Shudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c12.101

c12.101

Manu lays down that the brāhmaṇa can confidently seize the goods of his śūdra slave, for he is not allowed to own any property.⁷ Jayaswal thinks that this probably legalises seizure of property of the Buddhist Saṃgha which had become enormously rich.⁸ But perhaps the rule applies only to those śūdras who work as slaves. In Manu’s opinion, even when starving, a kṣatriya can never seize the possessions of a virtuous brāhmaṇa, but he can appropriate the possessions of a dasyu or of one who neglects his sacred duties.⁹ This suggests that the kṣatriyas and vaiśyas who neglected their essential rites could be subjected to such expropriation. In such a case the śūdras cannot be considered to be safe. For Manu provides that as the śūdra has nothing to do with the sacrifice, the sacrificer of the twice-born caste may take from him two or three articles required for it.¹ All these rules show a definite attempt on the part of Manu to keep down the śūdras economically.