ANNIHILATION OF CASTE
WITH
"Know
Truth as Truth and Untruth as Untruth "
"He that WILL NOT reason is a bigot He that CANNOT reason
is a fool He that DARE NOT reason is a slave " H. drummond
Printed
from the third edition of 1944
_____________________________________________________________________
1. Preface to the Second
Edition
2. Preface to the
Third Edition
3. Prologue
4. Speech Prepared
By Dr. B. R. Ambedkar
5. Appendix I : A
Vindication Of Caste By Mahatma Gandhi
6. Appendix II :
A Reply To The Mahatma By Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar
ANNIHILATION OF
CASTE
The speech prepared by me for the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore
has had an astonishingly warm reception from the Hindu public for whom it was primarily
intended. The English edition of one thousand five hundred
was exhausted within two months of its publication. It is translated into Gujarati and Tamil. It is being translated in Marathi, Hindi, Punjabi and Malayalam. The demand for the English text still continues
unabated. To satisfy this demand it has become necessary to issue a Second Edition.
Considerations of history and effectiveness of appeal have led me to retain the original
form of the essay—namely the speech form—-although I was asked to recast it in
the form of a direct narrative. To this edition I have added two appendices. I have
collected in Appendix I the two articles written by Mr. Gandhi
by way of review of my speech in the Harijan, and his letter to Mr. Sant Ram, a member of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal. In Appendix II,
I have printed my views in reply to the articles of Mr. Gandhi collected in Appendix 1.
Besides Mr. Gandhi many others have adversely criticised my views as expressed in my
speech. But I have felt that in taking notice of such adverse comments
I should limit myself to Mr. Gandhi. This I have done not because what he has said is so
weighty as to deserve a reply but because to many a Hindu he is an oracle, so great that
when he opens his lips it is expected that the argument must close and no dog must bark.
But the world owes much to rebels who would dare to argue in the face of the pontiff and
insist that he is not infallible. 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.
The Second edition
of this Essay appeared in 1937, and was exhausted within a very short period. A new
edition has been in demand for a long time. It was my
intention to recast the essay so as to incorporate into it another essay of mine called " Castes in India,
their Origin and their Mechanism ", which appeared
in the issue of the Indian Antiquary Journal for May 1917. But as I could not find time,
and as there is very little prospect of my being able to do so and as the demand for it
from the public is very insistent, I am content to let this be a mere reprint of the
Second edition.
I am glad to find that this essay has become so
popular, and I hope that it will serve the purpose for which it was intended.
22, Prithwiraj Road
New Delhi 1st December 1944
B. R. AMBEDKAR
PROLOGUE
On December 12, 1935, I received the following
letter from Mr. Sant Ram, the Secretary of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal :
My dear Doctor Saheb,
Many thanks for your kind letter of the 5th
December. I have released it for press without your
permission for which I beg your pardon, as I saw no harm in
giving it publicity. You are a great thinker, and it is my well-considered opinion that
none else has studied the problem of Caste so deeply as you have. I have always benefited
myself and our Mandal from your ideas. I have explained and preached it in the Kranti many times and
I have even lectured on it in many Conferences. I am now very anxious to read the
exposition of your new formula—" It is not
possible to break Caste without annihilating the religious notions on which it, the Caste
system, is founded." Please do explain it at length at
your earliest convenience, so that we may take up the idea and emphasise it from press and
platform. At present, it is not fully clear to me.
*
*
* * *
Our Executive Committee persists in having you
as our President for our Annual Conference. We can change our dates to accommodate
your convenience. Independent Harijans of Punjab are very
much desirous to meet you and discuss with you their plans. So if you kindly accept our
request and come to Lahore to preside over the Conference it
will serve double purpose. We will invite Harijan leaders of
all shades of opinion and you will get an opportunity of giving your ideas to them.
The Mandal has deputed our Assistant Secretary,
Mr. Indra Singh, to meet you
at Bombay in Xmas and discuss with you the whole situation
with a view to persuade you to please accept our request.
*
*
*
*
*
The Jat-Pat-Todak
Mandal, I was given to understand, to be an organization of
Caste Hindu Social Reformers, with the one and only aim, namely to eradicate the Caste
System from amongst the Hindus. As a rule, I do not like to take any part in a movement
which is carried on by the Caste Hindus. Their attitude towards social reform is so
different from mine that I have found it difficult to pull on with them. Indeed, I find
their company quite uncongenial to me on account of our differences of opinion. Therefore
when the Mandal first approached me I declined their
invitation to preside. The Mandal, however, would not take a refusal from me and sent down
one of its members to Bombay to press me to accept the invitation. In the end I agreed to
preside. The Annual Conference was to be held at Lahore, the headquarters of the Mandal.
The Conference was to meet in Easter but was subsequently postponed to the middle of May
1936. The Reception Committee of the Mandal has now cancelled the Conference. The notice
of cancellation came long after my Presidential address had been printed. The copies of
this address are now lying with me. As I did not get an opportunity to deliver the address
from the presidential chair the public has not had an opportunity to know my views on the
problems created by the Caste System. To let the public know them and also to dispose of
the printed copies which are lying on my hand, I have decided to put the printed copies of
the address in the market. The accompanying pages contain
the text of that address.
The public will be curious to know what led to the cancellation of my appointment as the President of the Conference. At the start, a dispute arose over the printing of the address. I desired that the address should be printed in Bombay. The Mandal wished that it should be printed in Lahore on the ground of economy. I did not agree and insisted upon having it printed in Bombay. Instead of agreeing to my proposition I received a letter signed by several members of the Mandal from which I give the following extract :
27-3-36
Revered Dr. Ji,
Your letter of the 24th instant addressee to Sjt. Sant Ram has been shown to us. We were a little disappointed to read it. Perhaps you are not fully aware of the situation that has arisen here. Almost all the Hindus in the Punjab are against your being invited to this province. The Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal has been subjected to the bitterest criticism and has received censorious rebuke from all quarters. All the Hindu leaders among whom being Bhai Parmanand, M-L.A. (Ex-President, Hindu Maha Sabha), Mahatma Hans Raj, Dr. Gokal Chand Narang, Minister for Local Self-Government, Raja Narendra Nath, M.L.C. etc., have dissociated themselves from this step of the Mandal.
Despite all this
the runners of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal (the leading figure being Sjt. Sant Ram) are
determined to wade through thick and thin but would not give up the idea of your
presidentship. The Mandal has earned a bad name.
*
* * * *
Under the circumstances it becomes your duty to
co-operate with the Mandal. On the one hand, they are being put to so much trouble and
hardship by the Hindus and if on the other hand you too augment their difficulties it will
be a most sad coincidence of bad luck for them.
We hope you will think over the matter and do
what is good for us all.
*
* * * *
This letter puzzled me greatly. I could not
understand why the Mandal should displease me for the sake of a few rupees in the matter
of printing the address. Secondly, I could not believe that
men like Sir Gokal Chand Narang had really resigned as a protest
against my selection as President because I had
received the following letter from Sir Gokal Chand himself :
5 Montgomery Road
Lahore,
7-2-36
Dear Doctor Ambedkar,
I am glad to learn from the workers of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal that you have agreed to preside at their
next anniversary to be held at Lahore during the Easter holidays,
it will give me much pleasure if you stay with me while you are at Lahore. More when we
meet.
G. C. narang
Whatever be the truth I did not yield to this
pressure. But even when the Mandal found that I was insisting upon having my address
printed in Bombay instead of agreeing to my proposal the Mandal sent me a wire that they
were sending Mr. Har Bhagwan
to Bombay to " talk over matters personally " Mr. Har Bhagwan came to Bombay on the 9th of April. When
I met Mr. Har Bhagwan I found that he had nothing to say regarding the issue. Indeed he
was so unconcerned regarding the printing of the address, whether it should be printed in
Bombay or in Lahore, that he did not even mention it in the course of our conversation.
All that he was anxious for was to know the contents of the address. I was then convinced
that in getting the address printed in Lahore the main object of the Mandal was not to
save money but to get at the contents of the address. I gave him a copy. He did not feel
very happy with some parts of it. He returned to Lahore. From Lahore, he wrote to me
the following letter :
Lahore,
dated April 14, 1936
My dear Doctor Sahib,
Since my arrival from Bombay, on the 12th, I
have been indisposed owing to my having not slept
continuously for 5 or 6 nights, which were spent in the
train. Reaching here I came to know that you had come to Amritsar. I would have seen you there if I were well enough to go
about. I have made over your address to Mr. Sant Ram for
translation and he has liked it very much, but he is not sure whether it could be
translated by him for printing before the 25th. In any case, it woud
have a wide publicity and we are sure it would wake the Hindus up from their slumber.
The passage I pointed out to you at Bombay has
been read by some of our friends with a little misgiving, and those of us who would like
to see the Conference terminate without any untoward incident would prefer that at least
the word " Veda " be
left out for the time being. I leave this to your good sense. I hope, however, in your
concluding paragraphs you will make it clear that the views expressed in the address are
your own and that the responsibility does not lie on the Mandal.
I hope, you will not mind this statement of mine and would let us have 1,000 copies of the
address, for which we shall, of course, pay. To this effect I have sent you a telegram
today. A cheque of Rs. 100 is enclosed herewith which kindly
acknowledge, and send us your bills in due time.
I have called a meeting of the Reception
Committee and shall communicate their decision to you immediately. In the meantime kindly
accept my heartfelt thanks for the kindness shown to me and the great pains taken by you
in the preparation of your address. You have really put us under a heavy debt of
gratitude.
har bhagwan
P.S.—Kindly
send the copies of the address by passenger train as soon as it is printed, so that copies
may be sent to the Press for publication.
Accordingly I handed over my manuscript to the
printer with an order to print 1,000 copies. Eight days later, I received another letter
from Mr. Har Bhagwan which I
reproduce below :
Lahore,
22-4-36
Dear Dr. Ambedkar,
We are in receipt of your telegram and letter,
for which kindly accept our thanks. In accordance with your
desire, we have again postponed our Conference, but feel that it would have been much
better to have it on the 25th and 26th, as the weather is growing warmer and warmer every
day in the Punjab. In the middle of May it would be fairly hot, and the sittings in the
day time would not be very pleasant and comfortable. However, we shall try our best to do all we can to make things as comfortable as possible,
if it is held in the middle of May.
There is, however, one thing that we have been
compelled to bring to your kind attention. You will remember
that when I pointed out to you the misgivings entertained by
some of our people regarding your declaration on the subject of change of religion, you
told me that it was undoubtedly outside the scope of the Mandal
and that you had no intention to say anything from our platform in that connection. At the
same time when the manuscript of your address was handed to me you assured me that that
was the main portion of your address and that there were only two or three concluding
paragraphs that you wanted to add. On receipt of the second instalment of your address we have been taken by surprise, as that
would make it so lengthy, that we are afraid, very few people would read the whole of it.
Besides that you have more than once stated in your address that you had decided to walk
out of the fold of the Hindus and that that was your last
address as a Hindu. You have also unnecessarily attacked the morality and reasonableness
of the Vedas and
other religious books of the Hindus, and have at length dwelt upon the technical side of
Hindu religion, which has absolutely no connection with the problem at issue, so much so
that some of the passages have become irrelevant and off the
point. We would have been very pleased if you had confined your address to that portion
given to me, or if an addition was necessary, it would have been limited to what you had
written on Brahminism etc. The last portion which deals with
the complete annihilation of Hindu religion and doubts the morality of the sacred books of
the Hindus as well as a hint about your intention to leave
the Hindu fold does not seem to me to be relevant.
I would therefore most
humbly request you on behalf of the people responsible for
the Conference to leave out the passages referred to above,
and close the address with what was given to me or add a few paragraphs on Brahminism. We
doubt the wisdom of making the address unnecessarily provocative and pinching. There are
several of us who subscribe to your feelings and would very much want to be under your
banner for remodelling of the Hindu religion. If you had decided to get together persons
of your cult I can assure you a large number would have joined your army of reformers from
the Punjab.
In fact, we thought you would give us a lead in
the destruction of the evil of caste system, especially when you have studied the subject
so thoroughly, and strengthen our hands by bringing about a revolution and making yourself
as a nucleus in the gigantic effort, but declaration of the
nature made by you when repeated loses its power, and
becomes a hackneyed term. Under the circumstances, I would request you to consider the
whole matter and make your address more effective by saying that you would be glad to take
a leading part in the destruction of the caste system if the Hindus are willing to work in
right earnest toward that end, even if they had to forsake
their kith and kin and the religious notions. In case you do so, I am sanguine that you would find a ready response from the Punjab in such an
endeavour.
I shall be grateful if you will help us at this
juncture as we have already undergone much expenditure and have been put to suspense, and let us know by the return
of post that you have condescended to limit your address as above. In case, you still
insist upon the printing of the address in toto, we very much regret it would not be possible—rather advisable for us to hold the Conference, and
would prefer to postpone it sine die, although
by doing so we shall be losing the goodwill of the people because of the repeated
postponements. We should, however, like to point out that you have carved a niche in our
hearts by writing such a wonderful treatise on the caste system, which excels all other
treatises so far written and will prove to be a valuable heritage, so to say. We shall be
ever indebted to you for the pains taken by you in its preparation.
Thanking you very much for your kindness and
with best wishes.
I am,
har bhagwan
To this letter I sent the following reply :
27th April 1936
I am in receipt of your letter of the 22nd April. I note with regret that the Reception Commitiee of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal " would prefer to
postpone the Conference sine die " if I
insisted upon printing the address in toto. In
reply I have to inform you that I also would prefer to have the Conference
cancelled—1 do not like to use vague terms—if the Mandal insisted upon having my
address pruned to suit its circumstances. You may not like my decision. But I cannot give
up, for the sake of the honour of presiding over the
Conference, the liberty which every President must have in the preparation of the address.
I cannot give up for the sake of pleasing the Mandal the
duty which every President owes to the Conference over which
he presides to give it a lead which he thinks right and proper. The issue is one of
principle and I feel I must do nothing to compromise it in any way.
I would not have entered into any controversy
as regards the propriety of the decision taken by the Reception Committee. But as you have
given certain reasons which appear to throw the blame on me. I am bound to answer them. In the first place, I must dispel the notion that the
views contained in that part of the address to which objection has been taken by the
Committee have come to the Mandal as a surprise. Mr. Sant
Ram, I am sure, will bear me out when I say that in reply to one of his letters I had said
that the real method of breaking up the Caste System was not to bring about inter-caste dinners and inter-caste
marriages but to destroy the religious notions on which Caste was founded and that Mr.
Sant Ram in return asked me to explain what he said was a
novel point of view. It was in response to this invitation from Mr. Sant Ram that I thought I ought to elaborate in my address what
I had stated in a sentence in my letter to him. You cannot, therefore, say that the views
expressed are new. At any rate, they are not new to Mr. Sant Ram who is the moving spirit
and the leading light of your Mandal.
But I go further and say that I wrote this part of my address
not merely because I felt it desirable to do so. I wrote it
because I thought that it was absolutely necessary to
complete the argument. I am amazed to read that you characterize the portion of the speech to which your Committee objects as " irrelevant and off the
point ". You will allow me to say that I am a lawyer
and I know the rules of relevancy as well as any member of
your Committee. I most emphatically maintain that the portion objected to is not only most
relevant but is also important. It is in that part of the
address that I have discussed the ways and means of breaking up the Caste System. It may
be that the conclusion I have arrived at as to the best method of destroying Caste is
startling and painful. You are entitled to say that my analysis is wrong. But you cannot
say that in an address which deals with the problem of Caste
it is not open to me to discuss how Caste can be destroyed.
Your other complaint relates to the length of
the address. I have pleaded guilty to the charge in the address itself. But, who is really
responsible for this ? I fear you have come rather late on
the scene. Otherwise you would have known that originally I had planned to write a short
address for my own convenience as I had neither the time nor the energy to engage myself
in the preparation of an elaborate thesis. It was the Mandal who asked me to deal with the
subject exhaustively and it was the Mandal which sent down to me a list of questions
relating to the Caste System and asked me to answer them in
the body of my address as they were questions which were
often raised in the controversy between the Mandal and its opponents and which the Mandal
found difficult to answer satisfactorily. It was in trying to meet the wishes of the
Mandal in this respect that the address has grown to the length to which it has. In view
of what I have said I am sure you will agree that the fault respecting length of the
address is not mine.
I did not expect that your Mandal would be so
upset because I have spoken of the destruction of Hindu Religion. I thought it was only
fools who were afraid of words. But lest there should be any misapprehension in the minds
of the people I have taken great pains to explain what I mean by religion and destruction
of religion. I am sure that nobody on reading my address could possibly misunderstand me.
That your Mandal should have taken a fright at mere words as "destruction
of religion etc." notwithstanding
the explanation that accompanies .them does not raise the Mandal in my estimation. One cannot have any respect or regard for men who take
the position of the Reformer and then refuse even to see the logical consequences of that
position, let alone following them out in action.
You will agree that I have never accepted to be
limited in any way in the preparation of my address and the
question as to what the address should or should not contain was never even discussed
between myself and the Mandal. I had always taken for
granted that I was free to express in the address such views
as I held on the subject Indeed until, you came to Bombay on the 9th April the Mandal did
not know what sort of an address I was preparing. It was when you came to Bombay that I
voluntarily told you that I had no desire to use your platform from which to advocate my
views regarding change of religion by the Depressed Classes. I think I have scrupulously
kept that promise in the preparation of the address. Beyond a passing reference of an indirect character
where I say that " I am sorry I will not be here. . . etc."
I have said nothing about the subject in my address. When I see you object even to such a
passing and so indirect a reference, I feel bound to ask ;
did you think that in agreeing to preside over your Conference I would be agreeing to
suspend or to give up my views regarding change of faith by the Depressed Classes ? If you did think so I must tell you that I am in no way
responsible for such a mistake on your part. If any of you had even hinted to me that in
exchange for the honour you were doing me by electing as President, I was to abjure my
faith in my programme of conversion, I would have told you
in quite plain terms that I cared more for my faith than for any honour from you.
After your letter of the 14th, this letter of
yours comes as a surprize to me. I am sure that any one who
reads them will feel the same. I cannot account for this sudden volte face on the part of the Reception Committee.
There is no difference in substance between the rough draft which was before the Committee
when you wrote your letter of the 14th and the final draft
on which the decision of the Committee communicated to me in your letter under reply was
taken. You cannot point out a single new idea in the final draft which is not contained in
the earlier draft. The ideas are the same. The only difference is that they have been
worked out in greater detail in the final draft. If there was anything to object to in the
address you could have said so on the 14th. But you did not. On the contrary you asked me
to print off 1,000 copies leaving me the liberty to accept
or not the verbal changes which you suggested. Accordingly I got 1,000 copies printed
which are now lying with me. Eight days later you write to say that you object to the
address and that if it is not amended the Conference will be cancelled. You ought to have
known that there was no hope of any alteration being made in the address. I told you when
you were in Bombay that I would not alter a comma, that I would not allow any censorship
over my address and that you would have to accept the address as it came from me. I also
told you that the responsibility. for the views expressed in the address was entirely mine
and if they were not liked by the Conference I would not mind at all if the Conference
passed a resolution condemning them. So anxious was I to relieve your Mandal from having
to assume responsibility for my views and also with the object of not getting myself entangled by too intimate an
association with your Conference, I suggested to you that I
desired to have my address treated as a sort of an inaugural address and not as a
Presidential address and that the Mandal should find some
one else to preside over the Conference, and deal with the resolutions. Nobody could have
been better placed to take a decision on the 14th than your Committee. The Committee
failed to do that and in the meantime cost of printing has been incurred which, I am sure,
with a little more firmness on the part of your Committee could have been saved.
I feel sure that the views expressed in my
address have little to do with the decision of your Committee. I have reasons to believe
that my presence at the Sikh Prachar Conference held at Amritsar has had a good deal to do with the decision of the
Committee. Nothing else can satisfactorily explain the sudden volte face shown by the Committee between the 14th
and the 22nd April. I must not however prolong this controversy and must request you to
announce immediately that the Session of the Conference which was to meet under my
Presidentship is cancelled. All the grace has by now run out and I shall not consent to
preside even if your Committee agreed to accept my address
as it is- in toto. I thank you for your appreciation of the pains I have taken in the preparation of the address. I certainly have profited by the
labour if no one else docs. My only regret is that I was put to such hard labour at a time when my health was not equal to the strain it has caused.
Yours sincerely,
This correspondence will disclose the reasons which have led to the cancellation by the Mandal of my appointment as President and the reader will be in a position to lay the blame where it ought properly to belong. This is I believe the first time when the appointment of a President is cancelled by the Reception Committee because it does not approve of the views of the President. But whether that is so or not, this is certainly the first time in my life to have been invited to preside over a Conference of Caste Hindus. I am sorry that it has ended in a tragedy. But what can any one expect from a relationship so tragic as the relationship between the reforming sect of Caste Hindus and the self-respecting sect of Untouchables where the former have no desire to alienate their orthodox fellows and the latter have no alternative but to insist upon reform being carried out ?
Dadar,
Bombay 14 15th May 1936
B. R. AMBEDKAR
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar
FOR
The 1936 Annual Conference of the Jat-Pat-Todak
Mandal of Lahore
BUT NOT DELIVERED
Owing
to the cancellation of the Conference by the Reception Committee on the ground that the
views expressed in the Speech would be unbearable to the Conference
Friends,
I am really sorry for the members of the
Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal who have so very kindly invited me to preside over this Conference. I
am sure they will be asked many questions for having selected me as the President. The
Mandal will be asked to explain as to why it has imported a man from Bombay to preside
over a function which is held in Lahore. I believe the Mandal could easily have found some
one better qualified than myself to preside on the occasion. I have criticised the Hindus.
I have questioned the authority of the Mahatma whom they revere. They hate me. To them I
am a snake in their garden. The Mandal will no doubt be asked by the politically-minded
Hindus to explain why it has called me to fill this place of honour. It is an act of great
daring. I shall not be surprised if some political Hindus regard it as an insult. This
selection of mine cannot certainly please the ordinary religiously-minded Hindus. The
Mandal may be asked to explain why it has disobeyed the Shastric injunction in selecting the President.
Accoding to the Shastras the Brahmin is
appointed to be the Guru for the three Varnas,
varnanam bramhano garu, 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 any one 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) and gives an answer in the
negative. What replies to give to these questions is a matter which I must leave to the
Mandal. The Mandal knows best the reasons which led it to travel to Bombay to select a
president, to fix upon a man so repugnant to the Hindus and to descend so low in the scale
as to select an Antyaja— an untouchable—to address an audience of the Savarnas. As for myself you will allow me to say
that I have accepted the invitation much against my will and also against the will of many
of my fellow untouchables. I know that the Hindus are sick of me. I know that I am not a persona grata with them. Knowing all this I have
deliberately kept myself away from them. I have no desire to inflict myself upon them. I
have been giving expression to my views from my own platform. This has already caused a
great deal of heartburning and irritation. 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.
II
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.
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 the 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. 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
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. 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 even larger,
the number of those who attended the Social Conference was very much smaller. 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 course of time
the party in favour of political reform won and the Social Conference vanished and was
forgotten. 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 at 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 saw 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)'
I have stated the case for political reform as
put by Mr. Bonnerji. There were many who are happy that the victory went to the Congress.
But those who believe in the importance of social reform may ask, is the 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.
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 in his neck as a sign or a mark to prevent the
Hindus from getting themselves polluted by his touch through 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 the dust he treaded on lest a Hindu walking on the same
should be polluted. In Poona, the untouchable was required to carry an earthen pot, hung
in his neck wherever he went, for holding his spit lest his spit falling on earth should
pollute a Hindu who might unknowingly happen to tread on it. 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 villages of Kanaria, Bicholi-Hafsi, Bicholi-Mardana and of about 15 other
villages in the Indore djistrict (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 :
(1) Balais must not wear gold-lace-bordered
pugrees.
(2) They must not wear dhotis with coloured or
fancy borders.
(3) They must convey intimation of the death of
any Hindu to relatives of the deceased—no matter how far away these relatives may be
living.
(4) In all Hindu marriages, Balais must play
music before the processions and during the marriage.
(5) Balai women must not wear gold or silver
ornaments; they must not wear fancy gowns or jackets.
(6) Balai women must attend all cases of
confinement of Hindu women.
(7) Balais must render services without
demanding remuneration and must accept whatever a Hindu is pleased to give.
(8) If the Balais do not agree to abide by
these terms they must clear out of the villages. 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 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 lived for generations and to
migrate to adjoining States, viz. 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. 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. A most recent event is reported from the village
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 hundred, armed with
lathis, rushed to the scene, despoiled the food and belaboured the untouchables who left
the food they were 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 !
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 these 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. 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
last 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 relation to widow remarriage, child marriage etc., while
the latter relates to the abolition of the Caste System. 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 the social reform in the sense of the break-up of the caste system. It was never
put in issue by the reformers. That is the reason why the Social Reform Party lost.
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 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 reconstruction of society is a thesis which, I am sure, cannot be controverted. 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"
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 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. 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 in 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 noting 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, 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. 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. Any one 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 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 to 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.
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 which won the war of American Independence and Puritanism was a religious
movement. 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.
Ill
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 Mahatmos 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 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 Plebians 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 Plebian Consul elected by a separate electorate
constituted by the Commitia Centuriata, which
was an assembly of Piebians. 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. 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? 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 Plebians elected a Consul who was known
to be a strong party man 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. 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
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 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.
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
everything 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 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." 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 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 allow tyranny and oppression to continue to divide one class from another. 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 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 in 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, recognise 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 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.
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.
IV
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 is to be urged against this view is that 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
watertight compartments. Caste System is not merely a division of labourers which is quite
different from division of labour—it is an 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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
V
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 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. As a matter of fact Caste system came into being long after the different
races of India had commingled in blood and culture. To hold that distinctions of Castes or
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. Caste system does not demarcate racial division.
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. 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 noting. But one fails
to understand how the Caste System secures judicious mating. 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. If Caste is
eugenic in origin then the origin of sub-Castes must also be eugenic. But can any one
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 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. 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 deterioration of the race. 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. A tree should be judged by the fruits it yields. If caste is eugenic what
sort of a race of men it should 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 9/1Oths of which is declared to be unfit for military service. This shows
that the Caste System does not embody the eugenics of modem 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 authority to
force it on their inferiors.
VI
Caste does not result in economic efficiency.
Caste cannot and has not improved the race. Caste has however done one thing. It has
completely disorganized and demoralized the Hindus.
The first and foremost thing that must be recognized is that Hindu Society is a myth. The name Hindu is itself a foreign name. It was given by the Mohammedans to the natives for the purpose of distinguishing themselves. It does not occur in any Sanskrit work prior to the Mohammedan invasion. They did not feel the necessity of a common name because they had no conception of their having constituted a community. Hindu society as such does not exist. It is only a collection of castes. Each caste is conscious of its existence. Its survival is the be all and end all of its existence. Castes do not even form a federation. A caste has no feeling that it is affiliated to other castes except when there is a Hindu-Muslim riot. On all other occasions each caste endeavours to segregate itself and to distinguish itself from other castes. Each caste not only dines among itself and marries among itself but each caste prescribes its own distinctive dress. What other explanation can there be of the innumerable styles of dress worn by the men and women of India which so amuse the tourists ? Indeed the ideal Hindu must be like a rat living in his own hole refusing to have any contact with others. There is an utter lack among the Hindus of what the sociologists call " consciousness of kind ". There is no Hindu consciousness of kind. In every Hindu the consciousness that exists is the consciousness of his caste. That is the reason why the Hindus cannot be said to form a society or a nation. There are however many Indians whose patriotism does not permit them to admit that Indians are not a nation, that they are only an amorphous mass of people. They have insisted that underlying the apparent diversity there is a fundamental unity which marks the life of the Hindus in as much as there is a similarity of habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts which obtain all over the continent of India. Similarity in habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts there is. But one cannot accept the conclusion that therefore, the Hindus constitute a society. To do so is to misunderstand the essentials which go to make up a society. Men do not become a society by living in physical proximity any more than a man ceases to be a member of his society by living so many miles away from other men. Secondly similarity in habits and customs, beliefs an