The path of social reform like the path to heaven at any
rate in India, is strewn with many difficulties. Social reform in India has few
friends and many critics. The critics fall into two distinct classes. One class
consists of political reformers and the other of the socialists.
It was at one time recognized that without social
efficiency no permanent progress in the other fields of activity was possible,
that owing to mischief wrought by the evil customs, Hindu Society was not in a
state of efficiency and that ceaseless efforts must be made to eradicate these
evils. It was due to the recognition of this fact that the birth of the
National Congress was accompanied by the foundation of the Social Conference.
While the Congress was concerned with defining the weak points in the political
organisation of the country, the Social Conference was engaged in removing the
weak points in the social organisation of the Hindu Society. For some time the
Congress and the Conference worked as two wings of one common activity and they
held their annual sessions in the same pandal. But soon the two wings developed
into two parties, a Political Reform Party and a Social Reform Party, between
whom there raged a fierce controversy. The Political Reform Party supported the
National Congress and Social Reform Party supported the Social Conference. The
two bodies thus became two hostile camps. The point at issue was whether social
reform should precede political reform. For a decade the forces were evenly
balanced and the battle was fought without victory to either side. It was
however evident that the fortunes of the; Social Conference were ebbing fast.
The gentlemen who presided over the sessions of the Social Conference lamented
that the majority of the educated Hindus were for political advancement and
indifferent to social reform and that while the number of those who attended
the Congress was very large and the number who did not attend but who
sympathized with it even larger, the number of those who attended the Social
Conference was very much smaller. This indifference, this thinning of its ranks
was soon followed by active hostility from the politicians. 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the Social Conference the use of its pandal was withdrawn and the spirit of enmity
went to such a pitch that when the Social Conference desired to erect its own
pandal a threat to burn the pandal was held out by its opponents. Thus in
course of time the party in favour of political reform won and the Social
Conference vanished and was forgotten. The speech, delivered by Mr. W. C.
Bonnerji in 1892 at Allahabad as President of the eighth session of the
Congress, sounds like a funeral oration at the death of the Social Conference
and is so typical of the Congress attitude that I venture to quote from it the
following extract. Mr. Bonnerji said :
" I for one have no
patience with those who saw we shall not be fit for political reform until we
reform our social system. I fail to see any connection between the two. . .Are
we not fit (for political reform) because our widows remain unmarried and our
girls are given in marriage earlier than in other countries ? because our wives
and daughters do not drive about with us visiting our friends? because we do
not send our daughters to Oxford and Cambridge ? " (Cheers)'
I have stated the case for political reform as put by
Mr. Bonnerji. There were many who are happy that the victory went to the
Congress. But those who believe in the importance of social reform may ask, is
the argument such as that of Mr. Bonnerji final ? Does it prove that the
victory went to those who were in the right ? Does it prove conclusively that
social reform has no bearing on political reform ? It will help us to
understand the matter if I state the other side of the case. I will draw upon
the treatment of the untouchables for my facts.
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. The untouchable was required to
have a black thread either on his wrist or in his neck as a sign or a mark to
prevent the Hindus from getting themselves polluted by his touch through
mistake. In Poona, the capital of the Peshwa, the untouchable was required to
carry, strung from his waist, a broom to sweep away from behind the dust he
treaded on lest a Hindu walking on the same should be polluted. In Poona, the
untouchable was required to carry an earthen pot, hung in his neck wherever he
went, for holding his spit lest his spit falling on earth should pollute a
Hindu who might unknowingly happen to tread on it. Let me take more recent
facts. The tyranny practised by the Hindus upon the Balais, an untouchable
community in Central India, will serve my purpose. You will find a report of
this in the Times of India of 4th
January 1928. "The correspondent of the Times of India reported that high caste Hindus, viz. Kalotas,
Rajputs and Brahmins including the Patels and Patwaris of villages of Kanaria,
Bicholi-Hafsi, Bicholi-Mardana and of about 15 other villages in the Indore
djistrict (of the Indore State) informed the Balais of their respective
villages that if they wished to live among them they must conform to the
following rules :
(1) Balais must not wear
gold-lace-bordered pugrees.
(2) They must not wear dhotis
with coloured or fancy borders.
(3) They must convey intimation
of the death of any Hindu to relatives of the deceased—no matter how far away
these relatives may be living.
(4) In all Hindu marriages,
Balais must play music before the processions and during the marriage.
(5) Balai women must not wear
gold or silver ornaments; they must not wear fancy gowns or jackets.
(6) Balai women must attend all
cases of confinement of Hindu women.
(7) Balais must render services
without demanding remuneration and must accept whatever a Hindu is pleased to
give.
(8) If the Balais do not agree
to abide by these terms they must clear out of the villages. The Balais refused
to comply; and the Hindu element proceeded against them. Balais were not
allowed to get water from the village wells; they were not allowed to let go
their cattle to graze. Balais were prohibited from passing through land owned
by a Hindu, so that if the field of a Balai was surrounded by fields owned by
Hindus, the Balai could have no access to his own field. The Hindus also let
their cattle graze down the fields of Balais. The Balais submitted petitions to
the Darbar against these persecutions ; but as they could get no timely relief,
and the oppression continued, hundreds of Balais with their wives and children
were obliged to abandon their homes in which their ancestors lived for generations
and to migrate to adjoining States, viz. to villages in Dhar, Dewas, Bagli,
Bhopal, Gwalior and other States. What happened to them in their new homes may
for the present be left out of our consideration. The incident at Kavitha in
Gujarat happened only last year. The Hindus of Kavitha ordered the untouchables
not to insist upon sending their children to the common village school
maintained by Government. What sufferings the untouchables of Kavitha had to
undergo for daring to exercise a civic right against the wishes of the Hindus
is too well known to need detailed description. Another instance occurred in
the village of Zanu in the Ahmedabad district of Gujarat. In November 1935 some
untouchable women of well-to-do families started fetching water in metal pots.
The Hindus looked upon the use of metal pots by untouchables as an affront to
their dignity and assaulted the untouchable women for their impudence. A most
recent event is reported from the village Chakwara in Jaipur State. It seems
from the reports that have appeared in the newspapers that an untouchable of
Chakwara who had returned from a pilgrimage had arranged to give a dinner to
his fellow untouchables of the village as an act of religious piety. The host
desired to treat the guests to a sumptuous meal and the items served included ghee (butter) also. But while the
assembly of untouchables was engaged in partaking of the food, the Hindus in
their hundred, armed with lathis, rushed to the scene, despoiled the food and
belaboured the untouchables who left the food they were served with and ran
away for their lives. And why was this murderous assault committed on
defenceless untouchables ? The reason given is that the untouchable host was
impudent enough to serve ghee and his untouchable guests were foolish enough to
taste it. Ghee is undoubtedly a luxury for the rich. But no one would think
that consumption of ghee was a mark of high social status. The Hindus of
Chakwara thought otherwise and in righteous indignation avenged themselves for
the wrong done to them by the untouchables, who insulted them by treating ghee
as an item of their food which they ought to have known could not be theirs,
consistently with the dignity of the Hindus. This means that an untouchable
must not use ghee even if he can afford to buy it, since it is an act of
arrogance towards the Hindus. This happened on or about the 1st of April 1936 !
Having stated the facts, let me now state the case for
social reform. In doing this, I will follow Mr. Bonnerji, as nearly as 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 ? Are you fit for political power even though
you do not allow them the use of public wells ? Are you fit for political power
even though you do not allow them the use of public streets ? Are you fit for
political power even though you do not allow them to wear what apparel or
ornaments they like ? Are you fit for political power even though you do not
allow them to eat any food they like ? " I can ask a string of such
questions. But these will suffice, I wonder what would have been the reply of
Mr. Bonnerji. I am sure no sensible man will have the courage to give an affirmative
answer. 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.
How is it then that the Social Reform Party last the
battle ? To understand this correctly it is necessary, to take note of the kind
of social reform which the reformers were agitating for. In this connection 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 or had not the
courage to agitate for it. They felt quite naturally a greater urge to remove
such evils as enforced widowhood, child marriages etc., evils which prevailed
among them and which were personally felt by them. They did not stand up for
the reform of the Hindu society. The battle that was fought centered round the
question of the reform of the family. It did not relate to the social reform in
the sense of the break-up of the caste system. It was never put in issue by the
reformers. That is the reason why the Social Reform Party lost.
I
am aware that this argument cannot alter the fact that political reform did in
fact gain precedence over social reform. But the argument has this much value
if not more. It explains why social reformers lost the battle. It also helps us
to understand how limited was the victory which the Political Reform Party
obtained over the Social Reform Party and that the view that social reform need
not precede political reform is a view which may stand only when by social
reform is meant the reform of the family. That political reform cannot with
impunity take precedence over social reform in the sense of reconstruction of
society is a thesis which, I am sure, cannot be controverted. That the makers
of political constitutions must take account of social forces is a fact which
is recognized by no less a person than Ferdinand Lassalle, the friend and
co-worker of Karl Marx. In addressing a Prussian audience in 1862 Lassalle said
:
" The constitutional questions
are in the first instance not questions of right but questions of might. The
actual constitution of a country has its existence only in the actual condition
of force which exists in the country : hence political constitutions have value
and permanence only when they accurately express those conditions of forces
which exist in practice within a society"
But it is not necessary to go to Prussia. There is
evidence at home. What is the significance of the Communal Award with its
allocation of political power in defined proportions to diverse classes and
communities ? In my view, its significance lies in this that political
constitution must take note of social organisation. It shows that the
politicians who denied that the social problem in India had any bearing on the
political problem were forced to reckon with the social problem in devising the
constitution. The Communal Award is so to say the nemesis following upon the
indifference and neglect of social reform. It is a victory for the Social
Reform Party which shows that though defeated they were in the right in
insisting upon the importance of social reform. Many, I know, will not accept
this finding. The view is current, and it is pleasant to believe in it, that
the Communal Award is unnatural and that it is the result of an unholy alliance
between the minorities and the bureaucracy. I do not wish to rely on the
Communal Award as a piece of evidence to support my contention if it is said
that it is not good evidence. Let us turn to Ireland. What does the history of
Irish Home Rule show ? It is well-known that in the course of the negotiations
between the representatives of Ulster and Southern Ireland, Mr. Redmond, the
representative of Southern Ireland, in order to bring Ulster in a Home Rule
Constitution common to the whole of Ireland said to the representatives of
Ulster : " Ask any political safeguards you like and you shall have
them." What was the reply that Ulstermen gave ? Their reply was "
Damn your safeguards, we don't want to be ruled by you on any terms."
People who blame the minorities in India ought to consider what would have
happened to the political aspirations of the majority if the minorities had
taken the attitude which Ulster took. Judged by the attitude of Ulster to Irish
Home Rule, is it noting that the minorities agreed to be ruled by the majority
which has not shown much sense of statesmanship, provided some safeguards were
devised for them ? But this is only incidental. The main question is why did
Ulster take this attitude ? The only answer I can give is that there was a
social problem between Ulster and Southern Ireland the problem between
Catholics and Protestants, essentially a problem of Caste. That Home Rule in
Ireland would be Rome Rule was the way in which the Ulstermen had framed their
answer. But that is only another way of stating that it was the social problem
of Caste between the Catholics and Protestants, which prevented the solution of
the political problem. This evidence again is sure to be challenged. It will be
urged that here too the hand of the Imperialist was at work. But my resources
are not exhausted. I will give evidence from the History of Rome. Here no one
can say that any evil genius was at work. Any one who has studied the History
of Rome will know that the Republican Constitution of Rome bore marks having
strong resemblance to the Communal Award. When the kingship in Rome was
abolished, the Kingly power or the Imperium
was divided between the Consuls and the Pontifex Maximus. In the Consuls was
vested the secular authority of the King, while the latter took over the
religious authority of King. This Republican Constitution had provided that, of
the two Consuls one was to be Patrician and the other Plebian. The same
constitution had also provided that, of the Priests under the Pontifex Maximus,
half were to be Plebians and the other half Patricians. Why is it that the
Republican Constitution of Rome had these provisions which, as I said, resemble
so strongly the provisions of the Communal Award ? The only answer one can get
is that the Constitution of Republican Rome had to take account of the social
division between the Patricians and the Plebians, who formed two distinct
castes. To sum up, let political reformers turn to any direction they like,
they will find that in the making of a constitution, they cannot ignore the
problem arising out of the prevailing social order.
The illustrations which I have taken in support of the
proposition that social and religious problems have a bearing on political
constitutions seem to be too particular. Perhaps they are. But it should not be
supposed that the bearing of the one on the other is limited. On the other hand
one can say that generally speaking History bears out the proposition that
political revolutions have always been preceded by social and religious
revolutions.
The religious Reformation started by Luther was the
precursor of the political emancipation of the European people. In England
Puritanism led to the establishment of political liberty. Puritanism founded
the new world. It was Puritanism which won the war of American Independence and
Puritanism was a religious movement. The same is true of the Muslim Empire.
Before the Arabs became a political power they had undergone a thorough
religious revolution started by the Prophet Mohammad. Even Indian History
supports the same conclusion. The political revolution led by Chandragupta was
preceded by the religious and social revolution of Buddha. The political
revolution led by Shivaji was preceded by the religious and social reform
brought about by the saints of Maharashtra. The political revolution of the
Sikhs was preceded by the religious and social revolution led by Guru Nanak. It
is unnecessary to add more illustrations. These will suffice to show that the
emancipation of the mind and the soul is a necessary preliminary for the political
expansion of the people.
Comments
Social Counter