Articles

The Mongolian Contribution to Our Civilization

Opinion | Articles | Thomas Menamparampil | 10-Oct-2022

The Mongolian Contribution to Our Civilization

It is generally recognised that in ancient days, Bihar and further east was inhabited by Mongolian and Austro-Asiatic tribes. Possibly, some of the western portions of UP also formed part of this tribal belt. While many scholars casually refer to differences in mentalities and traditions they noticed between people who belonged these communities and the those of the Aryan-Vedic-Brahminic society, Johannes Bronkhorst of the Lausanne University has been one of the first to study these differences more exhaustively. He links the eastern tradition with the region which he calls “Greater Magadha” where many of these tribes influenced the general culture which totally differed from the Vedic-Brahminic tradition. Even though the latter heritage would claim superiority having gained domination over others over a long period of time, Bronkhorst holds that many of their concepts and practices had origin in the culture and tradition of Greater Magadha. We are grateful to him for his findings.

In this paper we shall not concentrate on all those concepts and beliefs that Bronkhorst deals with, but study mainly those cultural values and ethical systems that are common among diverse tribes, Jain and Buddhist moral norms and Ashoka’s message to his people. In studying these religious movements, our interest will be merely academic focusing on their cultural and ethical dimensions, since their founders had a tribal origin. In seeking to establish the clear distinctiveness of the eastern tribal traditions, we will try to mobilize as many scholars as possible, even with the possibility of a bit of repetition of certain themes, in order to show the great consensus on the issue by neutral scholars. Even though there could some ideological resistance to this widely admitted truth, a recognition of the Mongolian contribution to Indian civilization is overdue.

The Aryan-Vedic-Brahminc Civilization Rises in the Doab

It took many people by surprise when Pranab Mukherjee addressing the RSS workers in 2017 referred to the Aryan, Mongoloid and Dravidian constituents of our national identity. The Aryan-Vedic-Brahminic element is only one constituent of our shared civilization, even though today it stands dominant. There was a time when this culture was confined only to the Doab. Though over centuries it would gain the dominant position, Patanjali in his time (c. 150 BC) frankly admits that the land of the Aryans extended only up to the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna in his time (Bronkhorst 1-2).

Referring to the region further east, Indologist Johannes Bronkhorst writes, “We know very little and have to depend on indirect evidence for information about the aspects of this culture that preceded Buddhism and Jainism, and about those that did not find direct expression in these two religions” (Bronkhorst 4). It is this region that this article seeks to study, generally recognised as being inhabited by tribal communities with varying styles of political system. Earlier historians who had access only to texts and prevailing records described these political units as ‘republics’ or ‘aristocratic oligarchies’. Romila Thapar comes closer to reality calling them Gana Sanghas.

Anicient Tribal States Described as Republics, Oligarchies

We find H.W Schumann, for example, describing the region east of Kosala and north of Magadha as land of “republics of aristocratic-oligarchic character” headed by a raja, who ruled with the help of a council (Schumann 3). Those who are acquainted with Northeast tribal communities will see that they were no different from the diverse political structures of tribal communities which have survived to our own days. Western scholars who went only by texts had to depend totally on Brahminic records. The title ‘raja’ in those documents meant merely the head of a tribe, the tribal chief. This becomes clear when we look more carefully how those political units functioned. We find, for example, that while the Vajjian Confederation is described as ‘aristocratic’, it worked like a perfect ‘democracy’. When we are told that people who are described as nobles or rajas ‘lived austerely’, we understand that they were just representative tribal leaders.

Buddha’s Sakya tribe too is described as having several ‘rajas’ in this sense. Buddha is proud to tell ruler Bimbisara of Magadha that he comes from a community on the Himalayas, “rich in wealth and heroes” (warriors) who live among the Kosalas (Thomas 21). Kautilya admits that everyone among the hill tribes behaved like a king (Kautilya 8.1.41-43). However, their future was not going to be long. For, during the life time of Buddha himself,  the Sakyas, Koloyas, Mallas, Lichchavis and others, would be absorbed into the Magadha Empire at the initiative of Bimbisara’s son Ajatasatru. The pre-Magadhan story of the region, therefore, was that of tribal people (Thomas 20).  And even though they lost their political independence, society in the region remained predominantly tribal for a very long period of time.

Even before the conquest, as these tribal communities came more and more under Aryan-Vedic-Brahminic influence, they would use Brahminic vocabulary when they talked with people of other communities.  So occasionally we find them describing their chiefs as “Kshatriyas” (Thomas 22). Those who live in tribal-nontribal contexts today understand the reason easily.

Seeing that the names of Sakya villages were totally non-Aryan and taking into account other evidences, Edward Thomas concludes for certain that the peoples of northeast India in that period were not Aryan. They were Mongolian tribes on the northern side and Austro-Asiatics on the southern, Kols or Mundas (Thomas 23).

The Powerful Lichchavi Tribe and Their Ruling Traditions

Let us return to the days before these areas were sucked into the Magadhan Empire. It is a mistake to consider any of those political units oligarchies. The rulers of the Koliyas, Moriyas, Kalamas and Lichchavis were elected by the elders. As we saw earlier, though Schumann uses the word ‘rajas’ to refer to them, they were elected tribal chiefs. He says three of them jointly held power over the  Lichchavis (Schumann 17). Things become clearer when we read that the Lichchavis had a governing body of 7,707 representatives, who again are referred to as ‘rajas’ (Tripathi 86). Among the Lichchavis every member of the tribe was like a king, respected in community, as in tribal society even today. Assembly discussions concluded with ‘consensus’, not mere majority. The elected leader exercised authority over his people using his ‘persuasive powers’, an ability which Buddha’s  father Suddhodana must have had when ruling the Sakyas (Schumann 18). Legal disputes followed ‘maxims’ or precedents (Schumann 21).

 The “sense of political responsibility” of the Lichchavis is much praised: Council sessions were well-attended; and when consensus was reached, action followed. “Justice was dispensed swiftly and objectively”. When Schumann says here that their nobles lived austerely, we see more clearly that they were merely representatives not nobles (Schumann 114).  Again, when Schumann expresses great surprise that in ancient India people lived in villages with open doors, that crime was rare (Schumann 126), we know that it is still prevalent among our tribal communities to this day.

The Vajjian confederacy was composed of 8 clans, like the Videhas, Lichchavis, Jnatrikas, Vrijis and others; Mallas were on mountain slopes (Tripathi 83). Its capital was at Vaisali (Raychaudhury 106). Lying north of Ganga, it extended up to Nepal hills (Raychaudhury 105). In its day of strength, it was able to overthrow the successors of Janaka, the famous king of Videha, who is represented in Brahminic records as a Samrat  (Raychaudhury 75). The Lichchavis were the strongest political power within the Vajjian confederacy (Raychaudhury 75-76). Vincent Smith believes that the Lichchavis had Tibetan connections, judging from their judicial system (Raychaudhury 109). The Lichchavis continued to be a powerful force till the Gupta period (Raychaudhury 206).

The Lichchavis and Other Tribals Open to Buddhism, Resistant to Brahminism

The Lichchavis were never friendly to the Aryan-Vedic-Brahminic tradition. No wonder their memory has been nearly wiped out from Indian history. Manu considered them heterodox, children of Vratyas (Raychaudhury 110), and related to the “snub-nosed peoples who lived beyond the Himalayas”. Their Mongoloid identity and cultural connection beyond Nepal to Tibet become clear. The Lichchavis remained powerful all through Buddha’s and Mahavira’s time (Raychaudhury 111). Manu lists the Mallas also as Vratyas like the Lichchavis. These tribal communities found their values of equality, community sense and fairness in the Buddhist movement and supported it (Raychaudhury 114). After studying carefully community traits and putting several evidences together Thomas comes to the conclusion that they had the “beliefs and customs of another civilization”, totally different from those of the Vedic (Thomas 23). This is the central argument of Bronkhorst to which we shall return again and again, pointing to consensus among several weighty scholars.

We have already referred to the Sakyas, Koliyas, Bhargas, Bulis, Kalamas and many others. But we should specially take note of the Moriyas, related to the Sakyas, who were to give rise to the Maurya dynasty (Raychaudhury 169). At this early period of time they were only a humble ruling clan in the Champaran area of the present day Gorakhpur district (Raychaudhury 237).

Similarly, the prestige of the Lichchavis would remain on for a long time. Eight centuries later, Chandragupta, the first Gupta ruler, took special pride when he married Kumaradevi, a Lichchavi princess, and struck gold coins in their joint names. It won him legitimacy and he was able to consolidate his position in North India. Their son Samudragupta boasted of having had a Lichchavi mother (Smith 164, Tripathi 239). Wendy Doniger describes how this Lichchavi connection contributed to the building an image for the early Guptas  (Doniger 377). And Samudragupta, a scion of the Lichchavi race, ruled India for nearly half a century. Tribal blood running in him, he extended his domain to various corners of the subcontinent. He proved himself to be a many-sided personality, doing honour to his Lichchavi ancestors. The history of India owes much to such tribal communities. Their genius cannot be wiped out.

In Early Vedic Period Aryans Themselves Were Tribal

It is important to remember that as the Aryans moved into India they also were a tribal people. The Rig Veda does not speak of any caste division. Even class division would take time to develop (Sharma 20). As they kept conquering indigenous communities, the higher classes among the conquered would be absorbed at higher levels and the others at lower levels (Sharma 21). Weaker communities would ultimately end up as Sudras. But in Rig Veda there is no mention of Sudras (Sharma 24). It was an egalitarian age. There is no reference to slaves working in the fields.  Vedic Aryans cultivated the land themselves. The tribe owned the land. Everyone was equal; there were ranks, but no classes (Sharma 30).

Work was honoured. The greatly needed chariot-makers and metal workers were considered important (Sharma 31), as also skilled people like carpenters, tanners, and smiths (Sharma 32). In a family there could be a poet, a grinder of corn, and a physician (Sharma 33). There was no contempt for leather-work even in the later Vedic period (Sharma 53). Manual labour was not despised. Everyone was a cultivator, even the king lent his hand to ploughing (Sharma 54). In the same way, fighting was the concern of the whole tribe. There was no separate warrior class, no Kshatriyas (Sharma 40). It is anachronism to present kings and priests marrying Sudra women as an anomaly, or Vyasa being born of a fisher woman  (Sharma 70). Caste-system was still to develop.  Tripathi speaks of “astrologers and barbers” winning special respect as counsellors to the rulers (Tripathi 50).

The Iron Ploughshare Revolution Brings Prosperity, Caste Emerges and Grows Rigid

A revolutionary change came into the Gangetic Valley with the introduction of the ‘iron ploughshare’ and the use of axes, saws, and spades around 1000-600 BC (Sharma 101). Production increased. Western UP developed into a prosperous region with the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the ruling class. Brahmins wanted to have a bigger share of it and proposed more expensive sacrifices and claimed special privileges. This eagerness led to the composition of the ‘Brahmanas’ which imposed elaborate rituals during sacrifices. Brahmins sought to flatter their tribal leaders, surrounding them and their families with mythological stories and linking them with deities. Thus emerged a ruling class, who in turn, patronised Brahmins and conferred on them more and more privileges. They began posing as heroic Kshatriyas, assuming royal titles and claiming higher ranks. Originally, Kshatriyas were meant to be protectors of the land, not just warriors or rulers (Rangarajan 32). Meanwhile the farming class and the traders came to be called Vaisyas, and the subjugated aborigines sank to the status of Sudras (Sharma 33).

Big farms were worked on by war-won slaves, who constituted the biggest proportion of the Sudras (Sharma 105). Using such hapless labourers, kings like Janaka and Duryodana earned huge revenues (Sharma 97). Encouraged by these successes, the Aryan rulers pushed their way further into mid-Ganga steadily, taking away more and more land from indigenous communities (Sharma 96). Gradually, the exclusion and exploitation of the Sudras sharpen and the caste-system hardens (Sharma 89). This was the position in much of Upper Gangetic Valley during the period we are studying (Buddha to Ashoka).

Further east, the area that Bronkhorst describes as Greater Magadha (Bihar and neighbouring areas) was more advanced in commerce. They had the advantage of iron ore deposits in Rajgir and had developed vibrant commercial networks. Buddha’s scene of action is the encounter point between these two societies:  Aryans in the west (app. UP) and Magadha-tribal states in the east (app. Bihar).

The Magadhan Culture Greatly Differed from the Aryan-Vedic-Brahminic Culture

Magadha clearly was a region where the Aryans had not gained domination and caste-system had not been established. Society was largely composed of indigenous communities: tribals and other indigenous communities in the process of being detribalized. Raychaudhury describes their society as having “elasticity of social behaviour”, which means, different communities interrelated with each other with great freedom and there was no barrier to inter-community marriages. So, a person considered Yavana could be a governor, a barber could become a king. No occupation was despised (Raychaudhury 168).  It was no surprise in Magadha when the son of a courtesan by a barber like Nanda became a king (Raychaudhury 204). 

But the Aryan-Vedic-Brahminic society in the west looked at “Magadha and Anga” with aversion, specially because these regions had not yet come under Brahminic domination (Tripathi 47).  Similarly, Baudhayana calls Kalinga an impure country (Raychaudhury 78), since many hill tribes lived there (Raychaudhury 79). Those tribals who were subdued were reduced to the status of Sudras. So, Tripathi speaks about the conquered Dasyus (Tripathi 48). As the Aryan advanced further east, the status of the Sudras steadily declined. Aitareya Brahmana presents the Sudra as “the servant of another, to be expelled at will, and to be slain at will” (Tripathi 49). Weak tribal communities were the greatest victims.

Also Macdonell and Keith quote Vedic literature that held Magadha as a country of little repute.  Atharvaveda 5.22.14 wishes fever away to the Angas and Magadhas of the east (Bronkhorst 8).  Oldenberg too puts it to the fact that they were not fully Brahmanized. Bronkhorst concludes from these various opinions that the culture of Greater Magadha differed totally from that of the Vedic Aryans.

Similarly, Schumann agrees that the process of “Brahminization” was not advanced in this area called Madhya Desa (“Middle Land”). People could take up any occupation and change it for another (Schumann 28). Ethnically, the population of Greater Magadha were Mongolian and Austro-Asiatic tribes, the former in the north close to Nepal, the latter in the south near to the Chota Nagpur Plateau. In Brahminic documents they are described as Dasyus, “anasa”, noseless or with flat nose; Dasas are “bull-lipped” (Sharma 15).

Dasyus use “unintellible speech” (Sharma 16). ‘R’ tends to be pronounced as ‘L’, so  ‘raja’ becomes ‘laja’. Several Mongolian communities find it hard to pronounce ‘r’. Even today when you land in Bangkok, the taxi man will be offering you a ‘loom’, a ‘room’ in a hotel. Coming to closer contexts, we find that the Hindi ‘gari’ (vehicle) has become ‘kali’ in Khasi,  and ‘ghora’ (horse) ‘kulai’. The Sanskrit ‘putra’ is ‘putta’ in Pali, ‘sutra’ ‘sutta’, ‘dharma’ ‘dhamma’. A pronouncedly Mongolian influence is evident in areas using Pali.

Referring to family traditions, Megasthenes speaks of bride-price prevalent among the communities around Pataliputra (Thapar 87). This again is a Mongolian custom unlike the dowry system that held sway among the Aryans.  In Manu’s time, we find him criticizing bride-price (Arthashastra 3.51-54) (Doniger 334).

Another difference was that the Magadhan culture had long become urban while the Aryans still wandered in the forests. If we consider the Harappan civilization as the first urbanization of India, Magadhan Pataliputra that gave rise to the Mauryan empire was responsible for the second urbanization of India. Meanwhile Aryan immigrants were roaming cattle-keepers, still living in huts in villages and small towns (Bronkhorst 13). The Vedas and Upanishads reflect the rural life of the Aryans, while the Magadhan Pataliputra was fast growing to become one of the biggest cities of the world. Aryan trade was mostly barter (Tripathi 34). Buddha’s ethical norms reveal the great sophistication of the Magadhan commercial community.

Buddha, for example, proposes ‘skilful ethics’ in financial dealings, encourages shrewd investment. He urges traders to avoid debt, save for emergency, give alms, look after dependents, care for the immediate needs of the family, to be thrifty, sensible and sober; to avoid alcohol, late nights, gambling, laziness, and bad company (Armstrong 133). No wonder that the business community that felt marginalized by the Brahamana-Vedic elite readily became enthusiastic about Buddhism (Thapar 4).

The Concept of Asceticism Usually Emerges in a Newly Prosperous Society

The concepts of asceticism and renunciation do not easily rise among people who are basically equal and are struggling for mere survival. In the Rig Vedic period the Aryan civilization was at this stage. When such a society moves on to prosperity and inequality turns exploitative, certain sensitive people among them feel the need of raising their voices to protest against the inhumanity that has arisen among them. This happened among the Israelites who gave rise to the prophets, the Greeks who were challenged by the Cynics, and the Romans whose accumulation of wealth was cold-shouldered by the Stoics. Constantinian prosperity was rejected by the Egyptian and Syrian monks, Celtic rise jilted by Irish monastics and mountain hermits, Muslim opulence despised by the Sufis.

In most of these cases, this happened when a tribal community in which people who were equal began to experience social tensions linked with the rise of inequality and injustice. With caste-system well-advanced, the Aryan society had long ceased to be tribal. But the indigenous tribal societies we have described above felt restless at the rise of inequality and unfairness among them.

Early reactions usually go to exaggerations. Ajivikas could be one such. A feeling grows that over-activity that gives rise to unfairness must be renounced. Jainism rejects ‘disturbing’ activity, ‘over-concern’ for the transitory and ‘yearnings’ that disturb (Bronkhorst 17). The negative consequences of disturbing action can be annihilated through ‘non-action’ or ‘asceticism’ (Bronkhorst 21). The fallacy of counting excessively on wealth accumulation and enjoyment (‘delusion’) must be got rid of, and a vision for purposeful living gained (‘insight’). This will call for a measure of ‘renunciation’ (Bronkhorst 23).

The concept of Ahimsa too developed among them as they saw increasing volume of animal sacrifices (rituals) performed by the Brahmins and violent adventurism of the Kshatriyas as described in the great epics Mahabharata and Ramayana. 

Buddha Adopts a Middle Path

Buddhism looked at the same problem more soberly. Buddha suggested: ‘Avoid exaggerations. Everyone has a point. Choose the Middle Path. For example, excessive asceticism of the Jains has no liberating effect, but what has to be avoided is the reckless longing behind disturbing activities (Bronkhorst 52). And take care: look to real causes, and not to ideas like rebirth’ (Bronkhorst 53).

Buddha was certainly a spiritually minded person. But Schumann finds him also to be a worldly-wise organizer (Schumann xi). His ideas were realistic. Nevertheless, when his Brahmin disciples who formed the bigger proportion reflected over them, they instinctively went on to add a ‘magico-religious’ dimension to his life and teachings. They may have done it because they were overwhelmed by the spiritual depth of their Master, but they took his teachings further away from their original meanings.

Here we come to the core point we want to make: Bronkhorst and Zysk agree that the Aryan-Vedic-brahminic society was inclined to the “magico-religious” while the Magadhan one remained oriented to the “empirico-rational” (Bronkhorst 60). In this respect the Magadhan perspective seems to be closer to the tribal outlook based on realism and tangible results. It is truly rewarding to trace our way back to concepts and insights developed in the Magadhan civilization, which was closer to the original Genius of Ancient India, which gave us the Buddhist sense of equality and fairness,  the Mauryan golden period, Ashoka’s welfare state, and a relevant message of peace that is permanently valid.

The profound admiration that Buddha’s Brahmin disciples had for their Master expresses itself in adding colour to his life and work. Legends grow rapidly, and a “magico-religious” dimension asserts itself. Edward Thomas records some of the tales, “When the Bodhisatta is born, he does not fall to the ground. Four gods take him and set him before his mother, saying,  “rejoice, lady. A mighty son has been born to thee”. And again,  “When the Bodhisatta is born, two streams of water fall from the sky, one of cold  and one of hot water, wherewith they perform the washing for the Bodhisatta and his mother”. He takes seven steps to the North, a parasol being held over him. “He surveys all the quarters, and in a lordly voice says, “I am the chief in the world, I am the best in the world. I am the first in the world…” (Thomas 31). Such Brahminic myth-creations are many. Buddha is made to say, “I remembered my former existences, such as, one birth, two births, three, four, five, ten, twenty, forty, fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand births; many cycles dissolution of the universe…” (Thomas 67). “Buddha by his magical powers overcame two nagas that vomited smoke and flame, received visits from various gods, read the thoughts of Uruvela Kassappa…worked in all 3,500 miracles” (Thomas 91). Visiting his home, when he saw that his proud kinsmen did not intend to make obeisance to him, “he rose in the air and performed the miracle of the pairs”, flames from the upper part of his body and streams of water from the lower (Thomas 98). “Buddha flew through the air and preached to his father on his deathbed” (Thomas 107).

Alberuni says, “The Hindus do not pay much attention to the historical order of things. When someone insists, they invariably take to tale-telling (Tripathi 1).  The Puranas can be very misleading if taken as a historic source.

Even in our own days, a person known to us as Rani Gaidinliu in Nagaland is suddenly made into a devi, closely linked with Durga. We read in her biography: “Between 2-4 pm the wind picked up speed suddenly. It blew for a long time and people saw a man-like figure riding on a horse and suddenly disappeared. The wind stopped. Suddenly a lion was visible and Goddess Mother was riding on it. The villagers were frightened. Goddess Mother rode round Gaidinliu’s house and retreated to the mountain” (Longkumer 220). Thus, myth-making continues.

Similarly, many of the Ayurvedic medical practices in Magadhan tradition were borrowed later by Aryan practitioners.  But there is a conspicuous difference. Buddhist healing is based on “empirical and rational medicine” not magical approaches like the use of Atharvavedic spells and amulets (Bronkhorst 58).

Buddhism and Jainism Were not Protest Movements against Brahminism from Within

As we have seen, Buddha was the son of a chief of the Sakya clan and was proud of his warrior origin. Little wonder that he remained true to his realistic, ‘empirico-rational’ outlook, typical of the Magadhan society and the tribal vision of realities.  He did not consider the ‘magico-religious’ worldview of the Aryan-Vedic-Brahminic intellectuals meaningful. Thus we see that the conceptual worlds of these two groups of people were widely different” (Bronkhorst 256). “The monks of the non-Aryan east were more interested in practicalities”. While the Aryans attributed the cause of suffering to ‘ignorance’ (Armstrong 35), the non-Aryan Buddha put it to “selfishness and egotism” (Armstrong 46).

As we saw, Buddha’s Brahmin disciples were inclined to myth-creation. The Jains and Buddhists who were true their original tradition found it impossible to move in that direction. It is wrong to consider these two religious movements protest movements within the Vedic tradition, as it is generally believed (Bronkhorst 261), even by Dr. Radhakrishnan. On the contrary, the Vedic and Magadhan traditions had totally different origins and orientations. The people in eastern India were generally tribal who set a great score by ‘equality’ and ‘community’. These qualities would receive great emphasis in Buddhism, Jainism, and Ajivikism. They looked at the world with a sense of ‘realism’ and objectivity and were not inclined to ‘myth-making’ and story-creation (Bronkhorst 9).

The Original Buddhist Teaching Was a Reformulation of Tribal Ethics

Karen Armstrong believers that Buddhism and Jainism gave religious beliefs an “ethical dimension”. Morality became central to religion (Armstrong 17). Buddha took his guidance to the duties of social life.  When a quarrel broke out between the Sakyas and the Koliyas about sharing the water of the river which divided their lands, he helped them to make peace. Buddha’s teaching was meant for those who were active in secular areas and would serve as “moral discipline” (Thomas 107-108). He considered bodily welfare too important. For example, when a hungry farmer was eager to meet him, he ordered that food be given him first. Then, relaxed, they met together (Thomas 120). He himself was “health-conscious”, and kept himself in good health, displaying always “freshness, buoyancy, strength” (Schumann 196). It is a good example for active pastors.

Basic tribal ethics consists in acting in a way that will prove advantageous to others also. That exactly is the core of what Buddha meant by Dhamma (Thomas 173). Most scholars agree that Buddha’s original teaching must have been something different from what has gone into the earliest Buddhist written records three centuries later (Thomas 204-05). The four noble truths and Eightfold path are just fuller explanations of the above tribal ethics (Thomas 173). Buddhist moral principles merely forbade wrongdoing; self-imposed penances were not accepted (Thomas 180). The earliest image of Buddha is that of a genuine “human being”, nothing more (Thomas 227).

Of course, Buddha found it impossible to accept Brahminic fads like “rituals, fire-sacrifices, animal sacrifices, cults” (Schumann 75). According to him what made a person upright was Truth and Justice (Schumann 76). He felt pained at Brahminic ritual killing that eliminated thousands of animals every year. But in all his teaching, he did not adopt a prophetic pose; he spoke like an emotionally detached sage who was able to instruct and inspire. He relied only on “reasonableness” in presenting his thoughts. He never tried to impose his teaching. He deliberately avoided “striving with the world” (Schumann 78). “Monks, I do not quarrel with the world, it is the world that quarrels with me. No proclaimer of the Dhamma quarrels with anyone in the world” (Schumann 198).

Hostility between the Two Differing Traditions

But the two differing views were bound to clash. Patanjali speaks of an “eternal conflict” between the sramanas and Brahmanas, the former standing for the Magadhan Jain and Buddhist monks and the latter for Vedic priests (Bronkhorst 84). B.R.Ambedkar puts it in this way, “The history of India is nothing but a history of mortal conflict between—Buddhism and Brahmanism” (Chowdhury 39). What Buddha strongly rejected right through his public career was the caste-system which traces its origin to the Purus-sukta story interpolated into the Rig Veda that the Brahmins come from the head of Purusa and the Shudras from the feet. In the Pali canon, Buddha ridicules Purus-sukta (Bronkhorst 212). Assalayana Sutta refers to Buddha arguing that the caste system does not prevail among the Greeks (Bronkhorst 214). We can see that he was widely informed.

Buddhists and Jains considered Brahmins “charlatans and fools” (Strabo), who, according to them, deceived the people with the use of ‘mantras’, claims of ritual purity, and magical ‘spells’ (Bronkhorst 270).  In Brahminic records, in turn, these tribal communities were given a negative attribute as ‘Nishada’ (Raychaudhury 175). They despised Magadha most of all for being out of the Brahminic fold. In their “smriti literature, Magadha was included in the list of countries migration to which was strictly forbidden, and penance was necessary for having gone there”, J.N. Samaddar (Thomas 124). Bronkhorst reconfirms the ongoing hostility between the invading Aryans and the indigenous people whom they considered a demonic people, ‘Asuras’, “eternal enemies” of the Aryan gods (Bronkhorst 2012:34). This opposition reaches a climax in the post-Maurayan period when Pushyamitra offered 100 golden dinars for every head of a Buddhist monk (Tripathi 187).

In Buddhists and Jain Tradition the Ruling Class Occupied a Higher Position than the Brahmins

In Buddhist tradition, the Brahmins did not occupy the highest position in society, but the Kshatriyas. It is an anachronism again to understand this in terms of caste. When a tribal person at that time, including Buddha, referred to himself as belonging to the Kshatriya caste, he only wanted to make himself understood in Brahminic circles.  All the tribal people we referred to considered themselves warriors, whom the Brahmins described as the ‘Kshatriya’ caste. Caste-system had no place in tribal community. And yet, when they moved on to a mixed society, we find the Sakyas claiming to belong to the best ‘caste’ as Kshatriyas to make themselves understood (Thomas 174). Those living in a mixed society like in the Northeast find it easy to understand such dual expressions. Certain words or postures which would be irrelevant or ridiculous in their internal relationships they are compelled to adopt when associating with others.

The Buddhist-Jain community found their own tribal life more genuine, sincere. There was trust among clans, good sense prevailed in community and sound judgement. That was why the Sakyas were proud of their clan (Thomas 128). Armstrong says, “The Sakyans were notoriously proud and independent” (Armstrong 20). They felt very confident about following their inherited norms of conduct, though they were only following their “unwritten traditions”. It was in such a context that Buddhist insights of equality and community took birth. The ultimate authority for them was the tribal gathering which brought both the young and the old together (Raychaudhury 173).

Buddha’s Effort to Save of Tribal Traditions

Buddha greatly regretted the weakening of such participatory traditions that prevailed in his tribal community and adopted it for the gatherings of his monks: e.g. Chapters of the Buddhist Order. The monks’ rules, called Vinaya texts, were adopted from tribal traditions. Decisions in these assemblies were unanimous (Raychaudhury 174). S.K. Biswas shows how modern the old Buddhist Bhikku Sangha assembly rules were with “Motions, Resolutions, Quorum, Whip, counting of Votes, Voting by Ballot, Censure Motions, Regularisation, Res Judicata, etc.” (Chowdhury 174). The core value, however, that Buddha passed on to his monks was that “they must live for others” (Armstrong 163).

A representation from the Kalamas came to Buddha asking for his advice what school of thought they should adopt among those proposed by the Brahmanas and Sramanas, who were constantly in competition with each other. He counselled them to look to their own traditions and values first of all and relate them with those of others with a universal outlook: to avoid rivalries, greed, hatred, and delusion (Armstrong 135), to get rid of envy and ill will among themselves. Then they should also reach out to the rest of the world with loving-kindness (Armstrong 136). Let all beings be happy (Armstrong 137). When a similar delegation of Vajjians came to him for his guidance under threat from Magadha, he assured them that as long they remained true to their republican and cultural traditions that emphasized solidarity, Ajatasattu could never defeat them. But he did defeat them by planting discord. Buddha’s own fellow tribals, Sakyans, also were defeated by Kosala Pasenedi’s son (Armstrong 156).

Gradually Brahmins themselves were provoked to thought by the Magadhan traditions and themes. Many ideas of Greater Magadha spilled over into the Upanishads (Bronkhorst 215). “…the influence of the spiritual culture of Greater Magadha is clear and undeniable in texts as varied as the Mahabharata, the Dharma Sutras and the Upanishads” (Bronkhorst 135). Even Kautilya rejects the Brahminic trust in the ‘magical’. He says,  “Wealth will slip away from that childish man who constantly consults the stars. The only (guiding) star of wealth is itself; what can the stars of the sky do” (9.4.26) (Kautilya 222). He had learned to be realistic. What is not widely recognised is that the Vedic schools of thought like the Samkhya, Vaisesika, and Vedanta borrowed heavily from Greater Magadha. Bronkhorst traces different Magadhan concepts in the Mahabharata, Gita and Vedanta schools. However, this article searches only into the ‘empirico-rational’ elements and cultural values that find greater acceptance in the Mongolian culture that are also typical of the North-eastern tribal communities.

The Contrast between the Urban and Rural Outlook

 The difference between the two traditions was inevitable for another reason, to which we already referred. Buddhism rose in urban centres, while Vedic-Upanishadic sages lived in villages (Bronkhorst 248-49). The Vedas reflect a rural way of life and the Buddhist scriptures picture an urban culture with flourishing commercial and political life. It depicts a democratic society where the local rulers were dependent on the council. This corresponds to what we have said of a tribal society (Schumann 2). Rich merchants, business deals, etc. are mentioned in Buddhist texts. As we have seen earlier Buddha encouraged honest dealings, prudent savings, cleaver investments, concern for the poor. On the contrary, Upanishadic texts counsel against visiting cities. Vedic recitation is suspended in cities (Bronkhorst 251).

However, the Brahminic caste-system and traditions win out in the end with Aryan military expansion. The Ramayana tells the story. Consequently, cities declined in North India by the third century AD as the Brahminic social and economic model based on land strongly asserted itself. It grew stronger with more and more land-grants made to the Brahmins in the late Gupta period. This practice gradually spread to the east and south of India, furthering de-urbanization in India (Sharma 256). It would take a long time before vigorous trade and international relations would be established again during the Muslim and British period.

However, let us now return to the theme of tribal values that remained strong in the Buddha-Ashoka period.

Tribal Values Reach the Highest Levels through Ashoka

Many have seen in the ethical code of Asoka the basic teaching of Buddhism at its earliest stage (Chowdhury 27). Romila Thapar is aware of this view, but is reluctant to accept it (Thapar 148). But the view persists. Despite the stormy beginnings to his career, Ashoka does not begin with pessimism. His central message may be described as an “exaltation of action”, work as source of happiness, and of mutual help. Unlike Vedic-Brahminic renouncers, he sees no meaning in asceticism in itself (Chowdhury 28). This is generally the tribal perspective. We may say, he promoted more ethics and morality than any specific religion. His Dharma was about kindness, generosity, truthfulness and purity; “much self-examination, much respect, much fear (of evil) and much enthusiasm”; nothing about chants, offerings, sacrifices (Allen 389).

Similarly, Ashoka’s edicts were about secular concerns, a teaching of ‘civil ethics’. And he wanted his Dharma to be ‘inclusive’ (Allen xix). His concept of Dharma (Allen 165) contained moral precepts addressed to all (Allen 384). Here we have tribal value systems reaching the highest social level. It is evident that the message in his inscriptions came from the heart (Allen 381). He sought to be a father-figure (Thapar 147). He hoped his descendants would make future conquests only by ‘moral force’, by Dharma (Allen 177). Thus he propagated the idea of ‘moral force’ long before Gandhiji. In fact, India should  opt for “Ashoka rajya” (Allen 354) rather than Gandhi’s Rama rajya.

Taken all things together, Ashoka was probably the “first ruler in history to establish a welfare state” (Allen xi). His administration improved communications and trade links, and promoted the prosperous mercantile classes (Allen 371). He opened contact with the mountain tribes (Allen 376). He provided for hospitals, botanical gardens, wells, planting of shade trees along the road; medical assistance to border areas, and even for neighbouring countries. He reached out specially to the “poor and afflicted”, even to animals, birds and things that move in the waters” (Allen 167). He mandated a 5-year touring mission for his religious officers (Allen 388).

Brahmins Reject Ashoka for his non-Vedic Values and non-Aryan Origins

Ashoka abolished animal sacrifices, animal fights, hunting, and the eating of meat (Allen 388). Before conversion, he used to go hunting. But after visiting the Bodhi tree, he went round supervising civil services, “Dharma tours” (Allen 173).  What is most moving are these words of Ashoka, “I consider the welfare of all to be my duty” (Allen 172).  Asoka’s religion may be described as commitment to “Duty in its broadest sense” (Tripathi 166). He ruled for 37 years, but is totally ignored in the Puranas (Allen 35). The Brahmins deliberately wiped out all references to him and his inscriptions (Allen 109). Ultimately it was foreign scholarship that made the image of Buddha and many other Buddhist figures like Ashoka regain attention in modern times (Allen 78).

“Taranatha’s History of Buddhism” refers to Ashoka’s closer connection with Champaran in north Magadha near Nepal, which proves that he had tribal roots (Allen 197). Moriyas who lived in that region from among whom the Maurya dynasty rose were tribal. That is why many Puranas call the Mauryas Sudra or Vrishala, as S.K. Biswas points out. Referring to Buddha himself, Biswas says, “From the racial point Gotama belong to a Proto-Mongoloid race. His family was one of the turbulent tribals of the Nepal Terai. Sakyas did not belong to the Nordic or Aryan race” (Chowdhury 175-176).

According to some scholars also Harshavardhana and Kanishka had tribal origins. Kosambi suggests that “the Guptas, Harsha’s ancestors, the earlier Rashtrakutas, the first Palas, Bhoja’s ancestors, the Paramara clan were of despised and tribal origin; they legitimized themselves by learning Sanskrit because of a working alliance of the ruling class with the Brahmanas” (Sharma 2001:211). Similarly, Chowdhury claims that the Kalingans (of Orissa) were tribals since no king is mentioned during Asoka’s conquest. So, it is clear that much of eastern India was in tribal hands. But unfortunately, what remain today are a few corners of Northeast India, which too are under threat with the advance of the ‘majoritarian wave’.

Referring to the great personalities we referred to and their tradition, D.C.Ahir exclaims,  “Buddhism dominated the Indian scene for about 1000 years”.  In the period of Ashoka, “India was the Cultural Guru of the world” (Chowdhury 184), holding out tribal values for serious reflection. And yet, it has to find recognition in the intellectual circles of India and among Indologists.

Threat to Identities, Values and Traditions

Not only are the traces of earlier Mongolian and tribal identities and values wiped out with the general Brahminization of India, this process is continuing in intensity with the renaming of places (Mani 137) and giving indigenous religious symbols a Hindutva interpretation. Anthropologists have seen in the avatars of Vishnu or Shiva the icons or totems of individual tribes or deities of larger communities who were sucked into Hinduism and brought under the Brahminic order over centuries. Doniger lists a few: fish, tortoise, boar, man-lion, dwarf, Parashurama, Rama, Krishna, Buddha; Kalki in Kali age (Doniger 475). And today, the religious symbols and tutelaries of North-eastern tribes are being absorbed too into the Hindutva pantheon in like manner.

Devadutt Pattanaik alerts us about another threat: what is passed off as history presetnly is mythology (Pattanaik 15). We have noted above that the inclination to mythologize religious or political heroes has weakened ‘scientific temper’ in Indian society. The danger is that the arbitrary re-writing of Indian history by scholars with a Hindutva agenda is likely make our history read like fairy tales or puranic accounts that glorify Hindu heroes, based on totally unreliable documents.

Looking at another area of life, Kancha Ilaiah severely criticizes the efforts of non-labouring upper castes to decide what the labouring castes of humbler society should eat. He was referring to the beef-ban insensitively imposed in most parts of India. He insists that the labour classes have their “food rights” which should be universally respected (Ilaiah 18). This should be considered one of the basic human rights. Beef ban also has hit the ‘economy of the poor man’ in India, especially Muslims, Dalits, tribals, and other minorities. The national economy cannot move forward by deadening the traditional economic activities of the poorer millions and depriving them of ‘purchasing power’. Moreover, interference with the food habits of Dalit and tribal communities will aggravate the situation of malnourishment among the weaker sections, taking away energy from those straining themselves on the farms, in factories, or at fighting frontiers.

Tracing the origin of nonviolence against animals in Hindu tradition, Ambedkar argues that it was not in the original Vedic tradition. But seeing the popularity of the Buddhist teaching of Ahimsa among the masses, the Brahminic tradition sought to steal a march over them by extending it to animals, especially cows, and imposing it fiercely. Ilaiah’s argument is that such exaggerations do not help.

A Form of Sanskritization that Destroys Identities

The greatest tragedy of the caste-system is the restless eagerness of lower castes to upgrade themselves in the caste ladder, including the efforts of the lowest castes to strive to gain a small edge over another neighbouring caste and to keep it down with determination. In these things, there can be unfairness and trickery at every level.

M.N. Srinivas gave the name “Sanskritization” to the effort of tribals who gradually adopt Brahminic food habits, purity norms, domestic practices, and devotional styles to have greater acceptability among the upper classes. In this process they lose their specific identity and end up as one of the lowest castes. Many tribals in North India like Gonds are at this effort. Ambedkar warned his Dalits against this mistake. His suggestion was that they preserve their selfhood, and modernize themselves with English education and (Ilaiah 39). Those tribals of the Northeast who have made this choice have emerged on the national scene as persons of stature.

The aim of this paper certainly is not to downgrade or underestimate the major contribution that the Aryan-Vedic-Brahminic thought or traditions have made to the civilization of India. But it certainly wishes to caution against adopting a path that promotes caste hierarchy or superstitious obscurantism or myth-ridden history-writing. But its main is to call for respect to the identities of weaker communities, especially the tribals.

The Genius of Every Community Must be allowed to Emerge

Pope Francis tells us that if a community neglects its selfhood, its members “end up losing not only their spiritual identity but also their moral consistency”, and even their intellectual independence (FT 14). For every community their own identity and culture are unique. These constitute the ground of their selfhood and collective existence and promote the values the community lives by. They help them in their search to be truly human and find a place in the wider human society. That is why anthropologists consider self-affirmation of communities as something healthy, even necessary. It serves a psycho-social purpose ensuring solidarity within the community in times of danger and motivation for its continued existence. It provides the energy that a community needs for its very survival and self-enhancement.

Every community is called to a great destiny and we have seen what the Mongolian tribes of the east have contributed to India’s civilization in the past. Historically, a large section of them have been absorbed into the majority community that won out in the end. But those that have succeeded to preserve their identity have to right to be given a chance, not only to survive, but also to be helped for their genius to flower in our own days. Here is where communities in similar fragile situations must help each other to realize this dream.

References

Allen, Charles, Ashoka, Little Brown, London, 2012

Armstrong, Karen, Buddha, Phoenix, London, 2002

Bronkhorst, Joahnnes & Deshpande, Madhav M., Ed., Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia, Manohar Publishers, New Delhi, 2012

Bronkhorst, Johannes, Greater Magadha, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 2013

Chowdhury, Hemendu Bikash, Ed., Asoka 2300, Baudha Dharmankur Sabha,Calcutta, 1997

Dharmasutras, Oxford University Press, New York, 1999

Doniger, Wendy, The Laws of Manu, trans. Penguin Random, Gurgaon, 2000

Doniger, Wendy, The Hindus, Penguin (Viking), Noida, 2009

Ilaiah, Kancha Shepherd, Beef, Brahmins and Broken Men, Navyana, New Delhi, 2019

Kautilya, The Arthashastra, Penguin Books, Gurgaon, 1992

Longkumer, Arkotong, The Greater India Experiment, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2021

Mani, Braj Ranjan, Debrahminsing History, Manohar Publishers, New Delhi, 2022

Pattanaik, Devadutt, My Gita, Rupa Publications, New Delhi, 2017

Raychaudhury, Hemchandra, Political History of Ancient India, Oxford, New Delhi, 1996

Rangarajan, L.N., The Arthashastra of Kautilya, Penguin, Gurgaon, 1992

Schumann, H.W., The Historical Buddha, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 2001

Smith, Vincent. The Oxford History of India, New Delhi, 1992

Sharma, Ram Sharan, Early Medieval Soicety, Orient Longman, Kolkata, 2001

Sharma, Ram Sharan, Sudras in Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 2016

Thapar, Romila, Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1998

Thomas, Edward J., Life of Buddha, Motilal Banarsdass, Delhi, 2017

Tripathi, Ramashankar, History of Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 2018

_________________________

The Author is Archbishop emeritus of Guwahati. He can be reached on menamabp@gmail.com

---

---

Visitor comments

---

Leave a comment