XVIII
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 the
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 Varnas before us, I do not
understand how anyone can hold out Chaturvarnya as an ideal to be aimed at or
as a pattern, on which the Hindu Society should be remodelled,
XIX
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 not 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 armed 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 at 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 is: 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 force 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 Sunni; 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 better. 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 shortlived 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 currents. 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment