LEGAL CONCEPT OF SLAVERY: FROM THE ERA OF MANUSMRITI
SLAVERY
IN ANCIENT INDIA
In ancient India, the concept of slavery was a matter of great consideration as evident from various literary texts. The ancient texts portray both the sides of the slaves, right from the legal aspect which says if legally a slave had no right even on his own body, quite different from other rights, he was treated like a chattel, as a property of the house equivalent to master’s oxen, buffalo, gold and silver, garments, etc.,[1] while on the other side Apastamba laid down that the householder must provide food to the slaves even he along with his wife or children might remain hungry in want of food[2]. Kautilya also confirms the similar ruling that the treatment of slaves needed to be good and if a master ill-treated his slaves the state should punish him[3]. Similarly, the king Ashoka in his Rock Edict IX ordained that all people should treat their slaves with sympathy and consideration. While Manu mentions that a slave, his wife, and his son had no right to property of any kind[4].
In ancient India, the concept of slavery was a matter of great consideration as evident from various literary texts. The ancient texts portray both the sides of the slaves, right from the legal aspect which says if legally a slave had no right even on his own body, quite different from other rights, he was treated like a chattel, as a property of the house equivalent to master’s oxen, buffalo, gold and silver, garments, etc.,[1] while on the other side Apastamba laid down that the householder must provide food to the slaves even he along with his wife or children might remain hungry in want of food[2]. Kautilya also confirms the similar ruling that the treatment of slaves needed to be good and if a master ill-treated his slaves the state should punish him[3]. Similarly, the king Ashoka in his Rock Edict IX ordained that all people should treat their slaves with sympathy and consideration. While Manu mentions that a slave, his wife, and his son had no right to property of any kind[4].
Although
the slaves had some legal rights and assurance of social security along with
some property rights yet they did not enjoy the rights and privileges of free
citizenship. A slave’s property belonged to his master, he could not take loans
in his personal name, yet some thinkers allowed him to do so, his evidence was
considered valid in suits but his offspring were addressed with contempt and he
was subjected to various types of corporal punishments and insults. Since the
slave was taken as equivalent to household objects, it is easy to imagine that
his constant association in the family could not but have created in a sense of
more humane, consideration among owners. Actually their status largely depended
upon the nature of their master. The involvement of some of the slaves in
military and state affairs and their role in productive works decisively paved
a way for their rise in socio-economic status.
Manusmriti
Manusmriti is the popular name of
the work, which is officially known as Manava-Dharma-Shastra. It deals with
cosmogony, the definition of the dharma, the sacraments, initiation and the
study of the Vedas, marriage, hospitality, funeral rites, the conduct of women and
wives, and the law of kings. The
text makes no categorical distinction between religious law and practices and
secular law. Its influence on all aspects of Hindu thought, particularly the
justification of the caste system, has been profound.
Manusmriti ON SLAVERY: LEGAL ASPECTS
Whenever we deal with the legal notion of an idea or an individual, we take into consideration its jurisprudence. The underlying philosophy dealing with the rights and the duties, the consequences associated with them. In India slaves used to enjoy a satisfactory position which was evident from the statements of Manu where he asks the master to take food after food is taken by the slaves[5]. This behavior and relation of vicarious liability portrayed there existed principle of considerate behavior, however, in practice this depended upon the behavioral conduct of the master. This was analogous to Kautilya’s notion regarding just and humane treatment for others. Moving on to the contemporary timeline we can even correlate this concept to even today, where we have fundamental rights ensuring such just and humane situations.
Whenever we deal with the legal notion of an idea or an individual, we take into consideration its jurisprudence. The underlying philosophy dealing with the rights and the duties, the consequences associated with them. In India slaves used to enjoy a satisfactory position which was evident from the statements of Manu where he asks the master to take food after food is taken by the slaves[5]. This behavior and relation of vicarious liability portrayed there existed principle of considerate behavior, however, in practice this depended upon the behavioral conduct of the master. This was analogous to Kautilya’s notion regarding just and humane treatment for others. Moving on to the contemporary timeline we can even correlate this concept to even today, where we have fundamental rights ensuring such just and humane situations.
Now
for Manu punishment theory was quite harsh, and he believed that master could
beat his slave with a stick which showed that the slaves were treated in
barbarous manner and considered as mere property to the masters. This further
brings contradiction to very own notion of Manu and consequently violated the
common humanitarian law, as it deprived their legal right to oppose the inhuman
behavior and torturing by their masters. This was however criticized by
Kautilya, in his study. According to Manu, a slave’s witness was also not
considered trustworthy[6],
which undoubtedly invited for the sheer comments regarding no checks and
balances against the ill-treatment the ‘slaves’ faced.
Manu’s
legal concept faces three major criticism, namely,
-
Manu founded the caste-system based on birth
-
Manu legalized harsh punishments
for Shudras and special provisions for upper- castes and especially Brahmins.
-
Manu was anti-women and condemned
them. He accorded inferior rights to women.
According
to Manu, for the prosperity of the world, Brahma caused the Brahmins, the
Kshatriyas, the Vaishyas and the Shudras to proceed from his mouth, his arms,
his thighs and his feet. The most
resplendent one Brahma assigned separate occupations to all these four castes.
To Brahmins he assigned teaching and studying(Veda), sacrificing for their own
benefit and for others, giving and accepting of alms. The Kshatriyas he
commanded to protect people, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study the
Veda and to abstain from attaching himself to sensual pleasures. The
Vaishyas to tend cattle, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study Veda,
to trade, to lend money and to cultivate land. One occupation only was assigned
to Shudras by the lord, to serve meekly the other three castes.[7]
Legalizing harsh punishments for Shudras who were basically treated as slaves and special penal provisions for upper caste, was also another point which drew mixed reaction of the jurists. Thus all those shlokas that recommend special provisions for upper-castes and harsher punishments for Shudras are part of these bogus adulterations that are very easily identifiable. If we review the original Manu Smriti, which is based on Vedas, the situation is completely opposite. As per Manu, penal system takes into account the education, social influence, designation, nature of crime and impact of crime while recommending punishments. Manu offers greater respect and status to Brahmins – the educated ones. Dwijas or twice-born or those who completed their education are provided heightened standing in society so far they conduct noble deeds. But when it comes to crimes, they also have to face more severe punishments. With greater potentials, come greater responsibilities and stricter punishments when one fails to full fill those responsibilities.
According to Manu, if a Shudra (once
born) defamed any twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out, for
he is of low origin. If he mentions the names and castes of the 'twice-born'
with contempt, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his
mouth. If he (a Shudra) arrogantly teaches Brahmins their duty, the king shall
cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and into his ears. A low-caste man
who tries to place himself on the same seat with a man of high caste shall be
branded on his hip and be banished, or the king shall cause his buttock to be gashed.
If out of
arrogance he (a Shudra) spits, on a superior the king shall cause both his lips
to be cut off. If he (a Shudra) lays hold
of the hair of a superior the king could
unhesitatingly cut off his hands.[8]
This kind of punishment and judicial mechanism was barbarous in nature and
directly promoted caste-based discrimination and sheer violation of human
rights. The legal system in the era of Manusmriti created a jeopardized
situation for the lower caste people, who were left unheard, who were looked
down upon, which was not slaughtered their self-respect but also mocked at the
duty of the king of maintaining justice.
Needless to say, the
Manusmriti has been criticized and condemned. Manu Smriti's detractors feel
that some of its injunctions favor one community (the Brahmins) over others.
It is also accused of trying to imply that the Shudras as races foreign to India.
Almost all of its injunctions pertaining to the Shudras are seen as tools for
their exploitation. While it is sometimes claimed (with almost no evidence)
that certain passages of Manusmriti which are highly biased against Shudras are
later additions or interpolations, it must be noted that at least some of the
statements in the Manusmriti against Shudras were already present by the time
of Shankaracharya (7th-8th Century CE), who quotes them in some of his
commentaries. So it is unlikely that these so-called interpolations, if there
were any, were done much later than the writing of the text itself.[9]
CONCLUSION:
In
the Manusmriti, the concept of legal system and procedure for administering
justice was unethical and unreasonable. This is evident from the point of
evolution of the Varna System, and classification and administration of justice
based on that criteria, gives a tint of unjustified judicial mechanism. The
inhuman treatment to the lower caste people, making them slaves, depriving them
of the property rights, proper food, shelter, equal treatment, proper
sanitation is a sheer mockery on the legal ambiance existing during that time.
The duty of the king was to safeguard the interests of the weak in the ancient
India, the concept of unequal punishments according to the caste classification
also proves out to be a callous degradation of moral and ethical values.
The
unchecked and unreasonable legal system according to Manusmriti, gave rise to
the concept of Human exploitation whose reference and safeguards we even find
in our constitution today. This legal system was unregulated and it also
questioned the role of the king who was considered as the epitome of justice,
in performing the duty as a judge. The Manusmriti is considered as the first
codified Hindu Law, was the highest law of the land was unable to bring out the
concept of Natural Justice, and thus promoted slavery on a pessimistic note.
[1] Jain, P.C., Op.cit., p.276
[2] Apastamba Dharmasutra . II, 4.9.11
[3] Arthasastra
3/13
[4] Manusmrti, 8/416
[5] Manusmrti, 3.116
[6] Manusmrti, VIII, 70
[7] Gokhale,
B. (1961). Slavery in Ancient India. By Dev Raj Chanana. Pp. xviii, 203. New
Delhi: People's Publishing House, 1960. Rs. 10. The
Journal of Economic History, 21(3), 394-395.
[8] Annirudh, “ Hindu Law Promoting Slavery”, I Power Blogger,2006.
[9] Annirudh, “
Hindu Law Promoting Slavery”, I Power Blogger,2006.
Comments
Post a Comment