The early history of slavery in the Indian subcontinent is contested because it depends on the translations of terms such as dasa and dasyu used since the Vedic period.
Greek writer Megasthenes, in his 4th century BCE work Indika or Indica, states that slavery was banned within the Maurya Empire, while the multilingual, mid 3rd Century BCE, Edicts of Ashoka independently identify obligations to slaves (Greek: ) and hired workers (Greek: ), within the same Empire., Quote: "Sources such as the Arthasastra, the Manusmriti and the Mahabharata demonstrate that institutionalized slavery was well established in India by beginning of the common era. Earlier sources suggest that it was likely to have been equally widespread by the lifetime of the Buddha (sixth century BC), and perhaps even as far back as the Vedic period. [footnote 2: (...) While it is likely that the institution of slavery existed in India during the Vedic period, the association of the Vedic 'Dasa' with 'slaves' is problematic and likely to have been a later development."
Slavery in India escalated during the Muslim conquests and domination of northern India from the 11th century. It became a social institution with the enslavement of Hindus, along with the use of slaves in armies, a practice within Muslim kingdoms of the time.Andre Wink (1991), Al-Hind: the Making of the Indo-Islamic World, vol. 1, Brill Academic (Leiden), , pages 14-32, 172-207 According to Muslim historians of the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire era, after the invasions of Hindu kingdoms, other Indians were taken as slaves, with many exported to Central Asia and West Asia. Slaves from the Horn of Africa were also imported into the Indian subcontinent to serve in the households of the powerful or the Muslim armies of the Deccan Sultanates and the Mughal Empire., Quote: "The importation of Ethiopian slaves into the western Deccan profoundly altered the region's society and culture [...]"[a];[b], Quote: "The war was considered a major reason for the importation of Ethiopian slaves into India during the sixteenth century. Africans of slave origins played a major role in the politics of Mughal India [...]"
The Portuguese imported African slaves into their Indian colonies on the Konkan coast between about 1530 and 1740. Under European colonialism, slavery in India continued through the 18th and 19th centuries. During this time, slavery continued to largely be in the form of debt slavery as opposed to chattel slavery.Jayanth, M. A. (2020). Abolishing Agrarian Slavery in Southern Colonial India [The University of Chicago]. https://doi.org/10.6082/UCHICAGO.2213 Indian slaves were taken to different parts of the world as agrarian slaves by various European merchant companies as part of the Indian Ocean slave trade.
Slavery was prohibited in the possessions of the East India Company by the Indian Slavery Act, 1843, in French India in 1848, British India in 1861, and Portuguese India in 1876.Islamic Law and the Colonial Encounter in British India The abolition of chattel slavery in European colonies in the 1830s led to the emergence of a system of indentured Indian labor. Over a century, more than a million Indians, known as girmitiyas, were recruited to serve fixed-term labor contracts (often five years) in European colonies across Africa, the Indian Ocean, Asia, and the Americas, primarily on the previously slave labour dependent plantations and mines. While distinct from chattel slavery, the grueling conditions and restricted freedoms experienced by many girmitiyas have led some historians to classify their system of labor as akin to slavery.
Slavery in Ancient India In order to highlight the importance of the prince's birth, the author narrates the multi-ethnic collection of the slave women who took part in the prince's upbringing and birth. This account perhaps is the earliest evidence of Greek slave women serving in India:
In Bihar, a Greek slave woman is mentioned as a servant of the Jain harem, predating Alexander. As evidenced already, at least a hundred years prior to Seleucus Nicator I's daughter, Cornelia, was not the first Greek woman to reside in an Indian harem. Cornelia's arrival, probably further brought a lot more Greek women (both slaves and non slaves) into India.
Herodotus narrated that Indian troops in the Mediterranean, who fought as allies or vassals (of the Persian emperor), probably seized Greek women as booty to India.
Also in India, Greek courtezans were demeaned and encountered difficulties:
The earliest surviving South Asian epigraphy, the mid 3rd Century BCE, Edicts of Ashoka, in Greek and Aramaic, independently identify obligations to slaves (Greek: , Aramaic: עבד) and hired workers (Greek: ), later prohibiting the trading of slaves within the Empire.
Dāsa are offered in examples of Pāṇini's, probably mid 4th century BCE, Sanskrit grammar, the Aṣṭādhyāyī, e.g. 2.3.69 "lusting for the slave", 2.4.24 "the concourse of ladies and slaves".
The term dāsa and dāsyu in Vedic and other ancient Indian literature has been interpreted by as "servant" or "slave", but others have contested such meaning. The term dāsa in the Rigveda, has been also been translated as an enemy, but overall the identity of this term remains unclear and disputed among scholars.
According to Scott Levi, it was likely an established institution in Ancient India by the start of the common era based on texts such as the Arthashastra, the Manusmriti and the Mahabharata. Slavery was "likely widespread by the lifetime of the Buddha and perhaps even as far back as the Vedic period", however he elaborates that the association of the Vedic dasa with 'slaves' is "problematic and likely to have been a later development".
Upinder Singh states that the Rig Veda is familiar with slavery, referring to enslavement in course of war or as a result of debt. She states that the use of dasa (Sanskrit: दास) and dasi in later times were used as terms for male and female slaves. In contrast, Suvira Jaiswal states that dasa tribes were integrated in the lineage system of Vedic traditions, wherein dasi putras could rise to the status of priests, warriors and chiefs as shown by the examples of Kaksivant Ausija, Balbutha, Taruksa, Divodasa and others. Some scholars contest the earlier interpretations of the term dasa as "slave", with or without "racial distinctions". According to Indologists Stephanie W. Jamison and Joel P. Brereton, known for their recent translation of the Rigveda, the dasa and dasyu are human and non-human beings who are enemies of Arya. These according to the Rigveda, state Jamison and Brereton, are destroyed by the Vedic deity Indra. The interpretation of "dasas as slaves" in the Vedic era is contradicted by hymns such as 2.12 and 8.46 that describe "wealthy dasas" who charitably give away their wealth. Similarly, state Jamison and Brereton, the "racial distinctions" are not justified by the evidence. According to the Indologist Thomas Trautmann, the relationship between the Arya and Dasa appears only in two verses of the Rigveda, is vague and unexpected since the dasa were "in some ways more economically advanced" than the Arya according to the textual evidence.
According to Asko Parpola, the term dasa in ancient Indian texts has proto-Saka roots, where dasa or daha simply means "man". Both "dasa" and "dasyu" are uncommon in Indo-Iranian languages (including Sanskrit and Pali), and these words may be a legacy of the PIE root "*dens-", and the word "saka" may have evolved from "dasa", states Parpola. According to Micheline Ishay – a professor of human rights studies and sociology, the term "dasa" can be "translated as slave". The institution represented unfree labor with fewer rights, but "the supposed slavery in [ancient] India was of mild character and limited extent" like Babylonian and Hebrew slavery, in contrast to the Hellenic world. The "unfree labor" could be of two types in ancient India: the underadsatva and the ahitaka, states Ishay. A person in distress could pledge themselves for work leading to underadsatava, while under ahitaka a person's "unfree labor" was pledged or mortgaged against a debt or ransom when captured during a war. These forms of slavery limited the duration of "unfree labor" and such a slave had rights to their property and could pass their property to their kin, states Ishay.
The term dasa appears in early Buddhist texts, a term scholars variously interpret as servant or slave. Buddhist manuscripts also mention kapyari, which scholars have translated as a legally bonded servant (slave).Gregory Schopen (2004), Buddhist Monks and Business Matters, University of Hawaii Press, , page 202-206 According to Gregory Schopen, in the Mahaviharin Vinaya, the Buddha says that a community of monks may accept dasa for repairs and other routine chores. Later, the same Buddhist text states that the Buddha approved the use of kalpikara and the kapyari for labor in the monasteries and approved building separate quarters for them. Schopen interprets the term dasa as servants, while he interprets the kalpikara and kapyari as bondmen and slave respectively because they can be owned and given by laity to the Buddhist monastic community. According to Schopen, since these passages are not found in Indian versions of the manuscripts, but found in a Sri Lankan version, these sections may have been later interpolations that reflect a Sri Lankan tradition, rather than early Indian. The discussion of servants and bonded labor is also found in manuscripts found in Tibet, though the details vary.
The discussion of servant, bonded labor and slaves, states Scopen, differs significantly in different manuscripts discovered for the same Buddhist text in India, Nepal and Tibet, whether they are in Sanskrit or Pali language. These Buddhist manuscripts present a set of questions to ask a person who wants to become a monk or nun. These questions inquire if the person is a dasa and dasi, but also ask additional questions such as "are you ahrtaka" and "are you vikritaka". The later questions have been interpreted in two ways. As "are you one who has been seized" (ahrtaka) and "are you one who has been sold" (vikritaka) respectively, these terms are interpreted as slaves. Alternatively, they have also been interpreted as "are you doubtless" and "are you blameworthy" respectively, which does not mean slave. Further, according to these texts, Buddhist monasteries refused all servants, bonded labor and slaves an opportunity to become a monk or nun, but accepted them as workers to serve the monastery.
The Indian texts discuss dasa and bonded labor along with their rights, as well as a monastic community's obligations to feed, clothe and provide medical aid to them in exchange for their work. This description of rights and duties in Buddhist Vinaya texts, says Schopen, parallel those found in Hindu Dharmaśāstra and Dharmasutra texts. The Buddhist attitude to servitude or slavery as reflected in Buddhist texts, states Schopen, may reflect a "passive acceptance" of cultural norms of the Brahmanical society midst them, or more "justifiably an active support" of these institutions. The Buddhist texts offer "no hint of protest or reform" to such institutions, according to Schopen.