Shudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c10.165

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.