Vol. 5 · pages 271–275

256 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES consequence to them, and they sometimes secretly poison cows or buffaloes so that they may subsequently feast on the foul, putrifying remains. The carcasses of animal’s that die in a village belong by right to the thoti or scavenger, who sells the flesh at a very low price to the other Pariahs in the neighbourhood. When it is impossible to consume in one day the stock of meat thus obtained, they dry the remainder in the sun, and keep it in their huts until they run short of their food. There are few Pariah houses where one does not see festoons of these horrible fragments hanging up; and though the Pariahs themselves do not seem to be affected by the smell, travellers passing near their village quickly perceive it and can tell at once the caste of the people living there.... Is it to be wondered at, after what has been just stated that other castes should hold this in abhorrence? Can they be blamed for refusing to hold any communication with such savages, or for obliging them to keep themselves aloof and to live in the separate hamlets? . . . . . .” It is true that this occupation has created a feeling of repugnance against the Untouchables in the mind of the Hindus. But the Abe or those who adopt his reasoning forget to raise two very important questions. First is why do the Untouchables eat carrion? Will the Hindus allow the Untouchables the freedom to give up skinning and carrying their dead animals? The answer to the question why the Untouchables eat carrion has already been given in a previous chapters. No one would prefer carrion to flesh meat if it is available. If the Untouchables have been living on carrion it is not because they like it. They eat carrion, because there is nothing else on which they can live. This will be clear to anyone who realizes that on account of untouchability they have no way left to earn a living. All professions have been closed to them. There is no land on the produce of which they can live. There is no trade which they can engage in. Their main stay is therefore the food they collect from the villagers and the carrion which is left to them. Without carrion they would literally die of starvation. It is therefore clear that the fault does not lie with the Untouchables. If the Untouchables eat carrion it is because the Hindus have left no honourable way of earning a living open to them. To the second question the answer is equally clear. If the Untouchables skin and carry the dead animals of the Hindus, it is because the Untouchables have no choice. They are forced to do it. They would be penalized if they refused to do it. The penalty is legal. In some provinces the refusal to do this dirty work is a breach of contract. In other provinces it is a criminal offence involving fines. In

257 THE REVOLT OF THE UNTOUCHABLES Provinces like Bombay the Untouchables are village servants. In their capacity as village servants they have to serve the Government as well as the Hindu public. In return for this service they are given lands which they cultivate and on the produce of which they maintain themselves. One of the duties of the Untouchables is to skin and carry the dead animals of the Hindus in the villages. If the Untouchables refuse to perform these duties to the Hindu public, the land which they live on is liable to be confiscated. They have to choose between doing the dirty work or facing starvation. In Provinces like the United Provinces, refusal to do scavenging by sweeper is made an offence. The United Provinces Municipalities Act II of 1916 contains the following provisions: Section 201(1). —“Should a sweeper who has a customary right to do the house-scavenging of a house of building (hereinafter called the customary sweeper) fail to perform such scavenging in a proper way, the occupier of the house or building or the board may complain to a Magistrate.” (2) “The Magistrate receiving such complaint shall hold an inquiry and should it appear to him that the customary sweeper has failed to perform the house-scavenging of the house or building in a proper way or at a reasonable intervals, he may impose upon such a sweeper a fine which may extend to ten rupees, and upon a second or any later conviction in regard to the same house or building, may also direct, the right of the customary sweeper to do the house scavenging the house or building to be forfeited and thereupon such right shall be forfeited.” Exactly similar provision is to be found in Section 165 of the Punjab Municipalities Act of 1911. The Punjab Act is an advance over the U. P. Act, in as much as it provides for punishment of a sweeeper who is not customary sweeper but a contract-sweeper. The Punjab Act adds: “(3) Should any sweeper (other than a customary sweeper), who is under a contract to do house-scavenging of a house or a building, discontinue to do such house-scavenging without fourteen days’ notice to his employer or without reasonable cause, he shall on conviction be punishable with a fine which may extend to Rs. ten.” “227. Every order of forfeiture under Section 165 shall be subject to an appeal to the next superior court, but shall not be otherwise open to appeal.” People may be shocked to read that there exists legal provision which sanctions forced labour. Beyond doubt, this is slavery. The difference between slavery and free labour lies in this. Under slavery

258 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES a breach of contract of service is an offence which is punishable with fine or imprisonment. Under free labour a breach of contract of service is only a civil wrong for which the labourer is liable only for damages. Judged in the light of this criterion, scavenging is a legal obligation imposed upon the Untouchables which they cannot escape. Given these conditions, how can the Untouchables be accused of doing these dirty work voluntarily? The question whether the Untouchables can be accused of having invited the curse of untouchability upon themselves for doing the dirty work of the Hindus is really beside the point. What is important to note is that the Conference of the Untouchables which met in Mahad resolved that no Untouchable shall skin the dead animals of the Hindus, shall carry it or eat the carrion. The object of these resolutions was two-fold. The one abject was to foster among the Untouchables self-respect and self-esteem. This was a minor object. The major object was to strike a blow at the Hindu Social Order. The Hindu Social Order is based upon a division of labour which reserves for the Hindus clean and respectable jobs and assigns to the Untouchables dirty and mean jobs and thereby clothes the Hindus with dignity and heaps ignominy upon the Untouchables. The resolution was a revolt against this part of the Hindu Social Order. It aimed at making the Hindus do their dirty jobs themselves. This is a brief summery of the history of the revolt of the Untouchables against the established order of the Hindu. It originated in Bombay. But it has spread to all parts of India. zz

CHAPTER 22 HELD AT BAY I. Hindu reaction to the revolt of the untouchables. II. Lawless means for ruthless repression. III. Untouchables, a weak force. IV. Officers who are shameless partisans. V. A weapon which is made blunt. I The story of the revolt of the Untouchables tells how the old is ringing out and the new is ringing in. What is the reaction of the Hindus to this revolt? No one who knows anything about it can have any hesitation in answering this question. For it is clear that his attitude is one of opposition. It might be difficult to understand why the Hindus should oppose. But there can be no manner of doubt that he is opposed. The reasons why the Hindus are opposed to this fight for rights of the untouchables for their rights will not be difficult to understand if certain important features of the relationship that is now subsisting between the Caste Hindus and the Untouchables are borne in mind. The first and foremost consideration that must never be forgotten is the sharp division between the Touchables and the Untouchables. Every village has two parts, the quarters of the Touchables and quarters of the Untouchables. Geographically the two are separate. There is always an appreciable distance between the two. At any rate there is no contiguity or proximity between them. The Untouchables have a distinct name for their quarters such as Maharwada, Mangwada, Chamrotti, Khaykana, etc. De Jure for the purposes of revenue administration or postal communication the quarters of the Untouchables are included in the village. But de facto it is separate from the village. When the Hindu resident of a village speaks of the village he means to include in it only the Caste Hindu residents and the locality occupied by them. Similarly when the Untouchable speaks of the village he means to exclude from it the Untouchables and

260 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the quarters they occupy. Thus, in every village the Touchables and Untouchables form two separate groups. There is nothing common between them. They do not constitute a folk. This is the first thing which must be noted. The second thing to note with regard to this division of the village into two groups is that these groups are real corporations which, no one included within them, can escape. As has been well said the American or European belongs to groups of various kinds, but he “joins” most of them. He of course is born into a family, but he does not stay in it all his life unless he pleases. He may choose his own occupation, residence, wife, political party, and is responsible, generally speaking, for no one’s acts but his own. He is an “individual” in a much fuller sense because all his relationships are settled by himself for himself. The Touchables or Untouchables are in no sense individuals because all or nearly all of their relationships are fixed when they are born in a certain group. Their occupation, their dwelling, their gods and their politics are all determined for them by the group to which they belong. When the Touchables and Untouchables meet, they meet not as man to man, individual to individual, but as members of groups or as nationals of two different states. This fact has an important effect upon the mutual relationship between the Touchables and Untouchables in a village. The relationship resembles the relationship between different clans in primitive society. In primitive society the member of the clan has a claim, but the stranger has no standing. He may be treated kindly, as a guest, but he cannot demand “justice” at the hands of any clan but his own. The dealing of clan with clan is a matter of war or negotiations, not of law; and the clanless man is an outlaw, in fact as well as in name, and lawlessness against the stranger is therefore lawful. The Untouchable, not being a member of the group of Touchables, is a stranger. He is not a kindred. He is an outlaw. He cannot claim justice nor any rights which the Touchable is bound to respect. The third thing to note is that the relationship between the two, the Touchables and the Untouchables, has been fixed. It has become a matter of status. This status has unmistakably given the Untouchables a position of inferiority vis-a-vis the Touchables. This inferiority is embodied in a code of social conduct to which the Untouchables must conform. What kind of code it is, has already been stated. The Untouchable is not willing to conform to that code. He is not prepared to render unto Caesar what is claimed by Caesar. The Untouchable wants to have his relationship with the Touchables by contract. The