Understanding Ambedkar’s view on Caste in

context of Justice and National Unity

Ratnesh Katulkar*

Abstract
Caste is one of the most challenging social institutions of India. It has
divided society into various rigid categories. It has also made a mockery of
democracy, as each caste becomes a vote bank for political parties leaving
no scope for individual decision- making. Even key political positions are
usually decided by caste rather than the quality of an individual. Yet it is
strange that this institution is defended by many stalwarts and thinkers.
Contrary to this popular approach Dr Ambedkar opposed caste, despite
being a victim of this institution. His opposition to caste was not based
on negative or violent reaction but it is based on humane and rational
approach. Ambedkar denied accepting caste as a race or any other physical
entity. He quoted references from ancient religious texts to show that the
Varnas which are popularly believed to be static in origin was at one time
lexible in nature. Caste is not race as there is hardly any racial similarity
between the same caste men of different regions. Castes can ultimately be
annihilated only by inter-caste marriages, but it is also imperative for every
citizen to leave aside traditional religious beliefs and teachings that hold
this institution sacred and unchangeable.
Key words: Caste, Varna, Untouchable, Brahmin

Caste is one of the topics which has been thoroughly dealt with Dr BR
Ambedkar. The foundation of Ambedkar’s relection on caste was perhaps
based on his social background. Being an untouchable, Ambedkar had
suffered a lot from the tyranny of the caste system. These sufferings
had surfaced in some of his writings, especially in his autobiographical
notes ‘Waiting for Visa’, where his childhood experiences are depicted.
Interestingly, at the young age of 25, Ambedkar’s irst academic presentation
‘Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development’ at the
anthropology seminar of Dr. A. A. Goldenweisar, Columbia University, New
York on 9 May 1916, dealt with the genesis and growth of caste; where
Ambedkar referred to the caste problem as a vast one, both theoretically and
practically, and said its discussion in the academic world is the exhibition
of a ‘human institution’(Ambedkar 1979). In later writings, especially
‘Essays on Untouchables and Untouchability’ and in his undelivered lecture
‘Annihilation of Caste’, Ambedkar described the anti-human tendencies of
* Social Scientist, Indian Social Institute, New Delhi
328 / SOCIAL ACTION VOL. 67 OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2017

caste in detail and commented that the caste system is not merely a division
of labour (as described by its propagators) but it is a division of the labourer.
Further, he said that in the irst place caste produces a spirit of rivalry
among the different castes for dignity. Secondly, it produces an ascending
scale of hatred and descending scale of contempt. (Ambedkar 1979; 48).
Ambedkar’s study and experience led him to view caste as a major source
of injustice and inequality in Indian society.
Caste is still a governing institution in India and there are frequent
appearances of stories of caste atrocities, which are enough to attest to its
presence and its continuous inhumanity in contemporary India. Yet, there
are a number of those who defend caste on various grounds. This group
also includes a number of inluential leaders and intellectuals. For instance,
Vivekananda, who is proudly remembered by Indians for his rational and
humanitarian outlook, especially for his lecture at Chicago World Religion
said, ‘Caste has kept us alive as a nation… It is in the nature of society to
form itself into groups…..caste is a natural order; I can perform one duty in
social life and you another; you can govern a country and I can mend a pair
of old shoes….caste is good.’ (Mani 2005; 226) and further elaborated his
opinion on caste as an ideal by saying:
Caste is a plan we want to follow. There is no country in the world
without caste. The plan in India is to make everybody a Brahmin, the
Brahmin being the ideal of humanity. Indian caste is better than the
caste that prevails, which prevails in Europe or America.1
Another stalwart of Indian culture and a veteran freedom ighter and social
reformer Gandhi2 also strongly defended caste by saying ‘I believe that
caste has saved Hinduism from disintegration.’ Gandhi strongly opposed
any move for abolishing caste and commented on it:
To destroy the caste system and adopt the Western European social
system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary
occupation which is the soul of the caste system. [The] hereditary
principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder.... It
will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra
and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin. The caste system is a
natural order of society.... I am opposed to all those who are out to
destroy the caste system.3
Similarly, leading philosopher Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan puts his argument
1 The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Kolkata,1985, Vol. V, pp 215
2 Ambedkar referred to many arguments of Gandhi’s advocacy of caste in his book ‘What Congress
and Gandhi had done to the Untouchables’ p. 270, originally quoted from Gandhi Shikshan.
3 Ibid. p.270
 UNDERSTANDING AMBEDKAR’S VIEW ON CASTE IN CONTEXT OF JUSTICE...UNITY / 329
in favour of caste by saying:
The system of caste insists that the law of social life should not be a
cold and cruel competition, but harmony and co-operation.4
The echo of the advocacy of caste is irmly established in Indian sociology,
where caste is treated as a useful element of Indian society for its so-called
merits in personal and social life. For instance, a textbook of uniied
syllabus of Madhya Pradesh University ‘Samajshastra: Samajshastriya
Awdharnayein Evam Bhartiya Samaj’ elaborated the importance of caste5
in the following terms—caste is an important element in Indian society as
it provides:
1. Mental Security
2. Social Security
3. Control of Individual Social Behaviour
4. Social Equity
5. Co-operation and Brotherhood
6. Reproduction-related Functions
7. Economic Functions
8. Provides Stability and Organisation to Society
9. Preservation of Culture
Using such arguments, caste is still being strongly defended in sociology. In
the same way, mainstream society believed in caste not only on the ground
of its so-called necessity but also for continuation of prevailing traditional
values and norms. Therefore, naturally, societies’ faith in caste is more
offensive and it never keeps any loophole on its application in society; this
often results in the violation of human rights and leads to atrocities.
As a reaction (against prevailing defensive and offensive moves for the
continuation and implementation of caste rules), there is a natural emergence
of rebellious and revolutionary trend against this system. This appeared
particularly in Dalit politics6, where a feeling of revenge appears in the form
of abusive and harsh words, for instance, the popular slogans—‘Brahmin,
Bania, Kashatriya Chor, Baki Sab DS-4’ (Brahmin, Baniya, Kashatriya are
thieves rest are DS-4) and ‘Tilak, Taraju Aur Talwar, Inko Maro Jute Char’
(Beat Brahmins, Banias and Kshatriyas with shoes). These slogans are
4 This quotation is collected from [Link]/qoutes.
5 p.p. 48-49, signiicance of caste is described in text books of various universities; for instance,
‘Samajshastriya Avadharnae’(Sociological Concepts) by Munidra Chaturvedi & Pushpa
Chaturvedi.
6 The use of abusive language and harsh words, particularly in north India, was initiated by Kanshiram,
who started his movement by forming DS4 and BAMCEF and later turned his organisation into a
political party, BSP. In the south, Periyar started an aggressive anti-Brahmin campaign long before
Kanshiram.
330 / SOCIAL ACTION VOL. 67 OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2017

not merely words but they show clear antipathy of the Dalits against caste
Hindus for their centuries old domination. This feeling is still a guiding
principle of many Dalit groups who irmly believe in the racial theory of
Aryan–Non Aryan conlict as a result of origin and growth of castes in
India as the main cause which led to the pitiable state of the Dalits and
Bahujans. The theory was initially propounded and popularised by Mahatma
Jotiba Phule7 in the early nineteenth century and was later picked up by the
majority of Dalit groups such as Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), Dalit Voice,
BAMCEF, AIMBUSS and others.8
Between these extremes, Ambedkar despite being the worst sufferer of
casteism, put his own views on caste in a different way and it was based
on humanism and rationality. In his judgment, caste is unnatural, inhuman
and worthless, hence its destruction is a must for the betterment of society;
yet his opinion was in contrast with the above said groups. The points of
difference were mainly two—in Ambedkar’s conclusion, caste is not the
same as race; and secondly, in his view caste is not a permanent entity as it
is commonly observed.

Caste is not Race

Ambedkar in his irst paper ‘Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis
and Development’ , which as said earlier was dealing with the genesis and
growth of castes in India was silent on the idea of Aryan invasion; instead
Ambedkar concludes his argument on the origin of caste by noticing its
most essential feature, endogamy, and he deined ‘caste as an enclosed class
which was created by the superimposition of endogamy over exogamy’
(Ambedkar 1979). In his later writing, ‘Who Were the Shudras,’ Ambedkar
irmly rejected the idea of Aryan invasion, and this research concluded that
Aryans were not foreign invaders and there is no evidence of imposing the
lowest social status to original inhabitants by them. In this book, Ambedkar
(1990: 70) after examining the Vedic literature opines:
In the Rig Veda there occur two words—one is Arya with a short ‘a’
7 Mahatma Jotiba Phule in his `Gulamgiri’ presented a detailed story of the Aryan invasion where
using the Puranas and other Brahmanic texts as sources he arguedthat Aryans conquered the native
people and established the four-fold social division.
8 Today other than the faction-ridden RPI (The Republican Party of India) and Samata Sainik Dal,
both founded by Dr. Ambedkar; and Ramvilas Paswan’s political outit ‘Lokjanshakti’ almost all Dalit
social and political organisation’s believe and propagate the Aryan racial theory. I found the reference
of Aryan invasion also in the recent programmes of ‘The Buddhist Society of India’; a religious
organisation which was established by Dr. Ambedkar in 1954. Dalit youth organisations are also found
to be attracted towards this theory as I observed in JNU and in other universities. I noticed that most
of the Ambedkarites are unaware of Ambedkar’s rejection of Aryan invasion. The only organisation
that I came across defending Ambedkar’s theory is the ‘Samata Sainik Dal’, Nagpur, which through its
lealets and mouthpiece is rejecting the racial theory and supporting the Ambedkar’s theory.
 UNDERSTANDING AMBEDKAR’S VIEW ON CASTE IN CONTEXT OF JUSTICE...UNITY / 331
and the other is Arya with a long ‘a’. The word Arya with a short ‘a’ is
used in the Rig Veda in 88 places. This word with short ‘a’ is used in
four different senses; as (1) enemy, (2) respectable person, (3) name
for India, and (4) owner, Vaishya or citizen and the word Arya with a
long ‘a’ is used in the Rig Veda in 31 places. But in none of the cases
these two words were used in the sense of race.
Therefore, he commented:
From the foregoing discussion, the one indisputable conclusion which
follows is that both the terms ‘Arya’ and ‘Arya’ which occur in the
Vedas have not been used in the racial sense at all. (ibid 70)
Thus, Ambedkar completely refuted the racial explanation of caste and
instead, from his earlier days onwards, opined that it was not race but
priestly supremacy, which led to the creation of castes and the foundation
of castes was based on the introduction of endogamy—an essential feature
of caste. Ambedkar (1979; 18) observed:
At some time in the history of the Hindus, the priestly class socially
detached itself from the rest of the body of people and through a
closed-door policy became a caste by itself. The other classes
being subject to the law of social division of labour underwent
differentiation, some into large, others into very minute, groups…
This sub-division of a society is quite natural. But the unnatural
thing about these sub-divisions is that they have lost the open-door
character of the class system and have become self-enclosed units
called castes.
Thus, Ambedkar observed priests’ i.e., Brahmins’ dominance responsible
for the genesis of castes, as it was the Brahmins who first enclosed
their community by becoming an endogamous class, and thus became a
separate social unit. Soon others imitated this policy of exclusiveness as in
traditional society the priest has always been in the superior status; therefore
a role model for others. This process was so effective that none of the social
classes was excluded in forming into endogamous classes; some followed it
voluntarily and others involuntarily. In Ambedkar’s words,
Some closed the door: others found it closed against them. One is a
psychological interpretation and the other is mechanistic, but they are
complementary and both are necessary to explain the phenomena of
caste formation in its entirety’. (Ambedkar 1979; 18)
However, in order to maintain the continuity of endogamy there was a need
for an ideal situation, means one woman for one man. Ambedkar (1979;
332 / SOCIAL ACTION VOL. 67 OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2017

9-10) observed:
It is absolutely necessary to maintain a numerical equality between
the marriageable units of the two sexes within the group desirous of
making itself into a caste. It is only through the maintenance of such
equality that the necessary endogamy of the group can be kept intact,
and a very large disparity is sure to break it.
Therefore, in the execution this new plan, the main challenge was the
surplus men or surplus women. So in order to control the surplus in both
genders new ways were introduced. Here Ambedkar (1979) pointed out that
women, being inferior to men, were easy prey for victimization as men being
powerful had upper hand in society and could not be forcibly controlled.
Thus the society let him untouched and all the restrictions were imposed
upon the surplus women. The irst ‘protective’ measure appeared with the
introduction of Sati system where a surplus woman (= widow) was disposed
of by forcing her to burn along with her deceased husband. However, in
some cases when it was dificult to execute on ground of humanity as well
as practical dificulties a second remedy, compulsory widowhood, was
introduced which was less than murder. But this plan had dangers of revolt,
so in order to guard the morals of the surplus women and also morals of the
group, the widows were obliged to follow much restrictions such as shaven
head, restriction on diets, wearing of colourless Sari9 and no intermixing
with anyone so that they were no longer sources of allurement. However,
such treatments were not possible in the case of surplus men. So there was
a risk of breaking the rule of endogamy by the surplus men. Therefore,
to disallow any such move which was contrary to endogamy the custom
of child marriage was introduced in which a surplus man was allowed to
re-marry, but to avoid competition in selection of women within a group.
The man was allowed to recruit his bride from lower marriageable rank.
This resulted in the beginning of girl-child marriage. Ambedkar (1979; 14)
writes:
Sati, enforced widowhood and girl marriage are customs that
were primarily intended to solve the problem of the surplus man
and surplus woman in a caste and to maintain its endogamy. Strict
endogamy could not be preserved without these customs, while caste
without endogamy is a fake.
Therefore, much before the Indian feminist school, Ambedkar found out
the direct relationship between caste and gender and observed that gender
9 The point of restriction of colourless Sari was added by me; this custom is still followed even in a
some part of urban India.
 UNDERSTANDING AMBEDKAR’S VIEW ON CASTE IN CONTEXT OF JUSTICE...UNITY / 333
could not be seen in isolation from caste and vice versa. In this process,
Ambedkar held the crafty approach of Brahmins responsible for the creation
of castes. However, an important difference between Ambedkar and others,
who also held Brahmins responsible for this mischief, was that contrary
to common belief, Ambedkar did not assume Brahmins as a race—people
from the same racial stalk—instead he found the process in ancient India
when the recruitment was being done to individuals of different groups
into particular Varnas. Ambedkar pointed out that in Vedic India there was
an oficiating body responsible for such recruitment. In this exercise, there
was likelihood of upward and downward mobility of the individuals in the
Varnas even between the Brahmin and Shudra status and thus in that period
one’s position in any Varna was not static. Ambedkar (1989; 286) observed:
The task of determining Varna of a person was affected by a body of
oficers called Manu and Sapta Rishis. From the mass of people Manu
selected those who were it to be Kshatriyas and Vaishas, and the
Sapta Rishis selected those who were it to be Brahmanas. After this
selection was made by Manu and Sapta Rishis for being Brahmins,
Kshatriyas, Vaishas, the rest that were not selected were called
Shudras. The Varna arrangement so determined lasts for one Yug i.e. a
period of four years. Every fourth year a new body of oficers known
by the same designation Manu and Sapta Rishi were appointed for
making a new selection. It happened that last time some of those
who were left to be it only for being Shudras were selected for being
Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas while some of those who were,
elected last time for being Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas were
left as being it only of being Shudras. Thus the personnel of the
Varna changed. It was a sort of a periodical shufling and selection of
men to take up according to their mental and physical aptitudes and
occupations, which were essential to the life of the community.
Therefore, in Ambedkar’s conclusion, Varna is not a race and each Varna is
composed of individuals of diverse segments of society and there was a time
when even in Brahman Varna, people from different backgrounds could be
recruited. This clearly suggests that even the Brahmin Varna is not a race
but this Varna is composed of individuals of different segments of people.
So if one applies this principle in the present society where each caste is
classiied in a particular Varna such as Gaud, Deshasth, Kanyakubjas in
Brahmin Varna, Rajputs in Kshatriya Varna, Bania and Neema in Vaishya
Varna; Lohar, Sunar, Yadav, Kurmi and Malis in Shudra Varna and Chamar,
Mahar, Mehtars in Ati-Shudra Varna, one must conclude that the different
castes in a particular Varna are not from the same racial stalk but had
334 / SOCIAL ACTION VOL. 67 OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2017

diverse backgrounds, whether it is on top of the hierarchy or at the bottom.

Moreover, this difference does not restrict to Varna alone but the racial
difference is also an aspect of the caste as there are visible differences in
features of the peoples of the same castes as well as striking differences
between those of the same caste. Ambedkar (1979 ; 48-49) observed:
To hold that distinctions of castes are really distinctions of race and
to treat different races is a gross perversion of facts. What racial
afinity is there between the Brahmin of Punjab and the Brahmin
of Madras (Tamil Nadu)? What racial afinity is there between the
untouchable of Bengal and the untouchable of Madras? What racial
difference is there between the Brahmin of the Punjab and the Chamar
of the Punjab? What racial difference is there between the Brahmin
of Madras and the Pariah of Madras? The Brahmin of the Punjab
is racially of the same stalk as the Chamar of the Punjab and the
Brahmin of Madras is of the same race as Pariah of Madras. Caste
system does not demarcate racial division. Caste system is a social
division of people of the same race.
Later he further elaborated this point in ‘The Untouchables’ where he quoted
Ghurye’s study, who says
It is clear that the nasal index of the Chuhra (the Untouchables)
of the Punjab is the same as the nasal index of the Brahmin of the
United Provinces; the nasal index of the Chamar (the Untouchables)
of Bihar is not very much distinct from the Brahmin of Bihar; the
nasal index of the Holeya (an Untouchable) of the Canarese is far
higher than that of the Brahmin of Karnataka and that the nasal index
of the Cheruman (an Unapproachable lower than Pariah) of the
Tamil belongs to the same race as the Brahmin of the Tamil Nadu. If
anthropometry is a science which can be depended upon to determine
the race of a people, then the result obtained by the application of
anthropometry to the various strata of Hindu society disprove that
the Untouchables belong to a race different from the Aryans and the
Dravidians. The measurements establish that the Brahmin Aryans and
the Untouchables belong to the same race. (Ambedkar 1990; 302)
Thus, Ambedkar discarded racial basis of caste on the ground of
anthropometry, and further continuing his argument of absence of racial
similarity in castes, Ambedkar took into account the practice of Kul and
Gotra tradition that, until the present time, preserved and universally
followed by Indians. He said if ‘the Kul and Gotras are said to a continuity
of hereditary lineage means of same blood relation, if this belief is true then
 UNDERSTANDING AMBEDKAR’S VIEW ON CASTE IN CONTEXT OF JUSTICE...UNITY / 335
why there is common Kul and Gotras between different castes!’ Ambedkar
particularly referred to the cases of similarity of Gotras and Kuls in two
prominent castes of Maharashtra and Punjab. In Maharashtra the Mahar
is untouchable and the Marathas are a forward caste; in Punjab Jat is the
forward caste and Mazabi Sikhs, the untouchables. Ambedkar (1990; 304)
writes:
If the same Kul and Gotra were found to exist in different castes
and communities it would be possible to say that the castes though
socially different were racially one. Two such studies have been made,
one in Maharashtra by Risley and another in the Punjab by Mr. Rose
and the result latly contradict the theory that the Untouchables are
racially different from the Aryans or the Dravidians. The main bulk of
the population in Maharashtra consists of Marathas. The Mahars are
the Untouchables of Maharashtra. The anthropological investigation
shows that both have the same Kul. Indeed the identity is so great that
there is hardly a Kul among the Marathas which is not to be found
among the Mahars and there is no Kul among the Mahars which is not
to be found among the Marathas. Similarly, in the Punjab one main
stalk of people consists of Jats. The Mazabi Sikhs are Untouchables,
most of them being Chamars by caste. Anthropological investigation
shows that the two have the same Gotras.
On this basis, Ambedkar argued that the untouchables do not belong to a
different race but are from the same racial stalk as the mainstream society;
he said:
If Totem, Kul, and Gotra have any signiicance it means that those
who have the same Totem must have been kindred. If they were
kindred they could not be persons of different race.10
Thus, Ambedkar completely rejected the argument of racial elements by
referring to anthropometry as well as through the prevailing common Kul
and Gotras in Dalits and others11; therefore his observation on caste was in
contrast with those who believe caste as race.

Caste is not a Permanent Entity

Caste is commonly observed as a permanent status in a predetermined social
scale; the reason behind this belief is quiet obvious, as there is no case where
an untouchable caste rose to the position of Brahmin or vice versa. This
10 Writings and Speeches of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Vol 7, p.304, Ambedkar came to a similar
conclusion in his study of Mahar caste; this is available in Vol 17 of his Writings & Speeches.
11 There is similarity in Kul and gotras of the Mahars of Maharashtra and the Kunbis of Madhya
Pradesh, for instance Khade in Mahrashtra is usually Mahar but in MP it belongs to Kunbis.
336 / SOCIAL ACTION VOL. 67 OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2017

belief also appeared in Ambedkar’s writings. However, at a deeper level,

Ambedkar was opposed to the belief of permanency of the same hierarchical
segments. In his view, caste system though always hierarchical yet at certain
level it had never been so static, and despite continuous feeling of high and
low there had always been instances of the upward and downward mobility
of different individuals and castes within the system. Ambedkar (1989; 207)
showed one such example, which he found in Ambattha Sutta, where the
Buddha, while answering an egoist Brahmin on the question of caste, started
seeking the lineage of that Brahmin and showed him that despite the claim
of Brahmanic superiority the Ambattha Brahmin was not in the superior
status since the beginning, but had a humble origin. “If one follows up
your ancient name and lineage, on the father’s and on the mother’s side,
it would appear that the Shakyas were once your masters, and that you are
the offspring of one of their slave girls. But the Shakyas trace their line
back to Okkaka the Kings” said the Buddha. Ambattha remained silent
after knowing his family history. Buddha’s explanation was not only for the
casteist Ambattha Brahmin but it is a teaching to all those who hold their
lineage as pure and superior to others as the real lineage of any individual is
hardly possible to know and such belief is nothing but a notion.
The other well-known example of changing status of caste in ancient India
is the case of Mauryan ascendancy. Mauryans were Shudras, but became the
rulers of the great Magadhan empire,12 and their predecessors the Nandas,
were also Shudras.13 The Guptas (Circa 320), Vasihyas successfully raised
their position by marrying Lichhavi princess to show their connection with
a royal community. So is the case of other great kingdoms like Satvahanas,
which had humble origins.14 Indian history has a number of such cases
where a lower caste/varna people gained upward mobility. In contrast,
there were many instances of downward mobility where a number of
castes and individuals degraded into lower social scale because of diverse
reasons such as refuting Brahmanism by their non-belief in the Varna
system, inter-marriages,15 relations with the lower castes, crossing the sea
and importantly, by the loss of political power. Ambedkar discussed the
downward mobility of castes in his book ‘Who Were the Shudras’ where he
categorically proved that the Shudras were not despised in society from the
very beginning, but were one of the branches of the Kshatriyas who later lost
their social position owing to the refusal of sacred thread by the Brahmins.
12 Majority of historians viewed Mauryans as Shudras, for instance, RS Sharma in `Ancient India’ had
expressed similar opinion.
13 Nandas were Shudras and there is no difference of opinion among scholars.
14 RS Sharma, in `Ancient India’, referred to Satvahanas as a tribe outside the Brahmainc fold which
connected them with Brahmanism to gain respect and power.
15 Out casting is still observed in contemporary India, particularly in the case of inter-marriages.
 UNDERSTANDING AMBEDKAR’S VIEW ON CASTE IN CONTEXT OF JUSTICE...UNITY / 337
A striking by similar case is that of the Doms, who according to social
hierarchy have been regarded the lowest even among the untouchables but
an inscription in Karnataka mentioned that they had founded kingdoms in
the Himalayan foothills (Jaiswal 2000; 88).
These two examples suggest the downward mobility of classes, and this
also proves that the Dalits had not been in the lowest social strata from
the beginning but they were degraded in later centuries. Apart from this,
Ambedkar also rejected the racial basis of Dalit class as he believed that
similar to other castes, the Untouchables were also not a separate race
and they were from the same racial stalk as with the mainstream society,
but were the Broken Men who appeared in the scene because of the tribal
warfare. Ambedkar (1990; 275) opines,
The problem of the Broken Men arose because of the continuous
tribal warfare which was the normal life of the tribes in their primitive
condition. In a tribal war, it often happened that a tribe instead of
being completely annihilated was defeated and routed. In many cases
a defeated tribe became broken into bits.
Thus Ambedkar believed that the untouchables were once Broken Men
and in order to prove this argument he took references from two sources.
First he tried to locate the meaning of words Antya and Antyaja which are
frequently referred to as synonyms of the untouchables. He irst took into
account the popular meaning of Antya, which means one who is born last
and as the untouchable. Here Ambedkar pointed out that according to the
Hindu order of divine creation, it was not untouchable who was born last
but it was the Shudra. Hence, according to him this argument is absurd and
does not accord with the Hindu theory of the order of creation. Therefore,
Ambedkar concluded Antya did not mean the end of creation but the end of
the village, those people who lived on the outskirts of the village. Therefore,
Ambedkar (1990; 278-279) located a survival value of the word Antya and
said:
It tells us that there was a time when some people lived inside the
village and some lived outside the village and that those who lived
outside the village, i.e. on the end (Antya) of the village, were called
Antyaja…The real reason is to be found in the use of the words
Antya, Antyaja and Antyavasin has thus double signiicance. In
the irst place, it shows that living in separate quarters was such a
peculiar phenomenon that a new terminology had to be invented to
give expression to it. Secondly, the words chosen express in exact
terms the conditions of the people to whom it applied, namely that
338 / SOCIAL ACTION VOL. 67 OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2017

they were aliens.

Ambedkar also added evidence to this point by searching the position of the
Mahar, a principal untouchable community in Maharashtra. He observed
that the Mahars are to be found in every village of Maharashtra; in all the
villages the Mahars have a quarters outside the wall; the Mahars by turn
do the duty of watch and ward on behalf of the village; and the Mahars
claim 52 rights against the Hindu villagers. Among these 52 rights, the most
important are: i) The right to collect food from the villagers; ii) The right
to collect corn from each villager at the harvest season; and iii) The right
to appropriate the dead animal belonging to the villagers. Based on these
observations Ambedkar (1990; 278-279) commented:
It will be accepted that there was a stage in the history of India when
Broken Men belonging to other tribes came to the settled tribes and
made a bargain whereby the Broken Men were allowed to settle on
the border of the village, were required to do certain duties and in
return were given certain rights. The Mahars have a tradition that the
52 rights were very ancient and were given them by the Muslim kings
of Bedar. This can only mean that these rights were very ancient and
that the kings of Bedar only conirmed them. These facts although
meager do furnish some evidence in support of the theory that the
Untouchables lived outside the village from the very beginning. They
were not deported and made to live outside the village because they
were declared Untouchables. They lived outside the village from the
beginning because they were Broken Men who belonged to a tribe
different from the one to which the settled tribe belonged.
The evidence of Mahars in Maharashtra resembles the case of the other Dalit
communities, particularly Dusadhs, the principal community, the Dalits of
Bihar, who are also known popularly as Paswans. The Dusadhs of Bihar
had been performing the same duties—soldiers, guards, watchmen etc. in
Bihar as the Mahars did in Maharashtra. The very meaning of ‘Paswan’ is
royal-guard. Among Dusadhs there is a traditional belief that they were a
branch of the Rajputs (read as the Kshatriya, in later terminology begin to
be called as the Rajputs), who were separated from the main branch and in
later period they were deemed as untouchables.16 This traditional belief was
prevalent among the Dusadhs of Bihar for centuries, i.e., much earlier than
Ambedkar’s opinion on Mahars. The resemblance of the duties of Mahars
and Dusadhs and their traditional belief strongly support Ambedkar’s
opinion.
16 This belief is common in Dusadh community of Bihar that they were originally belonged to Rajput
community and had their kingdom at Rajputana but they were later despised as untouchables.
 UNDERSTANDING AMBEDKAR’S VIEW ON CASTE IN CONTEXT OF JUSTICE...UNITY / 339

There is one more point to prove Ambedkar’s argument, as put up by

Bhagwan Das, a prominent Ambedkarite, in referring to the meaning of the
Bhangi, the sweeper caste. He said the root of the word Bhangi, is derived
from the Hindi word Bhang, that is ‘broken’. This also suggests resemblance
with Ambedkar’s view. Moreover, the meaning of Mehtar, (another sub-
caste in Bhangi) is ‘the prince’, which directly refers to the royal lineage
of this untouchable caste. This also proves Ambedkar’s argument that the
untouchable were not despised from the beginning but were one among the
ruling stalk who lost their position by tribal wars.
Referring to the point why the Broken Men became the subject of hate and
abhorrence, Ambedkar searched two causes—irst religious and second
customary. Ambedkar brought attention to an important phase of the Indian
history where Buddhism was once a prominent religion and was followed
by important rulers and the masses but later lost its position and became
a subject of hate.17 Ambedkar (1990; 314) found instances when the
Buddhists had been treated as untouchables he referred to one case from
Nilkant’s Prayaschit Mayukha, where in a verse Manu says:
“If a person touches a Buddhist or a lower of Pachupat, Lokayat,
Nastika and Mahapataki, he shall purify himself by a bath.”
Further, Ambedkar18 dug out the same doctrine in Apararka’s Smriti (smriti
samuchayaI and also quoted Vradha Harit, which goes further and declares
entry into the Buddhist temple as a sin requiring a puriicatory bath for
removing the impurity. Ambedkar also quoted the dialogues of Sanskrit
drama Mrichhakatikam, where a Buddhist monk was beaten brutally in
front of Hindu crowd only because of his following of Buddha’s dhamma.
It is well attested that Buddhism suddenly became a subject of hate and
contempt in the society, which was at that time governed by Brahmanic
theology. Further, royal commandments such as ‘setting of a price of 100
gold pieces on the head of every Buddhist monk’ shows the ascendancy
of Brahmanic autocracy. In such a situation, it is not wrong to assume that
there had been massive violence against the Buddhists. This hatred and
abhorrence ultimately resulted in degrading the Buddhists into untouchables.
Secondly, continuing his points on the relation between untouchablity and

17 Ambedkar in ‘Revolution and Counter-revolution in Ancient India’ discussed the Shunga’s

usurpation of kingdom by killing Brihadratha, the last successor of Ashoka and puts the cases of
atrocities on the Buddhists by the Brahmin rulers and said that Manu Smriti was coded during
Brahmin Pushyamitra Shunga’s rule.
18 Ambedkar in ‘The Untouchables’ described the cases where Buddhists being treated as untouchables
in a chapter ‘Buddhism as a cause of untouchability’.
340 / SOCIAL ACTION VOL. 67 OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2017

Broken Men, Ambedkar found the root in the practice of beef eating,19
which was once common among ancestors of the caste Hindus, but they
later discarded it and declared cow as sacrosanct. Ambedkar said that the
Brahmins adopted vegetarianism only to counter Buddhism, which became
so popular that it eroded the roots of Brahminism. The continuity of beef
eating by the Broken Men even after the mainstream completely abandoned
it further led them to exclusion and hatred.
Therefore, because of religious and political suppression untouchablity
came into existence. Thus, according to Ambedkar, the untouchables are not
a separate race but the Broken Men, who were once the Buddhists, and were
not only distinguished citizens but also they were rulers of the principalities.

Caste is a Notion of Hierarchy

Ambedkar not only rejected the racial basis of caste but he also viewed that
caste is not a physical object. He opined (1987: 62):
Caste is not a physical object like a wall of bricks or a line of barbed
wire…Caste is a notion, it is a state of mind.
It is important to note that the social position in the caste system is never
determined by worth or race, but by the practice that one observes, as it
happened in ancient India where the group that irst imitated Brahmanic
practice gained higher position and those who neglected it fell into
lower position.20 Ambedkar (1987: 44) also refers to the case of Pathare
Prabhus, one of the backward castes of Maharashtra, who tried to raise
their status by following Brahmanic practice of abandoning the widow-
remarriage. This process is continuing in contemporary society, Sriniwas
referred to it as Sanskritisation. Caste is therefore nothing but idealisation of
Brahmanism. For instance, the customs of Rajputs, Baniyas and to an extent
the Shudra castes (which is now classiied largely in the OBCs) are closer
to Brahmin culture, therefore they rank high in social scale. As the Dalits
owned different culture such as beef eating, no reverence to Brahmins,
comparatively lesser observance of gender discrimination etc21 they were
deemed as untouchables in the Hindu society.
We could understand this with an imaginary case of an individual caste
man or a group of a particular caste who migrates to a new place and adopts
the culture of upper castes. Then they will certainly get a place among the
19 Ambedkar referred to the texts in ‘The Untouchables’ to show the practice of beef eating in
ancient India. Rahul Sankrityayan in ‘Volga se Ganga’ also refers to this fact by quoting a verse of
Mahabharata, and RS Sharma referred to this practice in his book ‘Ancient India’.
20 Ambedkar in ‘Castes in India’ refers to this process of imitation.
21 Kancha Illiah discussed the distinguished culture of Dalits in ‘Why I am not Hindu.’
 UNDERSTANDING AMBEDKAR’S VIEW ON CASTE IN CONTEXT OF JUSTICE...UNITY / 341
upper castes. However, if they followed the culture of the depressed classes,
society will relegate them to a lower position. Therefore, in Ambedkar’s
vision caste is nothing but a feeling of hierarchy and superiority.

Conclusion
Ambedkar understood caste as a notion of hierarchy and he wanted to
convert the unjust and hierarchical society into an egalitarian society.
However, Indian social system with the theological support of Hinduism has
hegemonic belief in caste. Therefore, to eradicate caste, Ambedkar wanted
to attack its roots and this is the precise reason that he denounced Hinduism
and adopted Buddhism. Yet Ambedkar’s conversion to Buddhism is not
simply adopting new gods and new forms of worship; but more than this,
it is a complete change in one’s outlook in every ield of life. Ambedkar’s
Buddhism is fundamentally different from the traditional Buddhism where
there is little space for rituals, rather it is action-oriented and based on
the principle of liberty, equality and fraternity. In fact, Ambedkar tries to
profess Buddhism as an ideology nothing short of Marxism; and after his
formal conversion, Ambedkar did try to spread his understanding not only
amongst his Indian followers but also among his international audience.22
However, he did not get time for this mission, as he died just 54 days after
his conversion.23
It is important to note that despite serious sufferings from castiesm,
Ambedkar’s humanism and rationality remained unaffected and any reaction
against the pains of these sufferings never came into his writings and action.
Ambedkar irmly rejected any hateful move against caste Hindus. Instead,
he appealed to all and especially to the sufferers of the caste system to irst
change their own mindset by leaving their traditional belief and religion
and secondly by breaking caste through inter-caste marriages. Ambedkar’s
mission is just and this shows a practical way to bring peace and harmony,
which is the need of every nation.

References
Ajnat, Surendra. 1993. Letters of Ambedkar, Jalandhar: Bheem Patrika
Publication
Ambedkar, BR. 1987. Annihilation of Caste, Bangalore: Dalit Sahitya Akademy.
Illiah, Kancha. 1996. Why I am not a Hindu. Calcutta: Samya Publishers
Jaiswal, Suvira. 2000. Caste: Origin, Function & Dimension of Change. New
22 For instance he delivered a lecture ‘Buddha or Karl Marx’ in World Buddhist Conference at
Kathmandu on 20 November 1956.
23 Ambedkar embraced Buddhism on 14 October 1956 and died on 6 December 1956.
342 / SOCIAL ACTION VOL. 67 OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2017

Delhi: Manohar Publishers.

Keer, Dhananjay. 1954. Dr Ambedkar: Life and Mission, Mumbai: Popular
Prakashan
Mani, Brajranjan. 2005. Debrahmanising History, New Delhi: Manohar
Publishers
Moon, Vasant (ed.) 1979. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings & Speeches. Vol.1,
Bombay: Education Department, Govt. of Maharashtra.
______ (ed.) 1987 Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings & Speeches. Vol.3,
Bombay:Education Department, Govt. of Maharashtra.
______ (ed.) 1990. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings & Speeches. Vol. 7,
Bombay: Education Department, Govt. of Maharashtra.
_______. 2001. Dr Ambedkar Rashtriya Charit (Dr Ambedkar National
Biography) New Delhi: NBT
Moon, Vasant and Narke Hari (eds.) 2003. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings
& Speeches. Vol. 17, Part Three, Bombay:Education Department, Govt.
of Maharashtra.
Sharma, RS.1990. Ancient India, New Delhi: NCERT
Singh, RG. 2000. ‘Samajshastra: Samajshastriya Awdharnayein Evam Bhartiya
Samaj’ (Sociology: Sociological Concepts and Indian Society). Bhopal:
Madhya Pradesh Hindi Granth Academy)
Website: [Link]