Like the words ‘caste system’ and ‘Hinduism’, the word untouchability also suffers from the problem of lack of a theory. The way we (the post-colonial, educated Indians) use these words today, these words refer to a whole range of entities (albeit under some broad constraints). This means that there cannot be a scientific theory of these things, just as there cannot be a theory of (all) rectangular objects and white animals in the world. Not all the entities included here share common properties other than the trivial. Thus, these categories are practically of no use. Just to elaborate on this point, let us see the different kinds of actions that the term ‘untouchability’ purportedly includes:
One can question whether such incidents really take place in India or whether they are just fictions. For, most of the time same stories circulate across the media in different forms. However, for the sake of discussion in this section, let us grant that these incidents are in practice in some or another form and in some corner of India. What is more important to note here is that as soon as we list these so-called incidents of untouchability, we can see that not all of them can be called ‘discriminatory’ and not in all social occasions. Not allowing a person inside one’s house, for whatever reasons, is hardly objectionable, though, perhaps, undesirable in some occasions. However, there is hardly any doubt that asking a person or a community to build a new well or stairs into the well is discriminatory. One may argue that the situation that leads to such restrictions on (say) the use of public resource of water is a matter of caste rituals and hence it need not be objected. Even if it is a ritual related issue, as a matter of fact, the solution could also be that the caste community that imposes this restriction can itself build a new well or stairs into the well for its exclusive use, rather than forcing another community to do so.
What follows from it? At least the following: We cannot study one incident listed under ‘untouchability practices’ and argue for or against the standard notion of untouchability as a discriminatory practice. One has to analyse each of these incidents in its empirical context, in relationship to the circumstances and the context in which it has occurred/practiced, before deciding whether the incident in question is an act of discrimination or not.
Such an analysis brings to the fore a problem inherent in our understanding of the notion of untouchability vis-à-vis the caste system. Certain practices are dubbed as manifestations of untouchability only when people of specific castes practice them. Let me explain. The eight practices listed above will not be called instances of untouchability if practiced by ‘lower caste’ people against the ‘upper castes’.[1] If incidents such as not allowing certain community people into a temple, or making them use separate vessels in a hotel are taken as the typical examples of untouchability, by the extension of the same logic, such acts should be considered acts of untouchability even if an higher caste person is at the receiving end. That is, the instances of ‘reverse untouchability’ should be considered as problematic as the instances of untouchability. Obviously, not many people will agree with this logic. Unless we have a tenable justification, this is a case of selectively distributing the weights to the facts.
What needs to be clarified, then, is who and how does one decide what groups can be called untouchable groups. Needless to say that there is no clarity on this issue. Gory political battles have been fought over ascribing the status of an untouchable/lower caste to a caste community. Newspaper reports in India are replete with examples of such political clashes.
Nevertheless, barring all such controversies, majority of the people have agreed upon a core list of untouchable communities. One such list is the list prepared by the Constitution of India as ‘scheduled castes’. In the presence of such a consensual list, a sentence like ‘an untouchable is one who is considered to be ritually and socially impure’ makes sense only if it is read as: all ‘scheduled caste’ people are considered impure by all ‘non-scheduled caste’ people. Such a statement is absurd. However, to give a more generous reading, we can agree that this statement is saying something like this: all ‘scheduled castes’ people are treated as untouchables by all ‘non-scheduled castes’ people. If such is the case, we can produce one instance of ‘reverse untouchability’, or one person from ‘non-scheduled castes’ who does not treat anybody as untouchable, and discredit the arguments about untouchability. The statement therefore cannot assume such a universal qualification, especially when it claims to be an empirical claim about the Indian situation. This statement, thus does not prove anything, instead it apriorily assumes a story.
For now, it is enough if I point out that the caste problems such as ‘untouchability’ or ‘caste abuse’ do not share all the properties of a violent incident like murder or rape. This raises another important research question: Who brought all these discreet incidents under one rubric of ‘incidents of discriminatory practice of untouchability’ and under what cognitive assumptions and compulsions?
Untouchability and Birth
One of the standard arguments about untouchability is that it is based on birth. Presuming the truth of this claim, one suggests conversions out of Hinduism as a solution. However, as Rajaram Hegde points out, the very fact that a pariah’s position changes after he is converted to Islam or Christianity is an indication to the fact that untouchability has nothing to do with birth. Such practices are restricted to spacio-temporal contexts. A particular caste that is dominant in one area may suffer oppressions elsewhere. “I never heard of any instances of caste based untouchability in my village that can be unambiguously termed an instance of injustice. It is true that we were instructed to change clothes if we touch an untouchable in my village. However, there are two nuances that we have to take note of here. First, this same practice was not extended to the instances of touching an educated holeya or the one who comes from urban or remote places. More importantly, we had to change clothes even if touch our mother, sisters and any other woman during their menstrual period. This shows that this practice of ‘untouchability’, if it at all is an instance of discrimination, cannot be a discrimination based merely on the criterion of one’s birth or caste. More than birth and caste, the specific contexts had more value in these practices.”
We also have to discuss another possibility. “What if both the parties are serious about observing the practices that usually get dubbed as practice of ‘untouchability’? That is, what if pariahs (say) are also serious about hiding themselves to escape the gaze of the high caste people? Is no this how such practices are taken: as conventional practices to be followed by all? What we glean from these practices are basically framed by the Western outlook, which is counter intuitive to a person hailing from the context of these practices. A well-known Kannada dalit writer has acknowledged that he became aware of the humiliating angles of these practices only after reading Ambedkar. Another important dalit leader of Karnataka cites this as an exemplification of the importance of Dalit movement. To me, this points out a completely different phenomenon.
The fact that the so-called untouchability practices are accepted by the people involved in it without much ado or without an experience of discrimination or humility, would suggest either one of the two following states of affairs: 1. The practices do not entail humiliating experience to the Paraiahs who also actively practice them. 2. Or they cause humility, but generations of Pariahs have accepted it unwillingly. If we say that the first statement is true, we will have to consider Pariahs as insane human beings (because they have no sense of humility) or they are true to their experience (i.e. the practices do not entail humiliating experience). If the second statement is true, not only Pariahs are not true to their experience, but also they may be genetically cowards. What is our choice if we want to look at them as normal sane human beings like us? This does not rule out the possibility of using these practices to humiliate people or groups, but this does not imply that the practices are practices of untouchability”.
Untouchability and the Caste System
One might today accept that ‘untouchability’ is a fairly ridiculous and sometimes derogatory social practice and that we have good reasons today to put an end to it. But how does the practice of untouchability provide evidence for the existence of the caste system? By itself, the fact that some group cannot touch another group does not prove anything about positions in a social hierarchy. For one, the untouchability goes both ways, so how could the practice ever show that one group has a higher position than another. Furthermore, if people come up with the stories of caste discrimination, one could always ask them about the evidence they have for all of this. If they refer to hearsay or newspaper articles, this hardly counts as evidence: it has the cognitive value of any gossip. If they refer to standard textbooks or to any number of scholars, this is another fallacy: "argumentum ad verecundiam" or the fallacy of "appeal to authority," which again does not give any evidence.
It is perplexing that people simply stop thinking once they get all indignant about the caste system. Even if we admit that in some villages the Brahmins demand financial tributes from the poor folk. How could this prove the existence of a fixed caste hierarchy? In many American cities, there have been cases of cops (or gangsters) demanding financial contributions from shopkeepers, industrialists, etc. Does this mean that the cops (or gangsters) are higher in a fixed social hierarchy?
A Contemporary Example – Gender based Untouchability
Recall the incident, discussed in the section 2.6, where Balu was invited by Sadhus of Swami Narayan Temple (BAPS) to visit the temple and have a discussion with them. Because of their practice of an Ashtanga Brahmacharya, the Sadhus said that women could not be present during the discussions, while they were welcome to visit the temple. Some of Balu’s female students and a European colleague were a bit ‘upset’ that the Sadhus were not able to meet them and felt discriminated against by virtue of their sex. Balu, however, avers that this action of the Sadhus should not be seen as an act of discrimination against women but as an expression of the strict Brahmacharya that they practice. Some interlocutors on the discussion forum disagreed with this explanation and insisted that the act is an act of untouchability (on the basis of gender), and that the “sadhus’ vows embody a particular attitude towards women, that even seeing them upsets some spiritual balance, which is rubbish."
There are two different issues here. Let us, for a moment, assume that the Brahmacharya of the Sadhus at the Swami Narayan Temple is indeed ‘rubbish’. Now, of course, that they have wrong beliefs about women (and Brahmacharya) may be a reason to rubbish their beliefs but not to deny them the freedom to believe in that ‘rubbish’ and practice it for themselves. There is nothing morally wrong in having wrong or false beliefs. Atheists, for instance, genuinely believe that religion is very dangerous for human beings but that does not mean, therefore, that people should be forbidden from being believers. Those men and women (yes, women too) who are followers of Swami Narayan share the belief of the Sadhus: the women do not protest that they are not allowed to enter the temples when the Sadhus are present. In fact, if they go to the temple when the Sadhus are also at the temple, they wait at some distance; they enter the temple at certain hours of the day when the Sadhus are not ‘allowed’ to enter the temple. In other words, they do not feel discriminated against.
The reason why some of my students and some people in general feel discriminated against lies elsewhere, namely, in the normative assumptions they make and not in the beliefs and practices of the Sadhus. This statement becomes obvious when you realize that the men and women who follow this tradition also share beliefs and practices in common and do not protest against discrimination. I have known some wonderful men, who practiced very strict brahmacharya because they were the bhaktas of Anjaneya (or Hanumantha): as you know, Anajaneya is a very great bhkata of Rama and a very strict Brahmachari. Surely, you do not want to say that Anjaneya was Brahmanical and casteist avant la lettre?
An Example from the 19th century – Untouchability and Ritual Pollution
Below is an excerpt from Johannes Layer’s diary of a journey through the villages around Dharwad (Karnataka, India) 3rd May – 13th June 1838 May 24th [pp. 705-8][2]
“I was woken early by a loud argument in front of my lodging. When I asked what the trouble was the senior Lingayat priest of the town came in and made a bitter complaint that my servant, who was from a different caste, had washed himself in the well of his (i.e. the priest’s) caste, and thus made it impure. He assumed that I had sent the servant there to fetch water for me, and wanted to make me responsible for what had happened. With all the friendliness I could muster I said to him that I was sorry my servant had done this, but that I was not responsible. I had not sent my servant anywhere to fetch water for me. (In every place there is someone who is designated to bring water to any European who comes). I also took pains to make it clear to him that the water was as pure and good as it had been before my servant had washed himself there. And I dismissed him with the words that I had to go into the town now to preach.
I did not think that he regarded the matter in a very serious light, though I did not want the incident to lessen the openness to my message in the hearts of the people. In the meantime my message was given a friendly reception in the town. After my return I went to the ruined fortress, to see what was there. After two and a half hours, when I had just assembled a pile of stones which looked unusual, was examining them, and had selected a few to take home with me, I saw the priest I have mentioned above coming to me with about 10 young men. I did not know whether they wanted to arrest me, or what their purpose was. They were friendly, and the priest asked me to come into the town with him where I would find 200 citizens of his caste in front of my lodgings, who wanted to talk to me about the polluted well. I smiled and went with them. The priest himself offered to carry the few stones I had collected. I did find a large number of men in front of my lodging. Their faces showed that they were not as insulted by what had happened as I had at first imagined.
I greeted them in a friendly way, and asked them why they had called me. They answered "You know very well that your servant has polluted our well, so now you tell us what you think ought to be done." So many of them began to speak at once that I asked that someone with official status should come, to put the case to me. One such person was there among the crowd, and came forward, but without the courage to speak. So I began to assert my innocence and to assure them that the water was as clean as it had always been, and that they could drink this good gift of God with joy and confidence. The priest declared that I would either have to dig another well, or at the very least build steps down into the old one from the other side – at which I simply replied that I wouldn’t give a penny for this. Most of those present agreed that I was innocent. Others asserted that the accused was my servant, which made it as if I had done the deed myself. If I was not prepared to give them compensation, I should force my servant to pay or hand him over to them. To which I replied that my servant was poor, so that I could not punish him for money. And as far as his person went, I needed his services, and could not let him leave me.
If I had promised them a few rupees they would soon have been content. In the end, when they saw that their urgings did not touch me, the person with official status declared that it would be enough if would strictly forbid my servant to go to their well, which I did in their presence. So they left me – and I was happy to see that the atmosphere was not totally unfriendly. They took no water from the well for the next two days, until it had been returned to its former state of purity after a certain act of worship to their gods.”
A standard way of understanding the above incident chronicled by the missionary is to see it as an instance of caste based untouchability. After all, in the above incident, there is no reason to believe that the missionary’s servant had lower standards than the Lingayats in matters of cleanliness. What made the well impure according to the Lingayats was merely the fact that he belonged to a low caste. What is wrong with this understanding? Esther Bloch analysed this passage and showed why this standard understanding of the incident is not correct.
Firstly, let me clarify at the very outset that I do not want to say that there exist no practices of untouchability that are discriminatory. If discriminatory practices do occur, then they can be rightfully criticised and one should try to end them. However, thus far, I have not come across any convincing rational arguments against or proof of systematic discrimination due to the practice of untouchability. The examples that are generally cited, such as the anecdote told by Johannes Layer, do not show that this practice in itself is discriminatory. Once again, any real discriminatory practices, be they on the basis of Untouchability or other grounds, should be criticised and stopped. Let me try to analyse the passage a little to support my point:
Great commotion is stirred up after the Layer’s servant has washed himself in the well. When the missionary returns home, he is escorted by the Lingayat priest, and a large number of people who want to speak to him about the occurrence are waiting at his house. (Notice also the friendliness with which he is treated, which is difficult to image if there is great anger and outrage about what happened.)
The question that the waiting men ask him is insightful: "You know very well that your servant has polluted our well, so now you tell us what you think ought to be done." From this, it becomes clear that they have not come to condemn or to punish him or the servant, but that they are looking for a pragmatic or practical solution to a ritual problem. Of course, Layer doesn’t come up with any such solution, as for him the problem is an absurd one. Nevertheless, many options to the ‘problem of untouchability’ were open to him here.
When he doesn’t come up with a practical solution, the villagers offer him several options (here, the fact that they are talking about a practical solution becomes even more clear): "The priest declared that I would either have to dig another well, or at the very least build steps down into the old one from the other side." So, the best solution that they are offering him is building another well. However, the villagers are prepared to even make a compromise on this: if he cannot build another well, he could provide for another set of steps which would allow the person of the other jati to bathe in the same well, albeit on another side of it. If the practice of Untouchability is the result of (blind dogmatic) belief, then no such practical solutions could be identified. Moreover, how can we continue to speak of discrimination, if such easy and practical solutions give the other party (the servant) also access to this or another well? (The ‘fundamental human right’ to clean drinking water is not even violated!) Otherwise, the separate timings for swimming for men and women in some countries (and some western women do feel that there is discrimination in this) or the fact that there are separate toilets for men and women could be re-described as untouchability or discrimination (imposed by one party on the other) as well.
Let us continue with the passage: Layer, believing that their problem is absurd and based on idolatry, bluntly says that he "simply replied that [he] wouldn’t give a penny for this." It is only when you see the practice as the result of a false religious belief (the belief in a ‘sacred hierarchy’ for instance) that it makes sense to continue seeing discrimination while at the same time rejecting a perfectly sensible practical solution. Only then should the practice (and the belief) be rooted out, rather than finding a pragmatic solution to a ritual problem.
To conclude, I don’t think such examples and anecdotes form proof for the discriminatory nature of the practice of untouchability. However, this does not mean that no such discriminatory practices exist. (Perhaps we could redescribe it like this: some acts of Untouchability also constitute discrimination, but not all acts of untouchability are discriminatory.) Where they exist and no practical solution can be found to it, the practice should be criticized and stopped. However, as of yet, we have not done much research on the issue of untouchability. A number of questions of research will have to be taken up in the future: what is untouchability exactly? What does the term refer to in Indian society? It was said that in fact ‘untouchability’ in Indian society is generally used to refer to devatas which are very pure (Apaurusheya), and thus it had a positive connotation. However, today, untouchability has the very negative connotation of discrimination, denial of (human) rights, etc. Then how and in what context was untouchability formulated with such a negative connotation? For this, research into early European travel reports and descriptions is needed.
See below for a set of research questions:
· The main question that needs answering is: what is untouchability exactly? What does the term refer to in Indian society?
· It was said that in fact ‘untouchability’ in Indian society is generally used to refer to devatas which are very pure (Apaurusheya), and thus it has a positive connotation. However, today, untouchability has the very negative connotation of discrimination, denial of rights, etc. Then how and in what context was untouchability formulated with such a negative connotation? For this, research into early European travel reports and descriptions is needed.
· Untouchability in India is highly context sensitive: somebody cannot be touched, only under certain circumstances or it exists only between certain people. Thus, the term cannot refer to a community or a group of people. What are ‘untouchable communities/jatis’ then?
· Untouchability has been interpreted as an inter-caste practice. However, this cannot be the case: If untouchability, which is said to be mostly practiced by the Brahmins, was general, then how can Brahmins daily travel in buses or trains? How could they have been the first to travel abroad in the late 19th century?
· In 16th century descriptions, for instance, we find descriptions of untouchability that claim that “whenever a Brahmin or Naiyar passes in the street, the people walking there are warned by the servants to leave the street, so that he should not be touched.”(1) How did he just know that it was a Brahmin or Naiyar? (2) Even if it was a Brahman, this does not tell us anything about the caste system. If this were the case, then all Brahmins and Naiyar should have been extremely wealthy, so that all of them could have a servant to clear the streets before them. It has long been known that there is no correlation between being Brahmin or Naiyar and being wealthy. This is another argument to say that it is impossible for such kind of practices to exist as part of the caste system.
· Some research is needed about Manu and the Purushashukta.
· As Shanmukha explained during the workshop sessions, certain practices are limited to a very small number of communities and, more importantly, vary from place to place. That is, in certain places some communities will face some discrimination or will not be well-off, whereas in other areas they will be very well-off and respected. This can be shown by the CSLC field work data. It would be very interesting to trace where the kind of ‘propaganda’ started that described these practices as if they were general practices of the caste system as the immoral social structure of India.
· The anger of the Dalit writers is mainly focused on the fact that they had not been ‘allowed’ into Hinduism, which placed them outside of the fold. They had their own religion, their own priests, and temples etc. but suddenly, it became a problem that they generally did not enter into certain temples, did not make use of certain ‘priests’, did not know the Vedas, etc.
· Specific questions and tasks for further research on untouchability:
- Where does the negative connotation of ‘untouchables’ come from?
- We do not have a word for untouchability as a social practice in native Indian languages. In our traditional literature only fire, for e.g., is untouchable. When did our native Indian words for untouchability assume their present connotations? In 17th century?
- Tracing of earliest sources that speak about untouchability in terms of inter-caste discrimination. What is the context? How did the propaganda grow? What has been the contribution of secularization? What are the contributions of Missionary work and literature? When did it become ‘evident’ to call poor people Dalits/Untouchables and equate the rich with Brahmin or upper castes?
- How many scheduled castes are there? Most writers cannot tell. Huge number of ‘untouchables’ are Dalits and largest portion of society is SC/ST. How can this majority be oppressed by a minority that is not even an organised community with possibilities of law enforcement? To be ‘backward’ is an advantage in contemporary India. How do we explain this? Today living in a hill area is also a reason to be OBC.
[1] Consider the following as an example: “[T]here also have been instances where in places where the Dalits were the dominant community they had practiced a kind of reverse untouchability against Thevar community. It was alleged by Thevars that in some places in Srivilliputhur taluk [of Tamilnadu] where Thevars passing through Dalit villages were made to carry their footwear on their heads and to get off the bicycles and wheel them along.” (Caste Clashes in Southern District of Tamilnadu: An Overview 1997: pg. 3.)
[2] Available online at http://www.library.yale.edu/div/fa/0-NorthKarnataka%20INTRODUCTION.pdf (accessed 27 October 2010).