04-08-2004, 05:10 AM
Contempt For Budhists As The Root Of Untouchability
By B. R. Ambedkar
THE Census Reports for India published by the Census
Commissioner at the interval of every ten years from
1870 onwards contain a wealth of information nowhere
else to be found regarding the social and religious life
of the people of India. Before the Census of 1910 the
Census Commissioner had a column called âPopulation
by Religionâ. Under this heading the population was
shown (1) Muslims, (2) Hindus, (3) Christians, etc.
The Census Report for the year 1910 marked a new
departure from the prevailing practice. For the first
time it divided the Hindus under three separate categories,
(i) Hindus, (ii) Animists and Tribal, and (iii) the
Depressed Classes or Untouchables. This new
classification has been continued ever since.
This departure from the practice of the previous Census
Commissioners raises three questions. First is what
led the Commissioner for the Census of 1910 to introduce
this new classification. The second is what was the
criteria adopted as a basis for this classification.
The third is what are the reasons for the growth of
certain practices which justify the division of Hindus
into three separate categories mentioned above.
The answer to the first question will be found in the
address presented in 1909 by the Muslim Community
under leadership of H.H. The Aga Khan to the then Viceroy,
Lord Minto, in which they asked for a separate and
adequate representation for the Muslim community in
the legislature, executive and the public services.
In the address there occurs the following passage: "The
Mohamedans of India number, according to the census
taken in the year 1901 over sixty-two millions or
between one-fifth and one-fourth of the total population
of His Majestyâs Indian dominions, and if a reduction be
made for the uncivilised portions of the community
enumerated under the heads of animist and other
minor religions, as well as for those classes who are
ordinarily classified as Hindus but properly speaking
are not Hindus at all, the proportion of Mohamedans
to the Hindu Majority becomes much larger. We
therefore desire to submit that under any system
of representation extended or limited a community
in itself more numerous than the entire population
of any first class European power except Russia
may justly lay claim to adequate recognition as an
important factor in the State.
"We venture, indeed, with Your Excellencyâs permission
to go a step further, and urge that the position
accorded to the Mohamedan community in any kind
of representation direct or indirect, and in all other
ways effecting their status and influence should be
commensurate, not merely with their numerical
strength but also with their political importance and
the value of the contribution which they make to the
defence of the empire, and we also hope that Your
Excellency will in this connection be pleased to give
due consideration to the position which they occupied
in India a little more than hundred years ago and of
which the traditions have naturally not faded from
their minds."
The portion italicised by me has a special significance.
It was introduced in the address to suggest that in
comprising the numerical strength of the Muslims
with that of the Hindus the population of the animists,
tribals and the Untouchables should be excluded. The
reason for this new classification of 'Hindus' adopted by
the Census Commissioner in 1910 lies in this demand
of the Muslim community for separate representation on
augmented scale. At any rate this is how the Hindus
understood this demand.
Interesting as it is, the first question as to why the
Census Commissioner made this departure in the
system of classification is of less importance than the
second question. What is important is to know the
basis adopted by the Census Commissioner for
separating the different classes of Hindus into
(1) those who were hundred per cent Hindus and
(2) those who were not.
The basis adopted by the Census Commissioner for
separation is to be found in the circular issued by
the Census Commissioner in which he laid down
certain tests for the purpose distinguishing these two
classes. Among those who were not hundred percent
Hindus were included castes and tribes which:
(1) Deny the supremacy of the Brahmins.
(2) Do not receive the Mantra from a Brahmin or other
recognized Hindu Guru.
(3) Deny the authority of the Vedas.
(4) Do not worship the Hindu gods.
(5) Are not served by good Brahmins as family priests.
(6) Have no Brahmin priests at all.
(7) Are denied access to the interior of the Hindu temples.
(8) Cause pollution (a) by touch, or
(B) within a certain distance.
(9) Bury their dead.
(10) Eat beef and do no reverence for the cow.
Out of these ten tests some divide the Hindus from the
Animists and the Tribal. The rest divide the Hindus from
the Untouchables. Those that divide the Untouchables
from the Hindus are (2), (5), (6), (7), and (10). It is
with them that we are chiefly concerned.
For the sake of clarity it is better to divide these tests
into parts and consider them separately. This Chapter
will be devoted only to the consideration of (2), (5),
and (6).
The replies received by the Census Commissioner to
questions embodied in tests (2), (5) and (6) reveal
(a) that the Untouchables do not receive the Mantra
from a Brahmin; (B) that the Untouchables are not
served by Brahmin priests at all; and © that
Untouchables have their own priests reared from
themselves. On these facts the Census Commissioners
of all Provinces are unanimous.
Of the three questions the third is the most important.
Unfortunately the Census Commissioner did not
realise this. For in making his inquiries he failed to
go to the root of the matter to find out: Why were
the Untouchables not receiving the Mantra from the
Brahmin? Why Brahmins did not serve the Untouchables
as their family priests? Why do the Untouchables
prefer to have their own priests? It is the âwhyâ of
these facts which is more important than the existence
of these facts. It is the âwhyâ of these facts which
must be investigated. For the clue to the origin of
Untouchability lies hidden behind it.
Before entering upon this investigation, it must be
pointed out that the inquiries by the Census
Commissioner were in a sense one-sided. They showed
that the Brahmins shunned the Untouchables. They
did not bring to light the fact that the Untouchables
also shunned the Brahmins. Nonetheless, it is a fact.
People are so much accustomed to thinking that the
Brahmin is the superior of the Untouchables and the
Untouchable accepts himself as his inferior; that this
statement that the Untouchables look upon the
Brahmin as an impure person is sure to come to them
as a matter of great surprise. The fact has however
been noted by many writers who have observed and
examined the social customs of the Untouchables.
To remove any doubt on the point, attention is
drawn to the following extracts from their writings.
The fact was noticed by Abbe Dubois who says: "Even
to this day a Pariah is not allowed to pass a Brahmin
Street in a village, though nobody can prevent, or
prevents, his approaching or passing by a Brahmin's
house in towns. The Pariahs, on their part will under no
circumstances, allow a Brahmin to pass through their
paracherries (collection of Pariah huts) as they firmly
believe it will lead to their ruin."
Mr. Hemingsway, the Editor of the Gazetteer of the Tanjore
District says: "These casts (Parayan and Pallan or
Chakkiliyan castes of Tanjore District) strongly object
to the entrance of a Brahmin into their quarters believing
that harm will result to them therefrom."
Speaking of the Holeyas of the Hasan District of Mysore,
Captain J.S.F. Mackenzie says: "Every village has its
Holigiri as the quarters inhabited by the Holiars,
formerly agrestic serfs, is called outside the village
boundary hedge. This, I thought was because they
were considered as impure race, whose touch carries
defilement with it."
Such is the reason generally given by the Brahmins who
refuse to receive anything directly from the hands of a
Holiar, and yet the Brahmins consider great luck will wait
upon them if they can manage to pass through the Holigiri
without being molested. To this Holiars have a strong
objection, and, should a Brahmin attempt to enter their
quarters, they turn out in a body and slipper him,
in former times, it is said, to death. Members
of the other castes may come as far as the door,
but they must not enter the house, for that
would bring the Holiar bad luck. If, by chance,
a person happens to get in, the owner
takes care to tear the intruder's cloth, tie up some
salt in one corner of it, and turn him out. This is
supposed to neutralise all the good luck which might
have accrued to the trespasser, and avert any evil
which ought to have befallen the owner of the house.
What is the explanation of this strange phenomenon?
The explanation must of course fit in with the situation as
it stood at the start, i.e., when the Untouchables were not
Untouchables but were only Broken Men. We must ask
why the Brahmins refused to officiate at the religious
ceremonies of the Broken Men? Is it the case that the
Brahmins refused to officiate? Or is it that
the Broken Men refused to invite them? Why
did the Brahmin regard Broken Men as impure?
Why did the Broken Men regard the Brahmins as impure?
What is the basis of this antipathy?
This antipathy can be explained on one hypothesis. It is
that the Broken Men were Buddhists. As such they did not
revere the Brahmins, did not employ them as their
priests and regarded them as impure. The Brahmin on
the other hand disliked the Broken Men because they
were Buddhists and preached against them contempt
and hatred with the result that the Broken Men came to
be regarded as Untouchables.
We have no direct evidence that the Broken Men were
Buddhists. No evidence is as a matter of fact necessary
when the majority of Hindus were Buddhists. We may
take it that they were.
That there existed hatred and abhorrence against the
Buddhists in the mind of the Hindus and that this
feeling was created by the Brahmins is not without
support.
Nilkant in his Prayaschit Mayukha a verse from Manu
which says: "If a person touches a Buddhist or a flower
of Pachupat, Lokayata, Nastika and Mahapataki, he
shall purify himself by a bath."
The same doctrine is preached by Apararka in his Smriti.
Vradha Harit goes further and declares entry into the
Buddhist Temple as sin requiring a purificatory bath for
removing the impurity.
How widespread had become this spirit of hatred and
contempt against the followers of Buddha can be observed
from the scenes depicted in Sanskrit dramas. The most
striking illustration of this attitude towards the Buddhists
is to be found in the Mricchakatika. In Act VII of that
Drama the hero Charudatta and his friend Maitreya are
shown waiting for Vasantasena in the park outside the city.
She fails to turn up and Charudatta decides to leave the
park. As they are leaving, they see the Buddhist monk
by name Samvahaka. On seeing him, Charudatta
says: "Friend Maitreya, I am anxious to meet Vasantsena ...
..Come, let us go. (After walking a little) Ah ! here's
an inauspicious sight, a Buddhist monkcoming towards us.
(After a little reflection) well, let him come this
way, we shall follow this other path. (Exit.)"
In Act VIII the monk is in the Park of Sakara, the King's
brother-in-law, washing his clothes in a pool. Sakara
accompanied by Vita turns up and threatens to kill the
monk. The following conversation between them is
revealing:
"Sakara: Stay, you wicked monk.
Monk: Ah! Hereâs the kingâs brother-in-law! Because some
monk has offended him, he now beats up any monk he
happens to met.
Sakara: Stay, I will now break your head as one breaks
a radish in a tavern. (Beats him).
Vita: Friend, it is not proper to beat a monk who has
put on the saffron-robes, being disgusted with the world.
Monk: (Welcomes) Be pleased, lay brother.
Sakara: Friend, see. He is abusing me.
Vita: What does he say?
Sakara: He calls me lay brother (upasaka). Am I a barber?
Vita: Oh! He is really praising you as a devotee of the
Buddha.
Sakara: Why has he come here?
Monk: To wash these clothes.
Sakara: Ah! you wicked monk. Even I myself do not bathe
in this pool; I shall kill you with one stroke."
After a lot of beating, the monk is allowed to go. Here
is a Buddhist monk in the midst of the Hindu crowd. He is
shunned and avoided. The feeling of disgust against him
is so great that the people even shun the road the
monk is travelling. The feeling of repulsion is so intense
that the entry of the Buddhist was enough to cause the
exit of the Hindus. The Buddhist monk is on a par with
the Brahmin. A Brahmin is immune from death penalty.
He is even free from corporal punishment. But the Buddhist
monk is beaten and assaulted without remorse, without
compunction as though there was nothing wrong in it.
If we accept that the Broken Men were the followers of
Buddhism and did not care to return to Brahmanism
when it became triumphant over Buddhism as easily
as others did, we have an explanation for both the
questions. It explains why the Untouchables regard
the Brahmins as inauspicious, do not employ them as
their priest and do not even allow them to enter into
their quarters. It also explains why the Broken Men
came to be regarded as Untouchables. The Broken Men
hated the Brahmins because the Brahmins were
the enemies of Buddhism and the Brahmins imposed
untouchability upon the Broken Men because they
would not leave Buddhism. On this reasoning it is
possible to conclude that one of the roots of
untouchability lies in the hatred and contempt which
the Brahmins created against those who were
Buddhist.
Can the hatred between Buddhism and Brahmanism
be taken to be the sole cause why Broken Men became
Untouchables? Obviously, it cannot be. The hatred
and contempt preached by the Brahmins was directed
against Buddhists in general and not against the Broken
Men in particular. Since untouchability stuck to Broken
Men only, it is obvious that there was some additional
circumstance which has played its part in fastening
untouchability upon the Broken Men. What could that
circumstance have been? We must next direct our
effort in ascertaining it.
---------------------------------------------------
(Excerpted from Chapter 9 of B.R. Ambedkarâs 1948 work
The Untouchables: Who Were They and Why They Became
Untouchables? as reprinted in Volume 7 of Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, published by Government
of Maharashtra 1990. Copyright: Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Maharashtra.)
More Articles By Ambedkar
Broken Men, The Pre-Untouchables
Untouchability, The Dead Cow And The Brahmin
By B. R. Ambedkar
THE Census Reports for India published by the Census
Commissioner at the interval of every ten years from
1870 onwards contain a wealth of information nowhere
else to be found regarding the social and religious life
of the people of India. Before the Census of 1910 the
Census Commissioner had a column called âPopulation
by Religionâ. Under this heading the population was
shown (1) Muslims, (2) Hindus, (3) Christians, etc.
The Census Report for the year 1910 marked a new
departure from the prevailing practice. For the first
time it divided the Hindus under three separate categories,
(i) Hindus, (ii) Animists and Tribal, and (iii) the
Depressed Classes or Untouchables. This new
classification has been continued ever since.
This departure from the practice of the previous Census
Commissioners raises three questions. First is what
led the Commissioner for the Census of 1910 to introduce
this new classification. The second is what was the
criteria adopted as a basis for this classification.
The third is what are the reasons for the growth of
certain practices which justify the division of Hindus
into three separate categories mentioned above.
The answer to the first question will be found in the
address presented in 1909 by the Muslim Community
under leadership of H.H. The Aga Khan to the then Viceroy,
Lord Minto, in which they asked for a separate and
adequate representation for the Muslim community in
the legislature, executive and the public services.
In the address there occurs the following passage: "The
Mohamedans of India number, according to the census
taken in the year 1901 over sixty-two millions or
between one-fifth and one-fourth of the total population
of His Majestyâs Indian dominions, and if a reduction be
made for the uncivilised portions of the community
enumerated under the heads of animist and other
minor religions, as well as for those classes who are
ordinarily classified as Hindus but properly speaking
are not Hindus at all, the proportion of Mohamedans
to the Hindu Majority becomes much larger. We
therefore desire to submit that under any system
of representation extended or limited a community
in itself more numerous than the entire population
of any first class European power except Russia
may justly lay claim to adequate recognition as an
important factor in the State.
"We venture, indeed, with Your Excellencyâs permission
to go a step further, and urge that the position
accorded to the Mohamedan community in any kind
of representation direct or indirect, and in all other
ways effecting their status and influence should be
commensurate, not merely with their numerical
strength but also with their political importance and
the value of the contribution which they make to the
defence of the empire, and we also hope that Your
Excellency will in this connection be pleased to give
due consideration to the position which they occupied
in India a little more than hundred years ago and of
which the traditions have naturally not faded from
their minds."
The portion italicised by me has a special significance.
It was introduced in the address to suggest that in
comprising the numerical strength of the Muslims
with that of the Hindus the population of the animists,
tribals and the Untouchables should be excluded. The
reason for this new classification of 'Hindus' adopted by
the Census Commissioner in 1910 lies in this demand
of the Muslim community for separate representation on
augmented scale. At any rate this is how the Hindus
understood this demand.
Interesting as it is, the first question as to why the
Census Commissioner made this departure in the
system of classification is of less importance than the
second question. What is important is to know the
basis adopted by the Census Commissioner for
separating the different classes of Hindus into
(1) those who were hundred per cent Hindus and
(2) those who were not.
The basis adopted by the Census Commissioner for
separation is to be found in the circular issued by
the Census Commissioner in which he laid down
certain tests for the purpose distinguishing these two
classes. Among those who were not hundred percent
Hindus were included castes and tribes which:
(1) Deny the supremacy of the Brahmins.
(2) Do not receive the Mantra from a Brahmin or other
recognized Hindu Guru.
(3) Deny the authority of the Vedas.
(4) Do not worship the Hindu gods.
(5) Are not served by good Brahmins as family priests.
(6) Have no Brahmin priests at all.
(7) Are denied access to the interior of the Hindu temples.
(8) Cause pollution (a) by touch, or
(B) within a certain distance.
(9) Bury their dead.
(10) Eat beef and do no reverence for the cow.
Out of these ten tests some divide the Hindus from the
Animists and the Tribal. The rest divide the Hindus from
the Untouchables. Those that divide the Untouchables
from the Hindus are (2), (5), (6), (7), and (10). It is
with them that we are chiefly concerned.
For the sake of clarity it is better to divide these tests
into parts and consider them separately. This Chapter
will be devoted only to the consideration of (2), (5),
and (6).
The replies received by the Census Commissioner to
questions embodied in tests (2), (5) and (6) reveal
(a) that the Untouchables do not receive the Mantra
from a Brahmin; (B) that the Untouchables are not
served by Brahmin priests at all; and © that
Untouchables have their own priests reared from
themselves. On these facts the Census Commissioners
of all Provinces are unanimous.
Of the three questions the third is the most important.
Unfortunately the Census Commissioner did not
realise this. For in making his inquiries he failed to
go to the root of the matter to find out: Why were
the Untouchables not receiving the Mantra from the
Brahmin? Why Brahmins did not serve the Untouchables
as their family priests? Why do the Untouchables
prefer to have their own priests? It is the âwhyâ of
these facts which is more important than the existence
of these facts. It is the âwhyâ of these facts which
must be investigated. For the clue to the origin of
Untouchability lies hidden behind it.
Before entering upon this investigation, it must be
pointed out that the inquiries by the Census
Commissioner were in a sense one-sided. They showed
that the Brahmins shunned the Untouchables. They
did not bring to light the fact that the Untouchables
also shunned the Brahmins. Nonetheless, it is a fact.
People are so much accustomed to thinking that the
Brahmin is the superior of the Untouchables and the
Untouchable accepts himself as his inferior; that this
statement that the Untouchables look upon the
Brahmin as an impure person is sure to come to them
as a matter of great surprise. The fact has however
been noted by many writers who have observed and
examined the social customs of the Untouchables.
To remove any doubt on the point, attention is
drawn to the following extracts from their writings.
The fact was noticed by Abbe Dubois who says: "Even
to this day a Pariah is not allowed to pass a Brahmin
Street in a village, though nobody can prevent, or
prevents, his approaching or passing by a Brahmin's
house in towns. The Pariahs, on their part will under no
circumstances, allow a Brahmin to pass through their
paracherries (collection of Pariah huts) as they firmly
believe it will lead to their ruin."
Mr. Hemingsway, the Editor of the Gazetteer of the Tanjore
District says: "These casts (Parayan and Pallan or
Chakkiliyan castes of Tanjore District) strongly object
to the entrance of a Brahmin into their quarters believing
that harm will result to them therefrom."
Speaking of the Holeyas of the Hasan District of Mysore,
Captain J.S.F. Mackenzie says: "Every village has its
Holigiri as the quarters inhabited by the Holiars,
formerly agrestic serfs, is called outside the village
boundary hedge. This, I thought was because they
were considered as impure race, whose touch carries
defilement with it."
Such is the reason generally given by the Brahmins who
refuse to receive anything directly from the hands of a
Holiar, and yet the Brahmins consider great luck will wait
upon them if they can manage to pass through the Holigiri
without being molested. To this Holiars have a strong
objection, and, should a Brahmin attempt to enter their
quarters, they turn out in a body and slipper him,
in former times, it is said, to death. Members
of the other castes may come as far as the door,
but they must not enter the house, for that
would bring the Holiar bad luck. If, by chance,
a person happens to get in, the owner
takes care to tear the intruder's cloth, tie up some
salt in one corner of it, and turn him out. This is
supposed to neutralise all the good luck which might
have accrued to the trespasser, and avert any evil
which ought to have befallen the owner of the house.
What is the explanation of this strange phenomenon?
The explanation must of course fit in with the situation as
it stood at the start, i.e., when the Untouchables were not
Untouchables but were only Broken Men. We must ask
why the Brahmins refused to officiate at the religious
ceremonies of the Broken Men? Is it the case that the
Brahmins refused to officiate? Or is it that
the Broken Men refused to invite them? Why
did the Brahmin regard Broken Men as impure?
Why did the Broken Men regard the Brahmins as impure?
What is the basis of this antipathy?
This antipathy can be explained on one hypothesis. It is
that the Broken Men were Buddhists. As such they did not
revere the Brahmins, did not employ them as their
priests and regarded them as impure. The Brahmin on
the other hand disliked the Broken Men because they
were Buddhists and preached against them contempt
and hatred with the result that the Broken Men came to
be regarded as Untouchables.
We have no direct evidence that the Broken Men were
Buddhists. No evidence is as a matter of fact necessary
when the majority of Hindus were Buddhists. We may
take it that they were.
That there existed hatred and abhorrence against the
Buddhists in the mind of the Hindus and that this
feeling was created by the Brahmins is not without
support.
Nilkant in his Prayaschit Mayukha a verse from Manu
which says: "If a person touches a Buddhist or a flower
of Pachupat, Lokayata, Nastika and Mahapataki, he
shall purify himself by a bath."
The same doctrine is preached by Apararka in his Smriti.
Vradha Harit goes further and declares entry into the
Buddhist Temple as sin requiring a purificatory bath for
removing the impurity.
How widespread had become this spirit of hatred and
contempt against the followers of Buddha can be observed
from the scenes depicted in Sanskrit dramas. The most
striking illustration of this attitude towards the Buddhists
is to be found in the Mricchakatika. In Act VII of that
Drama the hero Charudatta and his friend Maitreya are
shown waiting for Vasantasena in the park outside the city.
She fails to turn up and Charudatta decides to leave the
park. As they are leaving, they see the Buddhist monk
by name Samvahaka. On seeing him, Charudatta
says: "Friend Maitreya, I am anxious to meet Vasantsena ...
..Come, let us go. (After walking a little) Ah ! here's
an inauspicious sight, a Buddhist monkcoming towards us.
(After a little reflection) well, let him come this
way, we shall follow this other path. (Exit.)"
In Act VIII the monk is in the Park of Sakara, the King's
brother-in-law, washing his clothes in a pool. Sakara
accompanied by Vita turns up and threatens to kill the
monk. The following conversation between them is
revealing:
"Sakara: Stay, you wicked monk.
Monk: Ah! Hereâs the kingâs brother-in-law! Because some
monk has offended him, he now beats up any monk he
happens to met.
Sakara: Stay, I will now break your head as one breaks
a radish in a tavern. (Beats him).
Vita: Friend, it is not proper to beat a monk who has
put on the saffron-robes, being disgusted with the world.
Monk: (Welcomes) Be pleased, lay brother.
Sakara: Friend, see. He is abusing me.
Vita: What does he say?
Sakara: He calls me lay brother (upasaka). Am I a barber?
Vita: Oh! He is really praising you as a devotee of the
Buddha.
Sakara: Why has he come here?
Monk: To wash these clothes.
Sakara: Ah! you wicked monk. Even I myself do not bathe
in this pool; I shall kill you with one stroke."
After a lot of beating, the monk is allowed to go. Here
is a Buddhist monk in the midst of the Hindu crowd. He is
shunned and avoided. The feeling of disgust against him
is so great that the people even shun the road the
monk is travelling. The feeling of repulsion is so intense
that the entry of the Buddhist was enough to cause the
exit of the Hindus. The Buddhist monk is on a par with
the Brahmin. A Brahmin is immune from death penalty.
He is even free from corporal punishment. But the Buddhist
monk is beaten and assaulted without remorse, without
compunction as though there was nothing wrong in it.
If we accept that the Broken Men were the followers of
Buddhism and did not care to return to Brahmanism
when it became triumphant over Buddhism as easily
as others did, we have an explanation for both the
questions. It explains why the Untouchables regard
the Brahmins as inauspicious, do not employ them as
their priest and do not even allow them to enter into
their quarters. It also explains why the Broken Men
came to be regarded as Untouchables. The Broken Men
hated the Brahmins because the Brahmins were
the enemies of Buddhism and the Brahmins imposed
untouchability upon the Broken Men because they
would not leave Buddhism. On this reasoning it is
possible to conclude that one of the roots of
untouchability lies in the hatred and contempt which
the Brahmins created against those who were
Buddhist.
Can the hatred between Buddhism and Brahmanism
be taken to be the sole cause why Broken Men became
Untouchables? Obviously, it cannot be. The hatred
and contempt preached by the Brahmins was directed
against Buddhists in general and not against the Broken
Men in particular. Since untouchability stuck to Broken
Men only, it is obvious that there was some additional
circumstance which has played its part in fastening
untouchability upon the Broken Men. What could that
circumstance have been? We must next direct our
effort in ascertaining it.
---------------------------------------------------
(Excerpted from Chapter 9 of B.R. Ambedkarâs 1948 work
The Untouchables: Who Were They and Why They Became
Untouchables? as reprinted in Volume 7 of Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, published by Government
of Maharashtra 1990. Copyright: Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Maharashtra.)
More Articles By Ambedkar
Broken Men, The Pre-Untouchables
Untouchability, The Dead Cow And The Brahmin