| [4:] I have no desire to ascend the platform of the Hindus,
to do within their sight what I have been doing within their hearing.
If I am here it is because of your choice and not because of my wish.
Yours is a cause of social reform. That cause has always made an appeal
to me, and it is because of this that I felt I ought not to refuse an
opportunity of helping the cause—especially when you think that I can
help it. Whether what I am going to say today will help you in any way
to solve the problem you are grappling with, is for you to judge. All I
hope to do is to place before you my views on the problem.
2 [Why social reform is necessary for political reform]
|
|
[1:] The path of social reform, like the path
to heaven (at any rate, in India), is strewn with many difficulties.
Social reform in India has few friends and many critics. The critics
fall into two distinct classes. One class consists of political
reformers, and the other of the Socialists.
|
|
[2:] It was at one time recognized that
without social efficiency, no permanent progress in the other fields of
activity was possible; that owing to mischief wrought by evil customs, Hindu
Society was not in a state of efficiency; and that ceaseless efforts
must be made to eradicate these evils. It was due to the recognition of
this fact that the birth of the National Congress was accompanied by the foundation of the Social Conference.
While the Congress was concerned with defining the weak points in the
political organisation of the country, the Social Conference was engaged
in removing the weak points in the social organisation of the Hindu
Society. For some time the Congress and the Conference worked as two
wings of one common activity, and they held their annual sessions in the
same pandal.
|
|
[3:] But soon the two wings developed into
two parties, a 'political reform party' and a 'social reform party',
between whom there raged a fierce controversy. The 'political reform
party' supported the National Congress, and the 'social reform party' supported the Social Conference.
The two bodies thus became two hostile camps. The point at issue was
whether social reform should precede political reform. For a decade the
forces were evenly balanced, and the battle was fought without victory
to either side.
|
|
[4:] It was, however, evident that the fortunes of the Social Conference
were ebbing fast. The gentlemen who presided over the sessions of the
Social Conference lamented that the majority of the educated Hindus
were for political advancement and indifferent to social reform; and
that while the number of those who attended the Congress was very large,
and the number who did not attend but who sympathized with it was even
larger, the number of those who attended the Social Conference was very
much smaller.
|
|
[5:] This indifference, this thinning of its
ranks, was soon followed by active hostility from the politicians. Under
the leadership of the late Mr. Tilak, the courtesy with which the Congress allowed the Social Conference the use of its pandal
was withdrawn, and the spirit of enmity went to such a pitch that when
the Social Conference desired to erect its own pandal, a threat to burn
the pandal was held out by its opponents. Thus in the course of time the
party in favour of political reform won, and the Social Conference
vanished and was forgotten.
|
|
[6:] The speech delivered by Mr. W. C. Bonnerji in 1892 at Allahabad, as President of the eighth session of the Congress, sounds like a funeral oration on the death of the Social Conference, and is so typical of the Congress attitude that I venture to quote from it the following extract. Mr. Bonnerji said:
"I for one have no patience with those who say we shall not be fit for
political reform until we reform our social system. I fail to see any
connection between the two. . .Are we not fit (for political reform)
because our widows remain unmarried and our girls are given in marriage
earlier than in other countries? because our wives and daughters do not
drive about with us visiting our friends? because we do not send our
daughters to Oxford and Cambridge?" (Cheers [from the audience])
|
|
[7:] I have stated the case for political reform as put by Mr. Bonnerji. There were many who were happy that the victory went to the Congress.
But those who believe in the importance of social reform may ask, is an
argument such as that of Mr. Bonnerji final? Does it prove that the
victory went to those who were in the right? Does it prove conclusively
that social reform has no bearing on political reform? It will help us
to understand the matter if I state the other side of the case. I will
draw upon the treatment of the untouchables for my facts.
|
|
[8:] Under the rule of the Peshwas in the Maratha country, the untouchable was not allowed to use the public streets if a Hindu
was coming along, lest he should pollute the Hindu by his shadow. The
untouchable was required to have a black thread either on his wrist or
around his neck, as a sign or a mark to prevent the Hindus
from getting themselves polluted by his touch by mistake. In Poona, the
capital of the Peshwa, the untouchable was required to carry, strung
from his waist, a broom to sweep away from behind himself the dust he
trod on, lest a Hindu walking on the same dust should be polluted. In Poona,
the untouchable was required to carry an earthen pot hung around his
neck wherever he went—for holding his spit, lest his spit falling on the
earth should pollute a Hindu who might unknowingly happen to tread on
it.
|
|
[9:] Let me take more recent facts. The tyranny practised by the Hindus upon the Balais, an untouchable community in Central India, will serve my purpose. You will find a report of this in the Times of India of 4th January 1928. The correspondent of the Times of India reported that high-caste Hindus—viz., Kalotas, Rajputs and Brahmins, including the Patels and Patwaris of the villages of Kanaria, Bicholi-Hafsi, Bicholi-Mardana, and about 15 other villages in the Indore district (of the Indore State)—informed
the Balais of their respective villages that if they wished to live
among them, they must conform to the following rules:
- Balais must not wear gold-lace-bordered pugrees.
- They must not wear dhotis with coloured or fancy borders.
- They
must convey intimation [=information] of the death of any Hindu to
relatives of the deceased—no matter how far away these relatives may be
living.
- In all Hindu marriages, Balais must play music before the processions and during the marriage.
- Balai women must not wear gold or silver ornaments; they must not wear fancy gowns or jackets.
- Balai women must attend all cases of confinement [=childbirth] of Hindu women.
- Balais must render services without demanding remuneration, and must accept whatever a Hindu is pleased to give.
- If the Balais do not agree to abide by these terms, they must clear out of the villages.
|
|
[10:] The Balais refused to comply; and the Hindu
element proceeded against them. Balais were not allowed to get water
from the village wells; they were not allowed to let go their cattle to
graze. Balais were prohibited from passing through land owned by a
Hindu, so that if the field of a Balai was surrounded by fields owned by
Hindus, the Balai could have no access to his own field. The Hindus
also let their cattle graze down the fields of Balais. The Balais
submitted petitions to the Darbar[=Court of Indore] against these
persecutions; but as they could get no timely relief, and the oppression
continued, hundreds of Balais with their wives and children were
obliged to abandon their homes—in which their ancestors had lived for
generations—and to migrate to adjoining States: that is, to villages in Dhar, Dewas, Bagli, Bhopal, Gwalior and other States. What happened to them in their new homes may for the present be left out of our consideration.
|
|
[11:] The incident at Kavitha in Gujarat happened only last year. The Hindus of Kavitha ordered the untouchables
not to insist upon sending their children to the common village school
maintained by Government. What sufferings the untouchables of Kavitha
had to undergo, for daring to exercise a civic right against the wishes
of the Hindus, is too well known to need detailed description. Another
instance occurred in the village of Zanu, in the Ahmedabad district of Gujarat. In November 1935 some untouchable women of well-to-do families started fetching water in metal pots. The Hindus
looked upon the use of metal pots by untouchables as an affront to
their dignity, and assaulted the untouchable women for their impudence.
|
|
[12:] A most recent event is reported from the village of Chakwara in Jaipur State. It seems from the reports that have appeared in the newspapers that an untouchable of Chakwara who had returned from a pilgrimage had arranged to give a dinner to his fellow untouchables
of the village, as an act of religious piety. The host desired to treat
the guests to a sumptuous meal, and the items served included ghee
(butter) also. But while the assembly of untouchables was engaged in partaking of the food, the Hindus in their hundreds, armed with lathis,
rushed to the scene, despoiled the food, and belaboured the
untouchables—who left the food they had been served with and ran away
for their lives. And why was this murderous assault committed on
defenceless untouchables? The reason given is that the untouchable host
was impudent enough to serve ghee, and his untouchable guests were
foolish enough to taste it. Ghee is undoubtedly a luxury for the rich.
But no one would think that consumption of ghee was a mark of high
social status. The Hindus
of Chakwara thought otherwise, and in righteous indignation avenged
themselves for the wrong done to them by the untouchables, who insulted
them by treating ghee as an item of their food—which they ought to have
known could not be theirs, consistently with the dignity of the Hindus.
This means that an untouchable must not use ghee, even if he can afford
to buy it, since it is an act of arrogance towards the Hindus. This
happened on or about the 1st of April 1936!
|
|
[13:] Having stated the facts, let me now state the case for social reform. In doing this, I will follow Mr. Bonnerji
as nearly as I can, and ask the political-minded Hindus, "Are you fit
for political power even though you do not allow a large class of your
own countrymen like the untouchables
to use public schools? Are you fit for political power even though you
do not allow them the use of public wells? Are you fit for political
power even though you do not allow them the use of public streets? Are
you fit for political power even though you do not allow them to wear
what apparel or ornaments they like? Are you fit for political power
even though you do not allow them to eat any food they like?" I can ask a
string of such questions. But these will suffice.
|
|
[14:] I wonder what would have been the
reply of Mr. Bonnerji. I am sure no sensible man will have the courage
to give an affirmative answer. Every Congressman who repeats the dogma
of Mill
that one country is not fit to rule another country, must admit that
one class is not fit to rule another class. How is it then that the
'social reform party' lost the battle? To understand this correctly it
is necessary to take note of the kind of social reform which the
reformers were agitating for. In this connection it is necessary to make
a distinction between social reform in the sense of the reform of the Hindu
family, and social reform in the sense of the reorganization and
reconstruction of the Hindu Society. The former has a relation to widow
remarriage, child marriage, etc., while the latter relates to the
abolition of the Caste System.
|
|
[15:] The Social Conference was a body which mainly concerned itself with the reform of the high-caste Hindu family. It consisted mostly of enlightened high-caste Hindus
who did not feel the necessity for agitating for the abolition of
Caste, or had not the courage to agitate for it. They felt quite
naturally a greater urge to remove such evils as enforced widowhood,
child marriages, etc.—evils which prevailed among them and which were
personally felt by them. They did not stand up for the reform of the
Hindu Society. The battle that was fought centered round the question of
the reform of the family. It did not relate to social reform in the
sense of the break-up of the Caste System.
It [=the break-up of the Caste System] was never put in issue by the
reformers. That is the reason why the Social Reform Party lost.
|
|
[16:] I am aware that this argument cannot
alter the fact that political reform did in fact gain precedence over
social reform. But the argument has this much value (if not more): it
explains why social reformers lost the battle. It also helps us to
understand how limited was the victory which the 'political reform
party' obtained over the 'social reform party', and to understand that
the view that social reform need not precede political reform is a view
which may stand only when by social reform is meant the reform of the
family. That political reform cannot with impunity take precedence over
social reform in the sense of the reconstruction of society, is a thesis
which I am sure cannot be controverted.
|
|
[17:] That the makers of political
constitutions must take account of social forces is a fact which is
recognized by no less a person than Ferdinand Lassalle, the friend and co-worker of Karl Marx. In addressing a Prussian audience in 1862, Lassalle said:
The constitutional questions are in the first instance not questions of right but questions of might. The actual constitution
of a country has its existence only in the actual condition of force
which exists in the country: hence political constitutions have value
and permanence only when they accurately express those conditions of
forces which exist in practice within a society.
|
|
[18:] But it is not necessary to go to Prussia. There is evidence at home. What is the significance of the Communal Award,
with its allocation of political power in defined proportions to
diverse classes and communities? In my view, its significance lies in
this: that political constitution
must take note of social organisation. It shows that the politicians
who denied that the social problem in India had any bearing on the
political problem were forced to reckon with the social problem in
devising the Constitution. The Communal Award is, so to say, the nemesis
following upon the indifference to and neglect of social reform. It is a
victory for the Social Reform Party which shows that, though defeated,
they were in the right in insisting upon the importance of social
reform. Many, I know, will not accept this finding. The view is
current—and it is pleasant to believe in it—that the Communal Award is
unnatural and that it is the result of an unholy alliance between the
minorities and the bureaucracy. I do not wish to rely on the Communal
Award as a piece of evidence to support my contention, if it is said
that it is not good evidence.
|
|
[19:] Let us turn to Ireland. What does the history of Irish Home
Rule show? It is well-known that in the course of the negotiations between the representatives
of Ulster and Southern Ireland, Mr. Redmond, the representative of Southern Ireland, in order
to bring Ulster into a Home Rule Constitution
common to the whole of Ireland, said to the representatives of Ulster:
"Ask any political safeguards you like and you shall have them." What
was the reply that Ulstermen gave? Their reply was, "Damn your
safeguards, we don't want to be ruled by you on any terms." People who
blame the minorities in India ought to consider what would have happened
to the political aspirations of the majority, if the minorities had
taken the attitude which Ulster took. Judged by the attitude of Ulster
to Irish Home Rule, is it nothing that the minorities agreed to be ruled
by the majority (which has not shown much sense of statesmanship),
provided some safeguards were devised for them? But this is only
incidental. The main question is, why did Ulster take this attitude? The
only answer I can give is that there was a social problem between
Ulster and Southern Ireland: the problem between Catholics and
Protestants, which is essentially a problem of Caste. That Home Rule in
Ireland would be "Rome Rule" was the way in which the Ulstermen had
framed their answer. But that is only another way of stating that it was
the social problem of Caste between the Catholics and Protestants which
prevented the solution of the political problem. This evidence again is
sure to be challenged. It will be urged that here too the hand of the
Imperialist was at work.
|
|
[20:] But my resources are not exhausted. I
will give evidence from the History of Rome. Here no one can say that
any evil genius was at work. Anyone who has studied the History of Rome
will know that the Republican Constitution of Rome bore marks having strong resemblance to the Communal Award.
When the kingship in Rome was abolished, the kingly power (or the
Imperium) was divided between the Consuls and the Pontifex Maximus. In
the Consuls was vested the secular authority of the King, while the
latter took over the religious authority of the King. This Republican
Constitution had provided that of the two Consuls, one was to be
Patrician and the other Plebian. The same Constitution had also provided
that of the Priests under the Pontifex Maximus, half were to be
Plebians and the other half Patricians. Why is it that the Republican
Constitution of Rome had these provisions—which, as I said, resemble so
strongly the provisions of the Communal Award? The only answer one can
get is that the Constitution of Republican Rome had to take account of
the social division between the Patricians and the Plebians, who formed
two distinct castes. To sum up, let political reformers turn in any
direction they like: they will find that in the making of a
constitution, they cannot ignore the problem arising out of the
prevailing social order.
|
|
[21:] The illustrations which I have taken
in support of the proposition that social and religious problems have a
bearing on political constitutions seem to be too particular. Perhaps
they are. But it should not be supposed that the bearing of the one on
the other is limited. On the other hand, one can say that generally
speaking, History bears out the proposition that political revolutions
have always been preceded by social and religious revolutions. The
religious Reformation started by Luther was the precursor of the
political emancipation of the European people. In England, Puritanism
led to the establishment of political liberty. Puritanism founded the
new world. It was Puritanism that won the war of American Independence,
and Puritanism was a religious movement.
|
|
[22:] The same is true of the Muslim Empire. Before the Arabs became a political power, they had undergone a thorough religious revolution started by the Prophet Mohammad. Even Indian History supports the same conclusion. The political revolution led by Chandragupta was preceded by the religious and social revolution of Buddha. The political revolution led by Shivaji was preceded by the religious and social reform brought about by the saints of Maharashtra. The political revolution of the Sikhs was preceded by the religious and social revolution led by Guru Nanak.
It is unnecessary to add more illustrations. These will suffice to show
that the emancipation of the mind and the soul is a necessary
preliminary for the political expansion of the people.
3 [Why social reform is necessary for economic reform]
|
|
[1:] Let me now turn to the Socialists. Can
the Socialists ignore the problem arising out of the social order? The
Socialists of India, following their fellows in Europe, are seeking to
apply the economic interpretation of history to the facts of India. They
propound that man is an economic creature, that his activities and
aspirations are bound by economic facts, that property is the only
source of power. They therefore preach that political and social reforms
are but gigantic illusions, and that economic reform by equalization of
property must have precedence over every other kind of reform. One may
take issue with every one of these premises—on which rests the
Socialists' case for economic reform as having priority over every other
kind of reform. One may contend that the economic motive is not the
only motive by which man is actuated. That economic power is the only
kind of power, no student of human society can accept.
|
|
[2:] That the social status of an individual
by itself often becomes a source of power and authority, is made clear
by the sway which the Mahatmas have held over the common man. Why do millionaires in India obey penniless Sadhus and Fakirs? Why do millions of paupers in India sell their trifling trinkets which constitute their only wealth, and go to Benares and Mecca?
That religion is the source of power is illustrated by the history of
India, where the priest holds a sway over the common man often greater
than that of the magistrate, and where everything, even such things as
strikes and elections, so easily takes a religious turn and can so
easily be given a religious twist.
|
|
[3:] Take the case of the Plebians of Rome,
as a further illustration of the power of religion over man. It throws
great light on this point. The Plebians had fought for a share in the
supreme executive under the Roman Republic, and had secured the
appointment of a Plebian Consul elected by a separate electorate
constituted by the Commitia Centuriata, which was an assembly of
Plebians. They wanted a Consul of their own because they felt that the
Patrician Consuls used to discriminate against the Plebians in carrying
on the administration. They had apparently obtained a great gain,
because under the Republican Constitution of Rome one Consul had the
power of vetoing an act of the other Consul.
|
|
[4:] But did they in fact gain anything? The
answer to this question must be in the negative. The Plebians never
could get a Plebian Consul who could be said to be a strong man, and who
could act independently of the Patrician Consul. In the ordinary course
of things the Plebians should have got a strong Plebian Consul, in view
of the fact that his election was to be by a separate electorate of
Plebians. The question is, why did they fail in getting a strong Plebian
to officiate as their Consul?
|
|
[5:] The answer to this question reveals the
dominion which religion exercises over the minds of men. It was an
accepted creed of the whole Roman populus [=people] that no
official could enter upon the duties of his office unless the Oracle of
Delphi declared that he was acceptable to the Goddess. The priests who
were in charge of the temple of the Goddess of Delphi were all
Patricians. Whenever therefore the Plebians elected a Consul who was
known to be a strong party man and opposed to the Patricians—or
"communal," to use the term that is current in India—the Oracle
invariably declared that he was not acceptable to the Goddess. This is
how the Plebians were cheated out of their rights.
|
|
[6:] But what is worthy of note is that the
Plebians permitted themselves to be thus cheated because they too, like
the Patricians, held firmly the belief that the approval of the Goddess
was a condition precedent to the taking charge by an official of his
duties, and that election by the people was not enough. If the Plebians
had contended that election was enough and that the approval by the
Goddess was not necessary, they would have derived the fullest benefit
from the political right which they had obtained. But they did not. They
agreed to elect another, less suitable to themselves but more suitable
to the Goddess—which in fact meant more amenable to the Patricians.
Rather than give up religion, the Plebians give up the material gain for
which they had fought so hard. Does this not show that religion can be a
source of power as great as money, if not greater?
|
|
[7:] The fallacy of the Socialists lies in
supposing that because in the present stage of European Society property
as a source of power is predominant, that the same is true of India, or
that the same was true of Europe in the past. Religion, social status,
and property are all sources of power and authority, which one man has,
to control the liberty of another. One is predominant at one stage; the
other is predominant at another stage. That is the only difference. If
liberty is the ideal, if liberty means the destruction of the dominion
which one man holds over another, then obviously it cannot be insisted
upon that economic reform must be the one kind of reform worthy of
pursuit. If the source of power and dominion is, at any given time or in
any given society, social and religious, then social reform and
religious reform must be accepted as the necessary sort of reform.
|
|
[8:] One can thus attack the doctrine of the
Economic Interpretation of History adopted by the Socialists of India.
But I recognize that the economic interpretation of history is not
necessary for the validity of the Socialist contention that equalization
of property is the only real reform and that it must precede everything
else. However, what I would like to ask the Socialists is this: Can you
have economic reform without first bringing about a reform of the
social order? The Socialists of India do not seem to have considered
this question. I do not wish to do them an injustice. I give below a
quotation from a letter which a prominent Socialist wrote a few days ago
to a friend of mine, in which he said, "I do not believe that we can
build up a free society in India so long as there is a trace of this
ill-treatment and suppression of one class by another. Believing as I do
in a socialist ideal, inevitably I believe in perfect equality in the
treatment of various classes and groups. I think that Socialism offers
the only true remedy for this as well as other problems."
|
|
[9:] Now the question that I would like to
ask is: Is it enough for a Socialist to say, "I believe in perfect
equality in the treatment of the various classes?" To say that such a
belief is enough is to disclose a complete lack of understanding of what
is involved in Socialism. If Socialism is a practical programme and is
not merely an ideal, distant and far off, the question for a Socialist
is not whether he believes in equality. The question for him is whether
he minds one class ill-treating and suppressing another class as a
matter of system, as a matter of principle—and thus allowing tyranny and
oppression to continue to divide one class from another.
|
|
[10:] Let me analyse the factors that are
involved in the realization of Socialism, in order to explain fully my
point. Now it is obvious that the economic reform contemplated by the
Socialists cannot come about unless there is a revolution resulting in
the seizure of power. That seizure of power must be by a proletariat.
The first question I ask is: Will the proletariat of India combine to
bring about this revolution? What will move men to such an action? It
seems to me that, other things being equal, the only thing that will
move one man to take such an action is the feeling that other men with
whom he is acting are actuated by a feeling of equality and fraternity
and—above all—of justice. Men will not join in a revolution for the
equalization of property unless they know that after the revolution is
achieved they will be treated equally, and that there will be no
discrimination of caste and creed.
|
|
[11:] The assurance of a Socialist leading
the revolution that he does not believe in Caste, I am sure will not
suffice. The assurance must be the assurance proceeding from a much
deeper foundation—namely, the mental attitude of the compatriots towards
one another in their spirit of personal equality and fraternity. Can it
be said that the proletariat of India, poor as it is, recognises no
distinctions except that of the rich and the poor? Can it be said that
the poor in India recognize no such distinctions of caste or creed, high
or low? If the fact is that they do, what unity of front can be
expected from such a proletariat in its action against the rich? How can
there be a revolution if the proletariat cannot present a united front? |
|
[12:] Suppose for the sake of argument that
by some freak of fortune a revolution does take place and the Socialists
come into power; will they not have to deal with the problems created
by the particular social order prevalent in India? I can't see how a
Socialist State in India can function for a second without having to
grapple with the problems created by the prejudices which make Indian
people observe the distinctions of high and low, clean and unclean. If
Socialists are not to be content with the mouthing of fine phrases, if
the Socialists wish to make Socialism a definite reality, then they must
recognize that the problem of social reform is fundamental, and that
for them there is no escape from it. |
|
[13:] That the social order prevalent in
India is a matter which a Socialist must deal with; that unless he does
so he cannot achieve his revolution; and that if he does achieve it as a
result of good fortune, he will have to grapple with the social order
if he wishes to realize his ideal—is a proposition which in my opinion
is incontrovertible. He will be compelled to take account of Caste after
the revolution, if he does not take account of it before the
revolution. This is only another way of saying that, turn in any
direction you like, Caste is the monster that crosses your path. You
cannot have political reform, you cannot have economic reform, unless
you kill this monster. |
4 [Caste is not just a division of labour, it is a division of labourers]
|
|
[1:] It is a pity that Caste even today has its defenders. The defences are many. It is defended on the ground that the Caste System
is but another name for division of labour; and if division of labour
is a necessary feature of every civilized society, then it is argued
that there is nothing wrong in the Caste System. Now the first thing
that is to be urged against this view is that the Caste System is not
merely a division of labour. It is also a division of labourers.
Civilized society undoubtedly needs division of labour. But in no
civilized society is division of labour accompanied by this unnatural
division of labourers into watertight compartments. The Caste System is
not merely a division of labourers which is quite different from
division of labour—it is a hierarchy in which the divisions of labourers
are graded one above the other. In no other country is the division of
labour accompanied by this gradation of labourers. |
|
[2:] There is also a third point of criticism against this view of the Caste System.
This division of labour is not spontaneous, it is not based on natural
aptitudes. Social and individual efficiency requires us to develop the
capacity of an individual to the point of competency to choose and to
make his own career. This principle is violated in the Caste System, in
so far as it involves an attempt to appoint tasks to individuals in
advance—selected not on the basis of trained original capacities, but on
that of the social status of the parents. |
|
[3:] Looked at from another point of view, this stratification of occupations which is the result of the Caste System
is positively pernicious. Industry is never static. It undergoes rapid
and abrupt changes. With such changes, an individual must be free to
change his occupation. Without such freedom to adjust himself to
changing circumstances, it would be impossible for him to gain his
livelihood. Now the Caste System will not allow Hindus
to take to occupations where they are wanted, if they do not belong to
them by heredity. If a Hindu is seen to starve rather than take to new
occupations not assigned to his Caste, the reason is to be found in the
Caste System. By not permitting readjustment of occupations, Caste
becomes a direct cause of much of the unemployment we see in the
country.
|
|
[4:] As a form of division of labour, the Caste system
suffers from another serious defect. The division of labour brought
about by the Caste System is not a division based on choice. Individual
sentiment, individual preference, has no place in it. It is based on the
dogma of predestination. Considerations of social efficiency would
compel us to recognize that the greatest evil in the industrial system
is not so much poverty and the suffering that it involves, as the fact
that so many persons have callings [=occupations] which make no appeal
to those who are engaged in them. Such callings constantly provoke one
to aversion, ill will, and the desire to evade.
|
|
[5:] There are many occupations in India
which, on account of the fact that they are regarded as degraded by the
Hindus, provoke those who are engaged in them to aversion. There is a
constant desire to evade and escape from such occupations, which arises
solely because of the blighting effect which they produce upon those who
follow them, owing to the slight and stigma cast upon them by the Hindu
religion. What efficiency can there be in a system under which neither
men's hearts nor their minds are in their work? As an economic
organization Caste is therefore a harmful institution, inasmuch as it
involves the subordination of man's natural powers and inclinations to
the exigencies of social rules.
5 [Caste cannot preserve a nonexistent "racial purity"]
|
|
[1:] Some have dug a biological trench in defence of the Caste System.
It is said that the object of Caste was to preserve purity of race and
purity of blood. Now ethnologists are of the opinion that men of pure
race exist nowhere and that there has been a mixture of all races in all
parts of the world. Especially is this the case with the people of
India. Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar in his paper on "Foreign Elements in the Hindu
Population" has stated that "There is hardly a class or Caste in India
which has not a foreign strain in it. There is an admixture of alien
blood not only among the warrior classes—the Rajputs and the Marathas—but also among the Brahmins
who are under the happy delusion that they are free from all foreign
elements." The Caste system cannot be said to have grown as a means of
preventing the admixture of races, or as a means of maintaining purity
of blood.
|
|
[2:] As a matter of fact [the] Caste system
came into being long after the different races of India had commingled
in blood and culture. To hold that distinctions of castes are really
distinctions of race, and to treat different castes as though they were
so many different races, is a gross perversion of facts. What racial
affinity is there between the Brahmin of the Punjab and the Brahmin of Madras? What racial affinity is there between the untouchable of Bengal and the untouchable of Madras? What racial difference is there between the Brahmin of the Punjab and the Chamar of the Punjab? What racial difference is there between the Brahmin of Madras and the Pariah
of Madras? The Brahmin of the Punjab is racially of the same stock as
the Chamar of the Punjab, and the Brahmin of Madras is of the same race
as the Pariah of Madras.
|
|
[3:] [The] Caste system
does not demarcate racial division. [The] Caste system is a social
division of people of the same race. Assuming it, however, to be a case
of racial divisions, one may ask: What harm could there be if a mixture
of races and of blood was permitted to take place in India by
intermarriages between different castes? Men are no doubt divided from
animals by so deep a distinction that science recognizes men and animals
as two distinct species. But even scientists who believe in purity of
races do not assert that the different races constitute different
species of men. They are only varieties of one and the same species. As
such they can interbreed and produce an offspring which is capable of
breeding and which is not sterile.
|
|
[4:] An immense lot of nonsense is talked about heredity and eugenics in defence of the Caste System.
Few would object to the Caste System if it was in accord with the basic
principle of eugenics, because few can object to the improvement of the
race by judicious mating. But one fails to understand how the Caste
System secures judicious mating. [The] Caste System is a negative thing.
It merely prohibits persons belonging to different castes from
intermarrying. It is not a positive method of selecting which two among a
given caste should marry.
|
|
[5:] If Caste is eugenic in origin, then the origin of sub-castes
must also be eugenic. But can anyone seriously maintain that the origin
of sub-castes is eugenic? I think it would be absurd to contend for
such a proposition, and for a very obvious reason. If caste means race,
then differences of sub-castes cannot mean differences of race, because
sub-castes become ex hypothesia[=by hypothesis] sub-divisions of
one and the same race. Consequently the bar against intermarrying and
interdining between sub-castes cannot be for the purpose of maintaining
purity of race or of blood. If sub-castes cannot be eugenic in origin,
there cannot be any substance in the contention that Caste is eugenic in
origin.
|
|
[6:] Again, if Caste is eugenic in origin one
can understand the bar against intermarriage. But what is the purpose
of the interdict placed on interdining between castes and sub-castes
alike? Interdining cannot infect blood, and therefore cannot be the
cause either of the improvement or of [the] deterioration of the race.
|
|
[7:] This shows that Caste has no scientific
origin, and that those who are attempting to give it an eugenic basis
are trying to support by science what is grossly unscientific. Even
today, eugenics cannot become a practical possibility unless we have definite knowledge regarding the laws of heredity. Prof. Bateson
in his Mendel's Principles of Heredity says, "There is nothing in the
descent of the higher mental qualities to suggest that they follow any
single system of transmission. It is likely that both they and the more
marked developments of physical powers result rather from the
coincidence of numerous factors than from the possession of any one
genetic element." To argue that the Caste System was eugenic in its conception is to attribute to the forefathers of present-day Hindus a knowledge of heredity which even the modern scientists do not possess.
|
|
[8:] A tree should be judged by the fruits it
yields. If Caste is eugenic, what sort of a race of men should it have
produced? Physically speaking the Hindus are a C3
people. They are a race of Pygmies and dwarfs, stunted in stature and
wanting in stamina. It is a nation 9/10ths of which is declared to be
unfit for military service. This shows that the Caste System does not embody the eugenics of modern scientists. It is a social system which embodies the arrogance and selfishness of a perverse section of the Hindus who were superior enough in social status to set it in fashion, and who had the authority to force it on their inferiors.
|
6 [Caste prevents Hindus from forming a real society or nation]
|
|
[1:] Caste does not result in economic
efficiency. Caste cannot improve, and has not improved, the race. Caste
has however done one thing. It has completely disorganized and
demoralized the Hindus. |
|
[2:] The first and foremost thing that must be recognized is that Hindu Society is a myth. The name Hindu is itself a foreign name. It was given by the Mohammedans to the natives for the purpose of distinguishing themselves [from them]. It does not occur in any Sanskrit work prior to the Mohammedan invasion.
They did not feel the necessity of a common name, because they had no
conception of their having constituted a community. Hindu Society as
such does not exist. It is only a collection of castes. Each caste is
conscious of its existence. Its survival is the be-all and end-all of
its existence. Castes do not even form a federation. A caste has no
feeling that it is affiliated to other castes, except when there is a
Hindu-Muslim riot. On all other occasions each caste endeavours to
segregate itself and to distinguish itself from other castes.
|
|
[3:] Each caste not only dines among itself
and marries among itself, but each caste prescribes its own distinctive
dress. What other explanation can there be of the innumerable styles of
dress worn by the men and women of India, which so amuse the tourists?
Indeed the ideal Hindu
must be like a rat living in his own hole, refusing to have any contact
with others. There is an utter lack among the Hindus of what the
sociologists call "consciousness of kind." There is no Hindu
consciousness of kind. In every Hindu the consciousness that exists is
the consciousness of his caste. That is the reason why the Hindus cannot
be said to form a society or a nation.
|
|
[4:] There are, however, many Indians whose
patriotism does not permit them to admit that Indians are not a nation,
that they are only an amorphous mass of people. They have insisted that
underlying the apparent diversity there is a fundamental unity which
marks the life of the Hindus, inasmuch as there is a similarity of those
habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts, which obtain all over the
continent of India. Similarity in habits and customs, beliefs and
thoughts, there is. But one cannot accept the conclusion that therefore,
the Hindus
constitute a society. To do so is to misunderstand the essentials which
go to make up a society. Men do not become a society by living in
physical proximity, any more than a man ceases to be a member of his
society by living so many miles away from other men.
|
|
[5:] Secondly, similarity in habits and
customs, beliefs and thoughts, is not enough to constitute men into
society. Things may be passed physically from one to another like
bricks. In the same way habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts of one
group may be taken over by another group, and there may thus appear a
similarity between the two. Culture spreads by diffusion, and that is
why one finds similarity between various primitive tribes in the matter
of their habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts, although they do not
live in proximity. But no one could say that because there was this
similarity, the primitive tribes constituted one society. This is
because similarity in certain things is not enough to constitute a
society.
|
|
[6:] Men constitute a society because they
have things which they possess in common. To have similar things is
totally different from possessing things in common. And the only way by
which men can come to possess things in common with one another is by
being in communication with one another. This is merely another way of
saying that Society continues to exist by communication—indeed, in
communication. To make it concrete, it is not enough if men act in a way
which agrees with the acts of others. Parallel activity, even if
similar, is not sufficient to bind men into a society.
|
|
[7:] This is proved by the fact that the festivals observed by the different castes amongst the Hindus
are the same. Yet these parallel performances of similar festivals by
the different castes have not bound them into one integral whole. For
that purpose what is necessary is for a man to share and participate in a
common activity, so that the same emotions are aroused in him that
animate the others. Making the individual a sharer or partner in the
associated activity, so that he feels its success as his success, its
failure as his failure, is the real thing that binds men and makes a
society of them. The Caste System
prevents common activity; and by preventing common activity, it has
prevented the Hindus from becoming a society with a unified life and a
consciousness of its own being. |
|
|
7 [The worst feature of the Caste System is an anti-social spirit]
|
|
[1:] The Hindus
often complain of the isolation and exclusiveness of a gang or a clique
and blame them for anti-social spirit. But they conveniently forget
that this anti-social spirit is the worst feature of their own Caste System.
One caste enjoys singing a hymn of hate against another caste as much
as the Germans enjoyed singing their hymn of hate against the English
during the last war [=World War I]. The literature of the Hindus is
full of caste genealogies in which an attempt is made to give a noble
origin to one caste and an ignoble origin to other castes. The Sahyadrikhand is a notorious instance of this class of literature.
|
|
[2:] This anti-social spirit is not confined to caste alone. It has gone deeper and has poisoned the mutual relations of the sub-castes as well. In my province the Golak Brahmins,
Deorukha Brahmins, Karada Brahmins, Palshe Brahmins, and Chitpavan
Brahmins all claim to be sub-divisions of the Brahmin caste. But the
anti-social spirit that prevails between them is quite as marked and
quite as virulent as the anti-social spirit that prevails between them
and other non-Brahmin castes. There is nothing strange in this. An
anti-social spirit is found wherever one group has "interests of its
own" which shut it out from full interaction with other groups, so that
its prevailing purpose is protection of what it has got.
|
|
[3:] This anti-social spirit, this spirit of
protecting its own interests, is as much a marked feature of the
different castes in their isolation from one another as it is of nations
in their isolation. The Brahmin's primary concern is to protect "his
interest" against those of the non-Brahmins;
and the non-Brahmins' primary concern is to protect their interests
against those of the Brahmins. The Hindus, therefore, are not merely an
assortment of castes, but are so many warring groups, each living for
itself and for its selfish ideal.
|
|
[4:] There is another feature of caste which
is deplorable. The ancestors of the present-day English fought on one
side or the other in the Wars of the Roses and the Cromwellian War. But
the descendants of those who fought on the one side do not bear any
animosity—any grudge—against the descendents of those who fought on the
other side. The feud is forgotten. But the present-day non-Brahmins
cannot forgive the present-day Brahmins for the insult their ancestors gave to Shivaji. The present-day Kayasthas will not forgive the present-day Brahmins for the infamy cast upon their forefathers by the forefathers of the latter. To what is this difference due? Obviously to the Caste System.
The existence of Caste and Caste Consciousness has served to keep the
memory of past feuds between castes green, and has prevented solidarity.
8 [Caste prevents the uplift and incorporation of the aboriginal tribes]
|
|
[1:] The recent [constitutional]
discussion about the excluded and partially included areas has served
to draw attention to the position of what are called the aboriginal tribes
in India. They number about 13 millions, if not more. Apart from the
question of whether their exclusion from the new Constitution is proper
or improper, the fact still remains that these aborigines have remained
in their primitive uncivilized state in a land which boasts of a
civilization thousands of years old. Not only are they not civilized,
but some of them follow pursuits which have led to their being classified as criminals.
|
|
[2:] Thirteen millions of people living in
the midst of civilization are still in a savage state, and are leading
the life of hereditary criminals!! But the Hindus
have never felt ashamed of it. This is a phenomenon which in my view is
quite unparalleled. What is the cause of this shameful state of
affairs? Why has no attempt been made to civilize these aborigines and
to lead them to take to a more honourable way of making a living?
|
|
[3:] The Hindus
will probably seek to account for this savage state of the aborigines
by attributing to them congenital stupidity. They will probably not
admit that the aborigines have remained savages because they had made no
effort to civilize them, to give them medical aid, to reform them, to
make them good citizens. But supposing a Hindu wished to do what the Christian missionary
is doing for these aborigines, could he have done it? I submit not.
Civilizing the aborigines means adopting them as your own, living in
their midst, and cultivating fellow-feeling—in short, loving them. How
is it possible for a Hindu to do this? His whole life is one anxious
effort to preserve his caste. Caste is his precious possession which he
must save at any cost. He cannot consent to lose it by establishing
contact with the aborigines, the remnants of the hateful Anaryas of the Vedic days.
|
|
[4:] Not that a Hindu
could not be taught the sense of duty to fallen humanity, but the
trouble is that no amount of sense of duty can enable him to overcome
his duty to preserve his caste. Caste is, therefore, the real
explanation as to why the Hindu has let the savage remain a savage in
the midst of his civilization without blushing, or without feeling any
sense of remorse or repentance. The Hindu has not realized that these
aborigines are a source of potential danger. If these savages remain
savages, they may not do any harm to the Hindus. But if they are
reclaimed by non-Hindus and converted to their faiths, they will swell
the ranks of the enemies of the Hindus. If this happens, the Hindu will
have to thank himself and his Caste System.
|
9 [The higher castes have conspired to keep the lower castes down]
|
|
[1:] Not only has the Hindu
made no effort for the humanitarian cause of civilizing the savages,
but the higher-caste Hindus have deliberately prevented the lower castes
who are within the pale of Hinduism from rising to the cultural level
of the higher castes. I will give two instances, one of the Sonars and the other of the Pathare Prabhus. Both are communities quite well-known in Maharashtra.
Like the rest of the communities desiring to raise their status, these
two communities were at one time endeavouring to adopt some of the ways
and habits of the Brahmins. |
|
[2:] The Sonars were styling themselves Daivadnya Brahmins and were wearing their "dhotis" with folds in them, and using the word namaskar for salutation. Both the folded way of wearing the "dhoti" and the namaskar were
special to the Brahmins. The Brahmins did not like this imitation and
this attempt by Sonars to pass off as Brahmins. Under the authority of
the Peshwas,
the Brahmins successfully put down this attempt on the part of the
Sonars to adopt the ways of the Brahmins. They even got the President of
the Councils of the East India Company's settlement in Bombay to issue a prohibitory order against the Sonars residing in Bombay.
|
|
[3:] At one time the Pathare Prabhus
had widow-remarriage as a custom of their caste. This custom of
widow-remarriage was later on looked upon as a mark of social
inferiority by some members of the caste, especially because it was
contrary to the custom prevalent among the Brahmins.
With the object of raising the status of their community, some Pathare
Prabhus sought to stop this practice of widow-remarriage that was
prevalent in their caste. The community was divided into two camps, one
for and the other against the innovation. The Peshwas
took the side of those in favour of widow-remarriage, and thus
virtually prohibited the Pathare Prabhus from following the ways of the
Brahmins.
|
|
[4:] The Hindus criticise the Mohammedans
for having spread their religion by the use of the sword. They also
ridicule Christianity on the score of the Inquisition. But really
speaking, who is better and more worthy of our respect—the Mohammedans
and Christians who attempted to thrust down the throats of unwilling
persons what they regarded as necessary for their salvation, or the Hindu
who would not spread the light, who would endeavour to keep others in
darkness, who would not consent to share his intellectual and social
inheritance with those who are ready and willing to make it a part of
their own make-up? I have no hesitation in saying that if the Mohammedan
has been cruel, the Hindu has been mean; and meanness is worse than
cruelty. |
14 [My ideal: a society based on Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity]
|
|
[1:] I would not be surprized if some of you
have grown weary listening to this tiresome tale of the sad effects
which caste has produced. There is nothing new in it. I will therefore
turn to the constructive side of the problem. What is your ideal society
if you do not want caste, is a question that is bound to be asked of
you. If you ask me, my ideal would be a society based on Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. And why not?
|
|
[2:] What objection can there be to
Fraternity? I cannot imagine any. An ideal society should be mobile,
should be full of channels for conveying a change taking place in one
part to other parts. In an ideal society there should be many interests
consciously communicated and shared. There should be varied and free
points of contact with other modes of association. In other words there
must be social endosmosis. This is fraternity, which is only another
name for democracy. Democracy is not merely a form of government. It is
primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated
experience. It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence
towards one's fellow men.
|
|
[3:] Any objection to Liberty? Few object to
liberty in the sense of a right to free movement, in the sense of a
right to life and limb. There is no objection to liberty in the sense of
a right to property, tools, and materials, as being necessary for
earning a living, to keep the body in a due state of health. Why not
allow a person the liberty to benefit from an effective and competent
use of a person's powers? The supporters of Caste who would allow
liberty in the sense of a right to life, limb, and property, would not
readily consent to liberty in this sense, inasmuch as it involves
liberty to choose one's profession. |
|
[4:] But to object to this kind of liberty is
to perpetuate slavery. For slavery does not merely mean a legalized
form of subjection. It means a state of society in which some men are
forced to accept from others the purposes which control their conduct.
This condition obtains even where there is no slavery in the legal
sense. It is found where, as in the Caste System, some persons are compelled to carry on certain prescribed callings which are not of their choice. |
|
[5:] Any objection to equality? This has
obviously been the most contentious part of the slogan of the French
Revolution. The objections to equality may be sound, and one may have to
admit that all men are not equal. But what of that? Equality may be a
fiction, but nonetheless one must accept it as the governing principle. A
man's power is dependent upon (1) physical heredity; (2) social
inheritance or endowment in the form of parental care, education,
accumulation of scientific knowledge, everything which enables him to be
more efficient than the savage; and finally, (3) on his own efforts. In
all these three respects men are undoubtedly unequal. But the question
is, shall we treat them as unequal because they are unequal? This is a
question which the opponents of equality must answer. |
|
[6:] From the standpoint of the
individualist, it may be just to treat men unequally so far as their
efforts are unequal. It may be desirable to give as much incentive as
possible to the full development of everyone's powers. But what would
happen if men were treated as unequally as they are unequal in the first
two respects? It is obvious that those individuals also in whose favour
there is birth, education, family name, business connections, and
inherited wealth, would be selected in the race. But selection under
such circumstances would not be a selection of the able. It would be the
selection of the privileged. The reason, therefore, which requires that
in the third respect [of those described in the paragraph above] we
should treat men unequally, demands that in the first two respects we
should treat men as equally as possible. |
|
[7:] On the other hand, it can be urged that
if it is good for the social body to get the most out of its members, it
can get the most out of them only by making them equal as far as
possible at the very start of the race. That is one reason why we cannot
escape equality. But there is another reason why we must accept
equality. A statesman is concerned with vast numbers of people. He has
neither the time nor the knowledge to draw fine distinctions and to
treat each one equitably, i.e. according to need or according to
capacity. However desirable or reasonable an equitable treatment of men
may be, humanity is not capable of assortment and classification. The
statesman, therefore, must follow some rough and ready rule, and that
rough and ready rule is to treat all men alike, not because they are
alike but because classification and assortment is impossible. The
doctrine of equality is glaringly fallacious but, taking all in all, it
is the only way a statesman can proceed in politics—which is a severely
practical affair and which demands a severely practical test. |
15 [The Arya Samajists' "Chaturvarnya" retains the old bad caste labels]
|
|
[1:] But there is a set of reformers who hold out a different ideal. They go by the name of the Arya Samajists, and their ideal of social organization is what is called Chaturvarnya,
or the division of society into four classes instead of the four
thousand castes that we have in India. To make it more attractive and to
disarm opposition, the protagonists of Chaturvarnya
take great care to point out that their Chaturvarnya is based not on
birth but on guna (worth). At the outset, I must confess that
notwithstanding the worth-basis of this Chaturvarnya, it is an ideal to
which I cannot reconcile myself.
|
|
[2:] In the first place, if under the Chaturvarnya of the Arya Samajists an individual is to take his place in the Hindu Society according to his worth, I do not understand why the Arya Samajists insist upon labelling men as Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra.
A learned man would be honoured without his being labelled a Brahmin. A
soldier would be respected without his being designated a Kshatriya. If
European society honours its soldiers and its servants without giving
them permanent labels, why should Hindu Society find it difficult to do
so, is a question which Arya Samajists have not cared to consider.
|
|
[3:] There is another objection to the
continuance of these labels. All reform consists in a change in the
notions, sentiments, and mental attitudes of the people towards men and
things. It is common experience that certain names become associated
with certain notions and sentiments which determine a person's attitude
towards men and things. The names Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and 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.
|
|
[4:] So long as these names continue, Hindus will continue to think of the Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra as hierarchical divisions of high and low, based on birth, and to act accordingly. 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 names is to make the reform
futile. To allow this Chaturvarnya
based on worth to be designated by such stinking labels as Brahmin,
Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, indicative of social divisions based on
birth, is a snare. |
|
|
, is a direction of the Shastras. The Mandal therefore knows from whom a Hindu
should take his lessons and from whom he should not. The Shastras do
not permit a Hindu to accept anyone as his Guru merely because he is
well-versed. This is made very clear by Ramdas, a Brahmin saint from Maharashtra, who is alleged to have inspired Shivaji to establish a Hindu Raj. In his Dasbodh, a socio-politico-religious treatise in Marathi verse, Ramdas asks, addressing the Hindus, can we accept an Antyaja to be our Guru because he is a Pandit (i.e. learned)? He gives an answer in the negative.