Vol. 7 · pages 316–320

THE UNTOUCHABLES : RACIAL DIFFERENCE ... 297 once held a great portion of the valley of the Ganges, which, as we have already seen, was occupied in very early times by Naga tribes. The Cherus appear to have been gradually ousted from their lands, during the troublous times of the Mohammedan invasions, and they are now poor and almost landless. There can be little doubt that these people are kinsmen of the Dravidian Cheras. The Cherus have several peculiar customs and amongst them one which seems to connect them with the Lichhavis, as well as with the Newars of Nepal. This is the election of a raja for every five or six houses, and his investiture, in due form, with the tilak or royal frontal mark.1 Both Lichavis and Newars had many customs in common with the Dravidians of the South. Each venerated the serpent, Karkotaka Naga being to Nepal what Nila Naga was to Kashmir. A Naga, too, was the tutelary deity of Vaisali, the Lichavi capital. The marital relations of Newars and Lichavis closely resembled those of the Tamil people, and go far to show a common origin. Property amongst the Newars descended in the female line, as it once did amongst the Arattas, Bahikas or Takhas of the Punjab, whose sisters’ sons, and not their own, were their heirs. 2 This is still a Dravidian custom. In short, a recent Dravidian writer, Mr. Balakrishna Nair, says that his people ‘appear to be, in nearly every particular, the kinsfolk of the Newars.’ 3 Besides all this, however, there are other links connecting the Naga people of the South with those of the north of India. In an inscription discovered by Colonel Tod at Kanswah near the river Chambal, a Raja, called Salindra, ‘of the race of Sarya, a tribe renowned amongst the tribes of the mighty’ is said to be ruler of Takhya. 4 This was evidently the Takhya or Takha kingdom of the Punjab, which was visited by Hiou-en-Tsiang, 5 and which has been already referred to. It seems, therefore, that the Naga people of Takhya were known also by the name of Sarya. Again, in the outer Himalaya, between the Sutlej and Beas Valleys, is a tract of country called Sara, or Scoraj. In this district the Naga demigods are the chief deities worshipped. There is another Seoraj in the Upper Chinab Valley, and this too is occupied by a Naga worshiping people. The name Saraj, or Seoraj, appears to be the same as the Sarya of Colonel Tod’s inscription and as Seori, which is the alternative name of the Cherus of the Ganges Valley. It also seems to be identical with Sarai, which we have already seen, is the old Tamil name for the Chera or Naga. Apparently, therefore, the Saryas or Takhya, the Saraj people of the Sutlej Valley, the Seoris or Cherus of the valley of the Ganges, and the Cheras, Seras, or Keralas of Southern India, are but different branches of the same Naga-worshipping people. It may be noted, too, that in some of the Himalayan dialects, Kira or Kiri means a serpent. This name, from which was perhaps derived the term Kirate 1. Sherring Races of N.W.P., 376,377 2. Mahabharata, Karna, p. xiv 3. Calcutta Review, July, 1896 4. Annals of Rajasthan, i. 795 5. Hiouen Tsiang, Beal, i. 165

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES298 so often applied to the people of the Himalayas, is found in the Rajatarangini, where it is applied to a people in or near Kashmir. The Kiras are mentioned by Varaha Mihira, and in a copper plate published by Prof. Kielhorn. 1 An inscription at the Baijnath temple in the Kangra valley gives Kiragrams as the then name of the place. 2 This, in the local dialect, would mean the village of serpents. The Naga is still a popular deity at Baijnath, and throughout the neighbouring country. The term Kira is thus an equivalent for Naga, and it can scarcely be doubted that the serpent-worshipping Kiras of the Himalayas were closely related to the Dravidian Keras, Cheras or Keralas of the South. Similarity of name is not always to be trusted, but here we have something more. These people, whose designation is thus apparently the same, are all of Solar race; they all venerate the hooded serpent; and they all worship, as ancestors, the Naga demi-gods. From the foregoing it would seem tolerably certain that the Dravidians of Southern India were of the same stock as the Nagas or Asuras of the North.” It is thus clear that the Nagas and Dravidians are one and the same people. Even with this much of proof, people may not be found ready to accept the thesis. The chief difficulty in the way of accepting it lies in the designation of the people of South India by the name Dravidian. It is natural for them to ask why the term Dravidian has come to be restricted to the people of South India if they are really Nagas. Critics are bound to ask : If the Dravidians and the Nagas are the same people, why is the name Nagas not used to designate people of South India also. This is no doubt a puzzle. But it is a puzzle which is not beyond solution. It can be solved if certain facts are borne in mind. The first thing to be borne in mind is the situation regarding language. Today the language of the Southern India differs from that of the people of Northern India. Was this always so? On this question the observations of Mr. Oldham 3 are worth attention. “It is evident that the old Sanskrit grammarians considered the language of the Dravidian countries to be connected with the vernaculars of northern India; and that, in their opinion, it was especially related to the speech of those people who, as we have seen, were apparently descendants of the Asura tribes. Thus, in the ‘Shahasha Chandrika’, Lakshmidhara says that the Paisachi language is spoken in the Paisachi countries of Pandya, Kekaya, Vahlika, Sahya, Nepala, Kuntala, Sudesha, Bhota, Gandhara, Haiva and Kanoj; and that these are the Paisachi countries. 4 Of all the vernacular dialects, the paisachi is said to have contained the smallest infusion of Sanskrit.5 1. Rajatarangini, Stein, viii. 27, 67, Rapson J. R. A. S., July 1900, 533 2. J. R. A. S., Jan., 1903, p. 37 3. The Sun and the Serpent. 3. and 5. Muir O.S.T. ii.49

THE UNTOUCHABLES : RACIAL DIFFERENCE ... 299 That the Asuras originally spoke a language which differred from that of the Aryas seems evident. Several passages are quoted by Prof. Muir, from the Rig Veda, in which the word ‘mridavach’ is applied to the speech of the Asuras (R.vi.74, 2; v. vi.3; v.vii.6). Of these passages, Professor Muir observes: “The word mridavach, which I have translated “injuriously speaking”, is explained by Sayana as meaning “one whose organs of speech are destroyed”. 1 The original meaning of the expression was, doubtless that the language of the Asuras was more or less unintelligible to the Aryas. The same explanation will apply to another passage in the Rig Veda, where it is said : ‘May we (by propitiating Indra) conquer the ill speaking man.’ 2 From the Satapatha Brahmana we find that ‘the Asuras, being deprived of speech, were undone, crying. ‘He lava’, ‘He lava’. Such was the unintelligible speech which they uttered. And he who speaks thus is a Mlecha. Hence, let no Brahman speak barbarous language, since such is the speech of Asuras 3 We learn from Manu, that ‘those tribes who are outside of the classes produced from the mouth, arms, thighs and feet of Brahman, whether they speak the language of the Mlechas or of the Aryas, are called Dasyus., 4 In the time of Manu, therefore, the Aryan language and that of the Mlechas or Asuras were both in use. At the period described in the Mahabharata, however, the Asura language must have almost died out amongst the Aryanized tribes; as Vidura addressed Yudhishthira in the Mlecha tongue, so as to be unintelligible to all except Yudhishthira. 5 At a later period than this, however, the grammarian Rama Tarkavagisa refers to ‘those who speak like Nagas.’ 6 It would seem, therefore, that the unregenerate Asuras retained the language, as well as the religion and customs, of their forefathers long after their converted brethren had discarded them. It was evidently amongst these unregenerate tribes that the Paisachi dialects were in use; and amongst these tribes, as we have just seen, were the Dravidian Pandyas. 7 This view, that the Tamil and cognate tongues were founded upon the ancient Asura speech, is very strongly confirmed by the fact that the language of the Brahuis, a tribe on the borders of Sind, has been found to be very closely allied to them. Indeed, Dr. Caldwell says: ‘The Brahui (language) enables us to trace the Dravidian race, beyond the Indus, to the southern confines of Central Asia. This country, as I have already pointed out, was the home of the Asuras or Nagas, to which race apparently belonged the founders of the Dravidian kingdoms.’ Taking into consideration all the evidence which has been brought forward, the only possible conclusion seems to be, that the Dravidians, of the south of India, were of the same stock as the Asuras or Nagas of the North.” The second thing to be borne in mind is that the word ‘Dravida’ is not an original word. It is the Sanskritized form of the word Tamil’. 1. Muir, O.S.T. ii. 49 2. Rig Veda, Wilson VII, XVIII, 13 3. Satapatha Br. iii. 2, 1, 23 4. Muir, Haughton x. 45 5. Mahabharata, Adi. Jatagriha, p. cx/vii 6. Muir, O.S.T. ii. 52 7. Ibid. 49

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES300 The original word ‘Tamil’ when imported into Sanskrit became Damita 1 and later on Damilla became Dravida. The word Dravida is the name of the language of the people and does not denote the race of the people. The third thing to remember is that Tamil or Dravida was not merely the language of South India but before the Aryans came it was the language of the whole of India, 2 and was spoken from Kashmere to Cape Camorin. In fact, it was the language of the Nagas throughout India. The next thing to note is the contact between the Aryan and the Nagas and the effect it produced on the Nagas and their language. Strange as it may appear the effect of this contact on the Nagas of North India was quite different from the effect it produced on the Nagas of South India. The Nagas in North India gave up Tamil which was their mother tongue and adopted Sanskrit in its place. The Nagas in South India retained Tamil as their mother tongue and did not adopt Sanskrit the language of the Aryans. If this difference is borne in mind it will help to explain why the name Dravida came to be applied only for the people of South India. The necessity for the application of the name Dravida to the Nagas of Northern India had ceased because they had ceased to speak the Dravida language. But so far as the Nagas of South India are concerned not only the propriety of calling them Dravida had remained in view of their adherence to the Dravida language but the necessity of calling them Dravida had become very urgent in view of their being the only people speaking the Dravida language after the Nagas of the North had ceased to use it. This is the real reason why the people of South India have come to be called Dravidians. The special application of the use of the word Dravida for the people of South India must not, therefore, obscure the fact that the Nagas and Dravidas are the one and the same people. They are only two different names for the same people. Nagas was a racial or cultural name and Dravida was their linguistic name. Thus the Dasas are the same as the Nagas and the Nagas are the same as the Dravidians. In other words what we can say about the races of India is that there have been at the most only two races in the field, the Aryans and the Nagas. Obviously the theory of Mr. Rice must fall to the ground. For it postulates three races in action when as a matter of fact we see that there are only two. 1. B. R. Bhandarkar, Lectures on the Ancient History of India (1919), p: 80 . 2. Ibid pp., 25-28

THE UNTOUCHABLES : RACIAL DIFFERENCE ... 301 II Granting however that there was a third aboriginal race living in India before the advent of the Dravidians, can it be said that these pre-Dravidian aboriginals were the ancestors of the present day Untouchables of India? There are two tests we can apply to find the truth. One is the anthropometric test and the other is the ethnological. Considered in the light of the anthropometric characteristics of the Indian people Prof. Ghurye has something very striking to say in his volume on ‘Caste and Race in India’ from which the following is an extract : “Taking the Brahmin of the United Provinces as the typical representative of the ancient Aryans we shall start comparisons with him. If we turn to the table of differential indices we find that he shows a smaller differential index as compared with the Chuhra and the Khatri of the Punjab than with any caste from the United Provinces except the Chhatri. The differential index between the Khatri and the Chuhra 1 is the only slightly less than that between the Brahmin of the United Provinces and the Chuhra of the Punjab. This means that the Brahmin of the United Provinces has closer physical affinities with the Chuhra and the Khatri of the Punjab than with any caste from his own province except the very high caste of the Chhatri...... The reality of this close affinity between the United Provinces Brahmin and the Punjab Chuhra is more clearly brought out if we look at the table of differential indices between the United Provinces Brahmin and the Brahmins of other regions. Even the differential index between the United Provinces Brahmin and the Bihar Brahmins, who from what we know about the history of spread of the Aryan culture, is expected to be very nearly allied to the former, is just as high as that between the United Provinces Brahmin and the Chuhra...... On historical ground we expect Bihar to approximate to the United Provinces. On referring to the table we find that the Kurmi comes near to the Brahmin, and the Chamar and the Dom 2 stand much differentiated from him. But the Chamar in this case is not as much distinct from the Brahmin as the United Provinces Chamar is from the United Provinces Brahmin. The table for Bengal shows that the Chandal 3 who stands sixth in the scheme of a social precedence and whose touch pollutes, is not much differentiated from the Brahmin, from whom the Kayasthas, second in rank, can hardly be said to be distinguished. In Bombay the Deshastha Brahmin bears as closer affinity to the Son-Koli, a fisherman caste, as to his own compeer, the Chitpavan Brahmin. The Mahar, the Untouchable of the Maratha region, come next together with the Kunbi, the peasant. Then follow in order the Shenvi Brahmin, the Nagar Brahmin and the high caste Maratha. These results are rather old. Stated in a generalized form they mean that there is no correspondence between social gradation and physical differentiation in Bombay. 1. Chuhra is an Untouchable of the Punjab. 2. Dom is an Untouchable of Bihar. 3. Chandal is an Untouchable of Bengal.