REPORT OF GUEST LECTURE

ANCIENT INDIAN LEGAL LITERARTURE AND

UNTOUCHIBILITY
ON
16/10/23, Monday
GUEST SPEAKER: Prof. (Dr) Malay Neeray
Head Department of History
St. Stephen’s College
University of Delhi

By : Harshita Pant

Class:1-B
 The Guest speaker (Dr) Malay Neeray , professor, Dept. of History St. Stephen’s College in
University of Delhi was heartily welcomed by Prof.(Dr) Rashmi Salpekar, Dean and Prof(Dr)
Namrata Arora. The Guest speaker Dr Malay Neeray has unflinching commitment and ardent
passion towards teaching. Dr Neerav specialised in history of ancient India at the post
graduate level securing the top rank in his masters. After his initial research at the university
of Delhi, on untouchability in ancient India, he was awarded the Felix scholarship for
research and teaching at university of London. He has done a pioneering work on the
proliferation and segregation of untouchables castes in North India between AD 600 and
1200 . He has also worked as the consultant editor to the world bank and has edited several
volumes dealing with the different environmental issues of India.

He delivered the lecture focused on the history of untouchability, its origin , secular and
religious texts and the problems associated with these literature. The lecturer started by
making a bridge between the untouchability and dhramasastra. Acc. to him Untouchability
was inextricably linked with the notions of the prevalent brahmanical society. The
dharmaśāstra or ‘the teaching of righteousness’ comprises the sūtras or epigrammatical
literature, the Smṛtis or metrical sources and the commentaries on these sources, these texts
covers an extending period that goes of beyond 2000 years. Because of this as mentioned by
the prof. it becomes difficult to identify the author of these texts. Not only that but also the
place where the work was composed, and the circumstances which had a bearing on the
content and shape of the work were also not distinguishable. On moving forward the prof.
presented different view of historians like P.V. Kane, Richard W Lariviere and etc. Some of
them view dharmaśāstra as basic source of pseudonymous while other seen it as a continuous
process of writing. Next the lecturer talked about the origin of these text and stated that it is
very difficult to be accurate about the dates because it is not possible to locate the customs
and practices mentioned in any particular work to definite periods and localities.

Manu smriti , the first law book of Hindu culture was also talked about in his lecture.
The Manu-smriti prescribes to Hindus their dharma—i.e., that set of obligations
incumbent on each as a member of one of the four social classes (varnas) and engaged in
one of the four stages of life (ashramas). The lecturer also highlighted the conflicting
view of different historians on this literature. It is also believed by many historians as also
pointed in the lecture that the practices mentioned in the Manu smriti might not be
followed throughout the kingdom with uniformity. The prof. further pointed on the
limitation of Manu smriti that were the Smritis presents a brahmanical view of the social
and political order and hence should not be over overestimated. Another difficulty with
the study of Smṛtis is that there are contradictions within a Smṛti and also between
different Smṛtis which make a careful examination and corroboration necessary.
 Further it was stated in the lecture that there is no uniformity as talked in the
dharmaśāstra. The prof. talked about the ways that leads to the practice of untouchability,
it could have arisen either by birth, by the pursuit of improper or impure occupation and
etc. Several occupational groups that emerged as new ‘mixed castes’ were assigned
different occupational functions and vocations. Also, the marked degradation in the social
status of some occupational groups on the one hand, and the attempts to assign a new
socio-cultural space to the excluded groups of non-brahmanical tribes on the other, were
noticeable. This segregation was done corollary to the disabilities and taboos which were
designed to be associated with the untouchables.

By moving further the lecturer emphasized and explained about the Manu who was of the
view that those who are guilty of killing a brāhmaṇa, stealing a brāhmaṇa’s gold or drinking
intoxicating drinks should be excommunicated and no one should dine with them or teach
them or officiate as priests for them, nor should one enter matrimonial relationships with
them and they should wander over the world excluded from all Vedic dharmas. However the
social and ritual distance between a ‘touchable’ and an ‘untouchable’ and also between one
untouchable caste and another was prescribed, codified and carried to the extremes by the
later smṛti writers and the commentators.It was told that not always certain caste was
condemned to be untouchable in 600AD even if they were doing low and disapproved work
but in the period of 600-1200AD not only not only the were traced but also references to the
impure occupations, injunctions and prohibitions were prescribed for the followers of these
occupations, many of whom are now condemned as untouchable castes.

Prof. provided a deep analysis on this subject and pointed that some of the smritis writer went
so far that they stated on touching a śūdra, a dvijāti has to take bathe.not only that but religious
hatred also led to the degradation of followers of some religious sects and cults to the rank of
untouchables. This was their belief as specifically quoted in the lecture Mitākṣara and Aparārka
quote Brahmān̟ ḍa Purāṇa to say that "after touching the śaivas, pāśupatas lokāyatikas,
nāstika, those twice born who have taken up duties not meant for them, and the śūdras, one
should get into water with all the garments on.

At last the lecturer highlighted the importance of Spatial Distribution of Local Communities.

CONCLUSION: At last I would like to say that the lecturer was very well versed with his
topic and provided a deep insights on it. He clearly justified all his points with relevant
examples as stated above. He through out his lecture pointed on the miscalculation and
arbitrariness of the past texts by sharply putting forward his view. Also he summarized the
topic in a very crisp and clear manner, as it can be seen in the report, with the help of
different historians and his personal understanding.