@UnamPillai @sankrant 1) No Arthashastra and MBH do not refer to slavery, at any rate nothing like its form in kerala.The word translated as "slave" is Dasa. Dasas in Arthashastra could own and transmit property. It was also not permitted to abuse them.They were also not to be employed for scavenging
@UnamPillai @sankrant 2) This is the reason Megasthenes did not consider them as slaves and vouched that there were no slaves in India. Apollonius also testifies that there were no slaves in India. Periplus does not mention slaves among either import or export commodities of India. Conclusive evidence
@UnamPillai @sankrant 3) This is the reason most Indologists these days translate "Dasa" as servant rather than "slave". At any rate, Adima slaves of Kerala did not enjoy any privileges listed for Dasas in Arthashastra.According to Travancore Govt questionnaire,master could kill the slave if he wanted
@UnamPillai @sankrant 4) Megasthenes' approximation of even size of Pataliputra turned out to be accurate. His testimony cannot be brushed aside.
Slavery of the kind practiced in Kerala does not have parallels in Ancient India. But it does in Middle East. Which is why I thought this was ME influence
Slavery of the kind practiced in Kerala does not have parallels in Ancient India. But it does in Middle East. Which is why I thought this was ME influence
Loading suggestions...