Lokayata : Journal of Positive Philosophy Vol.IV,No.01 (March 2014).

1 | P a g e

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

ISSN: 2249-8389

Lokyata Journal of Positive Philosophy

Centre for Positive Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies (CPPIS)

Milestone Education Society (Regd.), Ward No.06, Pehowa

(Kurukshetra)-136128

http://positivephilosophy.webs.com

Volume IV, No. 01(March , 2014)

Chief-Editor:

Desh Raj Sirswal

2 | P a g e


Lokyata: Journal of Positive Philosophy (ISSN 2249-8389)

Lokyata: Journal of Positive Philosophy is an online bi-annual interdisciplinary journal of the Center for

Positive Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies (CPPIS). The name Lokyata can be traced to Kautilya's

Arthashastra, which refers to three nvkiks (logical philosophies), Yoga, Samkhya and Lokyata. Lokyata here still refers to logical debate (disputatio, "criticism") in general and not to a materialist doctrine in particular. The objectives of the journal are to encourage new thinking on concepts and theoretical

frameworks in the disciplines of humanities and social sciences to disseminate such new ideas and research

papers (with strong emphasis on modern implications of philosophy) which have broad relevance in society

in general and mans life in particular. The Centre publishes two issues of the journal every year. Each regular issue of the journal contains full-length papers, discussions and comments, book reviews,

information on new books and other relevant academic information. Each issue contains about 100 Pages.

Centre for Positive Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies, Pehowa (Kurukshetra)

Chief-Editor: Dr. Desh Raj Sirswal (P.G. Govt. College for Girls, Sector-11, Chandigarh)

Associate Editors:

Dr. Merina Islam, Dr. Sandhya Gupta

Editorial Advisory Board Prof. K.K. Sharma (Former-Pro-Vice-Chancellor, NEHU, Shillong) Prof.Sohan Raj Tater (Former Vice-Chancellor, Singhania University, Rajasthan) Dr. Anamika Girdhar (Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra) Dr.Ranjan Kumar Behera (Patkai Christian College (Autonomous), Nagaland) Fr. V. John Peter (St. Josephs Philosophical College, Nilgiris, T.N.) Dr. Aayam Gupta (Kurukshetra, Haryana) Dr. Geetesh Nirban (Kamala Nehru College, University of Delhi) Dr. Vaishali Dev (Mahamakut Buddhist University, Thailand) Dr. Narinder Singh (GHSC-10, Chandigarh) Dr. Vijay Pal Bhatnagar (Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra) Mr. Praveen Kumar Anshuman ( Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi, Delhi) Declaration: The opinions expressed in the articles of this journal are those of the individual

authors, and not necessary of those of CPPIS or the Chief-Editor.

Cover Picture by Stapal Yadav cited from Two-Days National Seminar on Ambedkarite Quest on

Egalitarian Revolution in India organized by Centre for Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Studies, Kurukshetra

University, Kurukshetra held on 26th & 27th November, 2013.

3 | P a g e


In this issue..

Author & Title of the Paper Page No.

S. Lourdunathan :PHILOSOPHY OF HINDUISM AND A CRITIQUE FOR LIBERATION RELIGION

04-24

Jayashree Deka: WOMEN AND SWARAJ: RESURRECTION OF WOMEN IN GANDHIAN FREEDOM STRUGGLE

24-34

A.Malliga :THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE: SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS 35-50

Surinder Kaur: VALUE BASED EDUCATION: THE KEY TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

51-57

Navdeep Kaur: VALUE EDUCATION AND SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION

58-62

Merina Islam: BOOK-REVIEW 63-66

NEW PUBLICATION 67

PHILOSOPHY NEWS IN INDIA 68-70

CONTRIBUTORS OF THIS ISSUE 71

4 | P a g e


PHILOSOPHY OF HINDUISM AND A CRITIQUE FOR LIBERATION

RELIGION

S. Lourdunathan

Introduction

This paper is an attempt to explore and systematically present the critique of religion with special

reference to Hinduism as found in the writings of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Philosophy of Hinduism

is a classical work by Ambedkar in which he is engaged in a philosophical critique of Hinduism

both as a religion and a social order. Government of Maharastra published the collected works of

Ambedkar in the year 1987. This particular work is entitled Philosophy of Hinduism is

significant and unique in several aspects. Firstly, the contents of this work were hitherto

unknown. These are the unpublished writings of Dr. Ambedkar which were in the custody of the

Administrator General and the custodian of Dr. Ambedkars property. These writings had

assumed such significance that it was even feared that they had been destroyed or lost. There is a

second reason why this work is significant his interpretation of the philosophy of and his

historical analysis of the Hindu religion throws new light on his critique of religious thought.

The third important point is that his analysis of Hindu Philosophy (is) a definite approach to

the strengthening of the solidarity of Indian society based on the human values of equality,

liberty, and fraternity. The analysis ultimately points towards uplifting the down-trodden and

absorbing masses in the national mainstream1.

Indigenous Analysis

For a philosophical analysis of Hinduism, Ambedkar uses the academic insights gained by his

ardent studies of various sciences particularly of philosophy, history, anthropology of religion,

sociology of religion and philosophy of religion. By combining the insights of these social

sciences, he employs a multi-disciplinary approach to study, understand, and critically evaluate

Hinduism. In the process of his analysis of Hinduism, one could infer the truth that Ambedkar

has developed his own theory of (indigenous) analysis of religion in his attempt to understand

the nature of Hinduism and evaluate its social function. By specifically analyzing Hinduism as

practiced in the Indian Society Ambedkar contributes to a critique of religion for societal

liberation by developing a specific theory of analysis or a philosophy of religion in the

5 | P a g e


contemporary Indian Socio-philosophical tradition. One of the reasons for making such a claim

is that, we usually depend upon the western model for analysis of religion, especially of the so-

called the Theodicy-Model2, as employed in the context of Christian philosophy of religion,

whereas, Ambedkar analysis of religion is purely an Indian approach to the problem of Indian

society.

In the following lines, we try to unearth the philosophical criterion as employed by Ambedkar

and systematically formulate or consolidate his critique of religion for liberation. By studying the

methods of analysis as used by Ambedkar, the research-interests of the researcher are as

follows:

Firstly, to identify the method of analysis as employed by Ambedkar.

Secondly to evolve a philosophical criterion for a critique of religion and society for

liberation from the standpoint of Ambedkar.

And finally to formulate a theoretical ground of a Philosophy of Liberation of religion

and society in the most Indian (indigenous) way possible. These research purposes are

interrelated to each other. In fact, this has been the one of the central objectives and

intended contribution aimed by this research thesis.

Ambedkars Philosophical Analysis of Religion

We shall now proceed to analyze the philosophical analysis of religion as engaged by Ambedkar

in his work on Philosophy of Hinduism. In the very first statement itself, Ambedkar clarifies

his fundamental socio-philosophical concern of his exposition. He begins by asking, what is

philosophy of Hinduism3. In order to engage into a systematic analysis of the question, he

attempts to seek clarity to two more interrelated questions: what is philosophy and what is

religion? and what is the relation between philosophy and religion. In order that his analysis is

to be based on certain rational criterion, he rises these questions. He clarifies that his purpose of

entering in to such an analysis is to study and to evaluate the philosophy of Hinduism for

constructing a social order based on the principles of Justice and equality. Following the writings

of Prof. Pringle-Pattison, Ambedkar clarifies his application of the meaning of the terms-

Philosophy and Religion and Philosophy of Religion. He then proceeds to point out that his

analysis of Hinduism is based on the insights provided by the theoretical perception called

philosophy of religion.

An inquiry in to the meaning of meaning (called the problem of meaning) is the basic way that

serious philosophical queries have been carried out by philosophers. Clarity of the very question

itself is the precondition for clarity of a response. Great philosophers like Socrates, Plato,

Descartes and many others functioned in their philosophical tasks only in this manner. Doubting

the very doubt itself is the philosophical technique applied by Descartes. Plato in his Dialogues is

found engaging into a Socratic irony4 to clarify the concepts taken for understanding. Clarity of

6 | P a g e


the very question itself would contribute to clarity of the response. This is one of the major

reasons that philosophy is considered critical and presupposition-less science. Ambedkar

following the same tradition of critical inquiry engages into a serious academic attempt to

discuss the meaning of the questions that he has undertaken to study. He says, One must define

(clarify) what he understands by religion (the point of inquiry here) as there are no agreement as

to its exact definition5.

Philosophy, Religion and Philosophy of Religion

Ambedkar takes note of the different sense and reference of the use of the terms philosophy,

religion and philosophy of religion. He claims that the use of the term philosophy refers to the

teachings of great thinkers such as Socrates, Plato and so on. It is also used in the sense of a

viewing the things together. He says, Philosophy is an attempt to see things together to keep

all the main features of the world in view, and to grasp them in their relation to one another as

part one whole. It is a is a synoptic view of reality; it is a world-view; it is a world-ground6.

He says, while religion is something definite, there is nothing definite in philosophy.

Combining Philosophy and religion, for Ambedkar, it meant as an analysis and interpretation of

the experience in question in the bearing upon our view of man, and the world in which he

lives7. He claims that he uses the term philosophy of religion in the sense that it is a descriptive,

normative and critical science that helps towards the authentic understanding of religion. It

describes the theoretical nature of the religion for analysis; it proceeds to investigate the given

description, and evaluates and suggests the foundational norms of religion. According to

Ambedkar Philosophy of religion is to me is both descriptive as well as normative. In so far

as it deals with the teaching of a Religion, Philosophy of religion becomes a descriptive

science in so far as it involves the use of critical reason for passing judgement on those

teachings, it is a normative science8. According to him, a study of a philosophy of a religion

takes into account several important dimensions such as that it is a study of the Mythical

theology or mythical religious truth-claims of a religion; it is a study into the civil (social)

theology of a religion; it is a study into the natural theology of religion; That it is a study into the

revealed theological claims of a religion. Moreover, it is a study of the historical development of

a religion9.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkars understanding of Religion

Having clarified the different areas of general concerns in an academic analysis of religion,

Ambedkar claims that he employs philosophy of religion in the sense of Natural and Social

theology. He points out that there are three important theses that form the subject matter of a

philosophical analysis of religion both in natural and social theology. They are: (1) The

existence of God (2) Gods Providential government of the universe and (3) Gods moral

government of mankind (society). Ambedkar observes, I take Religion to mean the

7 | P a g e


propounding of an ideal scheme of divine governance the aim of which is to make the social

order in which men live a moral order. This is the sense in which I shall be using the term

Religion in this discussion10.

However, he notes the difficulty of separating the essential characteristics of a religion from

those of unessential due to the historical layers through which a religion has grown to the present

day. He quotes Prof. Robertson Smiths work on The religion of the Semites who says, the

traditional usage of religion had grown up gradually in the course of many centuries the record

on the religious thought of mankind in religious institutions, resembles the geological record

of the history of earths crust; the new and the old are preserved side by side or rather layer upon

layer11. Due to these factors, it is difficult to enumerate the essentials of a religion. The same

thing is true of Indian religions as well. Because of its historical layers, Hinduism has the

possibility of containing doctrines that are almost diametrically opposed to each other. He says,

the Veda, contains not only the records of different phases of religious thought, but of

doctrines (that may be) opposed to each other12.

The Need of an Epistemic Criterion for Analysis of Religion and Society

Having defined the content of his use of the concepts of philosophy, religion and philosophy of

religion, Ambedkars analytical interest is to find out whether Hinduism as a religion and social

order is an ideal scheme of divine governance whose aim is to make the social order a moral

order. He says, I shall be concerned within this study of Hinduism putting Hinduism on its

trial to assess its worth as a way of life13. According to Ambedkar an important dimension of

Philosophy of religion is concerned with the criterion to be adopted for judging the value of the

ideal scheme of divine governance for which religion stands. Religion must be put to trial. By

what criterion shall it be judged? That leads to the definition of norm14. He observes that since

Hinduism like any other positive religions, has a written form constitution. Its scheme of divine

governance is easily deducible from such constitution. Among the Vedas, the sacred book called

Manu Smriti, is one such written constitutions that provides the Hindu scheme of divine

governance easily accessible to the test of social utility morality. It is said to be the Bible of the

Hindus, and containing the Philosophy of Hinduism15. Hence, he involves himself to the

analysis of the Vedic world-view as illustrated in the Vedas relying heavily on the claims made

in the Manus Smriti of the Rg Vedas. If so, the query that arises here is to find out the criterion

that Ambedkar used for a critique of religion and in particular to the analysis of Hinduism as

religion and social order. This is our concern here.

Conceptual and Contextual Revolution Imperative

Having insisted the necessity of a philosophical criterion, Ambedkar suggests that a philosophy

of a religion must be judged, based on its Revolution because the mother of Philosophy is

8 | P a g e


revolution. Accordingly, Ambedkar holds, As for myself I think it is safe to proceed on the

view that to know the philosophy of any movement or the institution has undergone. Revolution

is the mother of philosophy and if it is not the mother of philosophy, it is a lamp, which

illuminates philosophy. Religion is no exception to this rule. The best method to ascertain the

criterion of which to judge the philosophy of (any) religion is to study the Revolutions which

religion has undergone. That is the method I propose to adopt16. And he adds, Progress in

philosophy has come about by theoretical revolutions that has taken place in the history of

philosophy. Therefore, revolution is the criterion by which a religion and its social order need to

be critiqued. For, He says, To me the best method to ascertain the criterion by which to judge

the philosophy of Religion is to study the Revolutions which religion has undergone. That is the

method I propose to adopt17.

What is Revolution - as understood by Dr. Ambedkar

However, what does he mean by revolution should be clarified here in order to understand

Ambedkars philosophical analysis of religion. By revolution, he clarifies that it is meant to be

both a conceptual or theoretical and social in nature. By social revolution he means alternative

changes in structures of society towards an egalitarian social order. If any religion does not pass

the test of such revolutions both theoretical and social then, it tends to be not positivistic. Here

Ambedkars acumen of a quality of a philosopher is worth pondering. Like a good philosopher

who opts for an epistemic-criterion to judge any truth-claims, Ambedkar first proposes his

criterion of an analysis and then proceeds to employ it in his critique of Hinduism as a social

order. Before taking up the study of Hinduism or any other religion, he proposes a specific

methodology of analysis to study the nature of such religion. Instead of basing himself on certain

presuppositions, Ambedkar like that an analytical philosopher, suggests a methodology of

epistemic understanding of the phenomena to be analyzed.

From the above discussion, one could clearly establish that according to Ambedkar, an epistemic

criterion is of utmost necessity to accept something to be true. For, he holds that a truth claim of

a religion must necessarily pass through the test of reason, that it (religion) should undergo

conceptual and socio-structural revolution or at least conceive the possibilities of revolution.

Ambedkar observes that religion at its initial stage is an all-embracing factor. It included

geology, biology, medicine, superstition, exorcism, psychology, physiology and so on. However,

as times changed, especially after the famous Copernican Revolution, many of these sciences

were separated from religion. Then came the Darwinian revolution. This has brought about lots

of changes in religious worldviews. Religion by allowing itself conceptual and structural changes

in tune with the socio-historical and scientific times, it progresses and becomes more authentic

and a great blessing. It has established freedom of thought18. By the process of

secularization, religion has freed itself from its age-old false belief-systems and social

practices. Thus for Ambedkar, Revolution touches the nature and content of ruling conceptions

9 | P a g e


of the relations of God to man, of Society to man and man to man. How great was this revolution

can be seen from the differences which divide savage society from civilized society. Ambedkar

further points out, there is no doubt that this revolution in religions has been a great blessing. It

has established freedom of thought. It has established control of itself, making its own, the world

it once shared with superstition, facing undaunted the things of its former fears and so carving

out for itself, from the realm of mystery in which it lies, a sphere of unhampered action and a

field of independent thought19.

Two types of Religion

After having pointed out that Revolution as one of the criteria for an analysis of religion,

Ambedkar proceeds to classify two different types of religions. Such a classification is made

based on certain conceptual grounds. The first one according to Ambedkar, is the religion of the

Savage society and second one is the religion of the Civilized society. In the religion of the

civilized society, Ambedkar introduces two sub-divisions. They are (a) the religion of antique or

ancient society and (b) the religion of the modern society. Now, we shall clarify the differences

between the religion of the savage and the religion of the civilized society from the point of view

of Ambedkar. Ambedkar attempts to highlight the differences between these different types of

religion in the following manner.

The Religion of the Savage Society

According to Ambedkar, the religion of the savage society does not permit itself to undergo any

radical theoretical revolution. It is only concerned with life and the preservation of life and it is

these life processes which constitute the substance and source of the religion of savage

society20. Here, He adopts the explanation provided by Prof. Crowley to explain the religion of

the savage society. He says that such a religion, does not enter into his professional or social

hours, his scientific or artistic moments; practically its chief claims are settled on one day in the

week from which ordinary worldly concerns are excluded. In fact, his life is in two parts; but the

morality with which religion is concerned is the elemental. Serious thinking on ultimate

questions of life and death is roughly speaking, the essence of his Sabbath; add to this habit of

prayer, giving the thanks at meals, and the sub conscious feeling that birth and death,

continuation and marriage are rightly solemnized by religion, while business and pleasure may

possibly be consecrated, but only metaphorically or by an overflow of religious feeling. For

Ambedkar, the principal things in the Religion of the Savage society are presence of the facts of

human existence such as life, death, birth, etc., Through the ritualistic, ceremonial magical,

fetishist practices, the religion of the savage seeks for life and its preservation21.

10 | P a g e


Characteristics of the Savage Society

There is no trace of the idea of God. It is a religion without any philosophy of God.

There is no bond between morality and religion. Its end is life and the preservation of life.

They constitute the substance and source of the religion of the savage society22.

Thus, there is no practical relationship between human life and its everyday suffering and

alleviation of such sufferings.

However, this does not mean that the savage religion did not have any morality at all. It had

morality in the sense of certain dos and donts or taboos. In the savage society there is morality

but independent of Religion however, morality is present in the form of rules and laid down by

the savage society for the preservation of life23.

Religion of the Civilized Society

On the contrary, the religion of the civilized society allows itself to the possibilities of a

conceptual revolution. In the religion of the civilized society, God comes in the scheme of

religion (and) morality becomes sanctified by Religion24. The religion of the civilized society

has undergone conceptual changes over the period of History, and it has carried on differences

regarding the conception of God, Society and Man. In it, every social act had a reference to the

Gods, as well as to men, for the social body was not made up of men only, but of gods and

men25.

Two Stages of The Civilized Society

Ambedkar distinguishes two stages of the religion of the civilized society: The first is the

religion of the antique society and the second is the religion of the modern society. In the antique

society, religion is founded on kinship between God and its worshippers. It is centered on the

way God has been conceived by such society. It is a kind of ontologism applied in such religious

worldview; where as, in the modern society the idea of god has been trans-placed from its

composition. The idea of God has been conceived from the standpoint of human life and his

social existence. In this sense, such a religion tends to be more anthropocentric rather than God-

Centric. The former believed in the idea of the existence plurality of Gods. Its gods were an

exclusive to each ancient groups of the antique society. God was conceived based on human

community. Its idea of God therefore is communitarian. God had become the god of the

community and the community had become the chosen community of God26. Therefore, the god

of Antique society is not a universal god, the god of all. They did not have the idea of humanity

in general.

In the ancient society, God was conceived to be the father of his people but the basis of this

conception of Fatherhood was deemed to be physical, and particular. Whereas in the modern

society, the idea of divine-fatherhood has become entirely dissociated form the physical basis of

11 | P a g e


natural fatherhood. In its place, man is conceived to be created in the image of God. God was

given an ontological status whose nature is to transcend and immanent. In such a composition,

the idea of God as the creator and governor of universe has emerged in the modern society. He is

given an absolute status both morally and existentially. The concept of a morally based humanity

was envisioned in the religion of the modern or civilized society.

Two Types of Revolution

Ambedkar talks of two types of revolution: the external and the internal types of revolution. The

external revolution refers to the factors responsible for conceptual changes in religion regarding

its idea of God, morality and social order. The scientific factors like the Copernicus revolution,

Darwins ideas of evolution are cited as examples. The internal revolution refers to actual the

conceptual shifts in the understanding of religion as the result of its response to the challenges or

revolt provided by scientific factors. That a true religion should under go these changes in order

to be relevant to contemporary needs of human society, is the point of insistence that Ambedkar

brings home here.

Main Features of Savage And Modern Societies

For the sake of clarity of analysis, we shall systematically cognize the fore-going discussion as

follows: According to Ambedkar,

The Religion of the savage society is group or clan-centered. In it, there is no idea of a

universal morality.

The religion of the antique society had the idea of God but, it could only be at the level of

national religion.

The religion of the modern society has both the idea of a universal God and universal

morality.

Thus, there has been a transformation in the history of religion. There has been

conceptual revolution in the truth-claims of religion. From group-identity, there was a

change (revolution) to the idea of trans-group identity (national) and from the national

identity, there emerged a revolution to the idea of God and morality to be universal and

all-embracing of humanity and its social existence.

There has been a revolution or ideological change regarding the notion of God. From no

idea of god, to an idea of a god of this or that particular groups god or gods and from the

group-gods to an idea of a national god and from the idea of a national god to the idea of

a universal god.

From the concept of a plurality of God, changed from an idea of a singular God of human

society. And such a god has been conceived to be creator, governor of morality.

12 | P a g e


There has been a shift from the mere idea of fear of god to the idea of social existence

based on morality.

Ambedkar points out that revolution or conceptual change is the necessary prerequisite to the

authenticity of religion. Thus, there has been a change or revolution in the concepts of

morality as well as God in the history of religion. Revolution in the sense of theoretical and

social has been the hallmark of religion in general. It has undergone changes from ancient to

modern society. From the idea of natural gods to supernatural gods, and from the idea of

supernatural gods to an idea of a single Creator God and from the idea of a single creator-

god to an idea of a moral God (who is the governor of morality in society) and from the idea

of a moral-God to an idea of humanistic God. Thus, revolution is the way religion has

progressed towards the modern society. It is an essential criterion for the authenticity of the

truth claims of any religion.

The Principles of Utility And Justice

After having clarified the features of the religions of the savage and the modern society and

specified that revolution is one of the touch stones of verification to count the progress of

religion, Ambedkar proceeds to spell out that the other norms or criterions to judge the

authenticity of a religion are the concepts Utility and Justice. Ambedkar adopts Utility as a

criterion of religion from his idea of the antique society. The concept of Justice, he says, is

adopted from the idea of modern society. He says, at the one hand of the revolution was the

antique society with its religious ideal in which the end is the society. At the other end of

revolution is the modern society with its religious ideal in which the end is the individual

(concern of the individual in the society). To put the same fact in terms of the norm, it can be

said that the norm or criterion for judging right or wrong in the antique society is Utility

while the norm or the criterion for judging right or wrong in the modern society is Justice.

The Religious revolution was not thus a revolution in the religious organization of society

resulting in the shifting of the center from society to the individual it was a revolution in

the norms27.

The concept of utility he claims that he adopts from the idea of the antique society. In the

antique society, utility was the criterion to judge right or wrong. The welfare of the tribe as a

whole is considered the essential morality of the tribe. In addition, God must be useful in

sustenance, and preservation and protection of tribe. The utility God is to protect the tribe not

as individual but as society as a whole. He says, Utility as criterion was appropriate to the

antique world in which, society being the end, the moral good was held to be something of

social utility28. Thus, Ambedkar observes, to my mind there is no doubt that they are the

real norms by which to judge a philosophy of religion. In the first place, the norm must

enable people to judge what is right and wrong in the conduct of men. In the second place,

the norm must be appropriate to current notion of what constitutes the moral good29.

13 | P a g e


Having pointed out the types of norms as to be adopted for a critique of religion, Ambedkar

proceeds to adopt the norm of Justice to testify the truth of Hinduism both as religion and a

social order. Because, according to him, Justice as a criterion is appropriate to the modern

world in which the individual in the society is the end and the moral good of the society does

justice to the individual. The norm or the criterion of judging the appropriateness of religion

according to Ambedkar should not only be Godly but also be earthly. These concepts of

Ambedkar very well advocate that he is a lover of religion and not a denier of religion.

The Necessity of Religion and the Need for Secularization of Religion

Ambedkar is not a denier of the need of religion. For him, religion is necessary; it is a social

necessity to provide a moral unity. Religion is a social force religion stands for a scheme

of divine governance. The scheme becomes an ideal for the society to follow. The ideal may

be non-existent in the sense that it is something, which is constructed. However, although

non-existent, it is very it has full operative force, which is inherent in every ideal30. The

norm of utility in religion would promote unity of society as a whole. For Ambedkar, religion

must progressively be secularized according to the dictates of the conceptual and scientific

changes that occur in human society. He says that religious ideal has hold on humankind,

irrespective of any early gain. Its power is to be extended to material benefits. Therefore, to

ignore religion is to ignore a live-wire31

.

The Criteria for A Critique of Religion

An authentic religion should undergo revolution both conceptual and social in view of

the changing nature of human society because, human society is not a static

phenomenon but it has grown from ancient to modern type of society.

An authentic religion should be judged based on an ideal scheme of divine

governance. In other words, it should be morally based, the morality of which should

do good to the individual in the society. The moral basis of the religion of the ancient

society is Utility and the moral basis of the modern society is Justice. Thus, according

to Ambedkar, Revolution, Social Justice and Utility are the guiding norms for a

critique of religion for emancipation.

In short, the concept of change or revolution and the concept of Justice are principles

of verification of the authenticity of religion.

Having clearly formulated the principles that are employable to a critique of religion, Ambedkar

proceeds to testify the philosophy of Hinduism based on these criteria. Now the problem before

Ambedkar is to analyze whether Hinduism as a religion and social order could be verified based

on the above mentioned norms or criterion, namely the concept of revolution, the ideals of

14 | P a g e


morality.

Revolution as the Principle of Verification in Hinduism

According to Ambedkar, the Philosophy of Hinduism is neither based on the notion of revolution

nor would allow the possibility of any revolution. Because of its insistence on the infallibility of

Vedas as only revealed truth, Hinduism does not contain the possibility of accepting any

criticism or theoretical revolution in its thought-pattern. In contrast to Hinduism, the very basis

or the philosophical foundation of Buddhism lies on the acceptance of the reality of Change as

the ultimate fact of reality. Ambedkar points out, The Hindu is not prepared to face any

inquiry32 and the fact that he is not prepared to face any inquiry implies that he is not ready to

change from his Vedic belief system. The determined notions of morality regulate the life of the

Hindu. It orders him how during life he should conduct himself and how on death his body shall

be disposed of. It tells him how and when he shall indulge in sexual impulses. It tells him what

ceremonies are to be performed when the child is born. It pre-writes what caste category the

child is born. It tells him what occupation he can take to, what woman he should marry. It tells

him how he should behave in the daily life. In short, the Hindu way of life is deterministic; it is

against the principle of any change or revolution or freedom. He is enslaved to his thought-

pattern and its resultant social system called Casteism. There is no act of the Hindu which is not

covered or ordained by (his) Religion33. Thus, according to Ambedkar, the philosophy of

Hinduism does not practice or even conceive the possibility of any revolution.

There is yet another criticism that Ambedkar levels against the philosophy of Hinduism. He says

that a Hindu holds the belief that all religions are true and good34. Upholding such a position

according to Ambedkar is positively dangerous for it is a convenient way of avoiding the

application of reason or criterion to acceptance or non-acceptance of religion. By doing so,

Hinduism avoids that criticism that could possibly be pointed against it. It is not ready to face

and change of ideas and its social practices. For Ambedkar, Religion being a social force, is an

institution or an influence, which could either be oppressive or not conducive to the growth of

the individual in the society. A religion could also be liberative. Whether a religion is oppressive

or liberative is revealed only by a methodological rational analysis only and not by any

unconditional acceptance of the dictates of that religion. Ambedkar says, Religion (as) social

institution and like all social influences may help or harm a society which is in its grip35.

To substantiate his view Ambedkar quotes the words of Prof. Tiele, who observes, Religion is

one of the most mightiest motors in the history of mankind, which formed as well as tore

asunder nations, united as well as divided empires, which sanctioned the most atrocious deeds

the libinous customs inspired most admirable acts of self renunciation, devotion which

occasioned the most sanguinary wars, rebellions, and persecutions, as well as brought about

freedom, happiness and peace of the nations36.

15 | P a g e


Religion as Liberative Force

Religion, conceives Ambedkar, could function as an instrument of oppression or liberation

depending upon its worldview and its social practices. If religion is based on the notion of

revolution or change then it is liberative and if religion propagates infallibility and total surrender

to its totalitarian perspective then, it would be oppressive. This points towards the need for

engaging a methodological reason or applying a standardized criterion to judge whether a

Religion is a force of liberation or oppression. A Hindu according to Ambedkar tries to avoid

such inquiry for the fear of being exposed of its static-oppressive social and moral order.

Religion needs to be dynamic for Ambedkar, because it is concerned with love of truth. Unless

religion is dynamic and begets in us the emotion of love for something, then it better to be

without anything that we can call religion; for religion is perception of truth and if perception of

truth is accompanied by our love for it, then it were better not seen at all37. However, this does

not mean, Hinduism should be left free from critical analysis. Ambedkar continues to employ the

other criteria namely the norms called utility and justice on Hinduism to judge its philosophy.

Consequently, the next pivotal question that he elaborately discusses is this: I propose to apply

both the tests, the test of Justice and the test of utility to judge the philosophy of Hinduism. First,

I apply the test of Justice38.

Justice as a Principle 0f Verification In Hinduism

Before applying the criterion of Justice, Ambedkar clarifies the concept of Justice. Adopting the

concept of Justice as explained in the writings of Prof. Bergbon, he notes that the principle of

justice is a compendious one and it includes most other principles, which has become the

foundation of a moral order. Justice has always evoked the ideas of equality, of proportion of

compensation. Equity signifies equality. concerned with equality in value. If all men are

equal, all men are of the same essence and the common essence entitled them to the same

fundamental rights and to equal liberty39. Ambedkar conceives the principle of Justice as

containing the notions of liberty, equality and fraternity. Justice according to Ambedkar implies

the notion of individual liberty, social equality and a fraternal human community.

The principle of Justice according to Ambedkar is one of the essential criteria for an authenticity

of a religion. He says, social scientists have examined the philosophy of Hinduism and its social

order from various perspectives. Having clarified the notion of Justice as liberty, equality and

fraternity, Ambedkar examines the philosophy of Hinduism on basis of these basic ethical

principles: Ambedkars analysis of Hinduism is constitutive of the following questions. They

are: Does Hinduism recognize Equality?40 Does Hinduism recognize Fraternity?41 Does

Hinduism recognize liberty?42 does Hinduism recognize equality, liberty and fraternity? Does

it satisfy the test of social utility?43 These are the guiding questions for Ambedkar to scrutinize

the philosophy of Hinduism on the touchstone of Justice.

16 | P a g e


Ambedkar establishes the conclusion that the philosophy of Hinduism does not promote nor

contain the social value of justice. He justifies this thesis by exposing the caste world-view as

enunciated in the Vedas and the Upanishads and other Hindu scriptural tradition. He extensively

quotes those verses from Maunsmiriti of the Vedas that propagate caste system as a moral order.

He points out that the moral order grounded in the Vedic world view is not-moral because it

promotes a society of graded inequality, value hierarchy and value-dualism and exclusivism of

the-social-other.

The Critique of Ambedkar that Hinduism does not promote Justice can be categorized in the

following manner: He selects number of verses from the Vedas especially from the Manusmiriti

where caste system is justified as a social and religious order and is also provided with a divine

sanctity. He is also seen involving in a theoretical discussion on to the axiological basis of Vedic

and Vedantic philosophies of Hinduism and systematically establishes the conclusion that the

Philosophy of Hinduism is not grounded in justice and therefore, its religion is oppressive. He

says, Manu, the author of Vedas, is a staunch believer in social inequality, and he knew that the

danger of admitting religious equality. If I am equal before God why am I not equal on earth?

(asks Ambedkar). Manu was probably terrified by this question. Rather than admit and allow

religious equality, to affect social equality, the preferred to deny religious equality44.

Ambedkar observes that the theory of the origin of the different caste groups, namely the theory

of Purushasukta, uphold inequality. He says, it is indisputable that the Vedas lay down the

theory of Chaturvarna in what is known as the Purushasukta. It recognizes the division of society

into four-sections as an ideal. It also recognizes that the ideal relationship between the four

sections is inequality45. The Caste system practiced in the Hindu society is upheld and

sanctioned by its religious texts, namely Vedas. For example, the Manu, the author of

Manusmiriti, provides a detailed version caste practices. He confines slavery to the shudras, the

discriminated sections in the caste-hierarchy. He is opposed to inter-marriage, advocates

endogamy in order to maintain the rigidity of Casteism. He is anxious to preserve the rule of

inequality. He prescribes graded laws and punishment for those who disobey the caste

regulations. Even more, he provides a divine sanction theory, to the practice of caste. Manu

degrades the birth of the shudras as base-born. They are progeny of fornication and adultery

between men and women of the superior caste46. The theory of Ashramas, illustrated in the

Vedas, excludes the Shudras, (dalits) in the scheme of its four stages of life. It prohibits the

Shudras from the benefit of the Vedic utterances of Vedas and performances of sacraments.

Thus, it paves way for the practice of excluding the-other, which is opposed to social unity. The

Vedas upheld a theory of occupational-determinism, according to which, the Shudras are to

remain ever-slaves. Therefore, the philosophy of Hinduism cannot be said to promote of the

principle of equality.

17 | P a g e


Caste is more than the mere division of labour. It is a division of labourers. It determines ones

occupation according to the pre-determined theory of caste-birth. Caste prevents social

mobilization. It creates contempt of labour and labourers. It is a division of labour accompanied

by the division of labourers47. Some have also asked, if as a form of social and religious

organization, the Hindu social order stands discredited, does it stand on a different plane in as far

as its economic organization is concerned? Does it recognize liberty in the choice of occupations

and equality in its selection? Does it provide access to education to all? the principles on which

the caste-system is based, are sound enough to promote economic efficiency, encouraged

equality in the distribution of wealth and income and reduce the poverty of the common

masses?48 these questions need to be addressed not only because of their importance but

because of Hinduism is probably the only religion to lay down a well articulated framework of

economic relations for various caste-groups. Like its social and religious counterparts, the

economic base of the caste system was not merely an ideal. The ideal was put in to practice and

was, therefore, real. Caste miserably fails to be able to sustain every individual as a fraternal

member of the society.

Hinduism does not recognize liberty. Liberty, to be real, must be accompanied by certain social

conditions such as social equality and economic security and equality of educational

opportunities Denying these social conditions to the discriminated people, it upholds and

sanctions the theory that the might is the fittest to survive. It practices a philosophy of power

relations wherein the poor and the weak are progressively silenced and negated. Hinduism does

not also recognize fraternity is the opinion of Ambedkar.

Employing insights from the writings of John Dewey, an American philosopher who propounded

the theory of instrumentalism, Ambedkar notes that, Hinduism is individualistic and not socially-

oriented. It does not promote fellow feeling. He proves this by pointing out the social existences

of different caste groups in the Hindu society. He analyses the characteristic features of caste as

hierarchical, which is not structured to promote fraternity. Hinduism does not also promote the

spirit and the practice of education for all. Once again, Ambedkar leans very heavily on the

Vedic texts, to prove that education or Vedic learning has been kept the priority of high-caste

other, in rejection to the low caste-other. Even in education, Vedic learning alone is treated as the

highest and the sublime form of learning, Which means, that the Philosophy of Hinduism does

not encourage a scientific inquiry of reality. Therefore, Ambedkar observes, Illiteracy became

an inherent part of Hinduism by a process which is integral to it, it denied education to the

people, namely the so-called untouchables. The notion of education for masses is absent in the

philosophy of Hinduism. Thus, it has paved the way for secrecy of knowledge, monopoly of

knowledge, and as a result, monopoly of societal power, at the expense denying the right of the

suffering-other and sanctioning their denial as divine-based. According to Ambedkar Hinduism

does not recognize liberty for, liberty, to be real, must be accompanied by certain social

conditions, such as social equality, economic security, education for all. Of all these conditions

18 | P a g e


Hindu social order, Ambedkar proves that, it does not promote liberty49

. The fact that Hindu

social order, namely caste-system denies freedom of vocation and it pre-ordains it, according

to ones caste category, proves that it does not promote liberty.

Hinduism does not also promote economic security and viability on an equal basis, to every

member of the society. Ambedkar argues that, since economy is in the hands of the few, and the

poor dalits are made-servants to the system and the high caste people, they are denied of

economical security. This paves way for a class of society that remains economically dependent

on the high caste-other. Forbidding the educational avenues to the Shudras, is the way, the

philosophy of Hinduism has promoted the power interests of the so-called high-caste. It negates

the education of the masses. Therefore, it cannot be said to promote liberty.

The denial of the rights of the women is also an issue. The Vedas deny equal and the dignity of

women. It considers women to be treated under control of the male supremacy. Therefore, it

cannot be said to promote liberty. Fraternity is fellow feeling. It is empathy to identify oneself

with the-other in the society. It is relationality and against individualism. It is brotherhood. It

helps to sustain the moral order in the society. It is a natural sentiment. Ambedkar accuses the

philosophy of Hinduism as individualistic and exclusivistic, because of its principle and practice

of casteism. It promotes continuos hatred among the different members of the sub-caste groups.

It promotes graded-hatred. The high caste negates the low castes and the low caste avoids the

high caste. It is ritualistic and priestly, wherein some are considered to born holy because of

caste-determinism. Through religious ceremonies such as upanaya the social-other is negated.

It requires the instrumentality of the priests. It holds that the role of priests is indispensable and

the role of the social other is dispensable. The identity of the Shudra is deniable. Since

everything is determined by caste hegemony, Hinduism loses the spirit of sharing. Be it

marriage, customs or any other, everything is caste-bound. Therefore, the philosophy of

Hinduism cannot be said to promote fraternity. Knowledge, wealth, and labour and the dignity of

labour are denied to the so-called Shudras. Therefore, caste-order is not justice-based. In

Upanishads, the metaphysical theory of negating the world as Maya, has its social content of

practicing a hierarchical negation in the society. Ambedkar observes that, not only Vedas

recognize inequality, but also the Bhagavad Gita. Noting some important pronouncements from

Gita Ambedkar, says that, Gita is Manu in a nut shell50.

The Ideology of Purity and Pollution

For, Ambedkar, the theory of pollution is not originally untouchability, those who shared the

caste-world-view, in order to resist those who did not share such ideology, introduced the

concept of out-caste whose original meaning is not untouchability but it is meant that there is

separate group which does not share or which resists the idea of casteism. Ambedkar notes that

the Buddhists are one such group of people who do not share the caste-ideology and who were

the first to oppose caste and any other forms of segregation. He observes that the institution of

19 | P a g e


caste is composed of certain universal Hindu ideas. These include the Hindu pollution concept

such as the social units of Jatis (endogamous large-scale descent-groups), the cognitive

categories of Varnas (ranked classification of jaitis); the associated concepts of caste dharma

(varunashramdharma) (religiously sanctioned duties of for the caste members) and sub-caste

division of labour51 all contribute to the practice of the division of human beings as pure versus

impure. Such a position can neither be spiritual nor human. According to Ambedkar, Hindu caste

social order is invested with the ideas of purity and pollution. This principle pervades and partly

explains the hierarchy of castes. People are considered to be endowed with the capacity of

pollution, either temporarily or permanently. Those who are closer in the upper ladder towards

the Brahmins, are considered to pollute temporarily where as the so-called untouchables are

considered to be a permanent pollutants and therefore they are impure and are to be avoided. In

recent decade, the concept of Hindu purity-pollution is characterized of Hinduism, by social

anthropologists like A. M. Hocart (1950); M.N. Srinivas (1952); Louis Dumont (1970); Mckim

Marriott and Ronald Inden (1973, 1977). A central point in Hinduism is that, it sanctions this

theory of purity and pollution.

Given to the four-fold caste order, except the Brahmins, all the others are considered to possess

the capacity towards pollution. According to Ambedkar, the practice of pollution came to be

upheld by the food practices; eating meat is one of the customs that makes one caste as pure or

impure, for those who eat meat are treated as impure and those who do not are considered as

pure. Ambedkar in his article on Who were the Shudras? points out that the principle of graded

inequality is the basis that determines the Hindu social order. He clarifies that in the Vedas, the

chapter on Purusashkta, provides the instrumental-rational basis for the socio-religious practices

of caste system. According to him, the Arya samajists have made a mistake of preaching the

idea that Vedas are eternal without beginning and end, without end and it is infallible52. The

metaphor of the Purushasukta, is a theory of the origin of the Universe. Its cosmogony

interpretation of the emergence of the social system is strongly opposed by Ambedkar. He also

questions the theory of the divine sanction for the establishment of the so-called sacred

institution. Ambedkar raises strong objection to the claim of Manu, the author of the

Purushasukta, that Veda is the only and ultimate sanction of dharma. He charges that it is Manu

who has invested the ideal of charutrvarna as a social ideal called dharma, divinely ordered and

its truth claims are infallible.

Attempt to provide a divine sanction to caste-stratification by the author of the Vedas, is

deliberate attempt to deify the social practice and by deifying caste-stratification it is meant to

promote a collective consciousness that casteism is moral. Thus, Hinduism has paved a way for

permanent system graded inequality that alienates every individual with the-other. We shall take

note of the analysis of Ambedkar regarding purushasukta as follows:

a) Real is elevated to the dignity of an ideal.

b) No community has given the de facto state of class composition a legal effect by

accepting as a dejure connotation of an ideal society.

20 | P a g e


c) No society has accepted d the class composition as an ideal. At the most, they have

accepted it as being natural. Purushasukta goes farther. It not only regards class

composition as natural and ideal, but also regards it as sacred and divine.

d) The number of classes has never been a matter of (religious) dogma in any society known

in history. The scheme of purushasukta makes the division of society into four classes a

matter of dogma.

e) The scheme of Purushasukta fixes a permanent warrant of procedure among the different

classes, which neither time nor circumstances could alter. The warrant of procedure is

based on the principle of graded inequality among the four classes53.

Scriptural Basis

Given to these analyses, Ambedkar points out that the scriptural basis of Hinduism, namely the

Vedas, preaches the political idea of class-divided or composed society as its ideal54. The

chapter on Purushashukta is hence a politically motivated and religious sanctioned class-division

whose main purpose is to provide a scheme of graded inequality. In such a class-division, there is

not a single possibility of progress. Ones position in the society is doomed forever, allowing no

possibility of self-improvement. It is a permanent occupational categories55, whose aim is to

perpetuate socio-political profit in favor of the dominant class, at the expense of the dominated

class. The fixed gradation in the caste system is to serve the fixed motives of the so-called

superior classes throughout their life. Therefore, the concept of chaturvarna is not only a

functional classification but it is an attempt to consolidate the value-graded system, where in

those who occupy the higher order are the privileged class to enjoy the labor of those who

occupy the lower strata of the society.

In the four-fold social classification, the Brahmins are placed in the highest order, as custodians

of knowledge, the ksatriyas are meant for protection or fighting and the Vaishyas are meant to do

the trading and the Shudras are determined to serve the above three-others, by their

unconditional obedience to do the menial types of jobs, like scavenging, cleaning and so on.

Thus, the scheme of Chaturvarna, according to Ambedkar is a social practice of the denial of the

human dignity and fundamental rights of the lowest sections, namely the dalits (oppressed

community) of the Indian Society. How does it (Hinduism) practice the denial of the rights of the

dalits, is the query we shall try to respond from the findings of Ambedkar? Ambedkar clearly

summarizes the socially degraded status of the dalits, as sanctioned in the Vedas as follows:

Social Degraded Status of Dalits

Ambedkar observes as follows:

1. that a Shudra (dalit) was to take the last place in the social order.

2. Since he is impure, from birth onwards, he is not sacred, and no sacred act must be

performed in his presence.

21 | P a g e


3. He must be debarred in hearing or listening to religious utterances.

4. He does not deserve any social or individual respect.

5. His life is of no of worth, and therefore, could easily be put to an end, if and when

situation demands.

6. Education is prohibited he must not acquire knowledge of any kind and especially the

knowledge of Vedas and Sanskrit. He should be kept ignorant. By keeping ignorant, he

may easily be domesticated for the socio-political interests of the dominant group.

7. A dalit should not possess or acquire property. If he does, a Brahmin is religiously

empowered to take away the property from him at his pleasure.

8. He should not hold administrative position in the society or state.

9. The only duty of a dalit is to obey, and such obedience is unconditional and non-

questionable.

10. Obedience to the caste-hierarchy is his religion, dharma, and morality.

11. The higher caste people should not intermingle with the dalit community and possibly

practice the method of exclusion, as to avoid pollution from the dalit community.

12. If the rule of exclusion is broken by not adhering to the dharma or morality of

Chaturvarna by any individual there is a corresponding punishment, depending upon the

caste one belongs to. If one is a dalit, the punishment is severe, and if it is a non-dalit, the

punishment is not very severe.

13. A Brahmin is not supposed to live in a country ruled by a Shudra56.

According to Ambedkar, for Hinduism, inequality is a religious doctrine adopted consciously

and it is preached as a dogma57. It is a divinely prescribed way of life, it has become incarnate

in Hindu society and is shaped and moulded by its thoughts and its deeds. Indeed, inequality is

the Soul of Hinduism. He adds, the social and religious analysis of Hindu religion and of its

social order reveals that it is not based on these principles, goes against the framework of

justice. On the other hand, it openly recognized inequality in the social and religious fields,

denied liberty and severely lacked moral elements for the development and sustenance of

fraternity. While philosophy of Nietszche is capable of producing Nazism, the Philosophy of

Hinduism is capable of producing ant-socialism. While Nietszche intended the racial supremacy,

Manu, the so-called law giver of Hinduism, intended Brahminical supremacy. He observes,

Hinduism is not interested in the common man. not interested in the society as a whole. The

centre of its interest lies in a class-interests, and the interests of the social-other is sacrificed or

denied to serve the needs of the high-caste-other. Hence, according to Ambedkar, the philosophy

of Hinduism cannot be called as the religion of humanity.

In the final part of his work, after having analyzed Hinduism on the rational and ethical and

practical grounds of revolution, justice and utility, Ambedkar is inclined to ask, what is the

value of such religion to man? And he adds: Could Hinduism offer consolation

(compassion/affirmative justice) to those who have been crushed by Casteism?. In conclusion

22 | P a g e


of his critique of the philosophy of Hinduism, he observes, In Hinduism, there is no

nourishment for ordinary souls, no comfort for human sorrow, no help for human weakness, it

leaves men divorced from all communion with God. Such is the philosophy of Hinduism. It is

the common mans damnation 58. Thus, we could infer the conclusion of this research inquiry as

follows:

Characteristics of an Authentic Religion

For Ambedkar, a critique of religion must be based and regulated on certain rational,

practical and moral principles.

The practical principle that verifies an authentic religion is that it should be guided by the

principle of revolution. The revolution is classifiable into external and internal elements.

An authentic religion should take into account progressive secularization of its

foundations, in the sense that it should be relevant to the changing times and needs of

human society.

The metaphysical foundation of a true religion is constitutive of the metaphysics of

change.

An authentic religion must be grounded on the principles of justice and utility. It should

be regulated by the practice of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Religion is a human necessity. It could contribute social unity, provided it is based on the

principles of revolution and social Justice. Since the philosophy of Hinduism can not be

said to have founded on these principles, to consider it as a religion of societal liberation

is not possible. The philosophy of Hinduism, as found in its scriptural tradition is not

constitutive of the principles of revolution, justice and social utility. Given to its Caste-

world view, and the social practice of Casteism, its philosophical ground is oppressive

and therefore, cannot have the conceptual strength of promoting liberation of the socially

weaker sections.

Hence there arises the need for a religion that is based on the principles of social

liberation that restores dignity, and affirms the life of the suffering-other in the society.

A critique of religion in the Indian context presupposes a critique of Casteism in its social

order. An authentic religion and religious is a critique of Casteism in favor of those who

have been historically conditioned to the phenomenology of thrown-ness. That is to say

it has to promote social justice as its ethical basis.

A philosophical critique of religion should necessarily be a practical critique of

discrimination in the society. And a critique of discrimination aims at the promotion of

praxis of liberation.

In brief, an authentic critique of religion and its social order addresses the problems of

human society based on a philosophy of societal liberation.

23 | P a g e


Notes and References:

The present paper is an analysis of the original Text of Ambedkar, on the philosophy of

Hinduism. Hence most of the references are bound to be from the same original text.

1. Moon, Vasant (ed.) (1987). B.R. Ambedkar :Writings And Speeches, Vol. 3, Govt. of

Maharastra, p. xi.

2. Theodicy Model. Refers to the scholastic attempt to explain the nature of God through

transcendental categories. It is mainly a problem regarding the concept of God and his

relation to world.

3. Ambedkar, B.R. (1987). , Philosophy of Hinduism, Govt. of Maharastra Publication, p. 3.

4. It is the Socratic method of inquiry that is engaged to elucidate correct responses.

5. Ambedkar, B.R., Op. cit., p. 8.

6. Ibid, p. 9.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid, p. 5.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid, p.6.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid, p. 5.

14. Ibid, p. 8.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid, p. 8.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid, p. 9.

20. Ibid, pp. 10,11.

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid, pp. 12-15.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid, pp. 22-23.

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid, pp. 23-87.

31. Ibid.

24 | P a g e


32. Ibid.

33. Ibid.

34. Ibid.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid, p. 25.

39. Fernandes, Walter, (ed.), The Emerging Dalit Identity, (Indian Social Institute, New

Delhi, p. 9.

40. Ambedkar, B.R., Op. cit., p. 25

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid, pp. 36-80.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid, p. 67.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid, p. 29.

49. Ibid, p. 87.

50. Pauline ,Kolenda, Caste in Contemporary India, Rawat Publications, p. 62.

51. Ambedkar, B.R., Who were the Shudras? Vol. III, pp. 18.

52. Ibid. p.8.

53. Ibid. p.5.

54. Ibid. p.6.

55. Ibid. p.43.

56. Ibid, p. 66.

57. Ibid,p.77.

58. Ibid, p. 78.

25 | P a g e


WOMEN AND SWARAJ: RESURRECTION OF WOMEN IN GANDHIAN

FREEDOM STRUGGLE

Jayashree Deka

INTRODUCTION:

This paper discusses the idea of Swaraj and the role of women envisaged by Gandhi in achieving

it. Explicitly and implicitly his understanding of swaraj and his views about women show that their

participation for the achievement of swaraj seems to be necessary. This paper shows how their

participation becomes an indispensable factor for the achievement of swaraj. Gandhi could identify

that in what kind of activities their participation can be employed or in what way they can be

involved in the freedom struggle. He deviced a different programme for their participation in

freedom struggle. To achieve swaraj in every respect, participation of women is necessary in

Gandhian philosophy. The means through which Gandhi wanted to achieve swaraj is based on

truth, non-violence, satyagraha etc. and in Gandhis view women are the possessors of the these

qualities. Gandhi could recognize that in what kind of activities womens participation can be

invited or in what way they can be involved in the freedom struggle. The paper traces the Gandhian

ways of devising and implementing various programmes to achieve swaraj through active

participation of women. It also discusses how he could successfully invite women into the national

politics from the four walls of the home. In this context a brief explanation about the Gandhis

conception of swaraj, swadeshi, satyagraha, ahimsa or nonviolence is given to understand how

womens role can be helpful to achieve swaraj.

Swaraj

Swaraj has multi-semantic value. Its meaning cannot be limited to its English translation self-

rule though it captures the root meaning. It also means individual autonomy, self-respect and self-

discipline. Various associated meanings defy the possibility of coming with an exact definition. To

have a broad understanding of swaraj, best way is to look various usage of this term by Gandhi. He

gives an account of swaraj by making a contrast between this term and the term independence.

Gandhi says, The root meaning of swaraj is self-rlue. Swaraj may, therefore, be rendered as

disciplined rule from within and purna means complete Independence has no such limitation.

Independence may mean license to do as you like. Swaraj is positive. Independence is negative.

PurnaSwarajdoes not exclude association with any nation, much less with England. But it can only

mean association for mutual benefit and at will. The word swaraj is a sacred word, a Vedic word,

26 | P a g e


meaning self-rule and self-restraint, and not freedom from all restraint which independence often

mean.1

Traditionally Indian political thought understood swaraj as own government or self-rule.

Swaraj is the particular mode of securing self-determination.2

Gandhi while retaining this meaning,

however, adds an important sense by extending the application of the term. Gandhi did not

introduce this term, it was Dadabhai Naoroji who used it first and B.G.Tilak popularized it. Naoroji

andTilak utilized this term to refer to independence3 and confined its sphere to politics and did

not take into consideration economic, moral and social dimensions. Gandhi used this term as

including these different dimensions. This effort by Gandhi gives unique credibility to the usage of

this term.

Swadeshi

Swadeshi for Gandhi is the use of all home made things to the exclusion of foreign things'.4

Although the literal meaning of swadeshi is belonging to ones own country5, he gives special

significance where its application extend to social, political and economic aspects of life. Swadeshi

which includes ahimsa uses spinning, weaving, wearing khadi and boycotting foreign goods. For

Gandhi, swadeshi is the mean to achieve the ultimate end which is swaraj. In his theoretical

framework swaraj is of higher order than swadeshi though conceptually they are complementary

and practically swadeshi is more significant than the other. Swaraj is the ultimate end that cannot be

realized without swadeshi as means whose denial according to him would imply English rule

without English man.6

Swaraj and Women

The political system that is developed by Gandhi cannot bear results unless women are given an

adequate status in every sphere of human life, be it social, political or economical. There is a

necessary relation between swaraj and participation of women. According to Gandhi, womens

active participation is necessary for some of the movements like swadeshi, boycotting of foreign

clothes, wearing khadi, spinning, picketing etc. which are necessary for the swaraj.

There are claims by Gandhi that shows the necessity of womens participation for the attainment of

swaraj. He says, So long as women in India do not take equal part with men in the affairs of the

world and in religious and political matters, we shall not see Indias star rising. To take an

illustration, men who suffer from paralysis of one side of the body can do no work.7

Implicatively it means that man alone can do nothing and also it can mean that an inactive

community of society will constitute a half paralyzed society. Gandhi had confidence that if women

participate in the movements then there is no way swaraj can be away from us. He develops such

kind of attitude towards women by taking the example of the sacrifice of women in the history of

27 | P a g e


India. He says, When the women in the country have woken up, who can hinder swaraj? Dharma

has always been preserved through women. Nations have won their independence because women

had brave men for sons. By preserving purity of character, they have kept dharma alive. There have

been women who sacrificed their all and saved the people.8

In some of the cases, according to Gandhi, women can do better than man in the struggle for the

freedom. This is because his idea of struggle for freedom has no place any kind of violence. Rather,

he included ahimsa, satya, and love as the basis for freedom movement. In such kind of non-violent

war women has more share than man. Purnaswaraj involves not only political independence but

also economic and moral independence, without which swaraj would be incomplete. For Gandhi, it

is through women we achieve economic and moral salvation.

Swadeshi Movement and Women

Gandhi envisaged a close relation between the swadeshi movement and the active participation of

women. There are claims by Gandhi that shows womens participation as a necessary factor for

swadeshi movement. He says, The swadeshi vow, too, cannot be kept fully if women do not help.

Men alone will be able to do nothing in the matter. They can have no control over the children; that

is the womens sphere. To look after children, to dress them, is the mothers duty and, therefore, it

is necessary that women should be fired with the spirit of swadeshi.9

The nature of swadeshi movement enumerated and the steps taken by Gandhi was such that the

participation of women was necessary for its implementation and its success. The most important

step taken for swadeshi is the boycotting of foreign goods especially foreign cloths. Gandhi clearly

states that, India has to part with 60 crores of rupees annually to foreign countries. Four crores are

wasted in this manner on silk and the remaining 56 crores on cotton fabrics.10 This was the case in

1919. It does not require much time to conclude that in order to reduce such a huge amount of

expense both men and women should work together and there is the need for the co-operation

between two. As it is the sphere of women to look after the children, it is they (women) who have to

decide about the clothing of children. He also claims that the cloths that are used by women are

more expensive than men. It may not affect that much even if women do not become the part of

main stream politics. But sitting at the home if they are not ready to abandon such expensive clothes

for themselves and for children reducing loss of 60 crores rupees would be impossible which in fact

will directly affect the movement.

By giving the example of Sita from Indian epics Gandhi came up with some interesting ideas in

order to increase the intensity of the swadeshi movement. He urges the Indian women by citing the

example of Sita that just as she could consciously refrain herself from the luxurious items those

were provided by Ravana, in the same way Indian women too should have the courage to reject

things those that are foreign to India.

28 | P a g e


Swadeshi movement involves the act of spinning in which women have a great role to play. In

Gandhis view, spinning as an activity can play different roles in different people. From the

following lines of Gandhi we can find the multi-dimensions of spinning; For the middle class it

should supplement the income of the family, and for very poor women it is undoubtedly a means of

livelihood. The spinning-wheel should be as it was the widows loving companion. But for you who

will read this appeal, it is presented as a duty, as dharma.11 Spinning-wheel is to be used religiously

by women every day as the part of their duty that would help them to put their full share in the

struggle for freedom. One of the interesting points which Gandhi makes here is that spinning wheel

will bring the ideal status of women. He says, The spinning-wheel gives the status to which a

women is entitled and it quickens the conscience both of men and women and enables man to

understand his duty by the women of India.12 Gandhi depicts the spinning-wheel as the greatest

instrument that is capable of bringing the better conditions for women which according to him is the

symbol of purity and independence. According to him, on spinning women have a natural

advantage over man and it is slow and comparatively silent process. More patience is required for

such kind of activity where women can play more role than man. This is clear when he says, Men

may well spin, but for generations the profession of spinning has been practiced by women and

mens hands do not possess the same skill in this that womens do.13

What is interesting here is, through swadeshi movement Gandhi aimed at not only swaraj but also

an honorable status for women in the society. According to him, not only the protection of wealth of

nation, but also protection of the honor of women can be made possible. Gandhi says; swadeshi

would give honourable employment to women at their very homes and, at the same time, enable

them to render a valuable service in the cause of country.14 Gandhi regards excess use of foreign

cloths and the negligence to the swadeshi cloth as the responsible factors of the degradation of

womens identity. According to Gandhi, degradation of identity of women happened because of the

violation of dharma. The violation of dharma happened mostly because of the illiteracy of women.

In one of his speeches delivered in Rajkot (1919 September) he told women that they as a rule had

been using foreign cloths for fashion etc. more widely.15

They are forced to use foreign cloths

because they stopped spinning. Gandhi relates the act of spinning with the notion of chastity. He

says, the spinning-wheel is the symbol of chastity of the womanhood of India16 in the absence of

which the degradation of women happened.

According to Gandhi, use of foreign goods leads to the adharma which degraded the status of

women and the status of nation. Gandhi shows the close link between swadeshi and dharma. The

fundamental principle from where he develops this kind of approach is the following; none who

neglects a neighbour can serve a distant man. He who serves the neighbour serves the world.17

According to him, it is irreligion to neglect our own artisans and encourage the foreign ones. Under

the British rule India had no other option than to neglect our own artisans which consequently

replaced our own with foreign ones. In this way just on cloths around 60 crores of rupees were sent

to foreign country which according to Gandhi brings shame to India. In order to avoid such kind of

29 | P a g e


problems he asks to do what was done exactly 100 years back by our ancestors that is spinning and

weaving.

Gandhi points out that Tulsidas describes compassion as the root of dharma. For him, this way of

compassion to India implies having compassion to the neighbor which will enable one to go for

swdeshi rather than importing. We can never find any dharma by neglecting neighbor and giving the

work to someone else. But depending on the foreign goods India had neglected their own people

which caused not only national degradation but also the degradation of women. Now according to

Gandhi, women must make it a religious point not to use foreign cloths and fineries at all because

they are the source of the national degradation.18 In this way we can find that the protection of

dharma is in the hands of women19

So there is a close relation between attainment of swaraj through swadshi and the role of women.

For him there is no swaraj without the participation of women. The role envisaged for them in the

national movement made them to come out from the four walls of the house hold activities to the

mainstream politics and enabled them to realize their strength and abilities for the achievement of

swaraj.

Non-violence and the Role of Women

Non-violence and satyagraha were the two important means through which Gandhi wanted to

achieve swaraj. Non-violence and satyagrahaare so intrinsically related to swaraj that without this

not only the achievement of swaraj but the conception of swaraj itself ceases to be. Three main

principles through which Gandhi wanted to achieve swaraj were: truth, non-violence and

satyagraha whose practice involved the nature of self-sacrifice, suffering and self-control upon

which women have natural advantage more than men. The natures of the activities that come under

the domain of non-violence and satyagraha have a very natural relation with the nature of women.

Ahimsa which is the highest duty of a human being has positive and negative meanings which

Gandhi clearly distinguishes it. Negatively it means 'not injuring' or 'not killing' which constitute the

etymological and literal meaning. In its positive sense it means 'the largest love' and 'charity' which

is wider than the literal meaning that is inclusive of the idea of love towards enemy and strangers.

Non-violence and love is one and the same. In its positive sense Gandhi extended the meaning of

Ahimsa.

The concept of satya is central to Gandhi. The term satya is derived from the word sat whose

literal meaning is being. According to Gandhi truth is logically prior to all the other human virtues

and excellences. Non-violence and truth are closely related. In fact while truth is the end, ahimsa is

the mean. The objective, namely truth, is to be reached through ahimsa.

30 | P a g e


Swaraj cannot be attained without ahimsa. Throughout his political career he consistently practiced

ahimsa. It is through ahimsa, freedom is possible. This absolute freedom implies the freedom of

every single individual. Non-violence is the law of love and it embodies the suffering and sacrifice

of the highest type. He always stressed the fact that violence was against the fundamental nature of

women. She is considered to be the embodiment of sacrifice which according to Gandhi would

bring civilizing effect in every field like politics, education, and economics. Women for him is the

embodiment of sacrifice and suffering, and her advent to public life should, therefore, result in

purifying it, in restraining unbridled ambition and accumulation of property.20

In Gandhis theoretical framework, the concept ahimsa is related with women in such a way that he

considers them as the incarnation of ahimsa. Positively ahimsa means infinite love which implies

capacity to suffer unlimitedly. To quote: Woman is the incarnation of ahimsa. Ahimsa means

infinite love, which again means infinite capacity for suffering. Who but women, the mother of

man, shows this capacity in the largest measure? She shows it as she carries the infant and feeds it

during nine months and derives joy in the suffering involved. What can beat the suffering caused by

the pangs of labour? But she forgets them in the joy of creation. Who again suffers daily so that her

babe may wax from day to day?21

Ahimsa involves moral power without which the execution of the non-violent struggle would not be

possible or the peaceful struggle cannot be maintained. Gandhi portraits very strongly women as the

possessor of moral power. He says, renunciation and non-violence come naturally to women.22

Through the following example he explains that a woman is endowed with the nature of non-

violence. He says, You marry your daughter aged fourteen, fifteen or sixteen into a strange new

family and hand her over to a stranger; the girl becomes one with the new family or after a short

while even becomes the mistress of that household. How does this happen? God has blessed her

with a loving heart. She can win over everyone with her love, affection and non-violencewomen

have the remarkable capacity for sacrifice.23

Gandhi was very much convinced of the unique strength of women in matters of morality. Unless

this moral strength is employed in the peaceful struggle for freedom swaraj cannot be achieved.

Gandhi by considering their unique power for non-violence and self-sacrifice always insisted

women not only to participate but also to take up leadership in different movements. In this context

he felt that women are more superior to men. According to Gandhi, women are the messengers of

the gospel of non-violence who are sent by God.

Gandhi asserts that for women the dharma of non-violence is something innate or they are naturally

gifted for being non-violent by birth. This particular idea about women makes him to bring them to

the mainstream politics. He says, A man understands the dharma of non-violence through his

intellect whereas a woman has imbibed it even before her birth. A man escapes with very little

responsibility, but women have to serve their husbands, their children and other members of the

family.24

31 | P a g e

http://lokayatajourn

Lokayata : Journal of Positive Philosophy Vol.IV,No.01 (March 2014).

Documents

university of delhi

kurukshetra dr

philosophy of hinduism

singhania university

aayam gupta kurukshetra

g e http

ambedkar studies

josephs philosophical