Tulsi Prajna 1995 10

SR No.: 524585
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Parmeshwar Solanki
Publisher: Jain Vishva Bharati
Publication Year: 1995
Total Pages: 174
Language: Hindi
Classification: Magazine, India_Tulsi Prajna, & India
File Size: 7 MB

Page 134

. 81
Vol. XXI, No. 3
ance of the Chandala girl, Ambedkar admits : "The king and the chieftains did not at first take notice of her. To attract attention she struck a bamboo on the mosaic floor to arouse the king" Such a manner of warning other people of their presence was operative in case of the untouchables only. There is nothing to indicate that other castes too had ever to do anything like that. Were she not untouchable, there would have been no need on the part of the fortres who introduced her to the royal court to ask her to see the king from a distance (dūradalokaya) Even the description of her appearance contains pointed references to her untouchability though in imperfections in Ridding's translation do not reveal them clearly. However, even in Ridding's translation quoted by Ambedkar we find the following: "as a lotus pool in a wood is troubled by elephants. so was she dimmed by her Mytanga birth.” Then we read : "like spirit, she might not be touched." That is not an accurate rendering of amurta miva sparshavarjitam' but that does show that the Chandala girl could not be touched. Then Ridding renders alephaya gata miva darshana. matrafalam' as like a letter, she gladdened the eyes alone". The correct rendering should be like a woman drawn in a picture, she was only an object to be seen". What the king thought after seeing her is even more indicative of her untouchability. To quote the translation used by Ambedkar : "the thought arose in his mind...... if she has been created as though in mockery of her Chandala form,.. ...why was she born in a race with which none can mate ? Surely by thought alone did Prajapatic create her, feel
ing the penalties of contact with the Matanga race." 5. Baņa's epithat : Chandala princess" used for the Chandala girl
does not warrant the conclusion that the Chandalas had not come to be regarded as untouchables" in his ages. It is in fact ridicu. lous to say that "the Chandalas of Bana's period had Ruling Families among them”. Ambedkar could commit such blunders simply because he had no knowledge of Sanskrit idioms. It is very common is Sanskrit to describe an elephant a 'gajaraja' and a lion as mrgaraja'. That does not prove that the elephants and deer have Ruling Families among them on that kingdomes ruled by elephants and lions really exist. If a Brahmana beggar is called dvijaraja' in a Sankrit work, no body who knows the language will rush to the conclusion that the beggar belongs to a ruling family. So the Chandala princess" of Kadambari does not mean anything else but the daughter of a Chandala chief, Ambedkar quotes Bana's description of Chandalas settlement. That is