FORCED LABOUR IN ANCIENT INDIA

Author(s): S. K. Maity
Source: Proceedings of the Indian History Congress , 1978, Vol. 39, Volume I (1978), pp.
147-151
Published by: Indian History Congress

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44139346

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indian History Congress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress

This content downloaded from

77.225.111.40 on Tue, 28 Sep 2021 11:43:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FORCED LABOUR IN ANCIENT INDIA

S. K . Maity

Side by side with hired labour and slave labour, forced labour
was very common in the ancient world. The subjects of the Roman
State were compelled to labour on public works. "Herodotus tells
us of the use of forced labour by Persian rulers for transport and
dispatch services ( angarevo ) and by Pharaoh for the construction of
the Great pyramid. Forced labour was from early times the chief
means of maintaining the Egyptian irrigation canals. Most of the
population of medieval Europe was subject to legally defined forced
labour, for example, road work {corves), transport service ( angaria )
and other feudal service obligations."1 In India also forced labour
existed from the earliest times upto the early twentieth century.

This labour (visti) was generally unpaid. The State in anci-

ent India demanded such labour from time to time for the performance
of works of public utilit/.

In the Epic period "no caste was exempt from this tax of comp-
ulsory labour. Even the Brahmanas were made to work, if they did
not follow their own sacred profession and followed the profession
of artisans and labours".2 In the Mahabharata forced labourers are
said to have accompanied the army.3 But a little different meaning is
expressed by Rhys Davis in his Buddhist India. "The village headman
had, no doubt, to prepare the road, and provide food, on the
occasion of a royal person on high official visiting his village. But
we find no mention of Corvee or forced labours at this period.
And even in the law books which refer to a later date, this is
mentioned as a service due from artisans and mechanics, and not
from villagers."4

In the opinion of Indologists forced labour (visti) was a kind of

tax paid to the state by the poorer villagers. Thus, to be a tax the
compulsory contribution need not necessarily be 1 one of money or
goods, for compulsory military service and forced labour must be
reckoned with in the category of taxes."5 Moreover, in the Mauryan

This content downloaded from

77.225.111.40 on Tue, 28 Sep 2021 11:43:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 148

days, according to Magasthenes, the handicraftmen and the retail

dealers had "to perform gratuitously certain public services, and to
pay tribute from the products of labour."6 This suggests that there
were two kinds of labour tax, -the ordinary tax, paid in the form of
labour ( Simhanika )7 and the additional gratuitous performance of
public services (visti)}
As regards the first kind, the poorer class could not pay taxes
in money or in kind, they paid their taxes in the form of services.
Their labour was utilised by the state in manufacturing oil and the
like.9 But in the opinion of MH. Gopal, "this was in one sense no
gain to the State, because instead of getting the income in the shape
of money or kinds, it got its due in the form of labour. But it may be
pointed out that if the State had refused to accept the labour, it
would have been so much the loser for it, as the poor people could
not properly have paid their dues in any other shape."10
Generally the States of ancient India demanded such labour from
their citizens from time to time for the performance of works of public
utility. It was regarded as so essential in the time of Kautilya that the
village and city accountants were instructed to keep an account of men
engaged in forced labour.11 We also find reference to forced labour
in our early epigraphic records. In the Junagarh Rock inscription of
Rudradaman, it is a recorded that the Sudarsan lake was constructed
from his own treasury without burdening the people with new taxes
and forced labour (visti)}2 Thus, forced labour was considered tobe
a sort of burden on the people, even by the kings who exacted it, if
they were broad-minded and benevolent.
It has been mentioned by Manu that Sudras, craftsmen and
artisans discharge their dues by work.13 He further explains that
mechanics, artisans, and others had to work for the king one day in
every month.14 Gautama15 and Vishnu16 speak to the same effect.
Sukra17 advocated for one day labour in a fortnight. It was an
additional tax and had to be paid by all. "No caste was exempt from
this tax of compulsory labour. Even the Brahmanas were made to
work, if they did not follow their own sacred profession and followed
the profession of artisan and labour."17
In the Mauryan and post-Mauryan periods free labour, thus,
became a regular source of income to the state. The Mauryan govern-

This content downloaded from

77.225.111.40 on Tue, 28 Sep 2021 11:43:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 149

ment appointed an official called Vistibandhaka to procure free

labour and to keep account of this type of labour for public works.18
How common this system of labour was we can understand from the
use of terms like I /istipradhana* Kosavisti, Vistirvahana Karmantovisty,
Vistikarapratikaram, Hiranyavisti etc.19

In the classical age this form of labour became a source of

state income, and was looked on as a sort of taxation paid by the
people. It finds frequent mention along with other taxes in the Gupta
inscriptions. This shows that forced labour was probably more common
than in the earlier period. In the Chammak Copper plate of Pravarasena
II forced the land was endowed entirely free from all obligations of
labour.20 Thesame exemption from forced labour, we find in the Siwani
Copper plate of the same ruler.21 But in the Raypur plate of Sudeva-
raja it is specifically stated that the inhabitants of the donated village
should be obedient to the command of the Brahmana donees
Nagavatsasvamin and Bandhuvatsasvamin.22 Again, in the Ganesgadh
plate of Dhrubaesna I, the Pardi pillar inscription of Dharasena and the
Surat plate of Vyaghrasena the lands were granted with exemption
of all taxes and forced labour.23 In the Riddhapur plate, the Vakataka
queen Prabhavatigupta donated lands to Brahmanas, their sons and
grandsons entirely free from forced labour.24

Many other inscriptions specifically record the grants of lands

along with the right of forced labour. The Palitana plate of
Dharasena II states that the land was donated with the right of forced
labour.25 The Navalakhi plate of Siladitya I (A.D. 605) records that
the land was granted with the right to forced labour.28 In the
Valabhi grant, Dhruvasena III in A.D. 653-4 has also given the donee
the same kind of right to forced labour.27 Some inscriptions even
indirectly mention the existence of forced labour in the Gupta and the
Post-Gupta periods. In the Khoh plate Maharaja Jayanatha orders
the Brahmans, cultivators and artisans of Dhavasandika thus -"you
yourselves shall render to these persons the offering of the tribute
of the customary duties, royalties, taxes, gold, etc. and shall be
obedient to (their) commands."28 Similar instructions have been given
in the Gaya plate of Samudragupta.29 some of the early medieval
epigraphs record that the obligation to do forced labour was not
always medieval epigraphs record that the obligation to do forced

This content downloaded from

77.225.111.40 on Tue, 28 Sep 2021 11:43:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 150

labour was not always performed but was sometimes commuted by

some payment in cash or kind. These inscriptions describe the grant
as accompanied by the right of ůUtpadyamana-visti.'l{s It refers to the
dues paid by the villagers in place of the forced labour they had to
perform for the State.

The king and high officials often demanded forced labour on

some special occasions. Epigraphic evidence is corroborated by
literary evidence. In the Mudraraksasa, the carpenter Daruvarman
has furnished the main entrance of the palace with magnificent
decoration on the occasion of Chandragupta's coronation.31 He has
done it before receiving the instruction of Chanakya. At this Chanakya
praises him highly, adding that he would have his reward for it
before long. Even this system of labour did not escape the notice of
the Chinese pilgrim Yuan-Chwang. He remarks, "individuals are not
subject to force ! labour contributions-taxation being light and
forced services being sparingly used."32

In the much later period ,the Rajtarnagini states that it was not
always necessarily the actual carriage of loads but might be
commuted by some payment in cash or kind. King Sankaravarman is
said to have introduced this system of forced labour. He even fined
the villagers failing to carry loads for one year, at the value of the
load calculated according to the highest prices in the regions
concerned.88 In the reign of Harsa(A.D. 1089-1101) a certain temple
was plundered, hence the members of the purohita corporation
requested him to be exempted from forced labour ( rudhabharodhi ').84
This reference also favours the suggestion that forced labour was
often commuted for payment in cash or kind.

Originally the idea of rendering free labour originated for the

development of the community and was actuated with a co-operative
spirit which is also suggested by Kautilya in his Arthasastra . But
gradually this spirit degenerated and the entire system underwent a
complete change and took the shape of forced labour and exploitation
caused by landed aristocracy. Remnants of this forced labour were
found even in the early twentieth century in the system known as
Begar (forced labour). Poorer classes, generally landless labourers,
had to render free service to their landlords.

This content downloaded from

77.225.111.40 on Tue, 28 Sep 2021 11:43:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 151

REFERENCES

1. Ency. of Soc. Sc. Vol. Vi, p. 342.

2. C.V. Vaidya, Epic índia (Bombay 1907), p. 215.
3. Mbh. lix, 41-3.
4. Rhya Davis, T.W. Buddhist India, p. 49.
5. Arth Bk. IV, Ch. 2.
6. Arrian, Indica XII.
7. Arth. Bk. II, ch. XV, cf. Bhattiswami's explanation, JBORS, Vol. XI, part III,
p. 85.
8. Ibid, Bk. I, ch. IV.
9. Ibid. Bk. II. Ch. XV.
10. Maurian Public Finance, London, 1935. p. 105.
11. Arth, ii-7.
12. E,I. VIII, p. 36.
13. X, p. 120.
14. VII, p. 138.
15. X, p. 31.
16. IV. p. 211.
17. E.I. p. 215.
18. Arth. V. 3.

19. Arth. I, 4; 11-5; 11-6; 11-36; V, 3; VII, I.

20. Fleet, p. 235.
21. Ibid, p. 243.
22. Ibid, p. 196.
23. EI, III, p. 318; X, p. 51; XI, p. 219.
24. JASB (N.S), XX. p. 53.
25. EI, XI, p. 80.
26. Ibid, 174,
27. Ibid. 85.
28. Fleet, p. 121.
29. Ibid, p. 254.
30. EI, IX, No. 1 (8).
31. Vishakhadutta, Mudraraksasa, E. Bedakar, V.M., Bombay 1942, II pp. 56-58.
32. I. p, 176.
33. Raj, V, 172.
34. Ibid, VII.

This content downloaded from

77.225.111.40 on Tue, 28 Sep 2021 11:43:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms