________________
208
TULSI PRAJNŇA
of their presence by raising four of their fingers which is supposed to mean that they are hardly better than quadruples.
"Untouchability in Japan can hardly be regarded as quite independent of the Indian ideas on the subject" says Jhurye. What he means in not clear to me. That Japan adopted untouchabily from India is simply incredible and raises the question why China, Burma, Cambodia, Thailand etc. did not follow suit. So it is more sensible to say that untouchability in Japan developed independently. Japan is not dominated by the Brahmaņas, it never was. Majority of the Japanese are Buddhists. That the social divisions in Japan were not influenced by Indian ideas on the subject, is borne out sufficiently by the fact that soldiers (Samurai) and not the priests were the highest class of society in Japan, So the contempt for Buddhists could not have given birth to untouchability in Japan.
The rivalry of the Buddhists and Brahmaņas is totally absent it both the cases noted above. The Brahmaņas did not dominate there during the centuries the untouchability is known to have been practised there. They are not dominating in Japan or Arabia to day either. So the roots of untouchability practised there must be sought somewhere else than in the Brahmanas contempt for the Buddhists.
Antyajas Vs. Untouchables
An other objection against Ambedkar is that despite claims to the contrary, it fails to explain the rise in the number of the untouchables. People called Antya, Antyaja, Antyavasin etc. in the Dharmashastras were 'Impure', not 'Untouchables' according to him. The 'Impure' were Broken Men, some of whom took beef and became untouchables subsequently. He contrasts the list of the socalled Impure class with the government list of the untouchables (1935) and concludes that Charmakara is the only caste which is included in both lists and regarded as untouchable throughout India. The number seems to have risen mysteriously. We cannot explain the presence of hundreds of untouchable castes otherwise, Dr. Ambedkar fails to explain how and why the number went up suddenly. Nobody can explain it with the theory of Ambedkar.
The next and greatest objection against Ambedkar's theory is that it fails to explain why separate settlements did not disappear in India the way they did in Ireland, Wales etc. Non-tribesmen in other countries married in the tribe for generations and became absorbed in the village community which led to disappearance of their separate quarters. That should have happened in India too, but did not, why? The answer is that the notion of untouchability
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
