Page:The history of caste in India.pdf/87

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
THE BOOK OF THE LAWS OF MANU.
67

others. Even a glance at the list of the castes he has given would be enough to convince us of this. Either from ignorance or some specific motive, he does not mention any caste or tribe in Southern India, except the Dravidas and Choda (who were too well known to be forgotten or slighted), though such castes or tribes were at least as numerous in the South as they were in the North. He treats of castes like Khasas and Karanas (quite insignificant in the history of the period), and even speaks of Lichchivis who were only a clan. There are castes like Mallas[1] mentioned herein, while castes of those names are found in Bengal; but it is uncertain whether they are the same.

He speaks of nationalities like Paundrakas and Udras[2] which are but people of two parts of Bengal, the former are identified with modern Pōds.

Many of the peoples whom he speaks of have not


  1. There was a clan called by the name of Mallas in the drama of The Little Clay Cart (Mrichchakatika) we find Shakara boasting of his descent from a great family like Mallas, We have many other references to this clan (Kula) in the Sanskrit literature. But our author evidently did not mean this clan, for he again speaks of Zalla, Mallas and Natas, as men who subsist by despicable occupations, and as men addicted to gambling and drinking (xii, 45). This reference plainly shows that Mallas were a tribe and not a clan. Mention of Mallas and Natas and Karanas together also is significant. All these three tribes are found in Bengal and have nearly the same status.
  2. In Jolly's critical edition le gives an important variation of reading for x, 44. Instead of Udras he gives Chodas and he does not make any mention of Khasas. But our author mentions Khasas elsewhere according to Jolly's text, and that too as a degraded tribe of Kshatriyas (x, 22). The mention of Chodas in the place of Udras does weaken the argument to a certain extent. At the same time the reading chosen by Jolly is not to be entirely relied upon. Out of nine manuscripts which he collated, only two give the reading he has given; while there are two which give Udras, and three give a reading nearer to Udras than to Chodas.