Ambedkar’s Criticism on Hindu Social Order

 Many social revolutionaries hailing from the marginalized and oppressed sections of Indian society have waged numerous struggles and made untold sacrifices to emancipate the impoverished and oppressed communities in India from the oppressive living realities of the Hindu social order. In this regard, numerous reform movements have helped, enhanced and empowered the oppressed communities in the socio-economic, political, cultural and religious milieu of Indian society. In the modern India, Mahatma Jotirao Phule, Shahuji Maharaj, Periyar E.V. Ramaswamy Naicker, Sree Narayana Guru, and B.R. Ambedkar (Ambedkarism) have played a monumental role in liberating, emancipating and empowering the oppressed sections of Indian society. He wrote extensively on Hinduism.

What is the Hindu social order? Is it a free social order? Is it empathetic towards the grievances of individuals in the society? To answer these questions, we need to know what constitutes a free social order. According to Dr B.R. Ambedkar, there are two fundamental principles of a free social order.

•    An individual is an end in himself and the objective of the society is to support the growth of the individual, to develop his personality.
•    The relationship between members of society is based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Does the Hindu social order recognize these principles? If so, to what extent does the Hindu social order recognize these principles? This question is necessary to comprehend the fundamentals of the Hindu social order and the liberty it permits to the members of the society. Next comes the question of individuality. According to Ambedkar, as the society is based on class or varna, the association of an individual to a group is considered paramount. Even the family is not treated as a unit of society except for the purpose of marriage and inheritance. Individual merit and choices are pushed aside and there is no consideration for individual justice. The privileges associated with an individual are not because of his personality; rather these privileges are associated with the group. Similarly, if an individual suffers, it is not necessarily because his conduct deserves it, it is because of the group that he belongs to.

Does the Hindu social order recognize fraternity? According to Hindus, though all men are created by God, they are not created equal. They believe that God created different classes of men from different parts of his divine body. There is a section in “Purusha Sukta” of the Rig Veda which says that the Brahaman varna was born from the mouth of the God, Kshatriya varna from his arms, the Vaishya from his thighs and the Shudra from his feet. The Hindus regard the second part (the part that says that men came from different parts of the divine body) as more important and more fundamental than the first (the part that says all men were created by god). The belief that different classes were created from different parts of the divine body has generated another belief that it must be divine that they should remain separate and distinct. Their guiding principle is to be separate; do not inter-marry; do not inter-dine and do not touch. What fraternity can there be in a social order based upon such sentiments? These relations are far from the spirit of fraternity.

Does the Hindu social order recognize equality? The answer is certainly negative. According to the social order, all men are children of God but they are not equal. This is because they were created from different parts of the body of God. The Hindu social order refuses to recognize that men are equally as human beings, no matter how profoundly they differ as individuals in capacity and character (Ibid.: 3-12). If the Hindu social order is not based on equality and fraternity, then what are the principles on which it is based. According to Ambedkar, the answer to this question is that it is based on three principles.

•    The principle of graded inequality: The four classes are on a vertical plane, not only different but unequal in status, with Brahmin occupying the first rank, Kshatriya occupying the second, Vaishya occupying the third, Shudra being the fourth and below them the Ati-Shudra or Untouchable. This structure among the classes isn’t just conventional. It is spiritual, moral and legal.
•    The fixed occupations for each class and its continuance by heredity: Manu delegated specific occupations to different classes.
•    The fixation of people within their respective classes: It is usual for a society to have different classes. Even a society with free social order will not be able to get rid of classes. But they can be maintained only if the classes are not isolated and exclusive. Such is not the case with the Hindu social order. Manu prohibited social intercourse between different classes of the society. He laid down many rules that ensured fixation of people within their classes.

These are the essential principles on which the Hindu social order is based. Incidentally, there are some strikingly unique features of the Hindu social order that distinguishes it from any other social order in the world. There are about 429 communities consisting of one-fifth of India’s population whose mere touch can cause contamination to Hindus. Ambedkar in his book The Hindu Social Order compares the Brahmins to the Superman and the Shudras to the common man. The Brahman was referred to as the first born, he was the one meant to teach the Vedas and he could not be held guilty for murder.

The Shudras were meant to serve higher varnas, and they were restricted from hearing or uttering the Vedas. Manu denied them even the basic human rights. In the hypothetical world, the Superman feels certain obligation towards the society and helps the common man by using his powers. But in the Hindu society, Brahminical powers were not counterbalanced by their obligation towards the society. These were the primary reasons because of which the Hindu social order cannot be called a free social order.