Annihilation of Caste

The key to the abolition of caste is to begin with the social order and not directly with caste itself. Caste flows out of the social order downwards, so the suggestion that the abolitionist movement should begin at the bottom with destroying sub-castes is wrong. The abolition of sub-castes will only strengthen the more encompassing majority groups.

Another plan of action taken up by the abolitionist movement is to establish inter-caste dining. This too, however, is not sufficient; the only real remedy is going to be inter-caste marriage, Ambedkar argues—”where society is cut asunder, marriage as a binding force becomes a matter of urgent necessity” (50), which will serve to blur the lines between castes as well as to create true loyalty to family.

Even this will not completely serve the ends of the abolitionists, though, and the only true answer is putting an end to the esteem in which the Shastras are held. Caste is a deeply religious custom and observance, and the conduct of the population will not change unless the religious convictions change first. There must be a courageous act of speaking out against the false religious notions held by the Hindu people.

There are three species of social reform: secular reform; religious reform, which demands a return to the fundamental tenets of the religion; and religious reform, which directly opposes the fundamental tenets of the religion. Destruction of caste is a case that falls well within the third and final category since it is diametrically opposed to the basic principles of Hindu religion. If caste is based in something considered divine, then it is a harsh contradiction to pursue its destruction.

Ambedkar considers this to be a task practically impossible. Most important of all, the Brahmins oppose all movement against caste, and as the intellectual caste, the abolition movement would need them to be involved (though this is impossible, because it would mean the destruction of their own privilege). “There is no exaggeration in saying that the entire destiny of a country depends upon its intellectual class” (55), and since the Brahmins are opposed, the movement is doomed to failure since Hindu religion considers the Brahmins practically divine. Caste will always remain as long as those involved do not wish to see their fellow citizens be raised up as equals.

In regard to Hindu religion, the role of reason and rational inquiry plays very little part, Ambedkar argues. Once cannot ask there to be a rational discussion and criticism of caste when the role of reason is downplayed so much in the reading and interpretation of the Hindu religious texts. Even when there is conflict between two different religious texts, no attempt is made at harmonizing them. Religion is followed based on feeling and obedience, and even here much leeway is given according to the individual’s taste and desires: “Reason and morality are the two most powerful weapons in the armoury of a reformer. To deprive him of the use of these weapons is to disable him for action” (61), he states, and the Hindu social institution aims to do just this.

The real distinction to be made in the discussion of the destruction of Hindu religious observance is that between principles and rules: “Rules are practical; they are habitual ways of doing things according to prescription. But principles are intellectual; they are useful methods of judging things” (62). The goal should be to destroy any system of rules but to maintain a robust system of principles. Religion should be a matter of principle, not rule; rules are good and helpful, but times change, and so must the rules. Principles, however, can be universally applicable in all times and places, affecting action based on the time and place. The Hindu religion is really a system of law, which deprives human beings of their ability and duty to act freely and according to conscience.

The aforementioned criticisms of religion do not, however, mean that all religious observance should be abolished. Religion serves a useful role and should be maintained within reason. The five rules that should be instituted are these; only one official book should be held as the standard for Hindu religion; if a priesthood is to be maintained, it should be overseen directly by the state; every religious ceremony should need to be officially sanctioned; priests should be state workers; and there should be a fixed quota on how many priests are allowed to be in service at any one time.

Every other profession in the country is subject to sanction and regulation, and so religious professions should be no different. If change is to come about, and if it requires religious change—which it seems it must—then there must be radical change, even putting the old ways to death so new ways can begin to live.

Hindu society must determine answers to some very important questions:

[It] must consider whether it is sufficient to take the placid view of the anthropologist that there is nothing to be said about the beliefs, habits, morals, and outlooks on life which obtain among the different peoples of the world, except that they often differ; or whether it is not necessary to make an attempt to find out what kind of morality, beliefs, habits, and outlook have worked best (67).

There must be a struggle to determine what is actually beneficial, not simply what is liked the best.

In the second place, Hindus must decide which aspects of their culture should be maintained and which should be jettisoned as unfitting or undesirable for retention and promulgation. Third, they must move past an unthinking veneration of the past and look to the future for their progress and success. Finally, they must realize life is not static, times change, and if their culture is to be preserved, they must realize all things come to an end. The standards need to be revised.

Everything recited in this speech has been the personal view of the author, and it has been laid out in terms as calm and clear as could be managed, Ambedkar states. In light of all this, Ambedkar voices his decision to no longer be considered a Hindu: “I am sorry, I will not be with you. I have decided to change” (70). Only when the Hindu culture and society have completely abolished caste will it be strong enough to complete its own reform; until that moment, Ambedkar will watch and help in his own way with great interest.