Shudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c10.555

c10.555

The usual form of protest adopted by the members of the lower orders was to run away from their master's work. This happened not only in the case of the gahapatis oppressed with taxes⁴ but also in that of the artisans and the slaves. A later Jātaka informs us that, failing to carry out the orders for which pre-payment had been made, a settlement of woodworkers were summoned to fulfil the contract. But instead of "abiding in their lot" with "oriental stoicism" they made a mighty boat secretly and emigrated with their families, slipping down to the Gaṅgā by night, and so out to sea till they reached a fertile island.⁵ Escape from work seems to have been a common practice with the dāsas. Mrs. Rhys Davids wrongly states that there are no instances of runaway slaves.⁶ In the Jātakas there are at least two instances of slaves gaining freedom by flight.⁷ Runaway slaves are also mentioned as joining the Buddhist church.⁸ In a later Jātaka, in order to save their lives, intended victims for sacrifice offer to work in chains as slaves of a tyrannical priest.⁹ This may suggest that in some cases chains were used to prevent the escape of the slaves. The late Buddhist tradition about Makkhali Gosāla, the Ājīvika leader, being a runaway slave, even if not true,¹⁰ presupposes the possibility of escape on the part of a slave. In one case the dāsas and the kammakaras, in the absence of any control from the master, run away with his possessions.¹ All these instances show that usually the members of the working class expressed their resentment against the existing order by fleeing from their work, slave revolts of the Greek or the Roman type being absent. The Dharmasūtras, however, state that in the case of an intermixture of the varṇas, even the brāhmaṇas and the vaiśyas can take up arms in self-defence, the kṣatriyas always enjoying this right.² The fact that in an emergency only the members of the three varṇas could bear arms³ suggests that the lawgiver had in mind an eventuality when the śūdras might attempt to remove by force the frontiers of the varṇas. Although there is no examples of such an attempt, except the mild revolt of the slaves in Kāpilavastu, the provision laid down by Vasiṣṭha implies that, in view of the disabilities imposed on the śūdras, the members of the upper varṇas apprehended revolts on their part.