Phenomenology of Untouchability

Author(s): SUNDAR SARUKKAI

Source: Economic and Political Weekly , SEPTEMBER 12-18, 2009, Vol. 44, No. 37
(SEPTEMBER 12-18, 2009), pp. 39-48
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25663542

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Economic and Political Weekly

This content downloaded from

15.206.238.150 on Thu, 01 Oct 2020 15:56:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Phenomenology of Untouchability
SUNDAR SARUKKAI__ _ _ _ _ _ __

This paper explores the philosophical foundations of Untouchability refers to certain practices of the "upper"

untouchability through an analysis of the castes such as refusing to touch or share water with
people who have been called the "Untouchables" and
phenomenology of "touch". The sense of touch is unique
who are today collectively called dalits. These sets of practices
in many ways; one such is the essential relation between involve not only proscriptions on both groups of people but are
touch and "untouch". Drawing on both Indian and often justified through notions of purity and related concepts.1

western traditions, the paper begins by analysing the For many social commentators the practice of untouchability
characterises the Hindu civilisation. But what exactly constitutes
meaning of touch and then goes on to explore some
this practice? While there have been tomes written on the socio
meanings of "untouchable". It then concludes by logy and politics of this practice, there is little of significance on
pointing out the importance of untouchability within the philosophical foundations of this practice. Such a philoso
the brahmin tradition and attempts to understand the phical reflection is made all the more urgent given the magnitude
of the problem and its direct impact on modern Indian society.
process of supplementation which makes untouchability
In this paper, I will explore the various meanings of untoucha
a positive virtue for the brahmins and a negative fact bility and analyse how these have relevance to a broader concep
for the dalits. tualisation of untouchability as a social practice. I begin with the
phenomenology of touch, drawing from both the Indian and
western philosophical traditions. The philosophical engagement
with touch seems to always require the notion of the untoucha
ble. In a sense then, the idea of the untouchable is at the core of
the "touchables" - not so surprisingly then, we find that untouch
ability is actually an essential marker of brahminhood. I will con
clude by arguing that the displacement of this characteristic of
untouchability from the brahmins to the untouchables illustrates
not just the "outsourcing" of untouchability but also a philosophi
cal move of supplementation.

1 The Sensation of Touch

Touch is one of the five senses of the human body. While it is
often believed that sight is the dominant sense, ancient traditions
in different cultures emphasised touch as the most important
sense. In particular, and of special importance in the context of
I am deeply indebted to Gopal Guru without whose constant dialogue
untouchability, the Indian traditions considered touch as an im
and support this paper would not have come into being. A preliminary
draft of this paper was presented at a conference on Ambedkar at the
portant sense; in some schools, touch was the most important
Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi in March 2008. A longer sense. This is also echoed in other philosophical and scientific
version of this paper was presented at the International Conference on traditions. Many biologists consider touch as the "greatest sense"
Phenomenology in January 2009.1 thank the organisers of both these in the body and skin as the most important organ.
meets for their invitations which gave me an opportunity to explore this
Paradoxically the skin was not studied in great detail till the
philosophical formulation. Many others contributed in different ways
and I am indebted to them: Raghuram Raju for his enthusiastic interest middle of the last century. Also there is a surprising lack of the
in this larger project, Sameer Banerjee for years of teaching me about role of the skin in poetry and when found in prose most often it is
Indian society, Probal Dasgupta and Arindam Chakrabarti for their associated with pathologies, such as blotches, pimples and so on
insightful responses, Sampath, Seshadri and Sriram for help with Tamil (Montagu 1971; Connor 2004 and Classen 2005). This is ironic
texts and translation, Meera Baindur and Hamsa Kalyani for accessing
considering the fact that while we can conceivably learn to live
resources, and Dhanwanti Nayak, as always, for critical response and
helping me edit this manuscript to a manageable length.
without our other senses such as seeing and hearing it is impos
sible to live without having the sensation of touch. Drawing upon
Sundar Sarukkai ([email protected]) is with the National Institute
the experience of Helen Keller, Montagu points out that "when
of Advanced Studies, Indian Institute of Science Campus, Bangalore.
other senses fail, the skin can to an extraordinary degree
Economic & Political weekly E3X3 September 12, 2009 vol xliv no 37 39

This content downloaded from

15.206.238.150 on Thu, 01 Oct 2020 15:56:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SPECIAL ARTTCUE =ee^^
compensate for their deficiencies" (Montagu 1971: 7). Psychologi (Datta 2008: 130). Qualities are those that inhere in substances
cally, the importance of touch has been widely recognised. only, are not in contact with anything and have something inher
Experiments on animals have shown that newborn babies who ing in them. The last clause (of having something inhering) ex
are not touched or licked by their mother have a greater mor cludes universals satisfying other three conditions. (As another
tality rate. As Jablonski (2006) notes, the special significance of example of a quality, consider motion. Motion is a quality that
skin, fingers and touch was not just in helping animals and inheres in material substances.)
humans find food but also in creating social bonds. The relation Material substances have finite dimension, are capable of
ship between "care" and touching is also very important. motion and defined in terms of contact. One standard classifica
In the western tradition, Aristotle's views on touch have been tion of nine primary substances includes five which are material
influential. Aristotle's view on the senses is based on defining and four which are not. The five are earth, water, fire, air and in
senses by reference to sense-objects and in so doing he is also fol ternal organs; the four immaterial ones are time, spatial direc
lowing Plato (Sorabji 1971: 58). Aristotle offers two criteria that tion, akasa and selves. Touch is a quality of substances; contact is
were used to characterise touch: "contact criterion" and the "non another quality. Each of these four substances - earth, water, fire
localisation criterion". Direct contact with a body characterises and air - has its own unique qualities. Only the earth is the
touch. In the De Anima, Aristotle notes that "all things that we unique locus of smell and water of cold touch. Similarly, fire is
perceive when in contact with them we perceive by touch" and the substance whose quality is hot touch.
"what is perceived by touch is directly contacted" (ibid: 70). The The Nyaya-Vaisesika categorisation views the body as an en
other senses such as seeing, hearing and smell "are never exer tity, excluding the sense organs. Instead, the body is seen as the
cised through direct contact" whereas taste is only exercised thus "locus of the sense organs". The body is the locus of motions
and therefore, for Aristotle, taste is a form of touch. Touch was caused by the self (in that body). Also, pains and pleasures asso
the most basic sense without which animals would not be able to ciated with organs are experienced in the body and not in the
survive but Aristotle believed that sight was the most superior senses (see also Bhattacharya 2008: 165 and Jha 1984). Each
sense (Paterson 2007). sense organ is composed exclusively of one of the five elements -
In viewing touch as contact we might forget the presence of smell of earth, taste of water, touch of air, sight of fire, hearing of
the medium which is essential for any idea of touch. To touch is ether. Because of this unique constitution, the objects of percep
to move towards an object, to bring surfaces into contact. There tion have to be those which are either entirely or mostly com
fore, "to touch is to approach or to be approached" (Chretien posed of the element associated with that perception so we
2004: 88). In the sensation of touch, the distance which charac need fire (light) to see and so on. Furthermore, for the Naiyayikas,
terises the objects of touch is forgotten and so also the ever the sense organs are the ones which are found on the body but
present minute distance between surfaces of contact. Not only they are imperceptible.
is this forgotten but without the constant recreation of this Touch is a guna - quality, like taste, smell and contact.3 It is a
distance there is no possibility of sensing touch. We can under quality only for earth, water, fire and air whereas contact is a
stand the phenomenological significance of the act of touch in quality for all the nine substances including akasa, time, place,
this context. What is the difference between touching a thing self and internal organs. Furthermore, touch is perceived only
and being a part of that thing? Is my hand touching the shoulder through one sense organ but contact can be by two sense organs.
joint where it is attached to? Does it touch in the same way that Also, contact produces a variety of qualities including pleasure,
one hand touches another or one hand touches an object? The pain, aversion, merit and demerit. However, touch does not pro
question of touching of a part to another part (both of which duce these which contact does.
compose a whole) is different from the touching between two
Role of Touch and Contact
objects. What characterises this difference - the ever-present
space/medium/body between the two objects which are in con In the context of untouchability, what exactly is the role played
tact? Touch is more than contact because of the ever-present, by these two different qualities of touch and contact? The
inerasable space between the objects of touch. It is this manipu notion of contact is much broader than that of touch. Contact is a

lation of this intervening medium that constitutes the different quality that inheres in a pair of substances. This means that con
textures of touch. It is also this ever-present medium which is tact is a quality that is present in the "toucher" and the "touched".
untouchable in the act of touch. Thus, the idea of untouchability If two bodies are in contact with each other, then that contact is
is always present, always contiguous to the act of touch. The a symmetrical relation - each body is in contact with the other.
notion of untouchability is all the more interesting because However, in the case of touch, there seems to be an asymmetry
we are always in the process of touching even when we do not since the person who touches is at the same time not being
act to touch. touched by the object. So when I say I am touching a chair I do
not at the same time say the chair is touching me (although Mer
2 Interpreting Untouchability in Indian Context leau-Ponty would disagree!). Touch in this sense is a specific hu
The Indian views on contact and touch offer a different set of pos man sense unlike contact which is a specific kind of relation be
sibilities to understand these terms. First of all, there is in general tween any two entities. Furthermore, there are many different
a clear distinction made between touch (sparsa) and contact types of contact - the Advaitins describe six types of contact
(samyoga).2 Moreover, touch is a quality of substances (Gupta 1995: 223).

40 September 1?., 2009 vol xliv no 37 GEES Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from

15.206.238.150 on Thu, 01 Oct 2020 15:56:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Given the semantic complexity of contact and touch, we can distinction between gross and subtle bodies, the different quali
see a potential problem in the use of the English word "touch", ties of touch and contact can all contribute to a more complex
which in common usage often refers to some idea of contact. understanding of untouchability. In what follows, I will use the
Particularly in the conventional understanding of untouchabil example of skin to make similar points about the discursive
ity, the contact with a person who is untouchable is what is nature of untouchability.
seen to be defiling. But the point, for the Indian philosophers, Skin is seen as the organ of touch in both the western and
is that touch is not about contact (which is a relation) but is a Indian traditions. How is the skin described and understood
quality that inheres in the object. This means that the untoucha in classical Indian traditions? The skin has an important
ble manifests the sense of "untouch" within the person. This function - that of encompassing and enclosing. It is intrinsically
means that the person is untouchable whether or not the related to boundaries and surfaces. Glucklich (1994) uses these
person comes in contact with another person. We can thus be characteristics to make an insightful reading of dharma. He
gin to see how the notion of untouchability gets carried into the finds an inherent relation between dharma and skin since
ontology of a sense because of these different interpretations of both of them have been symbolically conceived as boundary
contact and touch. (ibid: 90). Since the boundaries are sensed by the body in a
particular way this implies, for Glucklich, that "dharma can
Naive Reading actually be touched"!
Moreover, the physiological description of the body and the The narrative about the skin illustrates the complexity of its
senses in these traditions should make us question any naive relation with touch. The seven layers of skin "are replicated in
reading of touch. For example, for a medical tradition like Hindu mythology and in village folklore, with the seven layers of
Ayurveda, the model of the body is quite different as compared the earth" (ibid 98). The symbolism and mythology surrounding
to its description in modern biology. Susruta, the famous surgeon the skin, along with the theory of karma, suggests a reason for
of ancient times, classified the body into seven layers of skin. If the view that the "skin is a primary register of the fruition of sins
skin is the organ of touch as we understand it now then which of committed in previous births" (ibid: 99). Glucklich identifies two
these layers of skin are actually involved in the experience of fundamental metaphors related to the human body: one of the
touch? To compound this problem further, proponents of body as a "microcosmic reflection of the world" (Susrutasamhita)
Sankhya and Advaita Vedanta describe the body in terms of both and the other as a "self-enclosed space" in an antagonistic rela
gross (sthiila sarlra) as well as subtle (siiksma sarlra) body tion with the world (Rg Veda). The first conception considers the
(Bhattacharya2oo8:165). skin in a spatiocosmological sense. Along with this is the "tempo
Moreover, the sense organs are not to be equated with the bio ral metaphor of the skin as a map of character and moral dis
logical eye, tongue, skin, etc. Even in Ayurveda, the sense organs position" (ibid: 100). While Glucklich considers these views as
which are the usual ear, nose, eye, tongue and skin are only "ex explaining certain types of treatment in the Indian medical
ternal appendages" and are merely the "seats of organs and not systems, I want to explore the relevance of these views to the
the subtle organs themselves" (Gupta 2008: 211). That is, the question of untouchability.
sense organs are themselves made of "subtle material" and the
visible skin, for example, is only the seat of the cognitive sense
Invocation of Dharma
organ corresponding to touch. Since the sense organs are subtle, The interpretation of dharma as boundary makes possible the in
in death they leave the body and it is the gross material body vocation of dharma in the context of untouchability. Most impor
that decomposes. This means that the qualities associated with tantly, it is primarily the skin which can do this job - that is, if
these sense organs are not restricted to the gross physical body morality in some sense is to be ascribed to untouchability then it
because of which these characteristics continue to endure with can only be done if they share a common characteristic - in this
the subtle body. There are implications of such views for under case, the character of a boundary. In other words, it is because of
standing untouchability. For example, continuation of charac these complex worldviews underlying body, sense, world and
teristics through the subtle body would be one way of explaining dharma that untouchability is chosen as the vehicle for transmit
the hereditary continuity of untouchability. What this discussion ting specific moral or dharmic dictums. 1'he many different prop
alerts us to is the need to employ much wider categories in erties of the skin all go to establish the nature of untouchability:
order to make sense of the notion of untouchability. Given that the skin as the defining quality of a person means that a person
Indian philosophical views were reflected in social order in whose skin is untouchable is himself an Untouchable (note the
various ways, it will be useful to first of all interpret untoucha change from an adjective to a noun state in this process, the crea
bility through categories specific to Indian cultural and tion of a kind of people from an adjectival property of a skin); the
philosophical traditions. skin as a "map of character and moral disposition" again illus
The view of the senses, the body and their relation to the world trates how an untouchable's skin embodies certain moral proper
is described quite differently in the various Indian traditions. To ties; once untouchability is inscribed on an individual, then the
engage with the phenomenology of untouchability it is necessary impossibility of crossing the wall of untouchability. All these ex
to explore the various nooks and corners of these discourses. In plain why it is touch that should be the primary sense in any such
so doing, various interesting possibilities arise. We have already act of exclusion and proscription.4 Proscribing touch is not only
seen how the view of the body, including seven layers of skin, the biologically and psychologically the most damaging but it is also
Economic & Political weekly fSSSH September 12, 2009 vol xliv no 37 41

This content downloaded from

15.206.238.150 on Thu, 01 Oct 2020 15:56:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
the only way that matches a much larger narrative of untoucha body. Thus, in literary descriptions of the Candalas they are
bility. This narrative, contrary to most accounts, is not really described as "deformed, foul smelling and ugly" (ibid: 66);
about the pure and impure as much as it is about the metaphysics these are characteristics which reflect and add to the notion of
of the body. impurity associated with that community.
The Buddhist view of the body is also important here, espe Something as universal as "water" also has different significa
cially in the context of untouchability. One reason is that the tions in these traditions. In the case of water, there is another
Buddhists rejected a brahminical outlook towards individuals, hidden significance about touch itself. Bathing is to be in contact
society and god. The other reason is that following Ambedkar, with water but the act of touch is not circumscribed by this physi
Buddhism has become the preferred religion for many dalits. As cal contact. Contact is always more than the physical one. There
mentioned earlier, the body has often been used as a metaphor are different modes present in every single physical contact - one
for the world. For the Buddha, the body was indeed the world in which is the physical, of course, but there is also a transcendent
that it is within the body that there is the arising and ceasing of dimension. The use of language and invocation of words and
the world (Lang 2003: 24). The belief in the impurity of the body chants as part of the bathing process suggests the transcendent
in the Buddhist tradition seems to be all pervading. Right from contact of the body and words (or sounds, or language). This
birth to death the body is the site of impurity of various kinds. For means that the perpetual gap characterising touch are also ones
example, in the Ta-chih-tu Lun a compendium of Madhyamika that cause complex theories of perception, touch and action in
philosophy, most attention is given to the application of mind Indian thought. Since touch or contact between bodies is
fulness of the body (ibid: 27). Five impurities of the body are always more than physical contact, untouchability is not merely
identified: womb, seed, body's nature, body's characteristics and about physical touching but includes the other spheres inherent
corpse. Right from birth to death, impurity is what characterises in touch.
the human body.
As Lang notes, for the Buddhists, understanding the body is
3 Untouchable in the Touch
important because it also helps to understand "how human be The idea of the untouchable is essential to the notion of touch. In
ings remain trapped within them" (ibid: 25). One way to under the many philosophical traditions - ancient Greek and Indian or
stand the body is to focus on the body during meditation, for contemporary - we are often confronted with this paradox.
example, to focus on the activities of breathing. Lang points out Merleau-Ponty invokes the idea of the untouchable through an
that such a meditative dissection of the body - being mindfully analysis of touching and being touched. Consider the example of
aware of the body and its constituents eliminates the belief in my right hand touching my left. My body is involved in two proc
self identity. Meditation on a corpse will illustrate the nature of esses simultaneously in this case: it is touching as well as experi
impermanence, impurity and pain associated with the body. In encing feeling touched. For Merleau-Ponty, these processes can
such practices, two important things happen: the negation not be coincident: not in the body or in the mind or conscious
of the self and recognition that one's own body is the site or ness. What and where does this possibility of this simultaneous
locus of impurity. In a worldview such as this, it is impossible to experience reside if not in body or in consciousness? For Merleau
place the burden of impurity on another human body while Ponty, it resides in the "untouchable".
appropriating a discourse of purity on one's own body. There is To touch and touch oneself... They do not coincide in the body: the
no possibility of supplementation that becomes the hallmark touching is never exactly the touched. This does not mean that they
of untouchability (more on this later). In this sense, the meta % coincide "in the mind" or at the level of "consciousness". Something
else than the body is needed for the junction to be made: it takes place
physics of Buddhism is indeed one that negates the metaphysics in the untouchable. That of the other which I will never touch. But I
of untouchability. will never touch, he does not touch either ... it is therefore not the
consciousness that is the untouchable... The untouchable is not a
Moral Sense touchable in fact inaccessible - the unconscious is not a representation
in fact inaccessible (Merleau-Ponty 1968: 254).
I believe that it is possible to interpret this complexity of touch
by considering it not as a mere physical sense but as a "moral The implication of this thesis is that "to touch something is
sense". This might sound a bit odd at the first instance but we also and necessarily to be touched by it" (ibid 161). This model
need to look at our categories a bit more carefully when we con (related to what he calls as "reversibility") (Sarukkai 2002)
sider concepts in Indian philosophy. It is well known that the makes it possible to understand the relation between the self
categories of western thought are not isomorphic with Indian and the other. Just as much as there is a reversal in the roles of
ones and that distinct western categories do not remain so in the touching/touched so too is there a reversal between the self and
Indian view - note how categories such as logic and epistemol the other. In that sense, the "Other functions as my mirror",
ogy, metaphysics and epistemology, metaphysics and ethics do which means that the self can take up the other's vantage point
not remain distinct and separate in the Indian systems (Sarukkai without coinciding with the other.
2005). So when Glucklich makes the important point that natu This idea of the untouchable captures an essential mark of the
ral and moral concepts are interrelated in Hinduism it should be act of touching. The visible (touchable) and the invisible (un
of no surprise. The implication of this interrelatedness is that touchable) are in a reversible relation and in a fundamental
natural "dirt" gets related to moral "dirt". Or that those who are sense it is the invisible (untouchable) that grounds the visibility
morally "impure" also embody this impurity in their natural (touchability) of the world: "it is the invisible of this world, that

42 September 12, 2.009 vol xliv no 37 Q329 Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from

15.206.238.150 on Thu, 01 Oct 2020 15:56:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
which inhabits this world, sustains it, and renders it visible" from touching the dish then it is open to my touch if I so desire.
(ibid: 151). Similarly, it is not that the untouchables cannot be touched but
In the same tradition but expanding much further, Derrida they ought not to be touched. The difference in these two posi
(2005) notes two aspects of the idea of the untouchable. First, tions is indeed important - something that cannot be touched is
Derrida suggests an intriguing relation between the untoucha outside the experience of touch but something that ought not to
ble and law. He makes this connection by beginning with "tact". be touched is a touchable entity which should not be touched.
In the notion of tact he discovers the first notion of a law: Untouchability as objects of the sense of non-touch is what cap
"the law is always a law of tact" (ibid: 66). For Derrida, tact is tures this fundamental difference between not touching objects
something like "touch without touching". He goes on to add that because of deleterious consequences (like fire), or presumed con
in touching, "touching is forbidden: do not touch or tamper with tagion (like diseases) and not touching an untouchable. In the
the thing itself, do not touch on what there is to touch. Do not case of fire or disease, there is no negation of the sense of touch.
touch what remains to be touched, and first of all law itself - Often, a naive understanding of the practice of untouchability
which is the untouchable, before all the ritual prohibitions reduces the act of untouchability to such reasons - for example,
that this or that religion or culture may impose on touching" saying that one does not touch untouchables because they are in
(ibid 66). Derrida's concern with touch here arises from pro volved in highly demeaning acts of cleaning human waste. But
scriptions such as those relating to touching another person, say this is to misunderstand the phenomenology of untouchability
a person of the opposite sex or somebody else's spouse. What is because it reduces the act to some functional reasons.
the notion of untouchable here? If I am tactless, I may just grab * Moreover, even for the untouchables there is no negation of.
hold of a person I do not know. Why is this tactile response touch as a sense. They can touch themselves, they can touch each
tactless? Because I do not respect - respect the law that sepa other, they touch their children and so on. A clue to the larger
rates us, the law of tact and not just the person who is the object philosophical problem can be found in the construction of the
of my touch. word itself.
These approaches illustrate a way of thematising untouch
ability, which is very different from the practice of untouchability
Untouchable?
in the Indian context. One difference is that the meanings of un Consider the use of the word untouchable - how does this com
touchable in the former case range from not being proper objects pound really work? Does it mean un-touch-able? "Un" is a nega
of touch (such as a concept or a law) to the notion of ever-present tion operator. But as we know with negation operators the mean
incompleteness. Also, these examples assume the centrality of ing of the compound drastically changes depending on where the
the autonomous subject. But in the case of untouchability as a negation acts. In this case, does the negation act on the sense of
practice, the impulse against touching is situated within the "ob touch or on the "ability" to touch? If the former, then it is the im
ject", the untouchable. And most importantly, the difference has possibility of touching (like touching space, say) but if the latter
to do with the objects of sense. Western philosophers invoke un then it is the impossibility of the act of touching. In other words,
touchability not in terms of objects of non-touch. In the Indian does the word untouchable translate into "not-touch able" or
context, the creation of untouchables as a category precisely does "touch unable", that is, unable to touch? The primary difference
this job of creating a discursive set of objects - and these are ob between these two formulations is that they point to two differ
jects of the sense of the non-touch or un-touch. Therefore, just as ent types of inability. In the former, it is the inability placed on
there are objects of vision and hearing, there are objects specific the object of touch - the object of touch is such that it is inacces
to the sense of un-touch - these are the untouchables. sible to the sense of touch (space or god), whereas in the latter it
Not everything which is not touchable is untouchable. Space is such that the subject is unable to fulfil the act of touching. In
and time are two entities which are both untouchable and un the first case, it points to the nature of the object that is sought to
seeable.5 Space, time, god, properties and so on are not objects of be touched while in the second case it is the nature of the subject
touch but they do not become objects of non-touch. They are not who is unable to touch. It is clear, therefore, that being an Un
objects of the sense of non-touch and in this sense are not touchable points to the inability of the "toucher" rather than any
Untouchable. Very far objects that we see are untouchable, so are inability of the touched person. Thus, the real site of untouchabil
mirror images. And so is a stranger - especially if this person is of ity is the person who refuses to touch the untouchable.
the opposite sex, then s/he is untouchable in most contexts but is There are important consequences for the person who does
not an untouchable. not fulfil this potential of touching. The model of touching oth
ers is that of touching oneself. Thus, in the most primal sense of
Nested Notions
the term, denying oneself the fulfilment of touch leads to deny
The very idea of untouchability, therefore, has many nested no ing oneself the capacity to touch oneself. As much as touching
tions within it such as the notions related to impossibility, ought, fire causes burns, so also the denial of touching an Untouchable
negation, inability and so on. At the most basic level, untoucha causes an inability to touch oneself in a certain sense. That is,
bility as a social practice involves the possibility of touching and the person who refuses to touch an Untouchable suffers from
untouching. We say that a dish is untouched when the dish is in touch-un-ability. This inability to touch is a characteristic of
front of me and I do not touch it. I do not say that the dish is un the toucher and not the touched. The moment one creates this
touchable because if there is nothing that stops me potentially inability to one's sense of touch one loses an important aspect
Economic & Political weekly QSQ September 12, 2009 vol xliv no 37 43

This content downloaded from

15.206.238.150 on Thu, 01 Oct 2020 15:56:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SPECIAL ARTICLE ==eee^^ ==^_ -_" -
of touch. The impact of not-touching is on both
perhaps be the brahmin
an object of untouchability. This
tionact
and the dalit - both of them cannot fulfil the of of
illusion in touch.
touching but In the case of vision,
they have different phenomenological experiences ofits
the eye but the same.as a mirage - as an imag
status
In the case of the former, it could be associated with psycho
object - is grounded in the lack of the possibi
logical feelings of revulsion^power, rejection and
mirage. so on
When whereas
I reach out to a mirage and try to
in the latter it is associated with feelings
see inof humiliation,
the mirage I realise through the failure o
shame and so on. What in the phenomenon ing that the vision I see is actually a mira
of untouchability
causes this asymmetry of response even though the an
untouchability, actinteresting
of reversal takes
Untouchable
untouchability is symmetrical (the person I can
who does not see him
touch is but I do not reach o
also not touched)? use my sense of touch to validate the vision tha
have thewe
To be able to answer this and related questions, same kind
have of doubt that I have ab
to go
back and inquire into some aspects of theUntouchable is real
sense of touch. but through the denial o
As men
tioned earlier, there is no localised organ into
in the body which
a mirage - this does
is the illusion of touch.
Thus,
the job of touching. The organ of touch is the every
skin. And touching
if you do is possible only if it fi
not like to touch something then you have to "close
potential your skin".
untouchability. The primary sense t
particularly
But closing the skin is to close the first means ofwith
of contact humans
the - is not the capacity
world. As a variety of philosophers and potential
biologistsof
have pointed
untouchability. This has profou
the we
out, we cannot live without the skin although creation of without
can live the narrative of the self as well
other senses. Simply put, the moment you Finally,
close the what distinguishes
skin you die. the phenomeno
Thus, it is the partial death/decay of the
of subject who practises
untouchability is the relation between touchi
untouchability that is the first consequencetouching another.
of practising (Note that this is different
untouch
between
ability. This happens not just because practising touching oneself
untouchability is and touching anoth
morally wrong but because the person is earlier
denying inhimself a part
the context of Merleau-Ponty.) Not
of his ability, his capacity to engage with his own
actually sense. In not of the problem of touc
a manifestation
touching others, he is not able to touch himself. Merleau-Ponty
shift is precisely what makes untouchability in
repeatedly voices this relation between unique.
touching and
This touching
is what differentiates it from othe
beyond
oneself: "To touch is to touch oneself and theexperiencing
"Tactile sense of touch. That is, in the m
untouchability
of the other is simultaneously self-experiencing, is actually about the always
since otherwise
untouchability
I would not be the one experiencing" (quoted not of another2004:
in Chretien but of one-self. This is most clearly
84). Extending this, we can see how the manifested
denial in thetouching
of way the structure of untouchability unfolds in
what
is touchable is a denial of touching what the
is Hindu practice. within one
touchable
self. This means that one can never practise untouchability only
with respect to a defined other but in so doing one always and
4 Untouchable in the Touch:
necessarily practises untouchability withInherent Untouchability
respect of Brahmins
to oneself.
It has been
(Gopal Guru's invocation of the "folded body" ofargued
the that untouchabilityis
brahmin is a characteristic of the
an illustration of this.) brahmin community. Quigley, for example, emphasises this char
acteristic in order to support a different reading of caste. He notes
Touch as an Action that brahmins "can be Untouchables, and Untouchables, as ritual
Unlike other senses, touch is an action. specialists,
Our standard response
are priests" (Quigley 1993: 16). His rereading of caste
critiques Dumont's
towards objects is that we automatically reach towards observation
them. that the*
Buthierarchy in the caste
the untouchability experience conditionssystem
us tooccurs
be through
more the opposition
cautious of the pure and the impure.
towards touching in general. So the very He finds
act ofDumont's characterisation
touching becomes of the opposition between
spiritual
problematical because every act of touching authority (brahmins)
becomes and the temporal authority (of
reflective.
the kings),
There is an important consequence of this: touchingwhich leads
is to
nothemore
essential disjunction between
status andIn
an "automatic" sense but becomes a judgment. power,
so as not beingit
doing, empirically
gets supported. Based on
modelled on vision. We know that in the this,case
Dumontof vision
constructs we see
brahmins and the untouchables as
extreme contrasts.
objects on the one hand but we also see objects as something.
"Seeing as" is a reflective process associated with
Quigley argues perception.
that the fact that theIn
notion of impurity is very
much
the phenomenology of untouchability, we seea part of a brahminmove
a similar priest implies
that that one cannot use the
pure-impure
makes touching a matter of judgment. So touching axis, following Dumont, to posit contrasts between
now becomes
different
"touching as". Such a judgment is not about castes. Firstly,
"facts" alone; Quigley points out
there isthat there are at least
six types of "brahmin
a moral code attached to it. This move explains personae" such
my earlier comas the renouncer, spiritual
ment about how touch becomes a "moral preceptor,
sense".non-priest, a personal priest, temple priest and death
priestall
As a consequence, every person is first of (ibid:potentially
54). He then goes onan
to point
un out the various ways by
which thesewith
touchable. Every act of touching is now imbued brahminthis
priestssense
become impure.
of He also points to the
doubt as to whether the objects of touchreaction of members
we reach of other communities
towards could who look down upon
44 September 12, 2009 vol xliv no 37 DOBS Kconomic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from

15.206.238.150 on Thu, 01 Oct 2020 15:56:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ee=e=ee^ ^ ^ _ ____ ^ J^z _ - \ -~ _~ - SPECIAL ARTICLE
the brahmins, in terms of their impure status either in accepting such an individual takes it upon himself to be an "untouchable"
gifts or "who digest the sin, evil, and death of others" (ibid: 80). means that he is the autonomous agent for such a decision. More
Quigleys attempt in his book is to make explicit the political over, in most cases, such an individual can come out of this state.
dimensions involved in the creation of a hierarchy and in particular Third, the punishment for transgression is not one that is similar to
to emphasise the role of kingship in this act. His and other such what is imposed on the involuntary untouchables. The brahmin's
similar attempts to rewrite the narrative of caste in India miss one "untouchability" is that one does not want to be touched and is not
essential point: an inquiry into the nature of untouchability.6 that one is refused the touch. The touched-touching dichotomy
Ambedkar was aware of the enduring idea of the impure which informs this position is one that is characteristic of touch. I
among brahmins and other castes but he clearly points out to the agree with Ambedkar that these transient, voluntary states should
many differences. He notes that there is only a notion of temporal not be equated with the notion of being an untouchable.
"untouchability" in the case of brahmins and others who are in a However, we should note here another class of brahmins who
state of impurity (Ambedkar 1948). There is no encoding of this are "permanent untouchables" and these are the Acharyas (for
state into one of a permanent stature. The acts of propitiation to example, in the Ramanuja tradition). These Acharyas are perma
get rid of the "impure" state are not available to the untoucha nently untouchable but since their untouchability is already
bles. To point out the brahmins too had moments of untouch inscribed within the notion of superior untouchability they retain
ability cannot allow one to equate them with the untouchables. this superior nature. Such Acharyas, for example, will not eat
Ambedkar conceptualises this difference in terms of the impure food which is cooked even by their wives. They too, like the un
and the untouchable. So, what Quigley calls as untouchable in touchables, gain their status of absolute untouchability through
the case of brahmin priests, Ambedkar would call as the impure. birth. The children (at least the eldest son) of Acharyas usually
Is there any merit to creating such a distinction? Ambedkar's continue to be Acharyas. Even brahmins in a state of purity
distinction can be retained if we understand that untouchability cannot touch these Acharyas, or watch them eat and so on.
is not about impurity as well as recognising that impurity is not Untouchability for these people is not about attaining a state of
untouchability. How do we make this distinction? untouchability and then coming out of it. It is hereditary, it is part
of tradition and they are in a permanent state of being an
Daily Rituals untouchable, even to their family and kin. Here, it is not about
First of all, note that the notion of "untouchability" among brah purity and impurity but about a state of being.10
mins is not restricted only to priests in the act of accepting gifts
or "accepting" death of others. The rituals concerned with impu Bipolarity among Untouchables
rity begin with daily acts. There are many texts which describe What should capture our attention is the bipolarity in those who
elaborate rituals of purification starting from the time one gets are untouchables. Agreeing with Ambedkar, we can distinguish
out of bed. It is also the case that there are states of madi when those caste-individuals in moments of impurity as being in a
the brahmin is "untouchable" to others and these states accrue transient state and hence not being an untouchable. But the spe
even when not associated with impurity. Almost all the moments cial case of the Acharyas suggests something radically different.
of auspicious worship, festivals, marriages, daily prayers have It is that the notion of being an untouchable is an essential and
some rituals of macii associated with them.7 necessary component of being a brahmin. To be a brahmin is to
Macii is a characteristic of untouchableness. Certain rituals, be an untouchable, a permanent untouchable. For most brahmins
which include most forms of prayers, have to be performed under there are only moments of untouchability and they do not have
this condition. A common ritual associated with macii is the fol the discipline or practice to reach this state of permanent
lowing: the person who is doing a ritual must first of all wash his untouchability. But for the most exalted spiritual leaders the
clothes and hang it to dry. Once it is dry it cannot be touched by moments of untouchability are permanent. In fact, being a per
any other person. The person who is "in" macji cannot wear the manent untouchable, one that is passed on hereditarily, is what
clothes unless he or she has had a bath. If the cloth has to be distinguishes these brahmin spiritual leaders.
moved, it is often done with the help of a stick. If anybody else or Here is an intriguing paradox: what distinguishes the state of
the macii person touches the dried cloth before s/he has had her untouchability of these people in contrast to the untouchables of
bath, the cloth will have to be washed again.8 When a person is in Ambedkar? Untouchability in the former case is obviously a posi
madi nobody, including his own children, can touch him.9 What tive virtue whereas in the latter case it is a negative "fact". What
this means is that during family rituals family members are com is it in th? nature of untouchability that allows this accretion of
pletely untouchable till the ritual is completed. value? And what is it that resists the inversion so that the positive
Following Ambedkar, we can actually note the important dis virtue becomes a characteristic of all untouchables? While there
tinctions in such states of "untouchability" of the brahmins. While may be useful social and political reasons that might explain this
one can designate such an individual as being in a state of "un phenomenon, here I am interested in exploring the metaphysical
touchability" the characteristics of untouchability are fundamen consequences of the same.
tally different. First of all, the individual voluntarily takes on the The importance of the idea of the "untouchable" among the
mantle of untouchability. If we have to invoke the language of brahmins is indicative of the essentiality of this notion to the very
purity, then one can say that untouchability in this case is a mark definition of what is it to be a brahmin. A brahmin is not one who
of greater purity and not of greater impurity. Second, the fact that belongs to a particular community - this is merely the sociological

Economic & Political weekly 13909 September 12, 2009 vol xliv no 37 45

This content downloaded from

15.206.238.150 on Thu, 01 Oct 2020 15:56:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
interpretation of being a brahmin.11 Being born into the commu here that the most dominant marker of being a brahmin lies in
nity is not enough to be called a brahmin unless the male mem the concept of untouchability, lies in the potential of an individual
ber undergoes the investiture of the sacred thread. Different sub to become an untouchable. How so? A brahmin is one who not
groups then have other initiations that are needed before one can only has access to temporal and potential untouchability but also
become a full-fledged member of this community. (We need to to permanent, hereditary untouchability.
reflect on this constant "brahminising" of the brahmins that is But then why is it that the brahmin's untouchability is valor
needed in order to continue to be a member of that community in ised whereas the untouchability of the untouchables transforms
contrast to membership criteria in other castes.) In the case of into most inhuman forms of treatment? The philosdphical answer
one sect of brahmins, it is necessary for a person to have under lies in the notion of supplementation, a concept that has been
gone the panchasamskaram which includes the upanayanam effectively used by Derrida in a completely different context.
(sacred thread). Unless a person has done the five samskaras he
cannot perform most of the rituals. For example, a person who 5 Untouchability and the Logic of the Supplement
has not done these samskaras cannot cook in various rituals. Let me begin with the idea of a sign. A sign is that which stands
Orthodox brahmins (of certain sects) will not eat food that is for something else. Our access to the signified is mediated
cooked by somebody who has not undergone these samskaras. through the representation through signs. But the dominant
Thus, one becomes a brahmin in ways that are unique to that metaphysics underlying this process gives a primacy to that
group. But the most important marker in becoming a brahmin which is signified, because of which the sign is always placed
has to do essentially with the possibility of being an untouchable hierarchically lower than the signified.
to members of their own community. Moreover, the most Derrida engages with this idea through the analysis of writing
exalted state is reached when one is in a permanent state of (Derrida 1976). In western thought, writing has dominantly been
untouchability. seen to be derivative to speech, which itself is derivative to an
It is well known that membership to a brahmin community is originary thought, an essence or presence. Whether it is
not through hereditary alone. It is a necessary condition that one Rousseau's comment that writing is a "dangerous supplement" to
is born into a brahmin household but it is not sufficient. The suf speech or a more virulent opinion that writing is evil, there is a
ficient condition that makes one into a brahmin is related to the continued tradition of suspicion towards writing. Derrida's
idea of becoming an untouchable. Thus, I would like to suggest critique of the binary of speech and writing where speech is seen

EPW Research Foundation (A UNIT OF SAMEEKSHATRUSD

_

\j* -^
The revised and updated Edition, just released by the EPW Research Foundation has several added features:
Long 46-year time series on gross state domestic product (GSDP) and net SDP.
Data presentation based on respective base-level series at current and constant prices.
A series of growth rates and ratios representing key results.
Data on capital formation for 13 states.
Detailed notes on the methodology and a review of the existing studies.

Moderately Priced and Concessional Rate for Students and Research Scholars
Hard Copy CD
Inland (Rs) 800 1500
Concessional Rate 600* 1000*
Foreign (US $)_100_ 15Q_
* Concessional rate for subscribers of the previo
their eligibility for concession along with the or

CDs and hard copies can be obtained from:

The Director,
EPW Research Foundation,
C-212, Akurli Industrial Estate, Akurli Road, Kandivli (E), Mumbai - 400 101.
Phones: (022) 2885 4995/ 4996 Fax: (022) 2887 3038 E-Mail: [email protected]
(Remittances by Demand Draft/Cheque or through online payment gateway. Demand Draft and Cheque are to be in favour
of EPW Research Foundation payable at Mumbai. Outstation Cheques should include Rs 50/- as bank collection charges. For online
payment, please visit : http://www.epwrf.res.ih)

46 September 12, 2009 vol xliv no 37 GQ53 Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from

15.206.238.150 on Thu, 01 Oct 2020 15:56:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 - ":^^z^;SPEgALARTICLE
to be "superior" to writing leads him to suggest that writing does the notion of a brahmin. However, the critical analysis of the sup
not act as a mere "supplement" to speech. plement suggests that it is impossible to sustain untouchability as
A supplement suggests that there is a lack in what is supple a "mere" supplement. It, instead, is to be found in the source - the
mented. But it cannot just be a mere representation of this lack or brahmin - itself. The example of the permanent untouchable
absence. What this process of supplementation points to is the among brahmins is an added illustration of the importance of the
fact that the supplemented is incomplete and necessarily depends idea of untouchability among brahmins. To be the highest brah
on the supplement. It is the supplement that brings to presence min is to be an untouchable but not of the kind that characterises
the signified. The consequence of this move is that the signified is the untouchables. In other words, the necessity to construct a
not accessible to us other than through the presence of the group called the untouchables arises in large part due to the in
signihers - every signified therefore is a trace of the signifier. herent presence of the notion of untouchability in the very idea of
In the case of writing, thought, which is supposed to be repre a brahmin.
sented by writing twice-removed, is not completely accessible What then are the implications of this argument? It is first and
without writing. Not only is thought thus incomplete without the foremost the recognition that untouchability as a notion is intrin
supplement it is also the case that the supplement adds to the sic to brahmins. And this notion of untouchability is not about the
original thought. It is the supplement which makes the originary rituals associated with impurity. It is actually about the charac
possible. Thus, Derrida (1976: 304): "The supplement is always teristics of the non-temporal, permanent and hereditary charac
the supplement of a supplement. One wishes to go back from the teristics of untouchability. The creation of a supplementary com
supplement to the source: one must recognise that there is a sup munity of untouchables is a necessary consequence of the inabil
plement at the source." ity of brahmins to attain the "pure" state of untouchable. But in
creating this supplement the pure state of untouchability that
Speech and Writing characterises the Acharyas, for example, is converted into a neg
Speech is thus not "independent" of writing; writing is not a mere ative virtue. In other words, the untouchables are the supple
supplementation of speech. As Culler notes, "the thing supple mented Acharyas and this supplementation is needed for the pos
mented (speech) turns out to need supplementation because it sibility of having a community of brahmins whose members no
proves to have the same qualities originally thought to character longer carry the burden of "pure untouchability". Thus, if there
ise only the supplement (writing)" (Culler 1997: 11). The logic of were no creation of a supplemented class of untouchables there is
supplementation gives us various possible alternatives of the no possibility of having a community of brahmins. The untouch
relation between the supplement and the supplemented. Barbara ables are the supplemented brahmins in the final analysis. In
Johnson (1990) suggests the following possibilities: If A is the Derridean terms, the brahmins are like speech and the untoucha
supplement to B, then the relation between A and B can be one or bles are like writing. Ironically, the literal meaning of a brahmin
more of the following - added to, substitutes for, superfluous is essentially related to speech and the dalits have been essen
addition to, makes up for the absence of, makes for deficiency, tially reduced to possessors of a body - the material substratum
usurps the place of, corrupts the purity of, necessary for restora on which writing is possible. Speech is temporary, transitory and
tion of, as that which the other is lost without, is a danger to, is a is evanescent - and is untouchable! Writing is permanent, em
remedy to, protects against direct encounter with, and so on. bodies the idea of "hereditary" - and ironically, is touchable! The
Even this brief entry into the idea of the supplement points to possibility of such reversal clearly illustrates the logic of supple
its potential use in understanding untouchability in the Indian mentation. Thus we can see how the critique of speech suggests a
context. The popular understanding of caste privileges the axial way of critiquing the dichotomy between brahmins and dalits.
polarity between the brahmins and the untouchables, also artic
ulated along the pure-impure opposition. Like the speech/writing Process of Supplementation
binary or man/woman, the brahmin/untouchable binary is not How exactly does this process of supplementation act to create a
only a constructed opposition but one in which the latter is inferi community of untouchables as something necessary for the sus
orised with respect to the former. This allows us to consider the tenance of the idea of a brahmin? This occurs through the crea
possibility that the untouchable acts as a supplement to the brah tion of inverting the elements of the experience of touching. The
min. It is moreover a "dangerous supplement" and one that is in supplementation occurs through the change from "not wanting
trinsically "dangerous" to the signified, the brahmin. It moreover, to be touched" to "refusing to touch". It is interesting that both
to use one characterisation of Johnson's logic of the supplement, these imperatives come from the brahmin - that is, the untouch
"corrupts the purity of" the brahmin. To use another characteri able brahmin is one who refuses to let others touch him and
sation, it "protects against direct encounter with" the brahmins. refuses to touch others. In the case of the untouchables, neither is
The discourse of the untouchable illustrates its construction as a the case. I suggest that such a shaft can happen only in the case of
supplement in these various descriptions. touch because of the touch-touched relation. It is in this sense
Derrida's argument that the supplement is all that there is, that that untouchability as we know it today arises in consequence of
the supplement is to be found at the source, allows us to engage the metaphysics of touch and the supplementation of the shift
with the dominant discourse of untouchability in a different from beiH^ touched to touching. And since lynching is always an
manner. The discourse on brahmins and untouchability clear%vintegral paft. of being touched they can only be in a reversible
indicates that the notion of untouchability is seen as a supplement to ^ relation and n$t in a hierarchical relation thereby suggesting

Economic & Political wkkkly q3s3 September 12, 2009 vol xliv no 37 \ 47

This content downloaded from

15.206.238.150 on Thu, 01 Oct 2020 15:56:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
that the brahmins and the untouchables actually exemplify a re This practice continues to this day; Quigley cites the example of
versible relation between each other. the royal murders in Nepal a few years back when similar rituals
These are not just theoretical musings without empirical sup were performed. In the case of the untouchables, the untouchabil
port! An interesting social phenomenon in Indian societies is the ity of the brahmins is outsourced to the dalits who then carry that
existence of communities who specialise in carrying various bur burden. Recognising this move of supplementation is first of all a
dens of other communities. The professional mourners of Rajasthan political recognition and enables specific political action.
are a community of women who do the job of mourning when Saying all this might not be saying much given the inhuman
somebody dies. This is one characterisation: these are women of a practices associated with untouchability. However, we should also
lower caste who are "hired as professional mourners upon the remember that the deconstructive moves initiated through the
death of upper caste males... Their job is to publicly express grief analysis of the logic of supplementation have generated new and
of family members who are not permitted to display emotion due liberatory ideas which have been important in struggles against
to social status."12 Quigley (1993) mentions the Mahabrahmins various types of hegemony. There is no reason that the same can
whose job is to carry the spirits of the dead. Indian society is filled not happen in the case of the liberation of the untouchables also.
with such examples of "outsourcing". In another book where he Such a phenomenology of untouchability also does something
relates kingship and untouchability, Quigley gives the example of else: it allows us to develop an ethics which is based on touch.
brahmins who hug a dying king in order to take the king's sin While ethical responses to untouchability often draw upon politi
away (Quigley 2005: 130). Having absorbed the sins of the dying cal ideas such as individual freedom there is a more foundational
king, the embodied sinner leaves the kingdom never to return. ethical response possible, one based on an ethics of touch.

NOTES movement. The 12 alwars - the supreme spiritual Derrida, Jacques (1976): Of Grammatology, Trans
1 It is difficult to summarise the characteristics thatfigures for this community - include non-brah Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Baltimore and
mins. The Divya-Prabandam is the "Tamil Veda" London: John Hopkins University Press).
would define an Untouchable in its full generality.
and is the central text for this community. Argua - (2005): On Touching, Jean-Luc Nancy: Jean-luc
The standard accounts that use pollution/purity
to define this class run into trouble because ofbly, the most important part of this text is another Nancy, Trans Christine Irizarry (Stanford: Stan
text called the Thiruvaimozhi. Verse 3-7 -9 of this ford University Press).
many exceptions, both from within that class and
outside it. One classification that is more inclu text is roughly translated as follows: "Those who Fuller, C J (1979): "Gods, Priests and Purity: On the
sive is as follows: The untouchables in Indian so do not belong to the known four castes but to the Relation Between Hinduism and the Caste Sys
most backward called 'Candalas' - not having an tern", Man, 14 (3), pp 459-76.
ciety are those who are "(i) economically de
ything to be admired of - if they are devotees of
pendent and exploited, (2) victims of many kinds Glucklich, Ariel (1994): The Sense of Adharma (New
Lord Visnu then not only they but their disciples
of discrimination, and (3) ritually polluted in a York: Oxford University Press).
too are my God." There are other such sentiments
permanent way" (Deliege 1999: 2). See alsoin the text. Such references to the other castes, Gupta, Bina (1995): Perceiving in Advaita Vendanta
Beteille (1992). (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass).
along with folk narratives of important non
2 In addition to these two terms, Bangla, for exambrahmin and dalit persona in this brahminical Gupta, Brahmananda (2008): "The Concept of
ple, commonly uses another term - sarhspar.sa, tradition, suggest once more the difficulty in 'Indriyas' in Ayurvedic Texts with Special Refer
which in Bangla "means social contact of the kind understanding caste dynamics in terms of rigid ence to Karmendriyas" in P K Sen (ed.), Philosoph
that makes it possible for lines of influence todistinctions based on some ideas of purity and ical Concepts Relevant to Sciences in Indian Tradi
travel from one person to the other, and is durable impurity. tion, (New Delhi: CSC).
and sustained contact." (I thank Probal Dasgupta, Jablonski, Nina (2006): Skin: A Natural History
11 See Pandian's (2008), analysis of the creation of
personal communication, for this input.) the brahmin community in Tamil Nadu. (University of California Press).
3 Quality is one imperfect translation of guna.12 ImWikipedia entry for Rudali. Jha, Ganganatha (1984): The NyayaSutras of
perfect since gunas are not repeatable like quali Gautama, Vol 3 (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass).
ties are, for example.
Johnson, Barbara (1990): "Writing" in F Lentricchia.
4 Although there is also the Unseen (see Ambedkar and T McLaughlin (ed.), Critical Terms for
REFERENCES
1948) the force of untouchability lies specifically Literary Study (Chicago: University of Chicago
in the act of touch.
Press).
Ambedkar, B R (1948): The Untouchables (Bheem
5 As far as space and time are concerned, there
Patrika Publications). Lang, Karen Christine (2003): Four Illusions:
have been different claims on the possibility of Candrakirti's Advice for Travellers on the Bodhisat
sensing space ranging from Berkeley's view Bean, Susan (1981): "Towards a Semiotics of 'Purity'
tva Path by Candrak'irti, Trans Karen Christine
that it can be touched to Nyaya's view that it canand 'Pollution' in India", American Ethnologist, 8 Lang (New York: Oxford University Press).
be heard. (3), PP 575-95
Merleau-Ponty, M (1968): The Visible and the Invisible,
6 Quigley's later book (2005), has a section on king Beteille, Andre (1992): The Backward Classes in Mod
ern India (Delhi: Oxford University Press).
Trans Alphonso Lingis (1st edition Evanston
ship and untouchability but says little of value about Northwestern University Press).
the nature of untouchability and misses the funda Bhattacharya, Amarnath (2008): "The Concept of
Sarira: Sthula, Suksma, Lihga, Karana" in P K Sen Montago, Ashley (1971): Touching: The Human Signifi
mental import of untouchability in brahmins.
cance of the Skin (New York: Columbia University
7 See Fuller (1979) and Bean (1981), for descriptions (ed.), Philosophical Concepts Relevant to Sciences
in Indian Tradition (Delhi: CSC). Press).
of madi in different communities. These ap
Chretien, Jean-Louis (2004): The Call and the Re Pandian, MSS (2008): Brahmin and Non-brahmin:
proaches, like most others, are primarily con
sponse (Trans Anne A Davenport) (New York: Genealogies of the Tamil Political Present (New
cerned in understanding this practice in terms of
Delhi: Permanent Black).
purity and pollution. What I am suggesting here is Fordham University Press).
the need to focus on the concept of untouchability Classen, Constance, ed. (2005): The Book of Touch Paterson, Mark (2007): The Senses of Touch: Haptics,
(Oxford and New York: Berg). Affects and Technologies (Oxford: Berg).
as a primary term in this analysis, which then
leads to a very different reading of these practices Connor, Steven (2004)* The Book of Skin (Cornell Uni Quigley, D (1993): The Interpretation of Caste (Oxford:
as well as creating possibilities of new political versity Press). Clarendon Press).
interventions. Culler, Jonathan (1997): Literary Theory: A Very Short - (2005): The Character of Kingship (Oxford: Berg).
8 There are differences in this practice across com Introduction (New York: Oxford University Sarukkai, Sundar (2002): "Inside/Outside: Merleau
munities. Also, there are various subtleties Press). Ponty/Yoga", Philosophy East and West 52 (4),
present such as the distinction between cotton Datta, Srilekha (2008): "Gunas (Qualities) in Nyaya 2002, pp 459-78.
and silk cloth in relation to madi. Vaisesika Ontology" in P K Sen (ed.), Philosophical - (2005): Indian Philosophy and Philosophy of
9 Similar states are applicable to the women also. Concepts Relevant to Sciences in Indian Tradition Science (New Delhi: CSC/Motilal Banarsidass).
10 In the brahminical Ramanuja tradition, there are (New Delhi: CSC). Sorabji, Richard (1971): "Aristotle on Demarcating-the
many stories of non-brahmins (including dalits) Deliege, R (1999): The Untouchables of India (Oxford: Five Senses", The Philosophical Review, 80,
who occupy highly respected positions in this Berg). PP 55-79

48 September 12, 2009 vol xliv no 37 BCE3 Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from

15.206.238.150 on Thu, 01 Oct 2020 15:56:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms