Dasadasi.

• Author: Rocher, Ludo

INTRODUCTION

THE DHARMASASTRAS DO NOT encourage anuloma marriages. (1) Yet they are concerned about the inheritance of sons born of marriages in which the wife's varna is lower than that of her husband. (2) To be sure, the higher the varna of the wife, the larger the share of the son, but all legitimate anuloma sons, including the son of a brahman and a sudra wife, are entitled to fixed shares. (3) Just as sons of legally wedded wives of twice-born varnas are, the son of a sudra wife is rikthabhak: he is entitled to a share of the estate in his own right. And, since a son by a sudra wife is the only possible legitimate son for a sudra husband, (4) he inherits the entire estate of his father. (5)

The sastras are less favorably disposed toward sons born out of wedlock. As a rule, illegitimate sons of twice-born fathers may be given maintenance, but they cannot claim a share in the inheritance: they are not rikthabhak. For sons of twice-born males and sudra females in particular, there are a number of rules that either prescribe maintenance or say that they are not rikthabhak; these texts are most often interpreted as referring to illegitimate sons.

First, Gautama:

sudraputro 'py anapatyasya susrusus cel labheta vritimulam (6) antevasividhina. (7) (28.39)

Following the Vivadaratnakara, (8) Colebrooke (1798: 5.169) translated anapatya as "a man who leaves no legitimate offspring." (9)

Second, a verse from Brhaspati agrees perfectly with Gautama:

anapatyasya susrusur gunavan sudrayonijo

labhetajivanam; sesam sapindah samavapnuyuh. (10)

(26.125/tr. 25.31)

Third, Sankha and Likhita:

na sudraputro 'rthabhagi; yad evasya pita dadyat sa evasya bhagah. (11) (277)

Fourth Manu:

brahmanaksatriyavisam sudraputro (12) na rikthabhak;

yad evasya pita dadyat tad evasya dhanam bhavet. (9.155)

This last text created a problem for commentators, since they had to reconcile it with the immediately preceding verse, by which the father is allowed to give the sudraputra a share, be it no more than one tenth of the total assets (nadhikam dasamad amsat). (13) Some commentators consider two possible solutions: either Manu 9.154 refers to a sudraputra who is susrusu and gunavant (from Gautama and Brhaspati) and Manu 9.155 to a sudraputra who cannot claim these virtues, or Manu 9.154 pertains to the son of a wedded sudra and Manu 8.155 to the son of a sudra who is not wedded to the twice-born father. (14) Most commentators, however, restrict themselves to a single interpretation: the son of an unwedded twice-born father and a sudra woman is excluded from the inheritance. (15)

These four texts led to Jones's heavily italicized translation of Manu 9.155: "The son of a brahmana, a ksatriya, or a vaisya, by a woman of the servile class, shall inherit no part of the estate, unless he be virtuous; nor jointly with other sons, unless his mother was lawfully married; whatever his father may give him, let that be his own." (16) Anglo-Hindu law followed suit: "Illegitimate sons of the three higher classes are entitled to nothing but maintenance." (17)

THE PROBLEM

Having established that an illegitimate son of a twice-born father and a sudra mother is not entitled to a share of the inheritance, I now wish to introduce two dharmasastra passages which are the main concern of this article.

First, Manu:

dasyam va dasadasyam va yah sudrasya suto bhavet,

so 'nujnato hared amsam iti dharmo vyavasthitah. (9.179)

Second, Yajnavalkya:

jato 'pi dasyam sudrena kamato 'msaharo bhavet.

mrte pitari kuryus tam bhrataras tv ardhabhagikam;

abhratrko haret sarvam duhitrnam sutad rte.

(2.133cd-34)

Thus, according to Manu and Yajnavalkya, the son of a sudra (18) by a dasi (19) or by a dasi or a dasadasi, at will, (20) inherits a share. After their father's death, his brothers must give him half a share, (21) and, if there are no brothers, he inherits everything, unless there is a daughter's son. Most important, if the father is a sudra, the son of a dasi/dasadasi is recognized as a full-fledged son (suta eva) of his father, and, even if there is a daughter's son, he inherits equally with him (sati tasminn aurasavat kalpana). (22)

As Jolly pointed out, "[t]hese two verses contain everything that is to be found in the Smrtis on the subject, but the various constructions put on, and important rules derived from, them in modern works have given rise to several interesting controversies" (1885: 186). In Anglo-Hindu law, the two verses have, indeed, been quoted and commented on in numerous cases in courts of law all over India. In Derrett's words, "[t]his interesting set of rules has bedevilled the development of the Anglo-Hindu law on the subject of illegitimates" (1961: 255). I intend to deal in a separate article with the motivations for the varying interpretations put on the Manu and Yajnavalkya verses by the Anglo-Hindu courts of law. The problem which I wish to address in this essay is the identity, in the two Sanskrit texts, of the dasi and the dasadasi, whose sons with a sudra male are entitled to a share in the inheritance.

Before doing so I must briefly refer to a problem that affects the understanding of the Manu and Yajnavalkya verses: at whose "will" (M anujnatah, Y kamatah) does the son of a sudra and a dasi/dasadasi receive a share? Except for some early neutral translations: "if permitted" (Colebrooke 1798: 5.176) and "einen beliebigen erbtheil" (Stenzler Y), (23) most translators follow Jones: "if permitted by the other sons." (24) Yet, the more cogent interpretation, adopted by most commentators, (25) is "at the father's pleasure." (26) Even though this is not evident from Manu 1.179, it is from Yajnavalkya 2.133 cd. (27) This half verse obviously refers to the time prior to the father's death, as opposed to 2.134 which lays down what the sons must do when the father has not expressed his desire, i.e., after his death.

At this point we can address the main question: what is the meaning of the terms dasi and dasadasi in Manu and Yajnavalkya? I intend to show (1) that Yajnavalkya refers to a sudra woman, i.e., any sudra woman, who is not married to her son's sudra father, and (2) that, within that range, Manu distinguishes between a sudra woman who is not married to anyone, and a sudra woman who is married to another sudra. Both points have been hinted at in the sastras and in the commentaries, but these hints have been overlooked in translations into European languages and, as a result, in the decisions proffered in the Anglo-Hindu courts of law.

THE DASI AND DASADASI ARE NOT WEDDED TO THE SUDRA

The fact that we are dealing with illegitimate sons, i.e., sons of a sudra father not married to the...