Local Government in Ancient India c9.66

Language: English

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