Vol. 17, Part II · pages 171–175

148 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES those who did was not a mere economic difference. It was a difference which gave rise to religious considerations. The killing of the cow had become a notion which from the point of view of religion has become repugnant. And a class which dealt with the dead cow also became a repugnant class. Untouchability has its origin in this notion of repugnance. And that notion of repugnance is based upon the reverence or irreverence to the cow. The Brahmins who out of consideration of their own self-interest agreed to reverence the cow and worship it. It went so far as to treat any class which had anything to do with the cow in a manner incompatible with reverence to the cow, Untouchable are not worthy of association. That, this is the origin of Untouchability and that this is the reason why Mahars have come to be regarded as Untouchables can be seen if any one who cares to prove into the subject and to find out what are the special pursuits of these communities in India who have misfortune of being treated as Untouchable communities. An enquiry into the subject would show that all-over India the Untouchables perform certain duties which are common to them. These duties relate to the carrying of the dead cow, skinning the carcass, eating the flesh, selling the bones etc. There is no exception to this proposition. It applies in all cases and to all provinces. Why there should be such close association between the dead cow and Untouchability ? Why do the two go together ? My answer is they go together because one is the cause of the other. Untouchability has arisen out of the repugnance of the Hindu community, which as a result of Buddhism developed a reverence of the cow, towards those who have not ceased to eat the cow. The Mahars had not ceased to eat the dead cow and consequently became the object and victims of this repugnance. * * * The three questions profounded in this paper have now been answered. There, however, remains one more question and it is this : Why were the Mahars called Mahars ? Many have attempted to give a definition but of all the definitions the one given by Doctor Bhandarkar seems to be the correct one. According to Dr. Bhandarkar, the word Mahar is a

149THE MAHARS : . . . . . . UNTOUCHABLES ? corruption of the word Mrut Ahar-those who live on dead meat. It accords with what has been stated above in discussing the question of the origin of Untouchability. But in this connection there arise two other subsidiary questions. One is why was this particular feature of the Mahars, life taken as a basis for so designating them. The answer to this has already been given but it may be summarised here because it goes to strengthen the correctness of the derivation of the term Mahar. As I have already said the eating of the cow’s flesh was at one time so universal that nobody ever cared to note the fact. Even when some ate slaughtered meat and some ate dead meat the difference had only economic significance but no religious or social significance. But when all had given up eating cow’s meat those who continued to eat presented a difference which was noticeable to the naked eye and significant to the religious mind. It is, therefore, natural that the difference so obvious and so signficant should have been made by the rest of the population a basis of designating that class. But this derivation of the term Mahar creates a difficulty which must be grappled with. If this is the correct definition of the term and if these are the reasons why it came into vogue, it must have come into operation when the difference became sharp and significant. What was the name by which the Mahars were known in history before they began to be called as Mahars ? That the name Mahar is a new name admits of no doubt because it does not occur anywhere either in literature or history before the time of Dnyaneshwar. This, however, makes the other question more important namely what was the name by which they were called before the name, Mahar became their common name. Now, it is well-known that the Mahars are also called Parwari. This name has never gone out of name, and has continued to exist side by side with their name Mahar, although the name Mahar became more prominent. But in times past the name Parwari was more prominently used than the name Mahar. For instance, during the time of East India Company, Mahars were very largely employed in the Company’s army as soldiers and officers. In their caste columns they were all designated as Parwaris. There is, therefore, no question that the Mahars had this their other name. And I venture to say that this was the name by which the Mahars were called before the name Mahar came into being.

150 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES That this name Parwari is a very ancient name is proved by the fact that it occurs in Ptolemy’s. He uses the word ‘Pauravardi’ which probably is a misspelling or mispronounciation of the word Parwari*. What does the word Parvari mean ? It is, of course, a difficult question to answer. For all that one knows it means dependence which is the root meaning of the word ‘Pariwar’ of which ‘ Parwari’ appears to be corruption. The broken tribes even undoubtedly dependent for their means of livelihood upon the village community and the village community might very appropriately designated by the descriptive name ‘Parwari’ those broken tribe men who were strangers to the community but were dependent upon it. It might be mentioned here that the term ‘Parwari’ which was in vogue was not confined to what is known as the Mahar community. It was used in a general sense. As there is documentary evidence to show that at any rate it included also the community which is now known as the Mang community. The term ‘ Parwari’, therefore, seems to have been applied to all men who came and settled as strangers to the village community. Not only the term ‘Parwari’ is a composite term but the term Mahar is also a composite term and does not connote a common origin. The Mahar community appears to be composite community and includes within it a strata which is high in origin and a strata which is low in origin. This is indicated by the different ‘Kuls’ of the Mahars. Those whose ‘Kuls’ fall within the 96 belong to the higher strata, those whose ‘Kuls’ do not fall within them fall in the lower strata. But a common name Mahar which has been in existence for the last so many hundred years has produced in them a consciousness of kind which has destroyed any notions of high or low. But it is just as well for students of ethnology that what is now known as Mahar community is in its origin a conglomeration of broken parts of different tribes who had nothing in common except that they were the ‘Parwaris’, that is, the dependents of the village community. zz *The word ‘Parwari’ has been used in a Government letter of state of Baroda also. For the same see Appendix No. VII on Page No. 472 in Part 1 of this Volume.—Editors.

22 REPUBLICAN PARTY STANDS FOR LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY AND JUSTICE As per the decision of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar regarding conversion, he proclaimed in May 1956 that he would embrace the Buddhism in October 1956. Simultaneously he was concretly thinking of forming a new political party based on the Principles enshrined in the Constitution of India. Formation of ‘Independent Labour Party’ in 1936, ‘Scheduled Castes Federation’ in 1942 and the decision to establish Rupublican Party of India, explains his strenuous exertion to bring his vision into reality through an ideal political party. In order to give shape to his foresight, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar decisively prepared a Blue Print of the Republican Party of India. The Marathi translation of the Blue Print by Mr. D. T. Rupwate was later on published in ‘Prabuddha Bharat: Republican Party Establishment issue - 1957’ under the title ‘Open letter of Parampujya Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar to the Indians regarding formation of Republican Party of India.’ The blue print contains five chapters as under : Chapter-1 : How a movement becomes a Political Party ? Chapter-2 : Conditions precedent for the s uccessful working of democracy. Chapter-3: Why Parliamentary Government needs an opposition Party ? Chapter-4 : What is a Party ? Chapter-5 : Aims and Objects of the Party. Accordingly the news about the formation of ‘the Republican Party of India’ appeared in the issue of ‘Janata’ dated 10th

152 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES December 1955. In this regard he made a correspondence with his likeminded contemporaries like Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia. The Executive Committee of the Scheduled Castes Federation was held on 30th September 1956 at the residence of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar at New Delhi. Dr. Ambedkar presided over the meeting. As per resolution No. 2 passed in the meeting, it was unanimously decided that by dissolving the Scheduled Castes Federation, the new political party having name ‘Republican Party’ be established. 1 Dr. B. R. Ambedkar addressed a Press Conference on 13th October 1956, at Nagpur wherein he categorically stated that he had already drafted Constitution of the Republican Party.2. Editors-R. Chandidas, Ward Morehouse, Leon Clark and Richard Fontera—of the volume ‘India Votes’ mentioned the distinctive features of the Republican Party as follows : “REPUBLICAN Party of India is an All India Political Party founded by Late Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar who was the great political thinker, great social revolutionary, and the great Constitutional expert. He dedicated his life to the cause of reconstructing the Indian society based on liberty, equality and fraternity. The Republican Party of India dedicates itself to this great task: Republican Party of India Stands for Parliamentary Democracy. 1. The Republican Party of India will stand for the Parliamentary system of Government as being the best form of Government both in the interest of the public and in the interest of the individual. Secularism uphold 2. The Republican Party of India upholds the secular character of the State.” 3 1. Prabuddha Bharat: 6th and 13th Oct. 1956. 2. Prabuddha Bharat: Dr. Ambedkar : Convertion to Buddhism, Special Number, 27th October 1956. 3. India Votes, P. 85.