Untouchability is an age-old social global institution. Evidence is found in ancient history, and in present times, indicating its prevalence all over the old world, at least in the continent of Asia. In the East, untouchability still lingers in China and Japan. In Myanmar, I have myself witnessed it distinctly by researching it. In the West, this institution existed generally among the ancient nations lying to the east of the Mediterranean Sea, particularly among the Israelite people. Wherever a separate caste and profession of god-worshippers and priests was established and, at the prompting of such sycophants, the blood of the rulers and the nobility in their services obtained purity, this institution has arisen in history of the Old and New World. Therefore, there is no need to consider this institution to be a distinct doing of only the Aryas or any one particular human race. However, it is indisputable that in our Indian subcontinent, especially in the southern Dravidian regions, this social device has been implemented until this very moment by those who call themselves Aryas or Dravids so systematically and the kind of success this implementation has enjoyed here, that that kind of implementation, that kind of system and that kind of success - at least to the extent seen here - is not found anywhere else. Therefore, I believe that historians will have to maintain that untouchability is a distinguishing and principal characteristic of Indian social culture.

 

 

DEFINITION

 

            For the purpose at hand, it is necessary to arrive at a short working definition of untouchability. Untouchability on account of personal, familial, and contingent matters such as birth, death, menstruation, and infectious diseases is found to be practised even now in many places in India and in overseas nations too. The only distinction is that the first three instances are found among barbaric people and the fourth is found in hospitals in advanced nations. However, this occasional untouchability is not the subject of this treatise. Perpetual untouchability is the only subject of this treatise; and for the purpose of this treatise, I am attempting a working definition of this untouchability.

 

To consider the entirety of specific castes, alias nations, hereditarily untouchable; to confine those castes to separate settlements completely outside of the village, but not far away from it, so that they stay untouchable in this manner; and, if any touchables or untouchables violate this rule of boycott, to prosecute both of them under prevailing religious and state laws— all these three are the principal characteristics of Indian untouchability. That is, this untouchability is not merely local or religious but caste-based or national and perpetual in nature. Such is the rationale behind Indian untouchability that, if a supposed untouchable changes his religion, as a matter of fact, even if the prevailing ruling power changes its religion, untouchability still endures as long as the recognition bestowed upon it by Indian customs and the laws of ruling powers established from time to time in this country endures. Despite not being Hindus currently, Muslim Bhangis, Mazhabi Sikhs1, and Paraiyars converted to Roman Catholicism around Madras are nevertheless untouchables. Not merely untouchables, they are unacceptable-within-the-village too. Although the current Hindustan Government calls itself Christian, it has established its law on the two eccentric and elastic principles of customs and impartiality, hence this law is of no protection to the untouchables even from the perspective of rationale; then where is the surprise if it is being implemented conversely in practice? In 1843, the Hindustan Government made slavery here illegal by enacting a law; but untouchability is still legal! Even though the recent Round Table Conference has concluded, as a matter of fact, the Poona Pact that came into being thanks to the fast unto death undertaken by Mahatma Gandhi last September has been officially recognized, there are signs that the scourge of untouchability will still endure. The three characteristics of Indian untouchability viz. caste-based untouchability, universal boycott and everlasting lack of protection from a legal point of view continue to endure at least till date. Under the Muslim rule, this untouchability used to get abolished through conversion because Muslim law would not care for Indian customs at all. However, the British Indian Government is more cowardly and cunning in this regard. And Christianity, too, is more flexible than Islam. Untouchability of Christian converts does not get abolished; it just goes missing. That is, due to the difficulty in pinpointing it, it becomes difficult to put it under the axe of boycott. However, it is apparent, if pinpointed, let alone Christianity, even the prevailing British law does not have the power to protect them against this axe. In the Ahmednagar District close to Pune - even just outside the city of Ahmednagar - Mahar settlements and Mang settlements of the Christian converts are in the state of boycott, just like the non-converts. Those who have any doubt regarding this statement, they should go to see the extent of the boycotted and destitute condition of the backward Christian community in Madras Province and Christian untouchables of Ahmednagar in Mumbai Province and of Kathewad in Gujarat. Only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches! Thus, we arrive at this definition of a national institution possessing three characteristics viz. to consider someone perpetually polluting, to force them to live outside of the village, and render them protectionless from a legal point of view; and the untouchability identifiable with this definition is to be found only in our Indian Subcontinent and neighbouring Myanmar.

​

THE RISE

 

            Untouchability is an independent human institution. It must have arisen during the very primitive condition of the human race. Concepts such as ghosts, goblins, fiends etc. were widespread during the primitive i.e. barbaric condition of the human race. In comparative theology, this set of concepts is called ‘animism’. This animism and such other ignorant ideas of the primitive religion and the resultant witchcraft, occult arts etc. are collectively what I have termed later as ‘false religion’. I do not term any such religion as ‘false religion’, which has human intellect as its foundation, even if it degenerates later due to carelessness. The primitive humans believed that it was possible to appease the angry ghosts or to bribe or frighten a ghost into doing something constructive or destructive as per one’s desire. These various kinds of false religion as per this belief, such as sorcery, hocus-pocus, incantations, charms and spells etc. can be assigned a general urban term of ‘magic’. Its two main types viz. black magic and medicinal or white magic existed even during the reformed Vedic period. The first type is found especially in Atharvaveda and the latter abounds in the remaining three Vedas, including Rigveda. False religion of both the types existed in the entire primitive world during ancient times; not only that, but it is still found among the present-day savage tribes and even in many places of the reformed western nations, which I have myself witnessed in a milder form in the Roman Catholic Church. In the primitive world, births, deaths, epidemics used to get associated with ghosts-goblins and the enraged deities. The exorcists and the medicine-men who were experts in warding off them were the sages or priests of former times. Their sometimes-good-sometimes-bad activities can be termed as sorcery or magic. In this manner, this magic entered into ancient religion, which remains still prevalent in many places among common public. The origins of untouchability lie in this false religion alone.

 

Initially, this untouchability was personal and contingent or occasional. Things such as a new mother and her room, places and relatives of the dead, particular patients, possessed individuals, eccentric trees, sites of such crimes as murders etc. became untouchable and forbidden. Sorcerers and priests who practiced magic used to be ritually pure i.e. untouchable in a manner. The brahmin, carrying out daily worship of the deities and, during entirety of the yajna ceremony, the officiating priest as well as other participating priests had to maintain ritual purity i.e. stay untouchable or secluded all the time. The religious leader, called as dhakalgar, of the Madig (Matang) caste in Karnataka is considered untouchable even by his own Madig followers; moreover, they do not allow him to touch their water sources, which I have myself witnessed. Dr. Kurtkoti’s brother showed me this phenomenon in Gadag Taluka in Karnataka. As this false religion gradually attained a more mystic and rigid form and its convention and constitution developed at the hands of the priests, the personal and local form of this untouchability matured into caste-based and universal or perpetual form. In former times, it was natural for irreconcilable enmity to exist among different human castes and races. Friendship was merely as an exception. The places and articles of worship of one caste used to be inaccessible and untouchable for another caste. Even in the reformed Vedic period, this mutual untouchability was very rampant. Iranian Aryas and Indian Aryas separated after the times of Zarathushtra. After that, the Iranians began calling themselves ‘Asurayajna’ i.e. Ashur-worshippers and Indians began calling themselves ‘Devayajna’ i.e. Dev-worshippers. These Ashur-worshippers and Dev-worshippers would not let the other come anywhere near their own places of yajna and considered the other’s places of yajna as untouchable. That is, customarily, the other’s place of yajna was untouchable and prohibited for oneself and one’s own place of yajna was ritually pure (inaccessible) even to oneself. The conviction that one’s religion was a false religion for the other, and the other’s religion was a false religion for oneself would grow stronger, culminating in caste animosity. And even though the root cause of untouchability viz. the magic-derived false religion later vanished and was forgotten, caste-based untouchability remained. It can be deduced from the drift of the tale of the Good Samaritan that the Jews considered the people of neighbouring Samaria2 to be untouchables. When Jesus Christ felt thirsty and requested water from a Samaritan woman, she said, “Being a Jew, how can you ask me for water? For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.” (See St. John’s Gospel, Chapter 4, Verse 9.) Many more such examples can be cited from social history.

 

 

SCOPE

 

            The origins of personal and caste-based untouchability are discussed above in general. Such untouchability did not exist among only the ancient Aryas but also among several primitive nations, especially the advanced super-nations. According to sociology of development, it is necessary for kingdoms to evolve into empires before untouchability evolved from the personal into the caste-based form. At a point of time when a caste or nation considers another entire caste or nation as perpetually untouchable and that other nation accepts it, that victorious caste needs to have reached the state of an empire at that time. When such a victorious caste defeats a number of other backward castes, the idea of taking permanent possession of one of those defeated castes and forcing it into their services arises in that victorious caste. That is to say, the rise of the empire takes place. And only then, it is possible for caste-based slavery also known as untouchability to arise. Caste-based untouchability is nothing but a type of slavery - of course, an extremely harsh form. Such a practice was found among many nations of many races, including the Dravidian Assyria, Babylon; the Semitic Israel, Arabia; the Aryan Iran, Medes; the Mongolian China, Japan, etc.

​

​

TABOO ALIAS POLLUTION

 

            The untouchability whose rise and scope is described above in general divides temporally into two forms, occasional and perpetual, which is also stated above. Moreover, the abovementioned untouchability has two more forms viz. one hateful and another respectful. In colloquial Marathi, one is called viṭāḷa (pollution) and the other sōvaḷē (ritual purity). Both these types were and are prevalent even outside India. What is called sōvaḷē (ritual purity) in Marathi is known as ‘taboo’ in English. Even today, among barbaric communities, especially among the barbaric communities inhabiting the islands of South East Asia, this untouchability and its indicative words are more widespread. Although this word encompasses both hateful and respectful forms of untouchability, the English word indicates more prominently the latter i.e. the form pertaining to ritual purity. I have been investigating the etymology of this strange word for many years. In English dictionaries, there is no more explanation than it originates in Polynesian barbaric languages. I read an English essay by the late Tilak, ‘Chaldean and Indian Vedas’ in the Volume written to commemorate Dr. Sir Ramkrushna Bhandarkar.  In it, Tilak has cited a verse from the Atharvaveda. This is the verse:

 

            ताबुवं न ताबुवं न घे त्वमसि ताबुवम् । ताबुवेना रसं विषम् ॥

                                                      Atharva Samhita, 5.3.10.

 

Prof. Bloomfield on Page 28 of his Sacred Books of the East Series Vol. XLII has translated it as follows: Tabuvam (or) not Tabuvam, thou (O serpent) art not Tabuvam. Through Tabuvam the poison is bereft of force.

 

I3 am having a strong suspicion that the word ‘Tabuvam’ from the Atharvaveda and the word ‘taboo’ from English dictionaries might be the same. The following are the reasons for the same. In the word ‘Tabuva’, the original form might have been only ‘Tabu’. ‘Va’ is merely an ādeśa (replacement element). It is natural for it to get affixed before case-endings to Aryan and non-Aryan words which end with an ‘u’  sound. Two dictionaries, the Encyclopedia Britannica and Hastings’ The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics inform that Captain Cook came across the word ‘taboo’ for the first time on the Tonga islands of Polynesia in 1777 CE. Before that, it did not occur among European languages. ‘Fady’ in Madagascar, ‘pammalli’ in the Malay Peninsula, ‘tabu, tapu’ in Melanesia etc. are other words of the same meaning. Overall, the institution of taboo is exactly like the practice of ritual purity and pollution in India. Out of the words given above, pammalli might be related to ‘pambada’ in the Dravidian language. I have seen in many places that the priests of the untouchable Paraiyar caste are called ‘pambada’ in Malayalam, Tamil and Telugu languages of the South. And in the islands of the Indian Ocean, the originators of the institution of taboo used to be the priests and chiefs of the barbaric communities from there. They practice ritual purity to such an extent that it is believed that even seeing them is perilous. I have already stated above that the dhakalgar priests of the Madig community in Karnataka are untouchable even among their own Matang disciples. They always live solitarily. I offered one rupee to one of those dhakalagars. He told me to keep it on the floor. This practice of ritual purity does not exist among only the dhakalgars but also the upper strata in India, viz. among the brahmin priests on specific occasions and among the old-fashioned brahmin womenfolk perpetually. All these practices are exactly like the institution of taboo. It is important to note that, in comparison with the North, these practices are more prevalent in south India, especially in the Dravidian region and particularly in Malabar. Because, in very ancient times, there used to be a continent called ‘Limuria’ which connected Malabar to Madagascar island and the coast of South Africa. Palaeogeographers believe that it is now sunk beneath the Arabian Sea.

 

            The Encyclopaedia writer postulates that ‘tapoo’ is the etymon of taboo in which ‘ta’ is the verbal root (meaning “to make a mark”), while ‘poo’ might be an intensifying adverb. I think the Kannada word tappu (meaning mistake, fault) might be related to the word taboo. In my opinion, linguistically, there would be no hindrance in the progression of the forms tapoo > woo > boo. This eccentric word is not found anywhere else apart from the quote cited above from the Atharvaveda. Such eccentric words and customs abound in the Atharvaveda, which makes some scholars to postulate that this Veda belonged to non-Aryans and predates even the Rigveda.

​

​

RESEARCHING INDIAN UNTOUCHABILITY

 

            Hitherto, we have discussed how this general institution arose and developed in the world. Moreover, a distinct definition of our subject for the purpose of this treatise is given above. Now, moving forward, let’s try to investigate when this untouchability possessing the three characteristics mentioned above was established in our India. This is not an easy task because it is impossible to find textual or epigraphic evidence related to this institution. However, there is no reason to believe that this institution existed in our country from time immemorial despite the absence of evidence. As many as possible textual references related to this subject are collected with maximum efforts and compiled in the coming sections. Not only that, but for the point in time beyond which such references are not found, we have discovered even the very sporadic mentions of the names of some ancient castes which later on became untouchable and abhorrable, on the basis of which we have described later the social status of these castes during those times.

​

 

HISTORIC AND PREHISTORIC PERIODS

 

            It is impossible to find written evidence of pre-Vedic history of India, at least for the time being. Before the Aryas, Dravid or Misri Egyptians arrived in the Indian subcontinent. They too were outsiders. Their contemporary Indian literature is not available yet. Whatever literature that might be available in Egypt (Mitra > Misra > Misar), Assyria has nothing to do with India. Even after the arrival of the Aryas, Dravidian language was spread all over the Indian Subcontinent for many centuries. Paishachi, Balochi aka Brahui, Sindhi, Bengali etc. modern and ancient nations or languages were originally Dravidian. Except the current Brahui language of Balochistan, other ancient Dravidian languages are still present etymologically in the modern languages of north India and visibly in south India. However, it has not yet become easy to find evidence related to the source of untouchability even from the literature of these languages. Since some texts of the later languages like Pali and Prakrit are written in Roman and Sinhala script, it is very difficult to find such evidence from these languages too. Therefore, at present, one has to depend for all intents and purposes on Sanskrit literature alone. We will deliberate upon it now.

 

            There was no distinct human race named ‘Aryan’4. When it was discovered that a common language was in use among some human races living in Europe and Asia, the Western philologists named all the branches of that language as ‘Aryan’. Some Western anthropologists wilfully use the name ‘Aryan’ even for all those communities from Asia and Europe which at present are lineally associated with these languages. However, this nomenclature is incorrect. The Indian language known as Sanskrit acquired this particular name very recently, after Patanjali; that is, it is at most two hundred years old. Before that, it used to be called the language of the text corpus that included Vedas and Avesta or ‘chāndasa’ aka Zend. The literature available today in this Aryan or chāndasa language is called Vedic and Avestan literature. This Vedic literature includes only the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishadas and Sutras. Their period may be termed as the ancient or prehistoric period. Later on, Gautam Buddha appeared (in 567 BCE). From there, the historic period begins.

 

 

TRANSLATOR’S NOTES

​

1. The comma in the source between ‘Mazhabi’ and ‘Sikhs’ is a typographical error since ‘Mazhabi Sikhs’ is a distinct community within Sikhism, which is definitely the one implied here for the discussion at hand.

2. Although the source says सुमेरिया, it is evident from the Biblical reference that the author here intends ‘Samaria’ from ancient Israel and not ‘Sumer’ from Mesopotamia. सुमेरिया could have been a typo too. Therefore, I have translated सुमेरियन as Samaritan (i.e. of or from Samaria) to be consistent with the New Testament account of the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well (John 4), although incorrectly identified in the source as the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37).

3. Before this sentence, there come the meaning of the quote in Marathi, which is a direct translation of Prof. Bloomfield’s English translation, hence I have omitted it to avoid repetition.

4. I have rendered the noun आर्य as Arya everywhere in my translation, except in this particular paragraph in which the author has painstakingly deconstructed (and demolished) the Western racial construct termed ‘Aryan’. In all probability, he had the contemporary Nazi propaganda of Aryan supremacy before his eyes while writing this paragraph, hence I have rendered the noun आर्य as Aryan here, keeping in mind the rapid rise of neo-Nazis all over the world in the last couple of decades.

​