________________
Vol. XXI, No. 3
85
Hindus (those included in the Chaturvarnya) and Avarnas or untouchables (those excluded from the Chaturvarnya)."13 Ambedkar thinks the interpretation is wrong. As there was no untouchability in the days of Manu and even the much despised Chandala was simply impure, "the passage cannot possibly have any reference to the untouchables." So he concludes that the verna in question refers to the slaves. The Närada Smști according to him speaks of the slaves as the fifth class while Manu rejects that view. 16
It is difficult to agree with him for two reasons. First, he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He rejects the traditional interpretation at one place and accepts it at the other. In order to establish
ntention that the verse refers to the slaves, the traditional interpretation is rejected. But in order to reject the view that the word Antya means untouchable, the traditional interpretation is accepted without least hesitation. Ambedkar bases his argument on interpretation when he declares: "The untouchable is outside the scheme of creation. The Shudra is Savarna, Ās against him the untouchable is Avarna i.e. outside the Varna System.”16 Such a method if employed unwittingly is illogical, if used deliberately it becomes a lawyer's trick unworthy of a serious work intended to discover the truth.
Again, Ambedkar's thesis would gain ground if the Nārada Smrti had really spoken of the slaves as the fifth varna. As a matter of fact, Nārada had no need to do that and did not say anything like that. Dr. Ambedkar has shown in the chapter, "Occupational Origin of untouchability” that Närada and Yajnavalkya recognized slavery and enjoined it in the descending order. That is, "a Brahmin could have a Brahmin Kshatriya, Vaishya and a Shudra as bis slave. A Kshatriya could have a Kshatriya, a Vaishya and a Shudra as his slave. A Shudra could bave a Shudra only."17 Instead of banning slavery, the law-makers simply re-organised it and based it on the principle of graded inequality, As there was no religious injunction against slavery, people belonging to any varna could become slaves. That is admitted by Ambedkar, what he fails to see is that the religious recognition of the institution of slavery made it possible for all and sundry to become slaves and retain their varna status even then. There could be no question of any person losing his varna status because of slavery. So the Brāhmaṇas, the Kșatriyas, the Vaishyas and the Shudras remained the same even when they become slaves. What would then be the need to designate the slaves as a fifth varņa ? True, it would not be legitimate if a person belonging to a higher varņa become the slave of a person belonging to a lower varņa. But even in that case there would be no need to formulate a fifth varna. Närada
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
