These three terms are usually used interchangeably. Basically they refer to a common phenomenon. However, there are some differences. Historically they refer to three phases in the history of those who have been classified as the lowest castes of India.
The Shudras.
This category comes from the Vedas, the sacred texts of the Hindus. This word “Hindu” also needs an explanation.
“The name Hindu is itself a foreign name. It was given by the Mohammedans to the natives for the purpose of distinguishing themselves. It does not occur in any Sanskrit work prior to the Mohammedan invasion. They did not feel the necessity of a common name because they had no conception of their having constituted a community. Hindu society as such does not exist. [42] It is only a collection of castes. Each caste is conscious of its existence. Its survival is the be all and end all of its existence. Castes do not even form a federation. A caste has no feeling that it is affiliated to other castes except when there is a Hindu-Muslim riot. On all other occasions each caste endeavours to segregate itself and to distinguish itself from other castes. Each caste not only dines among itself and marries among itself but each caste prescribes its own distinctive dress.” [ 43]
The Vedas classified every one into four castes. Ambedkar explained this thus;
According to the Brahmins, the Vedas have defined what is an ideal society and the Vedas being infallible, that is the only ideal society which man can accept.
The ideal society prescribed by the Vedas is known by the name Chaturvarna.
Such a society, according to the Vedas, must satisfy three conditions.
It must be composed of four classes, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras.
The interrelations of these classes must be regulated by the principle of graded inequality. In other words, all these classes are not to be on equal level but to be one above the other, in point of status, rights and privileges.
The Brahmins were placed at the top; the Kshatriyas were placed below the Brahmins but above the Vaishyas; the Vaishyas were placed below the Kshatriyas but above the Shudras and the Shudras were placed the lowest of all
The third feature of Chaturvarna was that each class must engage itself in an occupation assigned to it. The Brahmins’ occupation was to learn, teach and officiate at religious ceremonies. The Kshatriyas’ occupation was to bear arms and to fight. The occupation of the Vaishyas was trade and business. The Shudras’ occupation was to do menial service for all the three superior classes.
No class is to transgress and trench upon the occupation of the other classes. [ 44]
At this stage Shudras still enjoyed some rights. The right to collect food from villagers, the right to collect corn from each villager at the harvest seasons and the right to appropriate the dead animals belonging to the villagers. [45]
The Buddha’s Challenge to Caste
This period of Shudras came to a serious crisis, when Buddha began to reject the entire doctrine of the Veda’s and preached equality as against caste. It is one of the great events of human history when the people of most parts of India were converted to the preaching of Buddha, in his own lifetime. Later his teaching spread to most other neighbouring countries.
Ambedkar gives the following as a summary of Buddha’s teachings on caste:
“The Buddha opposed it root and branch. He was strongest opponent of caste and the earliest and staunchest upholder of equality. There is no argument in favour of caste and inequality which he did not refute. There were many Brahmins who challenged Buddha on this issue. But he silenced them completely. The story is told in the Assalayana-Sutta that once the Brahmins persuaded one of them, by name Assalayana, to go to the Buddha and controvert his views against caste and inequality. Assalayana went to the Buddha and placed before him the case in favour of the superiority of the Brahmins. He said, “Brahmins maintain, Gautama, that only Brahmins form the superior class, all other classes being inferior; that only Brahmins form the white class, all other classes being black fellows; that purity resides in Brahmins alone and not in non Brahmins; and that only Brahmins are Brahma’s legitimate sons, born from his mouth, offspring of his, creations of his, and his heirs. What does Gautama say hereon?” The Buddha’s answer simply pulverised Assalayana. The Buddha said: “Assalayana, are not the Brahmin wives of Brahmins known to have their periods, and to conceive, and to lie and give birth? Notwithstanding this do Brahmins really maintain all what you have said though they are themselves born of women like everybody else?” Assalayangave no answer. The Buddha went further and asked Assalayana another question. “Suppose, Assalayana, a young noble consorts with a Brahmin maiden, what would be the issue? Will it be an animal or human being?” Again Assalayana gave no answer. “As to the possibility of moral development, is it only a Brahmin and not a man of the other three classes, who in this country, can develop in his heart the love that knows no hate or ill-will?” “No. All four classes can do it,” replied Assalayana. “Assalayana! Have you ever heard,” asked the Buddha, “that in the Yona and Kamboja countries and in other adjacent countries, there are only two classes, namely, masters and slaves, and that a master can become a slave and vice versa?” “Yes, I have heard so,” replied Assalayana. “If your Chaturvarna is an ideal society, why is it not universal?” On none of these points was Assalayana able to defend his theory of caste and inequality. He was completely silenced. He ended by becoming a disciple of the Buddha. A Brahmin by name Vasettha had embraced the religion of the Blessed Lord. The Brahmins used to abuse him for his conversion. One day he went to Buddha and disclosed to him what the Brahmins said of him. Then Vasettha said: “The Brahmins, Lord, say thus: ‘Only a Brahmin is of the best social grade; other grades are low. Only a Brahmin is of a clear complexion; other complexions are swarthy. Only Brahmins are of pure breed; not they that are not of the Brahmins. Only Brahmins are genuine children of Brahma, born of his mouth, offspring of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma. As for you, you have renounced the best rank and have gone over to that low class, to the shaven recluses, to vulgar rich, to them of swarthy skins, to the foot-born descendants. Such a course is not good, such a course is not proper, even this, that you, having forsaken that upper class, should associate with an inferior class, to wit, with shaveling, fair folks, menials, swarthy of skin, the offspring of our kinsmen’s heels. In these terms, Lord, do the Brahmins blame and revile me with characteristic abuse, copious, not at all stinted.” “Surely, Vasettha,” said the Buddha, “the Brahmins have quite forgotten the ancient lore when they say so. On the contrary, the wives of Brahmins, like all women of other classes, are seen to be with child, bringing forth and nursing children. And yet it is these very womb-born Brahmins who say that Brahmins are genuine children of Brahma, born from his mouth; his offspring; his creation; and his heirs! By this they make a travesty of the nature of Brahma.” Once the Brahmin Esukari went to the Buddha to argue with him three questions. The first question he raised related to the permanent division of occupations. In defense of the system he began by saying: “I have come to ask you a question. The Brahmins say they shall serve nobody because they stand above all. Everyone else is born to serve them. “Service, Gautama, is divided into four – service of Brahmin, service of noble, service of a middle-class man, or by a peasant; while a peasant may be served only by a peasant, – for who else could?” What does the reverend Gautama say hereon?” The Buddha answered him by asking a question: “Is the whole world in accord with Brahmins in their fourfold division of service?” asked the Lord. “For myself, I neither assert that all service is to be rendered nor that all service is to be refused. If the service makes a man bad and not good, it should not be rendered; but if it makes him better and not bad, then it should be rendered. This is the guiding consideration which should decide the conduct alike of nobles, of Brahmins, of middle-class men and of peasants; each individual should refuse service which makes him bad and should accept only the service which makes him a better man.” The next question raised was by Esukari. “Why should ancestry and lineage not have a place in determining the status of a man?” To this question the Buddha replied thus: “As against pride of ancestry, the station into which a man happens to be born determines only his designation be it noble or Brahmin or middle-class or peasant. Even as a fire is called after the material out of which it is kindled, and may thus be called either a wood-fire, or a chip-fire, or a bracken-fire, or a cow dung fire, just in the same way the noble, transcendent doctrine, I aver, is the source of true wealth for every man, birth merely determining his designation in one of the four classes. Lineage does not enter into a man’s being either good or bad: nor do good looks or wealth. For, you will find a man of noble birth who is a murderer, a thief, a fornicator, a liar, a slanderer, a man of bitter tongue, a tattler, a covetous person, a man of rancour or of wrong views, and therefore I assert that noble birth does not make a good man. Or again you will find a man of noble birth who is innocent of all these vices; and, therefore, I assert that it is not lineage which makes a man bad.” The third question which Esukari raised was with regard to the ways of earning a living assigned to each class. The Brahmin Esukari said to the Lord: “Brahmins give a fourfold assignment of income, from alms, for Brahmins; from his bow and arrows, for the noble; from ploughing and tending cattle, for the middle-class man; and for the peasant, by the carriage of crops on the pole slung over his shoulder. If anyone of these deserts his vocation for something else, he does what he should not do, not less than a guardian who appropriates what is not his. What does the reverend Gautama say on this?” “Is the whole world in accord with this Brahmin classification?” asked the Lord. “No,” replied Esukari. To Vasettha he said: “What is important is high ideals and not noble birth. “No caste; no inequality; no superiority; no inferiority; all are equal. This is what he stood for. “Identify yourself with others. As they, so I. As I, so they,” so said the Buddha.” [ 46]
The Untouchables
This period of Buddhism in India, which was also one of the richest in India and in world history, came to an end with the collapse of Buddhism in India and the rebuilding of Hinduism. The reason for the collapse Ambedkar says was the Mohammedan invasions and the killing of Buddhist monks by the Mohammedans. [ 47]
The period of revivalism of Hinduism was marked by great tensions between the low castes and Bhrahmins. The Bhrahmins tried to establish their hegemony as the superior caste and to have their position accepted by all. The Low Castes rejected this. This internal struggle had determined the characterisation of untouchables even by the colonial officers of the British Empire. The distinguishing features of untouchables, according to a census circular issued by Census Commissioner in 1911, are these: “they deny the supremacy of Bhramins, do not receive Mantra from a Bhramin or otherwise recognise Hindu Guru, deny the authority of Vedas, do not worship Hindu Gods, are not served by good Bhrahmins as family priests, have no Bhrahmin priests at all, are denied access to interior of Hindu temples, cause pollution (a) by touch, or (b) within a certain distance, bury their dead and eat beef and not reverence the cow.”
Thus while the Shudras period was marked by the imposition of Veda’s doctrine and at least considering Shudras as lower in the ladder of Hindu caste structure, the untouchability resulted in creating the total outcasts. Physically this meant ousting the untouchables even from their habitats and pushing them into a ghetto. Ambedkar called them, people of the Indian ghetto. All forms of contact were forbidden by the use of rules of untouchability.
The Dalits
The name Dalit means the oppressed. It is a term used by the Dalits themselves to denote their protest. This was a quite a new term as it has come into use only after the 1950’s. The movements that fought for the rights of the untouchables achieved much during the twentieth century, though the fundamental place for Dalits as a whole has not yet significantly changed. The struggle however has intensified and has been contested severely. The Dalits are today a formidable force. The resolving of this problem by a final and complete abandonment of the caste ideal of society is very much on the agenda. It can easily be said that the greatest enduring achievement of India in the twentieth century is the progress, though small, that has been made in liberating the Dalits. The primary contributors to this process are the Dalits themselves. The opposition to this change has been strong and continues to be so. As many Dalits became more confident and defiant, the violence used against them has become more severe. Such use of violence is itself evidence of the upper caste realisation that the contest is not going in their favour. It is beyond dispute that Ambedkar had contributed more than any other single individual to bring about this situation. It is quite obvious that Dalits have selected him as their symbol.
[42] This explanation of the word Hindu given by Ambedkar differs from the usual explanations, which is sometimes found in dictionaries; according to the usual explanation the word Hindu comes from Sindhu a river today known as Indus [back to text]
[43] B.R. Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste, 1937 [back to text]
[44] Buddha and His Dhamma -This book was published 1957 one year after Ambedkar’s death. It is a long exposition in which Ambedkar attempted to give “a clear and consistent statement of the life and teachings of the Buddha”as he said in the introduction to the book. [back to text]
[45] B.R. Ambedkar, The Untouchables, Bheem Patrika Publications- India- Firstedition-1948 [back to text]
[46] Buddha and His Dhamma [back to text]
[47] B.R. Ambedkar, The Untouchables, Bheem Patrika Publications- India- First edition-1948 [back to text]
