Religious
(One of the
schemes of Dr. Ambedkar is "
The Conversion of the Untouchables ". This
scheme includes the following chapters:
(1) Hinduism as a Missionary Religion.
(2) Christianising the Untouchables.
(3) The Condition of the Convert.
(4) The Eternal Verity.
(5) The Untouchables and Their Destiny. From these
essays, Sr. Nos. 2 and
3 have been received from Shri S. S. Rege and Sr. No. I has been found in our papers under
the title ' Caste and Conversion ', which was originally published in the Telagu Samachar Special
No. of November 1926. One more typed essay entitled "Away from the Hindus ", which also deals with religious conversion of
the Untouchables, has been found and included in this Book. Rest of the titles
mentioned in the above scheme have not been found.)
AWAY FROM THE HINDUS
A large majority of
Untouchables who have reached a capacity to think out their problem believe
that one way to solve the problem of the Untouchables is for them to abandon
Hinduism and be converted to some other religion. At a Conference of the Mahars
held in Bombay on 31st May 1936 a resolution to this effect was unanimously
passed. Although the Conference was a Conference of the Mahars1, the resolution
had the support of a very large body of Untouchables throughout India. No
resolution had created such a stir. The Hindu community was shaken to its
foundation and curses imprecations and threats were uttered against the
Untouchables who were behind this move.
Four principal objections have been urged by the opponents against the
conversion of the Untouchables:
(1) What can the Untouchables
gain by conversion? Conversion can make no change in the status of the
Untouchables.
(2) All religions are true, all
religions are good. To change religion is a futility.
(3) The conversion of the
Untouchables is political in its nature.
(4) The conversion of the
Untouchables is not genuine as it is not based on faith.
It cannot take much argument to demonstrate that the objections are
puerile and inconsequential.
To take the last objection first. History abounds with cases where
conversion has taken place without any religious motive. What was the
1[ The Conference was confined to Mahars because the
intention was to test the intensity of feeling communitywise and to take
soundings from each community.
The typed pages with Sr. Nos. from 279 to 342 have been found in this
script which is titled as Chapter XX under the heading 'Away from the
Hindus nature of its conversion of Clovis and his subjects to
Christianity? How did Ethelbert and his Kentish
subjects become Christians? Was there a religious motive which led them to
accept the new religion? Speaking on the nature of conversions to Christianity
that had taken place during the middle ages Rev. Reichel
says:
" One after another the nations
of Europe are converted to the faith; their conversion is seen always to
proceed from above, never from below. Clovis yields to the bishop Remigius and forthwith he is followed by the Baptism
of 3,000 Franks. Ethelbert yields to the mission of Augustine and forthwith all
Kent follows his example; when his son Eadbald
apostatises, the men of Kent apostatise with him. Essex is finally won by the conversion of King Sigebert, who under the influence of another king, Oswy, allows himself to be baptised. Northumberland is
temporarily gained by the conversion of its king, Edwin, but falls away as soon
as Edwin is dead. It anew accepts the faith, when another king, Oswald,
promotes its diffusion. In the conversion of Germany, a bishop, Boniface, plays
a prominent part, in close connection with the princes of the country, Charles Martel and Pepin; the
latter, in return for his patronage receiving at Soissons
the Church's sanction to a violent act of usurpation. Denmark is gained by the
conversion of its kings, Herald Krag, Herald Blastand and Canute, Sweden by that of the two Olofs; and Russian, by the conversion of its
sovereign, Vladimir. Everywhere Christianity addresses itself first to kings and princes; everywhere the bishops and
abbots appear as its only representatives.
Nor was this all, for where a king had once been gained, no obstacle by
the Mediaeval missionaries to the immediate indiscriminate baptism of his
subjects. Three thousand warriors of Clovis following the example of their
king, were at once admitted to the sacred rite; the subjects of Ethelbert were baptised
in numbers after the conversion of their prince, without preparation, and with
hardly any instruction. The Germans only were less hasty in following the
example of others. In Russia, so great was the number of those who crowded to
be baptised after the baptism of Vladimir, that the sacrament had to be
administered to hundreds at a time." History records cases where
conversion has taken place as a result of compulsion or deceit.
Today religion has become a piece of ancestral property. It passes from
father to son so does inheritance. What genuineness is there in such cases of
conversion? The conversion of the Untouchables if
it did take place would take after full deliberation of the value of religion
and the virtue of the different religions. How can such a conversion be said to
be not a genuine conversion? On the other hand, it would be the first case in
history of genuine conversion. It is therefore difficult
to understand why the genuineness of the conversion of the Untouchables should
be doubted by anybody.
The third objection is an ill-considered objection. What political gain
will accrue to the Untouchables from their conversion has been defined by
nobody. If there is a political gain, nobody has proved that it is a direct
inducement to conversion.
The opponents of conversion do not even seem to know that a distinction
has to be made between a gain being a direct inducement to conversion and its
being only an incidental advantage. This distinction cannot be said to be a
distinction without a difference. Conversion may result in a political gain to
the Untouchables. It is only where a gain is a direct inducement that
conversion could be condemned as immoral or criminal. Unless therefore the
opponents of conversion prove that the conversion desired by the Untouchables
is for political gain and for nothing else their accusation is baseless. If
political gain is only an incidental gain then there is nothing criminal in
conversion. The fact, however, is that conversion can bring no new political
gain to the Untouchables. Under the constitutional law of India every religious
community has got the right to separate political safeguards. The Untouchables
in their present condition enjoy political rights similar to those which are
enjoyed by the Muslims and the Christians. If they change their faith the
change is not to bring into existence political rights which did not exist
before. If they do not change they will retain the political rights which they
have. Political gain has no connection with conversion. The charge is a wild
charge made without understanding.
The second objection rests on the premise that all religions teach the
same thing. It is from the premise that a conclusion is drawn that since all
religions teach the same thing there is no reason to prefer one religion to
other. It may be conceded that all religions agree in holding that the meaning
of life is to be found in the pursuit of ' good '. Up to this point the validity of the premise may be
conceded. But when the premise goes beyond and asserts that because of this
there is no reason to prefer one religion to another it becomes a false
premise.
Religions may be alike in that they all teach that the meaning of life is
to be found in the pursuit of ' good '. But religions are not alike in their
answers to the question 'What is good?' In this they certainly differ. One religion holds
that brotherhood is good, another caste and untouchability
is good.
There is another respect in which all religions are not alike. Besides
being an authority which defines what is good, religion is a motive force for
the promotion and spread of the ' good '. Are all religions agreed in the means and methods
they advocate for the promotion and spread of good? As pointed out by Prof. Tiele, religion is:
" One of the mightiest motors in
the history of mankind, which formed as well as tore asunder nations, united as
well as divided empires, which sanctioned the most atrocious and barbarous
deeds, the most libinous customs, inspired the most admirable acts of heroism, self renunciation, and
devotion, which occasioned the most sanguinary wars, rebellions and persecutions,
as well as brought about the freedom, happiness and peace of nations—at one
time a partisan of tyranny, at another breaking its chains, now calling into
existence and fostering a new and brilliant civilization, then the deadly foe
to progress, science and art."
Apart from these oscillations there are permanent differences in the
methods of promoting good as they conceive it. Are there not religions which
advocate violence ? Are there not religions which
advocate nonviolence ? Given these facts how can it
be said that all religions are the same and there is no reason to prefer one to
the other.
In raising the second objection the Hindu is merely trying to avoid an
examination of Hinduism on its merits. It is an extraordinary thing that in the
controversy over conversion not a single Hindu has had the courage to challenge
the Untouchables to say what is wrong with Hinduism. The Hindu is merely taking
shelter under the attitude generated by the science of comparative religion.
The science of comparative religion has broken down the arrogant claims of all
revealed religions that they alone are true and all others which are not the
results of revelation are false. That revelation was too arbitrary, too
capricious test to be accepted for distinguishing a true religion from a false
was undoubtedly a great service which the science of comparative religion has
rendered to the cause of religion. But it must be said to the discredit of that
science that it has created the general impression that all religions are good
and there is no use and purpose in discriminating them.
The first objection is the only objection which is worthy of serious
consideration. The objection proceeds on the assumption that religion is a
purely personal matter between man and God. It is supernatural. It has nothing
to do with social. The argument is no doubt sensible. But its foundations are
quite false. At any rate, it is a one-sided view of religion and that too based
on aspects of religion which are purely historical and not fundamental.
To understand the function and purposes of religion it is necessary to
separate religion from theology. The primary things in religion are the usages,
practices and observances, rites and rituals. Theology is secondary. Its object
is merely to nationalize them. As stated by Prof. Robertson
Smith
" Ritual and practical usages
were, strictly speaking the sum total of ancient religions. Religion in
primitive times was not a system of belief with practical applications; it was
a body of fixed traditional practices, to which every member of society
conformed as a matter of courage, Men would not be men if they agreed to do
certain things without having a reason for their action; but in ancient
religion the reason was not first formulated as a doctrine and then expressed
in practice, but conversely, practice preceded doctrinal
theory."
Equally necessary it is not to think of religion as though if was
super-natural. To overlook the fact that the primary content of religion is
social is to make nonsense of religion. The Savage society was concerned with
life and the preservation of life and it is these life processes which
constitute the substance and source of the religion of the Savage society. So
great was the concern of the Savage society for life and the preservation of
life that it made them the basis of its religion. So central were the life
processes in the religion of the Savage society that every thing which affected
them became part of its religion. The ceremonies of the Savage society were not
only concerned with the events of birth, attaining of manhood, puberty,
marriage, sickness, death and war but they were also concerned with food.
Among the pastoral peoples the flocks and herds are sacred. Among
agricultural peoples seedtime and harvest are marked by ceremonies performed
with some reference to the growth and the preservation of the crops. Likewise
drought, pestilence, and other strange irregular phenomena of nature occasion
the performance of ceremonials. As pointed out by Prof. Crawley, the religion of the savage begins and ends
with the affirmation and consecration of life.
In life and preservation of life therefore consists the religion of the
savage. What is true of the religion of the savage is true of all religions
wherever they are found for the simple reason that constitutes the essence of
religion. It is true that in the present day society with its theological
refinements this essence of religion has become hidden from view and is even
forgotten. But that life and the preservation of life constitute the essence of
religion even in the present day society is beyond question. This is well
illustrated by Prof. Crawley, when speaking of the religious life of man in the
present day society he says how:
"man's religion does not enter into his professional or social
hours, his scientific or artistic moments; practically its chief claims are settled
on one day in the week from which ordinary worldly concerns
are excluded. In fact, his life is in two parts;
but the moiety with which religion is concerned is the elemental. Serious
thinking on ultimate questions of life and death is, roughly speaking, the
essence of his Sabbath; add to this the habit of prayer, the giving of thanks
at meals, and the subconscious feeling that birth and death, continuation and
marriage are rightly solemnized by religion, while business and pleasure may
possibly be consecrated, but only metaphorically or
by an overflow of religious feeling." Students of the origin and history
of religion when they began their study of the Savage society became so much
absorbed in the magic, the tabu and totem and the rites and ceremonies
connected therewith they found in the Savage society that they not only
overlooked the social processes of the savage as the primary content of
religion but they failed even to appreciate the proper function of magic and
other supernatural processes. This was a great mistake and has cost all
concerned in religion very dearly. For it is responsible for the grave
misconception about religion which prevails today among most people. Nothing
can be a greater error than to explain religion as having arisen in magic or
being concerned only in magic for magic sake. It is true that Savage society
practises magic, believes in tabu and worships the totem. But it is wrong to
suppose that these constitute the religion or form the source of religion. To
take such a view is to elevate what is incidental to the position of the
principal. The principal thing in the religion of the savage are the elemental
facts of human existence such as life, death, birth, marriage, etc., magic,
tabu and totem are not the ends. They are only the means. The end is life and
the preservation of life. Magic, tabu, etc. are resorted to by the Savage
society not for their own sake but to conserve life and to exercise evil
influence from doing harm to life. Why should such occasions as harvest and
famine be accompanied by religious ceremonies ? Why
are magic, tabu and totem of such importance to the savage ? The only answer is that they all affect the
preservation of life. The process of life and its preservation form the main
purpose. Life and preservation of life is the core and centre of the religion
of the Savage society. That today God has taken the place of magic, does not
alter the fact that God's place in religion is only as a means for the
conservation of life and that the end of religion is the conservation and
consecration of social life.
The point to which it is necessary to draw particular attention and to
which the foregoing discussion lends full support is that it is an error to
look upon religion as a matter which is individual, private and personal.
Indeed as will be seen from what follows, religion becomes a source of positive
mischief if not danger when it remains individual, private and personal.
Equally mistaken is the view that religion is the flowering of special
religious instinct inherent in the nature of the individual. The correct view
is that religion like language is social for the reason that either is
essential for social life and the individual has to have it because without it
he cannot participate in the life of the society.
If religion is social in the sense that it primarily concerns society, it
would be natural to ask what is the purpose and function of religion.
The best statement regarding the purpose of religion which I have come
across is that of Prof. Charles A Ellwood. According to him:
" religion projects the essential
values of human personality and of human society into the universe as a whole.
It inevitably arises as soon as man tries to take valuing attitude toward his
universe, no matter how small and mean that universe may appear to him. Like
all the distinctive things in human, social and mental life, it of course,
rests upon the higher intellectual powers of man. Man is the only religious
animal, because through his powers of abstract thought and reasoning, he alone
is self-conscious in the full sense of that term. Hence he alone is able to
project his values into the universe and finds necessity of so doing. Given, in
other words, the intellectual powers of man, the mind at once seeks to universalise its values as well as its ideas. Just as
rationalizing processes give man a world of universal ideas, so religious
processes give man a world of universal values. The religious processes are,
indeed, nothing but the rationalizing processes at work upon man's impulses and
emotions rather than upon his precepts. What the reason does for ideas,
religion does, then, for the feelings. It universalizes
them; and in universalizing them, it brings them
into harmony with the whole of reality."
Religion emphasizes, universalizes social values and brings them to the
mind of the individual who is required to recognize them in all his acts in
order that he may function as an approved member of the society. But the
purpose of religion is more than this. It spiritualizes them. As pointed out by
Prof. Ellwood :[f7][f7]
"Now these mental and social values, with which religion deals, men
call 'spiritual'. It is
something which emphasizes as we may say, spiritual values, that is, the values
connected especially with the personal and social life. It projects these values,
as we have seen, into the universal reality. It gives man a social and moral
conception of the universe, rather than a merely mechanical one as a theatre of
the play of blind, purposeless forces. While religion is not primarily animistic philosophy, as has often been said,
nevertheless it does project mind, spirit, life, into all things. Even the most
primitive religion did this; for in ' primitive
dynamism ' there was a feeling of the psychic, in
such concepts as mana
or manitou.
They were closely connected with persons and proceeded from person, or things
which were viewed in an essentially personal way. Religion, therefore, is a
belief in the reality of spiritual values, and projects them, as we have said,
into the whole universe. All religion—even so-called atheistic
religions—emphasizes the spiritual, believes in its dominance, and looks to its
ultimate triumph." The function of religion in society is equally clear.
According to Prof. Ellwood1[f8][f8] the function of religion: " is to act as an agency of social control, that is, of the
group
controlling the life of the individual, for what is believed to be the
good of the larger life of the group. Very early, as we have seen, any beliefs
and practices which gave expression to personal feelings or values of which the
group did not approve were branded as ' black magic ' or baleful superstitions;
and if this had not been done it is evident that the unity of the life of the
group might have become seriously impaired. Thus the almost necessarily social
character of religion stands revealed. We cannot have such a thing as purely
personal or individual religion which is not at the same time social. For we
live a social life and the welfare of the group is, after all, the chief matter
of concern." Dealing with the same question in another place, he says
" the function of religion is the
same as the function of Law and Government. It is a means by which society
exercises its control over the conduct of the individual in order to maintain
the social order. It may not be used consciously as a method of social control
over the individual. Nonetheless the fact is that religion acts as a means of
social control. As compared to religion, Government and Law are relatively
inadequate means of social control. The control through law and order does not
go deep enough to secure the stability of the social order. The religious
sanction, on account of its being supernatural has been on the other hand the
most effective means of social control, far more effective than law and
Government have been or can be. Without the support of religion, law and
Government are bound to remain a very inadequate means of social control. Religion is the most powerful force of social gravitation
without which it would be impossible to hold the social order in its
orbit."
The foregoing discussion, although it was undertaken to show that
religion is a social fact, that religion has a specific social purpose and a
definite social function it was intended to prove that it was only proper that
a person if he was required to accept a religion should have the right to ask
how well it has served the purposes which belong to religion. This is the reason why Lord Balfour was
justified in putting some very straight-questions to the positivists before he could accept Positivism to be
superior to Christianity. He asked in quite trenchent language.
" what has (positivism) to say to
the more obscure multitude who are absorbed, and well nigh overwhelmed, in the
constant struggle with daily needs and narrow cares; who have but little
leisure or inclination to consider the precise role they are called on to play
in the great drama of 'humanity' and who might in any case be puzzled to discover its
interest or its importance? Can it assure them that there is no human being so
insignificant as not to be of infinite worth in the eyes of Him who created the
Heavens, or so feeble but that his action may have consequences of infinite moment long after this material system shall
have crumbled into nothingness? Does it offer consolation to those who are
bereaved, strength to the weak, forgiveness to the sinful, rest to those who
are weary and heavy laden?"
The Untouchables can very well ask the protagonists of Hinduism the very
questions which Lord Balfour asked the Positivists. Nay the Untouchables can
ask many more. They can ask: Does Hinduism recognize their worth as human
beings? Does it stand for their equality? Does it extend to them the benefit of
liberty ? Does it at least help to forge the bond
of fraternity between them and the Hindus? Does it teach the Hindus that the
Untouchables are their kindred? Does it say to the Hindus it is a sin to treat
the Untouchables as being neither man nor beast ? Does it tell the Hindus to be righteous to the
Untouchables ? Does it preach to the Hindus to be
just and humane to them ? Does it inculcate upon
the Hindus the virtue of being friendly to them ?
Does it tell the Hindus to love them, to respect them and to do them no wrong.
In fine, does Hinduism universalize the value of
life without distinction?
No Hindu can dare to give an affirmative answer to any of these
questions? On the contrary the wrongs to which the Untouchables are subjected
by the Hindus are acts which are sanctioned by the Hindu religion. They are
done in the name of Hinduism and are justified in the name of Hinduism. The
spirit and tradition which makes lawful the lawlessness of the Hindus towards
the Untouchables is founded and supported by the teachings of Hinduism. How can
the Hindus ask the Untouchables accept Hinduism and stay in Hinduism? Why
should the Untouchables adhere to Hinduism which is solely responsible for
their degradation? How can the Untouchables stay in Hinduism? Untouchability is the lowest depth to which the
degradation of a human being can be
carried. To be poor is bad but not so bad as to be an Untouchable. The poor can
be proud. The Untouchable cannot be. To be reckoned low is bad but it is not so
bad as to be an Untouchable. The low can rise above his status. An Untouchable
cannot. To be suffering is bad but not so bad as to be an Untouchable. They
shall some day be comforted. An Untouchable cannot hope for this. To have to be
meek is bad but it is not so bad as to be an Untouchable. The meek if they do
not inherit the earth may at least be strong. The Untouchables cannot hope for
that.
In Hinduism there is no hope for the Untouchables. But this is not the
only reason why the Untouchables wish to quit Hinduism. There is another reason
which makes it imperative for them to quit Hinduism. Untouchability is a part
of Hinduism. Even those who for the sake of posing as enlightened reformers
deny that untouchability is part of Hinduism are to observe untouchability. For
a Hindu to believe in Hinduism does not matter. It enhances his sense of
superiority by the reason of this consciousness that there are millions of
Untouchables below him. But what does it mean for an Untouchable to say that he
believes in Hinduism? It means that he accepts that he is an Untouchable and
that he is an Untouchable is the result of Divine dispensation. For Hinduism is
divine dispensation. An Untouchable may not cut the throat of a Hindu. But he
cannot be expected to give an admission that he is an Untouchable and rightly
so. Which Untouchable is there with soul so dead as to give such an admission
by adhering to Hinduism. That Hinduism is inconsistent with the self-respect
and honour of the Untouchables is the strongest ground which justifies the
conversion of the Untouchables to another and nobler faith.
The opponents of conversion are determined not to be satisfied even if
the logic of conversion was irrefutable. They will insist upon asking further
questions. There is one question which they are always eager to ask largely
because they think it is formidable and unanswerable; what will the
Untouchables gain materially by changing their faith? The question is not at
all formidable. It is simple to answer. It is not the intention of the
Untouchables to make conversion an opportunity for economic gain. The
Untouchables it is true will not gain wealth by conversion. This is however no
loss because while they remain as Hindus they are doomed to be poor.
Politically the Untouchables will lose the political rights that are given to
the Untouchables. This is, however, no real loss. Because they will be entitled
to the benefit of the political rights reserved for the community which they
would join through conversion. Politically there is neither gain nor loss.
Socially, the Untouchables will gain absolutely and immensely because by
conversion the Untouchables will be members of a community whose religion has universalized and equalized all values of life. Such a
blessing is unthinkable for them while they are in the Hindu fold.
The answer is complete. But by reason of its brevity it is not likely to
give satisfaction to the opponents of conversion. The Untouchables need three
things. First thing they need is to end their social isolation. The second
thing they need is to end their inferiority complex. Will conversion meet their
needs? The opponents of conversion have a feeling that the supporters of
conversion have no case. That is why they keep on raising questions. The case
in favour of conversion is stronger than the strongest case. Only one does wish
to spend long arguments to prove what is so obvious. But since it is necessary
to put an end to all doubt, I am prepared to pursue the matter. Let me take
each point separately.
How can they end their social isolation? The one and the only way to end
their social isolation is for the Untouchables to establish kinship with and
get themselves incorporated into another community which is free from the
spirit of caste. The answer is quite simple and yet not many will readily accept
its validity. The reason is, very few people realize the value and significance
of kinship. Nevertheless its value and significance are very great. Kinship and
what it implies has been
"A kin was a group of persons whose lives were so bound up together,
in what must be called a physical unity, that they could be treated as parts of
one common life. The members of one kindred looked on themselves as one living
whole, a single animated mass of blood, flesh and bones, of which no member
could be touched without all the members suffering."
The matter can be looked at from the point of view both of the individual
as well as from that of the group. From the point of the group, kinship calls
for a feeling that one is first and foremost a member of the group and not
merely an individual. From the point of view of the individual, the advantages
of his kinship with the group are no less and no different than those which
accrue to a member of the family by reason of his membership of the family.
Family life is characterized by parental tenderness. As pointed out by Prof. McDougall
"
From this emotion (parental tenderness) and its impulse to cherish and protect,
spring generosity, gratitude, love, pity, true benevolence, and altruistic
conduct of every kind; in it they have their main and absolutely essential
root, without which they would not be."
Community as distinguished from society is only an enlarged family. As
such it is characterised by all the virtues which are found in a family and
which have been so well described by Prof. McDougall.
Inside the community there is no discrimination among those who are
recognized as kindred bound by kinship.
The community recognizes that every one within it is entitled to all the rights
equally with others. As Professors Dewey and Tufts
have pointed out:
" A State may allow a citizen
of another country to own land, to sue in its courts, and
No comments:
Post a Comment