प्रकरण 1 हिंदू धर्माचे तत्त्वज्ञान

my analysis I say that they find my analysis odd because they do not have a correct notion what is central in the philosophy of Hinduism. If they do they will feel no surprise at my conclusions. This matter is so important that I must stop to explain it. It may be recalled that the foregoing analysis of the religious revolution showed that religious ideals as forms of divine governance for human Society fall into two classes, one in which Society is the centre and the other in which the Individual is the centre. The same analysis showed that for the former the appropriate test of what is good and what is right i.e. the test of the moral order is utility while for the latter the test is justice. Now the reason why the philosophy of Hinduism does not answer the test either of utility or of justice is because the religious ideal of Hinduism for divine governance of human society is an ideal which falls into a separate class by itself. It is an ideal in which the individual is not the centre. The centre of the ideal is neither individual nor society. It is a class—the class of Supermen called Brahmins, Those who will bear the dominant and devastating fact in mind will understand why the philosophy of Hinduism is not founded on individual justice or social utility. The philosophy of Hinduism is founded on a totally different principle. To the question what is right and what is good the answer which the philosophy of Hinduism gives is remarkable. It holds that to be right and good the act must serve the interest of this class of supermen, namely, the Brahmins. Oscar Wilde said that to be intelligible is to be found out. Manu is neither afraid nor ashamed of being found out. Indeed Manu does not leave it to be found out. He expresses his view in resonent and majestic notes as who are the Supermen and anything which serves the interest of the Supermen is alone entitled to be called right and good. Let me quote Manu.

X. 3. “On account of his pre-eminence, on account of the superiority of his origin, on account of his observance of (particular) restrictive rules, and on account of his particular sanctification the Brahman is the Lord of (all) Varnas.”

He proceeds to amplify his reasons and does so in the following characteristic manner:— I. 93. “As the Brahmana sprang from (Prajapati’s i.e. Gods) mouth, as he was first-born, and as he possesses the Veda, he is by right the lord of this whole creation.”

I. 94. For the self existent (Svayambhu i.e. God), having performed austerities, produced him first from his own mouth, in order that offerings might be conveyed to the Gods and Manes and that this universe might be preserved.”

PHILOSOPHY OF HINDUISM

I. 95. “What created being can surpass him, through whose mouth the gods continually consume the sacrificial viands and the manes the offerings to the dead?”

I. 96. “ Of created beings the most excellent are said to be those which are animated; of the animated, those who subsist by intelligence; of the intelligent, mankind; and of the men, the Brahmanas”. Besides the reason given by Manu the Brahmin is first in rank because he was produced by God from his mouth, in order that the offerings might be conveyed to the Gods and manes. Manu gives another reason for the supremacy of the Brahmins. He says:— I. 98. “The very birth of a Brahmana is an eternal incarnation of the sacred Law (Veda); for he is born to (fulfil) the sacred law, and becomes one with Brahman (God).”

I. 99. “A Brahamana, coming into existence, is born as the highest on earth, the lord of all created beings, for the protection of the treasury of the Law.”

Manu concludes by saying that:— I. 101. “The Brahman eats but his own food, wears but his own apparel, bestows but his own in alms; other mortals subsist through the benevolence of the Brahamana.”

Because according to Manu:— II. 100. “Whatever exists in the world is the property of the Brahmana; on account of the excellence of his origin the Brahmana is, indeed, entitled to it all.”

Manu directs:— VII. 36. “Let the King, after rising early in the morning, worship Brahmans who are well versed in the three-fold sacred science and learned (in polity), and follow their advice”.

VII. 38. “ Let him daily worship aged Brahmans who know the Veda and are pure .......”

VII. 37. “ Let the king, having risen at early dawn, respectfully attend to Brahman, learned in the three Vedas and in the science of ethics, and by their decision let him abide.”

VII. 38. “Constantly must he show respect to Brahmans, who have grown old, both in years and in piety, who know the scriptures, who in body and mind are pure; for he, who honours the aged, will perpetually be honoured even by cruel demons.”

IX. 313. “Let him not, although in the greatest distress for money, provoke Brahmans to anger by taking their propery; for they, once enraged, could immediately by sacrifices and imprecations destroy him with his troops, elephants, horses and cars.”

Finally Manu says:— XI. 35. “The Brahman is (hereby) declared (to be) the creator (of the world), the punisher, the teacher, (and hence) a benefactor (of all created beings); to him let no man say anything unpropitious; nor use any harsh words”.

To conclude and complete the theory of supermen and of what is right and good let me reproduce the following two texts from Manu:— X. 122. But let a Shudra serve Brahmans, either for the sake of heaven or with a view to both this life and the next, for he who is called the servant of a Brahman thereby gains all his ends.

X. 123. The service of the Brahmana alone is declared to be an excellent occupation for a Shudra; for whatever else besides this he may perform will bear no fruit.

And Manu adds :— X. 129. No collection of wealth must be made by a Shudra, even though he be able to do it; for a Shudra who has acquired wealth gives pain to Brahman.

The above texts from Manu disclose the core and the heart of the philosophy of Hinduism. Hinduism is the gospel of the superman and it teaches that what is right for the superman is the only thing which is called morally right and morally good.

Is there any parallel to this philosophy ? I hate to suggest it. But it is so obvious. The parallel to this philosophy of Hinduism is to be found in Nietzsche. The Hindus will be angry at this suggestion. It is quite natural. For the philosophy of Nietzsche stands in great odium. It never took roots, In his own words he was “sometimes deified as the philosopher of the aristrocracy and squirearchy, sometimes hooted at, sometimes pitied and sometimes boycotted as an inhuman being”. Nietzsche’s philosophy had become identified with will to power, violence, denial of spiritual values, superman and the sacrifice, servility and debasement of the common man. His philosophy with these high spots had created a certain loathsomeness and horror in the minds of the people of his own generation. He was utterly neglected if not shunned and Nietzsche himself took comfort by placing himself among the “posthumous men”. He foresaw for himself a remote public, centuries after his own time to appreciate him. Here too Nietzsche was destined to be disappointed. Instead of there being any appreciation of his philosophy, the lapse of time has only augmented the horror and loathing which people of his generation felt for Nietzsche. This is principally due to the revelation that the philosophy of Nietzsche is capable of producing Nazism. His friends have vehemently protested

PHILOSOPHY OF HINDUISM

against such a construction. 1 But it is not difficult to see that his philosophy can be as easily applied to evolve a super state as to superman. This is What the Nazis have done. At any rate the Nazis trace their ancestry from Nietzsche and regard him as their spiritual parent. Hitler has himself photographed beside a bust of Nietzsche; he takes the manuscripts of the master under his own special guardianship; extracts are chosen from Nietzsche’s writings and loudly proclaimed at the ceremonies of Nazism, as the New German Faith. Nor is the claim by the Nazis of spiritual ancestry with Nietzsche denied by his near relations. Nietzsche’s own cousin Richard Ochler approvingly says that Nietzsche’s thought is Hitler in action and that Nietzsche was the foremost pioneer of the Nazi accession to power. Nietzsche’s own sister, few months before her death, thanks the Feurhar for the honour he graciously bestows on her brother declaring that she sees in him that incarnation of the “Superman” foretold by Zarathustra.

To identify Nietzsche, whose name and whose philosophy excites so much horror and so much loathing; with Manu is sure to cause astonishment and resentment in the mind of the Hindus. But of the fact itself there can be no doubt. Nietszche himself has openly declared that in his philosophy he is only following the scheme of Manu. In his Anti Christ this is what Nietzsche says:— “After all, the question is, to what end are falsehoods perpetrated ? The fact that, in Christianity, ‘holy’ ends are entirely absent, constitutes my objection to the means it employs. Its ends are only bad ends; the poisoning, the calumniation and the denial of life, the contempt of the body, the degradation and self pollution of man by virtue of the concept of sin, - consequently its means are bad as well. My feelings are quite the reverse, When I read the law book of Manu, an incomparably intellectual and superior work, it would be a sin against the spirit even to mention in the same breath with the Bible. You will guess immediately why; it has a genuine philosophy behind it, in it, not merely an evil-smelling Jewish distillation of Rabbinism and superstition - it gives something to chew even to the most fastidious psychologist. And, not to forget the most important point of all, it is fundamentally different from every kind of Bible: by means of it the noble classes, the philosophers and the warriors guard and guide the masses; it is replete with noble values, it is filled with a feeling of perfection, with saying yea to life, and triumphant sense of well-being in regard to itself and to life, - the Sun shines upon the whole book. All those 1For this as also for facts which follow see M.P. Nicolas. “From Nietzsche Down to Hitler” 1938.

things which Christianity smothers with its bottomless vulgarity; procreation, woman, marriage, are here treated with earnestness, with reverence, with love and confidence. How can one possibly place in the hands of children and women, a book that contains those vile words: “to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband ......... it is better to marry than to burn”. And is it decent to be a Christian so long as the very origin of man is Christianised, - that is to say, befouled, by the idea of the immaculate conception?... I know of no book in which so many delicate and kindly things are said to woman, as in the Law Book of Manu; these old grey-beards and saints have a manner of being gallant to woman which, perhaps, cannot be surpassed. “The mouth of a woman”, says Manu on one occassion, “the breast of a maiden, the prayer of a child, and the smoke of the sacrifice, are always pure”. Elsewhere he says: “there is nothing purer than the light of the Sun, the shadow cast by a cow, air water, fire and the breath of a Maiden”. And finally-perhaps this is also a holy lie:— “all the openings of the body above the navel are pure, all those below the navel are impure. Only in a maiden is the whole body pure.” This leaves no doubt that Zarathustra is a new name for Manu and that Thus Spake Zarathustra is a new edition of Manu Smriti. If there is any difference between Manu and Nietzsche it lies in this. Nietzsche was genuinely interested in creating a new race of men which will be a race of supermen as compared with the existing race of men. Manu on the other hand was interested in maintaining the privileges of a class who had come to arrogate to itself the claim of being supermen. Nietzsche’s supermen were supermen by reason of their worth. Manu’s supermen were supermen by reason of their birth. Nietzsche was a genuine disinterested philosopher. Manu on the contrary was an hireling engaged to propound a philosophy which served the interests of a class born in a group and whose title to being supermen was not to be lost even if they lost their virtue. Compare the following texts from Manu.

X. 81. “Yet a Brahman, unable to subsist by his duties just mentioned, may live by the duty of a soldier; for that is the next rank.”

X. 82. “If it be asked, how he must live, should he be unable to get a subsistence by either of those employments; the answer is, he may subsist as a mercantile man, applying himself into tillage and attendance on cattle.”

PHILOSOPHY OF HINDUISM

Manu adds :

IX. 317. “A Brahmana, be he ignorant or learned, is a great divinity, just as the fire, whether carried forth (for the performance of a burnt oblation ) or not carried forth, is a great divinity”. IX. 323. “ Thus, though the Brahmans employ themselves in all (sorts) of mean occupation, they must be honoured in every way (for each of) them is a very great diety”.

Thus Manu’s is a degraded and degenerate philosophy of superman as compared with that of Nietzsche and therefore far more odious and loathsome than the philosophy of Nietzsche.

This explains why the philosophy of Hinduism does not satisfy the test of justice or of utility. Hinduism is not interested in the common man. Hinduism is not interested in Society as a whole. The centre of its interest lies in a class and its philosophy is concerned in sustaining and supporting the rights of that class. That is why in the Philosophy of Hinduism the interests of the common man as well as of society are denied, suppressed and sacrificed to the interest of this class of Supermen. What is the value of such a religion to man ? Mr. Balfour in speaking on the merits of positivism as Religion asked the positivists certain questions which are worth recalling. He very pertinently asked; “What has (Positivism) to say to the more obscure multitude who are absorbed, and well nigh overwhelmed, in the constant struggle with daily needs and narrow cares; who have but little leisure or inclination to consider the precise role they are called on to play in the great drama of ‘humanity’ and who might in any case be puzzled to discover its interest or its importance ? Can it assure them that there is no human being so insignificant as not to be of infinite worth in the eyes of Him who created the Heavens, or so feeble but that his action may have consequence of infinite moment long after this material system shall have crumbled into nothingness ? Does it offer consolation to those who are bereaved, strength to the weak, forgiveness to the sinful, rest to those who are weary and heavy laden ?”

The same questions may be asked of Manu.

The answer to each one of them must be in the affirmative. In short the philosophy of Hinduism is such that it cannot be called the Religion of humanity. That is why to use the language of Balfour, Hinduism, if it penetrates, does not vitrify the inmost life of ordinary humanity. Indeed if it does anything it paralyses it. There is in Hinduism no nourishment for ordinary human souls, no comfort for ordinary human sorrow, no help for ordinary human weakness. It

leaves men in darkness face to face with the unthinking energies of nature which gives them birth to which after a few fruitless struggles they succumb. Not less cruel than the crudest irreligion, does it leave men divorced from all communion with God.

Such is the philosophy of Hinduism. It is Superman’s heaven and the common man’s damnation.

I am conscious that my position regarding the philosophy of Hinduism will be assailed from different sides. So contrary it is to the current views about it that it is bound to be assailed. The attack may come from various sides.

It will be said that I am wrong in taking the Manu Smriti as the book of Hindu religion and that the true gospel of Hinduism is contained in the Vedas and the Bhagwat Gita..

I am sure no orthodox Hindu will be bold enough to repudiate the authority of Manu Smriti as a book of Hindu Religion. Such a charge can be made only by some reformed sects of Hinduism such as the Arya Samajists. But there can be no doubt that this charge is not well founded. To refute this charge it is perhaps desirable to explain 1 how the Smritis obtained a place and position of authority among the Hindus. The Smritis originally were a collection of rules relating to social traditions, customs and conventions approved of and recommended by those who were learned in the Vedas. For a long time these rules existed only in the memory of those learned in the Vedas, so they began to be called Smritis i.e. things which are remembered in contrast to Vedas or Shruti that is things which were heard. In the beginning the Smritis even when they were codified were treated as rules of inferior value as compared with the rules contained in the Vedas.

The difference in their authority and binding force was the result of the natural difference between the trustworthiness of what is heard as compared to what is only remembered. There was also another reason of this differentiation in the two sorts of Dharma Shastra literature. This was based upon the status of their authors. The authors of the Vedas were Rishis. The authors of the Smritis were only learned men. The Rishis were superior in status and sanctity than those who were merely learned. Consequently the Vedas were treated as more authoritative than the Smritis.

The consequence arising from this was well expressed in the Hindu theological formula according to which if there was a conflict in the rules of two Vedas on the same subject it meant option for a rule of 1 See the interesting article by Prof. Altekar on “The Position of Smritis as a Source of Dharma” in the Kane Memorial Volume pp. 18-25.

PHILOSOPHY OF HINDUISM

Vedas cannot be deemed to be inoperative. On the other hand, in a conflict between a rule of Shriti and a rule of Smriti the rule of Shruti prevailed becuse for the reasons stated above Smriti was inferior in authority to the Shruti. But as pointed out by Prof. Altekar, the Smritis in course of time came to be invested with the same authority as belonged to the Vedas. Various means were adopted to accomplish this purpose. In the first place the authors of the Smritis were elevated to the status of Rishis. The early Dharma Shastra writers like Gautama, and Baudhayana were never given the status of a Rishi. But Manu and Yajnavalkya are reckoned as Rishis. By this means the status of the Smritis was equated to that of the Shrutis. The second means adopted was to regard the Smriti as the record from memory of a Shruti which was lost. Thus Smriti instead of being regarded as something quite different from Shruti came to be regarded as akin to and indistinguishable from Shruti. The result of these steps was a complete change in the rules regarding the authority of the two. Originally if there was a conflict between a Smriti and a Shruti, the Shruti prevailed. The new rule was that in case of conflict there was an option which meant that the Smriti rule was as operative as the Rule of Shruti. This new rule has been expressly laid down by Kumarila in his commentary on the Purvamimansa Sutra whereby the Smritis were made as authoritative as Shrutis. While originally Hindu Society was bound to the Vedas and could not follow any rule which was contrary to the Vedas, the new rule altered the situation and left it to the option of society either to follow the Shruti or the Smriti. But even this option was later on taken away. This was done by making the study of the Smritis as compulsory as that of the Shruti.

This was done gradually. In the first place it was suggested that the Shrutis and Smritis are the two eyes of the Brahamana, if he is devoid of one he becomes a one-eyed person. Then came the theory that Brahmanyam is possible only as the result of a joint study of both the Vedas and the Smritis. Finally came the rule according to which the study of the Smruti only was recognized and a contempt of the Smriti was made a sin and a person guilty of it was declared to be condemned to be born as a beast for 21 generations.

This is how the Smritis have been recognized as a source of Hindu Religion and there is no doubt that, to quote Prof. Altekar, the Smritis; “have played a great part in determining the features of many a social and socio-religious institutions and customs and in moulding the development of modern Hinduism.”

It cannot therefore be maintained that I was wrong in taking Manu Smriti as containing the philosophy of Hinduism.

This work of elevating the Smritis to the status of the Vedas was undertaken by the Brahmins for a most selfish reason. The Smritis contain in all its wild and luxurious growth the doctrine of Caste, the doctrine of the superiority of the Brahmins, their rights and privileges, the doctrine of the subordination of the Kshatriyas and Vaishyas and the doctrine of the degradation of the Shudras. Such being the philosophy of the Smritis, the Brahmins were directly interested in investing the Smritis with the authority which was claimed for the Vedas and in which they ultimately succeeded to their advantage but to the ruination of the whole country. But conceding—which orthodox and pious Hindu would do—that the Smritis do not contain the philosophy of Hinduism but that the same is to be found in the Vedas and the Bhagwat Geeta the question is what difference would this make in the result. It seems to me that it matters very little whether one takes the Smritis, or the Vedas or the Bhagwat Geeta.

Do the Vedas teach something which is fundmentally different from what the Smritis do? Does the Bhagwat Geeta run contrary to the injunctions of the Smritis. A few illustrations will make the matter clear. It is indisputable that the Vedas lay down the theory of Chaturvarna in what is known as the Purushasukta. This Purushasukta recognizes two basic principles. It recognizes the division of society into four sections as an ideal. It also recognizes that the ideal relationship between the four sections is inequality.

What the Bhagwat Geeta teaches is also beyond controversy. Its teaching may be summarized in the following four pronouncements made by Krishna in the Bhagwat Geeta.

(1) “I myself have created the arrangement known as Chaturvarna (i.e. the fourfold division of society into four castes Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras) assigning them different occupations in accordance with the native capacities. It is I who am the maker of this Chaturvarna”.— Gita. IV. 13 (2) “Even if it may be easier to follow the occupation of another Varna yet to follow the occupation of one’s own Varna is more mertorious, although one may not be able to do it quite efficiently. There is bliss in following the occupation of one’s own Varna, even if death were to result in performing it; but to follow the occupation of another Varna is risky “.—Geeta. III. 35.

PHILOSOPHY OF HINDUISM

(3) “The educated should not unsettle the faith of the uneducated who have become attached to their occupation. He himself should perform the occupation of his Varna and make others perform their’s accordingly. An educated man may not become attached to his occupation. But the uneducated and dull-minded people who have become attached to their occupation should not be spoiled by the educated by putting them on a wrong path by abandoning their own occupation”—Geeta III. 26, 29. (4) “Oh, Arjun! Whenever this religion of duties and occupations (i.e. this religion of Chaturvarna) declines, then I myself will come to birth to punish those who are responsible for its downfall and to restore it—Geeta IV, 7-8.

Such is the position of Geeta. What difference is there between it and the Manu Smriti ? Geeta is Manu in a nutshell. Those who run away from Manu Smriti and want to take refuge in Geeta either do not know Gita or are prepared to omit from their consideration that soul of Geeta which makes it akin to Manu Smriti.

Compare the teachings of the Veda, of the Bhagwat Geeta with what is contained in the Manu Smriti which I have taken as the text for elucidating the philosophy of Hinduism. What difference does one find ? The only difference one can find is that the Vedas and the Bhagwat Geeta deal with General Theory while the Smritis are concerned in working out the particulars and details of that theory. But so far as the essence is concerned all of them—the Smritis, the Vedas and the Bhagwat Geeta—are woven on the same pattern, the same thread runs through them and are really parts of the same fabric. The reason for this is obvious. The Brahmins who were the authors of the whole body of Hindu Religious Literature—except the Upanishad Literature—took good care to inject the doctrines formulated by them in the Smritis, into the Vedas and the Bhagwat Geeta. Nothing is to be gained in picking and chosing between them. The Philosophy of Hinduism will be the same whether one takes the Manu Smriti as its Gospel or whether one takes the Vedas and the Bhagwat Geeta as the gospel of Hinduism.

Secondly it will be contended that Manu Smriti is a Book of Laws and not a code of ethics and that what I have presented as a philosophy of Hinduism is only legal philosophy and is not the moral philosophy of Hinduism.

My answer to this contention is simple. I hold that in Hinduism there is no distinction between legal philosophy and moral philosophy. That is because in Hinduism there is no distinction between the Legal and the Moral, the Legal being also the Moral.

Not much evidence is necessary to support my contention. Take the meaning1 of the word Dharma in the Rig Veda. The word Dharma occurs in the Rig Veda 58 times. It is used in six different senses. It is used to denote (I) Ancient custom, (2) Laws, (3) Any arrangement which maintains law and order in society, (4) The course of nature, (5) The quality of a substance and (6) Duty of good and evil. It will thus be seen that from the very beginning the word Dharma in Hinduism has a two fold connotation. It means both law and moral. That is one reason why in the philosophy of Hinduism there can be no distinction between legal philosophy and moral philosophy.

This is not to say that the Hindus have no code of morality. To be sure they have. But it is very pertinent to ask the nature and character of conduct which the Hindu Code of Ethics declares to be moral. To have an idea of the nature of conduct which the Hindu thinks moral, it is better to begin by recognizing that there are three levels of conduct2 which must be distinguished. (I) Conduct arising from instincts and fundamental needs (2) Conduct regulated by standards of society and (3) Conduct regulated by individual conscience. Conduct on the first level, we do not call moral conduct. It is of course not immoral; it is merely unmoral. It is governed by forces not as moral in purpose but as valuable in result. The forces are biological or sociological or psychological. These have purpose, such as to satisfy hunger, or to forge a weapon against an enemy. But the end is one set up by our physical or instinctive nature. So long as this is merely accepted as an inevitable end and not compared with others, valued, and chosen, it is not properly moral. Conduct on the second level is no doubt social. Wherever groups of men are living there are certain ways of acting which are common to the group—“folkways”. There are approved ways of acting, common to a group, and handed down from generation to generation. Such approved ways of acting are called the mores or the morals of the group. They imply the judgment of the group that they are to be followed. The welfare of the group is regarded as in some sense imbedded in them. It becomes the duty of the individual to follow them and if any one acts contrary to them he is made to feel the group’s disapproval. We cannot strictly speaking call the conduct moral. Because the end is accepted as a standard of ‘good’ prescribed by society. If it had spoken of a moral conduct it is only because it conforms to the mores or morals of the Society. It may be called customary morality. Conduct on the third level is conduct which alone is truly and completely moral. That is because in it the 1 What follows if taken from an article on the subject by Mr. Yeshwant Ramkrishna Date in a Marathi Magazine called “Swadhaya” Double No. 7-8. First year pp. 18-21. 2 In this I am entirely following the analysis given by Crawley and Tufts in their volume on Ethics.

PHILOSOPHY OF HINDUISM

individual recognizes the right or chooses the good, and freely devotes himself heartily to its fulfilment. He does not merely accept what is inevitable or follow what is approved by society. He values and chooses the end and becomes personally responsible. His is reflective morality. On what level does Hindu morality stand ? Obviously it is not on the third level. This means that a Hindu is social but not moral in the strict sense of the term. A Hindu takes no responsibility for the ends he serves. He is a willing tool in the hands of his society, content to follow. He is not a free agent not afraid to differ. His notions of sin give remarkable proof of his unmoral character. Institutes of Vishnu gives a list of sins which are divided into nine classes:—

1. Deadly sins— atipataka. These are certain forms of incest, to be atoned for only by burning.

2. Great sins— mahapataka. These are killing a Brahman, drinking spirituous liquor, stealing the gold of a Brahman, connexion with a Guru’s wife; also social intercourse with those guilty of such sins.

3. Minor sins of a similar character— anupataka. These include the killing of certain other classes of persons, giving false evidence and killing a friend, stealing lands or deposits of a Brahman, certain forms of incest and adultery.

4. Minor sins— upapataka. Sins of false statement, neglect of certain religious duties, adultery, unlawful occupation, offences connected with marrying before an elder brother &c, not paying one’s debts to the Gods, and manes, atheism & c.

5. Sins effecting loss of caste— jatibramsakara. Causing bodily pain to a Brahman, smelling things which should not be smelt, dishonest dealing, certain unnatural crimes.

6. Sins which degrade to a mixed caste— samkarikarana. Killing domestic or wild animals.

7. Sins which render one unworthy to receive alms—apatrikarana. Receiving presents and alms from despicable persons, trade, money— lending, lying, serving a Shudra.

8. Sins causing defilment— malavaha. Killing birds, amphibious animals, and aquatic animals, worms and insects; eating nutmegs or other plants similar in their effects to intoxicating liquors.

9. Miscellaneous sins— prakirnaka. Those not already mentioned. This list of sins is not exhaustive but it, is long enough and illustrative enough to give us the idea which underlies the Hindu notion of Sin. In the first place it connotes the fall of man from a prescribed form of conduct. In the second place it means to be defiled, to become unclean. This is the root meaning of the term Patak. It

means Patana (falling away) and it means Asowcha (being rendered unclean). In either case sin according to Hindu notion is a desease of the soul. In the first sense it is merely breach of a rule of external conduct. In the other sense it is a defilement of the body to be cleaned and purified by both or by pilgrimage or by sacrificial offering. But it is never the spiritual defilement which is associated with the harbouring of evil thoughts and purposes.

This shows the morality of the Hindu is purely social. This means that the level of his morality is purely traditional and customary. There are two evils of customary morality. In the first place there is no surety that it will always be charged with sincerity and purity of motive. For it is only when morality penetrates to the deepest springs of purpose and feeling in the individual that pretense will cease to find a place in human behaviour. In the second place customary morality is an anchor and a drag. It holds up the average man and holds back the man who forges ahead. Customary morality is only another name for moral stagnation. This is true of all cases where morality is only customary morality. But the customary morality of the Hindus has an evil feature which is peculiar to it. Customary morality is a matter of meritorious conduct. Ordinarily this meritorious conduct is something which is good from the general or public point of view. But among the Hinduism the meritorious conduct is not concerned with the worship of God or the general good of community. Meritorious conduct in Hinduism is concerned with the giving of presents, of good and of honour to the Brahmins. Hindu Ethics is worship of the superman.

What difference would it have made if I had taken Hindu Ethics as the basis for deducing the philosophy of Hinduism ? Most students of Hinduism forget that just as in Hinduism there is no difference between law and Religion so there is no difference between law and ethics. Both are concerned with the same thing namely regulating the conduct of the low class Hindus to subserve the ends of high Caste Hindus. Thirdly it will be objected that I presented an altogether false picture of Hinduism in as much as I have omitted to take into account the Upanishads which are the true source of Hindu philosophy. I admit that I have not taken the Upanishads into account. But I have a reason and I believe very good reason for doing so. I am concerned with the philosophy of Hinduism as a part of the philosophy of Religion. I am not concerned with Hindu philosophy. If I was, it would have been necessary to examine the Upanishads. But I am quite willing to deal with it so as to leave no doubt that what I have shown to be the philosophy of Hinduism is the philosophy of Upanishads.

PHILOSOPHY OF HINDUISM

The philosophy of the Upanishads can be stated in very few words. It has been well summarized by Huxley 1 when he says that the Upanishd philosophy agreed:— “In supposing the existence of a permanent reality, or ‘substance’, beneath the shifting series of phenomena, whether of matter or of mind. The substance of the cosmos was’ Brahma’, that of the individual man ‘Atman’; and the latter was separated from the former only, if I may so speak, by its phenomenal envelope, by the casing of sensations, thoughts and desires, pleasures and pains, which make up the illusive phantasmagoria of life. This the ignorant, take for reality; their ‘Atman’ therefore remains eternally imprisoned in delusions, bound by the fetters of desire and scourged by the whip of misery. Of what use is this philosophy of the Upanishadas ? The philosophy of the Upanishadas meant withdrawal from the struggle for existence by resort to asceticism and a destruction of desire by self mortification.

As a way of life it was condemned by Huxley 2 in scathing terms:— “No more thorough mortification of the flesh has ever been attempted than that achieved by the Indian ascetic anchorite; no later monachism has so nearly succeeded in reducing the human mind to that condition of impassive quasi-somnambulism, which, but for its acknowledged holiness, might run the risk of being confounded with idiocy.” But the condemanation of the philosophy of the Upanishads is nothing as compared to the denunciation of the same by Lala Hardyal 3:— “The Upanishads claim to expound ‘that, by knowing which everything is known’. This quest for ‘the absolute’ is the basis of all the spurious metaphysics of India. The treatises are full of absurd conceits, quaint fancies, and chaotic speculations. And we have not learned that they are worthless. We keep moving in the old rut; we edit and re-edit the old books instead of translating the classics of European social thought. What could Europe be if Frederic Harrison, Brieux, Bebel, Anatole France, Herve, Haekel, Giddings, and Marshall should employ their time in composing treatises on Duns, Scotus and Thomas Aquinas, and discussing the merits of the laws of the Pentateuch and the poetry of Beowulf ? Indian pundits and graduates seem to suffer from a kind of mania for what is effete and antiquated. Thus an institution, established by progressive men, aims at leading our youths through Sanskrit grammar to the Vadas 1 Evolution and Ethics, p. 63.

2 Evolution and Ethics p. 64 3 Modern Review. July. 1912.

via the Six Darshanas! What a false move in the quest for wisdom! It is as if a caravan should travel across the desert to the shores of the Dead Sea in search of fresh water! Young men of India, look not for wisdom in the musty parchments of your metaphysical treatises. There is nothing but an endless round of verbal jugglary there. Read Rousseau and Voltaire, Plato and Aristotle, Haeckel and Spencer, Marx and Tolstoi, Ruskin and Comte, and other European thinkers, if you wish to understand life and its problems.”

But denunciations apart, did the Upanishad philosophy have any influence on Hinduism as a social and political system? There is no doubt that it turned out to be most ineffective and inconsequential piece of speculation with no effect on the moral and social order of the Hindus. It may not be out of place to inquire into the reasons for this unfortunate result. One reason is obvious. The philosophy of Upanishad remained incomplete and therefore did not yield the fruit which it ought to have done. This will be quite clear if one asks what is the key-note of the Upanishads. In the words of Prof. Max Muller 1 the key note of the Upanishads is ‘Know thy Self”. The ‘Know thy Self of the Upanishads, means, know thy true Self, that which underlies thine ego and find it and know it in the highest, the eternal self, the One without a Second, which underlies the whole world.”

That Atman and Brahman were one was the truth, the great truth which the Upanishads said they had discovered and they asked man to know this truth. Now the reasons why the philosophy of Upanishads, became ineffective are many. I will discuss them elsewhere. At this place I will mention only one. The philosophers of Upanishads did not realize that to know truth was not enough. One must learn to love truth. The difference between philosophy and religion may be put in two ways. Philosophy is concerned with knowing truth. Religion is concerned with the love of truth. Philosophy is static. Religion is dynamic. These differences are merely two aspects of one and the same thing. Philosophy is. static because it is concerned only with knowing truth. Religion is dynamic beause it is concerned with love of truth. As has been well said by Max Plowman 2:— “....... Unless religion is dynamic and begets in us the emotion of love for something, then it is better to be without any thing that we can call religion; for religion is perception of truth and if our perception of truth is not accompanied by our love for it then it were better not seen at all; The Devil himself is one who has seen 1 Hibbert lectures 1878. p. 3I7.

2 “The Nemesis of Ineffectual Religion”— Adelphi, January 1941.

PHILOSOPHY OF HINDUISM

the truth only to hate it. Tennyson said “We must love the highest when we see it”. It does not follow. Seen in pure objectivity the highest repels by its difference and distance; what we fear it, and what we fear we come to hate ......”

This is the fate of all treanscendal philosophies. They have no influence on the way of life. As Blake said “ Religion is politics and politics is Brotherhood. Philosophy must become Religion that is it must become a Working Ethic. It must not remain mere metaphysics. As Mr. Plowman says— “If religion were a Metaphysic and nothing else, one thing is certain, it would never be the concern of the simple and humble men. “To keep it wholly in the realm of Metaphysic is to make nonsense of it. For belief in religion as in something not directly and vitally effective of politics is ultimately belief that is strictly speaking idiotic; because in the effective sense such a belief makes no difference, and in the world of time and space what ‘makes no difference’ does not exist.” It is for these very reasons that the philosophy of the Upanishads proved so ineffective.

It is therefore incontrovertible that notwithstanding the Hindu Code of Ethics, notwithstanding the philosophy of the Upanishads not a little not a jot did abate from the philosophy of Hinduism as propounded by Manu. They were ineffective and powerless to eraze the infamy preached by Manu in the name of religion. Notwithstanding their existence one can still say “Hinduism! Thy name is inequality!”

V Inequality is the soul of Hinduism. The morality of Hinduism is only social. It is unmoral and unhuman to say the least. What is unmoral and unhuman easily becomes immoral, inhuman and infamous. This is what Hinduism has become. Those who doubt this or deny this proposition should examine the social composition of the Hindu Society and ponder over the condition of some of the elements in it. Take the following cases.

First as to the Primitive Tribes. In what state of civilization are they ? The history of human civilization includes the entire period of human progress from Savagery to Barbarism and from Barbarism to Civilization. The transition from one to other has been marked by

some discovery or intention in some department of knowledge of Art resulting in advancing the onward march of man.

The development of articulate speech was the first thing which, from the point of view of human progress, divided man from the brute. It marks the first stage of savagery. The Middle period of the state of savagery began with the knowledge of the manufacture and use of fire. This wonderful discovery enabled man to extend his habit almost indefinitely. He could leave his forest home, go to different and colder climates, and increase his food supply by including flesh and fish. The next discovery was the Bow and Arrow. This was the greatest achievement of primitive man and marks the highest state of savage man. It was indeed a wonderful implement. The possesor of this device could bring down the fleetest animal and could defend himself against the most predatory. The transition from Savagery to Barbarism was marked by the discovery of pottery. Hitherto man had no utensils that could withstand the action of fire. Without utensils man could not store nor could he cook. Undoubtedly pottery was a great civilizing influence. The Middle state of Barbarism began when man learned to domesticate wild animals. Man learned that captive animals could be of service to him. Man now became a herdsman, no longer dependent for food upon the precarious chase of wild animals. Milk procurable at all seasons made a highly important addition to his dietary. With the aid of horse and camel he traversed wide areas hitherto impassable. The captive animals became aids to commerce which resulted in the dissemination of commodities as well as of ideas.

The next discovery was of the Art of smelting iron. This marks the highest stage of advancement of Barbaric man. With this discovery man became a “tool-making animal” who with his tool could fashion wood and stone and build houses and bridges.

This marks the close of the advancement made by Barbaric man. The dividing line which marks off Barbaric people from Civilized people, in the fullest sense of the word Civilization, is the art of making ideas tangible by means of graphic signs—which is called the art of writing. With this man conquered time as he had with the earlier inventions conquered space. He could now record his deeds and his thoughts. Henceforth, his knowledge, his poetical dreams, his moral aspirations might be recorded in such form as to be read not merely by his contemporaries but by successive generations of remote posterity. For man his history became safe and secure. This was the steepest assent and the climbing of it marks the beginnings of civilization.

PHILOSOPHY OF HINDUISM

Stopping here for the moment let us ask in what state of civilization arc the Primitive Tribes.

The name Primitive Tribes 1 is expressive of the present state of people who are called by that name. They live in small scattered huts in forests. They live on wild fruits, nuts and roots. Fishing and hunting are also resorted to for the purpose of securing food. Agriculture plays a very small part in their social economy. Food supplies being extremely precarious, they lead a life of semi-starvation from which there is no escape. As to clothes they economize them to a vanishing point. They move almost in a state of complete nakedness. There is a tribe which is known as “Bonda Porajas” which means “Naked Porajas”. Of these people it is said that the women wear a very narrow strip which serves as a petticoat almost identical with what is worn by the Momjak Nagas in Assam, the ends hardly meeting at the top on the left thigh. These petticoats are woven at home out of the fibre of a forest tree. Girls wear a fillet of beads and of palmyra leaf and an enormous quantity of beads and neck ornaments extremely like those worn by many Komjak women. Otherwise the women wear nothing. The women shave their heads entirely ......... Of these Chenchus, a tribe residing near Farhabad in the Nizam’s Dominions it is said that” their houses are conical, rather slight in structure made of bamboos sloping to the central point and covered with a thinnish layer of thatch ......... They have very little, indeed, in the way of material effects, the scanty clothes they wear, consisting of a langoti and a cloth in the case of men, and a short bodice and a petticoat in the case of women, being practically all, besides a few cooking pots and a basket or two which perhaps sometimes contains grain. They keep cattle and goats and in this particular village do a little cultivation, elsewhere subsisting on honey and forest produce which they sell”. Regarding the Morias, another Primitive tribe, it is stated the men generally wear a single cloth round the waist with a slap coming down in the front. They also have a necklace of beads and when they dance put on cock’s plumes and peacock’s feathers in their turbans. Many girls are profusely tattooed, especially on their faces, and some of them on their legs as well. The type of tattooing is said to be according to the taste of the individual and it is done with thorns and needles. In their hair many of them stick the feathers of jungle cocks and their heads are also adorned with combs of wood and tin and brass.

These Primitive Tribes have no hesitation about eating anyting, even worms and insects, and, in fact, there is very little meat that they will 1 This and other information is taken from Census of India 1931 Vol. I part

not eat, whether the animal has died a natural death or has been killed four days or more before by a tiger.

The next group of the people he will come accross are the Criminal Tribes.

The Criminal Tribes live not in Forests as the Primitive Tribes do but in the plains in close proximity to, and often in the midst of civilized life. Hollius in his “Criminal Tribes of the United Provinces” gives an account of their activities. They live entirely by crime. A few may be ostensibly engaged in agriculture, but this is only to cover up their real activities. Their nefarious practices find largest scope in dacoity or robbery by violence, but being a community organized for crime, nothing comes amiss to them. On deciding to commit a dacoity in any particular locality spies are sent out to select a suitable victim, study the general habits of the villagers, and the distance from any effective aid, and ennumerate the number of men and firearms. The raid usually takes place at midnight. Acting on the information given by the spies, men are posted at various points in the village and by firing off their guns attract attention from the main gang which attacks the particular house or houses previously appointed. The gang usually consists of 30 to 40 men. It is essential to emphasize the great part played by crime in the general life of these peoples. A boy is initiated into crime as soon as he is able to walk and talk. No doubt the motive is practical, to a great extent, in so far as it is always better to risk a child in petty theft, who, if he is caught, would probably be cuffed, while an adult would immediately be arrested. An important part is also played by women, who, although they do not participate in the actual raids, have many heavy responsibilities. Besides being clever in disposing off stolen property the women of the Criminal Tribes are experts in shop lifting.

At one time the Criminal Tribes included such well organized Confederacies of Professional Criminals as the Pindharies and the Thugs. The Pindharies were a predatory body of armed gangsters. Their organization was an open military organization of freebooters who could muster 20000 fine horse and even more. They were under the command of brigand chiefs. Chitu one of the most powerful commanders had under his single command 10000 horse, including 5000 good cavalry, besides infantry and guns. The Pindharies had no military projects for employing their loose bands of irregular soldiery, which developed into bodies of professional plunderers. The Pindharies aimed at no conquests. Their object was to secure booty and cash for themselves. General loot and rapine was their occupation.

PHILOSOPHY OF HINDUISM

They recognized no rulers. They were subjects of none. They rendered loyalty to none. They respected none, and plundered, all, high and low, rich and poor, without fear or compunction.

The Thugs1 were a well organized body of professional assassins, who, in gangs of from 10 to 100 wandered in various guises throughout India, worked themselves into the confidence of wayfarers of the wealthier class, and, when a favourable opportunity occurred, strangled them by throwing a handkerchief or noose round their necks, and then plundered and buried them. All this was done according to certain ancient and rigidly prescribed forms and after the performance of special religious rites, in which was the consecration of the package, and the sacrifice of sugar. They were staunch worshippers of Kali, the Hindu Goddess of destruction. Assassination for gain was with them a religious duty, and was considered a holy and honourable profession. They had, in fact, no idea of doing wrong, and their moral feelings did not come into play. The will of the Goddess, by whose command and in whose honour they followed their calling, was revealed to them through a very complicated system of omens. In obedience to these they often travelled even the distance of hundred miles in company with, or in the wake of, their intended victims before a safe opportunity had presented itself for executing their design; and when the deed was done, rites were performed in honour of that tutelary deity, and a goodly portion of the spoil was set apart for her. The Thugs had also a jargon of their own, as well as certain signs by which its members recognized each other in the remotest part of India. Even those who from age or infirmities could no longer take an active part in the operations, used to aid the cause as watchmen, spies or dressers of food. It was owing to their thorough organization, the secrecy and security with which they went to work, but chiefly to the religious garb in which they shrouded their murders, that they could continue for centuries to practise their craft. The extraordinary fact was that Thugee was regarded as a regular profession by Indian Rulers of the day, both Hindu and Mahomedans. The Thugs paid taxes to the state and the state left them unmolested.

It was not until the British became rulers of the country that an attempt was made to suppress the Thugs. By 1835, 382 Thugs were hanged and 986 were transported or imprisoned for life. Even as late as 1879 the number of registered Thugs was 344 and the Thugee and the Dacoity department of the Government of India continued to exist until 1904 when its place was taken by the Central Criminal Intelligence Department. While it is not possible for the criminal 1 Encyclopedia Britannica. 11th Ed. Vol. XXVI p. 896.

tribes to live by organized bodies of criminals, crime continues to be their main occupation.

Besides these two classes there is a third class which comprizes a body of people who are known as Untouchables.

Below the Untouchables there are others who are known as Unapproachables. Untouchables are those who cause pollution only if they touch. The Unapproachables are those who cause pollution if they come within a certain distance. It is said of the Nayadis—a people who fall into the category of the Unapproachables, “that they are the lowest caste among the Hindus—the dog-eaters. They are the most persistent in their clamour for charity, and will follow at a respectful distance, for miles together any person walking, driving or boating. If any thing is given to them, it must be laid down, and after the person offering it has proceeded a sufficient distance, the receipient comes timidly forward, and removes it.” Of the same people Mr. Thurston says, “The subject (i.e. the Nayadis) whom I examined and measured at Shoranus, though living only about three miles off, had, by reason of the pollution which they traditionally carry with them to avoid walking over the long bridge which spans the river, and follow a circuitous route of many miles” Below the Unapproachables are the Unseeables.

In the Tinnevelley District of the Madras Presidency there is a class of unseeables called Purada Vannans. Of them it is said,” that they are not allowed to come out during day time because their sight is enough to cause pollution. These unfortunate people are ‘compelled’ to follow the nocturnal habits, leaving their dens after dark and scuttling home at the false dawn like the badger, the hyena, the avordvark.” Consider the total population of these classes. The Primitive Tribes form a total of 25 million souls. The Criminal Tribes number 4½ millions and the Untouchables number 50 millions. This makes a grand total of 79½ millions. Now ask how these people could have remained in the state of moral, material, social and spiritual degradation surrounded as they have been by Hinduism. Hindus say that their civilization is older than any civilization, that Hinduism as a religion is superior to any other religion. If this is so how is that Hinduism failed to elevate these people, bring them enlightenment and hope; how is it that it failed even to reclaim them; how is it that it stood with folded hands when millions and millions were taking to life to shame and crime ? What is the answer to this. The only answer is that Hinduism is overwhelmed with the fear of pollution. It has not got the power to purify. It has not the impulse to serve and that is because by its very nature it is unhuman and unmoral. It is a misnomer to call it religion. Its philosophy is opposed to very thing for which religion stands.

PART II

India and The Pre-requisites of Communism 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.

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