Shudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c12.242

c12.242

Even in the law-book of Manu, all the śūdras are not treated as slaves.⁴ The legal distinction between a śūdra and a slave is clearly recognised by Manu, who refers to the son of a śūdra by a dāsī or by a woman slave of his slave.⁵ Thus, though the slave may have been generally recruited from the śūdra varṇa, sometimes the śūdras themselves owned slaves. But the distinction between the śūdra and his slave was not so wide as that between the twice-born and his slave. According to Manu, if permitted by the father, the son of a śūdra by a woman slave could take a share of the inheritance.⁶ But this is not provided in the case of similar sons of the twice-born. Incidentally, the above law of Manu shows that slaves enjoyed the right to property. According to the comment of Kullūka on a passage of Manu, when the master is abroad, for the sake of his family the slave can represent him in business transactions, which the master cannot rescind.⁷ At another place, however, this is denied by Manu; sale made by one not the real owner is declared invalid.⁸ It has been pointed out earlier that on failure of competent witnesses even slaves and servants could give evidence. All this would show that even the slaves had some status in law.