Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Shudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c10: Chapter IV: Servility and Disabilities

Śūdras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c10

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IV: Servility and Disabilities

c10.2

(c. 600 — c. 300 B.C.)

c10.3

For the study of the position of the śūdras in post-Vedic times, the brāhmaṇical sources, which mainly comprise the Dharmasūtras (law-books), the Gṛhyasūtras (books dealing with domestic rites) and the grammar of Pāṇini, can be supplemented by the early Buddhist and Jain texts. The chronological position of these sources can be fixed only roughly. In the scholarly study of the subject made by Kane the principal Dharmasūtras have been assigned to the period 600-300 B.C.¹ The sūtras show a grammatical freedom which is hardly conceivable after the period of the full influence of Pāṇini,² whose grammar has been assigned to the middle of the 5th century B.C.³ The law-book of Gautama, which contains most information relating to the śūdras, is believed to be the oldest of the Dharmasūtras.⁴ But its mention of Yavanas as born of śūdra women and kṣatriya men,⁵ more examples of the joint notices of the vaiśya and the śūdra⁶ as found in the later Dharmaśāstras, the attempt to introduce uniform laws for the whole of India,⁷ the provision of punishment for cow-killing,⁸ the enumeration of nearly twenty mixed castes⁹ — all these features show that its contents underwent great revision in later times.¹ Therefore all its laws relating to society may not reflect conditions in the pre-Mauryan period.

c10.4

¹ *Hist. Dh. S.*, ii, pt. I, p. XI. Meyer (*Altin. Rechtsschriften*, p. VII) regards the *Bau.* and the *Āp. Dh. Ss.* as pre-Buddhist, and ascribes the *Vas. Dh. S.* to the fourth century B. C. Cf. Hopkins, *CHI*, i, 249.

c10.5

² Keith, *CHI*, i, 113.

c10.6

³ Agarwala, *India as known to Pāṇini*, p. 475.

c10.7

⁴ Bühler, *SBE*, ii, p. XLV; Kane., *Hist. Dh. S.*, i, 13.

c10.8

⁵ *Gaut. Dh. S.*, IV. 21. Hopkins thinks that this refers to Bactrian and other Asiatic Greeks. *CHI*, i, 240. fn. 1.

c10.9

⁶ *Gaut. Dh. S.*, V. 41-42, 45.

c10.10

⁷ Bühler, *SBE*, ii, p. XLIX.

c10.11

⁸ *Gaut. Dh. S.*, XXII. 18.

c10.12

⁹ *Ibid.*, IV. 16-21.

c10.13

¹ Cf. B. K. Ghosh, *IHQ*, iii, 6.7-11.

c10.14

¹ The most recent discussion of the question is to be found in the article of O. Fišer, *AO*, xxii, 238-39.

c10.15

The land of the Āryans (Āryāvarta), to which the Dharma-sūtras were to apply, embraced the region between the Punjab and Bihar, and between the Himalaya and the hills of Malwa,² but the lawgiver Baudhāyana belonged to the south though the same cannot be said with certainty about Āpastamba, who refers to a peculiar *śrāddha* usage of the northerners (*udīcyas*).³ The school of Vasiṣṭha probably flourished in the regions of the north-west.⁴

c10.16

² *CHI*. i, 242.

c10.17

³ *Bau. Dh. S.*, II. 7.17.17; cf. Kane, *Hist. Dh. S.* i, 44.

c10.18

⁴ *CHI*, i, 249-50.

c10.19

To the period 600-300 B.C. may be also assigned the principal Gṛhyasūtras,⁵ which have been characterised as ‘the most reliable reports’ on the daily life of the ancient Indians.⁶

c10.20

⁵ Kane, *Hist. Dh. S.*, ii, pt. I. p. XI.

c10.21

⁶ Winternitz, *HIL*, i, 274.

c10.22

Of the Buddhist sources the four collections of the *suttas* (dialogues), i.e., the *Digha*, the *Majjhima*, the *Samyutta* and the *Aṅguttara*⁷ together with the *Vinaya Piṭaka*,⁸ may be roughly ascribed to the pre-Mauryan period, though much of the *Vinaya* is considered to be Mauryan. It is more difficult to fix the date of the Jātakas,⁹ in which the *gāthās* (verses), being the canonical texts, constitute the oldest stratum. The stories of the past, which are in the form of commentary in prose, are put in the pre-Mauryan period; nevertheless the present stories occasionally seem to reflect conditions in the Mauryan period, and are clearly later additions.¹⁰ Curiously the scene of the stories of the past lies in the western or central part of India, but the scene of the majority of the stories of the present is in Sāvatthi or Rājagaha.¹ Further, the third, fourth and fifth volumes of the Jātakas can be generally considered as parts that have assumed their present shape in a period posterior to the majority of the simple stories of the first and second volumes.²

c10.23

⁷ Law, *HPL*, i, 30-33.

c10.24

⁸ *Ibid.*, 15.

c10.25

⁹ For early date of the Jātakas see T. W. Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, p. 207.

c10.26

¹⁰ Cf. Law, *HPL*, i, 30; Hopkins, *CHI*, i, 260. fn.

c10.27

¹ *AO*, xii, 238-9.

c10.28

² *Ibid.*, xxii, 249; Rhys Davids, *op. cit.*, p. 208.

c10.29

It has been suggested that the Jātakas represent a state of society which provided suitable conditions for trade, perhaps during the Sātavāhana period.³ But the finds of punch-marked silver and copper coins coupled with a large number of iron objects, assigned to the period of the North Black Polished Ware (*circa* 600-250 B.C.), clearly point to the definite beginnings of urban life⁴ and the rise of trade and commerce.⁵ Besides, Kauṭilya’s regulations regarding industry and commerce, if true of Mauryan times, do presuppose some progress in such economic activities in the earlier period. Again, the Jātakas hardly refer to the trade and commerce of southern India, with which the Romans were in active intercourse under the Sātavāhanas. Nor do the Jātakas allude to so many guilds and occupations as we find in the Sātavāhana period.⁶ Moreover, since the Buddhist birth stories are represented in the reliefs and sculptures of Sāñchī and Bhārhut in the second century B.C., they can be taken back at least two centuries, earlier, especially in a country where old religious traditions continued to provide the motif for works of art till medieval times. Thus although the *gāthās* and past stories may be regarded as reflecting the state of affairs existing in the two or three centuries preceding the establishment of the Mauryan empire, for the purpose of our study those parts of the Jātakas which deal with the caṇḍālas may be regarded as later additions because the Jātaka references to these despised people are not corroborated fully by the brāhmaṇical texts of the pre-Mauryan period. We may also note that the long list of mixed castes given by Manu does not find its counterpart in the Jātakas.

c10.30

³ D. D. Kosambi, *An Introduction to the Study of Indian History*, pp. 259-60. cf. Daniel H. H. Ingalls, *JAOS*, lxxvii, 223-24.

c10.31

⁴ Rude beginnings of urban life, as will appear from excavations at Hastinapura and Katra in Mathura, may be traced earlier than 600 B.C.

c10.32

⁵ This line of study has to be pursued further; a comparison between the archaeological remains of the NBP period and the contents of the early Pāli texts will not only help to establish the date of these literary sources on a firm footing but will add to our knowledge and understanding of the material life in pre-Mauryan times.

c10.33

⁶ *Infra.*, Ch. VI.

c10.34

There are greater chronological uncertainties in the case of the Jain sources, which have not been edited and studied as well as the Buddhist texts. It is held that the canonical works were first compiled somewhere towards the end of the fourth or the beginning of the third century B.C.¹ But, dealing as they do with the life of Mahāvīra, they may be utilised for the pre-Mauryan period, from which they were not far removed in point of time.

c10.35

¹ Jacobi, SBE, xxii, Introd., p. XLIII. The Age of Imperial Unity, p. 423. Charpentier (Uttarā., Introd, pp. 32 & 48) ascribes them to the period between 300 B.C. and the beginning of the Christian era.

c10.36

Diverse opinions have been expressed on the authenticity of these literary sources, which are difficult to interpret in the absence of historical works or epigraphic records. There is a tendency to discard the brāhmaṇical works in favour of the Buddhist texts.² It is said that the attempt of the Dharmaśāstras to fit the varṇas into fixed patterns seems to be artificial and speculative.³ Against this it is urged that what is common to a number of Dharmasūtras must have some basis in fact.⁴ It is argued that such a charge used to be made against the scholastic writers of mediaeval Europe and has been rebutted by modern scholars.⁵ It will not be proper, however, to place absolute reliance upon either brāhmaṇical or non-brāhmaṇical sources. A correct picture of the social conditions of the pre-Mauryan period can be based only on a co-ordinated study of all kinds of texts.⁶ Unfortunately this is to be found neither in the Cambridge *History of India* Vol. I.¹ nor in *The Age of Imperial Unity*, which tries to put together materials available in literary sources bearing on the period from 600 B.C. to A.D. 300, but leaves out of consideration the *Dharmasūtras* and the *Gṛhyasūtras*.²

c10.37

² T. W. Rhys Davids, Dialogues of the Buddha, i, 286.

c10.38

³ Senart, Caste in India, p. 101. Author's note, p. x; Author of the Census Report of India, 1901, p. 546 quoted in Baines, Ethnography, p. 11.

c10.39

⁴ K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar, Aspects of the Social and Pol. System of Manu, p. 56; cf. Hopkins, CHI, i, 293-4.

c10.40

⁵ K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar, Indian Cameralism, p. 48.

c10.41

⁶ So far these sources have been studied only piecemeal. Jolly's Hindu Law and Custom and the encyclopaedic work of Kane on the History of the Dharmaśāstra do not treat the contents of the law-books chronologically.

c10.42

¹ Separate chapters (VIII-IX) are devoted to social conditions as known from early Buddhist literature and the Dharmasūtras respectively.

c10.43

² Ch. XXI.

c10.44

There can be no difficulty in accepting facts attested by all these sources; where such concord is wanting, materials furnished by Buddhist and Jain sources may be taken as reflecting more of actual conditions than the rules laid down in the Dharmasūtras. None of our sources, however, represent the view point of the śūdras and other submerged sections of society. While the Dharmasūtras emphasise the supremacy of the brāhmaṇas, the Buddhist and Jain sources emphasise the primacy of the kṣatriyas, only occasionally showing some lurking sympathy for the lower orders. Moreover the information gleaned from the former is generally limited to Northern India, but that from the latter to north-eastern India.

c10.45

There is some direct information about the śūdras in the Dharmasūtras, a little in the early Pāli texts and still less in the Jain texts. Perhaps on account of the scantiness of such information it has been argued by Fick that except for the theoretical discussions nothing points to the real existence of the fourth caste, the śūdras, in the early Pāli texts.³ This view has been rightly questioned by Oldenberg.⁴ We can quote instances to show that a person was to be known and his status defined by the name of his caste. Thus the identity of an archer is enquired in terms of his being a kṣatriya, a brāhmaṇa, a vaiśya or a śūdra.⁵ A common illustration provided by the Buddha in the course of his discourses is that a wise man is expected to know

c10.46

³ SONI, p. 314; Dutt, *Origin and the Growth of Caste*, pp. 268-69.

c10.47

⁴ *ZDMG*, li, 286.

c10.48

⁵ *Majj. N.*, i, 429.

c10.49

Excellent monographs based on the Pāli sources by Fick, Rhys Davids, R. Mehta and A. N. Bose suffer from the same defect. J. C. Jain’s *Life as Depicted in the Jain Canons* lumps together all material without any regard to time and place. In spite of chronological treatment in some cases works on the Indian caste system hardly take into account non-brāhmaṇical sources.

c10.50

whether his lady-love is of the kṣatriya, brāhmaṇa, vaiśya or śūdra class.¹ Even T.W. Rhys Davids, who is inclined to reject the priestly evidence in toto, points out that in a general way the fourfold varṇa system in the Buddhist texts corresponds to the actual facts of life.² All this establishes beyond doubt that the śūdras exist as a social class in the Buddhist texts, although their position and functions are not so sharply defined as in the brāhmaṇical laws.

c10.51

¹ Dīgha N. i, 193; Majj. N., ii, 33 and 40.

c10.52

² Buddhist India, p. 54.

c10.53

The nature of social inequality in the age of the Buddha cannot be understood without a reference to its material background, which is provided by the North Black Polished (NBP) Ware archaeology. The NBP period lasted roughly for more than three centuries from around 600 B.C. In its pre-300 B.C. phase the NBP culture was almost confined to eastern U.P. and Bihar, i.e., lands of Kosala and Magadha, but its post-300 B.C. phase obtained in almost the whole of north India and in a good portion of Madhya Pradesh. NBP sherds are found even in the Deccan. Even its initial phase was marked by a greater use of iron for agricultural tools, large-scale settlements in the thickly forested and heavy-soil areas after clearance, beginnings of town life and use of metallic money in the form of the punch-marked coins made of silver and copper. Once one of the most fertile lands in the country were opened to cultivation through the use of the iron ploughshare,³ the near subsistence economy of western U.P. was turned into the surplus-producing economy of the middle Gaṅgā basin. For clearing and cultivating large stretches of land a good many peasants and labourers were required. Probably the method of paddy transplantation leading to wet paddy production were learnt in this period.⁴ The paddy surplus produced by the peasants and labourers made possible not only the rise of sixteen great kingdoms with their towns but also the support of professional types of religious, political administrative, and military functionaries who tended to close their folds. On account of the new methods of production it was possible to have a full-fledged class society in which taxes, tributes, tithes and gifts in cash and kind were available for collection by the religious and administrative segments of the ruling class. For the first time we encounter a large number of monks and nuns living on charities. Similarly interests could be collected by moneylenders and profits could be made by traders, and thus the market exchange could intensify social stratification. Because of the use of money, it was possible to accumulate wealth and create wide chasms between those who produced and those who were engaged in the distribution and appropriation of the social surplus. The brāhmaṇical ideologues devised and elaborated a social mechanism through which the fruits of economic expansion in the age of the Buddha could be cornered by priests and warriors to the exclusion of peasants and labourers. The Buddhist ideologues helped to stabilise the new material culture and social set-up by laying emphasis on non-killing of animals and shutting the doors of the Saṃgha to slaves and debtors; at the same time it tried to soften its rigours by giving ordination to women and śūdras and stressing kindness towards slaves and servants.

c10.54

³ So far no iron ploughshare belonging to the NBP phase has been discovered, but the term ayo-nāṅgala is used in the Pāli texts.

c10.55

⁴ R. S. Sharma, "Development of Productive Forces and its Social Implications in India in the first Millennium B.C. with Special Reference to the Age of the Buddha". Paper presented to International Conference on Development of Productive Techniques and their Consequences for Social Formation held in Berlin, GDR, in November, 1978.

c10.56

We may indicate some steps by which land and labour came to be appropriated in the age of the Buddha. The well-known story of Videgha Māthava, the existence of northern brāhmaṇas and close affinities of the NBP with the PGW and black slipped ware suggests that the middle Gaṅgā settlements were pioneered by people from the upper Gaṅgā basin. The colonisers may have encountered a few pockets inhabited by the chalcolithic people in the middle Gaṅgā basin and the lands of the original settlers may have been seized by the newcomers. The chiefs of the advancing colonisers may have appropriated village lands to the exclusion of those who did not belong to the clan or those clansmen who had been impoverished or dispossessed. As reward for the initiative, enterprise and fighting qualities of their chiefs the kinsmen may have presented to them the best piece of land or a good portion af land. In later Vedic times such leading princes as Janaka and Duryodhana¹ were supposed to lend their hands to the plough, and till the end of the period the clan was considered to be the owner of the land. Even in post-Vedic times the king performed the ploughing ceremony called *vappa-maṅgala*² in Pāli, which is still observed by the Buddhist king of Thailand. But it is clear that during this period some princes, priests and seṭṭhis/gahapatis came to occupy large stretches of land, although the process of this appropriation can be guessed only by extrapolating anthropological evidence.

c10.57

¹ Mbh., III. 241. 29-30.

c10.58

² Jāt., i, 57 quoted in *Pali-English Dictionary*.

c10.59

We have no clear idea of land rights even in post-Vedic times. The law-books provide for the partition of property, but they never introduce land in this context. Gautama asserts that what is considered to be livelihood (*yogakṣema*) cannot be divided.³ This obviously includes land. The school of Gautama exercised some influence in later times; several smṛtis stress that land and water belonging to brāhmaṇas having common ancestor (*sagotra*) are indivisible up to the thousandth generation.⁴ What applied to brāhmaṇa families in ancient times may have been a mere survival of what applied to ancient society in general. In pre-Maurya times the idea of communal rights in land is also emphasised by Jaimini, who states in his *Mimāṃsā Sūtra* that the earth is common to all and, therefore, cannot be an item of gift.⁵ For practical purposes land may have been distributed periodically among the dominant clans as their size increased or as they proliferated into sub-clans. This possibly applied to families of brāhmaṇas, kṣatriya or vaiśya, for significantly enough in the Pāli texts no śūdra with land rights is mentioned. On the other hand we hear of kṣatriyas enjoying revenues, and of brāhmaṇas and seṭṭhis and gahapatis possessing fields and villages. In all probability they possessed the land on behalf of the families over which they presided as head or patriarch. The patriarchal family consisted of about three to four generations, as can be inferred from laws regarding partition in the Dharmasūtras; and as such it was a very large family.

c10.60

³ XXVIII. 46.

c10.61

⁴ *Dharmakośa*, i, 1231.

c10.62

⁵ VI. 7.3.

c10.63

The idea of private or individual property in such a family would not be very strong. Just as the co-parceners held landed property and general village resources in common so also for the exploitation of these resources they came to hold the labour power in common. The labouring or servile population of every village was called śūdra, over whom the three upper varṇas exercised general social control. Thus we have the clear beginnings of a society based on śūdra labour.

c10.64

That the śūdras constituted the serving class was only implied in the texts of the later Vedic period. But during this period the Dharmaśūtras made the explicit and emphatic statement that the duty of the śūdra was to serve the three higher varṇas, and thus to maintain his dependants.¹ He was expected to run his independent house, which he supported by agricultural and artisanal occupations. Gautama informs us that the śūdra could live by practising mechanical arts.² It seems that sections of the śūdra community worked as weavers, wood-workers, smiths, leather-dressers, potters, painters etc. Although these crafts are mentioned in the early Pāli texts,³ there is no indication of the varṇa of their followers. The gahapati⁴ (generally landed householder) who roughly corresponds to the vaiśya in the brāhmaṇical system, is described at one place as living by arts and crafts.⁵ If a man of substance could become a gahapati, it is possible that some of the well-to-do śūdra artisans such as the smith Cunda, who served a sumptuous dinner to Gautama Buddha and his followers,⁶ or the conspicuously rich potter Saddālaputta, who was in possession of five hundred potter’s shops and a large number of potters working under him,⁷ were gahapatis. This may be also true of the head of the village of a thousand smiths, who gave his daughter in marriage to the Bodhisatta.⁸ Although the term gahapati is now here applied to such artisans, it is possible that some of them rose to this position by virtue of their wealth.

c10.65

¹ Āp. Dh. S., I. 1. 1-7 : Gaut. Dh. S., X. 54-57.

c10.66

² śilpavṛttiśca. X. 60.

c10.67

³ Mehta, Pre-Buddhist India, pp. 194-204.

c10.68

⁴ Known as gābhāvai in the Jain texts.

c10.69

⁵ sippādhiṭṭhānā. Ang. N., iii, 363.

c10.70

⁶ Dīgha, N., ii, 126.

c10.71

⁷ Uvāsag., p. 184.

c10.72

⁸ Jāt., iii, 281.

c10.73

We cannot go into the history of crafts and craftsmen, which might well form the subject of a separate monograph. But certain broad points may be noticed. The artisan members of the śūdra varṇa played an important role in the agrarian economy of the pre-Mauryan period. Workers in metal not only made axes, hammers, saws, chisels etc. meant for the carpenters and smiths,¹ but also supplied agriculture with ploughshares, spades and similar implements,² which enabled the farmers to provide surplus food for people living in the towns. The urban life³ and the thriving trade and commerce, which appear for the first time in north-eastern India during this period, could not have been possible without considerable amount of commodity production by the artisans. In the principal towns the crafts were organised into guilds, the chiefs of which stood in a special relation to the king.⁴ Certain artisans were attached to the household of the king and enjoyed his patronage. According to the gloss on Pāṇini’s grammar these were known as royal artisans, of which the royal barber (rāja-nāpita) and the royal potter (rāja-kulāla) are especially mentioned.⁵ This is also corroborated by a later Jātaka story, which speaks of the royal potter (rāja-kumbhakāra) and the royal garland-maker (rāja-mālākāra).⁶ Some artisans were also attached to the seṭṭhis and gahapatis. We learn that a seṭṭhi had his own tailor (tunnakāra), who lived under his patronage and worked for his house.⁷ Mention is also made of the weavers of the gahapati, who supplied yarn to him.⁸ But the majority of the artisans were probably not attached to such masters; as instances of independent craftsmen we might cite the villages of the carpenters¹ and smiths,² or the artisans living in towns.³ Possibly the king exercised some sort of loose control over the artisan villages through the patronage of their chief. Thus the jeṭṭhaka (head) of the village of a thousand smiths is called a favourite of the king (rājavallabho).⁴ There was no such control over the scattered families of artisans, who lived in the villages catering to the needs of the agriculturists. They are mentioned as grāmasilpins by Pāṇini.⁵ Probably villages had their potters, carpenters, smiths, weavers and barbers, but they were not attached to their clients in the same manner as in the jajmāni system. According to Pāṇini there were two kinds of carpenters, the grāmatakṣa who worked for daily wages at the house of his clients in the village, and the kauṭatakṣa who worked at his own residence.⁶ and was "an independent artisan, not particularly bound under engagement to any one."⁷ A Jātaka gāthā refers to an itinerant smith, who carries his furnace wherever he is called to go.⁸ The artisans owned their implements and in some cases had free access to materials. Thus we learn of a brāhmaṇa carpenter, who gained his livelihood by bringing wood from the forest and making carts.⁹ This may have been the case with the potter, who could obtain a free supply of clay and fuel, but not with the weavers and workers in metal. Nevertheless, by and large, those who were served by the artisans were not their masters, as was the case in Greece and Rome, where slaves were employed in handicrafts,¹⁰ but just their clients. The only control exercised by the state over the artisans in general lay in the imposition of a kind of *corvée*. It was laid down that in lieu of taxes they would have to work for a day in a month for the king.¹ Otherwise the Dharmasūtra rules give the impression that those śūdras who worked as craftsmen and artisans were independent people, for these occupations are prescribed for them in case they fail to maintain themselves by service,² which would imply domestic or agricultural work.

c10.74

¹ Jāt., v, 45.

c10.75

² Mehta, op. cit., pp. 198-99.

c10.76

³ Big cities such as Sāvatthi were twenty in number, and six of them were considered important enough to be scene of the Buddha’s passing away (Digha N, ii, 147).

c10.77

⁴ Mrs. Rhys Davids, CHI, i, 206.

c10.78

⁵ Vṛtti to Pā., VI. 2.63.

c10.79

⁶ Jāt., v. 290 and 292.

c10.80

⁷ Ibid., vi, 38.
8. gahapatikassa tantuvāyehi. Jāt., iii, 258-9. Obviously such a gahapati probably employed them for commodity production for trade.

c10.81

¹ Jāt., iv, 159.

c10.82

² Ibid., 281.

c10.83

³ CHI, i, 208.

c10.84

⁴ Jāt., iii, 281.

c10.85

⁵ VI, 2.62.

c10.86

⁶ Pā., V. 4.95.

c10.87

⁷ Gloss. on Pā., V. 4.95.

c10.88

⁸ Jāt., vi, 189.

c10.89

⁹ Ibid., iv, 207.

c10.90

¹⁰ There is a reference to the craft of the home born slave in Digha N., i, 51, but this may indicate domestic service. Another reference speaks of slaves and servants being engaged by a brāhmaṇa in trade (Jāt., iv, 16).

c10.91

¹ *śilpino māsi masyekaikam karma kuryuḥ*. Gaut. Dh. S., X. 31 ; *Vas. Dh. S.*, XIX. 28.

c10.92

² *Gaut. Dh. S.*, X. 53-55; cf. Ghoshal, *IC*, xiv, 26.

c10.93

How artisans were remunerated in pre-Maurya times is not quite clear. It seems that some artisans were attached to big households; this can be said of the royal barber and royal potter and also of a few craftsmen attached to big merchants. Other artisans such as smiths and carpenters lived in their own artisan villages, which were situated in the vicinity of towns. Obviously artisans living in suburban villages found their own raw material and produced their own commodities which they took to the town markets for the use of both the urban and rural folk. Five hundred potters' shops under Saddālaputta and a large number of potters working under him were clearly meant for supplying pots to both rural and urban people. People had certainly to pay for the *de lux* NBP ware and possibly for numerous inferior other kinds of pottery such as red ware produced in profuse quantities. We hear of a village trader depositing five hundred ploughs with a town merchant,³ which shows that these ploughs were meant for sale to the peasants. In the layers belonging to the NBP phase in Kausambi 250 iron tools including axes, adzes, knives, razors, nails, sickles, etc., have been discovered.⁴ Many of these may be assigned to the pre-300 B.C. phase, and were probably meant for the use of peasants who purchased them by paying in cash or kind. A third category of artisans lived in villages for catering to the needs of the peasants; they may have been paid by their clients in kind. But it is not clear whether the *jajmāni* system prevailed on any scale. Literary sources are not very helpful; possibly the progress of rural archaeology will throw light on the pattern of settlements and the nature of rural economy. Meanwhile we may venture to suggest that in the age of the Buddha in the midst of clusters of rural settlements lay towns or artisan villages which met the artisanal needs of the peasants, for which payments were made in both cash and kind. The fact that artisans were required to work for kings in lieu of taxes suggests that they were able to earn their livelihood from independent sources but could not earn enough to be able to pay taxes.

c10.94

³ *Jat.*, ii. 181.

c10.95

⁴ G.R. Sharma, *The Excavations at Kausambi*, 1957-59, pp. 45-46.

c10.96

The mass of śūdra population seems to have been employed in agricultural operations. The Dharmasūtras assign agriculture to the vaiśyas,¹ who were independent peasant proprietors paying a part of the produce as taxes to the state.² The vaiśyas, mainly as peasants and secondarily as traders, seem to have been the principal taxpayers in post-Vedic times. The fact that the śūdras had not to pay any land revenue shows that they were landless labourers. Āpastamba states that the śūdras, who live by washing the feet, are exempt from taxes.³ This would imply that non-serving śūdras could become taxpayers. But in an older manuscript of this law-book the term pādāvanektā does not occur,⁴ which suggests that it was inserted later to provide justification for the exemption of the śūdras. Generally, therefore, the śūdras possessed no taxable property in the form of land, and as such most of them had to work on the land of others. This is amply clear from a passage of the Majjhima Nikāya, which presents a classification of the earnings of the four varṇas. It informs us that the brāhmaṇa lives on gifts, the kṣatriya on the use of the bow and the arrow, the vaiśya on agriculture and tending of cattle, and the śūdra on the use of the sickle and the carriage of crops on the pole hung over his shoulder.⁵

c10.97

¹ Gaut. Dh. S., X. 47; cf. Āp. Dh. S., II. 11. 28. 1 with the comm. of Haradatta.

c10.98

² Vas. Dh. S., I. 42.

c10.99

³ śūdrāśca pādāvanektā. Āp. Dh. S., II. 10.26.5.

c10.100

⁴ MS. G according to Bühler's classification.

c10.101

⁵ suddassa sandhanam..asitabyabhaṅgim. Majj. N., ii, 180.

c10.102

The character of slavery, which first appears in Vedic times, was modified in the post-Vedic period in several ways. Vedic slavery was mostly confined to women, who were employed in domestic work. In the age of the Buddha it also embraced men, for the term dāsakammakaraporisa is frequently used. What is significant, these slaves were also employed in production. Possibly their number went up, and one of the main reasons was the new system of production based on iron technology agriculture, growth of crafts and commerce, rise of towns, and use of punch-marked silver and copper coins. The continuous wars waged by Magadha, the first large territorial state, and similar kingdoms may have added to their numbers. The use of coins from the fifth century B.C. created conditions for the accumulation of money leading to the impoverishment and indebtedness of certain sections of society. The earliest provisions regarding the rate of interest are found in the Dharmasūtras, which prescribe the highest rate for the śūdras. Even Buddhism offered no relief, for it shut the doors of the Saṃgha to debtors and insisted on the clearing of debts on their part. The Buddhist texts show that failure to pay debts led to the enslavement of the debtors. Money transactions not only produced debt slaves but also facilitated sale and purchase of slaves, especially in cities which developed in northern India in this period. Slaves for production, therefore, appeared in a period and situation which saw continuous wars, the widespread use of metallic money and some degree of market economy in India.

c10.103

Many references in the early Pāli texts speak not of the śūdras as such, but of the dāsas (slaves) and kammakaras (hired labourers) as being employed in agricultural operations. There can be little doubt that the landless śūdras were employed as kammakaras. There is evidence to show that the dāsas also mostly belonged to the śūdra varṇa. This can be deduced from the phrase suddo vā sudda-dāso vā, which is used by the Buddha to define the position of the śūdra after his enumeration of the first three varṇas.¹ It would be wrong to translate the term sudda-dāso vā as the slave of a workman.² The crucial phrase is clearly an example of a case in apposition, and means the śūdra who is a slave. It is inconceivable that here the kṣatriyas, the brāhmaṇas, and the seṭṭhis, who are elsewhere represented as owning slaves, should be left out and the śūdra should be singled out as owning slaves. Therefore Oldenberg is right in inferring that the statement in question does not make any distinction between the śūdra and the dāsa.¹ It is significant that the earliest identification of the śūdra with the slave is found in an early Pāli text and not in the Dharmasūtras, from which this position can be inferred only indirectly. It is only in the post-Mauryan period that Manu states this position in clear and strong words.

c10.104

¹ Dīgha N., i, 104.

c10.105

² T. W. Rhys Davids, SBB, ii, 128.

c10.106

¹ ZDMG, li, 286. N. K. Dutt writes that in the Buddhist literature the slaves are nowhere called by the name of śūdra (op. cit., p. 272). This case provides a clear implication to the contrary.

c10.107

Slavery was not exclusively confined to the members of the śūdra varṇa. Even gāmabhojakas (village headmen),² ministers,³ brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and men of high birth might be reduced to slavery,⁴ but the nature of their subjection may have been different. In any case the number of such people cannot have been considerable, the mass of the slave labour being supplied by the śūdra varṇa.⁵ Slavery arising out of debt, purchase, free will and fear⁶ can be rather expected in the case of the people of the lower orders than in that of the members of the higher varṇas. For example, Isidāsī, the daughter of a cart-driver was carried off as a slave by a merchant on account of her father's failure to pay his bebts.⁷ But it is indicative of the limited number of slaves during this period that in the Jātakas there is no mention of slaves captured in war.⁸

c10.108

² Jāt., i, 200.

c10.109

³ Ibid., vi, 389.

c10.110

⁴ Bandyopadhyaya, "Slavery in Ancient India", Calcutta Review (1930), No. 8, p. 254.

c10.111

⁵ Bose, Social and Rural Economy of N. India, ii, 423.

c10.112

⁶ Jāt., vi, 285 (gāthā); Vin., iv, 224.

c10.113

⁷ s. v. Isidāsī Theri, Pāli Dict. of Proper Names, i, 323.

c10.114

⁸ Fick, op. cit., p. 308.

c10.115

While some of the slaves, especially women, were employed in domestic service,⁹ others were engaged in agriculture. The slaves and hired labourers worked even on smaller holdings,¹ but more often on larger plots. In the early Pāli texts there are at least two examples of big farms in Magadha, each of a thousand karīsas (8000 acres according to Childers,)² and of another field in Kāsī being ploughed with five hundred ploughs,³ all owned by the brāhmaṇas. Five hundred or a thousand may be conventional numbers, but they provide an indication of the tendency towards consolidation of holdings, which reached its climax with the state control of agriculture in the Mauryan period. It is obvious that larger holdings could not have been worked without a considerable number of dāsas and kammakaras.

c10.116

⁹ dāsī-bhāraḥ. Pā., VI, 1.42; Sūyagaḍam, I. 1.4.8; Jāi., iii, 59, 98-99.

c10.117

¹ *CHI*, i, 207; *Vin.*, I. 240. cf. *Sūya.*, II. 1.13 which refers to both large and small fields. The dāsas and kammakaras of the Śākyas and Koliyas were employed in irrigating their fields (*Jāt.*, v, 413).

c10.118

² *Jāt.*, iii, 293; iv, 276.

c10.119

³ *Sut. Nipā.*, I. 4.

c10.120

We have hardly any idea about the numerical strength of slaves and hired labourers in relation to their employers. Even in the case of Attica, where statistics are available, it is very difficult to reach agreement on the proportion of the free to slave population.⁴ It is likely that Magadha’s wars, particularly against the comparatively non-brāhmaṇical zones of Aṅga and Avanti, added to the number of slaves. But the paucity of data in the case of India makes it much more difficult to obtain any definite information on this point. A sutta states that few are those who abstain from accepting men and women slaves.⁵ The brāhmaṇical theory that the śūdras are meant for the service of the three higher varṇas is broadly reflected in the employment of slaves and labourers by the brāhmaṇas,⁶ the kṣatriyas,⁷ and seṭṭhis and the gahapatis.⁸ According to the Dharmasūtras the brāhmaṇas could exchange slaves for slaves but could not sell them.⁹ All this would suggest that slavery prevailed on a considerable scale, but in any case it cannot be compared to the position in Attica where in the 5th century B.C. slaves comprised about a third of the total population.¹

c10.121

⁴ Westermann, *The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity*, pp. 8-9.

c10.122

⁵ *Sut. Nipā.*, V. 472.

c10.123

⁶ *Jāt.*, iv, 15; *Majj. N.*, ii. 186.

c10.124

⁷ *Jāt.*, v, 413.

c10.125

⁸ *Vin.*, i, 243, 272; ii, 154.

c10.126

⁹ *Āp. Dh. S.*, I. 7.20.15; *Vas. Dh. S.*, II. 39; *Gaut. Dh. S.*, VII. 16.

c10.127

¹ Westermann, *op. cit.*, p. 9.

c10.128

The Dharmasūtras throw some light on the living conditions of the members of the śūdra varṇa. Gautama provides that the śūdra servant should use the shoes, umbrellas, garments and mats, thrown away by the people of the higher varṇas.² The same picture is obtained from a Jātaka story, which informs us that clothes gnawed by rats were intended for the use of the dāsas and the kammakaras.³ Gautama further adds that the remnants of food are meant for the śūdra servant.⁴ The Āpastamba Dharmasūtra instructs the pupil to put down the remains of food left in his dish either near an uninitiated ārya or near a śūdra slave belonging to his teacher,⁵ which clearly implies that the remains of food were to be eaten by the śūdra servant. This is also attested by the Hiranyakeśin Gṛhyasūtra, which lays down that, in a three-day vow undertaken after the completion of his studies, a student should not give the leavings of his food to a śūdra.⁶ Pāṇini refers to special terms applied to food leavings, which were presumably given to domestic servants.⁷ We learn from a passage of the Vinaya Piṭaka that the sick wife of a merchant preserved the ghee which she had vomited, for the use of the dāsas or the kammakaras who might apply it to their feet or burn it in a lamp.⁸ It is also recorded that five hundred people accompanied the Order of the monks led by the Buddha in the hope of eating the remnants of their food.⁹ All this would show that there was nothing unusual about the śūdra servants eating the remnants of the food of their masters.

c10.129

² *jirṇanyupānacchatravāsaḥ kūrcāni*. X. 58.

c10.130

³ *Jāt.*, i, 372. (present story).

c10.131

⁴ X. 59.

c10.132

⁵ *antardhine vā śūdrāya*. Āp. Dh. S., I. 1.3.40. with the comm. of the Ujjvalā.

c10.133

⁶ I. 2.8.1-2. (*SBE* tr.).

c10.134

⁷ Agrawala, *op. cit.*, p. 114.

c10.135

⁸ *varam etaṃ sappi dāsānaṃ vā kammakarānaṃ vā pādabhāñjanaṃ vā pādīpakaraṇe vā āsittam*. Vin., iv, 272.

c10.136

⁹ Vin., i, 220.

c10.137

Āpastamba expresses the noble statement that a person should stint himself, his wife and children but neither his slave nor his hired labourer who works for him,¹ but we can hardly believe that this maxim was taken very seriously, though it shows that in the better households slaves were well fed and kindly treated. The slaves and hired labourers may have not been starved, but in general the food served to them was definitely inferior to that of their masters. Thus a brāhmaṇa monk boasts that even his slaves and servants eat rice and meat, and use clothes and ointment made in Kāsī,² which shows that ordinarily such people were given inferior food and dress. A similar claim is made by the Buddha, who says that while in the houses of others the dāsas and kammakaras are fed on rice, with sour gruel, in the house of his father they receive rice, meat and milk.³ That the slave received a fixed type of food is clear from the repeated use of the abusive phrase dāsa-paribhoga.⁴ Sour gruel was the food of a poor man working for wages.⁵ A Jātaka story refers to a potter's hireling, who after a full day's work with the clay and the wheel "sat all clay-besmeared on a bundle of straw eating balls of barley groat dipped in a little soup."⁶

c10.138

¹ kāmamātmānaṃ bhāryāṃ putraṃ voparundhyānna tveva dāsakarmakaram. Āp. Dh. S., II. 4.9.11.

c10.139

² dāsakammakarāpi no sālimamsodanam bhuñjanti, kāsikavattham nivāsenti. Jāt., i. 355 (present story).

c10.140

³ kaṇajakaṃ bhojanaṃ dīyyati. Aṅg. N., i, 145.

c10.141

⁴ Ibid., i, 451, 459.

c10.142

⁵ Ibid., iii, 406-7.

c10.143

⁶ Ibid., vi, 372.

c10.144

The phrase that a person lived a hard life on a workman's wages commonly occurs in the Jātakas.⁷ At one place, the workman, who is the Boddhisatta, bewails his lot in these words: "I get a māsaka or a half-māsaka for my wages and can hardly support my mother."⁸ The daily earning of a grass-cutter is mentioned as two māsakas, which he gets in the market in return for the grass mown.⁹ The māsaka of this period was probably a punch-marked copper coin. According to the commentaries of the early Pāli texts this coin occupied such a low position in the scale of currency that it was considered next to nothing.¹ The māsaka of the later period was one-sixteenth in value of the silver paṇa,² but we are not certain whether this represents its relation to the silver paṇa in pre-Mauryan times. During this period the māsaka counted in value only when it amounted to five in number,³ but even this paltry sum was not given to a wage-earner. Therefore it is not possible to make much of the story in the Gaṅgamāla Jātaka,⁴ in which a water-carrier proposes to enjoy a city festival along with his wife with the meagre savings of one māsaka, each contributing half of it. It is characteristic of the didactic nature of the story that the water-carrier refuses to part with his petty sum of a half-māsaka even when he is offered unlimited wealth by the Bodhisatta king Udaya. Ultimately he gets half the kingdom, but realises the evils of desire and becomes an ascetic to achieve its final extinction. The evident moral is that a person could remain satisfied even with half a māsaka, although it would be ideal to do even without that. As the gāthā says: “Little desire is not enough, and much but brings pain”.⁵ On the whole the estimate of Fick that wages of the day-labourers in the Jātakas were hardly sufficient to enable them to eke out their livelihood seem to be fair. This may well apply to large sections of the śūdras, who worked as hired labourers.

c10.145

⁷ paresam bhatiṃ katvā kicchena jīvati. Jāt., i, 475; ii, 139 : iii, 325, 406, 444.

c10.146

⁸ Jāt., iii, 326.

c10.147

⁹ nagaradvāre vikiṇitvā māsake gahetvā. Jāt. iii, 130.

c10.148

¹ s.v. māsaka, Pāli-Eng. Dic.

c10.149

² S. K. Chakravorty, Ancient Indian Numismatics, pp. 56.

c10.150

³ The Book of the Discipline, i, Tr. I. B. Horner in SBB, x, pp. 71-72.

c10.151

⁴ Bose, op. cit., ii, 428.

c10.152

⁵ appāpi kāmā na alaṃ, bahūhi pi na tappati. Jāt., iii, 446-50.

c10.153

There does not seem to be much difference between the various sub-sections of the serving population. A Jain text places slaves, servants (pessas) and beasts of burden in the same category.⁶ The Pāli texts make frequent mention of the dāsas, pessas and kammakaras.⁷ The pessas were messengers or servants, who were sent on minor errands. As noticed earlier, there was no difference either in the nature of work⁸ assigned to the dāsas and the kammakaras or in the type of food given to them.¹ It will be shown later that if they committed offences they were subjected to the same punishments. There is nothing to show that socially the hired labourer was classed beneath the domestic slave.² Perhaps the difference between the dāsas and the kammakaras lay in the nature of their relation with their masters. In contrast to the kammakara, the slave was regarded as the property of the master³ and could be inherited and shared.⁴ The absolutely servile status of the slave was indicated by his distinguishing mark, which seems to have been a shaved head with a topknot.⁵ At one place, however, along with the dāsas the kammakaras also are reckoned among the property of the seṭṭhi.⁶ This indicates the tendency to reduce the hired labourer to the status of a slave. A Jātaka story shows that while the slaves lived in the house of their masters, the kammakaras went to their lodgings in the evening.⁷ But we do not know how for this was a general practice. Obviously the life of the hireling was sometimes harder than that of the slave.⁸ He could not enjoy that security of livelihood which was assured to the slave or the permanent domestic servant. Gautama lays down that the ārya, under whose protection the śūdra places himself, should support him if he becomes unable to work.⁹ But the practice did not conform to this precept, for a gāthā states that people throw away the outworn servant like a she-elephant.¹⁰

c10.154

⁶ Sūya., I, 4.2.18.

c10.155

⁷ Digha N., i, 141; Aṅg. N. ii, 207-8; iii, 37; iv, 266, 393.

c10.156

⁸ Gaut. Dh. S., XX. 4.

c10.157

¹ Jāt., iii, 300.

c10.158

² References quoted in CHI, i, 203, fn. 8 do not support this view.

c10.159

³ Sutta-nipāta, 769; Ovaiya, verse 6; Uttara., III. 17; Sūyagoḍam, II. 7.1.

c10.160

⁴ Gaut. Dh. S., XXVIII. 13.

c10.161

⁵ Jāt., vi, 135.

c10.162

⁶ Ibid., iii, 129.
7. ..attano vasanaṭṭhānaṃ gantvā. Jāt., iii, 445.

c10.163

⁸ CHI, i, 205.

c10.164

⁹ Gaut. Dh. S., X. 61.
10. yāvatāsiṃsati poso tāvad eva paviṇati; aṭṭhāpāye jahanti. Jāt., iii, 387.

c10.165

There seems to be some difference between the kammakara and the bhaṭaka (wage earner).¹¹ In the Vinaya Piṭaka the kammakara is defined as a bhaṭaka who is āhataka. The authors of the Pāli-English Dictionary interpret the term āhataka as ‘beaten This would mean that the kammakara is a worker who can be beaten—a definition which sounds curious and is not given even in the case of a dāsa. Perhaps the term āhataka is not cognated with the Sanskrit word āhata,¹ but with the term āhṛta, which means taken, seized or brought.² This would suggest that the kammakaras were attached to their master in a special way. They were probably brought under his control either on account of their failure to pay debts or owing to having their habitations on his land. They seem to have been in the position of semi-slaves, who could be sometimes treated even as an item of property. Thus there is little evidence for the view that in the pre-Mauryan period the kammakaras were free labourers who entered into contracts as to their work and wages and that in the case of disputes wages were settled by experts.³ This view better represents the position of the bhṛtakas, whose relation with their employers was comparatively free from elements of subjection. The bhṛtaka lived on wages, i.e. bhṛti, which is mentioned by Pāṇini either in the sense of service for hire or simply as wages.⁴ It seems that the bhṛtaka was hired for a particular period.⁵ According to an early Jain text there were four kinds of bhṛtakas: (i) the divasabhayaga who worked on daily wages, (ii) the jattabhayaga who was engaged for the duration of a journey, (iii) the uccattabhayaga who was employed on contract to complete the work in an agreed time, (iv) the kabbālabhayaga (such as an earth digger) who was paid according to the amount of work done.⁶ As workers on contract some artisans may have been also employed as bhṛtakas. A later Jātaka distinguishes between the bondsmen (attano purisā) who are asked to keep watch over the various portions of their master's rice fields, and a bhataka who gets a salary (bhati) for the same work and is liable to pay compensation in the case of any damage to the crops.⁷ A gāthā states that the purisa should always work for the interest of the person in whose house he is fed.¹ The use of the phrase dāsakammakaraporisa shows that the bondsman served either as a slave or a hired labourer² and that there was not much distinction between these different types of workers.

c10.166

¹¹ Also written as bhaṭaka.

c10.167

¹ This derivation is adopted in s.v. āhataka, Pāli-Eng. Dic.

c10.168

² An alternative derivation from the term āhitaka (i.e. pledged) is not favoured by grammatical rules.

c10.169

³ Bandyopadhyaya, Eco. Life and Progress in Anc. India, p. 94.

c10.170

⁴ Pā., I. 3.36; III. 2.22.

c10.171

⁵ Ibid., V. 1.80.

c10.172

⁶ Thaṇāṅga, IV. 271 with the comm. of Abhayadevasūri.

c10.173

⁷ Jāt., iv, 276-8.

c10.174

¹ yasseva ghare bhuñjeyya bhogam tasseva attham puriso careyya. Jāt., vi, 426.

c10.175

² Jāt., -iv; Aṅg. N., i, 206; Vin., i, 240.

c10.176

Hiring people for wages appears as a widespread phenomenon in the age of the Buddha. We come across several terms such as pessa, bhataka, purisa and kammakara, for wage earners. But the term kammakara is repeatedly mentioned in Pāli texts along with the term dāsa. The practice is also found in Āpastamba³ and continued in Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra and some other Sanskrit texts which use the word karmakara. All this suggests that the dāsa and karmakara belong to the same social category. Economically however wage earning appear only at an advanced stage of social development, for it presupposes considerable rational judgement and deliberate decision making. Indo-European languages have no common term for wage or wage earner. In Sanskrit terms for wage appeared in post-Vedic times. Later Vedic society did neither develop much private property nor produce much surplus. Only when these limitations were overcome, did the wage system appear. Although wages could be paid in kind, the wage system came into general vogue in India only with the increasing use of money and coming of some degree of marketisation which made it possible to purchase labour. As has been pointed out, the process involves several abstract ideas such as (1) purchase of labour power, (2) use of labour time according to the wishes of the purchaser, (3) calculation of the wages according to the labour time spent and the nature/kind of work performed, (4) some kind of contract regarding wages based on such a measurement and (5) separation of product from the producer and its consumption in a household to which he does not belong.⁴ The conditions for hiring labour were created in the post-Vedic society of the middle Gaṅgā basin because of the emergence of propertied households which needed to hire labour in order to exploit the resources which were beyond the capacity of the family labour. This factor was coupled with the availability of impoverished people, who either on account of war or on account of social subjection, found themselves unable to eke out a living out of their own family resources. Constant wars waged by Magadha from about 550 B.C. may have been a great source of slavery and dependent labour. Once slaves and hired labourers were made available in good numbers, rules and regulations had to be formed not only for governing wage labour but also for creating, identifying and maintaining a social order which could ensure its supply. Those who worked as slaves and hired labourers came to be known as śūdras.

c10.177

³ Āp. Dh. S. II. 4.9.11.

c10.178

⁴ M.I. Finlay, The Ancient Economy, pp. 65-66.

c10.179

We can have some idea of the economic position of the śūdras from some rules governing the relations between the employers and the employees. It is characteristic of the predominantly agrarian and pastoral economy of the pre-Mauryan period that the rules of this kind refer to the relations between the master on the one hand and his agricultural labourers and herdsmen on the other. It is laid down by Āpastamba that, if the servant in tillage gives up his work, he shall be given physical punishment.¹ The same provision applies to the herdsman who abandons tending the cattle;² it is further provided that in such a case the cattle shall be entrusted to some other herdsman.³ If the loss of the cattle is due to the negligence of the herdsman, he is held responsible for it.⁴ Gautama does not refer to these provisions, but he ordains that the master of the cattle or his herdsman, as the case might be, shall be called to account for any damage caused to anyone by the cattle in his charge.⁵ None of these lawgivers state the obligations of the master towards his herdsman or agricultural labourers. Thus, compared to their masters, these wage-earners were placed in a disadvantageous position.

First 178 of 569 passages. Read on

Linked texts (45)