I submit that the original article 11 is a little vague. The word “untouchability” has no legal meaning, although politically we are all well aware of it; but it may lead to a considerable amount of misunderstanding as in ale gal expression. The word ‘untouchable’ can be applied to so many variety of things that we cannot leave it at that. It may be that a man suffering from an epidemic or contagious disease is an untouchable; then certain kinds of food are untouchable to Hindus and Muslims. According to certain ideas women of other families are untouchables. Then according to Pandit Thakurdas Bhargava, a wife below 15 would be untouchable to her loving husband on the ground that it would be ‘marital misbehaviour’. I beg to submit, Sir, that the word ‘untouchable’ is rather loose. That is why I have attempted to give it a better shape; that no one on account of his religion or caste be regarded as untouchable. Untouchability on the ground of religion or caste is what is prohibited.
