There is a saying that goes: In life, familiarity breeds contempt. But in scholarship, familiarity breeds acceptance. This is an adage to which I wholeheartedly subscribe. Unfortunately, such acceptance does not always remain within the ivory towers of academia; it often seeps into popular imagination, infects common discourse, and is frequently transformed into common sense in statements that begin with, “Everybody knows…”
Much of the common wisdom about ancient India, I am afraid, is highly suspect, especially the view that ideas and institutions have existed since the hoary past, from time immemorial. The Sanskrit term sanātana, much in vogue these days, has been co–opted to express these views. Today, I want to debunk some of these presuppositions in the hope that more people—not just scholars—will question what is peddled as received wisdom. To do this, we must subject these cultural constructs to historical and philological scrutiny.
For starters, let us examine what is undoubtedly the most central and ubiquitous concept in all of Indian civilisation, irrespective of time, region, language, or religion: dharma (pronounced dhamma in Prakrit dialects such as Pali). As explored in the book Dharma: Studies in its Semantic, Cultural, and Religious History, which is the first in-depth inquiry into the term, ‘dharma’ was coined by the poets of the Rig Veda in the second half of the second millennium BCE. At that time, it was a neologism. Yet, dharma did not become a central theological concept for quite some time, certainly not until after the late Vedic texts, including the Upanishads, which emerged in the middle of the first millennium BCE.
The history of dharma took a dramatic turn when it was first adopted by Buddhists to label the salvific knowledge discovered by the Buddha, making it one of the three ‘gems’ of Buddhism: Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha. Furthermore, in the middle of the third century BCE, the term was co–opted by King Ashoka as the central concept of the new moral philosophy articulated in his inscriptions. It was probably during this period that dharma began to occupy a central position in Brahmanical theological writings as well. Brahmin theologians began to compose texts on dharma, titled ‘Dharmashastra’. However, the complete history and the many vicissitudes of dharma are still to be written.
Hidden history
The Dharmashastras were meant principally for the three upper social classes or varnas. These were labeled ‘twice-born’ (dvija or dvijati), and the reason given is that they were born first from their mothers and a second time through the rite of Vedic initiation called upanayana. Most history books on ancient India and introductions to Hinduism portray the concept of twice-born as an integral part of the varna system. This is what Professor AL Basham said in his justly famous book The Wonder That Was India (page 139):
“A sharp distinction was made between the three higher classes and the Śūdra. The former were twice-born (dvija), once at their natural birth and again at their initiation, when they are invested with the sacred thread and received into Āryan society.”
But scratch the surface of this socio-religious category, and we uncover its startling hidden history. A bit of philology regarding the word dvija shows that this term is anything but old, at least with this meaning. It is absent from the entire Vedic corpus, making its dramatic appearance only in the late second century BCE in the Dharmasūtra of Gautama (10.1). The term is also absent in the earliest Dharmasūtra, that of Apastamba (3rd c. BCE), and even in the great commentary of the grammarian Patañjali, dated to the middle of the second century BCE. So, the word dvija—along with the theology surrounding it—was an invention that can be traced to the late second century BCE at the earliest.
The recovery of the linguistic history of dvija permits us to ask further historical and sociological questions. What social, political, and religious factors emerged during the second century BCE that provided the context and incentive for the creation of this neologism and its accompanying theology? Note that this was about a century after Ashoka and his radical religious reforms, which questioned the theory of Brahmanical exceptionalism and ignored the significance of social hierarchy represented by the system of four varṇas. What the dvija ideology did was to separate the upper classes of society from the lower ones, elevating the position of the Brahmin as the dvija par excellence. Historians and sociologists, building on philological insights, may want to explore why this ideology was invented at this precise time and why and how it came to dominate Brahmanical social thought over the centuries.
Also read: Ancient Indian medical system had an image crisis. A new name fixed it
The sacred thread
Then there is the ritual of Vedic initiation or upanayana itself, which is thought to constitute that second birth. This rite has been practiced for many centuries without any connection to such a second birth until the time of Gautama. It is still prevalent, especially among Brahmins. In common speech, it is often referred to as the ‘thread ceremony’, because the sacred thread or cord is placed over the left shoulder of the boy. This cord is called brahmasutra, yajnopavita, or simply upavita. Wearing the sacred thread is the visible mark of a Brahmin. So, it may come as a surprise that early descriptions of this ritual do not mention the investiture of such a thread at all. The great scholar of the Dharmashastras, PV Kane, expressed his surprise: “It is remarkable that Ashvalayana, Apastamba, and several other [authors of Grihyasutras] do not say a word about the sacred thread.” (History of Dharmaśāstra, 1962-75, II: 284).
In fact, a central feature of the rite in its early descriptions involves tying a girdle around the waist of the boy being initiated, not the investiture of a thread. The term yajnopavita or upavita is used instead to refer to how the upper garment, usually a long shawl, is worn during various ritual activities; it was not worn permanently. The modern ‘thread’ is a stand-in for the upper garment and was meant to be worn always. This practice probably came into vogue around the beginning of the Common Era and is first described in the Baudhayana Dharmasutra. So, this mark of Brahmanical identity was invented at a particular time in history, and again historians and sociologists need to investigate the social and political circumstances that led to the adoption of the sacred thread as part of the Vedic initiation ceremony and as a visible sign of a man’s twice-born identity.
What I have provided is just a sample of a much wider phenomenon. When we scratch below the surface, many so-called immemorial or even eternal ideas, customs, and institutions are found to have historical origins in defined times and spaces. Frequently, their architects take pains to hide these recent origins, presenting them in the garb of eternality.
Looking at modern scholarship, we see an interesting circularity. Many of these institutions were invented by Brahmanical authors. Early Western scholars, working during the colonial era, used these texts to present the ‘history’ of ancient Indian culture and religion, now clad in scholarly garb. These modern scholarly introductions seeped into both Western and Indian popular imagination and understanding. The myth of an ‘unchanging India’ has infected not only the Western imagination but also, curiously, nationalistic discourse within India itself.
Patrick Olivelle is Professor Emeritus of Asian Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. He is known for his work on early Indian religions, law, and statecraft. Views are personal.
(Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)