The Hindu regards himself as socially devoid of any right of initiative and choice; he has no will of his own. His social conscience is in the keeping of his caste. This has gained its rules from the past and exercises no discretion or judgment of its own in the social direction of its members; but it insists upon implicit obedience, by every one, to past customs which have crystallized into irrevocable laws. And to these laws the Hindu is always and everywhere a willing and an abject slave. To violate any of them is, he well knows, to be recreant to his faith and to be an outcaste among his people.
(d) The Hindu is not strong in character, as Westerners regard strength. As we have seen, his religion is not favourable to the highest development of conscience. Hence, sincerity and truthfulness are not among his strong points. Not only does pantheism undermine conscience, the example of the most prominent gods of the Hindu pantheon, leads men to prevaricate and encourages all forms of duplicity. Under these circumstances it were strange if the Hindu were conspicuous in honesty and in loyalty to the truth. And in like manner he is wanting largely in those convictions which, in the West, are so inseparably associated with earnestness, integrity and lofty purpose. If, to the Hindu devotee, religion is not a system of truth to be believed and loyally followed, but a series of ceremonies to be observed and of caste rules to be obeyed, then loyalty to truth becomes a very secondary matter and integrity of mind will be regarded by him as of no great moment. [pg 126] Therefore it is that hollowness is so often found at the core of their life. Lying and stealing are all but universal. It is said in our District in South India that the regular price of a court witness is two annas (four cents); and he stands ready to perjure himself to any extent for this paltry sum. The ordinary Hindu seems too often to have a predilection for falsehood and uses truth with rare economy! There, dishonesty and petty larceny are foibles too frequently condoned because too generally practiced. Even among the higher classes—the cultured and élite—open-faced and open-handed frankness and sincerity are too rare. Hypocrisy and duplicity are too often cultivated as a fine art. It seems to be the pride and pleasure of an Oriental to conceal his mind and purpose and to say and do things by the greatest indirection possible.
India has been extolled as a land where there is no profanity. This is true and she should have the credit for this abstinence. And one never feels like giving her this credit more than when he returns from that country to this and is compelled to endure the coarse profanity which pervades our streets as a terrible stench.
Yet one can hardly see how the Hindu could find interest in, and a strong grip upon, profanity, so long as the gods of his pantheon have so little of his respect and enter so rarely into the serious compacts of his life. Moreover it should not be forgotten that obscenity fulfills in India the function of profanity in the West. The bursts of passion which find expression here through taking the name of God in vain gain utterance there in language unspeakably bad of [pg 127] the other kind. And this is only a part of the larger subject of the prevalence of social immorality in India—an evil which is largely fostered under the protection of the religion of the land. When Lord Dalhousie, the Viceroy of India, was considering an act for the suppression of obscenity in the country, he was compelled by Hindu sentiment to exempt all temples and religious emblems from the operation of the act! What better commentary could one desire upon the source and prevalence of this vice in that land? When such an evil is intrenched behind the religion of the people and is symbolized and fostered by its emblems and ceremonies—when tasies, or women dedicated to the Hindu gods and temple worship (there are 12,000 of these in South India alone), constitute the public characters of the land—then the hope for the purification of life is at the lowest ebb.
It is also very rare that one finds a Hindu whose convictions and loyalty to certain beliefs are such that he is willing to suffer in their behalf. That masculine vigour and manly persistence under difficulty in maintaining what he believes to be right and true is not germane to the Hindu character.
On the other hand, the Hindu is strong in the so-called passive virtues. In harmony with his religious beliefs, patience and meekness and endurance of evil have become second nature to him. This side of his character has, indeed, received undue emphasis during the many centuries of his history. He cannot understand the rush and impatience, the push and aggressiveness of the Westerner any more than he of the West can understand the Hindu's cool, [pg 128] quiet, patient, bearing under most trying and adverse circumstances. He has a large lesson to teach us in the art of self-control and in the ability to endure with complacency evils which cannot be remedied.
Thus as we look at the Hindu from the various standpoints of life and character we see how strange a compound he is, and how unlike the man of the West at nearly all points in our examination. He is preëminently weak where we are strong, and he manifests strength where we seem to need it most. His religion has developed within him traits and tendencies which, through these many centuries, have wonderfully wrought in his life and character, and have largely made him what he is today.
Moreover all this enables us to see what a serious problem Christianity has in hand in India today, namely the conversion of 230,000,000 people so far removed in life and sentiment from those who have gone to preach Christ to them. Yea, more, we have seen what mighty influences and forces Christianity has to overcome, what hosts of prejudices to destroy, before she can lay her hand in power upon that great land and claim it as her own.