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use of its pandal was withdrawn and the spirit of enmity went to such a pitch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 say we shall not be fit for political reform
until we reform our social system. I fail to see any connection between the two.
.Are we not fit (for political reform) because our widows remain unmarried and
our girls are given in marriage earlier than in other countries? Because our
wives and daughters do not drive about with us visiting our friends? Because we
do not send our daughters to Oxford and Cambridge?” (Cheers)
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 district (of the Indore State) informed the Balais
of their respective villages that if they wished to live among them they must conform
to the following rules:
(1) Balais
must not wear gold-lace-bordered pugrees.
(2) They
must not wear dhotis with coloured or fancy borders.
(3) They
must convey intimation of the death of any Hindu to relatives of the
deceased—no matter how far away these relatives may be living.
(4) In all
Hindu marriages, Balais must play music before the processions and during the
marriage.
(5) Balai
women must not wear gold or silver ornaments; they must not wear fancy gowns or
jackets.
(6) Balai
women must attend all cases of confinement of Hindu women.
(7) Balais
must render services without demanding remuneration and must accept whatever a
Hindu is pleased to give.
(8) If the
Balais do not agree to abide by these terms they must clear out of the
villages. The Balais refused to comply; and the Hindu element proceeded against
them. Balais were not allowed to get water from the village wells; they were
not allowed to let go their cattle to graze. Balais were prohibited from
passing through land owned by a Hindu, so that if the field of a Balai was
surrounded by fields owned by Hindus, the Balai could have no access to his own
field. The Hindus also let their cattle graze down the fields of Balais. The Balais
submitted petitions to the Darbar against these persecutions; but as they could
get no timely relief, and the oppression continued, hundreds of Balais with
their wives and children were obliged to abandon their homes in which their
ancestors lived for generations and to migrate to adjoining States, viz. to
villages in Dhar, Dewas, Bagli, Bhopal, Gwalior and other States. What happened
to them in their new homes may for the present be left out of our
consideration. The incident at Kavitha in Gujarat happened only last year. The Hindus
of Kavitha ordered the untouchables not to insist upon sending their children
to the common village school maintained by Government. What sufferings the
untouchables of Kavitha had to undergo for daring to exercise a civic right
against the wishes of the Hindus is too well known to need detailed
description. Another instance occurred in the village of Zanu in the Ahmedabad
district of Gujarat. In November 1935 some untouchable women of well-to-do families
started fetching water in metal pots. The Hindus looked upon the use of metal
pots by untouchables as an affront to their dignity and assaulted the
untouchable women for their impudence. A most recent event is reported from the
village Chakwara in Jaipur State. It seems from the reports that have appeared
in the newspapers that an untouchable of Chakwara who had returned from a
pilgrimage had arranged to give a dinner to his fellow untouchables of the
village as an act of religious piety. The host desired to treat the guests to a
sumptuous meal and the items served included ghee (butter) also. But
while the assembly of untouchables was engaged in partaking of the food, the
Hindus in their hundreds, 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 lost the battle? To understand this correctly
it is necessary, to take note of the kind of social reform which the reformers
were agitating for. In this connection it is necessary to make a distinction
between social reform in the sense of the reform of the Hindu Family and social
reform in the sense of the reorganization and reconstruction of the Hindu
Society. The former has 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 weresystem. 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 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 nothing
that the minorities agreed to be ruled by the majority which has not shown much
sense of statesmanship, provided some safeguards were devised for them? But
this is only incidental. The main question is why did Ulster take this
attitude? The only answer I can give is that there was a social problem between
Ulster and Southern Ireland the problem between Catholics and Protestants,
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. Anyone who has studied the History of Rome will know that
the Republican Constitution of Rome bore marks having strong resemblance to the
Communal Award. When the kingship in Rome was abolished, the Kingly power or
the Imperium was divided between the Consuls and the Pontifex Maximus.
In the Consuls was vested the secular authority of the King, while the latter
took over the religious authority of 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment