Trishanku and Nahusha story in Brahmin versus Shudras(B.R.Ambedkar)

In the essay “Brahmin vs. Shudras” Ambedkar points out three major points of disputes and contentions between Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Firstly, Brahmins had the right to receive gifts. A payment without any kind of work is generally called the ‘gifts’. According to the Brahmins nobody but only they had the right to receive such ‘gifts’. Thus the contention between the Brahmins and Kshatriyas went on. Secondly, the Brahmins thought that it was the priviledge of the Brahmins only to teach the Vedas. Thus the Kshatriyas had no right to teach the Vedas. So, that particular right of the Brahmins also created a major contention between the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas. Thirdly, the right to officiate at the sacrifice was one of the major issues of the contention between the Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Brahmins believed that Kshatriyas had no right to officiate as a Purohit(priest) at a sacrifice. Thus a dispute emerged as the Brahmins had the priviledge to officiate at a sacrifice. The story of Trishanku,narrated in Ramayana is an immediate instance of the dispute between the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas. This contention is particularly on the third point that is the right of the Brahmins only to officite at the sacrifice. King Trishanku wanted to perform a sacrifice by which he would go bodily to heaven but Vasishtha, the brahmin rishi says that it was impossible. Then Trishanku sought the help of the hundred sons of Vasishtha who very angrily dismissed the request . Then Trishanku was seeking others’ help and was cursed by them to become a Chandala, the lowest caste in the caste hierarchy or rather an outcaste. Trishanku later resorted to Vishvamitra, the Kshatriya, who promised to perform the sacrifice on his behalf. Vasishtha and his hundred sons were very angry on hearimg about the sacrifice, as a Kshatriya is officiating a priest for a Chandala. Their anger incensed Vishvamitra who cursed Vasistha’s sons to be reduced to ashes and reborn as degraded outcastes(mritapah), and Vasisgtha to become a ‘Nishada’(hunter, another low caste). In the second section of the essay “Brahmin versus Shudras” Ambedkar describes the story of Nahusha. The story concerned Nahusha told both in ‘Vanaparvan’ and ‘Udyogaparvan’ in the Mahabharata. After the slaughter of the demon Vritra, Indra, the king of the gods, hid himself in the waters. So, Nahusha was requested to become the king of Heaven, which he subsequently became. Then he wanted the possession of Indrani, Indra’s wife who took refuge to Brihaspati, the preceptor. After some period of time, Indrani discovered her husband who was in a very subtle form in the stem of a lotus within an ocean in the north Himalayas. Indra later suggested his wife a planning of Nahusha’s destruction. According to his advice she asked Nahusha to come to her on a vehicle drawn by great Brahmin rishis.
Nahusha was disputing with the munis or rishis while they were carrying him and by unrighteousness touched the head of the great sage Agastya. Thus Nahusha was cursed by him to become a huge serpent to crawl on earth for ten thousand years and his glory was smitten. The former story of Trishanku is an evidence of the dispute between the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas in terms of the right to officiate at a sacrifice. Vasistha the Brahmin rishi says, “how can the gods and rishis consume the oblation at the sacrifice of that man,especially if he be a Chandala, for whoma Kshatriyais officiating priest?” The later story is a clear evidence of the inevitable destruction of the Kshatriyas who dared to challenge the Brahmins. In this story Indra says, “we shall now prosper, for the enemies of the Brahmins has been smitten.” Thus the two stories are the two examples of contention between the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas. According to Ambedkar nobody has realised that the conflict discussed above was a conflict between Brahmins and Shudras. He furthur bolsters his ides by saying that King Sudas definitely was a Shudras, the descendant of Ikshvaku, the Shudra. Manu represents the clashes between the Kings and the Brahmins as the conflict between Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Dr Muir has also failed to realise these stories and says that is was a conflict between the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas. Ambedkar thus states, “In a sense, it is true that the conflict was between Brahmins and Kshatriyas because the Shudras were also a branch of the Kshatriyas.” So the stories of Trishanku and Nahusha also prove the thesis that ‘Shudras were Kshatriyas.’