(3) भारताच्या इतिहासावरील टिपा

NOTES ON HISTORY OF INDIA

[Reproduced from the handwritten manuscripts—ed.] I More important for the history of India were the conquests of the Sakas and Yueh-chih, nomad tribes of Central Asia similar to the modern Turkomans. 1 The former are first heard of in the basin of the river Ili, and being dislodged by the advance of the Yueh-chih moved southwards reaching north-western India about 150 B.C. Here they founded many small principalities, the rulers of which appear to have admitted the suzerainty of the Parthians for some time and to have borne the title of Satraps. It is clear that western India was parcelled out among foreign princes called Sakas, Yavanas, or Pallavas whose frontiers and mutual relations were constantly changing. The most important of these principalities was known as the Great Satrapy which included Surashtra (Kathiawar) with adjacent parts of the mainland lasted until about 395 A. D The Yueh-chih started westwards from the frontiers of China about 100 B. C. and, driving the Sakas before them, settled in Bactria. Here Kadphises, the chief of one of their tribes, called the Kushans, succeeded in imposing his authority on the others who coalesced into one nation henceforth known by the tribal name. The chronology of the Kushan Empire is one of the vexed questions of Indian history and the dates given below are stated positively only because there is no space for adequate discussion and are given with some scepticism, that is desire for more knowledge founded on facts. Kadphises I (c. 1545 A. D.) after consolidating his Empire led his armies southwards, conquering Kabul and perhaps Kashmir. His successor Kadphises II (c. 45-78 A. D.) annexed 1 But perhaps not in language. Recent research marks it probable that the Kushans or Yueh-chih used an Iranian idiom.

the whole of north-western India, including northern Sind, the Punjab and perhaps Benares. There was a considerable trade between India and the Roman Empire at this period and an embassy was sent to Trojan, apparently by Kanishka (c. 78-123), the successor of Kadphises. This monarch played a part in the later history of Buddhism comparable with that of Asoka in earlier ages. 1 He waged war with the Parthians and Chinese, and his Empire which had its capital at Peshawar included Afghanistan, Bactria, Kashgar, Yarkhand, Khotan2 and Kashmir. These dominions, which perhaps extended as far as Gaya in the east, were retained by his successors Huvishka (123-140 A. D.) and Vasudeva (140-178 A. D.) but after this period the Andhra and Kushan dynasties both collapsed as Indian powers, although Kushan kings continued to rule in Kabul. The reasons of their fall are unknown but may be connected with the rise of the Sassanids in Persia. For more than a century, the political history of India is a blank and little can be said except that the kingdom of Surastra continued to exist under a Saka dynasty. Light returns with the rise of the Gupta dynasty, which roughly marks the beginning of modern Hinduism and of a reaction against Buddhism. Though nothing is known of the fortunes of Patali-putra, the ancient imperial city of the Mauryas, during the first three centuries of our era, it continued to exist. In 320 a local Raja known as Candragupta I increased his dominions and celebrated his coronation by the institution of the Gupta era. His son Samudra Gupta continued his conquests and in the course of an extraordinary campaign, concluded about 340 A. D. appears to have received the submission of almost the whole peninsula. He made no attempt to retain all this territory but his effective authority was exercised in a wide district extending from the Hugli to the rivers Jumna and Chambal in the west and from the Himalayas to the Narbuda. His son Candragupta II or Vikramaditya added to these possessions Malwa, Gujarat and Kathiawar and for more than half a century the Guptas ruled undisturbed over nearly all northern India except 1 Fleet and Franke consider that Kanishka preceded the two Kadphises and began to reign about 58 B. C.

2. He appears to have been defeated in these regions by the Chinese general Pan-chao about 90 A. D. but to have been more successful about fifteen years later.

Rajputana and Sind. Their capital was at first Pataliputra, but afterwards Kausambi and Ayodhya became royal residences. The fall of the Guptas was brought about by another invasion of barbarians known as Huns, Ephthalites 1 or White Huns and apparently a branch of the Huns who invaded Europe. This branch remained behind in Asia and occupied northern Persia. They invaded India first in 455, and were repulsed, but returned about 490 in greater force and overthrew the Guptas. Their kings Tormana and Mihiragula were masters of northern India till 540 and had their local capital at Sialkot in the Panjab, though their headquarters were rather in Bamiyan and Balkh. The cruelties of Mihiragula provoked a coalition of Hindu princes. The Huns were driven to the north and about 565 A. D. their destruction was completed by the allied forces of the Persians and Turks. Though they founded no permanent states their invasion was important, for many of them together with kindered tribes such as the Gurjars (Gujars) remained behind when their political power broke up and, like the Sakas and Kushans before them, contributed to form the population of north-western India, especially the Rajput clans.

The defeat of the Huns was followed by another period of obscurity, but at the beginning of the seventh century Harsha (606-647 A. D.), a prince of Thanesar, founded after thirty five years of warfare, a state which though it did not outlast his own life, emulated for a time the dimensions and prosperity of the Gupta Empire. We gather from the account of the Chinese pilgrim Hsuan Chaung, who visited his court at Kanauj, that the kings of Bengal, Assam and Ujjain were his vassals but that the Panjab, Sind and Kashmir were independent. Kalinga, to the south of Bengal was depopulated but Harsha was not able to subdue Pulakesin II, the Calukya king of the Deccan.

Let us now turn for a moment to the history of the south. It is even more obscure both in events and chronology than that of the north, but we must not think of the Dravidian countries as uninhabited or barbarius. Even the classical writers of Europe had some

1. For authorities see Vincent Smith, Early History of India, 1908, p. 401.

knowledge of them. King Pandion (Pandya) sent a mission to Augustus in 20 B. C. l Pliny2 speaks of Modura (Madura) and Ptolemy also mentions this town with about forty others. It is said3 that there was a temple dedicated to Augustus at Maziris, identified with Craganore. From an early period the extreme south of the peninsula was divided into three states known as the Pandya, Cera and Cola kingdoms. 3 The first corresponded to the districts of Madura and Tinnevelly. Cera and Kerala lay on the west coast in the modern Travancore. The Cola country included Tanjore, Trichinopoly, Madras, with the greater part of Mysore. From the sixth to the eighth century A. D. a fourth power was important, namely the Pallavas, who apparently came from the north of the Madras presidency. They had their capital at Canjeevaram and were generally at war with the three kingdoms. Their king, Narasimha-Varman (625-645 A. D.) ruled over part of the Deccan and most of the Cola country but after about 750 they declined, whereas the Colas grew stronger and Rajaraja (985-1018) whose dominions included the Madras Presidency and Mysore made them the paramount power in southern India, which position they retained until the thirteenth century.

As already mentioned, the Deccan was ruled by the Andhras from 220 B. C. to 236 A. D., but for the next three centuries nothing is known of its history until the rise of the Calukya dynasty at Vatapi (Badami) in Bijapur. Pulakesin II of this dynasty (608-642), a contemporary of Harsha, was for some time successful in creating a rival Empire which extended from Gujarat to Madras, and his power was so considerable that he exchanged embassies with Khusru II, King of Persia, as is depicted in the frescoes of Ajanta. But in 642 he was defeated and slain by the Palavas.

With the death of Pulakesin and Harsha begins what has been called the Rajput period, extending from about 650 to 1000 A. D. and characterized by the existence of numerous kingdoms ruled by dynasties nominally Hindu, but often descended from northern

1. Strabo xv. 4. 73.

2. Hist. Nat. vi. 23. (26).

3. The inscriptions of Asoka mention four kingdoms, Pandya, Keralaputra, Cola, and Satiyaputra.

invaders or non-Hindu aboriginal tribes. Among them may be mentioned the following :—

1. Kanauj or Panchala. This kingdom passed through troublous times after the death of Harsha but from about 840 to 910 A. D. under Bhoja (or Mihira) and his son, it became the principal power in northern India, extending from Bihar to Sind. In the twelfth century it again became important under the Gaharwar dynasty.

2. Kanauj was often at war with the Palas of Bengal, a line of Buddhist kings which began about 730 A. D. Dharmapala (c. 800 A. D.) was sufficiently powerful to depose the king of Kanauj. Subsequently the eastern portion of the Pala Kingdom separated itself under a rival dynasty known as the Senas.

3. The districts to the south of the Jumna known as Jejak-abhukti (Bundelkhand) and Cedi (nearly equivalent to our Central Provinces) were governed by two dynasties known as Candels and Kalacuris. The former are thought to have been originally Gonds. They were great builders and constructed among other monuments the temples of Khajurao. Kirtivarman Chandel (1049-1100) greatly extended their territories. He was a patron of learning and the allegorical drama Prabodhacandrodaya was produced at his Court.

4. The Paramara (Pawar) dynasty of Malwa were likewise celebrated as patrons of literature and kings Munja (974-995) and Bhoja (1018-1060) were authors as well as successful warriors.

II Saka Period According to Vincent Smith, after first adopting A. D. 78 which appeared the most probable, finally chose 120 A. D. and we may agree that this date marks the beginning of the Saka period inaugurated by Kanishka.

The order in which the chief Kushan kings followed is still doubtful. It is generally agreed that Kanishka came after Kadphises I (Kujula Kara Kadphises) and II (Vima Kadphises). The

former of these two, a Bactrinized Scythian, must, in Dr. Smith’s view, have assumed power about 40 A. D. He seized Gandhara and the country of Taxila from Gondophares, the Parthian prince who, according to the apocryphal acts of the apostles, received St. Thomas. His son Vima (78-110) carved out a great empire for himself, embracing the Punjab and the whole western half of the Ganges basin. There seems to have been an interval of about 10 years between Kadphises and Kanishka, the latter was the son of one Vajheshka and no relation of his predecessor, he seems to have been from Khotan, not Bactria, and indeed he spent the summer at Kapisi in Paropan... * 1 and the winter at Purushapura (Peshawar) the axis of his empire was no longer in the (midst )* 2 of the Graeco-Iranian country. The empire of Kanishaka did not last long. Of his two sons, Vasishka and Havishka only the second survived him. The power of the Kushans in the third century was reduced to Bactria with Kabul and Gandhara, and they fell beneath the yoke of the Sassanids.

Kshatrappas or Satraps.

This title, which is Iranian, is borne by two dynasties founded by the Sakus who had been driven from their country by the Yuch-chi invasion.

I. The first was established in Surashtra (Kathewar). One prince of this line Chasthana, seems to have held Malwa before the great days of the Kushans and to have become a vassal of Kanishka; he ruled over Ujjayini, which was the centre of the Indian civilization.

II. The second line to which the name of Kshaharata is more particularly attached, was the hereditary foe of the Andhras; it ruled over Maharashtra, the country between modern Surat and Bombay. It was this latter Saka state that was annihilated by the

*1Letters missing in ms. —ed.

*2inserted as eaten by termite—ed.

Satakarni and it was the former which arranged it, when Rudraman, the Satrap of Ujjayini conquered the Andhra King. The antagonism between the eastern & western states seems to have been accompanied by a difference of ideals. The Sakas, like all the Scythians of India or Serindia, such as the Thorkhans, retained from their foreign origin a sympathy for Buddhism, whereas the Andhras were keen supporters of Brahmanism.

The Guptas The events of the third century are unknown to history and we have very little information about the Kushan empire. Day light returns in 318-19, when there arises in the old country of Magadha a new dynasty-Gupta.

The Guptas-Chandragupta II conquered the country of Malvas, Gujrath and Surashtra (Kathiwar) overthrowing the 1st great Satrap of the Saka dynasty of Ujjain. As an extension of his territory westward he made Ayodhya and Kausambi his capitals instead of Pataliputra. About 155 (B.C.) he conquered the whole of the lower Indus and Kathewar, waged war in Rajputana, and Oudh but took Mathura (Muttra) on the Jumna, and even reached Pataliputra.

He was severely defeated by Pushyamitra (?). Bactriana was at least in the north, a barrier between Parthia and India. India was therefore less exposed to attack from Parthia. Nevertheless, there was at least one Parthian ruler, Mithradates I (171-136) who annexed the country of Taxila for a few years, about 138.

End of the independence of Parthia and Bactria The event that put an end to the independence of Parthia and Bactria was a new invasion, resulting from a movement of tribes, which had taken place far away from India in the Mongolian steppes.

About 170 (B. C.) a horde of nomadic Scythians, the Yuch-chi or Tokharians, being driven from Gobi, the present Kansu, by the

Hiang-nu or Huns, started on a wild migration which upset the whole balance of Asia.

They fell on the Sakas, who were Iranianized Scythians dwelling north of the Persion empire and settled in their grazing grounds north of the Jazartes. The expelled Sakas fell on Parthia and Bactriana, obliterating the last vestiges of Greek rule, between 140 and 120 (B. C.) Then the Tokharians, being defeated in their turns by the Wu-Sun tribe, established themselves on the Oxus, and after that took all the country of the Sakas in eastern Iran at the entrance to India. That entrance was found in the first century after Christ. The conquest of India was the work of the Kushans (Kushana), a dynasty which united the Yue-Chi tribes and established their dominion both over their own kinsfolk the Sakas of Parthia and over peoples of the Punjab. The accession of the principal King of this line, Kanishka, was placed at uncertain dates between 57 B. C. and A. D. 200. Pushyamitra—a mayor of the Palace as Sybrani Livi called him.

The Seleucid Empire ruled by Antiochos III (261-246 B. C.) and lost two provinces Parthia and Bactriana which emancipated themselves simultaneously. The Parthians whom the Indians called Pahalvas, were related to the nomads of the Turkoman steppes and occupied the country south-east of the Caspian. The Bactrians bordered on the Parthians on the north-east and were settled between the Hindu Kush and the Oxus ; the number and wealth of their towns were legendary. These two peoples seem to have taken advantage of the difficulties of Antiochos and his successors, Seleucos II (246-226 B. C.) and III (226-223 B. C.) in the west to break away.

The Parthian revolt was a natural movement, led by Arsaces, the founder of a dynasty which was to rule Persia for nearly 500 years.

The Bactrian rising was brought about by the ambition of a Greek satrap. Diodotos, represents an outbreak of Hellennism in the heart of Asia.

There is no doubt that the formation of these enterprizing nations on the Indo-Iranian border helped to shake the empire of Ashoka in the time of his successors.

The Punjab, once a Persian satrapy and then a province of Alexander, was to find itself still more exposed to attack, now that smaller but turbulent states had arisen at its doors. After Diodotos I & II, the King of Bactria was Euthidemes, who went to war with Antioches the Great of Syria. Peace was concluded with the recognition of Bactrian independence about 208. But during hostilities Syrian troops had crossed the Hindu Kush and enterning the Kabul valley had severely dispoiled the ruler Subhagasena. Demetrius, the son of Enthidemos, increased his dominion not only in the present Afghanistan but in India proper, and bore the title of King of the Indians (200-190). Between 190 and 180 there were Greek adventurers reigning at Taxila, named Paleon & Agathocles. From 160 to 140 roughly, Kabul and the Punjab were held by a pure Greek, Milinda or Minander, who left a name in the history of Buddhism.

III

Huns In the last years of Kumargupta new Iranian peoples assailed the empire, but they were kept back from the frontiers. Under Skandagupta, the first wave of formidable migration came down upon the same frontiers. This consisted of nomad Mongoloids to whom India afterwards gave the genuine name of Huna, under which we recognised the Huns who invaded Europe.

Those who reached India after the middle of the fifth century were white Huns or Ephthalites, who in type were closer to the Turks than to the hideous followers of Attila. After a halt in the valley of the Oxus they took possession of Persia and Kabul. Skandagupta had driven them off for a few years (455 A. D.) but after they had slain Firoz the Sassanid in 484, no Indian state could stop them. One of them, named Toramana, established himself among the Malavas in 500 and his son Mihirgula set up his capital at Sakol (Sialkot) in the Punjab.

A native prince Yeshodharman shook off the yoke of Mihirgula. The expulsion of the Huns was not quite complete everywhere. A great many resided in the basin of the Indus. At the beginning of the 7th century a power arose from the chaos in the small principality of Sthanvisvara (Thaneshwar, near Delhi). Here a courageous Raja Prabhakar Vardhan organized a kingdom, which showed its mettle against the Gurjars, the Malwas and other neighbouring princes. Shortly after his death in 604 or 605 his eldest son was murdered by the orders of the king of Gauda in Bengal. The power fell to his younger brother Harsha.

zz

MANU AND THE SHUDRAS

[This is a 31 page handwrittten Ms. of Dr. Ambedkar. The chapter has no title. It is also left incomplete. The title is suggested—editor.]

I The reader is now aware that in the Scheme of Manu there were two principal social divisions: those outside the Chaturvarna and those inside the Chaturvarna. The reader also knows that the ; present day Untouchables are the counterpart of those outside the Chaturvarna and that those inside the Chaturvarna were contrasted with those outside. They were a composite body made up of four different classes, the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas, the Vaishyas and the Shudras. The Hindu social system is not only a system in which the idea of classes is more dominant than the idea of community but it is a system which is based on inequality between classes and therefore between individuals. To put it concretely, the classes i.e. the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras and Antyajas (Untouchables) are not horizontal, all on the same level. They are vertical i.e. one above the other. No Hindu will controvert this statement. Every Indian knows it. If there is any person who would have any doubt about it he can only be a foreigner. But any doubt which a foreigner might have will be dissolved if he is referred to the law of Manu who is the chief architect of the Hindu society and whose law has formed the foundations on which it is built. For his benefit I reproduce such texts from the Manu Smriti as go to prove that Hindu society is based on the principle of inequality. II It might be argued that the inequality prescribed by Manu in his Smriti is after all of historical importance. It is past history and cannot be supposed to have any bearing on the present conduct of the Hindu. I am sure nothing can be greater error than this. Manu is not a matter of the past. It is even more than a past of the present. It is a ‘living past’ and therefore as really present as any present can be.

That the inequality laid down by Manu was the law of the land under the pre-British days may not be known to many foreigners. Only a few instances will show that such was the case.

Under the rule of the Marathas and the Peshwas the Untouchables were not allowed within the gates of Poona city, the capital of the Peshwas between 3 p.m. and 9 a.m. because, before nine and after three, their bodies cast too long a shadow; and whenever their shadow fell upon a Brahmin it polluted him, so that he dare not taste food or water until he had bathed and washed the impurity away. So also no Untouchable was allowed to live in a walled town ; cattle and dogs could freely enter but not the Untouchables 1. Under the rule of the Marathas and the Peshwas the Untouchables might not spit on the ground lest a Hindu should be polluted by touching it with his foot, but had to hang an earthen pot round his neck to hold his spittle. He was made to drag a thorny branch of a tree with him to brush out his footsteps and when a Brahman came by, had to lie at a distance on his face lest his shadow might fall on the Brahman2.

In Maharashtra an Untouchable was required to wear a black thread either in his neck or on his wrist for the purpose of ready identification.

In Gujarat the Untouchables were compelled to wear a horn as their distinguishing mark 3.

In the Punjab a sweeper was required while walking through streets in towns to carry a broom in his hand or under his armpit as a mark of his being a scavenger 4. In Bombay the Untouchables were not permitted to wear clean or untorn clothes. In fact the shopkeepers took the precaution to see that before cloth was sold to the Untouchable it was torn & soiled.

1. Dr. Murray Mitchell-Great Religions of India, p. 63

2. Bombay Gazetteer. Vol. XII. p. 175.

3. Ency R &. E. Vol. IX p. 636 (b).

4. Punjab Census Report 1911 p. 413.

In Malabar the Untouchables were not allowed to build houses above one storey in height1 and not allowed to cremate their dead 2. In Malabar the Untouchables were not permitted to carry umbrellas, to wear shoes or golden ornaments, to milk cows or even to use the ordinary language of the country 3.

In South India Untouchables were expressly forbidden to cover the upper part of their body above the waist and in the case of women of the Untouchables they were compelled to go with the upper part of their bodies quite bare 4.

In the Bombay Presidency so high a caste as that of Sonars (gold- smiths) was forbidden to wear their Dhoties with folds 5 and prohibited to use Namaskar as the word of salutation 6.

Under the Maratha rule any one other than a Brahmin uttering a Veda Mantra was liable to have his tongue cut off and as a matter of fact the tongues of several Sonars (goldsmiths) were actually cut off by the order of the Peshwa for their daring to utter the Vedas contrary to law.

1. Bhattacharya-p. 259.

2. Madras Census 1891. p. 299

3. Bhatacharya-Hindu Castes-p. 259.

4. Madras Census 1891 p. 224

5. This mode of wearing dhoties was referred for Brahmins only. The Shudras were to wear it without folds.

6. The following letter will be interesting to the reader as it throws a flood of light as to whether the Dharma prescribed by Manu was or was not the law of the land- “ To Damulsett Trimbucksett Head of the Caste of Goldsmiths.

“The Hon‘ble the President in Council having thought proper to prohibit the Caste of Goldsmiths from making use of the from of salutation termed Namaskar, you arc hereby pre-emptorily enjoined to make known this order and resolution to the whole caste and to take care that the same be strictly observed.

By order Bombay Castle sig. W. Page 9th August 1779. Secretary to Government.

Resolution of Government Dated 28th July 1779 “Frequent disputes having arisen for some time between the Brahmins and Goldsmiths respecting a mode of salutation termed “Namaskar” made use of by the latter, and which the Brahmins allege they have no right to perform, and that the exercise of such ceremony by the Goldsmiths is a great breach and profanation of the rights of the Gentoo [Hindu] Religion, arid repeated complaints having been made to us by the Brahmins, and the Peishwa also having several times written to the President, requesting the use of the Namaskar might be prohibited to the Goldsmiths-Resolved as it is necessary. This matter should be decided by us in order that the dispute between the two castes may be put an end to and the Brahmins appear to have reason for their complaint, that the Goldsmiths be forbidden the use of the Namaskar, and this being a matter wherein the Company’s interest is not concerned, our Resolution may be put on the looting of a compliment to the Peishwa whom the President is desired to make acquainted with our determination.”

All over India Brahamin was exempt from capital punishment. He could not be hanged even if he committed murder.

Under the Peshwas distinction was observed in the punishment of the criminals according to the caste. Hard labour and death were punishments mostly visited on the Untouchables1.

Under the Peshwas Brahmin clerks had the privilege of their goods being exempted from certain duties and their imported corn being carried to them without any ferry charges; and Brahmin landlords had their lands assessed at distinctly lower rates than those levied from other classess. In Bengal the amount of rent for land varied with the caste of the occupant and if the tenant was an Untouchable he had to pay the highest rent.

These facts will show that Manu though born some time before B. C. or sometime after A. D. is not dead and while the Hindu Kings reigned, justice between Hindu and Hindu, touchable and untouchable was rendered according to the Law of Manu and that law was avowedly based on inequality. III This is the dharma laid down by Manu. It is called Manav Dharma i.e. Dharma which by its inherent goodness can be applied to all men in all times and in all places. Whether the fact that it has not had any force outside India is a blessing or a curse I do not stop to inquire. It is important to note that this Manav Dharma is based upon the theory that the Brahman is to have all the privileges and the Shudra is not to have even the rights of a human being, that the Bramhan is to be above everybody in all things merely by reason of his high birth and the Shudra is to be below everybody and is to have none of the things no matter how great may be his worth.

Nothing can show the shamelessness and absurdity of this Manava Dharma better than turning it upside down. I know of no better attempt in this behalf than that of Dr. R.P. Pranjape a great Educationist, Politician and Social reformer and I make no appology for reproducing it in full— l. G. B. Forrest, Official Writings of Mount Stuart Elphinstone, 1884. pp. 310-11.

A Peep Into the Future 1

***** This piece was written against the Non-Brahmin Parties which were then in power in the Bombay and Madras Presidency and in the Central Provinces. The Non-Brahmin parties were founded with the express object of not allowing a single community to have a monopoly in State Service. The Brahamins have a more or less complete monopoly in the State services in all provinces in India and in all departments of State. The Non-Brahmin parties had therefore laid down the principle, known as the principle of communal ratio, that given minimum qualifications candidates belonging to nonBrahmin communities should be given preference over Brahmin candidates when making appointments in the public services. In my view there was nothing wrong in this principle. It was undoubtedly wrong that the administration of the country should be in the hands of a single community however clever such a community might be.

The Non-Brahamin Party held the view that good Government was better than efficient Government was not a principle to be confined only to the composition of the Legislature & the Executive. But that it must also be made applicable to the field of administration. It was through administration that the State came directly in contact with the masses. No administration could do any good unless it was sympathetic. No administration could be sympathetic if it was manned by the Brahamins alone. How can the Brahamin who holds himself superior to the masses, despises the rest as low caste and Shudras, is opposed to their aspiration, is instinctively led to be partial to his community and being uninterested in the masses is open to corruption be a good administrator ? He is as much an alien to the Indian masses as any foreigner can be. As against this the Brahmins have been taking their stand on efficiency pure & simple. They know that this is the only card they can play successfully by reason of their advanced position in education. But they forget that if efficiency was the only criterion then in all probability there would be very

1. Reproduced from-Gujarati Punch-May 1921 (Not quoted in the Ms.—ed.)

little chance for them to monopolize State service in the way and to the extent they have done. For if efficiency was made the only criterion there would be nothing wrong in employing Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans & Turks instead of the Brahmins of India. Be that as it may, the Non-Brahmin Parties refused to make a fetish to efficiency and insisted that there must be introduced the principle of communal ratio in the public services in order to introduce into the administration an admixture of all castes & creeds and thereby make it a good administration. In carrying out this principle the Non-Brahmin Parties in their eagerness to cleanse the administration of Brahmindom while they were in power, did often forget the principle that in redressing the balance between the Brahmins and non-Brahmins in the public services they were limited by the rule of minimum efficiency. But that does not mean that the principle they adopted for their guidance was not commendable in the interests of the masses.

This policy no doubt set the teeth of many Brahmins on edge. They were vehement in their anger. This piece by Dr. Paranjpe is the finest satire on the policy of the nonBrahmin Party. It caricatures the principle of the non-Brahman party in a manner which is inimitable and at the time when it came out, I know many non-Brahmin leaders were not only furious but also speechless. My complaint against Dr. Paranjpe is that he did not see the humour of it. The non-Brahmin Party was doing nothing new. It was merely turning Manu Smriti upside down. It was turning the tables. It was putting the Brahmin in the position in which Manu had placed the Shudra. Did not Manu give privileges to Brahmin merely because he was a Brahmin ? Did not Manu deny any right to the Shudra even though he deserved it ? Can there be much complaint if now the Shudra is given some privileges because he is a Shudra ? It may sound absurd but the rule is not without precedent and that precedent is the Manu Smriti itself. And who can throw stones at the non-Brahmin Party ? The Brahmins may if they are without sin. But can the authors and worshippers, upholders of Manu Smriti claim that they are without sin ? Dr. Paranjpe’s piece is the finest condemnation of the inquity that underlies this Manav Dharma. It shows as nothing else does what a Brahmin feels when he is placed in the position of a Shudra.

IV Inequality is not confined to Hindus. It prevailed elsewhere also and was responsible for dividing society into higher and lower free and servile classes. (Left incomplete in Ms—ed.) zz

(या पानावर मजकूर नाही — ते कोरे किंवा चित्राचे पान असू शकते.)