History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c21.14
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c21.14
- Language
- English
v2.c21.14.1
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 prāyaścitta they are restored to caste and become touchable. Secondly, persons were treated as untouchables simply through religious hatred and abhorrence because they belonged to a different sect or religion. For example, Aparārka (p. 923) and Sm. C.³⁹⁴ (I. p. 118) quote verses from the Ṣaṭ-triṁśan-mata and Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa that 'on touching Bauddhas, Pāśupatas, Jainas, Lokāyatikas, Kāpilas (Sāṁkhyas) 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 Aparārka³⁹⁵ p. 923 quotes a verse of Vṛddha-Yājñavalkya that on touching cāṇḍālas, pukkasas, mlecchas, Bhillas and Pārasīkas and persons guilty of mahāpātakas one should bathe with the clothes on.
v2.c21.14.2
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.³⁹⁶ 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. Saṁvarta³⁹⁷ 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'. 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.
v2.c21.14.3
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.
v2.c21.14.4
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 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.
v2.c21.14.5
The only caste that is said by the most ancient Dharma-sūtras 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 cāṇḍāla. Gaut. (IV. 15 and 23) says that the 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. 8–9³⁹⁸ 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 lumināries (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 andhra, 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. Hārīta³⁹⁹ 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 actor 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.
v2.c21.14.6
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 sipping water). The Nityācārapaddhati (p. 130) quotes a verse⁴⁰⁰ 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. Hadi, Doma, Chandala 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. Medhātithi⁴⁰¹ 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 kṣatṛ). 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. Manu⁴⁰² V.
v2.c21.14.7
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.⁴⁰³ 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 sense⁴⁰⁴. It will have been seen from the quotations above that cāṇḍālas, mlecchas and Pārasīkas are placed on the same level as regards being aspṛśya. Atri⁴⁰⁵ (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.
v2.c21.14.8
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.