Local Government in Ancient India c9.66.3

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.