Shudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c11.269

c11.269

The *Arthaśāstra* gives us some idea about the general conduct of the lower orders, which shows that they were not altogether happy about the conditions in which they lived. Kauṭilya’s list of offenders and suspects includes many of those whose castes and avocations were held low in society (*hīnakarmajātim*). They were suspected of being murderers, robbers or people guilty of misappropriation of treasures and deposits.¹ Kauṭilya says that, in the case of thefts and burglaries, poor women and servants of condemnable nature should be also examined.² He further provides that, if the master is murdered, his servants should be examined as to whether they had received any violent and cruel treatment at his hands.³ This shows that at times domestic servants might make fatal attempts at the life of their masters. Kauṭilya also ordains that when a śūdra calls himself a brāhmaṇa, steals the property of gods, or is hostile to the king, either his eyes shall be destroyed by the application of poisonous ointment or he shall have to pay a fine of 800 paṇas.⁴ This indicates the hostility of some śūdras to the priestly and royal powers. There is also a reference to the seditious activities of the pāraśava. His anti-state activities are to be countered by the same measure as those used againt a seditious minister. It is provided that the king should employ his spies in fomenting quarrels in the family of the suspect, leading to his ultimate execution by the government.⁵ The above-mentioned references show that members of the śūdra varṇa were not happily disposed towards their masters. Since there were no peaceful channels into which their reaction could canalise itself, it occasionally found expression through criminal activities such as robberies, burglaries, theft of temple property, murder of the master, attack on the pretensions of the brāhmaṇas and seditions against the head of the state. These actions seem to be symptomatic of the discontent that prevailed among them. But there is no evidence of any organised revolt on their part. In this respect conditions during the Mauryan period were probably somewhat better than they had been in the earlier period. The Arthaśāstra does not contain any special provision to meet organised revolts on the part of the śūdras, such as can be inferred from some passages of the Dharmaśūtras On the other hand Kauṭilya’s readiness to enrol śūdras in the army, though perhaps not put into practice, indicates a sense of confidence which was born of his twofold policy of conciliation and ruthless control.