Vol. 5 · pages 76–80

61 UNTOUCHABILITY AND LAWLESSNESS to Harijans in PEPSU. Chand Singh a Harijan of village Katu, district Bernala, was made to go round the village on the back of donkey with face blackened for the fault of having drunk water at the well of a high caste zamindar. “ In the changed atmosphere of free India, the members of the Scheduled Castes in the PEPSU are daily finding themselves put in a tight corner as a result of the unprecedented repression let loose upon them by the members of high castes.” The Provincial Depressed Classes League has further suggested formation of district and central special commissions in the State with wide powers to deal with the complaints on Harijans on the spot and afford them other facilities. Concluding, the League has urged upon the State Government that pending an all-India enactment in this connection, it may, temporarily be provided that the Harijans have equal rights in the village common, to ease the situation from further deterioration. zz

CHAPTER 7 WHY LAWLESSNESS IS LAWFUL? The foregoing discussion must have made clear two things which must be borne in mind. One is the sharp division between the touchables and untouchables, the other is the deep antagonism between the two. Every village has two parts, the quarters of the touchables and the quarters of the untouchables. Geographically the two are separate. There is always appreciable distance between the two. At any rate there is no contiguity or proximity between them. The untouchables quarters have a distinct name such as Maharwada, Mangwada, Chamrotti, Khatkana, 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 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 This essay has been received from Shri S. S. Rege. It is included here as the title is identical with the earlier chapter and also seems to be continuation of the discussion in the said chapter.—Ed.

63 WHY LAWLESSNESS IS LAWFUL? 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 his relationship are fixed when he is born in a certain group. His occupation, his dwelling, his gods and his politics are all determined for him by the group to which he belongs. 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 negotiation, not of law; and the clanless man is an ‘outlaw’, in fact as well as in name and lawlessness against the strangers 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. He cannot claim 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 a code it is, has already been stated. The untouchable is not willing to conform to that Code. He is not prepared to render unto Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar. The untouchable wants to have his relationship with the touchables by contract. The touchable wants the untouchables to live in accordance with the rules of status and not rise above it. Thus the two halves of the village, the touchables and the untouchables are now struggling for resettling what the touchable thinks is settled for ever. The conflict is centered round one question—What is to be the basis of this relationship? Shall it be contract or shall it be status? This raises some very interesting questions. How did the untouchables come to have the status of the lowliest and the low? Why has the Hindu cultivated this hostility and contempt for the untouchables? Why does the Hindu indulge in lawlessness in suppressing the untouchables as though such lawlessness is lawful? To give an adequate answer to these questions one has to go to the law of the Hindus. Without a working knowledge of the rules of the

64 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Hindu Law, it would be impossible to give any satisfactory answer to this question. For our purpose, it is not necessary to cover the whole field of Hindu Law in all its branches. It is enough to know that branch of the Hindu law which may be called the law of persons—or to put it in non-technical language—that part of the Hindu law which deals with differences of right, duty or capacity which result from differences of status. It is therefore proposed to give a catalogue of the rules of the Hindu Law which relate to the law of persons. These rules are collected from the Law Books of Manu, Yajnavalkya, Narada, Vishnu, Katyayana etc. who are some of the principal law givers recognised by the Hindus as persons having authority to lay down the law. A mere reproduction of the rules however interesting cannot be helpful in enabling a person who goes through them to have an idea of the basic conceptions which underlie the Hindu Law of Persons. For that purpose mere reproduction of the rules will not do. Some order is evidently necessary. What is therefore done is to group these rules under certain heads. The whole thing is cast in the form of a digest divided into sections, each section being an assembly of rules dealing with one definite matter. DIFFERENT CLASSES : THEIR ORIGIN AND THEIR DUTIES 1. This (Universe) existed in the shape of Darkness, unperceived destitute of distinctive marks, untenable by reasoning, unknowable, wholly immersed, as it were in a deep sleep.” 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 veda), 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. (I) Manu 1.5; (2) Ibid., 1.6; (3) Ibid., 1.31; (4) Ibid., 87; (5) Ibid., 1.88; (6) Ibid.. 1.89.

65 WHY LAWLESSNESS IS LAWFUL? 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 there 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 oneself 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 an income depends on their particular caste & occupation. EQUALITY BEFORE LAW 1. When two persons abuse each other, their punishment shall be equal if they are equals in caste; if one is inferior to the other, his punishment shall be double; for a superior, half (of the ordinary punishment) is ordained. 2. When persons equal in caste and qualities abuse one another, the punishment ordained for them in the system of law is thirteen Panas and a half. 3. For a Brahman abusing a Kshatriya, the fine shall be half a hundred (Fifty Panas); for abusing a Vaishya, half of fifty (twentyfive Panas); for abusing a Shudra, twelve & a half. (7) Manu 1.90; (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. (1) Brihaspati XX.5; (2) Ibid., XX.6; (3) Ibid., XX.7.