History of Conversion 2nd part

 

  1. CHRISTIANITY AND THE SPIRIT 

OF THE CONVERT:

 

Let  us  take  the   second  part  of  the

question.  Has Christianity been able to save the

convert  from  the  sufferings and  the  ignominy

which is  the misfortune of every one who is born

an untouchable?   Can  an untouchable  after  his

conversion  to  Christianity  take water  from  a

public well?   Are  his  children admitted  to  a

public school?   Can  he enter a hotel or  tavern

which was  not open to his?  Can he enter a  shop

and by things  from inside?  Will a barber  shave

him?  Will  a washerman wash his clothes?  Can he

travel in  a bus?  Will he be admitted in  Public

offices  without compunction?  Will he be allowed

to live in the touchable quarters of the village?

Will the  Hindus take water from him?  Will  they

dine with him?  Will not the Hindu take a bath if

he touches  him?   I am sure the answer to  every

one of these  questions must be in the  negative.

In other  wards conversion has not brought  about

any change   in   the  social   status   of   the

untouchable  convert.  To the general mass of the

Hindus the  untouchable  remains  an  untouchable

even though he becomes a Christian.

 

The  question is, why has Christianity not

succeeded   in   raising  the   status   of   the

untouchable  convert?   What are the reasons  for

this failure?  I am not sure that my reasons will

be accepted  by  all those who are interested  in

the problem.  But I will state them for what they

are worth.   To understand and appreciate what  I

am going to say I must begin by pointing out that

a change  in the social status of the convert can

be the result  of a two-fold change.  There  must

be a change  in  the  attitude   of  the  Hindus.

Secondly there must be change in the mentality of

the convert.   Status is a dual matter, a  matter

inter se between two persons and unless both move

from their  old position there can be no  change.

What has  been done by those who are in charge of

Christian  endeavour to make the parties move on?

A consideration  of this question will enable  us

to understand  why  Christianity  has  failed  to

raise the status of the untouchable covert.

 

Let  us  consider the question  in  parts.

What has  Christianity  done to make  the  Hindus

move on?   I  find they have done nothing.   They

seem to  be  depending  upon an  idea  doing  the

miracle.  The faith in an idea doing the work has

been well  expressed  by the late Duke of  Argyle

when he said:

 

“There  is no method of reform so powerful

as this. If alongside any false or corrupt belief,

or any vicious or cruel system, we place

one incompatible idea,- then without any noise of

controversy or clash of battle, those beliefs and

customs  will  wave  an idea.  It was  thus  that

Christianity,  without one single word of  direct

attack,  killed off one of the greatest and  most

universal  curses  of the pagan world,- the  ever

deepening curse of slavery.”11

 

Whatever may be the importance of an idea,

I am sure,   history  does  not   bear  out   the

conclusion   of  the  Duke  of  Argyle.   It   is

debatable  question whether the end of slavery in

the Roman  Empire  was  due to the  influence  of

Christianity.   It  is beyond doubt that  serfdom

continued  in Europe although Christianity was an

established  institution  for   several   hundred

years.   It  is  an  incontrovertible  fact  that

Christianity was not enough to end the slavery of

Negroes  in  the United States.  A civil war  was

necessary to give the Negro the freedom which was

denied to him by the Christians.

 

The  dependence  of  those  in  charge  of

Christian  endeavour upon planting of an idea and

leaving  it to work a miracle is therefore one of

the reasons  why the untouchable has remained  an

untouchable notwithstanding his Christian faith.

 

Let   me  take  the   other  part  of  the

question.    Does   Christianity    inspire   the

untouchable  to move on?  I am constrained to say

that it  does  not.  So far as I am able to  see,

Christian  preaching  to the untouchable is  less

centered on ‘practical’ reforms and more centered

around the   development  of   Christian   social

attitudes.   Christians who desire the conversion

of the untouchables    insist     on    regarding

Christianity  as  purely “spiritual”.   To  teach

that Christians have an obligation to love others

is no doubt very valuable.  But to stop there and

argue that  spiritual life expressed in a  social

attitude  is quite unrelated to material life and

Christians  can have nothing to do with it, is in

my judgment to preach an empty doctrine.  What is

the use of a daily exhortation to a wrong doer to

be good  and  just  if  the  exhortation  is  not

fallowed  by  action to make the wrong doer  just

and good.   The Christian Missionaries have never

thought that it was their duty to act and get the

injustice  that  pursues  the  untouchables  even

after his  conversion  to  Christianity  removed.

That Missions should be so inactive in the matter

of the social  emancipation of the untouchable is

of course a very sad thing.  But far more painful

is the inaction  of the untouchable who becomes a

convert  to  Christianity.   It  is  the  saddest

thing.   He  continues to suffer from the  Hindus

the same  disabilities which were his lot  before

conversion.   It  is an extraordinary thing  that

the movement for the redress of wrongs is carried

on by the   untouchables  who   have  not  become

converts  to Christianity.  I have never  noticed

the untouchable Christians meeting in Conferences

for the  redress  of their social  wrongs.   That

they have  grievances  is beyond question.   That

there are  many  who are educated enough to  lead

them in  their struggle is also well known.   Why

is it then  there  has been no movement  for  the

redress of their wrongs?

 

I  see  three  reasons why  the  Christian

untouchables have failed to raise a movement.

 

The  first  reason is to be found  in  the

complete  absence  of desire on the part  of  the

educated  among  the  Christians to take  up  the

cause of the community and fight for it.  This is

due in my  judgement to the fact that within  the

Christian  Community  the educated class and  the

mass has  no kinship.  The Christian Community is

a composite  community.   In  some places  it  is

divided into touchables and untouchables.  In all

places it  is  divided  into high class  and  low

class.   The educated class is largely drawn from

the touchable or the higher class.  This educated

class being  detached  from  the   lower  or  the

untouchable  class  of Christians is not  charged

with the  wants,  the pains,  craving,  desires,

aspirations  of the latter and does not care  for

their interest.   The untouchable Christians  are

therefore  leaderless  and  therefore  unable  to

mobilize for the redress of their wrongs.

 

The second reason why there is no movement

among the   untouchable  Christians  is  due   to

certain  faults  in  the mental  make-up  of  the

convert.   The mental make-up of the  untouchable

Christian  is characterized by a complete absence

of any urge  to  break  his bonds.  What  is  the

reason for  this  absence  of  any  urge  in  the

untouchable Christian?  It seems to me that there

are two  reasons  which  account for  this.   One

reason is  to  be found in the antecedent of  the

untouchable   who   becomes  a   Christian.    An

untouchable   becomes   a   Christian  for   some

advantage  or  he becomes a Christian because  he

likes the teaching of the Bible.  But the case is

very rare  of an untouchable becoming a Christian

because  of  a positive discontent or dislike  of

the Hindu  religious  teachings.  The  result  is

that Christianity becomes only an addendum to his

old faith.   It does not become a substitute  for

his old  faith.   He cherishes both and  observes

them on occasions appropriate to each.

 

The  second reason for the absence of  any

urge is  due I am afraid to the teachings of  the

Christian  Church.  The Christian Church  teaches

that the  fall of man is due to his original  Sin

and the  reason why one must become Christian  is

because  in  Christianity  there  is  promise  of

forgiveness  of  sins.   Whatever   may  be   the

theological   and  evangelistic   basis  of  this

doctrine   there   is  no   doubt  that  from   a

sociological point of view it is a doctrine which

is fraught   with  disaster.     This   Christian

teaching is a direct challenge to sociology which

holds that  the  fall  of  man   is  due  to   an

unpropitious  environment and not to the sins  of

man.  There  is no question that the sociological

view is  the correct view and the Christian dogma

only misleads man.  It sets him on a wrong trial.

This is  exactly  what  has   happened  with  the

untouchable  Christian.  Instead of being  taught

that his  fall  is  due  to a  wrong  social  and

religious   environment   and    that   for   his

improvement he must attack that environment he is

told that his fall is due to his sin.

 

The  consequence  is that the  untouchable

convert instead of being energized to conquer his

environment contents himself with the belief that

there is no use struggling, for the simple reason

that his  fall is due to the sin committed not by

him but  by  some remote ancestor of  his  called

Adam.  When  he  was a Hindu his fall was due  to

his Karma.  When he becomes a Christian he learns

that his fall is due to the sins of his ancestor.

In either  case there is no escape for him.   One

may well  ask whether conversion is a birth of  a

new life and a condemnation to the old.

 

     

 

 

 

 

  1. CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY AND

   ITS SOCIAL STANDING:

 

Does  the India Christian Community  count

in India?   What importance, what influences does

it have  in settling the affairs of the  country.

It ought to have importance and influence both in

the country  and society.  It is undoubtedly  the

most educated and enlightened community in India.

Not only  the percentage of literacy among Indian

Christian is relatively larger than in many other

communities in India but the University Graduate,

Doctors,  lawyers  are far in excess than can  be

found in communities which are vastly superior to

them in  number.   Not only the men are  educated

but also women are educated.  With all this light

and learning  the  Christian as a  community,  it

must be said, counts for very little-if at all-in

the affairs of India.  There may be difference of

opinion  on  this.  But this is the conclusion  I

have arrived at after as close and as impartial a

study as  I have been able to make.  My  opponent

might say  that  I  am  mistaken  or  that  I  am

misrepresenting.   But I take comfort in the fact

that there  are some Indian Christians who  share

my view and also my regret.  Here are two letters

which I take from Young India.

 

The  first is from an Indian Christian  to

Mr.Gandhi  and  published  in  the  young  India,

August 25, 1921.  This is what he says:

 

“I am sorry to say that you do not take us

Indian Christians  as  the people of India, as  I

have seen  many  times   Young  India  mentioning

Mussalmans, Hindus, Sikhs, etc., but omitting the

Christians.

 

“I  should  like  you to believe  that  we

Indian Christians  are also people of India,  and

take much interest in India’s own affairs.”

 

The  following  is  the  comment  made  by

Mr.Gandhi on this letter.  He says:

 

“I  assure  the  correspondent  and  other

Indian Christians  that  non-cooperation   is  no

respecter  of  creeds or races.  It  invites  and

admits all  to its fold.  Many Indian  Christians

have contributed to the Tilak Swaraj Fund.  There

are some    noted     Indian     Christians    as

non-cooperators  in  the  front rank.   There  is

constant mention of Musalmans and Hindus, as they

have hitherto  regarded  one another as  enemies.

Similarly  there always has been some cause  when

any race  has  been specially mentioned in  these

columns.”

 

Apart from the question whether it is true

that many  Indian Christians have contributed  to

the Tilak  Swaraj Fund and whether it is true  or

not that   noted  Christians   were  front   rank

non-cooperators, the answer given by Mr.Gandhi to

the main   question  of   the  correspondent   is

incorrect  if  not misleading.  If Musalmans  are

mentioned  only because they regard the Hindus as

their enemies  why were Sikhs mentioned?   Surely

they did  not regard the Hindus as their enemies.

Why were they mentioned?  The Sihks were not only

mentioned  but were treated as an important party

without whose active cooperation it was felt that

the struggle  for Swaraj could not be carried on.

And be it  remembered that the cooperation  given

by the Sikhs  was not given unconditionally.   As

is well   known  the  Sikhs   had  put  down  two

conditions in return for their cooperation.(Young

India Aug4  1921)  One  condition   was  that  in

designing  a  national  flag for India  the  Sikh

colour which  they  said was black should find  a

place in  it.  Their second demand was that  they

should be    guaranteed    by     the     Congress

representation  in  the legislature.  It is  thus

clear that Sikhs were not mentioned but placated.

But the  Christians were not even mentioned.  Now

there are   only   two   explanations   for   not

mentioning  the  Indian Christians.  Either  they

were with the Congress in the struggle for Swaraj

or that  they were not worth mentioning as  being

too insignificant.   That they were not with  the

Congress  in  this struggle for Swaraj cannot  be

gainsaid.   The  following letter written  by  an

Indian Christian  written  to the Editor  of  the

Indian Social  Reformer  and  reproduced  in  the

Young India  expresses the attitude of the Indian

Christians to Swaraj:

 

“We have positive evidence to show that as

early as  the  second  century of  Christian  era

there were  Christian settlements in India.  Such

being the  case, Christians in India can claim to

have existed in India some centuries earlier than

the very  birth of Islam.  How comes it then that

the Indian Christian born and bred on the soil of

India and  of  ancestry  purely Indian,  has  not

learnt to  cherish  the ancient history  of  this

country, its culture and to look upon its people,

however different in their religious persecutions,

as his bone  and of his flesh?  Whence is it that

unlike him  Hindu or Mahomedan fellow citizen  he

has not  watched  for,  aspired  to  and  eagerly

welcomed  every  stage that adds a cubit  to  the

cultural,  social  or  political statute  of  his

motherland.   Why  is it that Vande Mataram is  a

national  outpouring of the Hindus and Mahomedans

only and   till  now  ignored   by   the   Indian

Christian?

 

Again  how  comes it that both Hindus  and

Mahomedans  regard the Indian Christian sentiment

towards  their  aspirations  as lukewarm  if  not

positively  hostile and conversely why is it that

the ever-growing height of the national spirit in

India makes the Indian Christian feel dwarfed and

helpless  and  suspicious of his security in  the

future.”12

 

Notwithstanding     Mr.George      Joseph,

K.T.Paul, and Dr.S.K.Datta there is no doubt that

the Indian  Christian  Community far from  taking

active part in the struggle for Swaraj was really

afraid of  it and that this letter depicts  truly

the prevailing attitude of the Indian Christians.

The reason  why  the Indian Christians  were  not

mentioned  along with the Musalmans and the Sikhs

is therefore clear.  The omission to mention them

is certainly  not  due to their being friends  of

Swaraj.   The  only conclusion that one can  draw

for such  a omission is that they did not  count.

It is a sad thing that so enlightened a community

should have no importance and no influence in the

affairs of the country.

 

What  can  be  the   reasons  for  such  a

position?   The most obvious reason is of  course

the smallness  of its numbers.  the weight of its

numbers  is too small to make its existence  felt

as a force in public life as can be the case with

the Musalmans or with the Depressed Classes.  But

this cannot    wholly     account    for    their

insignificance.   There must be other factors  to

account for this.  I see two.

 

One  is  this.  The Indian Christians  are

living in  sheltered  waters.  They are,  at  any

rate, a  large majority of them are living in the

laps of  the missionaries.  For their  education,

for their    medical    care,    for    religious

ministration  and  for most of their petty  needs

they do not look to Government.  They look to the

Missions.  If they were dependent upon Government

they would  be required to mobilize, to  agitate,

educate,  and organize their masses for effective

political  action.  For without such organization

no Government would care to attend to their needs

and their  requirements.   They  are not  in  the

current  and  not being in the current they  care

not for  public life, and therefore no recognized

place in the public.

 

The  second  reason  is  that  the  Indian

Christian  is  a disjointed-it is a  better  word

than the  word disunited-Community.  All that  it

has in common  is a common source of inspiration.

Barring  this one thing which they have in common

everything else tends to keep them apart.  Indian

Christians  like all other Indians are divided by

race, by  language and by caste.  Their  religion

has not been a sufficiently strong unifying force

as to make difference of language, race and caste

as though  they  were mere distinctions.  On  the

contrary  their  religion  which  is  their  only

cement is    infected      with    denominational

differences.   The  result  is  that  the  Indian

Christians  are  too disjointed to have a  common

aim, to  have  a common mind and to put a  common

endeavour.   To an Indian Christian from Tamil, a

Hindu from  Tamil  is much nearer than an  Indian

Christian  from the Punjab;  An Indian  Christian

from U.P.  feels greater kinship for a Hindu from

U.P.  than  he does for an Indian Christian  from

say Maharashtra.   In  short,   the  term  Indian

Christian is just a statistical phrase.  There is

no community  feeling behind this phrase.  Indian

Christians  are  not  bound together by  what  is

consciousness  of  kind which is the test of  the

existence of a community.

 

Dr.Ambedkar,former  Law Minister of  India

and father  of  Indian Constitution, has  pleaded

for the  retention  of English as the  medium  of

instruction  in colleges and universities at  any

cost.

 

In  an  interview.   Dr.Ambedkar  remarked

that English was the richest of all languages and

said:  ” I do not believe any other language  in

            India including  Hindi  can  be used  instead  of

            English in schools and colleges.” He said that he

would not  allow  either  Hindi or  the  regional

language  to be the medium of instruction in  the

Aurangabad  college,  English, he added would  be

the medium  of  instruction.  Talking  of  Indian

languages,   Dr.Ambedkar  said   that  no   other

language  could  take  the place  of  Hindi.   He

explained  they had selected Hindi because of the

fact it  could  expand.  However, he said,  Hindi

lacked ” literature and depth,” both of which the

English language possessed.

 

Speaking  at  a  reception  given  in  his

honour by   the    Depressed    classes   welfare

association,   Delhi,  this   afternoon,   Doctor

B.R.Ambedkar,  Labour member of the Government of

India, made  an  important  statement  about  the

future his community vis-a-vis the constitutional

goal of  India.   He said:  ” I want to  put  the

            Depressed  classes on terms of equality with  the

            other communities in India.  I do not want to you

            to remain  servile  to other communities,  but  I

            want to  place  the reins of Government  in  your

            hands.   You should share in the political  power

            of the country,  on  terms of equality  with  the

            Mussalmans.”13

 

I  do not know what Indian Christians will

think of  what I have said of the weakness  which

infect their  life.  One thing I can say.  It  is

this-I am  deeply interested in Indian Christians

because  a large majority of them are drawn  from

the untouchable  classes.  My comments are  those

of a friend.   They are not the strictures of  an

adversary.   I  have  drawn  attention  to  their

weaknesses because I want them to be strong and I

want them  to  be  strong  because  I  see  great

dangers for them ahead.  They have to reckon with

the scarcely  veiled  hostility of  Mr.Gandhi  to

Christianity  taking  its  roots  in  the  Indian

Social structure.   But they have also to  reckon

with militant  Hinduism  masquerading  as  Indian

Nationalism.  What this militant Hinduism will do

to Christians  and Christianity can be seen  from

what happened  at  Brindaban very  recently.   If

newspaper  reports  are  true  a  crowd  of  mild

Hinduism quietly went and burned down the Mission

buildings  in Brindaban and warned the missionary

that if he rebuilt it they would come and burn it

down again?!   This may be the solitary  instance

of misguided patriots or this may be just a piece

of what  the  Hindus are planning to get  rid  of

Christians and Christianity.  If it is the shadow

of events  to come then Indian Christians must be

prepared  to  meet  them.  How can they  do  that

except by removing the weaknesses I have referred

to ?  Let all Indian Christians ponder.13

 

 

  1. BAPTISTS BID TO CONVERT HINDUS

 

 

The  SOUTHERN Baptists, the second largest

denomination in the US, expanded their aggressive

new proselytizing  campaign this week, publishing

a short prayer book aimed at converting Hindus to

Christianity, according to the Washington Post.

 

This  is  the second such attempt  by  the

Southern  Baptists  International  Mission  Board

this year.  A pamphlet it distributed last month,

urging its  members  to  evangelize  Jews  during

their 10   holy   days,   triggered  charges   of

arrogance  and  religious   insensitivity.    The

latest pamphlet, asking Southern Baptists to pray

for the  conversion  of Hindus during Divali,  is

worse.

 

The  pamphlet  opens with “More  than  900

million  people are lost in the hopeless darkness

of Hinduism.”  The  guide continues:  “Pray  that

Hindus who celebrate the festival of lights would

become aware of the darkness in their hearts that

no lamp can dispel.”

 

The   Southern    Baptists   International

Mission  Board intends to distribute the guide to

its 40,000 member churches beginning tomorrow, in

time for Divali in early November.

 

Hindu    leaders    here    reacted   with

understandable   anger   at   the  depiction   of

Hinduism,  describing  the attitude displayed  in

the pamphlet as relics of an ugly colonial era.

 

“Darkness!  This is really offensive,” The

post quoted  Suresh Gupta, President of the Durga

Temple in  Greater  Washington as  saying.   “Why

should they  try  to change us?  We have a  value

system people  crave  in this country.  We  teach

respect  for  others,  for   marriage  vows,  for

elders.”

 

Each  page  of  the  pamphlet  shows  some

aspect of  life  in  India through  the  coloured

glasses  of  fanatical converter.  “Mumbai  is  a

city of   spiritual  darkness,”  it   says,   for

instance.   “Eight  out  of every 10  people  are

Hindu slaves bound by fear and tradition to false

gods.”

 

Calcutta  is painted in even darker  hues:

“Satan has  retained his hold on Calcutta through

Kali and  other  gods and goddesses of  Hinduism.

It is time  for  Christ’s  salvation to  come  to

Calcutta.”

 

According  to  the post  report,  Southern

Baptists  defended  the  proselytizing  campaign.

“If I had a Hindu sitting right here at my desk I

would apologies  if  I had been offensive,”  said

Randy Sprinkle,    who    oversaw    the   book’s

publication.

 

Suresh  Gupta was unimpressed.  “If I  had

you sitting here, I would not want to convert you

to he a  Hindu.” He responded, “I would want  you

to live a good life.” 14

 

 

 

BIBLEOGRAPHY

 

  1. Quated by Kaye.  Christianity in India

p106

  1. Mr.Burn:  (Census of India,1901

vol.XVI, N.W.Pandbudh, Report Part I

p-98)

  1. Rambles and Recollections  Vol I Ch53

p-407:

  1. The Sea  of Rome pp143-145
  2. Prof.Tiele (Quoted  Crowley, Tree of

life’,p5

  1. ,, p-275
  2. The Basis  of Inter-Religious

Fellowship”  by C.F.Andrews in “The

Young  Men of India, Burma and

Ceylon.” June  1928.

Vol.XI  No.6.

  1. a.  Harijan, 1936 p.330

b.Harijan, 1936 p.353 *.  Harijan,

1937 p. 86 d.

Harijan,  1937  p.138 e.  Harijan,

1936 p.178 f.

Harijan,  1936 p.140-41 # Harijan,

1936 p.360 8a. Harijan  August  8

1936

  1. Mayhew Christian  and

the Government  of  India   p-51).

  1. Desai, H.V.Mothyanchya

Mulakhati,p24

  1. Quoted  by C.F.Andrews,  Christ

and Labour p-25

  1. Young India, 21st  Dec.  1922
  2. Source Material of Dr.BRA
  3.   Washington, October 21, 1999 HT -22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. INDIAN SOCIAL SYSTEM

 

COMMENTS FROM SCHOLARS

 

Prof.Max  Mullar  observed that the  caste

system is  an  ancient phenomenon of  the  Indian

Society,  it got germinated from the Vedas though

it was not present at the Vaidic age.

 

According  to  H.S.Reisely,  “Caste  is  a

collection  of  families  or groups  of  families

bearing  a common name, claiming a common descent

from a mythical   ancestor,  human   or   divine,

professing  to  follow   the  hereditary  calling

regarded  by  those who are competent to give  an

opinion   on   forming   a   single   homogeneous

community.

 

Prof.Rapson  confirms, “the origin of  the

caste system  is  due to the distinction  between

the white  and the dark complexion of the  Aryans

and the original residents”.

 

Dr.V.A.Smith  defines,  “A  caste  may  be

defined  as  a  group   of  families   internally

initiated by peculiar rules for the observance of

ceremonial  purity,  especially in the matter  of

diet and marriage.”

 

Dr.Ambedkar  said,  to  proceed  with  the

subject.   According to well known  ethnologists,

the population  of India is a mixture of  Aryans,

Dravidians,  Mongolians and Scythians.  All these

stocks of  people  came into India  from  various

directions  and  with various cultures  centuries

ago, when  they were in a tribal state.  They all

in turn  elbowed their entry into the country  by

fighting  with  their predecessors, and  after  a

stomachful  of  it  settled   down  as   peaceful

neighbours.   Through constant contact and mutual

intercourse  they  evolved a common culture  that

superseded their distinctive cultures.  It may be

granted  that  there  has   not  been  a  through

amalgamation  of the various stocks that make  up

the peoples  of  India, and to a  traveller  from

within the  boundaries of India the East presents

a marked  contrast in physique and even in colour

to the West, as does the South to the North.  But

amalgamation  can never be the sole criterion  of

homogeneity   as   predicated  of   any   people.

Ethnically  all people are heterogeneous.  It  is

the unity  of  culture  that  is  the  basis   of

homogeneity.   Taking this for granted, I venture

to say that  there  is no country that can  rival

the Indian Peninsula with respect to the unity of

its culture.  It has not only a geographic unity,

but it has over and above all a deeper and a much

more fundamental  unity-the indubitable  cultural

unity that  covers the land from end to end.  But

it is because  of  this  homogeneity  that  Caste

becomes  a problem so difficult to be  explained.

If the Hindu  Society  were a mere federation  of

mutually  exclusive  units, the matter  would  be

simple enough.   But Caste is a parcelling of  an

already  homogeneous unit, and the explanation of

the genesis  of Caste is the explanation of  this

process of parcelling.1

 

To   start  with   Mr.Senart.   He   draws

attention  to  the  “idea  of  pollution”  as   a

characteristic  of  Caste.  With regard  to  this

point it  may  be  safely said that it is  by  no

means a peculiarity of Caste as such.  It usually

originates  in  priestly ceremonialism and  is  a

particular  case of the general belief in purity.

Consequently  its necessary connection with Caste

may be completely  denied  without  damaging  the

working  of Caste.  The ” idea of pollution”  has

been attached  to the institution of Caste,  only

because  the Caste that enjoy the highest rank in

the priestly  Caste:   while we know that  priest

and purity  are old associates.  We may therefore

conclude  that  the  ‘idea  of  pollution’  is  a

characteristic  of Caste only in so far as  Caste

has a religious flavour.

 

Regarding  foreigner  he  argued,  “In  my

opinion   there   have   been  several   mistakes

committed  by  the students of Caste, which  have

misled them  in  their investigations.   European

students of Caste have unduly emphasized the role

of colour   in  the   Caste  system.   Themselves

impregnated  by  colour   prejudices,  they  very

readily imagined it to be the chief factor in the

Caste problem.   But nothing can be farther  from

the truth,  and  Dr.Ketkar  is  correct  when  he

insists  that  ”  All the  princes  whether  they

belonged  to  the  so-called Aryan race,  or  the

so-called  Dravidian race, were Aryas.  Whether a

tribe or a family was racially Aryan or Dravidian

was a question which never troubled the people of

India, until  foreign scholars came in and  began

to draw  the  line.  The colour of the  skin  had

long ceased to be a matter of importance.” Again,

they have   mistaken   mere    descriptions   for

explanation  and fought over them as though  they

were theories of origin.  There are occupational,

religious  etc., castes, it is true, but it is by

no means  an explanation of the origin of  Caste.

We have  yet to find out why occupational  groups

are castes;   but  this question has  never  even

been raised.   Lastly they have taken Caste  very

lightly  as though a breath had made it.  On  the

contrary,  Caste,  as  I have  explained  it,  is

almost impossible  to  be   sustained:   for  the

difficulties that it involves are tremendous.  It

is true  that  Caste rests on belief, but  before

belief comes   to  be  the   foundation   of   an

institution,  the institution itself needs to  be

perpetuated and fortified.  My study of the Caste

problem involves four main points:

 

(1) that in spite of the composite make-up

of the Hindu population, there is a deep cultural

unity;

 

(2)  that caste is a parcelling into  bits

of a larger cultural unit;

 

(3) that there was one caste to start with

and

 

(4)   that  classes   have  become  Castes

through imitation and excommunication.2

 

As  long  as  caste in India  does  exist,

Hindus will  hardly intermarry or have any social

intercourse   with  outsiders;    and  if  Hindus

migrate  to other regions on earth, Indian  caste

would become a world problem.”2a

 

When     then       Congress     president

Mr.S.N.Bonnerji  said;   “I  for   one  have   no

patience  with those who say we shall not be  fit

for political  reform until we reform our  social

system.  I fail to see any connection between the

two…   Are  we not fit (for political reform  )

because our widows remain unmarried and our girls

are given  in  marriage  earlier  than  in  other

countries  ?  because our wives and daughters  do

not drive  about  with us visiting our friends  ?

because  we  do not send our daughters to  Oxford

and Cambridge ?”

 

Having  stated the facts, let me now state

the case  for  social reform.  In doing  this,  I

will follow  Mr.Bonnerji, as nearly as I can  and

ask the  Political-minded Hindus “Are you fit for

political  power  even though you do not allow  a

large class  of  your  own  countrymen  like  the

untouchables  to use public school ?  Are you fit

for political  power even though you do not allow

them the  use of public wells ?  Are you fit  for

political power even though you do not allow them

the use  of  public  streets ?  Are you  fit  for

political power even though you do not allow them

to wear  what  apparel or ornaments they  like  ?

Are you  fit for political power even though  you

do not allow  them to eat any food they like ?  I

can ask  a  string of such questions.   But  this

will suffice.   I wonder what would have been the

reply of  Mr.Bonnerji.  I am sure no sensible man

will have  the  courage  to give  an  affirmative

answer.   Politicians  who repeats the  dogma  of

Mill that  one country is not fit to rule another

country  must admit that one class is not fit  to

rule another class.3

 

Let  me  now turn to the Socialists.   Can

the Socialists  ignore the problem arising out of

the social   order?   The   Socialists  of  India

following  their fellows in Europe are seeking to

apply the  economic interpretation of history  to

the facts of India.  They propound that man is an

economic   creature,  that   his  activities  and

aspirations  are  bound by economic  facts,  that

property  is  the  only source of  power.   They,

therefore,  preach  that   political  and  social

reforms  are  but  gigantic  illusions  and  that

economic  reform by equalization of property must

have precedence  over every other kind of reform.

One may join issue on every one of these premises

on which  rests the Socialists case for  economic

reform having  priority over every other kind  of

reform.   One may contend that economic motive is

not the  only  motive by which man  is  actuated.

That economic  power is the only kind of power no

student  of  human society can accept.  That  the

social status  of  an individual by itself  often

becomes  a source of power and authority is  made

clear by  the  sway which the Mahatmas have  held

over the common man.  Why do millineries in India

obey penniless   Sadhus  and   Fakirs?   Why   do

millions  of paupers in India sell their trifling

trinkets  which constitute their only wealth  and

go to Benares  and Mecca?  That, religion is  the

source of  power is illustrated by the history of

India where  the  priest  holds a sway  over  the

common man  often greater than the magistrate and

where everything, even such things as strikes and

elections,  so  easily take a religious turn  and

can so easily  be given a religious twist.   Take

the case  of  the Plebeians of Rome as a  further

illustration  of the power of religion over  man.

It throws  great light on this point.  The  Plebs

had fought  for a share in the supreme  executive

under the  Roman  Republic  and had  secured  the

appointment  of  a Plebeian Counsel elected by  a

separate  electorate constituted by the  Commitia

 

Centuriata,  which was an assembly of  Plebeians.

They wanted  a Counsel of their own because  they

felt that   the   Patrician   Counsels  used   to

discriminate against the Plebeians in carrying on

the administration.  They had apparently obtained

a great   gain  because   under  the   Republican

Constitution  of Rome one consul had the power of

vetoing an act of the other Consul.  But did they

in fact  gain  anything?   The   answer  to  this

question  must be in the negative.  The Plebeians

never would  get  a Plebeian Consul who could  be

said to  be  a  strong  man  and  who  could  act

independently  of  the Patrician Consul.  In  the

ordinary  course  of things the Plebeians  should

have got  a strong Plebeian Consul in view of the

fact that  his  election  was to be  by  separate

electorate of Plebeians.  The question is why did

they fail   in  getting  a  strong  Plebeian   to

officiate  as  their Consul?  The answer to  this

question  reveals  the  dominion  which  religion

exercises  over  the  minds of men.   It  was  an

accepted creed of the whole Roman populus that no

official  could  enter  upon the  duties  of  his

office unless  the Oracle of Delphi declared that

he was acceptable  to  the Goddess.  The  priests

            who were  in charge of the temple of the  Goddess

            of Delphi   were   all    Patricians.    Whenever

therefore  the Plebeians elected a Consul who was

known to  be  strong  party man  opposed  to  the

Patricians  or “communal” to use the term that is

current  in India, the Oracle invariable declared

that he  was not acceptable to the Goddess.  This

is how the  Plebeians  were cheated out of  their

rights.   But what is worthy of note is that  the

Plebeians permitted themselves to be thus cheated

because they too like the Patricians, held firmly

the belief that the approval of the Goddess was a

condition  precedent  to the taking charge by  an

official  of his duties and that election by  the

people was  not  enough.   If the  Plebeians  had

contended  that election was enough and that  the

approval  by  the Goddess was not necessary  they

would have  derived the fullest benefit from  the

political  right  which they had  obtained.   But

they did not.  They agreed to elect another, less

suitable  to themselves but more suitable to  the

Goddess  which in fact meant more amenable to the

Patricians.   Rather  than give up religion,  the

Plebeians  give  up material gain for which  they

had fought  so  hard.   Does this not  show  that

religion  can  be a source of power as  great  as

money if  not  greater?   The   fallacy  of   the

Socialists  lies in supposing that because in the

present  stage of European Society property as  a

source of  power is predominant, that the same is

true of India or that the same was true of Europe

in the past.    Religion,  social    status   and

property  are all sources of power and authority,

which one  man  has,  to control the  liberty  of

another.   One  is predominant at one stage,  the

other is  predominant at another state.  That  is

the only difference.  If liberty is the ideal, if

liberty  means  the destruction of  the  dominion

which one  man holds over another then  obviously

it cannot  be insisted upon that economic  reform

must be the one kind of reform worthy of pursuit.

If the source  of  power and dominion is  at  any

given time  or  in any given society  social  and

religious then social reform and religious reform

must be accepted as the necessary sort of reform.

 

One  can  thus  attack   the  doctrine  of

Economic Interpretation of History adopted by the

Socialists  of  India.   But   I  recognize  that

economic   interpretation  of   history  is   not

necessary  for  the  validity  of  the  Socialist

contention  that equalization of property is  the

only real  reform and that it must precede  every

thing else.   However,  what  I like to  ask  the

Socialists is this:  Can you have economic reform

without  first  bringing  about a reform  of  the

social order?  The Socialist of India do not seem

to have  considered this question.  I do not wish

to do them   an   injustice.   I  give  below   a

quotation  from  a  letter   which  a   prominent

Socialist  wrote  a few days ago to a  friend  of

mine in  which he said, “I do not believe that we

can build  up a free society in India so long  as

there is  a  trace  of   this  ill-treatment  and

suppression  of one class by another.   Believing

as I do  in  a  socialist   ideal,  inevitably  I

believe  in perfect equality in the treatment  of

various  classes  and  groups.    I  think   that

Socialism offers the only true remedy for this as

well as  other problems.” Now the question that I

like to  ask is:  Is it enough for a Socialist to

say, “I  believe  in  perfect   equality  in  the

treatment  of  the various classes?” To say  that

such a belief is enough is to disclose a complete

lack of  understanding  of  what is  involved  in

Socialism.  If Socialism is a practical program

and is not  merely an ideal, distant and far off,

the question  for  a Socialist is not whether  he

believes  in  equality.  The question for him  is

whether  he  minds  one  class  ill-treating  and

suppressing  another class as a matter of system,

as a matter  of principle and thus allow  tyranny

and oppression  to  continue to divide one  class

from another.  Let me analyze the factor that are

involved in the realization of Socialism in order

to explain  fully  my point.  Now it  is  obvious

that the  economic  reform  contemplated  by  the

Socialists  cannot  come about unless there is  a

revolution  resulting  in the seizure  of  power.

That seizure  of power must be by a  proletariat.

The first   question   I  ask   is:    Will   the

proletariat  of India combine to bring about this

revolution?   What  will  move  men  to  such  an

action?   It seems to me that other things  being

equal the  only  thing that will move one man  to

take such an action is the feeling that other man

with whom he is acting are actuated by feeling of

equality and fraternity and above all of justice.

Men will  not  join  in  a  revolution  for   the

equalization  of  property unless they know  that

after the  revolution  is achieved they  will  be

treated  equally  and  that   there  will  be  no

discrimination of caste and creed.  The assurance

of a socialist  leading  the revolution  that  he

does not  believe  is caste, I am sure, will  not

suffice.   The  assurance must be  the  assurance

proceeding  from much deeper foundation,  namely,

the mental  attitude  of the compatriots  towards

one another  in their spirit of personal equality

and fraternity.    Can  it  be   said  that   the

proletariat  of India, poor as it is ,  recognize

no distinctions  except that of the rich and  the

poor?  Can  it  be  said that the poor  in  India

recognize no such distinctions of caste or creed,

high or  low?  If the fact is that they do,  what

unity of  front  can  be  expected  from  such  a

proletariat  in its action against the rich?  How

can there  be  a  revolution if  the  proletariat

cannot present  a united front?  Suppose for  the

sake of  argument that by some freak of fortune a

revolution  does  take place and  the  Socialists

come in  power,  will they not have to deal  with

the problems  created  by the  particular  social

order prevalent  in  India?   I can’t see  how  a

Socialist  State  in  India can  function  for  a

second without   having  to   grapple  with   the

problems  created  by the prejudices  which  make

Indian people  observe  the distinctions of  high

and low, clean and unclean.  If Socialist are not

to be content  with the mouthing of fine phrases,

if the Socialist   wish  to   make  Socialism   a

definite  reality  then they must recognize  that

the problem  of social reform is fundamental  and

that for  them there is no escape from it.   That

the social  order prevalent in India is a  matter

which a  Socialist must deal with, that unless he

does so he cannot achieve his revolution and that

if he does achieve it as a result of good fortune

he will  have to grapple with it if he wishes  to

realize  his ideal, is a proposition which in  my

opinion   is   incontrovertible.   He   will   be

            compelled   to  take  account   of  caste   after

            revolution  if  he  does not take account  of  it

            before revolution.   This is only another way  of

            saying that,  turn  in  any direction  you  like,

            caste is the monster that crosses your path.  You

            cannot have  political  reform, you  cannot  have

            economic reform, unless you kill this monster.4

 

Industry  is  never static.   It  undergoes

rapid and  abrupt changes.  With such changes  an

individual must be free to change his occupation.

Without  such  freedom  to   adjust  himself   to

changing circumstances it would be impossible for

him to gain his livelihood.  Now the Caste System

will not  allow  Hindus  to take  to  occupations

where they  are  wanted if they do not belong  to

them by  heredity.  If a Hindu is seen to  starve

rather than  take to new occupations not assigned

to his Caste,  the  reason is to be found in  the

Caste System.   By not permitting readjustment of

occupations, caste becomes a direct cause of much

of the unemployment we see in the country.

 

What  efficiency can there be in a  system

under which  neither men’s hearts nor their minds

are in their  work ?  As an economic organization

Caste is   therefore   a   harmful   institution,

inasmuch  as,  it involves the  subordination  of

man’s natural  powers  and   inclination  to  the

exigencies of social rules.

 

Caste  has  no scientific origin and  that

those who  are  attempting to give it an  eugenic

basis are  trying  to support by science what  is

grossly unscientific.  Even today eugenics cannot

become a  practical  possibility unless  we  have

definite   knowledge   regarding   the  laws   of

heredity.

 

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.

 

He said 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  exit.   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.  Caste 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.5

 

Regarding  Hindu civilization he asked the

audience 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 a  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  will

have to thank himself and his Caste System.

 

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.6.

 

He  described  the difference between  the

different  religion  as  he explain,  the  Hindus

            criticize 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.

 

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 drive  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  he  alone  he  remains

powerless, develops timidity and cowardice and in

a fight  surrenders  or runs away.  The Sikhs  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  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  reading  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.

 

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  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

reforms.

 

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 Hindu’s public is his caste.  His

responsibility is only to his caste.  His loyalty

is restricted  only  to  his caste.   Virtue  has

become caste-ridden  and  morality   has   become

caste-bound.   There  is  no   sympathy  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 the   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 ?

 

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

communicated  experience.   It is essentially  an

attitude   of  respect   and  reverence   towards

fellowmen.   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 calling which are not  of

their choice.7

 

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 insists  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 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 person’s  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.

 

To  me  this  Chaturvarnya  with  its  old

labels is  utterly  repellent and my whole  being

rebels against  it.  But I do not wish to rest my

objection  to  Chaturvarnya  on mere  grounds  of

sentiments.   There  are  more solid  grounds  on

which I  rely  for my opposition to it.  A  close

examination  of this ideal has convinced me  that

as a system  of social organization, Chaturvarnya

is impracticable,  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   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 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 Chaturvarnya  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.

 

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

startification by classes, since the qualities of

individuals  are so variable.  Chaturvarnya  must

fail for  the  very  reason   for  which  Plato’s

Republic  must  fail,  namely   that  it  is  not

possible  to 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.

 

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 Chaturvarnya.  It was his duty

therefore  to kill Shambuka, the Shudra, who  had

transgressed  his  class  and   wanted  to  be  a

Brahmin.   This  is  the reason why  Rama  killed

Shambuka.8

 

Prof.S.Radhakrishnan  in his Hindu view of

life.  Referring   to  Hinduism  he   says,   The

civilization  itself  has not been a short  lived

one.  Its  historic  records date back  for  over

four thousand  years and even then it had reached

a stage  of civilization which has continued  its

unbroken, though at times slow and static, course

until the  present day.  It has stood the  stress

and strain  of more than four or five  milleniums

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  proselytizing   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.

 

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-casts.  This view

is based  upon  the supposition that there  is  a

great 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 is 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

stand-point  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

necessary  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  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.

 

But  unfortunetly  present days  depressed

classes  are loosing talent, education,  service,

and Property  position which were earn by them by

availing  the  reservation facilities  when  they

engaged  inter-marriage.   Even they become  self

caste hatred.

 

The reservationists has found a new way to

suck the  very blood of their fellow brothers  by

using matrimonial  relationship with others.   It

is an old way in new fashion.

 

When  Avarnas  marries  a  Savarna,   they

becomes  conscious  of their identity,  and  they

always kept   themselves  away   from  their  own

community.   Because they fear that they will  be

identified  by  their  own community as  well  as

Savarnas.   Savarnas  are happy to gain  by  this

way.  They  some  time become happy if  they  can

arrange  a marriage between an well educated  and

good salaried settled spouse.  This formula works

against  the  spirit  of Ambedkarism.   As  these

people will follow their masters after taking all

reservation  facilities  which   is   exclusively

reserved for depressed classes.

 

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar’s  2nd  marriage   with  a

Brahmin doctor was a different case, he never got

any education   or    job    facilities   through

reservation.     He     fully     followed    the

constitutional  provision  and  registered  their

marriage  and converted his wife to Buddhism, and

they never  followed  the code of Manu  of  Hindu

religion.   It  was the dream of  Dr.Ambedkar  to

make probuddha  Bharat.   But  our  present  time

dalits after  marriage  with a Savarna, become  a

new Brahmin  class  and  sell themselves  in  the

hands of  Manuwadies.  This process is a very big

obstruction  in  Babashaheb’s   mission.    These

people never  look  back  to their  society  from

where they got the benefits.  Which should be the

basic condition   to   avail    the   reservation

facilities.  The basic concept of humanism become

senseless  when they come under the influence  of

Manuwad.  As once Babashaheb told “Hindus are not

merely unsocial  but antisocial”.  What make  the

Hindus antisocial?  It is only Manuwad.  Educated

dalits become  a  slave  after  marriage  with  a

Savarna.   If the slave enjoy their slavery  then

no body can save them.

 

Solution:-

 

What  preventive  measures we can take  to

arrest the  inflow of this kind to safe guard the

interest  of  dalits.  Here I may kindly  suggest

some points  to  improve the position of  dalits,

keeping  in  view the future reservation  policy,

and keep   it  preserved  for   dalits  only   as

follows:-

 

  1. Those  dalits  who   have  taken  the

reservation  facilities  in  education  from  the

quota and   also   selected   for   job   through

reservation,  they  should surrender their  caste

certificates  to  the   authorities  concern  and

should not  take  any further facilities  on  the

basis of reservation.

 

  1. All dalits must submit their spouse’s

caste certificate  to  the office at the time  of

declaration   of   marriage    to   get   further

reservation facilities from office, when they are

going to change their nominee etc.

 

  1. It must be mandatory for all dalits to

leave the  properties  for  their  own  community

which is   earned   by    availing    reservation

facilities  by  themselves, their parents or  any

other relative.

 

  1. Once dalits has savarna spouse,  that

means he  or  she  is not a dalits,  they  become

equivalent  to a Savarna.  They are not  eligible

to avail  any  facilities  which  is  exclusively

reserved for the dalits.

 

  1. When some body thinks the amalgamation

through  matrimonial relation.  They  immediately

become a  part and parcel of their higher counter

part and no way need any facility or special care

as it need  for  dalits  as   mentioned  in   the

constitution  of India.  Their mental as well  as

social status  become  higher than the so  called

Savarnas.   When they have get free access to the

higher varnas, then and there they are a free man

of free  society.   Then why they will  avail  or

enjoy the  facilities which is specially reserved

for the dalits ?

 

Those  who  are  not bothered  to  improve

their own  society from where they have come then

how they  can think about helping to progress the

entire society ?  These self centered cheaters can

only think  about their self enjoyment.  They are

the betrayers  of their own society, where  their

95% population   stays.    A   marginalised   and

isolated people can not help the society.

 

It  will  be  best for them to  leave  all

facilities  and properties in favour of a  dalits

who are  not  so  much enlightened  as  they  are

otherwise  legal  action would be  taken  against

them to save the interest of dalits.

 

They must leave their job acquired through

reservation  as  it is a share of  dalits.   They

must sit  in an open competition like others whom

they accompany,  because they think that they are

more advanced  than  the  most  advanced  of  the

society.   Education  which  they  have  acquired

through   reservation,  is   their  most   prized

possession.   That  is  their  benefit  and  they

should be  obliged to their original community to

let them for avail this most valuable benefit.

 

They  have  failed to fulfil the dream  of

Babasaheb’s as he described reservation means the

representative   of   their   community.   As   a

representative  of  the community first a  dalits

must arrange  their  matrimonial relation  within

their own  community  for their  upliftment  then

only they can think about the amalgamation of the

entire society.   No lapse in this context should

be excused.

 

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  co-mingling   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.

 

It  is no use seeking refuge in  quibbles.

It is no  use telling people that the Shastras do

not say   what   they  are    believe   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 ?

 

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 bases.   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

don 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.

 

In  my judgement, it is useless to make  a

distinction  between  the  secular  Brahmins  and

priestly Brahmins.  Both are kith and kin.9

 

In  the  definition  of  the  greatman  he

described,  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.10

 

He  advised his people , you must  destroy

the Religion  of  the  Shrutis and  the  Smritis.

Nothing  else will avail.  This is my  considered

view of the matter.

 

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  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.11

 

Further  he  said, 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 achaic,

they will  be ready for a change, for people know

and accept that law can be changed.

 

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.12

 

Every  profession  in India is  regulated.

Engineers must show proficiency, Doctor 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,

physically  a priest may be suffering from a foul

disease,  such as syphilis or gonorrhea,  morally

he may be a wreck.  But he is fit to officiate at

solemn ceremonies, to enter the sanctum sanctorum

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 democratize

it by throwing  it to 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.

 

To  a  slave his master may be  better  or

            worse.   But  their cannot be a good master.   It

            cannot be good to a low caste man to be conscious

            that there is a high caste man above him.13

 

He  said, 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.14

 

On the occasion of celebration of birthday

of Ranade he said about Hero-worship.  In his own

language   ”  Hero-worship  in   the   sense   of

expressing our unbounded admiration is one thing.

To obey  the hero is a totally different kind  of

hero-worship.   There  is  nothing wrong  in  the

former while  the  latter  is  no  doubt  a  most

pernicious  thing.   The  former  is  only  man’s

respect  for  everything  which is noble  and  of

which the  great man is only an embodiment.   The

latter is  the villain’s fealty to his lord.  The

former is consistent with respect, but the latter

is a sign  of  debasement.  The former  does  not

take away   one’s  intelligence  to   think   and

independence  to  act.   The latter makes  one  a

perfect fool.  The former involves no disaster to

the State.   The latter is the source of positive

danger to  it.  In short in celebrating  Ranade’s

birthday  we  are  not worshiping a boss  who  is

elected  by  no  one, accountable to no  one  and

removable  by  on one, but paying our tribute  of

admiration  to a leader who led and did not drive

people,  who  sought  to  give  effect  to  their

deliberate judgment and did not try to impose his

own will  upon them by trickery or by  violence.”

15

 

Regarding  Gandhi age, his voice was  loud

and clear  and he expressed his view without fear

and favour, he said “To my mind there is no doubt

that this  Gandhi  age is the dark age of  India.

It is an  age in which people instead of  looking

for their  ideals in the future are returning  to

antiquity.   It  is an age in which  people  have

ceased to  think for themselves and as they  have

ceased to  think  they  have ceased to  read  and

examine the facts of their lives.  The fate of an

ignorant  democracy  which refuses to follow  the

way shown  by learning and experience and chooses

to grope in the dark paths of the mystics and the

megalomaniacs  is  a  sad thing  to  contemplate.

Such an  age I thought needed something more than

a mere descriptive  sketch of the Federal Scheme.

It needed  a treatment which was complete  though

not exhaustive and pointed without being dogmatic

in order  to make it alive to the dangers arising

from the inauguration of the Federal Scheme”.16

 

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar   was   never   interested

credit for  but he took all step for help to  his

people.   Once  he  said I do not  care  for  the

credit which  every progressive society must give

to its rebels.   I  shall be satisfied if I  make

the Hindus  realize that they are the sick men of

India and  that their sickness is causing  danger

to the health and happiness of other Indians.

 

He  continued, As a rule, I do not like to

take any  part in a movement which is carried  on

by the Caste Hindus.

 

He  described  the possition of  depressed

class of India & religious minority of India.  In

his own  languge “Depressed Classes are  burdened

            with disabilities  from which the Mohamedans  are

            absolutely  free.   The Depressed Classes  cannot

            take water  from  public watering places even  if

            they are  maintained  out of public  funds;   the

            Mohamedans can.  The Depressed Classes, by virtue

of their untouchability, cannot enter the Police,

the Army and the Navy, although the Government of

India Act  lays down that no individual shall  be

denied his  right to any public office by  reason

of his caste,  creed  or colour.  The  Mohamedans

have not  only  an  open door in  the  matter  of

public service,  but that in certain  departments

they have   secured  the   largest  share.    The

Depressed  Classes  are  not admitted  in  Public

schools  even  though they are maintained out  of

public money;   there is no such bar against  the

Mohamedans.   The touch of a Depressed Class  man

causes pollution;   the touch of a Mohamedan does

not;  that  trade  and  industry are  open  to  a

Mohamedan while they are closed to a man from the

Depressed  Classes.  The Mohamedan does not  bear

the stigma  of inferiority as does a man from the

Depressed  Classes  with  the   result  that  the

Mohamedan  is free to dress as he likes, to  live

as he likes  and  to  do  what  he  likes.   This

freedom  the  Depressed Class man is  denied.   A

Depressed  Class man may not wear clothes  better

than the  villagers  even though he may have  the

economic competence to pay for its cost.  He must

live in  a  hut.  A Depressed Class man  may  not

make much display of wealth and splendour even on

ceremonial  occasions and may certainly not  take

the bridegroom  on a horse in procession  through

the main  streets.   Any  act   contrary  to  the

customary  code or beyond his status is bound  to

be visited  by  the  wrath of the whole  body  of

villagers  amongst whom he happens to live.   The

Depressed  Class man is far often subject to  the

tyranny  of  the majority than the Mohamedan  is.

The reason  is that the Mohamedan who has all the

elementary  rights  of a human being accorded  to

him, has  no  cause  for   quarrel  against   the

majority,  except when a religious issue comes to

the front.   But  the position of  the  Depressed

class man  is totally different.  His life  which

is one incessant  struggle for the acquisition of

the rights  of  a  human  being,  is  a  constant

challenge  to the majority which denies him these

rights.   The result is that he is constantly  in

antagonism  with the majority.  This is not  all.

If on any  occasion  the Mohamedan is visited  by

the tyranny  of the majority, he has on his sides

the long  arm  of the Police and the  Magistracy.

But when  the Depressed Class man is a victim  of

the tyranny  of  the  majority, the  arm  of  the

Police or  of the Magistracy seldom comes to  his

rescue.   On the contrary it works in league with

the majority  to  his  detriment for  the  simple

reason that the Mohamedan can count many of their

kith and  kin in the Police and the Magistracy of

the Province;   while the Depressed Class have no

one from  them  in these departments.  And be  it

noted that  the Depressed classes have not merely

to bear  the  brunt of the orthodox Hindu  force.

It has also  to count against the Mohamedans.  It

is ordinarily supposed that the Mohamedan is free

from social  prejudices of the Hindus against the

Depressed  Classes.  Nothing can be greater error

than this.   Leaving  aside the urban areas,  the

Mohamedan  in the rural parts is as much affected

by the poison as the Hindu.” 18

 

He  accused the British not to do anything

to change the social structure of India.  The tie

that bounds  the Depressed Classes to the British

has been  of  a unique character.  The  Depressed

Classes  welcomed the British as their deliverers

from age  long  tyranny  and  oppression  by  the

orthodox  Hindus.   They   fought  their  battles

against  the Hindus, the Mussulmans and the Sikhs

and won for them this great Empire of India.  The

British,  on  their  side, assumed  the  role  of

trustees  for the depressed classes.  In view  of

such an   intimate  relationship    between   the

parties,  this change of attitude are not far  to

seek.  We  have  not taken this  decision  simply

because  we  wish  to throw in our lot  with  the

majority.  Indeed, as you know, there is not much

love lost between the majority and the particular

minority  I  represent.  Ours is  an  independent

decision.   We  have  judged   of  the   existing

administration  solely  in the light of  our  own

circumstances  and  we have found it  wanting  is

some of  the  most essential elements of  a  good

Government.  When we compare our present position

with the  one  which  it was our lot to  bear  in

Indian society  of the pre-British days, we  find

that, instead of marching on, we are only marking

time.  Before  the  British,  we   were  in   the

loathsome  condition  due to our  untouchability.

Has the  British  Government   done  anything  to

remove it?   Before  the  British, we  could  not

enter the  temple.  Can we enter now?  Before the

British,  we  were denied entry into  the  Police

Force.   Does the British Government admit us  in

the Force?   Before  the  British,  we  were  not

allowed to serve in the Military.  Is that career

now open  to us?  To none of these questions  can

we give an affirmative answer.  That the British,

who have  held so large a sway over us for such a

long time,  have  done  some good  we  cheerfully

acknowledge.    But   there   is   certainly   no

fundamental  change in our position.  Indeed,  so

far as we  were concerned, the British Government

has accepted  the social arrangements as it found

them, and  has  preserved them faithfully in  the

manner of  the Chinese tailor who, when given  an

old coat  as  a pattern, produced with  pride  an

exact replica,  rents,  patches   and  all.   Our

wrongs have  remained as open sores and they have

not been  righted, although 150 years of  British

rule have rolled away.

 

We   do   not  accuse   the   British   of

indifference  or  want of sympathy.  What  we  do

find is that they are quite incompetent to tackle

our problems.    If   the  case    was   one   of

indifference  only it would have been a matter of

small moment,  and it would not have made such  a

profound  change  in our attitude.  But  what  we

have come  to realize on a deeper analysis of the

situation  is  that  it is not merely a  case  of

indifference,  rather  it  is  a  case  of  sheer

incompetence   to   undertake   the  task.    The

Depressed   classes   find   that   the   British

Government in India suffers from two very serious

limitations.   There is first of all an  internal

limitation  which  arises   from  the  character,

motives  and interests of those who are in power.

It is not  because  they cannot help us in  these

things but because it is against their character,

motives  and  interests  to do  so.   The  second

consideration  that  limits its authority is  the

mortal fear  it has of external resistance.   The

Government of India does realize the necessity of

removing  the social evils which are eating  into

the vitals  of  Indian  society  and  which  have

blighted the lives of the downtrodden classes for

so many  years.   The  Government of  India  does

realize  that  the  landlords are  squeezing  the

masses dry,  and  the capitalists are not  giving

the labourers a living wage and decent conditions

of work.   Yet  it is most painful thing that  it

has no legal  not  dared  to touch any  of  these

evils.   WHY?   Is  it because it  has  no  legal

powers to  remove  them?  No.  The reason why  it

does not  intervene is because it is afraid  that

its intervention  to  amend the existing code  of

social and  economic  life,  will  give  rise  to

resistance.  Of what good is such a Government to

anybody?   Under a Government, paralyzed  between

two such limitations, much that goes to make life

good must  remain  held  up.   We  must  have   a

Government  in  which the men in power will  give

their undivided  allegiance to the best  interest

of the country.   We  must have a  Government  in

which the  men in power will give their undivided

allegiance  to the best interest of the  country.

We must  have a Government in which men in power,

knowing  where obedience will end and  resistance

will begin,  will  not  be afraid  to  amend  the

social and  economic  code  of   life  which  the

dictates  of  justice and expediency so  urgently

call for .  This ROLE the British Government will

never be  able to play.  It is only a  Government

which is of the people, for the people and by the

people that will make this possible.  19

 

Sometime in parliament when a MP asked the

question  to Hon’ble Dr.Ambedkar, whether you are

an untouchable  or not he replied “I have no idea

what my  Honourable Friend means by the abolition

of Untouchability.    What   is   untouchability?

Untouchability  so  far as I understand it, is  a

            kind of  disease  of  the Hindus.  It  is  not  a

            mental disease from which I am suffering, nor any

            tumour which  I have got, nor a rheumatic pain or

            any kind of the disabilities which can be removed

but it is  a mental twist.  Every Hindu  believes 

            that to  observe  untouchability  is  the   right

            thing.   I do not know how my friend is going  to

            untwist  the twist which the Hindus have got  for

            thousands  of  years unless they are all sent  to

 

some kind  of hospital.  It is very difficult  to

            cure them  and  I  do not want them  to  be  sent

            there.   Therefore let us understand what we talk

and what  we are doing.  Besides all must realize

that untouchables   should  live    outside   the

village.   They  shall  have only  earthen  pots;

they shall  not  have clean clothes;   that  they

shall beg for food and so on and I cannot see how

you blame  the Hindus.  For thousands of years by

the teaching  of  this  dirty law they  have  got

inculcated  in  their  mind   the  doctrine  that

untouchability is a most sacred thing.

 

At  the old age he was very sad to see the

behaviour  of  his educated people and said  “You

people do  not know what is troubling me and what

makes me  so sad.  The first worry to my mind  is

that I have  not  been able to fulfil  my  life’s

mission.   I  wanted  to  see   my  people  as  a

governing  class  sharing the political power  in

terms of  equality with other communities.  I  am

            now almost  crippled and prostrate with  illness.

            Whatever  I  have been able to achieve, is  being

            enjoyed by the educated few, who with their

            deceiful  performance, have

 

            proved to  be  worthless lot, with no  sympathies

            for their   downtrodden  brethren.    They   have

            surpassed   my   imagination,   they   live   for

            themselves  and their personal gains.  Not one of

            them is  prepared  to do social work.   They  are

            treading  the  path  of their ruination.   I  now

            wanted to  divert  my attention towards the  vast

            illiterate masses in the villages who continue to

            suffer and     remain        almost     unchanged

            economically…..   “I  also wanted someone  from

            among the Depressed Classes to come forward in my

            life-time  and  take the heavy responsibility  of

            running  the movement after me.  There,  however

seems none  who  would rise to the occasion.   My

lieutenants,  in  whom  I   had  full  faith  and

confidence to run the movement are fighting among

themselves for leadership and power, unmindful of

heavy responsibility  that is going to fall  upon

them…..   I  also  wanted still to  serve  this

country  and  its  people.  It is a sin  to  take

birth in   a   country  whose   people   are   so

caste-riddne and prejudiced.  In the existing set

up, it is   very  difficult  to  maintain   one’s

interest in the affairs of this country as people

are not  prepared  to  listen to any  other  view

which does  not  concur  with that of  the  Prime

Minister.    To  what  extent   the  country   is

sinking!” he exclaimed with a sigh.

 

He said to the British Government, that if

it were  to  leave us to the mercy of  those  who

have taken  no interest in our welfare and  whose

prosperity  and  greatness  is   founded  on  our

ruination and degradation.

 

For   saying  so  I   will  be  called   a

communalist  by the nationalists and patriots  of

India.   I  am  not afraid of that.  India  is  a

peculiar   country  and   her  nationalists   and

patriots are a peculiar people.  A patriots and a

nationalist  in India is one Equal status for all

in the society  must  be in action not in  paper.

Now OBC’s  has  got  their share due  to  special

provision in the Indian Constitution was reserved

by learned Doctor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

  1. Writing & Speeches by Dr.B.R.Ambedkar,

vol-1, p-6,27

  1. ,, p-7-21 2a. Ketkar, Caste, p-4)
  2. ,,
  3. Writing    &    Speeches    by

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar,  vol-1,  p-44-47

  1. ,, p-50
  2.            ,, p-53
  3. ,, p-57
  4. ,, p-59-61
  5. ,, p-66-70
  6. ,,  p-71
  7. ,, p-75
  8.           ,, p-76
  9. ,, p-89
  10. ,, p-94
  11. ,, p-231
  12. ,, p-352
  13. Jogendra sinha  “Dr.B.R.Ambedkar   a

critical study”.

  1. Writing    &    Speeches    by

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar,  ,, vol-2, p-358

  1. ,,  vol-2, p-504
  2. Social background    of Indian

Nationalism by A.R.Desai.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11.PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

 

Regarding    religion     Noble   laureate

Prof.Amartya  Sen said “I do not believe in God”.

Here it will be proper to mention the citation of

EVR Pereyar  who  was honoured by UNICEF 1980  as

Socratics  of  South East Asia.  He  said  “Those

make God were cunning, those who speared the name

of God are  mean, ill hearted and its worshippers

are illiterates and idiot”.

 

“I am just a machine made out of molecules

and chemicals,”  says Prof.Harold.W.Kroto, winner

of the 1996  Chemistry Nobel prize.  He  believes

that there  is  nothing spiritual or mystical  in

Man.

 

Human  “consciousness” he feels is just an

interesting  phenomenon which can be explained in

material terms.  Dr.Kroto said that consciousness

is a complex  phenomenon  and  we  may  not  have

technology  to explain it today.  It is just like

the African  tribal who has not seen the electric

motor or  television  finding  it  difficult   to

understand its functioning.

 

He  says computers may one day not only be

able to  “emulate  the  human  brain”  but  human

“consciousness”  too.   If not by the year  2005,

then by   the   year   3000,    the   riddle   of

consciousness  would  be solved and it will  turn

out to have a “very straight forward answer,”.

 

An  atheist, he said, he does not  believe

in religion  which, for him, means a belief  that

there is  an active, all powerful entity who  has

created  this  world and has control  over  man’s

existence  in this world;  a belief that man  can

influence  this  entity through his  prayers  and

also that   man’s   behaviour   in   this   world

influences  his  life after death.  “There is  no

interaction  between any entity and my existence”

he says.  “All this is heretical and in Fifteenth

century  one would have been burnt on the stake.”

He was interviewed by the Hindustan times.

 

In  the first place in the religion of the

savage society  there is no trace of the idea  of

God.  In  the second place in the religion of the

savage society   there  was  no   bound   between

morality  and  Religion.  In the  savage  society

there is  religion  without God.  In  the  savage

society there was morality but it was independent

of Religion.

 

How  and when the idea of God became fused

in Religion it is not possible to say.  It may be

that the  idea  of  God  had its  origin  in  the

worship   of  the  Great   Man  in  Society,  the

Hero-giving  rise to theism-with its faith in its

living God.   It may be that the idea of God came

into existence   as  a  result   of  the   purely

philosophical  speculation upon the problem as to

who created  life-giving  rise to Deism-with  its

belief in  God as Architect of the Universe.   In

any case  the  idea  of God is  not  integral  to

Religion.   How it got fused into Religion it  is

difficult  to  explain.   With   regard  to   the

relation  between Religion and Morality this much

may be safely  said.  Though the relation between

God and  Religion  is  not  quite  integral,  the

relation  between Religion and morality is.  Both

morality  and Religion and morality are connected

with the   same   elemental    facts   of   human

existence-namely life, death, birth and marriage.

Religion  consecrates these life processes  while

morality  furnishes rules for their preservation.

Religion  in consecrating the elemental facts and

processes  of  life came to consecrate  also  the

rules laid    down   by     Society   for   their

preservation.   Looked  at from this point it  is

easily explained  why  the bond between  Religion

and Morality  took  place.  It was more  intimate

and more  natural than the bond between  Religion

and God.   But  when exactly this fusion  between

Religion  and Morality took place it is not  easy

to say.

 

Be  that as it may, the fact remains  that

the religion  of  the Civilized  Society  differs

from that   of  the  Savage   Society  into   two

important  features.   In civilized  society  God

comes in  the  scheme of Religion.  In  civilized

society morality becomes sanctified by Religion.

 

How  change  of religion was  a  condition

precedent  to a Social fusion is well illustrated

by the dialogue between Naomi and Ruth in the Old

Testament.

 

“Thy  Sister” says Naomi to Ruth, “is gone

back unto  her  people and unto her  Gods”;   and

Ruth replies,  “Thy people shall be my people and

thy God my God.”

 

It  is  quite  clear that in  the  ancient

world a  change of nationality involved a  change

of cult.  Social fusion meant religious fusion.

 

In  modern society abandonment of religion

or acceptance  of  another is not  necessary  for

social fusion.   This is the best illustrated  by

what is in modern terminology and naturalization,

whereby  the  citizen of one state  abandons  his

citizenship of the state and becomes a citizen of

a new state.   In this process of  naturalization

religion  has  no place.  One can have  a  social

fusion-which     is     another      name     for

naturalization-without  undergoing  a   religious

fusion.

 

Religion  as  a  social force can  not  be

ignored.   Religion  has been aptly described  by

Hebert Spencer  as  “the  weft  which  everywhere

crosses  the  warp of history”.  This is true  of

every Society.  But Religion has not only crossed

everywhere  the  warp of Indian History it  forms

the warp and woof of the Hindu mind.  The life of

the Hindu  is  regulated  by  Religion  at  every

moment of  his  life.  It orders him  how  during

life he  should conduct himself and how on  death

his body  shall be disposed of.  It tells him how

and when he shall indulge in his sexual impulses.

It tells  him what ceremonies are to be performed

when a child  is born-how he should name, how  he

should cut  the  hair on its head, how he  should

perform  its  first feeding.  It tells  him  what

occupation  he can take to, what woman he  should

marry.  It tells him with whom he should dine and

what food  he  should  eat, what  vegetables  are

lawful and  what are forbidden.  It tells how  he

should spend  his  day, how many times he  should

eat, how  many times he should pray.  There is no

act of the Hindu which is not covered or ordained

by Religion.   It seems strange that the educated

Hindus should  come to look upon it as though  it

was a matter of indifference.

 

Dr.Ambedkar  was in favour of religion and

he describe  it with his acuity of knowledge.  He

says, Besides,  Religion is a social force.  As I

have pointed  out Religion stands for a scheme of

divine governance.   The scheme becomes an  ideal

for society   to  follow.   The   ideal  may   be

non-existent,  it  is real.  For an ideal it  has

full operative  force which is inherent in  every

ideal.  Those who deny the importance of religion

not only  forget this, they also fail to  realize

how great  is the potency and sanction that  lies

behind a religious ideal as compound with that of

a purely  secular ideal.  This is probably due to

the lag  which one sees between the real and  the

ideal which  is always present whether the  ideal

is religious   or  secular.    But  the  relative

potency  of  the two ideals is to be measured  by

another  test-namely their power to override  the

practical  instincts  of  man.    The  ideal   is

concerned  with  something that is  remote.   The

practical instincts of man are concerned with the

immediate  present.   Now placed as  against  the

force of  the practical instincts of man the  two

ideals show  their  difference in  an  unmistaken

manner.   The practical instincts of man do yield

to the prescriptions of a religious ideal however

much the  two  are  opposed to each  other.   The

practical  instincts  of man do not on the  other

hand yield to the secular ideal if the two are in

conflict.   This means that a religious ideal has

a hold on  mankind,  irrespective of  an  earthly

gain.  This can never be said of a purely secular

ideal.   Its  power  depends upon  its  power  to

confer material benefit.  This shown how great is

the difference in the potency and sanction of the

two ideals  over  the  human mind.   A  religious

ideal never  fails  to work so long as  there  is

faith in  that  ideal.  To ignore religion is  to

ignore a live wire.

 

The ancient world may be said to have been

guilty for failing to take the responsibility for

the education  of the masses.  But never has  any

society  been guilty of closing to the generality

of its people  the  study  of the  books  of  its

religion.   Never  has  society  been  guilty  of

prohibiting the mass of its people from acquiring

knowledge.  Never has society made any attempt to

declare  that any attempt made by the common  man

to acquire  knowledge  shall be punishable  as  a

crime.  Manu is the only divine law giver who has

denied the common man the right to knowledge.

 

No  country  has such a dismal  record  of

class war  as Hindustan.  It was the proud  boast

of the Brahmin Parasuram that he exterminated the

Kshatriyas  twenty  one  times from the  face  of

Hindustan   and   recreated   them  by   Brahmans

cohabiting with the widows of the Kshatriyas.1

 

It  must  not be supposed that this  Class

War in India  is a matter of ancient History.  It

has been  present  all along.  Its existence  was

very much  noticeable  in Maharashtra during  the

Maratha  Rule.  It destroyed the Maratha  Empire.

It must  not  be supposed that these  class  Wars

were like  ordinary  wars which are  a  momentary

phenomena  which  come and go and which leave  no

permanent  chasms  to divide the peoples  of  the

different  nations.  In India the class war is  a

permanent phenomenon which is silently but surely

working  its way.  It is a grain in the life  and

it has become genius of the Hindus.

 

This  facts  it  will not  be  denied  are

symptomatic in the sense they indicate health and

character.   Do  they  suggest   that  there   is

fraternity  among  Hindus?  In the face of  these

facts I am sure it would be impossible to give an

affirmative answer.

 

What is the explanation of this absence of

fraternity  among the Hindus.  It is Hinduism and

its philosophy  that is responsible for it.   The

sentiment  of fraternity as Mill said in  natural

but it is a plant which grows only where the soil

is propitious  and the conditions for its  growth

exits.   The fundamental condition for the growth

of the sentiment  of fraternity is not  preaching

that we  are  children of God or the  realization

that one’s  life is dependent upon others.  It is

too rational  to  give rise to a sentiment.   The

condition  for  the growth of this  sentiment  of

fraternity lies in sharing in the vital processes

of life.   It is sharing in the joys and  sorrows

of birth,  death,  marriage and food.  Those  who

participate in these come to feel as brothers.

 

There  is no sharing among Hindus of  joys

and sorrows  involved in the vital facts of life.

Everything  is separate and exclusive.  The Hindu

is separate  and exclusive all through his  life.

Thus one  Hindu  will share nothing with  another

Hindu while  they  are alive.  But they  will  be

separate  and exclusive even when they are  dead.

Is there  any  wonder  that   the  sentiment   of

fraternity  is  foreign  to the Hindus?   With  a

complete refusal to share the joys and sorrows of

life how  can  the sentiment of  fraternity  take

roots?

 

But  the question of all questions is  why

do the Hindus  refuse  to  share   the  joys  and

sorrows  of  life?   It needs no saying  that  he

refuses  to share because his religion tells  him

not to share them.  This conclusion need cause no

surprise.   For  what  does Hinduism  teach?   It

teaches  not to interdine, not to intermarry, not

to associate.    These  don’ts   constitute   the

essence  of its teaching.  All the shameful facts

I have referred  to,  to illustrate the  separate

and exclusive  character  of  the Hindus  is  the

direct outcome  of  this philosophy of  Hinduism.

The philosophy  of Hinduism is a direct denial of

fraternity.

 

For  in Hinduism inequality is a religious

doctrine  adopted and conscientiously preached as

a sacred  dogma.   It  is an official  creed  and

nobody is   ashamed   to   profess   it   openly.

Inequality   for  the  Hindus   is   a   divinely

prescribed  way  of life as a religious  doctrine

and as a  prescribed  way of life, it has  become

incarnate  in  Hindu  Society and is  shaped  and

molded by  it in its thoughts and in its  doings.

Indeed inequality is the Soul of Hinduism.

 

The  ideal  of caste was not  mere  ideal.

The ideal  was put into practice;  was  therefore

something  real.   So that, in the matter of  the

Chaturvarna  the  Hindus   have  very  faithfully

followed  the  German Philosopher  Nietszche  who

said “Realize the ideal and idealize the real”.

 

In the caste-ridden Hindu religion, we can

find the  following defects as under:

 

(1) Caste  divides Labourers

(2) Caste   disassociates  work  from interest

(3) Caste disconnects intelligence from manual

labour

(4) Caste devitalises by denying to him the right

to cultivate vital interest and

(5) Caste prevents mobilization.

 

Caste  System  is not merely  division  of

labour.   IT  IS  ALSO A DIVISION  OF  LABOURERS.

Civilized  society undoubtedly needs division  of

labour.   But in no civilized society is division

of labour  accompanied by this unnatural division

of labourers  into water-tight compartments.   It

has no good  deliver  at all, except its  inhuman

nature to degrade the humanity of cross of people

 

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.

 

Caste  prevents  mobilization.   Occasions

arise when   society   must   mobilize  all   its

resources to one end in order to save itself from

a catastrophy.   To take a catastrophy like  war,

Society  must  mobilize  all  its  resources  for

militarization.  Everyone must do war.  Every one

must be  a  soldier.  Is this possible under  the

theory of  caste?   Obviously  not.   Indeed  the

destiny  of  a defeat which has been the  lot  of

India throughout  history is due to caste.  Caste

prevented general mobilization.  Or the extent of

mobilization  was a very limited character.  Only

the Kshatriyas were expected to fight.

 

The  Philosophy  of   Hinduism   therefore

neither  satisfies the test of social utility nor

does it satisfy the test of individual justice.2

 

Hinduism is not interested in society as a

whole.   The  centre  of its interest lies  in  a

class and   its   philosophy  is   concerned   in

sustaining  and  supporting  the rights  of  that

class.  That is why in the Philosophy of Hinduism

the interests  of  the common man as well  as  of

society  are denied, suppressed and sacrificed to

the interest  of this class of Superman.  What is

the value of such a religion to man?

 

In short the Philosophy of Hinduism cannot

be called  the religion of humanity.  That is why

to use the  language of Balfour, Hinduism, if  it

penetrates,  does not vitrify the inmost life  of

ordinary humanity.  Indeed if it does anything it

paralyses   it.    There  is   in   Hinduism   no

nourishment  for ordinary human souls, no comfort

for ordinary  human sorrow, no help for  ordinary

human weakness.   It leaves men in darkness  face

to face  with unthinking energies of nature which

gives them  birth to which after a few  fruitless

struggles  they succumb.  No less cruel than  the

crudest  irreligion,  does it leave men  divorced

from all  communion  with  God.    Such  is   the

philosophy  of Hinduism.  It is Superman’s heaven

and the common man’s damnation.3

 

What difference is there between Geeta and

the Manu  Smriti ?  Geeta is Manu in a  nutshell.

Those who  run away from Manu Smriti and want  to

take refuge  in Geeta either do not know Gita  or

are prepared  to  omit from  their  consideration

that soul  of  Geeta which makes it akin to  Manu

Smriti.

 

I  hold  that  in  Hinduism  there  is  no

distinction  between  legal philosophy and  moral

philosophy.  That is because in Hinduism there is

no distinction  between the legal and the  Moral,

the legal being also the moral.

 

As per censor report of 1931 the Primitive

Tribes form  a  total of 25 million  souls.   The

Criminal  Tribes  number 4 1/2 millions  and  the

Untouchables  number  50 millions.  This makes  a

grand total  of  79  1/2 millions.  Now  ask  how

            these people  could have remained in the state of

            moral, material, social and spiritual degradation

            surrounded as they have been by Hinduism.  Hindus

            say that  their  civilization is older  than  any

            civilization,  that  Hinduism  as a  religion  is

 

superior  to  any other religion.  If this is  so

            how is that  Hinduism  failed  to  elevate  these

            people,  bring them enlightenment and hope;   how

            is it that  it failed even to reclaim them;   how

            is it that  it  stood  with   folded  hands  when

            millions  and  millions  were taking to  life  to

            shame and  crime?   What is the answer  to  this.

The only  answer is that Hinduism is  overwhelmed

with the  fear of pollution.  It has not got  the

power to purify.  It has not the impulse to serve

and that  is  because  by its very nature  it  is

inhuman and immoral.  It is a misnomer to call it

religion.   Its  philosophy  is opposed  to  very

thing for which religion stands.4

 

Therefore  we  can  say   that  a  society

without  any respect for human personalities is a

band of robbers.

 

The  unit of Hindu society is the class or

Varna to  use the Hindu technical name for class.

In the Hindu  social order, there is no room  for

individual   merit   and  no   consideration   of

individual   Justice.   Though   some  people  at

present  advocating  for merit for their  benefit

for limited  purpose  to  exist   in  power   and

position.

 

The  Hindu  law  recognized slavery  as  a

legal institution.   Manu Smriti recognised seven

kinds of   slaves.   Narada   Smriti   recognized

fifteen kinds of slaves.  These differences as to

the number  of slaves and the classes under which

they fall  is a matter of no importance.  What is

important  is to know who could enslave whom.  On

this point,  the  following  citations  from  the

Narada Smriti  and  the  Yajnavalkya  Smriti  are

revealing:

 

Narada  Smriti:   V.39.  “In  the  inverse

order of  four  castes  slavery is  not  ordained

except where  a man violates the duties  peculiar

to his caste.    Slavery(in  that   respect)   is

analogous to the condition of a wife.”

 

Yajnavalkya Smriti:  XVI.183(2).  “Slavery

is in the  descending order of the Varnas and not

in the ascending order.”

 

The  principle  of graded  inequality  has

been carried into the economic field.  “From each

according  to his ability;  to each according  to

his need”  is  not the principle of Hindu  social

order.   The principle of Hindu social order  is:

“From each  according  to  his   need.   To  each

according  to  his  nobility.” The  Hindu  social

order does  not recognize equal need, equal  work

or equal  ability  as  the basis  of  reward  for

labour.   Its  motto  is that in  regard  to  the

distribution of the good things of life those who

are reckoned as the highest must get the most and

the best  and those who are classed as the lowest

must accept  the  least and the  worst.   Nothing

more seems  to  be  necessary to prove  that  the

Hindu social  order  is  based  on  principle  of

graded inequality.   It pervades all  departments

of social  life.   Every side of social  life  is

protected against the danger of equality.

 

The  second  principle on which the  Hindu

social order  is  founded  is that of  fixity  of

occupations   for  each   class  and  continuance

thereof  by  heredity.   This is what  Manu  says

about occupations  of the four classes. Still few

people are agree to change this dictum.

 

The  third  principle on which  the  Hindu

social order is founded is the fixation of people

within their   respective  classes.    There   is

nothing  strange or peculiar in the fact that the

Hindu social order recognizes classes.  There are

classes  everywhere  and  no society  is  without

them.  Families,   cliques,    clubs,   political

parties,   nay  communities,   gangs  engaged  in

criminal   conspiracies,   business  corporations

which prey upon the public are to be found in all

societies in all parts of the world.  Even a free

social order  will not be able to get rid of  the

classes.   What a free social order aims to do is

to prevent  isolation  and   exclusiveness  being

regarded  by  the  classes  as  an  ideal  to  be

followed.   For  so  long as the classes  do  not

practise  isolation  and exclusiveness  they  are

only non-social  in  their relations towards  one

another.   Isolation and exclusiveness make  them

            anti-social  and  inimical towards  one  another.

Isolation   makes   for     rigidity   of   class

consciousness, for institutionalizing social life

and for  the  dominance of selfish ideals  within

the classes.    Isolation  makes   life   static,

continues  the  separation into a privileged  and

underprivileged, masters and servants.5

 

The  Hindu  social  order  is  opposed  to

fraternity.   It does not admit the principle  of

equality.  Far from recognizing equality it makes

inequality  its  official doctrine.   What  about

liberty?   So  far as choice of occupation  goes,

there is  none.   Everyone   has  his  occupation

determined  for him.  Only thing left to do is an

carry it  on.  As to freedom of speech it exists.

But it exists only for those who are is favour of

the social order.  The freedom is not the freedom

of liberalism which was expressed by Votarie when

he said  “I wholly disapprove of what you say and

will defend to the death your right to say it.”

 

What  about  liberty  of action?   In  the

sense of  effective choice, there is no room  for

it in the  Hindu social order.  The Hindu  social

order leaves  no  choice to the  individual.   It

fixes his  occupation.  It fixes his status.  All

that remains  for  the  individual to  do  is  to

conform himself to these regulations.

 

The  same  must  be said  with  regard  to

political  liberty.  The Hindu social order  does

not recognize  the necessity of a  representative

government composed of the representatives chosen

by the people  Representative Government rests on

the belief  that  people must be governed by  law

and law can be made only by the representative of

the people.   The  Hindu social order  recognizes

the first  part  of this thesis which  says  that

people must  be  governed by law.  But it  denies

the second part of the thesis which says that law

can be made only by representatives chosen by the

people.

 

To  sum  up, the Hindu social order is  an

order based on classes and not on individual.  It

is an order in which classes are graded one above

the other.   It  is an order in which the  status

and functions  of the classes are determined  and

fixed.   The Hindu social order is a rigid order.

No matter what changes take place in the relative

position  of an individual his social status as a

member of  the  class he is born in  relation  to

another  person belonging to another class  shall

in no way  be  affected.  The first  shall  never

become the last.  The last shall never become the

first.6

 

When  the social order denies  opportunity

to rise,  denies  right to education  and  denies

right to use arms, it is in a position to prevent

rebellion against the social order.  Where on the

other hand,  a  social  order   allows  right  to

education, and permits the use of arms, it cannot

prevent  rebellion  by those who  suffer  wrongs.

Its only  remedy to preserve the social order  is

by suppression  of rebellion by the use of  force

and violence.  The Hindu social order has adopted

the first method.  It has fixed the social status

of the lower  orders for all generations to come.

Their economic status is also fixed.  There being

no disparity  between  the  two,   there  is   no

possibility  of  a grievance growing up.  It  has

denied education to the lower orders.  The result

is that   no  one  is   conscious  that  his  low

condition is a ground for grievance.  If there is

any consciousness   it   is  that   no   one   is

responsible  for  the low condition.  It  is  the

result of  fate.  Assuming there is a  grievance,

assuming  there  is consciousness  of  grievance,

there cannot  be a rebellion by the lower  orders

against  the Hindu social order because the Hindu

social order  denies the masses the right to  use

arms.  Other  social orders such as those of  the

Muslims or the Nazis, follow the opposite course.

They allow  equal opportunity to all.  They allow

freedom  to  acquire knowledge.  They  allow  the

right to  bear arms and take upon themselves  the

odium of  suppressing  rebellion  by  force   and

violence.   To  deny freedom of  opportunity,  to

deny freedom  to  acquire knowledge, to deny  the

right of arms is a most cruel wrong.  Its results

Manu mutilates  and  emasculates man.  The  Hindu

social order  is not ashamed to do this.  It has,

however,  achieved two things.  It has found  the

most effective,  even  though  it   be  the  most

shameless  method  of preserving the  established

order.  Secondly, notwithstanding the use of most

inhuman  means of killing manliness, it has given

to the Hindus the reputation of being very humane

people.   The  Nazis had indeed a great  deal  to

learn from  the Hindus.  If they had adopted  the

technique  of  suppressing the masses devised  by

the Hindus they would have been able to crush the

Jews without  open  cruelty and would  have  also

exhibited themselves as humane masters.

 

The  third  special feature of  the  Hindu

social order  is  that  it  is  a  Divine   order

designed  by God himself.  As such it is  sacred,

not open  to  abrogation, amendment, not even  to

criticism.  For the purpose of removing any doubt

that may be lurking in the minds of anybody about

the Divine  character of the Hindu social  order,

attention is invited to the following verses from

the Bhagvat  Gita  and  the  Manu  Smriti.   Shri

Krishna  one of the Hindu Gods, whose word is the

Bhagvat Gita says:-

 

IV.13.    “I  myself   have  created   the

arrangement  of  the four castes (into  Brahmins,

Kshatriyas,  Vaishyas and Shudras),  consistently

with the  differences  in   their  qualities  and

actions.  It is, I who am the Maker of it.”7

 

It  is  not only a special feature of  the

Hindu social  order.   It  is  an   extraordinary

feature.   An  examination of consecrations  will

show that  there are instances where society  has

consecrated nominate beings and inculcated on the

minds of  its  members the religious belief  that

they are  sacred.  There are cases where  stones,

rivers, trees are made Gods and Goddesses.  There

are instances  where  society   has   consecrated

livings things and inculcated on the minds of its

members  the  religious  belief   that  they  are

sacred.   The primitive world had its clan  order

and its tribal order.  But the clan or the tribal

order was  only  a  social order  and  was  never

consecrated  by  religion  and  made  sacred  and

inviolate.   The  ancient  world  countries  like

Egypt, Persia,  Rome,  Greece, etc, each had  its

social order  in  which some were free  and  some

were slaves,   some  were   citizens,  some  were

aliens,  some of the race, some of another.  This

class order again was only a social order and was

never consecrated by religion and made sacred and

inviolate.   The  modern world has its order,  in

some it  is  Democracy, in some Fascism, in  some

Nazism and  in  some Bolshevism.  But here  again

the order  is  only  social  order.   It  is  not

consecrated  by  religion  and  made  sacred  and

inviolate.

 

Nowhere   has  society   consecrated   its

occupations-the   ways  of   getting  a   living.

Economic  activity  has always  remained  outside

sanctity  of  religion.  Hunting society was  not

without a religion.  But Hunting as an occupation

was not  consecrated by religion and made sacred.

Pastoral  society was not without religion.   But

pasturage  was  not consecrated by  religion  and

made sacred.   Farming  as an occupation did  not

become consecrated  by religion and made  sacred.

Feudalism  with  its gradations, with its  Lords,

villains  and  serfs  was  a  purely  social   in

character.  There was nothing sacred about.

 

The  Hindus  are  the only people  in  the

world whose  social order-the relation of man  to

man is consecrated  by religion and made  sacred,

whose economic  order-the relation of workman  to

workman,  is  consecrated  by religion  and  made

sacred, eternal and inviolate.

 

It is not therefore enough to say that the

Hindus are  a  people  with  a  sacred  code   of

religion.   So  are the Zoroastrians,  Israelites,

Christians  and  Muslims.  All these have  sacred

codes.   They  consecrate beliefs and  rites  and

make them sacred.  But they do not prescribe, nor

do they  consecrate  a particular form of  social

structure-the relationship between man and man in

a concrete  form-and  make it  sacred  inviolate.

The Hindus are singular in this respect.  This is

what has given the Hindu social order its abiding

strength  to  defy  the ravages of time  and  the

onslaught of time.

 

The  orthodox Hindu will accept this as an

accurate  description of the Hindu social  order.

It is only  the reformer who is likely to  demur.

He would  say  that  since   the  advent  of  the

British,  this  is  all a description of  a  dead

past.  One  need  not be perturbed by this  view.

For it contains a fallacy.  It omits to take note

of the fact  that institutions which have died as

creeds sometimes  continue, nevertheless  survive

as habits.  No one can deny that the Hindu social

order has  become the habit of the Hindus and  as

such is in full force.

 

Caste  therefore  is something special  in

the Hindu  social organization and marks off  the

Hindus from  other  peoples.   Caste has  been  a

growing  institution.  It has never been the same

at all times.   The shape and form of Caste as it

existed  when Megashthenes wrote his account  was

very different  from  what the shape and form  it

had taken  when Alberuni came and the  appearance

it gave to the Portuguese was different from what

it was in   the  time  of   Alberuni.    But   to

understand caste one must have more exact idea of

its nature  than  these  foreigners are  able  to

give.

 

Dr.says  that the foregoing summary of the

political  history of India would have been quite

unnecessary  for  the immediate purpose  of  this

chapter  if I was satisfied with the way in which

the history  of India is written.  But frankly  I

am not satisfied.   For too much emphasis is laid

on the Muslim conquest of India.  Reels and reels

have been  written to show how wave after wave of

Muslim invasions  came  down like  avalanche  and

enveloped  the people and overthrew their rulers.

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 BRAMHANIC INVADERS

The Muslim  invasions  of  Hindu  India  and  the

Bramhanic  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  in common namely the  mission  to

destroy  idolatory.   Similarly   the   Bramhanic

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 Bramhanic invaders are equally

deserving  of  study.   The   ways  and   methods

employed  by  the Bramhanic 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.  From

the point  of view of the permanent effect on the

social and  spiritual  life  of the  people,  the

Bramhanic  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.

The Muslim  invaders  destroyed only the  outward

symbols  of  Hindu religion such as  temples  and

Maths 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  .   The  effect   of  the   Bramhanic

invasions  were  a  through 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.   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.  Bramhanism 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.  Bramhanism 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.  Bramhanism  did  not

care to  stop  how hideous and ugly was  its  own

baby as   compared   with   the  Buddhist   Baby.

Bramhanism  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.   Bramhanism did.  It drove out Buddhism

as a religion and occupied its place.

 

These  facts show that Brahmanic invasions

of Buddhist India have a far greater significance

to the Historian   of  India   than  the   Muslim

invasions  of  Hindu  India can be said  to  have

produced.   Yet  very little space is devoted  by

historians  to  the   vicissitudes  which  befell

Buddhist  India built up by the Mauryas and  even

where that is done they have not cared to deal in

a pointed   manner  with   questions  that  quite

naturally arise:  questions such as, who were the

Sungas,  Kanavas  and  Andhras;    why  did  they

destroy  the Buddhist India which was built up by

the Mauryas,  nor  has any attempt been  made  to

study the  changes  that   Brahmanism  after  its

triumph over Buddhism brought about the political

and social structure.

 

Failure  to  appreciate   this  aspect  of

India’s  history is due to the prevalence of some

very wrong   notions.   It   has  been   commonly

supposed  that the culture of India has been  one

and the   same  all   throughout  history;   that

Brahmanism,   Buddhism,  Jainism,    are   simply

different  phases  and that there has never  been

any fundamental    antagonism     between   them.

Secondly  it  has  been   assumed  that  whatever

conflicts  have  taken place in  Indian  politics

were purely  political and dynastic and that they

had no social  and spiritual significance.  It is

because  of  these  wrong   notions  that  Indian

history  has become a purely mechanical thing,  a

record of  one dynasty succeeding another and one

ruler succeeding  another ruler.  A corrective to

such an  attitude and to such a method of writing

history  lies in recognition two facts which  are

indisputable.

 

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 Bramhanism and Buddhism.

Any one  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 the

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.

 

In   Buddha’s    opinion,    nothing   was

infallible   and   nothing    could   be   final.

Everything  must  be open to  re-examination  and

reconsideration     whenever       grounds    for

re-examination and reconsideration arise.

 

The  Brahmanic  sacrifices   were   mostly

sacrifices  of animals to please their gods.   He

condemned them as false sacrifices.  He would not

allow them even though they be performed with the

object of  getting  salvation for the soul.   “If

one can go to heaven by sacrificing an animal why

should not  one sacrifice one’s own father.”  The

Buddha whole heartedly agreed with this view.

 

The  center  of his Dhamma is man and  the

relation of man to man in his life on earth.

 

The  Buddha  was  on  the  other  hand  an

upholder  of  Education for all, Besides, he  was

more concerned with the use of knowledge a man is

likely to make with knowledge itself.

 

Religion  must  teach man to know what  is

right and to follow what is right.

 

Religion  must  teach man to know what  is

wrong and not to follow what is wrong.

 

“If any man, whether he be learned or not,

considers  himself  so great as to despise  other

men he is like a blind man holding a candle-blind

himself, he illumines others”.

 

“A  religion to be a religion of man  must

teach him  to shun bad conduct.  The  destruction

of life,  the  talking  of  what  is  not  given,

licentiousness  and  lying  speech are  the  four

vices of conduct which he must avoid.

 

“A  religion  to be religion of  man  must

teach him   not   to    dissipate   his   wealth.

Dissipation of wealth results from being addicted

to intoxicating  liquors, frequenting the streets

at unseemly   hours    haunting    fairs,   being

infatuated  by  gambling, associating  with  evil

companions, the habit of idleness.

 

“The  sun  shines only in the day and  the

moon makes  bright the night.  The warrior shines

when he  is in his armour.  And the Brahmin  when

he is meditating  But the Buddha shines over  all

by day as well as by night by his own glory.

 

The  curious  will naturally ask what  did

this triumphant  Brahmanism  do ?  It is to  this

question  that  I  will now turn.  The  deeds  or

misdeeds  of  this triumphant Brahmanism  may  be

catalogued under seven heads.

 

(1)  It  established  the   right  of  the

Brahmin to rule and commit regicide.

 

(2)  It  made  the  Brahmins  a  class  of

privileged persons.

 

(3) It converted the Varna in to caste.

 

(4)  It  brought  about   a  conflict  and

anti-social feeling between the different castes.

 

(5) It degraded the Shudras and the women.

 

(6)  It  forged  the   system  of   graded

inequality and

 

(7)  It  made legal and rigid  the  social

system which was conventional and flexible.”8

 

It  is  astounding  how   the  kings  were

befooled  by  the  Brahmins to  transfer  village

after village   to  crafty,   lazy  and  indolent

Brahmins.    Even  today   the  highly  literate

persons makes fool by using new tricks.9

 

What  object Brahmanism could have had  in

converting  Varna into caste it is not  difficult

to imagine.   The  object  was to make  the  high

status enjoyed by the Brahmins from ancient times

the privilege  of every Brahmins and his  progeny

without reference to merits or to qualifications.

To put it  differently the object was to  elevate

and ennoble  every  Brahmin,   however  mean  and

worthless  he may be, to the high status occupied

by some of them on account of the virtue.  It was

an attempt  to  ennoble the whole of the  Brahmin

Community without exception.

 

Under  Brahimanism it is birth that always

wins, whether  it  is  against birth  or  against

worth.   Merit by itself can win no meads.   This

is entirely  due  to the dissociation  of  merits

from status  which  is  the work  of  Brahmanism.

Nothing  could be better calculated to produce an

            unprogressive society which sacrifices the rights

            of intelligence  on  the  alter  of  aristocratic

            privilege.10

 

According   to  my   view  girl  marriage,

enforced  widowhood and Sati had no other purpose

than that  of  supporting the Caste System  which

Brahmanism   was   seeking    to   establish   by

prohibiting  intermarriage.   It is difficult  to

stop intermarriage.   Members of different castes

are likely  to  go out of their Caste either  for

love or  for necessity.  It is to provide against

necessity that Brahmanism made these rules.  This

is my explanation  of  these new rules,  made  by

Brahmanism.11

 

To  kill this monists Dr.B.R.Ambedkar said

in his speech,  No  law  passed   by  the  Indian

Legislature in the past or likely to be passed in

the future  can be compared to it (Hindu Code) in

point of  its significance.  To leave  inequality

between  class  and  class, between sex  and  sex

which is the soul of Hindu society, untouched and

to go on passing legislation relating to economic

problems  is to make a farce of our  Constitution

and to build  a  palace on a dung heap.  This  is

the significance I attached to the Hindu Code.

 

All  religions  – Except Buddhism  –  have

used or  misused  the  laws  of  inheritance  for

enforcing   adhesion  and   conformity  to  their

codes.12

 

The  principle  of graded inequality  runs

through  the whole of the Manu Smriti.  There  is

no department  of  life  in   which  he  has  not

introduced  his  principle of  graded  inequality

which still   stand  in   Indian  society,   even

irrespective of their religion.

 

The system of Chaturvarna which the Hindus

regard as  the  unique  creation of  their  Aryan

ancestors  is  in  no  sense  unique.   There  is

nothing  original  about it.  The  whole  ancient

world had stumbled into it.  The Egyptians had it

and the  ancient  Persians had it.  Pluto was  so

convinced  about its excellence that he presented

it as ideal  form  of social  organization.   The

ideal of  the Chaturvarna is faulty.  The lumping

together of individuals into a few sharply marked

off classes is a very superficial view of man and

his powers.   The Ancient Aryans as well as Pluto

had no conception  of  the  uniqueness  of  every

individual, of his incommensurability with others

and of each  individual  forming a class  of  his

own.  They  had  no recognition of  the  infinite

diversity of active tendencies and combination of

tendencies of which an individual is capable.  To

them there  were types of faculties or powers  in

the individual  constitution  and   all  that  is

necessary  for social organization is to classify

them.  All  this  is demonstrably wrong.   Modern

science  has  shown  that   lumping  together  of

individuals into a few sharply marked off classes

each confined  to  one   particular  sphere  does

injustice  both to the individual and to Society.

The stratification  of  Society  by  classes  and

occupations  is  incompatible  with  the  fullest

utilization   of  the  qualities   which  is   so

necessary  for  social  advancement and  is  also

incompatible  with the safety and security of the

individual as well as of society in general.

 

There is another mistake which the Ancient

Hindus including  Pluto made.  There is  probably

some truth  in  saying that there is among  human

beings a  dimorphism  or   polyformism  in  human

beings as  there is among insects, though in  the

former it  is  only  psychological while  in  the

latter it   is   both  physical    as   well   as

psychological.   But  assuming  that there  is  a

thing psychological  dimorphism  or   polyformism

among human  beings, it is wrong to separate them

into those  who  are  born to do  one  thing  and

others to  do another, some born to command  i.e.

to be masters  and some born to obey i.e.  to  be

slaves.   It is wrong to suppose that in a  given

person some  qualities are present and others are

absent.   On  the contrary the truth is that  all

qualities  are  present in every person and  this

truth is  not diminished in any way by that, some

tendency  predominated to the extent of being the

only one  that is apparent.  So well  established

is this  truth  that  a  tendency  which  may  be

dominant  in  a  man  at one time  may  be  quite

different  from  and even the direct opposite  of

the tendency  that  may  be dominant  at  another

time.

 

This Vedic system of Chaturvarna, far from

being an  ideal system was made positively  worse

by the changes  when  Brahmanism made  and  which

have already  been described.  Every one of  them

was mischievous  in character is beyond question.

The Buddhist order of Bhikhus and the Vedic order

of Brahmins  were  designed  to  serve  the  same

purpose.   They formed the elite of their society

whose function  was  to  lead and  guide  society

along the  right  road.    Although  designed  to

discharge  the same function the Buddhist Bhikhus

was better  placed  to discharge it than was  the

Brahmin.   That is because Buddha recognized  one

thing which nobody either before him or after him

has done.   Buddha realized that for a person  to

give a true   lead   to  Society   and   be   its

trustworthy  guide he must be intellectually free

and further,  which  is  more  important,  to  be

intellectually  free  he  must not  have  private

property.   An elite charged with the care of his

private  property must fail to discharge his duty

of leading  and  guiding Society along the  right

road.  Buddha  therefore took care to include  in

the Code  of  discipline for the Bhikshus a  rule

prohibiting   a  Bhikshu   from  holding  private

property.   In the Vedic order of Brahmins  there

was no such  prohibition.  A Brahmin was free  to

hold property.    This  difference   produced   a

profound  difference on the character and outlook

of the Buddhist  Bhikshu  and the Vedic  Brahmin.

The Bhikshus  formed an intellectual class.   The

Brahmins  formed  on  the other  hand  merely  an

educated  class.   There  is a  great  difference

between  an  intellectual class and  an  educated

class.   An intellectual class has no limitations

arising  out of any affiliations to any class  or

to any interest.   An educated Class on the other

hand is not an intellectual class although it has

cultivated its intellect.  The reason is that its

range of  vision  and  its   sympathy  to  a  new

ideology is circumscribed by its being identified

with the  interest of the class with which it  is

affiliated.

 

The  Brahmins  from   the  very  beginning

therefore  were inclined to be a purely  educated

class, enlightened but selfish.  This evil in the

Vedic order  of  Brahmins  was   extreme  by  the

changes  made in the old Vedic System.  The right

of the Brahmins  to rule and the grant of special

privileges and immunities made them more selfish,

and induced  in  them  the desire  to  use  their

education not for the advancement of learning but

for the  use  of their community and against  the

advancement of society.  All their energy and the

education has been spent in maintaining their own

privileges  against  the good of the public.   It

has been the boast of many Hindu authors that the

civilization  of  India  is   the  most   ancient

civilization   in  the   world.   The   important

question  is why did the ancient Indians cease to

make any  progress in the sciences in which  they

were the  pioneers?   This sudden arrest  in  the

progress  of  science  in  ancient  India  is  as

astounding   as  it  is   deplorable.    In   the

scientific  world India occupies a position which

even if  it  be  first  among  the  primitive  is

certainly  last among the civilized nation.   How

did it happen that a people who began the work of

scientific  progress stopped, halted on the  way,

left in  its  inchoate and incomplete  condition?

This is  a  question that needs to be  considered

and answered, not what the ancient Indians knew.

 

There  is only one answer to the  question

and it is a very simple answer.  In ancient India

the Brahmins  were the only educated class.  They

were also  the  Class  which was claiming  to  be

above all  others.   Buddha disputed their  claim

for supremacy and declared a war on the Brahmins.

The Brahmins   acted  as  an  Educated   Class-as

distinguished  from  an intellectual  class-would

act under  the  circumstances.  It abandoned  all

pursuits  and  engaged  itself in  defending  the

claim of  supremacy and the social, economic  and

political  interests  of its class.   instead  of

writing  books on Science, the Brahmins undertook

to write Smritis.  Here is an explanation why the

progress  of  science in India  became  arrested.

Brahmins  found  it  more   important  and   more

imperative to write Smritis to repel the Buddhist

doctrine of social equality.13

 

Manu  designated the Brahmins as Bhu-devas

lords of  the  Earth.  The Brahmins enlarged  the

scope of  this  statement and began to claim  the

right to  sexual intercourse with women of  other

classes.   Even queens were not exempt from  this

claim.   Ludoveo Di Varthema who came to India as

a traveler  in  about  1502  A.D.   records  the

following about the Brahmins of Calicut:

 

“It  is  a  proper,   and  the  same  time

pleasant  thing  to know who these Brahmins  are.

You must  know that they are the chief persons of

the faith, as priests are among us.  And when the

King takes a wife, he selects the most worthy and

the most honoured of these Brahmins and makes him

sleep the  first  night with his wife,  in  order

that he may deflower her.”

 

Similarly Hamilton another writer says:

 

“When  the  Samorin marries, he  must  not

cohabit  with  his  bride   till  the   Nambourie

(Nambudari Brahmin), or chief priest, has enjoyed

her, and  if he pleases, he may have three nights

of her company,  because the first fruits of  her

nuptials  must be an holy oblation to the god she

worships.”

 

In  the  Bombay Presidency the priests  of

the Vaishnava  sect claimed the right to deflower

the women  of their sect.  This gave rise to  the

famous Maharaja  Libel case brought by the  chief

priest of  the Sect against one Karosondas  Mulji

in the High  Court  of  Bombay in the  year  1869

which shows  that the right to claim the  benefit

of the first  night was certainly effective  till

then.

 

When  such a right to sexual  cohabitation

for the first night could be extended against the

generality  of the lower classes be Brahmins  did

not hesitate  to  extend  it.    This  they   did

particularly  in Malabar.  There, Manu designated

the Brahmins as Bhu-devas, lords of the earth.

 

By  the denial of education to the Shudras

by diverting the Kshatriyas to military pursuits,

and the  Vaishas  to  trade   and  by   reserving

education  to themselves the Brahmins alone could

become the  educated class-free to misdirect  and

misguide  the whole society.  By converting Varna

into Caste  they  declared that mere birth was  a

real and  final  measure of the worth of  a  man.

Caste and  graded  inequality made  disunity  and

discord a matter of course.

 

Let  us now turn to the creed of Karl Marx

as originally propounded by him.  Karl Marx is no

doubt the father of modern socialism or Communism

but he was  not interested merely in  propounding

the theory of Socialism.  That had been done long

before him  by others.  Marx was more  interested

in proving  that  his Socialism  was  scientific.

His crusade  was as much against the  capitalists

as it was  against  those  whom   he  called  the

Utopian  Socialists.  He disliked them both.   It

is necessary  to  note  this point  because  Marx

attached   the   greatest   importance   to   the

scientific  character of his Socialism.  All  the

doctrines  which  Marx  propounded had  no  other

purpose than to establish his contention that his

brand of   Socialism  was   scientific  and   not

Utopian.

 

By  scientific  socialism what  Karl  Marx

meant was  that  his  brand   of  socialism   was

inevitable  and inescapable and that society  was

moving towards  it and that nothing could prevent

its march.  It is to prove this contention of his

that Marx principally laboured.

 

Marx’s  contention rested on the following

theses.  They were:-

 

(i)  That the purpose of philosophy is  to

reconstruct  the  world  and not to  explain  the

origin of the universe.

 

(ii)  That  the  forces which  shapes  the

course of history are primarily economic.

 

(iii)  That  society is divided  into  two

classes, owners and workers.

 

(iv) That there is always a class conflict

going on between the two classes.

 

(v)  That the workers are exploited by the

owners who misappropriate the surplus value which

is the result of the workers’ labour.

 

(vi)  That this explanation can be put  an

end to by  nationalization of the instruments  of

production i.e.  abolition of private property.

 

(vii) That this exploitation is leading to

greater   and  greater   impoverishment  of   the

workers.

 

(viii) That this growing impoverishment of

the workers  is  resulting  in  a   revolutionary

spirit among  the  workers and the conversion  of

the class conflict into a class struggle.

 

(ix)  That  as the workers  outnumber  the

owners,  the  workers  are bound to  capture  the

State and  establish  their rule which he  called

the dictatorship of the proletariat.

 

(x)  These  factors are  irresistible  and

therefore socialism is inevitable.

 

I  hope  I  have  reported  correctly  the

propositions  which formed the original basis  of

Marxian Socialism.

 

The  Communists have carried their  hatred

of Christianity  to  Buddhism without waiting  to

examine  the  difference  between the  two.   The

charge against  Christianity  levelled   by   the

Communists  was  two-fold.   Their  first  charge

against  Christianity and other God base religion

was that  they made people other worldliness  and

made them  suffer poverty in this world.  As  can

be seen from quotations from Buddhism in the next

part of  this  tract  such  a  charge  cannot  be

leveled against Buddhism.

 

The   second   charge   leveled  by   the

Communists   against  Christianity    and   other

religion  cannot  be leveled  against  Buddhism.

This charge  is  summed up in the statement  that

Religion is the opium of the people.  This charge

is based upon the Sermon on the Mount which is to

be found  in the Bible.  The Sermon on the  Mount

sublimates  poverty  and weakness.   It  promises

heaven to  the  poor and the weak.  There  is  no

Sermon on  the Mount to be found in the  Buddha’s

teachings.  His teaching is to acquire wealth.  I

give below   his  Sermon  on   the   subject   to

Anathappindika one of his disciples.

 

Once  Anathapindika  came  to  where   the

Exalted  One  was staying.  Having come  he  made

obeisance  to the Exalted One and took a seat  at

one side and asked ‘Will the Enlightened One tell

what things  are welcome, pleasant, agreeable, to

the householder but which are hard to gain.’

 

The  Enlightened  One   having  heard  the

question  put  to  him said ‘Of such  things  the

first is to acquire wealth lawfully.’

 

‘The  second is to see that your relations

also get their wealth lawfully.’

 

‘The third is to live long and reach great

age.’

 

‘Of   a   truth,   householder,  for   the

attainment  of  these four things, which  in  the

world are welcome, pleasant agreeable but hard to

gain, there  are also four conditions  precedent.

They are  the  blessing of faith the blessing  of

virtuous  conduct, the blessing of liberality and

the blessing of wisdom.’

 

The  Blessing  of virtuous  conduct  which

abstains  from taking life, thieving, unchastity,

lying and partaking of fermented liquor.

 

The blessing of liberality consists in the

householder living with mind freed from the taint

of avarice,  generous, open-handed,  delightening

in gifts,  a good one to be asked and devoted  to

the distribution of gifts.

 

Wherein  consists the blessing of  Wisdom?

He know  that an householder who dwells with mind

overcome  by  greed,  avarice,  ill-will,  sloth,

drowsiness,  distraction  and  flurry,  and  also

about, commits  wrongful deeds and neglects  that

which ought  to be done, and by so doing deprived

of happiness and honour.

 

Greed,   avarice,  ill-will,   sloth   and

drowsiness,  distraction and flurry and doubt are

stains of the mind.  And householder who gets rid

of such stains of the mind acquires great wisdom,

abundant wisdom, clear vision and perfect wisdom.

 

Thus  to  acquire wealth legitimately  and

justly,  earn  by  great   industry,  amassed  by

strength  of  the arm and gained by sweat of  the

brow is  a great blessing.  The householder makes

himself  happy and cheerful and preserves himself

full of happiness;  also makes his parents, wife,

and children,  servants,  and labourers,  friends

and companions  happy and cheerful, and preserves

them full of happiness.

 

The  Russians do not seem to be paying any

attention  to  Buddhism  as an  ultimate  aid  to

sustain Communism when force is withdrawn.

 

Once  the  Russians  were proud  of  their

Communism.   But  they forget that the wonder  of

all wonders   is  that   the  Buddha  established

Communism  so  far  as the  Sangh  was  concerned

without  dictatorship.   It may be that it was  a

communism  on  a  very  small scale  but  it  was

communism  without  dictatorship a miracle  which

Lenin failed  to do as a result the communism  is

no more  in Russia and the USSR has bifurcated in

many nation.

 

The  Buddha’s  method was different.   His

method was  to change the mind of man:  to  alter

his disposition:   so that whatever man does,  he

does it  voluntarily without the use of force  or

compulsion.    His  main  means   to  alter   the

disposition  of  men  was   his  Dhamma  and  the

constant preaching of his Dhamma.  The Buddha way

was not  to force people to do what they did  not

like to  do  although it was good for them.   His

way was  to alter the disposition of men so  that

they would  do  voluntarily what they  would  not

otherwise  to  do.  As a result his  teaching  is

alive and universal for all time for all over the

world.

 

Once   it  has  been   claimed  that   the

Communist  Dictatorship  in Russia has  wonderful

achievements  to  its  credit.  There can  be  no

denial of  it.  That is why we say that a Russian

Dictatorship  would  be  good  for  all  backward

countries.  But this is no argument for permanent

Dictatorship.    Humanity  does   not  only  want

economic  values, it also wants spiritual  values

to be retained.   Permanent Dictatorship has paid

no attention to spiritual values and can not seem

to intent  to Carlyle called Political Economy  a

Pig Philosophy.   Carlyle  was of  course  wrong.

For man   needs  material   comforts.   But   the

Communists  Philosophy seems to be equally  wrong

for the  aim  of  their philosophy  seems  to  be

better than  pigs.   Man must grow materially  as

well as  spiritually  Society has been aiming  to

lay a new foundation was summarized by the French

Revolution  in  three words, Fraternity,  Liberty

and Equality.  The French Revolution was welcomed

because  of  this slogan.  It failed  to  produce

equality.   We  welcome  the  Russian  Revolution

because  it  aims  to produce equality.   But  it

cannot be  too much emphasized that in  producing

equality  society  cannot   afford  to  sacrifice

fraternity  or  liberty.  Equality will be of  no

value without  fraternity  or liberty.  It  seems

that the  three can co-exist only if one  follows

the way  of  the Buddha.  Communism can give  one

but not all.

 

War  there  may be but it must not be  for

selfish  ends.   Why  can’t a property  owner  be

killed if  his ownership leads to misery for  the

rest of   humanity?   Buddha`s   teaching  is  to

acquire wealth lawfully.14

 

The  system  of chaturvarna  which  Hindus

regard as  the  unique  creation  of  this  Aryan

ancestors  is in no since unique. There is nothing

original  about it.  Ancient of Aryans as   well

as Plato  had no conception of the uniqueness  of

every individual Aryans immorality.

 

Buddhism  was  a  revolution.  It  was  as

great a  Revolution  as  the  French  Revolution.

Though it  began  as a Religious  revolution,  it

became more than Religious revolution.  It became

a Social and Political Revolution.  To be able to

realize  how  profound was the character of  this

Revolution,  it  was the time when  morality  was

crushed in  the  society the  revolution  began

its course.   To  use the language of the  French

Revolution,  it is necessary to have a picture of

the ancient regime in India social, political and

economical,  Buddhism offered salvation to women

and depressed classes.

 

His  religion  spread like wild fire.   It

soon became  the religion of the whole of  India.

But it did  not  remain  confined to  India.   It

reached  every  corner of the then  known  world.

All races  accepted  it.  Even the  Afghans  were

once Buddhists.  Buddhism did not remain confined

to Asia  There is evidence to show that  Buddhism

was the religion of Celtic Britain.15

 

British  Government  as well as  Christian

            Missionary  have failed to spread their knowledge

            and religion  to India.  They were never tried to

            contact  with  the masses when it was  very  much

            necessary  to  serve  the   humanity  i.e.    85%

            population  of country of 100 crors now.  What is

            the root  cause  of  this   poor  performance  of

            upliftment?  It is social, religious and economic

            backwardness,  which are not allowing the  people

            to come up.

 

Muslim’s  ruler’s  rule this country  more

            than 762  years  but  they failed to  change  the

            condition of masses Muslim’s lot.  Because those

rulers were unaware  about the social structure or

they were not in favour in social change.  They

depend upon the fate as their counterpart Hindus

did.

 

Other  minor  religion  had  insignificant

role to change the structure of Indian society.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

  1. Writings & Speeches by Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

vol-3, p45&64

  1. ,, p71
  2. ,, p77
  3. ,, p81
  4. ,, p113
  5. ,, p115
  6. ,, p126
  7. ,,  p273-275
  8. ,, p283
  9. ,, p290
  10. ,, p301
  11. ,, p310
  12. ,, p323
  13. ,, p451
  14. Dr.Donald  A Mackenzie,  Buddism  in

pre-christians  Britain, Black &

C,London 1928

 

 

  1. DEMOCRACY & SOCIETY

 

What is democracy? How it can work?

 

  1. Democracy is a form of Government.
  2. Democracy is more than a form of Government.

 

Dr.Ambedkar  described,  out of  this  two

views about  democracy there is no doubt that the

first one is very superficial if not erroneous.

 

There  cannot  be   democratic  Government

unless the  society  for  which it  functions  is

democratic  in its form and structure.  Those who

hold that  democracy need be no more than a  mere

matter of  elections seem to make three mistakes.

One mistake   they  make  is   to  believe   that

Government  is something which is quite  distinct

and separate  from society.  As a matter of  fact

government is not something which is distinct and

separate  from society.  Government is one of the

many institutions  which  Society  rears  and  to

which it  assigns  the function of  carrying  out

some of  the  duties  which   are  necessary  for

collective social life.

 

The second mistake they make lies in their

failure  to  realize  that  a  government  is  to

reflect  the ultimate purposes, aims, objects and

wishes of  society and this can happen only where

the society  in which the Government is rooted is

democratic.    IF  SOCIETY  IS  NOT   DEMOCRATIC, 

            Government  can  never  be.    Where  society  is

divided  into  two  classes   governing  and  the

governed  the  Government  is  bound  to  be  the

government of the governing class.

 

The  third mistake they make is to  forget

that whether  Government  could  be good  or  bad

democratic  or  undemocratic depends to  a  large

extend up  on the instrumentalities  particularly

the Civil Service on which everywhere Government

has to depend  for administering the law.  It all

depends  upon  the social milieu in  which  civil

servants  are nurtured.  If the social milieu  is

undemocratic  the  Government  is   bound  to  be

undemocratic.

 

There  is  one  other   mistake  which  is

responsible  for  the view that for democracy  to

function  it is enough to have a democratic  form

of Government.   To  realize this mistake  it  is

necessary  to have some idea of what is meant  by

good Government.

 

 

  1. WHAT IS A GOOD GOVERNMENT?

 

Good  Government means good laws and  good

administration.   This  is  the essence  of  good

Government.   Nothing  else  can be.   Now  there

cannot be  good Government in this sense if those

who are  invested  with  ruling  power  seek  the

advantage  of  their  own class  instead  of  the

advantage of the whole people or of those who are

downtrodden.

 

Whether  the Democratic form of Government

will result   in  good  will   depend  upon   the

disposition of the individuals composing society.

If the mental  disposition of the individuals  is

democratic  then the democratic form of Government

can be expected to result in good Government.  If

not, democratic  form  of Government  may  easily

become a  dangerous  for of Government.   If  the

individuals  in  a  society  are  separated  into

classes  and  the classes are isolated  from  one

another  and  each  individual   feels  that  his

loyalty to his class must come before his loyalty

to every   thing  else  and   living   in   class

compartments  he becomes class conscious bound to

place the  interests  of  his   class  above  the

interests  of  others,  uses   his  authority  to

pervert  law and justice to promote the interests

of his class  and  for   this  purpose  practises

systematically discrimination against persons who

do not belong  to  his caste in every  sphere  of

life what  can a democratic Government do.  In  a

Society  where classes clash and are charged with

anti-social    feelings     and      spirit    of

aggressiveness,   the  Government    can   hardly

discharge  its task of governing with justice and

fair play.   In  such  a society, Government even

though it  may  in  form be a government  of  the

people and  by  the  people  it can  never  be  a

Government   for  the  people.   It  will  be   a

Government  by a class for a class.  A Government

for the people can be had only where the attitude

of each individual is democratic which means that

each individual  is prepared to treat every other

individual  as his equal and is prepared to  give

him the same liberty which he claims for himself.

The democratic  attitude of mind is the result of

socialization  of the individual in a  democratic

society.   Democratic  society  is  therefore   a

prerequisite    of   a   democratic   Government.

Democratic  Governments  have   toppled  down  in

largely  due  to  the fact that the  society  for

which they were set up was not democratic.

 

Unfortunately  to what extent the task  of

good Government depends upon the mental and moral

disposition  of  its  subjects  has  seldom  been

realized.   Democracy  is more than  a  political

machine.   It is even more than a social  system.

It is an  attitude  of  mind or a  philosophy  of

life.

 

Some  equate  Democracy with equality  and

liberty.   Equality and liberty are no doubt  the

deepest  concern  of  Democracy.   But  the  more

important  question is what sustains equality and

liberty?   Some  would say that it is the law  of

the state  which  sustains equality and  liberty.

This is  not  a  true   answer.   What   sustains

equality and liberty is fellow-felling.  What the

French Revolutionists  called   fraternity.   The

word fraternity  is  not an adequate  expression.

The proper  term  is  what   the  Buddha  called,

Maitree.    Without  Fraternity   Liberty   would

destroy  equality  and   equality  would  destroy

liberty.   If  in  Democracy   liberty  does  not

destroy  equality  and equality does not  destroy

liberty,  it is because at the basis of the  both

there is fraternity.  Fraternity is therefore the

root of Democracy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. DEMOCRACY & RELIGIONS

 

The  foregoing  discussion  is  merely   a

preliminary  to the main question.  That question

is-wherein  lie  the roots of fraternity  without

which Democracy is not possible?  Beyond dispute,

it has its origin in Religion.

 

In  examining  the  possibilities  of  the

origin of    Democracy   or    its    functioning

successfully  one must go to the Religion of  the

people and  ask-does it teach fraternity or  does

it not?  If it does, the chances for a democratic

Government  are  great.   If  it  does  not,  the

chances  are  poor.  Of course other factors  may

affect the  possibilities.  But if fraternity  is

not there,  there  is nothing to built  democracy

  1. Why  did Democracy not grow in India?   That

is the main   question.   The   answer  is  quite

simple.   The  Hindu  Religion   does  not  teach

fraternity.   Instead  it   teaches  division  of

society   into   classes  or   varnas   and   the

maintenance  of separate class consciousness.  In

such a system  where  is the room for  Democracy?

The Hindu  social  system is undemocratic not  by

accident.  It is designed to be undemocratic.  It

division  of society into varnas and castes,  and

of castes  and outcasts are not theories but are

decrees.   They are all barricades raised against

democracy.

 

 

 

 

  1. HINDUISM

 

It  is  intended  for the common  mass  of

Hindus who  need  to be awakened to know in  what

quagmire  the  Brahmins have placed them  and  to

lead them  on to that road of rational  thinking.

Other communities  are misguided by the Brahmins.

Indeed the  Brahmins have made Religions a matter

of trade and commerce for their livelihood.  They

started divide and rule policy for the society in

the name of religion.

 

There  is  no reason either to call  Vedas

sacred or infallible.  The Brahmins have invested

it with  sanctity and infallibility only  because

by a later  interpolation  of what is called  the

purushesukta,  the Vedas have made them the lords

of the earth.

 

Hindu  mind  must be freed from  the  hold

which the silly ideas propagated by the Brahmins,

have on  them  by propagate the Veda as  sacred.

Without  this  liberation   from  Brahminism  the

people of  India has no future.  They will not be

able to  practice  the brotherhood to cement  the

society which has cracked by Brahminism.

 

If  we consider the other religion like  a

Parsi is a follower of Zoroastrian.  Christian is

a follower  of  Jesus.  Muslim is a  follower  of

Islam.  Hindus many Gods ?  Why?  Even at present

we can find  several people are called themselves

are God.

 

What  is the origin of Vedas?  There is no

one conception  regarding  origin of the veda  is

found common  into all vedas.  There are as  much

as 11 Ideas as follows.

 

  1. Vedas as originating from the mystical

sacrifice  of purusha.  ii.  Vedas as resting  on

Skambha.   iii.   Vedas as springing from  Indra.

  1. Vedas  as  cut or scraped off from he in  as

being his  hair  and  his mouth.   v.   Vedas  as

produced  from time.  vi.  Vedas as produced from

Agni, Vayu  and Surya.  vii.  Vedas as  springing

from prajapati  and the waters.  viii.  Vedas  as

being the  breath of Brahma.  ix.  Vedas as being

dug by the  Gods out of mind ocean.  x.  Vedas as

being the  hair of prajapati beard and xi.  Vedas

as being  the  offspring  of   vach.   The  three

authors  of the vedas were Buffoons, Knaves,  and

Demons.

 

Therefore,  why did the Brahmins make such

a disparate  attempt for establishing a disparate

conclusion  to  make Vedas as sacred?   The  only

reason it  will  help  their supremacy  over  the

others.

 

Goutama  Buddha challenge the authority of

Vedas and  says “The Veda has no authority  since

it has the    defects   of     falsehood,    self

contradiction  and tautology” it stated in Purbha

mimansa.

 

Here  some  of the verses from the  Veda’s

are mention  here to further clarify the sanctity

of Veda’s to call it as sacred.

 

R.V.I-32,”I  declare  the heroic deeds  of

Indra.   R.V.I-VII 104,15 “May I die today, if  I

am a Yatudhana.   This prove vedas has no ethical

or spiritual value.

 

“May  Agni, the destroyer of the Rakshasas

consenting  to our prayer, drive hence (the  evil

spirit)  who  (in the form of)  sickness  assails

thine embryo, who as the disease durnaman,assails

thy womb.”

 

“May  we exterminate from hence (the  evil

spirit) who destroys the impregnating energy, the

germ as  it settles, the moving embryo, who seeks

to destroy ( the babe) when born.”

 

“May  we exterminate from hence (the  evil

spirit)  who  separates  thy   thighs,  who  lies

between  husband and wife, who entering thy womb,

devours  (the  seeds).  May we  exterminate  from

hence (the  evil  spirit)  who  in  the  form  of

brother,  husband, or paramour, approaches  thee,

and seeks to destroy thy offspring.”

 

“May  we exterminate from hence (the  evil

spirit)  who  , having beguiled thee by sleep  or

darkness,  approaches thee, and seeks to  destroy

thy offspring.”

 

Some  more hymns or prayers that are to be

found in the Rig-Veda are as following:

 

  1. Oh!  God Vayu, how very beautiful you

are.  We   have   prepared   the   Somarasa   (an

intoxicating  drink) with spices.  Pray come  and

drink it and grant us our prayers Rig.Ved.I 1.2.1

 

  1. Oh!  God Indra.  Bring ye wealth  for

our protection.   Let  the wealth that you  bring

make us  happy be increasing and everlasting  and

help us to kill our enemies- I.  1.8.1.

 

  1. Oh!   ye  people   whenever  you  are

performing  your  yajna, fail not to  praise  the

Gods Indra  and Agni.  Advance their position and

sing their  praises  in  the  Gayatri  Meter-  I.

21.2.

 

  1. Oh!  ye Agni, please bring the  wives

of the Gods and Twashta who are eager to come and

drink Soma- I.  22.9.

 

  1. We pray that the Gods’ wives come  to

us with   all  available  wings   and  with   all

happiness-I.21.11.

 

  1. I  am  praying the  wives  of  Indra,

Varuna and  Agni  to  come to my place  to  drink

Soma.

 

  1. Oh!   Varuna,  we  are   supplicating

before you  to remove your anger.  Oh!  ye Asura,

you are   all   wise,  relieve    us   from   our

sins-I.24.14.

 

  1. Our  Somarasa  has been  prepared  by

women who  have churned it backward and  forward.

Oh!  ye  Indra we pray you to come and drink this

Soma-I.  28.3.

 

  1. Your  enemies  who do  not  make  any

offering  to  you  may  disappear  and  let  your

followers  who  do prosper.  Oh!  Indra  give  us

best cows  and best horses and make us famous  in

the world.-I.  29.4.

 

  1. Oh!   Agni save us  from  Rakshasas,

from cunning  enemies, from those who hate us and

want to kill us.  I.36.15.

 

  1.   Oh!  Indra, you are a hero.  Come and

drink the  Soma we have prepared and be ready  to

give us  wealth.  Loot the wealth of those who do

not make  you  any offering and give the same  to

us-I.  81.8.9.

 

  1. Oh!  Indra, drink this Soma which is

the best,    giving    immortality    and    most

intoxicating.-I.  84-4.

 

  1. Oh!   Adityas, you come to  give  us

your blessings.  You give us victory in war.  You

are wealthy.   You  are  charitable.  Just  as  a

chariot is pulled through a difficult path in the

same way  you  pull  us through  our  dangers.-I.

106-22.

 

  1. Oh!  ye Marutas….  your  followers

are singing your praises.  Be pleased to come and

sit on the grass-cushion prepared for you for the

purpose of drinking Soma.-VII.  57-1-2.

 

  1. Oh!  ye Mitra-Varuna we have offered

you worship  in the Yajna.  Be pleased to  accept

it and save us from all dangers-VII.  60.12.

 

These  are are only a few verses out of  a

large bundle  which form the Rig-Veda.  But there

can be no  doubt that this sample small as it  is

true to bulk.

 

I  may  state  that  I  have  deliberately

omitted  a good many obscene passages to be found

in the Rig-Veda  and Yajur-Veda.  Those who  have

any curiosity  in  the matter might look  up  the

conversation between Surya and Pushan in Rig-Veda

Mandal X.85.37  and between Indra and Indrani  in

Rig-Veda.  Mandal X.86.6

 

The   Atharva-Veda   is   nothing  but   a

collection of sorcery, black-magic and medicine.1

 

The  Vedas  may be useful as a  source  of

information  regarding  the  social life  of  the

Aryans.   As  a Picture of primitive life  it  is

full of curiosity but there is nothing elevating.

There are more vices and a few virtues.

 

Vedas  contain nothing that can be said to

be spiritually or morally elevating.  Neither the

subject  matter nor contents of the Vedas justify

the infallibility  with  which   they  have  been

invested.   Why then did the Brahmins struggle so

hard to   clothe   them     with   sanctity   and

infallibility ?

 

There  must have been some definite motive

which led  the  Brahmins  to give the  Smritis  a

status superior to that of the Vedas.2

 

Infighting   between  the   supporter   of

Vedanta  &  Veda.  Some says if a person  studies

the Vedas  only but holds the smriti in  contempt

he would be immediately condemned to be born as a

beast for 21 generations.

 

It  is a riddle to find that the  Brahmins

who were  opponents of the Vedanta should  become

subsequently  the supporters and upholders of the

Vedanta.

 

Why did the Vedic Brahmins compromise with

the Vedantists   but  did   not  compromise  with

charvak  and  Brahaspati.   It is a  Riddle  that

awaits explanation.

 

Why  did  Badarayana concede to Jamini  on

the question  of infallibility of the Vedas which

were opposed  to the upanisheds?  why he did  not

stand for  truth.   The  whole truth  this  is  a

Riddle?3

 

What  made the Brahmins give up Indra  and

become devotees  of Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesh  ?

Were the reasons for transfer of loyalties by the

Brahmins spiritual or commercial?

 

Jaimini  denounces  Vedanta  as  a   false

shastra,  a  snare  and   a  delusion,  something

superficial unnecessary and insubstantial.

 

In  personality clash we found that  Brahm

was punished  by  Shiva  for making claim  he  is

first born.

 

Regarding the number of Avataras there are

different  views  found like as Harivamsa says  6

avatars.  Narayani Akhyan says 10 ” Varaha purana

says 0 ” Vayu purana says 12″ Bhagwat purana says

22 ”

 

The  Vedic  Goddesses never took  part  in

wars against  the Asuras which were fought by the

Vedic Gods.    But  the   Puranic  Goddesses  the

situation  has  undergone a complete change.   In

the Vedic times the wars with the Asuras are left

to be fought  by  the Gods in the  Puranic  times

they are  left to be fought by the Goddess.   Why

this change?   When  God were there to fight  the

Asuras,  why were the Goddesses enrolled for this

purpose.  It seems that the Gods could not defend

themselves  against the Asuras and had to beg  of

their wives to come to their rescue.

 

How  can  such  cowardly   Gods  have  any

powers?   If they had none, how can they give  it

to their  wives ?  To say that Goddesses must  be

worshipped  because they have Sakti is not merely

a riddle   but   an   absurdity.    It   requires

explanation  why  this  doctrine   of  Sakti  was

invented.   Was  it to put it a new commodity  on

the market  that the Brahmins started the worship

of the Goddesses and degraded the Gods?

 

We  have  a cruel contrast of a  bloodless

God having  a blood thirsty Goddess as his  wife.

Is not a riddle ?  why did the Brahmins do such a

thing ?

 

A  man is called Brahman only when he  has

knowledge of Brahma.  The ambrosia of the Gods is

their Brahma,  and  on  earth it  is  arrack  and

because one attains through it the condition of a

God, therefore is that liquor called sura.

 

The  difference between the Aryans and the

Non-Aryans  was  cultural  and not  racial.   The

cultural  difference  centred round  two  points.

The Aryans   believed   in    Chaturvarna.    The

Non-Aryans  were  opposed  to   it.   The  Aryans

believed  in  the  performance of  Yajna  as  the

essence  of their religion.  The Non-Aryans  were

opposed  to  Yajana.   Examining   the  story  of

Daksha’s  Yajan in the light of this facts it  is

quite obvious  that  Shiva was a Non-Vedic and  a

Non-Aryan  God.   Brahmins refused to  recognized

Shiva as the God to be worshiped or it shows that

Shiva was  against the Yajna system of  Brahmins.

The question is why did the Brahmins, the pillars

of Vedic culture, adopt Shiva as their God ?4

 

What  made the Brahmins dissociate  Vishnu

from Linga worship and fasten it on to Shiva ?

 

 

 

  1. ISLAM IN INDIA

 

What is Islam said about humanity?  Is the

hate-filled  war cry of jehad(holy war) has  come

to symbolize?   The  use   of   communally-loaded

terror which  is likely to emanate naturally from

states calling  themselves Islamic.  Simply  put,

the notion  of  jehad  has tended to  give  Islam

itself a  bad  name in the modern world in  which

democracy  is broadly perceived as an  attainable

political   ideal.    The   activities   of   the

weapons-flaunting lumpen conglomerates in certain

West Asian   countries,  have   only  tended   to

strengthen  this impression.  As a result of this

war crying jehad violent are spread in Muslim and

Christian in all most all over the world where it

is Chechnea or Indonesia.  Muslims themselves are

fighting in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and

other places  all over the world though all these

countries  populations are Muslim.  Why they  are

fighting  for  each  other?    Umar  Shihab,  the

co-chairman  of the Indonesian Ulemas Council was

reported by Reuters as saying, “I reject jehad if

it means to collect thousands of people to gather

around and  cry  out expressions of hate to  take

revenge.” Further he said “I don’t want to have a

war to take revenge because it is a sin.” Indeed,

going a  step  further the theologian said  jehad

should instead    be    allowed    against    the

‘provokers’,   that  is,   those  who   instigate

blood-letting.   What  a refreshing  change  from

what we are used to hearing in the subcontinent!

 

In  India,  Urdu newspapers  –  presumably

read more  by Muslims than others-are said to  be

replete with commentaries critical of jehad calls

given by politically diabolical criminal elements

from across  the border, and farther afield  from

Taliban-run  Afghanistan.   But it is true  those

who style  themselves  as   social  or  political

leaders  of  the Muslim community  are  generally

found to   be   failing   in   their   democratic

obligation to publicly snub these state-sponsored

organized  thugs.   If  they   were  to  be  more

forthcoming,  they  could radically  relieve  the

psychological  pressure sought to be generated by

Hindu communalists.    It   is    observed    the

fundamentalists  are  very few in number  in  all

most all  religions but they are very  aggressive

and the peace loving citizens do not want to take

any risk.   As a result these fundamentalist  are

doing their barbarian act.

 

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.11

 

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   sway.   As   Now

Pakistan  base  intruder   are  fighting  against

Indian soldier  to capture India on the basis  of

that theory.  How a foolish stratagy?

 

Some Ulemas in Indonesia has interpret the

jehad as  “striving  hard to help people who  are

suffering”.   Definitely  it   reflects  a  truly

modernist outlook in which material conditions of

life take precedence over the retrograde politics

of exclusiveness.   Religious code must be change

with the  time  and   situation,  otherwise  that

religion   will   die  in    future,   like   the

Zoroastrian.      Indonesia       classify     as

Dar-us-Salam(Land   of  peace,i.e.    where   the

Faithful  predominate), and not  Darul-Harab(Land

where the  faithful  do not command  majority  or

power),  its leading theologians could well  have

chosen to go the other way in politically charged

times, but they obviously preferred to wear their

democratic    colours    on     their     sleeve.

Incidentally,  this is not a tradition unknown to

India.   In the days preceding independence, when

Jinnah’s  politics  were seeking to undercut  the

worth of  the  freedom movement, a cleric of  the

Deoband  school,  Maulana Azad Subhani,  used  to

preach the  organizing of jehad against  economic

disparity  and for social justice.   Predictably,

he came  to be known as the ‘Red Maulana’  though

he was no communist.

 

Another  cleric  Md.Maulana   Azad,  spoke

against  the notion Dar-ul-Harb itself, saying it

had no place in the changed modern context in the

worldwide.   After all, the idea derives from the

medieval  era when there might be territories  in

which the  life, and the liberty to the  worship,

of Muslims  of  faith might be unprotected.   The

Maulana,  who  was an Islamic  scholar,  recalled

three agreements  which  the   prophet   Mohammed

himself  made  with non Muslim leaders  in  whose

territories  Muslim could live in peace, although

they were a minority.  Interestingly, the wars in

which the  Prophet engaged in against non Muslims

(non believer) were known as Ghazwa, not jehad.

 

Fear  and hatred, how would Mohammed  have

responded  to  the hijacking of innocents in  the

name of  jehad?  Today Kashmir is a vale of tears

and graves,  a  place that holds no hope for  its

young.   To  some, the idea of an India that  can

embrace Kashmir within a magnificent diversity is

an affront to be challenged with violence, by war

at Kargil,  by assault in Kandahar.  Cauldrons of

hate, fuelled  from  across  a  border  drawn  in

blood, fanned  from  within by Indians  who  also

demand that  this nation’s territory be redefined

as belonging  to  some,  more   than  to  others.

Tearing  relentlessly at India’s fiber, both want

it rewoven in a different hue.  The enemy without

is held  off  at gun point.  The enemy within  is

unrestrained.    Hatred,  cold   and   unashamed,

seeking  legitimacy in the trappings of the  very

faith proclaimed from all religion as symbolic of

the sanctity of all humankind.

 

In  his time Mohammed entered into several

agreements  for co-existence with Jews and  other

non-Muslims.   The concept of ‘holy war’ was  yet

to arrive.  Historically, it appears to have made

its entry  only  after the Prophet, i.e.   during

the reign  of  the first four Caliphs  when  Arab

Islam had  sufficiently  gained in  strength  and

aspired   for  greater   political  cohesion  and

expansion.    Then   the   message   was   clear:

conquered  peoples were to accept either Islam or

a position  lower than Muslims.  The idea  behind

this bait,  clearly  politically   inspired,  was

clear.   Wounds that guns cannot heal now cry for

caring.   Holy  wars and holy  retribution,  will

that be  the  curse on a new generation in a  new

century.   Is  this place forlorn  and  forgotten

this night?   Or is its dark silence symbolic  of

people who  were walked into history?   Questions

await answers  as I close a wicker gate and  step

back into  the city.  But Muslims were not  alone

in calling   their   power    directed   military

campaigns jehads.  The Christian forces of Europe

called them  “holy  wars”.  Therefore, it is  all

the more  ironical  that  in these  modern  times

jehad calls  should  emanate from societies  that

are almost wholly Islamic.4a

 

Take  the  caste system.  Islam speaks  of

brotherhood.  Everybody infers that Islam must be

free from  slavery and caste.  Regarding  slavery

nothing  needs  to be said.  It stands  abolished

now by law.   But  while it existed much  of  its

support  was  derived  from   Islam  and  Islamic

countries.    While  the   prescriptions  by  the

Prophet regarding the just and human treatment of

slaves contained  in the Koran are  praiseworthy,

there is  nothing  whatever in Islam  that  lends

support  to the abolition of this curse.  As  Sir

W.Muir has well said :-

 

”   …   rather,   while  lightening,  he

riveted the fetter…  There is no obligation on

a Muslim to release his slaves …”

 

But  if  slavery  has  gone,  caste  among

Musalmans  has remained.  As an illustration  one

may take  the  conditions   prevalent  among  the

Bengal Muslims.  The Superintendent of the Census

for 1901  for the Province of Bengal records  the

following interesting facts regarding the Muslims

of Bengal:-

 

“The   conventional   division    of   the

Mahomedans  into  four   tribes-  Sheikh,  Saiad,

Moghul and  Pathan – has very little  application

to Bengal.   The Mohamedans themselves  recognize

two main  social divisions, (1) Ashraf or  Sharaf

and (2) Ajlaf.  Ashraf means ‘noble’ and includes

all undoubted  descendants  of   foreigners   and

converts  from  high  caste  Hindus.   All  other

Mahomedans  including the occupational groups and

all converts  of  lower ranks, are known  by  the

contemptuous  terms,  Ajlaf’, ‘wretches’ or  mean

people’;   they  are also called Kamina or  Itar,

‘base’ or   Rasil,   a   corruption   of   Rizal,

‘worthless’.   In  some  places  a  third  class,

called Arzal  or ‘lowest of all,’ is added.  With

them no other Mahomedan would associate, and they

are forbidden  to  enter  the Mosque to  use  the

public burial ground.

 

“Within these groups there are castes with

social precedence  of exactly the same nature  as

one finds among the Hindus.

 

  1. Ashraf or better class Mahomedans.

 

(1)  Saiads.   (2) Sheikhs.  (3)  Pathans.

(4) Moghul.  (5) Mallik.  (6) Mirza.

 

  1. Ajlaf or lower class Mahomedans.

 

(1)  Cultivating  Sheikhs, and others  who

were originally  Hindus but who do not belong  to

any functional   group,  and   have  not   gained

admittance  to the Ashraf community, e.g.  Pirali

and Thakrai.

 

(2) Darzi, Jolaha, Fakir, and Rangrez.

 

(3) Barhi, Bhathiara, Chik, Churihar, Dai,

Dhawa, Dhunia, Gaddi, Kalal, Kasai, Kula Kunjara,

Laheri, Mahifarosh, Mallah, Naliya, Nikari.

 

(4)  Abdal,  Bako, Bediya,  Bhat,  Chamba,

Dafali,  Dhobi,  Hajjam,  Mucho,  Nagarchi,  Nat,

Panwaria, Madaria, Tuntia.

 

III.  Arzal or degraded class.

 

Bhanar,  Halalkhor, Hijra, Kasbi, Lalbegi,

Maugta, Mehtar.”5

 

The Census Superintendent mentions another

feature  of the Muslim social system, namely, the

prevalence of the “panchayet system.” 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.”6

 

Similar  facts  from  other  Provinces  of

India could  be  gathered from  their  respective

Census Reports  and  those  who are  curious  may

refer to  them.   But  the facts for  Bengal  are

enough to  show  that the Mahomedans observe  not

only caste but also untouchability.

 

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 p-278,7

 

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.

 

There is thus a 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.8

 

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.

 

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:-

 

“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   a   crystallization,  inert   and

impenetrable.    It   is    unchangeable;     and

political,  social  or economic changes  have  no

repercussion upon it.

 

“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.

 

“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 any where  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.

 

How  Muslim politics has become  perverted

is shown by the attitude of the Muslim leaders to

the political reforms in the Indian States at the

time of division of India.  The Muslims and their

leaders  carried  on  a great agitation  for  the

introduction  of representative government in the

Hindu State  of  Kashmir.  The same  Muslims  and

their leaders   are   deadly   opposed   to   the

introduction  of  representative  governments  in

other Muslim States.  The reason for this strange

attitude  is  quite  simple.    In  all  matters,

determining  question with the Muslims is how  it

will affect the Muslims vis-a-vis the Hindus.  If

representative  government can help the  Muslims,

they will  demand  it, and fight for it.  In  the

State of  Kashmir  the ruler is a Hindu, but  the

majority  of  the  subjects   are  Muslims.   The

Muslims  fought for representative government  in

Kashmir,  because  representative  government  in

Kashmir  meant the transfer of power from a Hindu

king to  the  Muslim  masses.   In  other  Muslim

States, the ruler is a Muslim but the majority of

his subjects   are   Hindus.   In   such   States

representative  government means the transfer  of

power from  a  Muslim ruler to the Hindu  masses,

and that   is  why  the   Muslims   support   the

introduction  of representative government in one

case and  oppose it in the other.  The dominating

consideration with Muslims is not democracy.  The

dominating  consideration  is how democracy  with

majority  rule  will affect the Muslims in  their

struggle  against the Hindus.  Will it strengthen

them or  will  it  weaken   them?   If  democracy

weakens them, they will not have democracy.  They

will prefer  the rotten state to continue in  the

Muslim States rather than weaken the Muslim ruler

in his hold upon his Hindu subjects.

 

The political and social stagnation in the

Muslim community can be explained by one and only

one reason.   The  Muslims think that the  Hindus

and Muslims  must  perpetually   struggle;    the

Hindus to  establish  their  dominance  over  the

Muslims  and  the  Muslims   to  establish  their

historical  position as the ruling community-that

in this  straggle  the  strong will win,  and  to

ensure strength they must suppress or put in cold

storage  everything  which causes  dissension  in

their ranks.

 

If  the  Muslims in other  countries  have

undertaken  the  task of reforming their  society

and the  Muslims of India have refused to do  so,

it is because  the former are free from  communal

and political  clashes  with  rival  communities,

while the latter are not

 

It  is  not  that  this  blind  spirit  of

conservatism which dose not recognize the need of

repair to  the social structure has taken hold of

the Muslims  only.   It  has taken  hold  of  the

Hindus also.    The  Hindus  at   one  time   did

recognize  that  without   social  efficiency  no

permanent  progress  in other fields of  activity

was possible, that, owing to the mischief wrought

by evil  customs Hindu Society was not in a state

of efficiency  and that ceaseless efforts must be

made to eradicate these evils.9

 

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 has 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.10

 

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.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

  1. Writing & Speeches by Dr.Ambedkar

vol-4, p50

  1. ,, p44-57
  2. ,, p160
  3. ,, p163

4a.  H.T.   4.2.2000

  1. ,, vol-8, p228
  2. ,, p229
  3. The  Chamar” Written by W.G.Brige p-238
  4. ,, p232
  5. ,, p233
  6. ,, p270
  7. ,,  p294

*Nationality and other  Essays.

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