Daas and Dasi

Hi ji,

So I have another question. Were daas/dasis' of that time married or unmarried? If they were allowed to be married, then does the husband hold rights on his wife - considering they had no rights whatsoever. Or if you were married, but then were put into servitude, you automatically were not married; hence, no rights.

Make sense?

I'm not sure if it is in the epic, but in the show when Draupadi says if Yudistara lost himself first, he had no right to stake her - his right ended. I always found this argument right, because she was a free citizen while he was not, so he had no damn right. However, the whole annoying notion that a wife is husband's property is there ji. So if that is there, did it automatically make every property of the husband's be his owner's once he is in servitude?

I think queens could have dasis who were married - like Sudeshna had Sairandhree, while the dasis who were at the service of kings probably had to be unmarried, since they potentially doubled as concubines (like Vidura's and Yuyutsu's moms)

I think the issue of whether Yudhisthir owned Draupadi or not once he had staked himself is tangential to that question. I happen to think that once Yudhisthir lost himself, he already lost Draupadi, so didn't have the right to stake that which was no longer his

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

I think queens could have dasis who were married - like Sudeshna had Sairandhree, while the dasis who were at the service of kings probably had to be unmarried, since they potentially doubled as concubines (like Vidura's and Yuyutsu's moms)

I think the issue of whether Yudhisthir owned Draupadi or not once he had staked himself is tangential to that question. I happen to think that once Yudhisthir lost himself, he already lost Draupadi, so didn't have the right to stake that which was no longer his

Sairandhree isn't a Dasi. It is something kind of a servant. She is free citizen working for the queen especially for her make up.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Sairandhree isn't a Dasi. It is something kind of a servant. She is free citizen working for the queen especially for her make up.

Sairandhri is a caste. Actually, one of the lowest castes. I always have a chuckle when peeps hurl the accusation of casteism at Panchali for calling Keechaka suthaputhra. Suthas were pretty high caste, and sairandhris were not. She CHOSE that disguise. The only condition she placed was she wouldn't eat leftovers.

32. A Dasyu begets on an Ayogava (woman) a Sairandhra, who is skilled in adorning and attending (his master), who, (though) not a slave, lives like a slave, (or) subsists by snaring (animals).

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu10.htm

The right of the husband over his wife was very much acceptable and known in those days. So a husband could easily gift or give away his wife. That was never a problem

The issue which arose in the Dyut Sabha was that did he retain this right even after himself having become a slave.

Draupadi took this point to her defense. She threw away this legal angle which no one had a clear answer too. Even the experts in the hall didn't have a clear answer to it. Only Vikarna and Arjun supported her claim.

It however wasn't the first time. Raja Harischandra had earlier sold himself first before giving away his son and wife as slaves.

I think the response to this question was never thought upon till Draupadi raised this point

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Sairandhri is a caste. Actually, one of the lowest castes. I always have a chuckle when peeps hurl the accusation of casteism at Panchali for calling Keechaka suthaputhra. Suthas were pretty high caste, and sairandhris were not. She CHOSE that disguise. The only condition she placed was she wouldn't eat leftovers.

32. A Dasyu begets on an Ayogava (woman) a Sairandhra, who is skilled in adorning and attending (his master), who, (though) not a slave, lives like a slave, (or) subsists by snaring (animals).

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu10.htm

So this means that Sairandhree is not slave right. That is the point I wanted to make.

But this was a great link. Thankyou a great help

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

So this means that Sairandhree is not slave right. That is the point I wanted to make.

But this was a great link. Thankyou a great help

I didn't mean to argue. Some peeps in a FB group were saying Panchali called Keechaka suthaputhra even if she didn't call Karna that. WHich makes no sense to me. I mean, she does call him that, but she was a MUCH LOWER caste at the time. So where is the casteism coming from?

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

I didn't mean to argue. Some peeps in a FB group were saying Panchali called Keechaka suthaputhra even if she didn't call Karna that. WHich makes no sense to me. I mean, she does call him that, but she was a MUCH LOWER caste at the time. So where is the casteism coming from?

Oh got it now

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Sairandhri is a caste. Actually, one of the lowest castes. I always have a chuckle when peeps hurl the accusation of casteism at Panchali for calling Keechaka suthaputhra. Suthas were pretty high caste, and sairandhris were not. She CHOSE that disguise. The only condition she placed was she wouldn't eat leftovers.

32. A Dasyu begets on an Ayogava (woman) a Sairandhra, who is skilled in adorning and attending (his master), who, (though) not a slave, lives like a slave, (or) subsists by snaring (animals).

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu10.htm

Actually, the fact that she chose that disguise proves the point of people who accuse point out that she was a casteist. First of all, she called Keechak a suta, but beyond that, she told Bhima that she'd rather die than be kicked by a suta. How is being kicked by a suta worse than, say, being kicked by Dushashan? Until one tosses in all the caste based baggage that comes w/ it? (Yeah, yeah, I know that casteism was the norm at the time, but that hardly disproves the assertion of those who point out that factoid about Draupadi)

Also, the reason she chose the sairandhri disguise was that nobody would suspect her of doing it, since everybody knew that she was otherwise too proud to do it. And the whole point of year 13 was to assume a disguise that no one would suspect. Duryodhan too might not have suspected it had it not been for the news that Keechak was killed b'cos he was enamored by a beautiful married woman, which could only have been Draupadi

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

The right of the husband over his wife was very much acceptable and known in those days. So a husband could easily gift or give away his wife. That was never a problem

The issue which arose in the Dyut Sabha was that did he retain this right even after himself having become a slave.

Draupadi took this point to her defense. She threw away this legal angle which no one had a clear answer too. Even the experts in the hall didn't have a clear answer to it. Only Vikarna and Arjun supported her claim.

It however wasn't the first time. Raja Harischandra had earlier sold himself first before giving away his son and wife as slaves.

I think the response to this question was never thought upon till Draupadi raised this point

Actually, no. Harishchandra first sold his wife Tara, at her suggestion. Since their son Rohit was very young, he didn't want to be parted from his mom, and so the brahmin who was buying her gave Harishchandra extra money for Rohit as well.

When he turned in that money to the Vishy meister, the latter told him that it wasn't enough, and it was then that Harishchandra decided to sell himself