Vol. 17, Part II · pages 161–165

138 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (3) The Mangs. Of these the Mahars form by far the largest group. It is extraordinary to find that while Mangs and Chambhars are known in history as existing communities, there is no-where any mention of the Mahars as a community. Reaching back to Manu he mentions certain classes which in his time were recognised as Untouchable Communities. Among them the Chambhars are specifically mentioned as an Untouchable Community. The Mangs are not mentioned by Manu. That is probably because Mangs were not to be found in the territory which was known to the author of the Manusmriti. But there is ample evidence in the Buddhist literature that the Mangs who therein referred to as Matangas existed as a separate community bearing a name which became well known to all. But neither in the Manusmriti nor in the Buddhist literature is there any mention of the Mahars as a community. Not only is there mention of the Mahars in this ancient lore but even the later Smritis of quite modern times make no reference to the Mahars as a community. Indeed upto the advent of the Muslims, one does not meet with the word Mahar. One finds it mentioned only once in the Dnyaneshwari which is 1100 A.D. Before him the name Mahar is simply non-existent. What are we to suppose ? Was there no such community as the Mahars in the ancient times before Dnyaneshwari ? Or, are we to suppose that there existed a community but then it was known by some other name ? Whichever the case is the non-existence of the name Mahars militates strongly against the view of Mr. Wilson. If the term Mahar was not known, much less could it become the basis of a name given to the country. The second reason which leads me to reject the view of Mr. Wilson is based upon the considerations arising out of the totems which one finds existent in the Mahar community. Mr. Wilson’s hypothesis if taken to be correct must necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Mahars are an aboriginal race inhabiting the country before the entry of Aryans in the country now known as Maharashtra. I feel certain that such a conclusion is untenable for reasons which I am sorry to say, have not been fully appreciated by those who allege that the Mahars belong to the aboriginal classes of this Province. As a first step in the chain of reasoning, I am depending upon in support of my view, I would like to point out one notable fact and it is this—there are no Marathas where there are no

139THE MAHARS : . . . . . . UNTOUCHABLES ? Mahars and wherever there are Mahars there are Marathas also. This link is not a mere matter of accident, that the link is integral, is supported by another piece of evidence which is also usually overlooked by students of ethnology. Now it is well known that the Marathas have a clan organisation. They have what they call their ‘Kuls’ : and they have also what is called a totem. The importance of the ‘Kul’ and the totem will be obvious to every student of ethnology. A common ‘Kul’ and a common totem are indicative of kinship. Bearing this in mind a comparison of the ‘ Kul’ among the Mahars and the Marathas yields a very significant result. (The Table mentioned below is not found in the M. S.— Editors) A glance at the table would show that there is no ‘Kul’ among the Mahars which does not exist among the Marathas and there is no ‘Kul’ among the Marathas which is not to be found among the Mahars. If anthropology can be relied upon in support of the proposition that the common ‘Kul’ is indicative of kinship then the Mahars and the Marathas form a kindred community and the Mahars could not be rejected as an aboriginal community unless one is also prepared to go to the length of saying that the Marathas also are an aboriginal community. Whether the Marathas are an Aryan or a Non-Aryan community is a question on which there is no unanimity. Risley held the view that the Marathas were not Aryans: and he rested his conclusions mostly on anthropometric measurements. Others have challenged this view and concluded that the Marathas are Aryans and have sought to meet the anthropometric objections of Risley by the argument that there were two waves of the Aryan invaders and the Marathas belonged to the Second. That is the reason why their anthropometric measurements do not tally with those taken as standard by Risley. The second hypothesis seems to derive some support from the fact that in ancient times Maharashtra was called ‘Ariake’ on the ground that the Aryans formed the predominent population and also because in the Karnatak the Maratha is still called ‘ Arer Mated’ (The Aryan Man). Be that as it may, there is no question that the Mahars are not an aboriginal people. In addition to what has been stated in support

140 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES of this proposition there are other land-marks and survivals which can be relied upon in support of this view. The first thing to which attention must be drawn is the fact that a great number of the ‘Kul’ which indicate the status of a Rajput are also to be found among the Mahars. In the quarrels that have taken place between the Brahmins on the one hand and the Marathas on the other on the issue whether the latter were Kshatriyas or not, the test sought to be applied was whether the ‘Kul’ of the claimant was one of the 96 ‘Kuls’ which were admittedly belonged to the Rajputs in whose status as Kshatriyas was beyond question. Now if this test was applied to the Mahars, there could be no question that the Mahars would have to be pronounced as belonging originally to the Rajput that is to say to the Kshatriya class. It is suggested that the Mahars have been appropriating the ‘Kuls’ of the Rajputs since very recently with the idea of improving their social standing. That evidently is a mistake. There is a long tradition among the Mahars that they belong to what is called the ‘Somavansh’ which is one of the two branches of the Kshatriyas, that the Mahars have had these ‘gotras’ from long past and have not appropriated to them in recent times is clear from the fact that as long ago as the Court of Enquiry held by the Brahmins into the status of the last Maratha King of Satara, namely Pratapsing whom the Brahmins refused to recognise as a Kshatriya. One party of the Brahmins who favoured the side of Pratapsing contended that as the Bhonsale Kul was one of the 96 Kuls of the Rajputs, and as the Rajputs were recognised as Kshatriyas, Pratapsing must be propouned as a Kshatriya. The other side in reply to this contention propounded a conundrum. It contended that if that argument was sound, all the Mahars would have to be pronounced as Kshatriya because they too had ‘Kuls’ like those of the Rajputs. Apart from the validity of the view as a test, the fact remains that the Kuls which the Mahars have appropriated is no new phenomenon. This is one consideration in support of the view that the Mahars are not aboriginals. The second consideration in support of this view is the word of salutation which is peculiar to the Mahars. The word of salutation used by the Mahars is Johar. This word is undoubtedly a corrupt form of the Sanskrit word ‘Yoddhar’. It is well-known that

141THE MAHARS : . . . . . . UNTOUCHABLES ? in ancient Vedic times the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas had adopted separate words of salutation. The Brahmins said ‘Namaskar’ : the Kshatriyas said ‘Yoddhar’. It is difficult to conceive that the Mahars should have been allowed to use the term ‘Yoddhar’ as a word of salute if they were a body of low class ; or if they were aboriginals particularly because the word of salute among the Chamars and the Mangs is quite a different word having not the remotest connection with the status of the Kshatriya. The Mangs used the word ‘Furman’ which seems to be a corruption of the word ‘Farman’ meaning ‘command’. The Chamars used the word ‘Duffarao’ a word of which I am unable to give the derivative : but the fact remains that only the Mahar Community uses as its word of salutation the word ‘Johar’ which as I have stated above was a word which was in exclusive use by the Kshatriyas as a word of salutation. There is no doubt that the Marathas too at one time used the term ‘Johar’ as a word of salutation. It was in vogue during apart of Shivaji’s rule; and even Shivaji in the one and the only letter admitted to have been signed by him in his own hand and addressed to Maloji Ghorpade has used the word ‘Johar’ as the word of salutation. It is well-known that the Marathas since after Shivaji began to use ‘Ram Ram’ in place of ‘Johar’ as a word of salutation. It is curious that the Mahars did not follow suit. Why the Mahars continued to use the word ‘Johar’ even when the Marathas had given it out and why were they allowed by the State to continue ‘Johar’ when the State enforced ‘Ram Ram’ on all others, are questions which require some elucidation. But the fact remains that ‘Johar’ is indicative of the status of a Kshatriya. There is one other matter to which attention must be drawn because it militates against the view which I am supporting namely that the Mahars are not aboriginals and that they really belonged to the Maratha community and at one time were reckoned as Kshatriyas. The fact is the custom prevalent among the Mahars of burying the dead body when as a matter of theory and practice the Marathas and the Kshatriyas have the custom of burning the dead. The existence of this custom of burying the dead must be admitted but to admit the existence of the custom is not to admit the

142 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES form of the conclusion that is sought to be derived from it. In the first place, there are indications that this custom of burying the dead is not original. But the original custom among the Mahars was to burn the dead seems to be supported by the fact that even though the Mahars bury the dead they still carry with them to the cemetery cinders and burning coal in an earthen pot along with the corpse. There must have been some purpose for such an act and there could be no conceivable purpose except to use the fire for burning the dead. Why the custom of burning the dead gave place among the Mahars to the custom of burying the dead, it is difficult to give a precise reason. But it seems that the burying of the dead was a custom which was enforced upon the Mahars at some later date when the Mahars had become fallen in the status and classed as Untouchables. Considerable support can be found for this view from what the Padma-Puran contains. It is stated in the Padma-Puran that certain communities were prevented from burning their dead because burning the dead was a privilege of the three regenerate classes. If this is correct then the custom of burying the dead could not outweigh the everwhelming evidence which goes to show that the Mahars are not aboriginals and they might as well have been in times past part of the Marathas by race and Kshatriyas by status. II Why do they live outside the Village ? It is notorious that the Mahars live outside the village. This is a fact which it is difficult to sense at any rate for foreigners for the reason that the village is generally built on an open site without any indication of its boundaries. But two things demonstrate incontrovertibly that the Mahars are reckoned as being outside the village. Every villager makes a distinction between the village as such and the Maharwada meaning thereby that the Mahar-Wada, that is to say the settlement of the Mahars is not within what is meant by the village. A more occular demonstration is afforded wherever village has its wall. Wherever a village has had a well known in vernacular as ‘Gavkus’ it will be noticed that the settlement of the Mahars is always outside the wall. Now this fact read in the light of what has been said in this paper in connection