- Why I Am Not a Hindu
google.com
By Yatin Jadhav
Originally
published by Bihar Rationalist Society (Bihar Buddhiwadi Samaj) 1993.
Electronically reprinted with permission.
I have read and admired Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian. On the
other hand, I have also read and disagreed with M.K.Gandhi's Why I Am a Hindu.
My acquaintance with these writings has inspired me to write this essay
explaining why I am not a Hindu, though I was born in a Hindu family.
The Meaning of "Hindu"
The word "Hindu" is a much-abused word in the sense that it has been
used to mean different things at different times. For example, some people even
now, at least some times, use the word "Hindu" as a synonym for
"Indian". In this sense of the term, I am certainly a
"Hindu" because I do not deny being an Indian. However, I do not
think that this a proper use of the term "Hindu". There are many
Indians such as Muslims, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians as well as rationalists,
humanists and atheists who do not call themselves "Hindu" and also do
not like to be described as such. It is certainly not fair to convert them into
Hinduism by giving an elastic definition of the term "Hindu".
Besides, it is also not advisable to use the word "Hindu" in this
sense from the point of view of clarity. The word "Hindu" may have
been used in the beginning as a synonym for "Indian" [1], but, at
present, the word is used for people with certain definite religious beliefs.
The word "Hindu" belongs to the category of words like
"Muslim", "Christian", "Buddhist" and
"Jain" and not to the category of words like "American",
"British", "Australian", "Chinese" or
"Japanese". There are, in fact, many Indians who are not Hindus, and
on the other hand, there are many Hindus who are not Indians , for example,
those who are citizens of Nepal, Sri Lanka and some other countries.
In the religious sense, the word, "Hindu" is often used broadly to
include Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs in addition to those who are described as
"Hindu" in this most restricted sense of the term, that is, the
adherents of Vedic or Brahmin religion. For example, the expression
"Hindu" is used in the Hindu law not only for those who are Hindu by
religion but also for persons who are Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs by religion.
This, again, is too broad a definition of "Hindu". If we consistently
use the word "Hindu" in this sense, we will have to say that Japan is
a Hindu country!
The above definition of "Hindu" is clearly inadequate from a
philosophical point of view. Buddhism and Jainism, for instance, explicitly
reject the doctrine of the infallibility of the Vedas and the system of
varna-vyavastha, which are fundamental to Hinduism, that is, if the term
"Hinduism" is used in its most restricted sense. Therefore, clubbing
together Buddhists and Jains or even Sikhs with those who believe in the
infallibility of the Vedas and subscribe to the varna-vyavastha is nothing but
an invitation to confusion.
Though I agree with Buddhism in its rejection of god, soul, infallibility of
the Vedas and the varna-vyavastha, still I am not a Hindu even in this broad
sense of the term "Hindu", because as a rationalist and humanist I
reject all religions including Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. However, in this
essay I am concerned with explaining why I am not a Hindu in the most
appropriate sense of the term "Hindu", that is, the sense in which a
person is a Hindu if his religion is Hinduism in the restricted sense of the
term " Hinduism". In this restricted sense of "Hinduism",
Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are excluded from its scope. I also maintain that
this is, at present, probably the most popular sense of the term, and every
body should, in the interest of clarity, confine its use, as far as possible,
to this sense only, at least in philosophical discourse.
Radhakrishnan, for example, has used the term "Hindu" and
"Hinduism" in this restricted sense when he says in his The Hindu
View of Life that, "The chief sacred scriptures of Hindus, the Vedas
register the intuitions of the perfected souls." [2] Or, when he says that
"Hinduism is the religion not only of the Vedas but of the Epics and the
Puranas." [3]
Basic Beliefs of Hinduism
Gandhi, too, has used the term "Hindu" in this restricted sense, when
writing in Young India in October, 1921, he says:
I call myself a sanatani Hindu, because,
1. I believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas and all that goes by the
name of Hindu scriptures, and therefore in avatars and rebirth.
2. I believe in the Varnashram dharma in a sense in my opinion strictly Vedic,
but not in its present popular and crude sense.
3. I believe in the protection of the cow in its much larger sense than the
popular.
4. I do not disbelieve in idol-worship. [4]
One may be tempted to ask, at this point, whether all the beliefs listed by
Gandhi are really fundamental to Hinduism. In my opinion, (I) the belief in the
authenticity of the Vedas and (II) the belief in the varnashram dharma are more
basic to Hinduism than the belief in cow-protection and idol-worship. [5]
Though it cannot be denied that, in spite of attempts by reformers like Kabir,
Rammohan Roy and Dayanand Saraswati, idol-worship is still practiced widely by
the Hindu masses, and there is, at present, a taboo on eating beef among a
large number of Hindus. In any case, I am in a position to establish the fact
of my not being a Hindu by asserting the contradictory of each of the above
statements made by Gandhi:
In other words, I assert that I am not a Hindu, because,
1. I do not believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas and all that goes
by the name of Hindu scriptures, and therefore in avatars and rebirth.
2. I do not believe in the varnashram dharma or varna-vyavastha either in the
sense in which it is explained in Hindu dharma shastras like Manusmriti or in
the so-called Vedic sense.
3. I do not believe in the Hindu taboo of not eating beef.
4. I disbelieve in idol-worship.
However, while explaining why I am not a Hindu, I will concentrate mainly on
(I) the belief in the authenticity of the Vedas, and (II) the varnashram dharma
, which I consider more fundamental to Hinduism. Besides, in the concluding
section of the essay, I will briefly discuss moksha, which is regarded as the
highest end of life in Hinduism, and some other Hindu doctrines like karmavada
and avatarvada.
The infallibility of the Vedas
First of all, let me explain what do I mean by saying that "I do not
believe in the Vedas", and why I do not do so.
The schools of ancient Indian thought are generally classified by orthodox
Hindu thinkers into two broad categories, namely, orthodox ( astika) and
heterodox ( nastika). The six main Hindu systems of thought -- Mimamsa,
Vedanta, Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya and Vaisheshika -- are regarded as orthodox ( astika),
not because they believe in the existence of god, but because they accept the
authority of the Vedas. [6]
Out of the six orthodox systems of Hindu thought, Nyaya system is primarily
concerned with the conditions of correct thinking and the means of acquiring
true knowledge. According to Nyaya system, there are four distinct and separate
sources of knowledge, namely, (i) perception (ii) inference (iii) comparison,
and (iv) testimony or shabda.
Shabda, which is defined in the Nyaya system as "valid verbal
testimony" is further classified into (i) the scriptural ( vaidika), and
(ii) the secular ( laukika). Vaidika or scriptural testimony is believed to be
the word of god, and therefore, it is regarded as perfect and infallible .[7]
Mimamsa or Purva Mimamsa, another orthodox Hindu system is "the outcome of
the ritualistic side of the vedic culture". However, in its attempt to
justify the authority of the Vedas, Mimamsa elaborately discusses different
sources of valid knowledge. Naturally enough, among the various "sources
of valid knowledge", Mimamsa pays greatest attention to testimony or
authority, which, too, is regarded by it as a valid source of knowledge. There
are, according to Mimamsa, two kinds of authority -- personal ( paurusheya) and
impersonal ( apaurusheya). The authority of the Vedas is regarded by Mimamsa as
impersonal. [8]
As mentioned earlier, according to Nyaya, the authority of the Vedas is derived
from their being the words of god. But Mimamsa, which does not believe in the
existence of god, declares that the Vedas like the world, are eternal. They are
not the work of any person, human or divine. The infallibility of the authority
of the Vedas, according to Mimamsa, rests on the "fact" that they are
not vitiated by any defect to which the work of imperfect persons is liable.
[9]
Thus, orthodox Hindu schools like Nyaya and Mimamsa regard the testimony of the
Vedas as infallible, though they give different reasons for doing so.
Well-known orthodox Hindu theologians like Shankar and Ramanuja believed in the
authority of the Vedas. Manusmriti, too, upholds the infallibility of the
Vedas. As pointed out by S.N.Dasgupta, "The validity and authority of the
Vedas were acknowledged by all Hindu writers and they had wordy battles over it
with the Buddhists who denied it." [10]
The point worth noting is that though popularly Hinduism is a theistic
religion, it is not essential to believe in the existence of god for being an
orthodox Hindu -- belief in the authority of the Vedas is more important.
When I say, "I do not believe in the Vedas", what I mean is that I do
not regard the testimony of the Vedas as a valid source of knowledge. In other
words when I say, "I do not believe in the Vedas", I do not mean that
each and every proposition contained in the Vedas is false. It is quite
possible that one may find a few true statements in the Vedas after great
amount of patient research. But I assert that the truth or the falsity of a
proposition is logically independent of its being contained or not contained in
the Vedas. A proposition is true if there is a correspondence between the
belief expressed by it and the facts. Otherwise, it is false. So, a proposition
contained in the Vedas might be true, that is, if there is a correspondence
between the belief expressed by it and the facts, but it is, I insist, not true
because it is contained in the Vedas. I categorically reject as invalid every
argument of the form: "The proposition P is contained in the Vedas.
Therefore, the proposition P is true".
Besides, I also assert that some propositions contained in the Vedas are
certainly false. For example, according to Purusha-Sukta of Rig Veda ,
Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras originated respectively from the
mouth, hands, thighs and feet of the purusha or the creator. I categorically
reject this statement as false. I maintain that varna-vyavastha is a man-made
social institution and it has nothing to do with the alleged creator of this
world.
I also reject both the reasons put forward in support of the infallibility of
the Vedas. I neither regard them to be "the words of god" nor I
consider them to be eternal and impersonal. I believe that Vedas were
conceived, spoken and written by human beings. The question of their being
"words of god" simply does not arise, because there are no good
reasons for believing in the existence of god. The existence of an omnipotent,
omniscient and benevolent god is totally inconsistent with the presence of
suffering and evil in this world. It is impossible for god to exist. [11]
Similarly, Vedas could not have come into existence before human beings
appeared on this earth, and before Sanskrit language came into existence. And
there are no good reasons for believing that Sanskrit language came into
existence even before human beings appeared on this earth!
As far as Gandhi is concerned, though he liked to describe himself as a
sanatani Hindu, he was, in fact, not a completely orthodox Hindu. For example,
in the article quoted earlier in this essay Gandhi goes on to add, "I do
not believe in the exclusive divinity of the Vedas. I believe the Bible, the
Koran, and the Zend-Avesta to be as much divinely inspired as the Vedas. My
belief in the Hindu scriptures does not require me to accept every word and
every verse as divinely inspired, I decline to be bound by any interpretation,
however learned in may be, if it is repugnant to reason or moral sense.
"[12](emphasis mine)
I seriously doubt that this position will be acceptable to an orthodox Hindu.
In fact, Gandhi's position comes very close to that of rationalists and
humanists when he says that "I decline to be bound by any interpretation
however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to reason and moral sense".
However, since he refused to say in so many words that he did not believe in
the authority of the Vedas, Gandhi may be described, in my opinion, as a
liberal Hindu with an eclectic approach towards religion. On the other hand, my
position is radically different from that of Gandhi, because I do not consider
either the Vedas or the Bible, the Koran and Zend-Avesta or any other book to
be divinely inspired.
Varna-vyavastha
Before discussing varna-vyavastha or varnashram dharma, let me clarify in the
very beginning that I am not interested in giving my own interpretation of what
varna-vyavastha is or ought to be in its ideal form. I am interested, firstly,
in giving an objective exposition of varna-vyavastha as contained in recognized
Hindu scriptures like Vedas and dharmashastras like Manusmriti; and secondly,
in mentioning my reasons for rejecting varna-vyavastha. In doing so I will
concentrate on the chaturvarnya (four-fold division of society) aspect of
varna-vyavastha.
We have already noted that the first reference to varna (class based on birth
or caste) is to be found in the Purusha-Sukta of the Rig Veda . The reference
to the four ashrams or stages of life, namely, Brahmcharya, Garhastya,
Vanprashta and Sanyas is to be found in the Upanishads. These are, in their
turn, related to the four purusarthas or ends of life, namely, dharma (duty),
artha (wealth), kama (satisfaction of sensual desires) and moksha (liberation).
Out of these, the Upanishads attach maximum value to sanyas ashram and moksha
purusartha, which is regarded as the highest end of life. [13]
The system of varnashram dharma is upheld by popular Hindu scriptures like
Ramayana, Mahabharata and Bhagvat-Gita. In Ramayana, for example, Ram kills
Shambuka simply because he was performing tapasya (ascetic exercises) which he
was not supposed to do as he was a Shudra by birth. [14]
Similarly, in Mahabharata, Dronacharya refuses to teach archery to Eklavya,
because he was not a Kshatriya by birth. When Eklavya, treating Drona as his
notional guru, learns archery on his own, Drona makes him cut his right thumb
as gurudakshina (gift for the teacher) so that he may not become a better
archer than his favorite Kshatriya student Arjuna!
The much-glorified Bhagvat-Gita, too, favors varna-vyavastha.[15] When Arjuna
refuses to fight, one of his main worries was that the war would lead to the
birth of varna-sankaras or offspring from intermixing of different varnas and
the consequent "downfall" of the family. [16] On the other hand,
Krishna tries to motivate Arjuna to fight by saying that it was his varna-dharma
(caste-duty) to do so because he was a Kshatriya. In fact, Krishna goes to the
extent of claiming that the four varnas were created by him only. [17] Thus,
Arjuna's main problem was being born a Kshatriya. Had he been a Brahmin or a
Vaishya or a Shudra by birth, he would have been spared the trouble of fighting
a destructive war. Even the much-applauded doctrine of niskama karma is nothing
but an exhortation to faithfully perform one's varnashram dharma in a
disinterested manner. [18]
The celebrated orthodox Hindu theologian Shankar, too, was a supporter of
varna-vyavastha. According to him, Shudras are not entitled to philosophical
knowledge. [19] However, the most elaborate exposition of varnashram dharma is
to be found in Manusmriti, an important dharmashastra of Hindus. Let us turn to
it in order to have a close look at the varna-vyavastha.
Manusmriti
In the very first chapter of Manusmriti, it is clearly stated that Brahmins,
Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras were created by Brahma (creator of this world)
from his mouth, hands, thighs and feet respectively. [20]
Manu claims that the same Brahma, who created this world, also created
Manusmriti and taught it to him. [21]
The duties of the different varnas are also mentioned in the Manusmriti. The
Brahmins were created for teaching, studying, performing yajnas (ceremonial
sacrifices), getting yajnas performed, giving and accepting dan (gifts).[22]
The Kshatriyas were created for protecting the citizens, giving gifts, getting
yajnas performed and studying. [23] The Vaishyas were created for protecting
animals, giving gifts, getting yajnas performed, studying, trading, lending
money on interest and doing agricultural work. [24] The Shudras were created by
Brahma for serving Brahmins and the other two varnas without being critical of
them. [25]
It is interesting to note that studying, getting yajnas performed and giving
gifts or charity are common duties of Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas;
whereas teaching, accepting gifts and performing yajnas are reserved exclusively
for Brahmins. The Shudras, of course, are denied the rights to study, getting
yajnas performed by Brahmins or even giving gifts to them.
Manusmriti further states that having originated from the mouth of Brahma,
being elder and being the repository of the Vedas; Brahmins are the masters of
the entire universe. [26] Besides, Brahmins alone act as a sort of post office
for transmitting food to the gods and the dead, that is to say, the gods and
the dead eat food through the mouths of Brahmins (apparently because they do
not have mouths of their own). Therefore, no one can be superior to
Brahmins.[27] All others are said to enjoy everything owing to the Brahmins'
mercy.[28] The Manusmriti clearly states that Brahmins alone are entitled to
teach this dharmashastra and none else. [29]
Manusmriti refers to the Vedas, which are to be regarded as the main valid
source of knowledge about dharma, as shruti and to dharmashastras as smriti. No
one is to argue critically about them because religion has originated from
them. [30] Any nastika (non-believer) or critic of the Vedas, who
"insults" them on the basis of logic, is worthy of being socially
boycotted by "noble" persons. [31]
In short, the main features of chaturvarnya as elaborated in the Manusmriti are
as follows:
1. Division of Hindu society into four varnas on the basis of birth. Out of
these only the first three, namely , Brahmins , Kshatriya and Vaishya, who are
collectively known as dwija (twice-born) are entitled to upanayan and the study
of the Vedas. Shudras as well as women of dwija varnas are denied the right to
study.
2. Assigning different duties and occupations for different varnas. This is to
be enforced strictly by the king. [32] According to Manusmriti, if a person of
lower caste adopts the occupation of a higher caste, the king ought to deprive
him of all his property and expel him from his kingdom. [33]
3. Treating Brahmins as superior and other varnas, namely, Kshatriya, Vaishya
and Shudra as inferior to him in descending order with the Shudra occupying the
bottom of the hierarchy. A Brahmin is to be treated as god and respected even
if he is ignorant. Even a hundred-year old Kshatriya is to treat a ten year old
Brahmin as his father. [34] Brahmin alone is entitled to teach. If a Shudra dares
to give moral lessons to a Brahmin, the king is to get him punished by pouring
hot oil in his ear and mouth. [35] Similarly, if a Shudra occupies the same
seat as a Brahmin, he is to be punished by branding his waist (with hot rod) or
getting his buttocks cut! [36]
4. Treating women as unequal. Women, that is, even women belonging to Brahmin,
Kshatriya and Vaishya varna are not entitled to upanayan and the study of the
Vedas. For them, marriage is equivalent to upanayan and service of their
husbands is equivalent to the study of the Vedas in the gurukul.[37] Even if
the husband is morally degraded, engaged in an affair with another woman and is
devoid of knowledge and other qualities, the wife must treat him like a god.
[38] A widower is allowed to remarry but a widow is not. [39] Besides, women
are not considered fit for being free and independent. They are to be protected
in their childhood by father, in youth by husband and in old age by son. [40]
They should never be allowed by their guardians to act independently. [41] A
woman must never do anything even inside her home without the consent of her
father, husband and son respectively. [42] She must remain in control of her
father in childhood, of husband in youth and of son after the death of her husband.
[43]
5. Treating different varnas as unequal for legal purposes. The Hindu law as
codified by Manu is based on the principle of inequality. The punishment for a
particular crime is not same for all varnas. In fact, the punishment varies
depending on the varna of the victim as well as the varna of the person
committing the crime. For the same crime, the Brahmin is to be given a mild
punishment, whereas the Shudra is to given the harshest punishment of all.
Similarly, if the victim of a crime is a Shudra, the punishment is mild, and
the punishment is harsh in case the victim is a Brahmin. For example, if a
Brahmin is awarded death sentence, it is sufficient to shave his head, but
Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra are to actually die. [44] If a Kshatriya, a Vaishya,
or a Shudra repeatedly gives false evidence in the court, he is to be punished
and expelled from the kingdom, whereas the Brahmin is not to be punished, he is
to be only expelled. [45] If a person has sexual intercourse with a consenting
women of his own varna, he is not to be punished. [46] But if a person of lower
varna has sexual intercourse with a woman of higher varna, with or without her
consent, he is to be killed. [47] If a Brahmin forces a dwija to work for him,
he is to be punished. [48] But if a Brahmin forces a Shudra to work for him,
whether by making or not making payments to him, he is not to be punished,
because Shudras have been created only for serving Brahmins.[49] If a Brahmin
abuses a Shudra, he is to be fined mildly, [50] but if a Shudra abuses a
Brahmin, he is to be killed. [51] On the other hand, even if a Brahmin kills a
Shudra, he is merely to perform penance by killing a cat, frog, owl or crow,
etc. [52] Thus a Shudra is to be killed for abusing a Brahmin, whereas a Brahmin
is to be let off lightly even if he kills a Shudra. Such is the unequal justice
of Manusmriti.
In fact, this system of graded inequality seems to be the very essence of the
varna-vyavastha. Whether it is the choice of names, [53] or the manner of
greeting, [54] or the mode of entertaining guests, [55] or the method of
administering oath in the court, [56] or the process of taking out the funeral
procession, [57] at each and every step in life, from birth to death, this
system of graded inequality is to be applied and observed. Manu does not even
spare the rates of interest on loan. For borrowing the same amount, Kshatriya
has to pay more as interest than Brahmin, Vaishya more than Kshatriya and the
poor Shudra has to pay the maximum amount as interest! [58]
6. Prohibiting inter-marriage between different varnas. According to
Manusmriti, a dwija ought to marry a woman of his own varna.[59] A woman of the
same varna is considered best for the first marriage. However, a dwija may take
a woman of inferior varna as his second wife if he is overcome by sexual
passion. [60] But Manu strongly disapproves of Brahmins and Kshatriyas taking a
Shudra woman even as their second wife. They become Shudra if they do so. [61]
7. Supporting untouchability is also a part of the scheme of social
stratification outlined in the Manusmriti. Manu clearly mentions that Brahmin,
Kshatriya and Vaishya, collectively known as dwija and the Shudras are the four
varnas. There is no fifth varna.[62] He explains the origin of other castes by
saying that they are varna-sankara castes, that is to say, castes originating
due to the intermixture of different varnas, both in anuloma (upper varna male
and lower varna female) and pratiloma (lower varna male and upper varna female)
manner. [63] For example, Nishad caste is said to have originated from anuloma
relationship between Brahmin male and Shudra female,[64] whereas C handala
caste is said to be owing its origin to pratiloma relationship between Shudra
male and Brahmin female. [65]
Manu seems to be disapproving of pratiloma relationship more than the anuloma,
because he describes C handalas as the lowest of the low castes. [66]
Let us see what Manusmriti, has to say about the C handala. The Chandala, says
Manusmriti, must not ever reside inside the village. While doing their work,
they must reside outside the village, at cremation ground, on mountains or in
groves. They are not entitled to keep cows or horses, etc., as pet animals.
They may keep dogs and donkeys. They are to wear shrouds. They are to eat in
broken utensils. They are to use ornaments of iron, not of gold. They must keep
moving from one place to another, not residing at the same place for a long
duration. [67] They must not move around in villages and cities in night hours.
They may enter the villages and cities in daytime, with king's permission,
wearing special symbols (to enable identification), and take away unclaimed
dead bodies. [68]
Moreover, how is the "religious" person to deal with the Chandala? He
must not have any social intercourse (marriage, interdining, etc.) with them.
He must not talk to or even see them! [69] He may ask servants (apparently
Shudras) to give them food in broken utensils. [70]
8. Granting divine and religious sanction to varna-vyavastha. Manu gives divine
and religious sanction to the varna-vyavastha by claiming divine origin for the
varnas as well as for the Manusmriti and demanding unquestioning obedience of
it.
So, that completes my exposition of the varna-vyavastha. I want to emphasize in
particular that my exposition does not contain any exaggeration at all. The
reader may check each and every statement by comparing with the original
Manusmriti in order to satisfy himself or herself. I cannot help if the system
is so unjust and so out of tune with out existing values that even an objective
exposition reads like a severe condemnation. Nevertheless, I will now turn to
my reasons for rejecting varna-vyavastha: I reject varna-vyavastha because it
is irrational, unjust and undemocratic, being opposed to the democratic and
human values of liberty, equality and fraternity.
Criticism of varna-vyavastha
The varna-vyavastha is opposed to the value of liberty as it denies the freedom
to choose one's occupation and marriage partner to one and all. Everyone must
join the occupation of his varna and must marry within his varna. Similarly, it
denies the freedom to study to the Shudras and woman in particular. Even the
dwija must study the Vedas before he studies anything else. Otherwise, he
becomes a Shudra.[71] (Incidentally, according to Manusmriti, there are several
ways by which a Brahmin or dwija may become a Shudra but there is no way by
which a Shudra may become a Brahmin. A Shudra must always remain a Shudra.)[72]
What is worse, the Chandala is even denied the freedom to reside at a place of
his choice or to wear clothes and ornaments of his choice. He is not even free
to keep pet animals of his choice.
The conflict between varna-vyavastha and the value of equality is more than
obvious. As I mentioned earlier, the system of graded inequality seems to be
the very essence of varna-vyavastha. It denies equal respect to all in society.
It denies equality before law. It denies equal access to marriage partners. It
denies equal access to jobs. The occupation of teachers and priests, for
example, is reserved exclusively for Brahmins. Finally, it also denies equal
access to education and knowledge.
A Brahmin, according to Manu, must not teach the Shudra and woman even if he
dies with his knowledge without imparting it to anybody. [73] On the other
hand, if anyone studies the Vedas on his own he or she will go straight to
hell. [74] In other words, cent percent reservations for dwija males in the
sphere of education.
The varna-vyavastha is most unfair to the Shudras and the untouchables. They
are denied respect, knowledge, power and wealth. They are denied access to
occupations considered respectable, just as they are denied access to men and
women of upper varnas for marriage. The Shudras are virtually reduced to being
slaves of the Brahmins in particular and the dwijas in general, whereas the
untouchables are regarded as outcast -- beyond the pale of the society. The
women are generally treated as sexual objects and as unfit for being
independent and free.
As far as fraternity is considered, we must not expect it to exist in a
society, which is so unequal and unjust. A Shudra's waist is to be branded or
his buttocks are to be cut only because he occupies the same seat as the
Brahmin. The "religious" are not to talk or even look at a Chandala.
Inter-marriage is prohibited. Manu seems to be most eager to prevent
inter-mixing of the varnas. Thus, the Hindu social order is based on the
isolation and exclusiveness of the varnas.
The Manusmriti not only outlines a totally undemocratic and unjust social
system but also gives divine, religious sanction to this man-made social
institution of chaturvarnya. Some Hindus, including apparently learned
"thinkers" and writers, smugly wax eloquent about Hinduism being the
most tolerant and liberal religion of the world.
Is there any other religion, which sanctions slavery and untouchability? Is
there any other religion in which only persons born in a particular caste (
Brahmin) are entitled to become priests?
Slavery is not peculiar to India or to Hinduism, but carrying it to the
extremes of untouchability, and granting it divine and religious sanction is
peculiar to Hinduism.
Similarly, some Hindus may be tolerant, just as some of them are intolerant,
but Hinduism or Hindu religion is not tolerant at all, either socially or
intellectually. Manusmriti, for example, clearly says that anybody who argues
critically and logically about dharmashastras ought to be ostracized. [75]
Non-believers, including freethinkers, rationalists and Buddhists, are not to
be entertained respectfully as guests; though, mercifully, they may be given
food. [76] The families of non-believers are destroyed sooner than later
according to Manu. [77] A state with a large number of Shudras and nastikas
soon meets its destruction. [78] Manusmriti is full of abusive epithets for
freethinkers and non-believers. The unorthodox ( nastikas) are sometimes
equated with the Shudras, sometimes with the Chandalas, sometimes with thieves
and sometimes with lunatics! [79] Such is the generosity of Hindu dharma.
Apologies for varna-vyavastha
Let me now consider what the apologists of varna-vyavastha have to say in its
defense.
A standard defense of varna-vyavastha is to say that it is a system of division
of labor. It is easy to grant that division of labor is essential for any
complex society, but it is equally easy to see that varna-vyavastha is not a
system of division of labor based on aptitude and capability. It is a system of
division of labor based on birth . Besides, it has other associated features
such as feeling of superiority and inferiority, inequality before law, denial
of equal access to knowledge and prohibition against inter-marriage.
What have these features to do with the division of labor?
Division of labor is found in all societies, but varna-vyavastha is not. Thus,
trying to justify varna-vyavastha as division of labor is a futile exercise.
Another standard defense of the varna-vyavastha is to say that the system was
originally based on aptitude and capability. Whether it was actually ever so is
a subject for historical research. Most probably, the racial theory of the
origin of castes is true. However, even if we grant for the sake of argument
that the varna-vyavastha was originally based on aptitude and capability, how
does it help? We cannot say that because the system was originally, some time
in remote past, based on aptitude and capability; therefore we ought to gladly
suffer the present system based on birth. It hardly makes any sense at all!
In any case, Manusmriti was most probably written between200 BC and 200 AD [80]
and the system as outlined in it is totally based on birth. Gautam Buddha, who
lived in sixth century BC, challenged the infallibility of the Vedas as well as
the varna-vyavastha. There are several passages in Tripitaka, mainly in Digha
Nikaya and Majhima Nikaya which are "directed against the claims of the
Brahmans to be of different origin from the rest of humanity, born from the
mouth of Brahma, having a hereditary prerogative to teach, guide and
spiritually govern the rest of the society." [81] In Majhima Nikaya Buddha
is quoted as refuting varna-vyavastha on several occasions. According to
Buddha, it is unreasonable to decide one's place and functions in society on
the basis of one's birth in a caste. Buddha is also quoted as insisting that in
the eyes of the law all persons ought to be treated as equal, irrespective of
the caste or varna in which he or she is born. [82] Thus, it is obvious that
even if the system of varna-vyavastha ever existed in its ideal form -- which
is doubtful -- it had already degenerated by the time of Buddha, that is, about
2500 years back.
The most blatant defense of varna-vyavastha, however, is to say that human
beings are born unequal, and, therefore, it is natural and normal for children
to join the occupation of their fathers. Surprisingly and sadly, no less a
person than Gandhi defended varna-vyavastha in a similar manner.
To quote Gandhi: "I believe that every man is born in the world with certain
natural tendencies. Every person is born with certain definite limitations
which he cannot overcome. From a careful observation of those limitations the
law of varna was deduced. It establishes certain spheres of action for certain
people with certain tendencies. This avoided all unworthy competition. Whilst
recognizing limitations, the law of varna admitted of no distinction of high
and low; on the one hand it guaranteed to each the fruits of his labors and on
the other it prevented him from pressing upon his neighbor. This great law has
been degraded and fallen into disrepute. But my conviction is that an ideal
social order will only be evolved when the implications of this law are fully
understood and given effect to". [83]
Again, "I regard Varnashrama as a healthy division of work based on birth.
The present ideas of caste are a perversion of the original. There is no
question with me of superiority or inferiority. It is purely a question of
duty. I have indeed stated that varna is based on birth. But I have also said
that it is possible for a shudra, for instance, to become a vaishya. But in
order to perform the duty of vaishya he does not need the label of a vaishya.
He who performs the duty of a brahman will easily become one in the next
incarnation." [84]
So, varna-vyavastha, according to Gandhi, is a "healthy division of work
based on birth", which takes into account the "natural
tendencies" of human beings and avoids "unworthy competition."
This apparently plausible defense of varna-vyavastha is, in fact, most
unscientific. It is a well-known and scientifically verified fact that acquired
characteristics are not inherited biologically, only genetic qualities are
transmitted from one generation to another. For instance, carpentry is an
acquired characteristic; just as knowledge of philosophy is an acquired
quality. Neither a carpenter's son or daughter is born with the knowledge of
carpentry, nor is a philosopher's daughter or son born with the knowledge of
philosophy. These are acquired characteristics and, therefore, they cannot be
inherited biologically. If sometimes, though not always, a carpenter's son
becomes a good carpenter or a philosopher's daughter acquires a good knowledge
of philosophy, without being formally initiated into these disciplines, it is
not because they are born with the required knowledge, but only because of the
favorable environment at home, which enables them to acquire these
characteristics. The result could be different if their places were to be
interchanged.
One may say that though the knowledge of carpentry of philosophy in not
inherited biologically, the mental qualities enabling one to acquire the
requisite knowledge is inherited. Some physical and mental qualities are, no
doubt, inherited but this does not mean that parents and their children are
always identical in physical or mental qualities. It is a well known fact --
anybody can verify this by careful observation -- that due to different
permutations and combinations of chromosomes and genes offspring of same
parents are not always identical to one another or to their parents. More often
than not, they are different. For instance, one son or daughter of same parents
may be tall and another short. The colors of skin, hair and eyes may differ
likewise. What is true of physical characteristics is equally true of mental
qualities. Thus, a child may or may not have the mental characteristics, which
his father has.
Therefore, it is totally unscientific to forcefully restrict children to the
occupations of their forefathers.
It is true that all human beings are not equal in the sense of being identical
in physical or mental qualities. But it does not follow from this that they
ought to be denied equal opportunity to join a vocation of their choice or that
they ought to be denied equality before law or equal respect as human beings in
the society.
As for "unworthy" competition, how do we know that the competition is
unworthy unless all are, to begin with, given equal opportunity? Take the
example of Gandhi himself. He was a bania by caste. Yet, in spite of some
serious aberrations such as supporting varna-vyavastha based on birth and
linking politics with religion, he performed fairly well in the role of a
national leader. It would have been a great loss for the nation if in the name
of avoiding "unworthy" competition in politics, Gandhi would have
been confined to running a grocery shop. Similarly, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was born
in an "untouchable" caste, but he played an important role in the
drafting of the democratic constitution of independent India. He also taught in
a college for some time. To use the terminology of varna-vyavastha, he ably
performed the work of a Brahmin.
Is it possible to imagine how many Ambedkars we may have lost by now owing to
the restrictive varna-vyavastha?
As we have noted earlier, varna-vyavastha is a closed system of social
stratification without any scope for upward social mobility. To quote M.
Haralambos, author of a textbook on sociology, "A person belongs to his
parents jati and automatically follows the occupation of the jati into which he
was born. Thus no matter what the biologically based aptitude and capacities of
an untouchable, there is no way he can become a Brahmin. Unless it is assumed
that superior genes are permanently located in the Brahmin caste, and there is
no evidence that this is the case, then there is probably no relationship
between genetically based and socially created inequality in traditional Hindu
society." [85]
Returning to Gandhi, though Gandhi was opposed to untouchability and caste, he
did not carry his opposition to its logical conclusion. Inconsistently enough,
he continued to support the varna-vyavastha based on birth. At one stage, he
even supported restrictions on interdining and intermarriage. As he wrote in
Young India in 1921, "Hinduism does most emphatically discourage
interdining and intermarriage between divisions... It is no part of a Hindu's
duty to dine with his son. And by restricting his choice of bride to a
particular group, he exercises rare self-restraint. Prohibition against
intermarriages and interdining is essential for the rapid evolution of the
soul. "[86] (emphasis mine)
Later Gandhi moved away from these orthodox ideas, and started supporting
intercaste marriages. Finally in 1946, he refused to solemnize any marriage at
Sevagram Ashram unless one of the parties was an untouchable. [87] May be he
would also have given up varna-vyavastha if he had lived longer. That, however,
is in the realm of imagination, the fact is that Gandhi supported
varna-vyavastha. It is worth noting that he invented his own conception of
varna-vyavastha, which, according to him, had nothing to do with the feeling of
superiority and inferiority or with prohibition against intermarriage. We find
here in Gandhi a quaint mixture of conservatism and reformism.
I would like to dispose of one last objection before concluding this section.
One may say that the Hindu law at present is quite different from what Manu
desired, and presently Hindus in general do not follow Manu in totality. This
is true. The Hindu law at present, for instance, allows inter-caste marriage
and prohibits bigamy and child marriage. It permits divorce. It also allows
widow remarriage and grants equal rights to daughters in father's property. Nevertheless,
there seems to be a gap between the progressive Hindu law and the conservative
social practices of the Hindus. A majority of Hindu marriages are still within
the caste and very few Hindu women actually claim or get a share in father's
property.
The Indian constitution has rightly made special provisions, such as
reservations in services for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other
socially and educationally backward classes, to enable them to enter
occupations and positions of power, which had been traditionally denied to
them. No doubt, some upper caste liberal Hindus, too, support the policy of
reservation. But, by and large, the Hindu upper castes are far from fully
reconciled to this progressive step as is evident from violent and aggressive
anti-reservation agitation spearheaded by upper caste students from time to
time. This kind of reactionary agitation aimed at preserving the present
dominance of upper castes in education and the services enjoys considerable
support and sympathy in the upper caste dominated media as well as the
academia.
On the whole, the Hindu society is yet to fully exorcise the ghost of Manu.
Caste based on birth and untouchability still exist in the Hindu society, in
spite of the fact that untouchability has been abolished by the Indian
constitution. The distribution of education, power and wealth continues to be
uneven in the Hindu society, with the dwijas being on the top and the Shudras
and untouchables being at the bottom. Teaching is no more an exclusive preserve
of Brahmins, but the occupation of Hindu priests is still fully reserved for
Brahmins, though this fact does not arouse the ire of our fervent
anti-reservationists.
Moksha, Karmavada and Avatarvada
Moksha is traditionally regarded as the highest end of life in Hindu religion.
The "endless cycle of birth and death" is considered a bondage from
which one must attain liberation, that is moksha or mukti.
This whole concept of bondage and liberation is based on the unproved
assumption of life after death, and the existence of soul ( atma) which
continues to exist apart from the body even after death. In the famous words of
Gita, the soul changes bodies just as human beings change clothes. [88]
Now, there are no good reasons for believing in the existence of soul or life
after death or rebirth. These beliefs are not at all supported by
incontrovertible scientific evidence. According to S.N. Dasgupta, "there
has seldom been before or after Buddha any serious attempt to prove or disprove
the doctrine of rebirth. The attempts to prove the doctrine of rebirth in the
Hindu philosophical works such as Nyaya, etc. are slight and inadequate."
[89]
However, even before Buddha, Lokayat had disproved the existence of soul, life
after death, rebirth, heaven and hell on an empirical basis, as these things
are never perceived. [90]
Thus, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to believe
that each one of us has got one and only one life . Once a person is dead, he
is dead for ever. Never to be reborn. Mind, consciousness, memory and life
cannot outlast the destruction of brain and body. This is the harsh truth;
howsoever we may dislike it.
The belief in soul seems to have originated from primitive animism. [91] If
this belief continues to persist, in spite of total lack of evidence in its
support, it is only because of human beings' inability to come to terms with,
or to squarely face, the reality of death. One likes to believe that one's near
and dear ones, who are dead and finished forever, actually continue to live in
some other imaginary world, and that they will also be reborn one day. One
draws comfort from the thought that one will not die even after death, and
continue to live in some other form. It is paradoxical that, first, the fear of
death and love of life makes one readily accept the belief in the immortality
and rebirth of soul without adequate evidence, and, then, getting rid of this
alleged cycle of birth and death itself becomes the topmost religious aim! [92]
The problem of getting "released" from the alleged cycle of birth and
death is a pseudo-problem (in the sense that one is trying to get rid of
something which simply does not exist) and moksha is an imaginary ideal which
has nothing to do with the reality. Instead of running after the imaginary
ideal of moksha, it is far better to concentrate on improving and living well
this one and only life, which we have.
Mimamsa, which is an orthodox Hindu school of thought, considers attainment of
heaven ( swarga), instead of moksha, as the highest end of life. References to
heaven and hell are also to be found in the Manusmriti. The belief in heaven is
fairly widespread at popular level. However, the ideal of the attainment of
heaven, too, is based on unproved assumptions, like life after death and the
existence of heaven, and, therefore, it cannot be accepted.
Another related doctrine is the Hindu belief in karmavada or the so-called law
of karma. According to this doctrine, every human being gets the fruits of his
actions either in the present or in some future life. Whatever a human being is
in his present life is the result of his own actions in the past life or lives.
This, again, is a totally unverified and unverifiable doctrine based on the
assumption of the "cycle of birth and death". It is only a convenient
tool for explaining away the perceived inequality in human society. The idea of
karma is found in Buddhism and Jainism as well. However, these religions do not
support varna-vyavastha. But in Hinduism the doctrine of karma, along with the
idea of god, has been used for providing ideological support to the unjust
varna-vyavastha and for making it appear just and fair. In Hinduism the
so-called law of karma merely serves the purpose of legitimizing the unjust
varna-vyavastha by making the Shudras and the "untouchables" meekly
accept their degrading position as a "result of their own deeds" in
imaginary past lives, and by assuring them "better" birth in
"next life" if they faithfully perform their varna-dharma in their
present lives. [93] In this way, this doctrine prevents them from revolting
against this man-made undemocratic system, which has nothing to do with alleged
past and future lives.
Lastly, I come to the Hindu doctrine of avatarvada. According to this doctrine,
whenever religion is threatened in this world, god takes birth as an avatar to
put things back into order. Ram and Krishna, for example, are popularly
regarded as avatars by the Hindus.
Belief in avatarvada, too, is logically unjustifiable and merely makes one run
away from one's own responsibilities. Instead of making efforts to improve
their own condition, those who believe in avatarvada keep waiting for an avatar
to take birth. Since god does not exist, there is no question of his being born
on this earth as an avatar. (Let me add here that I also do not believe in the
truth of statements like "Jesus is the son of god" or "Mohammed
is the messenger of god".)
Not only I do not regard Ram or Krishna (or anyone else) as an avatar of god, I
also do not regard them as ideal personalities. Ram, as mentioned earlier, was
on upholder, of the varna-vyavastha. His cruel behavior with Sita, after
fighting a destructive war with Ravana to get her released, is too well known
to need recapitulation. [94]
Krishna, on the other hand, is portrayed in the Mahabharata as the teacher of
Bhagvat Gita , a book which expounds untrue and harmful doctrines like the
belief in god and immortal soul, avatarvada, karmavada, varnashram dharma and
the doctrine of moksha.
In Mahabharata Krishna adopts and advocates adoption of unfair means like lying
and deception for achieving one's ends. Obviously, he did not believe in the
doctrine of purity of ends and means. There are several flaws in the character
of Krishna as portrayed in the Mahabharata, Bhagvat and Harivamsa. These have
been ably enumerated by Dr. Ambedkar in his The Riddle of Ram and Krishna . I
refer the interested reader to this work for a fuller treatment of this
subject. [95]
Conclusion
To conclude, I categorically reject major Hindu religious beliefs including the
doctrine of the infallibility of the Vedas, varnashram dharma , moksha,
karmavada, and avatarvada. I am not an admirer of Ram and Krishna, and I also
do not believe in idol worship or the Hindu taboo of not eating beef. I support
logical and scientific thinking; and a secular, rational morality based on
human values of liberty, equality and fraternity. Therefore, I am not a Hindu
by conviction, though I am a Hindu by birth.
Endnotes
[1] S. Radhakrishnan, The Hindu View of Life (Bombay: Blackie & Son (India)
Ltd., 1979), p. 12.
[2] Ibid., p. 14.
[3] Ibid., pp. 16-17.
[4] M.K.Gandhi, "Aspects of Hinduism" in Hindu Dharma (New Delhi:
Orient Paperbacks, 1978), p. 9.
[5] Ninian Smart, "Hinduism" in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed.
in chief, Paul Edwards) Vol. IV (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. &
The Free Press, 1972), p.1.
[6] S.N.Dasgupta , A History of Indian Philosophy , Vol. 1 (Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass, 1975), pp. 67-68.
[7] Chatterjee and Datta, An Introduction to Indian Philosophy .
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] S.N.Dasgupta, Op. Cit., p. 394.
[11] I have discussed the question of the existence of god in my small Hindi
book Kya Ishwar Mar Chuka Hai? (Patna: Bihar Buddhiwadi Samaj, 1985, 1995).
See, Is God Dead? (An introduction to Kya ishwar mar chuka hai? ) [Patna:
Buddhiwadi Foundation, 1998]
[12] M.K.Gandhi, "Aspects of Hinduism" in Hindu Dharma , pp. 9-10.
[13] A.L.B., "History of Hinduism" in The New Encyclopaedia
Britannica , Vol. 8 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1981), pp.
910-11.
[14] B.R. Ambedkar , Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Vol. 4,
Riddles in Hinduism (Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra,
1987), p. 332.
[15] Y.Masih, The Hindu Religious Thought (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983),
pp. 192-93.
[16] Bhagvad-Gita I: 40,41, 42,43.
[17] B.G. IV: 13.15.
[18] Y.Masih, Op.Cit., p.208, Also see, pp. 224-25.
[19] V.P.Verma, Modern Indian Political Thought (Agra: Lakshmi Narain Agarwal,
1991), pp. 50-51.
[20] Manusmriti (MS) I: 31.
[21] MS I:58.
[22] MS I:88.
[23] MS I:89.
[24] MS I: 90.
[25] MS I: 91.
[26] MS I: 93, Also see, X: 3.
[27] MS I: 95.
[28] MS I: 101.
[29] MS I: 103.
[30] MS II: 10,13.
[31] MS II: 11.
[32] MS VIII: 410.
[33] MS X: 96. Also see, Kautilya, Arthshastra I: 3, Quoted by J.N. Farquhar in
An Outline of the Religious Literature of India ( Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,
1984), p. 44.
[34] MS II: 135.
[35] MS VIII: 272.
[36] MS VIII: 281.
[37] MS II: 67.
[38] MS V: 154.
[39] MS V: 168,157.
[40] MS IX: 3.
[41] MS IX: 2.
[42] MS V: 147.
[43] MS V: 148.
[44] MS VIII: 379.
[45] MS VIII: 123.
[46] MS VIII: 364.
[47] MS VIII: 366.
[48] MS VIII: 412.
[49] MS VIII: 413.
[50] MS VIII: 268.
[51] MS VIII: 267.
[52] MS XI: 131.
[53] MS II: 31,32.
[54] MS II: 127.
[55] MS III: 111,112.
[56] MS VIII: 88.
[57] MS V: 92.
[58] MS VIII: 142.
[59] MS III: 4.
[60] MS III: 12.
[61] MS III: 14,15,16,17,18,19.
[62] MS X: 4.
[63] MS X: 25.
[64] MS X: 8.
[65] MS X: 12.
[66] Ibid.
[67] MS X: 50,51,52.
[68] MS X: 54,55.
[69] MS X: 53.
[70] MS X: 54.
[71] MS II: 168.
[72] MS VIII: 414.
[73] MS II: 113; X: 1.
[74] MS II: 116.
[75] MS II: 11.
[76] MS IV: 30.
[77] MS III: 65.
[78] MS VIII: 22.
[79] MS III:150, 161; IX: 225. From a humanist point of view, there is nothing
wrong in being born as a Shudra or a Chandala, but in the context of the
Manusmriti, these are abusive epithets.
[80] Manusmriti (Varanasi: Chaukhambha Sanskrit Sansthan, 1982), pp. 10-11.
[81]A.K.Warder, Indian Buddhism (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1980),p.163.
[82] Y.Masih, The Hindu Religious Thought, pp. 336-37.
[83] Nirmal Kumar Bose, Selections from Gandhi ( Ahmedabad: Navajivan
Publishing House, 1972), p. 265.
[84] Ibid., p. 263.
[85] M.Haralambos, Sociology Themes and Perspectives (Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 1980) pp. 27-28.
[86] N.K.Bose, Op.Cit., p. 266.
[87] Louis Fischer, Gandhi (New York: New American Library, 1954), pp. 111-12,
Also see, N.K.Bose, Op.Cit., p. 267.
[88] B.G. II: 20-25.
[89] S.N. Dasgutpa, A History of Indian Philosophy , Vol. I, p. 87.
[90] Chatterjee and Datta. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy .
[91] See M.N.Roy, "The Transmigration of Soul" in India's Message (
Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1982), pp. 4-6.
[92] Probably "the cycle of life and death" is considered
"bondage" because it will presumably lead to death again and again.
So, primarily the doctrine of liberation seems to be a reaction against death.
[93] "Those whose conduct has been pleasing will quickly attain a pleasing
birth, the birth of a Brahman or a Kshatriya, or a Vaisya; but those whose
conduct has been abominable, will quickly attain abominable birth, the birth of
a dog, or a hog, or an Outcaste." Brihadaranyaka, quoted by J.N. Farquhar,
An Outline of the Religious Literature of India , p. 34, Also see,
S.N.Dasgupta, Op. Cit., p. 363.
[94] See, my "Why I do not want Ramrajya" in Why I am Not a Hindu
& Why I do not want Ramrajya (Patna: Bihar Rationalist Society, 1995).
[95] B.R. Ambedkar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches , Vol. 4,
Riddles in Hinduism.
Riddle In Hinduism
THE DIFFICULTY OF KNOWING WHY
ONE IS A HINDU
India is a conjeries of communities. There are in it Parsis,Christians, Mohammedans and Hindus. The basis of
these communities is not racial. It is of course religious. This is a
superficial view. What is interesting to know is why is a Parsi aParsi and
why is a Christian a Christian, why is a Muslim a Muslim and why is a Hindu a
Hindu? With regard to the Parsi, the Christian and the Muslim it is smooth
sailing. Ask a Parsi why he calls himself a Parsi he will have no difficulty in
answering the question. He will say he is a Parsi because he is a follower ofZoraster. Ask the same question to a Christian.
He too will have no difficulty in answering the question. He is a Christian
because he believes in Jesus Christ. Put the same question to a Muslim. He too
will have no hesitation in answering it. He will say he is a believer in Islam
and that is why he is a Muslim.
Now
ask the same question to a Hindu and there is no doubt that he will be
completely bewildered and would not know what to say.
If he
says that he is a Hindu because he worships the same God as the Hindu Community
does his answer cannot be true. All Hindus do not worship one God. Some Hindus
are monotheists,some
are polytheists and some are pantheists. Even those
Hindus who are monotheists are not worshippers of the same Gods. Some worship
the God Vishnu, some Shiva, some Rama, some Krishna. Some do not worship the
male Gods. They worship a goddess. Even then they do not worship the same
Goddesses. They worship different
Goddesses. Some worship Kali, some worship Parvati, some worship Laxmi.
Coming to the Polytheists they worship
all the Gods. They will worship Vishnu and Shiva, also Rama and Krishna. They
will worship Kali, Parvati and Laxmi. A Hindu will fast on theShivaratri day
because it is sacred to Shiva. He will fast onEkadashi day
because it is sacred to Vishnu. He will plant a Beltree
because it is sacred to Shiva and he will plant a Tulsibecause it is dear to Vishnu.
Polytheists
among the Hindus do not confine their homage to the Hindu Gods. No Hindu
hesitates to worship a Muslim Pir or a
Christian Goddess. Thousands of Hindus go to a Muslim Pir and
make offerings. Actually there are in some places Brahmins who own the office
of a hereditary priesthood of a Muslim Pir and wear a Muslim Pir's dress. Thousands of Hindus go to make
offerings to the Christian
Goddess Mant Mauli near Bombay.
The
worship of the Christian or Muslim Gods is only on occasions. But there are
more permanent transfer of religious allegiance. There are many so-called
Hindus whose religion has a strong Muhammadan content.
Notable amongst these are the followers of the strange Panchpiriya cult, who worship five Muhammadan
saints, of uncertain name and identity, and sacrifice cocks to them, employing
for the purpose as their priest a Muhammadan Dafali fakir.
Throughout India many Hindus make pilgrimages to Muhammadan shrines, such as
that of SakhiSarwar in
the Punjab.
Speaking of the Malkanas Mr. Blunt says that they are converted
Hindus of various castes belonging to Agra and the adjoining districts. chiefly Muttra, Ettah and Mainpuri. They are of Rajput, Jat and Bania descent. They are reluctant to describe
themselves as Musalmans, and
generally give their original caste name and scarcely recognize the name Malkana. Their names are Hindu; they mostly worship in Hindu temples: they
use the salutation Ram-Ram: they intermarry amongst themselves
only. On the other hand, they sometimes frequent a mosque, practise
circumcision and bury their dead: they will eat withMuhammadans if they are particular friends.
In Gujarat there are several similar communities
such as theMatia Kunbis, who call in Brahmans for their chief ceremonies, but are followers of the Pirana saint Imam Shah and
his successors, and bury their dead as do the Muhammadans: theSheikhadas at their weddings employ both Hindu
and a Muhammadan priest, and the Momans who
practise circumcision, bury their dead and read the Gujarati Koran, but in other respects
follow Hindu custom and ceremonial.
If he
says that "I am a Hindu because I hold to the beliefs
of the Hindus" his answer
cannot be right for here one is confronted with the fact that Hinduism has no
definite creed. The beliefs of persons who are by all
admitted
to be Hindus often differ morewidely
from each other than do those of Christians and Muhammadans. Limiting the issue
to cardinal beliefs the Hindus differ among themselves as to the beliefs which arc of cardinal importance.
Some say
that all the Hindu scriptures must beaccepted,
but some would
exclude
the Tantras, while others would regard only the Vedas as
of primary importance; some again think
that the sole
essential
is belief
in the doctrine ofkarma and
metempsychosis.
A complex congeries of creeds and
doctrines is Hinduism. It shelters within its portals monotheists, polytheists and pantheists; worshippers of the
great Gods Shiva and Vishnu or of their female counterparts,.as well as worshippers of the divine
mothers or the spirits of trees, rocks and streams and thetutelary village
deities; persons who propitiate their deity by all manner of bloody sacrifices, and persons
who will not only kill no living creature but who must not even use the word
'cut '; those
whose ritual consists mainly of prayers and hymns, and those who indulge in
unspeakable orgies in the name of religion; and a host of more or less
heterodox sectaries, many of whom deny the supremacy of the Brahmans, or at least have non-Brahmanical religious leaders.
If he says that he is a Hindu because he
observes the same customs as other Hindus do his answer cannot be true. For all
Hindus do not observe the same customs.
In the north near relatives are forbidden
to marry; but in the south cousin marriage is prescribed, and even closer
alliances are sometimes permitted. As a rule female chastity is highly valued,
but some communities set little store by it, at any rate prior to marriage, and
others make it a rule to dedicate one daughter to a life of religious
prostitution. In some parts the women move about freely; in others they are
kept secluded. In some parts they wear skirts; in others trousers.
Again if he said that he is a Hindu
because he believes in the caste system his answer cannot be accepted as
satisfactory. It is quite true that no Hindu is interested in what his
neighbour believes, but he is very much interested in knowing whether he can
eat with him or take water from his hands. In other words it means that the caste
system is an essential feature of Hinduism and a man who does not belong to a
recognized Hindu Caste cannot be a Hindu. While all
this is true it must not be forgotten that
observance of caste is not enough. Many Musalmans and many Christians observe caste if
not in the matter of inter-diningcertainly
in the matter of inter-marriage. But they cannot be called Hindus on
that account. Both elements must be present. He must be a Hindu and he must
also observe caste. This brings us back to the old question who is a Hindu? It
leaves us where we are.
Is it
not a question for every Hindu to consider why in the matter of his own
religion his position is so embarrassing and so puzzling?
Why is he not able to answer so simple a question which every Parsi, every
Christian, and every Muslim can answer? Is it not time that he should ask
himself what are the causes that has brought about this Religious chaos ?
THE
ORIGIN OF THE VEDAS—
THE
BRAHMINIC EXPLANATION OR AN EXERCISE IN THE ART OF CIRCUMLOCUTION
There is hardly any Hindu who does not
regard the Vedas as the most sacred Book of his religion. And yet ask any Hindu
what is the origin of the Vedas and it would be difficult to find one who can
give a clear and a definite answer to the simple question. Of course, if the
question was addressed to a Vedic Brahmin he would say that the Vedas are
Sanatan. But this is no answer to the question. For first of all what does the
word Sanatan means?
The best explanation of the word Sanatan is to be found in the Commentary by
Kalluka Bhatt on Chapter I Shiokas 22-23 of the Manu Smriti. This is what
Kulluka Bhatt defines the word Sanatan* .
We have found 72 pages
dealing with the subject " Origin of the Vedas ". These pages were neither arranged
properly nor paged either by the typist or by
the author. We have attempted to organize and arrange all these loose papers
systematically and divide them into the Riddle No, 2 to 6, in accordance with
the arrangement given in the Table of contents. It is difficult to assume that
all these pages are complete in the treatment of the subject of each Chapter.
(There is, however, one
independent chapter containing 61 pages under the title 'Riddle of the Vedas
'placed as Appendix I. That essay deals with all the subjects mentioned in the
Table of Contents at Sr. No. 2 to 6 in a consolidated manner. Several paras may
be found repeated in that essay. The original MS of the chapters 2 to 6
included here hears corrections and modifications in the handwriting of the
author, whereas the Chapter included as Appendix I is a typed second copy
having no corrections at all. We have followed the chronology of the Table of
contents and the pages of corrected MS are arranged accordingly.)
"The word Sanatana he says, means
'eternally pre-existing'. The doctrine of the superhuman origin of the Vedas is
maintained by Manu. The same Vedas which (existed) in the previous mundane era
(Kalpa) were preserved in the memory of the omniscient Brahma, who was one with
the supreme spirit. It was those same Vedas that, in the beginning of the
present Kalpa, he drew forth from Agni, Vayu and Surya; and this dogma, which
is founded upon the Veda, is not to be questioned, for the Veda says, 'the
Rig-Veda comes from Agni, the Yajur-Veda from Vayu, and the Sama-Veda from Surya. " To understand the
explanation by Kulluka Bhatt it is necessary to explain what Kalpa
means.
A Kalpa is a reckoning of time adopted by
the Vedic Brahmins. The Brahmanic
reckoning of time divides time into (1) Varsha, (2) Yuga, (3) Mahayuga, (4)
Manvantara and (5) Kalpa.
Varsha is easy enough to understand. It
corresponds to the term year.
What exactly the period of time covered
by the term Yuga covers there is no unanimity.
A Mahayuga is a period covered by a group
of four Yugas: (1) Krita Yuga, (2) Treta Yuga, (3) Dwapar Yuga and (4) Kali
Yuga. The four Yugas follow one another in a cycle, when the period of the
first Yuga is spent it is followed by the second and so on in the order given.
When the cycle is complete one Mahayuga is completed and a new Mahayuga opens.
Every Mahayuga begins with the Krita Yuga and ends with Kali Yuga.
There is no uncertainty as to the time
relation of a Mahayuga and a Kalpa. 71 Mahayugas make one Kalpa. There is
however some uncertainty as to the time relation between Mahayuga and
Manvantara. A Manvantara is equal to 71 Mahayugas "and something
more"'. What exact period of time that 'something more' means, the
Brahmins have not been able to state categorically. Consequently the time
relation between Manvantara and Kalpa is uncertain.
But this does not matter very much for
our present purposes. For the present it is enough to confine our attention to
Kalpa.
The idea underlying ' Kalpa ' is closely
connected with the creation and dissolution of the Universe. The creation of
the world is called Srashti. The dissolution of the universe is
calledPralaya. Time
between Srashti and Pralaya is called Kalpa. The idea of the origin of the Vedas is
thus more intimately connected with the idea of Kalpa.
According to this scheme of things, what
is supposed to happen is that when a Kalpa begins creation begins. With the
beginning of the creation there comes into being a new series of Vedas. What
Kulluka Bhatt wants to convey is that though in a sense every new Kalpa has a
new series of Vedas the same old Vedas are reproduced by Brahma from his
memory. That is why he says the Vedas are Sanatan i.e., eternally pre-existing.
What Kalluka Bhatt says is that the Vedas
are reproduced from memory. The real question is who made them and not who
reproduced them. Even if one accepts the theory of reproduction at the
beginning of each Kalpa the question still remains who made the Vedas when the
First Kalpa began. The Vedas could not have come into being ex-nihilo. They must have a beginning though they
may have no end. Why don't the Brahmins say openly? Why this circumlocution?
CASTES IN INDIA, Their
Mechanism, Genesis and Development
Anthropology Seminar
of
Dr. A. A. Goldenweizer at
The
Columbia University, New York,
U.S.A. on 9th May 1916
Source: Indian Antiquary, May 1917, Vol. XLI
Many
of us, I dare say, have witnessed local, national or international expositions of material
objects that make up the sum total of human civilization. But few can entertain
the idea of there being such a thing as an exposition of human institutions.
Exhibition of human institutions is a strange idea; some
might call it the wildest of ideas. But as students of Ethnology I hope you
will not be hard on this innovation, for it is not so, and to you at least it
should not be strange.
You
all have visited, I believe, some historic place like the ruins ofPompeii, and listened with curiosity to the
history of the remains as it flowed from the glib tongue of the guide. In my
opinion a student of Ethnology, in one sense at least, is much like the guide.
Like his prototype, he holds up (perhaps with more seriousness and desire of
self-instruction) the social institutions to view, with all the objectiveness
humanly possible,
and inquires into their origin and function.
Most
of our fellow students in this Seminar, which concerns itself with primitive versus modern society, have ably acquitted themselves along these lines by
giving lucid expositions of the various institutions, modern or primitive, in
which they are interested. It is my turn now, this evening, to entertain you,
as best I can, with a paper on " Castes
in India: Their mechanism, genesis and development "
I need
hardly remind you of the complexity of the subject I intend to handle. Subtler minds and abler pens than mine have been brought to
the task of unravelling the mysteries of Caste; but unfortunately it still, remains in the domain of
the " unexplained ", not to say
of the "un-understood " I am quite alive to the complex intricacies of a hoary institution like
Caste, but I am net so
pessimistic as to relegate it tothe region of the unknowable, for I
believe it can be known. The caste problem is a vast one, both theoretically and practically.
Practically, it is an institution that portends tremendous consequences. It is
a local problem, but one
capable of much wider mischief, for " as long as
caste in India does exist, Hindus will hardly intermarry or have any social
intercourse with outsiders ; and if Hindus migrate to other regions on earth,
Indian caste would become a world problem." Theoretically, it has defied a great
many scholars who have taken upon themselves, as a labour of love, to dig into
its origin. Such being the case, I cannot treat the problem in its entirety.
Time, space and acumen, I am afraid, would all fail me, if I
attempted to do otherwise than limit myself to a phase of it, namely, the
genesis, mechanism and spread of the caste system. I will strictly observe this
rule, and will dwell on extraneous matters only when it is necessary to clarify
or support a point in my thesis.
To proceed
with the subject. According to well-known ethnologists,the population of India is a mixture of Aryans, Dravidians, Mongolians
and Scythians. All these stocks of people came into India from various
directions and with various cultures, centuries ago, when they were in a tribal
state. They all in turn elbowed their entry into the country by fighting with
their predecessors, and after a stomachful of it settled down as peaceful
neighbours. Through constant contact and mutual intercourse they evolved a
common culture that superseded their distinctive cultures. It may be granted that
there has not been a thorough amalgamation of the various stocks that make up
the peoples of India,
and to a traveller from within the boundaries of India the East presents a
marked contrast in physique and even in colour to the West, as does the South
to the North. But amalgamation can never be the sole criterion of homogeneity
as predicated of any people. Ethnically all people are heterogeneous. It is the
unity of culture that is the basis of homogeneity. Taking this for granted, I
venture to say that there is no country that can rival the Indian Peninsula
with respect to the unity of its culture. It has not only a geographic unity,
but it has over and above all a deeper and a much more fundamental unity—the
indubitable cultural unity that covers the land from end to end. But it is
because of this homogeneity that Caste becomes a problem so difficult to be
explained. If the Hindu Society were a mere federation of mutually exclusive
units, the matter would be simple enough. But Caste is a parcelling of an
already homogeneous unit, and the explanation of the genesis of Caste is the
explanation of this process of parcelling.
Before launching into our field of
enquiry, it is better to advise ourselves regarding the nature of a
caste. I will therefore draw upon a few of the best students of caste for their
definitions of it :
(1) Mr. Senart, a
French authority, defines a caste as " a close corporation, in theory at any
rate rigorously hereditary :equipped
with a certain traditional and independent organisation, including a chief and
a council, meeting on occasion in assemblies of more or less plenary authority and joining
together at certain
festivals : bound together by common occupations,
which relate more particularly to marriage and to food and to questions of
ceremonial pollution, and ruling its members by the exercise of jurisdiction,
the extent of which varies, but which succeeds in making the authority of the
community more
felt by the sanction of detrain penalties and, above all, by final irrevocable exclusion from the group ".
(2)
Mr. Nesfield defines a caste as "a class of the
community which disowns any connection with any other
class and can neither intermarry nor eat nor drink with
any but persons
of their own community ".
(3) According to Sir H. Risley, " a
caste may be defined as a collection of families or groups of families bearing
a common name which usually denotes or is associated with specific occupation,
claiming common descent from a mythical ancestor, human or divine, professing to follow the same
professional callings and are regarded by those who are competent to give an
opinion as forming a single homogeneous community ".
(4) Dr. Ketkar defines
caste as " a social group having two characteristics : (i) membership is confined to those who are
born of members and includes
all persons so born; (ii) the
members are forbidden by an inexorable social law to marry outside the group ".
To review these definitions is of great
importance for our purpose. It will be noticed
that taken individually the definitions of three of the writers include too much or too
little : none
is complete or correct by itself and all have missed the central point in the
mechanism of the Caste system. Their mistake lies in trying to define caste as
an isolated unit by itself, and not as a group within, and with definite
relations to, the system of caste as a whole. Yet collectively all of them are
complementary to one another, each one emphasising what has been
obscured in the other. By way of criticism, therefore, I will take only those points common to
all Castes in each of the above definitions which are regarded as peculiarities
of Caste and evaluate them as such.
To start
with Mr. Senart. He draws attention to the " idea of
pollution "as a characteristic of Caste. With regard to this
point it may be safely said that it is by no means a peculiarity of Caste as
such. It usually originates in priestly ceremonialism and is a
particular case of the general belief in purity. Consequently its necessary
connection with Caste may be completely denied without damaging the working of
Caste. The " idea of pollution " has been attached to the institution of Caste, only because
the Caste that enjoys the highest rank is the priestly Caste : while we
know that priest and purity are old associates. We may therefore conclude that
the "idea of pollution" is a characteristic of Caste only in so far
as Caste has a religious flavour.
Mr. Nesfield in his way dwells on the absence of
messing with those outside the Caste as one of its characteristics. In spite of
the newness of the point we must say that Mr. Nesfield has mistaken the effect
for the cause. Caste, being a self-enclosed unit naturally limits social
intercourse, including messing etc. to members within it. Consequently this
absence of messing with outsiders is not due to positive prohibition, but is a
natural result of Caste, i.e.exclusiveness.
No doubt this absence of messing originally due to exclusiveness, acquired the
prohibitory character of a religious injunction, but it may be regarded as a
later growth. Sir H. Risley,makes no new point deserving of special
attention.
We now pass on to the definition of Dr. Ketkar who
has done much for the elucidation of the subject. Not only is he a native, but
he has also brought a critical acumen and an open mind to bear on his study of
Caste. His definition merits consideration, for he has defined Caste in its
relation to a system of Castes, and has concentrated his attention only on
those characteristics which are absolutely necessary for the existence of a
Caste within a system, rightly excluding all others as being secondary or
derivative in character. With respect to his definition it must, however, be
said that in it there is a slight confusion of thought, lucid and clear as
otherwise it is. He speaks ofProhibition
of Intermarriage and Membership by Autogeny as the two characteristics of Caste. I
submit that these are but two aspects of one and the same thing, and not two
different things as Dr. Ketkarsupposes
them to be. If you prohibit intermarriage the result is that you limit
membership. to those born within the group. Thus the two are the obverse and
the reverse sides of the same medal.
This
critical evaluation of the various characteristics of Caste leave no doubt that
prohibition, or rather the absence of intermarriage—endogamy, to be concise—is
the only one that can be called the essence of Caste when rightly understood.
But some may deny this on abstract anthropological grounds, for there exist endogamousgroups without giving rise to the
problem of Caste. In a general way this may be true, as endogamous societies,
culturally different, making their abode in localities more or less removed,
and having little to do with each other are a physical reality. The Negroes and
the Whites and the various tribal groups that go by name of American Indians in
the United States may be cited as more or less appropriate illustrations in support
of this view. But we must not confuse matters, for in India the situation is
different. As pointed out before, the
peoples of India form a homogeneous whole. The
various races of India occupying definite territories have more or less fused
into one another and do possess cultural unity, which is the only criterion of
a homogeneous population. Given this homogeneity as a basis, Caste becomes a
problem altogether new in character and wholly absent in the situation
constituted by the mere propinquity of endogamous social or tribal groups.
Caste in India means an artificial chopping off of the population
into fixed and definite units, each one prevented from fusing into another
through the custom of endogamy. Thus the conclusion is inevitable that Endogamy is the only
characteristic that is peculiar to caste, and
if we succeed in showing how endogamy is maintained, we shall practically have
proved the genesis and also the mechanism of Caste.
It may not be quite easy for you to anticipate why I
regard endogamy as a key to the mystery of the Caste system. Not to strain your
imagination too much, I will proceed to give you my reasons for it. It may not
also be out of place to emphasize at this moment that no civilized society of
today presents more survivals of primitive times than does the Indian society.
Its religion is essentially primitive and its tribal code, in spite of the
advance of time and civilization, operates in all its pristine vigour even today.
One of these primitive survivals, to which I wish particularly to draw your
attention is theCustom of Exogamy. The
prevalence of exogamy in the primitive worlds is a fact too well-known to need any explanation. With the
growth of history, however, exogamy has lost its efficacy, and excepting the
nearest blood-kins, there is usually no social bar restricting the field of
marriage. But regarding the peoples of India the law of exogamy is a positive
injunction even today. Indian society still savours of the clan system, even
though there are no clans; and this can be easily seen from the
law of matrimony which centres round the principle of exogamy, for it is not
that Sapindas (blood-kins) cannot marry, but a
marriage even between Sagotras (of
the same class) is regarded as a sacrilege.
Nothing is therefore more important for you to
remember than the fact that endogamy is foreign to the people of India. The
variousGotras of India are and have been exogamous : so are the other groups with totemic organization. It is no
exaggeration to say that with the people of India exogamy is a creed and none
dare infringe it, so much so that, in spite of the endogamy of the Castes
within them, exogamy is strictly observed and that there are more rigorous
penalties for violating exogamy than there are for violating endogamy. You will, therefore, readily see that with
exogamy as the rule there could be no Caste, for exogamy means fusion. But we
have castes ; consequently
in the final analysis creation of Castes, so far as India is concerned, means
the superposition of endogamy on exogamy. However, in an originally exogamous population an easy working out of
endogamy (which is equivalent to the creation of Caste)
is a grave problem, and it is in the consideration of the means utilized for
the preservation of endogamy against exogamy that we may hope to
find the solution
of our problem.
Thus the superposition of
endogamy on exogamy means the creation of caste. But this is not an easy affair. Let us take an
imaginary group that desires to make itself into a
Caste and analyse what means it will have to adopt
to make itself endogamous. If
a group desires to make itself endogamous a
formal injunction against intermarriage with outside groups will be of no
avail, especially if prior to the introduction of endogamy, exogamy had been
the rule in all matrimonial relations. Again, there is a tendency in all groups
lying in close contact with one another to assimilate and amalgamate, and thus
consolidate into a homogeneous society. If this tendency is to be strongly
counteracted in the interest of Caste formation, it is absolutely necessary to circumscribe a circle outside which
people should not contract marriages.
Nevertheless, this encircling to prevent marriages
from without creates problems from within which are not very easy of solution.
Roughly speaking, in a normal group the two sexes are more or less evenly
distributed, and generally speaking there is an equality between those of the
same age. The equality is, however, never quite
realized in actual societies. At the same time to the group that is desirous of
making itself into a caste the maintenance of equality between the sexes
becomes the ultimate goal, for without it endogamy can no longer subsist. In
other words, if endogamy is to be preserved conjugal rights from within have to
be provided for, otherwise members of the group will be driven out of the
circle to take care of themselves in any way they can. But in order that
the conjugal rights be provided for from within, it is absolutely necessary to maintain
a numerical equality between
the marriageable units of the two sexes within the group desirous of making
itself into a Caste. It is only through the maintenance
of such an equality that the necessary endogamy of the group can be kept
intact, and a very large disparity is sure to break it.
The problem of Caste,
then, ultimately resolves itself into one of
repairing the disparity between the marriageable units of the two
sexes within it. Left
to nature, the much needed parity between the units can be realized only when a
couple dies simultaneously. But this is a rare contingency. The husband may die
before the wife and create a surplus
woman, who must be disposed
of, else through intermarriage she will violate the endogamy of the group. In
like manner the husband may survive, his wife and be surplus man,whom the group,
while it may
sympathise with him for the sad bereavement, has to dispose of, else he will
marry outside the Caste and will break the endogamy. Thus both the surplus man and thesurplus woman constitute a menace to the Caste
if not taken care of, for not finding suitable partners inside their prescribed
circle (and left to themselves they cannot find any, for if the matter be not
regulated there can only be just enough pairs to go round) very likely they
will transgress the boundary, marry outside and import offspring that is
foreign to the Caste.
First : burn
her on the funeral pyre of her deceased husband and get rid of her. This,
however, is rather an impracticable way of solving the problem of sex
disparity. In some cases it may work, in others it may not. Consequently every
surplus woman cannot thus be disposed of, because
it is an easy solution but a hard realization. And so the surplus woman (= widow), if not disposed of, remains in the group : but in
her very existence lies a double danger. She may
marry outside the Caste and violate endogamy, or she may marry within the Caste
and through competition encroach upon the chancesof
marriage that must be reserved for the potential brides in the Caste. She is
therefore a menace in any case, and something must be done to her if she cannot
be burned along with her deceased husband.
The second remedy is to enforce widowhood on her for
the rest of her life. So far as the objective results are concerned, burning is
a better solution than enforcing widowhood. Burning the widow eliminates all
the three evils that a surplus
woman is fraught with. Being
dead and gone she creates no problem of remarriage either inside or outside the
Caste. But compulsory widowhood is superior to burning because it is more
practicable. Besides being comparatively humane it also guards against the
evils of remarriage as does burning; but it fails to guard the morals of
the group. No doubt under compulsory widowhood the woman remains, and just
because she is deprived of her natural right of being a legitimate wife in future,
the incentive to immoral conduct is increased. But this is by no means an
insuperable difficulty. She can be degraded to a
condition in which she is no longer a source of allurement.
The problem of surplus
man (= widower) is much more important and
much more difficult than that of the surplus
woman in a group that desires
to make itself into a Caste. From time immemorial man as compared with woman
has had the upper hand. He is a dominant figure in every group and of the two
sexes has greater prestige. With this traditional
superiority of man over woman his wishes have always been consulted. Woman, on
the other hand, has been an easy prey to all kinds of iniquitous injunctions,
religious, social or economic. But man as a maker of injunctions is most often
above them all. Such being the case, you cannot accord the same kind of
treatment to a surplus man as you can to a surplus woman in a
Caste.
The project of burning him with his deceased wife is
hazardous in two ways : first
of all it cannot be done, simply because he is a
man. Secondly, if done, a sturdy soul is lost to the Caste. There remain then
only two solutions which can conveniently dispose of him. I say conveniently,
because he is an asset to the group.
Important as he is to the group, endogamy is still
more important, and the solution must assure both these ends. Under these
circumstances he may be forced or I should say induced, after the manner of the
widow, to remain a widower for the rest of his life. This solution is not
altogether difficult, for without any compulsion some are so disposed as to
enjoy self-imposed celibacy, or even to take a further step of their own accord
and renounce the world and its joys. But, given human nature as it is, this
solution can hardly be expected to be realized. On the other hand, as is very
likely to be the case, if the surplus man remains in the group as an active
participator in group activities, he is a danger to the morals of the group.
Looked at from a different point of view celibacy, though easy in cases where
it succeeds, is not so advantageous even then to the material prospects of the
Caste. If he observes genuine celibacy and renounces the world, he would not be
a menace to the preservation of Caste endogamy or Caste morals as he
undoubtedly would be if he remained a secular person. But as an ascetic
celibate he is as good as burned, so far as the material wellbeing of his Caste
is concerned. A Caste, in order that it may be large enough to afford a
vigorous communal life, must be maintained at a certain numerical strength. But
to hope for this and to proclaim celibacy is the same as trying to cure atrophy
by bleeding.
Imposing celibacy on the surplus man in the group, therefore, fails both theoretically
and practically. It is in the interest of the Caste to keep him as a Grahastha (one who raises a family), to use a
Sanskrit technical term. But the problem is to provide him with a wife from
within the Caste. At the outset this is not possible, for the ruling ratio in a
caste has to be one man to one woman and none can have two chances of marriage,
for in a Caste thoroughly self-enclosed there are always just enough marriageable women to go round for the marriageable men.
Under these circumstances the surplus
man can be provided with a
wife only by recruiting a bride from the ranks of
those not yet marriageable in order to tie him down to the group. This is
certainly the best of the possible solutions in the case of thesurplus man. By this, he is kept within the Caste.
By this means numerical depletion through constant outflow is guarded against,
and by this endogamy morals are preserved.
.jpg)
It will now be seen that the four means by which
numerical disparity between the two sexes is conveniently maintained are : (1)burning the widow with her deceased husband ; (2) compulsory widowhood—a milder form
of burning ; (3)
imposing celibacy on thewidower and (4) wedding him
to a girl not yet marriageable. Though, as I said above,
burning the widow and imposing celibacy on the widower are of doubtful service
to the group in its endeavour to preserve its endogamy, all of them operate as means. But means, as forces, when liberated
or set in motion create an end. What then is the
end that these means create? They create and perpetuateendogamy,
while caste and endogamy, according to our analysis of the various definitions
of caste, are one and the same thing. Thus the existence of these means is
identical with caste and caste involves these means.
This, in my opinion, is the general mechanism of a
caste in a system of castes. Let us now turn from these high generalities to
the castes in Hindu Society and inquire into their mechanism. I need hardly
premise that there are a great many pitfalls in the path of those who try to
unfold the past, and caste in India to be sure is a very ancient institution.
This is especially true where there exist no authentic or written records or
where the people, like the Hindus, are so constituted that to them writing
history is a folly, for the world is an illusion. But institutions do live,
though for a long time they may remain unrecorded and as often as not customs
and morals are like fossils that tell their own history. If this is true, our
task will be amply rewarded if we scrutinize the solution the Hindus arrived at
to meet the problems of the surplus
man and surplus woman.
Complex though it be in its general
working the Hindu Society, even to a superficial observer, presents three
singular uxorialcustoms,
namely :
(i) Sati or the burning of the widow on the
funeral pyre of her deceased husband. (ii) Enforced
widowhood by which a widow is not allowed to remarry. (iii) Girl marriage.
In addition, one also notes a great hankering after Sannyasa(renunciation)
on the part of the widower, but this may in some cases be due purely to psychic
disposition.
So far as I know, no scientific explanation of the
origin of thesecustoms is forthcoming even today.
We have plenty of philosophy to tell us why these customs were honoured, but
nothing to tell us the causes of their origin and existence. Sati has been honoured (Cf. A.K. Coomaraswamy, Sati: A Defence of the Eastern Woman in
the British Sociological Review,
Vol. VI, 1913) because it is a" proof of the perfect unity of body and
soul " between husband and wife and of" devotion
beyond the grave ", because
it embodied the ideal ofwifehood, which is well expressed by Uma when she said, " Devotion to her Lord is woman's
honour, it is her eternal heaven : and 0Maheshvara ", she
adds with a most touching human cry, " I
desire not paradise itself if thou are not satisfied with me ! " Why compulsory widowhood is honoured I
know not, nor have I yet met with any one who sang in praise of it, though
there are a great many who adhere to it. The eulogy in honour of girl marriage
is reported by Dr. Ketkar to
be as follows : " A
really faithful man or woman oughtnot to feel
affection for a woman or a man other than the one with whom he or she is
united. Such purity is compulsory not only after marriage, but even before
marriage, for that is the only correct ideal of chastity. No maiden could be
considered pure if she feels love for a man other than the one to whom she
might be married. As she does not know to whom she is going to be married, she
must not feel affection, for any man at all before marriage. If
she does so, it is a sin. So it is better for a girl to know whom she has to
love before anysexual consciousness has been
awakened in her" [f.2] . Hence girl marriage.
This high-flown and ingenious sophistry indicates why
these institutions were honoured, but does not tell us why they were practiced.
My own interpretation is that they were honoured because they were practiced.
Any one slightly acquainted with rise ofindividualism in the 18th century will appreciate my
remark. At all times, it is the movement that is most important; and
the philosophies grow around it long afterwards to justify it and give it a
moral support. In like manner I urge
that the very fact that these customs were so highly
eulogized proves that they needed eulogy for their
prevalence. Regarding the question as to why they arose, I submit that they
were needed to create the structure of caste and the philosophies in honour of
them were intended to popularise them, or to gild the pill, as we might say,
for they must have been so abominable and shocking to the moral sense of the
unsophisticated that they needed a great deal of sweetening. These customs are
essentially of the nature of means, though they are represented as ideals.
But this should not blind us from understanding the resultsthat flow from them. One
might safely say that idealization of means is necessary and in this particular
case was perhaps motivated to endow them with greater efficacy. Calling a means
an end does no harm, except that it disguises its real character; but it
does not deprive it of its real nature, that of a means. You may pass a law
that all cats are dogs, just as you can call a means an end. But you can no
more change the nature of means thereby than you can turn cats into dogs ; consequently I am justified in holding
that, whether regarded
as ends or as means, Sati, enforced
widowhood and girl marriage are customs that were primarily intended
to solve the problem of the surplus
man and surplus woman in a caste and to maintain its
endogamy. Strict endogamy could not be preserved without these customs, while
caste without endogamy is a fake.
Having explained the mechanism of the creation and
preservation of Caste in India, the further question as to its genesis
naturally arises. The question or origin is always an annoying question and in the
study of Caste it is sadly neglected; some have connived at it, while others
have dodged it. Some are puzzled as to whether there could be such a thing as
the origin of caste and suggest that " if
we cannot control our fondness for the word ' origin ', we should better use the plural form,
viz. ' origins of caste ' ". As
for myself I do not feel puzzled by the Origin of Caste in India for, as I have
established before, endogamy is the only characteristic of Caste and when I sayOrigin
of Caste I mean The Origin
of the Mechanism for Endogamy.
The atomistic conception of individuals in a Society so greatly
popularised— I was about to say vulgarised—in political orations is the
greatest humbug. To say that individuals make up society is trivial ; society is always composed of classes.
It may be an exaggeration to assert the theory of
class-conflict, but the existence of definite
classes in a society is a fact. Their basis may differ. They may be economic or
intellectual or social, but an individual in a society is always a
member of a class. This is a universal fact and early Hindu society could not
have been an exception to this rule, and, as a matter of fact, we know it was
not. If we bear this generalization in mind, our study of the genesis of caste
would be very much facilitated, for we have only to determine what was the
class that first made itself into a caste, for
class and caste, so to say, are next door neighbours, and it is only a span
that separates the two. A
Caste is an Enclosed Class.
The study of the origin of caste must furnish us with
an answer to the question—what is the class that raised this " enclosure " around itself ? The question may seem too
inquisitorial, but it is pertinent, and an answer to this will serve us to
elucidate the mystery of the growth and development of castes all over India- Unfortunately
a direct answer to this question is not within my power. I can answer it only indirectly. I said just above that the
customs in question were current in the Hindu society. To be true to facts it
is necessary to qualify the statement, as it connotes universality of their
prevalence. These customs in all their strictness are obtainable only in one
caste, namely the Brahmins, who occupy the highest place in the social
hierarchy of the Hindu society ; and as
their prevalence in non-Brahmin castes
is derivative of their observance is neither strict nor complete. This
important fact can serve as a basis of an important observation. If the
prevalence of these customs in the non-Brahmin Castes is derivative, as
can be shown very easily, then it needs no argument to prove what class is the father
of the institution of caste. Why the Brahmin class should have enclosed itself
into a caste is a different question, which may be left as an employment for
another occasion. But the strict observance of
these customs and the social superiority arrogated by the priestly class in all
ancient civilizations are sufficient to prove that they were the originators of
this "unnatural
institution " founded
and maintained through these unnatural means.
I now come to the third part of my paper regarding the
question of the growth and spread of the caste system all over India. The
question I have to answer is : How
did the institution of caste spread among the rest of the non-Brahmin
population of the country? The question of the spread of the
castes all over India has suffered a worse fate than the question of genesis.
And the main cause, as it seems to me, is that the two questions of spread and
of origin are not separated. This is because of the common belief among scholars that the caste system has either been
imposed upon the docile population of India by a law-giver as a divine
dispensation, or that it has grown according to some law of social growth
peculiar to
the Indian people.
I first propose to handle the law-giver of India.
Every country has its law-giver, who arises as an incarnation (avatar) in times of emergency to set right a
sinning humanity and give it the laws of justice and morality. Manu, the law-giver of India, if he did
exist, was certainly an audacious person. If the story that he gave the law of
caste be credited, then Manu must have been a dare-devil fellow
and the humanity that accepted his dispensation
must be a humanity quite different from the one we are acquainted with. It is
unimaginable that the law of caste was given. It is hardly an exaggeration to say
that Manu could not have outlived his law, for what is that class that can
submit to be degraded to the status of brutes by the pen of a man, and suffer
him to raise another class tothe
pinnacle ? Unless he was a tyrant who held all the population in subjection it cannot be imagined
that he could have been allowed to dispense his patronage in this grossly
unjust manner, as may be easily seen by a mere glance at his " Institutes ". I may seem hard on Manu, but I
am sure my force is not strong enough to kill his ghost. He lives, like a
disembodied spirit and is appealed to, and I am afraid will yet live long. One
thing I want to impress upon you is that Manu did not give the law of
Caste and that he could not do so. Caste existed long before Manu. He was an
upholder of it and therefore philosophised about it, but certainly he did not
and could not ordain the present order of Hindu Society. His work ended with
the codification of existing caste rules and the
preaching of CasteDharma. The spread and growth of the
Caste system is too gigantic a task to be achieved by the power or cunning of
an individual or of a class. Similar in argument is the theory that the
Brahmins created the Caste. After what I have said regarding Manu, I need hardly
say anything more, except to point out that it is incorrect in thought and
malicious in intent. The Brahmins may have been guilty of many things, and I
dare say they were, but the imposing of the caste system on the non-Brahmin population was beyond their mettle.
They may have helped the process by their glib philosophy, but they certainly
could not have pushed their scheme beyond their own confines. To fashion
society after one's own pattern ! How
glorious !How
hard ! One can take pleasure and eulogize its
furtherance; but
cannot further it very far. The vehemence of my attack may seem to be
unnecessary ; but I
can assure you that it is not uncalled for. There is a strong belief in the
mind of orthodox Hindus that the Hindu Society was somehow moulded into the
framework of the Caste System and that it is an organization consciously created by theShastras. Not
only does this belief exist, but it is being justified on the ground that it
cannot but be good, because it is ordained by theShastras and the Shastras cannot be wrong. I have urged so much
on the adverse side of this attitude, not because the religious sanctity is
grounded on scientific basis, nor to help those reformers who are preaching
against it. Preaching did not make the caste system neither will it unmake it.
My aim is to show the falsity of the attitude that has exalted religious
sanction to the position of a scientific
explanation.
Thus the
great man theory does not help us very far in solving the spread of castes in
India. Western scholars, probably not much given to hero-worship, have
attempted other explanations. The nuclei, round which have " formed " the various castes in India, are,
according to them: (1) occupation; (2) survivals of tribal
organization etc.; (3) the rise of new belief; (4) cross-breeding
and (5) migration.
The question may be asked whether these nuclei do not
exist in other societies and whether they are peculiar to India. If they are
not peculiar to India, but are common to the world, why is it that they did not " form " caste
on other parts of this planet ? Is it
because those parts are holier than the land of the Vedas, or that the professors are mistaken ? I am
afraid that the latter
is the truth.
In spite of the high theoretic value
claimed by the several authors for their
respective
theories based on one or other of the above nuclei, one regrets to say that on
close examination they are nothing more than filling illustrations—
what Matthew Arnold means by " the grand name without the grand thing
in it ". Such are the various theories of caste
advanced by Sir Denzil lbbetson, Mr. Nesfield, Mr. Senart and
Sir H. Risley. To criticise them in a lump would be
to say that they are a disguised form of the Petitio Principii of
formal logic. To illustrate : Mr.
Nesfield says that " function
and function only. . . was the foundation upon which the
whole system of Castes in India was built up ". But
he may rightly be reminded that he does not very much advance our thought by making the above statement, which practically
amounts to saying that castes in India are functional or occupational, which is
a very poor discovery ! We
have yet to know from Mr. Nesfield why is it that an occupational group turned
into an occupational caste ? I
would very cheerfully have undertaken the task of dwelling on the theories of
otherethnologists, had it not been for the fact that Mr. Nesfield's is a typical one.
Without
stopping to criticize those theories that explain the caste system as a natural
phenomenon occurring in obedience to the law of disintegration, as explained by
Herbert Spencer in his formula of evolution, or as natural as " the structural differentiation within
an organism "—to employ the phraseology of orthodox
apologists—, or
as an early attempt to test the laws of eugenics—as all belonging to the same
class of fallacy which regards the caste system as inevitable, or as being
consciously imposed in anticipation of these laws
on a helpless and humble population, I will now lay before you my own view on
the subject.
We shall be well advised to recall at the outset that
the Hindu society, in common with other societies, was composed of classes and
the earliest known
are
the (1) Brahmins or the priestly class; (2) the Kshatriya, or the military class ; (3) the Vaishya, or the merchant class and (4) theShudra, or
the artisan and menial class. Particular attention has to be paid to the fact
that this was essentially a class system, in which
individuals, when qualified, could change their class, and therefore classes did
change their personnel. At some time in the history
of the Hindus, the priestly class socially detached itself from the rest of the
body of people and through a closed-door policy became a caste by itself . The
other classes being subject to the law of social division of labour underwent differentiation, some into large, others
into very minute groups. The Vaishya and Shudra classes
were the original inchoate plasm, which formed the sources of the numerous
castes of today. As the military occupation does
not very easily lend itself to very minute sub-division,
the Kshatriya class could have differentiated into soldiers and administrators.
This sub-division of a society is quite natural. But
the unnatural thing about these sub-divisions is that they have lost the open-door character
of the class system and have become self-enclosed units called castes. The
question is: were
they compelled to close their doors and become endogamous, of did they close them of their own
accord ? I submit that there is a double line
of answer: Some closed the door : Others found it closed against them. The one is a psychological interpretation and the other is mechanistic, but they
are complementary and both are necessary to explain
the phenomena of caste-formation in its entirety.
I will first take up the psychological interpretation.
The question we have to answer in this connection
is: Why
did these sub-divisions or classes, if you please, industrial, religious or
otherwise, become self-enclosed or endogamous ? My
answer is because the Brahmins were so. Endogamy or
the closed-door system, was a fashion in the Hindu society, and as it had
originated from the Brahmin caste it was whole-heartedly imitated by all the non-Brahmin sub-divisions or classes, who, in
their turn, became endogamous castes. It is " the
infection of imitation " that
caught all these sub-divisions on their onward march of differentiation and has
turned them into castes. The propensity to imitate is a deep-seated one in the
human mind and need not be deemed an inadequate explanation for the formation
of the various castes in India. It is so deep-seated that Walter Bagehotargues that, " We must not think of . . . imitation as voluntary, or even
conscious. On the contrary it has its seat mainly in very obscure parts of the
mind, whose notions, so far from being consciously produced, are hardly felt to
exist; so
far from being conceived beforehand, are not even felt at the time. The main
seat of the imitative part of our nature is our belief, and the causes predisposing us to believe this or disinclining
us to believe that are among the obscurest parts of our nature. But as to the
imitative nature of credulity there can be no doubt." [f.3] This
propensity to imitate has been made the subject of a scientific study by
Gabriel Tarde, who lays down three laws of imitation.
One of his three laws is that imitation flows from the higher to the lower or,
to quote his own words, "Given the opportunity, a nobility will always and
everywhere imitate its leaders, its kings or sovereigns, and the people likewise, given the opportunity, its
nobility." [f.4] Another of Tarde's laws
of imitation is : that
the extent or intensity of imitation varies
inversely in proportion to distance, or in his own words " The thing that is most imitated is the
most superior one of those that are nearest- In fact, the influence of the
model's example is efficacious inversely to itsdistance as well as directly to its superiority. Distance is understood here in its sociological meaning.
However distant in space a stranger may be, he is close by, from this point of
view, if we have numerous and daily relations with him and if we have every
facility to satisfy our desire to imitate him. This law of the imitation of the
nearest, of the least distant, explains the gradual and consecutive character
of the spread of an example that has been set by the higher socialranks." [f.5]
.jpg)
In order to prove my thesis—which really needs no
proof—that some castes were formed by imitation, the best way, it seems to me,
is to find out whether or not the vital conditions for the formation of castes
by imitation exist in the Hindu Society. The conditions
for imitation, according to this standard authority are: (1) that the source of
imitation must enjoy prestige in the group and (2) that there must be " numerous and daily relations " among members of a group. That these
conditions were present in India there is little reason to doubt. The Brahmin
is a semi-god and very nearly a demi-god. He sets up a mode and moulds
the rest- His prestige is unquestionable and is
the fountain-head of bliss and good. Can such a
being, idolised by scriptures and venerated by the priest-ridden multitude,
fail to project his personality on the suppliant humanity ? Why, if the story be true, he is
believed to be the very end of creation. Such a creature is worthy of more than
mere imitation, but at least of imitation ; and if
he lives in an endogamous enclosure, should not the rest follow his example ? Frail humanity! Be it embodied in a grave philosopher or a frivolous housemaid, it succumbs. It cannot be
otherwise. Imitation is easy and invention is
difficult.
Yet another way of demonstrating
the play of imitation in the formation of castes is to understand the attitude
of non-Brahminclasses
towards those customs which supported the structure of caste in its nascent
days until, in the course of history, it became embedded in the Hindu mind and
hangs there to this day without any support—for now it needs no prop but
belief-like a weed on thesurface of a pond. In a
way, but only in a way, the status of a. caste in the Hindu Society varies
directly with the extent of the observance of the customs of Sati, enforced widowhood, and girl marriage. Butobservance of these customs
varies directly with the distance (I am using the word in the Tardian sense) that separates the caste. Those
castes that are nearest to the Brahmins have
imitated all the three customs and insist on the strict observance thereof.
Those that are less near have imitated enforced widowhood and girl marriage;others, a little further off, have only girl marriage
and those furthest off have imitated only the belief in the caste principle.
This imperfect imitation, I dare say, is due partly to what Tarde calls " distance "and
partly to the barbarous character of these customs. This phenomenon is a complete
illustration of Tarde's law
and leaves no doubt that the whole process of caste-formation in India is a
process of imitation of the higher by the lower. At this juncture
I will turn back to support a former conclusion of mine, which might have appeared
to you as too sudden or unsupported. I said that the Brahmin class first raised
the structure of caste by the help of those three customs in question. My
reason for that conclusion was that their existence in other classes was
derivative. After what I have said regarding the role of imitation in the spread of these customs among the non-Brahmin castes, as means or as ideals, though
the imitators have not been aware of it, they exist among them as derivatives ; and, if they are derived, there must
have been prevalent one original caste that was high enough to have served as a
pattern for the rest. But in a theocratic society, who could be the pattern but
the servant of God?
This completes the story of those that were weak
enough to close their doors. Let us now see how others were closed in as a
result of being closed out. This I call the mechanistic process of the
formation of caste. It is mechanistic because it is
inevitable. That this line of approach, as well as the psychological one, to
the explanation of the subject has escaped my predecessors is entirely due to
the fact that they have conceived caste as a unit by itself and not as one
within a System of Caste. The result of this oversight or lack of sight has
been very detrimental to the proper understanding of the subject matter and
therefore its correct explanation. I will proceed to offer my own explanation
by making one remark which I will urge you to bear constantly in mind. It is
this : that caste
in the singular number is an unreality. Castes exist only in the plural number. There is no such thing as a caste : There are always castes. To illustrate
my meaning: while
making themselves into a caste, the Brahmins, by virtue of this, created
non-Brahmin caste; or, to express it in my own way, while
closing themselves in they closed others out. I will clear my point by taking
another illustration. Take India as a whole with its various communities
designated by the various
creeds to which they owe allegiance, to wit, the Hindus, Mohammedans, Jews, Christians
and Parsis. Now, barring the Hindus, the rest
within themselves are non-caste communities.
Now apply the same logic to the Hindu society and you
have another explanation of the " fissiparous " character
of caste, as a consequence of the virtue of self-duplication that is inherent
in it. Any innovation that seriously antagonises the ethical, religious and
social code of the Caste is not likely to be tolerated by the Caste, and the
recalcitrant members of a Caste are in danger of being thrown out of the Caste,
and left to their own fate without having the alternative of being admitted
into or absorbed by other Castes. Caste rules are
inexorable and they do not wait to make nice distinctions between kinds of
offence. Innovation may be of any kind, but all kinds will suffer the same
penalty. A novel way of thinking will create a new Caste for the old ones will
not tolerate it. The noxious thinker respectfully called Guru (Prophet) suffers the same fate as the
sinners in illegitimate love. The former creates a caste of the nature of a
religious sect and the latter a type of mixed caste. Castes have no mercy for a
sinner who has the courage to violate the code. The penalty is excommunication
and the result is a new caste. It is not peculiar Hindu psychology that induces
the excommunicated to form themselves into a caste 5; far from it. On the contrary, very
often they have been quite willing to be humble members of some
caste (higher by preference) if they could be admitted within its fold. But castes
are enclosed units and it is their conspiracy with clear conscience that
compels the excommunicated to make themselves into a caste. The logic of this
obdurate circumstance is merciless, and it is in obedience to its force that
some unfortunate groups find themselves enclosed, because others in enclosing,
themselves have closed them out, with the result that new groups (formed on any
basis obnoxious to the caste rules) by a mechanical law are constantly being
converted into castes to a bewildering multiplicity. Thus is told the second
tale in the process of Caste formation in India.
Now to summarise the main points of my thesis. In my
opinion there have been several mistakes committed by the students of Caste,
which have misled them in their investigations. European students of Caste have
unduly emphasised
the role of colour in the Caste system. Themselves
impregnated by colour prejudices, they very readily imagined it to be the
chief factor in the Caste problem. But nothing can be farther from the truth,
and Dr. Ketkar is correct when he insists that " All the princes whether they belonged
to the so-called Aryan race, or the so-called Dravidian race,
were Aryas.Whether
a tribe or a family was racially Aryan
or Dravidian was a question which never troubled
the people of India, until foreign scholars came in and began to draw the line.
The colour of the skin had long ceased to be a matter of importance." [f.6] Again,
they have mistaken mere descriptions for
explanation and fought over them as though they were theories of origin. There
are occupational, religious etc., castes, it is
true, but it is by no means an explanation of the origin of Caste. We have yet
to find out why occupational groups are castes ; but this question has never even been raised. Lastly they have taken
Caste very lightly as though a breath had made it. On the contrary. Caste,
as I have explained it, is almost impossible to be sustained : for the difficulties that it involves
are tremendous. It is true that Caste rests on belief, but before belief comes
to be the foundation of an institution, the institution itself needs to be
perpetuated and fortified. My study of the Caste problem involves four main
points : ( 1 ) that
in spite of the composite make-up of the Hindu
population, there is a deep cultural unity; (2)
that caste is a parcelling into bits of a larger cultural unit; (3)
that there was one caste to start with and (4) that classes have become Castes
through imitation and excommunication-peculiar interest attaches to the problem of Caste in India today; as persistent attempts are being made
to do away with this unnatural institution. Such
attempts at reform, however, have aroused a great deal of controversy regarding
its origin, as to whether it is due to the conscious command of a Supreme
Authority, or is an unconscious growth in the life of a human society under
peculiar circumstances. Those who hold the latter view will, I hope, find some
food for thought in the standpoint adopted in this paper. Apart from its
practical importance the subject of Caste is an all absorbing problem and the
interest aroused in me regarding its theoretic foundations has moved me to put
before you some of the conclusions, which seem to me well founded, and the
grounds upon which they may be supported. I am not, however, so presumptuous as
to think them in any way final, or anything more than a contribution to a
discussion of the subject. It seems to me that the car has been shunted on wrong
lines, and the primary object of the paper is to indicate what I regard to be
the right path of investigation, with a view to arrive at a serviceable truth.
We must, however, guard against approaching the subject with a bias. Sentiment
must be outlawed from the domain of science and things should be judged from an
objective standpoint. For myself I shall find as much pleasure in a positive
destruction of my own ideology, as
in a rational disagreement on a topic, which, notwithstanding many learned disquisitions
is likely to remain controversial forever. To conclude, while I am ambitious to
advance a Theory of Caste, if it can be shown to be untenable I shall be
equally willing to give it up.
Jay Bhim Geete - Jay bhim songs
उत्तर द्याहटवाMarathi Jay bhim Dj songs - JayBhim.In
ही टिप्पणी लेखकाना हलविली आहे.
उत्तर द्याहटवा