Paper name inequality and difference B.A. (H) 4th sem.

Topic:- Untouchability

1. Introduction

The earliest description of the origin of the four varnas from different limbs of the Primeval Being (purusa) occurs in the Purusasukta hymn of the , which is admittedly of a later date and is an interpolated section. However, it is only in the later Vedic period that the varna system, with its taboos and restrictions effectively emerged. Interestingly, outside the four fold varna system there existed other social groups, often controversially designated as the “fifth” varna who were relegated to the lowest rung of the social ladder. They were viewed in sastric prescriptions as offsprings of pratiloma unions (between higher varna female and lower varna male) and were severely reprobated by law givers. As will be seen they were at the receiving end of all types of social ostracization.

2. The Untouchables

The caste system undoubtedly forms an unique feature of the traditional Indian society. This system of social gradation has invariably given rise to the question of untouchability and the isolation of certain occupational groups from the mainstream of the society. They were moreover, condemned to live outside the normal habitat of the Aryan people.

2.1 Terms Denoting Untouchables

Various terms such as Antya, Antyaja and Antyavasayin have been used, not always uniformly, to denote these lowest castes, whose contact came to be regarded in varying degrees as defiling. The terms Antya and Antyaja have been generally used appellations for the lowest castes such as the Chandalas.

2.2 Indication of Untouchability

2.2.1 In Vedic Society In the early Vedic literature several of the names of castes that are spoken of in the Smritis as Antyajas occur. We have the Carmamna (a tanner of hides?), the Chandala and Paulkasa, the Vidalakara or Bidalakara (corresponding to the Buruda of the Smritis) and the Vasahpalpuli (washerwomen) corresponding to the Rajaka of the Smritis. But there is no indication in these passages, whether these, even if they formed castes, were at all untouchables. The only passage of the Vedic literature which contains some definite statement is in the Chandogya Upanishad which states, “those who did praiseworthy actions here, quickly acquire birth in a good condition, viz., in the condition of a Brahman, a Kshatriya or Vaisya, while those whose actions are low (reprehensible) quickly acquire birth in a low condition, that is, as a dog, or a boar or a Chandala”. However, all that can be legitimately inferred from this is that while the first three varnas were commended, the Chandalas were looked upon as the lowest in the social scale.

2.2.2 In Post Vedic Society

Initially, both Panini and regarded the Chandalas as Niravasita Sudras. Manu in one passage also declares that pratiloma castes are similar to Sudras in their dharma. Gradually however, a distinction was made between Sudras and castes like Chandalas. Fresh castes were then added to the list of touchables by custom and usage and the spirit of exclusiveness. Among the earliest occurrences of the word Asprisya (as meaning untouchables in general) is that in the Visnu Smriti. In the Katyayana Smriti, Chandalas, Mlecchas and Parasikas are placed on the same level as Asprisya. The Mitakshara (on Yajnavalkya III. 265) claiming the authority of Apastamba (Aparaska ascribes it to Atri) enumerates seven Antyajas, viz., Rajaka (washerman), Carmakara (worker in hides), Nata (dancer), Buruda (worker in bamboos), Kaivarta (fisherman), Meda, Bhilla. Futhermore, Mitakshara distinguishes between two groups of Antyajas, the one already enumerated and the other called Antyavasayins, viz., Chandala, Svapaca (eater of dog flesh), Kshatri, Suta, Vaidehaka, Magadha and Ayogava. In the , reference is made to Antyaja soldiers who were probably Kaivartas and Bhillas of the border regions (Nilakantha).

2.2.3 In Early Medieval Society

The rules regarding untouchability were systematised and extended during the early medieval period. Untouchability was deemed as arising in various ways, by birth, by the pursuit of improper and impure occupations, by being guilty of certain acts which were prohibited or were regarded as sins, by adherence to heretical sects and by certain physical impurities. In case of the antyajas who were associated with a low level of culture and such occupations as actually were, or were presumed to be filthy and impure, it was regarded as arising by birth.

Some Smritikaras thought that only Sudras of inferior types were untouchable, but others extended the observance of the practice of untouchability to Sudras in general, prescribing different means of purification. Under these circumstances the traditional view that a person could take food from a Sudra who was his slave, his cowherd, his family friend or his sharecropper was modified by some and even rejected by others. Thus Apararka and Haradatta

opined that it was applicable in times of distress only, and Devannabhatta regarded it as forbidden in the age. But Lakshmidhara, accepted the traditional view which shows that the attitude in this respect was not so rigid in the North.

3. The Theory of Mixed Castes

It was the concern with ritual status which led to the theory of mixed castes – varna samkara – or castes which were looked down upon as ritually impure. In a standard Dharmasastra such as that of Manu the mixed castes were occasionally occupational groups, but generally those tribes which obviously were not easily assimilated into Aryan society. What is interesting is that these tribal names continued to occur with separate identities right up to the medieval period. Thus we are told that a Brahman marrying a Vaisya woman produced children who were categorised as the Ambashtha; the later refer to the Ambashtha tribe as deriving its origin from the Anava Kshatriyas and the tribal identity remained. A Brahman marrying a Sudra woman resulted in a Nishada. This appears to have been an aboriginal tribe. It is curious that the Nishada and Sudra tribes are described as neighbours, which would perhaps explain why it was necessary for a Sudra to be one of the parents. Clearly the tribes which were not assimilated had to be given a ritual status in the system and thus the theory of mixed castes was worked out.

3.1 Status of Mixed Castes

An enumeration of the Mixed Castes and a statement of their status occur in the Brihaddharma Purana (perhaps composed later than the c.12th CE but reflecting the peculiar conditions in Bengal at an earlier period). The castes are classified as Uttama (high), Madhyama (intermediate) and Adhama (low) Samkaras, all having the status of Sudras. The total number of these Mixed Castes is said to be thirty-six, though actually forty-one are enumerated, five being later additions. It has been asserted that only the first group is entitled to the services of Srotriya Brahmans as priests. Those of the other two groups are degraded Brahmans (patita) who attain the status of the castes they serve.

3.2 List of Outcastes

According to the text the Adhama (low) Samkaras or Antyajas who are VarnasramaVahishkrita (outside the pale of caste) are:

(1) Malegrahi (?) (A branch of the Mal Caste?)

(2) Kudava (Korwa-boatman?)

(3) Chandala (Chamdal)

(4) Varuda (Baori?)

(5) Taksha (Carpenter?)

(6) Charmakara (leather-worker)

(7) Ghantajivi or Ghattajivi (modern Patni caste)

(8) Dolavahi (palanquin-bearer)

(9) Malla (modern Malo?)

These castes are obviously the results of unions between various mixed castes themselves. This list of Samkara or Mixed Castes closely resembles that of the -vaivarta Purana. Corresponding to the Adhama Sankaras or Antyajas of the Brihad-dharma, the latter mentions Vyadha, Bhada, Kola, Koncha, Haddi (Hadi), Dom, Jola, Bagatita (Bagdi), Vyalagrahi (Vedia?) and Chandalas.

4. Ostracization

Evidently, the social classes engaged in various kinds of small and lowly professions were considered to be of no consequence in a society with an essentially agriculture based economy. Consequently, they were condemned to live beyond the normal human habitat (Antya). Perhaps one can discern an underlying economic and technological bias, a sense of superiority by a people using more advanced techniques and contempt felt for the people using more primitive methods of production. According to the Smriti law the Chandalas were to perform the meanest work, such as carrying unclaimed corpses and executing criminals. They should be dressed in the garments of the corpses they cremated, should eat their food from broken vessels and should wear only iron ornaments. They were not to walk about during the night in villages and towns, and even during the day time they were to move about with distinguishing marks fixed by the king. In fact they were to live outside the village. Strict rules were laid down for preventing pollution of other classes by their contact.

4.1 Foreigners on Ostracization

The evidence of Chinese travellers shows that these rules were followed in the Gupta Age. In Madhyadesa, at the beginning of c. 5th CE as Fa-hien tells us, the Chandalas were required to live outside the boundaries of towns and market places on approaching which they had to strike a piece of wood as a warning to others to avoid their touch. For them was reserved the occupations of hunters and dealers in fish. In the first part of the 7th Century, according to Hiuen Tsang, butchers, executioners, scavengers, etc., (corresponding no doubt to Chandala and similar castes) lived in dwelling marked by a distinctive sign and lying outside the city.

Alberuni in his work on (Kitab-ul-Hind, translation by Sachau, Vol. I, Chapter IX) refer to two classes of Antyajas, the first corresponding to the seven mentioned by Mitakshara and Atri, with the addition of the weaver. The second group comprised of four classes, viz., Hadi, Doma, Chandala and Bhadatau (meaning not clear). As to the first group he says that they intermarried except the fuller (washerman), shoemaker and weaver. Alberuni seems to have been misinformed as to this. The Antyajas living beyond the pale of Brahmanism were never looked upon with favour by the Smriti writers.

4.2 Indian Sources on Ostracization Literature in the Gupta period confirms these accounts. It is stated that how the Chandalas who were confirmed meat eaters were habitually engaged as public executioners and were regarded as untouchables. In the Lankavatara, Dombas, Chandalas and Kaivartas are

mentioned as typical examples of meat-eaters. In the Kadambari of Bana, we find a Chandala girl, entering the king’s audience-hall, strikes the pavement with a bamboo stick from a distance to attract attention. The Desinamamala of Hemchandra indicates that the Chandalas used a stick called Jhajhari and the Dombas, another called Khikkhiri by striking which they made themselves known and the people thus avoided coming into contact with them.

Surprisingly, it may be noted that neither Manu nor Yajnavalkya prescribe that the shadow of a Chandala was impure and caused pollution. Apararka quotes the following verse, “the shadow of a Chandala or patita, if it falls on a man, is not impure”. However, he states that this rule is applicable only if he is at a greater distance from a man than the length of a cow’s tail. Gradually, some Smritis prescribed a bath for a Brahman coming under the shadow of a Chandala. The Mitakshara on Yagnavalkya (III 30) quotes a verse of Vyaghrapada that if a Chandala or patita comes nearer to a person than the length of a cow’s tail, then the latter must take a bath. As regards public roads, Yagnavalkya says that they become pure by the rays of the sun and the moon and by the wind even when they are trodden by Chandalas.

4.3 Rigid Rules of Ostracization

The Visnu Dharma Smriti prescribes that if an untouchable deliberately touched a man of the three higher castes he should be punished with beating, while Yagnavalkya (II 234) prescribes that if a Chandala (deliberately) touches anyone of the higher castes the Chandala should be fined hundred panas. Elaborate rules are laid down about the penance for drinking from wells or vessels of untouchables, for partaking of their food, for staying with them and having intimate relationship with untouchable women.

The Rajatarangini of Kalhana reveals that the horror of untouchability had increased in his age. The Kirti-Kaumudi informs us that when Vastupala was the Governor of Cambay, he constructed platforms and thus stopped the promiscuous mingling of all castes in shops where curd was sold. This shows the attempt at the enforcement of the rules of caste and untouchability by the ruling authority. To what extent untouchability was rampant may be inferred from the account of the Tibetan monk pilgrim Dharmasvamin who visited India during 1234-36 CE. He states that on one occasion when he found himself being carried away by a stream, he called for help from a person on the bank, who, being an untouchable expressed his inability and could not render any help to the monk.

4.4 Exceptions to the General Rules Certain provisions were made in the Smritis by way of exceptions to the general rules about the untouchability of certain castes. Atri says that there is no taint of untouchability when a person is touched by an untouchable in a temple, religious processions and marriages, in sacrifices and in all festivals. Brihaspati also remarks that there is no fault (and so no prayascitta) if one comes in contact (with untouchables) at a sacred place, in marriage and religious processions, in battle, when the country is invaded or when the village or town is on fire. The Smrityarthasara even permitted the untouchables to enter temples. Moreover Buddhist monks preached to him and the more enlightened wandering ascetics would give him instructions. The untouchable dying in defence of Brahmans, cows, women and children secured a place in heaven. Orthodox texts contain frequent warnings on the evils which

arise when Sudras and outcastes grow too powerful, indicating that even a Chandala might occasionally become influential.

Moreover as has been noticed before, they were not entirely excluded from worship. The contention that the Chandala was outside all dharma indicates that he was outside such Vedic rites as Upanayana, not that he could not worship the , nor that he was not bound by the moral code. He could worship images of the avataras of Visnu. The Nirnayasindhu quotes a passage of the Devipurana that expressly authorises Antyajas to establish a temple of Bairava. The Bhagavatapurana says that “even the Antyavasayins are purified by listening to the praises and names of Hari, by respecting the names of Hari and contemplation on Him……”. The Mitakshara on Yagnavalkya (III 262), remarks that the pratiloma castes (which include Chandala) have the right to perform vratas.

5. Causes for Ostracization

It may be noted that various factors such as sinful acts like murder or theft [Manu (IX. 235239) prescribes that those who are guilty of Brahman murder, theft of Brahman’s gold or drinkers of spiritual liquor, should be excommunicated, no one should dine with them or teach them or officiate as priests for them, nor should marriage relationship be entered into with them and they should wander over the world excluded from all Vedic dharmas], religious and ethnic prejudices, unclean and low occupations (fisherman, hunter and washerman), lay at the roots of the growth of untouchability. Moreover, persons have been treated as untouchable, simply through religious hatred and abhorrence for heretical sects. The list consists of Buddhists, Jains, Materialists (Lokayatika), Atheists (Nastika). The followers of Kapila (Samkhyas), Saivas and Saktas were also outside the Vedic pale (according to Smrityarthasara) and so were Pasupatas (according to Apararka). Obviously, all those whose thoughts and actions were contrary to those of Brahmanism were branded as untouchable at a later period.

Certain classes of outcastes or untouchables seem to have gained their unenviable position through the growth of the sentiment of non-violence – for instance the Nishada, who was a hunter, the fishing caste called Kaivarta and the leather worker (Karavara). The Pukkusa, who appear as sweeper in Buddhist literature may have fallen in status because members of his class made and sold alcoholic liquor. More difficult to account for are such base classes as the basket-maker (Vena) and the chariot-maker (Rathakara). In the Vedic times the latter was a most respected craftsman, but soon fell to the status of an impure Sudra or outcaste.

It is obvious that the notion and principle of ritual purity and impurity which could be transmitted, among other things, by touch, food and water have a dominant role to play in the development of untouchablity. The Laghu Asyalayanasmriti (c.700 – 900 CE) enjoins that the Brahman was allowed to accept from any one milk and sugarcane products and food cooked in oil, milk and clarified butter, but not those mixed with water. In this injunction maybe seen the formulation of the notions of what are nowadays known as Pukka and Kacca food, as vehicles of purity and impurity.

6. Hierarchy Amongst Outcastes / Untouchables

Interestingly, by the beginning of the Christian era the outcastes themselves had developed a caste hierarchy and had their own outcastes. For example, Manu mentions the

Antyavasayin as a cross between a Chandala and a Nishada who was despised even by the Chandalas themselves. In later India, nearly even untouchable group imagined that some other group was lower than itself, and this stratification evidently began quite early.

Another class of untouchable was the Mleccha, a word commonly used for outer barbarians of whatever race or colour. As an invader he was hated, but once he had come into contact with Indian ways and was less strange and forbidding his status could improve. Generally there was little chance of an individual rising in social scale, but for a group this was possible, over a number of generations, by adopting more orthodox practices and following the rules of the Smritis. Thus the Indian class system was always somewhat fluid.

6. Summary

The early Indian social structure consisted of, besides the four varnas and innumerable jatis, representatives of people who were later called untouchables, outcastes and depressed classes. Various terms such as Antya, Antyajas and Antyavasayins have been used in early Indian texts to denote these people. A sizeable section of the population, engaged in manual artisanal production and rendering a number of “unclean” services, was undoubtedly at the receiving end of all types of social ostracization. Sometimes they were called the “fifth class” (panchama) but this was often rejected by authorities, thereby insisting that they were to be excluded from the Aryan social order altogether. The law books typically explain their origins out of pratiloma unions. The law giver’s idea was to relegate menial professional groups and some erstwhile tribal groups, aborted in the caste society, to the lowest position in the social ladder. It is noticeable that the Chandalas have been uniformly assigned a sub-human position.