Annihilation of Caste: The Annotated Critical Edition (36 page)

I think these remarks apply equally to the
Brahmins of India,
and one can say with equal truth that if a man who becomes a Pope has no wish to become a revolutionary, a man who is born a Brahmin has much less desire to become a revolutionary. Indeed, to expect a Brahmin to be a revolutionary in matters of social reform is as idle as to expect the British Parliament, as was said by
Leslie Stephen,
¹²⁵
to pass an Act requiring all blue-eyed babies to be murdered.

Some of you will say that it is a matter of small concern whether the Brahmins come forward to lead the movement against caste or whether they do not. To take this view is, in my judgement, to ignore the part played by the intellectual class in the community. Whether you accept the theory of the great man as the maker of history
¹²⁶
or whether you do not, this much you will have to concede: that in every country the intellectual class is the most influential class, if not the governing class. The intellectual class is the class which can foresee, it is the class which can advise and give the lead. In no country does the mass of the people live the life of intelligent thought and action. It is largely imitative, and follows the intellectual class.

There is no exaggeration in saying that the entire destiny of a country depends upon its intellectual class. If the intellectual
class is honest, independent and disinterested, it can be trusted to take the initiative and give a proper lead when a crisis arises. It is true that intellect by itself is no virtue. It is only a means, and the use of means depends upon the ends which an intellectual person pursues. An intellectual man can be a good man, but he can easily be a rogue. Similarly an intellectual class may be a band of high-souled persons, ready to help, ready to emancipate erring humanity—or it may easily be a gang of crooks, or a body of advocates for a narrow clique from which it draws its support.

You may think it a pity that the intellectual class in India is simply another name for the Brahmin caste. You may regret that the two are one; that the existence of the intellectual class should be bound up with one single caste; that this intellectual class should share the interest and the aspirations of that Brahmin caste, which has regarded itself as the custodian of the interest of that caste rather than of the interests of the country. All this may be very regrettable. But the fact remains that the Brahmins form the intellectual class of the Hindus. It is not only an intellectual class, but it is a class which is held in great reverence by the rest of the Hindus.

The Hindus are taught that the Brahmins are
Bhu-devas
(gods on earth).
¹²⁷
The Hindus are taught that Brahmins alone can be their teachers.
Manu says:

When such an intellectual class, which holds the rest of the community in its grip, is opposed to the reform of caste, the chances of success in a movement for the break-up of the caste system appear to me very, very remote.

The second reason why I say the task is impossible will be clear, if you will bear in mind that the caste system has two aspects. In one of its aspects, it divides men into separate communities. In its second aspect, it places these communities in a graded order one above the other in social status. Each caste takes its pride and its consolation in the fact that in the scale of castes it is above some other caste. As an outward mark of this gradation, there is also a gradation of social and religious rights, technically spoken of as
asht
adhikaras
¹³⁰
and
sanskaras
.
¹³¹
The higher the grade of a caste, the greater the number of these rights; and the lower the grade, the lesser their number.

Now this gradation, this scaling of castes, makes it impossible to organise a common front against the caste system. If a caste claims the right to inter-dine and intermarry with another caste placed above it, it is frozen the instant it is told
¹³²
by mischief-mongers—and there are many
Brahmins amongst such mischief-mongers—that it will have to concede inter-dining and intermarriage with castes below it! All are slaves of the caste system. But all the slaves are not equal in status.
¹³³

To excite the proletariat to bring about an economic revolution,
Karl Marx told them: “You have nothing to lose except your chains.”
¹³⁴
But the artful way in which the social and religious rights are distributed among the different castes, whereby some have more and some have less, makes the slogan of Karl Marx quite useless
¹³⁵
to excite the Hindus against the caste system. Castes form a graded system of sovereignties, high and
low, which are jealous of their status and which know that if a general dissolution came, some of them stand to lose more of their prestige and power than others do.
¹³⁶
You cannot, therefore, have a general mobilisation of the Hindus (to use a military expression) for an attack on the caste system.

Can you appeal to reason, and ask the Hindus to discard caste as being contrary to reason? That raises the question: Is a Hindu free to follow his reason?
Manu has laid down three sanctions to which every Hindu must conform in the matter of his behaviour:

Here there is no place for reason to play its part. A Hindu must follow either Veda, smriti or
sadachar
.
¹³⁸
He cannot follow anything else.

In the first place, how are the texts of the Vedas and smritis
to be interpreted whenever any doubt arises regarding their meaning? On this important question the view of Manu is quite definite. He says:

According to this rule, rationalism as a canon of interpreting the Vedas and smritis is absolutely condemned. It is regarded to be as wicked as
atheism, and the punishment provided for it is excommunication. Thus, where a matter is covered by the Veda or the smriti, a Hindu cannot resort to rational thinking.

Even when there is a conflict between Vedas and smritis on matters on which they have given a positive injunction, the solution is not left to reason. When there is a conflict between two
shrutis, both are to be regarded as of equal authority. Either of them may be followed. No attempt
¹⁴¹
is to be made to find out which of the two accords with reason. This is made clear by Manu: