Free Online FOOD for MIND & HUNGER - DO GOOD 😊 PURIFY MIND.To live like free birds 🐦 🦢 🦅 grow fruits 🍍 🍊 🥑 🥭 🍇 🍌 🍎 🍉 🍒 🍑 🥝 vegetables 🥦 🥕 🥗 🥬 🥔 🍆 🥜 🎃 🫑 🍅🍜 🧅 🍄 🍝 🥗 🥒 🌽 🍏 🫑 🌳 🍓 🍊 🥥 🌵 🍈 🌰 🇧🇧 🫐 🍅 🍐 🫒Plants 🌱in pots 🪴 along with Meditative Mindful Swimming 🏊‍♂️ to Attain NIBBĀNA the Eternal Bliss.
Kushinara NIBBĀNA Bhumi Pagoda White Home, Puniya Bhumi Bengaluru, Prabuddha Bharat International.

May 2013
« Apr   Jun »
907 LESSON 02-05-2013 THURSDAY-FREE ONLINE eNālāndā Research and Practice UNIVERSITY - THE ONLY BUDDHIST & SARVA SAMAJ (SC/ST/OBC/MINORITIES/POOR UPPER CASTES) an Alternative Media is: The Only Hope of the Nation Along with SDPI is Elephant of BSP! People are just fed up with Congress, other regional parties JDS, BSR, KJP and BJP! BSP will capture the MASTER KEY ! For Mayawati! For equal distribution of wealth of this country to Sarva SAMAJ i.e., for SC/ST/OBC/Minorities and poor upper castes for peace,welfare and happiness of the entire people and not just for corporate interests and in humanists. Maha Mayawati JI the next Prime Minister of PRABUDDHA BHARATH ‘’I will vote for BSP and its alliance and I hope they will win over 55 seats'’
Filed under: General
Posted by: site admin @ 4:40 pm
907 LESSON 02-05-2013 THURSDAY-FREE ONLINE  eNālāndā Research and Practice UNIVERSITY - THE ONLY BUDDHIST
Media is:

The Only Hope of the
Nation Along with SDPI is Elephant of BSP!

People are just fed up
with Congress, other regional parties
 BSP will capture the MASTER KEY !
For Mayawati!
equal distribution of wealth of this country to Sarva
i.e., for
SC/ST/OBC/Minorities and poor upper castes for peace,welfare and
happiness of the entire people and not just for corporate interests and
in humanists

Maha Mayawati JI the next Prime Minister of PRABUDDHA BHARATH

‘’I will vote for BSP and its alliance and I hope they will win over 55 seats'’

The Times Of India

Dear Jagatheesan Chandrasekharan,

Rajesh K Naik has responded to your comment on, on the article.'’They will caste their vote: Karnataka still remains extremely caste-conscious'’

‘’I will vote for BSP and its alliance and I hope they will win over 55 seats'’

To reply to this comment , or see the whole conversation , click here.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.


Return to frontpage


People are just fed up with Congress, and parties
like JDS, BSR, KJP and BJP because of corruption, inflation,
non-development and inhuman attitude of these parties. And the Congress
does not enjoy an edge because of the presence of BSP and its ELEPHANT
symbol along with SDPI with its AUTO RICKSHAW symbol.
Jagatheesan Chandrasekharan
Posted on: May 2, 2013 at 10:16 IST
Team TOI

The Times Of India

Dear Reader,

comment on the article ‘’Karnataka polls: Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara
Paliké’s blunder will have ‘dead’ people voting'’ is now displayed on

check on the website of the chief electoral officer of Karnataka will
also confirm that the affidavits of candidates cannot be viewed and many
candidates names are left out if it is the final list.
The EC while with discriminate source of caste bias booking SC/ST leader
for silly violation of Code of Conduct did not do so non SC/ST leaders
of Congress, BJP, KJP, JDS, BSP. The EC has to be booked under
prevention of SC/ST atrocities case. While in Uttar Pradesh in the last
Assembly ruling party’s symbol along with leaders statues were draped,
that too the symbol with raised trunks which was not the actual symbol
failed to drape the NATIONAL FLOWER LOTUS symbol of ruling BJP that is
going for polls and the RELIGIOUS HAND symbol of Congress ruling in the
Centre while most of the gods use LOTUS as their pedestal and HAND by
street corner astrologers and Islam as their sacred symbol. They were
allotted by EC which should have been frozen.Though memorandums were
submitted to CEC no action was taken and the Open Source Code of EVM is
not made public. The media which was active in UP is not active now.
The Only Hope of the
Nation Along with SDPI is Elephant of BSP!
People are just fed up
with Congress, other regional parties JDS, BSR, KJP and BJP!
BSP will capture the MASTER KEY !
For Mayawati!
For equal distribution of wealth of this country to Sarva SAMAJ i.e.,
for SC/ST/OBC/Minorities and poor upper castes for peace,welfare and
happiness of the entire people and not just for corporate interests and
in - humanists.'’

To reply to this comment , or see the whole conversation, click here.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

  Team TOI
The Indian Express

Neither of the candidate in UPA nor NDA must become the Prime
Minister. They are the chips of the old coal, iron and all other scam
blasts and vultures of the same feather flocking together to feed on the dead bodies of poor farmers and slum dwellers in support of corporates. Now

The Only Hope of the
Nation is Elephant of BSP!

People are just fed up
with UPA, NDA and their allies
 BSP will capture the MASTER KEY !
For Mayawati!
equal distribution of wealth of this country to Sarva
i.e., for
SC/ST/OBC/Minorities and poor upper castes for peace,welfare and
happiness of the entire people and not just for corporate interests and

SC questions Z-class security cover for Mukesh Ambani

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today questioned the government’s decision to provide state security to billionaire businessman Mukesh Ambani.

The government had agreed to provide Mukesh Ambani with top-level security cover following threats to his life.

to the lack of security for the common man and, especially, to rape of
the five-year-old child, the apex court said the rape would not have
occurred if there was proper security in the capital.

Under ‘Z Category’ cover, Ambani will have 22 security guards, an escort and a pilot car, an arrangement similar to that provided for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and ruling Congress party chief Sonia Gandhi.

country’s richest man, who controls the Reliance Industries Ltd
conglomerate, personally requested the ‘Z Category’ security that is
usually reserved for politicians and top-level civil servants.

Ambani has agreed to pay the government up to Rs 900,000 a month for protection by armed commandos.

Social media
websites were abuzz with criticism of the move, with many questioning
why highly trained commandos should protect a private citizen.

is such a rich man. He can hire the best security agencies. Why does
the government need to provide him with security charging such a peanuts with the hard earned Tax payers money going to this capitalist after buying the votes from the common man and allowing him to go on increasing the prices of Petrol, diesel and Gas?

“UPA, NDA and their allies are not opposing this move. This clearly shows Mukesh
Ambani is in the good books with these political parties.

Jagatheesan Avatar Hi, Jagatheesan

Yahoo! News

0users liked this commentThumbs UpThumbs Down0users disliked this comment
Jagatheesan • a second agoRemove
demands for the resignation of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in the
wake of his government’s alleged attempt to influence the Central Bureau
of Investigation (CBI) report on its investigation into how coal fields
were allotted.Countryshould be told as to whether from PMO (Prime
Minister’s office) by certain officers, certain suggestions were given
in a shape of e-mail to improve, correct or weaken the purport of the
affidavit supposedly to be filed by the CBI. Seeks resignation of Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh as well as Union Minister of Law and Justice,
Ashwani Kumar on the issue of influencing the report on coal scam.PMO
(Prime Minister’s office) pressurised the federal probe agency, Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to tone down coal scam report that it
submitted to the Supreme Court.Law Minister Ashwani Kumar met the
Director of CBI, Ranjit Sinha, asking for changes in the CBI’s report on
the coal scam, to be submitted in the Supreme Court.Coalfields were
allocated without a transparent bidding process, causing a loss of 1. 86
lakh crores to the public exchequer.Dr Manmohan Singh, was holding the
portfolio of Coal Ministry from 2006 to 2009 when most of the
allocations were made.
Former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in the 2G spectrum scam and
on telecom scam of 2G spectrum allocation leaked to the media gave
clean chit to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the then Home (interior)
Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram needs launch of a nationwide campaign
to expose both UPA and NDA governments in the larger interest of the
nation as
The Only Hope of the
Nation is Elephant of BSP!
People are just fed up
with UPA & NDA!
BSP must capture the MASTER KEY !
For Mayawati!
For equal distribution of wealth of this country to SARVA SAMAJ i.e.,
for SC/ST/OBC/Minorities and poor upper castes for peace,welfare and
happiness of the entire people and not just for corporate interests and
in humanists.

The New Indian Express

Whenever a Scheduled Caste/Tribe becomes eligible for
his/her higher promotion false cases are being booked against them to
deprive them of their promotions and to promote their juniors who are
non-SC/STs who dont have the benefit of reservation. This is going on in
Central and State Govt and PSUs. Like wise Ms Mayawati is now eligible
to become the Prime Minister of this country who travels by Charted
planes which is not tolerated by the non SC/ST rulers who are ruling
this country.
The Election Commission is not a holy cow.
Congress candidate had complained that the party took money from
candidates worth crores. When Sonia came to Karnataka the EC did not
register any case against her. There are allegations against Advani for
taking bribe from Yediurappa. The EC did not register any case against
Advani when he came to Karnataka. No case had been registered against
Sushma Suraj.

Posted by

04/30/2013 09:39

In Uttar Pradesh the EC ordered to drape the symbol and
leaders of the then ruling party. Actually the draped symbol was trunk
raised one. In Karnataka National flower LOTUS symbol and BJPs leaders’
statues are not being draped. Most the gods pedestals are LOTUS. But the
EC has not ordered to drape them. Congress is ruling in Center. The
HANDS and the Congress leaders’ statues are not being draped by the EC.
The EC had allotted the NATIONAL FLOWER LOTUS to BJP and HAND to
Congress which are also sacred religious symbols where astrologers and
Islam revere them. The EC should not have allotted these symbols to
political parties or at least now they should freeze them.
The EC has not made public the open source code of Electronic Voting
Machines. In its absence EC can manipulate the results. Many democracies
have challenged this.
Hence the EC is descriminative source of bias which is not practicing a
level playing field. KG Jagadeesh must be booked under SC/ST atrocities

Posted by

04/30/2013 09:44

The Times of India

Jagatheesan Chandrasekharan (b) 0 min ago
is the only party which works on the policy of Sarvajan Hithay Sarvajan
Sukhay meaning peace, welfare and happiness for the entire people
including SC/ST/OBC/Minorities and poor Upper Castes as enshrined in the
Constitution. People will hand over the MASTER KEY to BSP to unlock all
door of development to distribute the wealth of the country/state
equally among all sections of the society and to enable them to attain
Eternal Bliss as their final goal.

Return to frontpage

Mayawati Ji said that the people of Tamil Nadu had to be awakened. Only
then there will be true peace, welfare and happiness of the entire
people including SC/ST/OBC/Minorities and poor Upper Castes. the rule of
divide the castes and rule by Tamil Nadu rulers has to be exposed and

EC will not do banning draping of any violation of
Code of Conduct by non SC/ST candidates and leaders and actors for the
benefit of UPA and NDA. Who knows Jha may be promoted as CEC for his
loyalty and booking SC/ST leader.

In Uttar Pradesh the EC ordered
to drape the symbol and leaders of the then ruling party. Actually the
draped symbol was trunk raised one. In Karnataka National flower LOTUS
symbol and BJPs leaders’ statues are not being draped. Most the gods
pedestals are LOTUS. But the EC has not ordered to drape them. Congress
is ruling in Center. The HANDS and the Congress leaders’ statues are not
being draped by the EC. The EC had allotted the NATIONAL FLOWER LOTUS
to BJP and HAND to Congress which are also sacred religious symbols
where astrologers and Islam revere them. The EC should not have allotted
these symbols to political parties or at least now they should freeze
them. The EC has not made public the open source code of Electronic
Voting Machines. In its absence EC can manipulate the results. Many
democracies have challenged this. Hence the EC is descriminative source
of bias which is not practicing a level playing field. KG Jagadeesh must
be booked under SC/ST atrocities act.

are specific instances of corruption in the United Progressive
Alliance government at the Centre related to 2G, defence helicopter
deal, coal scam and employment guarantee scheme. while indulging in
massive corruption was only achievement of the Bharatiya Janata Party
government in Karnataka. BJP model of governance was synonymous with
corruption.The “party with difference” was solely responsible for
illegal mining in
Karnataka that had reportedly caused a loss of over Rs. 15,000 crore to
the exchequer. Bharatiya Janata Party’s Karnataka leadership is “the
masters of corruption”. BJP regime had set a “world record in
corruption” and framed laws and
policies not for the common people, but for mining barons in Bellary.
“In the last elections, two brothers were given the responsibility to
elect 40 MLAs, and later they were allowed to loot natural resources.”
Under the BJP government, “Employment avenues have shrunk and corruption
at all levels has damaged the reputation of the State.Hence  The Only Hope of the Nation Along with SDPI is Elephant of BSP! People are just fed up with Congress, other regional parties JDS, BSR, KJP and BJP! BSP will capture the MASTER KEY !For Mayawati!

Jagatheesan Chandrasekharan (Bangalore)
check on the website of the chief electoral officer of Karnataka will
also confirm that the affidavits of candidates cannot be viewed and may
candidates names are left out if it is the final list.
The EC while with discriminate source of caste bias booking SC/ST leader
for silly violation of Code of Conduct did not do so non SC/ST leaders
of Congress, BJP, KJP, JDS, BSP. The EC has to be booked under
prevention of SC/ST atrocities case. While in Uttar Pradesh in the last
Assembly ruling party’s symbol along with leaders statues were draped,
that to the symbol with raised trunks which was not the actual symbol
failed to drape the NATIONAL FLOWER LOTUS symbol of ruling BJP that is
going for polls and the RELIGIOUS HAND symbol of Congress ruling in the
Centre while most of the gods use LOTUS as their pedestal and HAND by
street corner astrologers and Islam as their sacred symbol. They were
allotted by EC which should have been frozen.Though memorandums were
submitted to CEC no action was taken and the Open Source Code of EVM is
not made public. The media which was active in UP is not active now.
The Only Hope of the
Nation Along with SDPI is Elephant of BSP!
People are just fed up
with Congress, other regional parties JDS, BSR, KJP and BJP!
BSP will capture the MASTER KEY !
For Mayawati!
For equal distribution of wealth of this country to Sarva SAMAJ i.e.,
for SC/ST/OBC/Minorities and poor upper castes for peace,welfare and
happiness of the entire people and not just for corporate interests and
in - humanists.

0users liked this commentThumbs UpThumbs Down0users disliked this comment
Jagatheesan • a second agoRemove

Samaj Party (BSP), Mayawati, has charged the Election Commission with
perpetrating a culture of caste bias after she was recently frisked in
poll-bound Karnataka which means that BSP treading on the right path.
This is not tolerated by the manuvadis which believes in 1st,2nd,3rd,4th
rate athmas (souls) and that the SC/STs have no soul and they can
indulge in all sorts of discrimination. But the Buddha never believed in
any soul. He said all are equal. That is the reason why Dr.B.R.
Ambedkar wanted all discriminated people to return back to Buddhism for
self respect, peace, welfare and happiness. The discriminative and
source of bias of EC instead of freezing the National Flower Lotus and
religious Hand symbol used by gods’ pedestals, astrologers and Islam and
draping all the symbols and statues of UPA and NDA ruling in the Center
and Karnataka State as done in Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections for
level playing field in indulging in such discriminative source of bias
in order to save UPA and NDA’s sagging image because of corruption,
inflation, in human and non development of the nation. The EC must also
make public the open source code of EVMs which they will not do to
protect the casteist and communal UPA and NDA who support the corporates
and the biased media who are responsible of high inflation and lack of
drinking water, uninterrupted power supply social boycott of the
downtrodden. that is the reason for the British parliament’s decision to
recognize the existence of caste alongside race as a form of
discrimination and sources of bias should be equated. All Democratic
countries, fearless media and UN to support Bahujan Samaj Party to
acquire the MASTER KEY for peace, welfare and happiness by distributing
the wealth of the country equally among all sections of the society
including SC/ST/OBC/Minorities and Poor Upper castes to attain Eternal
Bliss as Final Goal, since all the ruling parties such as UPA, NDA and
other regional parties believing in athmas failed to do so. It must give
a strong push to portray caste as a global phenomenon like race,and it
should be a subject of policy at international fora like the United

Jagatheesan Chandrasekharan (Bangalore)
the above mentioned parties are incapable of giving good governance
with their discriminative source of bias supporting the corporates and
upper castes. good governance includes distribution of healthy deeds,
land to the tillers and uninterrupted irrigation to the farmers. Free
Education to all the children up to an age of 14. Government loan to all
youth who wish to start their own business and trade. Corrupt free
government employees who are efficient for providing good governance as
enshrined in the Constitution.


The Buddha explained how to handle insult and maintain compassion. One day
Buddha was walking through a village. A very angry and rude young man came up
and began insulting him.

“You have no right teaching others,” he shouted. “You are as stupid as everyone
else. You are nothing but a fake.”

Buddha was not upset by these insults. Instead he asked the young man “Tell me,
if you buy a gift for someone, and that person does not take it, to whom does
the gift belong?”

The man was surprised to be asked such a strange question and answered, “It
would belong to me, because I bought the gift.”

The Buddha smiled and said, “That is correct, and it is exactly the same with
your anger. If you become angry with me and I do not get insulted, then the
anger falls back on you. You are then the only one who becomes unhappy, not me.
All you have done is hurt yourself.”

“If you want to stop hurting yourself, you must get rid of your anger and
become loving instead. When you hate others, you yourself become unhappy, but
when you love others, everyone is happy.”

The young man listened closely to these wise words of the Buddha. “You are
right, Enlightened One, “he said. “Please teach me the path of love. I wish to
become your follower.”

The Buddha answered kindly, “Of course. I teach anyone who truly wants to
learn. Come with me.”

Beautiful Quotes:
If you are right then there is no need to get angry and if you are wrong then
you don’t have any right to get angry.
Patience with family is love, patience with others is respect, patience with
self is confidence, and patience with Buddha is faith.
Never Think Hard about PAST, it brings Tears…
Don’t Think more about FUTURE, it brings Fears…
Live this Moment with a Smile, it brings Cheers.!!!!
Search a beautiful heart not a beautiful face.
Beautiful things are not always good but good things are always beautiful.

The Times of India

Jagatheesan Chandrasekharan (Bangalore) 25 mins ago
parliament’s decision to recognize the existence of caste alongside
race as a form of discrimination sources of bias should be equated.
Casteism is worst than Racism. Manuvad recognise 1st, 2nd,3rd,4th rate
athmas(souls) and SC/STs have no soul. Buddha never believed in any
soul. He said all are equal. Therefore Dr.B.R.Ambedkar reverted back all
those who never believed in any soul to Buddhism. All Democratic
countries, fearless media and UN to support Bahujan Samaj Party to
acquire the MASTER KEY for peace, welfare and happiness by distributing
the wealth of the country equally among all sections of the society
including SC/ST/OBC/Minorities and Poor Upper castes to attain Eternal
Bliss as Final Goal, since all the ruling parties such as UPA, NDA and
other regional parties believing in athmas failed to do so.

It must give a strong push to portray caste as a global phenomenon like
race,and it should be a subject of policy at international fora like
the United Nations.

Jagatheesan Chandrasekharan (b)
Castes are subjected for discrimination of such source of bias, it
means that they are treading on the right path. The EC instead of
freezing the National Flower Lotus and religious Hand symbol used by
gods pedestals, astrologers and Islam and draping all the symbols and
statues of UPA and NDA ruling in the Center and Karnataka State as done
in Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections for level playing field in indulging
in such discriminative source of bias in order to save UPA and NDA’s
sagging image because of corruption, inflation, in human and non
development of the nation.

Jagatheesan Chandrasekharan

an hour ago


Congress has been ruling
in the Centre and States for more than 60 years.Why did they not give
rice for Re.1 per Kg all these years. First of all have they made
education free as directed in the Constitution? Leave alone promising
free laptops can they promise to give Internet connections which costs
Rs1000/- per month to all these laptops. Students will only sell these
laptops as they did in Uttar Pradesh.Congress or the BJP never even
attempted to distribute healthy seeds, land to the tillers and
uninterrupted irrigation to the farmers. Government loans were not given
to youths to start their own trade and business. Government servants
were corrupt and were not asked by these parties to be loyal and
efficient for their good governance. Hence

The Only Hope of the Nation is Elephant of BSP!

People are just fed up
with Congress, other regional parties JDS, BSR, KJP and BJP!

After 15 opposition members of the 2G JPC told Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar they had no confidence in its chairman P.C. Chacko, the Congress members  demanded three BJP MPs be removed from the panel or debarred from voting due to conflict of interest.
“We have urged the speaker to remove three BJP members - Ravi Shankar Prasad, Yashwant Sinha and Jaswant Singh
- from the JPC or debar them from voting as they were either telecom
ministers or were part of a group of ministers on the issue during the
NDA rule (1998-2004) and there would be a conflict of interest if the
draft report would be discussed and finalised in their presence,”

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) members are miffed as the draft report
states the government incurred losses worth over Rs.40,000 core during
the NDA rule under then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.



a Scheduled Caste does some thing it is called wrong doing and punished
and if non-Scheduled Castes does the same mistake it is just an error
and escapes. This is un-Constitutional but it is the law of manu where
errorists are allowed to escape.

Congress has been ruling
in the Centre and States for more than 60 years.Why did they not give
rice for Re.1 per Kg all these years. First of all have they made
education free as directed in the Constitution? Leave alone promising
free laptops can they promise to give Internet connections which costs
Rs1000/- per month to all these laptops. Students will only sell these
laptops as they did in Uttar Pradesh.Congress or the BJP never even
attempted to distribute healthy seeds, land to the tillers and
uninterrupted irrigation to the farmers. Government loans were not given
to youths to start their own trade and business. Government servants
were corrupt and were not asked by these parties to be loyal and
efficient for their good governance.

The Only Hope of the Nation is Elephant of BSP!

People are just fed up
with Congress, other regional parties JDS, BSR, KJP and BJP!
 BSP will capture the MASTER KEY !
For Mayawati!

PAID NEWS medias have no self respect. For the sake of advertisement
they violate law of the land and conduct Pre-Poll surveys. Napolean had
once said that he can face two battalions but not two scribes.All
surveys are bull shit.

time many voters may not go for voting as they are fed up with BJP,
Congress, JDS, KJP, BSR because they are all chips of the old coal and
iron blasts and vultures of the same feather flocking together who feed
on the dead bodies of farmers. If again elected these vultures may even
feed on the dead bodies of urbanites because of the ever increasing high

The petition said around 6,000 people have been rendered homeless after
their houses were razed by the developer.

Now, candidates launch direct transfer scheme for voters.

It is another innovation from Karnataka that will revolutionise
electoral politics. If the results of the 2008 elections taught
politicians how to circumvent the anti-defection law through Operation
Kamala, 2013 elections have thrown up a direct cash transfer scheme for
bribing voters.

Outgoing Congress MLA for Kanakapura D.K. Shivakumar tops the Midas
charts, followed by two more party colleagues — Priya Krishna and
Santosh Lad.

Congress’ ‘most eligible bachelor’ is worth over Rs 900 cr in the fray from
Govindrajnagar segment. His wealth was
declared at Rs 765 crore in the 2009 Assembly bypoll
son of realtor-politician  who is a sitting MLA from Vijayanagar here.


As many as 57 Congress MLAs, although out of power, reported an average
asset rise of Rs. 13 crore (60 per cent) each. The Janata Dal (Secular)
has reported an average increase of Rs. 11 crore (198 per cent) in
assets of each of its MLAs.

For the Bharatiya Janata Party, its 73 MLAs became 132 per cent richer at an average increase of Rs. 6 crore each.

Other notables are Appachu Ranjan of BJP (Madikeri) whose assets have
grown from Rs. 18.2 lakh to Rs.10.65 crore, excluding the undeclared
value of his six vehicles, jewellery and immoveable property; and S.
Raghu, also of BJP, (C.V. Raman Nagar) from 72.8 lakh to Rs. 31.64 crore
in five years.

Deputy Chief Minister K.S. Eshwarappa owns assets worth
Rs. 4.8 crore, while his wife, Jayalakshmi, owns assets worth Rs. 2.47

Advani is accused of taking money from Yeddyurappa

The ADR-EW team said that this year, 42 of the 48 MLAs with criminal records have returned to the polls.

Union Law Minister Ashwani Kumar may find
himself in a spot when the CBI files its affidavit in the Supreme Court
on whether the coalgate report was vetted by the Law Ministry and the

coal mine allocations done in 1993 to 2010 as “unauthorised and
illegal”, a Parliamentary panel on Tuesday suggested scrapping of mines
that have not started production.

The Committee
said it was “astonished” to find that although 195 blocks with 44.23
billion tonnes of reserves were allotted, no estimates for the value of
coal extracted was made by the government. It stressed the need for
introducing a proper mechanism for correct evaluation.

BJP looted Karnataka

Ruling BJP in Karnataka,is accused of “looting” the
state that it would lose the May 5 Karnataka assembly polls.

BJP broke
electoral promises and “the only thing they remembered was how to loot
public money in the state. They have done it. They are past masters in

the government for forgetting its promises of employment, water and
24-hour power supply, he said “last time you made BJP victorious, you
trusted them. They promised you 24-hour power supply, did you get it?
They promised you employment, did you get it? They forgot employment,

BJP was talking about corruption in
Delhi, but gave “Vidhan Sabha seats to two brothers
(mining barons from Bellary Janardhana Reddy and Karunakara Reddy who
are facing corruption cases).”

VVIP chopper deal: CBI freezes bank account of ex-IAF chief

VVIP Helicopter deal 4000 crore scam

Rajasthan stone quarry scam

Farm loan waiver scam

Dental Multicrore scam

The Great Thorium Robbery ?????????? Crores

DLF- Vadra Scam

Coal block allotment scam Rs. 186000 crores

Adarsh Scam - shameless, unpatriotic scam where politicians were
allotted the houses meant for Kargil Martyrs in Jokelal State of Maharashtra.

2G Spectrum Scam 2008 Rs. 176000

Granite stone scam (TN) - 18,000 crores


S-Band Scam

always Lie in pre-polls. Indian voters never give a right answer who
they voted they would adjust to your convenience. Media and money power
did not work in the concluded Urban Elections. Congress won because of
the absence of BSP and the ELEPHANT symbol was not alotted to any
candidate. Now BSP along with SDPI and former Chairman od Backward Class
Commission will do the trick.

So now should looting continue here in cash rich state with the id of the greedy media ?

The BJP has had a history of appropriating figures that had no
ideological linkage with it and were at times even opposed to it. From
Mahatma Gandhi to Bhagat Singh to Vivekananda and BR Ambedkar, the party
has tried to piggyback onto the legacies of many.

The New Indian Express

Congress has been ruling in the Centre and States for
more than 60 years.Why did they not give rice for Re.1 per Kg all these
years. First of all have they made education free as directed in the
Constitution? Leave alone promising free laptops can they promise to
give Internet connections which costs Rs1000/- per month to all these
laptops. Students will only sell these laptops as they did in Uttar
Pradesh.Congress or the BJP never even attempted to distribute healthy
seeds, land to the tillers and uninterrupted irrigation to the farmers.
Government loans were not given to youths to start their own trade and
business. Government servants were corrupt and were not asked by these
parties to be loyal and efficient for their good governance. Hence
The Only Hope of the Nation is Elephant of BSP!
People are just fed up
with Congress, other regional parties JDS, BSR, KJP and BJP!
BSP will capture the MASTER KEY !
For Mayawati!

Posted by

04/26/2013 10:06

Jagatheesan Chandrasekharan (Bangalore) 0 min ago
Commission of India may pass orders to make public the Open Source
Code of EVMs and train booth agents on the same for Tamper proof of
2. Freeze National Flower LOTUS symbol allotted by CEC to BJP and sacred
HAND symbol to Congress where it is used by street palmists and Islam.
3. Drape LOTUS symbol of BJP ruling Karnataka and Hand symbol of
Congress ruling the country and all the statues and pictures of their
leaders and gods on lotus along with the symbols, pictures, statues of

34 minutes ago

Excellency may pass orders to distribute the wealth of the country
equally among all sections of the society including
SC/STs/OBCs/Minorities/ poor upper castes by way of govt giving healthy
seeds to the farmers including equal distribution of land and irrigation
to all farmers, all the financial institutions to give loans to all
youth who wished to start small business with free education and the
government employees to be loyal to the government and not to indulge in
corruption as enshrined in the Constitution. Such an order by His
Excellency will bring equality in the society and avoid all evil deeds
by individuals and fanatics and bring peace, welfare and happiness to
entire people and attain eternal peace as final goal.

21 minutes ago

His Excellency may pass orders to CEC to make public the Open Source
Code of EVMs and train booth agents  on the same for Tamper
proof of EVMs.
2. Freeze National Flower LOTUS symbol allotted by CEC to BJP and sacred
HAND symbol to Congress where it is used by street palmists and Islam.
3. Drape LOTUS symbol of BJP ruling Karnataka and Hand symbol of
Congress ruling the country and all the statues and pictures of their
leaders and gods on lotus for EQUAL LEVEL FIELD.

0users liked this commentThumbs UpThumbs Down0users disliked this comment
Jagatheesan • a second agoRemove
the last more than 65 years the dynasty and the BJP were always
promising that they would empower the poor but were only busy in
empowering the corporates and were in humanistic non development of the
poor by not reserving the wealth of the country equally to all sections
of the society including SC/STs/OBCs/Minorities/poor upper castes
resulting in ever rising prices of essential commodities.Now farmers are
committing suicides. Again if these parties comes to power even the
people living will start committing suicides. They failed to distribute
healthy seeds to the farmers including land to the tillers with equal
irrigation. No free education and distribution of loans to the youths to
start their own business. Failed to contain the government employees to
be loyal to the government and to be free from corruption as enshrined
in the Constitution. It is only when BSP is handed over the MASTER KEY
the entire people will get benefit and lead a peaceful and happy life
because their manifesto is the Constitution.

கோலார் மாவட்டம், மாலூர் தொகுதியில், பா.ஜ., அறிவித்த வேட்பாளர், மனு தாக்கல் செய்யாததால், அத்தொகுதியில் பா.ஜ., போட்டியிடவில்லை.

கே.ஜே.பி. சில தொகுதிகளில், ம.ஜ.த.,
வேட்பாளர்களையும், சில தொகுதிகளில், பா.ஜ.,வுக்கு ஆதரவாகவும்,
செயல்பட்டு வருகின்றனர்.

பல தொகுதிகளில், காங்கிரஸ் அதிருப்தி வேட்பாளர்கள் தலை தூக்கியுள்ளனர்.
அவர்கள், எதிர்க்கட்சியினருக்கு பிரசாரம் செய்து வருகின்றனர்.

தேர்தலில் வென்றால், நாங்கள் தான் முதல்வர் என, சட்டசபை எதிர்க்கட்சித்
தலைவர் சித்தராமையாவும், மாநில காங்கிரஸ் தலைவர் பரமேஸ்வரும் கூறியதால்
சலசலப்பு நிலவியது.

ஊழல் முறைகேட்டில் சிக்கியதாக, முன்னாள் அமைச்சர், கட்டா சுப்பிரமணிய நாயுடு, கிருஷ்ணய்ய

ஷெட்டி, எம்.எல்.ஏ., சம்பங்கி ஆகியோருக்கு, சீட் வழங்காததால்,

அக்கட்சியிலும் அதிருப்தியாளர்கள் அதிகரித்துள்ளனர்.

கவுடா கட்சி: ம.ஜ.த.,

அனைத்து தொகுதிகளிலும் போட்டியிடுவதாக காட்டிக் கொள்வதற்காக, சில

தொகுதிகளில் பெயரளவில் மட்டுமே வேட்பாளர்களை களம் இறக்கியுள்ளது. பல

மாவட்டங்களில் இக்கட்சியிலும் அதிருப்தியாளர்களுக்கு பஞ்சமில்லை. பல

முக்கிய தலைவர்கள் ராஜினாமா செய்து, காங்கிரசில் ஐக்கியமாகியுள்ளனர்.

ம.ஜ.த., முன்னாள் சபாநாயகர்க்கு கூட, போட்டியிட அக்கட்சி,

டிக்கெட்கொடுக்கவில்லை. இத்தொகுதியில், கிருஷ்ணாவை ஆதரிக்க, கே.ஜே.பி., முடிவு செய்துள்ளது.

கெடுபிடி: தேர்தல் பிரசாரத்தின் போது, தேர்தல் கமிஷன் கடும் கெடுபிடிகளை
விதித்துள்ளதால், கர்நாடக மாநிலத்தில் எந்த தொகுதியிலும் தேர்தல்
நடப்பதாகவே தெரியவில்லை. கட் - அவுட், பேனர்களுக்கு அனுமதி
அளிக்கப்படவில்லை. திருமண விருந்து அளிப்பதற்கு கூட, தேர்தல் கமிஷன் தடை
விதித்துள்ளது. ஆனால், சில நிபந்தனைகளுடன் கர்நாடகா உயர்நீதிமன்றம்
தளர்த்தியுள்ளது.தேர்தல் கமிஷன் கெடுபிடி, இதுவரை இல்லாத வகையில், கடுமையாக
உள்ளது. வாகனச் சோதனையில், பணம், மது பாட்டில்கள், நகைகள் உட்பட, பல கோடி
ரூபாய் மதிப்புள்ள பொருட்கள் கைப்பற்றப்பட்டுள்ளன.

The Indian Express

  • Jagatheesan Chandrasekharan

    29 minutes ago

    Whenever a Scheduled Caste/Tribe becomes eligible for
    his/her higher promotion false cases are being booked against them to
    deprive them of their promotions and to promote their juniors who are
    non-SC/STs who dont have the benefit of reservation. This is going on in
    Central and State Govt and PSUs. Like wise Ms Mayawati is now eligible
    to become the Prime Minister of this country who travels by Charted
    which is not tolerated by the non SC/STs because of discriminative
    source of bias in the manuvadi system. Father of the Constitution
    Dr.B.R.Ambedkar has rightly narrated this in address on ANNIHILATION OF
    CASTE. To day we see large number of Corrupted Judges and
    inconsistencies in their judgements.


    Dr. B. R. Ambedkar


    The 1936 Annual Conference of the Jat-Pat-Todak
    Mandal of Lahore


    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


    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
    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.

  • Jagatheesan Chandrasekharan

    a minute ago

    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

    (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

    (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.

  • Jagatheesan Chandrasekharan

    a few seconds ago


    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.


    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


    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
    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.

  • Jagatheesan Chandrasekharan

    a few seconds ago


    Caste does not result in economic efficiency.
    Caste cannot and has not improved the race. Caste has however done one thing. It has
    completely disorganized and demoralized the Hindus.

    The first and foremost thing that must be
    recognized is that Hindu Society is a myth. The name Hindu is itself a foreign name. It
    was given by the Mohammedans to the natives for the purpose of distinguishing themselves.
    It does not occur in any Sanskrit work prior to the Mohammedan invasion. They did not feel
    the necessity of a common name because they had no conception of their having constituted
    a community. Hindu society as such does not exist. It is only a collection of castes. Each
    caste is conscious of its existence. Its survival is the be all and end all of its
    existence. Castes do not even form a federation. A caste has no feeling that it is
    affiliated to other castes except when there is a Hindu-Muslim riot. On all other
    occasions each caste endeavours to segregate itself and to distinguish itself from other
    castes. Each caste not only dines among itself and marries among itself but each caste
    prescribes its own distinctive dress. What other explanation can there be of the
    innumerable styles of dress worn by the men and women of India which so amuse the tourists
    ? Indeed the ideal Hindu must be like a rat living in his own hole refusing to have any
    contact with others. There is an utter lack among the Hindus of what the sociologists call
    ” consciousness of kind “. There is no Hindu consciousness of kind. In every
    Hindu the consciousness that exists is the consciousness of his caste. That is the reason
    why the Hindus cannot be said to form a society or a nation. There are however many
    Indians whose patriotism does not permit them to admit that Indians are not a nation, that
    they are only an amorphous mass of people. They have insisted that underlying the apparent
    diversity there is a fundamental unity which marks the life of the Hindus in as much as
    there is a similarity of habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts which obtain all over
    the continent of India. Similarity in habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts there is.
    But one cannot accept the conclusion that therefore, the Hindus constitute a society. To
    do so is to misunderstand the essentials which go to make up a society. Men do not become
    a society by living in physical proximity any more than a man ceases to be a member of his
    society by living so many miles away from other men. Secondly similarity in habits and
    customs, beliefs and thoughts is not enough to constitute men into society. Things may be
    passed physically from one to another like bricks. In the same way habits and customs,
    beliefs and thoughts of one group may be taken over by another group and there may thus
    appear a similarity between the two. Culture spreads by diffusion and that is why one
    finds similarity between various primitive tribes in the matter of their habits and
    customs, beliefs and thoughts, although they do not live in proximity. But no one could
    say that because there was this similarity the primitive tribes constituted one society.
    is because similarly in certain things is not enough to constitute a
    society. Men constitute a society because they have things
    which they possess in common. To have similar thing is totally different from possessing
    things in common. And the only way by which men can come to possess things in common with
    one another is by being in communication with one another. This is merely another way of
    saying that Society continues to exist by communication indeed in communication. To make
    it concrete, it is not enough if men act in a way which agrees with the acts of others.
    Parallel activity, even if similar, is not sufficient to bind men into a society. This is
    proved by the 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.


    The Hindus often complain of the isolation and
    exclusiveness of a gang or a clique and blame them for anti-social spirit. But they
    conveniently forget that this anti-social spirit is the worst feature of their own Caste
    System. One caste enjoys singing a hymn of hate against another caste as much as the
    Germans did in singing their hymn of hate against the English during the last war. The
    literature of the Hindus is full of caste genealogies in which an attempt is made to give
    a noble origin to one caste and an ignoble origin to other castes. The Sahyadrikhand is a notorious instance of this class
    of literature. This anti-social spirit is not confined to caste alone. It has gone deeper
    and has poisoned the mutual relations of the sub-castes as well. In my province the Golak
    Brahmins, Deorukha Brahmins, Karada Brahmins, Palshe Brahmins and Chitpavan Brahmins, all
    claim to be 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. 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-Brahmin’s
    primary concern is to protect their interests against those of the Brahmins. The Hindus,
    therefore, are not merely an assortment of castes but they are so many warring groups each
    living for itself and for its selfish ideal. There is another feature of caste which is
    deplorable. The ancestors of the present-day English fought on one side or the other in
    the wars of the Roses and the Cromwellian War. But the decendents 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.


    The recent discussion about the excluded and
    partially included areas has served to draw attention to the position of what are called
    the aboriginal tribes in India. They number about 13 millions if not more. Apart from the
    questions whether their exclusion from the new Constitution is proper or improper, the
    fact still remains that these aborigines have remained in their primitive uncivilized
    State in a land which boasts of a civilization thousands of years old. Not only are they
    not civilized but some of them follow pursuits which have led to their being classified as
    criminals. Thirteen millions of people living in the midst of civilization are still in a
    savage state and are leading the life of hereditary criminals! ! But the Hindus have never
    felt ashamed of it. This is a phenomenon which in my view is quite unparalleled. What is
    the cause of this shameful state of affairs ? Why has no attempt been made to civilize
    these aborigines and to lead them to take to a more honourable way of making a living ?
    The Hindus will probably seek to account for this savage state of the aborigines by
    attributing to them congenital stupidity. They will probably not admit that the aborigines
    have remained savages because they had made no effort to civilize them, to give them
    medical aid, to reform them, to make them good citizens. But supposing a Hindu wished to
    do what the Christian missionary is doing for these aborigines, could he have done it ? I
    submit not. Civilizing the aborigines means adopting them as your own, living in their
    midst, and cultivating fellow-feeling, in short loving them. How is it possible for a
    Hindu to do this ? His whole life is one anxious effort to preserve his caste. Caste is
    his precious possession which he must save at any cost. He cannot consent to lose it by
    contact with the aborigines the remnants of the hateful Anary as of the
    Vedic days. Not that a Hindu could not be taught the sense of duty to
    fallen humanity, but
    the trouble is that no amount of sense of duty can enable him to overcome his duty to
    preserve his caste. Caste is, therefore, the real explanation as to why the Hindu has let
    the savage remain a savage in the midst of his civilization without blushing or without
    feeling any sense of remorse or repentance. The Hindu has not realized that these
    aborigines are a source of potential danger. If these savages remain savages they may not
    do any harm to the Hindus. But if they are reclaimed by non-Hindus and converted to their
    faiths they will swell the ranks of the enemies of the Hindus. If this happens the Hindu
    will have to thank himself and his Caste System.


    Not only has the Hindu made no effort for the
    humanitarian cause of civilizing the savages but the higher-caste Hindus have deliberately
    prevented the lower castes who are within the pale of Hinduism from rising to the cultural
    level of the higher castes. 1. will give two instances, one of the Sonars and the other of
    the Pathare Prabhus. Both are communities quite well-known in Maharashtra. Like the rest
    of the communities desiring to raise their status these two communities were at one time
    endeavouring to adopt some of the ways and habits of the Brahmins. The Sonars were styling
    themselves Daivadnya Brahmins and were wearing their ” dhotis ” with folds on
    and using the word namaskar for salutation.
    Both, the folded way of wearing the ” dhoti ” and the namaskar were special to the Brahmins. The 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. 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 amark
    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.
    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.


    Whether the Hindu religion was or was not a
    missionary religion has been a controversial issue. Some hold the view that it was never a
    missionary religion. Others hold that it was. That the Hindu religion was once a
    missionary religion must be admitted. It could not have spread over the face of India, if
    it was not a missionary religion. That today it is not a missionary religion is also a
    fact which must be accepted. The question therefore is not whether or not the Hindu
    religion was a missionary religion. The real question is why did the Hindu religion cease
    to be a missionary religion ? My answer is this. Hindu religion ceased to be a missionary
    religion when the Caste System grew up among the Hindus. Caste is inconsistent with
    conversion. Inculcation of beliefs and dogmas is not the only problem that is involved in
    conversion. To find a place for the convert in the social life of the community is another
    and a much more important problem that arises in connection with conversion. That problem
    is where to place the convert, in what caste ? It is a problem which must baffle every
    Hindu wishing to make aliens converts to his religion. Unlike the club the membership of a
    caste is not open to all and sundry. The law of caste confines its membership to person
    born in the caste. Castes are autonomous and there is no authority anywhere to compel a
    caste to admit a new-comer to its social life. Hindu Society being a collection of castes
    and each caste being a close corporation there is no place for a convert. Thus it is the
    caste which has prevented the Hindus from expanding and from absorbing other religious
    communities. So long as caste remain, Hindu religion cannot be made a missionary religion
    and Shudhi will be both a folly and a futility.


    The reasons which have made Shudhi impossible for Hindus are also responsible
    for making Sanghatan impossible. The idea
    underlying Sanghalan is to remove from the mind
    of the Hindu that timidity and cowardice which so painfully make him off from the
    Mohammedan and the Sikh and which have led him to adopt the low ways of treachery and
    cunning for protecting himself. The question naturally arises : From where does the Sikh
    or the Mohammedan derive his strength which makes him brave and fearless ? I am sure it is
    not due to relative superiority of physical strength, diet or drill. It is due to the
    strength arising out of the feeling that all Sikhs will come to the rescue of a Sikh when
    he is in danger and that all Mohammedans will rush to save a Muslim if he is attacked. The
    Hindu can derive no such strength. He cannot feel assured that his fellows will come to
    his help. Being one and fated to be alone he remains powerless, develops timidity and
    cowardice and in a fight surrenders or runs away. The Sikh as well as the Muslim stands
    fearless and gives battle because he knows that though one he will not be alone. The
    presence of this belief in the one helps him to hold out and the absence of it in the
    other makes him to give way. If you pursue this matter further and ask what is it that
    enables the Sikh and the Mohammedan to feel so assured and why is the Hindu filled with
    such despair in the matter of help and assistance you will find that the reasons for this
    difference lie in the difference in their associated mode of living. The associated mode
    of life practised by the Sikhs and the Mohammedans produces fellow-feeling. The associated
    mode of life of the Hindus does not. Among Sikhs and Muslims there is a social cement
    which makes them Bhais. Among Hindus there is no
    such cement and one Hindu does not regard another Hindu as his Bhai. This explains why a Sikh says and feels that
    one Sikh, or one Khalsa is equal to Sava Lakh
    men. This explains why one Mohammedan is equal to a crowd of Hindus. This difference is
    a difference due to caste. So long as caste remains, there will be no
    Sanghalan and so long as there is no Sanghatan the Hindu will remain
    weak and meek. The
    Hindus claim to be a very tolerant people. In my opinion this is a mistake. On many
    occasions they can be intolerant and if on some occasions they are tolerant that is
    because they are too weak to oppose or too indifferent to oppose. This indifference of the
    Hindus has become so much a part of their nature that a Hindu will quite meekly tolerate
    insult as well as a wrong. You see amongst them, to use the words of
    Morris, ” The great reading down the little, the strong beating
    down the weak, cruel men fearing not, kind men daring not and wise men caring not.”
    With the Hindu Gods all forbearing, it is not difficult to imagine the pitiable condition
    of the wronged and the oppressed among the Hindus. Indifferentism is the worst kind of
    disease that can infect a people. Why is the Hindu so indifferent? In my opinion this
    indifferentism is the result of Caste System which has made Sanghatan and co-operation even for a good cause


    The assertion by the individual of his own
    opinions and beliefs, his own independence and interest as over against group standards,
    group authority and group interests is the beginning of all reform. But whether the reform
    will continue depends upon what scope the group affords for such individual assertion. If
    the group is tolerant and fair-minded in dealing with such individuals they will continue
    to assert and in the end succeed in converting their fellows. On the other hand if the
    group is intolerant and does not bother about the means it adopts to stifle such
    individuals they will perish and the reform will die out. Now a caste has an unquestioned
    right to excommunicate any man who is guilty of breaking the rules of the caste and when
    it is realized that excommunication involves a complete cesser of social intercourse it
    will be agreed that as a form of punishment there is really little to choose between
    excommunication and death. No wonder individual Hindus have not had the courage to assert
    their independence by breaking the barriers of caste. It is true that man cannot get on
    with his fellows. But it is also true that he cannot do without them. He would like to
    have the society of his fellows on his terms. If be cannot get it on his terms then he
    will be ready to have it on any terms even amounting to complete surrender. This is
    because he cannot do without society. A caste is ever ready to take advantage of the
    helplessness of a man and insist upon complete conformity to its code in letter and in
    spirit. A caste can easily organize itself into a conspiracy to make the life of a
    reformer a hell and if a conspiracy is a crime I do not understand why such a nefarious
    act as an attempt to excommunicate a person for daring to act contrary to the rules of
    caste should not be made an offence punishable in law. But as it is, even law gives each
    caste an autonomy to regulate its membership and punish dissenters with excommunication.
    Caste in the hands of the orthodox has been a powerful weapon for persecuting the reforms
    and for killing all reform.


    The effect of caste on the ethics of the Hindus
    is simply deplorable. Caste has killed public spirit. Caste has destroyed the sense of
    public charity. Caste has made public opinion impossible. A Hindu’s public is his caste.
    His responsibility is only to his caste. His loyalty is restricted only to his caste.
    Virtue has become caste-ridden and morality has become, caste-bound. There is no sympathy
    to the deserving. There is no appreciation of the meritorious. There is no charity to the
    needy. Suffering as such calls for no response. There is charity but it begins with the
    caste and ends with the caste. There is sympathy
    but not for men of other caste. Would a Hindu acknowledge and follow the leadership of a
    great and good man? The case of a Mahatma apart, the answer must be that he will follow a
    leader if he is a man of his caste. A Brahmin will follow a leader only if he is a
    Brahmin, a Kayastha if he is a Kayastha and so on. The capacity to appreciate merits in a
    man apart from his caste does not exist in a Hindu. There is appreciation of virtue but
    only when the man is a fellow caste-man. The whole morality is as bad as tribal morality.
    My caste-man, right or wrong; my caste-man, good or bad. It is not a case of standing by
    virtue and not standing by vice. It is a case of standing or not standing by the caste.
    Have not Hindus committed treason against their country in the interests of their caste?

  • Jagatheesan Chandrasekharan

    a few seconds ago


    I would not be surprised if some of you have
    grown weary listening to this tiresome tale of the sad effects which caste has produced.
    There is nothing new in it. I will therefore turn to the constructive side of the problem.
    What is your ideal society if you do not want caste is a question that is bound to be
    of you. If you ask me, my ideal would be a society based on Liberty,
    Equality and Fraternity. And why not ? What objection can there
    be to Fraternity ? I cannot imagine any. An ideal society should be mobile, should be full
    of channels for conveying a change taking place in one part to other parts. In an ideal
    society there should be many interests consciously communicated and shared. There should
    be varied and free points of contact with other modes of association. In other words there
    must be social endosmosis. This is fraternity, which is only another name for democracy.
    Democracy is not merely a form of Government. It is primarily a mode of associated living,
    of conjoint communicated experience. It is essentially an attitude of respect and
    reverence towards fellowmen. Any objection to Liberty ? Few object to liberty in the sense
    of a right to free movement, in the sense of a right to life and limb. There is no
    objection to liberty in the sense of a right to property, tools and materials as being
    necessary for earning a living to keep the body in due state of health. Why not allow
    liberty to benefit by an effective and competent use of a person’s powers ? The supporters
    of caste who would allow liberty in the sense of a right to life, limb and property, would
    not readily consent to liberty in this sense, inasmuch as it involves liberty to choose
    one’s profession. But to object to this kind of liberty is to perpetuate slavery. For
    slavery does not merely mean a legalized form of subjection. It means a state of society
    in which some men are forced to accept from other the purposes which control their
    conduct. This condition obtains even where there is no slavery in the legal sense. It is
    found where, as in the Caste System, some persons are compelled to carry on certain
    prescribed callings which are not of their choice. Any objection to equality ? This has
    obviously been the most contentious part of the slogan of the French Revolution. The
    objections to equality may be sound and one may have to admit that all men are not equal.
    But what of that ? Equality may be a fiction but nonetheless one must accept it as the
    governing principle. A. man’s power is dependent upon (1) physical heredity, (2) social
    inheritance or endowment in the form of parental care, education, accumulation of
    scientific knowledge, everything which enables him to be more efficient than the savage,
    and finally, (3) on his own efforts. In all these three respects men are undoubtedly
    unequal. But the question is, shall we treat them as unequal because they are unequal ?
    This is a question which the opponents of equality must answer. From the standpoint of the
    individualist it may be just to treat men unequally so far as their efforts are unequal.
    It may be desirable to give as much incentive as possible to the full development of every
    one’s powers. But what would happen if men were treated unequally as they are, in the
    first two respects ? It is obvious that those individuals also in whose favour there is
    birth, education, family name, business connections and inherited wealth would be selected
    in the race. But selection under such circumstances would not be a selection of the able.
    It would be the selection of the privileged. The reason therefore, which forces that in
    the third respect we should treat men unequally demands that in the first two respects we
    should treat men as equally as possible. On the other hand it can be urged that if it is
    good for the social body to get the most out of its members, it can get most out of them
    only by making them equal as far as possible at the very start of the race. That is one
    reason why we cannot escape equality. But there is another reason why we must accept
    equality. A Statesman is concerned with vast numbers of people. He has neither the time
    nor the knowledge to draw fine distinctions and to treat each equitably i.e. according to need or according to capacity.
    However desirable or reasonable an equitable treatment of men may be, humanity is not
    capable of assortment and classification. The statesman, therefore, must follow some rough
    and ready rule and that rough and ready rule is to treat all men alike not because they
    are alike but because classification and assortment is impossible. The doctrine of
    equality is glaringly fallacious but taking all in all it is the only way a statesman can
    proceed in politics which is a severely practical affair and which demands a severely
    practical test.


    But there is a set of reformers who hold out a
    different ideal. They go by the name of the Arya Samajists and their ideal of social
    organization is what is called Chaturvarnya or the division of society into four classes
    instead of the four thousand castes that we have in India. To make it more attractive and
    to disarm opposition the protagonists of Chaturvarnya take great care to point out that
    their Chaturvarnya is based not on birth but on guna
    (worth). At the outset, I must confess that notwithstanding the worth-basis of this
    Chaturvarnya, it is an ideal to which I cannot reconcile myself. In the first place, if
    under the Chaturvarnya of the Arya Samajists an individual is to take his place in the
    Hindu Society according to his worth. I do not understand why the Arya Samajists insist
    upon labelling men as Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. A learned man would be
    honoured without his being labelled a Brahmin. A soldier would be respected without his
    being designated a Kshatriya. If European society honours its soldiers and its servants
    without giving them permanent labels, why should Hindu Society find it difficult to do so
    is a question, which Arya Samajists have not cared to consider. There is another objection
    to the continuance of these labels. All reform consists in a change in the notions,
    sentiment and mental attitudes of the people towards men and things. It is common
    experience that certain names become associated with certain notions and sentiments, which
    determine a person’s attitude towards men and things. The names, Brahmin, Kshatriya,
    Vaishya and Shudra, are names which are associated with a definite and fixed notion in the
    mind of every Hindu. That notion is that of a hierarchy based on birth. So long as these
    names continue, Hindus will continue to think of the Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and
    Shudra as hierarchical divisions of high and low, based on birth, and act accordingly. The
    Hindu must be made to unlearn all this. But how can this happen if the old labels remain
    and continue to recall to his mind old notions. If new notions are to be inculcated in the
    minds of people it is necessary to give them new names. To continue the old name is to
    make the reform futile. To allow this Chaturvarnya, based on worth to be designated by
    such stinking labels of Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, indicative of social
    divisions based on birth, is a snare.


    To me this Chaturvarnya with its old labels is
    utterly repellent and my whole being rebels against it. But I do not wish to rest my
    objection to Chaturvarnya on mere grounds of sentiments. There are more solid grounds on
    which I rely for my opposition to it. A close examination of this ideal has convinced me
    that as a system of social organization, Chaturvarnya is impracticable, harmful and has
    turned out to be a miserable failure. From a practical point of view, the system of
    Chaturvarnya raises several difficulties which its protagonists do not seem to have taken
    into account. The principle underlying caste is fundamentally different from the principle
    underlying Varna. Not only are they
    fundamentally different but they are also fundamentally opposed. The former is based on
    worth . How are you going to compel people who have acquired a higher status based on
    birth without reference to their worth to vacate that status ? How are you going to compel
    people to recognize the status due to a man in accordance with his worth, who is occupying
    a lower status based on his birth ? For this you must first break up the caste System, in
    order to be able to establish the Varna system.
    How are you going to reduce the four thousand castes, based oil birth, to the four Varnas, based on worth ? This is the first
    difficulty which the protagonists of the Chaturvarnya must grapple with. There is a second
    difficulty which the protagonists of Chaturvarnya must grapple with, if they wish to make
    the establishment of Chaturvarnya a success.

    Chaturvarnya pre-supposes that you can classify
    people into four definite classes. Is this possible ? In this respect, the ideal of
    Chaturvarnya has, as you will see, a close affinity to the Platonic ideal. To Plato, men
    fell by nature into three classes. In some individuals, he believed mere appetites
    dominated. He assigned them to the labouring and trading classes. Others revealed to him
    that over and above appetites, they have a courageous disposition. He classed them as
    defenders in war and guardians of internal peace. Others showed a capacity to grasp the
    universal reason underlying things. He made them the law-givers of the people. The
    criticism to which Plato’s Republic is subject, is also the criticism which must apply to
    the system of Chaturvarnya, in so far as it proceeds upon the possibility of an accurate
    classification of men into four distinct classes. The chief criticism against Plato is
    that his idea of lumping of individuals into a few sharply marked-off classes is a very
    superficial view of man and his powers. Plato had no perception of the uniqueness of every
    individual, of his incommensurability with others, of each individual forming a class of
    his own. He had no recognition of the infinite diversity of active tendencies and
    combination of tendencies of which an individual is capable. To him, there were types of
    faculties or powers in the individual constitution. All this is demonstrably wrong. Modem
    science has shown that lumping together of individuals into a few sharply marked-off
    classes is a superficial view of man not worthy of serious consideration. Consequently,
    the utilization of the qualities of individuals is incompatible with their stratification
    by classes, since the qualities of individuals are so variable. Chaturvarnya must fail for
    the very reason for which Plato’s Republic must fail, namely that it is not possible to
    pigeon men into holes, according as he belongs to one class or the other. That it is
    impossible to accurately classify people into four definite classes is proved by the fact
    that the original four classes have now become four thousand castes.

    There is a third difficulty in the way of the
    establishment of the system of Chaturvarnya. How are you going to maintain the system of
    Chaturvarnya, supposing it was established ? One important requirement for the successful
    working of Chaturvarnya is the maintenance of the penal system which could maintain it by
    its sanction. The system of Chaturvarnya must perpetually face the problem of the
    transgressor. Unless there is a penalty attached to the act of transgression, men will not
    keep to their respective classes. The whole system will break down, being contrary to
    human nature. Chaturvarnya cannot subsist by its own inherent goodness. It must be
    enforced by law.

    That, without penal sanction the ideal of
    Chaturvarnya cannot be realized, is proved by the story in the Ramayana of Rama killing
    Shambuka. Some people seem to blame Rama because he wantonly and without reason killed
    Shambuka. But to blame Rama for killing Shambuka is to misunderstand the whole situation.
    Ram Raj was a Raj based on Chaturvarnya. As a king, Rama was bound to maintain
    Chaturvarnya. It was his duty therefore to kill Shambuka, the Shudra, who had transgressed
    his class and wanted to be a Brahmin. This is the reason why Rama killed Shambuka. But
    this also shows that penal sanction is necessary for the maintenance of Chaturvarnya. Not
    only penal sanction is necessary, but penalty of death is necessary. That is why Rama did
    not inflict on Shambuka a lesser punishment. That is why Manu-Smriti prescribes such heavy
    sentences as cutting off the tongue or pouring of molten lead in the ears of the Shudra,
    who recites or hears the Veda. The supporters
    of Chaturvarnya must give an assurance that they could successfully classify men and they
    could induce modern society in the twentieth century to reforge the penal sanctions of

    The protagonists of Chaturvarnya do not seem to
    have considered what is to happen to women in their system. Are they also to be divided
    into four classes, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra? Or are they to be allowed to
    take the status of their husbands. If the status of the woman is to be the consequence of
    marriage what becomes of the underlying principle of Chaturvarnya, namely, that the status
    of a person should be based upon the worth of that person ? If they are to be classified
    according to their worth is their classification to be nominal or real ? If it is to be
    nominal then it is useless and then the protagonists of Chaturvarnya must admit that their
    system does not apply to women. If it is real, are the protagonists of Chaturvarnya
    prepared to follow the logical consequences of applying it to women ? They must be
    prepared to have women priests and women soldiers. Hindu society has grown accustomed to
    women teachers and women barristers. It may grow accustomed to women brewers and women
    butchers. But he would be a bold person, who would say that it will allow women priests
    and women soldiers. But that will be the logical outcome of applying Chaturvarnya to
    women. Given these difficulties, I think no one except a congenital idiot could hope and
    believe in a successful regeneration of the Chaturvarnya.


    Assuming that Chaturvarnya is practicable, I
    contend that it is the most vicious system. That the Brahmins should cultivate knowledge,
    that the Kshatriya should bear arms, that the Vaishya. should trade and that the Shudra
    should serve sounds as though it was a system of division of labour. Whether the theory
    was intended to state that the Shudra need not
    or that whether it was intended to lay down that he must
    not, is an interesting question. The defenders of Chaturvarnya give it the first
    They say, why should the Shudra need trouble to acquire wealth, when
    the three Vamas are there to support him ? Why need the
    Shudra bother to take to education, when there is the Brahmin to whom he can go when the
    occasion for reading or writing arises ? Why need the Shudra worry to arm himself because
    there is the Kshatriya to protect him ? The theory of Chaturvarnya, understood in this
    sense, may be said to look upon the Shudra as the ward and the three Vamas as his guardians. Thus interpreted, it is a
    simple, elevating and alluring theory. Assuming this to be the correct view of the
    underlying conception of Chaturvarnya, it seems to me that the system is neither
    fool-proof nor knave-proof. What is to happen, if the Brahmins, Vaishyas and Kshatriyas
    fail to pursue knowledge, to engage in economic enterprise and to be efficient soldiers
    which are their respective functions ? Contrary-wise, suppose that they discharge their
    functions but flout their duty to the Shudra or to one another, what is to happen to the
    Shudra if the three classes refuse to support him on fair terms or combine to keep him
    down ? Who is to safeguard the interests of the Shudra or for the matter of that of the
    Vaishya and Kshatriya when the person, who is trying to take advantage of his ignorance is
    the Brahmin? Who is to defend the liberty of the Shudra and for the matter of that, of the
    Brahmin and the Vaishya when the person who is robbing him of it is the Kshatriya ?
    Inter-dependence of one class on another class is inevitable. Even dependence of one class
    upon another may sometimes become allowable. But why make one person depend upon another
    in the matter of his vital needs ? Education everyone must have. Means of defence everyone
    must have. These are the paramount requirements of every man for his self-preservation.
    How can the fact that his neighbour is educated and armed help a man who is uneducated and
    disarmed. The whole theory is absurd. These are the questions, which the defenders of
    Chaturvarnya do not seem to be troubled about. But they are very pertinent questions.
    Assuming their conception of Chaturvarnya that the relationship between the different
    classes is that of ward and guardian is the real conception underlying Chaturvarnya, it
    must be admitted that it makes no provision to safeguard the interests of the ward from
    the misdeeds of the guardian. Whether the relationship of guardian and ward was the real
    underlying conception, on which Chaturvarnya was based, there is no doubt that in practice
    the relation was that of master and servants. The three classes, Brahmins, Kshatriyas and
    Vaishyas although not very happy in their mutual relationship managed to work by
    compromise. The Brahmin flattered the Kshatriya and both let the Vaishya live in order to
    be able to live upon him. But the three agreed to beat down the Shudra. He was not allowed
    to acquire wealth lest he should be independent of the three Varncus. He was prohibited from acquiring knowledge
    lest he should keep a steady vigil regarding his interests. He was prohibited from bearing
    lest he should have the means to rebel against their authority. That
    this is how the Shudras were treated by the Tryavarnikas
    is evidenced by the Laws of Manu. There is no code of laws more infamous regarding social
    rights than the Laws of Manu. Any instance from anywhere of social injustice must pale
    before it. Why have the mass of people tolerated the social evils to which they have been
    subjected? There have been social revolutions in other countries of the world. Why have
    there not been social revolutions in India is a question which has incessantly troubled
    me. There is only one answer, which I can give and it is that the lower classes of Hindus
    have been completely disabled for direct action on account of this wretched system of
    Chaturvarnya. They could not bear arms and without arms they could not rebel. They were
    all ploughmen or rather condemned to be ploughmen and they never were allowed to convert
    their ploughshare into swords. They had no bayonets and therefore everyone who chose could
    and did sit upon them. On account of the Chaturvarnya, they could receive no education.
    They could not think out or know the way to their salvation. They were condemned to be
    lowly and not knowing the way of escape and not having the means of escape, they became
    reconciled to eternal servitude, which they accepted as their inescapable fate. It is true
    that even in Europe the strong has not shrunk from the exploitation, nay the spoliation of
    the weak. But in Europe, the strong have never contrived to make the weak helpless against
    exploitation so shamelessly as was the case in India among the Hindus. Social war has been
    raging between the strong and the weak far more violently in Europe than it has ever been
    India. Yet, the weak in Europe has had in his freedom of military
    service his physical weapon, in suffering his political weapon and in
    education his moral weapon. These three weapons for emancipation
    were never withheld by the strong from the weak in Europe. All these weapons were,
    however, denied to the masses in India by Chaturvarnya. There cannot be a more degrading
    system of social organization than the Chaturvarnya. It is the system which deadens,
    paralyses and cripples the people from helpful activity. This is no exaggeration. History
    bears ample evidence. There is only one period in Indian history which is a period of
    freedom, greatness and glory. That is the period of the Mourya Empire. At all other times
    the country suffered from defeat and darkness. But the Mourya period was a period when
    Chaturvarnya was completely annihilated, when the Shudras, who constituted the mass of the
    people, came into their own and became the rulers of the country. The period of defeat and
    darkness is the period when Chaturvarnya flourished to the damnation of the greater part
    of the people of the country.

  • Jagatheesan Chandrasekharan

    a few seconds ago


    Chaturvarnya is not new. It is as old as the Vedas. That is one of the reasons why we are asked
    by the Arya Samajists to consider its claims. Judging from the past as a system of social
    organization, it has been tried and it has failed. How many times have the Brahmins
    annihilated the seed of the Kshatriyas! How many times have the Kshatriyas annihilated the
    Brahmins! The Mahabharata and the Puranas are full of incidents of the strife between the
    Brahmins and the Kshatriyas. They even quarreled over such petty questions as to who
    should salute first, as to who should give way first, the Brahmins or the Kshatriyas, when
    the two met in the street. Not only was the Brahmin an eyesore to die Kshatriya and the
    Kshatriya an eyesore to the Brahmin, it seems that the Kshatriyas had become tyrannical
    and the masses, disarmed as they were under the system of Chaturvarnya, were praying
    Almighty God for relief from their tyranny. The Bhagwat tells us very definitely that
    Krishna had taken Avtar for one sacred purpose and that was to annihilate the Kshatriyas.
    With these instances of rivalry and enmity between the different Vurnas before us, I do not understand how any one
    can hold out Chaturvarnya as an ideal to be aimed at or as a pattern, on which the Hindu
    Society should be remodelled.


    I have dealt with those, who are without you
    and whose hostility to your ideal is quite open. There appear to be others, who are
    neither without you nor with you. I was hesitating whether I should deal with their point
    of view. But on further consideration I have come to the conclusion that I must and that
    for two reasons. Firstly, their attitude to the problem of caste is not merely an attitude
    of neutrality, but is an attitude of aimed neutrality. Secondly, they probably represent a
    considerable body of people. Of these, there is one set which finds nothing peculiar nor
    odious in the Caste System of the Hindus. Such Hindus cite the case of Muslims, Sikhs and
    Christians and find comfort in the fact that they too have castes amongst them. In
    considering this question you must a.t the outset bear in mind that nowhere is human
    society one single whole. It is always plural.
    In the world of action, the individual is one limit and society the other. Between them
    lie all sorts of associative arrangements of lesser and larger scope, families,
    friendship, co-operative associations, business combines, political parties, bands of
    thieves and robbers. These small groups are usually firmly welded together and are often
    as exclusive as castes. They have a narrow and intensive code, which is often anti-social.
    This is true of every society, in Europe as well as in Asia, The question to be asked in
    determining whether a given society is an ideal society ; is not whether there are groups
    in it, because groups exist in all societies. The. questions to be asked in determining
    what is an ideal society are : How numerous and varied are the interests which are
    consciously shared by the groups ? How full and free is the interplay with other forms of
    associations ? Are the forces that separate groups and classes more numerous than the
    forces that unite ? What social significance is attached to this group life ? Is its
    exclusiveness a matter of custom and convenience or is it a matter of religion ? It is in
    the light of these questions that one must decide whether caste among Non-Hindus is the
    same as caste among Hindus. If we apply these considerations to castes among Mohammedans,
    Sikhs and Christians on the one hand and to castes among Hindus on the other, you will
    find that caste among Non-Hindus is fundamentally different from caste among Hindus.
    First, the ties, which consciously make the Hindus hold together, are non-existent, while
    among Non-Hindus there are many that hold them together. The strength of a society depends
    upon the presence of points of contact, possibilities of interaction between different
    groups which exist in it. These are what Carlyle calls ” organic filaments ” i.e. the elastic threads which help to bring the
    disintegrating elements together and to reunite them. There is no integrating farce among
    the Hindus to counteract the disintegration caused by caste. While among the Non-Hindus
    there are plenty of these organic filaments which bind them together. Again it must be
    borne in mind that although there are castes among Non-Hindus, as there are among Hindus,
    caste has not the same social significance for Non-Hindus as it has for Hindus. Ask
    Mohammedan or a Sikh, who he is? He tells you that he is a Mohammedan or a Sikh as the
    case may be. He does not tell you his caste although he has one and you are satisfied with
    his answer. When he tells you that he is a Muslim, you do not proceed to ask him whether
    he is a Shiya or a Suni; Sheikh or Saiyad ; Khatik or Pinjari. When he tells you he is a
    Sikh, you do not ask him whether he is Jat or Roda ; Mazbi or Ramdasi. But you are not
    satisfied, if a person tells you that he is a Hindu. You feel bound to inquire into his
    caste. Why ? Because so essential is caste in the case of a Hindu that without knowing it
    you do not feel sure what sort of a being he is. That caste has not the same social
    significance among Non-Hindus as it has among Hindus is clear if you take into
    consideration the consequences which follow breach of caste. There may be castes among
    Sikhs and Mohammedans but the Sikhs and the Mohammedans will not outcast a Sikh or a
    Mohammedan if he broke his caste. Indeed, the very idea of excommunication is foreign to
    the Sikhs and the Mohammedans. But with the Hindus the case is entirely different. He is
    sure to be outcasted if he broke caste. This shows the difference in the social
    significance of caste to Hindus and Non-Hindus. This is the second point of difference.
    But there is also a third and a more important one. Caste among the non-Hindus has no
    religious consecration; but among the Hindus most decidedly it has. Among the Non-Hindus,
    caste is only a practice, not a sacred institution. They did not originate it. With them
    it is only a survival. They do not regard caste as a religious dogma. Religion compels the
    Hindus to treat isolation and segregation of castes as a virtue. Religion does not compel
    the Non-Hindus to take the same attitude towards caste. If Hindus wish to break caste,
    their religion will come in their way. But it will not be so in the case of Non-Hindus. It
    is, therefore, a dangerous delusion to take comfort in the mere existence of caste among
    Non-Hindus, without caring to know what place caste occupies in their life and whether
    there are other ” organic filaments “, which subordinate the feeling of caste to
    the feeling of community. The sooner the Hindus are cured of this delusion the butter.

    The other set denies that caste presents any
    problem at all for the .Hindus

    to consider. Such Hindus seek comfort in the
    view that the Hindus have survived and take this as a proof of their fitness to survive.
    This point of view is well expressed by Prof. S. Radhakrishnan in his Hindu view of life. Referring to Hinduism he
    says, ” The civilization itself has not, been a short-lived one. its historic records
    date back for over four thousand years and even then it had reached a stage of
    civilization which has continued its unbroken, though at times slow and static, course
    until the present day. It has stood the stress and strain of more than four or five
    millenniums of spiritual thought and experience. Though peoples of different races and
    cultures have been pouring into India from the
    dawn of History, Hinduism has been able to maintain its supremacy and even the
    proselytising creeds backed by political power have not been able to coerce the large
    majority of Hindus to their views. The Hindu culture possesses some vitality which seems
    to be denied to some other more forceful current . It is no more necessary to dissect
    Hinduism than to open a tree to see whether the sap still runs.” The name of Prof.
    Radhakrishnan is big enough to invest with profundity whatever he says and impress the
    minds of his readers. But I must not hesitate to speak out my mind. For, I fear that his
    statement may become the basis of a vicious argument that the fact of survival is proof of
    fitness to survive. It seems to me that the question is. not whether a community lives or
    dies ; the question is on what plane does it live. There are different modes of survival. But all are not equally
    honourable. For an individual as well as for a society, there is a gulf between merely
    living and living worthily. To fight in a battle and to live in glory is one mode. To beat
    a retreat, to surrender and to live the life of a captive is. also a mode of survival. It
    is useless for a Hindu to take comfort in the fact that he and his people have survived.
    What he must consider is what is the quality of their survival. If he does that, I am sure
    he will cease to take pride in the mere fact of survival. A Hindu’s life has been a life
    of continuous defeat and what appears to him to be life everlasting is not living
    everlastingly but is really a life which is perishing everlastingly. It is a mode of
    survival of which every right-minded Hindu, who is not afraid to own up the truth, will
    feel ashamed.


    There is no doubt; in my opinion, that unless
    you change your social order you can achieve little by way of progress. You cannot
    mobilize the community
    either for defence or for offence. You cannot build anything on the foundations of
    caste. You cannot build up a nation, you cannot build up a morality. Anything that you
    will build on the foundations of caste will crack and will never be a whole.

    The only question that remains to be considered
    is—How to bring about the reform of the Hindu
    social order ? How to abolish caste ? This is a question of supreme importance. There
    is a view that in the refarm of caste, the first step to take, is to abolish sub-castes.
    This view is based upon the supposition that there is a greater similarity in manners and
    status between sub-caste than there is between castes. I think, this is an erroneous
    supposition. The Brahmins of Northem and Central India are socially of lower grade, as
    compared with the Brahmins of the Deccan and Southern India. The former are only cooks and
    water-carriers while the latter occupy a high social position. On the other hand, in
    Northern India, the Vaishyas and Kayasthas are intellectually and socially on a par with
    the Brahmins of the Deccan and Southern India. Again, in the matter of food there is no
    similarity between the Brahmins of the Deccan and Southern India, who are vegetarians and
    the Brahmins of Kashmir and Bengal who are non-vegetarians. On the other hand, the
    Brahmins of the- Deccan and Southern India have more in common so far as food is concerned
    with such non-Brahmins as the Gujaratis, Marwaris, Banias and Jains. There is no doubt
    that from the standpoint of making the transit from one caste to another easy, the fusion
    of the Kayasthas of Northern India and the other Non-Brahmins of Southern India with the
    Non-Brahmins of the Deccan and the Dravid country is more practicable than the fusion of
    the Brahmins of the South with the Brahmins of the North. But assuming that the fusion of
    sub-Castes is possible, what guarantee is there that the abolition of sub-Castes will
    necessarily lead to the abolition of Castes ? On the contrary, it may happen that the
    process may stop with the abolition of sub-Castes. In that case, the abolition of
    sub-Castes will only help to strengthen the Castes and make them more powerful and
    therefore more mischievous. This remedy is therefore neither practicable nor effective and
    may easily prove to be a wrong remedy. Another plan of action for the abolition of Caste
    is to begin with inter-caste dinners. This also, in my opinion, is an inadequate remedy.
    There are many Castes which allow inter-dining. But it is a common experience that
    inter-dining has not succeeded in killing the spirit of Caste and the consciousness of
    Caste. I am convinced that the real remedy is inter-marriage. Fusion of blood can alone
    create the feeling of being kith and kin and unless this feeling of kinship, of being
    kindred, becomes paramount the separatist feeling—the feeling of being
    aliens—created by Caste will not vanish. Among the Hindus inter-marriage must
    necessarily be a factor of greater force in social life than it need be in the life of the
    non-Hindus. Where society is already well-knit by other ties, marriage is an ordinary
    incident of life. But where society cut asunder, marriage as a binding force becomes a
    matter of urgent necessity. The real remedy for
    breaking Caste is inter-marriage. Nothing else will serve as the solvent of Caste.
    Your Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal has adopted this line of attack.

    It is a direct and frontal attack, and I
    congratulate you upon a collect diagnosis and more upon your having shown the courage to
    tell the Hindus what is really wrong with them. Political tyranny is nothing compared to
    social tyranny and a reformer, who defies society, is a much more courageous man than a
    politician, who defies Government. You are right in holding that Caste will cease to be an
    operative farce only when inter-dining and inter-marriage have become matters of common
    course. You have located the source of the disease. But is your prescription the right
    prescription for the disease ? Ask yourselves this question ; Why is it that a large
    majority of Hindus do not inter-dine and do not inter-marry ? Why is it that your cause is
    not popular ? There can be only one answer to this question and it is that inter-dining
    and inter-marriage are repugnant to the beliefs and dogmas which the Hindus regard as
    sacred. Caste is not a physical object like a wall of bricks or a line of barbed wire
    which prevents the Hindus from co-mingling and which has, therefore, to be pulled down.
    Caste is a notion, it is a state of the mind. The destruction of Caste does not therefore
    mean the destruction of a physical barrier. It means a notional change. Caste may be bad. Caste may lead
    to conduct so gross as to be called man’s inhumanity to man. All the same, it must be
    recognized that the Hindus observe Caste not because they are inhuman or wrong headed.
    They observe Caste because they are deeply religious. People are not wrong in observing
    Caste. In my view, what is wrong is their religion, which has inculcated this notion of
    Caste. If this is correct, then obviously the enemy, you must grapple with, is not the
    people who observe Caste, but the Shastras which
    teach them this religion of Caste. Criticising and ridiculing people for not inter-dining
    or inter-marrying or occasionally holding inter-caste dinners and celebrating inter-caste
    marriages, is a futile method of achieving the desired end. The real remedy is to destroy
    the belief in the sanctity of the Shastras. How
    do you expect to succeed, if you allow the Shastras
    to continue to mould the beliefs and opinions of the people ? Not to question the
    authority of the Shastras , to permit the people
    to believe in their sanctity and their sanctions and to blame them and to criticise them
    for their acts as being irrational and inhuman is a incongruous way of carrying on social
    reform. Reformers working for the removal of untouchability including Mahatma Gandhi, do
    not seem to realize that the acts of the people are merely the results of their beliefs
    inculcated upon their minds by the Shastras and
    that people will not change their conduct until they cease to believe in the sanctity of
    the Shastras on which their conduct is founded.
    No wonder that such efforts have not produced any results. You also seem to be erring in
    the same way as the reformers working in the cause of removing untouchability. To agitate
    for and to organise inter-caste dinners and inter-caste marriages is like forced feeding
    about by artificial means. Make every man and woman free from the
    thraldom of the Shastras , cleanse their minds of the pernicious
    notions founded on the Shastras, and he or she
    will inter-dine and inter-marry, without your telling him or her to do so.

    It is no use seeking refuge in quibbles. It is
    no use telling people that the Shastras do not
    say what they are believed to say, grammatically read or logically interpreted. What
    matters is how the Shastras have been understood
    by the people. You must take the stand that Buddha took. You must take the stand which
    Guru Nanak took. You must not only discard the Shastras,
    you must deny their authority, as did Buddha and Nanak. You must have courage to tell
    the Hindus, that what is wrong with them is their religion— the religion which has
    produced in them this notion of the sacredness of Caste. Will you show that courage ?

  • Jagatheesan Chandrasekharan

    a few seconds ago


    What are your chances of success ? Social
    reforms fall into different species. There is a species of reform, which does not relate
    to the religious notion of people but is purely secular in character. There is also a
    species of reform, which relates to the religious notions of people. Of such a species of
    reform, there are two varieties. In one, the reform accords with the principles of the
    religion and merely invites people, who have departed from it, to revert to them and to
    follow them. The second is a reform which not only touches the religious principles but is
    diametrically opposed to those principles and invites people to depart from and to discard
    their authority and to act contrary to those principles. Caste is the natural outcome of
    certain religious beliefs which have the sanction of the Shastras, which are believed to contain the command
    of divinely inspired sages who were endowed with a supernatural wisdom and whose commands,
    therefore, cannot be disobeyed without committing sin. The destruction of Caste is a
    reform which falls under the third category. To ask people to give up Caste is to ask them
    to go contrary to their fundamental religious notions. It is obvious that the first and
    second species of reform are easy. But the third is a stupendous task, well nigh
    impossible. The Hindus hold to the sacredness of the social order. Caste has a divine
    basis. You must therefore destroy the sacredness and divinity with which Caste has become
    invested. In the last analysis, this means you must destroy the authority of the Shastras and the Vedas.

    I have emphasized this question of the ways and
    means of destroying Caste, because I think that knowing the proper ways and means is more
    important than knowing the ideal. If you do not know the real ways and means, all your
    shots are sure to be misfires. If my analysis is correct then your task is herculean. You
    alone can say whether you are capable of achieving it.

    Speaking for myself, I see the task to be well
    nigh impossible. Perhaps you would like to know why I think so. Out of the many reasons,
    which have led me to take this view, I will mention some, which I regard much important.
    One of these reasons is the attitude of hostility, which the Brahmins have shown towards
    this question. The Brahmins form the vanguard of the movement for political reform and in
    some cases also of economic reform. But they are not to be found even as camp followers in
    the army raised to break down the barricades of Caste. Is there any hope of the Brahmins
    ever taking up a lead in the future in this matter? I say no. You may ask why ? You may
    argue that there is no reason why Brahmins should continue to shun social reform. You may
    argue that the Brahmins know that the bane of Hindu Society is Caste and as an enlightened
    class could not be expected to be indifferent to its consequences. You may argue that
    there are secular Brahmins and priestly Brahmins and if the latter do not take up the
    cudgels on behalf of those who want to break Caste, the former will. All this of course
    sounds very plausible. But in all this it is forgotten that the break up of the Caste
    system is bound to affect adversely the Brahmin Caste. Having regard to this, is it
    reasonable to expect that the Brahmins will ever consent to lead a movement the ultimate
    result of which is to destroy the power and prestige of the Brahmin Caste ? Is it
    reasonable to expect the secular Brahmins to take part in a movement directed against the
    priestly Brahmins ? In my judgment, it is useless to make a distinction between the
    secular Brahmins and priestly Brahmins. Both are kith and kin. They are two arms of the
    same body and one bound to fight for the existence of the other. In this connection, I am
    reminded of some very pregnant remarks made by Prof. Dicey in his English Constitution. Speaking of the actual
    limitation on the legislative supremacy of Parliament, Dicey says : ” The actual
    exercise of authority by any sovereign whatever, and notably by Parliament, is bounded or
    controlled by two limitations. Of these the one is an external, and the other is an
    internal limitation. The external limit to the real power of a sovereign consists in the
    possibility or certainty that his subjects or a large number of them will disobey or
    resist his laws. . . The internal limit to the exercise of sovereignty arises from the
    nature of the sovereign power itself. Even a despot exercises his powers in accordance
    with his character, which is itself moulded by the circumstance under which he lives,
    including under that head the moral feelings of the time and the society to which he
    belongs. The Sultan could not, if he would, change the religion of the Mohammedan world,
    but even if he could do so, it is in the very highest degree improbable that the head of
    Mohammedanism should wish to overthrow the religion of Mohammed ; the internal check on
    the exercise of the Sultan’s power is at least as strong as the external limitation.
    People sometimes ask the idle question, why the Pope does not introduce this or that
    reform? The true answer is that a revolutionist is not the kind of man who becomes a Pope
    and that a man who becomes a Pope has no wish to be a revolutionist.” I think, these
    remarks apply equally to the Brahmins of India and one can say with equal truth that if a
    man who becomes a Pope has no wish to become a revolutionary, a man who is born a Brahmin
    has much less desire to become a revolutionary. Indeed, to expect a Brahmin to be a
    revolutionary in matters of social reform is as idle as to expect the British Parliament,
    as was said by Leslie Stephen, to pass an Act requiring all blue-eyed babies to be

    Some of you will say that it is a matter of
    small concern whether the Brahmins come forward to lead the movement against Caste or
    whether they do not. To take this view is in my judgment to ignore the part played by the
    intellectual class in the community. Whether you accept the theory of the great man as the
    maker of history or whether you do not, this much you will have to concede that in every
    country the intellectual class is the most influential class, if not the governing class.
    The intellectual class is the class which can foresee, it is the class which can advise
    and give lead. In no country does the mass of the people live the life of intelligent
    thought and action. It is largely imitative and follows the intellectual class. There is
    no exaggeration in saying that the entire destiny of a country depends upon its
    intellectual class. If the intellectual class is honest, independent and disinterested it
    can be trusted to take the initiative and give a proper lead when a crisis arises. It is
    true that intellect by itself is no virtue. It is only a means and the use of means
    depends upon the ends which an intellectual person pursues. An intellectual man can be a
    good man but he can easily be a rogue. Similarly an intellectual class may be a band of
    high-souled persons, ready to help, ready to emancipate erring humanity or it may easily
    be a gang of crooks or a body of advocates of a narrow clique from which it draws its
    support. You may think it a pity that the intellectual class in India is simply another
    name for the Brahmin caste. You may regret that the two are one.; that the existence of
    the intellectual class should be bound with one single caste, that this intellectual class
    should share the interest and the aspirations of that Brahmin caste, which has regarded
    itself the custodian of the interest of that caste, rather than of the interests of the
    country. All this may be very regrettable. But the fact remains, that the Brahmins form
    the intellectual class of the Hindus. It is not only an intellectual class but it is a
    class which is held in great reverence by the rest of the Hindus. The Hindus are taught
    that the Brahmins are Bhudevas (Gods on earth) vernanam brahmnam guruh ! : The Hindus are taught that Brahmins alone
    can be their teachers. Manu says, “If it be asked how it should be with respect to
    points of the Dharma which have not been specially mentioned, the answer is that which
    Brahmins who are Shishthas propound shall doubtless have legal force.” :

    anamnateshu dharmehu katham syaditi
    chedbhveta !

    yam shishta brahnam bruyuh sa dharmah syadashnkitah !!

    When such an intellectual class, which holds
    the rest of the community in its grip, is opposed to the reform of Caste, the chances of
    success in a movement for the break-up of the Caste system appear to me very, very remote.

    The second reason, why I say the task is
    impossible, will be clear if you will bear in mind that the Caste system has two aspects.
    In one of its aspects, it divides men into separate communities. In its second aspect, it
    places these communities in a graded order one above the other in social status. Each
    caste takes its pride and its consolation in the fact that in the scale of castes it is
    above some other caste. As an outward mark of this gradation, there is also a gradation of
    social and religious rights technically spoken of an Ashta-dhikaras and Sanskaras. The higher the grade of a caste, the
    greater the number of these rights and the lower the grade, the lesser their number. Now
    this gradation, this scaling of castes, makes it impossible to organise a common front
    against the Caste System. If a caste claims the right to inter-dine
    and inter-marry with another caste placed above it, it is
    frozen, instantly it is told by mischief-mongers, and there are many Brahmins amongst such
    mischief-mongers, that it will have to concede inter-dining
    and inter-marriage with castes below it ! All are slaves of the Caste System. But all the slaves are
    not equal in status. To excite the proletariat to bring about an economic revolution, Karl Marx told them
    : ” You have nothing to
    lose except your chains.”
    the artful way in which the social and religious rights are distributed
    among the different castes whereby some have more and some
    have less, makes the slogan of Karl Marx quite useless to excite the Hindus against the
    Caste System. Castes form a graded system of sovereignties, high and low, which are jealous of
    status and which know that if a general dissolution came, some of them
    stand to lose more of their prestige and power than others do. You
    cannot, therefore, have a general mobilization of the Hindus, to use a military
    expression, for an attack on the Caste System.


    Can you appeal to reason and ask the Hindus to
    discard Caste as being contrary to reason ? That raises the
    question : Is a Hindu free to follow his reason? Manu has laid down three sanctions to which every Hindu must
    conform in the matter of his behaviour vedah smritih sadacharah uvasy cha priyamatmanah Here
    there is no place for reason to play its part. A Hindu must follow either Veda, Smriti or Sadachar. He cannot
    follow anything else. In the first place how are the texts of the Vedas and Smritis to be
    interpreted whenever any doubt arises regarding their meaning ?
    On this important question the view of Manu is quite definite. He says :

    te moole hetushrashraya dwizah

    sadhubhirbahishkaryo nashtiko vedandikah

    According to this rule, rationalism as a canon
    of interpreting the
    Vedas and Smritis, is absolutely condemned. It is regarded to be as
    wicked as atheism and the punishment provided for
    it is ex-communication. Thus, where a matter is covered by the Veda or the Smriti,
    a Hindu cannot resort to rational thinking. Even when there is a conflict between Vedas and Smritis
    on matters on which they have given a positive injunction,
    the solution is not left to reason. When there is a
    conflict between two Shrutis, both are to be regarded as of equal
    authority. Either of them may be followed. No attempt is to be made to find out which of
    the two accords with reason. This is made clear by Manu:

    shrutidwadham tu
    yatra syaptatra dharvarvudhau smritau

    “When there
    is a conflict between Shruti
    and Sinriti , the Shruti must
    prevail.” But here too, no attempt must be made to find out which of the two accords
    with reason. This is laid down by Manu in the following Shloka :

    vedabahyah snrityo yashch kashch kridrishtah i

    nishphalah prety tamonishtha hi tah smritah ii

    Again, when there is a conflict between two Smritis, the Manu-Smriti must prevail, but no attempt is to be made to find
    out which of the two accords with reason. This is the ruling given by Brihaspati:

    pramanyam hi manoah smritah

    tu ya smritih sa na shashyate

    It is, therefore, clear that in any matter on
    which the Shrutis and Smritis have given a positive direction, a Hindu is
    not free to use his reasoning faculty. The same rule is laid down in the Mahabharat :

    manvo dharmah sango vedashchikitsitam

    chatvari na hantavyani hetubhih

    He must abide by their directions. The Caste
    and Varna are matters, which are dealt with by
    the Vedas and the
    Smritis and consequently, appeal to reason can
    have no effect on a Hindu. So far as Caste and Varna
    are concerned, not only the Shastras do not permit the Hindu to use his
    reason in the decision of the question, but they have taken care to see that no occasion
    left to examine in a rational way the foundations of his belief in
    Caste and Varna. It must be a source of silent amusement to
    many a Non-Hindu to find hundreds and thousands of Hindus breaking Caste on certain
    occasions, such as railway journey and foreign travel and yet endeavouring to maintain
    Caste for the rest of their lives ! The explanation of this
    phenomenon discloses another fetter on the reasoning faculties of the Hindus. Man’s life
    is generally habitual and unreflective. Reflective thought, in the sense of active,
    persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form or knowledge in the
    light of the grounds that support it and further conclusions to which it tends, is quite
    and arises only in a situation which presents a dilemma—a
    Crisis-Railway journeys and foreign travels are really occasions of
    crisis in the life of a Hindu and it is natural to expect a Hindu to ask himself why he
    should maintain Caste at all, if he cannot maintain it at all times. But he does not. He
    breaks Caste at one step and proceeds to observe it at the
    next without raising any question. The reason for this
    astonishing conduct is to be found in the rule of the Shastras, which
    him to maintain Caste as far as possible and to undergo praynschitia
    when he cannot. By this theory of prayaschitta , the Shastras by
    following a
    spirit of compromise have given caste a perpetual lease of
    life and have smothered reflective thought which would have
    otherwise led to the destruction of the notion of Caste.

    There have been many who have worked in the
    cause of the abolition of Caste and Untouchability. Of those, who can be mentioned, Ramanuja,
    Kabir and others stand out prominently. Can you appeal to
    the acts of these reformers and exhort the Hindus to follow them ? It is true that Manu has
    Sadachar (sadachar) as one of the sanctions along with Shruti and
    Smriti. Indeed, Sadachar has been given a higher place than Shastras :

    yen dharmya vadharmamev va

    nityam charitram tadwikirtatam

    according to this, sadachar, whether, it is dharmya or adharmya
    in accordance with Shastras
    or contrary to Shastras,
    must be followed. But what is the meaning of Sadachar ? If any one were to
    suppose that Sadachar means right or good acts i.e. acts of good and righteous men he would find
    himself greatly mistaken. Sadachar does not
    means good acts or acts of good men. It means ancient custom good or bad.
    The following verse makes this clear :

    yasmin deshe ya acharah parmpayakramagatah

    varnani kil sarvesham sa sadachar uchyate

    As though to warn people against the view that Sadachar means good acts or acts of good men and fearing that people
    might understand it that way and follow the acts of good men, the Smrities
    commanded the Hindus in unmistakable terms not to follow even Gods in
    their good deeds, if they are contrary to Shruti, Smrili and Sadachar.
    This may
    sound to be most extraordinary, most perverse, but the. fact remains that na devacharitam charet is
    an injunction, issued to the Hindus by their Shastras. Reason and morality are
    two most powerful weapons in the armoury of a Reformer. To deprive him
    of the use of these weapons is to disable him for action .How are you
    going to break up
    Caste, if people are not free to consider whether it accords with
    reason ? How are you going to
    break up Caste if people are
    not free to consider whether it accords with morality ? The
    wall built around Caste is impregnable and the material, of
    which it is built, contains none of the combustible stuff of reason and morality.
    Add to this the fact that inside this wall stands the army
    Brahmins, who form the intellectual class, Brahmins who are the natural
    leaders of the Hindus, Brahmins who are there not as mere mercenary
    soldiers but as an army fighting
    for its homeland and you will get an idea why I think that breaking-up
    of Caste amongst the Hindus is
    well-nigh impossible. At any rate, it would take ages before a breach is
    made. But whether the doing of the deed takes time
    or whether it can be done quickly, you must not forget that if you wish to bring about &
    breach in the system then you have got to apply the
    dynamite to the Vedas
    and the Shastras,
    which deny any part to reason, to Vedas and Shastras, which deny
    any part to morality. You must destroy the Religion of the Shrutis and the Smritis. Nothing else will avail. This is my
    considered view of the matter.

  • Jagatheesan Chandrasekharan

    a few seconds ago


    Some may not understand what I mean by
    destruction of Religion;
    some may find the idea revolting to them and some may find it revolutionary. Let me therefore explain my position. I do not know
    you draw a distinction between principles and rules. But I do. Not only
    I make a distinction but I say that this distinction is real and
    important. Rules are
    practical ; they are habitual ways of doing things according to prescription. But principles are
    intellectual; they are useful methods of judging things.
    Rules seek to tell an agent just what course of action to
    pursue. Principles do not prescribe a specific course of action. Rules, like cooking
    recipes, do tell just what to do and how to do it. A prinsiple,
    as that of justice, supplies a main head by reference to which he is to
    consider the bearings of his desires and purposes, it guides him in his
    thinking by suggesting to him the important consideration
    which he should bear in mind. This difference between rules
    and principles makes the acts done in pursuit of them different in quality and in content.
    Doing what is said to be,
    good by virtue of a rule and doing good in the light of a principle are two different
    things. The principle may be wrong but the act is conscious and responsible. The rule may be right but the act is mechanical. A
    religious act may not be a correct act but must at least be a responsible act. To permit
    of this responsibility, Religion must mainly be a
    matter of principles only. It cannot be a matter of rules.
    The moment it degenerates into rules it ceases to be Religion, as it kills responsibility
    which is the essence of a truly religious act. What is this
    Hindu Religion ? Is it a set of principles or is it a code of rules ?
    Now the Hindu Religion, as contained in the Vedas
    and the Smritis, is nothing but a mass of
    sacrificial, social, political and sanitary rules and regulations, all mixed up. What is
    called Religion by the Hindus is nothing but a multitude of commands and prohibitions. Religion, in the
    sense of spiritual principles, truly universal, applicable to all races, to all countries,
    to all times, is not to be found in them, and if it is, it does not form the governing
    of a Hindu’s life. That for a Hindu, Dharma means commands and
    prohibitions is clear from the way the word Dharma is used in Vedas and
    the Sinritis and understood by the commentators.
    The word Dharma as used in the Vedas in most
    cases means religious ordinances or rites. Even Jaimini in his Purva-Mimansa
    defines Dharma as “a desirable goal or result that is
    indicated by injunctive (Vedic) passages “.
    To put it in plain language, what the Hindus call Religion is really Law or at best
    legalized class-ethics. Frankly, I refuse to cull this code of ordinances, as Religion.
    The first evil of such a code of ordinances, misrepresented to the people as Religion, is
    that it tends to deprive moral life of freedom and spontaneity
    and to reduce it (for the conscientious at any rate) to a more or less
    anxious and servile conformity to externally imposed rules.
    Under it, there is no loyalty to ideals, there is only conformity
    to commands. But the worst evil of this code of ordinances
    is that the laws it contains must be the same yesterday, today and forever. They are
    iniquitous in that they are not the same for one class as
    another. But this iniquity is made perpetual in that they are
    prescribed to be the same for all generations. The objectionable
    part of such a scheme is not that they are made by certain persons
    called Prophets or Law-givers. The objectionable part is that this code has been invested
    with the character of finality and fixity. Happiness notoriously varies with the
    conditions and circumstances of a person, as well as with
    the conditions of different people and epochs. That being the case, how can humanity
    this code of eternal laws, without being cramped and without being
    crippled ? I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying that such a
    religion must be destroyed and I say, there is nothing irreligious in working for the destruction of such a religion.
    Indeed I hold that it is your bounden duty to tear the
    mask, to remove the misrepresentation that as caused by misnaming this Law as Religion.
    This is an essential step for you. Once you clear the minds of the people of this
    misconception and enable them to realize that what they are told as Religion is not
    Religion but that it is really Law, you will be in a position to urge for its amendment or
    abolition. So long as people look upon it as Religion they will not be ready for a change,
    because the idea of Religion is generally speaking not associated with the idea of change.
    But the idea of law is associated with the idea of change
    and when people come to know that what is called Religion
    is really Law, old and archaic, they will be ready for a change, for people know and
    accept that law can be changed.


    While I condemn a Religion of Rules, I must not be understood to hold the opinion that there is
    no necessity for a religion. On the contrary, I agree with Burke when he says that, “
    True religion is the foundation of society, the basis on which all true Civil Government
    rests, and both their sanction.” Consequently, when I urge that these ancient rules
    of life be annulled, I am anxious that its place shall be taken by a Religion of
    Principles, which alone can lay claim to being a true Religion. Indeed, I am so convinced
    of the necessity of Religion that I feel I ought to tell you in outline what I regard as
    necessary items in this religious reform. The following in my opinion should be the
    cardinal items in this reform : (
    1 ) There should be one and
    only one standard book of Hindu Religion, acceptable to all Hindus and recognized by all
    Hindus. This of course means that all other books of Hindu
    religion such as Vedas, Shastras and Puranas, which are treated as sacred and
    authoritative, must by law cease to be so and the preaching of any doctrine, religious or
    social contained in these books should be penalized. (2) It should be better if priesthood
    among Hindus was abolished. But as this seems to be impossible, the priesthood must at
    least cease to be hereditary. Every person who professes to be a Hindu must be eligible
    for being a priest. It should be provided by law that no Hindu shall be entitled to be a
    priest unless he has passed an examination prescribed by the State and holds a sanad from the State
    permitting him to practise. (3) No ceremony performed by a priest
    who does not hold a sanad shall be deemed to be
    valid in law and it should be made penal for a person who
    has no sanad to officiate as a priest. (4) A
    should be the servant of the State and should be subject to the
    disciplinary action by the State in the matter of his morals,
    beliefs and worship, in addition to his being subject along with other citizens to the
    ordinary law of the land. (5) The number of priests should be limited by law according to
    the requirements of the State as is done in the case of the I.C.S.
    To some, this may sound radical. But to my mind there is nothing revolutionary in this.
    Every profession in India is regulated. Engineers must show proficiency, Doctor must show
    proficiency, Lawyers must show proficiency, before they are allowed to practise their
    professions. During the whole of their career, they must not only obey the law of the
    land, civil as well as criminal, but they must
    also obey the special code of morals prescribed by their respective professions. The
    priest’s is the only profession where proficiency is not required. The profession of a
    Hindu priest is the only profession which is not subject to any code. Mentally a priest
    may be an idiot, physically a priest may be suffering from a foul disease, such as
    syphilis or gonorrheae, morally he may be a wreck. But he
    is fit to officiate at solemn ceremonies, to enter the sanctum sanctorum
    of a Hindu temple and worship the Hindu God. All this
    possible among the Hindus because for a priest it is enough to be born
    in a priestly caste. The whole thing is abominable and is
    due to the fact that the priestly class among Hindus is
    subject neither to law nor to morality. It recognizes no duties. It knows only of rights
    privileges. It is a pest which divinity seems to have let loose on the
    masses for their mental and moral degradation. The priestly class
    must be brought under control by some such legislation as I have outlined above. It will
    prevent it from doing mischief and from misguiding people. It will democratise it by
    throwing it open to every one. It will certainly help to kill the Brahminism and will also
    help to kill Caste, which is nothing but Brahminism incarnate. Brahminism
    is the poison which has spoiled Hinduism. You will succeed in saving Hinduism if you will
    kill Brahminism. There should be no opposition to this reform from any quarter. It should
    be welcomed even by the Arya Samajists,
    because this is merely an application of their own doctrine of guna-karma.

    Whether you do that or you do not, you must give a new doctrinal
    basis to your Religion—a basis that will be in
    with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, in short, with Democracy. I am
    no authority on the subject. But I am told that for such religious
    principles as will be in consonance with Liberty, Equality and
    Fraternity it may not be necessary for you
    to borrow from foreign sources and that you could draw for such principles on the Upanishads. Whether
    you could do so without a complete remoulding, a considerable scraping
    chipping off the ore they contain , is more than I can say. This means a
    complete change in the fundamental notions of life-it means a complete
    change in the
    values of life. It means a complete change in outlook and in attitude towards
    men and things. It means conversion but if you do not. like
    the word, I will say, it means new life. But a
    new life cannot enter a body that is dead. New life can center only in a new body. The
    old body must die before a new body can come into existence and a new life can enter into it. To put it simply: the old
    must cease to be operative before the new can begin to enliven and to pulsate. This is what I meant when I said you
    must discard the authority of the Shastras and destroy the religion of the Shastras.


    I have kept you too long. It is time I brought this address to a
    close. This would have been a convenient point for me to have stopped.
    But this would probably be my last address to a Hindu audience on a
    subject vitally concerning the Hindus. I would therefore like, before I
    close, to place before the
    Hindus, if they will allow me, some questions which I regard as vital and invite them seriously to consider the same.

    In the first place, the Hindus must consider whether it
    is sufficient to take the placid view of
    the anthropologist that there is nothing to be said about
    the beliefs, habits, morals and outlooks on life, which obtain among the different
    peoples of the world except that they often differ ; or whether it is not necessary to make
    an attempt to find out what kind of morality, beliefs,
    habits and outlook have worked best and have enabled those
    who possessed them to flourish, to go strong, to people the earth and to have dominion over
    it. As is observed by Prof. Carver,
    ” Morality and religion, as the organised expression of moral approval and
    disapproval, must be regarded as factors in the struggle
    for existence as truly as are weapons for offence and
    defence, teeth and claws, horns and hoofs, furs and
    feathers. The social group, community, tribe or nation,
    which develops an unworkable scheme of morality or within
    those social acts which weaken it and unfit it for survival, habitually
    create the sentiment of approval, while those which would strengthen
    enable it to be expanded habitually create the sentiment of
    disapproval, will eventually be eliminated. It is its
    habits of approval or disapproval (these are the results of religion
    and morality) that handicap it, as really as the possession
    of two wings on one side with none on. the other will handicap the colony of flies. It would be as futile in the one case as
    in the other to argue, that one system is just as good as
    another.” Morality and religion, therefore, are not mere matters
    of likes and dislikes. You
    may dislike exceedingly a scheme of morality, which, if universally practised
    within a nation, would make that nation the strongest
    on the face of the earth. Yet in spite of your dislike such a nation
    will become strong. You may like exceedingly a scheme of morality and an
    ideal of justice, which if universally practised within a nation, would
    make it enable to hold its own in the struggle
    with other nations. Yet in spite of your admiration this nation will eventually disappear. The Hindus
    must, therefore, examine their religion
    and then morality in terms
    of their survival value.

    Secondly, the Hindus must consider
    whether they should conserve the whole of their social
    heritage or select what is helpful and transmit to future
    generations only that much and no more. Prof, John Dewey., who was my teacher and to
    whom I owe so much, has said :
    ” Every society gets
    encumbered with what is trivial, with dead wood from the
    and with what is positively perverse… As a society becomes more
    enlightened, it realizes that it is responsible not to conserve and
    transmit, the whole of its existing
    achievements, but only such as make for a better future
    society.” Even Burke in spite of the vehemence with which he opposed the principle
    change embodied in the French Revolution, was compelled to admit that ”
    a State without the means of some change is without the means of its
    Without such means it might even
    risk the loss of that part
    the constitution which it wished the most religiously to preserve, ‘’
    What Burke said of a State applies equally to a society.

    Thirdly, the Hindus must consider whether they must not
    cease to
    worship the past as supplying its ideals. The beautiful effect of this
    worship of the past are best summed up by Prof. Dewey
    when he says : ” An individual can live
    only in the present. The present is not just something which comes after the past ; much less something produced
    by it. It is what life is in leaving
    the past behind it. The study
    of past products will not
    help us to understand the present. A knowledge of the past
    and its heritage is of great significance when it enters into the present, but not otherwise. And the mistake of making
    the-records and remains of the
    past the main material of
    education is that it tends
    to make the past a rival of the present and the present a
    more or less futile imitation of the past.” The principle,
    which makes little of the present
    act of living and growing, naturally looks upon the present
    as empty and upon the future
    as remote. Such a principle is inimical to progress and is
    an hindrance to a strong and a steady current of life.

    Fourthly, the Hindus must consider whether the time has
    not come for them to recognize that there is nothing fixed,
    eternal, nothing sanatan; that everything is changing, that change is
    the law of life for individuals as well as for society.
    In a changing society, there must be a constant revolution of old values and the Hindus must
    realize that if there must
    be standards to measure the acts of men there must also be
    a readiness to revise those standards.

  • Jagatheesan Chandrasekharan

    a few seconds ago


    I have to confess that this address has become
    too lengthy.
    Whether this fault is compensated to any extent by breadth or depth is a
    matter for you to judge. All I claim is to have told you candidly my
    views. I have little
    to recommend them but some study and a deep concern in your
    destiny. If you will allow me to say, these views are the views of a man, who has been no tool of
    power, no flatterer of greatness. They come from one,
    almost the whole of whose public exertion has been one continuous struggle for liberty for
    poor and for the oppressed and whose only reward has been a continuous
    shower of calumny and abuse from national journals and
    national leaders, for no other reason except that I refuse to join with them in performing
    the miracle—I will not say trick—of liberating
    the oppressed with the gold of the tyrant and raising the poor with the cash of the rich.
    All this may not be enough to commend my views. I think they are not likely to alter
    yours. But whether they do or do not, the responsibility is entirely yours. You must make
    your efforts to uproot Caste, if not in my way, then in
    your way. I am sorry, I will not be with you. I have decided to change. This is not the
    place for giving reasons. But even when I am gone out of
    your fold, I will watch your movement with active sympathy
    and you will have my assistance for what it may be worth.
    Yours is a national cause. Caste is no doubt primarily the breath of the Hindus. But the
    Hindus have fouled the air all over and everybody is infected, Sikh, Muslim and Christian.
    You, therefore, deserve the support of all those who are suffering from this infection,
    Sikh, Muslim and Christian. Yours is more difficult than the other national cause, namely
    Swaraj. In the fight for Swaraj you fight with the whole nation on your side. In this, you
    have to fight against the whole nation and that too, your
    own. But it is more important than Swaraj. There is no use having Swaraj, if you cannot
    defend it. More important than the question of defending Swaraj is the question of defending the Hindus under the
    Swaraj. In my opinion only when the Hindu Society becomes a casteless society that it can
    hope to have strength enough to defend itself. Without such
    internal strength, Swaraj for Hindus may turn out to be only a step towards slavery.
    Good-bye and good wishes for your success.



    (A Reprint of his Articles in the ” Harijan “)

    Ambedkar’s Indictment I

    The readers will
    recall the fact that Dr. Ambedkar was to have presided last
    May at the annual conference of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore. But the conference itself was cancelled
    because Dr. Ambedkar’s address was found by the Reception
    Committee to be unacceptable. How far a Reception Committee is justified in rejecting a
    President of its choice because of his address that may be
    objectionable to it is open to question. The Committee knew Dr. Ambedkar’s
    views on caste and the Hindu scriptures. They knew also that he had in unequivocal terms
    decided to give up Hinduism. Nothing less than the address
    that Dr. Ambedkar had prepared was to be expected from him.
    The committee appears to have deprived the public of an opportunity of listening to the original views of a man, who has carved
    out for himself a unique position in society. Whatever label he wears in future, Dr.
    Ambedkar is not the man to allow himself to be forgotten.

    Dr. Ambedkar was not going to be beaten by the
    Reception Committee. He has answered their rejection of him by publishing the address at
    his own expense. He has priced it at 8 annas, I would suggest a reduction to 2 annas or at
    least 4 annas.

    No reformer can ignore the address. The
    orthodox will gain by
    reading it. This is not to say that the address is not open to
    objection. It has to be read only because it
    is open to serious objection. Dr. Ambedkar is a challenge to Hinduism. Brought up as a
    educated by a Hindu potentate, he has become so disgusted with the
    so-called Savarna Hindus for the treatment that he and his people have
    received at their hands that he proposes to leave not only them but the very religion that
    is his and their common heritage. He has transferred to that religion, his disgust against
    a part of its professors.

    But this is not to be wondered at. After all, one can only judge a system or
    an institution by the conduct of its representatives. What
    is more. Dr. Ambedkar found that the vast majority of Savarna Hindus had not only
    conducted themselves inhumanly against those of their fellow religionists,
    whom they classed as untouchables, but they had based their conduct on the authority
    of their scriptures, and when he began to search them he had found ample warrant for their
    beliefs in untouchability and all its implications. The
    author of the address has quoted chapter and verse in proof of his three-fold indictment—inhuman conduct itself, the unabashed
    justification for it on the part of the perpetrators, and
    the subsequent discovery that the justification was warranted by their scriptures.

    No Hindu who prizes his faith above life itself can afford to underrate the
    importance of this indictment. Dr Ambedkar is not alone in his disgust
    is its most uncompromising exponent and one of the ablest among them.
    He is certainly the most irreconcilable among them. Thank God, in the
    front rank of the
    leaders, he is singularly alone and
    as yet but a representative of a very small minority. But
    what he says is voiced with more or less vehemence by many leaders belonging to the depressed classes. Only
    latter, for instance Rao Bahadur M. C. Rajah and Dewan Bahadur
    Srinivasan, not only do not threaten to give up Hinduism but find
    enough warmth in it to compensate for the shameful
    persecution to which the vast mass of Harijans are exposed.

    But the fact of many leaders remaining in the Hindu fold
    is no warrant for disregarding what Dr. Ambedkar has to
    say. The Savaraas have to
    correct their belief and their
    conduct. Above all those who are by their learning and influence among the Savarnas
    have to give an authoritative interpretation of the scriptures. The
    questions that Dr. Ambedkar’s indictment suggest are :

    (1) What are the
    scriptures ?

    (2) Are all the printed texts to be regarded as an integral part of them or is any part of them to be rejected as unauthorised
    interpolation ?

    (3) What is the
    answer of such accepted and expurgated scriptures on the
    question of untouchability, caste,
    equality of status, inter-dining and intermarriages ? (These
    have been all examined by Dr. Ambedkar in his address.)

    I must reserve for the
    next issue my own answer to these questions and a statement
    of the (at least some) manifest flaws in Dr. Ambedkar’s

    (Harijan, July II, 1936)


    The Vedas, Upanishads,
    Smritis and Puranas including Ramayana and Mahabharata are the Hindu Scriptures.
    Nor is this a finite list.
    Every age or even. generation has added to the list. It follows, therefore, that everything printed or even found
    handwritten is not scripture. The Smrities for instance-contain much that can never be
    as the word of God. Thus. many of the texts that Dr. Ambedkar quotes
    from the Smritis cannot be accepted as authentic. The scriptures,
    properly so-called,
    can only be concerned with eternal varieties and must
    appeal to any conscience i.e. any heart whose eyes of understanding are
    Nothing can be accepted as the word of God which cannot be tested by
    reason or be capable of being spiritually experienced. And even when you
    have an expurgated edition of the scriptures, you will need their interpretation. Who is
    the best interpreter? Not learned men surely. Learning
    there must be. But religion does not live it. It lives in the experiences of its saints
    and seers, in their lives and sayings. When all the most
    commentators of the scriptures are utterly forgotten, the accumulated
    experience of the sages and saints will abide and be an inspiration
    for ages to come.

    Caste has nothing to do with religion. It is a custom whose origin
    I do not know and do not need to know for the satisfaction of my spiritual hunger. But I
    do know that it is harmful both to spiritual and national growth. Varna and Ashrama are
    institutions which have nothing to do with castes .The law of Varna teaches us that we have each one of us to
    earn our bread by following the ancestral calling. it defines not our rights but our duties. It necessarily has
    reference to callings that are conducive to the welfare of
    humanity and to no other. It also follows that there is no
    calling too low and none too high. Ail are good, lawful and
    absolutely equal in status. The callings of a Brahmin— spiritual teacher—-and a scavenger are equal, and their due performance
    carries equal merit before
    God and at one time seems to have carried identical reward
    before man. Both were entitled to their livelihood and no more. Indeed
    one traces even now in the villages the faint lines of this
    healthy operation of the law. Living in Segaon with its
    population of 600, I do not find a great disparity between
    the earnings of different tradesmen including
    Brahmins. I find too that real Brahmins are to be found even in these degenerate days who
    are living on alms freely
    given to them and are giving freely of what they have of spiritual treasures. It would be wrong
    and improper to judge the law of Varna by its
    caricature in the lives of men who profess to belong to a Varna, whilst they openly commit a breach of its
    only operative rule. Arrogation
    of a superior status by and of the Varna over another is a denial
    of the law. And there is nothing in the law of Varna to warrant a belief in untouchability. (The essence of
    Hinduism is contained in its enunciation of one and only
    God as Truth and its bold acceptance of Ahimsa as the law of the human family.)

    I am aware that my interpretation of Hinduism
    will be disputed by many besides Dr. Ambedkar. That does not affect
    my position. It is an interpretation by which I have lived
    for nearly half a century
    and according to which I have endeavoured to the best of my
    ability to regulate my life.

    In my opinion
    the profound mistake that Dr. Ambedkar
    has made in his address is to pick out the texts of
    doubtful authenticity and value and the state of degraded Hindus who are no fit specimens of the faith they so woefully
    misrepresent. Judged by the standard applied by Dr. Ambedkar, every
    known living faith will probably fail.

    In his able address, the learned Doctor has
    over proved his case. Can a religion that was professed by Chaitanya,
    Jnyandeo, Tukaram, Tiruvailuvar, Rarnkrishna Paramahansa,
    Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Maharshi
    Devendranath Tagore, Vivekanand
    and host of others who might be easily mentioned, so utterly devoid of merit as is made
    out in Dr. Ambedkar’s address ?
    A religion has to be judged not by it’s worst specimens but
    by the best it might have produced. For that and that alone
    can be used as the standard to aspire to, if not to improve
    upon. (Harijan,
    July 18, 1936)



    Shri Sant Ramji of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore
    wants me to publish the following: ” I have read your
    remarks about Dr. Ambedkar and the Jat-Pat-Todak

    Mandal, Lahore. In that connection I beg to
    submit as follows :

    ” We did
    not invite Dr. Ambedkar
    to preside over our conference because he belonged to the Depressed Classes, for we do not
    distinguish between a touchable and an untouchable Hindu.
    On the contrary our choice fell on him simply because his diagnosis of the fatal disease
    of the Hindu community was the same as ours, i.e.
    he too was of the opinion that caste system was the root cause of the disruption and
    downfall of the Hindus. The subject of the Doctor’s thesis for Doctorate being caste
    system, he has studied the subject thoroughly. Now the object of our conference was to
    persuade the Hindus to annihilate castes but the advice of a non-Hindu in social and
    religious matters can have no effect on them. The Doctor in the supplementary portion of
    his address insisted on saying that that was his last speech as a Hindu, which was
    irrelevant as well as pernicious to the interests of the conference. So we requested him
    to expunge that sentence for he could easily say the same thing on any other occasion. But
    he refused and we saw no utility in making merely a show of our function. In spite of all
    this, I cannot help praising his address which is, as far as I know, the most learned
    thesis on the subject and worth translating into every vernacular of India.

    Moreover, I want to bring to your notice that
    your philosophical difference between Caste and Varna is too subtle
    to be grasped by people in general, because for all
    practical purposes in the Hindu society Caste and Varna
    are one and the same thing, for the function of both of them is one and the same i.e. to restrict inter-caste
    marriages and inter-dining. Your theory of Varnavyavastha is
    impracticable in this age and there is no hope of its revival in the near future. But
    Hindus are slaves of caste and do not want to destroy it. So when you advocate your ideal
    of imaginary Varnavyavastha they find
    justification for clinging to caste. Thus you are doing a great disservice to social
    reform by advocating your imaginary utility of division of Varnas, for it creates hindrance in our way. To
    try to remove untouchability without striking at the root
    of Varnavyavastha is simply to treat the outward
    symptoms of a disease or to draw a line on the surface of
    water. As in the heart of their hearts dvijas do not want to give social equality to
    the so-called touchable and untouchable Shudras, so they refuse to break caste, and give liberal
    donations for the removal of untouchability, simply to
    evade the issue. To seek the help of the Shastras for the removal of untouchability and
    caste is simply to wash mud with mud.”

    The last paragraph of the letter surely cancels
    the first. If the Mandal rejects the help of the Shastras, they do exactly what Dr. Ambedkar does, i.e.
    cease to be Hindus. How then can they object to Dr. Ambedkar’s
    address merely because he said that that was his last
    speech as a Hindu ? The position appears to be wholly
    untenable especially when the Mandal, for which Shri Sant Ram claims to speak, applauds the whole argument of Dr.
    Ambedkar’s address.

    But it is pertinent to ask what the Mandal
    believes if it rejects the Shastras. How can a
    Muslim remain one if he rejects the Quran ,or a Christian remain Christian if he rejects the Bible ? If Caste and Varna
    are convertible terms and if Varna is an integral part of the Shastras which define Hinduism, I do not know how a
    person who rejects Caste i.e. Varna can call
    himself a Hindu.

    Shri Sant Ram likens the Shastras to mud. Dr. Ambedkar has not, so far as
    I remember, given any such picturesque name to the Shastras. I have certainly meant when I have said
    that if Shastras support the existing
    untouchability I should cease to call myself a Hindu. Similarly, if the Shastras support caste as we know it today in all
    its hideousness, I may not call myself or remain a Hindu since I have no scruples about
    interdining or intermarriage. I need not repeat my position
    regarding Shastras
    and their interpretation. I venture to suggest to Shri Sant Ram that it is the only
    rational and correct and morally defensible position and it has ample warrant in Hindu

    (Harijan, August 15,1936)

  • Jagatheesan Chandrasekharan

    a few seconds ago



    I appreciate greatly the honour done me by the Mahatma
    in taking notice in his Harijan
    of the speech on Caste which I had prepared for the Jat Pat Todak Mandal. From a perusal of his
    of my speech it is clear that the Mahatma completely dissents from the
    views I have expressed on the subject of Caste. I am not in the habit of
    entering into controversy with my opponents unless there are special
    reasons which compel me to act otherwise. Had
    my opponent been some mean and obscure person I would not have pursued him. But my
    opponent being the Mahatma himself I feel I must attempt to
    meet the case to the contrary which he has sought to put
    forth. While I appreciate the honour he has done me, I must
    confess to a sense of surprize
    on finding that of all the persons the Mahatma should accuse me of a desire
    to seek publicity as he seems to do when he suggests that in publishing
    the undelivered speech my object was to see that I was not “
    forgotten “. Whatever the Mahatma
    may choose to say my object in publishing the speech was to
    provoke the Hindus to think and take stock of their
    position. I have never hankered for publicity and if I may say so, I have more of it than I wish or
    need. But supposing it was out of the motive of gaining publicity that I printed the
    speech who could cast a stone at me ? Surely not those, who
    like the Mahatma live in glass houses.


    Motive apart, what has the Mahatma to say on the question raised by
    me in the speech ? First of all any one who reads my speech will realize
    the Mahatma has entirely missed the issues raised by me and that the issues he has raised
    not the issues that arise out of what he is pleased to call my
    indictment of the Hindus. The principal points which I have tried to
    out in my speech may be catalogued as follows : (1) That caste has ruined the
    Hindus ; (2) That the reorganization of the Hindu society
    on the basis of Chaturvarnya is impossible because the Varnavym’astha is
    like a leaky pot or like a man running at the nose. It is incapable of sustaining itself
    by its own virtue and has an inherent tendency to degenerate into a caste system unless
    there is a legal sanction behind it which can be enforced against every one transgressing his Varna ; (3) That the
    reorganization of the Hindu Society on the basis of Chaturvarnya is harmful, because the
    effect of the Varnavyavastha is to degrade the masses by denying them
    opportunity to acquire knowledge and to emasculate them by denying them the right to be
    armed ; (4) That the Hindu society must be reorganized on a religious basis which would recognise the
    principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity ; (5) That
    order to achieve this object the sense of religious sanctity behind
    Caste and Varna must be destroyed ; (6) That the sanctity of Caste and
    Varna can be destroyed only by discarding the
    divine authority of the Shastras.
    It will be noticed that the questions raised by the Mahatma
    are absolutely beside the point and show that the main
    argument of the speech was lost upon him.


    Let me examine the substance of the points made
    by the Mahatma. The first point made by the Mahatma is that the texts cited by me are not
    authentic. I confess I am no authority on this matter. But I should like to state that the
    texts cited by me are all taken from the writings of the
    late Mr. Tilak who was a recognised authority on the
    Sanskrit language and on the Hindu Shastras. His
    second point is that these Shastras should be interpreted not by the learned
    but the saints and that, as the saints have understood them, the Shastras do not support Caste and Untouchabilty. As regards the
    first point what I like to ask the Mahatma is what does it
    to any one if the texts are interpolations and if they have been
    differently interpreted by the saints ? The masses do not make any
    distinction between texts which
    are genuine and texts which are interpolations. The masses do not know what the texts are.
    They are too illiterate to know the contents of the Shastras. They have believed what they have been told and
    what they have been told is that the Shastras do enjoin as
    a religious duty the observance of Caste and Untouchability.

    With regard to the
    saints, one must admit that howsoever different and elevating their teachings may have
    been as compared to those of the merely learned they have been lamentably
    ineffective. They have been ineffective for two reasons. Firstly, none of the saints
    ever attacked the Caste System. On the contrary, they were
    staunch believers in the System of
    Castes. Most of them lived and died. as members of the castes
    which they respectively belonged. So passionately attached
    was Jnyandeo to his status as a Brahmin that when the Brahmins of Paithan would not admit him to
    their fold he moved heaven and earth to get his status as a Brahmin recognized by the Brahmin fraternity.
    And even the saint Eknath who now figures in the film ” Dharmatma ” as a hero for having shown courage to touch the
    untouchables and dine with them, did so not because he was
    opposed to Caste and Untouchability
    but because he felt that the pollution caused thereby could be washed away by a bath in
    the sacred waters of the river
    Ganges.* [f1]The saints have never according to my study carried on a
    campaign against. Caste and Untouchability.
    They were not concerned with
    the struggle between men. They were concerned with the relation between man and God. They did not preach that all men
    were equal. They preached that all
    men were equal, in the eyes of God a very different and a very innocuous proposition which
    nobody can find difficult to preach or dangerous to believe in. The second reason why the
    teachings of the saints proved ineffective was because the masses have been taught that a
    might break Caste but the common man must not. A saint therefore never
    became an example to follow. He always remained a pious
    man to be honoured. That the masses have remained staunch believers in Caste and Untouchability shows that the
    pious lives and noble sermons of the saints have had no effect on their life and conduct
    as against the teachings of the Shastras. Thus it can be a matter of no
    consolation that there were saints or that there is a Mahatma
    who understands the Shastras
    differently from the learned few or ignorant many. That the masses hold different view of
    the Shastras is fact which should and must be
    with. How is that to be dealt with except by denouncing the authority
    of the Shastras, which continue to govern their conduct,
    is a question which the Mahatma has not considered. But whatever the plan the Mahatma puts
    forth as an effective means to free the masses from the teachings of the Shastras, he must accept that the pious life led
    by one good Samaritan may be very elevating to himself but
    in India, with the attitude the common man has to saints
    and to Mahatmas—to honour but not to follow—one
    cannot make much out of it.


    The third point made by the Mahatma is that a
    religion professed by Chaitanya, Jnyandeo,
    Tukaram, Tiruvalluvar, Rarnkrishna Paramahansa etc.
    cannot be devoid of merit as is made out by me and that a religion has to be judged not by
    its worst specimens but by the best it might have produced.
    I agree with every word of this statement. But I do not quite understand what the Mahatma
    wishes to prove thereby. That religion should be judged not by its worst specimens but by
    its best is true enough but does it dispose of the matter ?
    I say it does not. The question still remains—why the worst
    number so many and the best so few ? To my mind there are
    two conceivable answers to this question : ( 1 ) That the worst by reason of some original perversity of theirs are morally
    uneducable and are therefore incapable of making the remotest approach to the religious ideal. Or (2) That the
    religious ideal is a wholly wrong ideal which has given a wrong moral twist to the lives
    of the many and that the best have become best in spite of the wrong ideal—in fact by
    giving to the wrong twist a turn in the right direction. Of these two explanations I am
    not prepared to accept the first and I am sure that even the Mahatma will not insist upon
    the contrary. To my mind the second is the only logical and reasonable explanation unless
    the Mahatma has a third alternative to explain why the
    worst are so many and the best so few. If the second is the
    only explanation then obviously the argument of the Mahatma that a religion should be
    judged by its best followers carries us nowhere except to pity the lot of the many who
    have gone wrong because they have been made to worship wrong ideals.


    The argument of the Mahatma
    that Hinduism would be tolerable if
    only many were to follow the example of the saints is fallacious for
    another reason. [f.2] By citing the names of such illustrious persons
    as Chaitanya etc. what the Mahatma
    seems to me to suggest in its broadest and simplest form is that Hindu society can be made
    tolerable and even happy without any fundamental change in its structure
    if all the high caste Hindus can be persuaded to follow a high standard of morality in
    their dealings with the low caste Hindus. I am totally opposed to this kind of ideology. I
    can respect those of the caste Hindus who try to realize a
    high social ideal in their life. Without such men India would be an uglier and a less
    happy place to live in than it is. But nonetheless anyone
    who relies on an attempt to turn the members of the caste Hindus into better men by improving
    their personal character is in my judgment wasting his energy and bugging an illusion. Can personal character make the maker of
    armaments a good man, i.e. a man who will sell shells that will not burst and gas
    that will not poison ? If it cannot, how can you accept
    character to make a man loaded with the consciousness of Caste, a good
    man, i.e. a man who would treat his fellows as his
    friends and equals ? To be true to himself he must deal
    with his fellows either as a superior or inferior according
    as the case may be; at any rate, differently from his own
    caste fellows. He can never be expected to deal with his
    as his kinsmen and equals. As a matter of fact, a Hindu does treat all
    those who are not of his Caste as though they were aliens, who
    could be discriminated against with impunity and against whom any fraud or trick may be
    practised without shame. This is to say that there
    be a better or a worse Hindu. But a good Hindu there cannot be. This is
    so not because there is anything wrong with his personal
    character. In fact what is wrong is the entire basis of his relationship to his fellows.
    The best of men cannot be moral if the basis of relationship between them and their
    fellows is fundamentally a wrong relationship. To a slave his master
    may be better or worse. But there cannot be a good master. A good man cannot be a master
    and a master cannot be a good man. The same applies to the relationship between high caste
    and low caste. To a low caste man a high caste man can be better
    or worse as compared to other high caste men. A high caste man cannot be a good man in so
    far as he must have a low caste man to distinguish him as high caste man. It cannot be
    good to a low caste man to be conscious that there is a high caste man above him. I have
    argued in my speech that a society based on Varna
    or Caste is a society which is based on a wrong relationship. I had hoped that the Mahatma
    would attempt to demolish my argument. But instead of doing that he has merely reiterated
    his belief in Chaturvarnya without disclosing the ground on
    which it is based.

  • Jagatheesan Chandrasekharan

    a few seconds ago


    Does the Mahatma
    practise what he preaches ? One does not like to make
    personal reference in an argument which is general in its
    application. But when one preaches a decline and holds it as a dogma there is a curiosity to know how
    far he practises what he preaches. It may be that his failure
    to practise is due to the ideal
    being too high. to be attainable; it may be that his
    failure to practise is due to the innate hypocrisy of the man. In any case he exposes his
    conduct to examination and I must not be blamed if I asked
    how far has the Mahatma attempted to realize his ideal in
    his own case. The Mahatma is a Bania
    by birth. His ancestors had abandoned trading in favour of ministership which is a calling
    of the Brahmins. In his own life, before he became a
    Mahatma, when occasion came for him to choose his career he
    preferred law to scales. On abandoning law he became half saint and half politician. He
    has never touched trading which is his ancestral calling. His youngest
    son—I take one who is a faithful follower of his father—born a Vaishya has married a Brahmin’s daughter and has chosen to
    a newspaper magnate. The Mahatma is not known to have condemned him for
    not following his ancestral calling. It may be wrong and uncharitable
    to judge an ideal by its worst specimens. But surely the Mahatma as a specimen has no better and if he even fails to
    realize the ideal then the
    ideal must be an impossible ideal quite opposed to the
    practical instincts of man. Students of Carlyle know that
    he often spoke on a subject before he thought about it. I wonder whether such has not been
    the case with the Mahatma in regard to the subject matter
    of Caste. Otherwise certain
    questions which occur to me would not have escaped him.
    When can a calling be deemed to have become an ancestral
    calling so as to make it binding on a man ? Must man follow
    his ancestral calling even
    it does not suit his capacities, even when it has ceased to be
    profitable ? Must a man live by his ancestral calling even if he finds
    it to be immoral ? If
    every one must pursue his ancestral calling then it must follow that a man must. continue
    to be a pimp because his grandfather was a pimp and a woman must continue to be a
    prostitute because her grandmother was a prostitute. Is the
    Mahatma prepared to accept the logical conclusion of his doctrine ? To me bis ideal of following
    one’s ancestral calling is not only an impossible and
    impractical ideal, but it is also morally an indefensible ideal. VII

    The Mahatma sees great virtue in a Brahmin
    remaining a Brahmin all his life. Leaving aside the fact there are many Brahmins who do
    not like to remain Brahmins ail their lives. What can we
    about those Brahmins who have clung to their ancestral calling of
    priesthood ? Do they do so from any faith in the virtue of the principle
    of ancestral calling or do they do so from motives of
    filthy lucre ? The Mahatma
    does not seem to concern himself with such queries. He is satisfied that these are “
    real Brahmins who are living on alms freely given to them and giving freely what they have of spiritual treasures “.
    This is how a hereditary Brahmin priest appears to the Mahatma—a
    carrier of spiritual treasurers. But another portrait of the hereditary Brahmin can also be drawn. A Brahmin
    can be a priest to Vishnu—the God of Love. He can be a priest to Shankar—the God. of Destruction.
    He can be a priest at Buddha Gaya
    worshipping Buddha—the greatest teacher of mankind who
    taught the noblest doctrine of Love. He also can be a
    to Kali, the Goddess, who must have a daily sacrifice of an animal to
    satisfy her thirst for blood ; He will be a priest of the temple
    of Rama—the Kshatriya
    God! He will also be a priest
    of the Temple of Parshuram,
    the God who took Avatar to destroy the Kshatriyas ! He can be a priest to Bramha, the Creator of
    the world. He can be a priest to a Pir whose God Allah will
    not brook the claim of Bramha to share his spiritual
    dominion over the world ! No
    one can say that this is a picture which is not true to life. If this is a true picture
    one does not know what to say of this capacity to bear loyalties
    to Gods and Goddesses whose attributes are so antagonistic that no honest man can be a
    devotee to all of them. The Hindus rely upon this extraordinary phenomenon as evidence of
    the greatest virtue of their religion—namely
    its catholicity, its spirit of toleration. As against this
    facile view, it can be urged that what is toleration and catholicity may be really nothing more
    creditable than indifference or flaccid latitudinarianism.
    These two attitudes are hard to distinguish in their outer
    seeming. But they are so vitally unlike in their real quality that no one who examines
    them closely can mistake one for the other. That a man is ready to render homage to many
    Gods and Goddesses may be. cited as evidence of his tolerant spirit.. But can it not also be evidence of insincerity born of a
    desire to serve the times ? I am sure that this toleration
    is merely insincerity. If this view is well founded, one may ask what spiritual treasure
    can there be with a person who is ready to be a priest and a devotee to any deity which it
    serves his purpose to worship and to adore ? Not only must
    such a person be deemed to be bankrupt of all spiritual treasures but for him to practice
    so elevating a profession as that of a priest simply
    because it is ancestral, without faith, without belief,
    merely as a mechanical process handed down from. father to son, is not a conservation of virtue; it is really the
    prostitution of a noble profession which is no other than the service of religion.


    Why does the Mahatma
    cling to the theory of every one following his or her
    ancestral calling ? He gives
    his reasons nowhere But there must be some reason although he does not cars to avow it.
    Years ago writing on “
    Caste versus
    Class ” in his Young
    India he argued that Caste System was better than Class System on the ground that
    caste was the best possible adjustment of social stability. If that be the reason why the
    Mahatma clings to the theory of every one following his or her ancestral calling, then he
    is clinging to a false view of social life. Everybody wants social stability and some
    adjustment must be made in the relationship between individuals and classes in order that
    stability may be had. But two things, I am sure nobody wants.
    One thing nobody wants is static relationship, something that is unalterable, something
    that is fixed for all times. Stability is wanted but not at
    the cost of change when change is imperative. Second thing nobody wants is mere
    Adjustment is wanted but not at the sacrifice of social justice. Can it
    be said that the adjustment of social relationship on the basis of
    caste i.e. on the basis
    of each to his hereditary calling avoids these two evils ?
    I am convinced that it does not. Far from being the best possible adjustment I have no
    doubt that it is of the worst possible kind inasmuch as it
    offends against both the canons of social adjustment—namely fluidity and equity.


    Some might think that the Mahatma has made much progress inasmuch as he now only
    believes in Varna and docs not believe in Caste.
    It is true that there was a time when the Mahatma was a full-blooded and a blue-blooded Sanatani Hindu. He believed
    in the Vedas, the
    Upanishads, the Puranas and all that
    goes by the name of Hindu scriptures and therefore in avatars and rebirth. He believed in Caste and
    defended it with the vigour of the orthodox. He condemned the cry for inter-dining, inter-drinking
    and inter-marrying and argued that restraints about inter-dining to a great extent “
    the cultivation of will-power and the conservation of certain social
    virtue “. It is good that he has repudiated this sanctimonious
    nonsense and admitted that caste ” is harmful both to
    spiritual and national growth,” and may be, his son’s marriage outside his caste has
    had something to do with this change of view. But has the
    really progressed ? What is the nature of the Varna for which the
    Mahatma stands ? Is it the Vedic conception as commonly understood and
    preached by Swami Dayanaad Saraswati and his followers, the Arya
    Samajists ? The essence of
    the Vedic
    conception of Varna is the pursuit of a
    calling which is appropriate to one’s natural aptitude. The essence of the Mahatma’s conception of Varna
    is the pursuit of ancestral calling irrespective of natural aptitude. What is the
    difference between Caste and Varna as understood
    the Mahatma? I find none. As defined by the Mahatma, Varna becomes
    merely a different name for Caste for the simple reason that it is the
    same in essence—namely pursuit of ancestral calling. Far from
    making progress the Mahatma has suffered retrogression. By putting this interpretation
    upon the Vedic conception of Varna he has really made ridiculous what was
    sublime. While I reject the Vedic Varnavyavastha for reasons given in the speech I must
    admit that the Vedic theory of Varna as interpreted by Swami Dayanand and some others is a sensible and an inoffensive
    thing. It did not admit birth as a determining factor in fixing the place of an individual
    in society. It only recognized worth. The Mahatma’s view of Varna
    not only makes nonsense of the Vedic
    Varna but it makes it an abominable thing. Varna
    and Caste are two very different concepts. Varna
    is based on the principle of each according to his worth-while Caste is based on the
    principle of each according to his birth. The two are as distinct
    as chalk is from cheese. In fact there is an antithesis between the two. If the Mahatma believes as he does in every
    one following his or her ancestral calling, then most certainly he is advocating the Caste
    System and that in calling it the Varna System
    he is not only guilty of terminologicale inexactitude, but he is causing confusion worse confounded. I am sure that
    his confusion is due to the fact that the Mahatma has no definite and
    clear conception as to what is Varna and what is Caste and as to the
    necessity of
    either for the conservation of Hinduism. He has said and
    one hopes that he will not find some mystic reason to
    his view that caste is not the essence of Hinduism. Does he regard
    Varna as the essence of Hinduism ? One cannot as yet give any
    categorical answer. Readers of
    his article on ” Dr. Ambedkar’s
    Indictment ” will answer “
    No “. In that article he does not say that the dogma
    of Varna is an essential
    part of the creed of Hinduism. Far from making Varna
    the essence of Hinduism he says ” the essence of
    Hinduism is contained in its enunciation of one and only God as Truth and its bold
    of Ahimsa as the law of the human family ” But the readers of his
    article in reply to Mr. Sant Ram will say ” Yes “. In that article he
    says “
    How can a Muslim remain one if he rejects the Qurtan, or a Christian remain
    Christian if he rejects the Bible ? If Caste and Varna are convertible
    terms and if Varna is an integral part of the Shastras which
    define Hinduism I do not know how a person who rejects Caste, i.e. Varna can call himself a Hindu ? ” Why this prevarication
    ? Why does the Mahatma hedge ? Whom does he want to
    ? Has the saint failed to sense the truth ? Or does the politician
    stand in the way of the Saint ? The real reason why the Mahatma is
    suffering from this
    confusion is probably to be traced to two sources. The first is the temperament of the
    He has almost in everything the simplicity of the child with the
    child’s capacity for self-deception. Like a child he can believe in
    anything he wants to
    believe. We must therefore wait till such time as it pleases the Mahatma to abandon his faith in Varna
    as it has pleased him to abandon his faith in Caste. The second source of confusion is the
    double role which the Mahatma wants to play—of a Mahatma and a Politician. As a
    Mahatma he may be trying to spiritualize Politics. Whether he has succeeded in it or not
    Politics have certainly commercialized him. A politician must know that Society cannot
    bear the whole truth and that he must not speak the whole truth;
    if he is speaking the whole truth it is bad for his politics. The reason why the Mahatma
    is always supporting Caste and Varna is because
    he is afraid that if he opposed them he will lose his place in politics. Whatever may be
    the source of this confusion the Mahatma must be told that
    he is deceiving himself and also deceiving the people by preaching Caste under the name of Varna.


    The Mahatma says that the standards I have
    applied to test Hindus
    and Hinduism are too severe and that judged by those standards every
    known living faith will probably fail. The complaint that my standards
    are high may be true. But the question is not whether they
    are high or whether they are low. The question is whether they are the right standards to
    apply. A People and their Religion must be judged by social
    standards based on social ethics. No other standard would
    have any meaning if religion is held to be a necessary good
    for the well-being of the people. Now I maintain that the standards I have applied to test
    Hindus and Hinduism are the most appropriate standards and that I know of none that are
    better. The conclusion that every known religion would fail
    if tested by my standards may be true. But this fact should not give the Mahatma as the
    champion of Hindus and Hinduism a ground for comfort any more than the existence of one madman should give
    comfort to another madman or the existence of one criminal should give comfort to another
    criminal. I like to assure
    the Mahatma that it is not the mere failure of the Hindus
    and Hinduism which has produced in me the feelings of disgust and contempt with which. I am charged. I realize that the world
    a very imperfect world and any one who wants to live in it must bear
    with its imperfections. But while I am. prepared to bear with the
    imperfections and shortcomings of the society in which I may be destined to labour, I feel I should not consent to
    live in a society which cherishes wrong ideals or a society which having right ideals will not consent to
    its social life in conformity with those ideals. If I am disgusted with
    Hindus and Hinduism it is because I am convinced that they
    cherish wrong ideals and live
    a wrong social life. My quarrel with Hindus and Hinduism is
    not over the imperfections of their social conduct. It is much more fundamental. It is
    over their ideals.


    Hindu society seems to me to stand in need of a moral regeneration
    which it is dangerous to postpone. And the question is who can
    determine and control this
    moral regeneration ? Obviously only those who have
    undergone an intellectual regeneration and those who are
    honest enough to have the courage of their convictions born
    of intellectual emancipation. Judged by this standard the Hindu leaders who count are in
    my opinion quite unfit for
    the task. It is impossible to say that they have undergone the preliminary intellectual regeneration. If they had
    undergone an intellectual regeneration
    they would neither delude themselves in the simple way of
    the untaught multitude nor would they take advantage of the
    ignorance of others as one sees them doing. Notwithstanding the
    crumbling state of Hindu society these leaders will nevertheless
    unblushingly appeal
    to ideals of the past which have in every way ceased to have any connection with the present ; which
    however suitable they might
    have been in the days of their origin have now become a warning
    rather than a guide. They still have a mystic respect for the earlier forms which make them disinclined—nay opposed to
    any examination of the foundations of their Society. The Hindu
    masses are cf course
    incredibly heedless in the formation of their beliefs. But so are the Hindu leaders. And what is worse is that.
    These Hindu leaders become filled with an illicit passion
    for their beliefs when any
    one proposes to rob them of their companionship. The Mahatma. is no exception. The Mahatma
    appears not to believe in thinking He prefers to follow the
    saints. Like a conservative with his reverence for consecrated notions
    he is afraid that if he once starts thinking, many ideals
    and institutions to which lie clings
    will be doomed. One must sympathize with him. For every act of independent thinking puts some
    portion of apparently stable world
    in peril. But it is equally
    true that dependence on saints
    cannot lead us to know the truth. The saints are after
    only human beings and as Lord Balfour said , ” the human mind is no
    more a truth finding apparatus than the snout of a pig “. In so far as
    he does think,
    to me he really appears to be prostituting his intelligence
    to find reasons for supporting this archaic social
    structure of the Hindus. He is the most influential apologist of it and therefore the worst enemy of the Hindus.

    Unlike the Mahatma there are Hindu leaders who
    are not content merely to believe and follow. They dare to
    think, and act in, accordance with the result of their
    thinking. But unfortunately they are either a dishonest lot
    or an indifferent lot when it comes to the question of
    giving right guidance to the mass of the people. Almost every Brahmin has
    transgressed the rule of Caste. The number of Brahmins who sell shoes is far greater than those who practise priesthood. Not
    only have the Brahmins given up their ancestral calling of
    priesthood for trading but they have entered trades which, are prohibited to them by the Shaslras. Yet how
    Brahmins who break Caste every day will preach against Caste and
    against the Shastras ? For one honest Brahmin preaching against Caste
    and Shastras because
    his practical instinct and moral conscience cannot support a conviction in them, there are
    hundreds who break Caste and trample upon the Shastras
    day but who are the most fanatic upholders of the theory of Caste and
    the sanctity of the Shastras. Why this duplicity ? Because they feel
    that if the masses are emancipated from the yoke of Caste they would be
    a menace to the power and prestige of the Brahmins as a class. The dishonesty of this intellectual class who would deny
    the masses the fruits of their thinking is a most
    disgraceful phenomenon.

    The Hindus in
    the words of Mathew Arnold are “
    wandering between two worlds, one dead, the other powerless to be born “. What
    are they to do ? The Mahatma
    to ‘whom they appeal for
    guidance does not believe in thinking and can therefore give no guidance which can be said to stand the test of
    experience. The intellectual classes to whom the masses
    look for guidance are either too dishonest or too indifferent
    to educate them in the right direction. We are indeed witnesses to a great tragedy. In the
    face of this tragedy all one can do is to lament and say—such be thy Leaders, O! Hindus.

comments (0)