The Pros And Cons Of The Untouchables

1621 Words7 Pages
The Untouchables were conventionally considered to be outcastes, outside the Hindu religious system, below even the Shudras or servants, and were treated as impure and contaminated due to their deliberate ignorance of sanatana brahmanical Hindu dharma ritual and ensuing buildup of pollution. The levels of punishments sentences for disobedience of caste boundaries in all aspects and spheres of social communication are lengthily recognized in the sanatana Brahmanical Hindu dharma codes . Untouchability stems from the ranking position of castes and sub castes that is rigid neither by prosperity nor learning nor the possession of land, but by the taking of water . Zinkin elaborates very interesting observation that water may perhaps be taken from equals and superiors, but not from inferiors. Untouchability differs in degree…show more content…
Every feature that can be recognized can also be contradicted by the pragmatic truth of caste divisions in Hindu society. Zinkin clearly writes that it is much easier to say what caste is not than what caste is . The scholar proceeds to record what caste is not- it is not class, for in every caste there are educated and uneducated, rich and poor, well-born and ordinarily born; it is not skin color, for an Untouchable is an Untouchable whether born fair or dark and it is not the Aryan or non-Aryan, for the Aryans never penetrated into the South or East of India and it is not profession, for even though some occupations are tremendously recognized with particular castes, mostly artisans, the main occupation, agriculture, is open to all up to Vaishya and Shudra castes . Panikkar, writing in 1933, summarized caste as a common system of life, a religion, rather than a varying Hindu social order, and its caste rigidity with which its rules are imposed would put to humiliation even the Great Inquisition
Open Document