Caste Census: Harsh Rules for 'Untouchables' in Villages that Prompted Dr. B.R. Ambedkar to Write— "Thank God the Constituent Assembly Did Not Adopt It"

New Delhi- As India prepares for its upcoming caste census in 2025, the nation stands at a pivotal moment where caste identities will once again shape policy and welfare programs. While some argue that highlighting caste in modern India is divisive and that discrimination is a relic of the past, the lived experiences of those historically oppressed reveal a starkly different reality.

In his seminal work The Indian Ghetto—The Centre of Untouchability—Outside the Fold, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar exposed the oppressive realities faced by Untouchables (Dalits) in Indian villages, shattering the romanticized notion of rural India as an ideal social structure. Ambedkar’s stark revelations highlight a rigid social code enforced in Hindu villages, designed to subjugate Untouchables socially, economically, and culturally.

Baba Sahab writes: The average Hindu is always in ecstasy whenever he speaks of the Indian village. He regards it as an ideal form of social organization to which he believes there is no parallel anywhere in the world. It is claimed to be a special contribution to the theory of social organization for which India may well be proud of. How fanatic are the Hindus in their belief in the Indian village as an ideal piece of social organisation may be seen from the angry speeches made by the Hindu members of the Indian Constituent Assembly in support of the contention that the Indian Constitution should recognize the Indian village as its base of the constitutional pyramid of autonomous administrative units with its own legislature, executive and judiciary.

His relief at the Constituent Assembly’s rejection of the village as the constitutional base—“From the point of view of the Untouchables, there could not have been a greater calamity. Thank God the Constituent Assembly did not adopt it."

The Myth of the Ideal Village

The glorification of Indian villages as autonomous, self-sufficient “little republics” originated not from ancient Hindu tradition but from Sir Charles Metcalfe, a 19th-century East India Company official. In his Revenue Papers, Metcalfe described villages as resilient communities that endured through invasions and political upheavals, largely self-contained and independent. This portrayal flattered Hindu sentiments, leading to its adoption as a point of national pride. During the Constituent Assembly debates, some Hindu members advocated for villages to form the base of India’s constitutional structure, viewing them as ideal units of governance.

However, Ambedkar saw this as a catastrophic proposition for Untouchables. He described villages as “Indian ghettos” where Dalits were trapped in “corporate bondage,” with Touchables monopolizing land and resources. For Ambedkar, elevating villages to constitutional prominence would have entrenched caste oppression, denying Untouchables any chance at equality.

The Social Code: A System of Oppression

Ambedkar detailed a stringent code in Hindu villages that Untouchables were forced to follow, with violations deemed offenses punishable by severe social and collective consequences. These rules were not codified in any legal penal code but were enforced with absolute authority by the Touchable castes. The key rules included:

1. Segregation of Settlements: Untouchables were compelled to live in separate quarters outside the main village, isolated from Hindu habitations. Breaking this rule was an offense.

2. Auspicious Direction Restriction: Their settlements had to be in the southern direction, considered the most inauspicious, reinforcing their inferior status.

3. Pollution by Distance or Shadow: Untouchables were required to maintain a physical distance to avoid “polluting” Hindus with their shadow or breath, with violations treated as offenses.

4. Wealth Prohibition: Acquiring wealth, such as land or cattle, was forbidden, ensuring economic dependency and subjugation.

5. Housing Restrictions: Building houses with tiled roofs was prohibited, marking Untouchables’ dwellings as inferior.

6. Clothing and Ornaments Ban: Wearing clean clothes, shoes, watches, or gold/silver ornaments was an offense, enforcing visible markers of inferiority.

7. Naming Conventions: Untouchables were barred from giving their children respectable names; names had to reflect contempt to signify their low status.

8. Social Conduct Rules: Sitting on a chair in a Hindu’s presence, riding a horse or palanquin, or organizing processions through the village were offenses.

9. Language and Respect: Speaking a cultured language or failing to salute Hindus was punishable.

10. Silence on Sacred Days: On fasting days, Untouchables were forbidden from speaking, as their breath was believed to pollute Hindu air and food.

11. Mandatory Inferiority Markers: Untouchables had to maintain symbols of inferiority, such as contemptible names, unclean clothes, and non-tiled houses, with any deviation considered an offense.

These rules were enforced through collective punishment, where the entire Untouchable community faced repercussions for an individual’s transgression, ensuring systemic control and fear.

Duties Imposed on Untouchables

Beyond these rules, Untouchables were burdened with specific duties to serve the Touchables without any remuneration. These included:

1. Messenger Role: Untouchables had to carry messages about events like deaths or marriages in Hindu households to their relatives, no matter how far the villages were.

2. Service at Weddings: During Hindu marriages, Untouchables were required to perform menial tasks like breaking firewood or running errands.

3. Escorting Brides: Untouchables had to accompany a Hindu bride from her parental home to her husband’s village, regardless of the distance.

4. Festivals: During festivals like Holi or Dasara, Untouchables were tasked with performing preliminary menial tasks.

5. Humiliation of Women: On certain festivals, Untouchable women were subjected to indecent mockery by the village community.

What Sir Charles Metcalfe said about Indian villages

Sir Charles Metcalfe—a civil servant of the East India Company. Metcalfe, who was a revenue officer, in one of his Revenue Papers described the Indian village in the following terms :

“The village communities are little republics, having nearly everything they want within themselves and almost independent of any foreign relations. They seem to last when nothing else lasts. Dynasty after dynasty tumbles down, revolution succeeds to revolution; Hindu, Pathan, Moghul, Maratha, Sikh, English, all are masters in turn, but the village communities remain the same. In times of trouble they arm and fortify themselves. An hostile army passes through the country, the village communities collect their cattle within their walls and let the enemy pass unprovoked. If plunder and devastation be directed against themselves, and the forces employed be irresistible, they flee to friendly villages at a distance; but when the storm has passed over, they return and resume their occupations. If a country remains for a series of years the scene of continued pillage and massacre so that the villages cannot be inhabited, the scattered villagers nevertheless return whenever the power of peaceable possession revives. A generation may pass away, but the succeeding generation will return. The sons will take the place of their fathers; the same site for the village, the same position for their houses, the same lands will be reoccupied by the descendants of those who were driven out when the village was repopulated; and it is not a trifling matter that will drive them out, for they will often maintain their post through times of disturbances and convulsion, and acquire strength sufficient to resist pillage and oppression with success. This union of the village communities, each one forming a little state in itself, has, I conceive, contributed more than any other cause to the preservation of the people of India, through all the revolutions and changes which they have referred, and is in a high degree conducive to their happiness and to the enjoyment of a great portion of freedom and independence.”

Having read this description of an Indian village given by a high- placed member of the governing class, the Hindus felt flattered and adopted his view as a welcome compliment.

Ban on Untouchability

Untouchability was officially banned in India with the adoption of the Constitution on January 26, 1950, under Article 17, which explicitly abolishes the practice and declares it a punishable offense. This landmark provision, championed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, aimed to eradicate the deeply entrenched caste-based discrimination that marginalized millions, particularly those labeled as "Untouchables."

The term "Untouchable" is historically accurate when referring to the social practices Ambedkar described, but its use today is sensitive due to its derogatory connotations. In modern contexts, terms like "Dalit" or "Scheduled Castes" are preferred, though "Untouchable" remains relevant in historical discussions to reflect the stark reality of past oppression.