11 [Caste deprives Hindus of mutual help, trust, and fellow-feeling]
[1:] The reasons which have made Shudhi impossible for Hindus are also responsible for making Sanghatan impossible. The idea underlying Sanghatan is to remove from the mind of the Hindu
that timidity and cowardice which so painfully mark him off from the
Mohammedan and the Sikh, and which have led him to adopt the low ways of
treachery and cunning for protecting himself. The question naturally
arises: From where does the Sikh or the Mohammedan derive his strength,
which makes him brave and fearless? I am sure it is not due to relative
superiority of physical strength, diet, or drill. It is due to the
strength arising out of the feeling that all Sikhs will come to the rescue of a Sikh when he is in danger, and that all Mohammedans will rush to save a Muslim if he is attacked.
[2:] The Hindu
can derive no such strength. He cannot feel assured that his fellows
will come to his help. Being one and fated to be alone, he remains
powerless, develops timidity and cowardice, and in a fight surrenders or
runs away. The Sikh as well as the Muslim
stands fearless and gives battle, because he knows that though one he
will not be alone. The presence of this belief in the one helps him to
hold out, and the absence of it in the other makes him to give way.
[3:] If you pursue this matter further and
ask what is it that enables the Sikh and the Mohammedan to feel so
assured, and why is the Hindu
filled with such despair in the matter of help and assistance, you will
find that the reasons for this difference lie in the difference in
their associated mode of living. The associated mode of life practised
by the Sikhs and the Mohammedans produces fellow-feeling. The associated mode of life of the Hindus does not. Among Sikhs and Muslims there is a social cement which makes them Bhais. Among Hindus
there is no such cement, and one Hindu does not regard another Hindu as
his Bhai. This explains why a Sikh says and feels that one Sikh, or one
Khalsa, is equal to sava lakh
men. This explains why one Mohammedan is equal to a crowd of Hindus.
This difference is undoubtedly a difference due to Caste. So long as
Caste remains, there will be no Sanghatan; and so long as there is no Sanghatan the Hindu will remain weak and meek.
[4:] The Hindus
claim to be a very tolerant people. In my opinion this is a mistake. On
many occasions they can be intolerant, and if on some occasions they
are tolerant, that is because they are too weak to oppose or too
indifferent to oppose. This indifference of the Hindus has become so
much a part of their nature that a Hindu will quite meekly tolerate an
insult as well as a wrong. You see amongst them, to use the words of Morris,
"The great treading down the little, the strong beating down the weak,
cruel men fearing not, kind men daring not and wise men caring not."
With the Hindu Gods all-forbearing, it is not difficult to imagine the
pitiable condition of the wronged and the oppressed among the Hindus.
Indifferentism is the worst kind of disease that can infect a people.
Why is the Hindu so indifferent? In my opinion this indifferentism is
the result of the Caste System, which has made Sanghatan and co-operation even for a good cause impossible. |