12-14-2006, 06:58 AM
Dr. Ambedkar's writings surprise me a great deal. From what I have read so far of his writings, he appears to have been:
1) Basically an honest and keen thinker. Integrity as well as genuine interest shows up.
2) Way above malice and political jugglery.
3) Being a 'Dalit'/'Harijan', he is very self-conscious of the inherent hatred he carries towards that system which makes him 'Dalit'. However he takes all precaution, to not hate the people who may have been responsible for the system.
4) While he is highly critical of the present, he allows benefit of doubt to past. At least tries to not let 'agenda' cloud the academic thought.
5) While he criticizes the overall system, he is not short of praising what he likes in it.
Some more snippets from his writings. One may disagree with him, but his honesty can be hardly denied. Below is from a paper "CASTES IN INDIA : Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development" presented by him at 'Anthropology Seminar of Dr. A. A. Goldenweizer' at The Columbia University, New York, U.S.A. on 9th May 1916.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->regarding the question of the growth and spread of the caste system all over India. The question I have to answer is : How did the institution of caste spread among the rest of the non-Brahmin population of the country?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I may seem hard on Manu, but.... one thing I want to impress upon you is that Manu did not give the law of Caste and that he could not do so. Caste existed long before Manu. He was an upholder of it and therefore philosophised about it, but certainly he did not and could not ordain the present order of Hindu Society. His work ended with the codification of existing caste rules and the preaching of Caste Dharma. The spread and growth of the Caste system is too gigantic a task to be achieved by the power or cunning of an individual or of a class....<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Brahmins may have been guilty of many things, and I dare say they were, but the imposing of the caste system on the non-Brahmin population was beyond their mettle. They may have helped the process by their glib philosophy, but they certainly could not have pushed their scheme beyond their own confines. To fashion society after one's own pattern ! How glorious ! How hard ! One can take pleasure and eulogize its furtherance; but cannot further it very far. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The vehemence of my attack may seem to be unnecessary ; but I can assure you that it is not uncalled for. There is a strong belief in the mind of orthodox Hindus that the Hindu Society was somehow moulded into the framework of the Caste System and that it is an organization consciously created by the Shastras. Not only does this belief exist, but it is being justified on the ground that it cannot but be good, because it is ordained by the Shastras and the Shastras cannot be wrong. I have urged so much on the adverse side of this attitude, not because the religious sanctity is grounded on scientific basis, nor to help those reformers who are preaching against it. Preaching did not make the caste system neither will it unmake it. My aim is to show the falsity of the attitude that has exalted religious sanction to the position of a scientific explanation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Western scholars... have attempted other explanations. The nuclei, round which have "formed" the various castes in India, are, according to them: (1) occupation; (2) survivals of tribal organization etc.; (3) the rise of new belief; (4) cross-breeding and (5) migration. The question may be asked whether these nuclei do not exist in other societies and whether they are peculiar to India... Is it because those parts are holier than the land of the Vedas, or that the western professors are plain mistaken? I am afraid that the latter is the truth.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We shall be well advised to recall at the outset that the Hindu society, in common with other societies, was composed of classes and the earliest known are the (1) Brahmins or the priestly class; (2) the Kshatriya, or the military class ; (3) the Vaishya, or the merchant class and (4) the Shudra, or the artisan and menial class.
Particular attention has to be paid to the fact that this was essentially a class system, in which individuals, when qualified, could change their class, and therefore classes did change their personnel. At some time in the history of the Hindus, the priestly class socially detached itself from the rest of the body of people and through a closed-door policy became a caste by itself .
The other classes being subject to the law of social division of labour underwent differentiation, some into large, others into very minute groups. The Vaishya and Shudra classes were the original inchoate plasm, which formed the sources of the numerous castes of today. As the military occupation does not very easily lend itself to very minute sub-division, the Kshatriya class could have differentiated into soldiers and administrators.
This sub-division of a society is quite natural. But the unnatural thing about these sub-divisions is that they have lost the open-door character of the class system and have become self-enclosed units called castes.
The question is: were they compelled to close their doors and become endogamous, of did they close them of their own accord ? I submit that there is a double line of answer: Some closed the door : Others found it closed against them.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am not, however, so presumptuous as to think them in any way final, or anything more than a contribution to a discussion of the subject. It seems to me that the car has been shunted on wrong lines, and the primary object of the paper is to indicate what I regard to be the right path of investigation, with a view to arrive at a serviceable truth.
We must, however, guard against approaching the subject with a bias. Sentiment must be outlawed from the domain of science and things should be judged from an objective standpoint. For myself I shall find as much pleasure in a positive destruction of my own ideology, as in a rational disagreement on a topic, which, notwithstanding many learned disquisitions is likely to remain controversial forever. To conclude, while I am ambitious to advance a Theory of Caste, if it can be shown to be untenable I shall be equally willing to give it up.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) Basically an honest and keen thinker. Integrity as well as genuine interest shows up.
2) Way above malice and political jugglery.
3) Being a 'Dalit'/'Harijan', he is very self-conscious of the inherent hatred he carries towards that system which makes him 'Dalit'. However he takes all precaution, to not hate the people who may have been responsible for the system.
4) While he is highly critical of the present, he allows benefit of doubt to past. At least tries to not let 'agenda' cloud the academic thought.
5) While he criticizes the overall system, he is not short of praising what he likes in it.
Some more snippets from his writings. One may disagree with him, but his honesty can be hardly denied. Below is from a paper "CASTES IN INDIA : Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development" presented by him at 'Anthropology Seminar of Dr. A. A. Goldenweizer' at The Columbia University, New York, U.S.A. on 9th May 1916.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->regarding the question of the growth and spread of the caste system all over India. The question I have to answer is : How did the institution of caste spread among the rest of the non-Brahmin population of the country?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I may seem hard on Manu, but.... one thing I want to impress upon you is that Manu did not give the law of Caste and that he could not do so. Caste existed long before Manu. He was an upholder of it and therefore philosophised about it, but certainly he did not and could not ordain the present order of Hindu Society. His work ended with the codification of existing caste rules and the preaching of Caste Dharma. The spread and growth of the Caste system is too gigantic a task to be achieved by the power or cunning of an individual or of a class....<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Brahmins may have been guilty of many things, and I dare say they were, but the imposing of the caste system on the non-Brahmin population was beyond their mettle. They may have helped the process by their glib philosophy, but they certainly could not have pushed their scheme beyond their own confines. To fashion society after one's own pattern ! How glorious ! How hard ! One can take pleasure and eulogize its furtherance; but cannot further it very far. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The vehemence of my attack may seem to be unnecessary ; but I can assure you that it is not uncalled for. There is a strong belief in the mind of orthodox Hindus that the Hindu Society was somehow moulded into the framework of the Caste System and that it is an organization consciously created by the Shastras. Not only does this belief exist, but it is being justified on the ground that it cannot but be good, because it is ordained by the Shastras and the Shastras cannot be wrong. I have urged so much on the adverse side of this attitude, not because the religious sanctity is grounded on scientific basis, nor to help those reformers who are preaching against it. Preaching did not make the caste system neither will it unmake it. My aim is to show the falsity of the attitude that has exalted religious sanction to the position of a scientific explanation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Western scholars... have attempted other explanations. The nuclei, round which have "formed" the various castes in India, are, according to them: (1) occupation; (2) survivals of tribal organization etc.; (3) the rise of new belief; (4) cross-breeding and (5) migration. The question may be asked whether these nuclei do not exist in other societies and whether they are peculiar to India... Is it because those parts are holier than the land of the Vedas, or that the western professors are plain mistaken? I am afraid that the latter is the truth.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We shall be well advised to recall at the outset that the Hindu society, in common with other societies, was composed of classes and the earliest known are the (1) Brahmins or the priestly class; (2) the Kshatriya, or the military class ; (3) the Vaishya, or the merchant class and (4) the Shudra, or the artisan and menial class.
Particular attention has to be paid to the fact that this was essentially a class system, in which individuals, when qualified, could change their class, and therefore classes did change their personnel. At some time in the history of the Hindus, the priestly class socially detached itself from the rest of the body of people and through a closed-door policy became a caste by itself .
The other classes being subject to the law of social division of labour underwent differentiation, some into large, others into very minute groups. The Vaishya and Shudra classes were the original inchoate plasm, which formed the sources of the numerous castes of today. As the military occupation does not very easily lend itself to very minute sub-division, the Kshatriya class could have differentiated into soldiers and administrators.
This sub-division of a society is quite natural. But the unnatural thing about these sub-divisions is that they have lost the open-door character of the class system and have become self-enclosed units called castes.
The question is: were they compelled to close their doors and become endogamous, of did they close them of their own accord ? I submit that there is a double line of answer: Some closed the door : Others found it closed against them.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am not, however, so presumptuous as to think them in any way final, or anything more than a contribution to a discussion of the subject. It seems to me that the car has been shunted on wrong lines, and the primary object of the paper is to indicate what I regard to be the right path of investigation, with a view to arrive at a serviceable truth.
We must, however, guard against approaching the subject with a bias. Sentiment must be outlawed from the domain of science and things should be judged from an objective standpoint. For myself I shall find as much pleasure in a positive destruction of my own ideology, as in a rational disagreement on a topic, which, notwithstanding many learned disquisitions is likely to remain controversial forever. To conclude, while I am ambitious to advance a Theory of Caste, if it can be shown to be untenable I shall be equally willing to give it up.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->