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 Rigveda, 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 Patanjali 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 Mahabharata, 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 Kali 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 Puranas 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 Brahma-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 India (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.