Slavery or dasatva in India was different in form from the slavery in ancient Graeco-Roman world. That is why Megasthnese declared that there were no slaves in India. The Buddhist canonical texts mention various classes of slaves, viz. slaves by birth, by purchase, by capture in war or by self- choice.
In Kautilya we have, for the first time, a body of laws governing their status. Manu distinguishes seven kinds of slaves,viz. one captured in war, one accepting slavery for food, one born in master’s household, one purchased, one given, one acquired by inheritance from ancestors, and one enslaved by way of punishment. As to the general attitude towards slaves, their humane treatment is enjoined by the sacred texts.
Manu, however, allows the same limited power of correction over the slave, as over the wife and the son, to the head of the household. As regards personal rights, Yajnavalkya lays down that slavery (dasya) shall be in the descending order of varnas and not in the ascending order.
As for the slave’s rights of property, Manu categorically denies the slave’s right to acquire wealth for himself, though a slight exception is made in favour of a son begotton by a shudra on a female slave. As regards the right of emancipation, Yajnavalkya declares the forcible reduction to slavery to be void.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Emancipation is the reward for a slave who saves his master’s life, while one who accepts slavery for his keep is released on payment and one enslaved for debt is freed when he repays it. We learn from the Divyavadana that a female slave bearing a child to her master was at once freed with her offspring.
The slaves may have been generally recruited from the shudra Varna, but sometimes the shudras themselves owned slaves. According to the comment of Kulluka 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. Further, on failure of competent witness’s even slaves and servants could give evidence.