XIII
The effect of caste on the
ethics of the Hindus is simply deplorable. Caste has killed public spirit.
Caste has destroyed the sense of public charity. Caste has made public opinion
impossible. A Hindu’s public is his caste. His responsibility is only to his
caste. His loyalty is restricted only to his caste. Virtue has become
caste-ridden and morality has become caste-bound. There is no sympathy to the
deserving. There is no appreciation of the meritorious. There is no charity to
the needy. Suffering as such calls for no response. There is charity but it
begins with the caste and ends with the caste. There is sympathy but not for
men of other caste. Would a Hindu acknowledge and follow the leadership of a
great and good man? The case of a Mahatma apart, the answer must be that he
will follow a leader if he is a man of his caste. A Brahmin will follow a
leader only if he is a Brahmin, a Kayastha if he is a Kayastha and so on. The
capacity to appreciate merits in a man apart from his caste does not exist in a
Hindu. There is appreciation of virtue but only when the man is a fellow
caste-man. The whole morality is as bad as tribal morality. My caste-man, right
or wrong; my caste-man, good or bad. It is not a case of standing by virtue and
not standing by vice. It is a case of standing or not standing by the caste.
Have not Hindus committed treason against their country in the interests of
their caste?
XIV
I would not be surprised if
some of you have grown weary listening to this tiresome tale of the sad effects
which caste has produced. There is nothing new in it. I will therefore turn to
the constructive side of the problem. What is your ideal society if you do not
want caste is a question that is bound to be asked of you. If you ask me, my
ideal would be a society based on Liberty,
Equality and Fraternity. And why not? What objection can
there be to Fraternity? I cannot imagine any. An ideal society should be
mobile, should be full of channels for conveying a change taking place in one
part to other parts. In an ideal society there should be many interests
consciously communicated and shared. There should be varied and free points of
contact with other modes of association. In other words there must be social
endosmosis. This is fraternity, which is only another name for democracy.
Democracy is not merely a form of Government. It is primarily a mode of
associated living, of conjoint communicated experience. It is essentially an
attitude of respect and reverence towards fellowmen. Any objection to Liberty?
Few object to liberty in the sense of a right to free movement, in the sense of
a right to life and limb. There is no objection to liberty in the sense of a
right to property, tools and materials as being necessary for earning a living
to keep the body in due state of health. Why not allow liberty to benefit by an
effective and competent use of a person’s powers? The supporters of caste who
would allow liberty in the sense of a right to life, limb and property, would
not readily consent to liberty in this sense, inasmuch as it involves liberty
to choose one’s profession. But to object to this kind of liberty is to
perpetuate slavery. For slavery does not merely mean a legalized form of
subjection. It means a state of society in which some men are forced to accept
from other the purposes which control their conduct. This condition obtains
even where mere is no slavery in the legal sense. It is found where, as in the Caste
System, some persons are compelled to carry on certain prescribed callings
which are not of their choice. Any objection to equality? This has obviously
been the most contentious part of the slogan of the French Revolution. The
objections to equality may be sound and one may have to admit that all men are
not equal. But what of that? Equality may be a fiction but nonetheless one must
accept it as the governing principle. A man’s power is dependent upon (1)
physical heredity, (2) social inheritance or endowment in the form of parental
care, education, accumulation of scientific knowledge, everything which enables
him to be more efficient than the savage, and finally, (3) on his own efforts.
In all these three respects men are undoubtedly unequal. But the question is,
shall we treat them as unequal because they are unequal? This is a question which
the opponents of equality must answer. From the standpoint of the individualist
it may be just to treat men unequally so far as their efforts are unequal. It
may be desirable to give as much incentive as possible to the full development
of every one’s powers. But what would happen if men were treated unequally as
they are, in the first two respects? It is obvious that those individuals also
in whose favour there is birth, education, family name, business connections
and inherited wealth would be selected in the race. But selection under such
circumstances would not be a selection of the able. It would be the selection
of the privileged. The reason therefore, which forces that in the third respect
we should treat men unequally demands that in the first two respects we should
treat men as equally as possible. On the other hand it can be urged that if it
is good for the social body to get the most out of its members, it can get most
out of them only by making them equal as far as possible at the very start of
the race. That is one reason why we cannot escape equality. But there is
another reason why we must accept equality. A Statesman is concerned with vast numbers
of people. He has neither the time nor the knowledge to draw fine distinctions
and to treat each equitably i.e.
according to need or according to
capacity. However desirable or reasonable an equitable treatment of men may be,
humanity is not capable of assortment and classification. The statesman,
therefore, must follow some rough and ready rule and that rough and ready rule
is to treat all men alike not because they are alike but because classification
and assortment is impossible. The doctrine of equality is glaringly fallacious
but taking all in all it is the only way a statesman can proceed in politics
which is a severely practical affair and which demands a severely practical
test.
No comments:
Post a Comment