JAT-PAT-TODAK MANDAL OF LAHORE-XIV
I would not be
surprised if some of you have grown weary listening to this tiresome tale of
the sad effects which caste has produced. There is nothing new in it. I will
therefore turn to the constructive side of the problem. 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.
And why not ? What objection can there be to Fraternity ? I cannot imagine any.
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. There should be
varied and free points of contact with other modes of association. In other words
there must be social endosmosis. This is fraternity, which is only another name
for democracy. 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 fellowmen. Any
objection to Liberty ? Few object to liberty in the sense of a right to free
movement, in the sense of a right to life and limb. There is no objection to
liberty in the sense of a right to property, tools and materials as being
necessary for earning a living to keep the body in due state of health. Why not
allow liberty to benefit by an effective and competent use of a person's powers
? The supporters of caste who would allow liberty in the sense of a right to life,
limb and property, would not readily consent to liberty in this sense, inasmuch
as it involves liberty to choose one's profession. But to object to this kind
of liberty is to perpetuate slavery. For 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 other 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 the Caste System, some persons are compelled to carry on
certain prescribed callings which are not of their choice. Any objection to
equality ? This has obviously been the most contentious part of the slogan of
the French Revolution. The objections to equality may be sound and one may have
to admit that all men are not equal. But what of that ? Equality may be a
fiction but nonetheless one must accept it as the governing principle. A. man's
power is dependent upon (1) physical heredity, (2) social inheritance or
endowment in the form of parental care, education, accumulation of scientific
knowledge, everything which enables him to be more efficient than the savage,
and finally, (3) on his own efforts. In all these three respects men are
undoubtedly unequal. But the question is, shall we treat them as unequal
because they are unequal ? This is a question which the opponents of equality
must answer. From the standpoint of the individualist it may be just to treat
men unequally so far as their efforts are unequal. It may be desirable to give
as much incentive as possible to the full development of every one's powers.
But what would happen if men were treated unequally as they are, in the first
two respects ? It is obvious that those individuals also in whose favour there
is birth, education, family name, business connections and inherited wealth
would be selected in the race. But selection under such circumstances would not
be a selection of the able. It would be the selection of the privileged. The
reason therefore, which forces that in the third respect we should treat men
unequally demands that in the first two respects we should treat men as equally
as possible. On the other hand it can be urged that if it is good for the
social body to get the most out of its members, it can get most out of them
only by making them equal as far as possible at the very start of the race.
That is one reason why we cannot escape equality. But there is another reason
why we must accept equality. A Statesman is concerned with vast numbers of
people. He has neither the time nor the knowledge to draw fine distinctions and
to treat each equitably i.e.
according to need or according to capacity. However desirable or reasonable an
equitable treatment of men may be, humanity is not capable of assortment and
classification. The statesman, therefore, must follow some rough and ready rule
and that rough and ready rule is to treat all men alike not because they are
alike but because classification and assortment is impossible. The doctrine of
equality is glaringly fallacious but taking all in all it is the only way a
statesman can proceed in politics which is a severely practical affair and
which demands a severely practical test.
Comments
Social Counter