________________
Vol. XXI, No. 4
131
deemed proper that they should live on the border of the village so as to meet the raiders there.
As similar developments took place else where, it would not be irrational to assume that it happened so in India also. There are two evidentiary facts to support the assumption. First, the names 'antya', 'antyaja' and 'antyavāsin' are given to certain communities in the Hindu Shastras. These words derived from 'anta' are generally taken to mean "one who is born last" but Ambedkar argues they should mean "people living on the outskirt of the village". The second set of fact relates to the position of the Mahar community in Mahārāśtra. They are to be found in every village and have their quarters outside a wall that marks the end of the village They do the duty of watch and ward on behalf of the village and collect food from the villagers, collect corn from each village at the harvest season and appropriate the dead animal belonging to the villagers. Dr. Ambedkar believes such was the condition of the people living outside the villages throughout India in ancient times. 3. Parallel to the Antyajas in India were the cases of the Fuidhirs of Ireland and Alltudes in Wales. Such separate settlements for Broken Men have disappeared everywhere else now. The reason is at a certain stage common territory was substituted for common blood as the bond of union by the society. There is no adequate explanation for the change but it did happen. The change was brought about by the rule of ennoblement. According to that rule if a non-tribesman lived next to the tribe or married within a tribe for a given number of generations he became their kindred. Such a rule existed in Ireland and Wales and India too had a rule like that which is referred to by Manu.” Manu says that a Shūdra can become a Brāhmana if he marries for seven generations within the Brāhmaṇa community. This rule would have led to absorption of the Broken Men in the village community and their separate quarters would have disappeared. That did not happen in India because the emergence of untouchabilitv prevented the amalgamation, 4. Stanley Rice in his book, 'Hindu Customs And Their Origins' sought the origin of untouchability in racial differences. His views are examined and rejected by Dr. Ambedkar. Arguments against Stanley Rice are, in brief, the following :(a) It is far from established that the word 'Aryan' is a term
indicative of race while it is beyond dispute that the Aryans were
not a single homogeneous people (b) Nagas, Dravidians and Dasas are not different, they are but
three names of the same people.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
