Annihilation of Caste

”History bears out the proposition that political revolutions have always been preceded by social and religious revolutions.”

Ambedkar points out the need for all manner of reform but highlights the reality of social reform as a catalyst. Political and economic revolution may occur, and may be very necessary, but they are practically always preceded by a revolution at the social level. Very often they are in concert with some kind of change in the religious status quo.

“Religion, social status, and property are all sources of power and authority, which one man has, to control the liberty of another. One is predominant at one stage; the other is predominant at another stage.”

All societies deal with power structures, so the question becomes much more about the source and use of that power, rather than if there is any power to be used (or abused). Throughout a culture’s history, the power source may fluctuate between various groups and into various channels. The Hindu religion is currently holding absolute sway over India, the author argues, and so questions about that specific exercise of authority and power need to be asked in order to ascertain how best to reform Hindu society in the movement to abolish the caste system.

“What efficiency can there be in a system under which neither men’s hearts nor their minds are in their work?”

While there may always be some aspect of work that is not enjoyed, or is tolerated for the simple fact of necessity, it must be the case that the majority must be directly invested in the work they are doing for the sake of the community. When society allows for the total annihilation of any feeling that would benefit the common good, then that society is laying the foundation work for its own demise. The mind and the heart must be engaged in something greater than itself for the system to be efficient.

“It is said that the object of Caste was to preserve purity of race and purity of blood. Now ethnologists are of the opinion that men of pure race exist nowhere and that there has been a mixture of all races in all parts of the world.”

Some will argue that it is the work of the caste to act as a kind of preserving force regarding various racial markers that might distinguish one group from another. Whether or not this was ever actually true is beside the point, however, since contemporary science has proven that this is not possible anyway. There is no such thing as a “pure race” thanks to the relationships between human beings across generations, which always admits of some kind of plurality in genetics and ancestry.

”In every Hindu the consciousness that exists is the consciousness of his caste. That is the reason why the Hindus cannot be said to form a society or a nation.”

In other nations, the culture is one across the land and does not take into account questions of origin or ancestry. However, there is no such thing as a Hindu nation, Ambedkar suggests, since Hindus are not loyal to other Hindus as such but to others of their own caste. There is not national feeling or cultural unity that is sought but only the preservation and flourishing of the caste (even at the expense of others).

“The existence of Caste and Caste Consciousness has served to keep the memory of past feuds between castes green, and has prevented solidarity.”

Solidarity in the present often needs to conquer the prejudices and grudges of the past. The caste system, however, does not allow for this to happen. Centuries-old feuds can be kept alive by the very existence of the two castes that may have happened to be at war with one another at some distant point in the past.

“Civilizing the aborigines means adopting them as your own, living in their midst, and cultivating fellow-feeling—in short, loving them.”

Caste prevents charity toward others because it demands loyalty and the exclusion of others by necessity. In the case of the Indigenous population of India, there is even less feeling than in typical circumstances, for not only are they not of one’s own caste, they are not even within the Hindu circle to begin with. They are completely other and therefore completely outside the mind of any Hindu. Helping them would require radical charity, which the caste system actively discourages and prevents.

”Not only has the Hindu made no effort for the humanitarian cause of civilizing the savages, but the higher-caste Hindus have deliberately prevented the lower castes who are within the pale of Hinduism from rising to the cultural level of the higher castes.”

The caste system works to suppress and oppress all populations outside one’s own. Those on the outside looking in are fought against from ever gaining access at all. Those on the inside and yet lower are oppressed from reaching higher and perhaps somehow attaining a higher status.

”[T]he Hindu religion ceased to be a missionary religion when the Caste System grew up among the Hindus. Caste is inconsistent with conversion.”

There is nothing explicitly antagonistic about Hinduism when it comes to new converts to the religion, but the fact is that the caste system organically tends to prevent anyone from converting because the question of caste must be addressed. When someone desires to join, the question immediately shifts to which caste they will belong to. Of course, each caste will act in its own best interest, effectively shunning the potential convert from ever participating.

“So long as Caste remains, there will be no Sanghatan; and so long as there is no Sanghatan the Hindu will remain weak and meek.”

Sanghatan is the feeling of unity for the sake of the common good, even in the face of hardship. Caste prevents this from developing because it encourages precisely the opposite of Sanghatan, encouraging disunity, tension, and jealousy. The author continues to show how caste prevents Indian society from moving forward.

”It is true that man cannot get on with his fellows. But it is also true that he cannot do without them. He would like to have the society of his fellows on his terms.”

The history of culture demonstrates that human beings are social creatures— “political animals,” in the words of Aristotle—and yet will simultaneously demonstrate that human beings are also in constant competition with one another. Put another way, people can see that human beings need to live in the tension between living in the community and always wanting to demand community on their own terms. This is an instance in which Ambedkar invokes Western philosophy to argue his point about Indian society.

”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.”

One of the problems with caste is that it creates tunnel vision for anyone outside of one’s own caste. Since the only caste one holds allegiance to is one’s own, there is no incentive to see the good things about members of other castes, especially those in the lower castes. There may be an entire caste of virtuous men and women, but if they are not one’s own, there is no reason to even consider it. Caste creates a system of irrational “us vs. them” thinking.

“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.”

With unsubtle language, Ambedkar invokes the motto of revolutionary France, which spoke of the same three virtues—liberty, equality, fraternity—in its bid to throw off the perceived religious oppression of the Church and state tyranny in France. While one can assume Ambedkar would not wish to repeat the violent atrocities of the French Revolution in executing thousands, he focuses on the desire to create a society in which individuals can be masters of their own fate. He again invokes Western tradition to reflect on Indian society.

“All reform consists in a change in the notions, sentiments, and mental attitudes of the people towards men and things. It is common experience that certain names become associated with certain notions and sentiments which determine a person’s attitude towards men and things.”

Criticizing the Chaturvarnya movement, Ambedkar insists that Hindu society must cast off the old names of things as well as the entire concepts and realities they represent. The old names of the classes cannot be retained because names are powerful, as they speak to identity. If the identity of the society is going to change, and the old realities are allowed to pass away, the old names need to be allowed to pass away as well. Language is powerful, and new language is needed to bring about new realities.

“How are you going to compel people who have acquired a higher status based on birth, without reference to their worth, to vacate that status? How are you going to compel people to recognize the status due to a man, in accordance with his worth, who is occupying a lower status based on his birth?”

In the bid to dissolve the thousands of individual castes in order to replace this system with the four-fold system of Chaturvarnya, the new division will fail similarly since it will face the same problems in attempting to classify human beings in too broad a manner. Nobody will willingly give up their privileged position, no more than someone will peacefully accept being forced into a lower and subservient position. Ambedkar insists that the entire system needs to be abolished.

”The questions to be asked in determining what is an ideal society are: How numerous and varied are the interests which are consciously shared by the groups?”

All societies have a plurality of people, who themselves have a plurality of expertise, interests, desires, hopes, dreams, and problems. The problem of creating a unified society is not of attempting to create a flattened and homogenized populace but of creating a culture in which the plurality of interests are allowed to flourish as people see fit and in which their potential for contributing to the common good is utilized. The author argues that all, even those in the lower castes, must be involved.

“Political tyranny is nothing compared to social tyranny, and a reformer who defies society is a much more courageous man than a politician who defies the government.”

The comparison here is between the often limited and quantifiably minor influence that any particular political system of body will have and the all-pervasive influence that a society as a whole can wield. When someone stands up to a government, they are acting against a small number of individuals, and even those can be replaced. When someone stands up to an entire society, however, they oppose the masses among whom they are forced to work, live, and flourish.

“You must have courage to tell the Hindus that what is wrong with them is their religion—the religion which has produced in them this notion of the sacredness of Caste. Will you show that courage?”

In a contemporary world that champions liberal values of individual liberty and freedom of expression, criticism of religion is often frowned upon and avoided for the sake of propriety. One’s religion is something quite personal, but if the problem at hand is directly caused by religion—and in this case Ambedkar is convinced this is the case—then even religion needs to be something criticized for contributing to the detriment of society. The author is fully against the systems perpetuated by Hinduism.

“Whether you accept the theory of the great man as the maker of history 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.”

While the populace as a whole is a formidable foe, the fact is that even in great populations the group of intellectuals and academics often have an outsized influence beyond their mere numbers. Even if the intellectual class is not technically in power directly, they are still able to wield great influence based on their technological, scientific, and rhetorical expertise. Ambedkar homes in on the educating and scholarly class.

“It must be a source of silent amusement to many a Non-Hindu to find hundreds and thousands of Hindus breaking Caste on certain occasions, such as railway journeys and foreign travel, and yet endeavouring to maintain Caste for the rest of their lives!”

To an outsider, a major issue with the caste system is that it seems hypocritical even in the best of circumstances. Ambedkar points out how even supposedly devout Hindus are willing to break caste if it benefits them personally. A system that is broken for the sake of one’s own convenience is not worthy of devotion and is certainly not worthy of keeping when it directly causes the suffering and oppression of others.

“I do not know whether you draw a distinction between principles and rules. But I do. Not only do I make a distinction, but I say that this distinction is real and important.”

Often confused and used synonymously, rules are always founded in principles, but principles are themselves not the rules. The rules are the explicit stipulations and regulations that govern particular actions, while principles are foundational perspectives on how to go about crafting rules, laws, and the like. For example: choosing safety while driving is a principle, but driving 55mph on the highway is a rule; the latter is a rule, an explicit regulation meant to allow one to follow the principle.

“[A] new life cannot enter a body that is dead. New life can enter only into a new body. The old body must die before a new body can come into existence and a new life can enter into it.”

Ambedkar here argues for a complete overhaul and change in this kind of society, not just a change in the degree to which particular institutions are reformed. Reform is the goal, surely, but he thinks that for this to happen there will need to be a wholesale revolution that puts the old ways to death in order for new, organic life to appear. Ambedkar continues to argue that the whole caste system needs to be annihilated.

“In a changing society, there must be a constant revolution of old values; and the Hindus must realize that if there must be standards to measure the acts of men, there must also be a readiness to revise those standards.”

Ambedkar is a proponent of constant progress at the expense of tradition and the old ways. There must always be standards by which one is to be measured, but his point is that these standards change as culture and ethics progress. With these evolving standards must come a new society that is able to meet these standards; everything that fails to meet these standards must be abandoned.