Shudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c10.153

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