Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v2.c18.s5.t1: A. Antiquity of the Institution

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v2.c18.s5.t1

Language: English

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.

Linked texts (7)

Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Mānava Dharmaśāstra — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit
Vaiṣṇava Dharmaśāstra — Viṣṇu, Sanskrit
Āpastambadharmasūtra — Āpastamba, Sanskrit
Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra — Vasiṣṭha, Sanskrit
Gautamadharmasūtra — Gautama (dharmasūtrakāra), Sanskrit
Nāradasmṛti — Nārada, Sanskrit