Vol. 3 · pages 91–95

78 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES leaves men in darkness face to face with the unthinking energies of nature which gives them birth to which after a few fruitless struggles they succumb. Not less cruel than the crudest irreligion, does it leave men divorced from all communion with God. Such is the philosophy of Hinduism. It is Superman’s heaven and the common man’s damnation. I am conscious that my position regarding the philosophy of Hinduism will be assailed from different sides. So contrary it is to the current views about it that it is bound to be assailed. The attack may come from various sides. It will be said that I am wrong in taking the Manu Smriti as the book of Hindu religion and that the true gospel of Hinduism is contained in the Vedas and the Bhagwat Gita.. I am sure no orthodox Hindu will be bold enough to repudiate the authority of Manu Smriti as a book of Hindu Religion. Such a charge can be made only by some reformed sects of Hinduism such as the Arya Samajists. But there can be no doubt that this charge is not well founded. To refute this charge it is perhaps desirable to explain 1 how the Smritis obtained a place and position of authority among the Hindus. The Smritis originally were a collection of rules relating to social traditions, customs and conventions approved of and recommended by those who were learned in the Vedas. For a long time these rules existed only in the memory of those learned in the Vedas, so they began to be called Smritis i.e. things which are remembered in contrast to Vedas or Shruti that is things which were heard. In the beginning the Smritis even when they were codified were treated as rules of inferior value as compared with the rules contained in the Vedas. The difference in their authority and binding force was the result of the natural difference between the trustworthiness of what is heard as compared to what is only remembered. There was also another reason of this differentiation in the two sorts of Dharma Shastra literature. This was based upon the status of their authors. The authors of the Vedas were Rishis. The authors of the Smritis were only learned men. The Rishis were superior in status and sanctity than those who were merely learned. Consequently the Vedas were treated as more authoritative than the Smritis. The consequence arising from this was well expressed in the Hindu theological formula according to which if there was a conflict in the rules of two Vedas on the same subject it meant option for a rule of 1 See the interesting article by Prof. Altekar on “The Position of Smritis as a Source of Dharma” in the Kane Memorial Volume pp. 18-25.

79 PHILOSOPHY OF HINDUISM Vedas cannot be deemed to be inoperative. On the other hand, in a conflict between a rule of Shriti and a rule of Smriti the rule of Shruti prevailed becuse for the reasons stated above Smriti was inferior in authority to the Shruti. But as pointed out by Prof. Altekar, the Smritis in course of time came to be invested with the same authority as belonged to the Vedas. Various means were adopted to accomplish this purpose. In the first place the authors of the Smritis were elevated to the status of Rishis. The early Dharma Shastra writers like Gautama, and Baudhayana were never given the status of a Rishi. But Manu and Yajnavalkya are reckoned as Rishis. By this means the status of the Smritis was equated to that of the Shrutis. The second means adopted was to regard the Smriti as the record from memory of a Shruti which was lost. Thus Smriti instead of being regarded as something quite different from Shruti came to be regarded as akin to and indistinguishable from Shruti. The result of these steps was a complete change in the rules regarding the authority of the two. Originally if there was a conflict between a Smriti and a Shruti, the Shruti prevailed. The new rule was that in case of conflict there was an option which meant that the Smriti rule was as operative as the Rule of Shruti. This new rule has been expressly laid down by Kumarila in his commentary on the Purvamimansa Sutra whereby the Smritis were made as authoritative as Shrutis. While originally Hindu Society was bound to the Vedas and could not follow any rule which was contrary to the Vedas, the new rule altered the situation and left it to the option of society either to follow the Shruti or the Smriti. But even this option was later on taken away. This was done by making the study of the Smritis as compulsory as that of the Shruti. This was done gradually. In the first place it was suggested that the Shrutis and Smritis are the two eyes of the Brahamana, if he is devoid of one he becomes a one-eyed person. Then came the theory that Brahmanyam is possible only as the result of a joint study of both the Vedas and the Smritis. Finally came the rule according to which the study of the Smruti only was recognized and a contempt of the Smriti was made a sin and a person guilty of it was declared to be condemned to be born as a beast for 21 generations. This is how the Smritis have been recognized as a source of Hindu Religion and there is no doubt that, to quote Prof. Altekar, the Smritis; “have played a great part in determining the features of many a social and socio-religious institutions and customs and in moulding the development of modern Hinduism.”

80 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES It cannot therefore be maintained that I was wrong in taking Manu Smriti as containing the philosophy of Hinduism. This work of elevating the Smritis to the status of the Vedas was undertaken by the Brahmins for a most selfish reason. The Smritis contain in all its wild and luxurious growth the doctrine of Caste, the doctrine of the superiority of the Brahmins, their rights and privileges, the doctrine of the subordination of the Kshatriyas and Vaishyas and the doctrine of the degradation of the Shudras. Such being the philosophy of the Smritis, the Brahmins were directly interested in investing the Smritis with the authority which was claimed for the Vedas and in which they ultimately succeeded to their advantage but to the ruination of the whole country. But conceding—which orthodox and pious Hindu would do—that the Smritis do not contain the philosophy of Hinduism but that the same is to be found in the Vedas and the Bhagwat Geeta the question is what difference would this make in the result. It seems to me that it matters very little whether one takes the Smritis, or the Vedas or the Bhagwat Geeta. Do the Vedas teach something which is fundmentally different from what the Smritis do? Does the Bhagwat Geeta run contrary to the injunctions of the Smritis. A few illustrations will make the matter clear. It is indisputable that the Vedas lay down the theory of Chaturvarna in what is known as the Purushasukta. This Purushasukta recognizes two basic principles. It recognizes the division of society into four sections as an ideal. It also recognizes that the ideal relationship between the four sections is inequality. What the Bhagwat Geeta teaches is also beyond controversy. Its teaching may be summarized in the following four pronouncements made by Krishna in the Bhagwat Geeta. (1) “I myself have created the arrangement known as Chaturvarna (i.e. the fourfold division of society into four castes Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras) assigning them different occupations in accordance with the native capacities. It is I who am the maker of this Chaturvarna”.— Gita. IV. 13 (2) “Even if it may be easier to follow the occupation of another Varna yet to follow the occupation of one’s own Varna is more mertorious, although one may not be able to do it quite efficiently. There is bliss in following the occupation of one’s own Varna, even if death were to result in performing it; but to follow the occupation of another Varna is risky “.—Geeta. III. 35.

81 PHILOSOPHY OF HINDUISM (3) “The educated should not unsettle the faith of the uneducated who have become attached to their occupation. He himself should perform the occupation of his Varna and make others perform their’s accordingly. An educated man may not become attached to his occupation. But the uneducated and dull-minded people who have become attached to their occupation should not be spoiled by the educated by putting them on a wrong path by abandoning their own occupation”—Geeta III. 26, 29. (4) “Oh, Arjun! Whenever this religion of duties and occupations (i.e. this religion of Chaturvarna) declines, then I myself will come to birth to punish those who are responsible for its downfall and to restore it—Geeta IV, 7-8. Such is the position of Geeta. What difference is there between it and the Manu Smriti ? Geeta is Manu in a nutshell. Those who run away from Manu Smriti and want to take refuge in Geeta either do not know Gita or are prepared to omit from their consideration that soul of Geeta which makes it akin to Manu Smriti. Compare the teachings of the Veda, of the Bhagwat Geeta with what is contained in the Manu Smriti which I have taken as the text for elucidating the philosophy of Hinduism. What difference does one find ? The only difference one can find is that the Vedas and the Bhagwat Geeta deal with General Theory while the Smritis are concerned in working out the particulars and details of that theory. But so far as the essence is concerned all of them—the Smritis, the Vedas and the Bhagwat Geeta—are woven on the same pattern, the same thread runs through them and are really parts of the same fabric. The reason for this is obvious. The Brahmins who were the authors of the whole body of Hindu Religious Literature—except the Upanishad Literature—took good care to inject the doctrines formulated by them in the Smritis, into the Vedas and the Bhagwat Geeta. Nothing is to be gained in picking and chosing between them. The Philosophy of Hinduism will be the same whether one takes the Manu Smriti as its Gospel or whether one takes the Vedas and the Bhagwat Geeta as the gospel of Hinduism. Secondly it will be contended that Manu Smriti is a Book of Laws and not a code of ethics and that what I have presented as a philosophy of Hinduism is only legal philosophy and is not the moral philosophy of Hinduism. My answer to this contention is simple. I hold that in Hinduism there is no distinction between legal philosophy and moral philosophy. That is because in Hinduism there is no distinction between the Legal and the Moral, the Legal being also the Moral.

82 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Not much evidence is necessary to support my contention. Take the meaning1 of the word Dharma in the Rig Veda. The word Dharma occurs in the Rig Veda 58 times. It is used in six different senses. It is used to denote (I) Ancient custom, (2) Laws, (3) Any arrangement which maintains law and order in society, (4) The course of nature, (5) The quality of a substance and (6) Duty of good and evil. It will thus be seen that from the very beginning the word Dharma in Hinduism has a two fold connotation. It means both law and moral. That is one reason why in the philosophy of Hinduism there can be no distinction between legal philosophy and moral philosophy. This is not to say that the Hindus have no code of morality. To be sure they have. But it is very pertinent to ask the nature and character of conduct which the Hindu Code of Ethics declares to be moral. To have an idea of the nature of conduct which the Hindu thinks moral, it is better to begin by recognizing that there are three levels of conduct2 which must be distinguished. (I) Conduct arising from instincts and fundamental needs (2) Conduct regulated by standards of society and (3) Conduct regulated by individual conscience. Conduct on the first level, we do not call moral conduct. It is of course not immoral; it is merely unmoral. It is governed by forces not as moral in purpose but as valuable in result. The forces are biological or sociological or psychological. These have purpose, such as to satisfy hunger, or to forge a weapon against an enemy. But the end is one set up by our physical or instinctive nature. So long as this is merely accepted as an inevitable end and not compared with others, valued, and chosen, it is not properly moral. Conduct on the second level is no doubt social. Wherever groups of men are living there are certain ways of acting which are common to the group—“folkways”. There are approved ways of acting, common to a group, and handed down from generation to generation. Such approved ways of acting are called the mores or the morals of the group. They imply the judgment of the group that they are to be followed. The welfare of the group is regarded as in some sense imbedded in them. It becomes the duty of the individual to follow them and if any one acts contrary to them he is made to feel the group’s disapproval. We cannot strictly speaking call the conduct moral. Because the end is accepted as a standard of ‘good’ prescribed by society. If it had spoken of a moral conduct it is only because it conforms to the mores or morals of the Society. It may be called customary morality. Conduct on the third level is conduct which alone is truly and completely moral. That is because in it the 1 What follows if taken from an article on the subject by Mr. Yeshwant Ramkrishna Date in a Marathi Magazine called “Swadhaya” Double No. 7-8. First year pp. 18-21. 2 In this I am entirely following the analysis given by Crawley and Tufts in their volume on Ethics.