Labour Legislation in Ancient India

(Belgaum)

A very welcome feature of the present century is the almost universal interest and enthusiasm shown in the cause of Labour. Be it a Democracy or a Dictatorship, the maximum possible attention is being devoted to the labourers and their welfare. Hours of work have been reduced; wages have been increased and amenities for recreation have been created. Even India, which is ever the last in the race of progress, has not escaped this universal wave of sympathy for the labourers. Now that the Congress is in power in the Provinces, (and may it live long), several provincial governments have already on hand many useful plans for the betterment of the Labour conditions. At a time like this, it may be of use to glance a little, and see how labourers were being treated in this land of ours a thousand years .

Labour formed the -bone of Hindu society. The authors of the Dharma and Artha Sastras repeatedly observe that on a contented Labour class depends the growth of society and stability of government. It was, therefore, the paramount duty of the king to look to their welfare and to defend their cause in case of difference of opinion between the labourers and their employers. Says Sukra, "According to the qualifications of the workers, there should be the rates of wages, fixed by the king carefully for his own welfare." Again, he observes, "One should neither stop nor postpone payment of wages." Says Narada, "A master shall regularly pay wages to the servant hired by him, whether it be at the commencement, at the middle, or at the end of his work, just as he had agreed to." "An employer who postpones payment and fails to pay wages shall be punished with a fine of 12 panas or 5 times the amount of the wages." Says Brihaspathi, "When a master does not pay wages for the labour stipulated, after the work has been performed, he shall be compelled by the king to pay it, and a proportionate fine besides." Disputes regarding wages were decided personally by the king on the strength of evidence furnished by witnesses. "In the absence of witnesses," says Kautilya, "the master who has provided work for the servant shall be examined."

Wages in ancient India appear to have been fairly high, for again and again the law-givers observe that wages were expected to enable the labourer and the members of his family to lead a normal standard of life. According to Sukra, an equitable rate of wages was that which provided not merely the absolute necessaries of life, but that which recognised the ‘Standard of Life and Comfort’ as implied in the care of family and dependants. Low wages were even considered dangerous to society, for "those who get low wages are enemies by nature." Again, "the master’s harsh words, low wages, severe punishment and insult, bring out in the servant the attributes of the enemy." Those who are satisfied with wages and honoured by distinctions and pacified by soft words never desert their master, Sukra defines the different kinds of wages as follows: "Moderate remuneration is said to be that which supplies the indispensable food and clothing. Good wages is that by which food and clothing are adequately supplied, Low wages is that by which only one can be maintained." Wages were calculated sometimes according to time and sometimes according to turnover. "Remuneration can be paid according to time, work, or both." That wages were high is also clear from the fact that one Jataka speaks of even servants giving alms (Jat. III. 445-446).

Labourers, who were attached to an employer for a long time, were entitled to several concessions. "The king should grant half the wages for life without work to the man who has passed 40 years in his service, and if the labourer was not living, this is to be given to the widow or son or to his well-behaved daughters. Every labourer is entitled to a respite of 15 days every year." Again, "the employer should give the servant one-eighth of the salary by way of reward every year and if the work has been done with exceptional ability, one-eighth of the services rendered." Sickness was not to be taken advantage of for dispensing with the services of labourers. On the other hand, they were to be given wages even when they were confined to their beds. "Even a slight portion should not be deducted from the full remuneration of a labourer, who has been ill for half a fortnight; but if the disease were to continue long, the labourer was entitled to three-fourths of his remuneration until the period of his recovery. But if he were permanently incapacitated, then three months’ wages were to be paid to a servant who had served for five years, and six months’ wages to those who had served longer. Every labourer was to be given enough leisure to attend to his domestic duties." "For the discharge of their domestic duties, servants should be granted leave for one yama during day-time and three yamas by night, and a servant who has been appointed for a day should be allowed half a yama."

Wages were thus fixed not merely for the labourers working under an employer, but also for artisans, for, in those days, the term labourer included all kinds of workers–artisans, domestic servants and industrial labourers. In short, the term ‘labourers’ included (1) Agricultural labourers employed for tillage, watching and harvesting of crops, (2) Pastoral labourers employed for tending and grazing cattle and for dairy-production, (3) Industrial labourers employed in spinning, weaving and other manufactures, (4) Mercantile labourers employed for hawking wares, and (5) household labourers employed for domestic service (Indian Culture, 1937). Speaking about the wages of artisans, Sukracharya observed, "The goldsmith’s wages is to be 1/30th the value worked upon, if workmanship is excellent; l/60th if mediocre, and half of that if of inferior order, wages to be half of that in the case of Kataka (Bracelet) and in the case of mere smelting, half of that. The silversmith’s wages is to be half if the workmanship is of the highest order, half if of mediocre and half of that if inferior and half of that if Kataka. The wage is to be 1/4 in case of copper, zinc, jasada metal, half or twice or 8 times in the case of iron." Says Kautilya, "As to wages not previously settled, the amount shall be fixed in proportion to the work done and the time spent in doing it. Wages being previously unsettled, a cultivator shall obtain 1/10 of the crops grown, a herdsman 1/16of the butter clarified, a trader 1/16 of the sale proceeds."

The king took great care to see whether the wages received by the artisans and labourers were enough to meet their ordinary wants or not. A careful study was made of the family budgets with a view to know their assets and liabilities. Says Kautilya, "A gopa shall keep account of ten households, twenty households, or forty households. He shall not only know the caste, gotra, the name and occupation of both men and women in those households, but also ascertain their income and expenditure." The employers were expected to provide a kind of provident fund for the labourers. Says Sukra, "The master should keep with him as deposit one-sixth or one-fourth of the servant’s wages, should pay half of that amount or the whole in two or three years." Wages however were not always paid in cash. In fact the Jatakas give instances of several curious kinds of payments. A Brahmin youth serves a Chandala as a servant to acquire a charm. A girl, in another Jataka, is taken into service for three years in a family for a scarlet robe, and a wife is got after working for seven years in a house (Indian Culture). Says Narada, "For tending hundred cows, a heifer shall be given to the herdsman as wages every year; for tending two hundred cows, a milch cow shall be given to him annually, and he shall be allowed to milk all the cows every eighth day."

Employers were expected to treat the labourers kindly and speak to them in a soft and gentle manner. "He should gratify them by gentle looks and smiles, soft words, good feast and clothes, and betels and wealth." Asoka, in his Rock Inscription XIII, ordains kind and gentle treatment of the ‘dasas.’ Artisans were regarded in a special manner devoted to the royal service, and capital punishment was inflicted on any person who impaired the efficiency of a craftsman by causing the loss of a hand or an eye.

The workers often joined together and had guilds of their own. We read of several kinds of guilds in the Jatakas. These guilds were recognised by the State and their demands always received very careful consideration at the hands of the king. In the Muka-pakkha Jataka, we are told that the king, while going out in the full splendour of state, assembled the four castes and the eighteen guilds. This number eighteen appears to have been a conventional number for we meet with more than 25 kinds of guild organisations in the Jatakas. Some Jatakas show that the heads of guilds sometimes held high posts in the State and were favourites of the king; one of them often represented the interests of the labourers in the Cabinet. These guilds, besides acting as intermediaries between the State and the individual labourer, also appear to have considered questions of a purely personal character. In Vinayapitaka IV, 226, we have the instance of a guild which arbitrated on occasions between its members and their wives.

Great care appears to have been taken regarding the question of housing the labourers. Kautilya discusses in detail the nature of the houses and the locality that was to be set apart for the labourers. "The owners of houses may construct their houses in any other way they collectively like, but they , shall avoid whatever is injurious; with a view to ward off the evil consequences of rain, the top of the roof shall be covered over with a broad mat, not blowable by the wind. Neither shall the roof be such as will easily bend or break. Violation of this rule shall be punished with the first amercement. The same punishment shall be meted out for causing annoyance by constructing doors or windows facing those of others’ houses except when these houses are separated by the king’s road or the high road."

From the foregoing paragraphs, it is clear that labourers in ancient India enjoyed far more privileges than their brethren today. They were paid well, treated kindly and accommodated comfortably. A very good feature of ancient Indian labour legislation is the fact that they included among "labourers" even domestic servants, and all possible protection was given to them from the tyranny of bad masters. It is not often realised that today in India many are the domestic servants who are treated worse than slaves, and silently they suffer as they have no organisation to protect them. Labour legislation, in fact, has not touched them and may not touch them until they join together and form a Union, which however is a remote possibility. The labourers again were allowed to pay their taxes by means of service. Says Manu, "Mechanics and artisans as well as Sudras who subsist by manual labour, the king may cause to work for the State one day in each month." But they were not forced to work. Said Hiuen Tsang, discussing the conditions of the India he saw, "The families are not entered on registers and the people are not subjected to forced labour. When the public services require it, labour is exacted but paid for; the payment is in strict proportion to the work done."