VIII
In criticising Indian civilization there-are two simple facts to be first remembered. India in the first place is no exception to the general rule that a country is made up of all manner of men. Secondly, although, as set out later, there are certain general features which we may call Indian, there are on the other hand a variety of beliefs and practices.
Whilst the differences alleged are not always such or as great as they seem, an historical survey of India shows that She has (as one might have supposed) produced all varieties of human character. India which is religious also produced (as an atheistic acquaintance of mine was greatly pleased to hear) the Charvakas and Loka-yatas; materialists and sensualists who-denied the existence of God, reviled the Vedas and the priests as frauds and cheats; sought enjoyment only in life leaving at death " as many debts as
possible." India which produced ascetic defamers of women in the style of the Christian Fathers also worked out a scientific scriptures of Eroticism—the Kama Shastra, wrote sensuously conceived literature, carved recondite obscenities on its temples, and painted similar scenes for the incitement of its passions, which it satisfied in many forms of sensual enjoyment both on this, and (as the Magician), the super-physical plane. The same India which in the person of the Sannyasi fled from the world to the forest also glorified that world in sumptuous art. India was meditative and yet gave birth to men of action celebrated as warriors and statesmen, and a people who governed themselves practically and with success. Those who say that this country has never known Self-government do not themselves know their subject. As M. Barthelemy Saint Hilaire said (" L'Inde Anglaise") "In no country in the whole world has communal autonomy been so developed " (" Dans aucun pays du monde, l'autonomie communale n'a ete poussee
plus loin.") It was, as Professor Monier Williams said, Self-government in all its purity. This was the primitive communal organization of the village with its headman, Panchayet or Council and its local officers and servants. Well developed also were the relations and functions of the people (Prajadharma) towards the King with his Councillors and of the King towards his people (Rajadharma). Some seem to think that because India had not the ballot-box and hustings and other paraphernalia of political Western life, it did not know what Self-Government is. There are also a. class of political writers who repeat that India " likes to be ruled " meaning thereby autocratic government. Such also know nothing of the Hindu Spirit or History. The Hindu Kings were not autocrats. Their will was as much subject to the general Dharma as were the people. Whilst the people recognised the King, his duties and functions, the King did the same as regards the people. The Hindu Spirit politically displayed itself in
a form which was worthy of its other great achievements. India has produced men successful in industry and commerce; though it is often forgotten or unknown that from the date of Greek and Roman civilization until about the close of the eighteenth century India was renowned for its artizanship and industries. " The wealth of Ormuz and of Ind" was. proverbial. Pliny in fact complains of the drain of gold from Rome to India which furnished the former Imperial Capital with some of its splendours. English experts speaking Of its unrivalled beauty and delicacy have described Indian cotton (to take an example) as "the finest the earth produces." Whilst ever famed for its deep introspection, India was also not without Her men of science with outward-directed mind ; limited necessarily as their achievements were if compared with those of our time. Mr. Archer is under the impression that the Hindus knowledge is obtained by a mechanical " pouring in " from the teacher to the disciple. This is, of course, not so.
It seems absurd to have to say that the Hindu, like every one else, admits as a valid source of knowledge, perception(Pratyaksha), inference (Anumana) and the like and has developed a logic of great subtlety and completeness. Their application to the positive sciences of the Hindus-may be found in Professor Brajendra Nath-Seal's work of that name. A short and Useful summary of "Hindu Achievementin exact science " has recently been given by Professor Benoy Kumar Sircar. He makes a point to which I have also alluded elsewhere in another connection namely, that the difference between Asia and Europe in the matter of the so-called exact sciences dates from about three hundred years back which is the age of experimentaland inductive science. It was during this and that the cultural superiority in this-particular respect of the Modern West was established ; nor was that superiority great until much later when during the nineteenth century the application of steam to production and transportation effected the parting;
of the ways of East and West ushering in-" Modernism " with its new world-politics, social institutions, science and philosophy, giving Eur-America its present alleged superiority over Asia. If, however, we compare the Indian contribution to exact positive and material culture with parallel contemporary developments amongst the Greeks, Greco-Roman, Saracen, Chinese-and mediaeval Europeans the Hindus can make at least an equal and, in some respects, a superior claim to that made by these peoples in respect of scientific culture. In fact, the trend of recent scholarship is towards establishing the Hindu source of Greek science. Much of the credit also-given to the Saracen is really due to the Hindus from whom they derived their Mathematics, Chemistry, and Medicine. The Hindus, however, may have been indebted to the Greeks in some cases as is admitted in respect of Astronomy by Varahamihira. Professor Sircar observes that the pure Mathematics of the Hindus was on the whole not only in advance of
some of the Greeks, but anticipated European discoveries of the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries. As Hankel in his history of Mathematics says It is remarkable to what extent Indian Mathematics enters into the Science of our time." Dr. Morgan says " Indian Arithmetic is that which we now use." The Hindus originated the numerals, wrongly known as Arabic because the Europeans got them from their Saracen teachers, and the decimal system of notation known to Aryabhatta as early as the Fifth Century. Algebra is a Hindu Science despite its Arabic name; for as Cajori says the Indians were " the real inventors of Algebra." colebrooke has analysed the points in which Hindu Algebra was favourably distinguished from that of the Greeks who, as Cajori thinks, got through Diophantus their Algebraic knowledge from India. Geometry was studied by the Hindus from the date of Sulvasutras of Baudhayana and Apastamba to Bhaskara in the 12th Century and beyond. In some points the Hindus anticipated
Modern Trigonometry devising the Sines (an Arabic corruption of the Sanskrit Shinjini) and Versed Sines unknown to the Greeks, who calculated by the help of the Chords. Professor Seal says that Vachaspati anticipated in a rudimentary manner the foundations of solid (co-ordinate) Geometry Bhaskaracharyya (1114) anticipated Newton by five hundred years in the discovery of the principle of the differential Calculus-and its application to Astronomical problems and computations. In Kinetics, the Hindus analysed the concept of motion, gravity (ascribed to the attraction of the Earth), acceleration, the law of motion and the accelerated motion of falling bodies.
Professor Sircar says that whilst the Hindus may have failed like other races to discover fundamental laws planetary, inorganic and organic if judged by the generalizations of to-day, yet "Some of their investigations were solid achievements in positive knowledge as in Materia Medica, Therapeutics, Anatomy, Embryology, Metallurgy, Chemistry, Physics, and descriptive
Zoology. And in these also, generally speaking, Hindu enquires were not less, if not more, definite, exact and fruitful than the Greeks and Mediaeval Europeans. "The Hindu intellect has thus," he rightly says, "independently appreciated the dignity of objective facts, devised the methods of observation and experiment, elaborated the machinery of logical analysis and true investigation, attacked the external universe as a system of secrets to be unravelled, and has wrung out of nature the knowledge which constitutes the foundations of Science." It is quite an error to suppose that the Hindus have had no achievements beyond those in Metaphysics and Religion (in which they are generally admitted to have been preeminent) : and still more so to suppose with Mr. Archer that they have spent the long ages of their history " in gazing upon their navel."
India in short has produced men and women of great virtue and distinction, together with criminals, sinners and the
ordinary men who everywhere make up the bulk of humanity. Those therefore who write against or in praise of India should do so with exactness, discrimination, and the latter with avoidance of mere puffing general statements. Thus shortly before I had written this I came across the following passage "To a Hindu there is no past, present or future. He is always with his God and to him all the universe is always in God " and so on. From writing of this kind (and it is one of a class) one might suppose that every Hindu was thinking at all times of God. Such suggestions are absurd and make the Indian case laughable. The general character of Indian civilization is spiritual but this is not to say that every Hindu is that. In India as elsewhere the bulk of the people are ordinary men and women occupied with the usual thoughts and cares of all such the world over; the better amongst them reflecting in their way and according to their capacity the great thoughts of the highest of their race and thus gaining
distinction amongst all the peoples. Some are as worldly minded and material (particularly to-day) as their corresponding: class in Europe; though (for lack of food and other causes) with generally less energy in their materialism than their Western brethren. Some few reach the highest spiritual experience of which the writer cited speaks. As an American humourist said, there is a good deal of human nature in man everywhere. As I walk along the streets of Calcutta a word I overhear perhaps more frequently than any other is " Paisa " or " Ha'pence " which the poor heave little of. The middle-class, becoming increasingly indigent, are distraught with the thought of how to find ways and means to educate their sons and marry their daughters. There is indeed a past to which they regretfully look back, a present in which they suffer, and a future which some look forward to with hope and others with fear. Faith sustains some, in others, as in Europe, it is lost. The rich are too often Concerned with themselves and the Govern
merit honours for which they hunt, and too little with the needs of their country. Some people are resigned, and some buoyed up by their religious faith; and some are truly spiritual men whose lives and thoughts inspire and maintain their race. We must distinguish between India and the Indian: particularly at the present time when so many have fallen from the ideals of their race.
With all these varieties of men there are differences of belief and practice and degree of spiritual, moral, and intellectual-development. When I hear people talk of Indian "Religion" I ask what form of it they mean. The question is disconcerting except to those who will approve nothing but what is their own, and who are out to blame everything. These will find fault with all forms. The so called " Pantheist" (a misnomer) is said to be given over to " cold abstractionism;" and the Theist to extravagant and misplaced devotion. Buddhism is " atheistic." Monism (advaita-vada) carries tolerance so far as to be
"indifferent to the truth." The sects have so little of it as to be "fanatical." Indian architecture is demoniacally " titanic." Indian Painting is too " miniaturist." Rama is over saintly. Sita " verges upon the immoral;" and so on and so forth. At the back of the minds of such critics is the notion that Nothing Indian is good because none of it is the same as their own.
Moreover the beliefs and institutions of a Coloured people are apt to be regarded as inferior. Particularly is this so when that people is a politically servient one. The dominant race naturally asks itself why it is in fact in possession and control, and finds the cause in its superior civilization. It asks how can the civilization of the people which it rules be good ; seeing that they are Subject ? How can its religion have the power of moral uplift when there is the Tack of that virile side of morality which subordination implies ?
For the purpose of adverse generalizations India is treated as an unity. In this.
sense some speak of "Indian religion," " Indian philosophy " and " Indian morals " condemning each en bloc. Political and religious criticism on the other hand treats it as a mass of irreconcilable differences. Such will ask " What is Hinduism ?" These imply that there is nothing to which that name can be given. It is not a people but a medley of various races, so it is said. If this be so, general criticisms cannot be passed. These ask how it is possible to link together "Godless" (Nirishvara) systems with Theistic theologies; the monist the qualified monist, and the dualist, the worshippers of the " Idol" and of the " Point of Light " (Jyotirbindu); rituals which in the past have sanctioned human, and to-day practise, animal sacrifice ; and on the other hand believers in the sanctity of all life ; worshippers of millions of "the gods " and Yogis seeking realization of the " Impersonal " Spirit; strict adherence to caste and sects which combat all caste and so forth. To many a foreigner therefore Indian beliefs and practices seem a
jungle " in which there is no path. There is a path. Meanwhile those who have not found it will save their credit if they avoid generalization on a subject which they do not understand. As I show later India does possess a spiritual unity for it possesses certain common fundamental beliefs. It also displays a wondrous variety of belief" and practice suited to the capacities and temperaments of men. One of the most Interesting enquiries is that which seeks the Theme of which these are the variations. These Themes will endure whilst their variations may either alter or pass away.
When in reply to criticism I speak of India " I mean an Idea apprehended by us as an abstraction derived from present experience and study of the past, which in the Cosmic Mind is a particular type of Consciousness projected with all its validations by Its power or Shakti. The Shakti is both cause and effect and appearing as India is the Bhârata Shakti. Particular men or classes of men in this country embody in varying degrees and well or ill
that Powerful Idea. Some even are unfaithful to it.
One of the mistakes which Mr. Archer and his class of critics make is to fail to distinguish between what is essential and vital in the Indian civilization; and what is mere crust and alien (and even in some cases) evil, accretion. It has been well said that the tree of Indian Dharma is very ancient and it is not therefore surprising if in the course of the ages, some parasites have gathered on its trunk. If he and they were to confine their attention, at least in the first place, to these, they might produce some just criticism and offer some useful advice if either is called for. But Mr. Archer does just the reverse. He attacks the principles of Indian civilization (that is the little which he understands of them) and fails to distinguish between such principles and what are not their legitimate results, but abuses due to the weakness and evil of men. A powerful case of a different character might be made against India but he has not the knowledge
to make it. Such a case would set forth the-Principles of Indian civilization in their purity and would thus show how far some of the Indian people had fallen from them the present time. But he speaks of all abuses as if they were the legitimate application of principles evil in themselves. Those principles may be well founded or not. They differ fundamentally from the modernism " of the West still in search of a sure basis on which to build itself Men, it may be, will always differ in some these matters. Difference of opinion, as the Radd-ul-Muhtar nobly says, is also the gift of God. But this is not necessarily to say that the principles are evil or barbarous. In fact who will be so rash as say that India will not in the future be shown to be right. I speak of general principles. There is scarce a principle which the Western Civilization of the last century has preached which is not called in question and is not on trial to-day. Meanwhile in its past form it threatens to disappear with the smoke of its guns in
a war for which all the West is ultimately, though in varying degrees, responsible, because all are responsible of the conditions under which it became possible.
Mr. Archer again lumps together indiscriminately matters which are contrary to the eternal Dharma; matters unconnected with or unessential to it and often of cotnparatively recent development; and matters sanctioned by religion but which have in some degree been misunderstood or misapplied and have thus become an abuse. As instances of the first class we may cite his charges about female infanticide and Sati. There have been in the past cases of infanticide limited to particular parts of the country. But all such acts are condemned by Indian religion as by any other. Similar charges have been made against China and have formed a staple of missionary polemic. But as Professor Giles has shewn (" Chinese civilization ") they are, except as instances of exceptional aberration, false. This kind of error dies hard when it serves some political or
religious purpose. Even to-day there are Still many who believe that Mahomedanism teaches that women have no souls. Sati, Considered not as an act of truly voluntary devotion, but as a practice which compelled or drugged widows to immolate themselves was a cruel barbarism. But it is not sanc-tioned by the principles of Indian Dharma, however much some, at the time of its Suppression, endeavoured, even by the falsification of texts, to show that it was. on the contrary the Mahanirvana Tantra says that woman is the embodiment of the Divine Mother of the universe and that the destruction of women in the Sati rite leads to Hell. Moreover, though cases have very rarely occurred in modern times (I remember to have tried one myself) the rite is so much a thing of the past that to drag it up with infanticide to-day charge gainst India is unscrupulous.
On the second head we may refer, as he does, to the rule against sea voyage. This is a matter upon which Pandits differ and on what do they not ? It is not an essential
of Indian Dharma. On the contrary Ancient India had a large foreign trade and was in active intercourse through its merchants and sailors with the other countries of the world. The restrictions against sea voyage are of later date and were possibly prescribed like other rules with the intention of keeping India together and upholding its Dharma against corrupting alien influence.
The rule is now being gradually abrogated. Again the so-called "shutting up" of women by Purdah has nothing to do with Hindu religion. It prevails in certain parts only of India and there in respect of the upper •classes only. It was borrowed from the then Mahomedan Rulers, and is still liked by many of the ladies concerned who consider it to be a sign of respectability. In the same way the glamour which attends a dominant race produces amongst the imitative the " have a drink " and " so English" Indian; the type which bans "native dress" from his Club because it is " run on European lines" and brings up his children in "Indian Etons" to segregate
them from the common run of Indian folk. One of these, a young man, informed on Indian friend of mine that he belonged to the " upper ten." All such imitative snobbery is alien to the spirit of this country. The education of woman according to modern notions has been neglected, as it indeed was in England until a quite-late epoch when those ideas were first expressed. This is not to say that Indian 0omen were, or are, lacking in culture any more than the Indian peasant is. The late Sir George Birdwood called the latter the most cultivated peasantry in the world. It is true that (to borrow the words of Mr. G. K. Chesterton concerning the Russian peasant whom the Indian peasant, in some respects, resembles) the latter knows little or nothing of modern science, commerce or machinery. He ploughs with an old plough is scantily dad, and has nothing but his faith, his fields, his great courage in facing a life as rude and hard as a subject of Alfred the great but he is truly civilized in so far as he shares in, to the limit of his capacity.
the great cultural traditions of his country.,.. Indian history shows the names of distinguished women, and. there were doubtless-more than are known to fame. Education and literacy are not one and the same. No sensible person objects nowadays to the education of Indian women. The discussion rightly centres round the question what that education is to be. The views which prevail in India are rather like those which were generally entertained in England before the Suffrage Movement ;" which still have some support there; and which exist over the greater part of the European, Continent. Personally I am in favour of giving the fullest opportunities to women, believing that nature is more to be trusted than man; but it must be admitted that time has yet to show whether the ancient views based on the more rigid application of the physiological and psychological differences of men and women, or those of the " advanced " and free school will be found to be the more correct.
Instances of the third class of criticisms
are the rules relating to caste and marriage. As regards marriage there is a considerable literature which those who are interested may read. The learned differ upon the question whether Shastric authority supports a state of affairs of which they complain either as regards early marriage or widow premarriage. Until this matter is settled itis obviously premature to charge the true principles of Indian civilization with any abuses which have occurred. There have been abuses in connection with the first but the present tendency is to raise the age of marriage. If even then it seems early judged by recent Western views, according to which marriage is becoming more and more deferred, it should be remembered that Sunder the English common law a girl could be married at twelve and was in fact in past times married early; that girls attain puberty' much earlier in this country than in the colder West; and that the Hindu insists on marriage for all men and women in the world both in the interests of the conservation of the race, and as a safe-
guard from the sexual errors which abound amongst men, and are now commencing to affect women, in the West.
It is on the question of caste which is, according to orthodox views, a part of the Hindu Dharma that Mr. Archer, like most other Western critics, shows himself most; angered. He says that in India " the most inhuman snobbery is a religious duty " and that caste " has corrupted Indian morality making insensate arrogance a religious and social duty." To speak of "snobbery" in connection with caste is to wholly misunderstand the matter. Sociology shows the existence of caste everywhere as rulers, warriors, merchants, agriculturists, servile population and so forth. These distinctions did not arise from snobbery but from the inherent needs of society and its organisation. Classes and (in a practical sense) castes exist in the West to-day. Many are of opinion that classes will always exist however much they may shift. Thus Professor Giddings the sociologist says " classes do not become blended as societies
grow older; they become more sharply defined." He considers that " any social reform that hopes for the blending of classes is foredoomed to failure." The notion that " all men are equal " either in work, capacity or utility is unfounded, In modern Europe the sociological and economic order has not necessarily anything to do with religion at all. In fact country after country has separated Church and State. This was otherwise at the time of the great Catholic Synthesis, which the "Reformation," Renaissance, French Revolution, and other modern movements destroyed. In fact, modern Europe is without any settled foundation or aim. On all matters there is a chaotic difference of opinions some of which contain the seed of disruption which the great war will complete.
The main class divisions in modern Europe and America are between the rich or those comparatively so, and the poor or Relatively poor. The man of wealth is the man of worth and power. Those to whom
he is not so are either adherents of the old religious ideas, or modern reforming social movements. Of the time when he wrote Professor Giddings in his principles of Sociology says: " Upon a review of some parts of Europe and America, it may be inferred that in a community, whose life is a tireless pursuit of materialistic ends—in which money-getting is the sum of success —-there will be a sharp separation of the -successful from the unsuccessful classes and an exploitation of the poor by the rich as wanton and as merciless as that of the week by the strong in societies of military character. The laws will favour the prosperous, the mercenary spirit will corrupt judgment and religion alike." Whether the present revolution which Europe is undergoing will stay this process remains to be seen.
The ideal Indian scheme of social order Is based on religious and philosophical principles which are also the practical ideals of daily life. The original Indian castes spoken of in the Scripture were, as is
well known, four. To-day there are practically and the Shudra; just as of the four Ashramas only two survive—the Grihastha and Avadhuta. It is in the last or Shudra caste that the multitude of sub-castes have developed according to the nature of the occupations. The secular occupations of the castes are called Vrittis. Whilst each caste is expected to confine itself to its own prescribed calling, it is said that some latitude is allowable according to necessity on the case of the three higher castes, which however, if too freely availed of (as we see to-day in the case of Brahmanas in non-Brahmana occupations), results in spiritual deterioration. Confusion generally exists on the minds of Western writers on the subject of the castes and those " untouchables" outside all castes called Panchama and Pariah. The question of "untouchability" (Asprishya) must be distinguished from generally so. For this reason (that is for
fear of pollution) he is not allowed to use the water wells of the castes. Nevertheless the neglect of the Panchamas has been inhumane; a fact which has led to their conversion to Christianity in the hope of better social treatment. If their surroundings are unsanitary they should be taught and helped to put this right. There is a strong movement to remedy these evils even amongst those who adhere to the caste system as between themselves. The two matters of untouchability in connection with the Panchamas and of the castes should therefore be distinguished.
The two essentials of caste are the prohibitions against inter-marriage and eating in common. As regards the latter, Hindus do not attach so much importance to this form of social intercourse as do Europeans and particularly the English. It is quite possible to be on friendly terms with a man and to hold him in high esteem without eating with him: and in fact, subject to the two prohibitions stated, the castes mix with one another which is some
crimes not the case with the European classes. To quote the words of an educated and distinguished negro the late Mr. Booker Washington " In all things which are purely social we can be as separate as the lingers, yet one in the hand in all things assential to mutual progress." Nor where as in India there is a rule which is kept does it involve any humiliation. Even in England the " gentleman " (a term losing its social distinction) and his tradesman, and not generally take place. The Substantial distinction is that in the West class is theoretically flexible, though in fact the rise from one class to another only takes place in exceptional instances. In India laste is inflexible whatever it may have been in the past, in which some think it has drona and Vishvamitra. In India again the rule relating to inter-marriage and inter-dining is kept rigidly by those who
observe the caste system. In the West a man may dine with his " inferiors" at the risk of a charge of eccentricity and of giving offence to those of the same station if he asks them to do what he does. A man who thus regularly associated with His "inferiors" would probably find that His own class refused his invitations. In same way there is a liberty to "marry beneath. one" but those who do so may "be cut off with a shilling" and socially " boycotted " unless they happen to possess that open sesame which is wealth. For to the God of Money many make the fullest obeisance. It comes therefore to this that in India we see an ancient system logically and inflexibly applied. In Europe change is theoretically admitted and in some cases takes place in fact. As I write these lines I read that provisions have been recently published in South Africa precluding all coloured persons, Negro or otherwise, from travelling on the railway in compartments reserved for white men or in mail or other Notified trains; and marriage between
white women and Negroes. Those who think that the reasons which prompt this legislation are sound cannot without inconsistency condemn the restrictions imposed as regards the relation of castes, and as between the castes and the pariahs. What is the difference in principle between a rule prohibiting a Negro from marriage with a white woman or association with white men when travelling (custom excluding relations in other cases) and a rule prohibiting association and marriage between, say, a high Brahmana and a Pariah and his women. In the same way those Indians who protest against distinctionsbeing made against themselves should Remember that their caste system assumes the same principle on which distinctionsare based.
I am not here concerned to show which of these views is correct but to point out Certain common is conceptions and the Rational basis on which the rule of caste rests. In this connection an Indian writer Hindu Message") has acutely pointed
out one of the differences of view, here mentioned, between India and the West. the former has always attached primary importance to subjective development; that is development and strengthening of the individual Psyche and body according to its nature (Svadharma). This principle as I have already pointed out governs also the inter-state and inter-racial relations. I India has always held that as between the soul and its material environment the form is of primary importance. Indeed strong souls are independent of environment and make it subserve their purposes. The notion, which Mr. Archer echoes, that man according to Indian theories " rises and falls as helplessly and purposelessly as the waves of the ocean " is born of an excessive ignorance. In no country in the world has greater insistence been laid on the fact that man is free and the maker of his destiny. What therefore has to be strengthened is the organism which is the bearer of individual character. If this be done such adjustment as is
Necessary to the environment becomes easier. In India a systematic attempt has been made to preserve and transmit the tuna of the " Ids " of the germ-plasm as Weismann calls them from father to son in the face of opposition from individual motions and interests. Spiritual growth is mainly dependent on the organism and? the exercise of the Svadharma appropriate to it. This has been kept in mind? the evolution of the Indian social organism; for the social aim has been? self-conquest (Jitendriya) self-rule (Svarja-asiddhi) and liberation (Moksha) for theidividual spirit or Jiva. On the other and the social aim of the modern West has been largely the conquest of the external environment which it has sought to effect through a variance of the " Ids entering into the constitution of germ-plasm so as to enable the organism to more And more adapt itself to the environment. I cannot here more fully enter into this; Matter which is based on certain fundamental concepts of Indian Philosophy.
Suffice to say that the factors or Gunas of the ultimate material cause (Prakriti) of both mind and matter display themselves variously not only in man but throughout all created being; not only in the bodily matter but in the inner psychical tendency or Sangskara which gives rise to individual mind. The souls are born into bodies suitable to them and thus the four castes or Varnas were, it is said, created by the Lord (Ishvara) according to the division of Guna and Karma that is the Svadharma or the particular Dharma of each being. Without the acceptance of this doctrine, caste largely loses its significance. According to the Western view this is not so. The Christian teaching is that a soul pure as it leaves God is by special relation placed in any kind of body, which may be either good or bad, and there commences its experiences for the first time. To the Eastern, as to many Westerns, such a notion is irrational. Caste appears to the Western a hardship because he ordinarily does not believe in the past or future births.
Man's only chance is, according to him, in this birth. The orthodox Hindu holds that the soul is born into a body which is suitable to its previous merit or demerit and acquirements; that man's caste is fixed for a particular birth ; but that if it is a low caste he may by fulfilling its duties and by self-development qualify himself in future births for a higher or the highest caste. One caste does not consider itself superior by reason of wealth or social standing. Such snobbishness is a mark of class-distinctions in the West. In India a man is not despised because he is poor and of humble occupation as he often is in the West. The present caste is an indication of the measure of merit and demerit in previous births. Subject to caste rules, there is social association. The Brahmana mind, even as it now exists, has in general a distinctive and high quality which other castes maintained, but obviously not wholly so, seeing
way to pride any more than to any other :sin; otherwise he will become a degraded Brahmana in this birth and possibly of the lowest birth in his next life. It is a mistake to suppose that the caste-system is a " system of group morality." Those who so speak do not know what Dharma means. Samanya Dharma or the general rules of morality govern, all castes and all men. Each man must be truthful, charitable, just, free from pride and so forth. It is the particular rules called Vishesha Dharma which bind only members of a particular caste. As a matter of fact the high caste of a Brahmana connotes more rigorous injunctions (Niyama) than those imposed on the Shudra. The result which (as recently pointed out by H.H. Shri Shangkaracharyya at Kumbakonam) the latter can attain by a minimum of Niyama, is only to be had by the Brahmana through a maximum of the same. The followers of the "Varnash-ramadharma do not, like adherents of some other religions, hold that those who follow their own, religious faith are less fitted for
salvation than themselves. Any one who follows the Dharma of his own caste ; any non-Hindu who follows the Dharma of his own religion with faith in its truth and in God will necessarily rise in the scale of spiritual growth and have that material and spiritual happiness to which his actions entitle him. It need hardly be said that in fact we do not find these high ideals always kept; nor do Christians always keep theirs. Fault is not attributable to the Eternal Dharma. The fall of the Hindu is due to his not keeping it. Thus the Brahmanas who were once respected as the " Guardians of the Treasury of Dharma" have now (in the words of H. H. Shri Shangkaracharyya of Karvir Pitha at the Rast "All India Hindu Conference") often " become objects of ridicule and contempt." Those who should live austerely and simply are now in the scramble for place, wealth, and power. It is no wonder that to. the degree in which they are unfaithful to their duties their claims are resisted. There are without doubt abuses in all
these matters. There are also some barbarisms both in the pejorative sense, and in the sense of incomplete development, according to Western ideas. Whether these latter are always right is another matter. But what country in the world is without them in the eye of another? The missionary is apt to place before the Indian an idealized picture of "Christian" Europe: for the actual facts tell against the Christianity which he preaches to the Indian people as being a more potent influence for good than their own religion. The facts are now becoming known and some who have been there for themselves have begun to complain of deception. Those Easterns who, after this war, will read the books which each of the contending parties have written against the other will find a store of material with which to confound the pretensions of each. Meanwhile any intelligent Indian who has passed a few years in Europe can make-a-case against it of barbarism and wrong in the form of crime (let the criminal
statistics be compared) vice (intemperance, sordid prostitution, white slavery and sexual perversities unknown in this country of which Elphinstone wrote " Their freedom from gross debauchery is the point in which they appear to most advantage and their superiority in purity of manners is not flattering to our self-esteem") cruelty to children and animals (in Europe societies for their protection are necessary-—Kindness to and love of children are a marked trait of the Indian people and so is their respect for animal life, notwithstanding some modern cruelties amongst the low such as the carters and Goalas of the towns. In Europe also there is unnecessary killing of animals in " sport " and the horrible crime of vivisection); lack of cleanliness (the Anglo-Indian taught his home-people the daily bath): evil customs and social injustice (such as regards the latter the grinding and " sweating " of the poor); vulgarity (which scarce here exists); irreligion ; crude religion, and many a superstition; political aggression and so on; all of them the more odious
because parts of an organised system which is predominantly to-day (as contrasted with the Christian past) a worship of mere material success. All this is not to deny the presence of great qualities and virtues amongst some and the truly spiritual endeavours which these make towards the general betterment of Humanity. In truth if we were all sane and modest in our self-appreciation we should discover quickly that no people or country is free from blame. We should then effect good to others and escape the charge of hypocrisy against ourselves. If the merits of all peoples were balanced, India would appear high in the scale. Men are not yet Man. ... Some have been and are so. The rest are still candidates for Humanity.