Vol. 3 · pages 346–350

333 THE MORALS OF THE HOUSE In the first place it is only in modern times that Law has been separated from Religion. In all ancient Society, Law and Religion were one. As Prof. Max Muller 1 points out that though :— “Law seems naturally to be the foundation of society, and the bond that binds a nation together. Those who look below the surface have quickly perceived that law itself, at least ancient law, derives its authority, its force, its very life from religion……..The belief that the law giver enjoyed some closer intimacy with the Deity than ordinary mortals, pervades the ancient traditions of many nations. According to a well known passage in Diodorus Siculus, the Egyptians believed their laws to have been communicated to Menvis by Hermes; the Cretaus held that Minos received his laws from Zeus, the Lacedaemonians that Lykurgus received his laws from Apollon. According to the Arians, their law giver Zarathustras had received his Laws from the Good Spirit; According to the Stoe, Zamolixis received his laws from the goddess Hestia; and according to the Jews, Moses received his laws from the God las.” No one has pointed out more forcibly than Sir Henry Mains 2 that in ancient times religion as a divine influence was underlying and supporting every relation of life and every social institution when he says of Religion as: “A supernatural presidency (which) is supposed to consecrate and keep together all the cardinal institutions of those times, the state, the Race, and the Family ”. From this superntural presidency of Reigion, Law had notsucceded in finding an escape until at a later time when law Finally breaks away from religion but not without leaving many traces to show the link it had with Religion at the very beginning of human history. Again it is only in modern times that a difference is being made between Religion and Ethics. Religion and Ethics are inextricably and indissolubly bound together. Morality and Ethics are essentially practical. As Prof. Jacks insists 3 that the problem of Ethics is not merely getting the Good understood but realised, not merely getting the Right placed on scientific basis but done. Morality is a mere matter of defining what is good and what is right. Prof. Jacks rightly says : “Whenver we embark on the study of morality without interest in its application I cannot but think that it is not morality we are studying. Morality does not arise till the point of application is reached. The effect of a moral theory launched upon the world is 1 Science of Religion, pages 150-151. 2 Ancient Law p. 6. 3 “ Morals and Religion ”— Hibbert Journal Vol. XIX. pp. 615-621.

334 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES next to nothing unless the application of it can be reinforced by powerful motives. The good life, as Aristotle pointed out is a very difficult affair; difficult even when it goes no further than conformity to existing conventions. But when the good life demands that existing standards must be transcended how can this be effected without an immense liberation of power? Mere information as to why men should do right has no effect against their natural tendencies to do wrong—it is no match for the difficulties that beset good life.” Unless some motive force comes to its aid morality remains inert. There can be no doubt that what gives motive force to morality is Religion. It is a propelling force which creates, to use again the language of Principal Jacks: “ Motives which are strong enough to overcome the enormous difficulties involved in living the good life, even in its simpler forms, and adequate to maintain that continuous improvement of the moral ideal.” Religion as a motive force reinforces the moral will in various ways. Sometimes it takes the form of sanctions by laying down a scheme of rewards and punishments after death; some times it makes rules of morality as the commandments of God; some times it invests these rules with sanctity which evokes willing obedience. But these are only different ways in which motive power generated by Religion helps to sustain moral life in action. Religion is the dynamics which moves the wheels of morality. If Ethics and Morality are duties then there can be no doubt that Manu Smriti is a book of Ethics. Any one who takes the trouble to read the Smriti of Manu will have to admit that if there is any subject which figures prominently in the book it is that of duties. Manu was the first to syatematise and codify the duties to which a Hindu was bound. He distinguishes between Varnashramadharmas and Sadharandharmas. The Varnashramdharmas are the specific duties relating to one’s station in life i.e. one’s station as determined by one’s Varna or caste and one’s Ashram or particular stage of life. The Sadharandharmas are duties irrespective of one’s age, caste or creed i.e. duties obligatory on man as man and not as a member of a particular community or social class or as being at a particular stage or period of life. The whole book deals with duties and with nothing else. Manu Smriti is thus a book of Law, Religion and Ethics rolled into one. It is Ethics because it deals with duties of men. It is religion because it deals with Caste which is the soul of Hinduism. It is Law because it prescribes penalities for breach of duties. In this view there

335 THE MORALS OF THE HOUSE is nothing wrong in going to Manu Smriti to ascertain the moral standards and religious notions of the Hindus. That Manu Smriti is a book of Religion may not be quite obvious. That is because Hinduism is a very illusive term. Different writers have defined it in various ways. Sir D. Ibbetson 1 defines Hinduism as : “A hereditary sacerdotalism with Brahmins for its devices, the vitality of which is preserved by the social institution of caste and which include all shades and diversities of religion native to India, as distinct from foreign importations of Christianity and islam, and from the later outgrowths of Buddhism, more doubtfully of Sikhism and still more doubtfully of Jainism”. Sir J. A. Baines 2 defined Hinduism as :— “The large residium that is not Sikh, or Jain, or Buddhist or professedly Animistic, or included in one of the foreign religions such as Islam. Mazdaism. Christianity, or Hebraism.” To Sir Edward Gait 3 Hinduism :— “ is a complex congenies of creeds and doctrines. It shelters within its portals monotheists, polytheists. and pantheists; Worshippers of the great God Siva and Vishnu, or of their female counterparts, as well as worshippers of the divine mothers, of the spirits of trees, rocks and streams and of the tutelary village deities; persons who propitate their deity by all matter of bloody sacrifices, and persons who will not only kill no living creature, but who must not even use the word “cut”; those whose ritual consists mainly of prayers and hymns, and those who indulge in unspeakable orgies in the name of religion”. This discription of complexity is full but is still incomplete. To the list must be added those who revere the cow and those who eat it, those who worship natural forces, and those who worship a single God; those who are worshippers of idols, demons, ghosts, ancestors, saints and heroes. Such are the answers given by the three Census Commissioners to the simple question what is Hinduism. Others have not found it less difficult to answer the question. Consider how Sir A. Lyall has fared in answering the question. In his “ Rede Lecture ” delivered at Cambridge in 1891 he said 4 : “And if I were asked for a definition of Hinduism I could give no precise answer, I could not define it concisely by giving its central 1 Punjab Census Report 1881. para 214. 2 Census of India. Report 1881. p. 158. 3 Census of India. Report 1911 p. 114. 4 Asiatic Studies Vol. II pp. 287-88.

336 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES doctrines and its essential articles of faith; as I might do in describing of the great historical Religions. For the word Hindu is not exclusively a religious denomination; it denotes also a country, and to certain degree a race. When we speak of Christian, a Mahomedan, or a Buddhist, we mean a particular religious community, in the widest sense, without distinction of race or place. When we talk of a Russian or a Persian, we indicate country or parentage without distinction of creed. But when a person tells me that he is a Hindu, I know that he means all three things together— Religion. Parentage and Country.” Speaking of Hinduism as a Religion Sir Alfred Lyall said that: “Hinduism was a tangled mugle of disorderly superstitions, the collection of rights, worships, beliefs, traditions and mythologies, that are sanctioned by the sacred books and ordinances of the Brahmins and are propogated by Brahmanic teachings.” Lastly I will quote the defintion given by a Hindu Mr. G. P. Sen who not merely a Hindu but is a student of Hinduism. In his book called ‘Introduction to the study of Hinduism’ Mr. Sen says :— “ Hinduism is what the Hindus, or a major portion of them in a Hindu Community do. ” Is there then no principle in Hinduism which all Hindus no matter what their other differences are, feel bound to render willing obedience? It seems to me there is and that principle is the principle of Caste. There may be a difference of opinion as to which matters constitute matters of essence so far as Hinduism is concerned. But there can be no doubt that Caste is one and an essential and integral part of Hinduism. Every Hindu—if he is not merely a statutory Hindu-believes in Caste and every Hindu—even one who prides himself on being a statutory Hindu—has a Caste. A Hindu is as much born into caste as he is born in Hinduism. Indeed a person connot be born in Hinduism unless he is born in a Caste. Caste and Hinduism are inseparable. As Prof. Max Muller 1 observes : “Modern Hinduism rests on the system of Caste as on a rock which no arguments can shake.” It therefore follows that in so far as Manu lays down the creed of the Caste and in so far as Hinduism at its core is the creed of Caste the Manu Smriti must be accepted as the Book of Religion. II What are the Ethical and Religious norms prescribed by Manu for Hindus to observe and follow? 1.Science of Religion, p. 28.

337 THE MORALS OF THE HOUSE To begin with, Manu divides Hindus into four varnas or social orders. He not only divides Hindus into four orders he also grades them. The following is his scheme of gradation. X. 3. On account of his pre-eminence, on account of the superiority of his origin, on account of his observance of (particular) restrictive rules, and on account of his particular sanctification the Brahman is the Lord of (all) Varnas. He proceeds to amplify his reasons and does so in the following characteristic manner :— I. 93. As the Brahmana sprang from (Prajapati’s i.e.Gods) mouth, as he was first-born, and as he possesses the Veda, he is by right the lord of this whole creation. I. 94. For the self existent (Svayambhu i.e. God), having performed austerities, produced him first from his own mouth, in order that the offerings might be conveyed to the Gods and Manes and that this universe might be preserved. I. 95. What created being can surpass him, through whose mouth the Gods continually consume the sacrificial viands and the manes the offerings to the dead. I. 96. Of created beings the most excellent are said to be those which are animated; of the animated, those who subsist by intelligence; of the inteligent, mankind; and of the men, the Brahmans. Besides the reason given by Manu the Brahmin is first in rank because he was produced by God from his mouth, in order that the offerings might be conveyed to the Gods and manes. Manu gives another reason for the supremacy of the Brahmins. He says :— I. 98. The very birth of a Brahmana is an eternal incarnation of the sacred Law (Veda); for he is born to (fulfil) the sacred law, and become one with Brahman (God). I. 99. A Brahamana, coming into existence, is born as the highest on earth, the lord of all created beings, for the protection of the treasury of the Law. Manu concludes by saying that : I. 101. The Brahmana eats but his own food, wears but his own apparel, bestows but his own alms; other mortals subsist through the benevolence of the Brahmana.” Because according to Manu : I. 100. Whatever exists in the world is the property of the Brahmana; on account of the excellence of his origin the Brahmana is, indeed, entitled to it all.