Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T16:36:55.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Varṇas in Angkor and the Indian Caste System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

I. W. Mabbett
Get access

Extract

“In order to decide whether one can speak of a caste system in a society, one must ask: are status and power completely dissociated, can one find the equivalent of a Brahman/Ksatriya relationship? This question, though it may appear improper, has the virtue of immediately fixing a limit to Indian influence in South-East Asia. Important as this influence has been from the cultural and even social point of view, it would seem, roughly speaking, that nowhere in Indochina and Indonesia has the king been dispossessed of his religious prerogatives.”

This claim concerns the important question of the degree to which the Indian caste system can be, or has been, exported—a question that elicits deep-rooted and contentious problems inhering in our understanding of the nature of the caste system itself. Two propositions may here be identified and distinguished. The first is that, in India, kings—however powerful politically—did not formally possess religious or ritual authority; whereas in Indochina, however weak they were, kings formally possessed religious as well as political prerogatives. This is the contention cited above. The second is that, the first being true, it is also true that in Indochina kings possessed and exercised a degree of real control over social organization, by virtue of their ritual position (which was foreign to India): they were social engineers. In brief, they were oriental despots. The first proposition does not entail the second, but the two tend to go together; many writers have shown an inclination to accept the second, sometimes on the evidence of the first, sometimes on the evidence of facts about Indochinese kingdoms.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , May 1977 , pp. 429 - 442
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Dumont, L., Homo Hierarchicus ([French original, Paris: Gallimard, 1967], English trans., Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1970), p. 215.Google Scholar

2 For a recent view of the Angkorian monarch's power accepting royal divinity but stressing limits placed upon despotism by the interdependence of king and brahmans, see Sahai, S., Lei Institutions politiques et I'organisation administrative du Cam-bodge ancien (Paris: Ecole Française d'Extrême-Orient, 1970), p. 149.Google Scholar

3 “L'Influence juridique de l'lnde au Champa et au Cambodge d'apres I'éepigrsiphie,” Journal Asia tique [hereafter JA], 1949, pp. 237ff.Google Scholar

4 Indian Cultural Influences in Cambodia, Calcutta: Calcutta Univ. Press, 1928.Google Scholar

5 “Varnas in Early Kāmbuja Inscriptions,” Journal of the American Oriental Society [hereafter JAOS], LXXXV (1965), pp. 566–69.Google Scholar

6 “The Caste System in Ancient Cambodia,” Journal of Ancient Indian History, IV (1970–71), pp. 14–59 [hereafter “CSAC”(IV)]. See also his comment under the same title, ibid., VI (1972–73), pp. 143–58 [hereafter “CSAC”(VI)], which is a discussion of my “Varnas in Ancient Cambodia, ibid., VI (1972–73), pp. 5–38.

7 “CSAC”(IV), pp. 55ff.

8 See also his “Divine Kingship in Ancient Cam-bodia: A Study in the Prasastis” in Sircar, D. C. (ed.), Political and Administrative Systems in Ancient India (Calcutta: Centre of Advanced Studies in Ancient Indian History and Culture, Calcutta Univ., 1972), pp. 90–113.Google Scholar

9 Coedès, G., Inscriptions du Cambodge, 8 vols. [hereafter IC], (Hanoi/Paris: Ecole Française d'Extrême-Orient, 1937–66), III, pp. 203–04Google Scholar, Phimanakas piers. [Page references to inscriptions are usually to the translations.]

10 Bulletin de I'Ecole Française d'Extréme-Orient [hereafter BEFEO], II (1902), p. 155.

11 L'Esclavage privé dans le vieux droit siamois (Paris: Domat-Montchrestien, 1931), pp. 47ff., 50 ff., 71 ff.Google Scholar

12 “Réflexions sur le problème de l'esclavage dans l'lnde ancienne,” BEFEO, LI (1963), pp. 143–94Google Scholar.

13 “Note sur l'esclavage en droit khmer ancien” in Etudes d'histoire du droit privé offertes à Pierre Petot (Paris: Montchrestien, 1959), p. 155.Google Scholar

14 “Sources of Slavery in Ancient Cambodia” in Sircar, D. C. (ed.), Social Life in Ancient India (Calcutta: Centre of Advanced Studies in Ancient Indian History and Culture, Calcutta Univ., 1971), p. 126Google Scholar. Chakravarti in this article refers to slaves by capture in war, by birth, by judicial punishment, by mortgage, by gift, by inheritance, and by purchase.

15 See Lewitz, S. (S. Pou), “Les Inscriptions modernes d'Angkor Vat,” JA, 1972, p. 114.Google Scholar

16 Ibid.; also her “Inscriptions modernes d'Angkor,” BEFEO, LVIII (1971), p. 108 and esp.

17 People so designated frequently held subordinate positions in the royal service such as khlon sruk. See Sahai (n. 2 above), pp. s6ff.; cf. p. 104.

18 Im Proum writes that the vāps, following a variety of professions such as musicians, singers, and dancers inter alia, owned land and slaves which they often bestowed upon religious foundations. Saveros Pou (S. Lewitz) writes that the word vāp is widely distributed in Mon-Khmer languages with the sense of “father” or “grandfather,” and can be construed in context as “Grandfather” so-and-so, as a sort of honorific applicable to people from middle age onwards. As for Ion, the equivalent of the feminine ten, she suggests that the term applies to a certain rank. Im Proum considers that people so designated were wealthy and appear to be associated with men of learning. (Personal communications.) I wish to express my considerable gratitude to Mme Pou and to Im Proum for their comments on various of the Old Khmer terms mentioned here.

19 It is possible that some writers on Cambodia have thus mistaken lords for peasants; see, e.g., Ricklefs, M., “Land and the Law in the Epigraphy of Tenth-Century Cambodia” Journal of Asian Studits, XXVI, 3 (1967), pp. 411–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 BEFEO, XI (1911), pp. 391–406 (cf. p. 402, v. 4); IC, III, p. 108, O Damban, v. XI; p. 187, Trapan Don On, v. III.

21 IC, IV, p. 234, SE corner angle, B, v. D.

22 IC, I, p. 122, v. CXXIV.

23 Ibid., p. 124, v. CXL.

24 Ibid., p. 133, v. CCIX.

25 Verse XXI; see “CSAC” (IV), p. 50, n. 137.

26 IC, I, p. 176, v. XXI. See also below, where the occurrence of varnāsrama in Khmer is considered.

27 IC, II, pp. 65–68.

28 Loc. cit., lines A12-B13.

29 Cf. Prasat Ben stele, IC, VII, p. 182, lines B8–9; also see below.

30 On the term mūla, see “CSAC'(VI), pp. 155f.; also below.

31 This phrase is not entirely clear. Coedès, in a note to his translation, expresses doubt about translating panjā as “give birth,” as it is not clear from the text that cohabitation is the service alluded to. Pou comments that, literally, panyā anak khlon signifies “make a spouse of”; Im Proum refers to panyā, “order,” “command.” (Note 18 above.)

32 The chief sanjak, individuals closely tied to the king. See Aymonier, E., Le Cambodge, III: Le Groupe d'Angkor et I'histoire (Paris: Ernest-Leroux, 1903), p. 537; IC, III, p. 209, n. 1Google Scholar. Pou speculatively suggests a high dignity not dissimilar to knighthood. Im Proum sees in the term a title (like vāp or Ion); it could mean “hermit.” (Note 18 above.)

33 “CSAC” (VI), p. 147.

34 See BEFEO, XXVIII (1928), p. 68; and BEFEO, XLIII (1943), p. 89. The latter reference is to the important Sdok Kak Thom stele inscription, which refers to vacant land (śūnyamūla) belonged to the same varna: BEFE0, XXVI (1926), vijaya).

35 Chakravarti cites a case where buyer and seller belonged to the same varna: BEFEO, XXVI (1926), p. 406.

36 “CSAC” (VI), p. 147.

37 BEFEO, XXVIII (1928), p. 77, Prasat Trapan Run stele, B, line 34; IC, VII, p. 131, Vat Samron flag, lines 22ff.

38 IC, III, p. 95, Prasat Ta Kam Thom, line 18; IV, p. 193, Samron stele, A, line 5; V, p. 135, Prasat Kantop, S. pier, line 28.

39 IC, IV, p. 113, Prah Einkosei, line 42; IC, IV, pp. 106f., Phnom Bakheng, line 13.

40 BEFEO, XXXVII (1937), p. 407, Prasat Kok Po, pier 5, line 57. An individual is mūla of the pages in a certain district.

41 Ibid., pier 3, v. VIII (p. 400); pier 4, v. VIII (p. 402).

42 IC, IV, p. 148, n. 4.

43 “CSAC”(VI), p. 156.

44 Chakravarti (”CSAC”[IV], p. 30, nn. 62, 63) thinks that it was charged with the ringing of bells; Im Proum (n. 18 above) suggests “painter” or “sculptor.”

45 There are several other references to the karmāntara varna. See IC, II, p. 131, Kuk Trapan Srok stele, C, 1–2; IC, III, p. 59, Bantay Prav, central tower, S. pier, lines 7–8; BEFEO, XLIII (1943), Sdok Kak Thom stele: D45 (p. 90) and 4.86–87 (p. 92). J. Gonda (Bijdragen, 97 [1938], p. 475), followed by Coedes (IC, II, p. 62, n. 8), sees a possible connection with funerary ceremonies in neo-Indian analogy.

46 IC, III, p. 11, Vat Baset, W. pier, S. door, sanctuary XII.

47 See Coedes (n. 45 above), p. 11, n. 1. Sahai (n. 2 above, p. 144), on the other hand, thinks that members of this varna were artisans charged with making golden cups.

48 IC, I, p. 194, Prah Koh, v. XVI.

49 IC, VII, p. 175, Prasat Ben stele, B, lines 8–9. See also “CSAC”(VI), pp. i48f.; and below.

50 BEFEO, XLIII (1943), p. 89, Sdok Kak Thorn stele, line 14.

51 IC, III, p. 59, Bantay Prav, central tower, N. pier, lines 7–8.

52 IC, V, p. 206, Stun Crap stele, A, line .14; 1C, VII, p. 46, Prasat Roluh pier, line 7.

53 IC, V, p. 223, Kuk Prin Crum, S. pier, v. XI; also IC (loc. cit. n. 49 above).

54 IC, VII, p. 46, Prasat Roluh pier, line 7.

55 Ibid., p. 47, n. 2 and Im Proum (personal corn-munication). Compare the khnum vrah kralā arcana and the kralā phdam groups, associated with the royal bedchamber; the connection with the royal palace is quite clear. See IC, III, p. 7, n. 2: kralā laa van must refer to a room or section of the palace.

56 IC, III, p. 187, Trapon Don On stele, w. VI; IX, lines 2–3.

57 Mina means “fish”; pracanda can mean “jealous” in modern Cambodian; IC, IV, p. 51, Prasat Srane, central tower, lines 23–26, with n. 4.

58 IC, IV, p. 107, Phnom Bakheng, line 13.

59 IC, VI, p. 127, Vat Kdei Car stele, v. XII: rājnopaskaragehesu sevīvarne, literally “in the varna of servants in the royal utensil houses.” Coedès translates: “dans les dépendances du palais.” The palace connection here, as of the kralā groups mentioned above, is evident.

60 IC, IV, p. 115, Prah Einkosei, S. pier, line 4; cf. IC, VI, p. 291, Vat Baset pier, lines 43f.

61 Ibid. IC, VI, line 44.

62 IC, V, p. 240, Nak Ta Cih Ko stele, Skt. v. XVII, n. 2.

63 IC, IV, p. 144, Prasat Car, N. pier, lines 1–4.

64 IC, VI, p. 252, Kampeng Nai pier, line 20.

65 IC, IV, p. 182, Samron stele, B, line 6. S. Pou (n. 18 above) wonders whether, though rati usually refers to “pleasure,” in the present context the expression might not be a toponym.

66 BEFEO, XXXVII (1937), pp. 412–13, Prasat Kok Po, pier 5, lines 45, 57; IC, II, p. 132, Kuk Trapan Srok stele, B, lines 17–18. Here we find the kanmyan pamre vrah khan—sword keepers, and the kanmyan pamre nā lamak—possibly bedpan cleaners, according to Im Proum (modern Khmer lamak, “excrement”). On the connotation of kanmyan, S. Pou draws the analogy of Old Khmer knum and modern khnum and cognates, and suggests there was in proto-Austroasiatic an association of ideas between “young” and “servant,” so that a word with one meaning could acquire the other; “Recherche s sur le vocabulaire cam-bodgien,”yA, 1974, pp. 167–70, sec. VII.

67 IC (loc. cit. n. 49 above); cf. “CSAC” (VI), pp. 148f.

68 See also “CSAC'(IV), pp. 49f.

69 IC, VI, p. 138, Thvar Kdei pier, N. pier, lines 9–11; BEFEO, XXVIII (1928), p. 79, Prasat Trapan Run stele, B, lines 51–63.

70 IC, VII, p. 183, Prasat Ben stele, B, lines 10–12. In line 13 is mentioned Sten Vasumati, who gave birth to a family of hemakāra, “goldsmiths.”

71 See IC, II, p. 67, n. 5.

72 IC, III, Prasat Khtom: line 14 (p. 110), and lines 23f. (p. 111), mentioning the appointment by Sūryavarman 1 of Rājendrapandita to mangalārtha status. Two members of the group were pupils of Rājendrapandita, who had been in the kanmyan pamre under Jayavarman IV. The title of maiigalārtha was attached at different times to various men of religion. Cf. BEFEO, VI (1906), p. 75; XXV (1925), p. 396. Number s of men bore the title Rājendrapandita; it may or may not have been hereditary in a single family. Cf. IC, III, p. 113, n. 7; “CSAC”(VI), p. 155.

73 IC, VI, pp. 226–27, Bantay Prav pier, S. pier, lines 5ff.

74 lC, IV, p. 104, Praskat Lak Nan, S. pier, lines 1–6. Chakravarti (”CSAC”[VI], p. 153) sees this as a group of cutters, from kāp, “cut.” It includes a salaried inspector, khlon jnval khmāp.

75 “Mais que coupait un khmāp (les têtes, les arbres …?), je ne sais”; S. Pou (n. 18 above).

76 “The term varga, however, was more common ly used in connexion with geographical groupings. It appears that, after the reorganization of the varna system effected by Sūryavarman I, a varga comprised the functional groups of certain neigh-bouring localities and was placed under the control of one individual after whose name the varga came to be known” (“CSAC” [VI], p. 154). In support of this view are cited references to members of the varga Kamsten noticed above.

77 IC, II, p. 142; cf. C. Jacques, “Etudes d'ēpigraphie cambodgienne, 7: la carriére de Jayavarman II,” BEFEO, LIX (1972), p. 213, n. 3.

78 IC, IV, p. 104, n. 2, Prasat Lak Nan, S. pier, lines 1–6; also IC, IV, p. 163.

79 IC, IV, p. 147, Prasat Car, S. pier, line 36. The land vendor belonging to this varga, incidentally, is mentioned in the immediate context of a royal servant who was guardian of the bedchamber, a reminder that we ar e dealing with an elite of royal servants and favorites.

80 IC, II, p. 144, Basak stele, line 1 3. This varga appears to have land on its own account; this land was to be transferred to the holding of Amogha-pura. The inscription also has a defective passage possibly mentioning a varga Vairāta (line 8).

81 IC, II, p. 112, Tuol Prasat stele, C, lines 12f.

82 Stāp vartamāna: sdā'p, “to listen”; vartamāna. “news” (Im Proum, n. 18 above); Pou proposes something like: “one who receives or carries out instructions or news” (n. 18 above).

83 IC, IV, p. 50, Prasat Srane, central tower stele, lines 10–15.

84 Ibid.

85 “CSAC”(IV), p. 30, n. 1; “CSAC'(VI), p. 152. There does not, however, seem to be any real difficulty in seeing the “auditor” as a temple official.

86 BEFEO, XXVIII (1928), p. 78, n. 1, Prasat Trapan Run stele, lines 38f. The translator questions whether varnāśrama is here a proper name or a juridical term.

87 IC, VI, p. 267, Prah Vihar, Gopura D, S. door, W. pier, lines 29–31.

88 “CSAC”(VI), p. 153.

89 (Note 2 above), p. 146: “II semble certain que [Mahīdharavarman] avait inféodé ce domaine à Vāp Mau. En effet, s'il avait été un simple habitant du pays, le roi n'aurait pas eu besoin de lui concéder un autre domaine avant d'octroyer le village de Vibheda.”

90 Pou, in her studies of post-Angkorian inscriptions in Middle Khmer, concludes that the term barnāśram (from Sanskrit varnāśrama, which she construes as a bahuvrīhi rather than as a dvandva compound) means the class of free men as opposed to slaves, who sometimes enter the barnāśram on being emancipated. See S. Lewitz (n. 15 above), p. 114 and BEFEO (n. 16 above), pp. 108, 113, inscr. 4, line 25; BEFEO, LX (1973), inscr. 17, line 36 (p. 168) and inscr. 23, line 9 (p. 185). Middle Khmer barn, found in composition with phau (“family”), refers to the broad circle of relatives, family in a wide sense; see “Recherches sur le vocabulaire cambodgien,” JA, 1974, pp. 160–62; and “Inscriptions modernes d'Angkor,” BEFEO, LIX (1972), p. 116, inscription 9, lines 38, 41. In a personal communication, Pou suggests that varna in Old Khmer had two senses: castes or classes of the (non-slave) population, and groups of dignitaries.

91 See Pelliot, P., “Mémoires sur les coutumes du Cambodge,” BEFEO, II (1902), p. 151.Google Scholar

92 Kings and Councillors (Cairo, 1936; reprint ed., Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1970), passim.

93 The senses suggested by Pou (n. 90 above).

94 Moura, J., Le Royaume de Cambodge (Paris: Leroux, 1883), I, pp. 325ff.Google Scholar

95 See , Pou, “La Toponymie khmère,” BEFEO, LIII (1966–67), p. 407Google Scholar; also P. Dupont's intro to Sdok Kak Thorn stele, BEFEO, XLIII (1943), pp. 57ff. Butcf. Sahai (n. 2 above), p. 48.

96 See Leclère, A., Codes cambodgiens (Paris: Leroux, 1898), p. 91Google Scholar, VIII; also his Recherches sur droit public des Cambodgiens (Paris: Challamel, 1884), pp. 120ff.Google Scholar

97 It may be remarked that this sort of polity, in which the ruler's survival depends upon his skill in accommodating competing factions, has persisted until recently in Indochina; Ngo Dinh Diem saw his position in a similar way. See Duncanson, D. J., Government and Revolution in Vietnam (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1968).Google Scholar

98 Chandler, D. P., Cambodia before the French: Politics in a Tributary Kingdom, 1794–1847 (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1974).Google Scholar

99 See BEFEO, XXXII (1932), p. 90; IC, VII, p. 173, v. 15; lC, VI, p. 303; IC, I, p. 97, v. 203. On the deification of the Khmer ruler as a social statement, see my “Devaraja,” Journal of South-East Asian History, X, 2 (1969), pp. 202–23.Google Scholar

100 Mahābbārata 12.68.40.

101 Ibid., 12.59.128ff.

102 Manusmfti 8.8.

103 Ibid., 9.305.

104 Spellman, J. W., The Political Theory of Ancient India (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), chap. 2.Google Scholar

105 Derrett, J. D. M., “Law and Social Order in India before the Muhammadan Conquests,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, VII (1964), p. 82.Google Scholar

106 Ibid., pp. 82–84.

107 Ibid., p. 86.

108 , Derrett, “Bhāruci on the Royal Regulative Power in India,” JAOS, LIV, 4 (1964), pp. 392–95.Google Scholar

109 Hutton, J. H., Caste in India (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1946; 3d ed., 1961), pp. 183–91Google Scholar.

110 The mechanism of “Sanskritization” has been studied by Srinivas, M. N.; see his Caste in Modern India and Other Essays (Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1962)Google Scholar and Religion and Society among the Coorgs ofSouth India (Oxford, 1952; London: Asia Publishing House, 1965)Google Scholar.

111 Fürer-Haimendorf, C. von, “Caste in the Multi-Ethnic Society of Nepal,” Contributions to ln-dian Sociology, 4 (1960), pp. 12–32.Google Scholar

112 Mus, P., “Cultes indiens et indigénes au Champa,” BEFEO, XXXIII (1933), pp. 367–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar