Philosophy of Hinduism

Philosophy of Hinduism by Ambedkar

DID THE HINDUS NEVER EAT BEEF ?

DID THE HINDUS NEVER EAT BEEF ?

TO the question whether the Hindus ever ate beef, every Touchable
Hindu, whether he is a Brahmin or a non-Brahmin, will say ‘no,
never’. In a certain sense, he is right. From times no Hindu has eaten
beef. If this is all that the Touchable Hindu wants to convey by his
answer there need be no quarrel over it. But when the learned
Brahmins argue that the Hindus not only never ate beef but they
always held the cow to be sacred and were always opposed to the
killing of the cow, it is impossible to accept their view.
What is the evidence in support of the construction that the Hindus
never ate beef and were opposed to the killing of the cow?
There are two series of references in the Rig Veda on which reliance
is placed. In one of these, the cow is spoken of as Aghnya. They are
Rig Veda 1.164, 27; IV.1.6; V 82-8; VII.69. 71; X.87. Aghnya means
‘one who does not deserve to be killed’. From this, it is argued that
this was a prohibition against the killing of the cow and that since
the Vedas are the final authority in the matter of religion, it is
concluded that the Aryans could not have killed the cows, much less
could they have eaten beef. In another series of references the cow
is spoken of as sacred. They are Rig Veda VI.28.1.8. and VIII, 101.
15. In these verses the cow is addressed as Mother of Rudras, the
Daughter of Vasus, the Sister of the Adityas and the Centre of Nectar.
Another reference on the subject is in Rig Veda VIII. 101. 16 where
the cow is called Devi (Goddess).
Raliance is also placed on certain passages in the Brahmanas and
Sutras.
There are two passages in the Satapatha Brahmana which relate
to animal sacrifice and beef-eating. One is at III. 1.2.21 and reads
as follows :-
“He (the Adhvaryu) then makes him enter the hall. Let him not eat (the flesh) of
either the cow or the ox, for the cow and the ox doubtless support everything here on
earth. The gods spake, ‘verily, the cow and the ox support everything
here; come, let us bestow on the cow and the ox whatever vigour belonged to
other species (of animals); and therefore the cow and the ox eat most. Hence
were one to eat (the flesh) of an ox or a cow, there would be, as it were,
an eating of everything, or, as it were, a going to the end (or, to destruction)...
Let him therefore not eat (the flesh) of the cow and the ox.”
The other passage is at 1, 2, 3, 6. It speaks against animal sacrifice
and on ethical grounds.
A similar statement is contained in the Apastambha Dharma Sutra
at 1, 5, 17, 29. Apastambha lays a general embargo on the eating
of cow’s flesh.
Such is the evidence in support of the contention that the Hindus
never ate beef. What conclusion can be drawn from this evidence?
So far as the evidence from the Rig Veda is concerned the
conclusion is based on a misreading and misunderstanding of the
texts. The adjective Aghnya applied to the cow in the Rig Veda means
a cow that was yielding milk and therefore not fit for being killed.
That the cow is venerated in the Rig Veda is of course true. But
this regard and venerations of the cow are only to be expected from
an agricultural community like the Indo-Aryans. This application of
the utility of the cow did not prevent the Aryan from killing the cow
for purposes of food. Indeed the cow was killed because the cow was
regarded as sacred. As observed by Mr.Kane:
“It was not that the cow was not sacred in Vedic times, it was because
of her sacredness that it is ordained in the Vajasaneyi Samhita that beef
should be eaten.”1
That the Aryans of the Rig Veda did kill cows for purposes of food
and ate beef is abundantly clear from the Rig Veda itself. In Rig
Veda (X. 86.14) Indra says:- “They cook for one 15 plus twenty oxen”.
The Rig Veda (X.91.14) says that for Agni were sacrificed horses,
bulls, oxen, barren cows and rams. From the Rig Veda (X.72.6) it
appears that the cow was killed with a sword or axe.
As to the testimony of the Satapatha Bramhana, can it be said
to be conclusive? Obviously, it cannot be. For there are passages in
the other Bramhanas which give a different opinion.
To give only one instance. Among the Kamyashtis set forth in the
Taittiriya Bramhana, not only the sacrifice of oxen and cows are laid
down, but we are even told what kind and description of oxen and
cows are to be offered to what deities. Thus, a dwarf ox is to be
chosen for sacrifice to Vishnu; a drooping horned bull with a blaze
on the forehead to Indra as the destroyer of Vritra; a black cow to

1 Dharm Shaslra Vichar (Marathi) p, 180.

Pushan; a red cow to Rudra; and so on. The Taittiriya Bramhana
notes another sacrifice called Panchasaradiya-seva, the most important
element of which was the immolation of seventeen five-year old
humpless, dwraf-bulls, and as many dwarf heifers under three yearold.
As against the statement of the Apastamba Dharma Sutra, the
following points may be noted.
First is the contrary statement contained in that Very Sutra. At
14, 15, 29, the Sutra says :-
“The cow and the bull are sacred and therefore should be eaten”.
The second is the prescription of Madhuparka contained in the
Grahya Sutras. Among the Aryans the etiquette for receiving important
guests had become settled into custom and had become a
ceremony. The most important offering was Madhuparka. A detailed
descriptions regarding Madhuparka are to be found in the various
Grahya Sutras. According to most of the Grahya Sutras there are
six persons who have a right to be served with Madhuparka namely;
(1) Ritwija or the Brahmin called to perform a sacrifice, (2) Acharya,
the teacher, (3) The bridegroom (4) The King (5) The Snatak, the
student who has just finished his studies at the Gurukul and (6) Any
person who is dear to the host. Some add Atithi to this list. Except
in the case of Ritvija, King and Acharya, Madhuparka is to be offered
to the rest once in a year. To the Ritvija, King and Acharya it is
to be offered each time they come.
What was this Madhuparka made of ? There is divergence about
the substances mixed in offering Madhuparka. Asv.gr and Ap.gr.
(13.10) prescribe a mixture of honey and curds or clarified butter and
curds. Others like Par.gr. 13 prescribe a mixture of three (curds,
honey and butter). Ap.gr.(13.11-12) states the view of some that those
three may be mixed or five (those three with fried yava grain and
barley). Hir.gr.I, 12, 10-12 give the option of mixing three of five
(curds, honey, ghee, water and ground grain). The Kausika Sutra (92)
speaks of nine kinds of mixtures, viz., Brahma (honey and curds). Aindra
(of payasa), Saumya (curds and ghee), Pausna (ghee and mantha),
Sarasvata (milk and ghee), Mausala (wine and ghee, this being used
only in Sautramanai and Rajasuya sacrifices), Parivrajaka (sesame oil
and oil cake). The Madhava gr.I.9.22 says that the Veda declares that
the Madhuparka must not be without flesh and so it recommends
that if the cow is let loose, goat’s meat or payasa (rice cooked in
milk) may be offered; the Hir.gr. 1.13, 14 says that other meat should
be offered; Baud.gr. (1.2,51-54) says that when the cow is let off, the
flesh of a goat or ram may be offered or some forest flesh (of a deer,etc.) may be offered, as there can be no Madhuparka without flesh
or if one is unable to offer flesh one may cook ground grains.
Thus the essential element in Madhuparka is flesh and particularly
cow’s flesh.
The killing of cow for the guest had grown to such an extent that
the guest came to be called ‘Go-ghna’ which means the killer of the
cow. To avoid this slaughter of the cows the Ashvalayana Grahya
Sutra (1.24.25) suggests that the cow should be let loose when the
guest comes so as to escape the rule of etiquette.
Thirdly, reference may be made to the ritual relating to disposal
of the dead to counter the testimony of the Apastamba Dharma Sutra.
The Sutra says1 :-
“1. He should then put the following (sacrificial) implements (on the
dead body)
2. Into the right hand the (spoon called) Guhu.
3. Into the left the (other spoon called) Upabhrit.
4. On his right side the wooden sacrificial sword called Sphya, on his
left side the Agnihotrahavani (i.e., the laddle with which the
Agnihotra oblations are sacrified).
5. On his chest the (big sacrificial laddle called) Dhruva. On his head
the dishes. On his teeth the pressing stones.
6. On the two sides of his nose, the two smaller sacrificial laddies called
Sruvas.
7. Or, if there is only one (Sruva), breaking it (in two pieces).
8. On his two ears the two Prasitraharanas (i.e, the vessels into which
the portion of the sacrificial food belonging to the Brahmin) is put
9. Or, if there is only one (Prasitraharana), breaking it (in two pieces).
10. On his belly the (vessel called) Patri.
11. And the cup into which the cut-off portion (of the sacrificial food)
are put.
12. On his secret parts the (staff called) Samy.
13. On his thighs two kindling woods.
14. On his legs the mortar and the pestle.
15. On his feet the two baskets.
16. Or, if there is only one (basket), breaking it in two pieces.
17. Those of the implements which have a hollow (into which liquids
can be poured) are filled with sprinkled butter.

1 Kane’s vol. II. Part I p. 545.

18. The son (of the deceased person) should take the under and the
upper mill-stone for himself.
19. And the implements made of copper, iron and earthenware.
20. Taking out the omentum of the she-animal he should cover therewith
the head and the mouth (of the dead person) with the verse, ‘But
on the armour (which will protect thee) against Agni, by that which
comes from the cows.’ (Rig Veda. X.16.7).
21. Taking out the kidneys of the animal he should lay them into the
hands (of the dead body) with the verse, escape the two hounds,
the sons of Sarma (Rig Veda X 14.10) the right kidney into the right
hand and the left into the left hand.
22. The heart of the animals he puts on the heart of the deceased.
23. And two lumps of flour or rice according to some teachers.
24. Only if there are no kidneys according to some teachers.
25. Having distributed the whole (animal), limb by limb (placing its
different limbs on the corresponding limbs of the deceased) and
having covered it with its hide, he recites when the Pranita water
is carried forward (the verse), ‘Agni do not overturn this cup,’ (Rig
Veda, X.16.8).
26. Bending his left knee he should sacrifice Yugya oblation into the
Dakshina fire with the formulas ‘To Agni Svaha, to Kama Svaha,
to the world Svaha, to Anumati Svaha’.
27. A fifth (oblation) on the chest of the deceased with the formula ‘from
this one verily thou hast been born. May he now be born out of
thee. To the heaven worlds Svaha.’ ”
From the above passage quoted from the Ashvalayan Grahya Sutra
it is clear that among the ancient Indo-Aryans when a person died,
an animal had to be killed and the parts of the animal were placed
on the appropriate parts of the dead body before the dead body was
burned.
Such is the state of the evidence on the subject of cow-killing and
beef-eating. Which part of it is to be accepted as true? The correct
view is that the testimony of the Satapatha Brahmana and the
Apastamba Dharma Sutra in so far as it supports the view that
Hindus were against cow-killing and beef-eating, are merely exhortations
against the excesses of cow-killing and not prohibitions against
cow-killing. Indeed the exhortations prove that cow-killing and eating
of beef had become a common practice. That notwithstanding these
exhortations cow-killing and beef-eating continued. That most often
they fell on deaf ears is proved by the conduct of Yajnavalkya, the
great Rishi of the Aryans. The first passage quoted above from the
Satapatha Brahmana was really addressed to Yajnavalkya as an
exhortation. How did Yajnavalkya respond? After listening to the
exhortation this is what Yajnavalkya said :–
“I, for one, eat it, provided that it is tender”
That the Hindus at one time did kill cows and did eat beef is proved
abundantly by the description of the Yajnas given in the Buddhist
Sutras which relate to periods much later than the Vedas and the
Brahmanas. The scale on which the slaughter of cows and animals
took place was colossal. It is not possible to give a total of such
slaughter on all accounts committed by the Brahmins in the name
of religion. Some idea of the extent of this slaughter can however
be had from references to it in the Buddhist literature. As an
illustration reference may be made to the Kutadanta Sutta in which
Buddha preached against the performance of animal sacrifices to
Brahmin Kutadanta. Buddha, though speaking in a tone of sarcastic
travesty, gives a good idea of the practices and rituals of the Vedic
sacrifices when he said:
“And further, O Brahmin, at that sacrifice neither were any oxen slain,
neither goats, nor fowls, nor fatted pigs, nor were any kind of living creatures
put to death. No trees were cut down to be used as posts, no Darbha grasses
mown to stress around the sacrificial spot. And the slaves and messengers
and workmen there employed were driven neither by rods nor fear, nor carried
on their work weeping with tears upon their faces.”
Kutadanta on the other hand in thanking Buddha for his conversion
gives an idea of the magnitude of the slaughter of animals which
took place at such sacrifices when he says :-
“I, even I betake myself to the venerable Gotama as my guide, to the
Doctrine and the Order. May the venerable One accept me as a disciple, as
one who, from this day forth, as long as life endures, has taken him as his
guide. And I myself, O, Gotama, will have the seven hundred bulls, and the
seven hundred steers, and the seven hundred heifers, and the seven hundred
goats, and the seven hundred rams set free. To them I grant their life. Let
them eat grass and drink fresh water and may cool breezes waft around them.”
In the Samyuta Nikaya (III,1-9) we have another description of
a Yajna performed by Pasenadi, king of Kosala. It is said that five
hundred bulls, five hundred calves and many heifers, goats and rams
were led to the pillar to be sacrificed.
With this evidence no one can doubt that there was a time when
Hindus –both Brahmins and non-Brahmins –ate not only flesh but
also beef.


____
Volume 7

CHAPTER XI
 
WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS? How they came to be the Fourth Varna in the Indo-Aryan Society • Book • 1947

Democracy and Hindu social system

 RIDDLE NO. 22
BRAHMA IS NOT DHARMA. WHAT
GOOD IS BRAHMA?


There are various forms of Government known to history—Monarchy,
Aristocracy and Democracy to which may be added Dictatorship.
The most prevalent form of Government at the present time is
Democracy. There is however no unanimity as to what constitutes
Democracy. When one examines the question one finds that there are
two views about it. One view is that Democracy is a form of Government.
According to this view where the Government is chosen by the people
that is where Government is a representative Government there is
Democracy. According to this view Democracy is just synonymous with
Representative Government which means adult suffrage and periodical
elections.

According to another view a democracy is more than a form of
Government. It is a form of the organization of Society. There are two
essential conditions which characterize a democratically constituted
society. First is the absence of stratification of society into classes. The
Second is a social habit on the part of individuals and groups which is
ready for continuous readjustment or recognition of reciprocity of interests.
As to the first there can be no doubt that it is the most essential condition
of Democracy. As Prof. Dewey1 has observed:

[Quotation referred to by the author is not recorded in the original MS
from ‘Democracy and Education’, by Dewey p. 98.]

The second condition is equally necessary for a democratically
constituted society. The results of this lack of reciprocity of interests

This chapter consists about 20 pages out of which first two pages and the
concluding six are in the handwriting of the author. The rest are typed
pages with all necessary modifications by Dr. Ambedkar.—Ed.


among groups and individuals produce anti-democratic results which
have been well described by Prof. Dewey1 when he says:

[Quotation from ‘Democracy and Education’ of page 99 referred to by
the author is not recorded in the original MS.]

Of the two views about democracy there is no doubt that the first
one is very superficial if not erroneous. There cannot be democratic
Government unless the society for which it functions is democratic in
its form and structure. Those who hold that democracy need be no more
than a mere matter of elections seem to make three mistakes.
One mistake they make is to believe that Government is something
which is quite distinct and separate from society. As a matter of fact
Government is not something which is distinct and separate from Society.
Government is one of the many institutions which Society rears and to
which it assigns the function of carrying out some of the duties which
are necessary for collective social life.
The Second mistake they make lies in their failure to realize that
a Government is to reflect the ultimate purposes, aims, objects and
wishes of society and this can happen only where the society in which
the Government is rooted is democratic. If society is not democratic,
Government can never be. Where society is divided into two classes
governing and the governed the Government is bound to be the
Government of the governing class.
The third mistake they make is to forget that whether Government
would be good or bad democratic or undemocratic depends to a large
extent up on the instrumentalities particularly the Civil Service on
which every where Government has to depend for administering the
Law. It all depends upon the social milieu in which civil servants are
nurtured. If the social milieu is undemocratic the Government is bound
to be undemocratic.

There is one other mistake which is responsible for the view that
for democracy to function it is enough to have a democratic form of
Government. To realize this mistake it is necessary to have some idea
of what is meant by good Government.

Good Government means good laws and good administration. This is
the essence of good Government. Nothing else can be. Now there cannot
be good Government in this sense if those who are invested with ruling
power seek the advantage of their own class instead of the advantage
of the whole people or of those who are downtrodden.
Whether the Democratic form of Government will result in good
will depend upon the disposition of the individuals composing society.
If the mental disposition of the individuals is democratic then the

1 Democracy & Education p. 99.

democratic form of Government can be expected to result in good
Government. If not, democratic form of Government may easily become
a dangerous form of Government. If the individuals in a society are
separated into classes and the classes are isolated from one another
and each individual feels that his loyalty to his class must come before
his loyalty to every thing else and living in class compartments he
becomes class conscious bound to place the interests of his class above
the interests of others, uses his authority to pervert law and justice
to promote the interests, of his class and for this purpose practises
systematically discrimination against persons who do not belong to his
caste in every sphere of life what can a democratic Government do. In a
Society where classes clash and are charged with anti-social feelings and
spirit of aggressiveness, the Government can hardly discharge its task of
governing with justice and fairplay. In such a society, Government even
though it may in form be a government of the people and by the people
it can never be a Government for the people. It will be a Government by
a class for a class. A Government for the people can be had only where
the attitude of each individual is democratic which means that each
individual is prepared to treat every other individual as his equal and is
prepared to give him the same liberty which he claims for himself. This
democratic attitude of mind is the result of socialization of the individual
in a democratic society. Democratic society is therefore a prerequisite of
a democratic Government. Democratic Governments have toppled down
in largely due to the fact that the society for which they were set up
was not democratic.

Unfortunately to what extent the task of good Government depends
upon the mental and moral disposition of its subjects has seldom been
realized. Democracy is more than a political machine. It is even more
than a social system. It is an attitude of mind or a philosophy of life.
Some equate Democracy with equality and liberty. Equality and liberty
are no doubt the deepest concern of Democracy. But the more important
question is what sustains equality and liberty? Some would say that it
is the law of the state which sustains equality and liberty. This is not a
true answer. What sustains equality and liberty is fellow-felling. What
the French Revolutionists called fraternity. The word fraternity is not
an adequate expression. The proper term is what the Buddha called,
Maitree. Without Fraternity Liberty would destroy equality and equality
would destroy liberty. If in Democracy liberty does not destroy equality
and equality does not destroy liberty, it is because at the basis of both
there is fraternity. Fraternity is therefore the root of Democracy.

The foregoing discussion is merely a preliminary to the main question.
That question is—wherein lie the roots of fraternity without which
Democracy is not possible? Beyond dispute, it has its origin in Religion.
In examining the possibilities of the origin of Democracy or its
functioning successfully one must go to the Religion of the people and
ask—does it teach fraternity or does it not? If it does, the chances for a
democratic Government are great. If it does not, the chances are poor. Of
course other factors may affect the possibilities. But if fraternity is not
there, there is nothing to built democracy on. Why did Democracy not
grow in India? That is the main question. The answer is quite simple.
The Hindu Religion does not teach fraternity. Instead it teaches division
of society into classes or varnas and the maintenance of separate class
consciousness. In such a system where is the room for Democracy ?
The Hindu social system is undemocratic not by accident. It is designed
to be undemocratic. Its division of society into varnas and castes, and
of castes and outcastes are not theories but are decrees. They are all
barricades raised against democracy.

From this it would appear that the doctrine of fraternity was unknown
to the Hindu Religious and Philosophic thought. But such a conclusion
would not be warranted by the facts of history. The Hindu Religious and
Philosophic thought gave rise to an idea which had greater potentialities
for producing social democracy than the idea of fraternity. It is the
doctrine of Brahmaism1.
It would not be surprising if some one asked what is this Brahmaism?
It is something new even to Hindus. The Hindus are familiar with
Vedanta. They are familar with Brahmanism. But they are certainly
not familiar with Brahmaism. Before proceeding further a few words of
explanation are necessary.

There are three strands in the philosophic and religious thought of
the Hindus. They may be designated as (1) Brahmaism (2) Vedanta
and (3) Brahmanism. Although they are correlated they stand for three
different and distinct ideologies.
The essence of Brahmaism is summed up in a dogma which is stated
in three different forms. They are—
(i) Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma—All this is Brahma.
(ii) Aham Brahmasmi—Atmana (Self) is the same as Brahma.
Therefore I am Brahma.
(iii) Tattvamasi—Atmana (Self) is the same as Brahma.
Therefore thou art also Brahma.
1 have borrowed this word from Prof. Hopkin’s–The Epics of India.

They are called Mahavakyas which means Great Sayings and they
sum up the essence of Brahmaism.
The following are the dogmas which sum up the teachings of Vedant—
I Brahma is the only reality.
II The world is maya or unreal.
III Jiva and Brahma are—
(i) according to one school identical;
(ii) according to another not identical but are elements of him
and not separate from him;
(iii) according to the third school they are distinct and separate.
The creed of Bramhanism may be summed up in the following dogmas—
(i) Belief in the chaturvarna.
(ii) Sanctity and infallibility of the Vedas.
(iii) Sacrifices to Gods the only way to salvation.
Most people know the distinction between the Vedanta and Brahmanism
and the points of controversy between them. But very few people know
the distinction between Brahmaism and Vedanta. Even Hindus are not
aware of the doctrine of Brahmaism and the distinction between it and
Vedanta. But the distinction is obvious. While Brahmaism and Vedanta
agree that Atman is the same as Brahma. But the two differ in that
Brahmaism does not treat the world as unreal, Vedanta does. This is
the fundamental difference between the two.
The essence of Brahmaism is that the world is real and the reality
behind the world is Brahma. Everything therefore is of the essence of
Brahma.

There are two criticisms which have been levelled against Brahmaism.
It is said that Brahmaism is piece of impudence. For a man to say
“I am Brahma” is a kind of arrogance. The other criticism levelled
against Brahmaism is the inability of man to know Brahma. ‘I am
Brahma’ may appear to be impudence. But it can also be an assertion
of one’s own worth. In a world where humanity suffers so much from
an inferiority complex such an assertion on the part of man is to
be welcomed. Democracy demands that each individual shall have
every opportunity for realizing its worth. It also requires that each
individual shall know that he is as good as everybody else. Those who
sneer at Aham Brahmasmi (I am Brahma) as an impudent utterance
forget the other part of the Maha Vakya namely Tatvamasi (Thou
art also Brahma). If Aham Brahmasmi has stood alone without the
conjunct of Tatvamasi it may not have been possible to sneer at it. But with the conjunct of Tatvanmsi the charge of selfish arrogance cannot
stand against Brahmaism.

It may well be that Brahma is unknowable. But all the same this
theory of Brahma has certain social implications which have a tremendous
value as a foundation for Democracy. If all persons are parts of Brahma
then all are equal and all must enjoy the same liberty which is what
Democracy means. Looked at from this point of view Brahma may be
unknowable. But there cannot be slightest doubt that no doctrine could
furnish a stronger foundation for Democracy than the doctrine of Brahma.
To support Democracy because we are all children of God is a very
weak foundation for Democracy to rest on. That is why Democracy is so
shaky wherever it made to rest on such a foundation. But to recognize
and realize that you and I are parts of the same cosmic principle leaves
room for no other theory of associated life except democracy. It does not
merely preach Democracy. It makes democracy an obligation of one and all.
Western students of Democracy have spread the belief that Democracy
has stemmed either from Christianity or from Plato and that there is
no other source of inspiration for democracy. If they had known that
India too had developed the doctrine of Brahmaism which furnishes a
better foundation for Democracy they would not have been so dogmatic.
India too must be admitted to have a contribution towards a theoretical
foundation for Democracy.

The question is what happened to this doctrine of Brahmaism ? It is
quite obvious that Brahmaism had no social effects. It was not made
the basis of Dharma. When asked why this happened the answer is that
Brahmaism is only philosophy, as though philosophy arises not out of
social life but out of nothing and for nothing. Philosophy is no purely
theoretic matter. It has practical potentialities. Philosophy has its roots
in the problems of life and whatever theories philosophy propounds
must return to society as instruments of re-constructing society. It is
not enough to know. Those who know must endeavour to fulfil.
Why then Brahmaism failed to produce a new society? This is a
great riddle. It is not that the Brahmins did not recognize the doctrine
of Brahmaism. They did. But they did not ask how they could support
inequality between the Brahmin and the Shudra, between man and
woman, between casteman and outcaste ? But they did not. The result
is that we have on the one hand the most democratic principle of
Brahmaism and on the other hand a society infested with castes,
sub-outcastes, primitive tribes and criminal tribes. Can there be
a greater dilemma than this ? What is more ridiculous is the teaching of
the Great Shankaracharya. For it was this Shankarcharya who taught
that there is Brahma and this Brahma is real and that it pervades all
and at the same time upheld all the inequities of the Brahmanic society.
Only a lunatic could be happy with being the propounder of two such
contradictions. Truely as the Brahmin is like a cow, he can eat anything
and everything as the cow does and remain a Brahmin.

Caste System

Temple Entry Won’t Make Equals

N.B :- This is the content of the letter written by Dr. Ambedkar to Mr. Bhaurao Gaikwad on 3rd March 1934, regarding the KalaRam Temple Entry Satyagraha-which stated on 2nd March 1930 , but whose preparation was underway for months. It started “with” the leadership of Dr. Ambedkar. His inaugural speech remained consistent with the conviction in which the Satyagraha was withdrawn. It was stopped immediately after the reciept the the said letter.

….. It is very kind of you to have asked me my views on the propriety of the Depressed Classes launching upon a Satyagraha at the Kala Ram Temple in Nasik on the coming Ram Navami Day. I have no position in saying that such a move would be quite uncalled for and should not merely be suspended but stopped altogether. This may appear strange and surprising coming as it does from one who was the author of the Satyagraha. But I am afraid to declare this change of front. I didn’t launch the temple entry movement because I wanted the Depressed Classes to become worshipers of idols which they were prevented from worshiping or because I believed temple entry would make them equal members in and an integral part of the Hindu Society. So far as this aspect of the case is concerned I would advise the Depressed Classes to insist upon a complete overhauling of Hindu Society and Hindu theology before they consent to become an integral part of Hindu Society. I started temple entry Satyagraha only because I felt that was the best way of energizing th Depressed Classes and making them conscious of their position. As I believe I have achieved that purpose I have no more use for temple entry. I want the Depressed Classes to concentrate their energy and resource on politics and education and I hope that they will realise the importance of both.

SECTION- IV Kalaram Temple entry Satryagraha, Nasik and Temple entry movement, Volume-XVII. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writing and Speeches

Do Depressed Classes Desire Temple Entry?

N. B. :- Gandhi requested Dr. Ambedkar to lend his support to Dr. Subbarayan’s Temple entry Bill and that of Ranga Iyer-when both met on 4th Feb. 1934 at Yeravada Prison. Dr. Ambedkar declined in person, and later issued a statement on 14th Feb, 1933. He outlined the impracticability of the bill, crticised it for not making Untouchability illegal and outlined why he would not prefer just temple entry-this part is reproduced here.

The main question is : Do the Depressed Classes desire Temple Entry or do they not ? This main question is viewed by the Depressed Classes by two points of view. One is the materialistic point of view. Starting from it, the Depressed Classes think that the surest way of elevation lies in education, higher employment and better ways of earning a living. Once they become well placed in the scale of social life, they would become respectable the religious outlook of the orthodox towards them is sure to undergo change, and even if it didn’t happen, it can do no injury to their material interest. Proceeding on these lines the Depressed Classes say that they will not spend their resources on such an empty things as Temple Entry. There is another reason why they do not care to fight for it. Their argument is the argument of self-respect.

Not very long ago there used to be boards on club doors and other social resorts maintained by Europeans in India, which said “Dogs and Indians” are not allowed. The temples of Hindus carry similar boards today, the only difference is that the boards on the Hindu temples practically say : “All Hindus and all animals including gods are admitted, only Untouchables are not admitted”. The situation in both cases is of parity. But Hindus never begged for admission in those places form which the Europeans in their arrogance had excluded them. Why should an Untouchable beg for admission in a place from which he has been excluded by the the arrogance of the Hindus? This is the reason of the Depressed Class man who is interested in material welfare. He is prepared to say the Hindus, “to open or not to open your temples is a question for you to consider and not for me to agitate. If you think, it is bad manners not to respect the sacredness of human personality, open your temple and be a gentleman. If you rather be a Hindu than a gentleman, then shut the doors and damn yourself for I don’t care to come.”

I found it necessary to put the argument in this form, because I want to disabuse the minds of men like Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya of their belief that the Depressed Classes are looking forward for their patronage.

The second point of view is the spiritual one. As religiously minded people, do the Depressed Classes desire temple entry or do they not ? That is the question. From the spiritual point of view, they are not indifferent to temple entry as they would be, if the material point of view alone were to prevail. But their final answer must depend upon the reply which Mahatma Gandhi and the Hindus give to the questions namely : What is the drive behind this offer of temple entry ? Is temple entry to be the final goal of the advancement in the social status of the Depressed Classes in the Hindu fold ? Or is it only the first step and if it is the first step, what is the ultimate goal ? Temple entry as a final goal, the Depressed Classes can never support. Indeed they will not only reject it, but they would then regard themselves rejected by Hindu Society and free to find their own destiny elsewhere. On the other hand, if is only to be a first step they may be inclined to support it. The position would then be analogous to what is happening in India today. All Indians have claimed dominion status for India. The actual constitution will fall short of Dominion status and many Indians will accept it. Why ? The answer is that as the goal is defined, it does not matter much if it is to be reached by steps and not in one jump. But if the British had not accepted the goal of Dominion status, no one would have accepted the partial reforms which many are now willing to accept. In the same way, if Mahatma Gandhi and the reformers were to proclaim what the goal which they have set before themselves is for the advancement of the social status of the Depressed Classes in the Hindu fold, it would be easier for the Depressed Classes to define their attitude towards Temple entry. The goal of the Depressed Classes might as well be stated here for the information and consideration of all concerned. What the Depressed Classes want is a religion,, which will give them equality of social status. To prevent any misunderstanding,I would like to elaborate the point by drawing a distinction between social evils are which are the result of secular causes and social evils which are founded upon doctrine of religion. Social evils can have no justification whatsoever in a civilised society. But nothing can be more odious and vile than that admitted social evils should be sought to be justified on the ground of religion. The Depressed Classes may not be able to overthrow inequalities to which they are being subjected. But they have made up their mind not to tolerate a religion that will lend its support to the continuance of these inequalities.

If the Hindu religion is to be their religion, then it must become a religion of Social Equality. The mere amendment of Hindu religious code by the mere inclusion in it of a provision to permit temple entry for all, cannot make it a religion of equality of social status. All that it can do is to recognize as nationals not aliens, if I may use the common terms which have become so familiar in politics. But that cannot mean that they would thereby reach a position where they would be free and equal. , without being above and below any one else, for the simple reason that the Hindu religion does not recognise the principle of equality of social status : on the other hand it fosters inequality by insisting upon grading people as Brahmins, Kshatrias, Vaishyas and Shudras, which now stand toward one another in an ascending scale of hatred and descending scale of contempt. If the Hindu Religion is to be a religion of social equality then an amendment of its code to provide temple entry is not enough. What is required is to purge it of the doctrine of chaturvarna. That is the root cause of all inequality and also the parent of the Caste system and Untouchability, which are merely forms of inequality. Unless it is done not only will the Depressed Classes reject the temple entry, they will also reject the Hindu faith. Chaturvarna and the Caste system are incompatible with the self-respect of the Depressed Classes. So long as they stand to be its cardinal doctrine, the depressed classes must continue to be looked upon as low. The Depressed Classes can say that they are Hindus only the theory of Chaturvarna and Caste system is abandoned and expunged from the Hindu shastras. Do the Mahatma and the Hindu reformers accept this as their goal and will they show the courage to work for it ? I shall look forward to their pronouncements on this issue, before I decide upon my final attitude. But whether Mahatma Gandhi and the Hindus are prepared for this or not, let it be known once and for all that nothing short of this will satisfy the Depressed Classes and make them accept temple entry. To accept temple entry and be content with it, is to temporise with evil and barter away the sacredness of human personality that dwells in them.

There is, however, one more argument which Mahatma Gandhi and the reforming Hindu may advance against the position I have taken. They may say : “acceptance by the Depressed Classes of Temple entry now, will not prevent them from agitating hereafter for the abolition of Chaturvarna and Caste. If that is the view, I like to meet the argument right at this stage so as to clinch the issue and clear the road for future developments. My reply is that it is true that the my right to agitate for the abolition of Chaturvarna and Caste system will not be lost, if I accept Temple entry now. But the question is on what side will Mahatma Gandhi be when the question is put. If he will be in the camp of my opponents, I must tell him I cant be in in camp now. If he will be in my camp he ought to be in it now.

(Almost all the Depressed Classes leaders of Dr. Ambedkar’s persuasions, endorsed the view of their leader. Srinivasan, Permtai and Malik upheld views of their leader.

Gandhi issued a statement in reply in which he stated : “I am a Hindu, not merely because I am born in the Hindu fold, but I am one by conviction and choice. There is no superiority or inferiority in Hinduism of my conception. But when Dr. Ambedkar wants to fight Varnashram itself, I cannot be in his camp, because I believe Varnashram to be an integral part of Hinduism. )

SECTION- IV Kalaram Temple entry Satryagraha, Nasik and Temple entry movement, Volume-XVII. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writing and Speeches

Does Hinduism recognize Equality?

The question instantaneously brings to one's mind the caste system. One striking feature of the caste system is that the different castes do not stand as an horizontal series all on the same plane. It is a system in which the different castes are placed in a vertical series one above the other. Manu may not be responsible for the creation of caste. Manupreached the sanctity of the Varna and as I have shown Varna is the parent of caste. In that sense Manu can be charged with being the progenitor if not the author of the Caste System. Whatever be the case as to the guilt of Manu regarding the Caste System there can be no question that Manu is responsible for upholding the principle of gradation and rank.

In the scheme of Manu the Brahmin is placed at the first in rank. Below him is the Kshatriya. Below Kshatriya is the Vaishya. Below Vaishya is the Shudra and Below Shudra is the Ati-Shudra (the Untouchables). This system of rank and gradation is, simply another way of enunciating the principle of inequality so that it may be truly said that Hinduism does not recognize equality. This inequality in status is not merely the inequality that one sees in the warrant of precedence prescribed for a ceremonial gathering at a King's Court. It is a permanent social relationship among the classes to be observed— to be enforced—at all times in all places and for all purposes. It will take too long to show how in every phase of life Manu has introduced and made inequality the vital force of life. But I will illustrate it by taking a few examples such as slavery, marriage and Rule of Law.

Manu recognizes[f15] Slavery. But he confined it to the Shudras. Only Shudras could be made slaves of the three higher classes. But the higher classes could not be the slaves of the Shudra.


But evidently practice differed from the law of Manu and not only Shudras happened to become slaves but members of the other three classes also become slaves. When this was discovered to be the case a new rule was enacted by a Successor of Manu namely Narada[f16]. This new rule of Narada runs as follows :—

V 39. In the inverse order of the four castes slavery is not ordained except where a man violates the duties peculiar to his caste. Slavery (in that respect) is analogous to the condition of a wife."

Recognition of slavery was bad enough. But if the rule of slavery had been left free to take its own course it would have had at least one beneficial effect. It would have been a levelling force. The foundation of caste would have been destroyed. For under it a Brahmin might have become the slave of the Untouchable and the Untouchable would have become the master of the Brahmin. But it was seen that unfettered slavery was an equalitarian principle and an attempt was made to nullify it. Manu and his successors therefore while recognising slavery ordain that it shall not be recognised in its inverse order to the Varna System. That means that a Brahmin may become the slave of another Brahmin. But he shall not be the slave of a person of another Varna i.e. of the Kshatriya,Vaishya, Shudra, or Ati-Shudra. On the other hand a Brahmin may hold as his slave any one belonging to the four Varnas. A Kshatriya can have a Kshatriya, Vaisha, Shudra and Ati-Shudra as his slaves but not one who is a Brahmin. A Vaishya can have a Vaishya, Shudra and Ati-Shudra as his slaves but not one who is a Brahmin or a Kshatriya. A Shudra can hold a Shudra and Ati-shudra can hold an Ati-Shudra as his slave but not one who is a Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shudra.


Consider Manu on marriage. Here are his rules governing intermarriage among the different classes. Manu says :—-

III. 12. "For the first marriage of the twice born classes, a woman of the same class is recommended but for such as are impelled by inclination to marry again, women in the direct order of the classes are to be preferred."

III. 13. "A Shudra woman only must be the wife of Shudra: she and a Vaisya, of a Vaisya; they two and a Kshatriya, of a Kshatriya; those two and a Brahmani of a Brahman."

Manu is of course opposed to intermarriage. His injunction is for each class to marry within his class. But he does recognize marriage outside the defined class. Here again he is particularly careful not to allow intermarriage to do harm to his principle of inequality among classes. Like Slavery he permits intermarriage but not in the inverse order. A Brahmin when marrying outside his class may marry any woman from any of the classes below him. A Kshatriya is free to marry a woman from the two classes next below him namely the Vaishya and Shudra but must not marry a woman from the Brahmin class which is above him. A Vaishya is free to marry a woman from the Shudra Class which is next below him. But he cannot marry a woman from the Brahmin and the Kshatriya Class which are above him.

Why this discrimination? The only answer is that Manu was most anxious to preserve the rule of inequality which was his guiding principle.

Take Rule of Law. Rule of Law is generally understood to mean equality before law. Let any one interested to know what Manu has to say on the point ponder over the following Rules extracted from his code which for easy understanding I have arranged under distinct headings.

As to witnesses.—According to Manu they are to be sworn as follows :—

VIII. 87. "In the forenoon let the judge, being purified, severally call on the twice-born, being purified also, to declare the truth, in the presence of some image, a symbol of the divinity and of Brahmins, while the witnesses turn their faces either to the north or to the east."

VIII. 88. "To a Brahman he must begin with saying, `Declare ; to a Kshatriya, with saying, ' Declare the truth '; to a Vaisya, with comparing perjury to the crime of stealing kine,grain or gold ; to a Sudra, with comparing it in some or all of the following sentences, to every crime that men can commit.".

VIII. 113. "Let the judge cause a priest to swear by his veracity ; a soldier, by his horse, or elephant, and his weapons ; a merchant, by his kine, grain, and gold ; a mechanic or servile man, by imprecating on his own head, if he speak falsely, all possible crimes ;"

Manu also deals with cases of witnesses giving false evidence. According to Manu giving false evidence is a crime, says Manu :—

VIII. 122. "Learned men have specified these punishments, which were ordained by sage legislators for perjured witnesses, with a view to prevent a failure of justice and to restrain iniquity."

VIII. 123. "Let a just prince banish men of the three lower classes, if they give false evidence, having first levied the fine ; but a Brahman let him only banish." But Manu made one exception :—

VIII. 1 12. "To women, however, at a time of dalliance, or on a proposal of marriage, in the case of grass or fruit eaten by a cow, of wood taken for a sacrifice, or of a promise made for the preservation of a Brahman, it is deadly sin to take a light oath." As parties to proceedings—Their position can be illustrated by quoting the ordinances of Manu relating to a few of the important criminal offences dealt with by Manu. Take the offence of Defamation. Manu says :—

VIII. 267. "A soldier, defaming a priest, shall be fined a hundred panas, a merchant, thus offending, an hundred and fifty, or two hundred; but, for such an offence, a mechanic or servile man shall be shipped."

III. 268. "A priest shall be fined fifty, if he slander a soldier; twenty five, if a merchant ; and twelve, if he slander a man of the servile class." Take the offence of Insult—Manu says:—

VIII. 270. "A once born man, who insults the twice-born with gross invectives, ought to have his tongue slit ; for he sprang from the lowest part of Brahma."

VIII. 271. "If he mention their names and classes with contumely, as if he say, "Oh Devadatta, though refuse of Brahmin", an iron style, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red into his mouth."

VIII. 272. "Should he, through pride, give instruction to priests concerning their duty, let the king order some hot oil to be dropped into his mouth and his ear." Take the offence of Abuse—Manu says :—


VIII. 276. "For mutual abuse by a priest and a soldier, this fine must be imposed by a learned king; the lowest amercement on the priest, and the middle-most on the soldier."


VIII. 277. "Such exactly, as before mentioned, must be the punishment a merchant and a mechanic, in respect of their several classes, except the slitting of the tongue ; this is a fixed rule of punishment. " Take the offence of Assault—Manu propounds :—


VIII. 279. "With whatever member a low-born man shall assault or hurt a superior, even that member of his must be slit, or cut more or less in proportion to the injury ; this is an ordinance of Manu."


VIII. 280. "He who raises his hand or a staff against another, shall have his hand cut ; and he, who kicks another in wrath, shall have an incision made in his foot." Take the offence of Arrogance—According to Manu:—


VIII. 28). "A man of the lowest class, who shall insolently place himself on the same seat with one of the highest, shall either be banished with a mark on his hinder parts, or the king, shall cause a gash to be made on his buttock."


VIII. 282. "Should he spit on him through price, the king shall order both his lips to be gashed; should he urine on him, his penis: should he break wing against him, his anus."


VIII. 283. "If he seize the Brahman by the locks, or by the feet, or by the beard, or by the throat, or by the scrotum, let the king without hesitation cause incisions to be made in his hands." Take the offence of Adultery. Says Manu:—


VIII. 359. "A man of the servile class, who commits actual adultery with the wife of a priest, ought to suffer death; the wives, indeed, of all the four classes must ever be most especially guarded."


VIII. 366. "A low man, who makes love to a damsel of high birth, ought to be punished corporal; but he who addresses a maid of equal rank, shall give the nuptial present and marry her, if her father please."


VIII. 374. "A mechanic or servile man, having an adulterous connection with a woman of a twice-born class, whether guarded at home or unguarded, shall thus be punished ; if she was unguarded, he shall lose the part offending, and his whole substance ; if guarded, and a priestess, every thing, even his life."


VIII. 375. "For adultery with a guarded priestess, a merchant shall forfeit all his wealth after imprisonment for a year; a soldier shall be fined a thousand panas, and he be shaved with the urine of an ass."


VIII. 376. "But, if a merchant or soldier commit adultery with a woman of the sacerdotal class, whom her husband guards not at home, the king shall only fine the merchant five hundred, and the soldier a thousand;”


VIII. 377. "Both of them, however, if they commit that offence with a priestess not only guarded but eminent for good qualities, shall be punished like men of the servile class, or be burned in a fire of dry grass or reeds."


VIII. 382. "If a merchant converse criminally with a guarded woman of the military, or a soldier with one of the mercantile class, they both deserve the same punishment as in the case of a priestess unguarded."


VIII. 383. "But a Brahman, who shall commit adultery with a guarded woman of those two classes, must be fined a thousand panas; and for the life offence with a guarded woman of the servile class, the fine of a soldier or a merchant shall be also one thousand."


VIII. 384. "For adultery with a woman of the military class, if guarded, the fine of a merchant is five hundred ; but a soldier, for the converse of that offence, must be shaved with urine, or pay the fine just mentioned."


VIII. 385. "A priest shall pay five hundred panas if he connect himself criminally with an unguarded woman of the military, commercial, or servile class, and a thousand, for such a connection with a woman of a vile mixed breed."


Turning to the system of punishment for offences Manu's Scheme throws an interesting light on the subject. Consider the following ordinances :—


VIII. 379. "Ignominious tonsure is ordained, instead of capital punishment, for an adulterer of the priestly class, where the punishment of other classes may extend to Loss of life."


VIII. 380. "Never shall the king slay a Brahman, though convicted of all possible crimes ; let him banish the offender from his realm, but with all his property secure, and his body unhurt."


XI. 127. "For killing intentionally a virtuous man of the military class, the penance must be a fourth part of that ordained for killing a priest ; for killing a Vaisya, only an eighth, for killing a Sudra, who had been constant in discharging his duties, a sixteenth part."


XI. 128. "But, if a Brahmen kill a Kshatriya without malice, he must, after a full performance of his religious rites, give the priests one bull together with a thousand cows."


XI. 129. "Or he may perform for three years the penance for slaying a Brahmen, mortifying his organs of sensation and action, letting his hair grow long, and living remote from the town, with the root of a tree for his mansion."


XI. 130. "If he kill without malice a Vaisya, who had a good moral character, he may perform the same penance for one year, or give the priests a hundred cows and a bull."


XI. 131. "For six months must he perform this whole penance, if without intention he kill a Sudra; or he may give ten white cows and a bull to the priests."


VIII. 381. "No greater crime is known on earth than slaying a Brahman; and the king, therefore, must not even form in his mind an idea of killing a priest."


VIII. 126. "Let the king having considered and ascertained the frequency of a similar offence, the place and time, the ability of the criminal to pay or suffer and the crime itself, cause punishment to fall on those alone, who deserves it."


VIII. 124. "Manu, son of the Self-existent, has named ten places of punishment, which are appropriated to the three lower classes, but a Brahman must depart from the realm unhurt in any one of them."


VIII. 125. "The part of generation, the belly, the tongue, the two hands, and, fifthly, the two feet, the eye, the nose, both ears, the property, and, in a capital case, the whole body."How strange is the contrast between Hindu and Non-Hindu criminal jurisprudence? How inequality is writ large in Hinduism as seen in its criminal jurisprudence? In a penal code charged with the spirit of justice we find two things—a section dealing defining the crime and a prescribing a rational form of punishment for breach of it and a rule that all offenders are liable to the same penalty. In Manu what do we find? First an irrational system of punishment. The punishment for a crime is inflicted on the organ concerned in the crime such as belly, tongue, nose, eyes, ears, organs of generation etc., as if the offending organ was a sentient being having a will for its own and had not been merely a servitor of human being. Second feature of Manu's penal code is the inhuman character of the punishment which has no proportion to the gravity of the offence. But the most striking feature of Manu's Penal Code which stands out in all its nakedness is the inequality of punishment for the same offence. Inequality designed not merely to punish the offender but to protect also the dignity and to maintain the baseness of the parties coming to a Court of Law to seek justice in other words to maintain the social inequality on which his whole scheme is founded.


So far I have taken for illustrations such matters as serve to show * how Manu has ordained social inequality. I now propose to take other matters dealt with by Manu in order to illustrate that Manu has also ordained Religious inequality. These are matters which are connected with what are called sacraments and Ashrams.


The Hindus like the Christians believe in sacraments. The only difference is that the Hindus have so many of them that even the Roman Catholic Christians would be surprised at the extravagant number observed by the Hindus. Originally their number was forty and covered the most trivial as well as the most important occasions in I a person's life. First they were reduced to twenty. Later on it was reduced to sixteen[f17] and at that figure the sacraments of the Hindus have remained stabilized.


Before I explain how at the core of these rules of sacraments there lies the spirit of inequality the reader must know what the rules are. It is impossible to examine all. It will be enough if I deal with a few of them. I will take only three categories of them, those relating with Initiation, Gayatri and Daily Sacrifices.


First as to Initiation. This initiation is effected by the investitute of a person with the sacred thread. The following are the most important rules of Manu regarding the sacrament of investiture.


II. 36. "In the eighth year from the conception of a Brahman, in the eleventh from that of a Kshatriya, and in the twelfth from that of a Vaisya, let the father invest the child with the mark of his class."


II. 37. "Should a Brahman, or his father for him, be desirous of his advancement in sacred knowledge ; a Kshatriya, of extending his power; or a Vaisya of engaging in mercantile business; the investitute may be made in the fifth, sixth, or eighth years respectively."


II. 38. "The ceremony of investitute hallowed by the Gayatri must not be delayed, in the case of a priest, beyond the sixteenth year ; nor in that of a soldier, beyond the twenty second ; nor in that of a merchant, beyond the twenty fourth."


II. 39. "After that, all youths of these three classes, who have not been invested at the proper time, become vratyas, or outcasts, degraded from the Gayatri, and condemned by the virtuous."


II. 147. "Let a man consider that as a mere human birth, which his parents gave him for their mutual gratification, and which he receives after lying in the womb."


II. 148. "But that birth which his principal acharya, who knows the whole Veda, procures for him by his divine mother the Gayatri, is a true birth ; that birth is exempt from age and from death."


II. 169. "The first birth is from a natural mother; the second, from the ligation of the zone ; the third from the due performance of the sacrifice ; such are the births of him who is usually called twice-born, according to a text of the Veda."


II. 170. "Among them his divine birth is that, which is distinguished by the ligation of the zone, and sacrificial cord ; and in that birth the Gayatri is his mother, and the Acharya, his father." Then let me come to Gayatri. It is a Mantra or an invocation of special spiritual efficacy. Manu explains what it is. II. 76. "Brahma milked out, as it were, from the threeVedas, the letter A, the letter U, and the letter M which form by their coalition the triliteral monosyllable, together with three mysterious words, bhur,bhuvah,swer, or earth, sky, heaven."


II. 77. "From the three Vedas, also the Lord of creatures, incomprehensibly exalted, successively milked out the three measures of that ineffable text, be ginning with the word tad, and entitled Savitri or Gayatri."


II. 78. "A priest who shall know the Veda, and shall pronounce to himself, both morning and evening, that syllable and that holy text preceded by the three words, shall attain the sanctity which the Veda confers."


II. 79. "And a twice born man, who shall a thousand times repeat those three (or om, the vyahritis, and the gayatri,) apart from the multitude, shall be released in a month even from a great offence, as a snake from his slough."


II. 80. "The priest, the soldier, and the merchant, who shall neglect this mysterious text, and fail to perform in due season his peculiar acts of piety, shall meet with contempt among the virtuous."


11.81 "The great immutable words, preceded by the triliteral syllable, and followed by the Gayatri which consists of three measures, must be considered as the mouth, or principal part of the Veda."


II. 82. "Whoever shall repeat, day by day, for three years, without negligence, that sacred text, shall hereafter approach the divine essence, move as freely as air, and assume an ethereal form."


II. 83. "The triliteral monosyllable is an emblem of the Supreme, the suppressions of breath with a mind fixed on God are


the highest devotion ; but nothing is more exalted than the gayatri ; a declaration of truth is more excellent than silence."


II. 84. "All rights ordained in the Veda, oblations to fire, and solemn sacrifices pass away; but that which passes not away, is declared to be the sylableom, thence calledacshare ; since it is a symbol of God, the Lord of created beings."


II. 85. "The act of repeating his Holy Name is ten times better than the appointed sacrifice: an hundred times better when it is heard by no man ; and a thousand times better when it is purely mental."


II. 86. "The four domestic sacraments which are accompanied with the appointed sacrifice, are not equal, though all be united, to a sixteenth part of the sacrifice performed by a repetition of the gayatri." Now to the Daily Sacrifices.


III. 69. "For the sake of expiating offences committed ignorantly in those places mentioned in order, the five great sacrifices were appointed by eminent sages to be performed each day by such as keep house."


III. 70. "Teaching (and studying) the scripture is the sacrifice to the Veda; offering cakes and water, the sacrifice to the Manes, an oblation to fire, the sacrifice to the Deities; giving rice or other food to living creatures, the sacraments of spirits; receiving guests with honour, the sacrifice to men."


III. 71. "Whoever omits not those five great sacrifices, if he has ability to perform them, is untainted by the sons of the five slaughtering places, even though he constantly resides at home."


Turning to the Ashramas. The Ashram theory is a peculiar feature of the philosophy of Hinduism. It is not known to have found a place in the teachings of any other religion. According to the Ashram theory life is to be divided into four stages called Brahmachari,Grahastha, Vanaprastha and Sannyas. In the Brahamachari stage a person is unmarried and devotes his time to the study and education. After this stage is over he enters the stage of a Grahastha i.e. he marries, rears a family and attends to his worldlywelfare. Thereafter he enters the third stage and is then known as a Vanaprastha. As a Vanaprastha he dwells in the forest as a hermit but without severing his ties with his family or without abandoning his rights to his worldly goods. Then comes the fourth and the last stage--that of Sannyas—which means complete renunciation of the world in search of God. The two stages of Braharnchari and Grahastha are natural enough. The two last stages are only recommendatory. There is no compulsion about them. All that Manu lays down is as follows:


VI. 1. A twice born who has thus lived according to the law in the order of householders, may, taking a firm resolution and keeping his organs in subjection, dwell in the forest, duly (observing the rules given below.)


VI. 2. When a householder sees his (skin) wrinkled, and (his hair) white, and the sons of his son, then he may resort to the forest.


VI. 3. Abandoning all food raised by cultivation, all his belongings, he may depart into the forest, either committing his wife to his sons, or accompanied by her.


VI. 33. But having passed the third pan of (a man's natural term of) life in the forest, he may live as an ascetic during the fourth part of his existence, after abandoning all attachment to worldly objects.


The inequality embodied in these rules is real although it may not be quite obvious. Observe that all these sacraments and Ashramas are confined to the twice-born. TheShudras are excluded[f18] from their benefit. Manu of course has no objection to their undergoing the forms of the ceremonies. But he objects to their use of the Sacred Mantras in the performance of the ceremonies. On this Manu says: — X. 127. "Even Shudras, who were anxious to perform (heir entire duty, and knowing what they should perform, imitate the practice of good men in the household sacraments, but without any holy text, except those containing praise and salutation, are so far from sinning, that they acquire just applause." See the following text of Manu for women: — -


II. 66. "The same ceremonies, except that of the sacrificial thread, must be duly performed for women at the same age and in the same order, that the body may be made perfect; but without any text from the Veda."


Why does Manu prohibit the Shudras from the benefit of the Sacraments? His interdict against the Shudras becoming a Sannyasi is a puzzle. Sannyas means and involves renunciation, abandonment of worldly object. In legal language Sannyas is interpreted as being equivalent to civil death. So that when a man becomes a Sannyasi he is treated as being dead from that moment and his heir succeeds immediately. This would be the only consequence, which would follow if a Shudra become a Sannyasi. Such a consequence could hurt nobody except the Shudra himself. Why then this interdict? The issue is important and I will quote Manu to explain the significance and importance of the Sacraments and Sannyas. Let us all ponder over the following relevant texts of Manu :


II. 26. With holy rites, prescribed by the Veda, must the ceremony on conception and other sacraments be performed for twice-born men, which sanctify the body and purify (from sin) in this (life) and after death.


II. 28. By the study of the Veda, by vows, by burnt oblations, by (the recitation of) sacred texts, by the (acquisition of the) three sacred Vedas, by offering (to the gods Rishis and Manes), by (the procreation of) sons, by the Great Sacrifices, and by (Srauta) rites this (human) body is made fit for (union with) Bramha. This is the aim and object of theSamscaras.Manu also explains the aim and object of Sannyas.


VI. 81. He (the Sannyasi) who has in this manner gradually given up all attachments and is freed from all the pairs (of opposites), reposes in Brahman alone.


VI. 85. A twice born man who becomes an ascetic, after the successive performance of the above-mentioned acts, shakes off sin here below and reaches the highest Brahman. From these texts it is clear that according to Manu himself the object of the sacraments is to sanctify the body and purify it from sin in this life and hereafter and to make it fit for union with God. According to Manu the object of Sannyas to reach and repose in God. Yet Manu says that the sacraments and Sannyas are the privileges of the higher classes. They are not open totheShudra. Why? Does not a Shudra need sanctification of his body, purification of his soul? •Does not a Shudra need to have an aspiration to reach God? Manu probably would have answered these questions in the affirmative. Why did he then make such rules. The answer is that he was a staunch believer in social inequality and he knew the danger of admitting religious Equality. If I am equal before God why am I not equal on earth? Manu was probably terrified by this question. Rather than admit and allow religious equality to affect social inequality he preferred to deny religious equality.


Thus in Hinduism you will find both social inequality and religious inequality imbedded in its philosophy.


To prevent man from purifying himself from sin!! To prevent man from getting near to God!! To any rational person such rules must appear to be abnominal and an indication of a perverse mind. It is a glaring instance of how Hinduism is a denial not only of equality but how it is denial of the sacred character of human personality.


This is not all. For Manu does not stop with the non-recognition of human personality. He advocates a deliberate debasement of human personality. I will take only two instances to illustrate this feature of the philosophy of Hinduism.


All those who study the Caste System are naturally led to inquire into the origin of it. Manu being the progenitor of Caste had to give an explanation of the origin of the various castes. What is the origin which Manu gives? His explanation is simple. He says that leaving aside the four original castes the rest are simply baseborn!! He says they are the progeny of fornication and adultery between men and women of the four original castes. The immorality and looseness of character among men and women of the four original castes must have been limitless to account for the rise of innumerable castes consisting of innumerable souls!! Manu makes the wild allegation without stopping to consider what aspersions he is casting upon men and women of the four original castes. For if the chandals—the old name for the Untouchables—are the progeny of a Brahman female and aShudra male then it is obvious that to account for such a large number of Chandals it must be assumed that every Brahman woman was slut and a whore and every Shudra lived an adulterous life with complete abandon. Manu in his mad just for debasing the different castes by ascribing to them an ignoble origin seems deliberately to pervert historical facts. I will give only two illustrations. Take Manu's origin of Magadha and Vaidehik and compare it with the origin of the same castes as given by Panini the great Grammarian. Manu says that Magadha is a caste which is born from sexual intercourse between Vaishya male and Kshatriya female. Manu says that Vaidehik is a caste which is born from sexual intercourse between a Vaishya male and a Brahmin female. Now turn to Panini. Panini says that Magadha means a person who is resident of the country known asMagadha. As to Vaidehik Panini says that Vaidehik means a person who is resident of the country known as Videha. What a contrast!! How cruel it is. Panini lived not later than 300 B.C. Manu lived about 200A.D. How is it that people who bore no stigma in the time of Panini became so stained in the hands of Manu? The answer is that Manu was bent on debasing them. Why Manu was bent on deliberately debasing people is a task which is still awaiting exploration[f19] In the meantime we have the strange contrast that while Religion everywhere else is engaged in the task of raising and ennobling mankind Hinduism is busy in debasing and degrading it.


The other instance I want to use for illustrating the spirit of debasement which is inherent in Hinduism pertains to rules regarding the naming of a Hindu child.


The names among Hindus fall into four classes. They are either connected with (i) family deity (ii) the month in which the child is born (iti) with the planets under which a child is born or (iv) are purely temporal i.e. connected with business. According to Manu the temporal name of a Hindu should consist of two parts and Manu gives directions as to what the first and the second part should denote. The second part of a Brahmin's name shall be a word implying happiness ; of a Kshatriya's a word implying protection; of a Vaishya'sa term expressive of prosperity and of a Shudra's an expression denoting service. Accordingly the Brahmins have Sharma (happiness) or Deva (God), the Kshatriyas have Raja(authority) or Verma (armour), the Vaishyas have Gupta (gifts) or Datta (Giver) and the Shudras have Das (service) for the second part of their names. As to the first part of their names Manu says that in the case of a Brahmin it should denote something auspicious, in the case of a Kshatriya something connected with power, in the case of a Vaishyasomething connected with wealth. But in the case of a Shudra Manu says the first part of his name should denote something contemptible!! Those who think that such a philosophy is incredible would like to know the exact reference. For their satisfaction I am reproducing the following texts from Manu. Regarding the naming ceremony Manu says :—


II. 30. Let (the father perform or) cause to be performed the namadheya (the rite of naming the child), on the tenth or twelfth (day after birth), or on a lucky lunar day, in a luckymuhurta under an auspicious constellation.


II. 31. Let (the first part of) a Brahman's name (denote) something auspicious, a Kshatriya's name be connected with power, and a Vaishya's with wealth, but a Shudra's (express something) contemptible.


II. 32. (The second part of) a Brahman's (name) shall be (a word) implying happiness, of a Kshatriya's (a word) implying protection, of a Vaishya's (a term) expressive of thriving, and of a Shudra's (an expression) denoting service.


Manu will not tolerate the Shudra to have the comfort of a high sounding name. He must be contemptible both in fact and in name.


Enough has been said to show how Hinduism is a denial of equality both social as well as religious and how it is also a degradation of human personality. Does Hinduism recognise liberty?


Liberty to be real must be accompanied by certain social conditions[f20].


In the first place there should be social equality. "Privilege tilts the balance of social action in favour of its possessors. The more equal are the social rights of citizens, the more able they are to utilise their freedom… If liberty is to move to its appointed end it is important that there should be equality."


In the second place there must be economic security. "A man may be free to enter any vocation he may choose. ... Yet if he is deprived of security in employment he becomes a prey of mental and physical servitude incompatible with the very essence of liberty.... The perpetual fear of the morrow, its haunting sense of impending disaster, its fitful search for happiness and beauty which perpetually eludes, shows that without economic security, liberty is not worth having. Men may well be free and yet remain unable to realise the purposes of freedom".


In the third place there must be knowledge made available to all. In the complex world man lives at his peril and he must find his way in it without losing his freedom.


"There can, under these conditions, be no freedom that is worthwhile unless the mind is trained to use its freedom. (Given this fact) the right of man to education becomes fundamental to his freedom. Deprive a man of knowledge and you will make him inevitably the slave of those more fortunate than himself.... deprivation of knowledge is a denial of the power to use liberty for great ends. An ignorant man may be free. ... (But) he cannot employ his freedom so as to give him assurance of happiness."


Which of these conditions does Hinduism satisfy? How Hinduism is a denial of equality has already been made clear. It upholds privilege and inequality. Thus in Hinduism the very first collection for liberty is conspicuous by its absence.


Regarding economic security three things shine out in Hinduism. In the first place Hinduism denies freedom of a vocation. In the Scheme ofManu each man has his avocation preordained for him before he is born. Hinduism allows no choice. The occupation being preordained it has no relation to capacity nor to inclination.


In the second place Hinduism compels people to serve ends chosen by others. Manu tells the Shudra that he is born to serve the higher classes. He exhorts him to make that his ideal. Observe the following rules lay down by Manu.


X. 121. If a Shudra (unable to subsist by serving Brahmanas) seeks a livelihood, he may serve Kshatriyas, or he may also seek to maintain himself by attending on a wealthyVaishya.


X. 122. But let a Shudra serve Brahmans....


Manu does not leave the matter of acting upto the ideal to the Shudra. He goes a step further and provides that the Shudra does not escape or avoid his destined task. For one of the duties enjoined by Manu upon the King is to see that all castes including the Shudra to discharge their appointed tasks.


VIII. 410. "The king should order each man of the mercantile class to practice trade, or money lending, or agriculture and attendance on cattle ; and each man of the servile class to act in the service of the twice born."


VIII. 418. "With vigilant care should the king exert himself in compelling merchants and mechanics to perform their respective duties ; for, when such men swerve from their duty, they throw this world into confusion."


Failure to maintain was made an offence in the King punishable at Law.


VIII. 335. "Neither a father, nor a preceptor, nor a friend, nor a mother, nor a wife, nor a son, nor a domestic priest must be left unpunished by the King, if they adhere not with firmness to their duty."


VIII. 336. "Where another man of lower birth would be fined one pana, the king shall be fined a thousand, and he shall give the fine to the priests, or cast it into the river, this is a sacred rule." These rules have a two-fold significance, spiritual as well as economic. In the spiritual sense they constitute the gospel of slavery. This may not be quite apparent to those who know slavery only by its legal outward form and not by reference to its inner meaning. With reference to its inner meaning a slave as defined by Plato means a person who accepts from another the purposes which control his conduct. In this sense a slave is not an end in him. He is only a means for filling the ends desired by others. Thus understood the Shudra is a slave. In their economic significance the Rules put an interdict on the economic independence of the Shudra. A Shudra, says Manu, must serve. There may not be much in that to complain of. The wrong however consists in that the rules require him to serve others. He is not to serve himself, which means that he must not strive after economic independence. He must forever remain economically dependent on others. For as Manu says:—


1. 91. One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Shudra to serve meekly even these other three castes. In the third place Hinduism leaves no scope for the Shudra to accumulate wealth. Manu's rules regarding the wages to be paid to the Shudra when employed by the three higher classes are very instructive on this point. Dealing with the question of wages to the Shudras, Manu says :—


X. 124. "They must allot to him (Shudra) out of their own family property a suitable maintenance, after considering his ability, his industry, and the number of those whom he is bound to support."


X. 125. "The remnants of their food must be given to him, as well as their old clothes, the refuse of their grain, and their old household furniture.


This is Manu's law of wages. It is not a minimum wage law. It is a maximum wage law. It was also an iron law fixed so low that there was no fear of the Shudra accumulating wealth and obtaining economic security. But Manu did not want to take chances and he went to the length of prohibiting the Shudra from accumulating property. He says imperatively:—


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 Brahmans.


Thus in Hinduism, there is no choice of avocation. There is no economic independence and there is no economic security. Economically, speaking of a Shudra is a precarious thing.


In the matter of the spread of knowledge two conditions are prerequisites. There must be formal education. There must be literacy. Without these two, knowledge cannot spread. Without formal education it is not possible to transmit all the resources and achievements of a complex society. Without formal education the accumulated thought and experience relating to a subject cannot be made accessible to the young and which they will never get if they were left to pick up their training in informal association with others. Without formal education he will not get new perceptions. His horizon will not be widened and he will remain an ignorant slave of his routine work. But formal education involves the establishment of special agencies such as schools, books, planned materials such as studies etc. How can any one take advantage of these special agencies of formal education unless he is literate and able to read and write? The spread of the arts of reading and writing i.e. literacy and formal education go hand in hand. Without the existence of two there can be no spread of knowledge.