THE CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA
The caste system of India is the most widely discussed subject all over
the world; it is also the least understood. It is really surprising how
little people outside of India know about the institution of caste,
as it was originally evolved and perfected to form the basis of the
country’s social, political, and economic structure. Even students
of Hindu philosophy and arts have but a very dim perception of the
meaning of caste. You cannot talk about India for five minutes to any
person without being confronted with the questions: “How about your
caste system? Isn’t it true that the upper classes refuse to marry the
untouchables, and even to come into any kind of physical contact with
them? Have not the Brahmans of India always lorded over the classes
for their own benefit? Wouldn’t they seize the power again for their
own benefit if the English left India today? Don’t you see that we
have given freedom to the negroes in this country? They have the
same political rights as white men to vote and to hold office in our
government. They can come into our homes and do the cooking for us and
we feel no repulsion for them. Would you permit such association of the
classes in India? This equality of spirit is democracy, and until India
gives up her old aristocratic habits and changes to the new democratic
ideals of the age, she will never be free politically, morally, or
spiritually--talk what you will of your spirituality and ethics.”
I have heard such sermons over and over again from Americans of
every status in life. College professors and their wives, university
students, teachers, ministers, shirt dealers, insurance agents,
street-car conductors, bootblacks, and railroad porters have asked me
similar questions. In reply, I do not deny that one class of people
is called “untouchables” and that no other class will intermingle or
intermarry with them. I question most seriously, however, the truth of
the premise of the second statement. Brahmans have not always ruled the
country with purely selfish motives. The priestly class has wielded
immense influence in India’s political and social life at different
periods of its history, but they have used their power mostly for the
advancement of its culture and arts. To the Brahmans we owe in general
the elaboration and systematization of Hindu philosophy. The vast
treasures of Hindu literature and fine arts were both produced and
preserved by the same class, who for unknown ages have been the sole
repositories of knowledge in India. They have abused their authority at
several periods, but on such occasions a great reformer like Buddha or
Nanak always appeared among the Hindus and gave the corrupted priests
fresh warning for their mistakes.
The power of the Brahmans was at its lowest when the British acquired
India, and the Brahmans have found in the English rulers of the
country great champions, who have succeeded first in demoralizing
them and then in assisting them to demoralize in turn the rest of
Hindu society. England with its mighty governing hand of steel is the
strongest bulwark of aristocracy in India. And those who say things
to the contrary either do not know the facts or they deliberately
misrepresent them. We shall explain later how the subtle methods of our
foreign rulers work.
Lastly, I do not deny that India needs a reorganization of its
antiquated social system in order to fit properly into the modern
world. Her caste regulations have given to her numerous races and
classes only the negative benefits of peace and order at the expense of
the positive opportunities of expansion and movement. If India is to
live, and if it hopes ever to occupy its proper place among the family
of nations, it must cut out of its system the cancer of untouchability.
However manifest are the evils of India’s rigid caste system and the
necessity of its immediate overhauling, the contrast with America seems
so unjust. With typical complacency, the Americans declare that there
is no caste in the United States. Yet the American negro, although he
has a right to vote and to hold office, has absolutely no opportunity
to make use of these privileges. A child of ten has more chance of
beating the world’s heavyweight champion in a prize-fight than an
American negro with the highest moral and educational qualifications
has of becoming a governor of the smallest state in the Union. The
world knows that in most states the law prohibits marriage between
whites and negroes, while society everywhere will, in its own direct
and emphatic American way, ban the union of a white girl to a negro.
It is also true that in most states negro children are taught in
separate schools, and that on Sunday colored people must go for prayer
to separate churches. In the South, the center of the negro population
in the United States, negroes must travel in separate carriages
on railroad trains and use separate waiting rooms at the stations.
It is also a matter of history that on the average more than sixty
negroes are lynched in America every year by mobs for crimes, which if
committed under similar conditions by white persons, would be punished
through the regular course of law.
This condition in the United States does not justify the injustice of
caste in India or anywhere else in the world, but it may help to give
the sharp critic of the Hindu system a milder temper in his judgment by
reminding him that human nature everywhere has its virtues and faults.
We shall now proceed to examine the origin and the function of the
caste of India.
The Sanskrit word which has been wrongly translated into caste is
_Varna_, which means color. Thus the derivation of the term shows that
the original classifications in Hindu society were made on the basis
of color or race.[25] When the Aryans first migrated into India, they
found themselves face to face with hordes of savage tribes belonging to
inferior and aboriginal races. The position of those Aryan forefathers
was analogous to that which later confronted the immigrants of Europe
into the continents of America and Australia. While these latter
invaders have sought to simplify their race problems by exterminating
the original inhabitants of these countries, the early Hindus under
similar conditions accepted the inferior races as units in their social
structure and gave them a distinct place in the scale of labor, the
nature of their functions being strictly determined according to
their qualification. Even in our present stage of advancement we find
that caste prevails throughout the civilized world. Its ugly symptoms
are most prominent in America, Australia, and the white colonies of
Africa. In the United States, the lynching of negroes in the South and
the strict anti-Asiatic regulations of the state of California, and
in Australia the “Keep Australia white at all cost” spirit among the
population,--both of these show how deeply the spirit of race hatred
has penetrated into the system of the dominant white races of the
world. In the state of California, which is the center of oriental
population in America, law prohibits the Asiatics (Japanese, Chinese,
Hindus) from owning property and even from temporarily leasing lands
for farming purposes. Another statute rules against marriage between
whites and mongolians. The anti-Asiatic land lease regulations of
California have given a severe blow to the oriental population of
the state. The Japanese, Chinese, and Hindu immigrants to the United
States were chiefly agriculturists. In the early days of California
these frugal, honest, hard-working people contributed materially to the
development of agriculture. And the fact cannot well be denied that the
intensely hot regions of the Imperial Valley and the mosquito-ridden,
swampy northern counties were brought under cultivation almost
exclusively through the initiative of the Japanese and Hindu farmers of
California. The Chinese, in conjunction with the other oriental races,
had much to do in developing the largest asparagus growing region in
the world, represented by the deltas of the Sacramento Valley. Imperial
Valley is today the richest vegetable growing colony in the world.
The northern counties produce the finest qualities of California rice
in immense quantities, while the Delta asparagus has made California’s
name famous throughout the world as the producer of the choicest
qualities of both white and green asparagus. But the simple, peace
loving, industrious, and retiring Asiatics who toiled to make the name
of agricultural California great are barred by law from making even an
honest, meager living through farming on a small scale. And all because
of the caste of race! As one of the state senators exclaimed not long
ago: “_We must keep California safe from the yellow peril._” To which
an eminent Hindu publicist humorously replied: “I have seen no danger
of a yellow peril in California except that of the ‘Yellow Cabs’.”
When a small group of immigrants in any land find themselves surrounded
by an endless environment of barbarous tribes, we grant that the
situation is critical. The small group of Aryan immigrants in India,
however, unlike the American colonists, who exterminated most of the
original inhabitants of the country, sought to assimilate the barbarous
tribes, and hence found themselves confronted with a difficult problem.
They were inspired with the desire to preserve the purity of their
superior race and culture on the one hand, and to assimilate in their
social system the aboriginal races as well as they could, in order to
save them from annihilation. On the other hand, they felt it necessary
to safeguard their race by refusing to intermarry with people on a
lower scale of civilization. The Aryan forefathers of India, by giving
to the original population of the country a distinct place in its
social life, however low, have preserved them on the one hand from
extermination and on the other from slavery of person. “Was this not
the very solution which suggested itself to the American emancipator
Lincoln, when at a much later date he faced the same problems under
similar conditions? That adjustment of their racial differences that
had been declared wise and that had been practised by the Hindus many
thousand years ago, was at last acknowledged by the leaders of the
western world as the only salvation from their difficult situation.” In
the meantime, whole populations had been obliterated, and generation
after generation of human beings had been subjected to the tortures of
slavery,--to injustice and suffering of the most loathsome kind.
Before we judge the Hindu too harshly for refusing to drink the same
water as the non-Aryans and to eat food cooked by their hands, we must
remember that most of the aborigines of India were carrion eaters and
were more unclean than their Aryan neighbors. The Aryan would not
perform any act of life without previously taking his morning bath; he
was scrupulously clean in all his habits. He felt, therefore, that it
was merely a hygienic precaution not to allow the filthy barbarians
access to his person or his house. But it is the nature of caste to
convert temporary inhibitions into permanent barriers. In so far as
the early Hindu sociologists safeguarded the superior Aryan culture by
laying down strict rules--such as the refusals to intermarry and to
drink the same water--,they were in the right. Therein they recognized
the diversity of races and the necessity of keeping separate the
most highly developed and the least civilized. “But they erred most
dangerously in not grasping the fact that differences between human
beings are not fixed like the physical barriers of mountains, but are
mutable and fluid with life’s flow.”[26] “It is the law of life to
change its shape and volume through the impact of environment.” “Was
it not expected that contact with the civilized Aryans would develop
among the aboriginal inhabitants of India the wholesome qualities of
cleanliness, honesty, peace, and love characteristic of an advanced
race?”[26] To have thus bound in an iron frame the growing body of a
healthy people was not only an intellectual blunder, but a spiritual
crime. As a result, India, which is fundamentally one nation, is now
torn into innumerable castes and communities. And this is the cause of
her degradation and ruin. India, which should be the mightiest nation
of the world today, on account of her ancient culture and history and
the nobility and height of her spiritual idealism, is now fallen. If
there exists anywhere the law of Karma, the Hindus of the present age
are atoning for the sins of omission of their ancient forefathers. The
great, great, great grandchildren of those who denied their fellow
humans the natural rights of humanity have been cast out of the world’s
progressive life as the black pariahs of the race. In a recent decision
of the United States Supreme Court, which has ruled out the natives
of India as ineligible to the citizenship of America, the Honorable
Justice remarked: “Hindus of the high caste belonging to the Aryan
or Caucasian race, are not white persons.” Those Hindus who pride
themselves as _twice-born Brahmans_ should take notice of this language.
Let those who wish clamor loud about their Nordic superiority or
Brahmanic purity. What is needed in the world today is not the purity
of the race so much as the purity of the human soul and its motives.
How far the soul of the western people is clean I would not say, but
being myself a Hindu, I do know that the soul of India is black. By
denying to their fellow brethren their rightful position as human
beings, the upper classes of India have sinned most atrociously against
themselves and their gods. “Where the touch from a fellow human being
pollutes and his shadow corrupts, there the gods can never reside, or
truth prevail.” The laws of nature are immutable. You may err against
them for a short time, but you cannot afford to ignore their existence
forever. In the ultimate reckoning nature will fall upon you in a mad
fury and wreak for your mistakes a terrible vengeance. Thus, those who
set out to humble and degrade others are in turn humbled themselves.
“In the act of tyranny, the tyrant loses sight of his ideals and
develops the pride of power, which is another name for the lowering of
his soul. Like a man under the influence of liquor, he may feel for the
time powerful and strong; yet from the moment an individual loses hold
of truth, the insanity of cruelty and injustice starts its deadly work,
which will end in his ruin and death.”[27]
If the Hindus wish to survive, they must first humble themselves before
the members of the lower classes against whom they have long sinned
so terribly. They must purify their souls and promise to sin no more.
Unless they can do this, it is foolish to expect national freedom, and
it is idle to desire it. Those who will not grant freedom to those
below them, are themselves not fitted to have freedom.
The high-born Hindu should think over the situation in which he finds
himself today. When he despises the Mohammedans and the lower caste
Hindus to such an extent that the mere physical touch from the most
highly cultured and clean of their kind will spoil the cooking of the
wretchedest of the so-called high-caste, how in the name of God, man,
or the devil can he expect them to love and serve him? The entire
history of mankind does not afford one instance in which an oppressed
class has fought to protect the honor or power of its oppressors. It
is idle to hope that the oppressed classes of India will ever consent
to shed their life-blood to win the freedom of their country. They may
at some time make immense sacrifices in the service and at the bidding
of such a universal soul as Gandhi, or perhaps unite to drive out an
intensely hated foreigner like the British. True liberation, however,
can be brought to the nation only through the spiritual unity of its
peoples; under the present social regulations the hope of such a union
is not only visionary but idiotic.
My misguided Hindu brethren of India should remember what the followers
of Nanak, the Sikhs, have already done, and what the Arya Samajists are
doing now in the Punjab. They can do the same and much more! If they
need a leader to guide them, they can find no one holier or wiser in
the whole world today than Mahatma Gandhi, who will show them the light
as soon as they are ready to see it. Gandhi, the Mahatma (the Great
Soul), the leader of millions, has adopted an untouchable girl into
his family, whom Mrs. Gandhi is bringing up with their own children in
their home. This action has made Gandhi no smaller in the sight of God
or man. Will it make other Hindus smaller if they come forward and say
to their brethren: “Come, brothers, we embrace you. We shall forget the
past and be one again. Children of the same Father, we are all equal
before His law. There shall be, in future, no high or low among us.
Brahman and Sudra, Mohammedan and Parsi, we shall join hands and strive
to bring our motherland back to its former vigor.” Then and then alone
will the regeneration of India be possible.
We find that quite early in the country’s history Hindu society fell
into two main divisions, the Aryans and the non-Aryans. The former
were again divided into three orders represented by priests, warriors,
and Aryan farmers or merchants; while the non-Aryans constituted the
servant class or the Sudras. The division of society into the three
priestly, warrior, and merchant classes is a natural one. We find its
parallel in ancient Persia, where the division of the community into
priests, warriors, and husbandmen is shown in the Avesta. “In fact, the
caste sentiment prevails in greater or less degree in all monarchical
countries of the world. In mediæval Europe the sentiment of caste grew
so strong that it found expression in literature and law.”
The work of society in India was distributed among the four castes as
follows:
1. Brahmans, the priestly class, were the teachers of the rest of
mankind. Their function was to study the Vedic scriptures and various
branches of knowledge such as science and philosophy. They were to
offer spiritual guidance and to assist all other classes in the
performance of religious rites and ceremonies. Everyone depended
upon them for favor with the gods, for they were believed to be
specially favored to interpret the Veda. As a tribute to the Brahmans’
spirituality and learning, they were respected and loved by the other
classes. Their simple physical needs were amply provided for, so that
they were absolutely free from any form of material care. Within the
realm of their appointed duties they were the free, intellectual lords
of the Universe. This rule applied to the entire class of scholars and
religious teachers, and not to any chosen group among them. A parallel
state of intellectual freedom could be reached in the modern western
world if _all_ of its professors and religious instructors were born
with independent means. The Brahmans’ threefold function of teaching,
studying, and renunciation inspired among the masses of mankind the
feelings of reverence and affection for them. “A Brahman’s body was on
that account regarded as sacred, and to hurt him in any way was the
heaviest sin; while to kill a Brahman was an unpardonable sin which
could not be expiated even by penance through an unlimited number of
successive rebirths.”
While the priestly class thus received the love and homage of the
populace, they at the same time enjoyed many immunities and exemptions.
From certain punishments a Brahman was always exempt, and his high rank
secured him pardon for numerous crimes. On the other hand, special
rules were laid down for his class in order to preserve its sanctity.
“He could never drink, eat meat, or enjoy the coarser pleasures of
life.” In fact, the law codes of the different castes specify that for
certain offences a Brahman should be punished many times more than
a man belonging to the lower classes. This severity was due to the
belief of the law-givers of India that “greater knowledge demanded
greater restraint, and that with the raise in a person’s status his
responsibility must also rise.” The rule for a Brahman as given by
Vasistha is this: “Those are true Brahmans who, well-taught, have
subdued their passions, injure no living being, and close their fingers
when gifts are offered them.” Again, the same teacher has said that a
Brahman by birth is not a true Brahman but a slave unless he lives a
virtuous and clean life devoted to study and restraint. Says Manu, the
great law-giver of India: “A Brahman who does not live as a Brahman
is no better than a slave.” He could be made an outcast and demoted
socially into a lower rank.
Thus we find that while on the one hand their higher status won for
the Brahmans respect and reverence from the populace, on the other
hand their better position imposed upon them special restraints. It is
difficult for us to realize the wisdom of this dictum, yet the Hindu
law which prohibited its intellectual classes from possessing property
and otherwise amassing wealth was one of the most profoundly wise laws
in the social history of man. Looked at in conjunction with the text
“that a householder obtains high merit in this life and hereafter by
giving food, drink, and raiment to Brahmans,” the dictum against the
acquiring of wealth by the Brahman class will appear not only wise but
highly just. “Here was a class of scholars, leaders of mankind, who
were safe from the two great evils which are the curse of their noble
profession--the anxiety of making a livelihood and the temptation to
acquire fortunes.”
Lest it be supposed that the scholars of India lived on the charity
of other classes, a condition which is not regarded in the West as
honorable, it may be added here in the form of a corollary that charity
in India has an altogether different meaning from that in the West.
The motives behind such acts in India and the western countries are
quite different. According to Hindu theology, the giver of a gift and
not the recipient is the beneficiary. Absolutely no sense of pride or
self-importance is attached to the bestowing of gifts. Such deeds are
always accompanied by a sense of deep humility and thankfulness in the
heart of the householder. “It is the _dharma_, which may be translated
as the _man-ness of man_, of every householder to provide handsomely
for the needs of a Brahman, and he does this from a sense of religious
and social duty as well as from a desire for a religious blessing.”
It is as much the householder’s duty and joy in life to accommodate a
Brahman as it is the hope and delight of every mother to comfort her
child. To assist a strange scholar in his work is considered no more
an act of charity in India than is the support of a son at college
in Europe or America. The experiences of Mrs. Margaret E. Noble, an
Englishwoman of literary eminence, who went to India for a study of
its philosophy, are illustrative of the Hindu psychology in this
matter. She relates in her book _The Web of Indian Life_ the story of
her residence in the Hindu section of Calcutta. After news reached
the neighborhood that she had come to India as a student, she found
in front of her door one morning a jar of fresh milk and a basket of
provisions left by some unknown visitor. This experience was repeated
almost every day of the year until her departure. Yet the donors of
these simple presents never made themselves known to Mrs. Noble, nor
was she ever questioned by anyone of her neighbors regarding her views
on Hindu life. They did not care whether she was friendly or hostile
to them in her judgments. The fact that she had come among them as a
_student_ was sufficient reason for them to provide for her. _India is
the only country in the world where poets and priests never starve._
2. _Khashatriyas_ or the royal and military class were the rulers of
the country, and their duty was to protect the other classes. The
Khashatriyas constituted the knightly caste of India. They were brave
and chivalrous. The enjoyment of the senses and of pleasures subject to
such laws as may protect the weak from the strong were the legitimate
rewards of this class. Many a deed of extreme heroism committed by this
class under the noble impulse to protect justice or to serve Cupid is
related in the epic history of India.
“Chivalry taught them the lessons of gaiety and enjoyment. They learned
to admire and desire beauty. Unlike the austere ascetic Brahmans,
passion and pleasure in the company of woman was sought by the gallant
suitors of the warrior class. Women were often objects of jealousy, and
they always exercised great power through their beauty and charm. Fine,
full-blooded creatures they were, who knew how to get and give love.
Both men and women loved superbly and passionately. Their passions were
strong and consuming and their thirst for love great.” Theirs was a
love about which a poet sung:
“_Give me your love for a day,_
_A night, an hour;_
_If the wages of sin are death,_
_I am willing to pay._
_Oh! Aziza, whom I adore,_
_Aziza, my one delight,_
_Only one night--I will die before day,_
_And trouble your life no more._”
(LAWRENCE HOPE.)[28]
3. The _Vaishya_ or the merchant and husbandman class constituted the
body of the people. Theoretically they were the equals of the other
classes of the Aryan family; but “practically this class together
with the fourth caste, namely the Sudras, formed the majority of the
population, whose duty it was to support and serve the two upper
classes.” They managed the business life of the country and were
responsible for the maintenance of the other classes. They tilled the
soil and managed the entire commercial and industrial affairs of the
land. This class was again subdivided into various groups according to
their profession. This classification of the middle class of India on
the basis of occupation was founded upon a thorough understanding of
the laws of heredity--“the purpose being to develop the best qualities
through heredity transmission. Thereby an attempt was made to develop
further the brain of the scholar, the skill of the craftsman, and the
ingenuity of the trader through the cumulative influence of careful
selection from generation to generation.” By thus shutting different
trades and professions into air-tight compartments the Vaishya deprived
themselves of the benefits of the infusion of young blood into the old
system. While on the one hand it had the wholesome effect of reducing
the evils of competition to the minimum, on the other it has gradually
tended “to turn arts into crafts and genius into skill.”
4. _Sudras_ or the servant class constituted the entire aboriginal
non-Aryan population of the country, whose function was to do
mechanical service in the household life of the community. According
to Manu the highest merit for this class was to serve faithfully the
other three classes. The Sudras performed the most degrading tasks, and
were allowed to come into contact with the Aryan population only as
menials. On account of their filthy habits these aboriginals were not
allowed a close approach to the persons of the higher classes--hence
the origin of the term “untouchable.” Yet the fact stands that even
the “untouchables” are members of the Hindu family group. At marriages
and other festivals gifts are freely exchanged between them and the
upper classes. For a householder it is equally important to participate
in the ceremonies of the village “untouchables” and his own cousins.
I remember very clearly how as a young boy I was instructed by my
mother to bow each morning before every elder member of the family, nor
forgetting the servants, or Sudras.
Bhagavad Gita, the Bible of the Hindus, lays down the following rules
for the different castes of India:
“The duties of the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, as also
of Sudras, are divided in accordance with their nature-born
qualities. Peace, self-restraint, austerities, purity,
forgiveness, and uprightness, knowledge, direct intuition,
and faith in God are the natural qualities of the Brahmin.
Of the Kshatriyas, bravery, energy, fortitude, dexterity,
fleeing not in battle, gift and lordliness are the nature-born
qualities. Agriculture, protection of cows, merchandise, and
various industries are the nature-born duties of the Vaishyas.
Conscientiousness in menial service is the nature-born duty of the
Sudras. A man attains perfection by performing those duties which
he is able to do.”
This division of duties among the different castes “in accordance with
their nature-born qualities” needs special notice. We find here that
the original distinctions between different classes were made on the
basis of their natural qualifications. “The purpose of the early Hindu
sociologists was to design a society in which opportunity was allowed
to everyone for only such experience as his mental and spiritual
status was capable.” In the beginning, castes were not fixed by iron
barriers, nor were the occupations and professions of the people
hereditary. There was freedom for expansion, and everyone enjoyed the
privilege of rising into the higher scales of social rank through a
demonstration of his power and ability to do so. It is a curious fact
of Hindu history that nearly all of its incarnations,--namely, Buddha,
Rama, Krishna--belonged to the second or military caste. But the Hindu
castes had already lost their flexible natures as early as the sixth
century B.C., when Buddha once again preached the doctrines of equality
to all classes of people. Through the influence of Buddhist teachings
and for over a thousand years during which Buddhism reigned over
India, artificial hereditary caste divisions among peoples were almost
entirely demolished and forgotten. “Buddha gave to the spirit of caste
a death-blow. He refused to admit differences between persons because
of their color or race. He would not recognize a Brahman because he
was born a Brahman. On the other hand he distinguished between people
according to their intellectual status and moral worth.”[29] He who
possessed the qualities of “peace, self-restraint, self-control,
righteousness, devotion, love for humanity, and divine wisdom” was
alone a true Brahman. To the Buddhist, caste was less important than
character. His Jataka tales preached this doctrine in a simple but
highly eloquent manner:
“_It is not right_
_To call men white_
_Who virtue lack;_
_For it is sin_
_And not the skin
That makes men black._
_Not by the cut of his hair,_
_Not by his clan or birth,_
_May a Brahmin claim the Brahmin’s name,_
_But only by moral worth.”_[30]
About 600 A. D. however, when Buddhism declined and the Brahmans
regained their power, caste was once again established on the old
hereditary lines. Since that time the influence of the vicious system
has prevailed, except when it was checked by such teachers as Chaityna
who have regularly appeared at critical periods of the country’s
history. Nanak’s influence in modern times has been the strongest in
breaking down the barriers of caste. He was born near Lahore (Punjab)
in the year 1469 A.D. and became the founder of the Sikh religion. He
recognized the equality of all human beings, irrespective of their
color, rank, or sex. In one of his most popular verses he says:
“One God produced the light, and all creatures are of His
creation. When the entire universe has originated from one source,
why do men call one good and the other bad?”
Even in the present day the followers of Nanak are a tremendous force
in demolishing caste. In a recent general assembly of the Sikhs
held at Amritsar (the official headquarters of the Sikh religion)
it was announced that at all future gatherings of the community,
and in all of its free kitchens everywhere, cooks belonging to the
“untouchable” class shall be freely employed and even given special
preference. As a beginning of this policy the usual pudding offering
of the Sikhs was distributed by “untouchable” men and women to a
group of nearly twenty thousand delegates at the convention. Prior
to this, resolutions condemning “untouchability” had been passed on
innumerable occasions at social service conferences; but never before
had the ages-old custom been trampled upon, in a practical way, by any
other community belonging to the Hindu religion. May this auspicious
beginning inaugurate a triumphant conclusion. It is sincerely hoped
that the leadership of Gandhi and the virile followers of Nanak in
removing the curse of “untouchability” will soon be recognized by the
entire Hindu community. This alone could insure the enthusiastic Hindu
nationalists political economic freedom for their country. Had it not
been for the selfishness of the Brahmans during the mediæval period,--a
selfishness which has tended to segregate the Hindus into different
sections through the strict caste restrictions of various types,--India
would occupy today the vanguard of the world’s progress instead of
the rear. In spite of her present weakness India possesses, however,
within herself a marvelous reserve force which will enable her to pass
through this crisis. While the haughty West, which has always delighted
in taunting the Hindus for the latter’s caste, has not even begun to
examine her problem of race-conflict, India is already on its way to
solving her own caste problem. Gradually, as the younger generation
among the Hindus gains more power, “untouchability” and its allied
diseases will disappear. Personally, I believe that the leaders of
India are headed in the right direction, and that soon equality among
members of the different castes will be established in the country as
a permanent part of its social structure.
“In the Hindu system, once the people were divided into different
castes, equality of opportunity for all prevailed within their
own castes, while the caste or group as a whole had collective
responsibilities and privileges.” Each caste had its own rules and
code of honor; and so long as a man’s mode of living was acceptable
to his caste-fellows, the rest of the community did not care about it
at all. On the other hand, a man’s status in the outside world or his
wealth made no change in his rank within the caste. I shall offer an
illustration from my own experience. During the mourning week after the
death of a near relative of His Royal Highness, the ruling Prince of
the native State of Kashmir, Her Royal Highness gave a state reception
to the sympathizing friends. Whereas she greeted the wives of the two
highest officials in the State, the English Resident and the Prime
Minister, with a nod of the head from her seat, Her Royal Highness
had to receive standing the humble housekeeper in my brother’s home,
because the latter belonged to the same caste as the ruling prince.
“Society thus organized can be best described by the term Guild
Socialism.”
Another distinctive feature in the study of its caste is the communal
character of Hindu life. Hindu society was established on a basis of
group morality. No set of rules were held binding on all classes alike,
but within a given caste the freedom of the individual was subordinated
to the interest of the caste. Men lived not for their own interests
or comfort, but for the benefit of the community. It was a life of
self-sacrifice, and the concept of duty was paramount. The good of
caste, of race, of nation stood first, and that of the individual
second. Social welfare was placed before the happiness of the
individual. “For the family sacrifice the individual, for the community
the family, for the country the community, for the soul all the world.”
Which of the two ideals, the communism of the Hindu or the
individualism of the Westerner is the better? Says Rabindranath Tagore:
“Europe may have preached and striven for individualism, but where else
in the world is the individual so much of slave?”
On the other hand it must be remembered also that all ideals are
good only so far as they assist the individual to develop his full
manhood, and the moment they begin to hamper him in his natural growth
and thwart his own will they lose their value. So long as the caste
regulations of the Hindus assisted them in their spiritual development,
they were justified. But the moment they began to lose their original
character and became an oppression in the hands of the priestly
classes, who used their authority to stifle the nation’s spirit, they
had lost their usefulness and invited the ridicule and censure of all
intelligent thinkers.
Where finer feelings of fraternal human-fellowship prevailed over
self-interest and individual gain, in such a community no voice cried
in vain at the time of distress. When deaths in the family left small
children parentless, or sickness and misfortunes made homes penniless,
the protection of other members of the caste was always available for
those in need. Orphans and helpless members within the caste were taken
into the homes of caste brothers and carefully brought up and fed
with the rest as members of the family. Here the lucky and the unlucky
were brought up side by side. Thus there has never arisen in India
the necessity of orphanages and poorhouses. As was said by an eminent
English writer:[31] “For to the ripe and mellow genius of the East it
has been always clear that the defenceless and unfortunate require a
_home_, not a barrack.”
Let us now review the entire subject of caste thus: The Aryan invaders
of India found themselves surrounded by hordes of aboriginal and
inferior races. Under similar conditions the European invaders of
America and Australia exterminated the original population by killing
them off, or converted them into human slaves; the Hindu Aryans
avoided both of these inhumanities by taking the native inhabitants
of the land into their social life. They gave these inferior peoples
a distinct place in the scale of labor, and assigned to them the
duties of menial service, for which alone they were qualified at the
time. Further, to safeguard their superior culture, the Aryan leaders
laid down strict rules against intermarriage with their non-Aryan
neighbors. And as these aboriginals were filthy in their habits and
mostly carrion-eaters, it was also ordained as a measure of hygienic
precaution that the Aryans should not be allowed to drink the same
water or eat food cooked by non-Aryan hands. This was the beginning of
untouchability.
Simultaneously with this racial division rose a functional division
among the Aryan population separating it into three orders of priests,
warriors, and husbandmen. This constituted the four-fold division of
the Hindu caste system--the Aryan inhabitants of the land forming the
first three castes of Brahmans, Khashatriyas, and Vaishyas, while the
non-Aryans constituted the fourth caste of servants or Sudras. At first
these divisions into different castes were flexible and persons in the
lower castes were allowed to rise into the ones higher by virtue of
their merit. We find that most of the historic religious teachers of
the Hindus, namely, Rama, Krishna, and Buddha, came from the second
class.
Gradually, however, the castes began to lose their flexible nature,
and before the birth of Buddha in the year 600 B. C. they had already
acquired a hereditary character. The teachings of Buddhism had the
tendency to break down the hereditary barriers of caste, and during a
thousand years of its reign the people of India had forgotten their
caste boundaries. “Around 600 A. D. Buddhism began to decline and the
Brahman priests gained fresh prestige. They set up the different castes
on the old hereditary lines once again, and, except for a few local
breaks through the appearance of such leaders as Nanak in Punjab and
Chaityna in the South, the spirit of caste has prevailed throughout
Hindu India since the decline of Buddhism.” The greatest champion of
the lower classes who has appeared in recent times is the peaceful
leader of India’s silent revolution, Mahatma Gandhi. He has spoken and
written against untouchability and its allied evils more bitterly and
longer than against other vital political and economic wrongs of the
country. He has told his countrymen time and again that India’s soul
cannot become pure so long as untouchability stays amongst the Hindus
to defile it. And as a proof of his own sincerity in the matter he has
adopted in his own family an untouchable girl whom he calls the joy of
the household.
The evils of caste are quite manifest. It has tended to divide the
Hindu community into various groups and thus destroyed among them
unity of feeling which alone could insure national strength. Lack of
united power opened the way for foreign invasions, which, again, has
resulted in dragging India down from her former place of glory to her
present state of humiliation and ruin. Yet alongside with the many
evils of India’s caste system several advantages have accrued from
it. Its existence has tended to make the people of India conservative
and tolerant. With the institution of caste they felt so well
fortified within themselves that they did not fear the influx of new
ideas into their midst. India offered a safe and welcome home to the
oppressed minorities from other lands. The Parsis and Jews came and
settled there. They were not merely tolerated but welcomed by the
Hindus, because the latter, assured of their own wonderful powers of
resistance, had nothing to fear from outside influences. The Hindu
caste system may be described as “the social formulation of defence
minus all elements of aggression.” Since the beginning of her history
India has been subjected to numerous invasions, but she has stood
against them successfully. In the cultural sense India, instead of
being conquered, “has always succeeded in conquering her conquerors.”
The invaders belonging to different civilizations and races have come
and disappeared, one after the other; but India still survives.[32]
Again, in the Hindus’ scheme of the division of labor care was taken to
assign to every man his task and remuneration in such a manner as to
avoid all unnecessary friction among the different classes. Its value
will be readily recognized by those who are familiar with the evils
of modern industrialism, arising from the intense hatred within the
different classes.
Finally, it must be said to the credit of Hindu sociologists that, at
least, they had the courage to face the problem of race-conflict with a
sympathetic mind. The problem was not of their creation. The diversity
of races existed in India before these new Aryan invaders came into
the country. The caste system of the Hindus was the result of their
sincere endeavors to seek a solution of their difficult problem. Its
object was to keep the different races together and yet afford each one
of them opportunity to express itself in its own separate way. “India
may not have achieved complete success in this. But who else has? It
was, at least, better than the best which the West has thought of so
far. There the stronger races have either exterminated the weaker ones
like the Red Indians in America, or shut them out completely like the
Asiatics in Australia and America.” “Whatever may be its merits,” says
Tagore, “you will have to admit that it does not spring from the higher
impulses of civilization, but from the lower passions of greed and
hatred.”
FOOTNOTES:
[25] Max Müller.
[26] Tagore.
[27] Tagore.
[28] Quoted from Otto Rothfield--_Women of India._
[29] E. W. Hopkins.
[30] Jataka, 440. Quoted from E. W. Hopkins _Ethics of India_.
[31] Margaret E. Noble.
[32] Tagore.