11

Chapter 1: Caste and Linguistic Difference

I aim to establish through this chapter that language systems in India are

characterized by caste dialects. This observation, often undermined by prominent

sociolinguists, can be clearly observed in the case of scavenging castes. The chapter will

first introduce the concept of caste in India, and how it differs from the category of class.

Various ideological perspectives on caste shall be analyzed. This will be followed by a

survey of existing linguistic theories of stratification. A closer and more nuanced

understanding of these key concepts will enable us to decipher the social and linguistic

segregation of the scavenging caste.

Caste is a product of 'Hindu" religion, and it can be traced to its religious texts, the

Rig Veda and the Manu Smirti. There are different castes - broadly classified into brahmins,

ksbatriyas, vaishyas, shudras, and untouchables (ati-shudra2). The stratification of these

castes was rationalized through the varna system laid out in Hindu scriptures. According to

this, castes were divided according to one's profession and arranged in a systematically

hierarchical fashion. Roles will be ascribed to brahmins as priests, kshatriyas as soldiers,

vaishyas as traders, and shudras as menial workers. These four castes do "clean work" and

those who do "cleaning work" were called slaves or untouchables (Ambedkar 306).

This conception has its roots in Hindu religion, and it divides people based on purity

and pollution. Those who engaged in filthy occupation were not to be touched by the rest,

I For Jotiba Phule caste is slavery, like the enslavement of Africans in the United States. 'But based in India not only on open conquest and subordination but also on deception and religious illusion', This deception was the essence of what the high castes called "Hinduism". (Gail Omvedt 2010: 18),

2 A term coined by !otiba Phule.

12

and these people who were not to be touched were called untouchables. Several tenus were

used to refer to members of the untouchable castes. In 1948, Ambedkar chose the term

"broken men" as an English translation of the Marathi word "dalit" (Michael II). Gandhi

introduced and popularized the term "harijan" (meaning 'children of god'). They were

referred to as depressed classes l by the colonial British government, until 1935, when it was

replaced by the term "scheduled castes", a category inherited by the post-independence

Indian government.

There are many theories regarding the origin of caste. Gail Omvedt analyzes these

various approaches to the caste system. She notes that Marx understood caste as a form of

division of labour connected with the specific Indian form of the Asiatic village, and he

believed the system would collapse under the impact of industrialization and modern

transport and cornmunications. It is this idea that led Indian Marxian sociologists to

undermine the caste system and rather devote their attention to class struggle (Caste, race and

sociologists -I, II, Hindu.com).

The French sociologist, Louis Dumont, remains one of the prominent analysts of the

caste system. In his book Homo Hierarchus, Dumont explains caste in India as a unique

system, intimately connected with Hinduism. He views this as a supreme example of the

recognition of hierarchy as a fact of social life, and in its shifting levels and logics of

purity/pollution encompassing the extreme purity of the brahmins at the top requires as its

antithesis the extreme pollution of the untouchables at the bottom. He insisted that Hinduism

plays a central role in defining caste. Dumont, like Marx, emphasized that caste will undergo

3 The term refers to castes those are considered lower in the caste hierarchy. Originally the term was used in an article written by Dr. Annie Beasant in the Indian review, Feburary 1909 with the caption "The Uplift of the Depressed Classes. t'

13

a change in modem India, that caste was getting "substantialized", and that caste groups were

organizing themselves as large political blocs. Dumont argued that such a transformation of

caste into ethnic identity represented a fundamental shift from hierarchy, a change in the

system itself.

Omvedt, however, refutes Dumont's argument and maintains that no structural

change has taken place and that the lower castes have not moved into a position sufficient to

say that a hierarchy no longer exists. She points out that there is no empirical evidence to

prove that inter-marriages are occurring at a significant enough rate to really transform the

system. The lack of empirical data is partly due to the reluctance of the Indian state and its

supporting intellectuals who are reluctant to gather caste data, as indicated by the continuing

refusal to collect data on caste identification in the census. Sociologists, on their part, have

raised arguments without backing their results with substantial information (Omvedt, Caste,

race and sociologists, Hindu.com).

Dumont's observation of caste as transitional has been supported by several

sociolinguists as well. Elayaperumal Annamalai in his book Managing Multilingualism in

India, for example, argues,

Words referring to servile castes and castes of craftsmen have changed to

occupational words with no connotation of traditional ritual status. This reflects

the ongoing change from the traditional cognition of caste in terms of ritual

hierarchy to the modem one of materially competing groups and also the change

from taking one's occupation by birth to by choice (108-109).

Further he argues that the caste names are used particularly in the context of associations or

unions to protect group interests, indicating a change in the castes towards playing by the

rules of a class society rather than the rules of a caste society.

14

He expounds on how caste associations formed in the 19th century helped improve

the ritual status of these caste and gave greater access to educational and employment

opportunities and political power. He refers to Tamil names Naavitan (caste name of barber)

changes to mutitirutluvoon (hairdresser), vannan (a caste name of washerman) to calavai

tozhilaali (laundry worker) (109). However G. Aloysius argues that a political awakening

among the lower and relegated castes was in process towards the end of the 19th century and

throughout the 20th century. Among the many political processes, renaming of the caste was

a primary strategy adopted by several lower caste groups. Many caste names were considered

humiliating and demeaning, hence people renamed their caste (65). For example, chakkiliyar

in Tamil Nadu and bhangi in Northern India are considered derogative. Hence, they renamed

themselves as arunthathiyars, and valmikis respectively. Apart from opting for new names

and identities, various lower and relegated caste groups also organized themselves into

associations to promote education and diversification of occupation, and claimed reservation

and other governmental provisions in order to catch up with other castes

The disjunctive opinions regarding the caste system in contemporary India have been

shaped by the two distinctive and often oppositional logics of caste put forward by Gandhi

and Ambedkar. Gandhi's positions regarding the caste question is rather curious. He felt that

the caste system was an integral and fundamental unit ofIndian society. Gandhi argued that

the continuance of the caste system was necessary to maintain societal stability. He upheld

the caste system, and stated that a person belonging to a lower caste should be proud of his

15

duty to serve society. By placing undue importance on the "dignity of labour", Gandhi

attempted to legitimize the caste system. In this context, Gandhi called scavengers and

untouchables Harijan (children of god). Since Gandhi was a prominent political figure

(regarded as the Father of the Nation) and played a major role in the Indian National

Congress, the post-independence government in India followed Gandhi's ideology in

approaching caste system.

For Gandhi, each caste was assigned its role in society and was compelled (destined)

to follow their associated hereditary occupations; and those who disobeyed were to be

punished. In other words "the sacred law of Hindus lays down that scavenger's progeny shall

live by scavenging. Under Hinduism, scavenging was not a matter of choice but matter of

force" (Ambedkar Vo1.9, 292). Gandhi was not in favour of eradicating the caste system;

instead he desired that the small fragmented castes should fuse themselves into four big

castes so that the ancient varna system could be reinstated. He also believed that varna was

based on birth. According to Gandhi, the law of varna teaches us that each one of us have to

earn our livelihood by following her ancestral calling. It defines not our rights, but our duties.

It proclaims that these ancestral impositions are necessary for the overall welfare of society.

In 1921-22, Gandhi wrote in a Gujaratijournal called Nava-Jivan4 that the seeds of

Swarai were to be found in the caste system; caste was the natural order of the society.

Gandhi also believed that caste could be the means for spreading education, as every caste

could take the responsibility to educate the children in their respective castes, and that caste

could be the basis of the judicial system, by members of each caste electing judges to resolve

41t is reprinted in VoUI of the series called Gandhi Sikshan as No. 18, The article was written in Gujarati, and was later translated by Ambedkar Volume 9:276

16

disputes among members of their own caste. (However, this becomes problematic in the case

of inter-caste disputes, where, due to their cultural and educational dominance, the upper

caste monopolized the judiciary and dominated the power structure of the village system.)

Gandhi's vehement support of the caste system can be understood by his statement:

"Hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change is to create a disorder. And I have no

use for a brahmin if! cannot call him a brahmin for my life." In short, Gandhi "opposed all

those who are out to destroy the caste system" (Ambedkar Vol. 9, 256).

Even while fighting for the maintenance of a caste society, Gandhi tried to appease

dalits by merely referring to them as harijan. The Gandhian category harijan was very

popular for a long period of time. It is important to note here how the word dalit, which

stands distinctively as a self-defined political category, differs from the Gandhian category

harijan. The untouchables chose the term dalit for themsleves - a MarathilHindi translation

of the British governmental category of "depressed classes"(Omvedt 77). Gandhi explained

how caste ascribes the role of each individual in the service of society. It follows that there is

no calling too low and none too high. All occupations are good, lawful, and absolutely equal

in status. For Gandhi, the calling of brahmin as a spiritusl teacher and that of a dalit as a

scavenger are equal, and their due performance carries equal merit in front of God.

However, Gandhi is clearly aware of the distinction between the pure and impure, the

filthy and the holy. By glorifying menial labour, Gandhi aims to retain the status quo and

thereby locking each caste with its hereditary occupation. A scavenger, in this system, can

only do scavenging, and never perform the work of a brahmin. In this context, Ambedkar

rightly pointed out that the untouchables were never been treated equally (Vol. 9, 10).

17

Ambedkar understood how caste is a system of deep-running structure, both

theoretically and practically. Practically, as an institution it has tremendous consequences.

Endogamy remains a major element in the consolidation of caste hierarchy in India. Women

from a higher caste are prohibited to marry a person from a lower caste. Apart from a

patriarchal protection of the upper caste feminine body, this practice also aims to retain the

purity of the upper caste bloodline. Anibedkar stated that as long as caste in India exists,

Hindus will hardly intermarry with members from other castes.

Such rules were prescribed in Manusmriti and the Vedas, philosophical works revered

by caste Hindus, while the "most hated work of the depressed classes, was ruthlessly

condemned". Manusmriti governs the law and life of the Hindus. Although written one

thousand five hundred years ago, it is considered by the orthodox to be good, "all-pervading

and omniscient even to this day"(Keer I ~O}. It was for the same reason that Ambedkar

performed a public burning of the book on the occasion of his historical Mahad Satyagraha in

1927.

Ambedkar also observes that the Hindu village works as a focal point of establishing

Hindu social order, a point also noted by the American sociolinguist John J. Gumperz. In

every village, touchables have implemented several codes of conduct that untouchables are

required to follow. These codes lay down the acts of omissions and commissions which the

touchables treat as offences. The principal means of livelihood of untouchables is to beg for

food from the touchables. Ambedkar also observes, "Another function of caste is not a

physical object like a wall of bricks or a line of barbed wire which prevents the Hindus from

co-mingling and which has, therefore to be pulled down. Caste is a notion and it is a state of

mind" (Vol. I , 46). It is in this context that Ambedkar propounds that, in India, a person is

18

becoming a scavenger not because of his profession, but because of his birth, irrespective of

whether slbe does scavenging or not. Also Ambedkar in his writing The Untouchables: Who

Were They? And Why They Became Untouchables? states that earlier there were a different

population of broken mens, who later became untouchables, because of eating or working

with the dead cow.

While Gandhi understood caste as being essential to Indian nationalism, Ambedkar

was aware of how caste acted detrimental to the national cause. He said,

[t]he effect of caste on the ethics of the Hindus is simply deplorable. Caste has

killed public spirit. Caste has destroyed the sense of public charity. Caste has made

public opinion impossible. A Hindu's public is his caste. His responsibility is to his

caste. His loyalty is restricted only to his caste. Virtue has become caste-ridden,

and morality has become caste-bound. There is no sympathy to the deserving.

There is no appreciation of the meritorious. There is no charity to the needy.

Suffering as such calls for no response. There is charity but it begins with the caste

and ends with the caste. There is sympathy but not for men of other caste ... My

caste man, right or wrong; my caste-man, good or bad. It is not a case of standing

by virtue and not standing by vice. It is a case of standing or not standing by the

caste (Ambedkar 29-30).

5 Brahmins hated Buddhists because Buddhists were not ready to leave the religion, hence the Brahmins targeted budhist and these budhists were considred as broken men. There is good literature to show the hattredness between Brahmins and budhists. To refer to one verse HNikant in his Prayaschit Mayukha wuates a verse from Manu which says: "if a person touches a Buddhist or a flower ofPachupat, Lokayata, Nastika and Mabapataki, he shall purify himselfby a bath". However Ambedkar ,\Tites Brahmins spread hatred agains all buddist but those who eat beef and engaged in something to do with the dead cow. Such as eating her flesh. some remove the skin, some manufacture articles out of her skin. The origin ofuntouchablity can be traced before Be. The orthodox Hindu text insists that it is very ancient. The untouchablity was also refered in Dharma Sutra, which is much earlier date to B.C. (Ambedkar: "The untouchables who were they and why lhe)' became untouchables" )

It is important to know how Gandhi and Ambedkar saw caste occupation in the

context of scavenging. Gandhi followed a strategy of reducing untouchability to the

scavenging population. Ambedkar, meanwhile, refers to several untouchable occupations,

such as leather work, beating drum at funerals and clearing dead bodies, when discussing

about untouchability. Here, I refer to Gandhi's and Ambedkar's views from the What

Congress and Gandhi did to Untouchables by Ambedkar.

Gandhi, as President of a Conference of the untouchables, said:

19

I love scavenging. In my Ashram, an eighteen year old brahmin lad is doing

the scavenger's work in order to teach the Ashram cleanliness. The lad is no reformer.

He was born and bred in orthodoxy. But he felt that his accomplishments were

incomplete until he had become also a perfect sweeper, and that if he wanted the

Ashram sweeper to do his work well, he must do it himself and set an example. You

should realise that you are cleaning Hindu Society (292).

Gandhi did not advocate the eradication of the profession or countering the notion of

impurity in the job, rather he attempted to legitimize the profession by associating it with

dignity. Through this transcendental philosophy, Gandhi tried to entrap the untouchable in

his state of deprivation and discrimination, without ever addressing their issues directly. All

revolutionary potential against the ruling castes were neutralized, and the natural origin of the

caste system was emphasized. Gandhi's imagination would never permit him to conceive ofa

scavenger as the priest of a temple.

Ambedkar's response was as following:

20

Can there be a worse example of false propaganda than this attempt of

Gandhism to perpetuate evils which have been deliberately imposed by one class over

another? If Gandhism preached the rule of poverty for all and not merely for the

Shudra, the worst that could be said about it is that it is a mistaken idea. But why

preach it as good for one class only? Why appeal to the worst of human failings,

namely, pride and vanity in order to make him voluntarily accept what on a rational

basis he would resent as a cruel discrimination against him? What is the use of telling

the scavenger that even a brahmin is prepared to do scavenging when it is clear that

according to Hindu shastras and Hindu notions even if a brahmin did scavenging he

would never be subject to the disabilities of one who is a born scavenger? For in India

a man is not a scavenger because of his work. He is a scavenger because of his birth

irrespective of the question whether he does scavenging or not. If Gandhism preached

that scavenging is a noble profession with the object of inducing those who refuse to

engage in it, one could understand it. But why appeal to the scavenger's pride and

vanity in order to induce him and him only to keep on to scavenging by telling him

that scavenging is a noble profession and that he need not be ashamed of it? To

preach that poverty is good for the shudra and for none else, to preach that

scavenging is good for the untouchables and for none else and to make them accept

these onerous impositions as voluntary purposes of life, by appeal to their failings is

an outrage and a cruel joke on the helpless classes which none but Mr. Gandhi can

perpetuate with equanimity and impunity (Ambedkar vol. 9, 292).

Ambedkar also raised questions on how dalits were categorized within government

census reports. From 1870s onwards the census report ofindia was published at the interval

21

of every 10 years. They classified people according to their religious category. In 1910, the

Hindus were classified into three different categories, Hindus, Animists and Tribals, and the

Depressed Classes or Untouchables. They also explicated the ten points used to define which

category a person belongs to.

However Ambedkar opined that there should be three tests to identify untouchable

communities.

I. The application of a uniform test across India is appropriate, because though each

province has different social lifestyles, still the tests of untouchability are found to be

applicable all over India. For example, barring lower castes from entering temples exists

everywhere in India. Also prohibition from consuming well-water and pollution by touch

apply in every province.

2. The aspect of pollution should be applicable both in literal and notional sense. He

argues that greater sensitivity should be given to the notional aspect of caste perpetuation. In

a notional sense, the "untouchable is a person who is deemed to belong to a class which is

commonly held to cause pollution by touch, although contact with such a person may for

local circumstances not be avoided or may not necessitate ceremonial purification"

(Rodrigues 97). He further writes that an individual may not be treated as an untouchable in

a literal sense due to various extraneous circumstances, while in other context she does

continues to be regarded as an untouchable. He refers to this disjunction pointed out by the

Census Superintendent of Bihar:

In places like Jamshedpur where work is done under modern conditions men

of all castes and races work side by side in the mill without any misgivings regarding

22

the caste of their neighbours. But, because the facts of everyday life make it

impossible to follow the same practical rules as were followed a hundred years ago, it

is not to be supposed tbat the distinctions of pure and impure, touchable and

untoucbable are no longer observed. A high caste Hindu will not allow an

'untouchable' to sit on the same seat, to smoke the same hookah or to touch his

person, his seat, his food or the water tbat he drinks (Rodrigues 97).

3. He warned against the view tbat untouchability was fast disappearing. The

occasional co-mingling between Brahmin and non-brahmins, toucbables and untouchables,

does not suggest that caste boundaries have ceased to exist. Rather, the system of caste and

practices ofuntoucbability still form the steel frame of Hindu society". Any ordinary Hindu

looked upon these as part of Hindu religion. Practicing untouchability is a sense of observing

her religion than from a deliberate act of cruelty. "Based on religion the ordinary Hindu only

relaxes the rules of untouchability where he cannot observe them. He never abandons them.

For abandonment of untouchability to him involves a total abandonment of the basic

religious tenets of Hinduism as understood by him and the mass of Hindus" (Rodrigues 98).

Gandhi, on the other band, was very particular about the order of varnas

(Varnashramadharma or Cbaturvarna). He wrote, "caste has a close connection with the

profession of one's livelihood. Everyone's profession is his own dharma. Whoever gives it

up, falls from his caste, and is himself destroyed, tbat is, his soul is destroyed." For Gandhi,

custom is historical because human history had not yet entered the realm of Truth

(God/Humanity) (Prashad \\6). Vijay Prasbad writes that Gandhi also argued all people can

23

do scavenging, since the work itself does not determine one's puritl. He also argued,

"Hindus mistake the dalit's diligence for their inherent meniality, an act of bad-faith since it

is the bulk of society that relies upon the dalit for the removal of dirt ... Our woebegone

Indian society has branded the bhangi as a social pariah, set him abuse, a creature who must

subsist on the leavings of the caste-people and dwell on the dung-heap" (Samy and Patel

121). The Hindu must, in the first place, acknowledge the work being done by the sweeper

and offer the sweeper some measure of compassion for the work. Dalits "should be called

artists, who when they look at dirt cannot rest without cleaning it" and Hindus must learn to

applaud them, not revile them (121). While being acutely aware of the plight of the

scavenging population, Gandhi assumes that the scavenger takes pride in his profession.

In 1946 Gandhi went and lived with scavengers in Mandir Marg. Shortly before

Gandhi moved into the colony, Swayam Sevak Dal from Shriram's Delhi Cotton Mills, a

member of the Indian National Congress and the Delhi Municipal Corporation,tried to

improve the horrendous living conditions of the inhabitants. They repaired the latrines,

installed new taps, erected huts, tents, all of which gave the colony the appearance of a

temporary camp. This act of Gandhi living in scavengers' colony was widely publicized, and

many, including Count Mountbatten praised this symbolic act (Prashad 137-8).

Prashad notes that valmiki elders recount tales of Gandhi's hypocrisy. When a dalit

gave him nuts, he fed them to his goat, saying that he would eat them later, in the goat's

milk. Most of Gandhi's food, nuts and grains, came from Birla's house: he did not take these

6 During those days scavenging caste were forced to use clean manually the filth with the bare body, in those days there were only dry latrine, where the shit has to be carried and thown away. Hencefonh people were employed to remove the filth and carry for disposing. Such practices still continue in India. Their settlement in Gandhi's term, 'the worst of any 1 had seen' (Harijan, 5 May 1946: Chandiwala, Gandhiji. Vol.2 297.

24

from dalits. Regarding the question of scavenging, Gandhi urged for the improvement of

working conditions for sweeping, so that Hindu prejudices against refuse removal may be

eliminated. Gandhi also utilized the discourse of modern science to validate his argument that

dirt is bad for health and so, people who engage in removing filth should be shunned until

they have cleaned themselves. He wrote that those who engage in sanitary work should

necessarily take a bath as it is simply hygiene, but failure to do so does not threaten one with

spiritual ruin (139-140). To sum up the Gandhian argument, caste system should be upheld,

though at the same time, everyone should think they are equal to others.

In 1932, Gandhi sent some clothes to a dalit locality. The dalits returned the clothes

saying, "If you want to give us clothes, then give it for our entire lives. What kind of tam ash a

(circus) is this? With these few pyjamas what will we do? If you want to economically

reform us, then do it properly" (qtd. in Prashad 127). Gandhi's movement against

untouchability was a mere tokenism.

Gandhi's ideas on scavenging were reflected in the debates and dispositions regarding

scavenging profession in the post-independence governmental machinery. This will be

discussed in detail in the next chapter. Gandhi did not wish to abolish manual scavenging,

and the governments which followed showed little inclination towards taking proactive steps

in eliminating this practice. Gandhi advocated that scavenging had to be done by the

scavenging caste, and municipalities and corporations consciously recruit members of the

scavenging caste for the job up to this day. Ambedkar's ideology, on the contrary, inspired

and was assimilated into most dalit movements in the country, which took up various forms

and strategies to fight the caste system.

Class and Caste

Class and caste are not separate categories. Rather, within the Indian context, class

overlaps withcaste. Every caste displays class variations, depending on economic mobility,

location and access to capital. However, caste, being a hereditary factor, remains a constant

marker.

25

According to M. Mohanty, caste identities exist independent from class, communal

and gender identities. The interconnections between these have not been explored, and rather

the concept of class has been utilized to cover up these autonomous identities (qtd. in

Bhowmik 1246). SharifK. Bhowmik, similarly, opines that, "the emergence of class

struggles has not been able to reduce the influence of caste in these struggles" (Bhowmik

1246).

Kaushal Panwar who teaches Sanskrit in the University of Delhi explains her interest

in learning Sanskrit. In her school days, after 6th standard she opted for Sanskrit as one of her

subjects (Panwar, My Teacher's Caste ism and sexism became my motivation,

scststudents.org). The teacher refused to teach her and asked to go and pick garbage (as

scavenging was her caste occupation) for living instead of learning Sanskrit (An incident

from Ambedkar's life serves as another example. When he was appointed as a lecturer in

Economics in Sydenhome College of Mumbai, upper caste students in the college protested

against his (untouchable) appointment as a teacher (Agarwal 13). There are countless other

events of discriminations which take place every day. Hence, in the Indian context, a

discourse on class cannot simply override caste identity.

26

Annamalai stated that caste, as a social variable that determines language use, plays

lesser role in the urban space (Managing Multilingualism in India: Political and linguistic

Manifestations 40). This is one of the constant positions taken up in the mainstream

discourse - a position which has been vehemently opposed by dalit writers. To state that

cities and urban localities are outside the influence of caste, is to severely undennine the

durability and flexibility of the system. Caste perpetuates itself in new forms in the urban

sphere. The manual scavenging system is itself a product of the growing urbanization.

Manual scavengers and cleaners are always appointed from particular castes. All of those

employed in the profession of scavenging speak a language different from the state's official

language.

Caste in Sociolinguist Research

"You speak like a chamar! That is chamar speech'" (Gumperz 672). Language plays a

distinctive role in defining one's identity. It can act as a marker of privilege as well as a

signifier of being "uncouth" and "uncivilized". Language, more than just a system of

communication, is steeped in historicity. It is a compendium of shared knowledge,

experience and memory. Language identifies and misidentifies, includes and excludes,

defines and distinguishes. It defines, even as it is shaped by, ditl'erences in one's caste and

community.

The relation between language and social identification has been the subject of study

of several sociolinguists. J. J. Gumperz's Dialect Differences and Social Stratification in a

North Indian Vii/age (1998) is a crucial example which explains how caste plays an

important role in defining one's speech. Gumperz studied the different caste dialects spoken

78y this they refer to the fact that the person curses considerably and uses uncouth words, rather than to his pronunciation (Gumperz 1998).

27

in Khalapur, Saharanpur District of Uttar Pradesh, by analyzing the phonemic differences of

the language used by these castes. According to him, linguistic difference amongst various

castes can be broadly classified into three categories - the brahmin, the non-brahmin and the

untouchables. In the course of his field work, he finds that the chamar caste (untouchable

caste) uses the phonemes lui and lal while pronouncing the word Ideteil Cblanket'). The

standard fonnat I dutei/blanket.

He further states when upper caste members hear the pronunciation, they laugh and

reply "you speak like a chamar" or "that is chamar speech". The connotation behind such

expression varies according to the listener. "Rajputs' occasionally refer to a caste brother [a

fellow member ofhislher own caste] by the expression 'he speaks like a chamar'. By this,

they refer to the fact that the person curses considerably and uses uncouth words, rather than

to his pronunciation" (Gumperz 676). On the contrary, Gumperz states: "Two chamar leaders

evidenced a great deal of emotion on hearing the fonn. They did not answer the question, but

entered into long explanations to the effect that chamars have hitherto been denied

educational opportunities by the higher castes" (672-673). Though Gumperz clearly states

there are differences within inter-caste communication, a deeper and more interdisciplinary

study is required to understand the complexity of such differences.

Gumperz also recognizes the linguistic difference extant even among lower castes -

taking the examples of chamars, shoemakers and sweepers. Among these three castes, he

observes that sweepers are distinguished from the other two due to differences in their

phonemic distribution. He explains how chamars and shoemakers share all the features of

old-fashioned speech and show traces of fonns still prevalent in other parts of the area. The

SUpper caste, which are dominant and subjugate lower caste.

28

sweepers' speech, however, does not seem to fit into this pattern, as there is no indication

that the village dialect ever had the features closer to phonemes they use. Gumperz assumes

that since the majority of sweepers have spent much of their life in the cities and army

camps, one possible explanation for this incongruity is that they brought in the new forms

after their absence from the village. A more likely explanation for the sweepers' dialect is

that it was brought in when the group settled in the village. Gumperz points out how several

genealogies indicate that the present sweeper group immigrated from elsewhere a little more

than a hundred years ago. However, on the other hand, he also found contradictory

genealogical evidence indicating that the village population has been fairly stable for more

than a hundred years (677).

While Gurnperz explains at length, the sociohistorical disadvantage faced by the

chamar population and the role of this experience in shaping their language, he merely

reduces the linguistic particularity of the sweeper community to a purported event of

migration. Interestingly, the conception that scavenging communities were originally

migrants draws from Edgar Thurston accounts in The Castes and Tribes of Southern India

(Vol. 2, 2). Thurston had merely assumed that scavenging castes speak a different language

possibly because they migrated from another linguistic region. This fails to look into the facts

and factors which perpetuated such an event and reduces its historicity. While members of a

few scavenging communities were indeed migrants, such a generalization denies the systemic

discrimination and societal isolation the communities were subjected to throughout history.

Gumperz's research is essential to understand the perpetuation of caste difference in

linguistic articulation. He uses Willam Labov's theoretical framework of social stratification

to analyze his findings.

29

"Social stratification", a tenn used by Labov to theorize linguistic difference

prevailing in hierarchically ordered (based on power, wealth and status) society. In the

context of Western societies, the tenn refers to the paradigm of social classes and their role in

the rise of linguistically specific social-class dialects. In India, however, the society is

stratified into different castes. Caste differs from class, in being hereditary, permanent and

immobile. A person born into a lower caste cannot elevate herself to an upper caste through

the accrual of wealth of capital. Peter Trudgill argues that for a linguist, caste dialects are in

some ways easier to study and describe than social-class dialects, because castes are

relatively stable, clearly named groups, rigidly separated from each other, with hereditary

membership and with little possibility of movement from one caste to another. Thus, caste­

dialect differences have tended to be relatively clear-cut (TrudgiJl2000). TrudgiJl's

understanding of caste is indeed true and such a view has been repeatedly proven. However,

claiming that studying caste dialects is easier neglects the complexity relations that exist

between various castes and the different changes in both the fonn and functions of the caste

system. Caste system in contemporary times is more complex than it ever was. As Naraendar

ladhav explains, "the caste system today may not be as crude and blunt as it used to be. In

fact, it has now become subtle and sophisticated. It now resides in the mindset of the people.

In this subtle form it is even more pernicious" (,Caste system has become subtle and

sophisticate,' article.timesofindia.indiatimes.com)

Like Trudgill, many linguists including D,P. Pattanayak and Annamalai have

similarly undermined the complexities of caste influence in Indian languages. Studies on the

implication of caste system in language have focused on some features such as phonology,

grammar, lexis and semantics. The prominent understanding of the differences in language

30

between different castes is assumed to be due to the intrinsic structure of the Indian society.

Such differences are assumed to exist because "untouchables must Jive in separate quarters in

the village. They are restricted in their movements in the village. They are forbidden to enter

the houses of members of other castes, to take water from wells used by the higher castes,

and to enter temples" (Bean 285). Gumperz argues that the speech differences are

preserved/or created by the social system of caste.

Touchable castes occupy the main part of the village. Members of a particular

caste tend to be grouped together in housing clusters. Most of the large castes occupy

a number of such clusters in different sections ... Untouchable housing is still largely

confined to separate sections. The sweepers and chamars each have two quarters at

opposite ends of the village ... Each caste has a slightly different set of prohibitions,

which is more or less extreme depending on the level of the other caste in the

hierarchy (Gumperz 677·678).

Trivedi in her Report on the study of Linguistic Acculturation among the sweepers and the

cobblers of Mysore city notes that sweepers in Mysore speak differently from the other

residents. She writes: "In the sweepers' Telugu, some peculiar usages are marked, not used

by a native speaker ofTelugu from Andhra Pradesh ... No word is borrowed from Telugu in

Kannada spoken by the sweeper" (195). As with Gumperz, the author opines that both the

groups have come from Andhra Prasdesh approximately one hundred years ago. Still no

conclusive evidence material or even oral literature is produced to authenticate this claim.

G X. Panikkar analyses the minority language situation in Kerala. According to him,

31

The Telugu speaking people [the scavengers] of Pal ghat district (same is true

in other districts also) show more affinity towards the Tamil Population rather than

to Malayalam population. The reason may be that the Telugus who migrated to

Kerala villages might be the settlers in Tamil Nadu for a very long period before

their migration to Kerala (288).

Before I proceed any further, I shall explain the history of studies oflanguage and

caste in India. The first detailed study of social dialects in Indian languages was that of Jules

Bloch (1910). This was followed up by Aiyar (1932), who identified certain differences

between Brahmin and folk Tulu. Gumperz's study of North Indian village dialects (1958)

introduced the concept of caste variations in linguistic pronunciation. He explained the

relationship between social variation and linguistic variation (Bean 277-78). Susan Bean

reports that studies were conducted on various Indian languages like "Hindi (Gumperz 1958,

Levine (959), Marathi (Apte 1962), Marathi and Gujarati (Pandit 1963); Kannada (Bright

1960,1968, McConnack 1960,1968), Tamil (Bright and Ramajujan 1962, Ramanujan 1968,

Pillai 1965), Tamil and Tulu (Bright and Ramanujan I 964)" (277).

Bean concludes in her study that caste is a dominant variable. I quote,

The literature on linguistic variation in South Asia provided evidence of five

social locations of isogloss bundles: individual castes, segments of the caste

hierarchy, education, friendship networks, and class. Of these caste status is the

dominant variable: education, friendship, and class are each significantly dependent

on it (Bean 291).

Before Bean, W. McCormack (1960), while analyzing speech in Dharwar Kannada,

stated t hat there are three difference kinds of speech, brahmin, non-brahmin and

32

'harijan '(qtd. in Bean 1974279) In his paper "A Causal Analysis of Caste Dialects"( 1968},

he writes, "Indian speech communities are conscious of caste dialects"(qtd. in Shapiro,

Chiffman 154). Bright and Ramanujan (1964) have also asserted that there are "clear-cut

social dialects are found to be associated with the caste system of Hindu society" (154).

While discussing structures of variation, A.K. Ramanujan (1970) observes that, "caste

dialects, like regional dialects, tend to be mutually exclusive, that is, a person who speaks a

Brahmin dialect mayor may not speak any other" (qtd. in Pattanayak 97-98). Pattanayak

refers to Ramanujan "there is a good reason to believe that region and caste, are independent

variables; every Tamil speaker must be identified for both (462)." In 1968, the editor of A

Survey of the Mysore District writes that there are three distrinct social levels - Brahmin,

untouchables and the rest (Pattanayak 97).

Pattanayak's article, "Caste and Language", started a debate on the validity of 'caste

dialect' in India. Pattanayak argues that the caste system is continually changing its function

and is slowly disappearing, especially among the educated and in the urban sphere. Though

written in 1975, Pattanayak's views remain extremely significant in the present linguistic

discussions in India. Hence, I discuss his article and his views on caste and language in

length to clarify how caste is a complex category and cannot be seen as a static stagnant

phenomenon existing in rural areas.

Even those who agree that caste is an important variable showed reservation in

accepting caste as formative factor in urban spaces. By basing research on urban

demographies, it becomes easy to reject the prevalence of caste dialects in India. As

Neethivanan rightly points out, 'Is it possible to reject the variations found in the speech of

more than 70% of the population merely as found 'only at the rural sub-caste

level'?'(Neethivanan 77).

33

Bean also shared the view of Pattanayak. She writes "two variables may also interact

with caste as social corollaries of linguistic variation: urbanization and the relationship of

standard and literary varieties to their colloquial counterparts" (291).

For Pattanayak, "caste dialect" implies that a caste group is a homogeneous

communication group, and the variety of speech so designated is both a structural and

cultural isolate (98). He rejects the concept of caste dialect stating "generalization do not

provide new insight to the study of linguistic variation and miss the nuances, complexities

and the subtleties of change which cut across caste boundaries" (98). He also believes that

there are no social dialects associated exclusively with one caste in the Hindu society. All

brahrnins do not speak the same across the given state. He refers to brahmins of Dharwar and

Mysore who speak Kannada in dissimilar fashion. In some cases, the orthodox Madhavas of

Dharwar and Mysore share marking, but this according to Pattanayak only proves that caste

is one of the significant variables at the rural sub-caste level. He also believes that formal and

informal or public and private linguistic styles are dictated by societal needs of addressing

the public, which is more associated with education and elite formation rather than caste. He

explains how linguistic difference is restricted within the private space of the family, and that

the user acquires and adopts a neutral, standard code as soon as he/she is exposed to it. This

standard code is defined by the geographic location, and not the caste, of the speaker.

34

It is equally interesting to study how the process of socialization in the caste society

restricts majority of the people's access to literarcy and education and thus binds

them to speech codes which are 'restricted' in the Bernsteinian sense. The marker

traits considered to be caste specific, if any, are cultivated the same way as the Anglo

Indian child is taught to retain group .... But when the same people attain the meta­

language to consciously understand the difference and thus the ability to change, it

the context-bound speech code gets restricted only to the family surrounding or at the

most to people of the same age, sex, rank and status. In public, all, irrespective or

whether they are Bralunin or non-bralunins, tend to use the same code which then

develops as the areal standard (10 I).

Pattanayak, therefore, views caste as a village phenomenon which has not spread into

urban areas (102). For example, Pattanayak refers to Y.B Damle (1966) to point out that an

educated dalit boy uses the socially accepted standard rather than the socially marked dialect

of his parents. He argues that the term "caste dialect" is a contribution of the social scientists

working in the area, and it is due to certain kinds of abstractions (Pattanayak 102).

According to Annamalai,

[t]here are abundant references in literature to variables other than caste such

as friendship, age, urbanization, education etc which all interact and affect each other.

But most studies seem to assume that caste is the most important variable. This

happened because they "were not attempting to discover the social location of

isoglosses. Rather, they considered their task to be the description of isoglosses

whose location (between Brahman, non-brahman, and untouchable), they already

know" (Bean 1974:281) (Annamalai 70).

However Bean, whom Annamalai had referred to in his argument, mentions the

different methods applied in collecting data, showing linguistic difference north India and

south India. According to her, while,

35

the sampling methods used in the north to discover isoglosses in order to

ascertain to what degree social class, education, neighborhood, friendship, etc.

correlate with speech variation ... those differences have been studied rather well, it is

not known they fit in to the total picture of speech variation in the south (Bean 282).

However, Annarnalai agrees to an extent that there is a caste dialect, but in a very

limited sense. He explains that only brahmin dialect can be called caste dialect as "all

brahman subcastes are distinguishable from any non-brahman subcaste" in Tamil Nadu. This

argument cannot be extended to any others. "It cannot be said there is a non-brahmin dialect

which has linguistic features shared by all non-brahmins and only by them"(Annamalai 71).

This understanding is quite problematic, as Annamalai seems to search for a single non­

brahmin dialect, when the non-brahmin category is itself created out of several distinct

castes.

However there were many reactions to Pattanayak's view expressed in his article on

"Caste and Langauge". C.J.Roy terms 'caste dialect' as a reality and that the traditional social

groups in the Indian society are clearly visible in caste (73). Somasekharan refutes the

argument stating it is possible that Brahmins and non-brahmins use soru (a non-brahmin

word) in addition to sadam, but the use of soru as a brahmin dialect word is condition. He

36

also points out that, in Malayalam, accan (father) is used by both in ezhava and Nair dialects,

and however in Palghat area appan (father) is also used. Hence ezhava dialect has two forms,

accan and appan, against the single term accan in the Nair dialect. This regional variation

can only be explained by caste (69).

C. J. Roy also says it is true that the old social order is changing, but it has not

disappeared. It is universally accepted that wherever there is a homogenous group, the

language variety will also be distinct. However, the linguistic difference existing within

regionally homogenous groups implies that caste dialect is a reality. He explains how studies

by Isaaks have shown that although the educated generally tend to gloss over their caste

origin in professional life; their intimate relationships are with people of like-caste birth. It

only means the changes are not in private life. Neethivanan also states there are "certain

variables which could be explained only through caste distinction" (77).

Pattanayak states that both uneducated Brahmins and non-brahmins use the same

pronunciation, and the educated of either community use smiliar pronunciation. Hence

"regional variation, social variations in the context of formality: informality, educated:

uneducated, etc. have not been sufficiently differentiated to warrant the concept of 'caste

dialect' (99). He argues "the marker traits are confined to the surface and not deep enough in

the overall linguistic variation. And most of it is confined to difference in lexical items and

the resultant phonology" (100).

While Pattanayak attempts to reduce caste as one of the variables working around the

dualities of rural: urban, educated: uneducated, peer group: older generation, male: female,

Somasekharan argues how we can explain the kinship terms which are exclusively used by a

37

particular caste. According to Annamalai, Pattanayak has brought out the piifall in applying a

theory of another discipline. Checchamma Isaak writes that "the talk about caste dialects

would reinforce caste identities and feelings, [but it] is not sufficient justification to deny the

existence of caste dialects. A scholar cannot and should not be influenced by such

consideration, in his pursuit of knowledge and truth' (77).

However, here, I refer back to Annamalai (200 I):

The standard dialect becomes a characteristic of class because of the role of

education in it and, in the structure of variation; class variation is superimposed on

caste and regional variation. The caste as a social variable that determines language

use plays a lesser role in urban than in rural areas. In urban areas, class is a more

important variable. The interplay of the ritual status of caste and the economic status

of class is a complex one and the rural- urban distinction is an intervening variable

in it (40).

Two prominent points are fore grounded here - that the standard dialect is based on class and

not caste; and that caste plays a lesser role in urban areas.

Despite this, Gumperz's observation ofthe linguistic difference of the sweeper

community in Saharanpur is clearly replicated in the metropolitan centers of the country. In

Chennai city, for example, the scavengers speak a language, which others call Telugu though

the language and the culture bears little resemblance to that of the Telugu as such. Bhangis in

Mumbai speak Hindi, while scavenging castes in Hyderabad and Kerala speak Hindi and

Telugu respectively. Like Gumperz, most others who write on scavenging and the

scavenging castes explain that they are migrants based on the speech they speak. The

association of linguistic difference to migration is particularly pervasive - in political,

societal, and even academic sectors - in the case of scavenging communities. Such an

assertion is forgetful of how many of these communities were forced or coerced into

migration which subjected them to a double marginalization of caste and language.

38

The scavenging castes are spread across the geography of India, in spite of which

they share a lot of features. All of them are dalits, speak a language other than their state's

official language as their first language, and are largely considered migrated populations. The

question of migration and the non-native language spoken by the scavenging caste shall be

discussed at length in the following chapters. For now, I shall surmise that the migrant

identity of the scavenging population is integral to their history of discrimination.

As mentioned before, Pattanayak argues that "there are no social dialects associated

exclusively with the caste system of the Hindu society ... One endogamous group, spread

across different geographical regions does not speak one variety of language" (98). He

further writes that the different markers are confined to the surface and not deep enough in

overall linguistic variation. Most of these are lexical items and the resultant phonology.

Annamalai argues that, to establish a caste dialect, "one should show that the dialect has

linguistic features which are shared by all the members of that caste irrespective of the region

they belong, the religion they follow, the status they have attained, etc. and only by them"

(35).

However, my observations, explicated in the following chapters, clearly elucidate that

the sweeper/scavenging caste speaks an exclusive caste dialect. across different states -

39

Andhra Pradesh, Maharastra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala. Linguists, Panikkar and

Gumperz, who have studied languages in Kerala and Kanpur, both unifonnly point that the

sweepers spoke a different language from the other normative residents. Panikkar says the

reason may be that the Telugus who settled in villages in Kerala might be settlers in Tamil

Nadu for a long time before migrating to Kerala. Gumperz writes "A more likely explanation

for the sweeper dialect is that it was brought in when the group 'settled' in the village" (677).

Further, he refers to the evidence from genealogies which indicate that the present sweeper

group immigrated from elsewhere a little more than a hundred years ago.

Such reasoning on sweeper castes are also present in Thurston's writing on 'Caste

and Tribes in Southern India.Volume 2'. While writing about pakis, he refers to the Census

Report, 190 I, stating "the pakis or sweepers in the Godavarai district, who have, it is said,

gone thither from Vizagapatam". (Thurston Vol. 2 318) While writing about another caste,

ChakkiIiyan, [I write sakkiIiyanJ engaged in sweeping/scavenging in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka,

Kerala, he writes "Chakkiliyans appear to be immigrants from Telugu or Canarese (present

Karnataka) districts" (Thurston: Vol 2: 3).

Contemporary accounts and analysis draws largely from such colonial histories

available for reference. All these texts, therefore, "allege" that these communities were

'migrants'. However, there is no clear documented evidence that all these communities (for

example, the chakkiliar in Tamil Nadu) are indeed immigrant. What can be definitively

stated is that these communities, wherever they exist, were subjected to generations of

ostracization and isolation. Would the societal isolation of the scavenging castes have led to

the particularity of their language? This is a question I would like to raise and possibly

resolve in the course of my research.

40