The Hindu Social
Order: it’s Essential Principles
What
is Liberty and why is it essential in a free social order?
Does the Hindu social order recognise the individual?
Does the Hindu social order recognise fraternity?
What is
it that has behind these rules regarding hyper- communality and hypergamy?
Does the Hindu Social Order Recognise Equality?
_____________________________________________________________________
Editorial Note for the manuscript published in the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 3 by the Government of Maharashtra:
We are reproducing here the text of
Chapter One and Two of ' The Hindu Social Order '. This Chapter
seems to be a part of the book entitled ' India and Communism '. From the
contents on the first page of the typed script, we find that Dr. Ambedkar
had divided the whole book " India and Communism " into three parts. The first
part was captioned
as ' The Prerequisites of Communism '. This part was to have three Chapters but
we could not find any of these Chapters in Dr. Ambedkar's papers. So far as the
part Two is concerned which is titled " India and the Pre-requisites
of Communism ",
only Chapter Four entitled, " Hindu Social Order "has been
found in a well bound register. This Chapter has two sub-titles as follows: —
I—Hindu Social Order: Its Essential Principles, and II— The Hindu Social Order: Its Unique Features. No other chapters on the subjects mentioned in the table of contents of this book were found. In all, there are 63 foolscap-typed pages. —Editors.
_______________________________________________________________
CHAPTER
The Hindu Social Order: It’s
Essential Principles
What
is the character of the Hindu Social Order? Is it a free social order? To answer this
question, some idea of what constitutes a free social order is necessary. Fortunately,
the matter is not one of controversy. Since the days of the French Revolution
there is no difference as to the essentials of a free social order. There may be
more but two are fundamental. Generally speaking, they are two. The first is that the individual is an end in him self
and that the aim and object of society is the growth of the individual and the
development of his personality. Society is not above the individual and if the
individual has to subordinate himself to society, it is because such
subordination is for his betterment and only to the extent necessary.
The second essential is that the terms of associated life between members
of society must be regarded by consideration founded on liberty, equality and fraternity.
Why are these two essentials fundamental to a free social order? Why must the individual be the end and
not the means of all social purposes? For an answer to this question, it is
necessary to realise what we precisely mean when we speak of the human person.
Why should we sacrifice our most precious possessions and our lives to defend
the rights of the human person? No better answer to this question can be found
than what is given by Prof. Jacques Maritain. As Prof. Maritain in his essay on ' The Conquest of Freedom '[f1] says:-
" What do we mean precisely when we speak of the human person? When we say that a man is a person, we do not mean merely that he is an individual, in the sense that an atom, a blade of grass, a fly, or an elephant is an individual. Man is an individual who holds himself in hand by his intelligence and his will; he exists not merely in a physical fashion. He has spiritual super-existence through knowledge and love, so that he is, in a way, a universe in himself, a microcosms, in which the great universe in its entirety can be encompassed through knowledge.
By love he can give himself completely to beings who are to him, as it
were, other selves. For this relation no equivalent can be found in the
physical world. The human person possesses these characteristics because in the
last analysis man, this flesh and these perishable bones which are animated and activated by a
divine fire, exists 'from the womb to the grave ' by virtue of the existence itself of his soul, which
dominates time and death. Spirit is the root of personality. The notion of
personality thus involves that of totality and independence, no matter how poor
and crushed a person may be, he is a whole, and as a person subsistent in an independent manner. To say that a man is a person is to say that
in the depth of his being he is more a whole than a part and more independent than servile. It is to say that he is a minute fragment of matter that
is at the same time a universe, a beggar who participates in the absolute being, mortal
flesh whose value is external and a bit of straw into which heaven enters. It is this metaphysical mystery
that religious thought designates when it says that the person is the image of God. The
value of the person, his dignity and rights, belong to the order of things naturally sacred which bear the
imprint of the Father of Being, and which have in him the end of their movement. " Why is Equality
essential? The best exposition of the subject is by Prof. Beard in his essay on
' Freedom in Political Thought ' and I shall do no more than quote him. Says
Prof. Beard[f2]: —
"The term 'Equality' is unfortunate, but no other word can be found as a
substitute. Equality means ' exactly the same or equivalent in measure, amount,
number, degree, value, or quality ". It is a term exact enough in physics and mathematics, but obviously inexact when applied to human beings. What is meant by writers who have
gone deepest into the subject is that human beings possess, in degree and kind,
fundamental characteristics that are common to humanity. These writers hold
that when humanity is stripped of extrinsic goods and conventions incidental to time and
place, it reveals essential characteristics so widely distributed as to partake
of universality. Whether these characteristics be called primordial qualities, biological necessities, residues or any other name matters little. No one can
truthfully deny that they do exist. It is easy to point out inequalities in
physical strength, in artistic skill, in material wealth, or in mental
capacity, but this too is a matter of emphasis. At the end it remains a fact
that fundamental Characteristics appear in all human beings. Their nature and
manifestations are summed up in the phrase ' moral equality '.
Emphasis must be placed on the term ' moral '. From time immemorial it
has been the fashion of critics to point out the obvious facts that in physical
strength, talents, and wealth, human beings are not equal. The criticism is
both gratuitous and irrelevant. No
rational exponent of moral equality has even disputed the existence of obvious
inequalities among human beings, even when he has pointed out inequalities,
which may be ascribed to tyranny or institutional prescriptions. The
Declaration of Independence does not assert that all men are equal; it
proclaims that they are ' created ' equal.
In essence the phrase ' moral equality ' asserts in ethical value, a
belief to be sustained, and recognition of rights to be respected. Its validity
cannot be demonstrated as a problem in mathematics can be demonstrated. It is
asserted against inequalities in physical strength, talents, industry, and
wealth. It denied that superior physical strength has a moral right to kill,
eat, or oppress human beings merely because it is superior. To talents and wealth, the ideal of
moral equality makes a similar denial of right. And indeed few can imagine
themselves to have superior physical strength, talents and wealth will withhold
from inferiors all moral rights. In such circumstances government and wealth
would go to superior physical strength; while virtue and talents would serve the brute man, as
accomplished Greek slaves served the whims, passions and desires to Roman
conquerors. When the last bitter word of criticism has been uttered against the ideal of moral equality,
there remains something in it which all, except things, must accept and in
practice do accept, despite their sheers and protests. A society without any
respect for human personalities is a band of robbers. "
Fraternity
is the name for the disposition of an individual to treat men as the object of reverence and love
and the desire to be in unity with his fellow beings. This statement is well expressed
by Paul when he said ' Of one blood are all nations of men. There is neither
Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female; for yet are ail
one in Christ Jesus. ' Equally well was it expressed when the Pilgrim Fathers on their landing at Plymouth said: " We are knit together as a
body in the most sacred covenant of the Lord. . . . by virtue of which we hold ourselves tied to all care
of each others' good and of the whole. " These sentiments are of the essence of fraternity. Fraternity
strengthens socialites and gives to each individual a stronger personal
interest in practically consulting the welfare of others. It leads him to
identify his feelings more and more with their good, or at least with an even
greater degree of practical consideration for it. With a disposition to
fraternity he comes as though instructively to be conscious of him as being one
who of course pays a regard to others. The good of others becomes to him a
thing naturally and necessarily to be attended to like any of the physical conditions
of our existence. Where people do not feel that entire sympathy with all
others, concordance in the general direction of their conduct is impossible.
For a person in whom social feeling is not developed cannot but bring himself
to think of the rest of his fellow-beings as rivals struggling with him for the means of happiness when he
must endeavour to defeat in order that he may succeed in himself.
What is Liberty and why is it essential in a free social order?
Liberty
falls under two classes. There is civil liberty and there is political liberty.
Civil liberty refers to (1) liberty of movement which is another name for freedom
from arrest without due process of law (2) liberty of speech (which of course
includes liberty of thought, liberty of reading, writing and discussion) and (3)
liberty of action.
The first kind of liberty is of course fundamental. Not only fundamental
it is also most essential. About its value, there can be no manner of doubt.
The second kind of liberty, which may be called freedom of opinion, is
important for many reasons. It is a necessary condition of all progress
intellectual, moral, political and social. Where it does not exist the status
quo becomes stereotyped and all originality even the most necessary is
discouraged. Liberty of action means doing what one likes to do. It is not
enough that liberty of action should be formal. It must be real. So understood
liberty of action means effective power to do specific things. There is no
freedom where there are no means of taking advantage of it. Real liberty of action exists
only where exploitation has been annihilated, where no suppression of one class by another exists, where there
is no unemployment, no poverty and where a person is free from the fear of losing his job, his
home and his food as a consequence of his action.
Political liberty consists in the right of the individual to share in the framing of laws and in the making and unmaking of governments. Governments are
instituted for securing to men certain unalienable rights such as life, liberty
and pursuit of happiness. Government must, therefore, derive its powers from
those whose rights it is charged with the duty to protect. This is what is
meant when it is said that the existence, power and authority of the Government
must be derived from the consent of the governed. Political liberty is really a
deduction from the principle of human personality and equality. For it implies
that all political authority is derived from the people that the people are
capable of directing and controlling their public as well as private lives to ends determined by themselves and
by none else.
These two tenets of a free social order are integrally connected. They
are non-separable. Once the first tenet is admitted, the second tenet
automatically follows. Once the sacredness of human personality is admitted the
necessity of liberty, equality and fraternity must also be admitted as the
proper climate for the development of personality.
How far does the Hindu social order recognise these tenets? The inquiry
is necessary. For it is only in so far as it recognises these tenets that it
will have the title to be called a free social order.
Does the Hindu social order recognise the individual? Does it recognise his distinctiveness his moral responsibility? Does it
recognise him as an end in himself, as a subject not merely of disabilities but
also of rights even against the State? As a starting point for the discussion
of the subject one may begin by referring to the words of the exodus where Jehova says to Ezekiel:—
" Behold! All
souls are mine; as the soul of the Father, so also the soul of the son
is mine; the soul that sinister, it shall die. .. .. the son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father, neither shall the father
bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon
him, and the wickedness of the wicked upon him." Here is emphasised the distinctiveness of the individual
and his moral responsibility. The Hindu social order does not recognise the
individual as a centre of social purpose. For the Hindu social order is based
primarily on class or Varna and not on individuals. Originally and formally the
Hindu social order recognised four classes: (1) Brahmins, (2) Kshatriyas (3) Vaishyas and (4) Shudras. Today it consists of five classes, the fifth being
called the Panchamas or Untouchables. The unit of Hindu society is not the
individual Brahmin or the individual Kshatriya or the individual Vaishya or the individual Shudra or the individual Panchama. Even the family is not regarded by the Hindu social
order as the unit of society except for the purposes of marriage and
inheritance The unit of Hindu society is the class or Varna to use the Hindu
technical name for class. In the Hindu social order, there is no room for
individual merit and no consideration of individual justice. If the individual
has a privilege it is not because it is due to him personally. The privilege
goes with the class and if he is found to enjoy it, it is because he
belongs to that class. Countrywide, if an individual is suffering from a wrong,
it is not because he by his conduct deserves it. The disability is the disability
imposed upon the class and if he is found to be labouring under it, it is
because he belongs to that class.
Does the Hindu social order recognise fraternity? The Hindus like the Christians and the Muslims do believe that men are created by
God. But while the Christians and the Muslims accept this as the whole truth
the Hindus believe that this is only part of the truth. According to them, the
whole truth consists of two parts. The first part is that men are created by God. The
second part is that God created different men from different parts of his
divine body. The Hindus regard the second part as more important and more
fundamental than the first.
The Hindu social order is based on the doctrine that men are created from the different parts of the divinity and therefore the view
expressed by Paul or the Pilgrim Fathers has no place in it. The Brahmin is no
brother to the Kshatriya because the former is born from the mouth of the
divinity while the latter is from the arms. The Kshatriya is no brother to the Vaishya because the
former is born from the arms and the latter from his thighs. As no one is a brother to
the other, no one is the keeper of the other.
The doctrine that the different classes were created from different parts of the Divine body has generated
the belief that it must be divine will that they should remain separate and
distinct. It is this belief which has created in the Hindu an instinct to be different, to
be separate and to be distinct from the rest of his fellow Hindus. Compare the
following rules in the Manu Smriti regarding the Upanayan or the Investiture of a body with the sacred thread :—
II. 36. " In the eighth year after conception, one should perform
the initiation (Upanayan) of a Brahmani in the eleventh after conception (that) of a Kshatriya but in
the twelfth that of a Vaishya. "
II. 41. "Let students according to the order (of their castes), wear
(as upper dressed) the skins of black antelope, spotted deer, and he-goats and
(lower garments) made of hemp, flex or wool. "
II. 42. " The girdle of a Brahmana shall consist of a triple cord of Munga grass, smooth
and soft (that) of a Kshatriya, of a bowstring, made of Murva fibres (that) of
a Vaishya of hempen threads.
II. 43. "If Munga grass (and soforth) be not procurable, (the girdles) may be made of kusa, Asmantaka, and Belbaga (fibres) with a single threefold knot, or with three or
five (knots according to the custom of the family. "
II. 44. "The sacrificial string of a Brahmana shall be made of cotton (shall be) twisted to the
right, (and consist) of three threads, that of a Kshatriya of hempen threads, and that of a Vaishya of woolen threads.
II. 45. " A Brahamana shall carry according to sacred law a staff of Bilva or Palasa, a Kshatriya of Vata or Khadira; and a Vaishya of
Pillu or Udumbara. "
II. 46. " The staff of a Brahmana shall be made of such length as
to reach the end of his hair; that of a Kshatriya to reach his forehead ; and that of a
Vaishya to reach the tip of his nose. "
II. 48. " Having taken a staff according to his choice having
worshipped the Sun and walked round the fire, turning his right hand towards it (the student) should beg alms
according to the prescribed rule. "
II. 49. " An initiated Brahmana should beg, beginning his request
with the word lady (bhavati); a Kshatriya placing the word lady in the middle, but a
Vaishya placing it at the end of the formula. "
On reading this one may well ask the reasons for such distinctions. The
above rules refer to students or what are called Bramhacharia
ready to enter upon the study of the Vedas. Why should there
be these distinctions? Why should the ages of Upanayana of the Brahmin boy differ from that of the Kshatriya or
Vaishya? Why should their garments be of different kind? Why should their
materials of girdle cords be different? Why should the material of strings be
different? Why should their staves be of different trees? Why should their
staves differ in length? Why in uttering the formula for asking alms they
should place the word ' Bhavathi ' in different places? These differences are not
necessary nor advantageous. The only answer is that they are the result of the
Hindu instinct to be different from his fellow which has resulted from the
belief of people being innately different owing to their being created from
different parts of the divine body.
It is also the Hindu instinct due to the same belief never to overlook a
difference if it does exist but to emphasise it, recognise it and to blazon it
forth. If there is caste its existence must be signalised by a distinguishing
headdress and by a distinguishing name. If there is a sect it must have its head mark. There are 92 sects in India. Each has a separate mark of itself. To invent 92 marks
each one different from the other is a colossal business. The very impossibility
of it would have made the most ingenious person to give up the task. Yet, the Hindus have
accomplished it as may be seen from the pictorial representation of these marks
given by Moore in his Hindu Pantheon.
The most extensive and wild manifestation of this spirit of isolation and
separation is of course the caste-system. It is understandable that caste in a
single number cannot exist. Caste can exist only in plural number. There can be
castes. But there cannot be such a thing as a caste. But granting that
theoretically castes must exist in plural number how many castes should there
be ? Originally, there were four only.
Today, how many are there? It. is estimated that the total is not less than
2000. It might be 3000. This is not the only staggering aspect of this fact.
There are others. Castes are divided into sub-castes. Their number is legion.
The total population of the Brahmin castes is about a crore and a half. But there are 1886 sub-castes of Brahmin caste!! In the
Punjab alone, the Saraswat Brahmans are divided into 469 sub-castes. The Kayasthas of Punjab are divided into 890 sub-castes!! One could go on giving figures to show this infinite
process of splitting social life into small fragments. The splitting process has made a
social life quite impossible. It has made the castes split into such small
fragments that it has marital relationship consistent with the rule of excluded
degrees quite impossible. Some of the Baniya sub-castes count no more than 100 families. They are so
inter-elated they find it extremely difficult to marry within their castes
without transgressing the rules of consanguinity.
It is noteworthy that small excuses suffice to bring about this splitting
of castes into sub-castes. Castes become sub-divided into sub-castes by reason of change of
location, change of occupation, change in social practices, change due to
pollution, changes due to increased prosperity, changes due to quarrel and
changes due to change of religion. Mr. Blunt has given many instances to illustrate this
tendency among the Hindus. There is no space to reproduce all except one which
shows how ordinary quarrels lead to the splitting one caste into sub-castes. As
stated by Mr. Blunt[f3]:—
" In Lucknow there was a
sub-caste of Khatika consisting of three ghols or groups, known as Manikpur, Jaiswala and Dalman. They inter-married, ate together, and met together in panchayat under the
presidency of their Chaudharis or headmen. Twenty years ago each group had one Chaudhri, but now Jaiswala
have three and Manikpur two. The quarrel was as follows. Firstly a woman (her ghol is not given)
peddled fruit about the streets. The brethren ordered her to desist from the
practice, which is derogatory to the caste's dignity; women should only sell in shops. Her husband and she
proved contumacious; and finally their own ghol, acting singly, outcaste the man.
The Dalmu ghol, however, dissenting from this action admitted the
husband to communion with themselves upon payment of a fine of Rs. 80 in lieu of
excommunication. Secondly a man (the ghol, again is not given) was
excommunicated by his own ghol, acting alone; and while his case was under trial, the Jaiswala Chaudhri invited him to
dinner by mistake. Thereupon, the three ghols, acting in concert, fined the Chaudhri Rs. 30. Lastly, fines had accumulated and it was
decided to hold a Katha (sacred recitation). The Dalmu Chaudhri said he
preferred to have his share of money; but the Manikpur Chaudhri (who seems to have kept the joint purse) refused,
taking up the attitude that there was going to be a Katha to which the Dalmu
people could come or not as they liked. The matter at this stage was brought
into court; meanwhile the three ghols ceased to inter-rnarry, so that one endogamous sub-caste split into three quarrels, ghol was pitted against ghol.
If in any caste a group should adopt some new or unusual worship of which
other members do not approve, one would expect that group to break off and
become an endogamous sub-caste. That such sub-castes are uncommon is due to the
tolerance about what and with whom he eats and whom he marries. We do, however,
find that the Mahabhiras and Panchipriya sub-castes amongst Telis, Koris and the Namakshalis amongst Barhais, Bhangis and Kadheras. "
How do these castes behave towards one another. Their guiding principle
is ' be separate ', ' do not
intermarry ', ' do not inter-dine ' and ' do not touch '. Mr. Blunt1 has well described the
situation when he says:
" A Hindu sits
down to a meal either alone or with his caste fellows. The women cannot eat
with the men; they wait till their lords have finished. So long as the meal or a part
of it consists of Kachcha food (as it usually does, since Chapatis appear at most
meals), the man must dine with the precautions of a magic ceremony. He sits
within a square marked off on the ground (chauka) inside which is the Chulha or cooking place. Should a stranger's shadow fall upon
this square, all food cooked within it is polluted and must be thrown away. In
camp Hindu servants may be seen, each well apart from the rest, each within his
own chauka, cooking his food upon his own mud oven and eating alone. .
" Rules regarding
the acceptance of water are on the whole the same as those regarding the
acceptance of a pakka food, but with a tendency to greater laxity. The vessel
in which the water is contained affects the question. A high caste man will
allow a low caste man to fill his lota (drinking vessel) for him; but he will
not drink from the lota of that low caste man. Or a high caste man will give
anybody (save Untouchables) a drink, by pouring water from his own lota into that of the drinker; all the men
employed at stations to supply railway travellers with water are Barhais, Bans, Bharbhunjas, Halwais, Kahars, and Nais; and of course from higher castes still.
Rules regarding smoking are stricter. It is very seldom that a man will smoke with anybody but a caste fellow; the reason, no doubt is that smoking with a man usually involves smoking his pipe, and this involves much closer contact even than eating food which he has prepared. So stringent is this rule, indeed, that the fact that Jats, Ahirs, and Gujars will smoke together has beer regarded as a ground for supposing that they are closely akin. Some castes, the Kayastha for instance, differentiates between smoking in a fashion in which the hands are closed round the pipe and the smoke is drawn in without putting the stem actually in the mouth—and smoking in the usual way. Little need be said on the subject of vessels. There are rules laying down what sort of vessels should be made, but they are rather religious than social. Hindus must use brass or alloy (although the use of alloy is hedged about by numerous and minute injunctions, and if such vessels become impure, the only remedy is to get them remoulde