What do you think?
Rate this book
The Untouchables Who Were They and Why They Became Untouchables
This book is a sequel to my treatise called The Shudras—Who they were and How they came to be the Fourth Varna of the Indo-Aryan Society which was published in 1946. Besides the Shudras, the Hindu Civilisation has produced three social classes whose existence has not received the attention it deserves. The three classes are :-(i) The Criminal Tribes who number about 20 millions or so;(ii) The Aboriginal Tribes who number about 15 millions; and(iii) The Untouchables who number about 50 millions.The existence of these classes is an abomination. The Hindu Civilisation, gauged in the light of these social products, could hardly be called civilisation. It is a diabolical contrivance to suppress and enslave humanity. Its proper name would be infamy. What else can be said of a civilisation which has produced a mass of people who are taught to accept crime as an approved means of earning their livelihood, another mass of people who are left to live in full bloom of their primitive barbarism in the midst of civilisation and a third mass of people who are treated as an entity beyond human intercourse and whose mere touch is enough to cause pollution?In any other country the existence of these classes would have led to searching of the heart and to investigation of their origin. But neither of these has occurred to the mind of the Hindu. The reason is simple. The Hindu does not regard the existence of these classes as a matter of apology or shame and feels no responsibility either to atone for it or to inquire into its origin and growth. On the other hand, every Hindu is taught to believe that his civilisation is not only the most ancient but that it is also in many respects altogether unique. No Hindu ever feels tired of repeating these claims. That the Hindu Civilisation is the most ancient, one can understand and even allow. But it is not quite so easy to understand on what grounds they rely for claiming that the Hindu Civilisation is a unique one. The Hindus may not like it, but so far as it strikes non-Hindus, such a claim can rest only on one ground. It is the existence of these classes for which the Hindu Civilisation is responsible. That the existence of such classes is a unique phenomenon, no Hindu need repeat, for nobody can deny the fact. One only wishes that the Hindu realised that it was a matter for which there was more cause for shame than pride.
164 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1948
155 people are currently reading
1905 people want to read
About the author
B.R. Ambedkar
297 books1,094 followersBhimrao Ramji Ambedkar was born in 1891 into an “Untouchable” family of modest means. One of India’s most radical thinkers, he transformed the social and political landscape in the struggle against British colonialism. He was a prolific writer who oversaw the drafting of the Indian Constitution and served as India’s first Law Minister. In 1935, he publicly declared that though he was born a Hindu, he would not die as one. Ambedkar eventually embraced Buddhism, a few months before his death in 1956.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
July 23, 2013
This book is a master piece by a great master . The way he has put forward the arguments and facts is incredible. Every indian must read this to understand the evolution of Indians and caste based society .
September 1, 2020
Reading this felt like being taught by Ambedkar, in a classroom, as he weaves the history and its interpretations and facts into one coherent, logical picture. The entirety of the subject is broken down to fundamental questions that makes you think, and assumptions and potential answers are discussed and rejected and built upon until a reasonably logical picture arises.
There is history here that I've studied all throughout school in bits and pieces, and was more than glad to let go when the time came. How I wish I had a teacher like him when I was in school.
A very important read. For the context itself but also the way the book deals with it.
There is history here that I've studied all throughout school in bits and pieces, and was more than glad to let go when the time came. How I wish I had a teacher like him when I was in school.
A very important read. For the context itself but also the way the book deals with it.
May 8, 2017
Good book. Seems very far fetched though.
Good book. Seems very far fetched. Too elaborate when it's not needed. Needs more citations than just confirmation bias. Arguments don't tend to be convincing at all sometimes. Seems more like wishfuk thinking than an accurate analysis.
Good book. Seems very far fetched. Too elaborate when it's not needed. Needs more citations than just confirmation bias. Arguments don't tend to be convincing at all sometimes. Seems more like wishfuk thinking than an accurate analysis.
July 5, 2020
Short yet packed with a solid and convincing theory on the birth of the practice of untouchability in India. Doctor Ambedkar writes on a topic with very less material to fall back on by drawing analogies from tribes and ancient society across the world to draw parallels to India. Doctor embarks upon questions such as 'why do the untouchables live outside the village?', 'Were untouchables in fact broken men who lived outside villages?" & 'if broken men living outside village is a universal feature, how did the seperate quarters for broken men disappear outside India but not in India?' By answering these questions Doctor lay ground work for answering the origins of untouchability.
September 15, 2020
பாபாசாகேப் அம்பேத்கரின் ஆக சிறந்த படைப்புகளில் இந்நூலும் ஒன்று. 1948ல் வெளிவந்து சமூகத்தில் பல சலசலப்பை உண்டாக்கிய நூல். புரட்சிகரமான கருத்துக்கள் புத்தகம் முழுவதும் கொட்டி கிடக்க சாதிய தீண்டாமையின் வேர்களை இந்நூல் வெளிச்ச படுத்துகிறது.
Detailed review about the book 👇👇👇👇
https://youtu.be/T7UuzHnuIvg
Detailed review about the book 👇👇👇👇
https://youtu.be/T7UuzHnuIvg
August 23, 2023
A Well researched and well argumentative book. Once again the author has first put his hypothesis on point, himself has asked the plausible questions which any intelligent reader would think of, goes through each of his assumptions quoting the shastras/ smritis and Brahmanas and then drawing a conclusion that would justify the logic of time and history.
July 13, 2025
This should be a mandatory read for all Indians. Only if it was..
November 10, 2025
Day 1
I started reading The Untouchables by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.
Usually people read Who Were The Shudras? first, since this is almost like a follow up, but here I am. First day, and I have already read 80 pages. It is riveting, philosophical, sharp, and very thought provoking.
Ambedkar begins by saying this book will necessarily involve hypothesis, speculation, imagination. He invokes Maxim Gorky as a methodological inspiration because there is almost no historical literature on how untouchability originated. Whatever existed was erased or suppressed by brahminical hegemony and patriarchy. So he fills that gap by asking: how did untouchability originate?
He explains this through the evolution of society from primitive society, to tribal society, to modern society. This transition was messy and violent. And untouchability, he argues, is a product of that early barbaric phase. “Untouchability is the child of barbarity.”
In primitive society, tribes endlessly fought each other. Early wealth was cattle, so tribes kept moving. Migration was not instinct, it was economic, because cattle needed pasture.
Eventually, tribes realised wealth could be land, fixed, settled. When they settled, warfare reduced. But this also made them weaker against large nomadic tribes. So they needed external support. Here Ambedkar introduces “Broken Men”, people expelled from their tribe for breaking the code, or remnants of defeated tribes who were banished rather than annihilated.
Broken men needed protection. Settled tribes needed additional fighters. So this mutual need brought broken men near the village, but never in the village, because they were not “of their blood.” Ambedkar says this is why, historically, untouchables lived outside the village. He dismisses the simplistic idea that they always lived outside from the beginning.
Ambedkar further argues that untouchability is not racial. He rejects the three race theory by Mr. Rice. The idea that Aryans conquered Dravidians, who conquered Aboriginals, he rejects that whole model.
He also rejects the idea that Nagas were aboriginal. Nagas were rulers. They intermarried with Brahmans, with the royalty. There is historical evidence. So Nagas cannot be the conquered “aboriginal” class.
Instead, Ambedkar says there are essentially two races: Aryans and Dravidians, and that Nagas and Dravidians are the same. In the North, Nagas (Dravidians) got Sanskritised under Aryan influence. In the South, they preserved their language and culture.
The Nagas in the South held firmly to their language, Tamil, and did not allow it to be disturbed. This insistence on language and identity is what gradually produced what we today call “Dravidianism.” Otherwise, Ambedkar says, Dravidians and Nagas are the same. The Dravidians of the South are of the same stock as the Nagas of the North.
He extends this by saying that the Cheras, Cholas, Pandyas, Pallavas etc, usually grouped under the label Dravidian, are simply Nagas of the South (especially Cheras). The name changed because they asserted their own identity when Aryan ideology expanded into the North. Dravidian is a sanskritised word for Tamil.
Thus Ambedkar rejects the racial theory. And he gives two main arguments.
1. Anthropometry does not support it.
Skull sizes of Brahmins and lower castes are the same. In fact, skull measurements show Brahmins and lower castes are closer to each other than Brahmins and Kshatriyas are to each other. So the “third race” hypothesis collapses.
Similarly, nose measurements do not prove races either. Supposedly “narrow” noses are found across castes (85.4 percent for lower castes which is most narrow and higher caste; around 76 percent for Brahmins, which is actually similar to some lower caste measurements). Ambedkar uses this to show anthropometry is useless.
2. It is not occupational either.
Rice argued that untouchability came from the idea that the work of these groups was so “impure” that they were ostracised. Ambedkar rejects this too. Even Aryans did so called “unclean” work when needed. Manu himself allows Brahmins to perform such work if they are under punishment or slavery. The hierarchy was reorganised, a Brahmin could only be servant to another Brahmin, a Kshatriya could only be servant to a Brahmin, etc.
But this does not explain untouchability. The Varna system evolved into a much harsher system. Untouchability eventually overpowered everything, even Varna boundaries.
And yet after rejecting race and rejecting occupation the central question remains open:
If not race, and not occupation, then how did untouchability originate?
Ambedkar is about to answer that next.
Day 2
Today was honestly a revelation. I can’t believe the magnitude of what Ambedkar is arguing here about the origin of untouchability in The Untouchables. I always thought untouchability was a direct Brahmin vs Untouchable hierarchy a pure oppressor vs oppressed binary. Ambedkar turns that upside down. And showed how it was both ways initially.
He starts with the actual census criteria the British used. And those definitions themselves already encode the idea that an “Untouchable” is basically someone who is not “100% Hindu.” One of the criteria that genuinely stunned me: the people who ate beef were classified as Untouchable. Other conditions were: people who reject Brahmin authority, people who refuse the Vedas, people who bury their dead, etc.
But Ambedkar’s shocker is this: this wasn’t a one-way purity logic. Even Untouchables considered Brahmins impure. Abbé Dubois records that a Pariah wouldn’t even let a Brahmin enter his village. So Ambedkar goes looking for the historical reason for this mutual impurity. And then he introduces the “Broken Men” theory that many of the broken, outcast groups were originally ‘Buddhist’ remnants.
So it was a result of buddhism’s counter to the autocratic brahmin ways.
From here Ambedkar then moves to beef.
This blew me away.
He writes that in ancient India, Brahmins were the biggest beef-eaters in the world. He even calls them: ‘The greatest beef eaters of mankind’. There were no scriptural prohibitions on beef eating. Only exhortations basically to prevent over consumption in the name of religion to satisfy their appetite. And Ambedkar says that this is the sole reason the exhortations arose: because Brahmins were over-consuming beef.
Then comes the ideological war: Buddhism vs Brahminism. Buddhists condemned cow slaughter on moral grounds, and that made them extremely popular among agricultural villages (because cows are crucial to agrarian life). So Buddhism rises. That’s why they were so prominent initially.
Then the Brahmins and non-Brahmins adopt the political strategy Ambedkar calls “fighting extremism with extremism.” To defeat the Buddhists who still ate meat under certain conditions, Brahmins escalate, they go one step further: complete vegetarianism. Absolute prohibition.
So the cow becomes a political weapon, a counter-extremism, a way to regain moral superiority.
And Ambedkar is basically arguing:
untouchability begins when the beef-eating Buddhists (the broken men who didn’t convert back) became despised by the now-vegetarian Hindus, who gave a ‘sacred’ aura to the cow, and were deeply condemning the consumption. And the non-brahmins tried to imitate them so bad, that they ended up non-beef eaters. For the broken men, of course, it was too big a cost - as in accordance with ther traditional relation with dead cow. So, the dead cow which could only be consumed by the broken men, from its status of privilege, now turned into an obligation. To further their oppression.
I never realised beef could be such a central axis to caste formation. Ambedkar’s argument is wild, but it’s also terrifying in its implications:
untouchability is rooted not in religion or metaphysics - but in a political war over meat.
Beef was so great that during a cow sacrifice they would call the entire family of the sacrificer. They did this because the sacrificer is legally entitled to the meat. So they would call the whole family only to divest them of their legal right to the meat so that the Brahmins could claim all of it. That is how massive the Brahmin appetite for beef once was. Ambedkar literally calls them the greatest beef eaters in humankind. And to hide their guilt they absolved themselves from the murder and then took monopoly over the entire flesh. They did not even share it with the sacrificer.
Even Manu in the Manusmriti makes eating flesh compulsory. If you do not eat flesh you are under sanctions. Manu even considered the cow impure and something that pollutes. But what happened later is that the Hindus took the Buddhist values claimed them as their own and did it in an aggressive manner. They ended up with holy scriptures in which the killing of a Brahmin became equal to killing a cow. So the same people who sacrificed cows and caused enormous cruelty to cows now constructed a moral code of cow protection.
After this the Buddhists start losing ground and the Hindus tactically claim dominance and supremacy. After they get the sweet spot they do two things. They reconstruct history and they legalise ‘cow sacrifice’ and homicide in scripture. Ambedkar quotes Manusmriti which says that a person can justifiably be assaulted to arms equal to death in the case of killing of a king by a Brahmin. And Ambedkar connects this directly to the turning point of Indian history. The murder of Brihadratha Maurya a Buddhist king by Pushyamitra a Brahmin. This timing matters because this is the very period where Manusmriti is inserting these provisions.
So this is not just political murder. This is a civilisational turning point.
Ambedkar shows that this is the moment where a sect indulged in vulgar modification deletion addition and deliberate delusion of history. A new consciousness is manufactured to claim supremacy over the Buddhists. The reconstruction that follows is more than just religion. They now begin an empire by doing more than what it took.
And the question now arises. Who really controls them. Is it just the Vedas, Shastras or Varna system. Or is there something even bigger. Something bigger than evil itself. Something bigger than life itself which drove this degree of meticulous and cunning reconstruction of society. Is this not possibly the most heinous crime mankind has ever witnessed? Where history itself is engineered and reconstructed to serve a single class? Mankind is simply incapable of knowing.
I started reading The Untouchables by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.
Usually people read Who Were The Shudras? first, since this is almost like a follow up, but here I am. First day, and I have already read 80 pages. It is riveting, philosophical, sharp, and very thought provoking.
Ambedkar begins by saying this book will necessarily involve hypothesis, speculation, imagination. He invokes Maxim Gorky as a methodological inspiration because there is almost no historical literature on how untouchability originated. Whatever existed was erased or suppressed by brahminical hegemony and patriarchy. So he fills that gap by asking: how did untouchability originate?
He explains this through the evolution of society from primitive society, to tribal society, to modern society. This transition was messy and violent. And untouchability, he argues, is a product of that early barbaric phase. “Untouchability is the child of barbarity.”
In primitive society, tribes endlessly fought each other. Early wealth was cattle, so tribes kept moving. Migration was not instinct, it was economic, because cattle needed pasture.
Eventually, tribes realised wealth could be land, fixed, settled. When they settled, warfare reduced. But this also made them weaker against large nomadic tribes. So they needed external support. Here Ambedkar introduces “Broken Men”, people expelled from their tribe for breaking the code, or remnants of defeated tribes who were banished rather than annihilated.
Broken men needed protection. Settled tribes needed additional fighters. So this mutual need brought broken men near the village, but never in the village, because they were not “of their blood.” Ambedkar says this is why, historically, untouchables lived outside the village. He dismisses the simplistic idea that they always lived outside from the beginning.
Ambedkar further argues that untouchability is not racial. He rejects the three race theory by Mr. Rice. The idea that Aryans conquered Dravidians, who conquered Aboriginals, he rejects that whole model.
He also rejects the idea that Nagas were aboriginal. Nagas were rulers. They intermarried with Brahmans, with the royalty. There is historical evidence. So Nagas cannot be the conquered “aboriginal” class.
Instead, Ambedkar says there are essentially two races: Aryans and Dravidians, and that Nagas and Dravidians are the same. In the North, Nagas (Dravidians) got Sanskritised under Aryan influence. In the South, they preserved their language and culture.
The Nagas in the South held firmly to their language, Tamil, and did not allow it to be disturbed. This insistence on language and identity is what gradually produced what we today call “Dravidianism.” Otherwise, Ambedkar says, Dravidians and Nagas are the same. The Dravidians of the South are of the same stock as the Nagas of the North.
He extends this by saying that the Cheras, Cholas, Pandyas, Pallavas etc, usually grouped under the label Dravidian, are simply Nagas of the South (especially Cheras). The name changed because they asserted their own identity when Aryan ideology expanded into the North. Dravidian is a sanskritised word for Tamil.
Thus Ambedkar rejects the racial theory. And he gives two main arguments.
1. Anthropometry does not support it.
Skull sizes of Brahmins and lower castes are the same. In fact, skull measurements show Brahmins and lower castes are closer to each other than Brahmins and Kshatriyas are to each other. So the “third race” hypothesis collapses.
Similarly, nose measurements do not prove races either. Supposedly “narrow” noses are found across castes (85.4 percent for lower castes which is most narrow and higher caste; around 76 percent for Brahmins, which is actually similar to some lower caste measurements). Ambedkar uses this to show anthropometry is useless.
2. It is not occupational either.
Rice argued that untouchability came from the idea that the work of these groups was so “impure” that they were ostracised. Ambedkar rejects this too. Even Aryans did so called “unclean” work when needed. Manu himself allows Brahmins to perform such work if they are under punishment or slavery. The hierarchy was reorganised, a Brahmin could only be servant to another Brahmin, a Kshatriya could only be servant to a Brahmin, etc.
But this does not explain untouchability. The Varna system evolved into a much harsher system. Untouchability eventually overpowered everything, even Varna boundaries.
And yet after rejecting race and rejecting occupation the central question remains open:
If not race, and not occupation, then how did untouchability originate?
Ambedkar is about to answer that next.
Day 2
Today was honestly a revelation. I can’t believe the magnitude of what Ambedkar is arguing here about the origin of untouchability in The Untouchables. I always thought untouchability was a direct Brahmin vs Untouchable hierarchy a pure oppressor vs oppressed binary. Ambedkar turns that upside down. And showed how it was both ways initially.
He starts with the actual census criteria the British used. And those definitions themselves already encode the idea that an “Untouchable” is basically someone who is not “100% Hindu.” One of the criteria that genuinely stunned me: the people who ate beef were classified as Untouchable. Other conditions were: people who reject Brahmin authority, people who refuse the Vedas, people who bury their dead, etc.
But Ambedkar’s shocker is this: this wasn’t a one-way purity logic. Even Untouchables considered Brahmins impure. Abbé Dubois records that a Pariah wouldn’t even let a Brahmin enter his village. So Ambedkar goes looking for the historical reason for this mutual impurity. And then he introduces the “Broken Men” theory that many of the broken, outcast groups were originally ‘Buddhist’ remnants.
So it was a result of buddhism’s counter to the autocratic brahmin ways.
From here Ambedkar then moves to beef.
This blew me away.
He writes that in ancient India, Brahmins were the biggest beef-eaters in the world. He even calls them: ‘The greatest beef eaters of mankind’. There were no scriptural prohibitions on beef eating. Only exhortations basically to prevent over consumption in the name of religion to satisfy their appetite. And Ambedkar says that this is the sole reason the exhortations arose: because Brahmins were over-consuming beef.
Then comes the ideological war: Buddhism vs Brahminism. Buddhists condemned cow slaughter on moral grounds, and that made them extremely popular among agricultural villages (because cows are crucial to agrarian life). So Buddhism rises. That’s why they were so prominent initially.
Then the Brahmins and non-Brahmins adopt the political strategy Ambedkar calls “fighting extremism with extremism.” To defeat the Buddhists who still ate meat under certain conditions, Brahmins escalate, they go one step further: complete vegetarianism. Absolute prohibition.
So the cow becomes a political weapon, a counter-extremism, a way to regain moral superiority.
And Ambedkar is basically arguing:
untouchability begins when the beef-eating Buddhists (the broken men who didn’t convert back) became despised by the now-vegetarian Hindus, who gave a ‘sacred’ aura to the cow, and were deeply condemning the consumption. And the non-brahmins tried to imitate them so bad, that they ended up non-beef eaters. For the broken men, of course, it was too big a cost - as in accordance with ther traditional relation with dead cow. So, the dead cow which could only be consumed by the broken men, from its status of privilege, now turned into an obligation. To further their oppression.
I never realised beef could be such a central axis to caste formation. Ambedkar’s argument is wild, but it’s also terrifying in its implications:
untouchability is rooted not in religion or metaphysics - but in a political war over meat.
Beef was so great that during a cow sacrifice they would call the entire family of the sacrificer. They did this because the sacrificer is legally entitled to the meat. So they would call the whole family only to divest them of their legal right to the meat so that the Brahmins could claim all of it. That is how massive the Brahmin appetite for beef once was. Ambedkar literally calls them the greatest beef eaters in humankind. And to hide their guilt they absolved themselves from the murder and then took monopoly over the entire flesh. They did not even share it with the sacrificer.
Even Manu in the Manusmriti makes eating flesh compulsory. If you do not eat flesh you are under sanctions. Manu even considered the cow impure and something that pollutes. But what happened later is that the Hindus took the Buddhist values claimed them as their own and did it in an aggressive manner. They ended up with holy scriptures in which the killing of a Brahmin became equal to killing a cow. So the same people who sacrificed cows and caused enormous cruelty to cows now constructed a moral code of cow protection.
After this the Buddhists start losing ground and the Hindus tactically claim dominance and supremacy. After they get the sweet spot they do two things. They reconstruct history and they legalise ‘cow sacrifice’ and homicide in scripture. Ambedkar quotes Manusmriti which says that a person can justifiably be assaulted to arms equal to death in the case of killing of a king by a Brahmin. And Ambedkar connects this directly to the turning point of Indian history. The murder of Brihadratha Maurya a Buddhist king by Pushyamitra a Brahmin. This timing matters because this is the very period where Manusmriti is inserting these provisions.
So this is not just political murder. This is a civilisational turning point.
Ambedkar shows that this is the moment where a sect indulged in vulgar modification deletion addition and deliberate delusion of history. A new consciousness is manufactured to claim supremacy over the Buddhists. The reconstruction that follows is more than just religion. They now begin an empire by doing more than what it took.
And the question now arises. Who really controls them. Is it just the Vedas, Shastras or Varna system. Or is there something even bigger. Something bigger than evil itself. Something bigger than life itself which drove this degree of meticulous and cunning reconstruction of society. Is this not possibly the most heinous crime mankind has ever witnessed? Where history itself is engineered and reconstructed to serve a single class? Mankind is simply incapable of knowing.
July 28, 2017
Ambedhkar have given convincing answer for question of origin of Untouchablity in his book “The Untouchable” which no other scholar have given.He clearly explains through his research on Manu, Rig veda, Smritis etc…He proved that untouchablity emerged as late as 400 A.D.
He also provides 2 reasons for Untouchablity:
1.People who followed Buddhism even after Buddhism faded away..
2.People who ate beef..
His views on Aryan migration and Dravidians as Nagas is now been proven through genetic research(R1a haplogroup)
He also provides 2 reasons for Untouchablity:
1.People who followed Buddhism even after Buddhism faded away..
2.People who ate beef..
His views on Aryan migration and Dravidians as Nagas is now been proven through genetic research(R1a haplogroup)
November 22, 2019
There has been lot or theories regarding the caste system and the overall theme of ascribed status. Dr Ambedkar presents a passionate argument for the existence, evolution and origin of untouchability. The author discusses about the practice of beef eating in great detail. He gives incredibly well researched arguments backed by scriptures. The book is filled with persuasive reasoning followed with concrete evidences. Some of the claims might sound too radical but cannot be ignored because of the facts presented.
August 3, 2018
A Honest Analysis on Untouchability & its origin
Dr. B R Ambedkar, in this book proposes a solid theory on the origin of the practice of untouchability. He is honest enough to admit that he mad few assumptions to come to the conclusions he did and he also threw the theory open to debate and scrutiny. This book is a a must read for an analytical mind.
Dr. B R Ambedkar, in this book proposes a solid theory on the origin of the practice of untouchability. He is honest enough to admit that he mad few assumptions to come to the conclusions he did and he also threw the theory open to debate and scrutiny. This book is a a must read for an analytical mind.
January 26, 2020
Enjoyable and important read. But as Babasaheb himself says it is also a vast exercise in speculation. Consider it more art than fact.
January 8, 2020
A short read for those who wants to understand the concept of the untouchables. Real facts concluded in a reasonable way. One might not agree for everything written, can develop your own conclusions.
November 11, 2024
Ambedkar’s outlook has always been bold and unapologetically challenging. And somewhere honestly, we lack the wisdom to assimilate. He wasn’t afraid to say that even India’s most respected scriptures were shaped by those in power. He showed that caste wasn’t some unchangeable truth—it was a construct that could, and should, be dismantled.
In the book, his analysis went deeper than the words on the page. Ambedkar had the rare ability to look beyond ideas and see how they played out in the real world, influencing people’s daily lives. He understood that the caste system wasn’t just about hierarchy—it was about control, an idea embedded in people’s minds, turning discrimination into something that felt normal and permanent. Yet, Ambedkar saw through this and called it what it was: a social mechanism designed to alienate and subjugate the Beef eating Broken Men.
And he didn’t think of marginalized people as helpless victims. To him, they were resilient, active agents of change. He deeply respected their drive to find dignity and freedom, whether by embracing Buddhism as a refuge from Brahmanical oppression or by asserting their place in society. Ambedkar’s vision for social reform wasn’t just an intellectual exercise; it was a blueprint for an India where everyone had an equal chance at life.
Think of Ambedkar as the ultimate "Case Master"—a brilliant strategist with the clarity to dissect society’s most entrenched issues, break them down into core problems, analyze them deeply, and then fearlessly present solutions that challenge the status quo. His intellect wasn’t just incisive; it was unflinchingly bold, cutting through centuries-old oppression and offering a transformative vision for a more just and equitable world.
As a nation, we should be deeply ashamed of the cruel and infamous system of Untouchability that has persisted within our society. The irony is striking: Hindus who consider themselves "polluted" by merely touching an Untouchable can supposedly regain purity with a few rituals—sprinkling Ganga water or cow urine, and that's it—purified. But for the Untouchables, no such path to purity exists. This glaring contradiction reveals the hypocrisy within the system.
To fully grasp the impact of this book, it’s best read alongside Kancha Ilaiah’s Beef, Brahmins, and Broken Men: An Annotated Critical Selection from The Untouchables Together, these works offer a profound exploration of caste and its lasting effects, stirring discomfort and prompting deep reflection on our own privileged lives.
February 23, 2021
Impure people, or untouchables. The subject of whether we regard people as impure or untouchable is deep. Moreover, the act of regarding some people as impure seems to be endemic. We all claim to worship God. Hence, we should regard everyone as the same. Yet, we don’t.
This book by B. R. Ambedkar is a follow up of his previous book, “Who Were The Shudras?” In that book, he postulated how the Shudras came to be regarded as the fourth caste. Additionally, he traced their fall, from being kings, to lowly people.
In this book, he tackles the subject of untouchability. He started his book by analyzing primitive societies. As he mentions, we started as hunter-gatherers. Then came settled societies, and people began living in villages. However, some remained on the outside. Initially, they gave protection to the villagers. Subsequently, people regarded them as strange, hence impure. Dr. Ambedkar refers to these outsiders as ‘Broken People’.
Yet, this perception of impurity was not irreversible. For instance, you could wash off the impurity (of the touch) by bathing, or performing certain rituals.
Dr. Ambedkar argues that, in most societies, the concept of impurity gradually receded and vanished. However, when you consider the theories of Aryan or white supremacy, you realize that this is not true.
In fact, I would say that our tendency to discriminate on grounds of race, religion, color, appearance etc., runs deep in our nature.
The concept of untouchability did not exist in India for many centuries. In fact, there was no mention of this in our earlier texts, like “The Laws of Manu”.
Indeed, many Indians ate beef. When did this change, and when did beef eating become associated with ritual impurity?
Dr. Ambedkar postulated that this came about as a reaction to the rise of Buddhism. When you go back to the days of Ashoka, you realize Buddhism became popular, and this threatened the livelihood of the Brahmin priests.
As a result, it appears, they retaliated by claiming the moral high ground. They did this by becoming vegetarians and giving up beef. As a result, they now deemed those who continued to eat beef to be impure, eventually becoming impure people, or untouchables.
There is very little light that anyone can shed on those early days. If so, we can regard Dr. Ambedkar’s hypothesis as a valid one. As always, his research work is meticulous.
His style is direct, with no fluff. He does not entertain ‘prisoners’. If this offends you, then it is your loss. For me, I find his approach, and the alternative theories he proposed, to be absolutely refreshing.
This book by B. R. Ambedkar is a follow up of his previous book, “Who Were The Shudras?” In that book, he postulated how the Shudras came to be regarded as the fourth caste. Additionally, he traced their fall, from being kings, to lowly people.
In this book, he tackles the subject of untouchability. He started his book by analyzing primitive societies. As he mentions, we started as hunter-gatherers. Then came settled societies, and people began living in villages. However, some remained on the outside. Initially, they gave protection to the villagers. Subsequently, people regarded them as strange, hence impure. Dr. Ambedkar refers to these outsiders as ‘Broken People’.
Yet, this perception of impurity was not irreversible. For instance, you could wash off the impurity (of the touch) by bathing, or performing certain rituals.
Dr. Ambedkar argues that, in most societies, the concept of impurity gradually receded and vanished. However, when you consider the theories of Aryan or white supremacy, you realize that this is not true.
In fact, I would say that our tendency to discriminate on grounds of race, religion, color, appearance etc., runs deep in our nature.
The concept of untouchability did not exist in India for many centuries. In fact, there was no mention of this in our earlier texts, like “The Laws of Manu”.
Indeed, many Indians ate beef. When did this change, and when did beef eating become associated with ritual impurity?
Dr. Ambedkar postulated that this came about as a reaction to the rise of Buddhism. When you go back to the days of Ashoka, you realize Buddhism became popular, and this threatened the livelihood of the Brahmin priests.
As a result, it appears, they retaliated by claiming the moral high ground. They did this by becoming vegetarians and giving up beef. As a result, they now deemed those who continued to eat beef to be impure, eventually becoming impure people, or untouchables.
There is very little light that anyone can shed on those early days. If so, we can regard Dr. Ambedkar’s hypothesis as a valid one. As always, his research work is meticulous.
His style is direct, with no fluff. He does not entertain ‘prisoners’. If this offends you, then it is your loss. For me, I find his approach, and the alternative theories he proposed, to be absolutely refreshing.
January 21, 2024
This seminal work felt like more of a blabbering of a Rabid Brahmin Hater.
It all came down to consumption of beef due to fight for supremacy between Brahminism and Buddhism for origin of Untouchables, which many devout followers of Ambedkar may agree, but I don't agree with this seminal work.
Ambedkar made a lot of assumptions in his work without any historical evidence or links, which he himself agrees in this work. So in the same spirit, we today's generation can also make a lot of assumptions about a lot of historical wrongs without any circumstantial evidence or historical links and put forth our wild theories. And if you repeat that enough, it will become truth.
I raise objection to amberkar's bold claims that "For every brahmin everyday was a beef-steak day. The Brahmins were therefore the greatest beef-eaters. The Yajna of the Brahmins was nothing but the killing of innocent animals carried on in the name of religion with pomp and ceremony with an attempt to enshroud it in mystery with a view to conceal their appetite for beef" Did Amberkar have any little evidence to support his bold claims ? Probably not, its only his wild theories originating from his hatred for brahmins.
It all came down to consumption of beef due to fight for supremacy between Brahminism and Buddhism for origin of Untouchables, which many devout followers of Ambedkar may agree, but I don't agree with this seminal work.
Ambedkar made a lot of assumptions in his work without any historical evidence or links, which he himself agrees in this work. So in the same spirit, we today's generation can also make a lot of assumptions about a lot of historical wrongs without any circumstantial evidence or historical links and put forth our wild theories. And if you repeat that enough, it will become truth.
I raise objection to amberkar's bold claims that "For every brahmin everyday was a beef-steak day. The Brahmins were therefore the greatest beef-eaters. The Yajna of the Brahmins was nothing but the killing of innocent animals carried on in the name of religion with pomp and ceremony with an attempt to enshroud it in mystery with a view to conceal their appetite for beef" Did Amberkar have any little evidence to support his bold claims ? Probably not, its only his wild theories originating from his hatred for brahmins.
September 4, 2025
I am giving it 3 star just because of the sheer volume of research done by Ambedkar for the topic. I find his hypothesis contradictory to each other and the time line.
First of all terming Tribal people as Barbaric(in preface) is parochial. Their unique and sustainable living with nature is by no means barbaric, furthermore millennials ago ,lifestyle of tribals and non tribals had little difference. And as Hindus don't believe in proselyting, they have no incentive to change customs and traditions of tribal people to be termed as intellectual.
Comparing Hindus with Christians and Muslims and putting Hindus in negative also raises questions.
The conditions of Blacks under white, non-Muslims under Muslims is well known.
The death of Last Mauryan ruler by Pushyamitra Sunga is shown as a larger conspiracy from Brahmans against Buddhist. It lost its ground as earlier ruler like Chandragupta Maurya (Jainsism) and Bindusar( Ajivika) also changes their religion, and changing religion was no such deal at that time. Moreover Sunga ruler was again assassinated by Kanvas. So it was ambitions of generals to become rulers, nothing more.
First of all terming Tribal people as Barbaric(in preface) is parochial. Their unique and sustainable living with nature is by no means barbaric, furthermore millennials ago ,lifestyle of tribals and non tribals had little difference. And as Hindus don't believe in proselyting, they have no incentive to change customs and traditions of tribal people to be termed as intellectual.
Comparing Hindus with Christians and Muslims and putting Hindus in negative also raises questions.
The conditions of Blacks under white, non-Muslims under Muslims is well known.
The death of Last Mauryan ruler by Pushyamitra Sunga is shown as a larger conspiracy from Brahmans against Buddhist. It lost its ground as earlier ruler like Chandragupta Maurya (Jainsism) and Bindusar( Ajivika) also changes their religion, and changing religion was no such deal at that time. Moreover Sunga ruler was again assassinated by Kanvas. So it was ambitions of generals to become rulers, nothing more.
November 2, 2024
It was a riveting read. Tragically, a lot of rationalisations prevalent even today were debunked by Beemji back in the 40s.
The way he deconstructs and disproves the “Old theories of origin”, namely “Racial” & “Occupational” theories, brims with great command with staunch evidence. It doesn’t feel exactly the same when he makes a case about the “New theories”. With every subsequent chapter, the proof does strengthens and makes more sense. But having said that, one might justifiably argue that the reasoning might have gotten circular at certain point w.r.t. the chapters regarding these “New theories of origin” (particularly the claims, which Beemji himself acknowledges as inferential, that “Broken men” were Buddhists, etc).
For that I feel this work would benefit heavily from more modern day anthropological & archeological support. If that has already been done, I’d really appreciate anyone mentioning where they are published.
The way he deconstructs and disproves the “Old theories of origin”, namely “Racial” & “Occupational” theories, brims with great command with staunch evidence. It doesn’t feel exactly the same when he makes a case about the “New theories”. With every subsequent chapter, the proof does strengthens and makes more sense. But having said that, one might justifiably argue that the reasoning might have gotten circular at certain point w.r.t. the chapters regarding these “New theories of origin” (particularly the claims, which Beemji himself acknowledges as inferential, that “Broken men” were Buddhists, etc).
For that I feel this work would benefit heavily from more modern day anthropological & archeological support. If that has already been done, I’d really appreciate anyone mentioning where they are published.
November 21, 2024
عندما تقرأ كتاب لا تملك الخلفية المناسبة عن موضوعه، تصبح كمن دخل محاضرة في منتصف الوقت. تجد المحاضر يتكلم عن الموضوع بحماس والمتابعين أيضا متحمسين وأنت ضائع بينهم. تجدك منزوع عن سياق الموضوع مهما كان المتكلم متمكن من موضوعه. هذه قصتي مع هذا الكتاب ، المؤلف متعمق بتحليل موضوع المنبوذين في الهند وأنا لا أعرف إلا القليل عن نظام الكاست في الهند.
لكن ��ا عرفته من المؤلف يستحق المعاناة ، فالمنبوذين هم الطبقة الخارجة عن التصنيف الهندوسي، هم أقل من الطبقة الاقل بسلم الكاست. خارجين عن المجتمع ولا يقام لهم اعتبار.
المؤلف أحد أفراد هذه الطبقة ويحلل أسباب وجودها. برأيه أن هذه الطبقة وجدت من خلال تفكك القبائل في عصور قديمة، ليصبح أفراد هذه القبائل المتفككة أشخاص فقراء عاشوا على أطراف القرى الهندية، ليتحولوا إلى منبوذين مع مرور الزمن.
الكتاب فتح عندي الاهتمام بنظام الكاست الهندي وتاريخه.
لكن ��ا عرفته من المؤلف يستحق المعاناة ، فالمنبوذين هم الطبقة الخارجة عن التصنيف الهندوسي، هم أقل من الطبقة الاقل بسلم الكاست. خارجين عن المجتمع ولا يقام لهم اعتبار.
المؤلف أحد أفراد هذه الطبقة ويحلل أسباب وجودها. برأيه أن هذه الطبقة وجدت من خلال تفكك القبائل في عصور قديمة، ليصبح أفراد هذه القبائل المتفككة أشخاص فقراء عاشوا على أطراف القرى الهندية، ليتحولوا إلى منبوذين مع مرور الزمن.
الكتاب فتح عندي الاهتمام بنظام الكاست الهندي وتاريخه.
September 10, 2020
Amazing insight into dark side of Indian ancient history, neglected by Indian historians
Untouchability can be compared with the slavery of west. Even though racism is still a reality in west, it is acknowledged and dealt with. This wasn’t the case with untouchability in India. If it wasn’t for Bharat Ratana Dr B R Ambedkar, this class or rather class-less section of India would have still lived in darkness.
I would recommend this book for all millennials and younger generations, especially to that of so called upper cast. True eye opener...
Untouchability can be compared with the slavery of west. Even though racism is still a reality in west, it is acknowledged and dealt with. This wasn’t the case with untouchability in India. If it wasn’t for Bharat Ratana Dr B R Ambedkar, this class or rather class-less section of India would have still lived in darkness.
I would recommend this book for all millennials and younger generations, especially to that of so called upper cast. True eye opener...
June 8, 2023
Bold inferences and opinions are drawn from evidences. And it definitely is an important read for our times. The passion for the subject oozes through the writing, although the supporting evidences can occasionally be a little confusing. Nevertheless, it is an eye-opening read on a potentially valid theory for origin of Untouchables in India. Serves to sensitize and expand your mindset on how India's corrosive caste divisions were rooted in history more than 2000-3000 years ago !
However, I read this book after annihilation of caste. And I cannot get over the awesomeness of the other book. If you can choose only one, choose the Annihilation of Caste by the revered Dr B R Ambedkar sir.
However, I read this book after annihilation of caste. And I cannot get over the awesomeness of the other book. If you can choose only one, choose the Annihilation of Caste by the revered Dr B R Ambedkar sir.
June 20, 2018
This book is amazing , it exactly point out the reasons why barbaric custom like untouchability is observed in Hindu religion. It is also compares the untouchability in Hindu Religion with religions all over the world, and I come to know that although untouchability for some unhuman things and for some animals followed in some cultures no religion and culture all over the world follows such an in-human tradition.
March 4, 2021
An enthralling and truly revolutionary text on the origins of untouchability. Dr. Ambedkar not only proposes an idea of why the untouchables became the untouchables but also brilliantly eliminates the improbable theory of racial and occupational differences as the source of untouchability - which is often the savarnas justification for the existence of caste system. The sheer research and effort this man has put on all his works is just fascinating. A must-must read book for all Indians.
September 2, 2018
Thought provoking. Interesting assumptions and comparisons!
Great book by a great scholar! Clarity of thoughts, certain assumptions are amazing. The comments on untouchability is not one sided, it might be due to a fight between Hindu Brahmins vs Buddhists is interesting. Opens a new thought style and provokes to read more.
Great book by a great scholar! Clarity of thoughts, certain assumptions are amazing. The comments on untouchability is not one sided, it might be due to a fight between Hindu Brahmins vs Buddhists is interesting. Opens a new thought style and provokes to read more.
March 18, 2020
My goodness! It spins my mind to think of the extent the research must have been stretched to conclude this much strategically and skillfully. Precise, and with appropriate references it leaves so little room for negotiation or arguments.
I'm completely in awe of the man and of India's history at this point. The graph it has taken though!!
I'm completely in awe of the man and of India's history at this point. The graph it has taken though!!
April 27, 2021
Historical and fact based eye-opening aside, this book unravels the answers to the titular question, in a way which keeps the reader hooked. One step at a time, one answer at a time - but based on hard facts and research work - slowly, but surely this book moves forward to quell all the cloud of alternate facts (read: bs) surrounding the question. A must read, but that goes without saying.
December 5, 2024
Dr. Ambedkar offers a thought-provoking exploration of the Aryans, Dravidians, and Nagas. He raises important questions, highlighting that while some distinctions are clear, many others are influenced by circumstances and aren’t entirely conclusive. It’s definitely worth reading his work to gain a better understanding of these ancient groups and their connections.
January 24, 2024
Very good book to understand the origin of untouchability in Hindu community
It starts from primitive man to till modern man and includes in depth detail and reference from different Hindu scriptures.
It starts from primitive man to till modern man and includes in depth detail and reference from different Hindu scriptures.
December 18, 2024
An eye-opener—well-researched and thoughtfully written. It provides deep insights into how the discovery of farming and the settlement of tribal communities transformed their way of life and the broader impact it had on humanity.
May 1, 2025
I loved reading the book. The analysis was basically that between the struggle of Brahmanism & Buddhism - untouchability was formed.
My one question is if the struggle then was so intense & fierce , how did Buddhism lost it’s footing so much in India
My one question is if the struggle then was so intense & fierce , how did Buddhism lost it’s footing so much in India
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews