Essay on the life of the Slaves in Ancient India

Megasthenes asserted that slavery was unknown in the India of the Mauryas. In fact, it undoubtedly did exist then, just as it did in later eras; but it did not take the same form as in Greece, so that his statement is only partly incor­rect.

This class included very different types of per­sons. In the first category are distinguished those ‘born in the house’, who were virtually members of the family in which they were servants. Having been bought, or received as a gift, they were then inherited along with the goods and chattels. Their purchase price was comparatively modest, and consequently slave-owning was widespread.

The royal palace set the example in the practice of buying slaves; these were young women destined for the harem, brought (probably from Greece) by trading vessels, often by the merchants who traded between India and Africa, and made optimistic claims as to the girls’ noble birth and their talent in the arts of song and music.

In the same way, a female militia, charged with guarding the harem, was also composed entirely of slaves; they could be seen mounting guard on the ramparts or at the doors of private apartments, armed with a pike and wearing a helmet. Their Western origin seems proved by the use of the termyavani (‘coming from Ionia’) to describe them.

It is worth noting that their costume changed over the centuries, being Greco-Roman in style until the third century or thereabouts, and then Iranian during the fourth and fifth centuries.

We know this because there is evidence to show that, after the fall of Rome, this social group was reluctant to abandon this mode of dress and appealed for sartorial assistance to regions which had inherited Hellenistic traditions. Other classes of slaves in the royal and princely households were the hunchbacks and dwarfs whose job was to act as jesters and clowns, and the nurses who breast-fed the noble offspring of these households.

The living and working conditions of these slaves did not differ greatly from those of the Shudras, which is probably what misled Megas­thenes. In a certain sense they were better off than the Shudras. They received no wages and so could more easily avoid the necessity of working when they were sick, since they were not dependent upon wage earnings for their daily bread.

Existing sources of information differ consid­erably in their evaluation of the slaves’ living and working conditions. Pali texts emphasise the hard labour often imposed on them, such as the transportation, morning, noon and evening, on the man’s (or woman’s) back, of the water needed each day by the entire household, and this throughout the year, even in winter when it was necessary to wade waist-deep in icy water.

These same texts state that corporal punishment was inflicted on slaves who neglected their duties, that they were beaten, even mutilated, sometimes killed. The threat of such punishment constrained them to obey at all costs, and kept them in a state of constant fear.

Sometimes they were authorised to earn money freely during their spare time and to keep the whole amount; it was also possible for a female slave to receive permission to marry a free man outside her master’s house, on condition that she returned each day to perform her duties as a slave.

The law protected a pregnant girl, and she could be neither sold nor given away during her preg­nancy. If she had been seduced by the master, and had had a child by him, the master was bound to pay her an indemnity and to free her and her newborn child.

Ordinarily, children remained in slavery, as did their parents. As for old people, they were kept on in the master’s house until their death, even when they could no longer work. If they left no descendants, their funeral expenses were paid by the master who undertook to carry out the commemorative writes for the well-being of their souls. There was a special annual festival allocated to slaves, in which they took an active part.

It would appear, then, that the lot of these slaves was not altogether harsh, especially if one compares their conditions with those generally imposed in other ancient civilisations. Apart from the brutal separations which were inevitable when they were sold or exchanged, they sometimes led a less arduous existence than an ordinary laborer, especially when their master en­deavoured to be just and pious. There is even a case on record of a slave inheriting his master’s estate.

The law specified that slaves should have a chance to recover their freedom; they had the right to escape, but once only. If they successfully avoided recapture, they could rejoin their caste (if they had one) and enjoy the condition of a free man. Those who had managed to save money from the wages they had earned freely while off-duty could buy their freedom if the sum was sufficient.

Their liberation involved a small ceremony during which their release was announced, at the same time, the fortunate individual was sprinkled with water from an earthen jar which was then broken into pieces. His forehead was ceremonially washed, symbolising that he was authorised now to rejoin his caste. If he entered a religious order, he was allowed to change his name, so that nobody might reproach him with his servile past.

Slaves were not only bought; many individuals fell into slavery for a variety of reasons: those convicted under the common law and sentenced to purge their offence by a term at forced labour; debtors who had been unable to repay their creditors and so entered their service, the creditors being then obliged to provide them with food and lodging; and individuals who had pledged themselves as surety in a contract, a law­suit or a bet.

There were also prisoners of war, or those who had been taken as booty. Their eventual liberation depended upon the category to which they belonged and the resultant conditions of ser­vitude.

Convicts were freed when their sentence was completed, debtors when they had managed to pay off their debt, and others when the contract they had guaranteed was fulfilled, or when they had contrived to pay a sufficient or desired amount. Prisoners of war were kept in slavery only for a limited period of time, usually one year.

The division into castes was not the only social structure operating in ancient India. Clans, guilds and family groupings were at least as important, both in social and private life, and these categories fulfilled the same need for classification which the Indian mentality demanded, namely to exist socially, the individual had to be included in a definite category.

Very often, membership of a trade-guild was more important than belonging to a particular caste, especially where Buddhist influence was uppermost, and a man’s social status was determined less by his caste than by his profes­sion. So, too, it was very important to belong to a clan or to be able to boast a long line of ancestry (gotra).

The guilds (srenis) offered their members the backing of powerful organisations that were more closely defined than those of the castes and were backed by special tribunals and well-defined regulations.