Talk:Slavery in India/Archive 1

Archive 1

Added a great deal of information

I have added a great deal of information about the period 1000-the present. However It would be good to have someone who is more familiar with this subject clean up the page. 87.68.31.169 09:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Medieval Period

When I started the page, I had specifically tried to bring to the attention of the reader, the fact that there is a huge controversy about anything being said about slavery under rulers professing Islam. The medieval period has to be seen much more carefully, and with a much greater detail in supporting evidence not only just from so-called contemporary texts, but also from modern interpretations of textual representations or claims. Since there appears to exist two extreme schools of opinion, one which associates any mention of slavery under Islam as a right wing attack, and the other which associates any absence of such notions as a left wing attack, we need to put in a lot more concrete and balanced representation for this period. Dikgaj 12:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Added more material on the Turko-Afghan period. Edited the introduction, to point out that prior to the modern age, our assessments of slavery in India depend on interpreting textual claims on all sides. Added factors explaining both economic and religious motivations to enslave non-Muslim populations of India by Arab, Turko-Afghans and the Mughals. Will add Mughal period next.Dikgaj 12:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Gypsies/ rom/dom

Anyone had any thoughts of including gypsies as early muslim owned slaves? That's a major theory for their migration.Domsta333 (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Gypsies

There is some material (relevant for slavery) connected to the supposed origins of the Gypsies. The major obstacle to the theory of their originating from enslaved Punjabi/Multani populations is the absence of any obvious remnants of Islamic beliefs/practices. The historical records for Islamic slave owners show that if they manumitted their slaves they typically did so only as converted Muslims. Similarly children born of enslaved non-muslim women resulting from cohabitation with their owners were typically freed as Muslims. There has rarely been reports of reconversion from Islam into previous faiths. Various factors, such as inherent suspicion by remnant non-converted populations, real or perceived atrocities committed while still muslims, or punitive dictats of capital punishment by various branches of Sharia for apostates, could perhaps be behind such non-reversion. A prime case study would be that of the post-Ummayid-Caliphate phase of reconversion in Spain, and its connections to the phenomenon of the Inquisition. I have collected material on this (about Gypsies), but as yet do not feel that the subject is ready for putting up on wiki. Dikgaj (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Slavery under early European colonial powers

Most of this section deals with the fromer princely state of Chitral. This region remained an independent kingdom until 1895 when it became a princely tate of the Indian Empire. Prior to that Chitral had nominal ties to both Afghanistan and after 1873, Kashmir. Chitral did not come under direct European influence until the 1880's, and the scope of this article is about the Chitrali slave trade, the references for which have been provided all deal with incidents which occured before this period. This this section must be either re-titled or merged with another section as the Chitrali slave trade was a mere continuation of the medieval Central Asian slave trade and had nothing to do with any European Colonial Power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.29.106 (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

POV

I added a POV tag to the section on the Mughals. The whole section seemed to be POV, and I became sure of that when I read "The peasants were carried off to various markets and fairs to be sold with their poor unhappy wives carrying their small children crying and lamenting." Obvious POV issue there. Ummonk (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

What about European contribution towards Indian slavery?

After writing up most of the original material dealing with the pre-modern period, I had hoped others might feel interested in exapanding on the role of Europe in the Indian Ocean slave trade. Or are we still deferent to the myth of the Great European Liberator? There is significant recent work on this topic, especially about the activities of the Dutch and the Portuguese.

Dikgaj (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

British rule resulted in the ending of slavery - one of the many benefits of British, rather than Moghul, colonial rule. What does the title "Possible British colonial reconstruction of dependency relations into slavery and debt bondage" mean? It must be one of the longest title in Wikipedia.203.184.41.226 (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Move to history of slavery in India

Hi,

I suggest that this article should be moved to history of slavery in India as nearly the entire article is written about the history of slavery.Sarcelles (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous POV on POV from historiographical POV

This is a quote from a contemporary source, who is also a primary source handed down in preserved documented narrative. If this is raised as a POV issue, every historical narrative sources of first observer type, is a POV. Even if it is a POV, what is the dispute here? User Ummonk wants to dispute what? does he think that peasant families didnt cry/or were happy to be led into slavery?! If this logic is allowed to prevail then no narrative contemporary first observer versions can be used as historical sources! A lot of history then falls flat, including lots of hagiographical claims on Mughals supposedly doing humane/just acts, as they too are simply then POV's possibly suspect as their authors were in conflict of interest situations (employed by Mughals for example)! dikgaj — Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You're correct that the specific sentences Ummonk mentioned are a quote, and this is extremely relevant and means that (seeing as the quote isn't from a fringe source) it is not POV for those sentences to be included. However, two major points should be noted.

First, the sentences were not in quote marks when Ummonk raised them as POV, and indeed remained without quote marks until I added them today after reading your comment. Quotes in Wikipedia should always be within quote marks or presented as block quotes, otherwise using them in articles constitutes plagiarism and possibly violations of copyright.

Second, material in Wikipedia's own voice (rather than quotes included within Wikipedia and marked as being quotes) should be presented in a very neutral and encyclopedic tone. Neutrality does not mean shying away from information that might make slave-traders look bad; instead, it means just presenting that information (as well as all other relevant information) in a non-judgemental tone. The horrific nature of things like slavery are readily apparent from just the basic facts, presented flatly; emotional terms are not necessary to capture them. I think that WP:PEACOCK captures a specific case of this general principle well when it says: "Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance."

I went to the article on Adolf Hitler (a featured article) for a good example of this principle of NPOV in use in a case where something is definitely atrocious: "Under Hitler's leadership and racially motivated ideology, the regime was responsible for the genocide of at least 5.5 million Jews, and millions of other victims whom he and his followers deemed racially inferior." The article could instead say "Under Hitler's tyrannical leadership and disgusting, racially motivated ideology, the evil regime was responsible for the systematic slaughter of at least 5.5 million Jews, and that's not even counting those millions of other massacred victims whom he and his followers thought themselves justified in deeming 'racially inferior'." I think that that second phrasing would also be fair enough and doesn't distort the facts, but I also think that its emotionally charged phrasing just isn't necessary; the first phrasing, emotionally flat as it is, already makes it clear that incredibly horrific atrocities were committed at a grand scale.

The best policy for Wikipedia to follow is one of a general lack of POV even in cases (such as slavery and the Holocaust) where it's clear that certain things were terribly morally reprehensible. The bare facts will be enough to give people the right ideas about those cases. Allowing emotionally charged presentations in those cases opens the door to that kind of presentation in other cases. Slavery and colonial oppression can be made to seem like morally good things with the right presentation without even needing any direct lies; just a cherry-picking of facts and a biased phrasing of them. A policy of NPOV in all cases will never prevent genuinely bad things from appearing bad (or genuinely good things from appearing good, or whatever) and will ensure genuinely bad things can't be presented as good.

(Incidentally, I know that things are never or almost never quite so simple as just "good" or just "bad", and that it would be arrogant of anyone to think that they can be certain of the exact moral value of anything, although it does at least seem safe to say that the people overall would probably be happier without slavery than with it.) BreakfastJr (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Paragraphs include 4-8 lines of personal opinion, and they cite a primary/unreliable source for the last one liner. Section needs better citations, it can be removed too because these are after all speculations. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Racism

This article is full of unreferenced claims ie.

1 - slavery declined under Mughals 2 - that indentured servitude was for "crushing and usorious debt" 3 - that indentured servants were unpaid.

it's just typical indojingoist racism without basis in fact. It's not just not NPOV its a hate crime — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.127.154 (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Debt Bondage

There is no discussion of debt bondage in the article, although it is considered by notable and reputable sources to be a form of slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage If there are no reasoned objections, I may add a section about it. Panoramalama (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Faded?

The article claims that slavery faded around 900 BC. It is sourced to somebody called Rajendra Ram, from a conference publication, and the paper seems to be essentially impressionistic. It is squarely contradicted by established historians such as Ram Sharan Sharma and Dev Raj Chanana, according to whom, large scale slavery essentially began around 900 BC, after the four Vedas were completed. Then it was sustained through the Aryan expansion into the Gangetic plains, state formation, the Maurya empire and the period of dharmashastras. It declined only around the time of the Gupta empire. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

References

The source is from Indian History and Culture Society. That's why I used it. The publisher as known has historians of varied views. If there is information contradicting it, then we should add it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, everything about the Society shouts UNRELIABLE, AVOID, FRINGE. There is no need to include such views. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a proof they are so? You can't just blame them by yourselves or think they are. We here give space to all reliable historians of various opinions. If their bias affects their work, then there is a case not to include them. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Interpretations of Dasa

User:Kautilya3 i don't understand the reasons behind your revert. This article is very poorly written. Some self-made claims and incorrectly sourced claims have existed. I have tried to improve it through reliable sources and I always avoid OR. As "dasa" is interpreted by some to mean slave. So I have tried to present its various interpretations. As other interpretations of dasa are already given, though some seem pooly soured, i added others as well.

One was by Tony Ballantyne (historian). who suggests it as a distinctive group of people which was non-Vedic and their name later came to be applied to all those perceived as barbarians or savages and thus in later Sanskritic tradition denote a slave as oppose to Arya or noble.

Another interpretation is by Indolgist Georg Feuerstein, Subhash Kak and David Frawley however consider them to be the Aryans themselves but with a distinct cultural tradition. they add that scholars interpret they might ave been Iranian Aryans who opposed Indic Aryans.

All of them are quite scholarly. Even their publishers are. I can understand that Frawley might seem less reliable because of his tilt towards Hindutva ideology, but his book i co-authored by multiple authors. I don"t understand why you claim, "Revert off-topic and half-baked, poorly sourced content; please stick to the topic, viz., slavery." If it's the length that might make it seem so, then I can do something about that. But asides from these things cannot understand why you would say so. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Dasa meant slave for certain people at certain points of time. Explaining the meanings of Dasa is not the purpose of this article. There is a separate article for it.

The appropriate sources for this article are books on history, written by scholars who either specialise in that period of history, or in Indian history in general. Tony Ballantyne specialises in colonial history. Georg Feuerstein specialises in Yoga. You should not be using them for writing about ancient Indian history. I also see that your paraphrase of Ballantyne is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what he wrote (which is not great in itself). Please see the requirements of WP:HISTRS for writing about history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I don't see why there shouldn't be other views of a word that is interpreted to mean a slave. I added them because they might not be interpreted to mean "slave" by others or their understanding of what it originally meant may different.

I know already Georg specializes in Yoga, but he still is an Indologist. Specialization doesn't mean they're exclusively devoted to it. He has written on topics far beyond just yoga including Gita, Tantra etc. Nor I know of any bias in his works. Also Rig Veda is more of a scripture of hymns than a historical document though some hymns may be about historical events. Still if you think he's unreliable, I won't insist. It's better to find a source that can be agreed as historical and reliable by everyone.

Ballantyne details his interpretation of how Dasa came to denote a slave. Also I don't see how I misunderstood or misinterpreted. What I added Dasa referred to a non-Aryan people who were represented as savages, godless and untrustworthy in contrast to the Aryans. It was later was extended to others in a similar way, later evolving into denoting a slave as compared to Arya which meant noble. If you think my interpretation is wrong, then please suggest me the correct way to add it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Also I tagged you again because I didn't know if you will notice. I can't always be there so if you don't see me replying for some time, don't worry, I will comment again eventually. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, let us discuss Ballantyne. I find this sentence in the source:

This linguistic opposition was continued into later Sanskritic tradition where dasa came to mean slave and arya came to mean noble or honourable.

Tell me what you understand by this sentence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Hey come on, let's not take unilateral actions on status quo. Anyway the statement above is actually a continuation: "The usage of Pani and Dasa were extended beyond tribal names, to become terms for savage or barbarian peoples in general and they also came to describe the workings of demonic force. The Aryas, on the other hand, were a noble people, protected by their gods Agni and Indra. This linguistic opposition was continued into later Sanskritic tradition where dasa came to mean slave and arya came to mean noble or honourable."

I missed the demonic part so i'll add it if you want. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Consider getting consensus here first (WP:BRD). You have been moving this content to other unrelated articles. "He concurs that this continued into later Sanskritic tradition where dasa came to mean a slave while Arya meant noble." Why do you find these interpretations WP:DUE for including? Capitals00 (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

"kissed the demonic part"? I have no idea what you mean.

But the sentence I have quoted from the source makes it absolutely clear it was in the later Sanskritic tradition that dasa came to mean slave. Does it say that the dasas were considered demonic in the later Sanskritic tradition? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I meant I missed the demonic part. Sorry for the typo. It is used to explain as to how dasa came to refer to something so inferior like a slave.

Also I added much more than what I added here at the other two articles. What I think is really undue, is your issues. No offense but if other interpretations of Dasa are here, including not directly related to slavery and seemingly poorly-sourced or self-made at least for R.P. Kangle, I don't see why mine shouldn't be.

If you disagree, then the proper way is to add views of other scholars. Why outright remove it?

This article had some made-up or poorly sourced arguments before I came, but no one bothered to clean them up. But I was reverted, that too at 3 articles. I even dropped the book of Frawley on the other two, still got removed. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3 Capitals00 May I suggest solving this problem by reducing the content to keep it relevant. In order to explain Tony's explanation of how it came to mean a slave, which i think is relevant, it will say only:

Tony Ballantyne, states that Rig Veda depicts the cultural differences between the Aryan invaders and non-Aryans of Indus valley, with Dasas being an indigenous people who were depicted as godless, savage and untrustworthy. He adds the term was extended to other savage and barbarian people and also workings of demonic forces, as opposed to Aryas who were shown as a noble people, continuing into later Sanskritic tradition where dasa came to mean a slave and arya came to mean noble or honourable.

I will drop the Georg Feuerstein and David Frawley source and instead use the historian [[Ram Sharan Sharma for the other meaning:

The historian Ram Sharan Sharma states that while it has been argued that Dasyu and Dasa were not non-Aryans, it is more true in the case of the latter. Further the Dasas are said to be organized into tribes called viś, a term used for Vedic people or tribes.

Though the later part about viś can be dropped, if you don't like it. If you have any suggestions I'll welcome it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you should drop Tony Ballantyne. He is not a specialist in ancient Indian history, and there is no dearth of authentic sources on ancient Indian history. Your idea of why dasa came to mean slave is wrong. It was extrapolated from dasi, which did mean female slave in the Rig Veda. R. S. Sharma explains this. You also need to realize that the Rig Vedic material was composed over a vast geographic expanse (from Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex to Punjab, via Afghanistan), and we really have no idea which of these people were called dasas. See the Parpola book that I mentioned to you on another page.

As far as this page is concerned, nothing needs to be said about dasas other than the fact that they were originally the enemy tribes of the aryas, some of whom were probably enslaved by them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me also add that your paraphrase of Ballantyne involves an unbearable amount of WP:SYNTHESIS. No go. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you are delving into the territory of self-deciding what is right or wrong. Tony is not unreliable and he hasn't said the Dasas weren't enemies of Aryas. He clearly said they were presented in opposition to the Aryas. He may not be a specialist, but that alone can't be a reason, nor there's any policy against him. Nor I see Tony having any bias. He seems reliable enough.

I did ask you for your suggestions on it. If you can give your own version of how to add Tony and Sharma's interpretations, I'll welcome it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I have referred you to R.S. Sharma and Asko Parpola, two scholars that specialise in ancient Indian history. You haven't said whether you studied them and noted the contradictions with Tony Ballantyne. If you have understood the contradictions, then you need to explain why Ballantyne's ideas are still worthy in the light of the known facts. Read carefully what WP:NPOV says, because its violation is WP:POV pushing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

All I said is we can include viewpoints of all scholars. I have added RS Sharma's statements about Dasyus and Dasas not being seen as non-Aryans, more so in case of latter. As for the locations of Dasas, I only added the views of historians, not mine.

All views of reliable historians should be included. That is the way. Imposing one view is not the spirit of Wiki. If there is evidence in view of one claim, that can be added. But we shouldn't try to become experts on what can be included. All views should be shown. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I see that you are still persisting with this POV. I don't see any clear statement from Ballantyne establishing any connection with the Rigvedic use of "Dasa" and the later "Sanskritic tradition". You are reading too much into it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I am only adding what Tony stated, not my interpretation. Since you're talking about connection of Rig Veda with Dasas here is what Tony said.:

The Rig Veda depicts indigenous tribes such as the Pani and Dasa as godless, savage and untrustworthy.

Maybe you should read it. I am getting tired of your constant one wrong reason after another. Your actions are causing harassment and impeding me from making contribution. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

But this is not an article on Rig Veda. It is on slavery. So whatever Rig Veda says is off-topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Except my edit is not about Rig Veda, but how its representation of Dasas came to mean a slave. Ram Sharan Sharma's claims are a counter to them being non-Aryans. That is relevant. If you bothered to read, this is how Tony details evolution of Dasas into becoming a term for slaves:

The Rig Veda depicts indigenous tribes such as the Pani and Dasa as godless, savage and untrustworthy. The Pani are cattle thieves who seek to deprive pastoral Aryas of their main source of wealth. The Dasas are savages, whose darker complexion, different language diverged significantly from the invaders. The other adjectives used to describe the Dasa also post a rigid cultural opposition between Arya and Dasa: the Dasa are barbarians (rakshas), those without fire (anagnitra) and flesh-eaters (karvyad). The usage of Pani and Dasa were extended beyond tribal names, to become terms for savage or barbarian peoples in general and they also came to describe the workings of demonic force. The Aryas, on the other hand, were a noble people, protected by their gods Agni and Indra. This linguistic opposition was continued into later Sanskritic tradition where dasa came to mean slave and arya came to mean noble or honourable.

Arbitrary break

Come on now, you displayed it bold face italics, as if it is a decisive statement. Now you are backtracking, saying your edit was not about the Rig Veda at all. If it wasn't, then why did you display it in a bold face display?

You have been repeating Tony Ballantyne's words endlessly. But the only thing that matters for the purposes of this article is the sentence beginning with This linguistic opposition. This is the only sentence that ever mentions the words "slave" or "slavery". Let me draw your attention to the fact that I have already displayed this sentence long ago, on 29 March in fact, and asked you what you understand by it. You never answered the question. Is it clear to you what linguistic opposition he is talking about? If so, explain it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya, this linguistic opposition is talking of opposition depicted between Aryans and Dasaa in the Rig Veda. The passage is right above and easy to understand. Either you aren't reading or ignoring it despite knowing what it says. Either way it isn't good. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Please cut out your prittle-prattle and focus on the subject.

What is "linguistic" about the opposition between Aryans and Dasas? And what connection does that have with slavery? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I just mentioned it. Since you claimed earlier that I'm misrepresentating others, there will be no point in trying to make you believe in me. Why don't you just read the above quoted paragraph I quoted above if you don't trust me? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You have been told by an admin that you need to generate WP:CONSENSUS before your content can be accepted, and in order to generate consensus, you need to start answering questions that are being posed. Claiming that it is all clear, "read it for yourself" etc. constitute stonewalling. They get you no closer to any form of consensus.

So, once again, what is the linguistic opposition that Ballantyne is referring to? What do you understand by it?

Mind you that you are taking one sentence in a book on colonial history, and trying to blow it up. The meaning of what he is trying to say is not clear. There is no further explanation in the book. So, unless the meaning is clarified, we cannot begin to check what the other sources say it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I already clarified. Dasa denoted a people who were not similar to Aryan and were presented as godless savages, this came to be used for other similar peoples while the Aryans were shown as nobles. This inferior denotion of the word Dasa came to denote slaves.

That is what Tony is saying. If you think what I'm saying is wrong, then you can make your own interpretation of the passage from Tony's source above. But if you have no real dispute and are only making basless claims against me, then that is bare-faced censorship.

Did I ever say I was opposed to consensus or discussion? All I say is making false claims and accusations, which you indulge in, is not what a consesus is about. You should first cooperate yourself. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

If Ballantyne is indeed meaning that dasa meant slave because they were regarded as "godless savages", then we have a problem, because he presents absolutely no evidence for it. For arya meaning noble, he does give evidence: aryaguna, aryabuddhi, aryavesha etc. But no such thing for dasa. So I don't see him drawing a connection between "godless savages" and slaves.

Moreover, the "savage" characterisation of dasa is only found in the Books 2-9 of the Rigveda, the so-called "family books". These were composed in the early Vedic period, presumed to be 1900-1200 BC. But there are no occurrences of dasa meaning slave in these Books. Only the Books 1 and 10 contain dasa in the sense of slave. There is a sum total of three such mentions, and another such mention is in a passage called valakhilya. These Books and passage are considered to have been added at a later time, separated by several centuries from the early Vedic period. So the "savage" idea (which is itself dubious) and the slave idea belong to different times. This is mentioned by Ballantyne himself when he talks about "later Sanskritic tradition". But I don't understand what he means by this linguistic opposition. The best that can be made out is arya meant high and dasa meant low. But, without him having said anything explicitly, we are left guessing.

More importantly, I should note that this entire discussion appears in a chapter titled "The Politics of Language, Nation and Race: Hindu Identities in the Late Nineteenth Century". So, it is very likely that he is presenting the 19th century understanding of the whole subject, which is what his book is really about. The two citations in the paragraph, one to Trautmann's book and the other to Macdonnel's Sanskrit dictionary support this theory. Let us turn to Trautmann's book, which is more solid than the weasly presentation of Ballantyne. Trautmann says point blank:

India, thus, was the site of a Methodenstreit among Victorian Britons who were in the process of creating a "science of man" that concerned the respective claims of language and physique. By century's end a deep and lasting consensus was reached respecting India, which I call the racial theory of Indian civilization: that India's civilization was produced by the clash and subsequent mixture of light-skinned civilizing invaders (the Aryans) and dark-skinned barbarian aborigines (often identified as Dravidians). The racial theory of Indian civilization has proved remarkably durable and resistant to new information, and it persists to this day. It is the crabgrass of Indian history, and I should like to uproot it.

About savagery, he says this:

What is remarkable about these articles is the way in which they extract the dark-skinned savage from a very recalcitrant Vedic text. The first half of the image is drawn from a grand total of two passages referring to dark skin and a single one interpreted to mean "flat-nosed" against ancient authorities. But, as the articles themselves make abundantly clear, the significant social markers separating Aryas from Dāsas or Dasyus for the writers of the texts are religion, above all, and language, while complexion is barely mentioned. The second half of the image, savagery, is completely contrary to the evidence of wealth and many forts possessed by these enemies, which the authors dismiss without evidence.

On the matter of slaves, Trautmann says this:

Like the Slavs, whose enslavement by other Europeans in the long past turned their name into the English word slave, the Dasas of the Rg Veda show every sign of being an ethnic group whose enslavement gave Sanskrit its word for slave. There is abundant evidence that these Dasas among whom we presume the Aryans took slaves were strongly marked as different by language and religion. There is slight evidence to think that they were of dark complexion, so that there may be some beginnings of a linkage between darkness and a slavish nature in Vedic times. But nothing like the African slave trade of the Muslim Middle East and Christian Europe develops in India to thicken the linkage of slavery with dark complexion and project it across the centuries.

So, this is the "crabgrass" of Indian history, which imagined savagery with dubious evidence and a non-existent racial difference in slavery. This is the crabgrass you are trying to push here on Wikipedia. You can hardly expect to stand by and watch you add it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

When have I stopped you from adding other interpretations? If you have other sources disputing it, then present them in the article. I have no problem. I am simply adding multiple views. I have myself added disputing views. Being indigenous doesn't always mean of another race.

Also before claiming Ballantyne "may be talking about nineteenth century", do the read the page here. He isn't talking about nineteenth century, 'what Tony is talking about is the origin and shifting meaning of "Arya" in South Asian cultural traditions to understand the debate. Here is what he clearly says his reason is:

In order to produce a contextualized reading of these debates over Aryanism, however, we need to first examine the origin and shifting meaning of 'Arya' within South Asian cultural traditions.

Also you should read yourself what you are adding. Thomas Trautmann is himself making interpretations and of hinting that Dasas may be an ethnic group and they were taken as slaves: Like the Slavs, whose enslavement by other Europeans in the long past turned their name into the English word slave, the Dasas of the Rg Veda show every sign of being an ethnic group whose enslavement gave Sanskrit its word for slave. There is abundant evidence that these Dasas among whom we presume the Aryans took slaves were strongly marked as different by language and religion.

As for savage, that can be used as a relative term even. It doesn't necessarily mean tent-dweller ravagers. But we'll leave that to the scholars. As for "crabgrass" - We'll let the reader decide for themselves by adding all notable opinions of reliable scholars. Agreed?MonsterHunter32 (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

No way. If Tony Ballantyne had been a specialist in Ancient Indian History, and if it was clear that he was making a connection between "godless savages" and slaves, I would be entirely happy to report it, and then roundly denounce it as the "crabgrass of Indian history". But I can't do that. What Ballantyne means by linguistic opposition is not clear. Therefore, attributing such views to him would violate WP:BLP. I suggest you do an WP:RfC to determine what other editors think about your proposals. This is pretty much my final comment now, since this debate has gone on long enough.

By the way, I would have no objection if you used Thomas Trautmann as a source, unless you introduced blatant distortions or cherry picked statements out of context. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Bibliography

• Trautmann, Thomas R. (1997), Aryans and British India, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-91792-7
• Sharma, Ram Sharan (1958), Sudras in Ancient India, Delhi: Motilal Banarasi Dass
  • Sharma, Ram Sharan (1990) [first published 1958], Śūdras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order Down to Circa A.D. 600 (Third ed.), Motilal Banarsidass Publ., ISBN 978-81-208-0706-8

Mass removal

I will like to ask why is there is a spurt of mass-removal? I understand that it may have been added by a sock, but it is not necessary to remove their edits always. Especially in this case, the content seems sourced well-enough. 111.93.186.174 (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Especially up until a few days ago, this article was fine. So why the removal?

Read above discussions. There were too many problems with edits of Monsterhunter32, you should not be restoring all of them together because a lot of times his edits would not even support content or they are too badly sourced. There is significant amount of copyright violation.[1] If you are frequently going to restore such version then you will find yourself blocked anytime soon. Lorstaking (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Arrian

Arrian has been used selectively to whitewash history. According to R.S. Sharma,

Quoting from Megasthenes Arrian states that none of the Indians employ slaves.[7] But this version is substantially modified by the account of Onesikritos, whom Strabo considers more reliable, for Strabo places Megasthenes among a set of liars.[8] Onesikritos states that the custom of not keeping slaves was peculiar to the people in the country of Mousikanos,[9] which included a large part of modern Sindh. According to him instead Of slaves they employed young men in the flower of their age, as the Cretans employed the aphamiotai,[1] and the Lacedemonians the helots.[2] This suggests that even the Mousikanoi had a class of people who worked as the helots of society as a whole, nöt being owned individually. The practice bears out the brāhmanical theory that the śūdras are meant for serving the members of the three upper varṇas as slaves and hirelings.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

References

If it so, you can place it, but it would be better to include it as a view of particular scholars. Except those which are confirmed to be the statements of others like Strabo considering Megasthenes a liar. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Revert?

I have deleted this problematic content, based on prior discussion. But Mercuryjo reinstated it, and provided no justification.

Mercuryjo, when you revert an edit, you need to provide a policy-based justification. Otherwise, you will be subject to sanctions. Don't worry about other editors and permissions and what not. On what grounds do you reinstate the content? How do you respond to my assessment that Megasthenes/Arrian are unreliable? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Mercuryjo edits

Mercuryjo: Some of your edits and edit warring with Kautilya3 are strange. You are requested to discuss any significant changes to this article on this talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, Upinder Singh is a fake citation. The content is from McCrindle's translation of Arrian, which is a primary source. Somebody seems to have added a fake citation to make it appear secondary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking and removing it. It was apparently tagged in August 2017! Someone should check and verify all the sources after the para you removed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Regulation, prohibition, and abolition.

Started to add the respective EIC, Portugese, French, and British India legislation, anyone fancy digging out the relevant Dutch, Danish, and indigenous bills, and dates, and adding them to the section? 83.104.51.74 (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Would these not be primary sources?Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Translations?

Sarah, I am not happy with the issue being made of "translations" of dasa and other terms. The scholars we use read the sources for themselves and interpret them. They are not dependent on translations.

Secondly, "Ancient India" is not a well-defined thing. During 1500 years from Rigveda to the beginning of Common Era, both the language and the society evolved considerably. Scott Levi's footnote is only talking about the "Vedic period". We can't generalise it to "ancient India". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I will check the sources and make changes. Please revise further where appropriate per your review. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is my understanding of the term Dasa, obtained from a close reading of R. S. Sharma as well as Chanana.

• The earliest uses of dasa in the Rigveda refer to enemy tribes. I personally believe that these dasas were somewhere in Central Asia, nothing to do with Indians. See the discussion at User talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive 10#Slavery in India. But this cannot be proven until the route of the Aryans into the Indian subcontinent is conclusively established.
• During the later Vedic period (RV 1 & 10 and the other three Vedas), when the Aryans were in Punjab, dasas were any foreign tribes, not necessarily enemies.
• By the end of the Vedic period, as the Aryans were expanding into the Gangetic plains (Iron age), large numbers of indigenous tribes were enslaved, and dasa was used to refer to them. Non-Aryan tribes in general were now called shudras. ("Shudra" was also originally a particular tribe in Punjab. They are referred to in Mahabharata as well as Alexander's Greek chroniclers.)
• The double phrase dasa-karmakara is found throughout the Second Urbanisation period, suggesting that enslaved workers and free workers essentially formed the same class. The height of this was during the Mauryan period, right under Kautilya's nose. (That is why he had to write about them so much.)
• After the Mauryan period, slavery slowly disappeared. R. S. Sharma gives three reasons for this. The Mauryan Empire itself settled many communities of dasas into villages and turned them into share-croppers. With new lands being brought into cultivation, the demand for labour increased and the dasas were able to negotiate better terms for themselves. There were also rebellions. After about 200 AD, there were no more slaves, except for debt bondage or voluntary bondage. After that, dasa came to mean servant rather than slave.
• Much later, probably by 1000 AD or so, dasa did not even mean servant. It began to be used for a bhakta (devotee).

By the way, the Buddha's Shakya clan itself was much like an Athenian city-state, a few landed Aryan "citizens" lording over an army of dasa-karmakaras. Chanana explains that these Republics died precisely because their meagre Aryan citizenry could not fight against the monarchies where everybody could enrol in the armies. So there was a big difference between the Republics and the Monarchies. The win of monarchies was also a win for freedom.

So, I think we should not belabour the term dasa because its meaning was very dynamic and fluid. It has to be interpreted in context. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Manusmriti

Given slavery is defined in the Manusmriti, which has an approximate date, this can set as a datum between speculative, and Legal practice of slavery.83.104.51.74 (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

IP, can you please state the sources here? Users on the talk page will look at it. Again, I am open to your suggestions, Kautilya3 and Ms Sarah Welch are some of our best editors in India-related topics, they are on this thread as well. So, let’s see the reliable sources here in talk. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC))

Please cite a reliable source for ’’’“best editors in India-related topics,”’’’, as for the half dozen translations of the Manusmriti, including the cited one that includes the Sanskrit, a Latin transliteration, and the translation, and they don’t differ much from Jones’s 1794 first attempt on verse 8.415, and the widely published 19th century English translations of the varieties of slavery in Hindu law (pick 1 of the 15 varieties quoted, and have a Google for the string, that list appears in numerous published works, contemporary with the mid 19th century legislation), again one of the works has been cited, unlike any definition for your ‘’’“in ancient times”’’’, please cite a reliable source defining this phrase, if you must use it. 83.104.51.74 (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

What do you have against against referencing / citing verse 8.415 of the Manusmriti, as a translation of the text became the basis of Hindu Law, as numerous sources site (See Hindu law article). 83.104.51.74 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

You serious? Please see WP:RS. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC))

Bbb23, sorry in advance you get you into this. Kautilya3 and I made it clear that sources need to be provided that meet WP:RS. However, the IP keeps reversing here. On top of that pushing a website here, which does not meet WP:RS. It is a translation of a religious text that was transmitted orally, in many cases, with multiple versions. Few here in Wikipedia, if at all, are able to use sources like this to make any conclusions, it is clear WP:OR. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC))

The citated text: ‘’Manusmriti with the Commentary of Medhatithi, by Ganganath Jha, 1920, 1,381,940 words, ISBN-10: 8120811550’’, with the Linked preview of the verse, was used as out of copyright, and it handily contains the vulgate. If you contest the validity of the published Sanskrit, transliteration, or English translation please cite a reliable source justifying your assertion, to demonstrate it’s not WP:OR 83.104.51.74 (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that is called a WP:PRIMARY source. That is not of any use for writing a Wikipedia article.

IP, if you read the Hindu law page, you will find that there are various views about the exact status of something like Manusmriti. Certainly, you can't equate it with something called the "Hindu law".

But, frankly, I don't see what any of this has anything to do with the subject of this article. You need to take a standard history textbook that covers slavery, and read it. Many such are listed in the citations in this very article. Please stop making up your own theories. Wikipedia is not place for them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 The subject of the article is “Slavery in India”, and given slavery is the legal subjugation of others, which the Manusmriti, a 2 millennia old Sanskrit work, of South Asian origin, that amongst many other things, defines “Slavery”, and legal enslavement, ‘’is pertinent’’, see: Ganganath Jha 1920, published translation and commentary (not my own); that version both avoids the possibility of it being WP:PRIMARY, though the widely published 1774 Jones translation (again not a Primary source), that formed the basis of the Pluralistic Indian judicial system, would be more relevant (and only a google away); the reprinted / online 1920 critique handily contain the vulgate Sanskrit, with transliteration, while citing the various other commentaries, to tick many a reliable source box. There’s also a whole page on Hindu Law here, and the role the Manu played in its codification, with many citations, none of which refer to anything I’ve tapped out. Nor are the quoted / cited 19th century published interpretations, again pertinent to the 18th / 19th section they’re in, so unless you can find, and cite, any credible sources to contradict any of the above, or what “in ancient times” means, that are not of your OR, please leave the cited text alone. 83.104.51.74 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Highpeaks35 After your assertions Ganganath Jha was not qualified to publish a translation, and commentary of the text, on my talk page, and that the text is too old to be relevant, is there anything you want to have a go at.83.104.51.74 (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

No, Manusmriti is PRIMARY, no matter who translated it. The policy says:

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

Even to say that Manusmriti is relevant to this article, you need a SECONDARY source. You can't make it up on your own. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you take it to WP:RSN and ask the experts whether this is an acceptable source for this article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

No reasonable request refused, see here 83.104.51.74 (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Till I’m persuaded otherwise, a properly published commentary on a work is a Review of the work, and in the case above one that cites, and quotes alternative Commentaries, so a box ticking secondary source. 83.104.51.74 (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Whilst a translation may be a primary source (rather interesting that as translations are often not exact), that does not mean it is unreliable for what it says. It might well be reliable as long as it is attributed.

So a few points.

A commentary or introduction by the translator would not be primary source, but a secondary commentary on the text.

Now can someone produce a source for the claim it is not in fact regarded as hindoo law?

Do any Hindoos regard it as law?Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

We have no idea whether there was anything called the "Hindoo law". Even the term "Hindoo" or "Hindu" didn't really exist. And there was no notion of "law" either. All this was made up during the British colonial rule. There were certainly customary practices, some of which may have used ideas from Manu as well as other texts. The texts were always open to interpretation and adaptation, based on the local circumstances. See this content and these sources:

• Olivelle, Patrick; Olivelle, Suman (2005). Manu's Code of Law. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 978-0-19-517146-4.
• Sharma, Arvind; Young, Katherine K. (1999). Feminism and World Religions. SUNY Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-4023-0.
• Gadkari, Jayant (1996). Society and Religion: From Rugveda to Puranas. Popular Prakashan. pp. 167–. ISBN 978-81-7154-743-2.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I asked Do any Hindoos regard it as law?, not do all of them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know of anybody today who regards it as the law. (Actually, most Hindus would think it is absurd.) Perhaps there were some people in the late 18th century, the "male Brahmins" as the second reference above describes them, who believed that it ought to be the law. But, historically, we don't know of any rulers who decided that Manusmriti should be enforced.

We are really getting into WP:OR territory here. We need WP:HISTRS that tell us that Manusmriti was regarded as the law at such and such time. I have never seen any such sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Responding to the ping.... the verse 8.415 uses the word "dasa" whose contested translations and interpretations is/has been summarized in this article. The WisdomLibrary's 1920 translation is non-HISTRS. Let us stick with summarizing the recent and mainstream peer-reviewed scholarship, without editorializing and OR:Synthesis. If the source does – or does not – state that Hindus or Muslims included slavery as a part of their legal code, this article should – or should not – too. Further, if you see any source repeatedly using the word "Hindoo" and never using the word "Hindu", it is likely a very dated pre-20th century non-HISTRS source. The word was generally used before World War I to illustratively mock and caricature a species of "false religion" (see, e.g. the discussion of Hindoo (or Gentoo) vs Hindu in Altman's book, chapter 1, Oxford Univ Press). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah. Unfortunately, there wasn't any discussion of Manusmriti before this editor came on board, even though the Artha-shastra was discussed in considerable detail. So, if you are able to cover that gap using authentic sources, that would solve the problem.

On the whole, I am troubled by too much focus on texts and too little on history in this article. This particular editor seems to read only read texts, and argue based on those. The idea of a text being the "law" even though there is no evidence of any ruler legislating it or enforcing it, is quite strange to me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

K3: I concur. Will try to summarize slavery as mentioned in the Manusmriti and other dharmasastra texts in the coming weeks when I find time. I am surprised that we have not yet cited or used Jonathan Silk's bibliography on slavery in ancient India, published in 1992. It is a list of key scholarly articles on slavery in the pre-Muslim period (there is a ton of literature for slavery in India during the Muslim period). If you don't have a copy of Silk's article, I can email it to you. Yes, any exclusive reliance on "textual interpretation" makes for weak POV-y articles. The inscription/archeological/historical/traveler records/etc-based actual history is important and the article would be much improved therewith. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Found it here, and it has some handwritten additions too. I just remembered that I have Dev Raj Chanana somewhere on my bookshelf. I am sure he covers Manusmriti. I will look for it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thats the one. Sorry for the slow, very slow response. Been too busy in RL. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

I have deleted an information about "Slavery in Maurya Empire" written twice in this article. This article itself contains the reason in the section of "Slavery in Ancient India". Slavery during the Maurya Empire is interpreted there. আলবি রেজা (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Mauryan

@Kautilya3: What is wrong with the edit? The JSTOR source which I added says "Kautilya is a very liberal political law giver who took a bold step to abolish the institution of slavery" on page 193 after dedicating 9 pages to this chapter on "Slavery in the Mauryan Period (C. 300 B.C. - C. 200 B.C.)". The remaining sources can be verified by anyone and they too support the content I restored. As such, I am not misleading anyone contrary to your warning on my talk page. Please revert your unwarranted warning on my talk page as of now, Thanks Santosh L (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the "JSTOR souce" is a paper titled "Slavery in the Mauryan period". It is not titled "Abolition of Slavery in the Mauryan period". If the author feels that Kautilya took some "bold steps" towards the abolition of slavery, you can't distort into claiming that the Mauryan empire had already abolished it. This is a serious misrepresentation of the source, for which you can be sanctioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't claim the title to be "Abolition of Slavery in the Mauryan period", but I get your point. One thing I want to point out from the JSTOR paper is that slave trade was banned by in Mauryan period and emancipation was introduced for slaves. This is a significant point that requires to be mentioned. Then shall we lead with "slave trade was banned" and expand further in the article body? Additional sources: [2][3] Santosh L (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, there is no section on "Mauryan period" in the article. There is only Ancient India. The fact that Ashoka banned slavery (not "Maurya empire") may be significant, but only if we know that that ban continued after him. But if you are interested in elaborating the Maurya empire, you need to pick up a book and summarise it fully. You can't pick and choose what you want to include based on your own wishes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that Ashoka banned slavery IS significant, whether it continued later on or not. The notion of abolishing slavery, in a time when it could be said to be common and socially accepted, is radical and revolutionary and hence significant. As it is significant, it needs a mention which is what I did. If you are interested to elaborate even more on that, you are welcome to do so. If you disagree that the fact is significant, provide a reason for the same. Santosh L (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

He didn't ban slavery. You are tying yourself in knots! He supposedly banned slave trade. It may or may not be significant because the state itself was the biggest slave owner. Please don't lecture me with your cherry-picked lines from here and there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

My bad, I got stuck with slavery from your reply directly, instead of slave trade. I want to mention the abolition of slave trade, not slavery. And I still consider this significant. It is significant enough for a mention, if not a whole para. The abolition of slave trade is going against the times. If as you say the state is the biggest owner, then abolishing slave trade is contrary to their usual administration and hence significant. Once again, I am only mentioning it. Ashokha, Chanakya, are significant personalities, and this abolition in their time is also significant. I will rewrite the edit to signify abolition of slave trade, and not slavery if that was the content. I hope there is not an issue now. This was for the lead. As for the article body, I will be preparing the summary of this JSTOR paper in coming days and propose here to you.Santosh L (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Useful refs

• SLAVE MARKETS IN MEDIEVAL INDIA Shadab Bano, JSTOR

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dondrehuddl12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Bad intro

The first few sentences should be the primary overview of the topic but in this case it is just stating about the difference in words and how it is debatable 70.16.150.183 (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

user edit

Dear user 68.39.43.16, You have added one phrase at the end of the main body of the article, "no more slavery in India". It is not clear if it is an opinion, or a question, or a conclusion. As this is an incomplete phrase, and at the moment appears to be not self-explanatory. Did you mean that "slavery no longer exists in India" or that "slavery should not exist in India"? I would be happy to get your feedback on this line, pending which I am editing this out, as it does not read well with the previous material.

DiztractedAnalcyst (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC) On a related note, there is a similar claim by the Greek writer Megasthenes about slavery in ancient India, which is near certainly false (and likely his misunderstanding) since there are enough sources that describe the existence of slavery in Ancient India . Removed it since it contradicts the rest of the section.

You need to provide the "sources that describe the existence of slavery in Ancient India" 51.186.31.47 (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

in the wiki article "Timeline of abolition of slavery" it states that in 1677 "Shivaji I banned, freed and stopped import and export of all slaves under his Empire. This is not mentioned in this article about "Slavery in India" 51.186.31.47 (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

References