________________
Vol. XX, No. 4
141
appears undue importance is being attached to religious differences. It does not seem very probable that differences regarding the way to salvation, regarding the existence of God and Soul etc. would lead to conflicts and leave deep impression on society. Without deep economic and social reasons conflicts do not become sharp and leave no lasting impressions. Is it credible that the disputes between the Shaivas and Vaisnavas in the past were not rooted in the clash of material interests or that the Arabs invaded different countries simply for the poius zeal of breaking idols and had no desire to plunder ? In modern times the riots of Malabar, Noakhali etc. were rooted in the conflict of the interests of landowners and peasantray though the real issues got distorted as the two sides belonged to two different religions. Therefore, it would not be proper to identify as the main factor the Hindu-Buddhist dispute or acceptance or non-acceptance of some food. That may be taken as a secondary factor leading to untouchability if we come across some evidence to support the contention. More than that we can not reasonably hold.
The tbird weakness of Ambedkar's theory is that it totally ignores the fact that even the untouchable castes are discriminating, Nobody reading his work will ever learn that it is not only the savarna Hindus who keep certain people at good distance but certain untouchable castes treat other untouchable castes in the same fashion. So we shall have to find out an explanation of untouchability that accounts for the mutual hatred among the untouchables too.
The fourth weakness of Ambedkar's theory is that it declares emphatically that occupation has nothing to do with untouchability. We are going to discuss it later. But we can note the questions here that the theory raises : If occupation has nothing to do with untouchability, why is it that the Brāhmanas, Ksatriyas and Vaishyas are forbidden to adopt the occupations of even the Shūdras ? Why is it that untouchables cannot take the occupations of even barbers, kahars or sweet-makers ? Have other castes ever taken the occupations of the untouchables or ever expressed the desire to do that? If the answers to all these questions are not found to satisfy us, how can we say it has nothing to do with occupation ?
References: 1. Manu, V. 51-56 2. Manu, X. 64-67 3. G. S. Ghurye, Caste and Racein India, Sth adn., 1969, PP. 311-2. 4. The Untouchables, P. 32 5. Do, P. 40
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
