|
Annihilation
of Caste
with
A Reply to Mahatma Gandhi
B. R.
Ambedkar
M.A., Ph.D.
(London); L.L.D. (Columbia);
D.Sc., D.Litt. (Osmania); Bar-at-law
PART 2
GO TO PART 1
Contents
SPEECH PREPARED by
Dr. B. R. AMBEDKAR
Section VI * Section
VII * Section
VIII * Section IX *
Section X *
Section XI
Section XII * Section
XIII * Section XIV
* Section XV
* Section XVI * Section
XVII
Section XVIII *
Section XIX * Section
XX * Section
XXI * Section
XXII * Section
XXIII
Section XXIV *
Section XXV *
Section XXVI
Appendix
I: A VINDICATION OF CASTE BY MAHATMA GANDHI
Section II * Section III
Appendix
II: A REPLY TO THE MAHATMA
Section I * Section II * Section III * Section
IV * Section V *
Section VI
Section VII *
Section VIII * Section IX
* Section X * Section
XI
VI
Go
To Index Go
To Index
Caste does not result in economic efficiency. Caste cannot and
has not improved the race. Caste has however done one thing. It
has completely disorganized and demoralized the Hindus.
The first and foremost thing that must be recognized is that
Hindu 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. It does not occur in any Sanskrit 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. 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. 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 in as much as there is a similarity of 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 Hindus constitute 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. 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 similarly in certain things; is not enough to constitute
a society. Men constitute a society because they have things
which they possess in common. To have similar thing 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. This is proved by the fat 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 lie 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.
VII
Go
To Index Go
To Index
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 did
in singing their hymn of hate against the English during the last
war. 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. 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 subdivisions 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 antisocial 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. This antisocial 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-Brahmin's primary concern is to
protect their interests against those of the Brahmins. The
Hindus, therefore, are not merely an assortment of castes but
they are so many warring groups each living for itself and for
its selfish ideal. 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 war 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
descendants 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.
VIII
Go
To Index Go
To Index
The recent 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 questions 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. 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? 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. 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 win have to
thank himself and his Caste System.
IX
Go
To Index Go
To Index
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. The Sonars were styling themselves Daivadnya Brahmins
and were wearing their ‘dhotis’ with folds on and using
the word namaskar for salutation. Both, the folded way of
wearing the ‘dhoti’ and the namaskar were
special to the Brahmins. The Brahmin 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. 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 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. 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.
X
Go
To Index Go
To Index
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? My answer is this.
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. Unlike the club the membership of a
caste is not open to all and sundry. The law of caste confines
its membership to person 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. Hindu Society being a collection of
castes and each caste being a close 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 castes remain, Hindu religion cannot be
made a missionary religion and Shudhi will be both a folly
and a futility.
XI
Go
To Index Go
To Index
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 make
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 all Mohammedans will rush
to save a Muslim if he is attacked. 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. 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 the Hindu 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. 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
Caste System which has made Sanghatan and co-operation
even for a good cause impossible.
XII
Go
To Index Go
To Index
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 and in the end 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. 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 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. 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 insist upon complete conformity to its
code in letter and in spirit. 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 reforms and for
killing all reform.
XIII
Go
To Index Go
To Index
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. A Hindus 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 to the deserving. There is no
appreciation of the meritorious. There is no charity to the
needy. Suffering as such calls for no response. There is charity
but it begins with the caste and ends with the caste. There is
sympathy but not for men of other caste. 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 and not standing by vice. It is a case
of standing or not standing by the caste. Have not Hindus
committed treason against their country in the interests of their
caste?
XIV
Go
To Index Go
To Index
I would not be surprised 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? 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 communicate– an experience. It is
essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards fellow
men. 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 due state of health. Why not allow
liberty to benefit by 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. 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 other 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. 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. 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 every one's powers. But what
would happen if men were treated unequally as they are, 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 forces that in the third respect we
should treat men unequally demands that in the first two respects
we should treat men as equally as possible. 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 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
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.
XV
Go
To Index Go
To Index
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. 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. There is another objection to the continuance
of these labels. All reform consists in a change in the notions,
sentiment 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
persons attitude towards men and things. The names, Brahmin,
Kshatriya, Vaishya and. Shudra, are 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. 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 act accordingly. The Hindu 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 name is to
make the reform futile. To allow this Chaturvarnya, based on
worth to be designated by such stinking labels of Brahmin,
Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, indicative of social divisions based
on birth, is a snare.
XVI
Go
To Index Go
To Index
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
sentiment. 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, 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
do not seem to have taken into account. The principle underlying
caste is fundamentally different from the principle underlying Varna.
Not only are they fundamentally different but they are also
fundamentally opposed. The former 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 Varna system.
How are you going to reduce the four thousand castes, based on
birth, to the four Varnas, based on worth? This is the
first difficulty which the protagonists of the Chaturvamya must
grapple with. There is a second difficulty which the protagonists
of Chaturvarnya must grapple with, if they wish to make the
establishment of Chaturvarnya a success.
Chaturvamya presupposes 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 have 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. The criticism to which Plato's Republic
is subject, is also the criticism which must apply to the system
of Chaturvarnya, in so far 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 of
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 forming class of his own. He had
no recognition of the infinite diversity of active tendencies and
combination of tendencies of which an individual is capable. To
him, there were types of faculties or powers in the individual
constitution. All this is demonstrably wrong. Modern science has
shown that 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. Chaturvamya must fail for the very reason for which
Plato's Republic must fail, namely that it is not possible to
pigeon men into holes, according as he belongs 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.
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. That, without
penal sanction the ideal of Chaturvarnya cannot be realized, is
proved by the story in the Ramayana of Rama killing Shambuka.
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 Chaturvamya.
It was his duty therefore to kill Shambuka, the Shudra, who had
transgressed his class and wanted to be a Brahm. 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 penalty of death is
necessary. That is why Rama did not inflict on Shambuka a lesser
punishment. That is why 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 they could induce modem society in
the twentieth century to reforge the penal sanctions of
Manu-Smriti.
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
and Shudra? 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 Chaturvamya,
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? If it
is to be nominal then it is useless and then the protagonists of
Chattirvarnya 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. Hindu society 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 and believe in a successful regeneration of the
Chaturvarnya.
XVII
Go
To Index Go
To Index
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 Vaishya
should 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 that 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 should the Shudra need trouble to
acquire wealth, when the three 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 because
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 Varnas as his
guardians. Thus interpreted, it is a simple, elevating and
alluring theory. 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? Contrarywise,
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 the matter of that 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 the matter of that, of the Brahmin and the Vaishya when the
person who is robbing him of it is the Kshatriya?
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 their conception of Chaturvarnya that the relationship
between the different classes is that of ward and guardian 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. Whether 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 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
Tryavamikas 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. 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
system of Chaturvarnya. 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
ploughshare into swords. They had no bayonets and therefore
everyone who chose could and did sit upon them. On account of the
Chaturvarnya, 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. 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 Chaturvarnya. There cannot be a more degrading system of
social organization than the Chaturvarnya. It is the system which
deadens, paralyses and cripples the people 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 Chaturvarnya 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
Chaturvarnya flourished to the damnation of the greater part of
the people of the country.
XVIII
Go
To Index Go
To Index
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 Brahmins annihilated the seed of the Kshatriyas! How
many times have the Kshatriyas annihilated the Brahmins! The
Mahabharata and the Puranas 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. 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 Almighty God for relief from their tyranny. The Bhagwat
tells us very definitely that Krishna had taken Avtar 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 any one can hold
out Chaturvarnya as an ideal to be aimed at or as a pattern, on
which the Hindu Society should be remodelled.
XIX
Go
To Index Go
To Index
I have dealt with those, who are without you and whose
hostility to your ideal 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. Such Hindus cite the case of Muslims, Sikhs and
Christians and find comfort in the fact that they too have castes
amongst them. 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,
friendship, 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. 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? 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. If we apply these considerations to castes
among Mohammedans, 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. 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 Mohammedan 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. That caste has not the
same social significance among Non-Hindu 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.
He 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. But there is
also a third and a more important one. Caste among the non-Hindus
has no religious consecration; but among the Hindus most
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.
The other set 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 hag 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. 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 all are not
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 the truth, will
feel ashamed.
XX
Go
To Index Go
To Index
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.
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. The Brahmins 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. Again, in the matter
of food there is no similarity between the Brahmins 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. There is no doubt that
from the standpoint of making the transit from one caste to
another easy, the fusion of the Kayasthas of Northern India and
the other Non-Brahmins of Southern India with the Non-Brahmins of
the Deccan and the Dravid 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-Castes is 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. 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 the Hindus 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 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. 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 the
Hindus 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 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. But is your prescription the
right prescription for the disease? Ask yourselves this question:
Why is it that a large majority of Hindus do not inter-dine and
do not inter-marry? Why is it that your cause is not popular?
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 a notional change. 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 intermarrying 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. 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 to blame them and to criticise them for their acts
as being irrational and inhuman is a incongruous way of carrying
on social reform. Reformers working for the removal of
untouchability, including Mahatma Gandhi, do not seem to realize
that the acts of the people are merely the results of their
beliefs inculcated upon their minds by the Shastras 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. 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.
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, 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?
XXI
Go
To Index Go
To Index
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 notion of people but is purely secular in
character. There is also a species of reform, which relates to
the religious notions of 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. 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
sin. The destruction of Caste is a reform which falls under the
third category. 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 the Shastras and the Vedas.
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.
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 much 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. You may ask why? You may argue that there
is no reason why Brahmins 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 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. 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 affect adversely 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
judgement, 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 bound to fight for the
existence of the other. 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 would, 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 Mohanunedanism 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 revolutionise is not the kind of man who becomes a Pope
and that a man who becomes a Pope has no wish to be a
revolutionise." 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.
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
judgement 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 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. 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 of a narrow clique from which it draws its support. 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 with one single caste, that this intellectual
class should share the interest and the aspirations of that
Brahmin caste, which has regarded itself 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. The Hindus are
taught that the Brahmins are Bhudevas (Gods on earth) The
Hindus are taught that Brahmins alone can be their teachers. Manu
says, "If it be asked how it should be with respect to
points of the Dharma which have not been specially mentioned, the
answer is that which Brahmins who are Shishthas propound shall
doubtless have legal force":
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
System appear to me very, very remote.
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 an Ashtadhikaras and
Sanskaras. The higher the grade of a caste, the greater the
number of these rights and the lower the grade, the lesser their
number. 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, instantly it is told
by mischief-mongers, and there are many Brahmins amongst such
mischief-mongers, that it will have to concede inter-dining and
intermarriage with castes below it! All are slaves of the Caste
System. But all the slaves are not equal in status. 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.
XXII
Go
To Index Go
To Index
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.
Here there is no place for reason to play its part. A Hindu must
follow either Veda, Smriti or Sadachar. He cannot follow
anything else. In the first place how are the texts of the Vedas
and Smritis to be interpreted whenever any doubt
arises regarding their meaning? On this important question the
view of Manu is quite definite. He says:
According to this rule, rationalism as a canon of interpreting
the Vedas and Smritis, is absolutely condemned. It
is regarded to be as wicked as atheism and the punishment
provided for it is excomunication. Thus, where a matter is
covered by the Veda or the Smriti, a Hindu cannot
resort to rational thinking. 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
"When there is a conflict between Shruti and
Smriti, the Shruti must prevail." But here too,
no attempt must be made to find out which of the two accords with
reason. This is laid down by Manu in the following Shloka
Again, when there is a conflict between two Smritis, the
Manu-Smriti 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:
It is, therefore, clear that in any matter on which the Shrutis
and Smritis have given a positive direction, a Hindu
is not free to use his reasoning faculty. The same rule is laid
down in the Mahabharat:
He must abide by their directions. The Caste and Varna
are matters which are dealt with by the Vedas and the Smritis
and consequently, appeal to reason can have no effect
on a Hindu. So far as Caste and Varna are concerned, not
only the Shastras do 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 journey and foreign travel and yet endeavouring to
maintain Caste for the rest of their lives! 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 or knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and
further conclusions to which it tends, is quite rare and arises
only in a situation which presents a dilemma–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. 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 of life and have smothered reflective
thought which would have otherwise led to the destruction of the
notion of Caste.
There have been many who have worked in the cause of the
abolition of Caste and Untouchability. Of those, who can be
mentioned, Ramanuja, Kabir and others stand out prominently. Can
you appeal to the acts of these reformers and exhort the Hindus
to follow them? It is true that Manu has included Sadachar as
one of the sanctions along with Shruti and Smriti. Indeed,
Sadachar has been given a higher place than Shastras:
According to this, Sadachar, whether, it is (…) or
(…) in accordance with Shastras or contrary to Shastras,
must be followed. But what is the meaning of Sadachar? If
any one 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:
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 Smritis
have 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 is an
injunction, issued to the Hindus by their Shastras. 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 reasons 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 the Hindus, 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 breaking-up of Caste
amongst the Hindus is well-nigh impossible. At any rate, it would
take ages before a breach is made. 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 the Vedas and
the Shastras which deny any part to reason, to Vedas 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.
XXIII
Go
To Index Go
To Index
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 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 head 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.
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
responsibility which is the essence of a truly religious act.
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 the Smritis 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 Vedas
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-Mimansa
defines Dharma as "a desirable goal or result that is
indicated by injunctive (Vedic) passages ". 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. 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? 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 the mask, to remove the misrepresentation that as 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 as Religion is
not Religion but that it is really law, you will be in a position
to urge for its amendment or abolition. 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.
XXIV
Go To Index
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 its 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 Hindu Religion,
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 should be better if priesthood
among Hindus was abolished. But as this seems to be impossible,
the priesthood must at least cease to be hereditary. Every person
who professes to be a Hindu 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 a sanad from the State permitting him to
practise. (3) No ceremony performed by a priest who does not hold
a sanad shall be deemed to be valid in law and it should
be made penal 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 by 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 the I.C.S. 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. Mentally a priest may be an idiot, physicaly
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
of a Hindu temple and worship the Hindu God. All this becomes
possible among the Hindus 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. The priestly class must be brought under control by
some such legislation as I have outlined above. It will prevent
it from doing mischief and from misguiding people. It will
democratise it by throwing it open to every one. 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.
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 the Upanishads. Whether you could do so
without a complete remoulding, a considerable scraping and
chipping off 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. 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 in 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 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.
XXV
Go To Index
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 Hindu
audience 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.
In the first place, the first 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 go 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."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.
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 responsible not 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.
Thirdly, the Hindus must consider whether they must not
cease to worship the past as supplying its ideals. The baneful
effect 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." 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 an hindrance to a strong and a steady current of life.
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 realise that if
there must be standards to measure the acts of men there
must also be a readiness to revise those standards.
XXVI
Go
To Index
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, 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. All this may not be enough to commend my views. I think
they 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. 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. Yours is more difficult than the
other national cause, namely Swaraj. 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 Hindus under the Swaraj.
In my opinion only when the 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.
APPENDIX I
A VINDICATION OF CASTE BY MAHATMA GANDHI
(A Reprint of his Articles in the Harijan)
Go
To Index
Dr. Ambedkar's
Indictment
I
The readers will recall the fact that Dr. Ambedkar was to have
presided last May at the annual conference of the Jat-Pat-Todak
Mandal of Lahore. But the conference itself was cancelled because
Dr. Ambedkar's address was found by the Reception Committee to be
unacceptable. How far a Reception Committee is justified in
rejecting a President of its choice because of his address that
may be objectionable to it is open to question. The Committee
knew Dr. Ambedkar's views on caste and the Hindu scriptures. They
knew also that he had in unequivocal terms decided to give up
Hinduism. Nothing less than the address that Dr. Ambedkar had
prepared was to be expected from him. The committee appears to
have deprived the public of an opportunity of listening to the
original views of a man, who has carved out for himself a unique
position in society. Whatever label he wears in future, Dr.
Ambedkar is not the man to allow himself to be forgotten.
Dr. Ambedkar was not going to be beaten by the Reception
Committee. He has answered their rejection of him by publishing
the address at his own expense. He has priced it at 8 annas, I
would suggest a reduction) to 2 annas or at least 4 annas.
No reformer can ignore the address. The orthodox will gain by
reading it. This is not to say that the address is not open to
objection. It has to be read only because it is open to
serious objection. Dr. Ambedkar is a challenge to Hinduism.
Brought up as a Hindu, educated by a Hindu potentate, he has
become so disgusted with the so-called Savarna Hindus for the
treatment that he and his people have received at their hands
that he proposes to leave not only them but the very religion
that is his and their common heritage. He has transferred to that
religion, his disgust against a part of its professors.
But this is not to be wondered at. After all, one can only
judge a system or an institution by the conduct of its
representatives. What is more, Dr. Ambedkar found that the vast
majority of Savarana Hindus had not only conducted themselves
inhumanly against those of their fellow religionists, whom they
classed as untouchables, but they had based their conduct on the
authority of their scriptures, and when he began to search them
he had found ample warrant for their beliefs in untouchability
and all its implications. The author of the address has quoted
chapter and verse in proof of his three-fold indictment– inhuman
conduct itself, the unabashed justification for it on the part of
the perpetrators, and the subsequent discovery that the
justification was warranted by their scriptures.
No Hindu who prizes his faith above life itself can afford to
underrate the importance of this indictment. Dr. Ambedkar is not
alone in his disgust. He is its most uncompromising exponent and
one of the ablest among them. He is certainly the most
irreconcilable among them. Thank God, in the front rank of the
leaders, he is singularly alone and as yet but a representative
of a very small minority. But what he says is voiced with
more or less vehemence by many leaders belonging to the depressed
classes. Only the latter, for instance Rao Bahadur M.C. Rajah and
Dewan Bahadur Srinivasan, not only do not threaten to give up
Hinduism but find enough warmth in it to compensate for the
shameful persecution to which the vast mass of Harijans are
exposed.
But the fact of many leaders remaining in the Hindu fold is no
warrant for disregarding what Dr. Ambedkar has to say. The
Savarnas have to correct their belief and their conduct. Above
all those who are by their learning and influence among the
Savarnas have to give an authoritative interpretation of the
scriptures. The questions that Dr. Ambedkar' s indictment suggest
are:
(1) What are the scriptures?
(2) Are all the printed texts to be regarded as an integral
part of them or is any part of them to be rejected as
unauthorised interpolations?
(3) What is the answer of such accepted and expurgated
scriptures on the question of untouchability, caste, equality of
status, interdining and intermarriages?
(These have been all examined by Dr. Ambedkar in his address.)
I must reserve for the next issue my own answer to these
questions and a statement of the (at least some) manifest flaws
in Dr. Ambedkar's thesis.
(Harijan, July 11, 1936)
II
Go
To Index Go
To Index
The Vedas, Upanishads, Smritis and Puranas including
Ramayana and Mahabharata are the Hindu Scriptures. Nor is this a
finite list. Every age or even generation has added to the list.
It follows, therefore, that everything printed or even found
handwritten is not scripture. The Smritis for instance
contain much that can never be accepted as the word of God. Thus,
many of the texts that Dr. Ambedkar quotes from the smritis cannot
be accepted as authentic. The scriptures, properly so-called, can
only be concerned with eternal varieties and must appeal to any
conscience i.e. any heart whose eyes of understanding are
opened. Nothing can be accepted as the word of God which
cannot be tested by reason or be capable of being spiritually
experienced. And even when you have an expurgated edition of the
scriptures, you will need their interpretation. Who is the best
interpreter? Not learned men surely. Learning there must be. But
religion does not live by it. It lives in the experiences of its
saints and seers, in their lives and sayings. When all the most
learned commentators of the scriptures are utterly forgotten, the
accumulated experience of the sages and saints will abide and be
an inspiration for ages to come.
Caste has nothing to do with religion. It is a custom whose
origin I do not know and do not need to know for the satisfaction
of my spiritual hunger. But I do know that it is harmful both to
spiritual and national. growth. Varna and Ashrama are
institutions which have nothing to do with castes. The law of Varna
teaches us that we have each one of us to earn our bread by
following the ancestral calling. It defines not our rights but
our duties. It necessarily has reference to callings that are
conducive to the welfare of humanity and to no other. It also
follows that there is no calling too low and none too high. All
are good, lawful and absolutely equal in status. The callings of
a Brahmin –spiritual teacher– and a
scavenger are equal, and their due performance carries equal
merit before God and at one time seems to have carried identical
reward before man. Both were entitled to their livelihood and no
more. Indeed one traces even now in the villages the faint lines
of this healthy operation of the law. Living in Seagon with its
population of 600, I do not find a great disparity between the
earnings of different tradesmen including Brahmins. I find too
that real Brahmins are to be found even in these degenerate days
who are living on alms freely given to them and are giving freely
of what they have of spiritual treasures. It would be wrong and
improper to judge the law of Varna by its caricature in
the lives of men who profess to belong to a Varna, whilst
they openly commit a breach of its only operative rule.
Arrogation of a superior status by and of the Varna over
another is a denial of the law. And there is nothing in the law
of Varna to warrant a belief in untouchability. (The
essence of Hinduism is contained in its enunciation of one and
only God as Truth and its bold acceptance of Ahimsa as the law of
the human family.)
I am aware that my interpretation of Hinduism will be disputed
by many besides Dr. Ambedkar. That does not affect my position.
It is an interpretation by which I have lived for nearly half a
century and according to which I have endeavoured to the best of
my ability to regulate my life.
In my opinion the profound mistake that Dr. Ambedkar has made
in his address is to pick out the texts of doubtful authenticity
and value and the state of degraded Hindus who art no fit
specimens of the faith they so woefully misrepresent. Judged by
the standard applied by Dr. Ambedkar, every known living faith
will probably fail.
In his able address, the learned Doctor has overproved his
case. Can a religion that was professed by Chaitanya, Jnyandeo,
Tukaram, Tiruvalluvar, Ramkrishna Paramahansa, Raja Ram Mehail
Roy, Maharshi Devendranath Tagore, Vivekanand and host of others
who might be easily mentioned, so utterly devoid of merit as is
made out in Dr. Ambedkar's address? A religion has to be judged
not by its worst specimens but by the best it might have
produced. For that and that alone can be used as the standard to
aspire to, if not to improve upon.
(Harijan, July 18, 1936)
III
VARNA
VERSUS CASTE
Go
To Index Go
To Index
Shri Sant Ramji of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore wants me
to publish the following:
"I have read your remarks
about Dr. Ambedkar and the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal, Lahore.
In that connection I beg to submit as follows:
"We did not invite Dr.
Ambedkar to preside over our conference because he
belonged to the Depressed Classes, for we do not
distinguish between a touchable and an untouchable Hindu.
On the contrary our choice fell on him simply because his
diagnosis of the fatal disease of the Hindu community was
the same as ours, i.e. he too was of the opinion
that caste system was the root cause of the disruption
and downfall of the Hindus. The subject of the Doctor's
thesis for Doctorate being caste system, lie has studied
the subject thoroughly. Now the object of our conference
was to pursuade the Hindus to annihilate castes but the
advice of a non-Hindu in social and religious matters can
have no effect on them. The Doctor in the supplementary
portion of his address insisted on saying that that was
his last speech as a Hindu, which was irrelevant as well
as pernicious to the interests of the conference. So we
requested him to expunge that sentence for he could
easily say the same thing on any other occasion. But he
refused and we saw no utility in making merely a show of
our function. In spite of all this, I cannot help
praising his address which is, as far as I know, the most
learned thesis on the subject and worth translating into
every vernacular of India.
"Moreover, I want to bring
to your notice that your philosophical difference between
Caste and, Varna is too subtle to be grasped by
people in general, because for all practical purposes in
the Hindu society Caste and Varna are one and the
same thing, for the function of both of them is one and
the same i.e. to restrict inter-caste marriages
and inter-dining. Your theory of Varnavyavastha is
impracticable in this age and there is no hope of its
revival in the near future. But Hindus are slaves of
caste and do not want to destroy it. So when you advocate
your ideal of imaginary Varnavyavastha they find
justification for clinging to caste. Thus you are doing a
great disservice to social reform by advocating your
imaginary utility of division of Varnas, for it
creates hindrance in our way. To try to remove
untouchability without striking at the root of Vartzayavastha
is simply to treat the outward symptoms of a disease
or to draw a line on the surface of water. As in the
heart of their hearts dvijas do not want to give
social equality to the so-called touchable and
untouchable Shudras, so they refuse to break caste, and
give liberal donations for the removal of untouchability,
simply to evade the issue. To seek the 'help of the Shastras
for the removal of untouchability and caste is simply
to wash mud with mud'."
The last paragraph of the letter surely cancels the first. If
the Mandal rejects the help of the Shastras, they do
exactly what Dr. Ambedkar does, i.e. cease to be Hindus.
How then can they object to Dr. Ambedkar's address merely because
he said that that was his last speech as a Hindu? The position
appears to be wholly untenable especially when the Mandal, for
which Shri Sant Ram claims to speak, applauds the whole argument
of Dr. Ahibedkar's address.
But it is pertinent to ask what the Mandal believes if it
rejects the Shastras. How can a Muslim remain one if he
rejects the Quran, or a Christian remain Christian if he rejects
the Bible? If Caste and Varna are convertible terms and if
Varna is an integral part of the Shastras which
define Hinduism, 1 do not know how a person who rejects Caste i.e.
Varna can call himself a Hindu.
Shri Sant Ram likens the Shastras to mud. Dr. Ambedkor
has not, so far as I remember, given any such picturesque name to
the Shastras. I have certainly meant when I have said that
if Shastras support, the existing untouchability I should
cease to call myself a Hindu. Similarly, if the Shastras support
caste as we know it today in all its hideousness, I may not call
myself or remain a Hindu since I have no scruples about
inter-dining or intermarriage. I need not repeat my position
regarding Shastras and their interpretation. I venture to
suggest to Shri Sant Ram that it is the only rational and correct
and morally defensible position and it has ample warrant in Hindu
tradition.
(Harijan, August 1.5, 1936)
APPENDIX
II
A REPLY TO THE MAHATMA
Go To Index
BY DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR
I appreciate greatly the honour done me by the Mahatma
in taking notice in his Harijan of the speech on Caste
which I had prepared for the Jut-Pat-Todak Mandal. From a perusal
of his review of my speech it is clear that the Mahatma
completely dissents from the views I have expressed on the
subject of Caste. I am not in the habit of entering into
controversy with my opponents unless there are special reasons
which compel me to act otherwise. Had my opponent been some mean
and obscure person I would not have pursued him. But my opponent
being the Mahatma himself I feel I must attempt to meet the case
to the contrary which he has sought to put forth. While I
appreciate the honour he has done me, I must confess to a sense
of surprise on finding that of all the persons the Mahatma should
accuse me of a desire to seek publicity as he seems to do when he
suggests that in publishing the undelivered speech my object was
to see that I was not 'forgotten'. Whatever the Mahatma may
choose to say my object in publishing the speech was to provoke
the Hindus to think and take stock of their position. I have
never hankered for publicity and if I may say so, I have more of
it than I wish or need. But supposing it was out of the motive of
gaining publicity that I printed the speech who could cast a
stone at me? Surely not those, who like the Mahatma live in glass
houses.
II
Go
To Index Go
To Index
Motive apart, what has the Mahatma to say on the question
raised by me in the speech? First of all any one who reads my
speech will realize that the Mahatma has entirely missed the
issues raised by me and that the issues he has raised are net the
issues that arise out of what he is pleased to call my indictment
of the Hindus. The principal points which I have tried to make
out in my speech may be catalogued as follows: (1) That caste has
ruined the Hindus; (2) That the reorganization of the Hindu
society on the basis of Chaturvarnya is impossible because the Varnavyavastha
is like a leaky pot or like a man running at the nose. It is
incapable of sustaining itself by its own virtue and has an
inherent tendency to degenerate into a caste system unless there
is a legal sanction behind it which can be enforced against every
one transgressing his Varna; (3) That the reorganization
of the Hindu Society on the basis of Chaturvarnya is harmful
because the effect of the Varnavyavastha is to degrade the
masses by denying them opportunity to acquire knowledge and to
emasculate them by denying them the right to be armed; (4) That
the Hindu society must be reorganized on a religious basis which
would recognise the principles of Liberty, Equality and
Fraternity; (5) That in order to achieve this object the sense of
religious sanctity behind Caste and Varna must be
destroyed.; (6) That the sanctity of Caste and Varna can
be destroyed only by discarding the divine authority of the
Shastras. It will be noticed that the questions raised by the
Mahatma are absolutely beside the point and show that the main
argument of the speech was lost upon him.
III
Go
To Index Go
To Index
Let me examine the substance of the points made by the
Mahatma. The first point made by the Mahatma is that the texts
cited by me are not authentic. I confess I am no authority on
this matter. But I should like to state that the texts cited by
me are all taken from the writings of the late Mr. Tilak who was
a recognised authority on the Sanskrit language and on the Hindu Shastras.
His second point is that these Shastras should be
interpreted not by the learned but the saints and that, as the
saints have understood them, the Shastras do not support
Caste and Untouchability. As regards the first point what I like
to ask the Mahatma is what does it avail to any one if the texts
are interpolations and if they have been differently interpreted
by the saints? The masses do not make any distinction between
texts which are genuine and texts which are interpolations. The
masses do not know what the texts are. They are too illiterate to
know the contents of the Shastras. They have believed what
they have been told and what they have been told is that the Shastras
do enjoin as a religious duty the observance of Caste and
Untouchability.
With regard to the saints, one must admit that howsoever
different and elevating their teachings may have been as compared
to those of the merely learned they have been lamentably
ineffective. They have been ineffective for two reasons. Firstly,
none of the saints ever attacked the Caste System. On the
contrary, they were staunch believers in the System of Caste.
Most of them lived and died as members of the castes which they
respectively belonged. So passionately attached was Jnyandeo to
his status as a Brahmin that when the Brahmins of Paithan would
not admit him to their fold he moved heaven and earth to get his
status as a Brahmin recognized by the Brahmin fraternity. And
even the saint Eknath who now figures in the film 'Dharmatma' as
a hero for having shown courage to touch the untouchables and
dine with them, did so not because he was opposed to Caste and
Untouchability but because he felt that the pollution caused
thereby could be washed away by a bath in the sacred waters of
the river Ganges. The saints have never according to my study
carried on a campaign against Caste and Untouchability. They were
not concerned with the struggle between men. They were concerned
with the relation between man and God. They did not preach that
all men were equal. They preached that all men were equal in the
eyes of God— a very different and a very innocuous
proposition which nobody can find difficult to preach or
dangerous to believe in. The second reason why the teachings of
the saints proved ineffective was because the masses have been
taught that a saint might break Caste but the common man must
not. A saint therefore never became an example to follow. He
always remained a pious man to be honoured. That the masses have
remained staunch believers in Caste and Untouchability shows that
the pious lives and noble sermons of the saints have had no
effect on their life and conduct as against the teachings of the Shastras.
Thus it can be a matter of no consolation that there were
saints or that there is a 'Mahatma' who understands the Shastras
differently from the learned few or ignorant many. That the
masses hold different view of the Shastras is fact which
should and must be reckoned with. How is that to be dealt with
except by denouncing the authority of the Shastras, which
continue to govern their conduct, is a question which the Mahatma
has not considered. But whatever the plan the Mahatma puts forth
is an effective means to free the masses from the teachings of
the Shastras, he must accept that the pious life led by
one good Samaritan may be very elevating to himself but in India,
with the attitude the common man has to saints and to Mahatmas –to
honour but not to follow– one cannot make much out of
it.
IV
Go
To Index Go
To Index
The third point made by the Mahatma is that a religion
professed by Chaitanya, Jnyandeo, Tukaram, Tiruvalluvar,
Ramkrishna Paramabansa etc. cannot be devoid of merit as is made
out by me and that a religion has to be judged not by its worst
specimens but by the best it might have produced. I agree with
every word of this statement. But I do not quite understand what
the Mahatma wishes to prove thereby. That religion should be
judged not by its worst specimens but by its best is true enough
but does it dispose of the matter? I say it does not. The
question still remains why the worst number so many and the best
so few? To my mind there are two conceivable answers to this
question: (1) That the worst by reason of some original
perversity of theirs are morally uneducable and are therefore
incapable of making the remotest approach to the religious ideal.
Or (2) That the religious ideal is a wholly wrong ideal which has
given a wrong moral twist to the lives of the many and that the
best have become best in spite of the wrong ideal— in
fact by giving to the wrong twist a turn in the right direction.
Of these two explanations I am not prepared to accept the first
and I am sure that even the Mahatma will not insist upon the
contrary. To my mind the second is the only logical and
reasonable explanation unless the Mahatma has a third alternative
to explain why the worst are so many and the best so few. If the
second is the only explanation then obviously the argument of the
Mahatma that a religion should be judged by its best followers
carries us nowhere except to pity the lot of the many who have
gone wrong because they have been made to worship wrong
ideals.
V
Go
To Index Go
To Index
The argument of the Mahatma that Hinduism would be tolerable
if only many were to follow the example of the saints is
fallacious for another reason. By citing the names of such
illustrious persons as Chaitanya etc. what the Mahatma seems to
me to suggest in its broadest and simplest form is that Hindu
society can be made tolerable and even happy without any
fundamental change in its structure if all the high caste Hindus
can be persuaded to follow a high standard of morality in their
dealings with the low caste Hindus. I am totally opposed to this
kind of ideology. I can respect those of the caste Hindus who try
to realize a high social ideal in their life. Without such men
India would be an uglier and a less happy place to live in than
it is. But nonetheless anyone who relies on an attempt to turn
the members of the caste Hindus into better men by improving
their personal character is in my judgment wasting his energy and
hugging an illusion. Can personal character make the maker of
armaments a good man, i.e. a man who will sell shells that
will not burst and gas that will not poison? If it cannot, how
can you accept personal character to make a man loaded with the
consciousness of Caste, a good man, i.e. a man who would
treat his fellows as his friends and equals? To be true to
himself he must deal with his fellows either as a superior or
inferior according as the case may be; at any rate, differently
from his own caste fellows. He can never be expected to deal with
his fellows as his kinsmen and equals. As a matter of fact, a
Hindu does treat all those who are not of his Caste as though
they were aliens, who could be discriminated against with
impunity and against whom any fraud or trick may be practised
without shame. This is to say that there can be a better or a
worse Hindu. But a good Hindu there cannot be. This is so not
because there is anything wrong with his personal character. In
fact what is wrong is the entire basis of his relationship to his
fellows. The best of men cannot be moral if the basis of
relationship between them and their fellows is fundamentally a
wrong relationship. To a slave his master may be better or worse.
But there cannot be good master. A good man cannot be a master
and a master cannot be a good man. The same applies to the
relationship between high caste and low caste. To a low caste man
a high caste man can be better or worse as compared to other high
caste men. A high caste man cannot be a good man in so far as he
must have a low caste man to distinguish him as high caste man.
It cannot be good to a low caste man to be conscious that there
is a high caste man above him. I have argued in my speech that a
society based on Varna or Caste is a society which
is based on a wrong relationship. I had hoped that the Mahatma
would attempt to demolish my argument. But instead of doing that
he has merely reiterated his belief in Chaturvarnya without
disclosing the ground on which it is based.
VI
Go
To Index Go
To Index
Does the Mahatma practise what he preaches? One does
not like to make personal reference in an argument which is
general in its application. But when one preaches a doctrine and
holds it as a dogma there is a curiosity to know how far be
practises what he preaches. It may be that his failure to
practise is due to the ideal being too high to be attaintable; it
may be that his failure to practise is due to the innate
hypocrisy of the man. In any case he exposes his conduct to
examination and I must not be blamed if I asked how far has the
Mahatma attempted to realize his ideal in his own case. The
Mahatma is a Bania by birth. Its ancestors had abandoned trading
in favour of ministership which is a calling of the Brahmins. In
his own life, before he became a Mahatma when occasion came for
him to choose his career he preferred law to scales. On
abandoning law he became half saint and half politician. He has
never touched trading which is his ancestral calling. His
youngest son– I take one who is a faithful follower
of his father– born a Vaishya has married a Brahmin's
daughter and has chosen to serve a newspaper magnate. The Mahatma
is not known to have condemned him for not following his
ancestral calling. It may be wrong and uncharitable to judge an
ideal by its worst specimens. But surely the Mahatma as a
specimen has no better and if he even fails to realize the ideal
then the ideal must be an impossible ideal quite opposed to the
practical instincts of man. Students of Carlyle know that he
often spoke on a subject before he thought about it. I wonder
whether such has not been the case with the Mahatma in regard to
the subject matter of Caste. Otherwise certain questions which
occur to me would not have escaped him. When can a calling be
deemed to have become an ancestral calling so as to make it
binding on a man? Must man follow his ancestral calling even if
it does not suit his capacities, even when it has ceased to be
profitable? Must a man live by his ancestral calling even if he
finds it to be immoral? If every one must pursue his ancestral
calling then it must follow that a man must continue to be a pimp
because his grandfather was a pimp and a woman must continue to
be a prostitute because her grandmother was a prostitute. Is the
Mahatma prepared to accept the logical conclusion of his
doctrine? To me his ideal of following one's ancestral calling is
not only an impossible and impracticable ideal, but it is also
morally a indefensible ideal.
VII
Go
To Index Go
To Index
The Mahatma sees great virtue in a Brahmin remaining a Brahmin
all his life. Leaving aside the fact there are many Brahmins who
do not like to remain Brahmins all their lives, what can we say
about those Brahmins who have clung to their ancestral calling of
priesthood? Do they do so from any faith in the virtue of the
principle of ancestral calling or do they do so from motives of
filthy lucre? The Mahatma does not seem to concern himself with
such queries. He is satisfied that these are "real Brahmins
who are living on alms freely given to them and giving freely
what they have of spiritual treasures". This is how a
hereditary Brahmin priest appears to the Mahatma– a
carrier of spiritual treasures. But another portrait of the
hereditary Brahmin can also be drawn. A Brahmin can be a priest
to Vishnu– the God of Love. He can be a priest to
Shankar–the God of Destruction. He can be a priest at
Buddha Gaya worshipping Buddha– the greatest teacher
of mankind who taught the noblest doctrine of Love. He also can
be a priest to Kali, the Goddess, who must have a daily sacrifice
of an animal to satisfy her thirst for blood; He will be a priest
of the temple of Rama– the Kshatriya God! He will
also be a priest of the Temple of Parshuram, the God who took
Avatar to destroy the Kshatriyas! He can be a priest to Bramha,
the Creator of the world. He can be a priest to a Pir whose God
Allah will not brook the claim of Bramha to share his spiritual
dominion over the world! No one can say that this is a picture
which is not true to life. If this is a true picture one does not
know what to say of this capacity to bear loyalties to Gods and
Goddesses whose attributes are so antagonistic that no honest man
can be a devotee to all of them. The Hindus rely upon this
extraordinary phenomenon as evidence of the greatest virtue of
their religion–namely its catholicity, its spirit of
toleration. As against this facile view, it can be urged that
what is toleration and catholicity may be really nothing more
creditable than indifference or flaccid latitudinarianism. These
two attitudes are hard to distinguish in their outer seeming. But
they are so vitally unlike in their real quality that no one who
examines them closely can mistake one for the other. That a man
is ready to render homage to many Gods and Goddesses may be cited
as evidence of his tolerant spirit. But can it not also be
evidence of insincerity born of a desire to serve the times? I am
sure that this toleration is merely insincerity. If this view is
well founded, one may ask what spiritual treasure can there be
with a person who is ready to be a priest and a devotee to any
deity which it serves his purpose to worship and to adore? Not
only must such a person be deemed to be bankrupt of all spiritual
treasures but for him to practice so elevating a profession as
that of a priest simply because it is ancestral, without faith
without belief, merely as a mechanical process handed down from
father to son, is not a conservation of virtue; it is really the
prostitution of a noble profession which is no other than the
service of religion.
VIII
Go
To Index Go
To Index
Why does the Mahatma cling to the theory of every one
following his or her ancestral calling? He gives his reasons
nowhere. But there must be some reason although he does not care
to avow it. Years ago writing on " Caste versus Class"
in his Young India, he argued that Caste System was better
than Class system on the ground that caste was the best possible
adjustment of social stability. If that be the reason why the
Mahatma clings to the theory of every one following his or her
ancestral calling, then he is clinging to a false view of social
life. Everybody wants social stability and some adjustment must
be made in the relationship between individuals and classes, in
order that stability may be had. But two things, I am sure nobody
wants. One thing nobody wants is static relationship, something
that is unalterable, something that is fixed for all times.
Stability is wanted but not at the cost of change when change is
imperative. Second thing nobody wants is mere adjustment.
Adjustment is wanted but not at the sacrifice of social justice.
Can it be said that the adjustment of social relationship on the
basis of caste i.e. on the basis of each to his hereditary
calling avoid these two evils? I am convinced that it does not.
Far from being the best possible adjustment I have no doubt that
it is of the worst possible kind inasmuch as it offends against
both the canons of social adjustment– namely fluidity
and equity.
IX
Go
To Index Go
To Index
Some might think that the Mahatma has made much progress
inasmuch as he now only believes in Varna and does not
believe in Caste. It is true that there was a time when the
Mahatma was a full-blooded and a blue-blooded Sanatani Hindu. He
believed in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the
Puranas and all that goes by the name of Hindu scriptures and
therefore in avatars and rebirth. He believed in Caste and
defended it with the vigour of the orthodox. He condemned the cry
for inter-dining, inter-drinking and inter-marrying and argued
that restraints about inter-dining to a great extent "helped
the cultivation of will-power and the conservation of certain
social virtue". It is good that he has repudiated this
sanctimonious nonsense and admitted that caste is "harmful
both to spiritual and national growth," and maybe his son's
marriage outside his caste has had something to do with this
change of view. But has the Mahatma really progressed? What is
the nature of the Varna for which the Mahatma stands? Is
it the Vedic conception as commonly understood and
preached by Swami Dayanand Saraswati and his followers, the Arya
Samajists? The essence of the Vedic conception of Varna
is the pursuit of a calling which is appropriate to one's
natural aptitude. The essence of the Vedic conception of Varna
is the pursuit of ancestral calling irrespective of natural
aptitude. What is the difference between Caste and Varna as understood
by the Mahatma? I find none. As defined by the Mahatma, Varna becomes
merely a different name for Caste for the simple reason that it
is the same in essence–namely pursuit of ancestral
calling. Far from making progress the Mahatma has suffered
retrogression. By putting this interpretation upon the Vedic conception
of Varna he has really made ridiculous what was sublime.
While I reject the Vedic Varnavyavastha for reasons given
in the speech I must admit that the Vedic theory of Varna
as interpreted by Swami Dayanand and some others is a
sensible and an inoffensive thing. It did not admit birth as a
determining factor in fixing the place of an individual in
society. It only recognized worth. The Mahatma's view of Varna
not only makes nonsense of the Vedic Varna but it
makes it an abominable thing. Varna and Caste are two very
different concepts. Varna is based on the principle of
each according to his worth, while Caste is based on the
principle of each according to his birth. The two are as distinct
as chalk is from cheese. In fact there is an antithesis between
the two. If the Mahatma believes as he does in every one
following his or her ancestral calling, then most certainly he is
advocating the Caste System and that in calling it the Varna system
he is not only guilty of terminological inexactitude, but he is
causing confusion worse confounded. I am sure that all his
confusion is due to the fact that the Mahatma has no definite and
clear conception as to what is Varna and what is Caste and
as to the necessity of either for the conservation of Hinduism.
He has said and one hopes that he will not find some
mystic reason to change his view that caste is not the essence of
Hinduism. Does he regard Varna as the essence of Hinduism?
One cannot as yet give any categorical answer. Readers of his
article on "Dr. Ambedkar's Indictment" will answer
"No". In that article he does not say that the dogma of
Varna is an essential part of the creed of Hinduism. Far
from making Varna the essence of Hinduism he says
"the essence of Hinduism is contained in its enunciation of
one and only God as Truth and its told acceptance of Ahimsa as
the law of the human family". But the readers of his article
in reply to Mr. Sant Ram will say "Yes". In that
article he says "How can a Muslim remain one if he rejects
the Quran, or a Christian remain as Christian if he rejects the
Bible? If Caste and Varna are convertible terms and if
Varna is an integral part of the Shastras which define
Hinduism I do not know how a person who rejects Caste, i.e.
Varna can call himself a Hindu?" Why this prevarication?
Why does the Mahatma hedge? Whom does he want to please? Has the
saint failed to sense the truth? Or does the politician stand in
the way of the Saint? The real reason why the Mahatma is
suffering from this confusion is probably to be traced to two
sources. The first is the temperament of the Mahatma. He has
almost in everything the simplicity of the child with the child's
capacity for self-deception. Like a child he can believe in
anything he wants to believe. We must therefore wait till such
time as it pleases the Mahatma to abandon his faith in Varna as
it has pleased him to abandon his faith in Caste. The second
source of confusion is the double role which the Mahatma wants to
play— of a Mahatma and a Politician. As a Mahatma he
may be trying to spiritualize Politics. Whether he has succeeded
in it or not, Politics have certainly commercialized him. A
politician must know that Society cannot bear the whole truth and
that he must not speak the whole truth if he is speaking the
whole truth it is bad for his politics. The reason why the
Mahatma is always supporting Caste and Varna is because he
is afraid that if he opposed them he will lose his place in
politics. Whatever may be the source of this confusion the
Mahatma must be told that he is deceiving himself and also
deceiving the people by preaching Caste under the name of Varna.
X
Go
To Index Go
To Index
The Mahatma says that the standards I have applied to test
Hindus and Hinduism are too severe and that judged by those
standards every known living faith will probably fail. The
complaint that my standards are high may be true. But the
question is not whether they are high or whether they are low.
The question is whether they are the right standards to apply. A
People and their Religion must be judged by social standards
based on social ethics. No other standard would have any meaning
if religion is held to be a necessary good for the well-being of
the people. Now I maintain that the standards I have applied to
test Hindus and Hinduism are the most appropriate standards and
that I know of none that are better. The conclusion that every
known religion would fail if tested by my standards may be true.
But this fact should not give the Mahatma as the champion of
Hindus and Hinduism a ground for comfort any more than the
existence of one madman should give comfort to another madman or
the existence of one criminal should give comfort to another
criminal. I like to assure the Mahatma that it is not the mere
failure of the Hindus and Hinduism which has produced in me the
feelings of disgust and contempt with which I am charged, I
realize that the world is a very imperfect world and any one who
wants to live in it must bear with its imperfections. But while I
am prepared to bear with the imperfections and shortcomings of
the society in which I may be destined to labour, I feel I should
not consent to live in a society which cherishes wrong ideals or
a society which having right ideals will not consent to bring its
social life in conformity with those ideals. If I am disgusted
with Hindus and Hinduism it is because I am convinced that they
cherish wrong ideals and live a wrong social life. My quarrel
with Hindus and Hinduism is not over the imperfections of their
social conduct. It is much more fundamental. It is over their
ideals.
XI
Go
To Index Go
To Index
Hindu society seems to me to stand in need of a moral
regeneration which it is dangerous to postpone. And the question
is who can determine and control this moral regeneration?
Obviously only those who have undergone an intellectual
regeneration and those who are honest enough to have the courage
of their convictions born of intellectual emancipation. Judged by
this standard the Hindu leaders who count are in my opinion quite
unfit for the task. It is impossible to say that they have
undergone the preliminary intellectual regeneration. If they had
undergone an intellectual regeneration they would neither delude
themselves in the simple way of the untaught multitude nor would
they take advantage of the primitive ignorance of others as one
sees them doing. Notwithstanding the crumbling state of Hindu
society these leaders will nervertheless unblushingly appeal to
ideals of the past which have in every way ceased to have any
connection with the present; which however suitable they might
have been in the days of their origin have now become a warning
rather than a guide. They still have a mystic respect for the
earlier forms which make them disinclined– nay
opposed to any examination of the foundations of their Society.
The Hindu masses are of course incredibly heedless in the
formation of their beliefs. But so are the Hindu leaders. And
what is worse is that these Hindu leaders become filled with. an
illicit passion for their beliefs when any one proposes to rob
them of their companionship. The Mahatma is no exception. The
Mahatma appears not to believe in thinking. He prefers to follow
the saints. Like a conservative with his reverence for
consecrated notions he is afraid that if he once starts thinking,
many ideals and institutions to which he clings will be doomed.
One must sympathize with him. For every act of independent
thinking puts some portion of apparently stable world in peril.
But it is equally true that dependence on saints cannot lead us
to know the truth. The saints are after all only human beings and
as Lord Balfour said, "the human mind is no more a
truth-finding apparatus than the snout of a pig". In so far
as he does think, to me he really appears to be prostituting his
intelligence to find reasons for supporting this archaic social
structure of the Hindus. He is the most influential apologist of
it and therefore the worst enemy of the Hindus.
Unlike the Mahatma there are Hindu leaders who are not content
merely to believe and follow. They dare to think, and act in
accordance with the result of their thinking. But unfortunately
they are either a dishonest lot or an indifferent lot when it
comes to the question of giving right guidance to the mass of the
people. Almost every Brahmin has transgressed the rule of Caste.
The number of Brahmins who sell shoes is far greater than those
who practise priesthood. Not only have the Brahmins given up
their ancestral calling of priesthood for trading but they have
entered trades which are prohibited to them by the Shastras.
Yet how many Brahmins who break Caste every day will preach
against Caste and against the Shastras? For one honest
Brahmin preaching against Caste and Shastras because his
practical instinct and moral conscience cannot support a
conviction in them, there are hundreds who break Caste and
trample upon the Shastras every day but who are the most
fanatic upholders of the theory of Caste and the sanctity of the Shastras.
Why this duplicity? Because they feel that if the masses are
emancipated from the yoke of Caste they would be a menace to the
power and prestige of the Brahmins as a class? The dishonesty of
this intellectual class who would deny the masses the fruits of
their thinking is a most disgraceful phenomenon.
The Hindus in the words of Mathew Arnold are "wandering
between two worlds, one dead, the other powerless to be
born". What are they to do? The Mahatma to whom they appeal
for guidance does not believe in thinking and can therefore give
no guidance which can be said to stand the test of experience.
The intellectual classes to whom the masses look for guidance are
either too dishonest or too indifferent to educate them in the
right direction. We are indeed witnesses to a great tragedy. In
the face of this tragedy all one can do is to lament and say–
such be thy Leaders, O! Hindus.
Go to Part
1 of Annihilation
of Caste
Go to Index of Annihilation
of Caste – Part 2
Posted on 2002-04-28
|
