Origins of untouchability in India

What did BR Ambedkar’s research reveal about the origins of untouchability in India, and why did he argue that it was neither racial nor occupational in nature?

The Supreme Court recently ruled on the subclassification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to ensure equitable distribution of benefits. The judgement resurfaced the debate about the definition of SCs as a homogeneous category and whether untouchability remains the sole unifying criterion for inclusion under the SC category.

Untouchability continues to manifest in various forms in contemporary India even though the Constitution prohibits its practice in any form under Article 17. In that context, the visions of Dr. BR Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Indian Constitution and a fierce critic of the caste system, remain relevant. 
On his death anniversary observed on 6 December, let’s revisit his vision for social justice and equality. 

How did untouchability originate in India? Whether its roots were racial or occupational? Ambedkar’s research on the historical origin of untouchability in India proved that its source was neither racial nor occupational. Untouchables in their origin were “broken men” who were in conflicts with settled communities and lived outside villages from the very beginning.
Most importantly, their marginalisation didn’t stem from untouchability. The only difference between settled communities and “broken men” was that they belonged to different tribes. 

Ambedkar dismissed the racial theory of untouchability, which posits that untouchables were a different race (distinct from Aryans or Dravidians), by referring to anthropometric and ethnological studies on tribes in India.
He also countered the occupational theory of untouchability, which propounded that untouchability arose because certain groups performed “unclean” or “polluting” tasks (such as handling leather or disposing of carcasses).
Ambedkar argued that all classes were engaged in such tasks at some point. Hence, occupation alone could not explain the origin of untouchability.

In his popular book The Untouchables: Who were they and why they Became Untouchables (1948), Ambedkar depicts how the rise of untouchability coincided with the Brahmins giving up beef-eating and adopting vegetarianism. He attributed this change to the struggle for supremacy between Brahmins and Buddhists in India.
Buddhism emphasised non-violence and rejected animal sacrifices, which resonated with the agricultural population dependent on cattle. In order to regain the ground lost to Buddhism, Brahmins adopted vegetarianism. 

However, the “broken men” could not afford to emulate Brahmins for they relied on scavenging, particularly eating and handling the carcasses of dead cows, for their survival. Eventually, the communities that couldn’t give up beef-eating were set apart socially and treated as untouchables. Ambedkar connected the emergence of untouchability to the period when Brahmins, engaged in struggles to regain the lost ground to Buddhism, renounced beef-eating that happened around the 4th century AD.

Unlike other forms of defilement or impurity in other cultures or religions, untouchability in India is marked by its permanence and hereditary nature. It involves the systemic isolation of not just individuals but a group of people or communities and often includes territorial segregation, with untouchables often forced to live outside village boundaries. 

Therefore, Ambedkar calls untouchability a unique phenomenon compared to various forms of impurity or pollution prevalent among other religions or cultures. For instance, in some cultures, impurity causes pollution only during ceremonial occasions. In contrast, untouchability in India is permanent, hereditary, and part of everyday life.

Ambedkar put forward conditions on which depressed classes would give consent to place themselves under majority rule in independent India.

Equal citizenship and fundamental rights: The first condition was equal citizenship, primarily to abolish untouchability and secure equal rights. Ambedkar saw the inclusion of fundamental rights in the Constitution as a prerequisite for ensuring equality.

Penalties for infringement of rights: Free enjoyment of equal rights was the second condition which required penalties for the infringement of these rights. 

Protection against discrimination: The third condition demands protection from discrimination in the form of legislation and executive orders in the future.

Representation in legislatures and public services: Adequate representation in the legislatures and in public services were the fourth and fifth conditions respectively.

Ambedkar also sought special mechanisms, such as departments dedicated to the welfare of marginalised communities and guaranteed representation in decision-making bodies like the Cabinet. These measures aimed to ensure the interests of the depressed classes would not be ignored or neglected in majority rule.

Annihilation of caste is a text of an undelivered speech prepared by Ambedkar for the 1936 annual conference of the Jat Pat Todak Mandal, an anti-caste organisation based in Lahore. However, in light of its apparent controversiality, the organisers revoked Ambedkar’s invitation. Consequently, Ambedkar self-published the speech which would become arguably his most famous piece of writing.

In this speech, Ambedkar argues that caste has disorganised and demoralised people, undermining the possibility of collective and unified social life. He writes, “anything that you will build on the foundations of caste will crack and will never be a whole.” Hence, he asserts that national identity and true morality cannot be built on the foundations of caste.

For Ambedkar, caste is not a physical barrier but a notion or a state of mind. Hence, inter-marriage and inter-dining alone would not annihilate caste. He urged to “destroy the belief in sanctity of the Shastras” which legitimise the varna and caste order. To be specific, Ambedkar condemns the “religion of rules” not the “religion of principles”.

He reimagines an ideal society based on the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity – concepts that were also the foundation of democracy. Hence, democracy should not just be a form of government but a way of living together in mutual respect and association. Ambedkar concluded his speech by declaring that the annihilation of caste was more important than swaraj (self-rule) and casteless society was essential for building a strong, united nation, which would defend itself against different challenges.

Notably, Both Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi claimed to be the true representatives of depressed classes suffering from untouchability in India. However, the debate following the publication of Annihilation of caste exposed the dispute on the question of untouchability between two giant figures. How did Gandhi refute the empirical evidence of Ambedkar and how Ambedkar responded to him?

Source: Indian Express