Men
are mortal. So are ideas. An idea needs propagation as much as a plant needs
watering. Otherwise both will wither and die.
The
conception of secular state is derived from the liberal democratic tradition of
west. No institution which is maintained wholly out of state funds shall be
used for the purpose of religious instruction irrespective of the question
whether the religious instruction is given by the state or any other body.
If
you ask me, my ideal would be the society based on liberty, equality and fraternity.
An ideal society should be mobile and full of channels of conveying a change
taking place in one part to other parts.
To idealise the real which more often than not is full of
inequities is a very selfish thing to do. It is only when a person finds a
personal advantage in things, as they are that he tries to idealise the real.
To proceed to make such an ideal real is nothing short of criminal. It means
perpetuating inequity on the ground that whatever is settled is settled for all
times. Such a view is opposed to all morality. No society with ideal conscience
has ever accepted it. On the contrary whatever progress in improving the terms
of associated life between individuals and classes has been made in the course
of history is due entirely to the recognition of the ethical doctrine that
whatever is wrongly settled is never settled and must be resettled.
A historian ought to be exact,
sincere and impartial; free from passion, unbiased by interest, fear,
resentment or affection; and faithful to the truth, which is the mother of
history the preserver of great actions, the enemy of oblivion, the witness of
the past, the director of the future.
In
every country the intellectual class is the most influential class. This is the
class which can foresee advice and lead. In no country does the mass of the
people live the life for intelligent thought and action. It is largely
imitative and follows the intellectual class. There is no exaggeration in
saying that the entire destination of the country depends upon its intellectual
class. If the intellectual class is honest and independent, it can be trusted
to take the initiative and give a proper lead when a crisis arises. It is true
that the intellect by itself is no virtue. It is only a means and the use of a
means depends upon the ends which an intellectual person pursues. An
intellectual man can be a good man but he may easily be a rogue. Similarly an
intellectual class may be a band of high-souled persons, ready to help, ready
to emancipate erring humanity or it may easily be a gang of crooks or a body of
advocates of narrow clique from which it draws its support.
My
final words of advice to you are educate, agitate and organize; have faith in
yourself. With justice on our side I do not see how we can loose our battle.
The battle to me is a matter of joy. The battle is in the fullest sense
spiritual. There is nothing material or social in it. For ours is a battle not
for wealth or for power. It is battle for freedom. It is the battle of
reclamation of human personality.
You
must abolish your slavery yourselves. Do not depend for its abolition upon god
or a superman. Remember that it is not enough that a people are numerically in
the majority. They must be always watchful, strong and self-respecting to
attain and maintain success. We must shape our course ourselves and by
ourselves.
Untouchability
shuts all doors of opportunities for betterment in life for Untouchables. It
does not offer an Untouchable any opportunity to move freely in society; it
compels him to live in dungeons and seclusion; it prevents him from educating
himself and following a profession of his choice.
Untouchability
has ruined the Untouchables, the Hindus and ultimately the nation as well. If
the depressed classes gained their self-respect and freedom, they would
contribute not only to their own progress and prosperity but by their industry
intellect and courage would contribute also to the strength and prosperity of
the nation. If the tremendous energy Untouchables are at present required to fritter
away in combating the stigma of Untouchability had been saved them, it would
have been applied by them to the promotion of education and development of
resources of their nation as a whole.
There
have been many Mahatmas in India whose sole object was to remove Untouchability
and to elevate and absorb the depressed classes, but everyone has failed in
their mission. Mahatmas have come, Mahatmas have gone but the Untouchables have
remained as Untouchables.
From
the point of view of annihilation of caste, the struggle of the saints did not
have any effects on society. The value of a man is axiomatic and self-evident;
it does not come to him from the gilding of Bhakti. The saints did not struggle
to establish this point. On the contrary their struggle had very unhealthy
effect on the depressed classes. It provided the Brahmins with an excuse to
silence them by telling them that they would be respected if they attained the
status of Chokhamela.
It
is mischievously propagated by Hindu scriptures that by serving the upper
classes the Shudras achieve salvation. Untouchability is another appellation of
slavery. No race can be raised by destroying its self-respect. So if you really
want to uplift the Untouchables, you must treat them in the social order as
free citizens, free to carve out their destiny.
What
you have lost others has gained. Your humiliations are a matter of pride with
others. You are made to suffer wants, privations and humiliations not because
it was pre-ordained by the sins committed in your previous birth, but because
of the overpowering tyranny and treachery of those who are above you. You have
no lands because others have usurped them; you have no posts because others
have monopolised them. Do not believe in fate; believe in your strength.
Learn
to live in this world with self-respect. You should always cherish some
ambition of doing something in this world. But remember that the age of
selflessness has ended. A new epoch is set in. All things are now possible
because of your being able to participate in the politics and legislature of
your country.
Some
people think that religion is not essential to the society. I do not hold this
view. I consider the foundations of religion are essential to the society. At
the roots of Hindu social system lies a Dharma as prescribed in the Manusmriti.
Such being the case I do not think it is possible to abolish the inequality in
the Hindu society unless foundations of the Smriti-religion is removed and a
better one laid in its place. I however, despair of Hindu society, being able
to reconstruct itself on such a better foundation.
My
religious conversion is not inspired by any material motive. This is hardly
anything I cannot achieve even while remaining an Untouchable. There is no
other feeling than that of a spiritual feeling underlying my religious
conversion. Hinduism does not appeal to my conscience. My self-respect cannot
assimilate Hinduism. In your case change of religion is imperative for worldly
as well as spiritual ends. Do not care for the opinion of those who foolishly
ridicule the idea of conversion for material ends. Why should you live under
the fold of that religion which has deprived you of honor, money, food and
shelter?
I tell you, religion is for man and
not man for religion. If you want to organise, consolidate and be successful in
this world, change this religion. The religion that does not recognise you as a
human being, or give you water to drink, or allow you to enter in temples is
not worthy to be called a religion. The religion that forbids you to receive
education and comes in the way of your material advancement is not worthy of
the appellation ‘religion’. The religion that does not teach its followers to
show humanity in dealing with its co-religionists is nothing but a display of a
force. The religion that teaches its followers to suffer the touch of animals
but not the touch of human beings is not a religion but a mockery. The religion
that compels the ignorant to be ignorant and the poor to be poor is not a
religion but a visitation!
The
basic idea underlying religion is to create an atmosphere for the spiritual
development of the individual. This being the situation, it is clear that you
cannot develop your personality at all in Hinduism.
In
Hinduism, conscience, reason and independent thinking have no scope for
development.
It
is your claim to equality which hurts them. They want to maintain the status
quo. If you continue to accept your lowly status ungrudgingly, continue to
remain dirty, filthy, backward, ignorant, poor and disunited, they will allow
you to live in peace. The moment you start to raise your level, the conflict
starts. Untouchability is not transitory or temporary feature; it is eternal,
it is lasting. Frankly it can be said that the struggle between the Hindus and the
Untouchables is a never-ending conflict. It is eternal because the religion
which assigns you the lowest status in society is itself divine and eternal
according to the belief of the so-called high caste Hindus. No change warranted
by change of time and circumstances is possible.
I have never claimed to be a
universal leader of suffering humanity. The problem of the untouchables is
quite enough for my slender strength. I do not say that other causes are not
equally noble. But knowing that life is short, one can only serve one cause and
I have never aspired to do more than serve the Untouchables.
Every
man must have a philosophy of life, for everyone must have a standard by which
to measure his conduct. And philosophy is nothing but a standard by which to
measure.
Negatively
I reject the Hindu social philosophy propounded in Bhagvad Gita, based as it is
on the Triguna of Sankhya Philosophy which in my judgement is a cruel
perversion of the philosophy of Kapila, and which had made the caste system of
graded inequality the law of Hindu social life.
Positively,
my social philosophy may be said to be enshrined in three words: liberty,
equality and fraternity. Let no one however say that I have borrowed my
philosophy from the French Revolution. I have not. My philosophy has its roots
in religion and not in political science. I have derived them from the
teachings of my master, the Buddha.
Indians
today are governed by two different ideologies. Their political ideal set in
the preamble of the Constitution affirms a life of liberty, equality and
fraternity. Their social ideal embodied in their religion denies them.
Unlike
a drop of water which loses its identity when it joins the ocean, man does not
lose his being in the society in which he lives. Man’s life is independent. He
is born not for the development of the society alone, but for the development
of his self.
Freedom
of mind is the real freedom. A person, whose mind is not free though he may not
be in chains, is a slave, not a free man. One, whose mind is not free, though
he may not be in prison, is a prisoner and not a free man. One whose mind is
not free though alive, is no better than dead. Freedom of mind is the proof of
one’s existence.
What
is the proof to judge that the flame of mental freedom is not extinguished in
the mind of person? To whom can we say that his mind is free? I call him free
who with his conscience awake realises his rights, responsibilities and duties.
He who is not a slave of circumstances and is always ready and striving to
change them in his flavor, I call him free. One who is not a slave of usage,
customs, of meaningless rituals and ceremonies, of superstitions and
traditions; whose flame of reason has not been extinguished, I call him a free
man. He who has not surrendered his free will and abdicated his intelligence
and independent thinking, who does not blindly act on the teachings of others,
who does not blindly accept anything without critically analyzing and examining
its veracity and usefulness, who is always prepared to protect his rights, who
is not afraid of ridicule and unjust public criticism, who has a sound
conscience and self-respect so as not become a tool in the hands of others, I
call him a free man. He who does not lead his life under the direction of
others, who sets his own goal of life according to his own reasoning and
decides for himself as to how and in what way life should be lead, is a free
man. In short, who is a master of his own free will, him alone I call a free
man.
Caste
cannot be abolished by inter caste dinners or stray instances of inter caste
marriages. Caste is a state of mind. It is a disease of mind. The teachings of
the Hindu religion are the root cause of this disease. We practice casteism and
we observe Untouchability because we are enjoined to do so by the Hindu
religion. A bitter thing cannot be made sweet. The taste of anything can be
changed. But poison cannot be changed into nectar.
What
struck me most was that my community still continues to accept a position of
humiliation only because caste Hindus persist in dominating over them. You must
rely on your own strength, shake off the notion that you are in any way
inferior to any community.
Constitutional
morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realize
that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top dressing
on an Indian soil whish is essentially undemocratic.
Majorities are of two sorts: (1) communal majority and
(2) political majority. A political majority is changeable in its class
composition. A political majority grows. A communal majority is born. The
admission to a political majority is open. The door to a communal majority is
closed. The politics of political majority are free to all to make and unmake.
The politics of communal majority are made by its own members born in it.
The
minorities in India have loyally accepted the rule of the majority whish is basically
a communal majority and not a political majority. It is for the majority to
realize its duty not to discriminate against minorities. Whether the minorities
will continue or will vanish must depend upon this habit of majority. The
moment the majority looses the habit of discriminating against the minority,
the minorities can have no ground to exist. They will vanish.
We
want our own people, people who will fight tooth and nail for our interest and
secure privilege for the under-privileged; people who will undo the wrongs done
to our people ;people who will voice our grievances fearlessly; people who can
think, lead and act; people with principles and character. Such people should
be sent to the legislatures. We must send such people to Legislatures who will
be slaves to none but remain free to their conscience and get our grievances
redressed.
Why
does a human body become deceased? The reason is that as long as the human body
is not free from suffering, mind cannot be happy. If a man lacks enthusiasm,
either his body or mind is in a deceased condition…. Now what saps the
enthusiasm in man? If there is no enthusiasm, life becomes drudgery – a mere
burden to be dragged. Nothing can be achieved if there is no enthusiasm. The
main reason for this lack of enthusiasm on the part of a man is that an
individual looses the hope of getting an opportunity to elevate
Himself.
Hopelessness leads to lack of enthusiasm. The mind in such cases becomes
deceased…. When is enthusiasm created? When one breaths an atmosphere where one
is sure of getting the legitimate reward for one’s labor, only then one feels
enriched by enthusiasm and inspiration.
The
fundamental principle of Buddhism is equality… Buddhism was called the religion
of Shudras. There was only one man who raised his voice against separatism and
Untouchability and that was Lord Buddha.
The
teachings of Buddha are eternal, but even then Buddha did not proclaim them to
be infallible. The religion of Buddha has the capacity to change according to
times; a quality which no other religion can claim to have…Now what is the
basis of Buddhism? If you study carefully, you will see that Buddhism is based
on reason. There is an element of flexibility inherent in it, which is not
found in any other religion.
I am myself a believer in Animas
(non-violence). But I make a distinction between Animas and meekness. Meekness
is weakness and weakness is voluntarily imposed upon oneself is not a virtue. I
am believer in Animas but in the sense defined by the saint Takuma. Takuma has quite
rightly said that Animas consisted of two things: (1) love and kindness towards
all creatures and (2) destruction of evil doers. The second part of this
definition is often lost sight of that the doctrine of Animas becomes so
ridiculous.
Religion
must mainly be a matter of principles only. It cannot be a matter of rules. The
moment it degenerates into rules, it ceases to be a religion, as it kills
responsibility which is an essence of the true religious act.
We
must begin by acknowledging that there is a complete absence of two things in
Indian Society. One of these is equality. On the social plane we have an India
based on the principles of graded inequality, which means elevation for some
and degradation for others. On the economic plane we have a society in which
there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject
poverty.
The
second thing we are wanting in is the recognition of the principle of
fraternity. What does fraternity mean? Fraternity means a sense of common
brotherhood of all Indians, all Indians being one people. It is a principle
that gives solidarity to social life. It is difficult thing to achieve. It
seems to me that there lies a heavy duty to see that democracy does not vanish
from the earth as a governing principle of human relationship. If we believe in
it, we must both be true and loyal to it. We must not only be staunch in our
faith in democracy but we must resolve to see that whatever we do, we do not
help the enemies of democracy to uproot the principles of liberty, equality and
fraternity. It follows that we must strive along with other democratic
countries to maintain the basis of democratic civilization. If democracy lives
we are sure to reap the benefit of it. If democracy dies it will be our doom.
On that there can be no doubt.
The
basis of my politics lies in the proposition that the Untouchables are not a
sub-division or sub-section of Hindus, and that they are a separate and
distinct element in the national life of India.
The
true function of law consists in repairing the faults in society. Unfortunately
ancient societies never dared to assume the function of repairing their own
defects; consequently they decayed. This country has seen the conflict between
ecclesiastical law and secular law long before Europeans sought to challenge
the authority of the Pope. Kautilya’s Arthshastra lays down the foundation of
secular law. In India unfortunately ecclesiastical law triumphed over secular
law. In my opinion this was the one of the greatest disasters in the country.
The unprogressive nature of the Hindu society was due to the notion that the
law cannot be changed.
Civilization
has never been a continuous process. There were states and societies which at
one time had been civilized. In the course of time something happened which
made these societies stagnant and decayed. This could be illustrated by India’s
history itself. There could be no doubt that one of the countries which could
boast of ancient civilization is India. When the inhabitants of Europe were
living under the barbaric conditions, this country had reached the highest peak
of civilization, it had parliamentary institutions when the people of Europe
were mere nomads.
I measure the progress of a
community by the degree of progress which women have achieved.
Justice
has always evoked ideas of equality, of proportion of compensation. Equity
signifies equality. Rules and regulations, right and righteousness are
concerned with equality in value. If all men are equal, then all men are of the
same essence, and the common essence entitles them of the same fundamental
rights and equal liberty… In short justice is another name of liberty, equality
and fraternity.
Anyone
who studies working of the system of social economy based on private enterprise
and pursuit of personal gain will realize how it undermines, if it does not
actually violate the individual rights on which democracy rests. How many have
to relinquish their rights in order to gain their living? How many have to
subject themselves to be governed by private employers?
I hate injustice, tyranny,
pompousness and humbug, and my hatred embraces all those who are guilty of
them. I want to tell my critics that I regard my feelings of hatred as a real
force. They are only the reflexes of love I bear for the causes I believe in
and I am in no wise ashamed of it.
Indifferentism
is the worst kind of disease that can affect people.
Political
tyranny is nothing compared to the social tyranny and a reformer who defies
society is a more courageous man than a politician who defies Government.
Every
man who repeats the dogma of Mill that one country is no fit to rule another
country must admit that one class is not fit to rule another class.
One
cannot have any respect or regard for men who take the position of the reformer
and then refuse to see the logical consequences of that position, let alone
following them out in action.
History
shows that where ethics and economics come in conflict, victory is always with
economics. Vested interests have never been known to have willingly divested
themselves unless there was sufficient force to compel them.
Slavery
does not merely mean a legalized form of subjection. It means a state of
society in which some men are forced to accept from others the purposes which
control their conduct.
This
condition obtains even where there is no slavery in the legal sense. It is
found where as in caste system, some persons are forced to carry on the
prescribed callings which are not their choice.
India
is a peculiar country and her nationalists and patriots are a peculiar people.
A patriot and a nationalist in India is one who sees with open eyes his fellow
men treated as being less than man. But his humanity does not rise in protest.
He knows that men and women for no cause are denied their rights. But it does
not prick his civil sense of helpful action. He finds a whole class of people
shut out from public employment. But it does not rouse his sense of justice and
fair play. Hundreds of evil practices that injure man and society are perceived
by him. But they do not sicken him with disgust. The patriot’s one cry is power
for him and his class. I am glad I do not belong to that class of patriots. I
belong to that class which takes its stand on democracy and which seeks to
destroy monopoly in every form. Our aim is to realize in practice our ideal of
one man one value in all walks of life – political, economical and social.
There
is no nation of Indians in the real sense of the world; it is yet to be
created. In believing we are a nation, we are cherishing a great delusion. How
can people divided into thousand of castes be a nation? The sooner we realize
that we are not yet a nation, in a social and psychological sense of the world,
the better for us.
It
is not enough to be electors only. It is necessary to be law-makers; otherwise
those who can be law-makers ill be the masters of those who can only be
electors.
Walter
Bagehot defined democracy as ‘ Government by discussion’. Abraham Lincoln
defined democracy as ‘ A Government of the people, by the people and for the
people’.
My
definition of democracy is – A form and a method of Government whereby
revolutionary changes in the social life are brought about without bloodshed.
That is the real test. It is perhaps the severest test. But when you are
judging the quality of the material you must put it to the severest test.
Democracy
is not merely a form of Government. It is primarily a mode of associated
living, of conjoint communicated experience. It is essentially an attitude of
respect and reverence towards our fellow men.
A democratic form of Government
presupposes a democratic form of a society; the formal framework of democracy
is of no value and would indeed be a misfit if there was no social democracy.
It may not be necessary for a democratic society to be marked by unity, by
community of purpose, by loyalty to public ends and by mutuality of sympathy.
But it does unmistakably involve two things. The first is an attitude of mind,
and attitude of respect and equality towards their fellows. The second is a
social organization free from rigid social barriers. Democracy is incompatible
and inconsistent with isolation and exclusiveness resulting in the distinction
between the privileged and the unprivileged.
Democracy
is not a Form of Government, but a form of social organization.
What
we must do is not to content ourselves with mere political democracy. We must
make our political democracy a social democracy as well. Political democracy
cannot last unless there is at the base of it, a social democracy. What does
social democracy mean? It means a way of life which recognizes liberty,
equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of liberty,
equality and fraternity are not to be treated as separate items. They form a
union in the sense that, to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very
purpose of democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced from equality, nor can liberty
and equality be divorced from fraternity.
Without
social union, political unity is difficult to be achieved. If achieved, it
would be as precarious as a summer sapling, liable to be uprooted by the gust
of wind. With mere political unity, India may be a state. But to be a state is
not to be a nation and a state which is not a nation has small prospects of
survival in the struggle of existence. This is especially true where
nationalism – the most dynamic force of modern times, is seeking everywhere to
free itself by the destruction and disruption of all mixed states. The danger
to a mixed and composite state, therefore lies not so much in external
aggression as in the internal resurgence of nationalities which are fragmented,
entrapped, suppressed and held against their will.
The
idea of fundamental rights has become a familiar one since their enactment in
the American Constitution and in the Constitution framed by the Revolutionary
France. The idea of making a gift of fundamental rights to every individual is
no doubt very laudable. The question is how to make them effective? The prevalent
view is that once the rights are enacted in law then they are safeguarded. This
again is an unwarranted assumption. As experience proves, rights are protected
not by law but by social and moral conscience of the society. If social
conscience is such that it is prepared to recognise the rights which law
proposes to enact, rights will be safe and secure. But if the fundamental
rights are opposed by the community, no Law, no Parliament, no Judiciary can
guarantee them in the real sense of the world. What is the use of Fundamental
rights to the Untouchables in India? As Burke said, there is no method found
for punishing the multitude. Law can punish a single solitary recalcitrant
criminal. It can never operate against the whole body of people who choose to defy
it. Social conscience is the only safeguard of all rights, fundamental or
non-fundamental.
Rights
are real only if they are accompanied by remedies. It is no use giving rights
if the aggrieved person has no legal remedy to which he can resort when his rights
are invaded.
Lost
rights are never regained by appeals to the conscience of the usurpers, but by
relentless struggle…. Goats are used for sacrificial offerings and not lions.
Life
should be great rather than long.
For
a successful revolution it is not enough that there is discontent. What is
required is a profound and thorough conviction of the justice, necessity and
importance of political and social rights.
I feel that the constitution is
workable, it is flexible and it is strong enough to hold the country together
both in peacetime and in wartime. Indeed, if I may say so, if things go wrong
under the new Constitution, the reason will not be that we had a bad Constitution.
What we will have to say is that Man was vile.
Equality
may be a fiction but nonetheless one must accept it as a governing principle.
What
are we having this liberty for? We are having this liberty in order to reform
our social system, which is full of inequality, discrimination and other
things, which conflict with our fundamental rights.
Our
object in framing the Constitution is rally two-fold: (1) To lay down the form
of political democracy, and (2) To lay down that our ideal is economic democracy
and also to prescribe that every Government whatever is in power shall strive
to bring about economic democracy. The directive principles have a great value,
for they lay down that our ideal is economic democracy.
If
I find the constitution being misused, I shall be the first to burn it.
On
the 26th January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In
politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have
inequality. In politics we will be recognizing the principle of one man one
vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall by
reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of
one man one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of
contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and
economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by
putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at
the earliest possible moment else those who suffer from inequality will blow up
the structure of democracy which this Constituent Assembly has so laboriously
built up.
There
can be no gain saying that political power in this country has too long been
the monopoly of the few, and the many are not beasts of burden but also beasts
of prey.
The
monopoly has not merely deprived them of their chance of betterment; it has
sapped them of what may be called the significance of life. Those downtrodden
classes are tired of being governed. They are impatient to govern themselves.
This urge of self-realization in the downtrodden must not be allowed to devolve
into class struggle or class war. It would lead to the division of the House.
That would indeed be a day of disaster. For, as has been well-said by Abraham Lincoln:
“A house divided against cannot stand very long”. Therefore the sooner room is
made for realization of their aspiration, the better for the few, the better
for the country, the better for the independence and the better for the
continuance of its democratic structure. This can only be done by the
establishment of equality and fraternity in all walks of life.
It
is disgraceful to live at the cost of one’s self-respect. Self-respect is the
most vital factor in life. Without it, man is a cipher. To live worthily with
self-respect, one has to overcome difficulties. It is out of hard and ceaseless
struggle alone that one derives strength, confidence and recognition.
Cultivation
of mind should be the ultimate aim of human existence.
Sincerity
is the sum of all moral qualities.
Man
is mortal. Everyone has to die some day or the other. But one must resolve to
lay down one’s life in enriching the noble ideals of self-respect and in
bettering one’s human life. We are not slaves. Nothing is more disgraceful for a
brave man than to live life devoid of self-respect.
My
social philosophy may be said to be enshrined in three words: liberty, equality
and fraternity. My philosophy has roots in religion and not in political
science. I have derived them from the teachings of my master, the Buddha.
Emerson
has said that consistency is a virtue of an ass. No thinking human being can be
tied down to a view once expressed in the name of consistency. More important
than consistency is responsibility. A responsible person must learn to unlearn
what he has learned. A responsible person must have the courage to rethink and
change his thoughts. Of course there must be good and sufficient reason for
unlearning what he has learned and for recasting his thoughts. There can be no
finality in rethinking.
John
Dewey said: “Every society gets encumbered with what is trivial, with what is
dead wood from the past and what is positively perverse. As a society becomes
more enlightened, it realises that it is responsible not to conserve and transmit
the whole of its achievement, but only such as makes a better future society”
There
is nothing fixed, nothing eternal, nothing sanatan; everything is changing,
change is the law of life for individuals as well as for society. In a changing
society there must be constant revolution of old values.
No
civilized society of today presents more survivals of primitive times than does
the Indian society. Its religion is essentially primitive and its tribal code,
in spite of the advance of time and civilization, operates in all its pristine
vigor even today. Indian society still savors of the clan system, even though
there are no clans.
An
ideal society should be mobile, should be full of channels for conveying a
change taking place in one part to other parts. In an ideal society there
should be many interests consciously communicated and shared.
The
strength of a society depends upon the presence of points of contacts,
possibilities of interaction between different groups that exist in it. These
are what Carlyle calls “Organic filaments”, i.e. the elastic threads which
helps to bring the disintegrating elements together and to reunite them.
Heroes
and hero-worship is a hard fact in India’s political life. I agree that
hero-worship is demoralizing for the devotee and dangerous to the country. I
welcome the criticism so far as it conveys the caution that you must know your
man is really great before you start worshipping him. This unfortunately is not
an easy task. For in these days with the Press in hand it is easy to
manufacture Great Men. Carlyle used a happy phrase when he described the Great
Men of history as so many bank notes. Like bank notes they represent gold. What
we have to see that they are not forged notes. I admit that we ought to be more
cautious in our worship of Great Men. For in this country we have arrived at
such a stage when alongside the notice boards saying “Beware of pickpockets”,
we need to have notice boards saying “Beware of Great Men”. Even Carlyle who
defended the worship of Great Men warned his readers how: “Multitudes of Great
Men have figured in histories that were false and selfish “.
Hero-worship
in the sense of expressing our unbound admiration is one thing. To obey the
hero is a totally different kind of worship. There is nothing wrong in the
former while the latter is no doubt a most pernicious thing. The former is
man’s respect for which is noble and of which the great men are only an
embodiment. The latter is the serf’s fealty to his lord. The former is
consistent with respect, but the latter is a sign of debasement. The former
does not take away one’s intelligence to think and independence to act. The
latter makes one perfect fool. The former involves no disaster to the state.
The latter is a source of positive danger to it.
In
India, ‘Bhakti’ or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship
plays a part in politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the
politics of any other of the world. ‘Bhakti’ in religion may be a road to
salvation of the soul. But in politics, ‘Bhakti’ or hero-worship is a sure road
to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.
The
questions which President Roosevelt propounded for the American public to
consider will arise here, if they have not already arisen: Who shall rule –
wealth or man? Which shall lead – money or intellect? Who shall fill the public
stations – educated and patriotic free men or the feudal serf’s of the
corporate capital? For the president, Indian politics, at any rate the Hindu
part of it, instead of being spiritualised has become grossly commercialised,
so much so that it has become a byword for corruption. Many men of culture are
refusing to concern themselves in this cesspool. Politics has become a kind of
sewage system intolerably unsavory and insanitary. To become a politician is
like going to work in the drain.
History
bears out the proposition that political revolutions have always been preceded
by social and religious revolutions. Social reform in India has few friends and
many critics.
Law
and order are the medicine of the body politic and when the body politic gets
sick, medicine must be administered.
The
world owes much to rebels who would dare to argue in the face of the pontiff
(high priest) and insist that he is not infallible.
A people and their religion must be
judged by social standards based on social ethics. No other standard would have
any meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment