XVII
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 meaning. They say, why should the Shudra need
trouble to acquire wealth, when the three Varnas 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 Varnas 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 Varnas. He was
prohibited from acquiring knowledge lest he should keep a steady vigil
regarding his interests. He was prohibited from bearing arms 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 in famous 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 in 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment