Ancient Indian Education (Brahmanical and Buddhist) c18.24

c18.24

These rules show that industrial apprenticeship was treated as a contract based on several stipulations. First there was the stipulation as to the limit of time within which the master must engage to complete the course of training for which he admits the apprentice. As stated in the *Vīramitrodaya*, the master craftsman is to make an agreement in this form: "Let this apprentice stay with me so and so long." Secondly, the arrangement fixed the respective obligations of both the master and his pupil during the time of training. The obligations of the master were: (*a*) that he should treat his pupil as if he were his son, which meant (i) that he should give him free board and lodging in his house, (ii) that he should not treat him like a hired labourer, (iii) that he should teach him honestly and wholeheartedly without keeping back from him any secrets of his knowledge and craft and (iv) that he should not exploit his pupil's skill and labour by employing him on work not related to his training but only for his own gain. Kātyāyana fixes a penalty for employing an apprentice in work not connected with his training: "He who does not. instruct his pupil in the art (to which he is admitted) and causes him to perform other work shall incur the first amercement; and the pupil may forsake him and go to another teacher, released from this indenture" [Colebrooke's *Digest of Hindu Law*, ii, 7]. The law-books also contemplate cases of undutiful teachers putting off instruction of their pupils even after their admission, and condemn them severely if such neglect continues for a year [*Kūrma Purāṇa* cited in *Vīramitrodaya*]. On the pupil's side, there were appropriate obligations, viz. (1) that he should not desert his teacher before time where there is no justifiable ground for such desertion, such as neglect of duty or any moral lapse on the part of the teacher. A runaway apprentice might be flogged and confined if it is of his own motion; but if it is under instructions of his kinsmen who had been the consenting parties to his pupilage, the deserted master could sue these guardians of the pupil for a breach of contract [Colebrooke's *Digest*, p. 8; cf. *Manu*, iv, 164; viii. 299–300; *Gautama*, ii, 43-4]; (2) that the pupil could not leave his teacher even if he had completed his training before time. For this unexpired period, the pupil should work for his teacher and yield to him the fruits of his work, serving out his full term. The theory was that it was by way of reward or compensation for the pupil s gain in time achieved by his master's superior methods of training. Yājñavalkya [ii, 187] also states the same position: "Even if the apprentice has had his training completed before time, he must live on in his master s house up to the time fixed (*kṛita-śilpopi nivaset kṛita-kālaṁ guror gṛihe*), giving to him all that he earns by his work for the time as a return for what his master has spent on him by way of free board, lodging, and tuition (*antevāsī guruprāptabhojanastat phalapradaḥ*)."