Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Local Government in Ancient India c9: Chapter III. Organization

Local Government in Ancient India c9

Language
English

Contents

Chapter III. Organization

c9.2

WE shall now deal with the evidence regarding the organization of the guilds, their scope, functions, and laws.

c9.3

The efficiency of the organization will be apparent from the laws relating to apprenticeship. These are thus stated by Nārada:

c9.4

‘If (a young man) wishes to be initiated into the art of his own craft, with the sanction of his relations, he must go and live with a master,¹ the duration of his apprenticeship having been fixed.

c9.5

¹ Cf. *Bṛhaspati*, XVI. 6: ‘Arts (consisting of) work in gold, base metals and the like, and the art of dancing and the rest, are termed human knowledge; he who studies them should do work at his teacher’s house.’

c9.6

The master shall teach him at his own house and feed him. He must not employ him in work of a different description,² and should treat him like a son.

c9.7

² Kātyāyana fixes a penalty for employing an apprentice in other work: ‘He who does not instruct his scholar in the art, and causes him to perform other work shall incur the first amercement; and the pupil may forsake him and go to another teacher, released from this indenture.’ (Colebrooke’s *Digest of Hindu Law*, vol. II, p. 7).

c9.8

If one forsakes a master, who instructs him and whose character is unexceptionable, he may be compelled by forcible means to remain (at the master's house), and he deserves corporal punishment¹ and confinement.

c9.9

¹ On this topic generally see *Manu*, IV. 164; VIII. 299-300: *Gautama*, II. 43-4. The apprentice may forsake his master either of his own motion (in which case he is liable to correction) or under instructions of his kinsmen who consented to his pupilage. In the latter case the deserted master can sue the pupil's guardians for a breach of contract (Colebrooke, op. cit., p. 8).

c9.10

Though his course of instruction be completed, an apprentice must continue to reside at the house of his master till the fixed period has expired. The profit of whatever work he may be doing there belongs to his master.

c9.11

When he has learnt the art of his craft² within the (stipulated) period, the apprentice shall reward his master as plentifully as he can, and return home, after having taken leave of him.

c9.12

² This intimates that if the art could not be learned in the time first stipulated, there should be a formal extension of the apprenticeship (ibid.).

c9.13

Or, a certain fee having been agreed upon after examining the skill of the pupil, the apprentice shall take (his fee) and shall not go to live in the house of another man.'³

c9.14

³ 3

c9.15

स्वशिल्पमिच्छन्नाहर्तुं बान्धवानामज्ञाया ।
आचार्यस्य वसेदन्ते कालं कृत्वा सुनिश्चितम् ॥
आचार्य: शिक्षयेदेनं स्वगृहे दत्तभोजनम् ।

c9.16

The foregoing rules bring out several important and interesting features. In the first place, there was the system of indenture under which the apprentice and the master were bound to each other for a fixed period stated in the deed. As the *Vīramitrodaya* points out, the teacher must make an agreement in this form, ‘Let this apprentice stay with me so and so long’. In the second place, the indenture emphasizes equally and fairly the obligations of both the master and the apprentice. As regards the obligations of the master, he had to adopt the apprentice as his

c9.17

न चान्यत्कारयेत्कर्म पुत्रवच्चैनमाचरेत् ॥
शिक्षयन्तमदुष्टं य आचार्यं संपरित्यजेत् ।
बलाद्वासयितव्यः स्याद्वधबन्धौ च सोऽर्हति ॥
शिक्षितोऽपि कृतं कालमन्तेवासी समापयेत् ।
तत्र कर्म च यत्कुर्यादाचार्यस्यैव तत्फलम् ॥
गृहीतशिल्पः समये कृत्वाचार्यप्रदक्षिणाम् ।
शक्तितश्चानुमान्यैनमन्तेवासी निवर्तते ॥
वेतनं वा यदि कृतं ज्ञात्वा शिष्यस्य कौशलम् ।
अन्तेवासी समादद्यान्न चान्यस्य गृहे वसेत् ॥
[V. 16–21.]

c9.18

The translation is based on that of Jolly in the *S. B. E.*, vol. XXXIII. In V. 18 the word *aduṣṭam* may be taken as an adverb modifying the verb *śikṣayantam*, in which case the translation will be: ‘If one forsakes a teacher who instructs him honourably,’ &c. In V. 20 *pradakṣiṇām* means circumambulation, which the apprentice is to perform as a mark of respect for the master. The meaning of V. 21, which is rather vague in Jolly’s translation, seems to be: ‘If, however, a salary be fixed befitting his skill, the pupil should accept it, and should not go to stay (i. e. accept appointment) in the house of another (craftsman).’

c9.19

own son, and treat and feed him as such. He should teach him whole-heartedly and honestly. The master was competent to make him do the work strictly related to the craft he was learning, but was not competent to exploit his labour or skill by employing it for purposes unconnected with it. While making him work thus, he should not treat the apprentice like a hired labourer but like a son, with due tenderness and affection. Equally strict were the obligations under which the apprentice was bound to his master. If through the master’s efficient training he attains proficiency in the craft before the expiry of the period stipulated for in the indenture, he was not competent to leave the master but had to serve out his full term, cheerfully yielding to him the fruits of his labour as the reward or compensation for the saving of time effected by the superior skill of the master in teaching. Yājñavalkya (II. 187)¹ states the same condition thus: ‘Even if an apprentice has learnt the art (within the prescribed time) he must live in the house of his master for the full period of contract. (The student, desirous of learning an

c9.20

¹ > **कृतशिल्पोऽपि निवसेत् कृतकालं गुरोर्गृहे ।**

c9.21

**अन्तेवासी गुरुप्राप्तभोजनस्तत्फलप्रदः ॥**

c9.22

Here the question is raised whether the teacher has ownership even in what the pupil acquires by voluntary *exertion* in traffic and the like, independent of his craft, and by agriculture or similar means, and by treasure-trove or other *accident.* There are two opinions held on the point. (Colebrooke’s *Digest,* ibid.).

c9.23

art), as he has received his board from the teacher, must make over to the latter the fruits of his labour (during the period of his pupilage).' Here Yājñavalkya justifies the master's appropriation of the results of all work done by his pupil during his apprenticeship as a sort of compensation for the expenses he incurs in giving him free board, and lodging. The master was also empowered to compel the return of a runaway apprentice, whom he could flog or confine for his disobedience, provided such disobedience or desertion was not by way of protest against any mortal sin or other heinous crime committed by the master. This is no doubt a characteristically Hindu provision securing the moral purity of craftsmen to which modern industrial legislation is hardly sufficiently attentive. There is again another provision for the payment by the master to the pupil of a salary adequate to his proficiency if he desired to retain his services, in which case the first claim upon his services belongs to his master.

c9.24

Lastly, the pupil is recommended always to be humble before his master in the following quaint exhortation: 'For science is like a river, ever advancing to a humbler level; therefore as one's knowledge grows broader and deeper one should become ever more humble towards the source of of one's knowledge' (Nārada, V. 12).

c9.25

This exhortation is indeed symbolical and characteristic of the sacred and spiritual relations¹ that normally obtained between the master-craftsman and his apprentices—relations which were the direct outcome of the peculiar educational system and environment under which they worked. To these wholesome relations, and especially to the superior educational efficacy of the system which produced them, is to be traced the signal success which is admitted on all hands to have been achieved by the handicraftsmen of ancient and mediaeval India, and which so largely enabled her to command for much more than a thousand years (from Pliny to Tavernier) the markets of the East as well as the West, and secured to her an easy and universally recognized pre-eminence among the nations of the world in exports and manufactures. We are, however, more concerned with the system than its success, with the methods of training than their results, the character of the educational machinery and organization than the record of its magnificent output. The essence of the whole scheme or system, the fundamental feature on which it rests, is that the young craftsman is brought up and educated in the actual workshop of his master whose disciple he is, although the master may sometimes be even his father. This means that the pupil stands in a peculiar relation to his master, a sacred relation of devoted personal service and attachment in which alone can the learner best imbibe and most naturally and spontaneously assimilate the special excellences of his teacher, his true 'inward' method, nay, even his trade secrets which can no longer be hidden from one whom he has adopted as his son. The very intimacy and depth of the personal relationship between the teacher and the taught solves substantially the difficulties of the educative process, which is impossible in the case of the busy professor at a modern technical school where he is concerned with his students for a few hours in the week, and has no opportunity of associating them with his main business in which he is called upon to show his real worth and exercise his best talent. And this brings us to the other aspect of our indigenous organization, viz., training in the actual workshop where the teaching is learnt from the very beginning and in relation to real things, difficulties, and problems, and primarily by service, by personal attendance on the master. And it is not only technique that is learnt but something more valuable: in the workshop there is life itself, besides mere plant and tools, for the workshop is part of a home, which relieves its mechanical monotony and places the pupil in touch with life and its difficulties, human relationships, culture, and religion, whereby his heart is trained as much as his hand—a thing which is as necessary to art as technique¹ itself.

c9.26

¹ *Cf.* *Mahāvagga*, I. 32, 1: ‘The *ācariya*, O Bhikkhus, ought to consider the *antevāsika* as a son; the *antevāsika* ought to consider the *ācariya* as a father. Thus these two, united by mutual reverence, confidence, and communion of life, will progress, advance, and reach a high stage in this doctrine and discipline. I prescribe, O Bhikkhus, that you live (the first) ten years in dependence on an *ācariya* …’

c9.27

¹ Some of the excellences of this domestic education are very well brought out by Dr. A. K. Coomaraswamy in his *Indian Craftsman* from which I have derived valuable hints and suggestions.

c9.28

There is one other noticeable feature in connexion with the rules of apprenticeship as explained by Nārada. It is that the considerations of caste did not affect the admission of apprentices into a craft. The only consideration that mattered was the consent of the apprentice's guardian and relations, and when that was obtained the youth was free to learn the craft which he affected. This shows that the barriers between occupations were not so fixed and rigid as those between castes. This is proved not only by the aforesaid solitary rule stated by Nārada, but by the universal permissive regulation contained in all the important law-books, authorizing the twice-born classes to take to an occupation of an inferior caste, in times of distress or failure, to obtain a living through lawful labour.²

c9.29

² See *Gautama*, VII. 6; *Vasiṣṭha*, II. 22; *Baudhāyana*, II. 4, 16; *Viṣṇu*, II. 15; *Manu*, X. 81.

c9.30

The Pāli literature, moreover, is full of much interesting evidence on the point. The evidence will show that, though normally the trades and crafts were organized on an hereditary basis and technical talent descended from father to son and was confined to a particular family, the way was still open for exceptions to that rule. Certain other functions were also determined by caste. Spiritual ministrations were the work of Brāhmans, and administration that of Brāhmans and Kṣatriyas, though some share of it was being appropriated by the Vaiśyas (as in the case of the office of the king's treasurer, already referred to, with which was coupled the judgeship of the merchant guilds). But these distinctions did not hold in the economic sphere where all the castes seem to have stood together. The choice of occupations was quite free.

c9.31

Thus in *Vinaya*, I. 77 and IV. 128 we find parents discussing the best profession which their son might choose, such as writing,¹ accountantcy,² and money-changing³ without a reference being made to the father's trade. In *Cullavagga*, V. 28 the Bhikkhus are allowed ‘the use of a loom and of shuttles, strings, tickets, and all the apparatus belonging to a loom’. The Jātakas mention many instances of different degrees of intimacy between the Brāhmans, burghers, and princes, and even the lower classes, culminating even in intermarriages or sending sons to the same teacher for education (*Jāt.* I. 421. 422¹; III. 9–11.² 249–54.³ 340.⁴ 405.⁵ 406. 475⁶; IV. 38⁷; VI. 348.⁸ 421. 422⁹). The free love of the times expressed itself in the following strain: ‘Whomsoever the lover loves, be it a low Caṇḍālī, all are alike: in love there is no unlikeness’; and again, ‘The mother of the king of Sivi is named Jambāvatī (of the Caṇḍāla caste), and she was the beloved queen consort of Vāsudeva, one of the Kaṇhāyana clan' (*Jāt.* VI. 421). We also read of Brāhmans¹ as physicians (IV. 361), goat-herds (III. 401), merchants, hunters, snake-charmers (IV. 457), archers, and the servant of an archer who was formerly a weaver (III. 219; V. 127. 128; I. 356. 357), low-caste trappers (*nesādā*) (II. 200 : VI. 170); even cartwrights (IV. 207. 208). In *Jāt.* III. 49–51, a deer-trapper (*migaluddaka*) becomes the protégé and then the inseparable companion of a rich young Seṭṭhi. In *Jāt.* V. 290–3 a Kṣatriya, a king's son, named Kusa, in his infatuation for Pabhāvatī, apprentices himself incognito in succession to the court potter, basket-maker, florist, and cook to his father-in-law without a word being said as to his social degradation when these vagaries became known. In *Jāt.* IV. 84 a prince takes to trade, while in IV. 169 another resigning his kingdom goes to the frontier where he dwells 'with a rich merchant's family, working with his own hands'.

c9.32

¹ *Lekhaṃ*.

c9.33

² *Gaṇanaṃ*.

c9.34

³ *Rūpaṃ*, i. e. money-changing, which will affect the eyes (*akkhīni dukkhā bhavissanti*). Cf. Buddhaghosa's note quoted in *S. B. E.*, vol. XIII, p. 201: 'He who learns the *rūpa-sutta* must turn over and over many *kāhāpaṇas* and look at them.'

c9.35

¹ A king marries a rustic woman on account of her decency.

c9.36

² A king being defeated by rebels finds a hospitable shelter with a poor countryman, and rewards his benefactor with the half of his kingdom.

c9.37

³ A king marries an ascetic’s daughter.

c9.38

⁴ There is a marriage between a queen and her priest’s son.

c9.39

⁵ The Kosala king, being defeated by Ajātasattu, escapes to a forest where he sees the daughter of the chief of the garland-makers of Sāvatthi.

c9.40

⁶ ‘Once upon a time, when Brahmadatta was reigning in Benares, his son, young Brahmadatta, and young Mahādhana, son of a rich merchant of Benares, were comrades and play-fellows, and were educated in the same teacher’s house.’

c9.41

⁷ The son of a poor woman of a caravan, a merchant’s son, and the son of a tailor in the employ of the merchant, ‘all grew up together, and by and by went to Takkāsila to complete their education’.

c9.42

⁸ A Brāhman’s daughter is married by the king.

c9.43

⁹ Instances of intermarriage between castes in traditional stories.

c9.44

¹ *Jātaka*, no. 495, gives a long list of the various occupations followed by Brāhmans.

c9.45

We have in our literature even some examples of king-craftsmen,² showing that in those days the practice of a craft was not considered derogatory to the dignity of a prince. The *Kusa-Jātaka* (no. 531), for instance, mentions a prince who only consents to marry when a princess is found exactly like a golden image which he himself had fashioned and which was far superior to that made by the chief smith employed for the purpose. Instances of royal craftsmen are also furnished by the *Mahāvaṃsa* (cf. XXX. and XXXIV.). A king is described as a 'skilful carver and painter who wrought a beautiful image of the Bodhisatta and also a throne, a parasol, and a state-room with beautiful work in ivory made for it, and who himself taught the arts to his subjects'. In Bāṇa's *Harṣacarita* IV. 157 it is stated how on the occasion of the marriage of a princess 'even kings girt up their loins and busied themselves in carrying out decorative work set as tasks by their sovereign'.

c9.46

² *Manu*, VII. 43 lays down that the king must learn 'from the people the trades and professions'. [वार्त्तारम्भांश्च लोकतः।]

c9.47

Thus all the evidence shows that at the times to which it relates the division of castes was not quite rigid and was no bar to the free mobility of labour, both vertical and horizontal. Social divisions and economic occupations were very far from coinciding. There was, of course, plenty of pride of birth (which discouraged interdining and intermarrying between certain ranks) and sons, especially among artisans, tended to follow the paternal industry. Thus individuals and also families are often referred to in terms of their traditional calling (*M. Par.*

c9.48

Sutta, 40¹; *Jāt.* I. 98.² 194.³ 312⁴; II. 79⁵; III. 376⁶). But, as we have seen, so far from their being any exclusiveness in ordinary intercourse between nobles, priests, and commoners, who were making or had made fortunes in trade, we frequently find the sons of burghers the playmates and school-fellows of princes and young Brāhmans. Thus the recognition of the dignity of all labour was a levelling influence promoting a social equality and brotherhood which subdued the pride of caste.

c9.49

¹ ‘How delightful a spot, Ānanda, is Vesāli, and the *Udena cetiya*, and the *Gotamaka cetiya*, and the *Sattambaka cetiya*, and the *Bahuputta cetiya*, and the *Sārandada cetiya*, and the *Cāpāla cetiya*.’

c9.50

² ‘The Bodhisatta was born into a merchant’s family, and growing up in due course used to journey about *trading*.’

c9.51

³ ‘A *young* merchant.’

c9.52

⁴ ‘Cittahattha-Sāriputta.’

c9.53

⁵ The Bodhisatta born as a potter’s son plied the potter’s trade.

c9.54

⁶ The Bodhisatta born in a potter’s family followed the potter’s handicraft. For other references see *Jāt.* II. 30. 302; III. 286. 508; IV. 251; VI. 26. 336.

c9.55

There were, however, certain notable exceptions to this principle of the equality of social status of various crafts. Thus there were recognized certain low tribes or castes (*hīna-jātiyo*) and low trades or crafts (*hīna-sippa*). As instances of low castes are mentioned the Nesādas, hunters or trappers (*Ab.* 518. 1038; *Pāt.* 83⁷) the Caṇḍālas who are called ‘the lowest race that go upon two feet—meanest men on earth' (*Jāt.* IV. 397), contact with whom was pollution (*Jāt.* II. 83; III. 233; IV. 376), who lived apart in their own settlements (*Jāt.* IV. 200. 376) by hunting and were sometimes employed for street-sweeping, (*Jāt.* IV. 390) and policing towns by night (*Jāt.* III. 30); and the Pukkusas¹ whose occupation is said to be that of throwing away dead flowers (*Ab.* 508; *Jāt.* IV. 205²). As examples of low crafts are mentioned those of the Veṇas, workers in bamboo or wicker-work (*Ab.* 509; *Pāt.* 83²), wheel-wrights and carriage-builders (*ratha-kāras*), basket-makers, potters, weavers, leather-workers, and barbers, all called *hīna sippa* in the list given in the *Sutta-Vibhaṅga* (see *Vin.* IV. 6–10³ (M. II. 152; A. II. 85 = P.P. 51); *Jāt.* IV. 413⁴; V. 337⁵). It should, however, be noted that the social stigma resting on these 'low trades' was due sometimes to their very nature (as in the case of butchering, for example) but chiefly to their association with the aboriginal non-Aryan tribes who followed them as their hereditary occupations. It is also a significant fact that the same stigma attached to the ‘hireling’ working with another man’s capital and for his profits, for in a list of callings given in the Buddhist books he ranks along with the mere hewers of wood and flower-gatherers and below the slave (D. I. 51; *Mil.* 331). The slave was indeed better treated; the only case of slave-beating is that of a slave-girl let out to work for hire but returning home without her wage (*Jāt.* I. 402. 403). In *Jāt.* I. 390 the conversion of free peasant proprietors into hirelings, toiling on the estates of the royal capitalist,¹ with ‘their own empty barns at home’ is taken to be a sure symptom of social decadence.

c9.56

⁷ See Childers.

c9.57

¹ According to Manu the son of a Niṣāda by a Śūdra female becomes a Pukkasa by caste (X. 18), his occupation is that of catching and killing animals living in holes (X. 49). Cf. *Viṣṇu*, XVI. 9: 'Pukkasas must live by hunting.' See also Childers.

c9.58

² See Childers.

c9.59

³ 'Hīnaṃ nāma sippaṃ nalakārasippaṃ kumbhakārasippaṃ pesakārasippaṃ cammakārasippaṃ nahāpitasippaṃ.' Among the *hīnajāti* or low castes the *Vinaya* enumerates the Caṇḍāla, Veṇa, Nesāda, Rathakāra, and Pukkusa.

c9.60

⁴ 'A village of hunters near Benares' is mentioned.

c9.61

⁵ 'A village of fowlers' near the city of Sakula, in the kingdom of Mahiṃsaka, is mentioned.

c9.62

¹ *Jāt.* I. 468 gives an instance of a millionaire with his hired labourers.

c9.63

Again the *Cullavagga*, XII. 1, 3 mentions as the fourth among ‘the four stains by which Samaṇas and Brāhmaṇas are affected’ the practice as ‘means of life’ of certain ‘low arts’ which are set out in the *Mahāsīla* (*Tevijja Sutta*, ch. II) as comprising chiefly the black arts, explanation of signs, omens, auguries, dreams, forecasting weather, foretelling events, &c. The *Mil. Pañha* (I. 191) seems to attach an indignity to the crafts of ‘wrestlers, tumblers, jugglers, actors,¹ ballet-dancers, followers of the mystic cult of the sun and moon, of the goddess of fortune and other gods’ who keep the secrets of their craft to their own sect or guild. The *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka* (ch. III) enjoins that Bodhisattvas and preachers must shun ‘Caṇḍālas, jugglers, vendors of pork, poulterers, deer-hunters, butchers, actors and dancers, and wrestlers’. In the *Kulasīla* the Bhikkhu is to abstain from ‘dancing, singing, music, and theatrical shows’; in the *Majjhimasīla* from all public spectacles (of which a most exhaustive list is given), and from ‘performing the servile duties of a go-between, that is to say, between kings, ministers of state, &c.’²

c9.64

¹ *Jāt.* VI. 191 refers to the popular belief that even ‘Nāgas do not dance for shame’ before actors.

c9.65

² *Jāt.*, no. 179 (II. 82), refers to ‘Brethren who used to get a living by being *physicians* (note the prohibition in the Hindu Smṛtis), or runners, doing errands on foot . . *the twenty-one unlawful callings*’.

c9.66.1

The ‘low-trades’ mentioned in the Smṛtis naturally cover a wider ground because they are determined with reference to the stricter ideals and more orthodox standpoint of the Brāhmaṇa. Yet a comparative consideration of these cannot fail to be interesting for the light it will throw on early Indian social and economic conditions. It will appear from the evidence that there is a substantial agreement between the Pāli works and our law-books in respect of the trades or professions implying an inferior social status. It is not quite pertinent to the present inquiry to refer to certain classes, castes, professions, or peoples, which, according to ancient Hindu law, were subjected to social disapproval on account of their deficiencies due to physical, moral, or religious considerations. From the severe, uncompromising, Puritanic standpoint of the Brahmanical way of life and its austere ideals of inner and outer purity, it is indeed no wonder that serious physical deformities or defects and contagious diseases should render a person unworthy of proper social intercourse, especially on religious occasions like the performance of a *śrāddha*; and that a similar disqualification should arise from serious moral delinquencies or breaches of religious rules regarding conduct and discipline proper to the caste to which the offender belonged.

c9.66.2

But, leaving out of consideration these cases which are peculiar to the Brahmanical system of thought and code of life, we shall find that the crafts and castes, trades and professions, on which the Hindu law-books impose a social stigma, are practically identical with those mentioned in the Buddhist books. The Bhikkhu and the Brāhman will indeed appear to have needed the discipline of common regulations and restrictions as regards social intercourse to preserve and protect their respective purity and asceticism. Thus the interdiction of singing, dancing, acting, theatrical performances, and other public spectacles, which we find emphasized with such Puritanic rigour in some of the Buddhist books, is also similarly repeated in all the important Hindu legal works. Thus Manu condemns *kuśīlavas*, explained by Medhātithi as ‘bards, actors, jugglers, dancers, singers, and the like’, as being unworthy of invitation to a *śrāddha* (III. 155 and 158); the food given by a musician (IV. 210) and by an actor (IV. 214) is also not acceptable. Among the lowest classes mentioned are *jhallas*, *mallas*, i. e. ‘fencers with sticks or wrestlers and jesters’ and *naṭas*, i. e. stage-players (XII. 45). Similarly Vasiṣṭha condemns actors (III. 3); also Baudhāyana (I. 5, 10, 24), who adds to them stage-players, and teachers of dancing, singing, and acting, condemned as *upapātakins* (II. 1, 2, 13). Nārada condemns as incompetent witnesses gamesters, dancers, and jugglers (I. 178. 181. 184).

c9.66.3

Bṛhaspati condemns low artists as no better than thieves (XXII. 3), while Viṣṇu holds dancing as a crime (XXXVII. 32), and public dancers (LI. 13) and stage-players (ibid. 14) as unworthy of giving food. Similarly the odium attaching to hirelings as mentioned in some of the Buddhist books is confirmed by Hindu law.¹ Thus Manu condemns a paid servant (of a village or a king), temple-priests (III. 152. 153) and domestic priests of kings (XII, 46). Similarly condemned also are astrologers,¹ weather-prophets,² those who interpret evil omens and practise propitiatory rites.³ The following are the other crafts, professions or occupations⁴ on which rests a social stigma, viz. butchers, meat-sellers, bird-fanciers, fowlers, hunters, trappers or poachers (i. e. those who hunt without the bow), *niṣādas* (who live by fishing), trainers of animals (like horses, elephants, camels, oxen), dog-trainers, snake-catchers; leather-manufacturers, cobblers; makers of bows and arrows, dealers in weapons, blacksmiths, gold-smiths; carpenters, weavers, dyers, oil-manufacturers, ploughmen, artisans, mechanics, architects; super-intendents or workers in mines or factories; those who execute great mechanical works⁵ or make large instruments¹; washermen, quacks; tailors, shop-keepers, and publicans. It is also interesting to note that Manu, like the Buddhist books, thinks ill of messengers.² Basket-makers³ and workers in cane⁴ are also condemned as in the Buddhist works.

c9.66.4

Gautama bans the police-officer,⁵ and Vasiṣṭha, the mace-bearer,⁶ while Nārada⁷ brands the enemy of a guild of traders or association of clansmen as unworthy of acceptance as a witness in law-courts. Lastly, the paid priests who sacrifice for a multitude do not escape from their share of the social odium.⁸

c9.67

¹ In V. 5 Nārada lays down a singular line of distinction between pure and impure occupations: ‘Know that there are two sorts of occupations; pure work and impure work. Impure work is that done by slaves. Pure work is that done by labourers.’

c9.68

¹ *Manu*, III. 162; *Viṣṇu*, LXXXII. 7; *Nārada*, I. 183.

c9.69

² *Nārada*, I. 183.

c9.70

³ *Bṛhaspati*, XXII. 3.

c9.71

⁴ *Manu*, III. 150–63; IV. 84. 210–16; VIII. 65. 66; XI. 64; XII. 45. 46. *Āpastamba*, I. 6, 14. *Gautama*, XVII. 17. *Vasiṣṭha*, III. 3; XIV. 2, 3. *Baudhāyana*, I. 5, 10, 24; II. 1, 2, 13. *Nārada*, I. 178. 181. 183–85. *Bṛhaspati*, XXII. 3. *Viṣṇu*, XXXVII. 22. 23. 32; LI. 8. 10. 13. 14. 15; LXXXII. 7. 9.

c9.72

⁵ *Manu*, XI. 64: *mahāyantrapravartana* has been severally explained as ‘constructing dams across rivers in order to stop the water’ (Medh., Govind., Kullūka); ‘making machines for killing great animals such as boars' (Nār.); or 'making great machines such as sugar-mills' (Nand.). Thus mechanical engineers are meant, but it is to be understood that their profession is not approved for a Brāhmaṇa only.

c9.73

¹ *Viṣṇu*, XXXVII. 23: explained by the commentator 'as instruments for piercing the elephant's ear'.

c9.74

² *Manu*, III. 163.

c9.75

³ *Manu*, IV. 215.

c9.76

⁴ *Viṣṇu*, II. 14.

c9.77

⁵ XVII. 17.

c9.78

⁶ XIV. 2.

c9.79

⁷ I. 184.

c9.80

⁸ *Manu*, III. 151; *Baudhāyana*, II. 1, 2, 13. As has been already stated, Baudhāyana does not permit the Brāhmaṇa to teach professional dancers, and actors the actual works on their art (*nāṭyācāryatā*), e. g. the *naṭa-sūtras* mentioned by Pāṇini (IV 3, 110).

c9.81

It should of course be carefully borne in mind that the above list of disapproved occupations and 'low trades' is meant only for the guidance of the highest caste in Hindu society, whose special religious duties, social status, privileges, and obligations alone have determined the list without any reference to the other castes, and it is therefore devoid of much economic significance. Thus the aforesaid professions have been disapproved with reference and in relation to two main purposes affecting the Brāhmaṇas, viz. (1) entertainment at a *śrāddha* and funeral dinner; (2) receipt of presents or gifts (including food), and in respect of these two purposes the majority of the aforesaid castes and crafts have been declared to be *not* eligible. The principle of the declaration is therefore strictly relative to the religious necessities of a particular caste and does not point to any absolute standard by which the economic functions of society could be regulated.¹ But the principle is meant to be absolute so far as the Brāhmaṇa caste is concerned, for which it certainly defines the sphere of legitimate economic activity. Though, however, in the majority of the instances mentioned, the principle of disapproval is merely religious and relative to a particular caste, there are some in regard to which the disapproval was perhaps determined by an absolute and universal standard expressing the social opinion of the whole community. I mean those classes, crafts, or professions which are condemned as ineligible for the supply of witnesses for suits before law courts. This is no doubt a very limiting regulation and the disqualification accordingly applies but to a few cases. Thus, according to Nārada, only the following are declared to be incompetent witnesses, viz., oil-makers, gamesters, dancers, snake-catchers, ploughmen, weather-prophets, astrologers, jugglers, enemies of guilds, butchers, leather-manufacturers, and quacks (I. 178–85), while Manu limits them down only to three, viz. mechanics, actors, and *dasyus*, which is explained by Medhātithi to mean ‘servants for wages’ or ‘hard-hearted men’ and may have meant, as Bühler suggests, ‘the aboriginal robber tribes’ (VIII. 66). The contempt for quackery, fraud, and black arts, irrespective of the caste of the person practising them, is indeed remarkable. Manu also, as has been already pointed out, mentions the *jhallas*, *mallas*, *naṭas*, and mercenary priests (*corruptio optimi pessima*) as the *lowest* classes, while Bṛhaspati regards as no better than thieves the quacks, interpreters of evil omens, practisers of propitiatory rites (mostly Brāhmaṇas), and such low artists. It is thus evident that both the Buddhist and Hindu social opinion is practically at one in condemning certain crafts and professions on the basis of an absolute standard determined on grounds of moral deficiency and, in some cases, of uncleanliness of the processes of operation involved in the craft or manufacture.¹

c9.82

¹ It is interesting to note that such an absolute standard is laid down by Nārada, V. 5 (already quoted), 6, and 7: 'Sweeping the gateway, the privy, the road, and the place of rubbish; shampooing the secret parts of the body; gathering and putting away the leavings of food, ordure, and urine; and lastly, rubbing the master's limbs when desired; this should be regarded as impure work. *All other work besides this is pure.*'

c9.83

¹ It should be noted in this connexion that along with the aforesaid crafts, manufactures, or professions, there are certain articles or commodities, the trade in which is absolutely forbidden to a Brāhmaṇa. Thus *Manu*, X. 86–94, specifies among others the following articles: condiments, cooked food, stones, cattle, dyed cloth, cloth of hemp, flax or wool, meat, poison, milk, ghee, oil, perfumes, honey, indigo, lac, sugar, birds, wines, wild animals, weapons, water, &c. Parallel specifications are also contained in *Gautama*, VII. 9–20; *Āpastamba*, I, 7, 20, 12–13; *Baudhāyana*, II. 1, 2, 27; *Vasiṣṭha*, II, 24–32; *Viṣṇu*, LIV, 17–21; *Nārada*, I. 61–6; and *Yājñavalkya*, III. 36–40.

c9.84

We have now seen, both from the Brahmanical and Buddhist evidence, how far the admission to a craft was affected or restricted by the rules of caste. We shall now proceed to discuss the other features in the organization of craft-guilds.

c9.85

In the Pāli literature we have many references to apprenticeship but hardly to any terms or conditions regarding the same as we have, for instance, in the *Nārada-smṛti*. The *Vinaya*, for instance, gives elaborate rules regulating the duties of the *saddhivihārika* (pupil) towards his *upajjhāya*, of an *antevāsika*, and vice versa, and also rules regulating the *nissaya* or relation between teacher and pupil, and the conditions determining its admissibility or cessation. But these rules relate only to the education in the sacred lore, religion, and humanities, and not to the training in the crafts with which we are concerned. The apprentice in the industrial sense indeed appears frequently in the Jātaka but no terms or period or other conditions of pupilage are given. Thus in *Jāt.* no. 97 we have a publican and his apprentice, while in *Jāt.* no. 531, the *Kusa-Jātaka*, as we have already seen, a prince apprentices himself to a potter, basket-maker, florist, and the royal chef in succession. In *Jāt.* V. 457-9, two princes receive instruction in arts at the hands of the same teacher who had besides 101 other pupils. The senior pupil also acts as an assistant teacher (*piṭṭhiācariya*). The position of a senior pupil to a *mahāvaddhaki* is indicated by Buddhaghosa (*Asl.* 111. 112). We have also instances of fees being paid by apprentices to their teachers (*Jāt.* IV. 224. 225; 38. 39, where two merchants' sons paid 2,000 pieces each to their master as fee).

c9.86

In the Buddhist books the craft-guilds were organized under a head called *pamukha* or *jeṭṭhaka* but there is one instance, as we have already seen, of all the guilds having a common chief, who was also lord of the treasury in the kingdom of Kāsi. The centralization in this case was perhaps due to quarrels between the foremen of the subordinate guilds such as those at Sāvatthi mentioned in *Jāt.* II. 12. 52.

c9.87

There seems to have been also a considerable localization of trades and crafts. Suburban villages grew up to serve the cities where certain crafts were exclusively localized; e.g. smith villages of 1,000 families (*Jāt.* III. 281-6); villages of woodwrights numbering 500 (*Jāt.* II. 18. 405; IV. 208) and sometimes towns (*Jāt.* IV. 159) containing 1,000 families; and villages famous for potters (*Jāt.* III. 376. 508). There were also crafts localized in special quarters of the cities; e.g. the ivory-workers' bazaar in the city of Benares (*Jāt.* I. 320; II. 197), the localities of dyers, perfumers, and florists (*Jāt.* IV. 81. 82); the cooks' quarters in Sāvatthi (*Jāt.* III. 48.) Sometimes the crafts were associated with special streets named after them in the cities; e.g. the washermen's-street (*Jāt.* IV. 81) in Asitañjanā, the Vaiśya-street and quarter (*Jāt.* VI. 485).

c9.88

We have also some evidence of localization of trades and industries in Sanskrit works. The *Kauṭilīya* (II. i.) refers to the artificial creation by the king of villages of agriculturists belonging to the Śūdra caste, of Brāhmaṇa villages with forests for their undisturbed pursuit of learning and religion, of mines and factories, timber and elephant forests and markets. Within the city the various trades and crafts were localized in special quarters and their distribution followed a definite plan. Thus every caste and craft had a locality of its own [see II. iv. for the details of the distribution]. In the Śilpaśāstra work called *Mānasāra* is described a village plan called *Nandyāvarta* meant for a mixed population of different social grades assigned to different localities. There is an example of village-planning mentioned in a South Indian inscription of the thirteenth century A.D. in which the village is intended to accommodate 108 Brāhman families with lands for grazing cattle, new settlers and remuneration of the village officers and artisans (*Madras Epigraphy, Annual Report*, 1913–14, p. 92). One of the Ukkal inscriptions mentions villages of Brāhmaṇas, of Vaikhānasa and of Śramaṇas (i. e. Jainas) in the Cola, Toṇḍai and Pāṇḍya countries (no. 9, Hultzsch, *S. I. Inscr.*, vol. III, p. 15).

c9.89

The degree of control of the guild over its members is evident from the fact that its interference was invoked to settle differences between its members and their wives (*Vin.* IV. 226) and also from the ordinance of the Buddhist church, which forbade the giving religious orders to the wife of a member unless his guild had sanctioned it (*Sutta Vibhaṅga* quoted in *Economic Journal*, 1901. p. 313).

c9.90

Merchant-guilds do not seem to have attained the same development as the craft-guilds. The reason seems to have been that the merchant was necessarily a wanderer, while industrial organizations in these olden times depended largely upon settled relations and ties of neighbourhood. A Hansa League, for instance, can only grow in highly developed markets and at sea-ports. Nevertheless there is some significant evidence of corporate, concerted action among the merchants: the *Cullakaseṭṭhi-Jātaka* mentions a hundred or so of merchants offering to buy up a newly-arrived ship's cargo (*Jāt.* I. 122); 500 traders were fellow-passengers on board the ill-fated ships mentioned in *Jāt.* II. 128 and V. 75; 700 others were lucky enough to secure Suppāraka as their pilot (*Jāt.* IV. 138-42), thus showing 'co-operative chartering' of the same vessel. Again, caravan-traders had a common chief who was to give directions as to halts, watering, precautions against robbers, and, in many cases, as to route, fords, &c. (*Jāt.* I. 98. 99. 107. 174; II. 295. 335; III. 200). Further, several partnerships are mentioned, e. g. in a deal in birds exported from India to Babylon (*Jāt.* III. 126. 127), in horses imported from the 'north' to Benares (*Jāt.* II. 31), partnerships of traders of Sāvatthi who carried on joint-business and set out with 500 cart-loads of merchandise (*Jāt.* IV. 350-4); of two other traders of Sāvatthi who 'joined partnership and loaded 500 waggons full of wares' (*Jāt.* II. 181); partnership business in pots and pans (*Jāt.* I. 111); partnership of two merchants of Benares who 'took 500 waggons of merchandise from Benares to the country-districts' with an equal interest of both in the 'stock-in-trade and in the oxen and waggons' (*Jāt.* I. 404). A concerted commercial enterprise on a more extensive scale appears in *Jāt.* II. 294–6, where some traders in Sāvatthi carried on a joint business and came upon rich finds of ‘minerals of all sorts from iron to lapis lazuli’, which they stowed away in a common treasure-house, giving food to the brotherhood on joint account. These are distinguished from another partnership of traders who were more greedy and came to grief. Again, *Jāt.* II. 248 shows concerted action in business and sport of ‘certain traders in Benares who made a journey to Ujjenī for trade’, where they afterwards gave themselves up to merry-making.

c9.91

The existence of a merchant-guild ruling the trade of the city of Sopāra is mentioned in the legend of Pūrṇa, translated by Burnouf from Nepalese and Tibetan sources apparently of the third or fourth century b.c. (*Bombay Gazetteer*, old ed., vol. XIII, p. 406).

c9.92

Partnerships are known to the Smṛti works of Nārada and Bṛhaspati, which lay down the laws regulating them. The loss, expenses, and profits of the business are to be shared by each partner according to the share contributed by him to the joint-stock¹ (*Nārada*, III. 1. 3–4²; *Bṛhaspati*, XIV. 3–4¹). A partner is responsible for any loss due to his want of care or any action without the assent, or against the instructions, of his co-partners (*Nārada*, III. 5²; *Bṛhaspati*, XIV. 9).³ Similarly, he is entitled to a special remuneration for special profit gained through his individual action (*Nārada*, III. 6⁴; *Bṛhaspati*, XIV. 10⁵). A contract executed by one is binding on all (*Bṛhaspati*, XIV. 5).⁶ The partners are to be judges and witnesses in deciding their own disputes (6). The honesty of partners is to be proved by oath or ordeal (7). In case of death of a partner his goods must be shown and delivered to officers appointed by the king for safe custody until his legally proved heir claims them (11. 12). The king takes ⅙, 1/9, and 1/12 of

c9.93

¹ *Cf.* *Manu*, VIII. 211; *Yājñavalkya*, II. 259.

c9.94

² वणिक्प्रभृतयो यत्र कर्म संभूय कुर्वते । तत्संभूयसमुत्थानं व्यवहारपदं स्मृतम्॥ समोऽतिरिक्तो हीनो वा यत्रांशो यस्य यादृशः। क्षयव्ययौ तथा वृद्धिस्रतस्य तथाविधाः ॥ भाण्डपिण्डव्ययोद्धारभारसारान्ववेक्षणम् । कुर्युस्तेऽव्यभिचारेण समये स्वे व्यवस्थिताः ॥

c9.95

¹: समो न्यूनाधिको वांशो येन क्षिप्तस्तथैव सः।
व्ययं दद्यात्कर्म कुर्याल्लाभं गृह्णीत चैव हि ॥
प्रयोगं कुर्वते ये तु हेमधान्यरसादना ।
समन्यूनाधिकैरंशैर्लाभस्तेषां तथाविधः ॥
²: प्रमादान्नाशितं दाप्यः प्रतिषिद्धकृतं च यत् ।
असंदिष्टश्च यत्कुर्यात्सर्वसंभूयकारिभिः ॥
³: अनिर्दिष्टो वार्यमाणः प्रमादाद्वस्तु नाशयेत् ।
तेनैव तद्भवेद्देयं सर्वेषां समवायिनाम् ॥
⁴: दैवतस्करराजाग्निव्यसने समुपस्थिते ।
यस्तत्स्वशक्त्या रक्षेत्तु तस्यांशो दशमः स्मृतः ॥
⁵: राजदेवभयाद्वस्तु स्वशक्त्या परिपालयेत् ।
तस्यांशं दशमं दत्त्वा गृह्णीयुस्तेऽशतोऽपरम् ॥
⁶: बहूनां सम्मतो यस्तु दद्यादेको धनं नरः ।
करणं कारयेद्वापि सर्वैरेव कृतं भवेत् ॥

c9.96

the property of the deceased according as it is that of a Śūdra, a Vaiśya, and a Kṣatriya. Property unclaimed for three years [according to Baudhāyana, one year (cited in the *Vivādaratnākara*)] will vest in the king unless it is a Brāhman’s property which should be distributed among Brāhmans after deducting 5 per cent. as the king’s share (13. 14).

c9.97

It will appear that the law books mention various forms of co-operative enterprise, based on ‘union of capital as well as efforts’, which seem to partake more of the nature of guilds than the mere partnerships of a limited scope as we know them now, and as explained by most of the translators. The law books mention various types of guilds showing how the principle of co-operation had an extended application in the economic life of Ancient India. We have guilds of (1) traders, (2) agriculturists, and (3) artisans, and even of (4) priests, (5) soldiers, and (6) dancers and musicians. There is thus co-operation in all spheres of life, economic, military, artistic, and religious.

c9.98

Some of the rules for the constitution of co-operative societies or guilds in general together with their rules of business have been already given. There are also laid down certain general qualifications of membership upon the basis of which alone a guild can be constituted. These moral and mental factors are not less important than the legal ones cited above. Guilds can be constituted only by men possessed of one or other of the following qualifications, viz., (1) nobility of birth, [‘which disdains to break engagements at any cost’] (2) practical ability, (3) diligence or energy, (4) proficiency, (5) knowledge of currency, (6) knowledge of accountancy, (7) honesty, and (8) physical valour. Of these, (5) and (6) apply specially to trade, (6) to agriculture, (4) to arts and crafts, (1), (4), and (7) to the priestly craft, (8) to the military arts (political dacoities and raids), while (2) and (3) are the common requisites of all the various guilds (*Smṛti-Candrikā*). It is further pointed out that (2) and (3) exclude those who are physically disabled, while (5) excludes the unfortunate and the destitute who cannot contribute any capital to the funds of the guild (*nirāśraya*). It is also to be noted in this connexion that the contribution to the common stock may be in cash or kind, (e. g. gold, grain, liquids, and condiments as stated by Bṛhaspati, XIV. 4), according to the nature of the guild. The contributions of members determine their share not only of the expenses, losses, and profits of the joint-business, but also of the labours of management. All must be working partners.

c9.99

The duties of the partners or members of a guild are detailed. According to Vyāsa (quoted in the *Smṛti-Candrikā*), they must not cheat one another in any way; should buy or sell various commodities according to the prices; and should pay tolls or octroi duties on the goods as being due to the king, without concealing their quantity or character for purposes of evasion which, if detected beyond the limits of the toll gate, will render the partners liable to pay a fine of double duties. According to Nārada (III. 4), the partners must pay all the legitimate expenses of the business such as those connected with the following items; (1) purchase and sale of merchandise, (2) provision for necessary travelling, (3) wages of labourers employed, (4) realization of dues, (5) freight, and (6) care of the treasures (see the comments of the *Vivādaratnākara*). Sometimes *one* partner may be appointed as the managing director of the business to do the work of *all* (*Smṛti-Candrikā* explaining Bṛhaspati, XIV. 5). Kauṭilya (VIII. iv) mentions trading partners combining to control prices of their goods.

c9.100

Dishonesty is punished by expulsion from the guild and forfeiture of share in the profits (*Yājñ.* II. 265).

c9.101

A partner disabled may appoint a nominee to do his part of the work (ibid).

c9.102

Any member protecting, by his personal powers, the common property of the guild from the attacks of human (e. g. robber or king) or natural agencies (e. g. flood or fire) is entitled to a special share of the profits (10 per cent.) as his reward (Kātyāyana quoted by the *Smṛti-Candrikā*).

c9.103

We shall now set forth the special terms and conditions applying to the different varieties of guilds as stated above. It is to be noted that the general laws of partnership as explained above with reference to the merchant guilds (e. g. expenses, losses, and profits to be shared according to shares in the joint-capital) are to be understood as applying to the other classes of guilds.

c9.104

The guild of agriculturists is to be based on equal contributions in cattle, workmen, seeds and the like [e. g. the necessary capital (*Smṛti-Candrikā*)], and also implements of industry. A loss due to defect in any of these contributions must be made good by the defaulting partner (*Bṛhaspati*, XIV. 21. 25).

c9.105

As regards *craft-guilds*, Bṛhaspati mentions a number of varieties of these, such as those of (1) goldsmiths, (2) silversmiths, (3) workers in other or base metals [(*kupya*) like tin and lead (*Smṛti-Candrikā*)], (4) carpenters, (5) stone-dressers (*saṃskartā*), and (6) leather manufacturers [‘and also of rope, balls of silk, bones, &c.’]. The general law applicable to them all is that the artisans are to divide their profits according to the quality of the labour they can contribute or the handiwork produced. According to Kātyāyana the craft-guilds will generally represent four classes or grades of labour and skill as embodied in the *śiṣya*, (the young apprentice), the *abhijña*, (the craftsman possessing full knowledge), the *kuśala*, (the skilled craftsman), and the *ācārya*, i. e. he who introduces new modes or inventions [as explained by the *Vyavahāramayūkha*: (*nūtana-mārga-pravartakaḥ*)]. These four types of industrial ability are mentioned in the ascending order of merit (*Vivādaratnākara*). These are to receive respectively one, two, three, and four shares of the pay or profit (*Vyavahāramayūkha*). According to Bṛhaspati (29), the master craftsman will be entitled to a double share of the profits. The head of an engineering firm building a house or a temple, or digging a tank, will also have a double share of the profits.

c9.106

Companies of actors (*nartakas*) and musicians are also mentioned. A share and a half would belong to the chief musician (*tālajña*) who beats time.

c9.107

The priestly craft had also its own guild to regulate its members. The sacrificial fee is to be divided among the sixteen officiating priests as follows: the heads of the four classes are to receive 48 per cent. (each 12 per cent.); the second priest 24 per cent., the third 16 per cent., and the fourth 12 per cent. (*Manu*, VIII. 210). Among other laws may be mentioned the following: If an officiating priest chosen to perform a sacrifice abandons his work, a share only of the fee in proportion to the work done shall be given to him by those who work with him (ibid. 206). If among several officiating priests one should meet with a calamity, his share of the work shall pass to another, and the stipulated fee shall also belong to his substitute (*Nārada*, III. 8). An officiating priest forsaking his work without a sufficient cause is to be punished.

c9.108

The military guilds had also their own laws. The partnership in plunder is precisely regulated. Where the guild is deputed by the king to plunder an enemy's country, the first charge on the booty secured is the king's share of one-sixth. The remainder is to be divided as follows: the leader of the free-booters is to get four shares, he who has shown special heroism will get three, one specially energetic shall get two, and the other indifferent associates shall share alike (*Bṛh.*, 31. 32). These rules, according to Kātyāyana (explained in the *Vīramitrodaya*), apply where the expedition is sent against, and the plunder secured from, a powerful enemy difficult to be defeated. In the case of a weaker enemy, the king's share is only one-tenth. (Does the king's share depend upon the amount of assistance he himself sends to the guild in its plundering expedition?) The *Vivādaratnākara* (p. 126), however, takes the two cases to be those of remote and neighbouring enemies. In the case of any member of the company being arrested, his release must be procured at the common expense to be shared by members according to their individual contribution to the common fund (ibid).

First 110 of 203 passages. Read on

Linked texts (41)