Broken Men, The Pre-Untouchables

[In primitive society] All tribes did not take to settled life at one and the same time. Some becamesettled and some remained nomadic. The second thing to remember is that the tribes were never at peace withone another. They were always at war. When all tribes were in a Nomadic state the chief causes forintra-tribal warfare were (1) stealing cattle, (2) stealing women, and (3) stealthily grazing of cattle in thepastures belonging to other tribes.

When some tribes became settled, the tribes that remained nomadic found it more advantageous to concentratetheir fight against the settled tribes. It was more paying than a war against other Nomadic tribes. TheNomadic tribes had come to realise that the Settled tribes were doubly wealthy. Like the Nomadic tribes, theyhad cattle. But in addition to cattle, they had corn which the Nomadic tribes had not and which they greatlycoveted. The Nomadic tribes systematically organized raids on the Settled tribes with the object of stealingthe wealth belonging to the Settled tribes.

The third fact is that the Settled tribes were greatly handicapped in defending themselves against theseraiders. Being engaged in more gainful occupation, the Settled tribes could not always convert their ploughsinto swords. Nor could they leave their homes and go in pursuit of the raiding tribes. There is nothingstrange in this. History shows that peoples with civilization but no means of defence are not able towithstand the attacks of the barbarians. This explains how and why during the transition period the Settledtribes were faced with the problem of their defence.

How the problem of the Broken Men arose is not difficult to understand. It is the result of the continuoustribal warfare which was the normal life of the tribes in their primitive condition. In a tribal war it oftenhappened that a tribe instead of being completely annihilated was defeated and routed. In many cases adefeated tribe became broken into bits. As a consequence of this there always existed in Primitive times afloating population consisting of groups of Broken tribesmen roaming in all directions.

To understand what gave rise to the problem of the Broken Men it is necessary to realise that PrimitiveSociety was fundamentally tribal in its organisation. That Primitive Society was fundamentally tribal meanttwo things. Firstly, every individual in Primitive Society belonged to a tribe. Nay, he must belong to thetribe. Outside the tribe no individual had any existence. He could have none. Secondly tribal organisationbeing based on common blood and common kinship an individual born in one tribe could not join another tribeand become a member of it.

The Broken Men had, therefore, to live as stray individuals. In Primitive Society where tribe was fightingagainst tribe a stray collection of Broken Men was always in danger of being attacked. They did not know whereto go for shelter. They did not know who would attack them and to whom they could go for protection. That iswhy shelter and protection became the problem of the Broken Men.

The foregoing summary of the evolution of Primitive Society shows that there was a time in the life ofPrimitive Society when there existed two groups - one group consisting of Settled tribes faced with theproblem of finding a body of men who would do the work of watch and ward against the raiders belonging toNomadic tribes, and the other group consisting of Broken Men from defeated tribes with the problem of findingpatrons who would give them food and shelter.

The next question is: How did these two groups solve their problems? Although we have no written text of acontract coming down to us from antiquity we can say that the two struck a bargain whereby the Broken Menagreed to do the work of watch and ward for the Settled tribes and the Settled tribes agreed to give them foodand shelter. Indeed, it would have been unnatural if such an arrangement had not been made between the twoespecially when the interest of the one required the co-operation of the other.

One difficulty, however, must have arisen in the completion of the bargain, that of shelter. Where were theBroken Men to live? In the midst of the settled community or outside the Settled community? In deciding thisquestion two considerations must have played a decisive part. One consideration is that of blood relationship.The second consideration is that of strategy. According to Primitive notions only persons of the same tribe,i.e., of the same blood, could live together.

An alien could not be admitted inside the area occupied by the homesteads belonging to the tribe. TheBroken men were aliens. They belonged to a tribe which was different from the Settled tribe. That being so,they could not be permitted to live in the midst of the Settled tribe. From the strategic point of view alsoit was desirable that these Broken men should live on the border of the village so as to meet the raids of thehostile tribes. Both these considerations were decisive in favour of placing their quarters outside thevillage.

We can now return to the main question, namely, why do the Untouchables live outside the village? Theanswer to the question can be sought along the lines indicated above. The same processes must have taken placein India when the Hindu Society was passing from Nomadic life to the life of a settled village community.There must have been in Primitive Hindu society, Settled tribes and Broken Men. The Settled tribes founded thevillage and formed the village community and the Broken Men lived in separate quarters outside the village forthe reason that they belonged to a different tribe and, therefore, to different blood. To put it definitely,the Untouchables were originally only Broken Men. It is because they were Broken Men that they lived outsidethe village.

This explains why it is natural to suppose that the Untouchables from the very beginning lived outside andthat Untouchability has nothing to do with their living outside the village. The theory is so novel thatcritics may not feel satisfied without further questioning. They will ask:

(1) Is there any factual evidence to suggest that the Untouchables are Broken Men?

(2) Is there evidence that the process of settlement suggested above has actually taken place in anycountry?

(3) If Broken Men living outside the village is a universal feature of all societies, how is it that theseparate quarters of the Broken Men have disappeared outside India but not in India?

ARE THE UNTOUCHABLES BROKEN MEN?

To the question: Are the Untouchables in their origin only Broken Men, my answer is in the affirmative. Anaffirmative answer is bound to be followed by a call for evidence. Direct evidence on this issue could be hadif the totems of the Touchables and the Untouchables in the Hindu villages had been studied. Unfortunately thestudy of the totemic organisation of the Hindus and the Untouchables has not yet been undertaken by studentsof anthropology. When such data is collected it would enable us to give a decisive opinion on the questionraised in this Chapter. For the present, I am satisfied from such inquiries as I have made that the totems ofthe Untouchables of a particular village differ from the totems of the Hindus of the village.

Difference in totems between Hindus and Untouchables would be the best evidence in support of the thesisthat the Untouchables are Broken Men belonging to a tribe different from the tribe comprising the villagecommunity. It may, however, be admitted that such direct evidence as has a bearing on the question remains tobe collected. But facts have survived which serve as pointers and from which it can be said - that theUntouchables were Broken men. There are two sets of such evidentiary facts.

One set of facts comprise the names Antya, Antyaja and Antyavasin given to certain communities by the HinduShastras. They have come down from very ancient past. Why were these names used to indicate a certain class ofpeople? There seem to be some meaning behind these terms. The words are undoubtedly derivative. They arcderived from the root Anta. What does the word Anta mean? Hindus learned in the Shastras argue that it meansone who is born last and as the Untouchable according to the Hindu order of Divine creation is held to be bornlast, the word Antya means an Untouchable. The argument is absurd and does not accord with the Hindu theory ofthe order of creation.

According to it, it is the Shudra who is born last. The Untouchable is outside the scheme of creation. TheShudra is Savarna. As against him the Untouchable is Avarna, i.e., outside the Varna system. The Hindu theoryof priority in creation does not and cannot apply to the Untouchable. In my view, the word Antya means not endof creation but end of the village. It is a name given to those people who lived on the outskirts of thevillage. The word Antya has, therefore, a survival value. It tells us that there was a time when some peoplelived inside the village and some lived outside the village and that those who lived outside the village, i.e.on the Antya of the village, were called Antyaja.

Why did some people live on the border of the village? Can there be any other reason than that they wereBroken Men who were aliens and who belonged to tribes different from those who lived inside the village? Icannot see any. That this is the real reason is to be found in the use of these particular words to designatethem. The use of the words Antya, Antyaja and Antyavasin has thus double significance. In the first place, itshows that living in separate quarters was such a peculiar phenomenon that a new terminology had to beinvented to give expression to it. Secondly, the words chosen express in exact terms the conditions of thepeople to whom it applied namely that they were aliens.

The second set of facts which shows that the Untouchables were Broken men relates to the position of acommunity called the Mahars. The Mahar community is a principle Untouchable community in Maharashtra. It isthe single largest Untouchable community found in Maharashtra. The following facts showing the relationsbetween the Mahars and the Touchable Hindus are worthy of note: (1) The Mahars are to be found in everyvillage; (2) Every village in Maharashtra has a wall and the Mahars have their quarters outside the wall; (3)The Mahars by turn do the duty of watch and ward on behalf of the village; and (4) The Mahars claim 52 rightsagainst 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.

The evidence arising from the position of the Mahars is of course confined to Maharashtra. Whether similarcases are to be found in other parts of India has yet to be investigated. But, if the Mahars case can be takenas typical of the Untouchables throughout India it will be accepted that there was a stage in the history ofIndia when Broken Men belonging to other tribes came to the Settled tribes and made a bargain whereby theBroken men were allowed to settle on the border of the village, were required to do certain duties and inreturn were given certain rights. The Mahars have a tradition that the 52 rights claimed by them against thevillagers were given to them by the Muslim kings of Bedar. This can only mean that these rights were veryancient and that the kings of Bedar only confirmed them.

These facts although meagre do furnish some evidence in support of the theory that the Untouchables livedoutside the village from the very beginning. They were not deported and made to live outside the villagebecause they were declared Untouchables. They lived outside the village from the beginning because they wereBroken Men who belonged to a tribe different from the one to which the Settled tribe belonged.

The difficulty in accepting this explanation arises largely from the notion that the Untouchables werealways Untouchables. This difficulty will vanish if it is borne in mind that there was a time when theancestors of the present day Untouchables were not Untouchables vis-a-vis the villagers but were merely BrokenMen, no more and no less, and the only difference between them and the villagers was that they belonged todifferent tribes.

(Excerpted from Chapters 3 and 4 of B.R. Ambedkar’s 1948 work The Untouchables: Who Were They and WhyThey Became Untouchables? as reprinted in Volume 7 of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches,published by Government of Maharashtra 1990. Copyright: Secretary, Education Department, Government ofMaharashtra.)