Later Vedic: Evolution of Monarchy and Varna system

Later Vedic Age: Evolution of Monarchy and the Varna System

History Optional Notes {PDF}

Complete Notes Package (Paper I & II) | 4500+ Pages | Instant Download

Discounted Price | Buy Now @ ₹1,180 →

The Later Vedic period (c. 1000–600 BCE) marks a decisive turning point in the political and social history of ancient India. As pastoral, kin-based tribes gave way to larger and more complex polities, two parallel processes reshaped early Indian civilisation: the emergence of monarchy as the dominant form of political authority, and the crystallisation of the varna hierarchy as the framework of social organisation. The rajan of the Later Vedic age was no longer merely a war leader chosen by his kinsmen — he became a hereditary ruler whose authority was reinforced through elaborate sacrificial rituals, growing control over resources, and the increasingly important office of the purohita. Alongside this political transformation, Brahmanical texts articulated a fourfold varna scheme — Brahmana, Kshatriya (Rajanya), Vaishya, and Shudra — that ranked social groups by ritual status and occupation. This article traces both developments: the political processes behind the rise of monarchical states such as the Kurus and Panchalas, and the textual and ideological basis of the varna system as reflected in the Rig Veda, the Brahmanas, and the Upanishads — a theme central to the Ancient India section of the UPSC History Optional syllabus.

The Emergence of Monarchy

From Tribal Polity to Territorial State

• Warfare is a striking feature of both early and later Vedic society. Book 1 of the Rig Veda Samhita refers to a battle involving 20 kings and 60,099 warriors (the figures need not be taken literally), reflecting the scale of Vedic political conflict. Yet what was changing more fundamentally was the very nature of political units themselves.
• By the 6th century BCE, the political map of north India displayed three distinct kinds of polities: monarchical states (rajyas), oligarchic states (ganas or sanghas), and tribal principalities. The roots of these developments go back to c. 1000–600 BCE.
  • While some communities retained their tribal character, others gradually moved towards statehood, with larger political units forming through the coalescing of tribes — the Purus and Bharatas combined to form the powerful Kurus, while the Turvashas and Krivis formed the Panchalas; the Kurus and Panchalas themselves appear to have functioned as allies or confederates.
• Later Vedic texts reflect a transition from a tribal polity based on lineage to a territorial state, though some historians argue this transition was not yet complete.
  • Since the composition of later Vedic texts extends into the 6th century BCE — a period when territorial states clearly existed, as attested by other sources — it makes little sense to insist that statehood emerged only in the post-Vedic era rather than within the later Vedic age itself.

Witzel’s Thesis: The Kurus as India’s First State

• Witzel (1995) argues that the Kurus represent the first state in India. He suggests that it was the Kurus, under their king Parikshit and their Brahmana priests, who initiated the collection and codification of the Vedic corpus into a canon — re-arranging older and newer poetic and ritual material to meet the needs of the newly developed shrauta ritual, which was presided over by various ritual specialists.

The Rise of the Rajan: Powers and Legitimacy

• The emergence of a state polity is always the outcome of complex political, social, and economic processes, and the rise of a monarchical state involved multiple processes of conflict, accommodation, and alliance.
  • Monarchy meant the concentration of political power in the hands of a king; the rajan achieved supremacy by sidelining rival claimants, establishing coercive mechanisms, and gaining control over productive resources.
  • Not all polities followed this path — some retained their tribal moorings, where political power remained with assemblies rather than kings.
• Like his Rig Vedic predecessor, the Later Vedic rajan was a leader in battle, but his role had expanded considerably: he was now also a protector of settlements and people (especially Brahmanas), a custodian of the social order, and the sustainer of the rashtra (a term that did not necessarily denote a well-defined territory). Hereditary kingship was emerging as the norm.
  • The Shatapatha and Aitareya Brahmanas refer to a kingdom lasting ten generations (dasha-purusham rajyam). A few references — such as Atharva Veda 1.9 and 3.4 — mention the “election” of a king, but these probably amounted to little more than a ritual ratification of hereditary succession.
  • An interesting exception is recorded in the case of the Srinjayas, who expelled their king Dushtaritu Paumsayana despite his descent from ten generations of royalty — a reminder that hereditary claims, though dominant, were not absolute.
  • Later Vedic rituals increasingly exalted the king’s supremacy, both over his kinsmen and over his subjects; terms such as samrajya and samrat reflect the growing imperial aspirations of certain rulers.

Legitimizing Ideology: Divine and Ritual Origins of Kingship

• The emergence of monarchy was accompanied by speculation on the origins of kingship and attempts to construct a legitimizing ideology, drawing on both the divine and human spheres.
  • The Aitareya Brahmana narrates that after being defeated by demons in battle, the gods realised their defeat was due to having no king; they therefore elected one, who then led them to victory.
  • Elsewhere in the same text, the gods — led by Prajapati — are said to have installed Indra as their king because he was the most vigorous, strong, valiant, and perfect among them, and the one best able to accomplish necessary tasks.
• Later Vedic texts emphasise a close connection between the king and the gods. The Shatapatha Brahmana asserts that the king attains identity with Prajapati through the performance of the vajapeya and rajasuya sacrifices; as the visible representative of Prajapati, he — though one — rules over many.
  • Such claims should be read as attempts to exalt the king’s status, not as a theory of divine kingship or evidence of the king being worshipped.
• The rajan’s growing supremacy also required him to distance himself from his own kinsmen. This distancing was ritually enacted through contests such as the chariot race in the vajapeya sacrifice, and the cattle raid and game of dicing in the rajasuya sacrifice.
  • Such contests may once have genuinely decided who deserved kingship, but by the later Vedic period they had become ritual enactments in which the king’s victory was already predetermined and known in advance.

Consolidation of Royal Power over Resources

• Another dimension of the rajan’s growing power was his increasing control over productive resources. Bali, initially a voluntary offering of agricultural produce and cattle, gradually became obligatory. The Shatapatha Brahmana states that the Vaishya offers bali because he is under the vasha (control) of the Kshatriya, and must surrender what he has stored when ordered to do so.
  • The rajan is described as vishamatta — “eater of the vish (people)” — indicating that he lived off what the people produced. However, his appropriation of bali did not yet amount to a clearly defined or organised system of taxation.
• References to the sabha and samiti continue in later Vedic texts — the Shatapatha Brahmana, for instance, records the king’s prayer: “May the samiti and the sabha, the two daughters of Prajapati, concurrently aid me.”
  • Yet, as royal power increased, the authority of these assemblies must have correspondingly declined.

The King and the Purohita

• Later Vedic texts point to a close relationship between the king and his purohita — his Brahmana priest and counsellor. The term purohita literally means “one who is put in front” (by the king), and the relationship between king and purohita is likened to that between earth and heaven, with the king cast as the feminine, subordinate party (Coomaraswamy [1942], 1993).
  • The purohita’s importance is vividly illustrated in the rajasuya ceremony, where he introduces the king to the assembled people, declaring: “This man is your king. Soma is the king of us Brahmanas” (Shatapatha Brahmana).
  • Despite such elaborate ritual, the actual system of administration remained fairly rudimentary.

Monarchy, Varna, and the Household

• Kumkum Roy (1994b) highlights the close connection between the emergence of the monarchical system, the varna hierarchy, the organisation of kinship relations, and the structure of households.
  • The grand shrauta sacrifices performed by the king legitimised his control over the productive and reproductive resources of the realm, just as the domestic sacrifices performed by the grihapati (householder) legitimised his control over the resources of the household.
  • Brahmanical texts implicitly recognise this connection between the political and domestic spheres in describing the rajan as a custodian of the social order.

The Varna Hierarchy

Varna as Social Ideology

• Although kinship ties remained important, later Vedic texts show the beginnings of a class structure, in which social groups had differing degrees of access to productive resources. Varna was partly an ideology reflecting the increasing social differentiation of the age — and, even more, an ideology that justified this differentiation from the standpoint of the elite groups.
• In dividing society into four hereditary strata, this ideology defined social boundaries, roles, status, and ritual purity. Members of each varna were believed to possess distinct innate characteristics, naturally suiting them to particular occupations and social rank.
  • The varna hierarchy remained central to Brahmanical social discourse for centuries, with its duties and functions later elaborated in the Dharmashastra literature.

Origins in the Purusha-Sukta

• The Purusha-sukta (Purusha hymn) in Book 10 of the Rig Veda Samhita refers to four social groups — Brahmana, Rajanya (instead of Kshatriya), Vaishya, and Shudra — though the term varna itself is not used. It describes these groups, along with numerous other elements of creation, as originating from different parts of the body of a primeval giant, Purusha, offered in a sacrifice performed long ago.
  • The hymn’s body symbolism presents the four varnas as interrelated parts of an organic whole, while simultaneously establishing a clear hierarchy of rank — the Brahmana at the top, the Shudra at the bottom.
  • That the varnas are described as created alongside the earth, sky, sun, and moon suggests they were meant to be seen as part of the natural, eternal, and unchangeable order of the world.
  • As Brian K. Smith (1994) points out, the varna scheme was extended well beyond human society to classify the gods and the natural world as well.

Ambiguity in the Ranking of Varnas

• Initially, there was some ambiguity regarding the relative ranking of the higher varnas.
  • In the Panchavimsha Brahmana (13.4.17), where Indra is associated with the creation of the varnas, the Rajanya are placed first, followed by the Brahmana and Vaishya. The Shatapatha Brahmana likewise places the Kshatriya first in one listing, while elsewhere in the same text the order runs: Brahmana, Vaishya, Rajanya, and Shudra.
  • The order of the four varnas became fixed only from the time of the Dharmasutras onward.

The Brahmana–Kshatriya Relationship

• The relationship between the Brahmana and Kshatriya varnas was close but complex. Later Vedic texts stress both the importance of the purohita for the king and the close ties between the Rajanya and at least a section of the Brahmana community.
  • The conflict between the gods Mitra and Varuna has been read as symbolic of a conflict between the two varnas — Mitra representing the principle of brahma (sacred power) and Varuna the principle of kshatra (secular power).
  • Vedic texts describe the relationship between brahma and kshatra variously as antagonistic, complementary, or interdependent.
  • Upanishadic philosophy has also been interpreted, at least in part, as reflecting a Kshatriya challenge to Brahmanical supremacy in the domain of ultimate knowledge.

Dvija Status and Ritual Privileges

• The first three varnas were together known as dvija, literally “twice-born” — those entitled to undergo the upanayana ceremony, regarded as a second birth.
  • They alone were eligible to perform the agnyadheya, the first installation of the sacred sacrificial fire that marked the beginning of a householder’s ritual duties.
  • At the same time, the texts also emphasise clear differences among the three dvija varnas themselves.

Attributes and Roles Assigned to Each Varna

• The Aitareya Brahmana states that the rajasuya sacrifice endowed each varna with a distinct quality: tejas (lustre) for the Brahmana, virya (valour) for the Kshatriya, prajati (procreative power) for the Vaishya, and pratishtha (stability) for the Shudra.
  • Later texts such as the Shrautasutras laid down varna-specific procedures for the performance of sacrifices, including the soma sacrifice and the agnyadheya.
• The Brahmana held an exalted position in the varna hierarchy, owing to his association with the performance of sacrifices and with knowledge — specifically the study and teaching of the Vedas.
  • In the Aitareya Brahmana, when Varuna is told that a Brahmana boy is to be sacrificed to him instead of the son of King Harishchandra, he remarks: “A Brahmana is indeed preferable to a Kshatriya.”
  • The Shatapatha Brahmana associates the Brahmana with four special attributes — purity of parentage, good conduct, glory, and teaching or protecting people — and with four privileges received from the people: honour, gifts, freedom from harassment, and freedom from being beaten.
  • The Kshatriya (Rajanya) was associated with strength, fame, ruling, and warfare, while the Vaishya was linked to material prosperity, animals, food, and production-related activities such as cattle-rearing and agriculture.
  • In the soma sacrifice, prayers for the protection of brahma, kshatra, and vish varied according to the yajamana’s varna: the goal was brahma-varchas (priestly lustre) for the Brahmana, indriya (prowess) for the Rajanya, and pashu and anna (animals and food) for the Vaishya.

Position of the Shudra and Groups Below Him

• The Shudra’s position at the bottom of the varna ladder was fixed from the outset. He was associated with serving the higher varnas and performing menial tasks, and was barred from performing Vedic sacrifices; a dikshita (one initiated for a Vedic sacrifice) was not even permitted to speak to a Shudra.
  • The Aitareya Brahmana states that the Shudra was “at the beck and call of others,” could be made to rise at will, and could be beaten at will (yatha-kamavadhya).
  • Some groups stood even lower than the Shudras in the social order — slaves (dasas and dasis) are listed among gift items in the danastutis.
• On occasion, however, children born of slave women could rise to high status — for instance, Kakshivan, son of the sage Dirghatamas by a woman slave of the queen of Anga, is mentioned in Book 1 of the Rig Veda; Kavasha Ailusha, author of a Vedic hymn in Book 10, is likewise described as the son of a woman slave. These were, however, probably exceptional instances.

The Chandalas and Early Signs of Untouchability

• While later Vedic texts show no clear indications of the practice of untouchability, groups such as the Chandalas were clearly held in contempt by the elites.
  • The Chhandogya Upanishad and the Taittiriya and Shatapatha Brahmanas list the Chandala among the victims of the presumably symbolic purushamedha (human sacrifice), describing him as dedicated to the deity Vayu (wind) — a dedication sometimes read as indicating that the Chandala lived in the open air or near a cemetery, though this remains uncertain.
  • The Chhandogya Upanishad further states that those who perform praiseworthy deeds are swiftly reborn in a good condition — as a Brahmana, Kshatriya, or Vaishya — while those who perform low actions are reborn in a correspondingly low condition, such as a dog, boar, or Chandala.

Assimilation and the Frontier of “Outsiders”

• The Shatapatha Brahmana narrates the story of King Videgha Mathava, who originally lived on the banks of the Sarasvati and crossed the Sadanira (Gandak) river with his priest Gotama Raghugana, preceded by Agni Vaishvanara.
  • Historians have often read this as reflecting the eastward movement of the Indo-Aryans and the first agricultural “colonisation” of the eastern lands through the burning of forests — though giving an early Videhan king a respectable north-western origin may equally have been a way of legitimising his power, with the reference to Agni alluding to the extension of Brahmanical sacrificial ritual into these areas.
• Later Vedic texts also reflect processes of social interaction, conflict, and assimilation. According to the Aitareya Brahmana, when Vishvamitra’s fifty sons refused to accept Shunahashepa (Devarata) as their brother, Vishvamitra cursed them to become the Andhras, Pundras, Shabaras, Pulindas, and Mutibas — a story reflecting the Brahmanical tradition’s attempt to extend a degree of recognition to “outsiders.”
  • Some non-Indo-Aryan groups were thus assimilated into the varna hierarchy, generally at its lower rungs. In fact, the Shudras may themselves have originated as a non-Indo-Aryan tribe of the north-west, who later lent their name to the fourth varna.
  • Not all tribal groups were assimilated, however — some were simply acknowledged. Later Vedic texts mention forest peoples such as the Kiratas and Nishadas, and also reflect the emergence of the category of mlechchha, encompassing tribal and foreign groups regarded as “outsiders” by the Brahmanical tradition.

Social Fluidity Despite Growing Stratification

• Even as later Vedic texts suggest that society in the upper Ganga valley was becoming increasingly stratified, a certain degree of fluidity in occupations persisted. This is captured in a well-known Rig Vedic verse: “I am a reciter of hymns, my father is a physician, and my mother grinds (corn) with stones. We desire to obtain wealth in various actions.”