Monday, September 20, 2010

[ZESTCaste] Untouchability: a sin and a crime

Opinion » Lead
September 19, 2010

Untouchability: a sin and a crime
M. S. Prabhakara

The Hindu Members of the Tamil Nadu Untouchability Eradication Front
staging a demonstration in Ooty. File Photo: D. Radhakrishnan
Untouchability was not so much a sin as a calculated crime. But it is
easier for everyone, even some victims, to treat it as a sin, for
acceptance of moral culpability costs nothing.

The recent walkabout (padayatre) of Basavananda Maadara Channaiah
Swamiji, head of a Dalit matha (gurupeetha) in Chitradurga, in a
predominantly Brahmin-inhabited agrahara in Mysore, and the cordial,
indeed reverential, welcome he received highlight the changing formal
perceptions about the substance and practice of untouchability in

The Swamiji, by birth a Madiga, was received, according to media
reports, with all the traditional honours given to heads of well-known
Brahmin mathas. Photographs showed him having his feet washed (pada
pooje) by women and men of the Brahmin community. During his
walkabout, he was accompanied by large crowds of local residents.

This Brahmin-Dalit interaction has been initiated by Swami Vishvesha
Theertha of Pejawar Matha, Udupi. Once a leading light of the Vishwa
Hindu Parishad, he has also been campaigning on the dangers that
Hinduism, the Sanatana Dharma, is facing through conversions. Though
proselytisation is not unique to the so-called monotheistic faiths,
and Hinduism too has engaged in conversions (See, "A natural process
of transformation," The Hindu, November 7, 2008), the belief is
widespread that Hinduism is peculiarly vulnerable because it is a
non-proselytising faith, unlike Christianity and Islam, seen as
engaged in a systematic campaign to draw people away from the Hindu
fold. To counter conversions of Dalits into Christianity or Islam,
Swami Vishvesha Theertha has undertaken such walkabouts in Dalit
villages, more accurately described by their residents as 'holegeri,'
meaning localities inhabited by the holeya, the word itself meaning
something that is dirty, besmirched, telling more about the reality of
everyday life and experience of Dalits than these symbolic walkabouts.

Clearly, among traditional Hindu religious leaders there is awareness
that the practice of untouchability is damaging the faith, driving
Dalits away, and some alarm over its implications. Dalits who may (or
may not) have at one time passively accepted the practice as part of
the natural ordering of caste hierarchies of the varnashrama dharma,
have been restive for generations. Along with several non-Brahmin
castes, Dalits too are now establishing the so-called jathi mathas,
headed by persons of their kind, bearing all the outward symbols and
accoutrements of the heads of traditional Brahmin maths.
Superficially, perhaps even in a fundamental sense, these mathas have
appropriated all the visible symbols and the essential evils of
Brahminism in practice. According to one scholar, there are at least a
hundred such non-Brahmin mathas in Karnataka, most of which came up in
the post-Emergency political churning of the State.

However, the correctives being applied, like demonstrative walkabouts
by Brahmin leaders in areas one shunned as literally dirty and
polluting , and by Dalit leaders in areas formally barred to Dalits,
or the washing of the feet of a Dalit guru by Brahmins, are driven by
a fundamentally flawed perspective that sees untouchability as a
'sin.' Thus the symbolic atoning by those who provided the ideology,
the 'upper' caste Hindus like Brahmins — for it was the Brahmins who
wrote the texts. These attempts to weld a common Dalit-Brahmin
platform, united in symbolic acts of unity and togetherness, also make
those Dalits who are going along with such a compact complicit in
their historic diminishment and exclusion.

The problem with such gestures is that the practice of untouchability
was not so much a sin as a calculated crime, part of a social
structure constructed by those who controlled the resources to
facilitate the accumulation of surplus and profits in the process of
material production. However, it is easier and more comfortable to
everyone, even some of the victims of that crime, to give
untouchability the spin of being a 'sin,' for acceptance of moral
culpability costs nothing. If, on the other hand, one were to see the
practice as a calculated crime for which one has to eventually pay,
those who have perpetrated such crimes could, under a proper system of
justice, be sent to prison.

Comparison with apartheid

A comparison with the practice of apartheid in South Africa which,
despite historic and cultural differences, had remarkable similarities
with the practice of untouchability in India will amplify the point
made above. It should be noted that although formally apartheid — an
elaborate system of separation of races on the basis of colour
covering every aspect of life in South Africa, from the womb to the
tomb and even beyond — was legislated by the Nationalist Party
government in 1948, the ideology itself went back to the very
beginnings of colonial occupation; and the policy of racial
discrimination was introduced by the English settler regime, long
before the Afrikaner settler regime perfected it and implemented it in

In apartheid South Africa, apartheid was the norm for the minority of
whites, barring honourable exceptions who went to the trenches and
paid with their lives fighting against it. However, when democratic
South Africa was faced with the task of tackling its tormented past,
it created through legislation a structure and an instrument called
Truth and Reconciliation Commission which was tasked to establish, to
the extent possible, the 'truth' about South Africa's apartheid past
and enable the 'reconciliation' between the victims and perpetrators
of the apartheid system. According to Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Chair
of the TRC and the principal driver of the process, all South Africans
were victims of the system, even those who were part of successive
apartheid regimes. "We are a deeply wounded people, we all need to be
healed," was one of his frequent observations.

The overwhelming majority of the victims did not buy into this
approach. For them, apartheid was an instrument devised and contrived
to make the majority of South Africans un-persons in the country of
their birth, a necessary tool to keep the production process on, but
with no rights to have a share in the fruits of their labour. However,
when the time for reckoning came with the advent of a democratic
government in April 1994, the instrument devised to take stock of the
past, the TRC, chose to see apartheid as a 'sin'; and when the
criminality of the regime could not be ignored, this crime was
enlarged to become "a crime against humanity," for humanity's
shoulders are broad enough to carry any crime, instead of a specific
crime against the majority of South Africans punishable under the law.

This perspective is similar to the one that views untouchability as a
'sin' for which those responsible for evolving its theory and
implementing it must 'atone' by "washing the feet" of the victims of
the practice. Interestingly, one of the most feared flunkeys of the
apartheid regime, Adrian Vlok, minister for law and order under P.W.
Botha, who had tried to get Frank Chikane — a leading churchman
opposed to apartheid from a Christian perspective — murdered by
getting his underwear laced with poison, three years ago publicly
apologised to Chikane and, as an expression of remorse, "washed the
feet" of his once-intended victim in his office in the Presidency,
where Chikane was Director-General.

To say that apartheid and untouchability by their policy of exclusion
and diminishment deny equal rights to the majority of the people is to
state the obvious. The question is: Why? Why did they do it? To
explain the practice as a moral sin against god and man is to take the
easy way out. On the contrary, if one were to see these practices as
crimes, one has to seek a more rational explanation. These practices
deny their victims equal rights and practise exclusion because only
thus can those who practice untouchability and apartheid ensure a
permanent, cheap, virtually free supply of labour, which the minority
can exploit to enrich itself.

Put simply, the ideological foundation of apartheid and untouchability
was economic, not any perversely conceived and articulated "divinely
ordained moral law." If one were to view these practices as a 'sin,'
the road leads directly to feet washing, public embrace, eating
together and all that. In the era of the allegedly free and globalised
markets, the most casteist and racist of persons will gladly shake
hands, embrace, and share food with those who deep down they despise
if this huge reserve of virtually free labour were to be available on
tap. Only this explains the eagerness with which the Hindutva forces
are embracing, actually initiating, these meaningless gestures.

If, on the other hand, one were to see untouchability as a crime, not
merely in a legal sense which it is, but as part of an arrangement to
ensure the continued enrichment of a minority, one can see such
gestures as feet-washing for what they are — a theatre of high
moralism and low, calculated cunning.


Get all ZESTCaste mails sent out in a span of 24 hours in a single mail. Subscribe to the daily digest version by sending a blank mail to, OR, if you have a Yahoo! Id, change your settings at

On this list you can share caste news, discuss caste issues and network with like-minded anti-caste people from across India and the world. Just write to

If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTCaste by sending a blank mail to OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting

Also have a look at our sister list, ZESTMedia:! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Archive