Vol. 17, Part II · pages 166–170

143THE MAHARS : . . . . . . UNTOUCHABLES ? with the first question gives considerable significance to the second question. If the Mahars are not an aboriginals race why are they treated as the reject of the society, and made to live outside the village community. The most natural answer which strikes one as being a true answer is what one finds in the injunctions contained in the code of Manu. Speaking of the Chandal, Manu lays down that he should be compelled to live outside the boundary of a village. Generalising from what Manu has said about the Chandal it might be guessed that what was said by him of the Chandals was imposed upon all similar classes by the Hindu Rulers in all its rigour. On a deeper consideration I find that this cannot be the answer to the question raised. What Manu has stated is not so much the original command of the law-giver. What Manu has done in my judgment is to recognise what had happened as a result of the forces operating during the historical period and made the real his ideal because it suited the purpose he had in mind. The answer to the question must be looked for in quite a different direction. The direction in which a true answer can be found lies in my view in the field of study which relates to the period when a pastoral Community became a settled community. It must be a matter of common knowledge to all students of the growth of civilization that the form of the wealth of the community was the chief determining factor in determining the habits. The pastoral people never settled anywhere but lived a nomadic life imigrating from place to place because their wealth consisted in sheep and cattle and the sheep and cattle moved from place to place those owned it also moved whenever their wealth carried them. A community which had learned the art of cultivating the land and valuing its produce gave up their nomadic life and settled at one place undoubtedly because their wealth consisted of immoveable property namely land. Now this process whereby nomadic life gave place to a settled life has been a long drawn out process : A process in which some roamed about and some were settling down. It must also be well known to students of early history of human civilization that all social life in those early days was organised into tribes and these tribes were often at war with one another. Now in the light of these considerations one must reach back to the beginning when communities or tribes began to cease to be nomadic and became settled and imagine what must be the

144 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES needs which they must have felt as the most supreme needs of the earth. Here was a tribe which had settled down and formed a settlement now spoken of as village. It is possessed of gray com. It is possessed of sheep and cattle. On the other hand, it is surrounded by tribes which are nomadic and which are casting covetous eyes on the grain and the cows and the sheep which it owns. Obviously the first and the foremost question to such a settled tribe would be to protect itself against the raids and invasions of the nomadic tribes. How could they protect themselves? How could they provide this protection ? Obviously they themselves cannot engage in constant warfare whether defensive or offensive for the protection either of their corn or of their cattle. For their energy is all absorbed in the pursuit of agriculture, an occupation to which they are new and for which they have to depend upon their own manual labour. The only way they could protect themselves is to look to their tribal chief. But how could the tribal chief protect his tribe which is settled and engaged in tilling the soil assiduously that it can find neither time nor men from its own who would take up arms on its behalf. The tribal chief must, therefore, look to some other source for raising a force to act under his command in defence of his tribe against the invasions of the nomads. From what quarters can the tribal chief secure recruits for his defence force. Obviously from one source. Here not very far there are tribal wars going on. One tribe waging a war against another tribe. In this warfare a tribe is routed and the men belonging to one tribe are broken up by defeat and parties of them small disheartened and fearful of their own safety are moving about in search of a safe place. How excellent would it be both for the chief of the settled tribe and the broken men of a defeated tribe if destiny would bring them together. The chief of the settled tribe would get the force he needs to protect his tribe without disturbing the occupation of the tribe. The men of the broken tribe would get an assured subsistence in return for service to the village community and also get the chieftain’s protection. But having got the men from the broken tribe next question for the tribal chief to consider is where to settle these men. They could not be allowed to settle in the midst of the settled community because they belonged to a different tribe, and were not kindred. Only kindred could live within the settlement of the tribe.

145THE MAHARS : . . . . . . UNTOUCHABLES ? Obviously the only way by which the chieftain could settle the broken men of another tribe whom he needs as a force to be employed in defence of the settled community was to settle them beyond the limits of the settlements made by his tribes. This is the process which alone can explain in my judgment why the Mahars live outside the limits of the village. The Mahars are broken men of tribes which in primitive times were warring with one another. They were taken hold of by the chief of the settled community namely the Patil of the village and were allowed to settle on the confines of his village. They did for him the duty of watch and ward, and were given in return certain sites. There is nothing strange in the Mahars living outside the village limits. There is nothing in that fact which can signify that they belonged to a lower status and that on that account they were made to live outside the village limits, that they were brought to the village by the village headman for the defence of his community and that they were made to live outside their village limits not because they were of a low status but because they belonged to another tribe is a conclusion which can be supported by reference to what has happned in Wales or Ireland. A study of the Brehon Laws of Ireland which gives the tribal organisation of the Irish discloses that the Irish too had their village community which was a settled community and on the borders of the settlement of the community there lived a body of people who were known as Boairs. The Boairs were remnants of a broken tribe which were brought by the village chieftain for service under him and in the interest of the protection of the community. Exactly the same state of affairs existed in the Wales villages known as Gwelleys. Every Gwelley had a body of strangers settled on his confines. They were called Alltud. They too were parts of a broken tribe brought by the chieftain of the Gwelley for the protection of the Gwelley. This is in my judgement the only satisfactory answer to the question. The question, however, remains as to why the Mahars continued to live as a separate community when in Ireland and in Wales the Alltuds and the Boairs in course of time ceased to remain distinct communities, and became absorbed in the general mass of the village population. The answer to this question is not difficult. It is that, it was the development of the system of caste and Untouchability which has prevented this fusion. But this of course raises by anticipation the third and the last question which is raised for discussion in this paper.

146 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES III Why are the Mahars classed as Untouchable ? The origin of Untouchability is to be sought in the struggles of Brahminism against Buddhism. This is a strange answer to the question but there is no doubt that it is the true answer. In order to make matters clear it is necessary to explain the principles for which Buddhism stood. It is unnecessary to go into all the details. It would be sufficient to state that one of the things which Buddha opposed most strenuously was Yadnya which was the chief and principal form of religion of the Aryans. The Yadnya involved the sacrifice of the cow. The cow was the most important animal in the Aryan economy. The whole system of agriculture depended upon the cow. The cow gave milk which formed the chief sustenance of the people and the cow gave birth to bullocks which served as animals necessary for the cultivation of the land. Although the Buddha’s objections to the Yadnya were based on philosophical grounds the common mass of the people whose intellect could not travel beyond the realities of life gathered round the banner of Buddhism because they could see that it was intended to save the cow from the incessant slaughter to which that animal was subjected by the Brahmins for sacrificial purposes. The cow, therefore, became at first an object of special consideration and lastly of veneration. The Brahmins whose supremacy was seriously jeopardised by the people refusing to consent to the sacrifice of the cow had to devise some means whereby they could win back the heart of the masses who had gone over to Buddhism. How did the Brahmins do this ? The reverence of the cow created by the Buddhist religion had gone so deep down into the minds of the people that it was impossible for the Brahmins to do anything else to do except to give up their Yadnya and begin instead to reverence and worship the cow as the Buddhists did. But that was not enough. The Brahmins in their struggles against Buddhism were not actuated by any pious motive of religious consideration. They were actuated by a purely political motive namely to regain the power and prestige they possessed over the masses and which had been transferred to the Buddhist Bhikkhus. They knew that if they were to gain any ascendency over the Buddhist, they must go a step further

147THE MAHARS : . . . . . . UNTOUCHABLES ? than the Buddhists had gone, and they did go a step further, and proclaimed that not only they shall kill the cow but they shall not kill any animals or destroy any living creature. The origin of the vegetarianism prevalent among the Brahmins is to be found in the strategical move which the Brahmins of the past took as a means of out-bidding the Buddhists. Along with this, one other thing must be borne in mind. Before the Buddhist times and upto the period of Asoka beef was a food common to all classes, the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas, the Vaishyas and the Shudras. There is nothing repugnant in that. The cow was just an animal as the sheep or the goat or the deer was. Consequently, although the population was divided into four classes, the four classes did not differ in the matter of their food, and particularly all ate beef. The only difference probably was that some ate meat of animals that were slaughtered. This was possible for those who could afford to buy. The rest who were poor were used to eat the flesh of dead animals either because the well-to-do did not care to use it as food. It is quite conceivable also that the village chieftain gave the carcasses of dead cows and dead animals to the men belonging to the broken tribes who had settled on the confines of the village by way of remuneration for the services which they rendered to the settled community. Without doing any voilence to truth, one could say that, before the Asoka period so, far as the eating of the cow’s flesh was concerned, there was no difference whatsoever. All ate cow’s meat. The only difference that existed was this namely that the village people ate slaughtered meat while those living outside the village ate the flesh of the dead cow. This difference must be noted, it had no religious or social significance. It was just the difference of the rich and the poor connotation. After the Buddhist times and especially in the period of Asoka an important change takes place. Cowkilling was either given up voluntarilty or was stopped by the State. The result was a sharp difference arose. The villages ceased to eat beef becasue they lived on slaughtered meat and as the slaughter being stopped thay ceased to eat beef. The broken tribe-men who lived on the border continued to eat the flesh of the dead cow. It was unnecessary to prohibit them because it did not involve the Himsa of the cow. Now, this division namely those who did not eat beef at all and