Shudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c10.199

c10.199

But the śūdras did not enjoy the same standards of living as did members of the higher varṇas, who employed them. Repeatedly in the Pāli texts the khattiya, the brāhmaṇa and the gahapati are called mahāsāla (opulent),¹ implying thereby that the dāsas, pessas, kammakaras, purisas and bhatakas were not in that fortunate position. Some of the rich śūdra artisans might be prosperous gahapatis, but in a predominantly agrarian economy, and being mostly in the hands of the brāhmaṇas, the kṣatriyas² and the seṭṭhis,³ most of the śūdras had to live on wages in the fixation of which they had no voice. It is said that ‘the great mass of the people were well-to-do peasantry or handicraftsmen, mostly with land of their own’.⁴ This may apply to the vaiśya or the gahapati class but not to the śūdras, who had to live by working on the land of others. They were condemned to this position not simply because of their birth, but because of their birth in poor families. This point is clearly underlined in the course of a Buddhist argument to disprove the brāhmaṇa’s claim to supremacy. It is said that, if the śūdra grew wealthy, he could engage not only another śūdra as his servant, but also another kṣatriya, brāhmaṇa or vaiśya.⁵ Normally in such cases, which would be few, the contradiction between the low social status and the high economic position of a person could be resolved by raising him in the social scale. In later times such a policy was practised by the brāhmaṇas in assimilating the foreign ruling chiefs to the kṣatriya fold. It is possible, therefore, that those śūdras who were favoured by fortune could rise to a high social status.