Local Government in Ancient India c9.81

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