Essay name: Bhasa (critical and historical study)
Author: A. D. Pusalker
This book studies Bhasa, the author of thirteen plays ascribed found in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series. These works largely adhere to the rules of traditional Indian theatrics known as Natya-Shastra.
Page 474 of: Bhasa (critical and historical study)
474 (of 564)
External source: Shodhganga (Repository of Indian theses)
Download the PDF file of the original publication
454
The Artha艣astra mentions six kinds of slaves; 1
those voluntarily mortgaging themselves to pay off their
debts, fines or court decrees or to tide over family
troubles; (2) those mortgaged by their kinsmen; (3)
those enslaved for fines or court decrees; (4) captives of
war; (5) issues of slaves; and (6) purchased.
A voluntarily mortgaged slave if he attempted
escape, one mortgaged by his kinsmen if guilty of escape
on two occasions, and either of these slaves if found
planning escape to foreign countries, were condemned to
permanent slavery. All the other classes of slaves could
win their freedom on payment of a reasonable price.
Heavy fines were prescribed for those who refused to
emancipate their d膩sas on the latters' offering the ransom
money. The offspring of a person selling himself as a
slave was Arya. After paying the value a slave regained
his Aryahood. Kautilya forbids the assigning of
objectionable works to the slaves as also the exacting of
hard labour from them."
$6
It seems rather strange that in face of these
numerous references to slaves in ancient India,
Megasthenes should emphatically assert that none of the
Indians employ slaves" and that "all Indians are free, and
not one of them is a slave "" But the statements are not
irreconcilable with facts, as the so-called slaves in India
were quite distinct from their name-sakes in the West.
The master in ancient Rome had power of life and death
over his slave and a slave was no better than the chattel
of his owner in Roman Law, the penalty for killing a
slave being the same as that for killing a four-footed beast.
The slave in India, however, was a member of the family
of his master.
In spite of Dr. Fick's statement, we are
inclined to hold that slaves were treated very kindly,
thrashing, imprisonment and bad food being found only in
exceptional instances. A slave, further, had the
protection of the law courts in India and any ill treatment
of a slave was visited with severe punishment. According
to the Artha艣膩stra the property of a slave passed not to
his master but to his own heirs; the master got it on
in
the absence of any heir to his slave.
heir to his slave.
The statements of
1 Arthas膩stra, IIl. 13, pp. 181-183. 2 Cf. Pub. Adm., p. 25.
Organization, p. 310; Contra, Fick himself, op. cit. pp. 312-313.
3 Social
