[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Polity, law and society](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity) › [Shudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958) › c12 # Shudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c12: Chapter VI: Crisis in the Old Order Śūdras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c12 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [c12.269](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.269) — 4 parts ### Chapter VI: Crisis in the Old Order ### [c12.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.1) (circa 200 B.C.—circa A.D. 300) ### [c12.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.2) Most of our direct information about the position of the śūdras during this period is derived from the law-book of Manu, which is ascribed to the period 200 B.C.—A.D. 300.¹ But its major portion probably belongs to the second century A.D. As has been shown later in Appendix I, Chapter X, which deals with the mixed castes, may have been included in the text in about the fifth century A.D. Manu looks upon Brahmāvarta (the country between the Sarasvati and the Dṛṣadvatī² and Brahmarṣideśa (the plains of the Kurus, the Matsyas, the Pañcālas and the Śūrasenas) as sacred.³ On this basis it has been suggested that the law-book arose, and was first considered authoritative within this comparatively narrow province.⁴ Such a view, though possible, is by no means necessary, and the influence of the code of Manu may have extended over a much wider area. ### [c12.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.3) ¹ Bühler, \*SBE\*, xxv, Introd., pp. CXIV-CXVIII; cf. Jayaswal, \*Manu and Yājñavalkya\*, pp. 25-32; Kane, \*Hist. Dh. S.\*, ii, p. XI. Ketkar's argument that the work belongs to A.D. 272-320 (\*History of Caste\*, p. 66) may apply to some portions of the text. ### [c12.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.4) ² \*Manu\*, II. 17. ### [c12.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.5) ³ \*Ibid.\*, II. 19. ### [c12.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.6) ⁴ Johantgen quoted in Hopkins, \*Relations of Four Castes in Manu\*, pp. 4-5. ### [c12.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.7) The extreme form of brāhmaṇical fanaticism displayed by Manu makes it difficult to evaluate the evidence furnished by his work. But his passages bearing on the position of the śūdras can be scrutinised in the light of information gleaned from the Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali, the dramas of Bhāsa⁵ and the Buddhist works such as the \*Questions of Milinda\*, the \*Divyāvadāna\*, the \*Mahāvastu\* and the \*Saddharmapuṇḍarika\*.¹ A Jain work known as the \*Pannavaṇā\*, which supplies valuable information about artisans, may be also ascribed to this period.² Memorial and votive inscriptions of this period also throw welcome sidelights on the position of the śūdra community. ### [c12.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.8) ⁵ The extreme view assigning Bhāsa to the 5th or the 4th cen B.C. is not generally accepted. Bhāsa's date may be placed in the second or third cen. A.D. (\*The Age of Imperial Unity\* p. 261.) ### [c12.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.9) ¹ Since the earliest Chinese translation of the \*Saddharmapuṇḍarika\* took place in the 3rd cen. A.D. (\*SBE\*, xxi, Introd., p. XXI), the original composition may be assigned to the 2nd or even the first cen. A.D. (N. Dutt, \*Saddharmapuṇḍarika\*, Introd., p. XVII). ### [c12.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.10) ² Jain, \*Life as Depicted in the Jain Canons\*, p. 38. The book mentions, Śakas, Yavanas, Muruṇḍas, Pahlavas etc. (i. 58), which seems to make it a work of the post-Mauryan period. ### [c12.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.11) The descriptions of the Kali age in several early Purāṇas perhaps allude to this age³ when the varṇa divided society was marked by strong social conflicts and undermined by the activities of heretical sects and the incursions of the Bactrian Greeks, Śakas, Parthians and Kuṣāṇas. Partly as a reaction to the pro-Buddhist policy of Aśoka, and partly because of the advent of these new peoples, Manu desperately tries to preserve brāhmaṇical society, not only by ordaining rigorous measures against the śūdras, but also by inventing suitable genealogies for the incorporation of foreign elements into varṇa society. Moreover, his undue glorification of the power of the sword (daṇḍa)⁴ is also meant to serve that end. ### [c12.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.12) ³ Hazra, \*Studies in the Purāṇic Records on Hindu Rites and Customs\*, pp. 208-10. ### [c12.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.13) ⁴ Manu, VII. 13-30. ### [c12.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.14) Manu reaffirms the old theory that the śūdra is ordained by God to serve the higher castes.⁵ The king should order a vaiśya to trade, to lend money, to cultivate the land or to tend cattle, and a śūdra to serve the three upper varṇas.⁶ But in the chapter on times of distress (\*āpad-dharma\*) Manu declares that a śūdra should serve the brāhmaṇa, which would secure him all his ends;⁷ failing that he may serve a kṣatriya, or may maintain himself by attending even on a wealthy vaiśya.⁸ In this connection the phrase \*api\* (even) should be particularly noted, since it seems to imply that the vaiśya was seldom the master of the śūdra.¹ This further suggests that in times of distress the service of the śūdra was to be mainly reserved for the brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas. At another place Manu ordains that the king should carefully compel the vaiśyas and the śūdras to perform the tasks assigned to them; since, if these two varṇas swerve from their duties, they will throw the whole world into confusion.² This passage is of particular importance, for it is not to be found in any earlier text. Such a measure seems to reflect a period of socio-economic crisis, which is also evident from the \*Yuga Purāṇa\*, which informs us that during this period even women took to ploughing.³ That there seems to have been decaying farmers and traders, who were recruited as spies by the king, can be inferred from the comment of Kullūka to a passage of Manu.⁴ Another rule of Manu that the śūdras distressed for subsistence may settle down in any part of the country⁵ (i.e. even in the land of the Mlecchas) also points to some kind of crisis, which deeply affected the producing masses and encouraged migration. Hence Manu’s measure for making the vaiśyas and śūdras work may have been necessitated by social convulsions made worse by foreign invasions. Perhaps, when the strong rule of the Mauryans broke down, it was found increasingly difficult to keep the vaiśyas and the śūdras within the bounds of their assigned duties. ### [c12.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.15) ⁵ Ibid., I. 91. ### [c12.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.16) ⁶ Ibid., VIII. 410. ### [c12.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.17) ⁷ Ibid., X. 123; cf. IX. 334. ### [c12.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.18) ⁸ \*dhaninam vāpyupārādhya vaiśyam śūdro jijīviṣet\*...\*Ibid.\*, X. 121-2. ### [c12.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.19) ¹ Hopkins, \*op. cit.\*, p. 83. ### [c12.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.20) ² Manu, VIII. 418. ### [c12.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.21) ³ \*Yuga Purāṇa\*, 167. ### [c12.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.22) ⁴ Kullūka interprets the term \*pañcavargam\* in Manu, VII. 154 as five classes of spies, including \*karṣakaḥ kṣiṇavṛttiḥ\* and \*vāṇijakaḥ kṣiṇavṛttiḥ\*. Hopkins takes the word in the sense of minister, realm, city, wealth and army (\*op. cit.\*, p. 69). but there does not seems to be any justification for taking the \*pañcavarga\* in the sense of the five elements of the state, which are generally enumerated as seven. ### [c12.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.23) ⁵ II. 24. ### [c12.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.24) The above-mentioned references also show that distinctions between the functions of the vaiśyas and the śūdras were being gradually obliterated. Manu lays down that, if in times of distress the vaiśya finds it difficult to support himself by his own occupations he should take to the occupations of the śūdras, i.e. live by serving the members of the twice-born caste.¹ This is also supported by a passage of the \*Questions of Milinda\*, where cultivation, trade and tending of cattle are described as the functions of the ordinary folk such as the vaiśyas and the śūdras,² there being no separate mention of the functions of these two classes. ### [c12.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.25) ¹ Manu, X. 98. ### [c12.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.26) ² \*avasesānaṃ puthuvessasuddānaṃ kasivaṇijjā gorakkhā karaṇīyā\*. \*Milinda\*, p. 173. ### [c12.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.27) In spite of the tendency to approximate the vaiśya to the śūdra there is no evidence of the existence of independent śūdra peasants. Generally they continued to be employed as hired labourers and slaves, for Manu repeats the old rule that, instead of paying taxes, artisans, mechanics and śūdras who subsist by manual labour should work for one day per month for the king.³ He lays down a new provision that the vaiśyas should meet times of emergency by paying 1/6 of their corn as tax and the śūdras by their manual labour.⁴ In this connection Kullūka states emphatically that even in bad times taxes should not be imposed on the śūdras.⁵ Manu's exemption of śūdras from taxes is corroborated by the \*Milinda-pañha\*. It informs us that every village had its slaves, men and women, wage earners (\*bhatakas\*) and hired labourers (\*karmakaras\*), who were exempted from taxes.⁶ Therefore, unlike the vaiśyas, the śūdras do not appear as peasants paying taxes to the state. While enumerating the eightfold functions (\*aṣṭavidhaṃ karma\*) of the king Medhātithi mentions trade, agriculture, irrigation, digging mines, settling uninhabited districts, cutting forests, etc.⁷ But there is no evidence of dāsas and karmakaras being employed in agriculture by the state, as we find in the Mauryan period. The \*Mahāvastu\* describes a village headman as hurrying out of the village to inspect the work in the fields, but we do not know whether he did this on behalf of the king.¹ It seems that śūdras were mostly employed as agricultural workers by individual proprietors. Patañjali refers to the landowner sitting in a corner and supervising the ploughing done by five hired labourers.² Manu also speaks of the servants of the peasant proprietors.³ According to him the cultivator should form an item in the additional portion to be given to the brāhmaṇa son in the partition of family property.⁴ This obviously refers to the employment of agricultural labourers by the brāhmaṇas. ### [c12.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.28) ³ Manu, VII. 138. ### [c12.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.29) ⁴ \*Ibid.\*, X. 120. ### [c12.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.30) ⁵ \*na tu tebhya āpadyapikaro grāhyaḥ\*. Comm. to Manu, X. 120. ### [c12.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.31) ⁶ \*Milinda\*, p. 147. ### [c12.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.32) ⁷ Comm. to Manu, VII. 154. Hopkins thinks that the \*aṣṭavidhaṃ karma\* reminds one of the seven elements of the state (\*op. cit.\*, pp. 70-71), but there is no similarity between the \*aṣṭavidha karma\* and the \*saptāṅga\*. ### [c12.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.33) ¹ i, 301. ### [c12.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.34) ² \*Mahābhāṣya\*, ii, 33. ### [c12.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.35) ³ ...\*bhṛtyānāmajñānāt\*kṣetrikasya tu. \*Manu\*, VIII. 243. ### [c12.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.36) ⁴ \*Manu\*, IX. 150. ### [c12.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.37) The position of śūdra artisans may be viewed better in the context of commerce and handicrafts in the post-Maurya period. Undoubtedly this period was the most flourishing era in ancient India's foreign trade. On account of the discovery of the monsoons in the first half and the opening of the Silk Roads in the second half of the first century A.D., the country carried on booming land trade with Central Asia and China and overseas trade with the Roman empire. The stability and protection afforded by the Han, Kuṣāṇa, Roman and Arcasid empires promoted international trade in the first two centuries A.D., and India exported precious woods, cotton textiles, silk, gems, iron objects, and above all long and black pepper.⁵ Some raw materials such as crude glass, lead, tin, red coral and asbestos and finished products including wine and Roman storage and table ware were imported, but payment was made principally in Roman coin.⁶ Numerous hoards of Roman gold coins have been discovered, south of the Vindhyas, especially in the cotton producing areas of Maharashtra. Probably the largest documented and apparently reliable business transaction for ancient times of free private trade without state control or subvention was the flow of imports to the value of 55 million sesterces (16 million gold francs.) from India to Egypt in one year under Vespasian.¹ ### [c12.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.38) ⁵ Michael Loewe, "Aspects of World Trade in the First Seven centuries of the Christian Era", \*JRAS\*, no. 2 (1971), 176. ### [c12.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.39) ⁶ \*Ibid.\* ### [c12.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.40) ¹ Max Weber, \*The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations\* (London, 1976), p. 41. ### [c12.41](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.41) Increasing internal trade is indicated by the use of coppers on a large scale. From the second century B.C. to the third century A.D., almost all kings from the Indo-Greek to the late Kuṣāṇa, and many ‘tribes’ and cities issued large numbers of copper coins, many of which contain considerable tin and can be called bronze coins. These coppers indicate increasing money transactions even among ordinary people. All this could not be possible without the progress of different crafts and trades. ### [c12.42](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.42) The progress of crafts is attested by archaeological evidence regarding thriving urban life in the first three centuries of the Christian era. A dozen ports are mentioned in Greek and Latin accounts, and a few ports such as Tamluk, Arikamedu and Kaveripattanam have been excavated. In addition we know about numerous urban sites from excavations conducted since 1947. Towns existed in the middle Gaṅgā basin, and many were located on the uttarāpatha route following the course of the Jamna and then turning north-westward towards Taxila. Excavations show prosperous urban sites in western India under the Sātavāhanas. In eastern Andhra Pradesh and in the western Deccan they appeared first in the first century A.D. and continued for about three hundred years. The same holds good of Kuṣāṇa towns and structures in the provinces of Pakistan, and also in Afghanistan and Soviet Central Asia. All this means congenial conditions for the progress of crafts and commerce, which may have promoted considerable social and geographical mobility and added to the number of artisans in towns. ### [c12.43](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.43) Archaeology gives us some idea about the crafts thriving in the centuries immediately preceding and following the beginning of the Christian era. Iron objects of various types recovered from the Sirkap city of Taxila,² and found at various places in Andhra Pradesh, suggest that the craft of ironsmith was flourishing. This is attested by the export to the Roman empire of Indian steel, on the tempering of which a monograph was prepared in Greek.¹ An examination of some iron objects from Rajghat in Banaras shows that by the second century B.C. the art of making true steel was well known in the country. With the use of iron technology bronze objects including household goods and personal ornaments began to be prepared on a large scale. In addition to tin, lead, zinc and nickel were used in this period to make bronze, which made it more tough. ### [c12.44](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.44) ² Marshall, \*Taxila\*, ii, 533. ### [c12.45](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.45) ¹ Marshall, ii, 534. ### [c12.46](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.46) India did not have a proper bronze age, but from Taxila have been recovered numerous bronze objects,² which testify to the importance of the \*kāṃsyakāra\*. The use of brass objects also appears in this period,³ and suggests the appearance of brassmakers. Reference has already been made to bronze coins. ### [c12.47](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.47) ² Adhya, \*Early Indian Economics\*, pp. 58-59. ### [c12.48](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.48) ³ Ibid., pp. 56-57. ### [c12.49](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.49) A new category of craftsmen must have come into existence because of the glass manufacture on a large scale. Numerous glass objects, costly beads and bangles, have been recovered from Sirkap and Arikamedu.⁴ The spurt in the craft was caused by the adoption of glass blowing by the Indian artisans some time before the beginning of the Christian era,⁵ and there is nodoubt that the Indians had attained proficiency in glass technology.⁶ It seems that crude glass was imported from the western world and China. In any case specimens of beads found throughout India indicate that in the early centuries of the Christian era they were in most prolific use.⁷ M. G. Dikshit considers the post-Maurya period to A.D. 200 as that of affluence of glass in India;⁸ this would not have been achieved without the skill of a good many glassmakers. ### [c12.50](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.50) ⁴ Adhya, \*op. cit.\*, pp. 76-80. ### [c12.51](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.51) ⁵ \*Ibid.\*, p. 80. ### [c12.52](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.52) ⁶ B. B. Lal, "Examination of Some Ancient Indian Glass Specimens," \*AI\*, viii, 26-27. ### [c12.53](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.53) ⁷ M. G. Dikshit, \*History of Indian Glass\*, p. 57. ### [c12.54](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.54) ⁸ \*Ibid.\*, chap. II. ### [c12.55](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.55) The presence of artisans working in ivory or \*dantakāra\* is attested by beautiful ivory objects of Indian make and origin found in Begram in Afghanistan.¹ A few objects have been also found in various parts of the country, and Banaras was an important centre of ivory-carving. As in the case of glass, the period is noted for the progress of ivory work. It is significant that for a few centuries after the third century A.D. both these crafts languished. ### [c12.56](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.56) ¹ These are now deposited in the Kabul Museum. ### [c12.57](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.57) In addition to these the recovery of ornaments from Sirkap indicates the presence of jewellers. Although not much of gold and silver jewellery belonging to post-Maurya times has been recovered,² we have evidence of ten types of gems of semi-precious stones being used for jewellery at Sirkap. These include garnet, agate, jade, rock crystal, amethyst, lapis lazuli, turquoise, beryl, acquamarine and jasper.³ For the first time we have a large number of gold coins in this period. It is therefore clear that the work of goldsmiths was supplemented by various types of jewellers and gem-cutters. ### [c12.58](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.58) ² Adhya, \*op. cit.\*, pp. 66-67. ### [c12.59](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.59) ³ \*Ibid.\* ### [c12.60](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.60) The pottery of the period, which is remarkable for the use of different types of Roman ware and their imitations, is found in plenty at Arikamedu and scattered in almost all parts of the peninsula. In addition to the Sātavāhana ware and the ‘red’ polished Kuṣāṇa ware we come across the remnants of the older pottery types and the emergence of local types. Although pottery did not form an article of export, we may presuppose the existence of a numerous class of potters to serve the cooking and storing needs of the growing town population. A good portion of the red ware was beautifully decorated, apparently for satisfying the sophisticated taste of the rich urban population. Urbanism provided an unprecedented market for terracottas which reached the peak point in numbers in the Kuṣāṇa-Sātavāhana phase.⁴ Tiles for flooring and roofing appeared in this period, and ring-wells became far more numerous. All this naturally needed more and more potters. ### [c12.61](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.61) ⁴ Devangana Desai, Terracottas and Urban Culture of Ancient India (\*circa\* 600 B.C.—A.D. 600). Cyclostyled copy of Paper presented to the “Art and Society” Symposium of the Indian History Congress. 37th Session, Calicut, 1976. ### [c12.62](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.62) Finally building activities, as shown by structures of burnt bricks all over the country, attest the existence of a large number of bricklayers together with that of masons, builders and sculptors. This being the most flourishing period of town development, all these may have formed important artisan classes although some of them do not appear as functional groups in literary texts or as donors in inscriptions. In any case the nature of trade and archaeological evidence regarding towns and crafts would suggest the existence of a good number of potters, builders, bricklayers, gemcutters, jewellers, goldsmiths, ironsmiths, brass-smiths, bronzesmiths, sculptors, terracotta makers, glassmakers and ivoryworkers. ### [c12.63](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.63) What is known indirectly about artisans from archaeological evidence is supported and supplemented by epigraphic and literary records. Manu’s view that śūdras should take to the occupations of artisans only if they fail to secure livelihood through direct service of the upper varṇas¹ is traditional, for post-Maurya inscriptions suggest considerable increase in the number and variety of artisans and also some improvement in their conditions. We have a large number of recorded gifts of caves, pillars, tablets, cisterns etc. to the Buddhist monks by smiths, perfumers, weavers, goldsmiths and even leather workers in Gaya, Sanchi, Bharhut and the Nasik area.² Besides these, dyers, workers in metal and ivory, jewellers, sculptors and fishermen figure as donors in inscriptions.³ Perfumers, and to a lesser degree, smiths are repeatedly mentioned as liberal votaries, and therefore seem to have formed the well-to-do and perhaps numerous sections of artisans. Although weavers do not appear as donors as often as perfumers, the evidence from Manu suggests that they were an important class of artisans; for it is laid down that they should pay 11 palas, and in the case of failure 12 palas.⁴ These apparently were taxes in kind levied on the produce of the weavers, who probably owed their affluence to trade in textiles produced in Mathurā¹ and other cities. Most of the artisans known from inscriptions were confined to the Mathurā region, and to the western Deccan where their prosperity was stimulated by the growing trade with Rome ### [c12.64](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.64) ¹ Ibid., X. 99 and 100. ### [c12.65](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.65) ² Lüders’ List, Nos. 53, 54, 68, 76, 95, 331, 345, 381, 495, 857, 986, 1006, 1032, 1051, 1061, 1177, 1203-4, 1210, 1230, 1273, 1298; cf, IC, xii, 83-85. ### [c12.66](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.66) ³ Ibid., Nos. 32, 53-54, 345, 857, 1005, 1092, 1129. ### [c12.67](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.67) ⁴ Quoted from Vyākhyāsaṃgraha, steyaprakaraṇa, pp. 1727-28 in Dharmakośa, i, pt. III, p. 1927. ### [c12.68](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.68) ¹ Mahābhāṣya, i. 19. ### [c12.69](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.69) The epigraphic evidence shows that the artisans were organised under their headmen, who probably enjoyed the favour of the king. Thus we hear of the gift of Ānanda who was the foreman of the artisans of Śrī Śātakarṇi.² But the literary evidence suggest that guilds of artisans flourished on a far larger scale during this period than in earlier times. At one place the Mahāvastu mentions eleven kinds of artisans such as garland makers, potters, carpenters, washermen, dyers, makers of bowls, goldsmiths, jewellers, workers in conch shell, armourers and cooks, all working under their respective heads.³ The same source also refers to the eighteen guilds (aṣṭādaśa śreṇis) of Rājagaha including, goldsmiths, perfumers, gemcutters, oilmen, makers of flour, etc. The list also includess vendors of fruits, roots, flour, and sugar.⁴ Goldsmiths and workers in gems are common to both the lists; yet there seem to have existed about two dozen guilds of artisans during this period.⁵ It is to be also noted that the second list of guilds is quite different from that mentioned in the Jātakas.⁶ Although artisans were employed by the king,⁷ increase in the number of guilds may have weakened the direct control of the state over artisans. What is more significant, we do not come across so many kinds of artisans even in the Arthaśāstra, as we find during this period. The Mahāvastu gives a list of thirty-six kinds of workers living in the town of Rājagaha.⁸ The list does not seem to be exhaustive, for it is said at the end of it that there are others besides those mentioned.¹ A still longer list is to be found in the \*Milinda-pañha\*, which enumerates as many as seventy-five occupations, mostly of artisans.² Many artisans of the Buddhist lists also recur in a Jain work, which enumerates eighteen kinds of craftsmen and significantly describes even the tailors, weavers and silk weavers as āryans by craft.³ showing thereby that these crafts were not held in low esteem by the Jains. It may be noted that in early medieval times weavers came to be considered untouchables. ### [c12.70](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.70) ² Lüders’ List, No. 346. 3. ii, 463-78. ### [c12.71](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.71) ⁴ Mahāvastu. iii, 442 ff. ### [c12.72](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.72) ⁵ Computed on the basis of Mahāvastu, ii, 463-78 and iii, 442ff. Many of these artisans were also small traders. ### [c12.73](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.73) ⁶ IC, xiv, 31-32. ### [c12.74](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.74) ⁷ Pat. on Pā., II. 1.1. 8. iii, 442-3. ### [c12.75](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.75) ¹ \*Ibid.\* 2. \*Milinda\*, p. 331. ### [c12.76](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.76) ³ \*Pannavaṇā\*, i, 61. ### [c12.77](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.77) An analysis of the lists of these artisans would show that there arose a number of new crafts during this period. As against about two dozen trades in the \*Digha Nikāya\*⁴ we meet about five dozen trades in the \*Milinda-pañha\*. Of these eight crafts are associated with metal working,⁵ which shows considerable advance in that field. Occupations connected with cloth making, silk weaving,⁶ making of arms and luxury articles,⁷ also seems to have made progress. All this shows that artisans of this period made a significant contribution to technological and economic developments, although much of this may have been to the benefit of upper classes. ### [c12.78](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.78) ⁴ \*Dīgha N.\*, ii. 50. ### [c12.79](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.79) ⁵ \*suvaṇṇa-\*, \*sajjha-\*, \*sīsa-\*, \*tipu-\*, \*loha-\*, \*vaṭṭa-\*, \*aya-\*, \*maṇi-kāra\*. \*Milinda\*, p. 331. ### [c12.80](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.80) ⁶ \*Pannavaṇā\*, i, 61. ### [c12.81](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.81) ⁷ \*Milinda\*, p. 331. ### [c12.82](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.82) These artisans were not attached to their clients in the same way as the dāsas and the karmakaras were attached to their masters. Thus Patañjali informs us that the weaver was an independent worker.⁸ While the dāsas and the karmakaras worked in the hope of getting clothes and food, the artisans worked in the hope of getting wages.⁹ ### [c12.83](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.83) ⁸ \*Pat. on Pā.\*, I. 4.54. ### [c12.84](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.84) ⁹ \*tathā yadetad dāsakarmakaraṃ nāmete’pi svabhūlyarthameva pravartante bhaktaṃ celaṃ ca lapsyāmahe\*. \*Pat. on Pā.\*, III. 1.26. ### [c12.85](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.85) Manu lays down a number of laws which affect the economic position of the śūdras adversely. Thus he introduces rates of interest differing according to varṇa.¹ The monthly interest charged should be two, three, four or five per cent according to the order of the varṇas.² But probably this law did not work in practice. According to a Nāsik Inscription when money was deposited with a weavers' guild, the rate of interest paid by them amounted to from 1 to 3/4 per cent per month.³ There is nothing to show that as śūdras they had to pay the highest rate of interest. A modern apologist has tried to justify this gradation of interest on the ground that it is in proportion to the social services of the borrowers.⁴ which implies that the services rendered by the śūdras were negligible when in fact, along with the vaiśyas, they sustained the entire social fabric by their producing activities. Although Manu’s law regarding interest may not have worked in practice, in charging interest probably the brāhmaṇas were shown some consideration while the śūdras were made to work off their debts. In any case such preferential treatment prevailed till recent times. ### [c12.86](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.86) ¹ A similar rule occuring in \*Vas. Dh. S.\*, II. 48 seems to be an interpolation, for it is not found in the three other Dharmasūtras. ### [c12.87](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.87) ² \*Manu\*, III. 142. According to Kṛṣṇapaṇḍita and the commentators on the parallel passage of \*Viṣṇu\* (VI. 2), \*Manu\* and other Smṛtis, this rule applies only to loans for which no security is given. \*SBE\*, xiv, 15. ### [c12.88](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.88) ³ \*Lüders’ List\*, No. 1133. ### [c12.89](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.89) ⁴ K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar, \*Aspects of the Pol. and Soc. System of Manu\*, p. 148. ### [c12.90](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.90) Manu lays down that a śūdra should not be permitted to accumulate wealth, for he gives pain to the brāhmaṇas.⁵ It is suggested that this injunction is an exaggerated statement (\*arthavāda\*) addressed to the śūdra himself,⁶ but the text does not provide any basis for such an interpretation. The injunction is also compared to an admonition in the English prayer-book advising a poor man “therewith to be contented”.⁷ Since the passage in question occurs in the chapter on times of distress, it may have been directed against the Buddhist monks or foreign rulers who were looked upon as no better than śūdras. At any rate it is evident from the law of inheritance that the śūdra owned property.¹ This can also be inferred from the old rule repeated by Manu that vaiśyas and śūdras should surmount their misfortunes through payment.² ### [c12.91](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.91) ⁵ \*Manu\*, X. 129. ### [c12.92](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.92) ⁶ K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar, \*Dharmaśāstra\*, p. 120. ### [c12.93](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.93) ⁷ Ketakar, \*History of Caste\*, p. 98. ### [c12.94](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.94) ¹ Manu, IX. 157. ### [c12.95](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.95) ² Ibid., XI. 34. ### [c12.96](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.96) According to Manu, one of the qualifications of the person with whom money should be deposited is that he should be an ārya.³ This naturally excludes the śūdras. But in the second century A.D. in the Sātavāhana territory money was deposited with the potters, the oil millers⁴ and even the weavers.⁵ This practice prevailed among the lay devotees of Buddhism, who made such deposits for the purpose of providing robes and other necessities for the monks. But the orthodox also followed such practices, for we have a record which shows that during the reign of Huviṣka (circa A.D. 106-138) a sum of money was deposited by a chief with the guild of flour makers at Mathurā, out of the monthly interest of which a hundred brāhmaṇas were to be served daily.⁶ These practices provide further evidence of the independent functioning of craftsmen organised in guilds. Evidently they could purchase their raw materials and implements with money deposited with them, and could pay interest on it out of the proceeds from the sale of their commodities. ### [c12.97](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.97) ³ Ibid., VIII. 179. ### [c12.98](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.98) ⁴ Lüders' List, No. 1137. ### [c12.99](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.99) ⁵ Ibid., No. 1133. ### [c12.100](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.100) ⁶ EI, xxi, Inscr. No. 10. The term used is samitakāraśreṇī (Ibid., 1.12). ### [c12.101](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.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. ### [c12.102](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.102) ⁷ Manu, VIII. 417. ### [c12.103](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.103) ⁸ Manu and Yājñavalkya, p. 171. ### [c12.104](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.104) ⁹ Manu. XI. 18. ### [c12.105](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.105) ¹ \*Ibid.\*, XI. 13. ### [c12.106](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.106) We can obtain some idea about the wages of the workers and the general living conditions of the lower orders during the post-Mauryan period. In one respect, Manu followed the principle of Kauṭilya and states that a hired herdsman may milk with the consent of the owner the best cow out of ten.² In this case Manu seems to be more generous towards the hired labourer then Kauṭilya,³ for he permits the labourer to milk the best cow. The responsibility of the herdsmen for the cattle under their charge is emphasised also by Manu, who enumerates their functions under various circumstances.⁴ But in the case of loss of cattle he does not provide for the flogging of the herdsmen, as is done by Āpastamba, or for his death, as is done by Kauṭilya. Manu introduces a new provision, according to which an area of about 400 cubits in width round the villages, and thrice as much around the towns, are to be set apart as pasture ground. And if the cattle stray into the unfenced plots of anyone in this area and destroy his standing crops, the herdsman cannot be held answerable for this.⁵ Thus to some extent this lawgiver safeguards the interests of the herdsmen. ### [c12.107](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.107) ² \*Ibid.\*, VIII. 231. ### [c12.108](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.108) ³ Kauṭilya only specifies 1/10 of milk as the share of a herdsman, but does not state that he should milk the best cow. ### [c12.109](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.109) ⁴ VIII. 229-44. ### [c12.110](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.110) ⁵ VIII. 237-8. ### [c12.111](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.111) While stating that the śūdras are meant for serving the brāhmaṇas he lays down that in fixing maintenance for them regard should be paid to their ability, work and the number of people they have to support.⁶ He repeats the instruction of Gautama that these servants should be given leavings from the table, old clothes and beds, but adds that they should also be given the refuge of grain.¹ These rules obviously refer to the remuneration of those śūdras who served as domestic servants. Manu further states that the wages of those employed in the service of the king—maids and servants—should be fixed according to the consideration of time and place.² These workers, high (\*utkṛṣṭa\*) and low (\*apakṛṣṭa\*), should get the daily wages varying from one paṇa to six paṇas.³ Besides, they should get provisions such as food, clothes etc. differing according to respective status.⁴ It is not clear whether the terms \*utkṛṣṭa\* and \*apakṛṣṭa\* refer to high and low varṇas, as they are interpreted in another context.⁵ But we learn from Patañjali that there was a wide difference between the wages of the karmakaras and the bhṛtakas on the one hand and those of the priests on the other. Thus, while the latter received cows as their wages, the former received only ¼ of a niṣka daily,⁶ i.e. 7½ niṣkas per month. It is suggested that the niṣka is identical with the kārṣāpaṇa.⁷ But if this proposition is accepted the daily wages of a worker will come to ¼ paṇa, while the nearly contemporary evidence of Manu indicates that the minimum wage of a labourer amounted to one paṇa, the maximum being six paṇas. In the \*Arthaśāstra\* the daily wage of a worker varies from ⅛ paṇa to 2½ paṇa, i.e. one to four times,⁸ but we have no means of estimating the relative purchasing power of the paṇa known from these sources. ### [c12.112](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.112) ⁶ X. 124. ### [c12.113](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.113) ¹ X. 125. ### [c12.114](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.114) ² VII. 125. ### [c12.115](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.115) ³ VII. 126. ### [c12.116](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.116) ⁴ Ibid. ### [c12.117](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.117) ⁵ Infra, p. 212. ### [c12.118](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.118) ⁶ Pat. on Pā., I. 3.72. ### [c12.119](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.119) ⁷ V. S. Agrawala, \*India as known to Pāṇini\*, pp. 236-7. ### [c12.120](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.120) ⁸ Supra, p. 169. ### [c12.121](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.121) Manu’s provisions regulating the working conditions of the labourers are not so detailed as those of Kauṭilya. But, like Kauṭilya, he is severe towards a negligent workman. A hired workman who fails to perform his work according to the agreement out of pride, without being ill, shall be fined eight kṛṣṇalas, and no wages shall be paid to him.⁹ Nevertheless, the worker who fails to do his work on account of illness but completes it on his recovery shall be paid his wages for the long period of absence.¹ On the other hand, if he does not complete his work when he has recovered, he shall not be paid any wages even for the period he has worked.² This would suggest that workers were not penalised if they had to abandon work on account of illness, provided they undertook to finish the work on their recuperation or arranged to get it done by others. Manu does not make any further corresponding provision protecting the interests of the labourer as against the employer, such as we find in the \*Arthaśāstra\*. From a simile used by him it appears that the servant had to wait patiently for the payment of his wages.³ ### [c12.122](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.122) ¹ \*Ibid.\*, VIII. 216. ### [c12.123](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.123) ² \*Ibid.\*, VIII. 217. ### [c12.124](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.124) ³ \*Ibid.\*, VI. 145. ### [c12.125](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.125) There seems to have been separate streets of the wage-earners in towns. A Buddhist source speaks of the \*bhṛtakavīthi\*, presumably in Rājagṛha, where the brāhmaṇas and householders (probably vaiśyas) went to hire labourers.⁴ Another source draws a contrast between the street of the poor (\*daridravīthi\*) and the luxurious house of a rich man in a town.⁵ Possibly this \*daridravīthi\* was identical with the \*bhṛtakavīthi\* and was inhabited by poor people who lived on wages. We also learn about three \*bhṛtakas\*, who cleared dirt near a rich man’s house and lived in its vicinity in a hovel of straw.⁶ Patañjali repeatedly states that the house of a vṛṣala, i.e. śūdra, is reduced merely to a wall (\*kudya\*).⁷ This suggests that presumably it had an earthen or brick wall and the other three sides were enclosed by straw. It is also possible that the term \*kudya\*⁸ here indicates a hut. ### [c12.126](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.126) ⁴ \*Divya.\*, p. 304. ### [c12.127](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.127) ⁵ \*Saddharmapuṇḍarika\*, Ch. IV, p. 76. ### [c12.128](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.128) ⁶ ...\*kaṭapalikuñcikāyām\*. \*Ibid.\*, IV. p. 78. \*SBE\* tr. of the phrase seems to be correct. It does not occur in Edgerton’s \*BHS Dictionary\*. ### [c12.129](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.129) ⁷ \*kuḍyibhūtaṃ vṛṣalakulamiti\*. Pat. on Pā., I. 2.47 & VI. 3.61. ### [c12.130](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.130) ⁸ \*kuḍi\* is a wrong reading for \*kuṭi\* (\*s. v.\* Monier-Williams, \*Sansk-Eng. Dict.\*), and \*kuḍya\* may be a form of \*kuḍī\*. ### [c12.131](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.131) The \*bhṛtaka\* was distinguished by his lacerated body, dishevelled hair and dirty clothers,⁹ for a well dressed person could not find employment in the \*bhṛtakavithi\*, although he waited there for the whole day.¹ Manu gives some idea of the food and dress of the śūdras who were employed as domestic servants. In this respect he merely repeats and to some extent elaborates the old provision of Gautama. A śūdra servant should be allotted by his master suitable maintenance commensurate with his ability, industry and the size of his family.² He should be given remnants of food, refuse of grain, worn out clothes and old beds³ In the \*Milinda-pañha\* tender wives of kṣatriyas, brāhmaṇas and gahapatis are described as eating tasteful cakes and meat,⁴ but there is no mention of the wives of śūdras in this connection. ### [c12.132](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.132) ⁹ \*sphaṭitapuruṣā rūkṣakeśā malinavastranivasanāḥ\*. \*Divya.\*, p. 304. Edgerton doubts the correctness of \*puruṣā\* and suggests \*paruṣā\* (?) in its place (\*s. v.\* \*sphaṭita\*. \*BHS Dict.\*), but the existing reading gives a better sense. ### [c12.133](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.133) ¹ \*Divya.\*, p. 304. ### [c12.134](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.134) ² \*Manu\*, X. 124. ### [c12.135](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.135) ³ \*Ibid.\*, X. 125. Cf. V. 140. ### [c12.136](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.136) ⁴ \*Milinda\*, p. 68. ### [c12.137](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.137) Although the śūdras chiefly continued as agricultural workers employed by individual landowners, those who worked as artisans seem to have functioned more independently than in the earlier period. They increased not only in number and variety but also showed signs of prosperity. Manu’s laws imposing new economic disabilities on the śūdras were probably ineffective. But there is no indication of any change in the living conditions of the main body of the śūdras. ### [c12.138](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.138) Manu supplies considerable information about the position of the śūdras in post-Mauryan polity. He lays down that a snātaka should not dwell in the country of a śūdra ruler.⁵ This apparently points to the existence of śūdra rulers during this period. But they do not seem to have arisen from the fourth varṇa, for contemporary political history does not know of such rulers. They probably refer to the Greek, Śaka, Parthian and Kuṣāṇa rulers, who were affiliated to Buddhism or Vaiṣṇavism, and whom Manu describes as degraded kṣatriyas reduced to śūdrahood on account of their failure to consult brāhmaṇas and to perform enjoined Vedic rites.⁶ The Purāṇic descriptions of the Kali age speak of the śūdra kings performing the \*aśvamedha\* sacrifice¹ and employing brāhmaṇa priests.² While referring to the Kali rulers, the \*Viṣṇu Purāṇa\* states that the people of various countries will intermingle with them and follow their examples.³ This seems to refer to the rulers of foreign extraction. They were the followers of heretical sects,⁴ which further aroused Manu’s hostility towards them. It is in order to prevent contact between brāhmaṇas and these rulers that Manu forbids the snātakas to dwell in their kingdoms. He further prescribes that brāhmaṇas should not accept presents from a king who is not descended from the kṣatriya race.⁵ All these rules are obviously meant to prevent the recognition of foreign rulers by the brāhmaṇas. But gradually this open hostility gave way to tolerance and ultimate recognition of the alien rulers as kṣatriyas, though of an inferior kind. During this period some Buddhists also did not favour rulers from low castes. The \*Milinda-pañha\* states that a person who is low born and base in lineage is not fit for kingship.⁶ ### [c12.139](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.139) ⁵ \*na śūdrarājye nivaset. Manu\*, IV. 61. ### [c12.140](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.140) ⁶ \*vṛṣalatvam gatā loke...Manu\*, X. 43-44. ### [c12.141](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.141) ¹ \*Mat. P.\*, 144. 43a; \*Brahmāṇḍa, P.\*, ii, 31. 67b; \*Vā. P.\*, 58.67a wrongly reads ‘nāśvamedhena’ for ‘cāśvamedhena’ of the \*Brahmāṇḍa\* (Hazra, \*op. cit.\*, p. 206, fn. 59). ### [c12.142](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.142) ² \*Kūrma P.\*, Ch. 30, p. 304. ### [c12.143](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.143) ³ \*Viṣṇu P.\*, IV. 24.19. ### [c12.144](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.144) ⁴ \*rājānaḥ śūdrabhūyiṣṭhāḥ pākhaṇḍānām pravarttakāḥ\*. \*Brahmāṇḍa P.\*, ii, 31.41. ### [c12.145](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.145) ⁵ \*Manu\*, V. 84. ### [c12.146](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.146) ⁶ \*Milinda\*, p. 358. ### [c12.147](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.147) Manu lays down that the king should appoint seven or eight ministers whose ancestors have been royal officers, who are skilled in the use of weapons, descended from noble families and are men of experience.⁷ It is obvious that the śūdras could be hardly expected to fulfil these qualifications. Manu warns that the kingdom of that monarch who looks on, while a śūdra settles the law, will sink low like a cow in morass.⁸ Such a rule perhaps again refers to the kingdoms of the barbarian rulers, who may have appointed some śūdras to carry on the administration of justice or to perform other administrative functions. But Manu emphatically states that even a brāhmaṇa who subsists mainly by the name of his caste (i.e. merely by calling himself a brāhmaṇa) can interpret the law, but a śūdra can never be appointed a judge (\*dharma-pravaktā\*).¹ The commentators add that kṣatriyas might be employed in cases of necessity,² but they do not mention vaiśyas. This fits in with the scheme of Manu, in which kṣatriyas cannot prosper without brāhmaṇas and \*vice-versa\*, but closely united they prosper in this world and in the next.³ Probably in brāhmaṇical kingdoms the first two varṇas monopolised all administrative and judicial posts. ### [c12.148](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.148) ⁷ \*Manu\*, VII. 54. ### [c12.149](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.149) ⁸ \*Ibid.\*, VII. 21. ### [c12.150](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.150) ¹ Ibid., VIII. 20. ### [c12.151](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.151) ² Kullūka, Rāghavānanda and Nandana on Manu, VIII. 20. ### [c12.152](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.152) ³ Manu, IX. 322. ### [c12.153](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.153) Manu repeats the old principle that members of the four varṇas and the untouchables can act as witnesses in the transactions of their respective communities.⁴ But he adds that kṣatriyas, vaiśyas or śūdras, provided they are householders, have sons and are indigenous, are competent to give evidence when called by a suitor.⁵ In the opinion of Kullūka this applies to debts and similar civil cases, which means that the śūdras were not considered reliable in criminal cases.⁶ However, the provision of Manu makes a definite advance on the provisions of earlier times which do not permit the śūdras to appear as witnesses in the cases involving members of the higher varṇas. As to cases such as defamation, assault, adultery and theft, anybody can be called as a witness irrespective of the qualifications required in civil cases.⁷ If qualified witnesses are not available, Manu permits even slaves and servants to act as witness.⁸ Manu does not introduce any varṇa distinctions in boundary disputes between villages; witnesses are to be examined in the presence of the crowd of villagers.⁹ Amongst those whom Manu does not permit to appear as witnesses (evidently in civil cases) are artisans, actors and dancers.¹ Kullūka justifies this on the ground that these people are always occupied with their work and that they can be won over by bribery.² Born slaves are also not permitted to act as witnesses.³ ### [c12.154](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.154) ⁴ Ibid., VIII. 68. ### [c12.155](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.155) ⁵ Manu, VIII. 62. ### [c12.156](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.156) ⁶ Kull. on Manu, VIII. 62. ### [c12.157](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.157) ⁷ Manu, VIII. 62 and 69 with the comm. of Kull. ### [c12.158](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.158) ⁸ Ibid., VIII. 70. ### [c12.159](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.159) ⁹ Ibid., VIII. 254. ### [c12.160](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.160) ¹ Ibid., VIII. 65. ### [c12.161](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.161) ² Kull. Manu, VIII. 65. ### [c12.162](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.162) ³ Manu, VIII. 66 with the comm. of Kull; adhyadhīna is explained as a garbhadāsa (Ibid.). ### [c12.163](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.163) Manu repeats the old rule of giving warning to the members of the various varṇas before making deposition.⁴ If a śūdra gives false evidence, he is held guitly of all sins,⁵ and is threatened with the most terrible spiritual consequences.⁶ But he adds that a judge should cause a brāhmaṇa to swear by his veracity, a kṣatriya by his chariot or the animal he rides on, a vaiśya by his kine, grain and gold, and a śūdra by imprecating on his head the guilt of all grievous sins.⁷ Significantly, however, Manu does not ordain any special royal punishment for the śūdra witness. He states the general principle that, in the case of giving false evidence, the king should fine and banish men of the three lower castes, but should only banish a brāhmaṇa.⁸ Similarly, according to Manu, brāhmaṇas are not liable to corporal punishments, which can be inflicted only on the members of the three lower varṇas.⁹ Therefore in these respects the śūdra is placed on a footing of equality with the kṣatriya and the vaiśya. ### [c12.164](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.164) ⁴ Ibid., VIII. 88. ### [c12.165](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.165) ⁵ Ibid. ### [c12.166](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.166) ⁶ Possibly a whole series of exhortations made by the judge in Manu, VIII. 89-101 are addressed to the śūdra witness. ### [c12.167](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.167) ⁷ Manu, VIII. 113. ### [c12.168](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.168) ⁸ Ibid., VIII. 123. ### [c12.169](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.169) ⁹ Ibid., VIII. 124-25. ### [c12.170](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.170) It is laid down that the king should take up the cases of the litigants in the order of their varṇas.¹⁰ In settling the law he should take into account the customs of every caste.¹¹ Conduct of good people is regarded as a source of law by Manu,¹² and according to a commentator of the 17th cen. A.D., this includes the practice of the good śūdras as well.¹ ### [c12.171](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.171) ¹⁰ Ibid., VIII. 24. ### [c12.172](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.172) ¹¹ Ibid., VIII. 41. ### [c12.173](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.173) ¹² Ibid., II. 6. ### [c12.174](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.174) ¹ Quoted in K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar, Rājadharma, pp. 155-56. ### [c12.175](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.175) Like the early lawgivers, Manu is guided by considerations of varṇa in the administration of justice, which affects the position of the śūdras adversely. If a kṣatriya defames a brāhmaṇa, he shall be fined a hundred paṇas, a vaiśya 150 or 200 paṇas, but a śūdra shall suffer corporal punishment.² If a brāhmaṇa defames a kṣatriya, a vaiśya or a śūdra, he shall be fined respectively 50, 25 or 12 paṇas.³ The fact that a fine of 12 paṇas is prescribed in the case of a brāhmaṇa abusing a śūdra is significant, for in the Gautama Dharmaśūtra no fine is provided in such a case.⁴ ### [c12.176](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.176) ² Manu, VIII. 267. ### [c12.177](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.177) ³ Ibid., VIII. 268. ### [c12.178](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.178) ⁴ XII. 13. ### [c12.179](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.179) Generally Manu lays down very severe punishments for śūdras offending against the members of the superior varṇas. Thus if a śūdra insults a twice-born with gross invective, he shall have his tongue cut out.⁵ The term twice-born (dvijāti) indicates only the brāhmaṇa and the kṣatriya, for this punishment is expressly forbidden in the case of a śūdra reviling a vaiśya.⁶ Manu further provides that, if a śūdra mentions the names and castes of the twice-born (dvijāti) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth.⁷ If he arrogantly teaches brāhmaṇas their duties, the king shall cause hot oil to be put into his mouth and into his ears.⁸ Jayaswal suggests that these provisions are directed against the ‘dharma’-preaching learned śūdras, i.e. the Buddhist or Jain śūdras and śūdras who claim equality with the higher classes.⁹ Apparently these provisions are laws against the author’s political opponents, who flout the established order.¹⁰ ### [c12.180](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.180) ⁵ Manu, VIII. 270. ### [c12.181](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.181) ⁶ Manu, VIII. 277. ### [c12.182](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.182) ⁷ Ibid.. VIII. 271. The term dvijāti is explained by Kull, as ‘brāhmaṇas and others’, but probably it refers to brāhmaṇas alone. ### [c12.183](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.183) ⁸ Manu, VIII. 272. ### [c12.184](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.184) ⁹ Manu and Yājñavalkya, p. 150. ### [c12.185](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.185) ¹⁰ Cf. K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar, Aspects of the Pol. and Soc. System of Manu, p. 132. ### [c12.186](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.186) It is difficult to say how far these laws were put into effect. Perhaps they may have been the suggestions of a fanatic and were rarely if ever put into practice.¹ ### [c12.187](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.187) ¹ Basham. \*Wonder that was India\*, p. 80. ### [c12.188](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.188) In cases of assault and similar crimes the punishments prescribed for the śūdras are very harsh. It is provided that the very limb with which a man of low caste (\*antyajaḥ\*) hurts a man of the highest caste (\*śreṣṭhaḥ\*) shall be cut off.² Here Kullūka takes \*antyaja\* in the sense of śūdra,³ which agrees with a similar rule of earlier times.⁴ The term \*śreṣṭha\* refers to brāhmaṇas and not to the men of three higher orders, such as is sometimes understood.⁵ In a verse Manu states that he who raises his hand or a stick shall have his hand cut off; he who in anger kicks with his feet shall have his foot cut off.⁶ Probably this also refers to the offences of the śūdra against the brāhmaṇa. It is further laid down that if a man of the lowest birth (\*apakṛṣṭaḥ\*) tries to place himself on the same seat with a person of high caste (\*utkṛṣṭaḥ\*), he shall be branded on his hip and banished, or the king shall cause his buttock to be gashed.⁷ The \*apakṛṣṭaja\* stands for the śūdra and the \*utkṛṣṭa\* for the brāhmaṇa.⁸ Similarly if out of arrogance the śūdra spits on a brāhmaṇa, the king shall cause both his lips to be cut off; if he urinates on him, the penis; if he breaks wind against him, the anus.⁹ Again, if the śūdra lays hold of the hair of a brāhmaṇa, the king should unhesitatingly amputate his hands, likewise if he takes him by the feet, the beard, the neck, or the scrotum.¹⁰ Perhaps to cover all such cases, Manu lays down a general rule that the king shall inflict on a base-born śūdra, who intentionally gives pain to brāhmaṇas, various corporal punishments which cause terror.¹ Giving pain to the brāhmaṇas is interpreted as causing him physical pain or stealing his property.² ### [c12.189](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.189) ² \*Manu\*, VIII. 279. ### [c12.190](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.190) ³ Kull. on \*Manu\*, VIII. 279. ### [c12.191](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.191) ⁴ \*Gaut. Dh. S.\*, XII. 1; This rule also occurs in the \*AŚ\*. ### [c12.192](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.192) ⁵ \*SBE\*, xxv, 303. ### [c12.193](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.193) ⁶ \*Manu\*, VIII. 280. ### [c12.194](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.194) ⁷ \*Ibid.\*, VIII. 281. ### [c12.195](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.195) ⁸ Kull. on \*Manu\*, VIII. 28. Medhā. and Govindarāja concur with Kull. (\*SBE\*, xxv, 303). ### [c12.196](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.196) ⁹ \*Manu\*, VIII. 282. ### [c12.197](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.197) ¹⁰ \*Ibid.\*, VIII. 283. ### [c12.198](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.198) ¹ Ibid., IX. 248. ### [c12.199](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.199) ² Kull. on Manu, IX. 248. ### [c12.200](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12.200) Most of the provisions enumerated above are directed against the śūdras offending against the brāhmaṇas. Even the mere existence of these provisions in the law-book shows that relations between the highest and the lowest varṇas were very strained. We have hardly any evidence to determine whether such provisions were carried out. The Mahāvastu, however, informs us that sometimes severe bodily tortures were inflicted on the hired labourers in order to make them work. This text states that some people cause these workers to be shackled with fetters and chains, ordering the hands and feet of many to be pierced, and the nose, flesh, sinews, arms and back of many to be slit five or ten times.³ The Saddharmapuṇḍarika refers to a young man of good family bound in wooden manacles.⁴ Therefore it is small wonder if śūdra offenders were subjected to corporal punishments, but whether the penal laws of Manu were literally applied to them is open to doubt. _First 200 of 473 passages. [Read on](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12)_ ## Linked texts (22) - [Mānava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu.2.17) — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit - [Aṣṭādhyāyī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.astadhyayi.4.1.168) — Pāṇini, Sanskrit - [Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.dharma.vasistha.2.48) — Vasiṣṭha, Sanskrit - [Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.brahmanda.2.31) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.artha.kautilya.4.13) — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit - [Gautamadharmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.dharma.gautama.12.13) — Gautama (dharmasūtrakāra), Sanskrit - [Mahāpadānasutta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.digha.14.3.28.10) — Pāli - [Matsyapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.matsya.144.43) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Vaiṣṇava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.visnu.6.2) — Viṣṇu, Sanskrit - [Viṣṇupurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.visnu.4.24.19) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Vāyupurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.vayu) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Mahāvastu](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.avadana.mahavastu) — Sanskrit - [Milindapañha](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.khuddaka.milindapanha) — Pāli - [Kūrmapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.kurma) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Divyāvadāna](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.avadana.divyavadana) — Sanskrit - [Avimāraka](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.bhasa.avimaraka) — Bhāsa, Sanskrit - [Epigraphia Indica](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.corpora.ei) - [Mahābhārata](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.mahabharata.vyasa) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.saddharmapundarika) — Sanskrit - [Pannavaṇā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.jaina.sveta.upanga.4) — Śyāmārya, Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit - [Vṛddhagārgīyajyotiṣa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.astro.early.vrddhagargiya) — Garga, Sanskrit - [Nasik cave inscription (No. 16, N. 5) (ed. Hultzsch 1906)](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.deccan.satavahana.nasik-no-16*hultzsch1906) — Prakrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1958.c12) · Pramāṇa