We have now looked at the bearings of caste on three very important points—its moral bearing amongst the Indians themselves, its effects in maintaining a social separation between the white and dark races, and its effects in retarding the adoption of a religion which involves the entire abolition of caste laws. In the first place, we looked at the effects of caste laws on the rural populations, and came to the conclusion that on all these points caste has operated, and continues to operate, advantageously. In the second place, we looked at its effects on the peoples of the towns, and came to the conclusion that caste confers on them no advantages, while it is often productive of serious evil.
Let us now glance for one moment at the causes of the general outcry which you everywhere hear against caste institutions, and at the same time suggest the line of conduct that the people of the towns ought to adopt with reference to this question.
And here I need not occupy much space in indicating the causes of that abuse of caste which has always been so popular with my countrymen. In fact, if we admit the truth of the facts and arguments hitherto adduced, these causes are so apparent that the reader must have already anticipated the solution I have to give. Caste, as we have seen, is a serious evil to the peoples of the towns. Now, it is amongst towns and cantonments that our principal experiences of this institution have been acquired, and the educated natives of the Indian capitals, feeling all the evils and experiencing none of the advantages of caste, are naturally loud in its condemnation. Hence the cry arising from all Europeans and a trifling section of the Indians, that caste should be abolished from one end of India to the other. But how is it that no response comes from these country populations amongst whom I have lived? How is it that these shrewd-headed people[[37]] are so insensible to the evils of caste, and that you never hear one word about it? The answer is extremely simple. They have never felt these evils, because for them they do not exist. If they felt the pressure of caste laws as do the people of the towns, the outcry would be universal, and the institution speedily done away with. Need I add that when the people of the country are as advanced as the people of the towns, that then, and not till then, will the pressure, which is now confined to the latter, be universally felt; that then, and not till then, will this institution, being no longer suited to the requirements of the age, be universally discarded.
Let us now say a few words as to the line of conduct that should be adopted, as regards caste, by those who are desirous of freeing themselves from the restrictions of that institution.
In the first place, the opponents of caste should not weaken their case by talking nonsense; and, in the second place, they should remember, above all things, that, to use a common saying, "if you want a pig to go to Dublin, the best thing you can do is to start him off on the way to Cork." I shall now enlarge a little on both of these recommendations.
To illustrate my first suggestion—and to this suggestion I shall again have occasion to allude further on in this chapter—a few sentences may be devoted to glancing at some of those remarkable conclusions which sound so well in the observations one often hears when anything is said about India. The tendency of caste, you will hear it gravely urged, is to elevate the upper classes on the highest possible pinnacle, and keep the Pariah grovelling in the dust. "What," continues the speaker, "keeps the Brahmin at the top and the Pariah at the bottom?" Why, let me ask in turn, is a cow's tail long, and a fox's tail bushy? Is it in this nineteenth century that we are to try and din into people's ears that the upper classes in India were at the top of the social scale, and the Pariah at the bottom, centuries before caste, in its present shape, ever existed, and that the relative position of the two races would continue with little change if caste was to be abolished to-morrow morning? "What," gravely asks another, "has prevented the peoples of India uniting into one grand nation, and destroyed all hopes of political fusion?" Nor, to many, would the absurdity of the question be apparent till you asked them what has prevented all Europe becoming one nation; or, to take things on a smaller scale, till you asked what prevented the Highland clans forming themselves into a nation. In short, whenever a man is in difficulty, and at a loss to account for anything connected with the state of the people of India, he takes refuge in caste, combined, perhaps, with what is called native prejudice, though what that last means I do not pretend to explain. Now, it is not improbable that some of my readers may have heard of Holloway's pills, and we know, in fact, that thousands believe that medicine to be an efficacious remedy for every constitutional ailment. Only swallow Holloway, and you are a cured man. Well, the abolition of caste, with an incredible number of people, is, in like manner, confidently pronounced to be a universal remedy for all the political and social complaints of India. Remove that, and you will at one stroke secure social liberty, national unity, the removal of idolatry, and, some even are rash enough to affirm, the universal adoption of Christianity. Such, then, are a few examples of the nonsense you will hear commonly talked about caste, and I think I need not waste time in pointing out that the opponents of caste must take very different ground if they wish to obtain a hearing from the peoples of India.
In the second point to which I have called the attention of the reader I alluded to the general law of opposition, and used a common saying which exactly illustrates the probable result of violent and ill-judged attacks on caste. In fact, so apparent is this, that the reader must have already anticipated the line that, in my opinion, the opponents of caste should follow. What the opponents of caste should preach is, not the abolition of that institution, but toleration for the educated and advanced members of the community who, finding caste an impediment and a burden, wish to discard it. They should admit that this institution has been, and is at the present moment, of value amongst the rural populations, but they should, at the same time, point out that times are changing, and that the peoples of the towns ask for some toleration, not because caste is necessarily a universal evil in itself, but because it is, as far as they are concerned, highly inconvenient. This is the way—and, if this plan does not answer, I feel sure no other will—that the evils of caste are to be mitigated, and I urge these views accordingly on the serious attention of all enlightened Indians.
The reader will have observed that, when pointing out the advantages of caste in repelling our interpretation of Christianity, I have assumed that the adoption of Christianity necessarily involves the entire abolition of all those social distinctions that make up what we call caste. Such have been the terms on which Christianity has been offered to the peoples of India by our English missionaries; and I, for one, do most sincerely rejoice that their hide-bound interpretation of the Protestant faith has been as promptly as it has been decidedly rejected. But why should caste—which, as I have shown, can be proved to have produced such favourable results as regards drinking, and as regards the morality of the sexes—why should this institution, which in these respects can be proved to have produced better results than Christianity has over done in Great Britain—why should this be swept away because you wish to introduce the religion of Christ? It has been alleged to be entirely incompatible with Christianity; and were this so, there would, of course, be no more to be said. But this I wholly deny. It is, of course, incompatible in some respects with exalted conceptions of the most advanced Christianity; but there is no reason why Christianity should not be allowed to exist alongside of abnormal social growths, and why, in short, Christianity should not be stretched to tolerate caste, in the same way that it was allowed by the apostles to exist alongside of evils with which the institution of caste cannot, for iniquity or for general ill effects, be for one moment compared. Christianity was not held by the apostles to be an impossibility because the professors of that faith bought and sold slaves; it was not held so by their descendants for hundreds of years; and will those interpreters of Christianity whom we have sent to India venture to assert that the Americans had no right to the name of Christians until the close of the late war? Slavery was driven out at length, or at least in a great measure driven out, by Christianity; but Christianity, remember, had first of all to be introduced; and taking into consideration the acts of the apostles, the way in which they yielded to the customs and prejudices of their converts, and the resolution they came to "not to trouble those of the Gentiles who were turning to God," on what grounds do our missionaries rest their claim to debar from the advantages of Christianity those people who, wishing to retain their place in society, desire to become Christians? This is not the first time that these questions have been asked. They were asked at great length by Mr. Irving in his "Theory and Practice of Caste." Hitherto they have been asked in vain; and owing to the indifference of people in this country, and to the slavish submission of the laity to the opinion of the missionaries, a system of attempting to propagate Christianity has been allowed to exist which has been of incalculable mischief. But I think we may even go further than this. I think it may be asserted that the line taken up, as regards caste, by our missionaries has acted more prejudicially to the interests of Christianity than if we had deliberately dispatched emissaries to India with the view of preventing the people from adopting the religion of Christ. These may seem harsh, and I have no doubt they will prove to be unwelcome, expressions of opinion. They will hurt, and I am afraid will shock, the feelings of many a good and worthy man. I regret that this should be so, but I cannot help it. In any case good must arise. If I am right, as I firmly believe myself to be, the cause of enlightenment and Christianity will be advanced; and if I am wrong, and it can be proved that the missionaries are right, they will have as great, and it may even be a greater claim to public support than they ever had before. But it must be clearly understood that, as an individual desirous of propagating truth, I have a right to demand an answer. If that answer is satisfactory, well and good. If it is not satisfactory, or if no answer be supplied at all, I would then propose to ask the public here to consider whether it would not be better to withhold all their subscriptions from our English, or at least transfer them to such missions as will consent to attempt to propagate Christianity on the widest possible base.
In considering this important subject I shall, in the first place, glance at Bishop Heber's "Letter on Caste;" Bishop Wilson's "Circular;" the "Report" of the Madras Commissioners; and the "Statement" of the Tanjore German missionaries. This may seem a formidable list of documents to commence with, but it is my intention to make only the most cursory allusion to each, as to consider these papers at any length would occupy far too much space. Having thus stated the difference of opinions, as regards caste, between the Germans and the Protestant missionaries, I shall then proceed to inquire whether caste can or can not be traced to an idolatrous source; whether it was in any way necessarily wound up with religion; and whether, further, it is at all necessary that, supposing it to have been at any time wound up with religion, there should therefore be at the present day any necessary connection between the religions of the peoples and their caste customs.
In Bishop Heber's "Letter" of March 21st, 1826, he says that, "with regard to the distinctions of caste as yet maintained by professing Christians, it appears that they are manifested—(a) in desiring separate seats at church; (b) in going up at different times to receive the Holy Communion; (c) in insisting on their children having different sides of the school; (d) in refusing to eat, drink, or associate with those of a different caste."