Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v2.c18.s5: Section 5. Slavery

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v2.c18.s5

Language
English

Contents

Section 5. Slavery

A. Antiquity of the Institution

v2.c18.s5.t1.1

Slavery has existed in India from the earliest times, although a foreign writer would make us believe that it was unknown to the land. Manu describes seven kinds of slaves thus: "There are slaves of seven kinds, (viz.), he who is made a captive under a standard, he who serves for his daily food, he who is born in the house, he who is bought and he who is given, he who is inherited from ancestors, and he who is enslaved by way of punishment."⁴ According to the same authority a slave is declared to have no property.⁵ A slave, Manu further enjoins, is disqualified from giving witness except in certain cases.⁶ Female slaves or mistresses of the deceased are classed among indivisible property in the *Institutes of Vishnu*.⁷ Nārada enumerates fifteen kinds of slaves.⁸ As regards the right of slaves to own or dispose of their property, Nārada follows Manu and lays down the rule that a slave has no proprietory right.⁹

v2.c18.s5.t1.2

⁴ *Manu*, VIII., 415, p. 326.

v2.c18.s5.t1.3

⁵ *Ibid.*, VIII, 416-17, pp. 326-7. See Bühler's note, p. 326.

v2.c18.s5.t1.4

⁶ *Ibid.*, VIII., 66, 70, pp. 265-7. For further references see *ibid.*, IV., 253-6, p. 168, IX. 55, p. 337.

v2.c18.s5.t1.5

⁷ *Vishnu*, XVIII., 44, p. 74.

v2.c18.s5.t1.6

⁸ *Nārada*, V., 25-43, pp. 135-9.

v2.c18.s5.t1.7

⁹ *Nārada*, V., 41, p. 138.

v2.c18.s5.t1.8

According to Vasiṣṭha, "it is permitted to barter sesamum, rice, cooked food, learning, and slaves (each for its own kind and the one for the other)".¹ A slave is not to be stinted, according to Āpastamba. "At his (i.e., householder's) pleasure, he may stint himself, his wife or his children, but by no means a slave who does his work."² As regards the division of slaves among co-heirs, we have the following in Gautama: "(But) no (one brother shall) take (ten) one-hoofed beasts or (ten) slaves".³

v2.c18.s5.t1.9

¹ Vasiṣṭha, II., 39, p. 14.

v2.c18.s5.t1.10

² Āpastamba II., 4, 9, 11, p. 123.

v2.c18.s5.t1.11

³ Gautama, XXVIII, 13, p, 304.

v2.c18.s5.t1.12

The antiquity of the institution of slavery is clearly indicated in the provision Kauṭilya makes for selling, mortgaging, and maintaining them. "Those who do not heed the claims of their slaves (dāsa), hirelings (āhitaka), and relatives shall be taught their duty"⁴. "The selling or mortgaging by kinsmen of the life of a Śūdra who is not a born slave, and has not attained majority, but is an Ārya in birth shall be punished with a fine of twelve paṇas; of a Vaiśya, twenty-four paṇas; of a Kshatriya, thirty-six paṇas; and of a Brāhman, forty-eight paṇas".⁵

v2.c18.s5.t1.13

⁴ Arthaśāstra, Bk. II., Ch, I., 47, p. 51.

v2.c18.s5.t1.14

⁵ Ibid., Bk. III., Ch. XIII, 182, p. 223.

v2.c18.s5.t1.15

With the evidence of the Hindu lawgivers before us, it is difficult to make out what precisely Strabo means when he says that slavery was unknown to the Indians. According to him "none of the Indians employ slaves".⁶ From the high penalties imposed on those who tried to enslave the members of the "twice-born castes", as laid down in the ancient Hindu law-books, it seems probable that the Āryans, on the whole, were not subject to slavery. In the code of Manu the law is stated thus: "But a Brāhmaṇa who, because he is powerful, out of greed makes initiated (men of the twice) born (castes) against their will do the work of slaves, shall be fined by the king six hundred (paṇas)."⁷ According to Nārada: "In the reverse order of the (four) castes, slavery is not ordained, except where a man violates the duties peculiar to his caste. Slavery (in that respect) is analogous to the condition of a wife".¹ Viṣṇu says: "He who commits members of the highest (or Brāhmaṇa) caste to slavery, shall pay the highest amercement".² Of all the theorists Kauṭilya alone seems to be the most explicit on the subject. While dealing with slaves in general, he says: "It is no crime for Mlechchhas to sell or mortgage the life of their own offspring. But never shall an Ārya be subject to slavery".³ But Kauṭilya, however, admits that a slave could exercise the privileges of an Ārya: "Deceiving a slave of his money or depriving him of the privileges he can exercise as an Ārya (Āryabhāva), shall be punished with half the fine (levied for enslaving the life of an Ārya)".⁴ Then again, "The offspring of a man who has sold himself off as a slave shall be an Ārya".⁵ Whatever may be the latitude with which these regulations of Kauṭilya are interpreted, it is certain that both according to Hindu lawgivers and some foreign writers, ancient Indian opinion associated the idea of slavery with peoples who were non-Aryan. This is a point of some significance, especially in elucidating the history of southern India where the institution of slavery has survived in some shape or other down to our own days.

v2.c18.s5.t1.16

⁶ M'Crindle, Ancient India as described in Classical Literature, p. 58.

v2.c18.s5.t1.17

⁷ Manu, VIII., 412, p. 325.

v2.c18.s5.t1.18

¹ Nārada V., 9, pp. 137-8.

v2.c18.s5.t1.19

² Viṣṇu. V., 151, p. 37.

v2.c18.s5.t1.20

³ Arthaśāstra, Bk. III., Ch. XIII, 182 p. 223.

v2.c18.s5.t1.21

⁴ Ibid.

v2.c18.s5.t1.22

⁵ Ibid., p. 224.

B. Slavery in Pre-Vijayanagara Times

v2.c18.s5.t2.1

When and how it originated in the south, it is difficult to decide, although it is not improbable that in the course of the fusion between the Aryans and the earlier people of the land, somewhere in the dawn of Indian history, the divergence of race coupled with the vicissitudes of war may have brought about a marked difference between the old inhabitants and the new-comers, resulting in the institution of slavery in southern India. This is, we admit, a debatable question. What we are concerned with is the fact that in southern India the people who strongly suggest the idea of slavery are the Paraiyans of the Tamil land and the Holeyas of the Karṇāṭaka. While describing the castes in Vijayanagara, it was remarked that we had insufficient data by which we could decide when these people were relegated to the rank of untouchables. Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar's interesting remarks on the degradation of a subdivision of Paraiyans called *Ulavu* to the position of slaves may be read in this connection.¹ As regards the Holeyas we note, in addition to the observations we made about their having been taxed in the early centuries, that an inscription dated A. D. 1205 speaks of a tax levied on the children of the Holeyas in the Karṇāṭaka. The Great Master of Robes, Herugana... chaya, when collecting the *bāla-paṇa* (?child tax) of the Holeyas of Sāgatavaḷḷi, granted it for a perpetual lamp for the god Lakshmī-Nārāyaṇa of the locality.² This inscription does not suggest slavery so conclusively as other epigraphs which mention the *besa-vaga* or bond-servant in the Karṇāṭaka. But it is interesting to observe that these bond-servants did not belong to the Paraiyan community. When the *Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara* Haiva Boppa Dēva and Chahārasa Bammarasa were fighting with one another in the plain of Kuppaṭūr, the bond-servant (*besa-vaga*) of the Thousand, Nambiya Kēśiga, killed many but died in the end.³ The hunter Hariyava Seṭṭi's bond-servant (*besa-vaga*) the Kuḷiyateppa blacksmith Malōja's son Bomōja having gone to a hunt in A. D. 1249, stabbed a boar which charged him with his dagger but died like a hero.⁴ Both these events took place in the times of the Yādava kings.

v2.c18.s5.t2.2

¹ Srinivasa Aiyangar, *Tamil Studies*. pp, 89-90.

v2.c18.s5.t2.3

² E. C., V., P. I., Cn. 181, p. 204.

v2.c18.s5.t2.4

³ E. C., VIII., Sb. 255, p. 39.

v2.c18.s5.t2.5

⁴ *Ibid.*, Sb. 340, p. 60.

v2.c18.s5.t2.6

Tamil history records the sale of human beings in the thirteenth century. Two inscriptions of Rājarāja III, dated in the third year and the twenty-fourth year of his reign, (i.e., in A.D. 1218-19 and A.D. 1239-40 respectively) found at Vēdāraṇyam in the Tanjore district, record the sale to the temple of five men and five women and their relations(?) for a price of 1,000 kāśu, by a certain Ariyan Piḻchan alias Edirili Śōḻa Gaṅgaiṇāḍāḻvaṉ, who was apparently doing police duty in the west of the district in which Vēdāraṇyam was situated. He refers to the five men who had been made over to the temple as slaves by his master (mudaliār).¹

v2.c18.s5.t2.7

¹ *Ep. Report* for 1905, p. 46. ² *E. C.*, VIII., Sb. 258, p. 40. ³ *E. C.*, V., Bl. 75, pp. 62-63. op. cit. See Burnell's ed. of Dāyavibhāga. "If there are many such slaves, they are to be distributed in equal shares; such is the rule regarding slaves". *Dāyavibhāga*, p. 51. ⁴ Major, *India*, p. 31; Sewell, *For. Emp.*, p. 87.

C. Under Vijayanagara

v2.c18.s5.t3.1

The besa-vaga and the sale of human beings are also seen in Vijayanagara history. Both inscriptions and the accounts of foreign travellers contain direct reference to slaves in the Hindu Empire. About A.D. 1470 the worshipper of the feet of all the Brahmans of the immemorial agrahāra Kuppaṭūr, Korana Haripa's son Si...bond-servant (besa-vaga) killed a tiger which had entered the precincts of the town.² As regards female slaves, we may recount the dues granted by the Sālu-Mūle Baṇajigas to Muda Daṇṇāyaka in A.D. 1382 on various commodities amongst which female slaves are mentioned. In this connection it is worthwhile to note that the Holeyas are classed among the dependents at the feet of the Vira Baṇajigas.³

v2.c18.s5.t3.2

We may record the opinion of foreign travellers before we deal with the question of the sale of human beings in Vijayanagara. One of the travellers, Nicolo dei Conti, informs us the following: "They have a vast number of slaves, and the debtor who is insolvent is everywhere adjudged to be the property of his creditor."⁴ This, however, is not given by Nuniz whose detailed account of the administration of justice at Vijayanagara we have already recorded.

v2.c18.s5.t3.3

Ellis in his *Mirasi Right* gives an inscription, the authenticity of which may be questioned,¹ but which contains the following details about a sale of slaves in the reign of Veṅkaṭapati Dēva I. "...In the village of Taṇḍeyārvidu, Periya-timmen and Shinna-timmen, the sons of Coṭṭadi Periyān and their parceners, have thus settled the price of slaves and given this bill of sale; our sister Vallatchi, her daughter Periyāl, her daughter Shōletchi, total three persons, when they had first cried 'are there any one who will purchase these as coṭṭa adumei (bunch of slaves i.e., a family of slaves sold at once)?'—these words were heard by Ottiyapa Mudeliyār, the son of Vāndarāya Ulaganāda Mudaliār, one of the Vellālers residing in the village of Vallūr in this mandalam (i.e., Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam), this cōṭṭam and this nādu, who cried again, saying, 'I will purchase':—the first criers Periya timmen, Shinna timmen, and their parceners, and the last crier Ottiyapen, having agreed among ourselves and settled to their mutual satisfaction, the price was fixed in the presence of the rulers of the land and the proprietors of the soil of Tiru Mayilāpur at 2 Getti Pagodas for these three Pereiya women, Vellatchi, her daugter Periyāl and her daughter Shōletchi, purchased as a family of slaves, and for this sum of two Pagodas, we sold these three persons Vellatchi, her daughter Periyāl and her daughter Shōletchi; twice and thrice, this is the determined price, this is the fixed sale-price: moreover, no question shall be made respecting the quality of the coin; nor shall other writings be required to be produced. No dispute exists respecting Vellatchi, her daughter Periyāl. and her daughter Shōletchi, if any arise we will stand forth and have it decided. Thus we have consented and sold Vellatchi, her daughter Periyāl, and her daughter Shōletchin to Ottiyapa Mudaliār at the price stated, Periya-timmen, Shinna-timmen, and their parceners. This is the mark of Periya-timmen, Shinna-timmen and their parceners."¹ Ellis also gives us another inscription dated A. D., 1593 assigned again to the reign of Veṅkaṭapaṭi Dēva I., in which a family of seven Paraiyans is sold for a sum of eight and a half pagodas.²

v2.c18.s5.t3.4

¹ The date given is in the "year following 1512 of the Sacam being the year Hēvilambi (A. D. 1589) on the fifth day of Arpisi". The cyclic year does not correspond. Śaka 1512=Virōdhin; Śaka 1520=Hēmalamba. Sewell, *Siddhāntas*, pp. 308, 310. According to Swamikannu, Śaka 1511, Virōdhin, 5th day of Arppaśi=Sunday 5th October A. D. 1589; Śaka 1519, Hēmalamba, 5th day of Arppaśi=Wednesday 5th October A. D. 1597. Ind. Eph., V., pp. 380-1, 396-7. Brown, therefore, rightly concludes this date to be false. *Three Treatises on Mirasi Right*, p. 102, n. (1852.). One would like to know the whereabouts of this interesting document! B. A. S.

v2.c18.s5.t3.5

¹ Ellis, *Mirasi Right*, App. No. XXV p. lxxix, (1818); Brown, *Three Treaties*, pp. 102-3 (1852).

v2.c18.s5.t3.6

² It is dated "in the year following 4694 of the Caliyugam (A. D. 1593) being Vijaya, in the month of Canni, on Sunday the 3rd day of the increase of the Moon under the constellation Swasti". Ellis adds the following note to Canni "..which agrees with the Tamil month Avani, which begins in the second week of September" *Mirasi Right*, App. No. XXVI. Brown, ibid., p. 105. Brown rectifies the error made by Ellis. *Ibid.*, p. 105, n. This epigraph seems to be accurate but for the week-day. Kali 4694=Śaka 1515, the cyclic year Vijaya, the third day of Avani=Friday (not Sunday), 3rd August, the constellation being Śatab (not Svāti). Swamikannu. *Ind. Eph.*, V., p. 380.

v2.c18.s5.t3.7

Ellis has some interesting observations to make in this connection; and we may be permitted to cite the observations of this writer, especially because they throw some light on the concluding scenes of Vijayanagara history. While dealing with the question of the sale of *Mirāsī* and the villeins attached to the soil, he says: "...this state of Villanage exists wherever landed Mirāsī is known, and nowhere where it is unknown, and extends to certain casts which, though all the individuals are not actually slaves, may be called slave casts. In addition to the Villans in whom the whole village hold joint property, the Mirāsīdars have separate property in families and individuals of the same casts, who, as this and the following writing, drawn up in the strictest forms of a bill of sale, demonstrate, have been purchased and transferred independently of the land; to the cultivation of which, however, they are invariably confined, individuals of their casts never being employed as domestic slaves: domestic slavery among the Hindus exists at present only in the families of the principal Zemindars of the country. The agricultural slave casts are the Pallis, the Paller, and the Pareiyer; and their condition either of villenage or direct slavery depends greatly on the prevalent landed tenures of the district they inhabit"*.

v2.c18.s5.t3.8

The provinces where villeinage and serfdom prevailed during the later ages were, according to Ellis, the Toṇḍaimaṇḍala, the region round the banks of the Kāvēri, Malabar and Kanara. In these last two provinces "where a community of village rights is unknown, and lands, consequently, are never held jointly, all slaves, who in those countries constitute the great body of the laborers, are private property." As regards the sale of a whole family of slaves recorded in the two inscriptions given above, Ellis continues: "The Hindu law in permitting slavery is marked by a humane attention to the condition of the slave, all its provisions tending to ameliorate the state and to prevent oppression on the part of the master; the law in this respect is seconded by the practice, and it will accordingly be observed that the slaves are transferred by this and the following deed, as a family, in which mode, also the purchaser ought to sell them, not separately: this practice, which tends greatly to improve the condition of the slave casts, as it prevents the inhuman separation of near relations, the liability to which is the greatest curse of slavery, appears formerly to have been universal..but it is feared that like many other praiseworthy customs of antiquity, it has now in many districts fallen into disuse".

v2.c18.s5.t3.9

As regards the privileges of the slaves, the same writer continues: "The villens possess established rights and privileges of which they cannot be deprived, which constitute their Mirāsī, and which are prized by them as much and maintained as tenaciously as the more valuable privileges of the higher orders. First, the Parachēri, the site of their huts wherever placed, and the back yards attached to them, are held, like the houses and homesteads of the Mirāsidars, rent-free, and they are exempted universally, from all tax and impost whatever; Secondly, they are entitled to a share in the produce of every crop, which they receive at various rates and in various modes, under the denomination of Calvāsām, Sudantram, etc.; Thirdly, they hold the inferior offices of the villages, as Taleiyāri, Vettiyan, Cambacattu, Alavucaren, Tōtti, etc., for which they are allowed Mānyamas and Sotantrams distinct from those above mentioned. The Villans work for the Mirāsidars in rotation (murei), and for a time proportioned to the share held by each; what is required for their subsistence in addition to the produce of the privileges above mentioned, is supplied jointly by the village, and they receive presents of cloth and money at stated periods, at festivals, marriages, etc., sometimes their subsistence is secured to them by assignments of land, which they cultivate like Pāyacāris; but rendering a larger share to their masters, in return for seed, cattle and implements of husbandry, with which they are gratuitously supplied".¹

v2.c18.s5.t3.10

¹ Ellis, Mirasi Right, p. lxxix-lxxxi (1818); Brown, Three Treatises, pp. 103-4 (1852).

v2.c18.s5.t3.11

This description of the position of slaves is useful inasmuch as it depicts the state of affairs in those parts of southern India which (excepting Malabar) formed the provinces of Vijayanagara; and it might have been taken to represent similar conditions under Vijayanagara but for the fact that it contains a significant detail which deserves to be examined. Ellis relates that one of the main privileges enjoyed by the slaves—by which term we are to understand agrestic slaves as distinct from personal slaves about whom weare unable to make out anything—was that relating to their houses and homesteads which were universally exempted evidently in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, from all imposts whatsoever. Now, if this was the custom which was handed down to our own days from the mediaeval ages, it is difficult to reconcile it with the information we have already given in connection with the financial administration of the Vijayanagara monarchs. We know that during and before the Vijayanagara times, the Holeyas—between whom and the Paraiyans, as is well known, there was no difference,—were taxed; and that, as an inscription of A. D. 1430 narrates, they had to pay tolls from which they were exempted,² obviously in certain parts of the Vijayanagara Empire. It may be argued that the remission which was granted to the Holeyas in A. D. 1430 came to stay as a sort of a privilege, and that the freedom which they have claimed, as regards their having been exempt from tolls, may be dated precisely to that year. But here we have to note that along with the Holeyas the blacksmiths, carpenters, goldsmiths, washermen and barbers were also shown the same consideration in the same year, in the province called Mūḷbāgal-Tēkal-nāḍu. If it is true that the Holeyas could date their freedom from tolls to A. D. 1430, all the other communities as well could lay similar pretensions in the later ages. But we have discussed the questions of the barbers in the previous pages. And a glance at the dues and imports we have enumerated in connection with the sources of revenue under Vijayanagara, may enable us to understand that such a privilege was not enjoined by the others after A.D. 1430. The inscription dated in that year along with others we have already cited, leads us to the conclusion that at least, the Holeyas, during the early ages of Vijayanagara history, were the dependents of the Sālu-Mules and Vira Baṇajigas in certain localities of the Karṇātaka. Whether this could be said of the Paraiyas of the Tamil land as well is a point which we are unable to explain.

v2.c18.s5.t3.12

² E. C., X, Bp. 72, p. 152.

v2.c18.s5.t3.13

We may end our remarks on slavery in Vijayanagara by noting a peculiar feature of that social institution in the Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam. "A custom prevails among the slave casts in Tondaimandalam, especially in the neighbourhood of Madras, which may be considered as a periodical assertion of independence; at the close of the Tamil month Āni, with which the revenue year ends and the cultivation of the ensuing year ought to commence, the whole of the slaves strike work, collect in bodies outside the villages, and so remain until their masters by promising to continue their privileges, by solicitations, presents of betel, and other gentle means, induce them to return. The slaves on these occasions, however well treated they may have been, complain of various grievances, real and imaginary, and threaten a general desertion; this threat, however, they never carry into execution, but after the usual time, everything having been conducted according to Māmūl, return quietly to their labors".¹ Neither the accounts of foreign travellers, many of whom have left behind them details of the agricultural conditions under Vijayanagara, nor inscriptions, which abound in references to the ancient custom (*purvada maryāde*) of the Karṇāṭaka and Tamil lands, contain any hint as regards this interesting aspect of the corporate life of the Paraiyans of the modern times.

v2.c18.s5.t3.14

¹ Ellis, *Mirasi Right*, pp. lxxxi-lxxxii (1818); Brown, *Three Treatises*, p. 104 (1852) For some more remarks on slavery, see *J. R. A. S.*, XIII, (1852), p. 243 seq.; Captain Macvicar, *History of the Operation for the Suppression of Human Sacrifices in the Hill tracts of Orissa* (1854); Babur, *Memoirs*, p. 246.

Linked texts (8)