against the ārya in the Rigveda are the dāsa and dasyu.
It must be noted at the same time that these two words, unlike the word ārya, have also acquired very heavy
mythologization, so that in a very large number of cases, they
represent mythological entities (primarily associated with the demons of the
air who attack the phenomena of nature, such as rain and the dawn, and are
therefore vanquished by Indra) at the same time as they represent historical
entities. In many cases, the references are so vague, and the mythological and
historical symbolism so intertwined, that it is hazardous to draw historical
inferences from them.
Nevertheless,
they are, at the base, derived from historical entities, so we can
examine the general historical bases of the two words without trying to
interpret every individual reference in historical terms.
These
two words are found in the Rigveda as follows:
Dāsa:
54 Hymns, 63 verses:
I.32.11;
92.8; 103.3; 104.2; 158.5; 174.7.
II.11.2,4;
12.4; 13.8; 20.6,7.
III.12.6;
34.1.
IV.18.9;
28.4; 30.14,15,21; 32.10.
V.30.5,7,8,9;
33,4; 34.6.
VI.20.6,10;
22.10; 25.2; 26.5; 33.3; 47.21; 60.6.
VII.19.2;
83.1; 86.7; 99.4.
VIII.5.31;
24.27; 32.2; 40.6; 46.32; 51.9; 56.3;
70.10; 96.18.
X.22.8;
23.2; 38.3; 49.6,7; 54.1; 62.10; 69.6;
73.7; 83.1; 86.19; 99.6; 102.3; 120.2;
138.3; 148.2.
Dasyu:
65 hymns, 80 verses:
I.33.4,7,9;
36.18; 51.5,6,8; 53.4; 59.6; 63.4; 78.4;
100.18; 101.5; 103.3,4; 104.5; 117.3,21; 175.3.
II.11.18,19;
12.10; 13.9; 15.9; 20.8.
III.29.9;
34.6,9; 49.2.
IV.16.9,10,12;
28.3,4; 38.1.
V.4.6;
7.10; 14.4; 29.10; 30.9; 31.5,7; 70.3.
VI.14.3;
16.15; 18.3; 23.2; 24.8; 29.6; 31.4; 45.24.
VII.5.6;
6.3; 19.4.
VIII.6.14;
14.14; 39.8; 50.8; 70.11; 76.11; 77.3;
98.6.
IX.41.2;
47.2; 88.4; 92.5.
X.22.8;
47.4; 48.2; 49.3; 55.8; 73.5; 83.3,6;
95.7; 99.7,8; 105.7,11; 170.2.
The
popular Indological approach is to treat the dāsas and dasyus
in the Rigveda as "non-Aryan" natives of India in opposition to
"invading Aryans". And, although "non-Aryan" should mean linguistically
"non-Indo-European" and nothing else, the dominant and mainstream
Indological academia has never seen fit to explain its claims about
"non-Aryans" on linguistic grounds, by showing that the dāsas
and dasyus, and countless other natural phenomena and
entities in the Rigveda that they convert into historical "non-Aryan"
entities, are linguistically Dravidian, Austric, Burushaski, Sino-Tibetan,
Andamanese, Semitic, Sumerian, or any other known linguistic entity. They
simply brand them as "non-Aryan" and insist, like spoilt brats, that
their claims should be treated as "scientific". As all this is very,
very, old garbage in the AIT-OIT debate, we will not go into it here. We will
see what the words dāsa and dasyu mean, rather than
what they do not mean.
It
is not that no serious scholar has ever comprehended the real meanings of the words:
Dr. B.R. (Babasaheb) Ambedkar, for example, emphatically rejected the idea that
dāsas and dasyus were linguistically
“non-Indo-European”; and concluded, instead, that the words were merely
indicative of “different communities of
Aryas who were not only different but opposed and inimical to each other”
(AMBEDKAR 1990:87), and even that the dāsas
were Iranians (AMBEDKAR
1990:104). George Erdosy, an AIT scholar, accepts that “Arya and Dasa were only horizontal divisions, denoting groups of people
living in their separate territories in north-western India” (ERDOSY
1989:39), that dasyus were only “a segment of Dasas” (ERDOSY 1989:37),
and also that the term paṇi
was used for people who were “rich and
niggardly” and possibly “usurers”,
and that the group of paṇis “cross-cuts the otherwise horizontal
stratification of non-Aryas, […] and
may denote either an occupation or simply a set of values attributable to
anyone” (ERDOSY 1989:37).
Emile Benveniste also notes that "the Avestan word for 'country' dahyu (anc-dasyu) has as its Sanskrit correspondent dasyu" and that this "reflects conflict between the Indian and Iranian peoples". But he tries to fit it into the invasionist paradigm by suggesting that "the name by which this enemy people called themselves collectively took on a hostile connection" and was later applied to natives of India: therefore in the Rigveda "dasyu may be taken as an ethnic" of India (BENVENISTE 1969/1973:260-261)!
Emile Benveniste also notes that "the Avestan word for 'country' dahyu (anc-dasyu) has as its Sanskrit correspondent dasyu" and that this "reflects conflict between the Indian and Iranian peoples". But he tries to fit it into the invasionist paradigm by suggesting that "the name by which this enemy people called themselves collectively took on a hostile connection" and was later applied to natives of India: therefore in the Rigveda "dasyu may be taken as an ethnic" of India (BENVENISTE 1969/1973:260-261)!
The
words dāsa and dasyu, clearly refer to the Others in the Rigveda: i.e. to the Other-than-the-Pūrus. But it is
clear, from two circumstances, that
the words originally and primarily
referred to the proto-Iranians (the Anus), even though also used
as a general term for all non-Pūrus:
The
evidence for this very significant:
1.
The words dāoŋha
(by itself) and daŋhu/daŋhзuš (in suffixes), the Avestan equivalents of dāsa and dasyu, are found in personal names in the Avesta: Dāoŋha,
Daŋhu.frādah,
Daŋhu.srūta, Ātərədaŋhu, Jarō.daŋhu, Ərəzauuaṇt-daŋhзuš. And both the words have pleasant or neutral
meanings.
2. The word daha in certain Iranian languages (e.g. Khotanese), even
today, has the meaning “man”.
3. Greek texts refer to an Iranian people known as
the Dahae, who were prominent in Iranian history in Central
Asia.
4. The word dāsa is used in a friendly sense in only three references in the Rigveda (see TALAGERI 2000:206-208), and as
all three of them are dānastutis, or hymns in praise of patron
or donor kings, it is clear that the uncharacteristic friendly sense of the
word has to do with the identity of the donor kings. In two of these hymns, the names of the patron kings have been
identified by many western scholars, (incuding
Hoffman, Wilson, Weber,
Witzel and Gamkrelidze) as proto-Iranian names: Kaśu Caidya in VIII.5
and Pṛthuśravas Kānīta in VIII.46. And the name of the patron king in the third hymn, Ruśama Pavīru in VIII.51,
may well be a proto-Iranian name too: MLBhargava
(BHARGAVA:1964) identifies the Ruśamas as a tribe of the extreme
northwest from the Soma lands of Suṣomā and Ārjīkīyā. This clearly
places them in the territory of the Iranians.
[The
three hymns, VIII.5,46,51, along with another hymn VIII.6,
constitute a group of four unique hymns in the Rigveda, in a separate class
from all the other hymns:
a)
three of them (VIII.5,6,46) donate camels to the rishis
rather than cattle.
b)
three of them (VIII.5,46,51) speak well of the dāsas.
c)
three of them (VIII.5,6,46) have proto-Iranian names (see
above)]
But
what is the exact relationship between dāsas and dasyus?
In
the Rigveda, it is clear that dasyu
was a name for a section among the dāsas: this is specifically stated
in IV.28.4, and is noted by scholars like Erdosy (ERDOSY 1989:37). But
the exact nature of this sectional identity is not comprehended by the
scholars: the dāsas were the tribes and the dasyus were the priestly class
among the non-Purus, and this is crystal clear from the
references:
a) The dasyus are referred to in terms of hostility which have to do with religious or ritual differences: ayajvan (I.33.4), anyavrata (VIII.70.11; X.22.8), adevayu (VIII.70.11), akarman (X.22.8), abrahman (IV.16.9), avrata (I.51.8; 175.3; VI.14.3; IX.41.2), amanyamāna (I.33.9; II.12.10), grathin (VII.6.3), ayajña (VII.6.3), avṛdha (VII.6.3), aśraddha (VII.6.3), akratu (VII.6.3), māyāvat (IV.16.9), apṛṇat (V.7.10), anṛc (X.105.7-11) and anās (V.29.10).
Not
one of these words is used even once in reference to dāsas.
b)
The dāsas find mention in all
the Books of the Rigveda, except the most ritualistic Book (Book 9), and in the
hymns of all the families of rishis except the most ritualistic priestly
family, the Kaśyapas.
By
contrast, dasyus find mention
in the hymns of all the families of rishis, except the one non-priestly
family, the Bharatas.
c)
The dāsas (being tribes and
kings) frequently figure as powerful entities to be feared, whether the word is
used for human enemies or symbolically for atmospheric demons: in seven hymns (I.104.2;
158.5; VIII.24.27; X.22.8;
54.1; 69.6; 102.3), the
composers ask for protection from dāsas,
or are rescued from them by the Gods. In three others (I.32.11; V.30.5;
VIII.96.18), the dāsas
are powerful demons who hold the celestial waters in their thrall.
The
dasyus, on the other hand, are
rarely shown as particularly powerful. In fact, they are depicted as sly
creatures who incite others to hostile acts (V.24.18).
d)
The dāsas are sometimes
depicted together in one bracket with
the āryas, with both depicted as enemies (in VI.20.10;
33.3; 60.6; VII.83.1; X.38.3; 69.6; 83.1; 102.3) or both as friendly entities (in VIII.51.9).
The
dasyus, however, do not figure
even once with āryas in such references. The logic
behind this is obvious: only same-category entities can normally be bracketed
together. Thus, we would say “Muslims and Christians” (communities of people),
or “mullahs and padres” (priestly groups), but normally not “Muslims and padres”
or “mullahs and Christians”. Clearly,
in the Rigveda, āryas and dāsas are communities, and can
therefore be bracketed together, but dasyus
are priestly groups and cannot be
similarly bracketed together with āryas.
The
Rigvedic hymns are basically the compositions of priests, and hence the
hostility towards rival classes of priests (dasyus) is sharper in the hymns than the hostility towards non-Pūrus
(dāsas). Thus the word dāsa, like the related Avestan
words, must have originally had a good
connotation, and this is found in its use in the early name Divodāsa. Likewise, of the 63 or so
verses which refer to dāsas,
only 38 talk of direct physical violence against them; and, as we saw, three are even friendly references by
donation-accepting priestly composers.
On
the other hand, every single one of
the 80 or so verses which refer to dasyus
is uncompromisingly hostile, and 76 of them talk of direct physical violence
against them. And, although, like the word dāsa, the word dasyu
must also have had an originally good
etymological connotation, it is never used in a good sense even when it is part
of a name (e.g. Trasadasyu:
“tormentor of the dasyus”).
[Incidentally,
the reference in X.49.3, where the composer expresses his
refusal to call a dasyu by the
name “ārya” makes sense only
in the above contexts. If ārya
and dasyu were
ethnic-linguistic terms, the question of calling a “non-Aryan” dasyu an ārya would never arise at all, and the verse makes no sense.
But ārya means a Pūru,
and the dasyu referred to in
this particular verse may be a Pūru (an ārya by community) who has joined a rival priestly class of the
non-Pūrus, just as a branch of the Bhṛgus after Jamadagni,
who were Anus, joined the priestly classes of the Pūrus].
The
words dāsa and dasyu, therefore, have nothing to do with any “non-Aryan”, in the sense of “non-Indo-European”,
contexts.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
AMBEDKAR 1990: Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, volume 7. Ambedkar,
B.R. ed. Vasant Moon, Education dept., Government of Maharashtra Publications,
Mumbai 1990.
BENVENISTE
1969/1973: Indo-European Language and Society.
Benveniste, Emile (translated by
Elizabeth Palmer), Faber and Faber Ltd., London, 1973 (first 1969).
BHARGAVA
1964: The Geography of Rgvedic India.
Manohar Lal Bhargava, The Upper India Publishing House Ltd., Lucknow, 1964.
ERDOSY
1989: Ethnicity
in the Rigveda and its Bearing on the Question of Indo-European Origins. Erdosy, George. pp. 35-47 in “South Asian Studies” vol. 5.
London.
HOCK
1999b: Through a glass darkly: Modern “racial”
interpretations vs. textual and general prehistoric evidence on ārya and
dāsa/dasyu in Vedic society. Hock, Hans H. pp.145-174, in “Aryan and
non-Aryan in South Asia: evidence, interpretation, and ideology” (proceedings
of the International Seminar on Aryan and non-Aryan in South Asia, Univ. of
Michigan, October 1996).
MALLORY-ADAMS
2006:
The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European
World. Mallory J.P. and Adams D.Q. Oxford University Press, 2006.
