somebody who inspires no terror, which is as followed
9) “Nor one named after a constellation, a tree or a river, nor one bearing the name of low caste, or of a mountain, nor one named after bird or a snake, or a slave nor whose name inspires terror”
 In the 4th chapter of code of laws of Manu referred the word slave and instructed not to quarrel with his, mother father, brother son, wife, with daughters for his own reasons. Following is the 180th verse of the fourth chapter of the Code of Laws of Manu.
180) ‘with his father and his mother, with female relatives, with brother, with his son, and wife with his daughter, with his slaves, let him not have quarrels’. Here in the law, the role of witness was compulsory and the trading rule was treated as a contract between the two parties. And the relief also available to any party aggrieved on violation with a punishment of death. In its rule the parties and other commodities were compared with the slave and the slave also treated as a commodity in that society.
 Here are the two laws for comparing the basic difference between the two Codes of Laws
15) ‘If any one takes a male or female slave of a court, or male or female of freedman, outside the city gates he shall put to death’.
16) ‘if any one receive into his house runaway male or female slave of the court, or of a freeman, and does not .bring it out at the public proclamation of the major domus, the master of the house shall be put to death’. In this law the male slave or .female slave if they were not brought out after receiving them from anybody he was to face action. He should handover them in public. If he failed in obeying the rule the punishment was death in that society. A basic moral responsibility of a free man was to return the slave like an instrument in that society to perform his work through its usage in his custody. This kind of slave rules the Manu did not compose in his entire code of laws. The following rule was in disclosing the identification of his status as a slave with a tag to his identity with his master was a subject of compulsory rule to resume in the open market of the slaves and its slave society
Here is the law given below.
18)’ If a slave will not give the name of the master, the finder shall bring him to the palace; a further investigation must follow and the slave be returned to his master’.
In another rule the community level transactions were common and sanction of both social and statutory sanctions were allowed as a system in that society and all that had its sanctions on its entirety till completion of the whole transaction of the business
Another law from the code Hammurabi, which is followed
.32) ‘if a chieftain or a man is captured on the ‘way of the king’ (in war) and a merchant buy him free, and bring back to his place, if he have the means in his house to buy his freedom, he shall buy himself free, if he have nothing in his house with which to buy himself free shall be brought free by temple of his community, if there is nothing in the temple with which to buy him free, the court shall buy freedom. His field, garden, and house shall not be given for the purchase of his freedom’
Here is the cost to be paid by him or on behalf of temple of his community to buy his freedom to get back to the status of free man as he had earlier. The slave has to pay back from him or from his community as he has the value like a commodity in that society whereas the ancient Indian society which has not set so in depth rules about the slavery and its slave system like a Babylonians one.
 How anyone had turned to the status of the slave from level of free man, who had failed to pay the debt, is given below.Â
117)’if anyone fail to meet a claim for debt, and sell himself, his wife, his son and daughter for money or give them away to forced labor, they shall work for three years in the house of man who bought them, or the proprietor, and in the fourth year they shall be set free.’ In this law the time for slave also fixed for getting freeness, from the labor in the buyers house. Where as the laws of Manu did not have any idea about the business rules of the slaves and punishments. So the Indian society at that has not seen any slave’s trading rule s with its whole process by the parties concerned. Manu has no idea about its origin and he did not see such necessity to frame the rules on nonexistent slave system at that time.. And there were no such physical conditions in Indian society, in the absence of which the rules of the mechanism of the slave system in India could not arise to frame and impose on the people by Manu.
In the following verse of the 4th chapter, the Manu, who sought the voluntary and without discontentment of the person’s service to serve without any force as Manu sought for from all the people of his fold. The relevant verse, which is given below, refers the tenderness who offered him to follow like a shadow to which he offered himself.
185)’one’s slaves as ones shadows, one’s daughter as the highest object of tenderness ,hence one is offended by anyone of these, one must bear it without resentment’
Here in his another verse in the same 4th chapter, the law giver Manu, declared on the difference between the words ‘Sudra’ and the ‘slave’, who were different from each other in resuming their duties what they have been entrusted by the ancestors, which is as followed, as per Manu,
253)’his labor in tillage, a friend of his family, his cow-herd, his slave and his barber are among Sudras those whose food he may eat, like wise (a poor man )who offers himself to be his slave’.
In the 8th chapter, Â the related verse,
in which Manu have treated a slave as the same wrong doer by including the slave with nearest relations, in punishment for all those were punishable, is as followed
299)‘a wife, as on, a slave a people, and a younger brother of full blood, who have committed a faults, may be beaten with a rope or a split of bamboo’
 The following verse in the same chapter, which ,imposed small fine on converse with a female slave( of his master) as it has an another sense in imposing a fine on who had a converse with female slave(of his master) by Manu what the following verses give a meaning which are  as fallows.
363) ‘yet he who secretly converse with such woman or with female slaves kept by one (master0 and with female ascetics, shall be compelled to pay a small fine’
Manu declared seven kinds of slaves in following verses.Â
415)‘these are slaves of seven kinds (viz) he who made a captive under a standard, he who made serves for his daily food, he who is born in the house, he who is bought and he who is not given, he who is inherited from the ancestors, and he who is enslaved by way of punishment’
In the similar way Manu had declared in another verse of the same chapter, Manu clarified on the way of punishments to the wrong doers including a slave with the blood relations with equal treatment, which is as follows, as he found no difference of blood relations and a slave,
416) ‘A wife, and a slave, these three are declared to have no property, the wealth which earn is (acquired) for him to whom they belong’
Similarly Manu has told in the same to tune to a wife also who do not have a property like a slave. Still he has not mentioned any rule of buyers and purchasers of the slaves and no rules he had imposed on any people of the four castes. If there was market like a commodity of the slaves. He could have definitely told and aspire to have the acted on their way of living in the society including the lowest cast Sudras. Here is one more verse which is related to the word “buys” in other reference.
174) ‘if a man buys a (boy) whether equal or unequal (in good qualities) from his father for the sake of having a son, that child is called a (son) bought Kritaka’. Son bought from a father and a boy was called a son there too unlike a slave. A boy where he was grown and sold out for some pretty amount and the new father also had to grow the boy he bought, as a father only. So this kind of the change of a house to live like a son from one father to another father do not attract the exact rules of the slaves and its system in the Greece, Egypt, Babylonian and other civilizations at that time. In another verse Manu had cleared the rule of inheritance with a reference of Sudra and slave about the shares in the property, which is followed
179) ‘a son who is begotten by a Sudra on a female slave, or on the female slave of his slave may, if permitted (by his father) take a share (of the inheritance): thus the law is settled’.
In a general condition of the market of the slaves where the individuals who did not have any property or assets for the livelihood and sells themselves on a condition of offering physical labor to their masters and the same slaves do not have source to maintain the other slave in their lives. But here in Manu who had told about the slave of the slave to share the movable or immovable properties of that time. This is quite opposite version that cannot be believed in the laws of Manu. His own and contradicting version is with the rulers of the slavery in slave systems of the world civilizations if really Manu said.. Here I suspect these verses may be inserted into the code of laws of Manu.
In the 10th chapter the words ‘Dasa’ and ‘slave’ mentioned in its verse differentiating each other on the basis of the service and nature of the work they have been assigned at that time, which is as follows.
32) ‘A Dasyu begets on an Ayogava(woman) a Sairrandhra who is skilled in adorning by attending his (master)who though not a slave lives like a slave, or subsists by snaring animals’.
Here above Manu had claimed the