Name: Meghna Amin

Course: Thinking and Imagination

Word Count: 5400
Untouchability
The phenomenology of touch is extremely complicated in the sense that this major organ of
perception is understood almost in contrast to one another among disciplines. The prominent
ones being Biology, Philosophy and Sociology. In the paper my focus will primarily revolve
around how the sense of touch and place is associated with the concept of untouchability and
how it functions in accordance with the act of meaning making and its association with the
existing caste practices.
As a process, untouchability has existed in the Indian society through time
immemorial. Considered a part of the Hindu tradition, the Dalits have been constantly
subjected to this practice of discrimination that is primarily based on touch. Apart from
several revolutionary movements, and having gotten themselves an alternate name of Dalits
as against Harijan, nothing much has changed in regard to the practice of untouchability.
Tracing the roots of this term-untouchability, the first records of its usage goes back to the
1560s then used in connection with immaterial objects. It is simply the culmination of two
terms namely un/not and touch which comes together to form untouchability. 1909 is the first
record of the term being used in the Indian context to signify hierarchy of the castes
(Charsley 1996). Since then there have been several narratives to this concept. It has been
defined and understood in multiple ways. Sundar Sarukkai elaborates on this stance by saying
Untouchability refers to certain practices of the upper castes such as refusing to touch or
share with people who have been called the untouchables and who today are collectively
called dalits. These sets of practices involve not only proscriptions on both groups of people
but are often justified through notions of purity and other concepts (Sarukkai 2009). This
definition highlights an extremely crucial functioning factor of the Hindu society which
happens to be the notion of purity and pollution. The upper castes and in particular the
Brahmins are staunch followers of this. Here is it Interesting to note that in establishing
untouchability as the relation that binds the brahmin and the untouchable (not the nonbrahmin) he circumvents the role of the two other varnas- kshatriyas and vaisya- who while
equally sharing with the brahmins the monopoly of the knowledge of the scriptures contribute
1

in no less manner for the continuance of the practice of untouchability (Cybil 2009).
Sarukkai also talks about the element of contact which is a pre-requisite medium to
experience or practice touch. The space that then becomes the access or denial of this kind of
perception. It is this space that is heavily guarded by the Brahmins and other upper castes that
practice Untouchability. He says, Touch is more than contact because of the ever present,
inerasable space between the objects of touch. It is the manipulation of this intervening
medium that constitutes the different textures of touch. It is also this ever-present medium
which is untouchable in the act of touch. Thus, the idea of untouchability is always present,
always contiguous to the act of touch. The notion of untouchability is all the more interesting
because we are always in the process of touching even when we do not act to touch
(Sarukkai 2009, 40). Going back to the idea of Purity and pollution in the Hindu tradition
several body parts as well as a few elements of nature are thought of as purifying and
polluting. Taking for example the Panchamahabhute, this has both the sociological and the
egalitarian aspects attached to it. Gopal Guru is of the opinion that all of these constructs and
in turn the practice of Untouchability is directed towards the self-preservations of the
Brahmins. Since the origin and the fast spreading of Sanskritization, which is the imitation of
the upper castes by the lower castes in order to elevate their social standing. Due to this there
is an increased pressure on the Brahmins to keep their clan exclusive, hence rising the need to
practice and follow several rigorous codes of conduct. Unfortunately for the Brahmins,
sanskritization wasnt a fool proof plan for them to maintain or redeem their sense of
superiority. Thus leading us back to the Panchamahabhute which are then manipulatively
used for the convenience of the upper castes. Manu as part of the Manusmriti has in very
clear terms pointed out the various elements that are pollutants to the upper castes. Other than
water which is very well associated with the concept of untouchability Manu also talks about
the other four elements that make up the Panchamahabhute namely Earth, Air, Fire and
Space. It is funny how all these elements end up having both polluting and purity aspects to
them that vary constantly with situations and are largely dependent on the power structure
involved {Brahmin v/s Dalit} (Guru 2009).
Archaeology of Untouchability by Gopal Guru
In this paper Guru talks about the multiple dimensions associated with untouchability as a
real concept. Like others he too believes that to grasp untouchability in its fullest it has to be
approached through various perspectives but he manages to offer two points of view those
being the philosophical and the archaeological. Right at the beginning Guru points out that
2

the concept is grasped and attempted to be understood in fields such as literature and not so
much in subjects such as political science, economics or philosophy. Even sociology and
anthropology he says fail to analyse it to its fullest degree, though both these subjects deal
essentially around society and people. One reason that the writer points out for this lack is
because he believes that Untouchability is an experience that cannot be limited to mere
descriptions and boxed under concepts or theories. As mentioned above Gopal Guru
identifies two perspectives to approach the concept of untouchability. The first being:
1. Philosophical: Here he engages with the metaphysics of the body, the distinctive
relationship between contact and touch, the idea of the real untouchable etc. There is
an attempt here to distinguish between the ritual and bodily spaces particularly in
association with impurity. Certain elements such as sweat, ordure, urine etc. are
unpleasant in nature and hence constitute to the aspects of impurity. Since all of these
are part of the metaphysical body there is a sort of equality among people on the
ontological level. This Guru says is sort of an insight that people need to pick up
before they sit to categorise people into attractive and ugly. Taking it a step further it
can be understood that all of us are constituted pretty much similarly with the amount
of dirt and filth on the metaphysical level. Thus making all of us equally pure and
impure with respect to each other. From these metaphysical impurities Guru moves on
to the Panchamahabhuta, which are recognised as the five elements that constitute the
universe according to a few schools of thought under Indian Philosophy. Here too
each of the constituent elements has both good and bad aspects to them. Pure at times
and impure some other times. What is interesting to note here is that under every
element there is a way in which the Brahmins are aware of using a particular element
that was previously polluting to now purify them by using relevant rituals. He also
points out several binaries that are usually associated with the term untouchability.
There is the pure v/s the impure, the touchable v/s the untouchable. These binaries
become extremely significant during the act of meaning making. One is able to
understand the other in opposition or in contradiction to the other. But on the social
level these two categories share a very complex association. Because for the
sustenance of a society the Untouchable become crucial as they are mostly associated
with carrying out menial but extremely necessary jobs such as the disposal of corpses,
cleaning of the sewage, house help etc. As very appropriately said by Gopal Guru It
seeks to undercut the social significance of the twice born by making the latter realise
3

that they are either parasites or free riders resting their burden on the body of the
untouchable (Guru 2009, 53).
2. Archaeological: under this vast domain Guru narrows his thoughts to make sense of
the connection that exists between caste and untouchability. He starts off with a
powerful statement borrowed from a fellow Maharashtrian Social thinker by the name
Vitthal Ramji Shinde who says, Untouchability is a kind of repulsive feeling, a sort
of nausea, that sits deep at the bottom of the brahminical mind (Guru 2009, 50). The
method of archaeology is what Guru finds most appropriate to detect the nausea like
attitude. He also points out that in the modern times untouchability is no longer
limited to the level of social interaction as was seen in the feudal times, but now it has
slithered all the way to the bottom of the hierarchical mind. This he says is because
with time the practice of untouchability has become much more subtle due to the
layers within which its meaning has been buried. Thus, justifying the approach of
archaeology as opposed to sociology. Because now there is no need to invent but a
larger necessity to discover the essence and truth of caste that has been lost and buried
under layers of meaning and signification.
Archaeology in recent times has become a popular term that keeps cropping up in several
fields of study such as the humanities, social and physical sciences. But according to Guru,
the archaeological method is revealing only in certain situations when it involves the concept
of caste. He explains further by suggesting that the archaeological method is rendered pretty
much useless in the rural Indian context as untouchability is practised openly in these
societies along with the emphasis on caste hierarchies. Hence for archaeology to thrive there
is a need for the existence of a spatially ambiguous context. Certain things must be hidden
and archaeology then becomes a tool to decipher information. As in the case of the urban
context the ambiguity of identities is much higher and the existence of the binary identity of
the pure and impure ceases to exist. The despicable untouchable provides a subjective
condition for the self preservation of the pure untouchables (Guru 2009, 55). With this
increased dilution the domestic sphere happens to be the only outlet for the practice of
untouchability to take its full form in the urban context. The domestic space then works in
two peculiar ways. First, there is scope for the upper caste person to either engage in
purification acts both in the physical and ritual spheres. Second, the twice born is able to
exercise the principle of sovereignty, in his private space he gets to decide who to let in and
welcome into his house. Now he is extremely cautious and would only invite people whose
4

backgrounds he is absolutely sure about. Interestingly, the axis between the domestic and
the public spheres provides space for archaeological articulation (Guru 2009, 55). On the
other for the untouchable the domestic sphere adorns a meaning in complete opposition to the
upper caste. This becomes a safe place for him to finally pull off all his masks. To get rid of
all the physical attributions such as the pot around his neck, a black cloth around his wrist
which he is otherwise made to wear for safeguarding the purity of the upper castes.
Unsurprisingly untouchability also is a binary is whose existence is essential for the
sustenance of the pure. They do everything that the untouchable doesnt. They model
themselves in opposition to the untouchable, making life for the latter unbearable (Guru
2009, 49-56).
Phenomenology of untouchability by Sundar Sarukkai
The paper essentially explores the concept of untouchability through the perception of touch.
The writer tries to define untouchability through the act of touch and determines how the
Brahmins end up gaining from this atrocious practice of untouchability through a concept
called supplementation. Untouchability refers to certain practices of the upper castes such
as refusing to touch or share water with people who have been called the Untouchables and
who are today collectively called dalits. (Sarukkai 2009, 39) Touch as we all know
constitutes one of the primary sense organs. Among several Indian philosophical schools of
thought touch is accepted as the dominant mode of sensory perception. To experience touch
the presence of a medium is very essential. It could simply refer to the moment towards an
object in order to ensure the meeting of two surfaces. In order to sense touch there is a need
for constant recreation of these distances. Then it becomes important to note that touch is
more than contact because of the ever existing space between the objects of touch. It is
through the manipulation of this constantly existing medium that we are able to experience
various kinds or textures of touch. Interestingly then it is this medium that becomes
untouchable during the act of touch. Hence the idea of untouchability is always present and
we are always involved in the process of touching, just that we are not engaged in the act of
touching (Sarukkai 2009, 42). The writer clarifies and differentiates between the concepts of
touch and contact. Touch for Sarukkai is a guna or quality. It then becomes exclusive to
human perception and is an asymmetrical association between tow objects. As opposed to,
contact which is, more broad in its scope and involves a two way relationship between the
touched and the toucher. In this context there is need for us to redefine the term touch which
in an everyday scenario would mean contact. But as mentioned above touch according to a
5

number of the Indian schools of thought is a reference to an inherent quality present in

objects. In the larger understanding then the quality of un-touch is pre-existing within the
bodies of specified individuals, meaning to say that the person is untouchable irrespective of
being or not being in contact with another body. In the Indian context, the creation of
untouchables as a category precisely does this job of creating a discursive set of objects- and
these are the objects of the sense of the non-touch or un-touch. Therefore, just as there are
objects of vision and hearing, there are objects specific to the sense of un-touch these are
the untouchables (Sarukkai 2009, 43). The untouchable them is not something that cannot be
touched but rather ought not to be touched. Hence the actual source of untouchability is the
person who is in capable of touching either the object or the touchable person. The writer
takes this concept of being touch unable and emphasises on the point that when an individual
practices untouchability then he is to a large extent denying the act of touching himself.
Further Sundar points out how the symmetrical act of untouchability elicits asymmetrical
responses from the Brahmins and the untouchables respectively. He points out the existence
of the obvious power-play because of which the phenomenology of untouchability for the
Brahmin is that of rejection, revulsion and hatred whereas the Dalit during the same process
experiences rejection and humiliation. The skin has been accepted as the primary means of
contact which is established between a person and his external environment. And as
suggested by biologists and philosophers the only time when we shut or close our skin to
perception is when we are dead. With this link Sundar suggests that by practicing
untouchability the person inevitably experiences partial death. Thus, the act of untouchability
cannot be practiced as against an external object without it having equal repercussions and
denial to the self. In case of humans especially the act of touching occurs only after it
surpasses the framework of not being untouchable. This he says has a profound impact in
creating narratives about the self. The Hindu society is embedded with traditions and rituals
that are dated back to the Vedas. Among the innumerable practices one of it involves the
Brahmins becoming untouchable for a certain period of time. Ambedkar though very clearly
differentiates the meaning of this common word untouchability in both the instances. In the
case of the Brahmin he says the title is temporary and is adorned for specific ritualistic
purposes. He also says that here the Brahmin choses the role of being the untouchable i.e.
making it very clear that he doesnt want to be touched. This act then makes him purer than
the rest as against what happens in the case of Dalits. Most importantly for the Brahmin there
is always a choice of walking out of this role and being touchable again. The opposite of all
of this is what holds true for the Dalits. Interestingly the concept of Untouchability is
6

extremely essential for the Brahmin in order to be recognised as a Brahmin. The most
dominant marker of being a brahmin lies in the concept of untouchability, lies in the potential
of an individual to become an untouchable. A brahmin is one who not only has access to
temporal and potential untouchability but also to permanent, hereditary untouchability
(Sarukkai 2009, 46). Towards the end of the paper the writer introduces the process of
supplementation and appropriates it to the phenomenon of untouchability. The idea of this
concept was originally given by Derrida in a totally different context wherein he mentions
that the act of speech is given a superior stance in comparison to writing. In many a situations
the process of writing is taken as a supplement to the process of talking. Drawing an analogy
to this Sundar says that the Dalits then are largely accepted as a supplement to the Brahmins.
But as noted earlier the fore runners in the game of untouchability are in fact the Brahmins
and not the Dalits. In a situation such as this then untouchables cannot merely be regarded or
accepted as a supplement. Ironically the necessity to even create a category by the name of
untouchables is because of the need that is inherent in the Brahmins. The writer then suggests
that the categorization of untouchables was created as juxtaposition to the Brahminical
ideology of pure. There is an attempt made by the Brahmins here to go against a sect of
their caste called as the Acharyas who are strong advocates of the practice of untouchability
in the brahminical sense. But the creation of untouchables seems to have given the other
Brahmins a means of escape route and deem the other not in terms of purity but as impure
and demeaning. To concretise this boxing there is a moment on the part of the Brahmins from
not wanting to touch to refusing to touch. The entire act of being untouched is something that
is forcefully pushed on the Dalits for the sake of convince on the Brahmins and this has been
socially accepted and backed by the idea of purity and pollution in the intricately woven,
caste dominant society of India (Sarukkai 2009, 39-48).
Place and Pathology in caste by Balmurli Natrajan
This essay essentially critically analyses the both the papers mentioned above. The writer
says touch is only one aspect of untouchability and it shouldnt be the only method through
which this phenomenon should be explained. He goes to add that it is in fact very limiting to
understand untouchability merely through the concept of touch. He says Both essays force
caste studies to conjoin its traditional emphasis on the socially produced disability of the
Dalits with the much less understood morally-derived-in-ability of Brahmins to touch
and allow others to touch (Natrajan 2009). Further he says the ideas put forward by Sundar
regarding untouchability which can be understood through the metaphysics of the body sort
7

of side track the otherwise identified material aspects associated with untouchability such as
exploitation, domination, humiliation and atrocity. There is reference made by both these
writers to the political power and implications that this concept of untouchability exerts in
society. There is an immediate need to understand that the consequences of untouchability
has surpassed in ways and methods that are limited to the knowledge that is accessible to us.
The repercussions are deep rooted and crop up now and then in altering situations. What is
then interesting is how global occurrences such as capitalism and modernity havent been
spared the side effects of caste. Yes it is true that both these phenomena have unsettled the
rigid existence of caste but then it shouldnt be forgotten that even caste which is otherwise
not very fluid has modified its caste and fit into the framework of both capitalism and
modernity. Natrajan also comments that going by what Sundar has to say about
supplementation it should mean that all Indians and especially the Dalits are untouchables.
At this stage is it important to note that untouchability is not limited just to the social,
economic and political realm but it also spreads to the moral and cultural aspects as well. In
this case Gopal touches upon a few instances where violence is directed specifically at the
Dalits, instances where their houses are burned down, where they are the main targets of
communal clashes etc. The various social movements, that are conceived for the emergence
of a better and new society needs to be directed towards the existing prejudices and cultural
blinders regarding certain sections and groups of people. There is a strong existence of power
play that fuels the continued existence of this practice of untouchability. Both the essays he
says have brought out the existence of the so the so called untouchable who happens to be the
Brahmin. If this notion is accepted then it would bring about a revolutionary change in the
very basis of the Indian society. Having substantially acknowledged the contributions of both
Sarukkai and Gopal the writer advances to make his claim on the importance of the concept
of place while understanding the phenomenology of touch. He then links it to touch by saying
that even though place isnt one of the sense perception organs it is inevitably accompanying
the sense when seen within the functioning network of the caste. His central argument is then
around the occurrence of rape. Funnily the phenomenon of rape unfortunately isnt bound by
the essence of rape. And as we see even today the number of rape occurrences against the
untouchables is on the rise. Most if not all of these cases are committed by the upper castes.
Thus rape becomes a tool of political control over the body having several implications to it.
On the one hand it may be thought of as actually annihilating untouchability by touching,
albeit brutally and with the surety that only comes with property ownership. On the other,
rape of a dalit woman is committed precisely upon bodies that have shown power to escape
8

or defy caste or untouchability (Natrajan 2009, 80). The role of the outcaste keeps altering
according to the convince of the upper castes. It is through the act of rape that the
untouchable are kept in place within the doublet of the caste untouchability binary, ensuring
that these bodied treasure the marks of humiliation, suffering etc. These untouchables are
usually left in a spot where bringing these marks to the light of the public is not possible
without considerable resistance. Rape them is a tool that is significant in ensuring that the
untouchables are kept within their aukat. They are also kept in their place within the
hierarchy of caste. Here place then acts as an objective of caste. From another perspective
then it can be understood that both caste and untouchability are fundamental for maintaining
the order in society. The social order then largely depends on the concept of dirt. Dirt then
very easily encompasses both the aspects of caste, that of separation and stigma. He also talks
about Douglas metaphor of dirt and how it gives the option of flexibility to the select few
upper castes in contrast to the extremely rigid and inflexible position occupied by the dalits in
the end of the hierarchical order. With the element of place and position in relation to
untouchability there is an understanding that it is not only through the medium of touch that
untouchability is practiced. As discussed in the paper the need to keep people in their place
has been traced to few instances that have been mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita. There are
strict norms against the intermingling and intermixing of castes. But in order to maintain this
social order and peace caste itself has several techniques and tools to keep its practitioners in
place. There are rewards and punishments to be used in adequate and specific contexts. The
control exercised by caste and untouchability as thought earlier is not restricted just within
the domestic sphere. Instead it exerts its force equally even within the sphere of production
economic and within the household. Hence it is caste, patriarchy and class that form the base
pillars of inequality and identity. It is a mix of these three elements that ensures the continued
existence of the binary of domination and subjugation. Therefore caste cannot merely be
banished from the public sphere and still continue to thrive in the private spaces. It is from
here that caste takes on new forms and shapes and hides behind segregated spheres of public
and private spaces (Natrajan 2009, 81). Towards the end of his paper Natrajan identifies the
third pillar of privilege which supports the growth of caste, the other two pillars being
prejudice and power. Keeping this in mind it becomes easier to analyse how when a Brahmin
violates a caste rule is falls down a rung in the caste ladder but isnt thrown out of the
framework of caste nor is he labelled as an outcaste. A primary form of caste privilege is the
privilege of living in a social environment where ones inability is viewed as ability and
others socially imposed disability is viewed as inherent inability (Natrajan 2009, 82).
9

The three papers mentioned above have all spoken and understood the idea of
untouchability in different dimensions and perspectives. The phenomenological aspects of
this concept are so broad and far fetching that traces of it are seen and experienced in ways
that are beyond imagination. From some of the very often seen situations of the upper caste
folks refusing to share their utensils with the untouchables, to having separate entrance for
them to access the back of the house so on and so forth. Here1 I would like to talk a little
more about the aspect of privilege and caste. Privilege as seen above is identified as one of
the most important aspects that fuel the practice of caste and to a large extent the practice of
untouchability as well. As part of one of our sessions in college, there was an activity
conducted in order to familiarise ourselves to a concept of untouchability, which
unfortunately all Indians are extremely familiar with in one or the other context. For this we
were all made to sit in a circle and narrate our experience with caste and untouchability. From
this, there were several fascinating aspects that could be deciphered as the activity involved
the participation of mostly Indians with a few exceptions and all of them were over the age of
20. Most of them constituted to one of the three so called upper castes within which majority
comprised of Brahmins. With no surprises all of them in this bracket denied having
experienced any sort of discrimination of any form in their entire lives. What is interesting
here then is that all of them also agreed to having witnessed instances of untouchability
within the boundaries of their homes. At the time of narrating their experiences, which after
the second person felt like all of them had similar/ shared experiences when it came in
particular to the words they used to describe the help at home. We have always had
servants, they said. The term servant here then feels more like a Freudian slip than just
another word. The term servant immediately establishes a scenario involving people who
share an association of a master and a slave. This servant then serves the people of the house
and for this reason lives with them in their home but will still be served food in vessels that
are meant exclusively for their use and shouldnt be mixed with the cutlery of the people of
the house. Apart from this the servant has a separate entrance which leads to the back of the
house. He is then merely a shadow who hovers around the house of these upper caste people
who have conveniently consoled their own children as well as the servants that they were
actually doing them a favour by providing them with a livelihood as opposed to them having
to starve due to lack of jobs which in turn is located to their lack of education. What is sad
here though is that this explanation of being a saviour in the lives of these servants is
1

All the observations made here are from an activity conducted by Mr. Asim, a teaching assistant in MCPH on
the October 10 2014.

10

unconsciously and very rigidly passed on from one generation to the next among the
households of these upper castes. Hence till this particular activity many of my peers who
were part of this session failed to realise that they too were advocating the practices of
untouchability directly or in directly just by following traditions without having thought them
through or questioning them. Till then most of them didnt notice anything odd in the fact
that these so called servants of theirs never shared plates or glasses with them. The act is so
internalised that unfortunately it never occurred to them that there is something wrong with
the whole set up. This then is a good example of how the idea of privilege becomes a selfjustifying aspects following the actions of the upper caste people. The aspect of privileging
then gives the whole issue a tone of being common sense understanding where it is alright for
the upper caste to do what he is doing because it has been happening so forever and nobody
until specifically pointed it out needed to explain or justify the reason behind this act or
practice. Having witnessed these varied responses and reactions when it finally was my turn
to talk about my experience with caste I, distinctly remember starting off by saying that I
belonged to a lower caste. Not an untouchable but to a lower caste that has an encompassing
name in the Hindu caste society- Shudra. And the only reason I believe that I was spared any
form of discrimination on the basis of caste was primarily because I belonged to a wealthy
family which enables me to come sit and share space with a couple of my Brahmin
counterparts and listen to them say how they have not experienced anything to do with this
concept of caste though it is very heavily embodied in a lot many of our ideologies and
practices. Just because they never faced any form of overt discrimination that never stopped
them from exercising untouchability in one or many forms either with or without their notice
of it. This activity was indeed an eye opener when it came to gaining perspective on
something as elementary as a concept of caste that all Indians hold very closely as a key
identifying factor of the self. As seen in the gist of all the papers mentioned above caste and
untouchability seem to be two sides of the same coin. Discrimination then becomes a tool in
the hands of the upper caste to regulate their position in society. Touch and place then only
happen to be the most overtly observable stances of untouchability but it should be
understood that it is not limited to just these two aspects but has its traces much deeper and
wider.

11

References:
Charsley, Simon, 1996. Untouchable: What is in a Name? Economic and Political Weekly,
2: 1-23.
Cybil, K, 2009. Defining Untouchability in Relation to the Body. Economic and Political
Weekly, 44: 82-83.
Guru, Gopal, 2009. "Archaeology of Untouchability." Economic and Political Weekly, 44:
49-56.
Natrajan, Balmurli, 2009. "Place and Pathology in Caste." Economic and Political Weekly,
44: 79-82.
Sarukkai, Sunder, 2009. "Phenomenology of Untouchability." Economic and Political
Weekly, 44: 12-18.

12