Shudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c11: Chapter V: State Control and the Servile Order

Śūdras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c11

Language: English

Chapter V: State Control and the Servile Order

Our chief source for the study of the position of the śūdras during the Mauryan period is the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya, which can be supplemented by the fragments from the account of Megasthenes, and the inscriptions of Aśoka. But perhaps no single question in ancient Indian history has been debated so much as the date and authenticity of the *Arthaśāstra*.¹ On the one hand it is passionately held that the work belongs to Kauṭilya, the minister of Candragupta; on the other this is vehemently denied and the work is ascribed to the first or the third century A.D. It is not possible to recapitulate the whole controversy, but certain observations seem to be necessary. The one great weakness of the arguments of the opposite school is their negative character. A verse at the end of the *Arthaśāstra* clearly attributes this work to one who destroyed the Nandas,² —a tradition which is recorded in later brāhmaṇical and Jain literature. This verse is particularly valuable in view of the fact that such biographical notices about the authors of the Dharma-sūtras and the Smṛtis are conspicuously wanting in other cases. Further, no literary source gives any alternative information suggesting that Kauṭilya belonged to some other period.

c11.3

¹ A fairly exhaustive bibliograhy on the subject is to be found on pp. 285-86 of *The Age of Imperial Unity*. Kangle and Trautman give longer lists of publications.

c11.4

² *AŚ*, XV. 1.

c11.5

Some new grounds have been adduced to show that the *Arthaśāstra* was a work of the period from the first to the third centuries A.D.³ It is contended that in Kauṭilya’s classification of knowledge positive sciences had begun to be separated from philosophy, and that this process can be assigned to the early centuries of the Christian era.¹ But there is no doubt that the principal disciplines mentioned by Kauṭilya, i.c. *kalpa*, (ritual), *vyākaraṇa* (grammar), and *nirukta* (etymology), existed as subjects of study in the pre-Mauryan period. It is to be further noted that the mention of the *lokāyata* (materialistic) system of philosophy in the *Arthaśāstra* does not imply any later date for that work.² The *lokāyata* system is perhaps pre-Buddhist,³ and definitely pre-Mauryan, for it is clearly mentioned in the early Buddhist texts.⁴

c11.6

³ V. Kalyanov, “Dating the Arthaśāstra”, *Papers presented by the Soviet Delegation at the XXIII International Congress of Orientalists*, pp. 40-54.

c11.7

¹ *Ibid.*, pp. 44-45.

c11.8

² *Ibid.*, p. 45.

c11.9

³ R. Garbe, Hasting's *Encycl. of Religion and Ethics*, viii, 138; cf. Ruben, *Einfuhrung in die Indienkunde*, p. 126.

c11.10

⁴ *Digha. N.*, i, 130; *Majj. N.*, ii, 165.

c11.11

It is also argued that the compilation of the *Arthaśāstra* presupposes a long tradition in the field of political science which could only develop in the course of several hundred years.⁵ This fact is acknowledged by Kauṭilya himself, who mentions as many as ten predecessors in his filed.⁶ That there was a long tradition of this kind in the pre-Mauryan period is testified by the Dharmasūtras. According to one calculation the *artha* contents account for 1/12 of the *Āpastamba Dharmasūtra*, 1/12 of the *Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra*, 1/8 of the *Gautama Dharmasūtra* and 1/6 of the *Vasiṣṭaha Dharmasūtra*.⁷ This points to the growing importance of the subject of *artha*, ultimately leading to the creation of an independent work on the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya.

c11.12

⁵ Kalyanov, *op. cit.*, p. 46.

c11.13

⁶ *AŚ*, I. 2,8.

c11.14

⁷ K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar, *Indian Comeralism*, p. 50.

c11.15

It is further maintained that the *Arthaśāstra* policy of avoiding extremes and following a middle path is found in the philosophical work *Madhyānta-vibhaṅga*,⁸ which can be ascribed to the third century A.D. But the enunciation of the doctrine of the middle path known as the *majjhimā paṭipadā* is as old as the text of the *Vinaya Piṭaka*,⁹ where in his very first sermon the Buddha is represented as teaching his followers to abandon the two extremes of asceticism and luxury.

c11.16

⁸ Kalyanov, *op. cit.*, p. 48.

c11.17

⁹ *Vin.*, i, 10; *Samy. N.*, v, 421.

c11.18

Finally, it is held that the kind of relations of production, the social system and political institutions described in the *Arthaśāstra* are in a much more advanced stage of development than those referred to in the reports of Megasthenes and in the inscriptions of Aśoka, and seem to be characteristic of the period between the first and the third centuries A.D.¹ But the evidence for such a view seems to be tenuous. The capital fact in the relations of production as known from the *Arthaśāstra* is a large measure of state control over all sectors of economy. The Kauṭilyan state does not only control trade, industry and mining, but the superintendents of agriculture, while working the state farms with the help of the dāsas and karmakaras, mobilise the services of the blacksmiths, the carpenters, the diggers etc. for the purpose.² This development is borne out by the fragments quoted by Strabo from Megasthenes. We learn that great officers of the state not only superintended the rivers and looked after irrigation, but also measured the land and supervised occupations connected with land such as those of woodcutters, carpenters, blacksmiths and miners.³ Similarly the social system outlined in the *Arthaśāstra* is modelled after the brāhmaṇical pattern.

c11.19

¹ Kalyanov, *op. cit.*, p. 52.

c11.20

² *AŚ*, II. 24.

c11.21

³ McCrindle, *AIMA*, p. 86, Frag. 34.

c11.22

The distinctive feature of the *Arthaśāstra* polity is to exalt monarchical power (*rāja-śāsana*) over all the other sources of authority,⁴ and to make it felt among the subjects through as many as nearly thirty departments. This general policy of the Mauryan empire is in the main borne out by the inscriptions of Aśoka, who acted as a promulgator of the dharma and who possessed a fairly well organised bureaucracy. Significantly enough the tendency towards the all-pervading power of the state as represented by the king also manifested itself in the empire of Alexander and was carried forward by the Hellenistic monarchies which arose on its ruins.⁵ Thus Strabo, quoting from Megasthenes, rightly compares the magistrates in India with similar officers in Hellenistic Egypt.¹ Kauṭilya claims to have studied the practices prevailing in the contemporary states,² and hence his exaltation of the monarchical power seems to reflect the spirit of the age.

c11.23

⁴ *AŚ*, III. 1.

c11.24

⁵ K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, “Royal Power in Ancient India”, *The Proceeding of the IHC* (1944), p. 46.

c11.25

¹ McCrindle, *AICL*, p. 53, Frag. 50.

c11.26

² AŚ, II. 10.

c11.27

But there is no denying the fact that, like so many other works, the *Arthaśāstra* may have been recast in later times. Therefore the problem is to find out the later accretions made to the primary kernel.³ Books II and III of the *Arthaśāstra* seem to contain genuine Mauryan reminiscences, and are mainly used in the present chapter.

c11.28

³ Kalyanov, *op. cit.*, p. 54.

c11.29

Although the Mauryan empire extended practically over the whole of India except the far south and although Kauṭilya shows a wide geographicl horizon, possibly the provisions laid down in the *Arthaśāstra* reflect conditions obtaining in Northern India. In so far as the *Arthaśāstra* measures were meant to serve the needs of the empire by overriding parochial and sectarian considerations, they may have been applied to the whole of it; but the detailed instructions regarding the control of economic activities or the policy of bringing virgin soil under the plough may have been limited to the areas near the heart of the empire.

c11.30

In defining the functions of the śūdra varṇa Kauṭilya uses the Dharmasūtra terminology. He states that the śūdra’s means of livelihood is derived from his service of the twice-born.⁴ But they can support themselves by the professions of artisans, dancers, actors etc.,⁵ which are apparently independent occupations not implying the service of the twice-born.

c11.31

⁴ AŚ I. 3. In the phrase ‘śūdrasya dvijātiśuśrūṣā vārtā’ the term ‘vārtā’ is not used in the sense of the three occupations of agriculture, tending of cattle and trade, as Shamasastry thinks (*Tr.*, p. 7), but in the sense of livelihood (*Jayamangalā* JOR, xx. 11.

c11.32

⁵ AŚ, I. 3.

c11.33

The Dharmasūtra terminology used by Kauṭilya may suggest that the śūdras continued to be completely dependent for their livelihood on their masters of the upper varṇas. On the basis of a passage in Book II of the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya it is suggested that śūdras appeared as peasants and cultivators, but this interpretation of the passage seems to be doubtful. Kauṭilya lays down that in founding a rural settlement villages, consisting of a hundred to five hundred families each, should be set up at the interval of two or four miles and should be inhabited mainly by śūdra and karṣaka (cultivators).¹ In our opinion the terms² śūdra and karṣaka form a *dvandva* compound, and indicate that śūdras were not peasants. Several scholars treat śūdra as an adjective of karṣaka³ and hold that śūdra peasants were requisitioned for founding settlements. The interpretation of the phrase *śūdrakarṣakaprāya* is rendered difficult by the fact that it does not occur anywhere else in the *Arthaśāstra*. In indicating the nature of settlements Chapter XXI of the *Ādi Purāṇa* uses the term *śūdrakarṣakabhūyiṣṭhāḥ*;⁴ in our opinion in such cases karṣaka is a substitute for vaiśya. For the same chapter of the Purāṇa speaks of vaiśyas and śūdras as two separate categories. As usual the vaiśyas are described as those living on trade, agriculture and cattle rearing, and the śūdras as those who are meant for the service of the vaiśyas as artisans and non-artisans,⁵ i.e. as domestic servants, agricultural labourers etc. Obviously the verses in the *Ādi Purāṇa* are based on Kauṭilya, for it also prescribes one hundred families as the minimum population for a village and five hundred as the maximum.⁶ Therefore the interpretation of the *Arthaśāstra* passage by the Tamil-Malayalam commentary, which takes

c11.34

⁵ *vaiśyāsca kṛṣivāṇijyapaśupālyopajīvitāḥ, teṣāṃ śuśrūṣācchūdrāste dvidhā kārvakāravaḥ. ibid., 184.*

c11.35

⁶ *śūdrakarṣakabhūyiṣṭhāḥ . . . grāmaḥ kulaśateneṣṭo nikṛṣṭaḥ samadhiṣṭhitaḥ, parastalpañcaśatyā syāt susaniṛddhakṛṣībalaḥ. Ibid., XVI. 164-65.*

c11.36

1. *śūdrakarṣakaprāyaṃ kulaśatāvaraṃ pañcaśatakulaparaṃ grāmaṃ krośadvikro-śaśīmānamanyonyārakṣaṃ niveśayet. AŚ, II. 1.*

c11.37

2. I. J. Sorabji, *Some Notes on the Adhyakṣapracāra Bk. II of the Kauṭilīyam Arthaśāstram*, s.v., *śūdrakarṣakaprāyaṃ* in AŚ, II. 1; J. J. Meyer, *Das altindische Buch vom Welt und Staatleben*, tr. of AŚ, II. 1.

c11.38

3. TGS, i, 109; SS tr. of AŚ, II. 1; Kangle’s tr.

c11.39

4. *śūdrakarṣakabhūyiṣṭhāḥ śārāmā sajalāśayā, Ādi Purāṇa, XVI. 162-65.*

c11.40

śūdra and karṣaka as two independent words, seems to be correct.¹ On the other hand the commentary of Yogghama which treats śūdra as an adjective of karṣaka² reflects the state of affairs in medieval times when śūdras were treated as peasants. Yogghama clearly states that vaiśya peasants are few in number.³ This obviously applies to the medieval period when the vaiśya peasantry had become practically extinct;⁴ in ancient times till the Gupta period the vaiśya peasants were the principal taxpayers. Kauṭilya’s instruction therefore does not signify any fundamental change in the position of the śūdras. It merely focuses on the role of śūdras as slaves, artisans and agricultural labourers in opening virgin lands to cultivation and in founding new villages.

c11.41

¹ Quoted in R. P. Kangle, The Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra, pt. II, 62, fn. 2; also see pt. I, Preface, pp. 2, 5-6.

c11.42

² A Fragment of the Kauṭalya’s Arthaśāstra alias Rājasiddhānta with the fragment of the commentary named Nītinirṇīti of Ācārya Yogghama alias Mugdhavilāsa, ed. Muni Jina Vijaya, p. 2.

c11.43

³ vaiśyakarṣakāḥ svalpāḥ, ibid.

c11.44

⁴ The process had started in the third-fourth centuries A.D.

c11.45

In the new settlements, besides agriculture, the services of the śūdra population could be utilised for other purposes. It is stated that a new settlement, which is mainly inhabited by the śūdras (avaravarṇaprāya), is capable of yielding sure results and bearing all burdens imposed on them by the state.⁵ According to the commentary Nayacandrikā the meaning of the term bhoga indicates that the śūdras were to be engaged not only in cultivation but also in carrying loads and building forts.⁶ It is also said that a settlement inhabited by śūdras enjoys the advantage of numerical strength.⁷ For the purpose of opening up new lands to cultivation or rehabilitating old sites the śūdras were to be drafted from the areas which were overpopulated or induced to migrate from foreign kingdoms.⁸ It is stated that the *janapada* should have a numerous population of the lowest varṇas.¹ All this would suggest that the country had a considerable śūdra population, perhaps the majority belonging to this varṇa. And in other parts of the country, mainly inhabited by established vaiśya peasants, the śūdras may not have been principally liable for payment of the land revenue and other charges, as is suggested by Ghoshal.²

c11.46

⁵ tasyāṃ cāturvarṇyābhiniveśaṃ sarvabhogasahatvādavaravarṇaprāya śreyasī bāhulyāt dhruvatvācca..AŚ, VII, 11. The Nayacandrikā (p. 33) explains the term avaravarṇaprāya as śūdraprāya.

c11.47

⁶ karṣaṇabhāravahanadurgakaraṇādiviniyogaḥ, tadyogyatvādityarthaḥ. Nayacandrikā, p. 33.

c11.48

⁷ AŚ, VII. 11.

c11.49

⁸ paradeśāpavāhanena svadeśābhiṣyandavamanena vā. AŚ, II. 1.

c11.50

¹ *avaravarṇaprāyaḥ*. AŚ, VI. 1.

c11.51

² *Hindu Revenue System*, p. 55.

c11.52

Probably the main body of the śūdra population continued to be employed as agricultural labourers and slaves. Slavery as known from the Dharmasūtras, was domestic in nature. Kauṭilya is the first and the only brāhmaṇical writer who furnishes evidence of dāsas being employed in agricultural production on a substantial scale.³ In the early Pāli texts there are only three instances of big farms, but in the Mauryan period there seem to have existed numerous such farms, worked with slaves and hired labourers in the direct employ of the *sitādhyakṣa* (superintendent of agriculture). He supplied them with agricultural implements and other accessories, and requisitioned the services of carpenters, blacksmiths and other artisans for the purpose.⁴ This fact is broadly attested by Megasthenes, who mentions the officers superintending occupations connected with land and also those of the artisans.⁵ Arrian speaks of the superintendents of agriculture,⁶ who probably performed the functions of the *sitādhyakṣa*. Strabo informs us that the third caste of shepherds and hunters led a nomadic life and were given an allowance of corn from the king for keeping out the wild beasts and birds from the land.⁷ They seem to be similar to the nomadic aboriginals (*sarpagrāhādikāḥ*, i.e. people engaged in catching snakes and others),⁸ who were pressed into the service of agriculture by the *sitādhyapṣa*.⁹ The Mauryan state therefore was a great employer of dāsas and karmakaras, artisans and the aboriginal peoples, who apparently belonged to the śūdra class. And in this respect the organization of agricultural production in this period resembles to some extent that which prevailed in Greece and Rome.

c11.53

³ AŚ, II. 24.

c11.54

⁴ Ibid.

c11.55

⁵ McCrindle, *AIMA*, p. 86, Frag. 34.

c11.56

⁶ Ibid., *AICL*, p. 53, fn. 4.

c11.57

⁷ Ibid., p. 48, Frag. 41.

c11.58

⁸ According to Bhaṭṭasvāmin the *rajjuvartakas* were śvapākas and others, and the *sarpagrāhādik* as were śabaras and others. *JBORS*, xii, 143.

c11.59

⁹ AŚ, II. 24.

c11.60

Kauṭilya lays down that, if fields cannot be sown (apparently due to shortage of labour power), they can be leased to those who cultivate for half the share of the produce.¹ Those who live by bodily labour (i.e. karmakaras) and therefore do not possess seeds and oxen necessary for cultivation can cultivate such lands, but may retain only one fourth or one fifth of the produce; presumably their seed and oxen were provided by the state.² Kauṭilya enunciates the principle that the sharecroppers should pay to the kings as much as they can without entailing any hardship upon themselves, but he does not indicate the nature of such hardships.³ It seems that the sharecroppers were also allotted some land with hard soil, for which they had not to pay anything to the state.⁴ Evidently there were two kinds of sharecroppers — the one retaining half and the other retaining ¼th or ⅕th of their crops; the former are described by the commentator Bhaṭṭasvāmin as *grāmyakuṭumbinaḥ*.⁵ In the section on the *durganiveśa* (founding of the capital) Kauṭilya provides that the *kuṭumbins* should be settled on the boundary of the capital to meet the requirements of their field work and other occupation.⁶ It is said that they shall work in flower gardens, forest gardens, vegetable gardens and paddy fields⁷ and collect plenty of grain and merchandise as authorised. In this context the term *kuṭumbinaḥ* is explained by T. Gaṇapati Śāstrī as a person belonging to the lowest varṇa (*varṇāvarāṇām*),⁸ and by Shamasastry as families of workmen.⁹ Thus the *kuṭumbins* were probably śūdra sharecroppers and agricultural labourers. This use of the term is rather unusual since in most sources kuṭumbinaḥ means simply the head of a family,¹ but the context indicates that here it has a specialised meaning.

c11.61

¹ AŚ, II. 24.

c11.62

² Ibid., II. 24. Commentary of Bhaṭṭasvāmin, op. cit., 137.

c11.63

³ AŚ. II. 24.

c11.64

⁴ *anyatra kṛcchrebhyaḥ*. Ibid.

c11.65

⁵ JBORS, xii, 137.

c11.66

⁶ *karmāntakṣetravaśena vā kuṭumbinam sīmānam sthāpayet*. AŚ, II. 4.

c11.67

⁷ In his translation SS says that these were allotted to them, but there is nothing in the text to support this.

c11.68

⁸ i, 130.

c11.69

⁹ Tr., p. 54.

c11.70

¹ Hindu Revenue System, p. 200, fn. 2.

c11.71

Possibly in the old settlements a large number of śūdras, agricultural labourers, slaves and artisans was employed by proprietors of the higher varṇas. The gopa, who is in charge of the collection of taxes from the peasants, is required to register the total number of the inhabitants in each village and also of half a dozen producing sections of society—namely the karṣakas (cultivators), the gorakṣakas (herdsmen or owners of cattle), the vaidehakas (traders), the kārus (artisans), the karmakaras and the dāsas.² It seems that the list includes the members of the two lower varṇas, the first three groups belonging to the vaiśyas and the remaining three to the śūdras. Megasthenes does not enumerate the producing castes in this order. While the vaiśya agriculturists (karṣakas) of Kauṭilya roughly correspond to the caste of husbandmen mentioned by Megasthenes,³ the vaiśya traders and śūdra artisans and labourers correspond to the third caste of Megasthenes the members of which work at trades, vend wares and are employed in bodily labour.⁴ Megasthenes further adds that some of these pay taxes and render to the state certain prescribed services.⁵ The first part of the statement probably refers to traders and the second part to artisans and labourers. In the Arthaśāstra the śūdras probably come under the category of the non-taxpayers, whose number also is to be recorded by the gopa.⁶ In the tax-paying villages a list is to be maintained of those who supply free labour (viṣṭi) to the state.⁷ Commenting on a passage of the Arthaśāstra Bhaṭṭasvāmin suggests that one type of villages was meant only for supply of free labour in lieu of taxes and its inhabitants were employed in building fortresses etc.¹ T. Gaṇapati Śāstrī rightly says that this type of work was done by the karmakaras,² for along with some others the dāsas and karmakaras were regarded as always liable to forced labour, which meant that they were not adequately paid for their work.³ All this would suggest that, excepting those who were sharecroppers working on the crown lands, the śūdras were mostly tax-free and were generally employed as agricultural labourers and slaves, who did not possess any independent means of livelihood.

c11.72

² AS, II. 35.

c11.73

³ McCrindle, AIMA, pp. 83-84, Frag. 33.

c11.74

⁴ Ibid. AICL, p.

c11.75

⁵³ Strabo, Frag. 46.

c11.76

⁵ Ibid.

c11.77

⁶ AS, II. 35.

c11.78

¹ AŚ, II. 15. etāvanto viṣṭip atikarāḥ...durgādikarmapayogibhiḥ. JBORS, xii, 198.
2. i, 344.
3. ..dāsakarmakaravargaśca viṣṭiḥ. AŚ, II. 15.

c11.79

Kauṭilya gives us some information about the working conditions of the herdsmen, who seem to have been employed in large numbers by the state, under the general control of the superintendent of cattle.⁴ He fixes their wages at 1/10 of the butter clarified,⁵ but is very particular about their functions. While emphasising the responsibilities of the herdsmen, Kauṭilya provides that, if the loss of the animal is on account of the fault of the herdsman, even capital punishment can be inflicted on him.⁶ This extreme measure, which is not mentioned in the law-books of the pre-Mauryan period, was either inspired by the great economic importance attached to animal wealth, or by the teachings of Buddhism and Jainism, or by both the factors.

c11.80

⁴ AŚ, II. 29.

c11.81

⁵ Ibid., III. 13.
6. svayam hantā ghātayitā hartā hārayitā ca vadhyaḥ. Ibid., II. 29.

c11.82

We may next examine the Arthaśāstra evidence regarding the employment, control and wages of the artisans in so far as they throw light on the general position of the śūdras. Reference has already been made to the artisans who were mobilised by the state to help agriculture. Many others seem to have been employed by the state in weaving,⁷ mining,⁸ storekeeping,⁹ manufacture of arms,¹⁰ metal work¹¹ etc. In the earlier period artisans such as weavers appear in the employment of the gahapati, but now they are employed in large numbers by the state.¹ The artisans probably owned their tools, but were supplied with raw materials by the state. There is no mention of slaves being engaged in any of these crafts. They also did not work in mining operations, which were conducted by the karmakaras.²

c11.83

⁷ AŚ. II. 23.

c11.84

⁸ Ibid., II. 12.

c11.85

⁹ Ibid., II. 15.

c11.86

¹⁰ Ibid., II. 18.

c11.87

¹ AŚ, II. 23.

c11.88

² Ibid., II. 12.

c11.89

But the employment of artisans by the state seems to have been mainly limited to the capital and perhaps the important cities, which had a considerable artisan population. It is laid down that the artisans can reside to the north of the royal palace and the guilds of workmen and others should be allotted their residence in the several corners of the capital.³ It is further stated that people of the śūdra caste and artisans manufacturing worsted threads, cotton threads, bamboo mats, skins, armour, weapons and scabbards should be allotted their dwellings to the west of the royal palace.⁴ Probably some of these worked under the sūtrādhyakṣa or the superintendent of spinning,⁵ while others worked under the superintendent of armoury.⁶ Megasthenes informs us that the armour-makers and shipbuilders received wages and provisions from the kings and worked only for them.⁷ Besides, in the city there was a committee of five to look after everything relating to industrial arts.⁸ All this suggests that the state control and employment of artisans was mainly confined to the cities. But Megasthenes also states that great officers of the state supervised the occupations of woodcutters, carpenters, blacksmiths and miners,⁹ which may indicate some sort of general control over the artisans living outside the city but working for the state.

c11.90

³ Ibid., II. 4.

c11.91

⁴ tataḥ paramūrṇāsūtraveṇucarmavarmaśastrāvaraṇakāravaśśūdrāsca paścimāṃ diśamadhivaseyuḥ. AŚ. II. 4.

c11.92

⁵ AŚ, II. 23.

c11.93

⁶ Ibid., II. 18.

c11.94

⁷ McCrindle, AICL, p. 53, Strabo, Frag. 46.

c11.95

⁸ Ibid., AIMA, p. 87, Frag. 34.

c11.96

⁹ Ibid., p. 86, Frag. 34.

c11.97

The *Arthaśāstra* is the earliest Indian text which lays down general rules regarding the relation between the employers and the employees. Artisans are regarded as a source of trouble, against which several measures are provided in the section on the *kārukara-rakṣaṇam*. The artisans must fulfil their engagements as to time, place and form of work. Failure in this respect, except when due to "troubles and calamities", shall involve not only the forfeiture of a quarter of their wages, but also a fine twice the amount of wages and the payment of damages into the bargain.¹ The violation of instructions in the course of work shall be punished with the forfeiture of wages and a fine twice the amount.² A servant, who neglects his work, for which pre-payment has been made, shall be fined 12 paṇas and be made to work till his job is finished.³ He will not be, however, subjected to such a fine if he is incapable of doing work due to reasons beyond his control.⁴ On the other hand Kauṭilya also lays down certain regulations protecting the artisans. Thus those who seek to deprive the artisans of their just earnings, by minimising the quality of their work or obstructing the sale and purchase of gods, shall be fined a thousand paṇas.⁵ An employer not taking work from his labourer shall be fined 12 paṇas,⁶ and if he refuses to take work without any sufficient grounds, the work will be taken as done.⁷ Kauṭilya concedes one privilege to the artisans who are organised into guilds. They can have a grace of seven nights over and above the period agreed upon for executing the contract.⁸

c11.98

¹ *AŚ*, IV. 1.

c11.99

² *Ibid.*
3. *AŚ*, III. 14.

c11.100

⁴ *Ibid.*
5. *AŚ*, IV. 2.

c11.101

⁶ *bharturkārayato bhṛtakasyākurvato vā dvādasapaṇo daṇḍaḥ*. *AŚ*, III. 15.

c11.102

⁷ *Ibid.*

c11.103

As regards the fixation of wages, Kauṭilya enunciates the general principle that wages should be fixed according to the time and quality of the work. This certainly indicates a high stage of social development in which the importance of time, skill and labour invested in a piece of work was very well recognised, Kauṭilya further states that artisans, musicians, physicians, cooks and other workmen shall obtain as much wages as similar persons employed elsewhere usually get, or as much as experts shall fix.¹ The servant shall get the promised wages; but if they are not settled first, a cultivator (i.e. an agricultural labourer) should get 1/10 of the crops grown, a herdsman 1/10 of the butter clarified and a trader 1/10 of the sale proceeds.² Here a distinction has to be made between the share-cropping agricultural labourers who were entitled to receive 1/4 or 1/6 of the crops on the crown lands, and the general agricultural labourer who received only 1/10 of the crops.

c11.104

¹ kāruśilpikuśilavacikitsakavāgjīvanaparicārakādirāśākārikavargastu yathā’nyastadvidhaḥ kurvāt, yathā vā kuśalāḥ kalpayeyuḥ, tathā vetanam labhet, AŚ, III. 13.

c11.105

² AŚ, III. 13.

c11.106

According to Kauṭilya disputes regarding wages are to be decided on the strength of evidence furnished by witnesses. If they are not available, the employer shall be examined.³ The fact that the employer is not to be examined in this connection obviously makes it difficult to establish the guilt of the master. But if it is found that he has failed to pay wages, the master should be punished with a fine either ten times the amount of the wages or six paṇas. Besides, misappropriation of wages will mean a fine of twelve paṇas or of five times the amount of the wages.⁴ On the basis of these rules we get two different rates of wages, namely 3/5 paṇa or 2 1/2 paṇas. Thus it seems that the daily wage of a worker varied from 3/5 paṇa to 2 1/2 paṇas. At one place Kauṭilya states that, in addition to the provisions, the agricultural workers should receive a monthly wage of 1 1/4 paṇas. The *Arthaśāstra* shows a wide gap between the pay of the higher officials, who, as will be shown, were recruited from the upper classes, and the artisans who belonged to the lower orders. The highest pay is provided for the priest (ṛtvij), the teacher, the minister, the purohita, the commander of the army etc., who get a (monthly) salary of 48,000 paṇas.⁵ Lesser officials are recommended a salary of 24,000, 12,000 or 8,000 paṇas,¹ but the artisans are recommended 120 paṇas.² It is important, however, to note that the vardhaki, who seems to have been the chief carpenter, is provided a salary of 2,000 paṇas like the physician and the charioteer.³ Consideration is also shown to the grāmabhṛtaka (the village officer)⁴ and the servant leading the spies, the first getting a salary of 500 paṇas and the second getting 200 paṇas.⁵ The smallest salary of 60 paṇas is recommended for the servants who are in charge of quadrupeds and bipeds, workmen doing miscellaneous work, attendants upon the royal person, bodyguards and the procurer of free labour.⁶ Presuming that this payment was made on a monthly basis, it works out at the rate of two paṇas a day for an ordinary labourer. But the rate of 3/5 paṇa a day worked out earlier may suggest that private individual paid even less than 2 paṇas.

c11.107

³ Ibid.

c11.108

⁴ Ibid.

c11.109

⁵ AŚ. V. 3.

c11.110

¹ Ibid.

c11.111

² Ibid.

c11.112

³ Ibid.

c11.113

⁴ The grāmabhṛtaka cannot be taken as an ordinary village servant, as SS thinks (Tr., 277); his salary of 500 paṇas shows that he was a village officer of some importance.

c11.114

⁵ AŚ, V. 3.

c11.115

⁶ Ibid.

c11.116

The artisans and wage earners were the worst paid members of society, but we can have no precise idea about their standard of living on account of the lack of information about the purchasing power of the paṇa. Kauṭilya, however, provides that the dāsas and karmakaras in the employ of the state should be given "particles of rice" for their support by the superintendent of the storehouse.⁷ What remains after such disposal should be given to the cooks engaged in preparing cakes,⁸ who may have been slaves, for these were engaged in the pre-Mauryan period. In connection with the disposal of bad liquor it is said that this should be given as wages to the dāsas and karmakaras because of the low type of their work.¹ Kauṭilya differentiates between the diet of an ordinary ārya and that of a śūdra. An ārya should get as his ration one prastha of pure and unsplit rice, 1/4 prastha of salt, 1/4 prastha of soup and 1/4 prastha of butter or oil; while an avara should get the same quantity of rice and salt but 1/8 prastha of soup and only half of oil recommended for an ārya,² butter being not provided in his case. In this context an avara means a person of the low caste (nikṛṣṭānām) and is a śūdra. But an ārya stands for an ordinary member of the higher varṇas,³ for rations for the āryas of higher grades such as the king, queen and chiefs of army are provided in much greater quantities.⁴ All this would show that the śūdras were fed on inferior food.

c11.117

⁷ kaṇikāḥ dāsakarmakarasūpakārāṇāmato'nyad udanikāpūpikebhyaḥ prayacchet. AŚ, II. 15. The term kaṇikā here presumably means a broken part of a grain. The workmen were given the broken grain after threshing.

c11.118

⁸ Ibid.

c11.119

¹ *dāsakarmakarebhyo vā vetanaṃ dadyāt*. AŚ, II. 25 with the comm. of TGS, i, 292.

c11.120

² *puṃsaḥ ṣaḍbhāgassūpaḥ ardhasnehamavarāṇām*. The term prastha, the alternative reading for puṃsa, mentioned by SS and accepted by TGS seems to be the correct reading. cf. Prana Natha, *Eco. Condition in Anc. India*, pp. 150-51.

c11.121

³ He is described as a *madhyamapratipattika sādhupuruṣa* by Bhaṭṭasvāmin. *JBORS*, xi, 91.

c11.122

⁴ AŚ, II. 15.

c11.123

During the Mauryan period the economic position of the śūdras seems to have undergone several changes. For the first time the śūdras came to be engaged as sharecroppers on the crown lands. But probably the śūdras were employed on a far larger scale as slaves and labourers in agricultural production by the state. The members of the lower order, who lived in village either working under the individual cultivators or independently, were subjected to *corvée* on a much larger scale than in the period of the Dharmasūtras, when it was mostly confined to the artisans.⁵ The phenomenon had become now so widespread that a class of government servants known as the *viṣṭibandhakās* worked as procurers of forced labour.⁶ Though as workers and artisans the śūdras were the worst paid people in society, fixation of wages may have helped to improve their position. Nevertheless, there seems to have been no appreciable change in their standard of living, except perhaps in the case of the śūdra sharecroppers.

c11.124

⁵ T. W. Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, p. 49.

c11.125

⁶ AŚ, V. 3.

c11.126

Unlike the Dharmasūtras, Kauṭilya does not make any explicit statement excluding the śūdras from high administrative posts. But his list of requisite qualifications for kingship and high governmental posts shows that these were looked upon as the special preserve of the members of the three higher varṇas. He states that, in preference to a strong and base-born king, people will naturally obey a king of noble birth, even if he be weak,¹ and therefore in his opinion the king should be born of a higher family.² He says that just as the reservoir of water belonging to the caṇḍālas serves only their purpose, so also the king of low birth confers patronage only on low-born people and not on the āryas. Incidentally Kauṭilya’s dislike of a low-born king shows that he could not have agreed to serve under a king born of a śūdra mother. Hence it is not possible to make much of the śūdra origin of the Mauryas, as has been done in some cases.³ It is practically certain that Candragupta belonged to the Moriya clan of the kṣatriya community.⁴

c11.127

¹ AŚ, VIII. 2.

c11.128

² Ibid., VI. 1.

c11.129

³ B. N. Dutt, Studies in Indian Social Polity, pp. 185-7. Jayaswal, Manu and Yājñavalkya, p. 171.

c11.130

⁴ PHAI, p. 267.

c11.131

In the Arthaśāstra the amātyas constitute the highest cadre of officials from which the chief priest (purohita), the minister (mantrin), the collector (samāhartā), the treasurer (sannidhātā), officers in charge of the harem, ambassadors and the superintendents of more than two dozen departments are to be recruited.⁵ But an item common to the qualifications of the amātyas laid down by Kauṭilya and other thinkers whom he quotes is noble birth. This is expressed variously as “father and grandfather being amātyas”, abhijana and jānapadobhijātaḥ.⁶ It is doubtful whether such a qualification could provide any scope for the śūdras. As Aristotle puts it, good birth is nothing but ancient wealth and virture combined,⁷—a thing which could hardly be found among the lower orders. Megasthenes mentions the professional class of councillors and assessors, who, though small in number, monopolised the highest posts of government, executive and judicial.¹ At another place he states that the noblest and the richest took part in the direction of the state affairs, administered justice and sat in council with the king.² That they formed an exclusive caste is obvious from the rules that they could not marry outside their own caste, exchange one profession or trade for another, or follow more than one business.³ All this shows that the avenues to the higher bureaucracy were closed to the people of the lower orders.

c11.132

⁵ AŚ, I. 8 & 9.

c11.133

⁶ Ibid.

c11.134

⁷ Politics, p. 163.

c11.135

¹ McCrindle, *AIMA*, p. 85, Frag. 33.

c11.136

² *Ibid.*, p. 138, Frag. 56.

c11.137

³ *Ibid.*, pp. 85-86, Frag. 33.

c11.138

The śūdras, however, were given a place in the espionage system, which constituted a vital part of the Mauryan administrative machinery. Kauṭilya provides that, amongst others, women of the śūdra caste can be employed as wandering spies.⁴ It is further said that those who are employed as procurers of water for bathing, shampooers, bed makers, barbers, toilet makers, water servants, actors, dancers and singers, should keep an eye on the private character of the officers of the king.⁵ Evidently most of these seem to have been śūdras. Working as domestic servants, and thus coming into contact with their masters every minute, they were thought to be the best persons to report correctly on their private character. Further, according to Kauṭilya, almost all sections of people, including cultivators, herdsmen and jungle tribes, should be recruited as spies to watch the movement of enemies,—a provision which covers śūdras as well.⁶ Members of the lower orders also acted as messengers, for Kauṭilya states that messengers, though untouchables, do not deserve death.⁷

c11.139

⁴ *AŚ*, I. 12.

c11.140

⁵ *Ibid.*
6. *Ibid.*
7. ..antāvasāyino’pyavadhyāḥ. *AŚ*, I. 16.

c11.141

What is more important, the *Arthaśāstra* provides for the enrolment of śūdras in the army. The Dharmasūtras give the impression that normally only the kṣatriyas, and in emergency only the brāhmaṇas and the vaiśyas, could take up arms. While defining the army as an indispensable element of the state, Kauṭilya also declares that the hereditary army purely composed of kṣatriya soldiers is the most splendid.¹ But he has no liking for the army of brāhmaṇas, who can be won over by salutations and supplications.² On the other hand he prefers an army composed of vaiśyas and śūdras on account of its numerical strength.³ But it is doubtful whether the members of the two lower varṇas were actually recruited as soldiers during this period. Megasthenes clearly states that the husbandmen (roughly corresponding to the vaiśyas) were exempted from military service, and soldiers were meant to protect them.⁴ Both Arrian and Strabo speak of the fighting men as forming the fifth caste of the Indian population and being maintained at the expense of the state.⁵ That there was a class of soldiers can also be inferred from the use of the term bhaṭamayeṣu in the Aśokan inscriptions.⁶ We learn from Megasthenes that one division of the army supplied servants, who performed miscellaneous tasks, such as acting as bandsmen, looking after the horses, and serving as mechanics and their assistants.⁷ Arrian also refers to the servants who attend not only on the soldiers but also on their horses, elephants and chariots.⁸ Possibly śūdras were recruited as menial servants and attendants in the standing army and not as full-fledged soldiers. Kauṭilya’s rule, however, may suggest that vaiśyas and śūdras could be enlisted in the army in times of emergency. In the new settlements aboriginal tribes such as the vāgurikas, the śabaras, the pulindas and the caṇḍālas were entrusted with the work of internal defence.⁹

c11.142

¹ Ibid.

c11.143

² AŚ, IX. 2.

c11.144

³ bahulasāraṃ vai vaiśyaśūdrabalamiti. Ibid.

c11.145

⁴ McCrindle, AIMA, pp. 83-84, Frag. 33.

c11.146

⁵ Ibid., p. 217, Arrian, Frag. 12; AICL, p. 53, Strabo, Frag, 47.

c11.147

⁶ R. E. 4 (Shāhbāzgarhi) I. 12.

c11.148

⁷ McCrindle, AIMA, p. 88, Frag. 34.

c11.149

⁸ Ibid., p. 217, Frag. 12.

c11.150

⁹ AŚ, II. 1.

c11.151

In the administration of law and justice Kauṭilya follows the principle of varṇa legislation. According to him, degraded people (*patita*), caṇḍālas and persons of mean avocations are among those who cannot act as witnesses in civil suits, except in the transactions of their respective communities.¹ He also lays down that the servant cannot give evidence against the master.² Similarly the pledged labourer and the slave cannot enter into agreements on behalf of their masters.³ Kauṭilya provides for different kinds of warnings tendered by the court to the members of the different varṇas. The most severe warning is to be given to a śūdra who is reminded of terrible spiritual and worldly consequences which shall follow as a result of his false deposition.⁴ In this connection only the śūdra is to be fined and bound down to service by the court, there being no mention of these things in the case of the three upper varṇas.⁵ This provision is immediately followed by another, in which Kauṭilya prescribes a fine of 12 paṇas for witnesses giving false evidence.⁶ This may suggest that the penal measure was probably meant for the śūdra witness. Megasthenes says that a person convicted of bearing false witness suffers the mutilation of his extremities.⁷ This measure may have been confined either to the members of the lower orders or to a particular area.

c11.152

¹ AŚ, III. 1.

c11.153

² Ibid.

c11.154

³ AŚ, III. 1.

c11.155

⁴ AŚ, III. 11.
5. ...anyathāvāde daṇḍaścānubandhaḥ. Ibid. In his translation SS (p. 200) leaves out the word ‘anubandhaḥ’.

c11.156

⁶ AŚ, III. 11.

c11.157

⁷ McCrindle, AIMA, p. 70, Frag. 27.

c11.158

In the award of punishments Kauṭilya upholds the varṇa distinctions of the Dharmaśūtras. Thus according to him, if among the members of the four varṇas and the antāvasāyins (untouchables), anyone of a lower caste speaks ill of a person of a higher caste, he shall have to pay a higher fine than in the case of a person of a higher caste defaming a person of a lower caste.⁸ The *Arthaśāstra* has also the rule that the limb of a śūdra with which he strikes a brāhmaṇa should be amputated.⁹ We are in doubt whether this passage is the work of Kauṭilya, for it agrees rather with the extremist attitude of Manu. In another provision Kauṭilya states that, if a kṣatriya commits adultery with an unguarded brāhmaṇa woman, he shall be punished with the highest amercement, a vaiśya shall be deprived of his property, and a śūdra shall be burnt alive wound round in mats.¹ A śvapāka who commits adultery with an ārya woman shall be put to death, while the woman shall have her ears and nose cut off.² It is not surprising that these severe measures were applied against the śūdras and śvapākas, for even in the case of adultery against a woman of the śvapāka caste Kauṭilya provides for the branding and banishment of the guilty.³

c11.159

⁸ AŚ, III. 18.

c11.160

¹ brāhmaṇyāmaguptāyāṃ kṣatriyasyottamaḥ, sarvasvaṃ vaiśyasya, śūdraḥ kaṭāgninā dahyeta. AŚ, IV. 13.

c11.161

² TGS construes this passage differently from SS. While the former has śvapākasyāryāgamane vadhaḥ (ii, 181), the latter has śūdraśvapākasya bhāryāgaman vadhaḥ, (AŚ, IV. 13, p. 236). TGS, however, seems to be correct in using the word āryā which also occurs in the Munich manuscript (Tr., p. 264). Kangle (i, 149) follows TGS.

c11.162

³ AŚ, IV. 13.

c11.163

Kauṭilya’s law of prohibition of some kinds of food and drink does not apply in the same way to the members of all the varṇas. Thus a person who causes a brāhmaṇa to partake of prohibited food or drink shall be punished with the highest amercement; the same offence against a kṣatriya will be punished with the middle amercement, against a vaiśya with the first amercement and against a śūdra with a fine of 54 paṇas.⁴ In the case of embezzlement or misappropriation the most severe punishment is laid down for domestic servant. If an officer or a clerk is guilty of this offence, he shall be fined, but in such a case a servant shall be given capital punishment.⁵

c11.164

⁴ Ibid.

c11.165

⁵ AŚ, II. 5.

c11.166

In the law of inheritance Kauṭilya maintains the old distinction between the varṇas. Sons born out of the intermixture of castes such as the sūta, the māgadha, the vrātya and the rathakāra are entitled to their shares only in the case of abundance of paternal property.⁶ Kauṭilya further provides that the sons who are inferior in birth to the above kinds of sons are entitled to no share but can depend for subsistence on the eldest son.⁷

c11.167

⁶ AŚ, III. 6.

c11.168

⁷ Ibid.

c11.169

This naturally excludes the āyogava, the kṣattā, the niṣāda, the pulkasa and the caṇḍālas from shares. The position of the pāraśava (i.e. a son begotten by a brāhmaṇa on a śūdra woman), however, is better. It is said that, if a brāhmaṇa has no issue, the pāraśava son shall get one third share in paternal property;¹ the remaining two shares shall devolve either on his surviving sapiṇḍas, or, failing them, on his teacher or student.² This may suggest that, if the brāhmaṇa father had no issue, even the sons born from the śūdra wife were given considerable shares. In the case of a brāhmaṇa having sons from wives of all the four castes, Kauṭilya accepts the Dharmasūtra principle of division of shares.³ He extends this even to the case of kṣatriya and vaiśya fathers begetting sons on the wives from three or two castes, in every case the śūdra son getting the smallest share.⁴

c11.170

¹ Ibid.

c11.171

² Ibid.

c11.172

³ AŚ, III. 6.

c11.173

⁴ Ibid.

c11.174

The question of the civic status of the śūdra vis-a-vis the position of slaves in the Arthaśāstra needs some consideration. Like the authors of the Dharmasūtras, Kauṭilya clearly recognises an ārya as a free man, and states that on no account can an ārya be subjected to slavery.⁵ As a corollary to this he ordains that the selling or mortgaging by kinsmen of a śūdra who is not a born slave, has not attained majority, but is an āryaprāṇa (ārya in birth), shall be punished with a fine of 12 paṇas, and that everybody engaged in the transaction shall be severely penalised.⁶ This implies that sons of the three higher varṇas begotten on a śūdra woman,⁷ cannot be reduced to slavery through the process of purchases or pledging: perhaps they might be relegated to that position through other processes such as judicial punishment, capture in war, voluntary enslavement etc.⁸ Thus Kauṭilya refers to the āryaprāṇa captured in war being reduced to slavery.¹ Therefore his rule clearly shows that, with the exception of the minor śūdra sons of the members of the three varṇas, other members of the fourth varṇa could be made slaves. Even in the case of these specified śūdras, whose numbers must have been very small, the fine prescribed for making them slaves is the smallest, i.e. 12 paṇas, which gradually increases in the cases of the vaiśya, the kṣatriya and the brāhmaṇa.²

c11.175

⁵ AŚ, III. 13.
6. udaradāsavarjamāryaprāṇamaprāptavyavahāraṃ śūdram vikrayādhānaṃ nayaias-vajanasya dvādaśapaṇo daṇḍaḥ AŚ, III 13.

c11.176

⁷ Cf Jayaswal. Manu and Yājñavalkya, p. 242.

c11.177

⁸ Altogether nine sources of slavery are specified in the AŚ (III. 3). Other varieties also may have existed.

c11.178

¹ AŚ, III. 13.

c11.179

² Ibid.
3. atha vā’ryamādhāya kulabandhanāryāṇamāpadi niṣkrayam cādhigamya bālam sāhāyyadātāram vā pūrvam niṣkriṇīran. AŚ, III.

c11.180

But under certain special circumstances such as domestic distress or inability to pay fines or debts even the life of an ārya could be mortgaged.³ So far as these mortgaged people (āhitakas) are concerned, Kauṭilya lays down a number of liberal rules. It is provided that his kinsmen shall redeem the pledged person as soon as possible. He cannot be employed in impure work. If a pledged woman attends on her master while bathing naked, or if the master violates her chastity or abuses or hurts her, he shall not be entitled to the value of that woman, which will automatically secure her freedom. In the case of rape with a pledged young woman, the master shall not only forfeit the purchase value, but also pay a certain amount (śulka) to her and twice the amount (of the śulka) to the government. If the master has illicit connection with a pledged woman slave working as a nurse, he shall be punished with the first amercement. In the same context it is stated that use of violence towards a high born attendant shall entitle him to run away.⁴ This shows that the āhitakas also probably hailed from the higher varṇa. Unfortunately in the translation of the above passage Shamasastry does not make any distinction between the dāsa and the āhitaka, and indiscriminately uses the word slave for both of them.⁵ But that the dāsas and the āhitakas were two distinct categories of employees is clear from several statements of Kauṭilya. He prescribes that agreements entered into by the *dāsa* and the *āhitaka* shall be declared void.¹ He also states that the king should see to it that people pay attention to the claims of their *dāsas* and *āhitakas*.² Kauṭilya further lays down that a woman who yields herself to a *dāsa*, a *paricāraka* (servant) or an *āhitaka* shall be put to death.³ In all these cases Shamasastry recognises that the *āhitaka* is different from a *dāsa* and describes him as a pledged labourer or a hireling.⁴ Since in the chapter on the *dāsakarmarakalpa* the *āhitakas* are confounded with the *dāsas*, the liberal rules applying to the former have been taken as applying to the *dāsas* as well.⁵ But the above analysis would show that these rules of Kauṭilya apply to the pledged labourers, mostly women and presumably belonging to the āryan varṇas. The rules referred to above also imply that the ordinary *dāsas* could be assaulted, abused and employed in impure work by the master.

c11.181

¹³ Kangle has been followed.
4. sidhamupacārakasyābhiprajātasya apakramaṇam. AŚ, III. 13.

c11.182

⁵ Tr., p. 206.

c11.183

¹ *AŚ* III. 1.

c11.184

² *Ibid.*, II. 1.

c11.185

³ *Ibid.*, IV. 13.

c11.186

⁴ Tr. of *AŚ*, III. 1 and II. 1.

c11.187

⁵ Jayaswal, *Manu and Yājñavalkya*, p. 209.

c11.188

Several provisions of Kauṭilya regarding the emancipation of slaves seem to apply exclusively to the āryas reduced to servile status. It is enacted that the child of one who sells himself should be considered as an ārya (free).⁶ A person can earn without prejudicing the work of his master, inherit his ancestral property and thus regain his āryahood (*āryatvam*) by paying his purchase value.⁷ An *āryaprāṇa* who has been captured in war can secure his emancipation through the payment of ransom.⁸ Failure to recognise a *dāsa* as an ārya on the receipt of proper ransom shall be punished with a fine of 12 *paṇas*.⁹ In all such instances the question of regaining āryahood can arise only in the case of those who had it before and not in the case of the śūdras. At best the above-mentioned provisions can apply to the sons of the three higher varṇas born from śūdra mothers.

c11.189

⁶ *ātmavikrayiṇaḥ prajāmāryāṃ vidyāt*. *AŚ*, III.13.

c11.190

⁷ *AŚ*, III. 13
8. *Ibid.*

c11.191

Kauṭilya uses two terms to indicate the emancipation of servile people. In the case of the āryas the term āryatvam is used. But when the non-āryan slaves are to be freed, the term adāsa is used. For instance, it is laid down that, if the master begets a child on his woman slave, the mother along with the child should be regarded as free.¹ If, for the sake of supporting her family, the mother decides to continue as a slave, her mother, brother and sister shall be liberated (adāsāḥ syuḥ).² It seems that these dāsas ceased to be slaves, but they could not become āryas. We may note that in the early Pāli texts the term used for the manumission of the slaves is bhujjissa,³ and it is expressly stated that only among the Yavanas can an ārya become a dāsa and vice versa.

c11.192

¹ samātṛkam adāsam vidyāt. AŚ, III. 13.

c11.193

² AŚ, III. 13 after TGS.

c11.194

³ s. v. bhujjissa, Pali-Eng. Dict.

c11.195

It is difficult to say whether the rule providing for the emancipation through the payment of purchase value applied to the non-āryan slaves in the same way as it did to the āryan slaves. Perhaps even on payment the liberation of the śūdra slaves lay at the discretion of the master. But they were also sometimes emancipated, for it is laid down that selling or mortgaging the life of a man or woman slave once liberated shall be punished with a fine of 12 paṇas, with the exception of those who enslave themselves.⁴ It appears that even an ordinary slave could keep property of which he could not be deprived by his master.⁵ This could naturally help him in securing his liberation.

First 195 of 274 passages. Read on

Linked texts (8)

Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Mahāvagga — Pāli
Kūṭadantasutta — Pāli
Caṅkīsutta — Pāli
Dhammacakkappavattanasutta — Pāli
Brahmapurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Major Rock Edict IV — Prakrit
Jayamaṅgalā — Śaṅkara, Sanskrit