More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
I shall be satisfied if I make the Hindus realize that they are the sick men of India and that their sickness is causing danger to the health and happiness of other Indians.
“It is not possible to break Caste without annihilating the religious notions on which it, the Caste system, is founded.”
One cannot have any respect or regard for men who take the position of the Reformer and then refuse even to see the logical consequences of that position, let alone following them out in action.
Social reform in India has few friends and many critics.
the birth of the National Congress was accompanied by the foundation of the Social Conference.
But soon the two wings developed into two parties, a Political Reform Party and a Social Reform Party,
The point at issue was whether social reform should precede political reform.
Under the leadership of the late Mr. Tilak, the courtesy with which the Congress allowed the Social Conference the use of its pandal was withdrawn
Mr. W.C. Bonnerji in 1892
“I for one have no patience with those who say we shall not be fit for political reform until we reform our social system. I fail to see any connection between the two.
Under the rule of the Peshwas in the Maratha country the untouchable was not allowed to use the public streets if a Hindu was coming along lest he should pollute the Hindu by his shadow.
I can and ask the political-minded Hindus “Are you fit for political power even though you do not allow a large class of your own countrymen like the untouchables to use public school
Every Congressman who repeats the dogma of Mill that one country is not fit to rule another country must admit that one class is not fit to rule another class.
it is necessary to make a distinction between social reform in the sense of the reform of the Hindu Family and social reform in the sense of the reorganization and reconstruction of the Hindu Society. The former has relation to widow remarriage, child marriage etc., while the latter relates to the abolition of the Caste System.
The Social Conference was a body which mainly concerned itself with the reform of the high caste Hindu Family. It consisted mostly of enlightened high caste Hindus who did not feel the necessity for agitating for the abolition of caste
the emancipation of the mind and the soul is a necessary preliminary for the political expansion of the people.
The Socialists of India
They propound that man is an economic creature, that his activities and aspirations are bound by economic facts,
They, therefore, preach that political and social reforms are but gigantic illusions and that economic reform by equalization of property must have precedence over every other kind of reform.
religion is the source of power is illustrated by the history of India where the priest holds a sway over the common man often greater than the magistrate
Rather than give up religion, the Plebians give up material gain for which they had fought so hard.
liberty means the destruction of the dominion which one man holds over another
economic reform contemplated by the Socialists cannot come about unless there is a revolution resulting in the seizure of power.
Can it be said that the poor in India recognize no such distinctions of caste or creed, high or low ? If the fact is that they do, what unity of front can be expected from such a proletariat in its action against the rich ?
Caste System is not merely division of labour. It is also a division of labourers.
it is an heirarchy in which the divisions of labourers are graded one above the other.
division of labour is not spontaneous, it is not based on natural aptitudes.
Caste System in so far as it involves an attempt to appoint tasks to individuals in advance, selected not on the basis of trained original capacities, but on that of the social status of the parents.
Caste System will not allow Hindus to take to occupations where they are wanted if they do not belong to them by heredity.
The division of labour brought about by the Caste System is not a division based on choice.
It is a social system which embodies the arrogance and selfishness of a perverse section of the Hindus who were superior enough in social status to set it in fashion and who had authority to force it on their inferiors.
Hindu Society is a myth. The name Hindu is itself a foreign name. It was given by the Mohammedans to the natives for the purpose of distinguishing themselves. It does not occur in any Sanskrit work prior to the Mohammedan invasion.
The Caste System prevents common activity and by preventing common activity it has prevented the Hindus from becoming a society with a unified life and a consciousness of its own being.
The Hindus, therefore, are not merely an assortment of castes but they are so many warring groups each living for itself and for its selfish ideal.
The existence of Caste and Caste Consciousness has served to keep the memory of past feuds between castes green and has prevented solidarity.
But supposing a Hindu wished to do what the Christian missionary is doing for these aborigines, could he have done it ? I submit not. Civilizing the aborigines means adopting them as your own,
the Mohammedans and Christians who attempted to thrust down the throats of unwilling persons what they regarded as necessary for their salvation or the Hindu who would not spread the light, who would endeavour to keep others in darkness, who would not consent to share his intellectual and social inheritance with those who are ready and willing to make it a part of their own make-up ? I have no hesitation in saying that if the Mohammedan has been cruel the Hindu has been mean and meanness is worse than cruelty. X
So long as caste remain, Hindu religion cannot be made a missionary religion
The idea underlying Sanghatan is to remove from the mind of the Hindu that timidity and cowardice which so painfully make him off from the Mohammedan and the Sikh and which have led him to adopt the low ways of treachery and cunning for protecting himself.
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.
The Hindus claim to be a very tolerant people. In my opinion this is a mistake. On many occasions they can be intolerant and if on some occasions they are tolerant that is because they are too weak to oppose or too indifferent to oppose.
Indifferentism is the worst kind of disease that can infect a people.
The capacity to appreciate merits in a man apart from his caste does not exist in a Hindu.
Have not Hindus committed treason against their country in the interests of their caste
But to object to this kind of liberty is to perpetuate slavery.
But selection under such circumstances would not be a selection of the able. It would be the selection of the privileged.
So long as these names continue, Hindus will continue to think of the Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra as hierarchical divisions of high and low, based on birth, and act accordingly. The Hindu must be made to unlearn all this. But how can this happen if the old labels remain and continue to recall to his mind old notions.
Shambuka, the Shudra, who had transgressed his class and wanted to be a Brahmin. This is the reason why Rama killed Shambuka.
Manu-Smriti prescribes such heavy sentences as cutting off the tongue or pouring of molten lead in the ears of the Shudra, who recites or hears the Veda.
If the status of the woman is to be the consequence of marriage what becomes of the underlying principle of Chaturvarnya, namely, that the status of a person should be based upon the worth of that person ?
