DDK HistoryF.p65 - CSIR

194 CRITIQUE OF MEGASTHENES [7.2
seemed to form a (vaisya) caste would therefore be most likely.
The two bureaucratic groups, 6 and 7, the latter recruited specially
from leading citizens, would again become castes, in a country
where class had emerged in the guise of caste as a new method of
grouping separate components into a society. The later kayastha
caste (cf. P. V. Kane, Hist, of the Dharmasdstra 2.75-77) was
formed out of people with diverse origins, precisely in the same
manner. The fcayasthas were originally record-keepers for the
kingdom. The caste may have begun its formation from Mauryan
days, when its functions arose, though the word is not known
in the 3rd century B. c. The higher councillors would claim
superiority ; there were enough of them to form a caste by
themselves. The existence of a vast salaried officialdom is
demonstrated by the close agreement of Megasthenes with
the Arthasastm on this vital point. The rajjukas, mahamatyas,
dutas formed these two castes, by professional exclusiveness.
That these castes vanished shows how closely they were bound to
a particular form of state.
There remains class 2, the georgoi, equated to the vaisyas as the
usual Sanskrit equivalent of ‘ husbandman’. Unfortunately,
Megasthenes was not compiling a dictionary of usual Sanskrit.
The class is very carefully described : They formed by far the
greatest part of the population. They produced almost all the
surplus food, with trifling additions from the herdsman-hunter;
no other caste produced any food at all. They never entered the
cities, never bore arms, were ‘ exempted from military duties’,
continued to plough their fields within sight of armies that fought
for mastery over land and cultivator. This does not describe the
vaisya (who had still the right to bear arms and to hold office),
but the 6udra who was carefully disarmed, had part neither in
the armed forces nor the state machinery, nor possessed
ownership rights in the means of production. If the vaisya fits
* Arrian, Indika xi : Secundum genus hominum post sophistas sunt agricolae,
qui quidem numero reliquas Indonun tribus longe superant. Hi neque
arma habent, quibus in bello utantur, neque bellicas res curant;
sed arbores eolunt, et regibus liberisque urbibus tributa pedunt. This
contrasts with the misleading sentimentality of Diodorus, for clearly these
agricolae were disarmed, not philosophers who rejected warfare.