276 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
To begin with the first.
The revolution brought about by Pushyamitra created an initial difficulty in the way of the Brahmins. People could not be easily reconciled to this revolution. The resentment of the public was well expressed by the poet Bana [1] when in referring to this revolution reviles Pushyamitra as being base born and calls his act of regicide as Anarya. The act of Pushyamitra was properly described by Bana as Anarya i.e. contrary to Aryan law. For on three points the Aryan law at the date of Pushyamitra’s revolution was well settled. The then Aryan law declared (1) That Kingship is the right of the Kshatriya. only. A Brahmin could never be a king. (2) That no Brahmin shall take to the profession of Arms [2] and (3) That rebellion against the King’s authority was a sin. Pushyamitra in fostering the rebellion had committed a crime against each of these three laws. He was Brahmin, and although a Brahmin he rebelled against the King, took to the profession of Arms and became a King. People were not reconciled to this usurption which constituted so flagrant a breach of the law that the Brahmins had to regularize the position created by Pushyamitra. This the Brahmins did by taking the bold step of changing the law. This change of law is quite manifest from the Manu Smriti. I will quote the appropriate shlokas from the Code:
XII. 100. “The post of the Commander-in-Chief of the Kingdom, the very Headship of Government, the complete empire over every one are deserved by the Brahmin.”
Here we have one change in the law. This new law declares that the Brahmin has a right to become Senapati (Commander of forces), to conquer a kingdom, and to be the ruler and the Emperor of it.
XI. 31. A Brahmin, who well knows the laws, need not complain to the king of any grievous injury; since, even by his own power, he may chastise those, who injure him.
XI. 32. His (Brahmin’s) own power, which depends on himself alone is mightier than the royal power, which depends on other men; by his own might, therefore may a Brahmin coerce his foes.
1 Harsha Charita, quoted by Smith (1924) p. 208.
2 The rule was so strict that according to the Apastamba Dharmasutra ‘A Brahman shall not take up a weapon in his hand though he be only desirous of examining it.’ It may be matter of some surprize how Pushyamitra who was a Brahmans could have done a deed which could under the circumstances be expected only from a member of the martial race. This difficulty is well explained by Harprasad Shastri. According to him the Sungas though Brahmins were a martial race. Among the fighting Brahmans, two were distinguished among the rest, the Vishwamitras and the Bharadvajas. The wife of Vishvamitra Brahmin proving barren, a Bharadvaj was requested by the ancient custom of ‘Niyoga’ to beget a son on Vishvamitra’s. The issue was Sung. He was the progenitor of a Gotra and that Gotra took up the Samveda for their study. The Sungas were called a Dvayamushyam gotra i.e. a gotra issuing from the two gotras, Vishvamitra and Bharadvaj both of which had taken to military occupation— See Buddhistic Studies (Ed. by Law) Ch. XXXIV, p. 820.