Who were the Sudras?

 

WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS?

  1. The word Shudra lost its original meaning of being the name of a particular community and became a general name for a low-class people without civilization, without culture, without respect and without position.
  2. There is a class of Hindus who will admits that the Hindu social system is all wrong, but who hold that there is no necessity to attack it. Their argument is that since law does not recognize it, it is a dying, if not dead system.
  3. They are more selfish than any other set of beings in the world, and are prostituting their intelligence to support the vested interests of their class.
  4. To idealize the real, which more often than not is full of inequalities, is a very selfish thing to do. Only when a person finds a personal advantage is things as they are that he tries to idealize the real. To proceed to make such an ideal real is nothing short of criminal. It means perpetuating inequity on the ground that whatever is once settled is settled for all times. Such a view is opposed to all morality. No society with a social conscience has ever accepted it. On the contrary, whatever progress in improving the terms of associated life between individuals and classes has been made in the course of history, is due entirely to the recognition of the ethical doctrine that what is wrongly settle is never settled and must be resettled.
  5. Max Muller says that all these speculations are really the twaddle’s of idiotism and ravings of Madmen and as such they are of no use of the student of History who is in search of a natural explanation of human problem.
  6. One can do nothing with the Brahmanic theories except to call them senseless ebullitions of a silly mind. They leave the problem as it is. With the modern theory, one is at least on the road to recover one’s way.
  7. Due to the amalgamations of different stock of people is Indian soil a new group was formed under the banner of four caste Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaish, and Shudra as higher castes and rest of the group called as lower caste and divided them into several sub caste to maintain the higher caste monopoly to rule over the mass of population in India.
  8. The Kayasthas claimed themselves the status of Kshatriyla in different states the first cast was found in 7,M.I.A. 18( Chuohirya Run Murdan Syn Versus Sahub Purhulad Syn) It was decided by the privy council in 1837 that Kayasthas are Sudra in Bengal.
  9. 2nd case found in, ILR 10 Cal 688 (Raj coolnar Lall V Bissessur Dyal) High court decided that Kayasthas of Bihar are Sudras.
  10. Madras High court decisions that Marathas were Sudras. I.L.R. (1927) 52 Mad. Decided that Yadavas of Madura are Sudra.
  11. When Shivaji was became victorious then question of his status to become a king arises. The question was whether he is Ksharriya or Sudra. If he is sudra then he cannot become a king. His claim that he is a Kshatriya was turned down by the Brahmins. Shivaji’s claim was a direct conflict with the well-established thesis long insisted upon by the Brahmins that there were no Kshatriyas in the Kali age. Gogabhat a Brahmin from Benares, learned both in the Vedas and Sastras, solved the problem and performed Shivaji’s coronation on 6th June 1674 at Raigad. He took 1 Lakh golden coin for this job.
  12. Why have the Brahmins not produced a Voltair? The question can be answered only by another question. Why did the Sultan of Turkey not abolish the religion of the Mohammedan World? Why has no pope denounced Catholicism? Why has the British Parliament not made a law ordering the killing of all blue-eyed babies? The reasons why Sultan or the Pope or the British Parliament has not done these things is the same as why the Brahmins have not been able to produce a Voltair. It must be recognized that the selfish interest of a person or of the class to which he belongs always acts as an internal limitation which regulates the direction of his intellect. The power and position which the Brahmins possess is entirely due to the Hindu Civilization which treats them as supermen and subjects the lower classes to all sorts of disabilities so that they may never rise and challenge or threaten the superiority of the Brahmins over them. As is natural, every Brahmin is interested in the maintenance of Brahmanic supremacy be he orthodox or unorthodox, be he a priest or a grahastha, be he a scholar or not. How can a Brahmins afford to be Voltaires? A Voltaire among the Brahmins would be a positive danger to the maintenance of a civilization which is contrived to maintain Brahmanic supremacy. The point is that the intellect of a Brahmin scholar is severely limited by anxiety to preserve his interest. He suffers from this internal limitation as a result of which he does not allow his intellect full play which honesty and integrity demands. For, he fears that it may affect the interests of his class and therefore his own.
  13. Hindu theory of the order of creation. According to it, it is the Sudra who is born last. The Untouchable is outside the scheme of creation. The Shudra is Savarna. As against him the Untouchable is Avarna, i.e. Outside the Varna system. The Hindu theory of priority in creation does not and cannot apply to the Untouchable. In my view, the word Antaya means not end of creation but end of the village. It is the name given to those people who lived on the outskirts of the village. The word Antaya has, therefore, a survival value. It tells us that there was a time when some people lived inside the village and some lived outside the village and that those who lived outside the village, i.e. on the Antaya of the village, were called Antyaja.
  14. The Untouchables lived outside the village for the same reason for which the Fuidhirs and Alltudes had to live outside the village in Ireland and Wales.
  15. How they changed the original word ‘Agre’ into ‘Agne’ to make Rig veda give support to the burning of widows has been pointed out by no less an authority than Prof.Max Muller.
  16. Sama Veda and Yajur Veda are same as Rig Veda. Atharva Veda was not recognized by the Brahmins as sacred as the Rig Veda.

Aryan RACE

  1. What is a race? A race may be defined as a body of people possessing certain typical traits which are hereditary. There was a time when it was believed that the traits which constitute a race: (1) the form of the head, (2) the colour of the hair and eyes, (3) the colour of the skin, and (4) the stature.
  2. What is this Aryan race? Before we consider the question of Aryan race we must be sure as to what we mean by the word “Race”. It is necessary to raise this question because it is not impossible to mistake a people for a race.
  3. To-day the general view is that pigmentation and stature are traits, which carry according to climate and habitat, consequently they must be ruled out as tests or determining the race of the people. The only stable trait is the shape of the human head-by which is meant the general proportion of length, breadth and height and that is why anthropologists an ethnologist regards it as the best available test of race. Cephalic index and Facial index is the mark of the race.
  4. The two ideology followers were belonged to two different races of Aryan and it is only when they had become one that the Atharva Veda came to be regarded on a part with the Rig Veda. Also there is more evident from Brahmanic literature of existence of two different Aryan races. Veda specks of two Aryan Races.
  5. Who were the Nagas? Undoubtedly they were non Aryans. Nonetheless, it is a fact that the term Dravidian and Nagas are merely two different names for the same people.
  6. Tamil or Dravid was not merely the language of South India but before the Aryans came it was the language of the whole of India.
  7. Nagas of North India gave up Tamil which was their mother tongue and adopted Sanskrit in its place. The Nagas in South India retained Tamil as their mother tongue and did not adopt Sanskrit the language of the Aryans.
  8. The racial theory of the origin of untouchability must, therefore, be abandoned.
  9. The system of chaturvarna which Hindus regards as the unique creation of this Aryan ancestors is in no since unique. There is nothing original about it. Ancient of Aryan as well as Plato had no conception the uniqueness of every individual Aryans immorality.
  10. The history of India is laid to begin with the Aryans who invaded India, made it his home and established this culture. Whatever may be the virtues of the Aryan, their culture, their religion and their social system, we know very little about their political History. Indeed notwithstanding the superiority that is claimed for the Aryans as against the Non-Aryans. The Aryan has left very little their political achievements for history to speak of. The political History of India begins with the rise of a Non-Aryans people called Who were the powerful people whom the Aryans were unable to conquer, with whom the Aryan had to make peace, and whom the Aryans were compelled to recognize as their equals. Whatever fame and glory India achieved in ancient times in the political field, the credit for it goes entirely to the non-Aryans Nagas. It is they who made India great and glorious in the annals of the world.
  11. The founder of this kingdom of Magadha is known by the name of Sisunag and belonged to the Non-Aryan race of NAGAS.
  12. The religion of the Vedic Aryans was full of barbaric and obscene observances. Aryans were also a race of drunkards, gamblers.
  13. The Vedas may be useful as a source of information regarding the social life of Aryans. The difference between the Aryans and the non-Aryans was cultural and not racial. The Aryans believed in Chaturvarna. The Non-Aryans were opposed to it. The Aryan believed in the performance of Yajna as the essence of their religion. The Non-Aryans were opposed to Yajna. Examining the story of Dasha’s Yajna in the light of these facts it is quite obvious that Shiva was a Non-Vedic and a Non-Aryan God. The question is why the Brahmins did; the pillars of Vedic culture adopt Shiva as their God?
  14. The Aryans were collections of people anyone who accepted the Aryans culture was an Aryan. The Aryans were not only converting to this way of life the willing non-Aryans they were also attempting to make converts from among the unwilling Aryans who were opposed to the Aryans.
  15. In the excavations at Boghaz-koi in Asia Minor, which date about 1400B.C. inscription, are found containing the names of deities like Indra, Varuna and Nasatya. These gods are also mentioned in the Rig-Veda. To the same period as the Boghz-koi ; belong the clay tablets with uniform script discovered at Tellit Amarna in Egypt where reference are found of princes of Mitanni in North west Mesopotamia bearing Indo-Aryans names.
  16. The Brahmin believes in the two-nation theory. He claims to be the representative of the Aryan race and he regards the rest of the Hindus as descendants of the Non-Aryans.
  17. Do they not know that this governing class in India is not a part of the Indian people, is not only completely isolated from them, but believes in isolating itself, lest it should be contaminated by them, has implanted in its mind by reason of Brahmanic philosophy, motives and interests which are hostile to those who are outside its for and therefore does not sympathize with the living forces operating in the servile masses whom it has trodden down, is not charged with their wants, their pains, their cravings, their desires, is inimical to their aspirations, does not favour any advance in their education promotion to high office and disfavors every movement calculated to raise their dignity and their self-respect? Do they know that in the Swaraj of India is involved the fate of 60millions of Untouchables? ( Vol 3,4,5 and 9)
  18. The Rig-Veda was not composed in 1500BC as widely held but thousands of years earlier, possibly around 8000 BC. The Indian subcontinent was not the homeland of the Rig-Vedic Aryan, as popularly believed. The Rig-Veda was, probably, composed in the Anatolian civilization of Turkey, from where it came to India centuries later. The Aryan Migrated from Turkey, reaching India centuries later. The River Saraswati andSaptasindu in the Rig-Veda get better with the Avestic and Iranian Rivers, Haraquaiti and Haptahindu. (* Sunday 12-18 Sept, 1993 by B.G.Siddharth Director Archiology of Hyderabad)
  19. Ancestors of Hindu i.e. Bra, Kha, Bas, Sudra were Aryans. Untouchable are never Hindu.

 

 

BUDDHISM

 

  1. The Afghans were once Buddhists.
  2. Buddhism was in Pre-Christian Britain. (Dr.Donold A.Machinric 1928)
  3. When the Untouchables were not Untouchables but were only broken men. We must ask why the Brahmins refuse to officiate the religious ceremonies of the Broken man? Is it the caste that the Brahmins refused to officiate? Or is it that the Broken Men refused to invite them? Why did the Brahmin regard Broken Men as impure? Why did the Broken Men regard the Brahmins as impure? What is the basis of this antipathy?
  4. This antipathy can be explained on one hypothesis/ It is that the Broken Men were Buddhist/ As such they did not revere the Brahmins, did not employ them as their priests and regarded them as impure/ The Brahmins on the other hand disliked the Broken Men because they were Buddhists and preached against them contempt and hatred with the result that the Broken Men came to be regarded as Untouchables.
  5. Why did the Brahmins become vegetarian? The answer is that without becoming the Vegetarian the Brahmins could not have recovered the ground they had lost to their rival namely Buddhist.
  6. Those who had a common totem formed an exogamous group popularly known as Gotra or Kula.
  7. Manu V.35 goes further and makes eating flesh compulsory; “But a man who, being duly engaged (to officiate or to dine at a sacred rite), refuses to eat meat, becomes after death an animal during twenty one existences.
  8. The Buddhists rejected the Brahmanic religion which consisted of Yajna and animal sacrifice, particularly of the cow. Buddha’s religion offered salvation to women and sudra’s.
  9. We can, therefore, say with some confidence that Untouchability was born some time about 400 A.D. It is born out of the struggle for supremacy between Buddhism and Brahmanism which has so completely molded the history of India and the study of which is no woefully neglected by students of Indian history.(Vol-7)
  10. The whole history of India is made to appear as though the only important thing in it is a catalogue of Muslim invasions. But even from this narrow point of view it is clear that the Muslim invasions are not the only invasions worth study. There have been other invasions equally if not of greater importance. If Hindu India was invaded by the Muslim invaders so was the Buddhist India Invaded by the Brahmanic Invaders.
  11. The Muslim invasions of Hindu India and the Brahmanic invasions of Buddhist India have many similarities. The Musalman invaders of Hindu India fought among themselves for their dynastic ambitions. The Arabs, Turks, Mongols and Afghans fought for supremacy among themselves. But they had one thing is common namely the mission to destroy idolatry.
  12. Similarly the Brahmanic invaders of Buddhist India fought among themselves for their dynastic ambitions. The Sungas, Kanvas and the Andhras fought for supremacy among themselves. But they, like the Muslim invaders of Hindu India, had one object in common that was to destroy Buddhism and the Buddhist Empire of the Mauryas. Surely if Muslim invasions of Hindu India are worthy of study at the hands of the historians, the invasions of Buddhist India by Brahmanic invaders are equally deserving of study.
  13. The ways and methods employed by the Brahmanic invaders of Buddhist India to suppress Buddhism were not less violent and less virulent than the ways and means adopted by Muslim invaders of to suppress Hinduism.
  14. From the point of view of the permanent effect on the social and spiritual life of the people, the Brahmanic invasions of Buddhist India have been so profound in their effect that compared to them, the effect of Muslim invasions on Hindu India have been really superficial and ephemeral.
  15. The Muslim invaders destroyed only the outward symbols of Hindu religion such as temples and Moths etc. They did not extirpate Hinduism nor did they cause any subversion of the principles or doctrines which governed the spiritual life of the people.
  16. The effect of the Brahmanic invasions were a thorough going change in the principles which Buddhism had preached or a century as true and eternal principles of spiritual life and which had been accepted and followed by the masses as the way of life.
  17. To alter the metaphor the Muslim invaders only stirred the waters in the bath and that too only for a while. Thereafter they got tired of stirring and left the water with the sediments to settle. They never threw the baby-if one can speak of the principles of Hinduism as a baby-out of the bath.
  18. Brahmanism in its conflict with Buddhism made a clean sweep. It emptied the bath with the Buddhist Baby in it and filled the bath with its own waters and placed in it its own baby. Brahmanism did not care to stop how filthy and dirty was its water as compared with the clean and fragrant water which flowed from the noble source of Buddhism.
  19. Brahmanism did not care to stop how hideous and ugly was its own baby as compared with the Buddhist Baby. Brahmanism acquired by its invasions political power to annihilate Buddhism and it did annihilate Buddhism. Islam did not supplant Hinduism. Islam never made a thorough job of its mission. Brahmanism did. It drove out Buddhism as a religion and occupied its place.
  20. In the first place it must be recognized that there has never been such as a common Indian culture, that historically there have been three Indias, Brahmanic India, Buddhist India and Hindu India, each with its own culture. Secondly it must be recognized that the history of India before the Muslim invasions in the history of a mortal conflict between Brahmanism and Buddhism. Anyone who does not recognize these facts will never be able to write a true history of India, a history which will disclose the meaning and purpose running through it. It is a corrective to Indian history written as it is and to disclose the meaning and purposes running through it that I was obliged to re-cast the history of the Brahmanic invasions of Buddhist India and political triumph of Brahmanism over Buddhism. We must therefore begin with the recognition of the fact: Pushyamitra’s revolution was a political revolution engineered by the Brahmins to overthrow Buddhism.
  21. As to the conversion to the faith of Islam by the Buddhist population as a cause of the fall of Buddhism. There can hardly be much doubt.
  22. All religions-except Buddhism-have used or misused the laws of inheritance for enforcing adhesion and conformity to their codes.

 

CASTEISM and MUSLIMS

 

Indian Muslims inherited the problem from Brahminism and its suit to rule and control the illiterate masses among Muslims converted from Untouchables, like Mukhtair mai case and 940 cases of honor killing in Pakistan. Untouchables got mashie’s like Mahatma Jotiba phule, Dr.Ambedkar, Kanshiram, Gurucharan Thakur etc . But Muslims are in dark about social reform and very bad in their so called own territory and want to dictate in every matter which is not only unsocial but anti-social. Gazanes dictate “If Islam fails to control this Islamic terrorism then it will destroy the Islam”. What is the escape way from the hijacked hand of Islam? Be careful other religionists will not help you to survive, but definitely they will try to destroy in a polite manner. In Europe they shown the way to the Muslim and dictate that if you like their culture then stay or get out from their territory. If you marry a European girl now then their children must have to follow the Catholics way of life as says by Pope.  King Abdulla meet Pope in the first time in the history of Islam, now you can think over the crises face a religion they called it only one by Allah. Crime record are high among Asian and whoever will get involve that family and related all will be harassed and will forced to live in a miserable life or left the country. New arrival is going to be reduced only those who accept their terms and condition will be allowed. We refuges from east Bengal are suffering more than the Palestine refuges. Replaces of people from their own ancestral home is equally harmful whether it is in the name of God or whatever may be. Once the President of Pakistan Gen.Musharaf  says that entire Muslim nations in the world’s GDP are less than the GDP of Germany alone.

 

  1. To reduce the share meant to reduce the population. This is one reason why the Mohammedans did not help the Untouchables in this struggle for numbers. The second reason why the Mohammedans did not help the Untouchables was the fear of exposure by the Hindus. Although Islam is the one religion which can transcend race and colour and unite diverse people into a compact brotherhood, yet Islam in India has not succeeded in uprooting caste from among the Indian Musalmans. Caste feeling among the Musalmans is not as virulent as it is among the Hindus. But in fact is that, it exists. That this caste feeling among the Musalmans leads to social gradation, a feature of the Muslim community in India, has been noticed by all those who have had an occasion to study the subject.
  2. In a land like India, where the majority of the Muslim population has been recruited from caste and out caste Hindus, the Muslimization of the convert was neither complete for effectual, either from fear of revolt or because of the method of persuasion or insufficiency of preaching due to insufficiency of priests. There is therefore, little wonder if great sections of the Muslim community here and there reveal their Hindu origin in their religious and social life. Partly it is to be explained as the effect of common environment to which both Hindus and Muslims have been subjected for centuries. A common environment is bound to produce common reactions, and reacting constantly in the same way to the same environment is bound to produce a common type. Partly are these common features to be explained as the remains of a period of religious amalgamation between the Hindu and the Muslim inaugurated by the Emperor Akbar, the result of a dead past which has no present and no future.
  3. Are there any common historical antecedents which the Hindus and Muslims can be said share together as matters of pride or as a matters of sorrow? That is the crux of the question. That is the question which the Hindus must answer, if they wish to maintain that Hindus and Musalmans together form a nation. So far as this aspect of their relationships concerned, they have been just two armed battalions warring against each other. There was no common cycle of participation for a common achievement. Their past is a part of mutual destruction-a past of mutual animosities, both in the political as well as in the religious fields.
  4. Nationalists, fighting for freedom from aggressive imperialism, cannot well ask the help of the British imperialists to thwart the right of a minority to freedom from the nationalism of an aggressive majority. The matter must, therefore, be decided upon by the Muslims and the Hindus alone. The British cannot decide the issue for them. This is the first important point to note.
  5. It will be the greatest folly to suppose that if Pakistan is buried for the moment, it will never raise its head again. I am sure; burying Pakistan is not the same thing as burying the ghost of Pakistan. Their claim for the recognition of Urdu as the national language of India is equally extravagant.
  6. Thus history shows that the theory of nationality is imbedded in the democratic theory of the sovereignty of the will of a people. This means that the demand by a nationality for a national state does not require to be supported by any list of grievances. The will of the people is enough of justify it.
  7. But, if grievances must be cited in support of their claim, the Muslims say that they have them in plenty. They may be summed up in one sentence; the constitutional safeguards have failed to save them from the tyranny of the Hindu majority.
  8. The British have done many good things in India for the Indians. They have improved their roads, constructed canals on more scientific principles, effected their transport by rail, carried their letters by penny post, flashed their messages by lightings, improved their currency, regulated their weights and measures, corrected their notions of geography, astronomy and medicine, and stopped their internal quarrels and effected some advancement in their material conditions. Because of this acts of good government, did anybody ask the Indian people to remain grateful to the British and give up their agitation for self-government? Or because of these acts of social uplift, did the Indians give up their protest against being treated as a subject race by the British? The Indians did nothing of the kind. They refused to be satisfied with these goods deeds and continued to agitate for their right to rule themselves. This is as it should be.
  9. The British conquest of India brought about a complete political revolution in the relative position of the two communities. For six hundred years, the Musalmans had been the masters of the Hindus. The British occupation brought them down to the level of the Hindus. From masters to fellow subjects was degradation enough, but a change from the status of fellow subjects to that of subjects of the Hindus is really humiliation. Is it unnatural, ask the Muslims, if they seek an escape from so intolerable a position by the creation of separate national States, in which the Muslims can find a peaceful home and in which the conflicts between a ruling race and a subject race can find no place to plague their lives?
  10. The only way to make Hindustan homogenous is to arrange for exchange of population. Until that is done, it must be admitted that even with the creation of Pakistan, the problem of majority; vs. minority will remain in Hindustan as before and will continue to produce disharmony in the body politic of Hindustan.

 

Now it is proving right 60 years after partition. Now Pakistan is producing more and more terrorist to export in India and worldwide. They teach them the perverted religious ideology to kill innocent people including women, children and spread a psychological fear of the mind of the general public and they feel gain to spread the terrorism in the name of their religion. It is very much understood that the pitiably condition of the minorities who are  living in Bangladesh and Pakistan as the fundamentalist always giving feeling of conversion or death threat one pretext or the other. In 1971 in the name of Allah and his religion 30 lakhs people killed by Pakistani Army which may be the highest in the world history in the name of perverted religious ideology but failed to established their wish instead they were thrown out from Bengal by the people of Bangladesh.

 

  1. Unfortunately, the high caste Hindus are bad as leaders. They have a trait of character which often leads the Hindus disaster. This trait is formed by their acquisitive instinct and aversion to share with others the good things of life. They have a monopoly of education and wealth, and with wealth and education they have captured the State. To keep this monopoly to themselves has been the ambition and goal of their life. Charged with this selfish idea of class domination, they take every move to exclude the lower classes of Hindus from wealth, education and power, the surest and the most effective being the preparation of scriptures, inculcating upon the minds of the lower classes of Hindus the teaching that their duty in life in only to serve the higher classes. In keeping this monopoly in their own hands and excluding the lower classes from any share in it, the high caste Hindus have succeeded for a long time and beyond measure, it is only recently that lower class Hindus rose in revolt against this monopoly by starting the Non-Brahmin Parties in the Madras and the Bombay presidencies and the Central provinces. Still the high caste Hindus has successfully maintained their privileged position. As American president Lincoln said, “It is not possible to fool all people for all times.”
  2. This attitude of keeping education, wealth and power as a close preserve for themselves and refusing to share it, which the high caste Hindus have developed in their relation with the lower classes of Hindus, is sought to be extended by them to the Muslims. They want to exclude the Muslims from place and power, as they have done to the lower class Hindus. This trait of the high caste Hindus is the key to the understanding of their politics.
  3. According to Muslim Canon Law the world is divided  into  two camps, Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war).  A country   is Dar-ul-Islam  when it is ruled by Muslims. A  country  is Dar-ul-Herb when Muslims only  reside  in it but not rulers of it.  That being the Canon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and the Musalmans.   It   can be the land of the Musalmans but it cannot be   the land  of the ‘Hindus and the Musalmans living as equals’. Further, it can be the land of  the  Musalmans  only  when  it  is  governed  by   the Muslims. The moment the land becomes subject to  the authority of a non Muslim power, it ceases to  be the land  of  the Muslims.  Instead  of  being  Dar-ul-Islam it becomes Dar-ul-Harb.

 

  1. There is  another  injunction  of  Muslim  Canon Law  called  Jihad(crusade)  by  which   it  becomes  ” incumbent on a Muslim ruler to  extend   the rule  of  Islam until the whole  world  shall  have been  brought  under  its      As   now Pakistan base intruder   are fighting against Indian soldier to capture India on the basis of   this theory.  How a foolish strategy?

 

  1. But the facts for Bengal are enough to  show  that the Mahomedans observe  not   only caste but also untouchability.

 

  1. There can thus be no manner of doubt that the Muslim Society in India is afflicted by the same social evils as afflict the Hindu Society. Indeed, the Muslims have all the social evils of the Hindus and something more.  That something more is the compulsory system of veil or Purdah for Muslim women.
  2. The Census Superintendent (1911) mentions another feature of the Muslim social system, namely, the prevalence of the “panchayet ” He states:-

 

“The authority of the panchayat extends to social as well as trade matters and …  marriage with people of other communities is one of the offences of which the governing body takes cognizance. The result is that these groups are often as strictly endogamous as Hindu  castes. The prohibition on inter-marriage extends  to  higher as  well as to lower castes, and a  Dhuma,  for example,  may  marry no one but a Dhuma.  If  this rule  is  transgressed, the offender  is  at once hauled  up before the panchayat and  ejected  ignominiously  from  his community.  A member  of   one such  group cannot ordinarily gain  admission to another, and he retains the designation of the community  in  which  he  was  born  even  if  he  abandons  its distinctive occupation and takes to other means of livelihood…  thousands   of  Jolahas are butchers, yet they are still known as Jolahas.”

 

  1. Similar facts  from  other  Provinces  of  India could  be  gathered from  their  respective  Census Reports  and  those  who are  curious  may  refer to     But the facts for Bengal are  enough to  show  that the Mahomedans observe  not   only caste but also untouchability.

 

  1. There were 5,651 Mussulman  Chamar  were  reported  on 1911 census in the U.P and 10,811 in  all India, census tables U.P-1911. There can thus be no manner of doubt that the Muslim  Society in India is afflicted by  the  same social  evils as afflict the Hindu  Society. Indeed, the Muslims have all the social evils of the Hindus and  something more.  That something more is the compulsory system of veil or  Purdah  for Muslim women.

 

  1. There is thus stagnation not only in the social life but also in the political life of the Muslim community of India. The Muslims have no interest in politics as such.  Their predominant interest is religion. This can be easily seen by the terms and conditions that a Muslim   constituency makes for its support to a candidate fighting for a seat.  The Muslim constituency does not care to examine the program of the candidate. All that the constituency wants from the candidate  is that he should agree to replace  the old lamps of the masjid by supplying new ones  at his cost,  to  provide  a new carpet  for  the  masjid because  the old one is torn, or to repair the masjid because it has become dilapidated. In  some places a  Muslim   constituency  is  quite satisfied  if  the  candidate agrees  to  give  a   sumptuous  feast and in other if he agrees to buy  votes for  so  much a piece. With the  Muslims, election is a mere matter of money and is very  seldom a matter of social program of  general improvement.   Muslim  politics takes no note  of  purely secular  categories  of life, namely,  the   differences  between  rich and poor, capital  and labour,  landlord and tenant, priest and  layman, reason and  superstition. Muslim politics is essentially clerical and recognizes only one difference, namely, that existing between Hindus and Muslims. None of the secular categories of life have any place in the politics of the Muslim  community  and if they do find a place- and  they   must because they are irrepressible- they  are  subordinated  to  one  and   the  only  governing   principle  of  the   Muslim  political  universe,  namely, religion.

 

  1. The existence of these evils among the Muslims is distressing enough. But  far  more distressing   is  the  fact   that  there  is  no organized movement of social reform among the  Musalmans of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their  eradication.  The Hindus have their social evils. But  there  is  this   relieving   feature  about them-namely, that some of them are  conscious  of  their existence and a few of  them  are actively  agitating  for their removal. The Muslims, on the other hand, do not realize that they are evils and consequently do not agitate  for their  removal. Indeed, they oppose any change in their  existing   practices. It  is  noteworthy   that   the   Muslims   opposed the Child-Marriage Bill brought in the Central Assembly  in 1930.  Whereby the age for marriage  of a girl  was raised to 14 and of a boy to 18 on  the ground  that  it was opposed to  the  Muslims   canon law.   Not only did they oppose the bill at  every stage  but  that  when it became  law  they started  a campaign of Civil Disobedience against that Act. Fortunately, the Civil Disobedience  campaign  of the Muslims against the Act did  not  swell and  was  submerged in the  Congress  Civil Disobedience campaign which synchronized with it. But the  campaign  only proves how  strongly  the  Muslims are opposed to social reform.

 

  1. The Question may  be asked why  are  the  Muslims opposed to social reform ?

 

The usual answer given is that the Muslims  all over  the world are an unprogressive  people.  This view no doubt accords with the facts of   history.   After  the  first   spurts  of   their activity-  the  scale  of which  was  undoubtedly stupendous  leading  to the foundations  of  vast empires-the Muslims suddenly fell into a strange condition of torpor, from which they never  seem to have  become  awake.  The cause  assigned  for this torpor  by  those, who have made a study of  their condition,  is  said to be the  fundamental  assumption  made  by all Muslims that Islam is  a  world religion,  suitable for all people, for all  times and  for  all  conditions.   It has been contended that:-

 

  1. “The Musalman, remaining faithful to  his religion,  has  not progressed;  he has  remained stationary  in  a world of swiftly moving  modern  forces.   It  is,  indeed,  one  of  the  salient  features  of  Islam that it immobilizes in  their  native barbarism, the races whom it enslaves. It is fixed in crystallization, inert and impenetrable. It is unchangeable; and political, social or economic changes have no repercussion upon it.

 

  1. “Having been  taught that  outside  Islam there can be no safety;  outside its law no truth   and outside  its  spiritual message there  is  no  happiness,  the  Muslim has become  incapable  of  conceiving  any other condition than his own, any other mode  of thought than the Islamic  thought.  He firmly  believes  that  he has arrived  at  an  unequalled  pitch of perfection;  that he is  the  sole possessor  of  true faith, of  the  truth-no relative  truth subject to revision, but absolute  truth.

 

  1. “The religious law of the Muslim has  had  the effect  of  imparting  to  the  very  diverse individuals  of  whom  the world is  composed,  a  unity of  thought,  of  feeling,   of  ideas,  of  judgment.”

 

It  is  urged  that   this  uniformity  is  deadening  and  is  to  merely  imparted  to  the   Muslims,  but is imposed upon them by a spirit of   intolerance  which  is unknown anywhere  outside the Muslim  world  for  its   severity  and   its  violence and which is directed  towards  the  suppression  of all rational thinking which is in  conflict  with the teachings of Islam.  As  Renan  observes*:-

 

“Islam  is a close union of the  spiritual and the temporal;  it is the reign of a dogma, it  is the heaviest  chain  that  humanity  has even  borne…Islam   has   its    beauties   as    a  religion; …But  to the human reason Islamism has only been  injurious.  The minds that it has shut from the  light were, no doubt, already closed in  their own internal limits;  but it has persecuted  free thought, I shall not say more violently than  other religions,  but  more effectually.  It has made of  the  countries that it has  conquered  a   closed field to the rational culture of the mind.  What is,  in fact essentially distinctive of  the Musalman in his hatred of science, his persuasion that research is useless, frivolous,   almost  impious-the natural  sciences, because they  are  attempts  at  rivalry with God; the historical  sciences, because they apply to times anterior to  Islam, they may revive ancient heresies…”

 

Renan concludes by saying :-

 

“Islam, in treating science as an enemy, is only consistent, but it is a dangerous thing to be consistent. To its own misfortune Islam has been successful. By slaying science it has slain itself; and is condemned in the world to a complete inferiority.”

 

This  answer though obvious, cannot be the  true answer.  If it were the true answer, how are  we to account  for  the stir and ferment that  is   going on  in all Muslim countries outside  India,   where the spirit of inquiry, the spirit of change and the  desire to reform are noticeable in every walk of  life.  Indeed, the social reforms  which have taken place in Turkey have been of the most revolutionary  character.  If Islam has not  come   in the way of the Muslims of these countries, why  should it  come  in  the way of  the  Muslims  of  India?  There must be some special reason for the  social and  political  stagnation of  the  Muslim  community in India.

 

What can that special reason be?  It seems to me that  the  reason  for the absence  of  the  spirit of  change in the Indian Musalman is to be  sought in  the  peculiar position he occupies  in  India. He is placed in a social environment which is predominantly  Hindu.  That  Hindu   environment   is  always   silently  but   surely   encroaching  upon  him.   He feels that it is de-Musalmanazing  him.   As a protection  against  this gradual  weaning away he is led to insist on   preserving  everything  that is  Islamic  without  caring to  examine  whether  it  is  helpful  or  harmful to his society.  Secondly, the Muslims in  India are placed in a political environment which  is also  predominantly  Hindu. He feels that  he  will be suppressed and that political suppression  will make  the Muslims a depressed class.  It  is  this consciousness  that  he has to save  himself  from being  submerged by the Hindus socially  and   politically,  which  to  my mind is  the  primary cause why  the  Indian Muslims as  compared  with  their fellows  outside are backward in the matter of social reform.  Their energies are directed to maintaining a constant   struggle against the Hindus for  seats and posts in which there is  no  time, thought  and no room for questions relating to social reform.  And if there is any, it is all  overweighed  and  suppressed  by   the   desire,  generated  by  pressure of communal  tension,  to  close the  ranks and offer a united front to the menace of  the Hindus and Hinduism by maintaining  their socio-religious unity at any cost.

 

The  same is  the explanation of the  political stagnation in the Muslim community  of  India.  Muslim  politicians  do  not   recognize  secular  categories of life as the basis of their  politics  because to them it means the  weakening of the community in its fight against the Hindus. The poor Muslims will not join the poor Hindus to get justice  from the rich.  Muslim tenants will   not join  Hindu tenants to prevent the tyranny of the landlord.  Muslim  labourers will  not  join  Hindu labourers  in  the fight of labour  against capital. Why? The answer is simple. The poor  Muslim sees  that if he joins in the fight of the poor against the rich, he may be fighting against a rich Muslim. The Muslim tenant feels that  if  he joins  in  the  onslaught  of  labour  against  capital, he will be injuring a Muslim mill-owner. He is conscious that any injury to a rich Muslim, to a Muslim  landlord or to a Muslim  mill-owner,  is a disservice  to the Muslim community, for  it  is thereby  weakened in its struggle against  the  Hindu community.

 

The  Muslims were speaking the language of  Hitler on  their  demand and claiming a place  in  the sun  as  Hitler has been doing  for  Germany.   For their demand for 50 per cent.  (It  was  in 1929) is  nothing but a counterpart of the German claims for  Deutschland Uber Alles and Lebensraum for themselves,  irrespective of what happens  to  other minorities.

 

Another  illustration  of this  spirit  of exploitation is furnished   by   the   Muslim  insistence upon cow-slaughter and the stoppage of music before  mosques. Islamic law  does  not insist upon   the  slaughter  of   the  cow  for  sacrificial  purposes  and no Musalman,  when  he   goes to  Haj,  sacrifices  the cow  in  Mecca  or   Medina. But  in India they will not be  content with the  sacrifice of any other animal. Music may be played  before  a  mosque  in  all  Muslim  countries without any objection.  Even in Afghanistan,  which is not a secularized country, no objection  is taken to Music before a  mosque.  But in India  the Musalmans must insist upon  its  stoppage  for  no  other reason except  that  the  Hindus claim a right to it.

 

The slogan of some leader that  Hindustan  for Hindus-is not merely arrogant but is arrant  nonsense. Some people have failed to realize two things. The  first thing which they  failed  to  realize  is  that there is a  difference  between   appeasement   and   settlement, and that  the difference  is  an  essential  one.  Appeasement means buying  off  the aggressor by conniving  at  his acts  of murder, rape, arson and loot against  innocent  persons who happen for the moment to be the victims  of  his displeasure. On  the  other hand, settlement  means  laying down  the  bounds which neither   party  to  it   can   transgress.  Appeasement sets  no limits to the  demands and aspirations  of the aggressor.  Settlement does. The second thing is that the policy of concession has increased Muslim aggressiveness, and what is worse, Muslims interpret these concessions as  a sign of  defeatism on the part of the Hindus  and the absence  of the will to resist.  This  policy  of appeasement  will  involve the Hindus  in  the same fearful  situation in which the Allies found  themselves   as  a  result  of  the   policy of appeasement which they adopted towards Hitler.  This is another malaise, no less acute than the malaise of social stagnation.  Appeasement will surely aggravate it. The only remedy for it is a settlement.  As a settlement it will do away with this constant need of appeasement and ought to be welcomed  by  all those who prefer the peace  and  tranquility  of  a settlement to the  insecurity  due to the  growing  political appetite shown  by  the Muslims in their dealings with the Hindus.

 

Before independent it was a question, How far will   Muslims  obey  the   authority  of   a  government  manned and controlled by the  Hindus?  The answer  to  this question need not  call  for  much inquiry.   To  the  Muslims  a  Hindu  is  a  Kaffir.   A Kaffir is not worthy of respect.  He is low-born  and  without status.  That is why  a  country which is ruled by a Kaffir is Dar-ul-Herb  to a Musalman.  Given this, no further  evidence  seems to  be necessary to prove that the  Muslims will not obey a Hindu government.

 

 

  1. Jinnah is the one person who had all the chances of success on his side if he had tried to form such a united non-communal party. He has the ability to organize. He had the reputation of a nationalist. Even many Hindus who were opposed to the Congress would have flocked to him if he had only sent out a call for a united party like minded Hindus and Muslims. What did Mr.Jinnah do? In 1937 Mr.Jinnah made his entry into Muslim politics and strangely enough he regenerated the Muslim League which was dying and decaying and of which only  a few years ago he would have been glad to witness the funeral. However regrettable the starting of such a communal political party may have been, there was in it one relieving feature. That was the leadership of Mr.Jinnah. Everybody felt that with the leadership of Mr.Jinnah the League could never become a merely communal party. The resolutions passed by the League during the first two years of its new career indicated that it would develop into a mixed political party of Hindus and Muslims.
  2. Unfortunately Muslims do not realize what disservice Mr.Jinnah has done to them by this policy.
  3. Mohamad Ali speaking at Aligarh and Ajmere said: “However pure Mr. Gandhi’s character may be, he must appear to me from the point of view of religion inferior to any Musalman, even though he be without character”. Further in his statement he said “Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Musalman to the better than Mr.Gandhi.
  4. If Islam and Hinduism keep Muslims and Hindus apart in the matter of their faith, they also prevent their social assimilation. That Hinduism prohibits intermarriage between Hindus and Muslims is quite well known. This narrow-mindedness is not the vice of Hinduism only. Islam is equally narrow in its social code. It also prohibits intermarriage between Muslim and Hindus. With this social laws there can be no social assimilation and consequently no socialization of ways, modes and outlooks no blunting of the edges and no modulations of age-old angularities.
  5. There are other defects in Hinduism and in Islam which are responsible for keeping the sore between Hindus and Muslims open and running. Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslim for Muslims only. There is a fraternity but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity. The send defeat of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To be Muslim ibi bene ibi patria is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin. That is probably the reason why Maulana Mohamed Ali, a great Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.
  6. Some more

In 1947 after partition of India, The Pakistan Government are preventing in every possible way the evacuation of Scheduled Castes from their territory. The reason behind this seems to be that they want the Scheduled Castes  to remain in Pakistan to do the menial Jobs and to serve as landless laborers for the landholding population of Pakistan. The Pakistan Government is particularly anxious to impound the sweepers whom they have declared as persons belonging to Essential services and whom they are  not prepared to release except on one month’s  notice.Vol-21, p-253

What is necessary  to do is:

  1. To ask the Pakistan Government not to place any obstacles in the way of the evacuation of the Scheduled Castes.
  2. To allow the M.E.O. to get into direct touch with the Scheduled Castes and wish to evacuate;
  3. To maintain the MEO till all the Scheduled Castes are evacuated.

 

Scheduled Castes  evacuate who have come to Eastern Punjab are not living in the refugees camps established by the Government  of India. The reason is that the officer in charge of these refugee Camps discriminate between the caste Hindus refugee and the Scheduled Caste refugees. Vol-21, p-254

 

It is a notorious fact that the Sikh and the Jats who occupy a very dominant position is East Punjab are compelling the Scheduled Castes who are residents East Punjab to evacuate from their original homes in order to appropriate their houses or their landed property. Scheduled Castes are unable to obtain any redress from the tyranny and who are residents East Punjab oppression practiced upon them by the Sikhs and the Jats to carry Sikhs and Jats who quite naturally protect the wrong doers who are their kith and kin and pay no attention to the complaints of the Scheduled Castes. Vol-21, p-255

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s