04 Untouchability

CHAPTER IV

UNTOUCHABILITY

Those who have written on the Indian caste system have always been struck by the fact of the existence of certain castes that are treated as untouchables. But it should not be supposed that this is something confined only to India. Even nations that have no caste system at all have often carried out complete segregation of certain people dwelling in their midst, which in essentials is the same as the system of untouchability in India. The Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences vol. XI. p. 339 says that in the southern States of {{U. S. A.|U.S.A.}} discrimination against Negroes took the form of residential segregation, separation of the races in public conveyances and places of amusement, exclusion of Negroes from public institutions and educational discrimination. Disenfranchisement and social discrimination had their {{economio|economic}} counterpart in all branches of industry except agriculture and domestic and personal service, occupations to which Negroes had been habituated under the slave regime.’ It is also within living memory that Mahatma Gandhi had to lead a movement of satyāgraha in South Africa against the discriminating treatment of Indians and even now in Natal and other parts of British Africa there is legislation restricting Indians in the matter of residence and {{purchagos|purchases}} of land. [[166]]

In the early Vedic literature several of the names of castes that are spoken of in the {{emptis es|smṛtis as}} antyajas occur. We have {{carmamna|carmamṇa}} (a tanner of hides?) in the {{Rgveda|Ṛgveda}} (VIII. 5. 38), the {{Capdala|Cāṇḍāla}} and Paulkasa occur in the {{Vaj. S.|Vāj. S.}}, the Vapā or Vapta (barber) even in the {{Rg.|Ṛg.}}, the {{Vidalakara or Bidalakāra|Vidalakāra or Bidalakāra}} (corresponding to the {{buruda|buruḍa}} of the {{smśtis|smṛtis}}) occurs in the {{Vaj. 8.|Vāj. S.}} and the Tai. Br., {{Vāsaḥpalpūli|Vāsaḥpulpūlī}} (washerwoman) corresponding to the Rajaka of the {{smrtis|smṛtis}} in the {{Vaj. S.|Vāj. S.}} But there is no {{indioation|indication}} in these passages whether these, even if they formed castes, were at all untouchables. The utmost that can be said is that as the Paulkasa is assigned to {{bibhatsā|bībhatsā}} (in {{Vaj. S.|Vāj. S.}} 30. 17) and {{Candala|Cāṇḍāla}} to Vāyu (in the Puruṣamedha), the Paulkasa lived in such a way as to cause disgust and the {{Candala|Cāṇḍāla}} lived in the wind (i. e. probably in the open or in a cemetery). The only passage of Vedic literature on which reliance can be placed for some definite statement about {{cāndalas|cāṇḍālas}} is in the {{Chandogya Up.|Chāndogya Up.}}¹ V. 10. 7. where while describing the fate of those souls that went to the world of the moon for enjoying the rewards of some of their actions it is stated ’those who did praiseworthy actions here, quickly acquire birth in a good condition, viz. in the condition of a brāhmaṇa, a kṣatriya or vaiśya, while those whose actions were low (reprehensible) quickly acquire birth in a low condition i. e. as a dog, or a boar or a {{capdala|cāṇḍāla}}.’ This occurs in Pañcāgnividyā, the purpose of which is to teach vairāgya and disgust with the transmigratory world. This passage does not enjoin anything, it is a bare statement by way of explanation or elucidation. All that can be legitimately {{ipferred|inferred}} from this is that the first three varṇas were commended and that {{caṇdalas|caṇḍālas}} were looked upon as the lowest in the social scale. It is to be noticed that the śūdra {{vārng|varṇa}} does not occur in this passage at all. So probably even in the times of the Chāndogya the {{candāla|cāṇḍāla}} was looked upon as a śūdra, though lowest among the several śūdra subcastes. The {{candala|cāṇḍāla}} is equated with the dog and the boar in this passage, but this leads hardly anywhere. It is no doubt stated in the {{Sat. Br.|Śat. Br.}} XII. 4. 1. 4² that ’three beasts are unclean in relation to a sacrifice viz. the vicious (filthy) boar, the ram and the dog.’ Here it is clear that every boar is not unclean, but probably only that variety that subsists on the village offal. On the other hand the flesh of boars was said to cause great delight to the {{Pitps|Pitṛs}} when offered in śrāddha (vide {{Menu|Manu}} III. 270 and {{Yāj.|Yāj.}} I. 259). Therefore this Upaniṣad passage does not say anything on the point whether the {{Candala|Cāṇḍāla}} was in its day untouchable. This passage may be compared with another in which the śūdra is said to be a walking [[167]] cemetery. If the śūdra was not untouchable in the Vedic literature, and if he was allowed to be a cook for brāhmaṇas and to wash the feet of brāhmaṇa guests in spite of that passage (as stated in the Dharmasūtras quoted above pp. 161-162), there is no reason to suppose that the Chāndogya passage indicates that the {{candāla|cāṇḍāla}} was untouchable in the remote ages.

Another passage is relied upon by orthodox writers to support the theory that untouchability of {{candālas|cāṇḍālas}} is declared in Vedic writings. In the Bṛ. Up. I. 3 the story is narrated that gods and asuras had a strife and the gods thought that they might rise superior to the asuras by the {{Udgitha|Udgītha}}. In this {{vidya|vidyā}} occurs the passage³ ’this {{devata|devatā}} (Prāṇa) throwing aside the sin that was death to these {{devatās|devatās}} (vāk etc.) sent it to the ends of these quarters and he put down the sin of these devatās there; therefore one should not go to people (outside the Āryan pale) nor to the ends (of the quarters) thinking ‘otherwise I may fall in with pāpman i. e. death’.’ In the first place there are no peoples expressly named here. {{Samkara|Śaṅkara}} explains that by ’end of the quarters’ are meant regions where people opposed to Vedic culture dwell. This description can only apply to people like the {{mleochas|mlecchas}} and not to {{cāṇdalas|cāṇḍālas}} who are not opposed to Vedic knowledge (but who have no adhikāra to learn it). Besides {{cindalas|cāṇḍālas}} might stay outside the village, but they do not stay at the end of the quarters⁴ (or at the end of the ārya territory). Hence this passage does not help in establishing the theory of untouchability for Vedic times.

Next comes the consideration of the evidence derived from the sūtras and smṛtis. But certain preliminary observations must be made to {{olarify|clarify}} the position. The theory of the early {{emptis|smṛtis}} was that there were only four {{yarpas|varṇas}} and there was no fifth varṇa. Vide Manu X. 4 and {{Apusāganaparva|Anuśāsanaparva}} 47. 18.⁵ When in modern times the so-called untouchables are referred [[168]] to as the pañcamas,⁶ that is something against the smṛti tradition. {{Pān.|Pāṇ.}} II. 4. 10 and Patañjali⁷ say that a {{Samahara dvandva|samāhāra-dvandva}} compound can be formed from several subdivisions of śūdras that are not {{nirarasita|niravasita}} e. g. we can have the compound ‘{{takṣayaskaram|takṣāyaskāram}}’ meaning carpenters and blacksmiths, but not ‘{{candala-mṛtapam|cāṇḍāla-mṛtapam}}’, because {{capdalas|cāṇḍālas}} and {{mrtapas|mṛtapas}} are {{niravasita sūdras|niravasita-śūdras}} (and so the compound will be ‘{{caṇdālamstapaḥ|caṇḍālamṛtapāḥ}}’). Therefore it follows that Pāṇ. and Patañjali included {{caṇdalas|cāṇḍālas}} and {{mṛtapas|mṛtapas}} among śūdras. When Aṅgiras (note 171 above) includes {{kṣats|kṣattṛ}}, sūta, vaidehika, māgadha and {{dyogava|āyogava}} (that are pratiloma castes) among antyāvasāyins along with cāṇḍāla and śvapaca, he makes it clear that he regarded cāṇḍālas as included among śūdras, for Manu X. 41 declares that all pratiloma castes are similar to śūdras in their dharma and because the Śāntiparva 297. 28⁸ expressly says that the vaidehika is called śūdra by learned dvijas. Gradually however, a distinction was made between śūdras and castes like {{capdalas|caṇḍālas}}. Fresh castes were then added to the list of untouchables by custom and usage and the spirit of exclusiveness, though there is no warrant of the śāstras for such a procedure.

Untouchability did not and does not arise by birth alone. It arises in various ways. In the first place, persons become outcasted and untouchable by being guilty of certain acts that amount to grave sins. For example, Manu IX. 235-239 prescribes that those who are guilty of brāhmaṇa-murder, theft of brāhmaṇa’s gold or drinkers of spirituous liquors should be excommunicated, no one should dine with them or teach them, or officiate as priests for them, nor should marriage relationship be entered into with them and they should wander over the world excluded from all Vedic dharmas. But if they perform the proper {{priyasoitta|prāyaścitta}} they are restored to caste and become touchable. Secondly, persons were treated as untouchables simply through religious hatred and abhorrence {{beobuse|because}} they belonged to a different sect or religion. For example, Aparārka (p. 923) and Sm. C.⁹ (I. p. 118) quote verses from the {{Ṣat trimsan-mata|Ṣaṭtriṃśan-mata}} and Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa that ‘on touching Bauddhas, Pāśupatas, {{Jaingn|Jainas}}, Lokāyatikas, Kāpilas (Sāṃkhyas) and brāhmaṇas guilty of doing actions inconsistent with their caste one should enter water with the clothes on and also on touching Śaivas and atheists’. It is worthy of note that Aparārka¹⁰ p. 923 quotes a verse of {{Vṛddha-Yajñavalkys|Vṛddha-Yājñavalkya}} that on touching cāṇḍālas, pukkasas, mlecchas, Bhillas and Pārasīkas and persons guilty of mahāpātakas one should bathe with the clothes on. Thirdly, certain persons, though not untouchable ordinarily, became so, if they followed certain occupations, e.g. if a person touches a brāhmaṇa who is devalaka (i. e. has been doing worship to an image for money for three years) or who is a priest for the whole village, or a person who sells a soma plant, then he has to bathe with his clothes on.¹¹ Fourthly, persons become untouchable when in certain conditions e.g. a person if he touches even his wife in her monthly period or during the first ten days after delivery or if he touches a person during the period of mourning on the death of some relative or a person who has carried a corpse to the cemetery and has not yet bathed, he then has to take a bath with his clothes on (vide Manu V. 85). Fifthly, certain races such as mlecchas and persons from certain countries and the countries themselves were regarded as impure (vide notes 40, 42, 49). Further the smṛtis say that persons following certain filthy, low and disapproved avocations were untouchable e.g. Saṃvarta¹² quoted by Aparārka p. 1196 says ‘on touching a fisherman, a deer-hunter, a hunter, a butcher, a bird-catcher, and a washerman one must first bathe and then take one’s meal’. [[169]]

It is to be remarked that such texts do not expressly make a man of those castes untouchable even if he does not pursue the occupation stated, but they have rather the occupation in view. Such occupations were thought impure, as it was believed that if one was to secure the final goal of liberation, one must cultivate purity of mind as well as body, and as great importance came to be attached to cleanliness and the ceremonial purity of the body for spiritual purposes; and emphasis was laid upon not coming in contact with persons carrying on filthy or impure pursuits, but also with animals and even inanimate objects. These restrictions were not inspired by any hardness of heart or any racial or caste pride as is often said, but they were due to psychological or religious views and the requirements of hygiene. Āp. Dh. S. I. 5. 15. 16 says ‘a person touched by a dog should take a bath with his clothes on’. Vide also Vas. Dh. S. 23. 33, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 22. 69. Vṛddha-Hārīta (chap. 11. 99-102) enumerates certain vegetables and herbs (such as leek) and other articles on touching which one was to bathe. Āp. Dh. S. (II. 4. 9. 5) requires every house-holder to give food after Vaiśvadeva to all including cāṇḍālas, dogs and crows. And this practice is followed even now by those who perform Vaiśvadeva. The ancient Hindus had a horror of uncleanliness and they desired to segregate those who followed unclean professions like those of sweepers, workers in hide, tanners, guardians of cemeteries &c. This segregation cannot be said to have been quite unjustifiable. Besides those who are not familiar with ancient or even modern Hindu notions must be warned against being carried away by the horror naturally felt at first sight when certain classes are treated as untouchable. The underlying notions of untouchability are religious and ceremonial purity and impurity. A man’s nearest and dearest women relatives such as his own mother and wife or daughter are untouchable to him during their monthly periods. To him the most affectionate friend is untouchable for several days when the latter is in mourning due to death in the latter’s family. A person cannot touch his own son (whose thread ceremony has been performed) at the time of taking meals. In this latter case there is no idea of impurity and in most of these cases there is no idea of superiority or inferiority. As many professions and crafts were in ancient times hereditary, gradually the idea arose [[171]] that a man who belonged to a caste pursuing certain filthy or abhorred avocations or crafts was by birth untouchable. Medieval and modern usage had no doubt reached the stage that if a man belonged by birth to a caste deemed by custom to be untouchable he remained an untouchable whatever profession or craft he may pursue or even if he pursued no profession. But ancient and medieval writers thought otherwise and there was also great divergence of view as to who were untouchables and to what extent. The only caste that is said by the most ancient Dharmasūtras to be untouchable by birth is that of cāṇḍālas and the word cāṇḍāla has a technical meaning in these works as stated above (p. 81) under {{cīṇdāla|cāṇḍāla}}. Gaut. (IV. 15 and 23) says that the {{oān. dāla|cāṇḍāla}} is the offspring of a śūdra from a brāhmaṇa woman and that he is the most reprehensible among the pratilomas. Āp. Dh. S. II. 1. 2. 8-9¹³ states that on touching a cāṇḍāla one should plunge into water, on talking to him one should converse with a brāhmaṇa (for purification), on seeing him one should look at the luminaries (either the Sun or moon or stars). We have seen above that there were three kinds of cāṇḍālas and they were all so by virtue of the circumstances of their birth. Manu (X. 36, 51) makes only the Āndhra, meda, cāṇḍāla and śvapaca stay outside the village and makes the antyāvasāyin (X. 39) stay in a cemetery. That leads to the inference that other men even of the lowest castes could stay in the village itself. Hārīta¹⁴ quoted by Aparārka (p. 279) states “if a dvijāti’s limb other than the head is touched by a dyer, a shoemaker, a hunter, a fisherman, a washerman, a butcher, a dancer (naṭa), a man of {{sotor|sūta}} caste, oilman, vintner, hangman, village cock or dog, he becomes pure by washing that particular limb and by sipping water (i. e. he need not bathe)”. Here most of the seven antyajas are included and it is expressly said that their touch is not so impure as to require a bath. Aṅgiras (verse 17) states that a dvija when he comes in contact with a washerman, a shoemaker, a dancer (naṭa), a fisherman or a worker in bamboo becomes pure by merely ācamana (by [[172]] sipping water). The Nityācārapaddhati (p. 130) quotes a verse¹⁵ to the effect that even on coming in contact with cāṇḍālas and pukkasas one need not bathe, if the latter stand near a temple of Viṣṇu and have come for the worship of Viṣṇu. Alberuni in his work on India (tr. by Sachau vol. I. chap. IX) refers to two classes of antyajas, the first of which had eight guilds (seven of which were practically the same as the seven in note 170 above, the eighth being the weaver) and a second group of four viz. Hāḍi, Ḍoma, Caṇḍāla and Bhadatau. As to the first group he says that they intermarried except the fuller, shoemaker and weaver. Alberuni seems to have been misinformed as to this and what caste he means by Bhadatau is not clear. Medhātithi¹⁶ in his commentary on Manu X. 13 is positive that the only pratiloma who is untouchable is the cāṇḍāla and no bath is necessary on coming in contact with the other pratilomas (viz. sūta, māgadha, āyogava, vaidehika and kṣattṛ). Kullūka also says the same. Therefore it follows that in spite of the smṛti texts (notes 170, 171, 173) including the pratilomas among antyajas along with the cāṇḍālas, such authoritative and comparatively early commentators as Medhātithi (about 900 A.D.) were firmly of opinion that they were not untouchable. Manu¹⁷ V. 85 and Aṅgiras 152 prescribe a bath for coming in bodily contact with a divākīrti (a cāṇḍāla), udakyā (a woman in her monthly period), patita (one outcasted for sin &c.), sūtikā (a woman after delivery), a corpse, one who has touched a corpse. It follows therefore that the only antyaja who was aspṛśya according to Manu was the cāṇḍāla. But gradually the spirit of exclusiveness and ideas of ritual purity were carried to extremes and more and more castes became untouchable. Some very orthodox writers of smṛtis went so far as to hold that on touching even a śūdra a dvijāti had to bathe.¹⁸

Among the earliest occurrences of the word aspṛśya (as meaning untouchables in general) is that in Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 104; Kātyāyana also uses the word in that sense.¹⁹ It will have been seen from the quotations above that cāṇḍālas, mlecchas and Pārasīkas are placed on the same level as regards being aspṛśya. Atri²⁰ (267-269) says ‘if a dvija comes in contact with a cāṇḍāla, patita, mleccha, a vessel containing intoxicating drink, a woman in her monthly course, he should not take his meals (without first bathing) and if he comes in contact with these while taking his meal, he should stop, throw away the food and bathe’. Vide Viṣṇu Dh. S. 22. 76 about talking with mlecchas and cāṇḍālas. But so far as mlecchas are concerned these restrictions of untouchability have been given up long ago at least in public. Similarly the washerman, the worker in bamboo, the fisherman, the naṭa, among the seven well-known antyajas, are no longer untouchable in several provinces (though not in all) and were not so even in the times of Medhātithi and Kullūka. [[173]]

Once the spirit of exclusiveness and exaggerated notions of ceremonial purity got the upper hand they were carried to extremes. It does not appear from the ancient smṛtis that the shadow of even the cāṇḍāla was deemed to be polluting. Manu V. 133 (which is nearly the same as Viṣṇu Dh. S. 23. 52) declares ‘flies, spray from a reservoir, the shadow (of a man), the cow, the horse, the sun’s rays, dust, the earth, the wind and fire should be regarded as pure.’ Yāj. I. 198 is a similar verse (Mārk. Purāṇa 35. 21 is almost the same). Manu IV. 130 prescribes that one should not knowingly cross the shadow of the image of a deity, of one’s guru, of the king, of a snātaka, of one’s teacher, of a brown cow or of a man who has been initiated for a Vedic sacrifice. Here no reference is made to the shadow of a cāṇḍāla. Medhātithi on Manu V. 133 expressly says that ‘shadow means ‘shadow of a cāṇḍāla and the like’. Kullūka, however, adds on Manu IV. 130 that on account of the word ‘ca’ in that verse the shadow of cāṇḍālas was included in the injunction of that verse. Therefore it is legitimate to infer that Manu and Yāj. did not prescribe that even the shadow of [[174]] a cāṇḍāla was impure and caused pollution. Not only so, Aparārka²¹ quotes a verse ’the shadow of a cāṇḍāla or patita, if it falls on a man, is not impure’. But Aparārka himself²² adds on this verse the comment that this favourable rule about the shadow of a cāṇḍāla or patita is applicable only if he is at a greater distance from a man than the length of a cow’s tail. Bāṇa in his Kādambarī (para 8) describes how the cāṇḍāla girl entered the royal assembly-hall though she was untouchable and stood at some distance from the king. It appears that there was no difficulty about her entering the hall of audience or polluting the assembly by her shadow. Gradually some smṛtis prescribed a bath for a brāhmaṇa coming under the shadow of a cāṇḍāla. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 30 quotes a verse of Vyāghrapāda that if a cāṇḍāla or patita comes nearer to a person than the length of a cow’s tail, then the latter must take a bath and another verse of Bṛhaspati to the effect ‘a patita, a woman in her monthly period, a woman freshly delivered and a cāṇḍāla should be kept respectively at a distance of one yuga, two, three and four’. As yuga is four cubits, this means that a cāṇḍāla cannot approach within 16 cubits of a caste Hindu.²³

As regards public roads {{Vāj.|Yāj.}} I. 194 says that they become pure by the rays of the sun and the moon and by the wind even when they are trodden by cāṇḍālas. In Yāj. I. 197 it is stated that the mud and water on public roads and on houses built of baked bricks, though touched by cāṇḍālas, dogs and crows, are rendered pure by the mere blowing of the wind over them.²⁴

These rules show that the smṛtis followed a reasonable rule about the public roads and do not countenance the restrictions maintained in some parts of South India, particularly in Malabar, about the use of public roads by the untouchables viz. that an untouchable must not approach within a certain distance of a high caste Hindu, must leave the road to allow him passage or must shout to give warning of his presence in order to avoid pollution to the caste Hindu. Vide Wilson’s ‘Indian Castes’ vol. II p. 74 (footnote) for details of the distance. In South India also there are various grades of distances within which members of the several lowest castes cannot approach high caste Hindus. [[175]]

Certain provisions were made in the smṛtis by way of exceptions to the general rules about the untouchability of certain castes. Atri²⁵ (verse 249) says ’there is no taint of untouchability when a person is touched by an untouchable in a temple, religious processions and marriages, in sacrifices, and in all festivals’. Śātātapa quoted in the Sm. C. declares that there is no doṣa (lapse) in touching (untouchables) in a village (i. e. on the public road), or in a religious procession or in an affray and the like, and also when the whole village is involved in a calamity.²⁶ Bṛhaspati also remarks that there is no fault (and so no prāyaścitta) if one comes in contact (with untouchables) at a sacred place, in marriage processions and religious processions, in battle, when the country is invaded, or when the town or village is on fire. The Sm. C. adds that these verses were variously interpreted; some saying that they apply only where one does not know that the man who has touched him is an untouchable, while others hold that they apply to the touch of impure persons who are not ucchiṣṭa (i. e. risen from meals without washing their hands &c.). The Smṛtyarthasāra²⁷ [[176]] (p. 79) summarises the places where no blame is incurred on the ground of mixing with untouchables viz. in battle, on public roads leading to a market, in religious processions, in temples, in festivals, in sacrifices, at sacred places, in calamities or invasions of the country or village, on the banks of large sheets of water, in the presence of great persons, when there is a sudden fire or other great calamity. It is somewhat remarkable that the Smṛtyarthasāra speaks of untouchables entering temples. The Par. M. (vol. II part I p. 115) says that there is no doṣa when cāṇḍālas take water from a large tank (used by higher castes), but as regards small reservoirs the same rules apply to them that apply to the purification of wells touched by untouchables.²⁸ Vide Vṛddha-Hārīta IX. 405-406 for the purification of a well.

The Viṣṇu Dh. S. (V. 104)²⁹ prescribed that if an untouchable deliberately touched a man of the three higher castes he should be punished with beating, while Yāj. II. 234 prescribes that if a cāṇḍāla (deliberately) touches any one of the higher castes the cāṇḍāla should be fined one hundred paṇas.

Elaborate rules are laid down about the penance for drinking from the wells or vessels of untouchables, for partaking of their food (either cooked or uncooked), for staying with them and for having sexual intercourse with untouchable women. These matters will be briefly dealt with under prāyaścitta.

The so-called untouchables were not entirely excluded from worship. When it is said (as in Yāj. I. 93 or Gaut. IV. 20)³⁰ that the cāṇḍāla is outside all dharma, the meaning is that he is outside such Vedic rites as upanayana, not that he cannot worship the Hindu deities nor that he is not bound by the moral code. He could worship images of the avatāras of Viṣṇu (vide note 364 above). The Nirṇayasindhu quotes a passage of the Devīpurāṇa that expressly authorizes antyajas to establish a temple of Bhairava. The Bhāgavatapurāṇa³¹ X. 70. 43 says that even the [[177]] antyāvasāyins are purified by listening to the praises or names of Hari, by repeating the names of Hari and by contemplation on Him, much more therefore will those (be purified) who can see or touch your images’. This however shows that to the author of the Bhāgavata it never occurred that an untouchable could see or touch the image of Viṣṇu enshrined in a temple of caste Hindus. In South India among the famous Vaiṣṇava saints called Āḻvārs, Tiruppāṇa Āḻvār was a member of the depressed classes and Nammāḻvār was a Vellāḷa. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 262 remarks that the pratiloma castes (which include cāṇḍāla) have the right to perform vratas.³²

In modern times the eradication of the system of untouchability is engaging the minds of great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi whose fast for 21 days for effecting a change of heart among caste Hindus is famous throughout the world. The principal matters of concern to the so-called untouchables or depressed classes are facility for education in schools, removal of restrictions about places of public resort such as public wells, roads, restaurants and eating houses and entry in public temples. A good deal has been done by a few zealous workers from among the higher castes in these respects. The Christian missionaries have been doing good work among the untouchables, but their efforts are mainly devoted to direct or indirect proselytization. The conscience of the educated among the higher castes has been roused. But the total removal of untouchability is yet a matter of the distant future. The greatest drawback is illiteracy among the masses of India. Hardly twelve per cent of the population are literate. The diffusion of literacy and the spread of the idea of the equality of all men before the law and in public are the only sure solvents of the evils associated with untouchability which have existed for ages. Popular Governments in the provinces are doing what they with their limited resources can do to ameliorate the condition of the untouchables. The Government of India Act (of 1935) has given special representation to the Scheduled Castes (the name given to the depressed classes or untouchables) in the Provincial and Federal Legislatures of India. The Government of India Scheduled Castes Order of 1936 [[178]] sets out the names of the numerous scheduled castes in the several provinces of British India. The Provincial Governments have issued circulars to enforce the rule that no discrimination be made against the scheduled castes in places of public resort and have tackled to some extent the question of the entry of untouchables in temples by passing such acts as the Bombay Act XI of 1938 viz. Bombay Harijan Temple Worship (Removal of disabilities Act) and the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation and Indemnity Act of 1939. Much will depend upon the untouchables themselves. As among the caste Hindus, the untouchables also have inter se numerous divisions and subdivisions each of which regards itself as superior to several others of them and will not condescend to mix with them in the public or dine with them. They must also throw up from among themselves selfless and capable leaders. This is a vast problem and the appalling evils which have been growing for ages cannot be wholly removed in a day. The leaders of the so-called untouchables also should not make exaggerated claims. For the present they should rest content with equality in public places, public services and before the law and at the most entry into public temples. But if they indulge in the tall talk of destroying the caste system at one stroke and requiring that all caste Hindus should dine with them and inter-marry with them, they may find that at least two hundred millions of caste Hindus will be dead opposed to them, and the cause of the removal of the evils of untouchability is bound to suffer a set-back. Besides it should not be forgotten that the amelioration of the condition of untouchables is bound up with the problem of the poverty of the entire rural population of India. It should not be supposed that all the untouchables are the poorest of the poor. I know from personal knowledge that many among certain classes of untouchables like the Mahars and Chambhars of the Deccan are economically better off than the ordinary cultivators in many villages. The mahars are hereditary village servants in the Deccan and they recover from every householder bread every day as part of their remuneration or a certain measure of corn from the threshing floor. Vide Grant Duff’s ‘History of the Marathas’ (ed. of 1863 vol. I p. 23) for the balutedars (village servants) among whom the mahar occupies an important place and Hereditary Offices Act (Bombay Act III of 1874, section 18) for Legislative recognition of their ancient rights. The population of untouchables in India has been estimated at various figures from three [[179]] crores to six crores. The Simon Commission Report (1930) vol. I p. 40 estimated that there were about 43 millions of untouchables in the whole of India, the criterion adopted being whether pollution by touch or approach within a certain distance is caused. The ratio of untouchables to the total population of India or to the Hindu population varies greatly in different parts of India. The total Harijan (the name given to untouchables by Mahatma Gandhi) population is 14 per cent of the whole population of India. In the Bombay Presidency the ratio of Harijans to Hindus is only about eleven per cent being the lowest of all provinces and States in India, while in Bengal the ratio is about 32 per cent which is the highest in India except in Assam.³³ The High Courts in India have held that the untouchables are included among śūdras for purposes of marriage. Vide Solan Singh vs. Kabla Singh 10 Lahore 372, Muthusami vs. Masilamani 33 Mad. 342.³⁴