APPENDIX II
A REPLY TO THE MAHATMA BY DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR
I
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 review 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.
II
Motive
apart, what has the Mahatma to say on the question raised by me in the speech?
First of all anyone who reads my speech will realize that the Mahatma has
entirely missed the issues raised by me and that the issues be has raised are
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 make 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 Varnavyavastha 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 in 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.
III
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 Untouchability. As regards the first point what I like to
ask the Mahatma is what does it avail 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.* 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
saint 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 reckoned 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.
*vaR;tkpk foVkG T;klh A xaxkLukus 'kq/nRo R;klh AA ,dukFkh Hkkxor] v- 28] 191
IV
The third
point made by the Mahatma is that a religion professed by Chaitanya, Jnyandeo,
Tukaram, Tiruvalluvar, Ramkrishna 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.* 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 hugging 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 personal 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 fellows 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 can 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
* In this
connection see illuminating article on Morality and the Social Structure by
Mr. H. N. Brailsford in the Aryan Path for April 1936.
VI
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
doctrine 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 hypocracy 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 serve 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 if 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 everyone 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
his 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
all their lives. What can we say 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
treasures. 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 priest 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.
VIII
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 care 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. 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.
IX
Some might
think that the Mahatma has made much progress inasmuch as he now only believes
in Varna and does 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 interdining to a great extent “helped 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 Mahatma 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 Dayanand 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 by 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 terminological
inexactitude, but he is causing confusion worse confounded. I am sure that all
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 change 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 acceptance 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 Quran, or a Christian remain as
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 please? 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 Mahatma. 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 knew 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.
X
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 is a very imperfect world and anyone 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 bring 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.
XI
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 primitive 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 of 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
he clings wilt 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 all 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 Shastras.
Yet how many 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 every 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.
ANNIHILATION OF CASTE (A VINDICATION OF CASTE BY MAHATMA GANDHI) Appendix 1
