PROBLEM OF SLAVERY IN ANCIENT INDIA 47 We have... on the one hand regions (oligarchies) where an entire section of the population is considered as slaves, and, on the other hand, areas (monarchies) where this criterion does not hold. In the oligarchies... slavery seems to have been, in spite of the insufficient data available, due to birth. The oligarchs possess slaves who must work for them. This fact is confirmed, above all. in agriculture, the principal industry (for commerce is not yet sufficiently developed) where the work is entirely carried out by slaves and servants. We are not contesting the existence of Brahmin villages (as for example among the Sakiyas) mentioned in the texts, nor suggesting that these Brahmin peasants were the slaves of the Sakiyas. We are simply observing that the supply of foodgrains (rice, barley, etc.) to the noble families depended on the slaves who had to cultivate the lands of their masters.53 Thus Chanana concludes that slavery in the oligarchies was of the communal form. R S Sharma, basing himself exclusively on the smriti writers who legislated for those regions of ancient India where the Brahminic four-caste system prevailed, considers the valuable findings of Chanana to be untenable, Nevertheless the major conclusion of the writer that the practice of regarding a whole section of the population as slaves fits quite well into the oligarchic system is open to question. The brahminical lawgivers, who were staunch supporters of the monarchical form of government, laid down in very clear terms that the Sudra population was meant for the service of the three higher varnas.54 The institutions of slavery in Kerala and in these ancient oligarchies have points of great similarity, excepting of course that Kerala is matrilineal while these ancient oligarchies were patriarchal. The other similarity between Kerala and these ancient oligarchies is that Brahminical smriti laws were neither applicable to these digarchies, nor are they applicable to Kerala. Both social systems, in spite of some important differences, belonged to the non-Brahminical current of this country. Both these currents, the non-Brahminical and the Brahminical, have flown side by side throughout Indian history, clashing, interacting and sublating each other. 1 P V Kane, History of Dharmasastms, Vol II, P i, pp 381-382. 8 Ibid., pp 172-173. 3 Ibid., pp 381-382; D R Chanana, "The Sanskritist and Indian Society", Enquiry^ Vol II, No 2, 1965. ^ Interview to the Marathi daily J^auakala dated January 1, 1969. 4 The Sacred Books of the East, Vol XLIV, p 446. 5 Ibid., Vol XXXIV, pp 223-229. 3 P V Kane, op. cit., Vol II, P i, p 183. 7 N C Kelkar, Lokamanya Tilak yanche Charitra (Marathi), pp 237, 394-395* 8 Ibid.,p 668. 9 R P Dutt, India Today, p 269.