The institution of slavery existed in ancient India, although it operated in much milder form than in the ancient civilizations of the west. Its operation was at a low key that foreign travelers like Metatheses did note it, for we do not get any reference in this account about slavery.
In fact there was no caste of slaves as such, because servitude was not in the nature of the Aryans. The persons belonging to all castes could become slaves. For example a free man (array) could become a temporary slave if he failed to pay a fine or the costs of a lawsuit or if he was carried off in a raid. Similarly, a man left his caste to enter a monastic order and then left the order Dr never entered it; he became a slave of the king. An Aryan became a permanent slave only when he himself sold his person.
The institution of slavery originated in India when the Aryans captured a number of dasas in the battle. According to Mahabharata it is a law of war that the vanquished should become slave of the victor and should serve his captor until ransomed.
However, in course of time certain other categories of slaves also came into existence. For-example children born to a slave automatically became the slaves of the same masters. A free man could sell himself and his family into slavery in times of dire distress, similarly; arson could be reduced to slavery on account of crime or debt. However, in these cases the servitude was of a temporary nature.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Thus we find that in later times a number of classes of slavery came into existence. We find reference in the Smriti literature and else where about the various types of slavery. Broadly speaking there were four types of slaves— born in the house, bought, captured in raid, and inherited.
The duties of the slaves of all the four categories were identical via, obedience to the master and the obligation to serve him in the matter of work. The slaves generally acted as domestic servants and personal attendants, although sometimes they were required to assist the master in agriculture or mining. The master looked after the slave as a subordinate member of his household. The masters were expected to maintain them and even to perform the last rites of the slave if he died without leaving a son.
The slaves were bought and sold like ordinary commodities. They could also be loaned or given away. However, the masters possessed no right over their lives. The masters had a duty to look after the slaves when they were old, and could not abandon them. Thus we find that as compared to other ancient civilizations the lot of the slave in ancient India was much better. It was ordained for the master that he “may go short himself or stint his wife and children, but never his slave, who does his dirty work for him.” The masters were encouraged to release the slaves and manumission of slaves was considered to be a pious act.
The Arthashastra emphasized on the need of liberal treatment of the slaves and laid down numerous regulations for the purpose. It forbade the sale of the children as slaves, except in dire emergency. The slaves were to be free to inherit property and do anything to raise money during their spare time. Slave girls were assured decent treatment. A master raping slave girl was expected to free her and pay her necessary compensation. If a slave-girl got a child by her master, both the mother and the child were set free.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
According to Prof. Basham, “The humane regulations of Arthashastra, probably unique on the records of any ancient civilization, are perhaps survivals of marina laws, and it is therefore not surprising that Metatheses declared that there was no slavery in India. India, unlike some other ancient civilizations, was never economically dependent on slavery, the laborer, farm worker and craftsmen were normally free men and the latitudinal of the Roman magnate had no counterpart in India. Slave markets are not mentioned in early sources and though provision was made for the sale of slaves they do not seem at first to have been a regular article of commerce.”