 |
| DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR |
· 1 [Introduction—why I am an unlikely President for this Conference]
|
[1:] Friends, I am really sorry for the members of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal who have so very kindly invited me to preside over this Conference. I am sure they will be asked many questions for having selected me as the President. The Mandal will be asked to explain as to why it has imported a man from Bombay to preside over a function which is held in Lahore. I believe the Mandal could easily have found someone better qualified than myself to preside on the occasion. I have criticised the Hindus. I have questioned the authority of theMahatma whom they revere. They hate me. To them I am a snake in their garden. The Mandal will no doubt be asked by the politically-minded Hindus to explain why it has called me to fill this place of honour. It is an act of great daring. I shall not be surprized if some political Hindus regard it as an insult. This selection of mine [=me] certainly cannot please the ordinary religiously-minded Hindus. |
|
[2:] The Mandal may be asked to explain why it
has disobeyed the Shastric injunction in selecting the President. According
to theShastras, the Brahmin is
appointed to be the Guru for the threeVarnas,
|
|
|
[3:] What replies to give to these questions
is a matter which I must leave to the Mandal. The Mandal knows best the
reasons which led it to travel to Bombay to select a president, to fix upon a man so repugnant to the
Hindus, and to descend so low in the scale as to select an Antyaja—an untouchable— to
address an audience of theSavarnas. As
for myself, you will allow me to say that I have accepted the invitation much
against my will, and also against the will of many of my fellow untouchables.
I know that the Hindus are sick of me. I know that I am not a persona grata [=someone
welcome] with them. Knowing all this, I have deliberately kept myself away from
them. I have no desire to inflict myself upon them. I have been giving
expression to my views from my own platform. This has already caused a great
deal of heart-burning and irritation.
|
|
|
[4:] I have no desire to ascend the platform
of the Hindus, to do
within their sight what I have been doing within their hearing. If I am here
it is because of your choice and not because of my wish. Yours is a cause of
social reform. That cause has always made an appeal to me, and it is because
of this that I felt I ought not to refuse an opportunity of helping the
cause—especially when you think that I can help it. Whether what I am going
to say today will help you in any way to solve the problem you are grappling
with, is for you to judge. All I hope to do is to place before you my views
on the problem.
|
|
[1:] The path of social reform, like the path to heaven (at any rate, in India), is strewn with many difficulties. Social reform in India has few friends and many critics. The critics fall into two distinct classes. One class consists of political reformers, and the other of the Socialists. |
|
|
[2:] It was at one time recognized that without social
efficiency, no permanent progress in the other fields of activity was
possible; that owing to mischief wrought by evil customs, Hindu Society was not in a state of efficiency; and that ceaseless
efforts must be made to eradicate these evils. It was due to the recognition
of this fact that the birth of the National Congress was accompanied by the foundation of the Social Conference. While
the Congress was concerned with defining the weak points in the political
organisation of the country, the Social Conference was engaged in removing
the weak points in the social organisation of the Hindu Society. For some time
the Congress and the Conference worked as two wings of one common activity,
and they held their annual sessions in the same pandal.
|
|
|
[3:] But soon the two wings developed into two parties, a
'political reform party' and a 'social reform party', between whom there
raged a fierce controversy. The 'political reform party' supported theNational Congress, and
the 'social reform party' supported the Social Conference. The
two bodies thus became two hostile camps. The point at issue was whether
social reform should precede political reform. For a decade the forces were
evenly balanced, and the battle was fought without victory to either side.
|
|
|
[4:] It was, however, evident that the fortunes of the Social Conference were ebbing fast. The gentlemen who presided over the sessions
of the Social Conference lamented that the majority of the educated Hindus were for political advancement and indifferent to social reform;
and that while the number of those who attended the Congress was very large,
and the number who did not attend but who sympathized with it was even
larger, the number of those who attended the Social Conference was very much
smaller.
|
|
|
[5:] This indifference, this thinning of its
ranks, was soon followed by active hostility from the politicians. Under the
leadership of the lateMr. Tilak, the
courtesy with which the Congress allowed the Social Conference the use of its pandal was withdrawn, and the spirit of enmity went to such a pitch
that when the Social Conference desired to erect its own pandal, a threat to
burn the pandal was held out by its opponents. Thus in the course of time the
party in favour of political reform won, and the Social Conference vanished
and was forgotten.
|
|
|
[6:] The speech delivered by Mr. W. C. Bonnerji in 1892 atAllahabad, as
President of the eighth session of the Congress, sounds like a funeral
oration on the death of the Social Conference, and
is so typical of the Congress attitude that I venture to quote from it the
following extract. Mr. Bonnerji said:
"I
for one have no patience with those who say we shall not be fit for political
reform until we reform our social system. I fail to see any connection
between the two. . .Are we not fit (for political reform) because our widows
remain unmarried and our girls are given in marriage earlier than in other
countries? because our wives and daughters do not drive about with us
visiting our friends? because we do not send our daughters to Oxford and
Cambridge?" (Cheers [from the audience])
|
|
|
[7:] I have stated the case for political
reform as put by Mr. Bonnerji. There
were many who were happy that the victory went to theCongress. But
those who believe in the importance of social reform may ask, is an argument
such as that of Mr. Bonnerji final? Does it prove that the victory went to
those who were in the right? Does it prove conclusively that social reform
has no bearing on political reform? It will help us to understand the matter
if I state the other side of the case. I will draw upon the treatment of the untouchablesfor my
facts.
|
|
|
[8:] Under the rule of the Peshwas in the Maratha country, theuntouchable was not allowed to use the public streets if a Hindu was coming along, lest he should pollute the Hindu by his shadow.
The untouchable was required to have a black thread either on his wrist or
around his neck, as a sign or a mark to prevent the Hindus from getting themselves polluted by his touch by mistake. In
Poona, the capital of the Peshwa, the untouchable was required to carry,
strung from his waist, a broom to sweep away from behind himself the dust he
trod on, lest a Hindu walking on the same dust should be polluted. In Poona, the
untouchable was required to carry an earthen pot hung around his neck
wherever he went—for holding his spit, lest his spit falling on the earth
should pollute a Hindu who might unknowingly happen to tread on it.
|
|
|
[9:] Let me take more recent facts. The
tyranny practised by theHindus upon the Balais, an untouchable community in Central India, will
serve my purpose. You will find a report of this in the Times of India of 4th January 1928. The correspondent of the Times of India
reported that high-caste Hindus—viz.,
Kalotas, Rajputs andBrahmins,
including the Patels and Patwaris of the villages of Kanaria, Bicholi-Hafsi, Bicholi-Mardana, and
about 15 other villages in the Indore district (of the Indore State)—informed
the Balais of their respective villages that if they wished to live among
them, they must conform to the following rules:
3.
They must convey intimation [=information] of the death of any
Hindu to relatives of the deceased—no matter how far away these relatives may
be living.
4.
In all Hindu marriages, Balais must play music before the
processions and during the marriage.
5.
Balai women must not wear gold or silver ornaments; they must
not wear fancy gowns or jackets.
6.
Balai women must attend all cases of confinement [=childbirth]
of Hindu women.
7.
Balais must render services without demanding remuneration, and
must accept whatever a Hindu is pleased to give.
8.
If the Balais do not agree to abide by these terms, they must
clear out of the villages.
|
|
|
[10:] The Balais refused to comply; and the Hindu element proceeded against them. Balais were not allowed to get
water from the village wells; they were not allowed to let go their cattle to
graze. Balais were prohibited from passing through land owned by a Hindu, so
that if the field of a Balai was surrounded by fields owned by Hindus, the
Balai could have no access to his own field. The Hindus also let their cattle
graze down the fields of Balais. The Balais submitted petitions to the
Darbar[=Court of Indore] against these persecutions; but as they could get no
timely relief, and the oppression continued, hundreds of Balais with their
wives and children were obliged to abandon their homes—in which their
ancestors had lived for generations—and to migrate to adjoining States: that
is, to villages in Dhar, Dewas, Bagli, Bhopal, Gwalior and other States. What happened to them in their new homes may
for the present be left out of our consideration.
|
|
|
[11:] The incident at Kavitha in Gujarat happened only last year. TheHindus of Kavitha ordered the untouchables not to insist upon sending their children to the common village
school maintained by Government. What sufferings the untouchables of Kavitha
had to undergo, for daring to exercise a civic right against the wishes of
the Hindus, is too well known to need detailed description. Another instance
occurred in the village of Zanu, in the Ahmedabad district ofGujarat. In
November 1935 some untouchable women of well-to-do families started fetching
water in metal pots. The Hindus looked upon the use of metal pots by untouchables as an affront
to their dignity, and assaulted the untouchable women for their impudence.
|
|
|
[12:] A most recent event is reported from the
village of Chakwara inJaipur State. It
seems from the reports that have appeared in the newspapers that an untouchable of Chakwara who had returned from a pilgrimage had arranged to
give a dinner to his fellow untouchablesof the
village, as an act of religious piety. The host desired to treat the guests
to a sumptuous meal, and the items served included ghee (butter) also. But
while the assembly of untouchables was engaged in partaking of the food, the Hindus in their hundreds, armed withlathis,
rushed to the scene, despoiled the food, and belaboured the untouchables—who
left the food they had been served with and ran away for their lives. And why
was this murderous assault committed on defenceless untouchables? The reason
given is that the untouchable host was impudent enough to serve ghee, and his
untouchable guests were foolish enough to taste it. Ghee is undoubtedly a
luxury for the rich. But no one would think that consumption of ghee was a
mark of high social status. The Hindus of Chakwara thought otherwise, and in righteous indignation
avenged themselves for the wrong done to them by the untouchables, who
insulted them by treating ghee as an item of their food—which they ought to
have known could not be theirs, consistently with the dignity of the Hindus.
This means that an untouchable must not use ghee, even if he can afford to
buy it, since it is an act of arrogance towards the Hindus. This happened on
or about the 1st of April 1936!
|
|
|
[13:] Having stated the facts, let me now
state the case for social reform. In doing this, I will follow Mr. Bonnerji as nearly as I can, and ask the political-minded Hindus,
"Are you fit for political power even though you do not allow a large
class of your own countrymen like the untouchables to use public schools? Are you fit for political power even
though you do not allow them the use of public wells? Are you fit for
political power even though you do not allow them the use of public streets?
Are you fit for political power even though you do not allow them to wear
what apparel or ornaments they like? Are you fit for political power even
though you do not allow them to eat any food they like?" I can ask a
string of such questions. But these will suffice.
|
|
|
[14:] I wonder what would have been the reply
of Mr. Bonnerji. I am sure no sensible man will have the courage to give an
affirmative answer. Every Congressman who repeats the dogma of Mill that one country is not fit to rule another country, must admit
that one class is not fit to rule another class. How is it then that the
'social reform party' lost the battle? To understand this correctly it is
necessary to take note of the kind of social reform which the reformers were
agitating for. In this connection it is necessary to make a distinction
between social reform in the sense of the reform of the Hindu family, and social reform in the sense of the reorganization and
reconstruction of the Hindu Society. The former has a relation to widow
remarriage, child marriage, etc., while the latter relates to the abolition
of the Caste System.
|
|
|
[15:] The Social Conference was a body which mainly concerned itself with the reform of the
high-caste Hindu family. It consisted mostly of enlightened high-caste Hindus who did not feel the necessity for agitating for the abolition
of Caste, or had not the courage to agitate for it. They felt quite naturally
a greater urge to remove such evils as enforced widowhood, child marriages,
etc.—evils which prevailed among them and which were personally felt by them.
They did not stand up for the reform of the Hindu Society. The battle that
was fought centered round the question of the reform of the family. It did
not relate to social reform in the sense of the break-up of the Caste System. It
[=the break-up of the Caste System] was never put in issue by the reformers.
That is the reason why the Social Reform Party lost.
|
|
|
[16:] I am aware that this argument cannot
alter the fact that political reform did in fact gain precedence over social
reform. But the argument has this much value (if not more): it explains why
social reformers lost the battle. It also helps us to understand how limited
was the victory which the 'political reform party' obtained over the 'social
reform party', and to understand that the view that social reform need not
precede political reform is a view which may stand only when by social reform
is meant the reform of the family. That political reform cannot with impunity
take precedence over social reform in the sense of the reconstruction of
society, is a thesis which I am sure cannot be controverted.
|
|
|
[17:] That the makers of political
constitutions must take account of social forces is a fact which is recognized
by no less a person thanFerdinand Lassalle, the
friend and co-worker of Karl Marx. In
addressing a Prussian audience in 1862, Lassalle said:
The
constitutional questions are in the first instance not questions of right but
questions of might. The actualconstitution of a country has its existence only in the actual condition of
force which exists in the country: hence political constitutions have value
and permanence only when they accurately express those conditions of forces
which exist in practice within a society.
|
|
|
[18:] But it is not necessary to go to
Prussia. There is evidence at home. What is the significance of the Communal Award, with
its allocation of political power in defined proportions to diverse classes
and communities? In my view, its significance lies in this: that political constitution must take note of social organisation. It shows that the
politicians who denied that the social problem in India had any bearing on
the political problem were forced to reckon with the social problem in
devising the Constitution. The Communal Award is, so to say, the nemesis
following upon the indifference to and neglect of social reform. It is a
victory for the Social Reform Party which shows that, though defeated, they
were in the right in insisting upon the importance of social reform. Many, I
know, will not accept this finding. The view is current—and it is pleasant to
believe in it—that the Communal Award is unnatural and that it is the result
of an unholy alliance between the minorities and the bureaucracy. I do not
wish to rely on the Communal Award as a piece of evidence to support my
contention, if it is said that it is not good evidence.
|
|
|
[19:] Let us turn to Ireland. What does the
history of Irish Home Rule show? It is well-known that in the course of the
negotiations between the representatives of Ulster and Southern Ireland, Mr.
Redmond, the representative of Southern Ireland, in order to bring Ulster
into a Home Rule Constitution common to the whole of Ireland, said to the representatives of
Ulster: "Ask any political safeguards you like and you shall have
them." What was the reply that Ulstermen gave? Their reply was,
"Damn your safeguards, we don't want to be ruled by you on any
terms." People who blame the minorities in India ought to consider what
would have happened to the political aspirations of the majority, if the
minorities had taken the attitude which Ulster took. Judged by the attitude
of Ulster to Irish Home Rule, is it nothing that the minorities agreed to be
ruled by the majority (which has not shown much sense of statesmanship),
provided some safeguards were devised for them? But this is only incidental.
The main question is, why did Ulster take this attitude? The only answer I
can give is that there was a social problem between Ulster and Southern
Ireland: the problem between Catholics and Protestants, which is essentially
a problem of Caste. That Home Rule in Ireland would be "Rome Rule"
was the way in which the Ulstermen had framed their answer. But that is only
another way of stating that it was the social problem of Caste between the
Catholics and Protestants which prevented the solution of the political problem.
This evidence again is sure to be challenged. It will be urged that here too
the hand of the Imperialist was at work.
|
|
|
[20:] But my resources are not exhausted. I
will give evidence from the History of Rome. Here no one can say that any
evil genius was at work. Anyone who has studied the History of Rome will know
that the Republican Constitution of Rome bore marks having strong resemblance to the Communal Award. When
the kingship in Rome was abolished, the kingly power (or the Imperium) was
divided between the Consuls and the Pontifex Maximus. In the Consuls was vested
the secular authority of the King, while the latter took over the religious
authority of the King. This Republican Constitution had provided that of the
two Consuls, one was to be Patrician and the other Plebian. The same
Constitution had also provided that of the Priests under the Pontifex
Maximus, half were to be Plebians and the other half Patricians. Why is it
that the Republican Constitution of Rome had these provisions—which, as I
said, resemble so strongly the provisions of the Communal Award? The only
answer one can get is that the Constitution of Republican Rome had to take
account of the social division between the Patricians and the Plebians, who
formed two distinct castes. To sum up, let political reformers turn in any
direction they like: they will find that in the making of a constitution,
they cannot ignore the problem arising out of the prevailing social order.
|
|
|
[21:] The illustrations which I have taken in
support of the proposition that social and religious problems have a bearing
on political constitutions seem to be too particular. Perhaps they are. But
it should not be supposed that the bearing of the one on the other is
limited. On the other hand, one can say that generally speaking, History
bears out the proposition that political revolutions have always been
preceded by social and religious revolutions. The religious Reformation
started by Luther was the precursor of the political emancipation of the
European people. In England, Puritanism led to the establishment of political
liberty. Puritanism founded the new world. It was Puritanism that won the war
of American Independence, and Puritanism was a religious movement.
|
|
|
[22:] The same is true of the Muslim Empire.
Before the Arabs became a political power, they had undergone a thorough
religious revolution started by the Prophet Mohammad. Even
Indian History supports the same conclusion. The political revolution led byChandragupta was preceded by the religious and social revolution ofBuddha. The
political revolution led by Shivaji was preceded by the religious and social reform brought about by
the saints of Maharashtra. The
political revolution of the Sikhs was preceded by the religious and social revolution led by Guru Nanak. It is
unnecessary to add more illustrations. These will suffice to show that the
emancipation of the mind and the soul is a necessary preliminary for the
political expansion of the people.
|
|
[1:] Let me now turn to the Socialists. Can the Socialists ignore the problem arising out of the social order? The Socialists of India, following their fellows in Europe, are seeking to apply the economic interpretation of history to the facts of India. They propound that man is an economic creature, that his activities and aspirations are bound by economic facts, that property is the only source of power. They therefore preach that political and social reforms are but gigantic illusions, and that economic reform by equalization of property must have precedence over every other kind of reform. One may take issue with every one of these premises—on which rests the Socialists' case for economic reform as having priority over every other kind of reform. One may contend that the economic motive is not the only motive by which man is actuated. That economic power is the only kind of power, no student of human society can accept. |
|
|
[2:] That the social status of an individual by itself often becomes
a source of power and authority, is made clear by the sway which theMahatmas have held over the common man. Why do millionaires in India obey
penniless Sadhus and Fakirs? Why
do millions of paupers in India sell their trifling trinkets which constitute
their only wealth, and go to Benares and Mecca? That
religion is the source of power is illustrated by the history of India, where
the priest holds a sway over the common man often greater than that of the
magistrate, and where everything, even such things as strikes and elections,
so easily takes a religious turn and can so easily be given a religious
twist.
|
|
|
[3:] Take the case of the Plebians of Rome, as a further
illustration of the power of religion over man. It throws great light on this
point. The Plebians had fought for a share in the supreme executive under the
Roman Republic, and had secured the appointment of a Plebian Consul elected
by a separate electorate constituted by the Commitia Centuriata, which was an
assembly of Plebians. They wanted a Consul of their own because they felt
that the Patrician Consuls used to discriminate against the Plebians in
carrying on the administration. They had apparently obtained a great gain,
because under the Republican Constitution of Rome one Consul had the power of
vetoing an act of the other Consul.
|
|
|
[4:] But did they in fact gain anything? The answer to this question
must be in the negative. The Plebians never could get a Plebian Consul who
could be said to be a strong man, and who could act independently of the
Patrician Consul. In the ordinary course of things the Plebians should have
got a strong Plebian Consul, in view of the fact that his election was to be
by a separate electorate of Plebians. The question is, why did they fail in
getting a strong Plebian to officiate as their Consul?
|
|
|
[5:] The answer to this question reveals the dominion which
religion exercises over the minds of men. It was an accepted creed of the
whole Roman populus [=people] that no official could enter upon the duties of his
office unless the Oracle of Delphi declared that he was acceptable to the
Goddess. The priests who were in charge of the temple of the Goddess of
Delphi were all Patricians. Whenever therefore the Plebians elected a Consul
who was known to be a strong party man and opposed to the Patricians—or
"communal," to use the term that is current in India—the Oracle
invariably declared that he was not acceptable to the Goddess. This is how
the Plebians were cheated out of their rights.
|
|
|
[6:] But what is worthy of note is that the Plebians permitted
themselves to be thus cheated because they too, like the Patricians, held firmly
the belief that the approval of the Goddess was a condition precedent to the
taking charge by an official of his duties, and that election by the people
was not enough. If the Plebians had contended that election was enough and
that the approval by the Goddess was not necessary, they would have derived
the fullest benefit from the political right which they had obtained. But
they did not. They agreed to elect another, less suitable to themselves but
more suitable to the Goddess—which in fact meant more amenable to the
Patricians. Rather than give up religion, the Plebians give up the material
gain for which they had fought so hard. Does this not show that religion can
be a source of power as great as money, if not greater?
|
|
|
[7:] The fallacy of the Socialists lies in supposing that
because in the present stage of European Society property as a source of
power is predominant, that the same is true of India, or that the same was
true of Europe in the past. Religion, social status, and property are all sources
of power and authority, which one man has, to control the liberty of another.
One is predominant at one stage; the other is predominant at another stage.
That is the only difference. If liberty is the ideal, if liberty means the
destruction of the dominion which one man holds over another, then obviously
it cannot be insisted upon that economic reform must be the one kind of
reform worthy of pursuit. If the source of power and dominion is, at any
given time or in any given society, social and religious, then social reform
and religious reform must be accepted as the necessary sort of reform.
|
|
|
[8:] One can thus attack the doctrine of the Economic
Interpretation of History adopted by the Socialists of India. But I recognize
that the economic interpretation of history is not necessary for the validity
of the Socialist contention that equalization of property is the only real
reform and that it must precede everything else. However, what I would like
to ask the Socialists is this: Can you have economic reform without first
bringing about a reform of the social order? The Socialists of India do not
seem to have considered this question. I do not wish to do them an injustice.
I give below a quotation from a letter which a prominent Socialist wrote a
few days ago to a friend of mine, in which he said, "I do not believe
that we can build up a free society in India so long as there is a trace of
this ill-treatment and suppression of one class by another. Believing as I do
in a socialist ideal, inevitably I believe in perfect equality in the
treatment of various classes and groups. I think that Socialism offers the
only true remedy for this as well as other problems."
|
|
|
[9:] Now the question that I would like to ask is: Is it enough
for a Socialist to say, "I believe in perfect equality in the treatment
of the various classes?" To say that such a belief is enough is to
disclose a complete lack of understanding of what is involved in Socialism.
If Socialism is a practical programme and is not merely an ideal, distant and
far off, the question for a Socialist is not whether he believes in equality.
The question for him is whether he minds one class ill-treating and
suppressing another class as a matter of system, as a matter of principle—and
thus allowing tyranny and oppression to continue to divide one class from
another.
|
|
|
[10:] Let me analyse the factors that are involved in the
realization of Socialism, in order to explain fully my point. Now it is
obvious that the economic reform contemplated by the Socialists cannot come
about unless there is a revolution resulting in the seizure of power. That
seizure of power must be by a proletariat. The first question I ask is: Will
the proletariat of India combine to bring about this revolution? What will
move men to such an action? It seems to me that, other things being equal,
the only thing that will move one man to take such an action is the feeling
that other men with whom he is acting are actuated by a feeling of equality
and fraternity and—above all—of justice. Men will not join in a revolution
for the equalization of property unless they know that after the revolution
is achieved they will be treated equally, and that there will be no
discrimination of caste and creed.
|
|
|
[11:] The assurance of a Socialist leading the revolution that
he does not believe in Caste, I am sure will not suffice. The assurance must
be the assurance proceeding from a much deeper foundation—namely, the mental
attitude of the compatriots towards one another in their spirit of personal equality
and fraternity. Can it be said that the proletariat of India, poor as it is,
recognises no distinctions except that of the rich and the poor? Can it be
said that the poor in India recognize no such distinctions of caste or creed,
high or low? If the fact is that they do, what unity of front can be expected
from such a proletariat in its action against the rich? How can there be a
revolution if the proletariat cannot present a united front?
|
|
|
[12:] Suppose for the sake of argument that by some freak of
fortune a revolution does take place and the Socialists come into power; will
they not have to deal with the problems created by the particular social
order prevalent in India? I can't see how a Socialist State in India can
function for a second without having to grapple with the problems created by
the prejudices which make Indian people observe the distinctions of high and
low, clean and unclean. If Socialists are not to be content with the mouthing
of fine phrases, if the Socialists wish to make Socialism a definite reality,
then they must recognize that the problem of social reform is fundamental,
and that for them there is no escape from it.
|
|
|
[13:] That the social order prevalent in India is a matter which
a Socialist must deal with; that unless he does so he cannot achieve his
revolution; and that if he does achieve it as a result of good fortune, he
will have to grapple with the social order if he wishes to realize his
ideal—is a proposition which in my opinion is incontrovertible. He will be
compelled to take account of Caste after the revolution, if he does not take
account of it before the revolution. This is only another way of saying that,
turn in any direction you like, Caste is the monster that crosses your path.
You cannot have political reform, you cannot have economic reform, unless you
kill this monster.
|
|
[1:] It is a pity that Caste even today has its defenders. The defences are many. It is defended on the ground that the Caste System is but another name for division of labour; and if division of labour is a necessary feature of every civilized society, then it is argued that there is nothing wrong in the Caste System. Now the first thing that is to be urged against this view is that the Caste System is not merely a division of labour. It is also a division of labourers. Civilized society undoubtedly needs division of labour. But in no civilized society is division of labour accompanied by this unnatural division of labourers into watertight compartments. The Caste System is not merely a division of labourers which is quite different from division of labour—it is a hierarchy in which the divisions of labourers are graded one above the other. In no other country is the division of labour accompanied by this gradation of labourers. |
|
|
[2:] There is also a third point of criticism against this view
of theCaste System. This
division of labour is not spontaneous, it is not based on natural aptitudes.
Social and individual efficiency requires us to develop the capacity of an
individual to the point of competency to choose and to make his own career.
This principle is violated in the Caste System, in so far as it involves an
attempt to appoint tasks to individuals in advance—selected not on the basis
of trained original capacities, but on that of the social status of the
parents.
|
|
|
[3:] Looked at from another point of view, this stratification
of occupations which is the result of the Caste System is positively pernicious. Industry is never static. It undergoes
rapid and abrupt changes. With such changes, an individual must be free to
change his occupation. Without such freedom to adjust himself to changing
circumstances, it would be impossible for him to gain his livelihood. Now the
Caste System will not allow Hindus to take to occupations where they are wanted, if they do not
belong to them by heredity. If a Hindu is seen to starve rather than take to
new occupations not assigned to his Caste, the reason is to be found in the
Caste System. By not permitting readjustment of occupations, Caste becomes a
direct cause of much of the unemployment we see in the country.
|
|
|
[4:] As a form of division of labour, the Caste system suffers from another serious defect. The division of labour
brought about by the Caste System is not a division based on choice.
Individual sentiment, individual preference, has no place in it. It is based
on the dogma of predestination. Considerations of social efficiency would
compel us to recognize that the greatest evil in the industrial system is not
so much poverty and the suffering that it involves, as the fact that so many
persons have callings [=occupations] which make no appeal to those who are
engaged in them. Such callings constantly provoke one to aversion, ill will,
and the desire to evade.
|
|
|
[5:] There are many occupations in India which, on account of
the fact that they are regarded as degraded by the Hindus, provoke those who
are engaged in them to aversion. There is a constant desire to evade and
escape from such occupations, which arises solely because of the blighting
effect which they produce upon those who follow them, owing to the slight and
stigma cast upon them by the Hindureligion.
What efficiency can there be in a system under which neither men's hearts nor
their minds are in their work? As an economic organization Caste is therefore
a harmful institution, inasmuch as it involves the subordination of man's
natural powers and inclinations to the exigencies of social rules.
|
|
[1:] Some have dug a biological trench in defence of the Caste System. It is said that the object of Caste was to preserve purity of race and purity of blood. Now ethnologists are of the opinion that men of pure race exist nowhere and that there has been a mixture of all races in all parts of the world. Especially is this the case with the people of India. Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar in his paper on "Foreign Elements in the Hindu Population" has stated that "There is hardly a class or Caste in India which has not a foreign strain in it. There is an admixture of alien blood not only among the warrior classes—theRajputs and the Marathas—but also among the Brahmins who are under the happy delusion that they are free from all foreign elements." The Caste system cannot be said to have grown as a means of preventing the admixture of races, or as a means of maintaining purity of blood. |
|
|
[2:] As a matter of fact [the] Caste system came into being long after the different races of India had
commingled in blood and culture. To hold that distinctions of castes are
really distinctions of race, and to treat different castes as though they
were so many different races, is a gross perversion of facts. What racial
affinity is there between the Brahmin of the Punjab and the Brahmin of Madras? What
racial affinity is there between the untouchable of Bengal and the untouchable of Madras? What racial difference is there
between the Brahmin of the Punjab and the Chamar of the Punjab? What racial difference is there between the
Brahmin of Madras and the Pariah of Madras? The Brahmin of the Punjab is racially of the same
stock as the Chamar of the Punjab, and the Brahmin of Madras is of the same
race as the Pariah of Madras.
|
|
|
[3:] [The] Caste system does not demarcate racial division. [The] Caste system is a
social division of people of the same race. Assuming it, however, to be a
case of racial divisions, one may ask: What harm could there be if a mixture
of races and of blood was permitted to take place in India by intermarriages
between different castes? Men are no doubt divided from animals by so deep a
distinction that science recognizes men and animals as two distinct species.
But even scientists who believe in purity of races do not assert that the
different races constitute different species of men. They are only varieties
of one and the same species. As such they can interbreed and produce an
offspring which is capable of breeding and which is not sterile.
|
|
|
[4:] An immense lot of nonsense is talked about heredity andeugenics in defence of the Caste System. Few
would object to the Caste System if it was in accord with the basic principle
of eugenics, because few can object to the improvement of the race by
judicious mating. But one fails to understand how the Caste System secures
judicious mating. [The] Caste System is a negative thing. It merely prohibits
persons belonging to different castes from intermarrying. It is not a
positive method of selecting which two among a given caste should marry.
|
|
|
[5:] If Caste is eugenic in origin, then the origin of sub-castes must also be eugenic. But can anyone seriously maintain that the
origin of sub-castes is eugenic? I think it would be absurd to contend for
such a proposition, and for a very obvious reason. If caste means race, then
differences of sub-castes cannot mean differences of race, because sub-castes
become ex
hypothesia[=by hypothesis] sub-divisions of one and the same race.
Consequently the bar against intermarrying and interdining between sub-castes
cannot be for the purpose of maintaining purity of race or of blood. If
sub-castes cannot be eugenic in origin, there cannot be any substance in the
contention that Caste is eugenic in origin.
|
|
|
[6:] Again, if Caste is eugenic in origin one can understand the
bar against intermarriage. But what is the purpose of the interdict placed on
interdining between castes and sub-castes alike? Interdining cannot infect blood, and therefore cannot be
the cause either of the improvement or of [the] deterioration of the race.
|
|
|
[7:] This shows that Caste has no scientific origin, and that
those who are attempting to give it an eugenic basis are trying to support by
science what is grossly unscientific. Even today, eugenics cannot become a practical possibility unless we have definite
knowledge regarding the laws of heredity. Prof. Bateson in his Mendel's Principles of Heredity says, "There is
nothing in the descent of the higher mental qualities to suggest that they
follow any single system of transmission. It is likely that both they and the
more marked developments of physical powers result rather from the
coincidence of numerous factors than from the possession of any one genetic
element." To argue that the Caste System was eugenic in its conception is to attribute to the forefathers
of present-day Hindus a knowledge of heredity which even the modern scientists do not
possess.
|
|
|
[8:] A tree should be judged by the fruits it yields. If Caste
is eugenic, what sort of a race of men should it have produced? Physically
speaking the Hindus are a C3 people.
They are a race of Pygmies and dwarfs, stunted in stature and wanting in
stamina. It is a nation 9/10ths of which is declared to be unfit for military
service. This shows that the Caste System does not embody the eugenics of modern scientists. It is a social system which embodies the
arrogance and selfishness of a perverse section of the Hindus who were superior enough in social status to set it in fashion,
and who had the authority to force it on their inferiors.
|
|
[1:] Caste does not result in economic efficiency. Caste cannot improve, and has not improved, the race. Caste has however done one thing. It has completely disorganized and demoralized the Hindus. |
|
|
[2:] The first and foremost thing that must be recognized is
thatHindu Society is a myth. The name Hindu is itself a foreign name. It
was given by the Mohammedans to the natives for the purpose of distinguishing themselves
[from them]. It does not occur in anySanskrit work prior to the Mohammedan invasion. They
did not feel the necessity of a common name, because they had no conception
of their having constituted a community. Hindu Society as such does not
exist. It is only a collection of castes. Each caste is conscious of its
existence. Its survival is the be-all and end-all of its existence. Castes do
not even form a federation. A caste has no feeling that it is affiliated to
other castes, except when there is a Hindu-Muslim riot. On all other
occasions each caste endeavours to segregate itself and to distinguish itself
from other castes.
|
|
|
[3:] Each caste not only dines among itself and marries among
itself, but each caste prescribes its own distinctive dress. What other
explanation can there be of the innumerable styles of dress worn by the men
and women of India, which so amuse the tourists? Indeed the ideal Hindu must be like a rat living in his own hole, refusing to have any
contact with others. There is an utter lack among the Hindus of what the
sociologists call "consciousness of kind." There is no Hindu consciousness
of kind. In every Hindu the consciousness that exists is the consciousness of
his caste. That is the reason why the Hindus cannot be said to form a society
or a nation.
|
|
|
[4:] There are, however, many Indians whose patriotism does not
permit them to admit that Indians are not a nation, that they are only an
amorphous mass of people. They have insisted that underlying the apparent
diversity there is a fundamental unity which marks the life of the Hindus,
inasmuch as there is a similarity of those habits and customs, beliefs and
thoughts, which obtain all over the continent of India. Similarity in habits
and customs, beliefs and thoughts, there is. But one cannot accept the
conclusion that therefore, the Hindusconstitute
a society. To do so is to misunderstand the essentials which go to make up a
society. Men do not become a society by living in physical proximity, any
more than a man ceases to be a member of his society by living so many miles
away from other men.
|
|
|
[5:] Secondly, similarity in habits and customs, beliefs and
thoughts, is not enough to constitute men into society. Things may be passed
physically from one to another like bricks. In the same way habits and
customs, beliefs and thoughts of one group may be taken over by another
group, and there may thus appear a similarity between the two. Culture
spreads by diffusion, and that is why one finds similarity between various
primitive tribes in the matter of their habits and customs, beliefs and
thoughts, although they do not live in proximity. But no one could say that
because there was this similarity, the primitive tribes constituted one
society. This is because similarity in certain things is not enough to
constitute a society.
|
|
|
[6:] Men constitute a society because they have things which
they possess in common. To have similar things is totally different from
possessing things in common. And the only way by which men can come to possess
things in common with one another is by being in communication with one
another. This is merely another way of saying that Society continues to exist
by communication—indeed, in communication. To make it concrete, it is not
enough if men act in a way which agrees with the acts of others. Parallel
activity, even if similar, is not sufficient to bind men into a society.
|
|
|
[7:] This is proved by the fact that the festivals observed by
the different castes amongst the Hindus are the same. Yet these parallel performances of similar
festivals by the different castes have not bound them into one integral
whole. For that purpose what is necessary is for a man to share and
participate in a common activity, so that the same emotions are aroused in
him that animate the others. Making the individual a sharer or partner in the
associated activity, so that he feels its success as his success, its failure
as his failure, is the real thing that binds men and makes a society of them.
The Caste System prevents common activity; and by preventing common activity, it
has prevented the Hindus from becoming a society with a unified life and a
consciousness of its own being.
|
|
[1:] The Hindus often complain of the isolation and exclusiveness of a gang or a clique and blame them for anti-social spirit. But they conveniently forget that this anti-social spirit is the worst feature of their own Caste System. One caste enjoys singing a hymn of hate against another caste as much as the Germans enjoyed singing their hymn of hate against the English during the last war [=World War I]. The literature of the Hindus is full of caste genealogies in which an attempt is made to give a noble origin to one caste and an ignoble origin to other castes. The Sahyadrikhand is a notorious instance of this class of literature. |
|
|
[2:] This anti-social spirit is not confined to caste alone. It
has gone deeper and has poisoned the mutual relations of the sub-castes as well. In my province the Golak Brahmins,
Deorukha Brahmins, Karada Brahmins, Palshe Brahmins, and Chitpavan Brahmins
all claim to be sub-divisions of the Brahmin caste. But the anti-social
spirit that prevails between them is quite as marked and quite as virulent as
the anti-social spirit that prevails between them and other non-Brahmin
castes. There is nothing strange in this. An anti-social spirit is found
wherever one group has "interests of its own" which shut it out
from full interaction with other groups, so that its prevailing purpose is
protection of what it has got.
|
|
|
[3:] This anti-social spirit, this spirit of protecting its own
interests, is as much a marked feature of the different castes in their
isolation from one another as it is of nations in their isolation. The
Brahmin's primary concern is to protect "his interest" against
those of the non-Brahmins; and
the non-Brahmins' primary concern is to protect their interests against those
of the Brahmins. The Hindus, therefore, are not merely an assortment of
castes, but are so many warring groups, each living for itself and for its
selfish ideal.
|
|
|
[4:] There is another feature of caste which is deplorable. The
ancestors of the present-day English fought on one side or the other in the
Wars of the Roses and the Cromwellian War. But the descendants of those who
fought on the one side do not bear any animosity—any grudge—against the
descendents of those who fought on the other side. The feud is forgotten. But
the present-day non-Brahmins cannot forgive the present-day Brahmins for the insult their ancestors
gave to Shivaji. The
present-day Kayasthas will not forgive the present-day Brahmins for the infamy cast upon their
forefathers by the
forefathers of the latter. To what is this difference due? Obviously to the Caste System. The
existence of Caste and Caste Consciousness has served to keep the memory of
past feuds between castes green, and has prevented solidarity.
|
|
[1:] The recent [constitutional] discussion about the excluded and partially included areas has served to draw attention to the position of what are called the aboriginal tribes in India. They number about 13 millions, if not more. Apart from the question of whether their exclusion from the new Constitution is proper or improper, the fact still remains that these aborigines have remained in their primitive uncivilized state in a land which boasts of a civilization thousands of years old. Not only are they not civilized, but some of them follow pursuits which have led to their being classified as criminals. |
|
|
[2:] Thirteen millions of people living in the midst of
civilization are still in a savage state, and are leading the life of
hereditary criminals!! But the Hindus have never felt ashamed of it. This is a phenomenon which in my
view is quite unparalleled. What is the cause of this shameful state of
affairs? Why has no attempt been made to civilize these aborigines and to
lead them to take to a more honourable way of making a living?
|
|
|
[3:] The Hindus will probably seek to account for this savage state of the
aborigines by attributing to them congenital stupidity. They will probably
not admit that the aborigines have remained savages because they had made no
effort to civilize them, to give them medical aid, to reform them, to make
them good citizens. But supposing a Hindu wished to do what the Christian missionary is doing for these aborigines, could he have done it? I submit
not. Civilizing the aborigines means adopting them as your own, living in
their midst, and cultivating fellow-feeling—in short, loving them. How is it
possible for a Hindu to do this? His whole life is one anxious effort to
preserve his caste. Caste is his precious possession which he must save at
any cost. He cannot consent to lose it by establishing contact with the
aborigines, the remnants of the hateful Anaryas of the Vedic days.
|
|
|
[4:] Not that a Hindu could not be taught the sense of duty to fallen humanity, but
the trouble is that no amount of sense of duty can enable him to overcome his
duty to preserve his caste. Caste is, therefore, the real explanation as to
why the Hindu has let the savage remain a savage in the midst of his
civilization without blushing, or without feeling any sense of remorse or
repentance. The Hindu has not realized that these aborigines are a source of
potential danger. If these savages remain savages, they may not do any harm
to the Hindus. But if they are reclaimed by non-Hindus and converted to their
faiths, they will swell the ranks of the enemies of the Hindus. If this
happens, the Hindu will have to thank himself and his Caste System.
|
|
[1:] Not only has the Hindu made no effort for the humanitarian cause of civilizing the savages, but the higher-caste Hindus have deliberately prevented the lower castes who are within the pale of Hinduism from rising to the cultural level of the higher castes. I will give two instances, one of the Sonars and the other of the Pathare Prabhus. Both are communities quite well-known in Maharashtra. Like the rest of the communities desiring to raise their status, these two communities were at one time endeavouring to adopt some of the ways and habits of the Brahmins. |
|
|
[2:] The Sonars were styling themselves Daivadnya Brahmins and were wearing their "dhotis" with folds in them, and using the wordnamaskar for salutation. Both the folded way of wearing the
"dhoti" and the namaskar were special to the Brahmins. The Brahmins did not like this
imitation and this attempt by Sonars to pass off as Brahmins. Under the
authority of the Peshwas, the
Brahmins successfully put down this attempt on the part of the Sonars to
adopt the ways of the Brahmins. They even got the President of the Councils of
the East India Company's
settlement in Bombay to issue a prohibitory order against the Sonars residing in
Bombay.
|
|
|
[3:] At one time the Pathare Prabhus had widow-remarriage as a custom of their caste. This custom of
widow-remarriage was later on looked upon as a mark of social inferiority by
some members of the caste, especially because it was contrary to the custom
prevalent among the Brahmins. With
the object of raising the status of their community, some Pathare Prabhus
sought to stop this practice of widow-remarriage that was prevalent in their
caste. The community was divided into two camps, one for and the other
against the innovation. The Peshwas took the side of those in favour of widow-remarriage, and thus
virtually prohibited the Pathare Prabhus from following the ways of the
Brahmins.
|
|
|
[4:] The Hindus criticise the Mohammedans for having spread their religion by the use of the sword. They
also ridicule Christianity on the score of the Inquisition. But really
speaking, who is better and more worthy of our respect—the Mohammedans and
Christians who attempted to thrust down the throats of unwilling persons what
they regarded as necessary for their salvation, or the Hindu who would not spread the light, who would endeavour to keep
others in darkness, who would not consent to share his intellectual and
social inheritance with those who are ready and willing to make it a part of
their own make-up? I have no hesitation in saying that if the Mohammedan has
been cruel, the Hindu has been mean; and meanness is worse than cruelty.
|
|
[1:] Whether the Hindu religion was or was not a missionary religion has been a controversial issue. Some hold the view that it was never a missionary religion. Others hold that it was. That the Hindu religion was once a missionary religion must be admitted. It could not have spread over the face of India, if it was not a missionary religion. That today it is not a missionary religion is also a fact which must be accepted. The question therefore is not whether or not the Hindu religion was a missionary religion. The real question is, why did the Hindu religion cease to be a missionary religion? |
|
|
[2:] My answer is this: the Hindu religion ceased to be a missionary religion when the Caste System grew up among the Hindus. Caste is inconsistent with conversion.
Inculcation of beliefs and dogmas is not the only problem that is involved in
conversion. To find a place for the convert in the social life of the
community is another, and a much more important, problem that arises in connection
with conversion. That problem is where to place the convert, in what caste?
It is a problem which must baffle every Hindu wishing to make aliens converts
to his religion.
|
|
|
[3:] Unlike a club, the membership of a caste is not open to all
and sundry. The law of Caste confines its membership to persons born in the
caste. Castes are autonomous, and there is no authority anywhere to compel a
caste to admit a new-comer to its social life. HinduSociety
being a collection of castes, and each caste being a closed corporation,
there is no place for a convert. Thus it is the caste which has prevented the Hindus from expanding and from absorbing other religious communities.
So long as Caste remains, Hindu religion cannot be made a missionary
religion, and Shudhi will be both a folly and a futility.
|
|
[1:] The reasons which have made Shudhi impossible for Hindus are also responsible for making Sanghatan impossible. The idea underlying Sanghatan is to remove from the mind of the Hindu that timidity and cowardice which so painfully mark him off from the Mohammedan and the Sikh, and which have led him to adopt the low ways of treachery and cunning for protecting himself. The question naturally arises: From where does the Sikh or the Mohammedan derive his strength, which makes him brave and fearless? I am sure it is not due to relative superiority of physical strength, diet, or drill. It is due to the strength arising out of the feeling that all Sikhs will come to the rescue of a Sikh when he is in danger, and that allMohammedans will rush to save a Muslim if he is attacked. |
|
|
[2:] The Hindu can derive no such strength. He cannot feel assured that his fellows
will come to his help. Being one and fated to be alone, he remains powerless,
develops timidity and cowardice, and in a fight surrenders or runs away. The Sikh as well as the Muslim stands fearless and gives battle, because he knows that though
one he will not be alone. The presence of this belief in the one helps him to
hold out, and the absence of it in the other makes him to give way.
|
|
|
[3:] If you pursue this matter further and ask what is it that
enables the Sikh and the Mohammedan to feel so assured, and why is theHindu filled with such despair in the matter of help and assistance,
you will find that the reasons for this difference lie in the difference in
their associated mode of living. The associated mode of life practised by the Sikhs and the Mohammedans produces fellow-feeling. The associated mode of life of the Hindus does not. Among Sikhs and Muslims there is a social cement which makes them Bhais. Among Hindus there is no such cement, and one Hindu does not regard another
Hindu as his Bhai. This explains why a Sikh says and feels that one Sikh, or
one Khalsa, is
equal to sava lakh men. This explains why one Mohammedan is equal to a crowd of Hindus.
This difference is undoubtedly a difference due to Caste. So long as Caste
remains, there will be no Sanghatan; and
so long as there is no Sanghatan the Hindu will remain weak and meek.
|
|
|
[4:] The Hindus claim to be a very tolerant people. In my opinion this is a
mistake. On many occasions they can be intolerant, and if on some occasions
they are tolerant, that is because they are too weak to oppose or too
indifferent to oppose. This indifference of the Hindus has become so much a
part of their nature that a Hindu will quite meekly tolerate an insult as
well as a wrong. You see amongst them, to use the words of Morris,
"The great treading down the little, the strong beating down the weak,
cruel men fearing not, kind men daring not and wise men caring not."
With the Hindu Gods all-forbearing, it is not difficult to imagine the
pitiable condition of the wronged and the oppressed among the Hindus.
Indifferentism is the worst kind of disease that can infect a people. Why is
the Hindu so indifferent? In my opinion this indifferentism is the result of
theCaste System, which
has made Sanghatan and co-operation even for a good cause impossible.
|
|
[1:] The assertion by the individual of his own opinions and beliefs, his own independence and interest—as over against group standards, group authority, and group interests—is the beginning of all reform. But whether the reform will continue depends upon what scope the group affords for such individual assertion. If the group is tolerant and fair-minded in dealing with such individuals, they will continue to assert [their beliefs], and in the end will succeed in converting their fellows. On the other hand if the group is intolerant, and does not bother about the means it adopts to stifle such individuals, they will perish and the reform will die out. |
|
|
[2:] Now a caste has an unquestioned right to excommunicate any
man who is guilty of breaking the rules of the caste; and when it is realized
that excommunication involves a complete cesser [=cessation] of social
intercourse, it will be agreed that as a form of punishment there is really
little to choose between excommunication and death. No wonder individual Hindus have not had the courage to assert their independence by
breaking the barriers of Caste.
|
|
|
[3:] It is true that man cannot get on with his fellows. But it
is also true that he cannot do without them. He would like to have the
society of his fellows on his terms. If he cannot get it on his terms, then
he will be ready to have it on any terms, even amounting to complete
surrender. This is because he cannot do without society. A caste is ever
ready to take advantage of the helplessness of a man, and to insist upon
complete conformity to its code in letter and in spirit.
|
|
|
[4:] A caste can easily organize itself into a conspiracy to
make the life of a reformer a hell; and if a conspiracy is a crime, I do not
understand why such a nefarious act as an attempt to excommunicate a person
for daring to act contrary to the rules of caste should not be made an
offence punishable in law. But as it is, even law gives each caste an
autonomy to regulate its membership and punish dissenters with
excommunication. Caste in the hands of the orthodox has been a powerful
weapon for persecuting the reformers and for killing all reform.
|
|
[1:] The effect of caste on the ethics of the Hindus is simply deplorable. Caste has killed public spirit. Caste has destroyed the sense of public charity. Caste has made public opinion impossible. AHindu's public is his caste. His responsibility is only to his caste. His loyalty is restricted only to his caste. Virtue has become caste-ridden, and morality has become caste-bound. There is no sympathy for the deserving. There is no appreciation of the meritorious. There is no charity to the needy. Suffering as such calls for no response. There is charity, but it begins with the caste and ends with the caste. There is sympathy, but not for men of other castes. |
|
|
[2:] Would a Hindu acknowledge and follow the leadership of a great and good man?
The case of a Mahatma apart, the answer must be that he will follow a leader if he is
a man of his caste. A Brahmin will follow a leader only if he is a Brahmin, a Kayastha if he is a Kayastha, and so on. The capacity to appreciate
merits in a man, apart from his caste, does not exist in a Hindu. There is
appreciation of virtue, but only when the man is a fellow caste-man. The
whole morality is as bad as tribal morality. My caste-man, right or wrong; my
caste-man, good or bad. It is not a case of standing by virtue or not
standing by vice. It is a case of standing by, or not standing by, the caste.
Have not Hindus committed treason against their country in the interests of
their caste?
|
|
[1:] I would not be surprized if some of you have grown weary listening to this tiresome tale of the sad effects which caste has produced. There is nothing new in it. I will therefore turn to the constructive side of the problem. What is your ideal society if you do not want caste, is a question that is bound to be asked of you. If you ask me, my ideal would be a society based on Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. And why not? |
|
|
[2:] What objection can there be to Fraternity? I cannot imagine
any. An ideal society should be mobile, should be full of channels for
conveying a change taking place in one part to other parts. In an ideal
society there should be many interests consciously communicated and shared.
There should be varied and free points of contact with other modes of
association. In other words there must be social endosmosis. This is
fraternity, which is only another name for democracy. Democracy is not merely
a form of government. It is primarily a mode of associated living, of
conjoint communicated experience. It is essentially an attitude of respect
and reverence towards one's fellow men.
|
|
|
[3:] Any objection to Liberty? Few object to liberty in the
sense of a right to free movement, in the sense of a right to life and limb.
There is no objection to liberty in the sense of a right to property, tools,
and materials, as being necessary for earning a living, to keep the body in a
due state of health. Why not allow a person the liberty to benefit from an
effective and competent use of a person's powers? The supporters of Caste who
would allow liberty in the sense of a right to life, limb, and property,
would not readily consent to liberty in this sense, inasmuch as it involves
liberty to choose one's profession.
|
|
|
[4:] But to object to this kind of liberty is to perpetuate
slavery. For slavery does not merely mean a legalized form of subjection. It
means a state of society in which some men are forced to accept from others
the purposes which control their conduct. This condition obtains even where
there is no slavery in the legal sense. It is found where, as in the Caste System, some
persons are compelled to carry on certain prescribed callings which are not
of their choice.
|
|
|
[5:] Any objection to equality? This has obviously been the most
contentious part of the slogan of the French Revolution. The objections to
equality may be sound, and one may have to admit that all men are not equal.
But what of that? Equality may be a fiction, but nonetheless one must accept
it as the governing principle. A man's power is dependent upon (1) physical
heredity; (2) social inheritance or endowment in the form of parental care,
education, accumulation of scientific knowledge, everything which enables him
to be more efficient than the savage; and finally, (3) on his own efforts. In
all these three respects men are undoubtedly unequal. But the question is,
shall we treat them as unequal because they are unequal? This is a question
which the opponents of equality must answer.
|
|
|
[6:] From the standpoint of the individualist, it may be just to
treat men unequally so far as their efforts are unequal. It may be desirable
to give as much incentive as possible to the full development of everyone's
powers. But what would happen if men were treated as unequally as they are
unequal in the first two respects? It is obvious that those individuals also
in whose favour there is birth, education, family name, business connections,
and inherited wealth, would be selected in the race. But selection under such
circumstances would not be a selection of the able. It would be the selection
of the privileged. The reason, therefore, which requires that in the third
respect [of those described in the paragraph above] we should treat men
unequally, demands that in the first two respects we should treat men as
equally as possible.
|
|
|
[7:] On the other hand, it can be urged that if it is good for
the social body to get the most out of its members, it can get the most out
of them only by making them equal as far as possible at the very start of the
race. That is one reason why we cannot escape equality. But there is another
reason why we must accept equality. A statesman is concerned with vast
numbers of people. He has neither the time nor the knowledge to draw fine
distinctions and to treat each one equitably, i.e. according to need or
according to capacity. However desirable or reasonable an equitable treatment
of men may be, humanity is not capable of assortment and classification. The
statesman, therefore, must follow some rough and ready rule, and that rough
and ready rule is to treat all men alike, not because they are alike but
because classification and assortment is impossible. The doctrine of equality
is glaringly fallacious but, taking all in all, it is the only way a
statesman can proceed in politics—which is a severely practical affair and
which demands a severely practical test.
|
|
[1:] But there is a set of reformers who hold out a different ideal. They go by the name of the Arya Samajists, and their ideal of social organization is what is called Chaturvarnya, or the division of society into four classes instead of the four thousand castes that we have in India. To make it more attractive and to disarm opposition, the protagonists of Chaturvarnya take great care to point out that their Chaturvarnya is based not on birth but on guna (worth). At the outset, I must confess that notwithstanding the worth-basis of this Chaturvarnya, it is an ideal to which I cannot reconcile myself. |
|
|
[2:] In the first place, if under the Chaturvarnya of the Arya Samajists an individual is to take his place in the Hindu Society according to his worth, I do not understand why the Arya
Samajists insist upon labelling men as Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. A
learned man would be honoured without his being labelled a Brahmin. A soldier
would be respected without his being designated a Kshatriya. If European
society honours its soldiers and its servants without giving them permanent
labels, why should Hindu Society find it difficult to do so, is a question
which Arya Samajists have not cared to consider.
|
|
|
[3:] There is another objection to the continuance of these
labels. All reform consists in a change in the notions, sentiments, and
mental attitudes of the people towards men and things. It is common
experience that certain names become associated with certain notions and
sentiments which determine a person's attitude towards men and things. The
names Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudraare
names which are associated with a definite and fixed notion in the mind of
every Hindu. That notion
is that of a hierarchy based on birth.
|
|
|
[4:] So long as these names continue, Hindus will continue to think of the Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra as hierarchical divisions of high and low, based on birth, and
to act accordingly. TheHindu must be made to unlearn all this. But how can this happen, if
the old labels remain, and continue to recall to his mind old notions? If new
notions are to be inculcated in the minds of people, it is necessary to give
them new names. To continue the old names is to make the reform futile. To
allow this Chaturvarnya based on worth to be designated by such stinking labels as
Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, indicative of social divisions based on
birth, is a snare.
|
|
[1:] To me this Chaturvarnya with its old labels is utterly repellent, and my whole being rebels against it. But I do not wish to rest my objection to Chaturvarnya on mere grounds of sentiments. There are more solid grounds on which I rely for my opposition to it. A close examination of this ideal has convinced me that as a system of social organization, Chaturvarnya is impracticable, is harmful, and has turned out to be a miserable failure. From a practical point of view, the system of Chaturvarnya raises several difficulties which its protagonists [=advocates] do not seem to have taken into account. The principle underlying Caste is fundamentally different from the principle underlying Chaturvarnya. Not only are they fundamentally different, but they are also fundamentally opposed. |
|
|
[2:] The former [=Chaturvarnya] is based on worth. How are you
going to compel people who have acquired a higher status based on birth,
without reference to their worth, to vacate that status? How are you going to
compel people to recognize the status due to a man, in accordance with his
worth, who is occupying a lower status based on his birth? For this, you must
first break up the Caste System, in
order to be able to establish the Chaturvarnya system. How are you going to reduce the four thousand castes,
based on birth, to the fourVarnas, based
on worth? This is the first difficulty which the protagonists of the
Chaturvarnya must grapple with.
|
|
|
[3:] There is a second difficulty which the protagonists ofChaturvarnya must grapple with, if they wish to make the establishment of
Chaturvarnya a success. Chaturvarnya pre-supposes that you can classify
people into four definite classes. Is this possible? In this respect, the
ideal of Chaturvarnya has, as you will see, a close affinity to the Platonic
ideal. To Plato, men fell by nature into three classes. In some individuals,
he believed, mere appetites dominated. He assigned them to the labouring and
trading classes. Others revealed to him that over and above appetites, they
had a courageous disposition. He classed them as defenders in war and
guardians of internal peace. Others showed a capacity to grasp the universal
reason underlying things. He made them the law-givers of the people.
|
|
|
[4:] The criticism to which Plato's Republic is subject, is also
the criticism which must apply to the system of Chaturvarnya,
insofar as it proceeds upon the possibility of an accurate classification of
men into four distinct classes. The chief criticism against Plato is that his
idea of lumping individuals into a few sharply-marked-off classes is a very
superficial view of man and his powers. Plato had no perception of the
uniqueness of every individual, of his incommensurability with others, of
each individual as forming a class of his own. He had no recognition of the
infinite diversity of active tendencies, and the combination of tendencies of
which an individual is capable. To him, there were types of faculties or
powers in the individual constitution.
|
|
|
[5:] All this is demonstrably wrong. Modem science has shown
that the lumping together of individuals into a few sharply-marked-off
classes is a superficial view of man, not worthy of serious consideration.
Consequently, the utilization of the qualities of individuals is incompatible
with their stratification by classes, since the qualities of individuals are
so variable. Chaturvarnya must fail for the very reason for which Plato's Republic must
fail—namely, that it is not possible to pigeonhole men, according as they
belong to one class or the other. That it is impossible to accurately
classify people into four definite classes, is proved by the fact that the
original four classes have now become four thousand castes.
|
|
|
[6:] There is a third difficulty in the way of the establishment
of the system of Chaturvarnya. How
are you going to maintain the system of Chaturvarnya, supposing it was
established? One important requirement for the successful working of
Chaturvarnya is the maintenance of the penal system which could maintain it
by its sanction. The system of Chaturvarnya must perpetually face the problem
of the transgressor. Unless there is a penalty attached to the act of
transgression, men will not keep to their respective classes. The whole
system will break down, being contrary to human nature. Chaturvarnya cannot
subsist by its own inherent goodness. It must be enforced by law.
|
|
|
[7:] That without penal sanction the ideal of Chaturvarnya cannot be realized, is proved by the story in the Ramayana of Rama killingShambuka. Some
people seem to blame Rama because he wantonly and without reason killed Shambuka. But
to blame Rama for killing Shambuka is to misunderstand the whole situation. Ram Raj was a Raj based on Chaturvarnya. As a king, Rama was bound to
maintain Chaturvarnya. It was his duty therefore to kill Shambuka, the Shudrawho had
transgressed his class and wanted to be a Brahmin. This is the reason why
Rama killed Shambuka. But this also shows that penal sanction is necessary
for the maintenance of Chaturvarnya. Not only penal sanction is necessary,
but the penalty of death is necessary. That is why Rama did not inflict on
Shambuka a lesser punishment. That is why the Manu-Smriti prescribes such heavy sentences as cutting off the tongue, or
pouring of molten lead in the ears, of the Shudra who recites or hears the Veda. The
supporters of Chaturvarnya must give an assurance that they could
successfully classify men, and that they could induce modern society in the
twentieth century to re-forge the penal sanctions of theManu-Smriti.
|
|
|
[8:] The protagonists of Chaturvarnya do not seem to have considered what is to happen to women in
their system. Are they also to be divided into four classes, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya andShudra? Or
are they to be allowed to take the status of their husbands? If the status of
the woman is to be the consequence of marriage, what becomes of the
underlying principle of Chaturvarnya—namely, that the status of a person
should be based upon the worth of that person? If they are to be classified
according to their worth, is their classification to be nominal or real?
|
|
|
[9:] If it is to be nominal, then it is useless; and then the
protagonists of Chaturvarnya must admit that their system does not apply to women. If it is
real, are the protagonists of Chaturvarnya prepared to follow the logical
consequences of applying it to women? They must be prepared to have women
priests and women soldiers. Hindusociety
has grown accustomed to women teachers and women barristers. It may grow
accustomed to women brewers and women butchers. But he would be a bold person
who would say that it will allow women priests and women soldiers. But that
will be the logical outcome of applying Chaturvarnya to women. Given these difficulties,
I think no one except a congenital idiot could hope for and believe in a
successful regeneration of the Chaturvarnya.
|
|
[1:] Assuming that Chaturvarnya is practicable, I contend that it is the most vicious system. That the Brahmins should cultivate knowledge, that the Kshatriya should bear arms, that the Vaishyashould trade, and that the Shudra should serve, sounds as though it was a system of division of labour. Whether the theory was intended to state that the Shudra need not, or whether it was intended to lay down that he must not, is an interesting question. The defenders of Chaturvarnya give it the first meaning. They say, why need the Shudra trouble to acquire wealth, when the three [higher] Varnas are there to support him? Why need the Shudra bother to take to education, when there is the Brahmin to whom he can go when the occasion for reading or writing arises? Why need the Shudra worry to arm himself, when there is the Kshatriya to protect him? The theory of Chaturvarnya, understood in this sense, may be said to look upon the Shudra as the ward and the three [higher] Varnas as his guardians. Thus interpreted, it is a simple, elevating, and alluring theory. |
|
|
[2:] Assuming this to be the correct view of the underlying
conception of Chaturvarnya, it
seems to me that the system is neither fool-proof nor knave-proof. What is to
happen if the Brahmins,Vaishyas, and Kshatriyas fail to pursue knowledge, to engage in economic enterprise, and
to be efficient soldiers, which are their respective functions?
Contrary-wise, suppose that they discharge their functions, but flout their
duty to the Shudra or to one another; what is to happen to the Shudra if the three
classes refuse to support him on fair terms, or combine to keep him down? Who
is to safeguard the interests of the Shudra—or for that matter, those of the
Vaishya and Kshatriya—when the person who is trying to take advantage of his
ignorance is the Brahmin? Who is to defend the liberty of the Shudra—and for
that matter, of the Brahmin and the Vaishya—when the person who is robbing
him of it is the Kshatriya?
|
|
|
[3:] Inter-dependence of one class on another class is
inevitable. Even dependence of one class upon another may sometimes become
allowable. But why make one person depend upon another in the matter of his
vital needs? Education, everyone must have. Means of defence, everyone must
have. These are the paramount requirements of every man for his
self-preservation. How can the fact that his neighbour is educated and armed
help a man who is uneducated and disarmed? The whole theory is absurd. These
are the questions which the defenders of Chaturvarnya do not seem to be troubled about. But they are very pertinent
questions. Assuming that in their conception of Chaturvarnya the relationship
between the different classes is that of ward and guardian, and that this is
the real conception underlying Chaturvarnya, it must be admitted that it
makes no provision to safeguard the interests of the ward from the misdeeds
of the guardian.
|
|
|
[4:] Whether or not the relationship of guardian and ward was
the real underlying conception on which Chaturvarnya was based, there is no doubt that in practice the relation was
that of master and servants. The three classes, Brahmins,
Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas, although not very happy in their mutual
relationship, managed to work by compromise. The Brahmin flattered the Kshatriya, and
both let the Vaishya live in order to be able to live upon him. But the three agreed
to beat down the Shudra. He
was not allowed to acquire wealth, lest he should be independent of the three
[higher] Varnas. He was prohibited from acquiring knowledge, lest he should
keep a steady vigil regarding his interests. He was prohibited from bearing
arms, lest he should have the means to rebel against their authority. That
this is how the Shudras were treated by the Tryavarnikas is evidenced by the Laws of Manu. There
is no code of laws more infamous regarding social rights than the Laws of Manu. Any instance from anywhere of social
injustice must pale before it.
|
|
|
[5:] Why have the mass of people tolerated the social evils to
which they have been subjected? There have been social revolutions in other
countries of the world. Why have there not been social revolutions in India,
is a question which has incessantly troubled me. There is only one answer
which I can give, and it is that the lower classes of Hindus have been completely disabled for direct action on account of this wretched Caste
System. They could not bear arms, and without arms they could not
rebel. They were all ploughmen—or rather, condemned to be ploughmen—and they
never were allowed to convert their ploughshares into swords. They had no
bayonets, and therefore everyone who chose, could and did sit upon them. On
account of the Caste System, they
could receive no education. They could not think out or know the way to their
salvation. They were condemned to be lowly; and not knowing the way of
escape, and not having the means of escape, they became reconciled to eternal
servitude, which they accepted as their inescapable fate.
|
|
|
[6:] It is true that even in Europe the strong has not shrunk
from the exploitation—nay, the spoliation—of the weak. But in Europe, the
strong have never contrived to make the weak helpless against exploitation so
shamelessly as was the case in India among the Hindus. Social war has been
raging between the strong and the weak far more violently in Europe than it
has ever been in India. Yet the weak in Europe has had in his freedom of
military service, his physical weapon; in suffering, his political weapon;
and in education, his moral weapon. These three weapons for emancipation were
never withheld by the strong from the weak in Europe. All these weapons were,
however, denied to the masses in India by the Caste System.
|
|
|
[7:] There cannot be a more degrading system of social
organization than the Caste System. It is
the system which deadens, paralyses, and cripples the people, [keeping them]
from helpful activity. This is no exaggeration. History bears ample evidence.
There is only one period in Indian history which is a period of freedom,
greatness, and glory. That is the period of the Mourya Empire. At
all other times the country suffered from defeat and darkness. But the Mourya
period was a period when the Caste System was completely annihilated—when the Shudras, who constituted the
mass of the people, came into their own and became the rulers of the country.
The period of defeat and darkness is the period when the Caste System flourished, to the damnation of the greater part of the people
of the country.
|
|
[1:] Chaturvarnya is not new. It is as old as the Vedas. That is one of the reasons why we are asked by the Arya Samajists to consider its claims. Judging from the past, as a system of social organization it has been tried and it has failed. How many times have the Brahminsannihilated the seed of the Kshatriyas! How many times have the Kshatriyas annihilated the Brahmins! The Mahabharata and thePuranas are full of incidents of the strife between the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas. They even quarreled over such petty questions as to who should salute first, as to who should give way first, the Brahmins or the Kshatriyas, when the two met in the street. |
|
|
[2:] Not only was the Brahmin an eyesore to the Kshatriya and the Kshatriya an eyesore to the Brahmin, it seems that the
Kshatriyas had become tyrannical, and the masses, disarmed as they were under
the system of Chaturvarnya, were
praying to Almighty God for relief from their tyranny. The Bhagwat tells us very definitely thatKrishna had taken avatar for one sacred purpose: and that was, to annihilate the
Kshatriyas. With these instances of rivalry and enmity between the different
Varnas before us, I do not understand how anyone can hold out Chaturvarnya as
an ideal to be aimed at, or as a pattern on which the Hindu Society should be remodelled.
|
|
[1:] I have dealt with those, those who are outside your group [=theMandal] and whose hostility to your ideal [=the destruction of Caste] is quite open. There appear to be others who are neither without you nor with you. I was hesitating whether I should deal with their point of view. But on further consideration I have come to the conclusion that I must, and that for two reasons. Firstly, their attitude to the problem of caste is not merely an attitude of neutrality, but is an attitude of armed neutrality. Secondly, they probably represent a considerable body of people. Of these, there is one set which finds nothing peculiar nor odious in the Caste System of the Hindus. SuchHindus cite the case of Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians, and find comfort in the fact that they too have castes amongst them. |
|
|
[2:] In considering this question, you must at the outset bear
in mind that nowhere is human society one single whole. It is always plural.
In the world of action, the individual is one limit and society the other.
Between them lie all sorts of associative arrangements of lesser and larger
scope—families, friendships, co-operative associations, business combines,
political parties, bands of thieves and robbers. These small groups are
usually firmly welded together, and are often as exclusive as castes. They
have a narrow and intensive code, which is often anti-social. This is true of
every society, in Europe as well as in Asia. The question to be asked in
determining whether a given society is an ideal society is not whether there
are groups in it, because groups exist in all societies.
|
|
|
[3:] The questions to be asked in determining what is an ideal
society are: How numerous and varied are the interests which are consciously
shared by the groups? How full and free is the interplay with other forms of
associations? Are the forces that separate groups and classes more numerous
than the forces that unite them? What social significance is attached to this
group life? Is its exclusiveness a matter of custom and convenience, or is it
a matter of religion? It is in the light of these questions that one must
decide whether caste among Non-Hindus is the same as Caste among Hindus.
|
|
|
[4:] If we apply these considerations to castes amongMohammedans, Sikhs, and
Christians on the one hand, and to castes among Hindus on the other, you will find that caste among Non-Hindus is
fundamentally different from caste among Hindus. First, the ties which
consciously make the Hindus hold together are non-existent, while among Non-Hindus there are
many that hold them together. The strength of a society depends upon the
presence of points of contact, possibilities of interaction, between
different groups which exist in it. These are what Carlyle calls "organic filaments"—i.e., the elastic threads
which help to bring the disintegrating elements together and to reunite them.
There is no integrating force among the Hindus to counteract the disintegration caused by caste. While among
the Non-Hindus there are plenty of these organic filaments which bind them
together.
|
|
|
[5:] Again it must be borne in mind that although there are
castes among Non-Hindus, as there are among Hindus, caste
has not the same social significance for Non-Hindus as it has for Hindus. Ask
aMohammedan or a Sikh who he is. He tells you that he is a Mohammedan or a Sikh, as
the case may be. He does not tell you his caste, although he has one; and you
are satisfied with his answer. When he tells you that he is a Muslim, you do
not proceed to ask him whether he is a Shiya or a Suni; Sheikh or Saiyad; Khatik or Pinjari. When
he tells you he is a Sikh, you do not ask him whether he is Jat or Roda, Mazbi or
Ramdasi. But you are not satisfied, if a person tells you that he is a
Hindu. You feel bound to inquire into his caste. Why? Because so essential is
caste in the case of a Hindu, that without knowing it you do not feel sure
what sort of a being he is.
|
|
|
[6:] That caste has not the same social significance among
Non-Hindus as it has among Hindus is clear, if you take into consideration the consequences which
follow breach of caste. There may be castes among Sikhs and Mohammedans, but
the Sikhs and the Mohammedans will not outcast a Sikh or a Mohammedan if he
broke his caste. Indeed, the very idea of excommunication is foreign to the
Sikhs and the Mohammedans. But with the Hindus the case is entirely
different. A Hindu is sure to be outcasted if he broke caste. This shows the
difference in the social significance of caste to Hindus and Non-Hindus. This
is the second point of difference.
|
|
|
[7:] But there is also a third and a more important one. Caste
among the non-Hindus has no religious consecration; but among the Hindusmost
decidedly it has. Among the Non-Hindus, caste is only a practice, not a
sacred institution. They did not originate it. With them it is only a
survival. They do not regard caste as a religious dogma. Religion compels the
Hindus to treat isolation and segregation of castes as a virtue. Religion
does not compel the Non-Hindus to take the same attitude towards caste. If
Hindus wish to break caste, their religion will come in their way. But it
will not be so in the case of Non-Hindus. It is, therefore, a dangerous
delusion to take comfort in the mere existence of caste among Non-Hindus,
without caring to know what place caste occupies in their life and whether
there are other "organic filaments" which subordinate the feeling
of caste to the feeling of community. The sooner the Hindus are cured of this
delusion, the better.
|
|
|
[8:] The other set [of "neutral" Hindus]
denies that caste presents any problem at all for the Hindus to consider.
Such Hindus seek comfort in the view that the Hindus have survived, and take
this as a proof of their fitness to survive. This point of view is well
expressed by Prof. S. Radhakrishnan in his Hindu View of Life. Referring to Hinduism he says,
"The
civilization itself has not been a short-lived one. Its historic records date
back for over four thousand years and even then it had reached a stage of
civilization which has continued its unbroken, though at times slow and
static, course until the present day. It has stood the stress and strain of
more than four or five millenniums of spiritual thought and experience.
Though peoples of different races and cultures have been pouring into India
from the dawn of History, Hinduism has been able to maintain its supremacy
and even the proselytising creeds backed by political power have not been
able to coerce the large majority of Hindus to their views. The Hindu culture possesses some vitality which
seems to be denied to some other more forceful currents. It is no more
necessary to dissect Hinduism than to open a tree to see whether the sap
still runs."
The name of Prof. Radhakrishnan is big enough to invest with
profundity whatever he says, and impress the minds of his readers. But I must
not hesitate to speak out my mind. For I fear that his statement may become
the basis of a vicious argument that the fact of survival is proof of fitness
to survive.
|
|
|
[9:] It seems to me that the question is not whether a community
lives or dies; the question is on what plane does it live. There are
different modes of survival. But not all are equally honourable. For an
individual as well as for a society, there is a gulf between merely living,
and living worthily. To fight in a battle and to live in glory is one mode.
To beat a retreat, to surrender, and to live the life of a captive is also a
mode of survival. It is useless for a Hindu to take comfort in the fact that he and his people have
survived. What he must consider is, what is the quality of their survival. If
he does that, I am sure he will cease to take pride in the mere fact of
survival. A Hindu's life has been a life of continuous defeat, and what
appears to him to be life everlasting is not living everlastingly, but is
really a life which is perishing everlastingly. It is a mode of survival of
which every right-minded Hindu who is not afraid to own up to the truth will
feel ashamed.
|
|
[1:] There is no doubt, in my opinion, that unless you change your social order you can achieve little by way of progress. You cannot mobilize the community either for defence or for offence. You cannot build anything on the foundations of caste. You cannot build up a nation, you cannot build up a morality. Anything that you will build on the foundations of caste will crack, and will never be a whole. |
|
|
[2:] The only question that remains to be considered is—How
to bring about the reform of the Hindu social order? How to abolish Caste? This is a question of supreme importance. There is a view that
in the reform of Caste, the first step to take is to abolish sub-castes. This
view is based upon the supposition that there is a greater similarity in
manners and status between sub-castes than there is between castes. I think
this is an erroneous supposition. TheBrahmins of Northern and Central India are socially of lower grade, as compared with the Brahmins of
the Deccan and Southern India. The
former are only cooks and water-carriers, while the latter occupy a high
social position. On the other hand, in Northern India, the Vaishyas and Kayasthas are intellectually and socially on a par with the Brahmins of
the Deccan and Southern India.
|
|
|
[3:] Again, in the matter of food there is no similarity between
theBrahmins of the Deccan and Southern India, who
are vegetarians, and the Brahmins of Kashmir and Bengal, who
are non-vegetarians. On the other hand, the Brahmins of the Deccan and
Southern India have more in common so far as food is concerned with such
non-Brahmins as the Gujaratis, Marwaris, Banias, and Jains.
|
|
|
[4:] There is no doubt that from the standpoint of making the
transition from one caste to another easy, the fusion of the Kayasthasof Northern India and the other Non-Brahmins of Southern Indiawith
the Non-Brahmins of the Deccan and the Dravidian country is more practicable than the fusion of the Brahmins of the South
with the Brahmins of the North. But assuming that the fusion of sub-castesis
possible, what guarantee is there that the abolition of sub-castes will
necessarily lead to the abolition of castes? On the contrary, it may happen
that the process may stop with the abolition of sub-castes. In that case, the
abolition of sub-castes will only help to strengthen the castes, and make
them more powerful and therefore more mischievous. This remedy is therefore
neither practicable nor effective, and may easily prove to be a wrong remedy.
|
|
|
[5:] Another plan of action for the abolition of Caste is to
begin with inter-caste dinners. This also, in my opinion, is an inadequate
remedy. There are many castes which allow inter-dining. But it is a common
experience that inter-dining has not succeeded in killing the spirit of Caste
and the consciousness of Caste. I am convinced that the real remedy is
inter-marriage. Fusion of blood can alone create the feeling of being kith
and kin, and unless this feeling of kinship, of being kindred, becomes
paramount, the separatist feeling—the feeling of being aliens—created by
Caste will not vanish. Among theHindus,
inter-marriage must necessarily be a factor of greater force in social life
than it need be in the life of the non-Hindus. Where society is already
well-knit by other ties, marriage is an ordinary incident of life. But where
society is cut asunder, marriage as a binding force becomes a matter of
urgent necessity. The
real remedy for breaking Caste is inter-marriage. Nothing else will serve as
the solvent of Caste.
|
|
|
[6:] Your Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal has adopted this line of attack. It is a direct and frontal
attack, and I congratulate you upon a correct diagnosis, and more upon your
having shown the courage to tell theHindus what is really wrong with them. Political tyranny is nothing
compared to social tyranny, and a reformer who defies society is a much more
courageous man than a politician who defies the government. You are right in
holding that Caste will cease to be an operative force only when inter-dining
and inter-marriage have become matters of common course. You have located the
source of the disease.
|
|
|
[7:] But is your prescription the right prescription for the
disease? Ask yourselves this question: why is it that a large majority of Hindusdo not
inter-dine and do not inter-marry? Why is it that your cause is not popular?
|
|
|
[8:] There can be only one answer to this question, and it is
that inter-dining and inter-marriage are repugnant to the beliefs and dogmas
which the Hindus regard as sacred. Caste is not a physical object like a wall of
bricks or a line of barbed wire which prevents the Hindus from commingling
and which has, therefore, to be pulled down. Caste is a notion, it is a state
of the mind. The destruction of Caste does not therefore mean the destruction
of a physical barrier. It means anotional change.
|
|
|
[9:] Caste may be bad. Caste may lead to conduct so gross as to
be called man's inhumanity to man. All the same, it must be recognized that
the Hindus observe Caste not because they are inhuman or wrong-headed. They
observe Caste because they are deeply religious. People are not wrong in
observing Caste. In my view, what is wrong is their religion, which has
inculcated this notion of Caste. If this is correct, then obviously the enemy
you must grapple with is not the people who observe Caste, but the Shastras which teach them this religion of Caste. Criticising and
ridiculing people for not inter-dining or inter-marrying, or occasionally
holding inter-caste dinners and celebrating inter-caste marriages, is a
futile method of achieving the desired end. The real remedy is to destroy the
belief in the sanctity of the Shastras.
|
|
|
[10:] How do you expect to succeed, if you allow the Shastras to continue to mould the beliefs and opinions of the people? Not
to question the authority of the Shastras—to
permit the people to believe in their sanctity and their sanctions, and then
to blame the people and to criticise them for their acts as being irrational
and inhuman—is an incongruous way of carrying on social reform. Reformers
working for the removal of untouchability, includingMahatma Gandhi, do
not seem to realize that the acts of the people are merely the results of
their beliefs inculcated in their minds by theShastras, and that
people will not change their conduct until they cease to believe in the
sanctity of the Shastras on which their conduct is founded.
|
|
|
[11:] No wonder that such efforts have not produced any results.
You also seem to be erring in the same way as the reformers working in the
cause of removing untouchability. To agitate for and to organise inter-caste
dinners and inter-caste marriages is like forced feeding brought about by
artificial means. Make every man and woman free from the thraldom of the Shastras,
cleanse their minds of the pernicious notions founded on the Shastras, and he or she will inter-dine and
inter-marry, without your telling him or her to do so.
|
|
|
[12:] It is no use seeking refuge in quibbles. It is no use
telling people that the Shastras do not say what they are believed to say, if they are
grammatically read or logically interpreted. What matters is how the Shastras have
been understood by the people. You must take the stand that Buddha took. You must take the stand which Guru Nanak took. You must not only discard the Shastras, you must deny their authority, as did Buddha
and Nanak. You must have courage to tell the Hindus that what is wrong with them is their religion—the religion
which has produced in them this notion of the sacredness of Caste. Will you
show that courage?
|
|
[1:] What are your chances of success? Social reforms fall into
different species. There is a species of reform which does not relate to the
religious notions of a people, but is purely secular in character. There is
also a species of reform which relates to the religious notions of a people.
Of such a species of reform, there are two varieties. In one, the reform
accords with the principles of the religion, and merely invites people who
have departed from it, to revert to them and to follow them.
|
|
|
[2:] The second is a reform which not only touches the religious
principles but is diametrically opposed to those principles, and invites
people to depart from and to discard their authority, and to act contrary to
those principles. Caste is the natural outcome of certain religious beliefs
which have the sanction of the Shastras, which
are believed to contain the command of divinely inspired sages who were
endowed with a supernatural wisdom and whose commands, therefore, cannot be
disobeyed without committing a sin.
|
|
|
[3:] The destruction of Caste is a reform which falls under the
third category [that is, the second variety of the second species]. To ask
people to give up Caste is to ask them to go contrary to their fundamental
religious notions. It is obvious that the first and second species of reform
are easy. But the third is a stupendous task, well-nigh impossible. The Hindus hold to the sacredness of the social order. Caste has a divine
basis. You must therefore destroy the sacredness and divinity with which
Caste has become invested. In the last analysis, this means you must destroy
the authority of theShastras and the Vedas.
|
|
|
[4:] I have emphasized this question of the ways and means of
destroying Caste, because I think that knowing the proper ways and means is
more important than knowing the ideal. If you do not know the real ways and
means, all your shots are sure to be misfires. If my analysis is correct,
then your task is herculean. You alone can say whether you are capable of
achieving it.
|
|
|
[5:] Speaking for myself, I see the task to be well-nigh
impossible. Perhaps you would like to know why I think so. Out of the many
reasons which have led me to take this view, I will mention some which I
regard as most important. One of these reasons is the attitude of hostility which
the Brahmins have shown towards this question. The Brahmins form the vanguard
of the movement for political reform, and in some cases also of economic
reform. But they are not to be found even as camp-followers in the army
raised to break down the barricades of Caste. Is there any hope of the
Brahmins ever taking up a lead in the future in this matter? I say no.
|
|
|
[6:] You may ask why. You may argue that there is no reason whyBrahmins should continue to shun social reform. You may argue that the
Brahmins know that the bane of Hindu Society is Caste, and as an enlightened class they could not be
expected to be indifferent to its consequences. You may argue that there are
secular Brahmins and priestly Brahmins, and if the latter do not take up the
cudgels on behalf of those who want to break Caste, the former will.
|
|
|
[7:] All this of course sounds very plausible. But in all this
it is forgotten that the break-up of the Caste system is bound to adversely affect the Brahmin caste. Having regard to
this, is it reasonable to expect that the Brahmins will ever consent to lead a movement, the ultimate result of
which is to destroy the power and prestige of the Brahmin caste? Is it
reasonable to expect the secular Brahmins to take part in a movement directed
against the priestly Brahmins? In my judgment, it is useless to make a
distinction between the secular Brahmins and priestly Brahmins. Both are kith
and kin. They are two arms of the same body, and one is bound to fight for
the existence of the other.
|
|
|
[8:] In this connection, I am reminded of some very pregnant
remarks made by Prof. Dicey in his English Constitution.
Speaking of the actual limitation on the legislative supremacy of Parliament,
Dicey says:
"The
actual exercise of authority by any sovereign whatever, and notably by
Parliament, is bounded or controlled by two limitations. Of these the one is
an external, and the other is an internal limitation. The external limit to
the real power of a sovereign consists in the possibility or certainty that
his subjects or a large number of them will disobey or resist his laws....The
internal limit to the exercise of sovereignty arises from the nature of the
sovereign power itself. Even a despot exercises his powers in accordance with
his character, which is itself moulded by the circumstance under which he
lives, including under that head the moral feelings of the time and the
society to which he belongs. The Sultan could not, if he woulrfd, change the
religion of the Mohammedan world, but even if he could do so, it is in the
very highest degree improbable that the head of Mohammedanism should wish to
overthrow the religion of Mohammed; the internal check on the exercise of the
Sultan's power is at least as strong as the external limitation. People
sometimes ask the idle question, why the Pope does not introduce this or that
reform? The true answer is that a revolutionist is not the kind of man who
becomes a Pope and that a man who becomes a Pope has no wish to be a
revolutionist."
|
|
|
[9:] I think these remarks apply equally to the Brahmins of India, and one can say with equal truth that if a man who
becomes a Pope has no wish to become a revolutionary, a man who is born a
Brahmin has much less desire to become a revolutionary. Indeed, to expect a
Brahmin to be a revolutionary in matters of social reform is as idle as to
expect the British Parliament, as was said by Leslie Stephen, to
pass an Act requiring all blue-eyed babies to be murdered.
|
|
|
[10:] Some of you will say that it is a matter of small concern
whether the Brahmins come forward to lead the movement against Caste or whether they
do not. To take this view is, in my judgment, to ignore the part played by
the intellectual class in the community. Whether you accept the theory of the
great man as the maker of history or whether you do not, this much you will
have to concede: that in every country the intellectual class is the most
influential class, if not the governing class. The intellectual class is the class
which can foresee, it is the class which can advise and give the lead. In no
country does the mass of the people live the life of intelligent thought and
action. It is largely imitative, and follows the intellectual class.
|
|
|
[11:] There is no exaggeration in saying that the entire destiny
of a country depends upon its intellectual class. If the intellectual class
is honest, independent, and disinterested, it can be trusted to take the
initiative and give a proper lead when a crisis arises. It is true that
intellect by itself is no virtue. It is only a means, and the use of means
depends upon the ends which an intellectual person pursues. An intellectual
man can be a good man, but he can easily be a rogue. Similarly an
intellectual class may be a band of high-souled persons, ready to help, ready
to emancipate erring humanity—or it may easily be a gang of crooks, or a body
of advocates for a narrow clique from which it draws its support.
|
|
|
[12:] You may think it a pity that the intellectual class in
India is simply another name for the Brahmin caste. You may regret that the two are one; that the existence
of the intellectual class should be bound up with one single caste; that this
intellectual class should share the interest and the aspirations of that
Brahmin caste, and should be a class which has regarded itself as the
custodian of the interest of that caste, rather than of the interests of the
country. All this may be very regrettable. But the fact remains that the
Brahmins form the intellectual class of the Hindus. It is not only an
intellectual class, but it is a class which is held in great reverence by the
rest of the Hindus.
|
|
|
[13:] The Hindus are taught that the Brahmins are Bhudevas (Gods on earth)
|
|
|
[14:]
|
|
|
[15:] When such an intellectual class, which holds the rest of
the community in its grip, is opposed to the reform of Caste, the chances of
success in a movement for the break-up of the Caste systemappear
to me very, very remote.
|
|
|
[16:] The second reason why I say the task is impossible will be
clear, if you will bear in mind that the Caste system has two aspects. In one of its aspects, it divides men into
separate communities. In its second aspect, it places these communities in a
graded order one above the other in social status. Each caste takes its pride
and its consolation in the fact that in the scale of castes it is above some
other caste. As an outward mark of this gradation, there is also a gradation
of social and religious rights, technically spoken of as Ashtadhikaras andSanskaras. The
higher the grade of a caste, the greater the number of these rights; and the
lower the grade, the lesser their number.
|
|
|
[17:] Now this gradation, this scaling of castes, makes it
impossible to organise a common front against the Caste System. If a
caste claims the right to inter-dine and inter-marry with another caste
placed above it, it is frozen the instant it is told by mischief-mongers—and
there are many Brahmins amongst such mischief-mongers—that it will have to concede
inter-dining and inter-marriage with castes below it! All are slaves of the
Caste System. But all the slaves are not equal in status.
|
|
|
[18:] To excite the proletariat to bring about an economic
revolution,Karl Marx told them: "You have nothing to lose except your
chains." But the artful way in which the social and religious rights are
distributed among the different castes, whereby some have more and some have
less, makes the slogan of Karl Marx quite useless to excite the Hindus against the Caste System.
Castes form a graded system of sovereignties, high and low, which are jealous
of their status and which know that if a general dissolution came, some of
them stand to lose more of their prestige and power than others do. You
cannot, therefore, have a general mobilization of the Hindus (to use a military expression) for an attack on the Caste
System.
|
|
[1:] Can you appeal to reason, and ask the Hindus to discard Caste as being contrary to reason? That raises the question: Is a Hindu free to follow his reason? Manu has laid down three sanctions to which every Hindu must conform in the matter of his behaviour: |
|
|
[2:]
|
|
|
[5:]
|
|
|
[6:] According to this rule, rationalism as a canon of
interpreting theVedas and Smritis is absolutely condemned. It is regarded to be as wicked as
atheism, and the punishment provided for it is excommunication. Thus, where a
matter is covered by the Veda or the Smriti, a Hindu cannot resort to rational thinking.
|
|
|
[7:] Even when there is a conflict between Vedas and Smritis on matters on which they have given a positive injunction, the
solution is not left to reason. When there is a conflict between two Shrutis, both
are to be regarded as of equal authority. Either of them may be followed. No
attempt is to be made to find out which of the two accords with reason. This
is made clear by Manu:
|
|
|
[8:]
|
|
|
[10:]
|
|
|
[11:] Again, when there is a conflict between two Smritis, the ManuSmriti must prevail, but no attempt is to be made to find out which of
the two accords with reason. This is the ruling given by Brihaspati:
|
|
|
[12:]
|
|
|
[13:] It is, therefore, clear that in any matter on which the Shrutisand Smritis have given a positive direction, a Hindu is not free to use his reasoning faculty. The same rule is laid
down in theMahabharat:
|
|
|
[14:]
|
|
|
[16:] So far as Caste and Varna are concerned, not only the Shastrasdo not
permit the Hindu to use his reason in the decision of the question, but they have
taken care to see that no occasion is left to examine in a rational way the
foundations of his belief in Caste and Varna. It must be a source of silent
amusement to many a Non-Hindu to find hundreds and thousands of Hindus
breaking Caste on certain occasions, such as railway journeys and foreign
travel, and yet endeavouring to maintain Caste for the rest of their lives!
|
|
|
[17:] The explanation of this phenomenon discloses another
fetter on the reasoning faculties of the Hindus. Man's life is generally
habitual and unreflective. Reflective thought—in the sense of active,
persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of
knowledge, in the light of the grounds that support it and the further
conclusions to which it tends—is quite rare, and arises only in a situation
which presents a dilemma or a crisis. Railway journeys and foreign travels
are really occasions of crisis in the life of a Hindu, and
it is natural to expect a Hindu to ask himself why he should maintain Caste
at all, if he cannot maintain it at all times. But he does not. He breaks
Caste at one step, and proceeds to observe it at the next, without raising
any question.
|
|
|
[18:] The reason for this astonishing conduct is to be found in
the rule of the Shastras, which
directs him to maintain Caste as far as possible and to undergo prayaschitta when he cannot. By this theory of prayaschitta, the Shastras, by following a spirit of compromise, have
given caste a perpetual lease on life, and have smothered the reflective
thought which would have otherwise led to the destruction of the notion of
Caste.
|
|
|
[21:]
|
|
|
[22:] According to this, sadachar,
whether it is dharmya oradharmya, in
accordance with Shastras or contrary to Shastras, must
be followed. But what is the meaning of sadachar? If
anyone were to suppose that sadachar means right or good acts—i.e., acts of good and righteous men—he
would find himself greatly mistaken.Sadachar does not means good acts or acts of good men. It means ancient
custom, good or bad. The
following verse makes this clear:
|
|
|
[24:] As though to warn people against the
view that sadachar means good acts or acts of good men, and fearing that people
might understand it that way and follow the acts of good men, the Smritishave
commanded the Hindus in unmistakable terms not to follow even Gods in their good
deeds, if they are contrary to Shruti,Smriti,
and sadachar. This
may sound to be most extraordinary, most perverse, but the fact remains that
|
|
|
[25:] Reason and morality are the two most
powerful weapons in the armoury of a reformer. To deprive him of the use of
these weapons is to disable him for action. How are you going to break up
Caste, if people are not free to consider whether it accords with reason? How
are you going to break up Caste, if people are not free to consider whether
it accords with morality? The wall built around Caste is impregnable, and the
material of which it is built contains none of the combustible stuff of
reason and morality. Add to this the fact that inside this wall stands the
army of Brahmins who form the intellectual class, Brahmins who are the natural
leaders of theHindus,
Brahmins who are there not as mere mercenary soldiers but as an army fighting
for its homeland, and you will get an idea why I think that the breaking up
of Caste among the Hindus is well-nigh impossible. At any rate, it would take
ages before a breach is made.
|
|
|
[26:] But whether the doing of the deed takes
time or whether it can be done quickly, you must not forget that if you wish
to bring about a breach in the system, then you have got to apply the
dynamite to theVedas and the Shastras, which
deny any part to reason; to theVedas and Shastras, which deny any part to morality. You must
destroy the religion of the Shrutis and the Smritis.
Nothing else will avail. This is my considered view of the matter.
|
|
[1:] Some may not understand what I mean by destruction of Religion; some may find the idea revolting to them, and some may find it revolutionary. Let me therefore explain my position. I do not know whether you draw a distinction between principles and rules. But I do. Not only do I make a distinction, but I say that this distinction is real and important. Rules are practical; they are habitual ways of doing things according to prescription. But principles are intellectual; they are useful methods of judging things. Rules seek to tell an agent just what course of action to pursue. Principles do not prescribe a specific course of action. Rules, like cooking recipes, do tell just what to do and how to do it. A principle, such as that of justice, supplies a main heading by reference to which he is to consider the bearings of his desires and purposes; it guides him in his thinking by suggesting to him the important consideration which he should bear in mind. |
|
|
[2:] This difference between rules and principles makes the acts
done in pursuit of them different in quality and in content. Doing what is
said to be good by virtue of a rule, and doing good in the light of a
principle, are two different things. The principle may be wrong, but the act
is conscious and responsible. The rule may be right, but the act is
mechanical. A religious act may not be a correct act, but must at least be a
responsible act. To permit of this responsibility, Religion must mainly be a
matter of principles only. It cannot be a matter of rules. The moment it
degenerates into rules, it ceases to be Religion, as it kills the
responsibility which is the essence of a truly religious act.
|
|
|
[3:] What is this Hindu Religion? Is it a set of principles, or is it a code of rules?
Now the Hindu Religion, as contained in the Vedas and theSmritis, is
nothing but a mass of sacrificial, social, political, and sanitary rules and
regulations, all mixed up. What is called Religion by the Hindus is nothing
but a multitude of commands and prohibitions. Religion, in the sense of
spiritual principles, truly universal, applicable to all races, to all
countries, to all times, is not to be found in them; and if it is, it does
not form the governing part of a Hindu's life. That for a Hindu, Dharma means commands and prohibitions, is clear from the way the word
Dharma is used in theVedas and the Smritis and
understood by the commentators. The word Dharma as used in the Vedas in most
cases means religious ordinances or rites. Even Jaimini in his Purva-Mimamsa defines Dharma as "a desirable goal or result that is
indicated by injunctive (Vedic) passages."
|
|
|
[4:] To put it in plain language, what the Hindus call Religion is really Law, or at best legalized class-ethics.
Frankly, I refuse to call this code of ordinances as Religion. The first evil
of such a code of ordinances, misrepresented to the people as Religion, is
that it tends to deprive moral life of freedom and spontaneity, and to reduce
it (for the conscientious, at any rate) to a more or less anxious and servile
conformity to externally imposed rules. Under it, there is no loyalty to
ideals; there is only conformity to commands.
|
|
|
[5:] But the worst evil of this code of ordinances is that the
laws it contains must be the same yesterday, today, and forever. They are
iniquitous in that they are not the same for one class as for another. But
this iniquity is made perpetual in that they are prescribed to be the same
for all generations. The objectionable part of such a scheme is not that they
are made by certain persons called Prophets or Law-givers. The objectionable
part is that this code has been invested with the character of finality and
fixity. Happiness notoriously varies with the conditions and circumstances of
a person, as well as with the conditions of different people and epochs. That
being the case, how can humanity endure this code of eternal laws, without
being cramped and without being crippled?
|
|
|
[6:] I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying that such a
religion must be destroyed, and I say there is nothing irreligious in working
for the destruction of such a religion. Indeed I hold that it is your bounden
duty to tear off the mask, to remove the misrepresentation that is caused by
misnaming this Law as Religion. This is an essential step for you. Once you
clear the minds of the people of this misconception, and enable them to
realize that what they are told is Religion is not Religion, but that it is
really Law, you will be in a position to urge its amendment or abolition.
|
|
|
[7:] So long as people look upon it as Religion they will not be
ready for a change, because the idea of Religion is generally speaking not
associated with the idea of change. But the idea of law is associated with
the idea of change, and when people come to know that what is called Religion
is really Law, old and archaic, they will be ready for a change, for people
know and accept that law can be changed.
|
|
[1:] While I condemn a Religion of Rules, I must not be understood to hold the opinion that there is no necessity for a religion. On the contrary, I agree with Burke when he says that "True religion is the foundation of society, the basis on which all true Civil Government rests, and both their sanction." Consequently, when I urge that these ancient rules of life be annulled, I am anxious that their place shall be taken by a Religion of Principles, which alone can lay claim to being a true Religion. Indeed, I am so convinced of the necessity of Religion that I feel I ought to tell you in outline what I regard as necessary items in this religious reform. The following, in my opinion, should be the cardinal items in this reform:
1.
There should be one and only one standard book of HinduReligion,
acceptable to all Hindus and recognized by all Hindus. This of course means that all
other books of Hindu religion such as Vedas, Shastras, and Puranas, which
are treated as sacred and authoritative, must by law cease to be so, and the
preaching of any doctrine, religious or social, contained in these books
should be penalized.
2.
It would be better if priesthood among Hindus were abolished. But as this seems to be impossible, the
priesthood must at least cease to be hereditary. Every person who professes
to be aHindu must be eligible for being a priest. It should be provided by
law that no Hindu shall be entitled to be a priest unless he has passed an
examination prescribed by the State, and holds asanad from the State permitting him to practise.
3.
No ceremony performed by a priest who does not hold a sanadshall be deemed to be valid in law, and it should be made penal
[=punishable] for a person who has no sanad to officiate as a priest.
4.
A priest should be the servant of the State, and should be
subject to the disciplinary action of the State in the matter of his morals,
beliefs, and worship, in addition to his being subject along with other
citizens to the ordinary law of the land.
5.
The number of priests should be limited by law according to the
requirements of the State, as is done in the case of theI.C.S.
|
|
|
[2:] To some, this may sound radical. But to my mind there is
nothing revolutionary in this. Every profession in India is regulated.
Engineers must show proficiency, doctors must show proficiency, lawyers must
show proficiency, before they are allowed to practise their professions.
During the whole of their career, they must not only obey the law of the
land, civil as well as criminal, but they must also obey the special code of
morals prescribed by their respective professions. The priest's is the only profession
where proficiency is not required. The profession of a Hindu priest is the only profession which is not subject to any code.
|
|
|
[3:] Mentally a priest may be an idiot, physically a priest may
be suffering from a foul disease such as syphilis or gonorrhea, morally he
may be a wreck. But he is fit to officiate at solemn ceremonies, to enter the sanctum sanctorum [=holiest
part] of a Hindu temple, and to worship the Hindu God. All this becomes possible
among theHindus because for a priest it is enough to be born in a priestly
caste. The whole thing is abominable, and is due to the fact that the
priestly class among Hindus is subject neither to law nor to morality. It
recognizes no duties. It knows only of rights and privileges. It is a pest
which divinity seems to have let loose on the masses for their mental and
moral degradation.
|
|
|
[4:] The priestly class must be brought under control by some
such legislation as I have outlined above. This will prevent it from doing
mischief and from misguiding people. It will democratise it by throwing it
open to everyone. It will certainly help to kill the Brahminism and will also
help to kill Caste, which is nothing but Brahminism incarnate. Brahminism is
the poison which has spoiled Hinduism. You will succeed in saving Hinduism if
you will kill Brahminism. There should be no opposition to this reform from
any quarter. It should be welcomed even by the Arya Samajists,
because this is merely an application of their own doctrine of guna-karma.
|
|
|
[5:] Whether you do that or you do not, you must give a new
doctrinal basis to your Religion—a basis that will be in consonance with
Liberty, Equality and Fraternity; in short, with Democracy. I am no authority
on the subject. But I am told that for such religious principles as will be
in consonance with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, it may not be necessary
for you to borrow from foreign sources, and that you could draw for such
principles on theUpanishads.
Whether you could do so without a complete remoulding, a considerable
scraping and chipping off from the ore they contain, is more than I can say.
This means a complete change in the fundamental notions of life. It means a
complete change in the values of life. It means a complete change in outlook
and in attitude towards men and things.
|
|
|
[6:] It means conversion—but if you do not like the word, I will
say it means new life. But a new life cannot enter a body that is dead. New
life can enter only into a new body. The old body must die before a new body
can come into existence and a new life can enter into it. To put it simply:
the old must cease to be operative before the new can begin to enliven
[=live] and to pulsate. This is what I meant when I said you must discard the
authority of the Shastras, and
destroy the religion of the Shastras.
|
|
[1:] I have kept you too long. It is time I brought this address to a close. This would have been a convenient point for me to have stopped. But this would probably be my last address to a Hinduaudience, on a subject vitally concerning the Hindus. I would therefore like, before I close, to place before the Hindus, if they will allow me, some questions which I regard as vital, and invite them seriously to consider the same. |
|
|
[2:] In the first place, the Hindus must consider whether it is sufficient to take the placid view
of the anthropologist that there is nothing to be said about the beliefs,
habits, morals, and outlooks on life which obtain among the different peoples
of the world, except that they often differ; or whether it is not necessary
to make an attempt to find out what kind of morality, beliefs, habits, and
outlook have worked best and have enabled those who possessed them to
flourish, to grow strong, to people the earth and to have dominion over it.
As is observed by Prof. Carver,
"Morality
and religion, as the organised expression of moral approval and disapproval,
must be regarded as factors in the struggle for existence as truly as are
weapons for offence and defence, teeth and claws, horns and hoofs, furs and
feathers. The social group, community, tribe, or nation, which develops an
unworkable scheme of morality or within which those social acts which weaken
it and unfit it for survival, habitually create the sentiment of approval,
while those which would strengthen and enable it to be expanded habitually
create the sentiment of disapproval, will eventually be eliminated. It is its
habits of approval or disapproval (these are the results of religion and
morality) that handicap it, as really as the possession of two wings on one
side with none on the other will handicap the colony of flies. It would be as
futile in the one case as in the other to argue, that one system is just as
good as another."
|
|
|
[3:] Morality and religion, therefore, are not mere matters of
likes and dislikes. You may dislike exceedingly a scheme of morality which,
if universally practised within a nation, would make that nation the
strongest nation on the face of the earth. Yet in spite of your dislike, such
a nation will become strong. You may like exceedingly a scheme of morality
and an ideal of justice which, if universally practised within a nation,
would make it unable to hold its own in the struggle with other nations. Yet
in spite of your admiration, this nation will eventually disappear. The Hindus must, therefore, examine their religion and their morality in
terms of their survival value.
|
|
|
[4:] Secondly, the Hindus must consider whether they should conserve the whole of their
social heritage, or select what is helpful and transmit to future generations
only that much and no more. Prof. John Dewey, who
was my teacher and to whom I owe so much, has said: "Every society gets
encumbered with what is trivial, with dead wood from the past, and with what
is positively perverse....As a society becomes more enlightened, it realizes
that it is responsiblenot to
conserve and transmit the whole of its existing achievements, but only such
as make for a better future society." Even Burke, in
spite of the vehemence with which he opposed the principle of change embodied
in the French Revolution, was compelled to admit that "a State without
the means of some change is without the means of its conservation. Without
such means it might even risk the loss of that part of the constitution which it wished the most religiously to preserve.'' What Burke
said of a State applies equally to a society.
|
|
|
[5:] Thirdly, the Hindus must consider whether they must not cease to worship the past as
supplying their ideals. The baneful effects of this worship of the past are
best summed up by Prof. Dewey when he says:
"An
individual can live only in the present. The present is not just something
which comes after the past; much less something produced by it. It is what
life is in leaving the past behind it. The study of past products will not
help us to understand the present. A knowledge of the past and its heritage
is of great significance when it enters into the present, but not otherwise.
And the mistake of making the records and remains of the past the main
material of education is that it tends to make the past a rival of the
present and the present a more or less futile imitation of the past."
|
|
|
[6:] The principle which makes little of the present act of
living and growing, naturally looks upon the present as empty and upon the
future as remote. Such a principle is inimical to progress, and is a
hindrance to a strong and a steady current of life.
|
|
|
[7:] Fourthly, the Hindus must consider whether the time has not come for them to
recognize that there is nothing fixed, nothing eternal, nothing sanatan; that
everything is changing, that change is the law of life for individuals as
well as for society. In a changing society, there must be a constant
revolution of old values; and the Hindus must realize that if there must be
standards to measure the acts of men, there must also be a readiness to
revise those standards.
|
|
[1:] I have to confess that this address has become too lengthy. Whether this fault is compensated to any extent by breadth or depth is a matter for you to judge. All I claim is to have told you candidly my views. I have little to recommend them but some study and a deep concern in your destiny. If you will allow me to say it, these views are the views of a man who has been no tool of power, no flatterer of greatness. They come from one, almost the whole of whose public exertion has been one continuous struggle for liberty for the poor and for the oppressed, and whose only reward has been a continuous shower of calumny and abuse from national journals and national leaders, for no other reason except that I refuse to join with them in performing the miracle—I will not say trick—of liberating the oppressed with the gold of the tyrant, and raising the poor with the cash of the rich. |
|
|
[2:] All this may not be enough to commend my views. I think
they [=Dr. Ambedkar's views] are not likely to alter yours. But whether they
do or do not, the responsibility is entirely yours. You must make your
efforts to uproot Caste, if not in my way, then in your way.
|
|
|
[3:] I am sorry, I will not be with you. I have decided to
change. This is not the place for giving reasons. But even when I am gone out
of your fold, I will watch your movement with active sympathy, and you will
have my assistance for what it may be worth. Yours is a national cause. Caste
is no doubt primarily the breath of the Hindus. But
the Hindus have fouled the air all over, and everybody is infected—Sikh, Muslim, and
Christian. You, therefore, deserve the support of all those who are suffering
from this infection—Sikh, Muslim, and Christian.
|
|
|
[4:] Yours is more difficult than the other national cause,
namelySwaraj. In
the fight for Swaraj you fight with the whole nation on your side. In this,
you have to fight against the whole nation—and that too, your own. But it is
more important than Swaraj. There is no use having Swaraj, if you cannot
defend it. More important than the question of defending Swaraj is the
question of defending the Hindusunder
the Swaraj. In my opinion, it is only when Hindu Society becomes a casteless
society that it can hope to have strength enough to defend itself. Without
such internal strength, Swaraj for Hindus may turn out to be only a step
towards slavery. Good-bye, and good wishes for your success.
|
Ambedkarism
उत्तर द्याहटवा14 April Bhim Jayanti Songs, Popular 14 April Hindi Songs Ambedkar jayanti
ver good
Best- books for CDS 2018-2019
important synonyms for cds exam
important synonyms for cds and defence exam
http://ambedkaranuyayi.blogspot.in/
उत्तर द्याहटवाAmbedkarism
उत्तर द्याहटवा