Naming and Social Exclusion: the Outcast and the Outsider
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Naming and Social Exclusion: The Outcast and the Outsider Between the Empires: Society in India 300 BCE to 400 CE Patrick Olivelle Print publication date: 2006 Print ISBN-13: 9780195305326 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: October 2011 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195305326.001.0001 Naming and Social Exclusion: The Outcast and the Outsider Aloka Parasher-Sen DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195305326.003.0016 Abstract and Keywords This chapter discusses the terms “outcast” and “outsider” as well as naming and social exclusion and begins with quotes from Michel de Certeau and B. R. Ambedkar. Social exclusion has been much written about in the past, but not in the context of how naming as a process interjected to define linkage between those who named and those who were named. Looking critically at naming in the present context provides space for understanding the multiple nodes of social exclusion, each in turn, throwing up a series of other names apparently synonymous to each other, yet different in their localization in time and space. This sort of flowering out from a strong linear stem enables the chapter to pattern and map the complex relationship between hierarchy and diversity in the social landscape of the subcontinent during a period of some of the most critical centuries in its evolution that has been defined as the period “between the empires.” Keywords: outcast, outsider, naming, social exclusion, Michel de Certeau, B. R. Ambedkar, between the empires The existence of the “other” in any form opens up a rift and this has to be located in language.—Michel de Certeau1 Page 1 of 57 Naming and Social Exclusion: The Outcast and the Outsider If someone asks you what your caste is, you say you are a Chokhamelā or Harijan; but you do not say you are a Mahār. Nobody changes his name unless there is need for it. But there is no meaning in adopting a name like Chokhamelā or Harijan. The stench of the old name will stick to the new and you will be forced to change your name continually. Then why not change it permanently?—Dr. B. R. Ambedkar2 Introduction Both of these quotes set the tone of discussion in this chapter. The first by Certeau interjects on how “topography of proper names” emerges so as to normalize a process of distinction based initially on speech that had to be isolated to affirm fundamentally that it was barbaric and therefore, represented chaos. At stake here was creating a discourse of control since the excluded was invariably seen as generating deviance in many ways. And since there was a continual challenge to stability, it has been ultimately argued by Certeau that “no determinate value can be linguistically attached to these names in any stable way” (Certeau 1988: 256). Thus it follows that names go on changing, making such groups respond to a number of names that are but necessarily typecast and prearranged in a certain order. However, we must finally (p.416) submit, as Ambedkar had recognized, that the names thus given stick, resulting in a pigeon-holing of population, to some of whom these names were not their self- perception. To move away from such a process of naming one had to opt out of the system and adopt an alternative naming pattern that was relatively more inclusive. Social exclusion has been much written about in the past, but not in the context of how naming as a process interjected to define linkage between those who named and those who were named. One would not like to begin with a simplistic binary distinction between the two. Binary contrasts do not permit looking at complexities of social relations, even though the criteria for defining exclusion in early India may ostensibly seem to have been singularly definite and unchanging. Looking critically at naming in the present context of our discussion provides space for understanding the multiple nodes of social exclusion, each in turn, throwing up a series of other names apparently synonymous to each other, yet different in their localization in time and space. This sort of flowering out from a strong linear stem enables us to pattern and map the complex relationship between hierarchy and diversity in the social landscape of the subcontinent during some of the most critical centuries in its evolution that has been defined as the period “between the empires” in the present context. Page 2 of 57 Naming and Social Exclusion: The Outcast and the Outsider Earlier scholarship had looked at the plethora of names in ancient Indian texts, often running into repetitive mechanical lists, as the inability of the early writers to record perfectly the observable. An inability, it was suggested, that stemmed from the fact that the writer had set himself apart and defined the rules that would not permit contact, speech, or any kind of interaction with the socially excluded groups. This fundamentally flawed assumption put forth by some scholars naturally took for granted that it was prejudice and ignorance that provides us today with a corrupt data base on which we can, with great difficulty, build our theories of historical explanation. From the modern perspective, and since history, Dirks (2002) reminds us in his recent publication, is also a sign of the modern, it is true that the source on which we build our narratives of social history is clearly not ideal. And, it is for this reason that one has to move into the domain of language and meaning for a finer grasp of material to enliven historical perceptions. It must of course be stated at the outset that both historical explanations and historical perceptions are built on discourses of knowledge that divulge the interplay between asserting power, protecting identities, and claiming truth but in decidedly different ways. The outcast and the outsider represent critical junctures of subordination, marginality, and accommodation on the social fabric of the varṇa-jāti system. The former were undoubtedly oppressed, and their histories were entwined in complex ways to the trajectory of power and domination in early India. In the present context we focus particularly on those groups that were ritually isolated, making them sharply accentuated vis-à-vis the caste society as a whole. They were necessarily part of the caste system but always on its margins. The latter as broadly understood in the present context were a variety of outsiders who came into contact with the mainstream caste society but were initially defined as being excluded from the dominant perception of the Self and regarded as uncivilized. They were categorically considered culturally inferior, though not always oppressed or permanently excluded. Over time, some came to be accommodated as both dominant and subordinate castes. For this reason it needs to be stressed that though both subordination of ritually impure castes and the (p.417) exclusion of the so-called barbaric communities were initially located outside the formal system of social stratification based on the concept of varṇāśramadharma,3 they were always interacting with it. It is well recognized that the exploitation of subordinate groups began with their economic dependence, but their segregation was accomplished over historical time through the effective use of the rules of purity and pollution that in fact got entrenched as a defining characteristic of the varṇa-jāti system. The marginality of barbaric and foreign groups, on the other hand, has to be traced in terms of the very genesis, transformation, and growth of the varṇa-jāti system on the subcontinent. Page 3 of 57 Naming and Social Exclusion: The Outcast and the Outsider As is often the case, it is difficult to find exact English equivalents for Sanskrit words and the term “outcast” is no exception. The closest is seen in the use of the word apasada in the Mānavadharmaśāstra, but one that is not used very often to describe the social groups that are referred to in this verse. It reads thus: “(Children) begotten by a priest (in women) in the three (lower) classes, or by a king (in women) in the two (lower) classes, or by a commoner (in women) in the one (lower) class—all six are traditionally regarded as outcasts” (MDh X.10). In this context the word apasada is translated as “outcast” (Doniger and Smith 1991: 235). Manu goes on to specify the names of some of these outcasts that we shall detail later. However, at a more general level the various meanings of the English word “outcast” have been given as jātibhraṣṭā, jātibahiskr̥ta, jātibāhya, jātihīna, hīnajāti, jātipatita, varṇabhraṣṭa, varṇahīna, hīnavarṇa, varṇāpeta, lokavāhya, and so on. In a more direct sense it is taken to denote caṇ̃ḍāla, apasada, vivarṇa, nīca, nīcajāti, nyagjāti, antyajātīya, adhamajātīya, adhamavarṇa, adhamācāra, ācārahīna, and so on (Monier-Williams 1851: 559– 560).Variously, these terms could be loosely translated as those expelled from society, those at the lowest end of the jāti-varṇa hierarchy, those that are the outside jātis and varṇas or have fallen from that status, those without proper dharma, or those that do not follow the rules laid down, and so on. “Outcast” has thus commonly come to be used in this rather general sense. Even more general is the understanding of the term “outsider” that in the English language must necessarily be considered synonymous with the word “foreigner,” “a person born or of and from another country,” an “alien” (Little and Onions 1974: 734). In finding a close literal equivalent in Sanskrit we come across the words videśī, paradeśī, etc. (Monier-Willams 1899: 284). These are used in early literature to essentially denote those people who come from outside a certain given locality or region.