Vol. 5 · pages 291–295

276 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (2) Then the divine self existent (Svayambhu, himself) indiscernible (but) making (all) this, the great elements and the rest discernible, appeared with irresistible (creative) power, dispelling the darkness. (3) But for the sake of the prosperity of the worlds, he caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaishya, and the Shudra to proceed from his mouth, his arms, his thighs and his feet. (4) But in order to protect this Universe. He, the most resplendant one, assigned separate (duties and) occupations to those who sprang from his mouth, arms, thighs and feet. (5) To the Brahmans he assigned teaching and studying (the Vedas), sacrificing (performing sacrificial ceremonies) for their own benefit and for others, giving and accepting (of alms). (6) The Kshatriya he commanded to protect the people, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study (the Veda), and to abstain from attaching himself to sensual pleasures. (7) The Vaishya to tend cattle, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study (the Veda), to trade, to lend money and to cultivate the land. (8) One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Shudra, to serve meekly even these (other) three castes. (9) A student, an apprentice, a hired servant, and fourthly an official; these must be regarded as labourers. Slaves are those who are born in the house and the rest. (10) The sages have distinguished five sorts of attendants according to law. Among these are four sorts of labourers (mentioned above). The slaves (are the fifth category, of which they are) fifteen species. (11) One born at (his master’s) house; one purchased; one received by gift; one obtained by inheritance; one maintained during a general famine; one pledged by his rightful owner. (12) One released from a heavy debt; one made captive in a fight; one won through a wager, one who has come forward declaring ‘I am thine’ an apostate from asceticism; one enslaved for a stipulated period. (13) One who has become a slave in order to get a maintenance; one enslaved on account of his connection with a female slave; and one self sold. These are fifteen classes of slaves as declared in law. (14) Among these the four named first cannot be released from bondage, except by the favour of their owners. Their bondage is hereditary. (15) The sages have declared that the state of dependence is common to all these; but that their respective position and income depends on their particular caste and occupation. (2) Manu I. 6; (3) Ibid., 1. 31; (4) Ibid., I. 87; (5) Ibid., I. 88; (6) Ibid., I. 89; (7) Ibid., I. 90; (8) Ibid., 1. 91; (9) Narad V. 3; (10) Ibid.. V. 2; (11) Ibid., V. 26; (12) Ibid., V. 27; (13) Ibid., V. 28; (14) Ibid., V. 29; (15) Ibid, V. 4.

277 THEIR WISHER ARE LAWS UNTO US 2. Those outside the Pale of Chaturvarna. Their origin and their duties. This is what Manu has to say about their origin and their position. (1) All those tribes in this world, which are excluded from (the community of) those born from the mouth, the arms, the thighs, and the feet (of Brahman), are called Dasyus, whether they speak the language of the Mlekkhas (barbarians) or that of the Aryans. (2) Near well-known trees and burial ground, on mountains and in groves, let these (tribes) dwell, known (by certain marks), and subsisting by their peculiar occupations. (3) But the dwellings of the Chandalas and Shwapakas shall be outside the village, they must be made apapatras and their wealth (shall be) dogs and donkeys. (4) Their dress (shall be) the garments of the dead, (they shall eat) their food from broken dishes, black iron (shall be) there ornaments, they must always wander from place to place. (5) A man who fulfils a religious duty, shall not seek intercourse with them; their transactions (shall be) among themselves and their marriages with their equals. (6) Their food shall be given to them by others (than an Aryan giver) in a broken dish; at night they shall not walk about in villages and in towns. (7) By day they must go about for the purpose of their work, distinguished by marks at the King’s command, and they shall carry out the corpses (of persons) who have no relatives, that is a settled rule. (8) By the King’s order they shall always execute the Criminals in accordance with the law, and they shall take for themselves the clothes, the beds and the ornaments of (such) criminals. (9) He who has had connection with a woman of one of the lowest castes shall be put to death. (10) If one who (being a member of the Chandalas or some other low caste) must not be touched, intentionally defiles by his touch one who (as a member of a twice born caste) may be touched (by other twice born persons only) he shall be put to death. I have already said, that to Manu, this division between those who are within the pale of Chaturvarna and those who are outside of it was a division which was real. It was so real that Manu calls those who were outside the pale of Chaturvarna by the name Bahayas which means excluded i.e. excluded from or outside of the system of Chaturvarna. It was a division to which he attached far reaching (1) Manu X. 45, (2) Ibid.. X. 50; (3) Ibid.. X. 51; (4) Ibid.. X. 52; (5) Ibid.. X. 53; (6) Ibid.. X. 54; (7) Ibid.. X. 55; (8) Ibid.. X. 56; (9) Vishnu V. 43; (10) Ibid.. V. 104.

278 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES consequences. This division was intended to result in a difference of status and citizenship. It is true that all those who are within the pale of Chaturvarna are not all on the same level. Within the Chaturvarna there are the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras and Slaves all unequal in status. Still they are within the Chaturvarna. Those within the Chaturvarna have a status in the eye of the law of Manu and a respect in the eye of the public. Those outside it have no respect in the eye of that society. The difference is also one of citizenship. Those within the Chaturvarna have rights to enjoy and remedies to enforce them. Those outside the Chaturvarna have no rights and no remedies. This difference between those who are within the Chaturvarna and those outside of it have a kind of resemblance to the difference between civics i.e. citizens and preregenis or hostis i.e. non-citizens in the early Roman Law. The early law of Rome was essentially personal— not territorial. A man enjoyed the benefit of its institutions and of its protection, not because he happened to be within Roman territory, but because he was a citizen—one of those by whom and for whom its law was established. The story of the early jus getium was that a man sojourning within the bounds of a foreign state was at the mercy of the latter and its citizens; that he himself might be dealt with as a slave, all that belonged to him appropriated by the first comer. For he was outside the pale of the law. Under the jus civile the private rights which were peculiar to a Roman citizen were summed up in three abstract terms, Conubium, Commercium and Actio. Conubium was the capacity to enter into a marriage which would be productive of the palua potestas and agnation which in their turn were the foundation of intestate succession, guardianship etc. Commercium was the capacity for acquiring or alienating property. Actio was the capacity to bring a suit in a Court of law for the vindication, protection, or enforcement of a right either included in or flowing from connubium or commercium, or directly conferred by statute. These three capacities were enjoyed only by the Roman Citizens. A non-citizen was entitled to none of these rights. III The division between classes who are within the Chaturvarna and those who are without it though real and fundamental is undoubtedly archaic in its terminology. The system of Chaturvarna is no longer operative as law. It is therefore somewhat academic to speak of classes being within Chaturvarna and without Chaturvarna. The question will be asked, what are the modern counterparts of these ancient classes ? The question is perfectly legitimate especially as I have to explain how

279 THEIR WISHER ARE LAWS UNTO US the ancient law of Manu is responsible for the present day lawlessness of the Hindus. Although I am using archaic language, two things will show that my thesis is true. The first is that the ancient social divisions of Manu are not without their counterpart in modern times. The modern counterparts of those ancient divisions are Hindus and untouchables. Those whom Manu included within the Chaturvarna correspond to the modern composite class called Hindus. Those whom Manu called Bahayas (outside the Chaturvarna) correspond to the present day untouchables of India. The dividing line between the four classes—Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra—included within Chaturvarna have in modern times become some what blurred and there has been some degree of amalgamation between them. But the line which Manu drew between those within the Chaturvarna from those outside the Chaturvarna is still clear and is not allowed to be effaced or crossed. That line is the line which at present separates the Hindus from the untouchables. The first thing that is clear is that the ancient divisions have descended to modern times. The only change is the change of names. The second question is, has the law as laid down by Manu for the Bahayas any counterpart in the present day social relationship between the Hindus and the Untouchables ? To those who doubt I ask to take the following case into consideration. The incident has occurred in the Ramnad District of the Madras Presidency. In December 1930 the Kallar in Ramanad propounded eight prohibitions, the disregard of which led to the use of violence by the Kallar against the untouchables whose huts were fired, whose granaries and property were destroyed, and whose livestock was looted. These eight prohibitions were as follows :— “(i) that the Adi-Dravidas shall not wear ornament of gold and silver; (ii) that the males should not be allowed to wear their clothes below their knees or above the hips; (iii) that their males should not wear coats or shirts or baniyans; (iv) No Adi-Dravida should be allowed to have his hair cropped. (v) that the Adi-Dravidas should not use other than earthenware vessels in their homes; (vi) their women shall not be allowed to cover the upper portion of their bodies by clothes or ravukais or thavanies; (vii) their women shall not be allowed to use flowers or saffron paste; and (viii) the men shall not use umbrellas for protection against sun and rain nor should they wear sandals”.

280 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES In June 1931, the eight prohibitions not having been satisfactorily observed by the exterior castes in question, the Kallar met together and framed eleven prohibitions, which went still further than the original eight, and an attempt to enforce these led to more violence. These eleven prohibitions were :— “1. The Adi-Dravidas and Devendrakula Vellalars should not wear clothes below their knees. 2. The men and women of the above-said depressed classes should not wear gold jewels. 3. The women should carry water only in mud pots and not in copper or brass vessels. They should use straw only to carry the water pots and no clothes should be used for that purpose. 4. Their children should not read and get themselves literate or educated. 5. The children should be asked only to tend the cattle of the Mirasdars. 6. Their men and women should work as slaves of the Mirasdars, in their respective Pannais. 7. They should not cultivate the land either on waram or lease from the Mirasdars. 8. They must sell away their own lands to Mirasdars of the village at very cheap rates, and if they don’t do so, no water will be allowed to them to irrigate their lands. Even if something is grown by the help of rain water, the crops should be robbed away, when they are ripe for harvest. 9. They must work as coolies from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. under the Mirasdars and their wages shall be for men Rs. 0-4-0 per day and for women Rs. 0-2-0 per day. 10. The abovesaid communities should not use Indian Music (melam etc.,) in their marriages and other celebrations. 11. They must stop their habit of going on a horse in procession before tying the Thali thread in marriage and they must use their house doors as palanquins for the marriage processions, and no vehicle should be used by them for any purpose”. Compare these prohibitions laid down by the Hindus of Ramnad with the prohibitions contained in the texts of Manu quoted earlier in this chapter against the untouchables. Is there any difference between the law laid down by Manu for the Bahayas and the conditions imposed upon the untouchables by the Kallars in 1931 ? After this evidence, who can doubt that the Hindu in doing what appears to be an Adharma to a non-Hindu is merely asking the untouchables to follow the Dharma as prescribed by Manu.