Materialien zum Ethikunterricht
Indische
Religionen: Der Hinduismus
Prof. Dr. Vallabhbhai J.
Patel wurde 1934 in Indien geboren, hat Zoologie und Medizin studiert. Neben
seiner ärztlichen Tätigkeit in Deutschland befasste er sich in zahlreichen
Vorträgen mit philosophischen Themen. Sein Buch „Das Glück liegt diesseits
des Todes“ (ein-FACH-Verlag Aachen, 1998, Reihe Lebendige Philosophie, ISBN
3-928089-20-X) widmet sich der Notwendigkeit einer rational begründeten
Ethik und dem Glück als Leitmotiv menschlichen Handelns. Der folgende Vortrag
über den Hinduismus wurde am 1. April 2006 in Neuburg ad Donau gehalten.
V.J. Patel, Schloss Grünau, 86633 Neuburg / Donau, Tel.: 08431/49250
Einführung
Warum sollten wir uns über
die Weltreligionen informieren?
Im Rahmen der Globalisierung
wird die Welt immer kleiner. Menschen mit unterschiedlichsten Weltanschauungen
und Religionen rücken zunehmend mehr und enger zusammen. Wir können nicht
friedlich miteinander leben, wenn wir im Unklaren darüber sind, welche Sitten
und Gebräuche die Denkgewohnheiten anderer Völker maßgebend beeinflussen. Wir
müssen in der Lage sein, uns in andere Köpfe hinein versetzen zu können.
Konfessionsfreien Menschen wie wir, die hier versammelt sind, fehlen oft die
Kenntnisse über Gedankengänge, die in den Köpfen unserer religiös gesinnten
Mitmenschen ablaufen. Außerdem ist es so, dass in vielen Ländern die Religion
auf die Politik einen sehr starken, wenn nicht gar bestimmenden Einfluss hat.
Iran ist ein extremes Beispiel dafür, wo die grauen Herrscher, die Ayatollahs,
die eigentlichen Machthaber sind.
Wenn wir produktive Gespräche
und Diskussionen mit Andersdenkenden führen wollen, ist es dann nicht ratsam,
uns ein gewisses Grundwissen über deren Überzeugungen zu verschaffen?
Wir säkularen Humanisten
sind auf der Suche nach neuen ethischen Werten, die nicht nur auf den in unserem
Weltteil üblichen biblischen Überzeugungen beruhen sollten. Nur mit einem
fundierten Wissen über die Grundwerte anderer Weltanschauungen und Religionen können
wir unsere Vorstellungen sinnvoll einbringen.
Laut Knaurs großem
Religionsführer gibt es heute auf unserer Welt 670 Religionen, Kirchen und
Kulte. Wahrscheinlich sind es aber viel mehr, als die in diesem Buch erwähnten.
Allein im Christentum gibt es mehr als 250 Sekten. Normalsterbliche wie wir können
uns unmöglich mit allen diesen Gruppierungen befassen. Sinnvoll erscheint es
mir, sich zunächst mit den großen, heute existierenden Weltreligionen zu
befassen, die von sehr vielen Menschen mehr oder weniger praktiziert werden. Im
Gegensatz zu Religionen und Sekten von regionaler Bedeutung, sind Weltreligionen
jene Religionen, die eine große Anzahl von Anhängern haben und in mehreren Ländern
oder Kontinenten zuhause sind.
In der Gegenwart gibt es
neun Weltreligionen, deren Mitglieder zusammen 94 Prozent der Gläubigen
ausmachen. Alle diese Weltreligionen sind ausnahmslos in Asien entstanden.
Welche Religionen sind das
und wie viel Prozent der gläubigen Weltbevölkerung entfallen auf jede
einzelne?
Hier die Liste:
Christen
41,8 %
Muslime
21,3 %
Hindus
16,9 %
Buddhisten
7,3 %
Universalisten
4,3 %
Sikhs
0,4 %
Juden
0,4 %
Jains
0,1 %
Bahai
0,1 %
Andere
6,4 %
Dazu muss gesagt werden,
dass manchmal die Grenzen ineinander verfließen. So sind z.B. die chinesischen
Buddhisten gleichzeitig Universalisten, die wiederum eine Mischung aus Taoisten,
Konfuzianisten etc. darstellen. Deswegen werden diese Buddhisten unter
Universalisten aufgeführt und nicht als Buddhisten. Zunehmend mehr Menschen
haben zwar mit dem Glauben nicht viel am Hut, aber sie erscheinen in dieser
Statistik, weil sie in einen entsprechenden Glaubenskreis hineingeboren worden
sind.
Heute habe ich vor, über
die vier Weltreligionen, die ihren Ursprung in Indien haben, zu berichten. Wir
werden sicherlich noch weitere Religionen, wie die drei alttestamentarischen,
durch andere Autoren - in bunter Abwechselung mit den Themen, die wir uns
eigentlich und ursprünglich vorgenommen hatten - in Augenschein nehmen.
Betrachten wir also zunächst
den Hinduismus.
Hinduismus
Schlangenbeschwörer und
heilige Kühe - wenn es hoch kommt, noch der Tiger von Eschnapur - das ist das
Bild von Indien und seinen Hindus in den Köpfen von vielen Mitteleuropäern.
Heilige Kuh, sagt der Christ, und lächelt mildtätig von oben über diese armen
Unwissenden herab.
Er vergisst dabei, dass sein
Gott für die Christen auch eine heilige Kuh ist.
Über ihn darf man nicht lästern!
Das ist strafbar!
Ist dieses hinduistische
Bild der Christen haltbar? Ist das Hinduismus?
Diese Leute wissen über
Hinduismus gar nichts. Das kann man ihnen andererseits nicht übel nehmen, denn
sie wissen im allgemeinen über ihren eigenen Glauben auch nicht viel mehr, so
wie es Franz Buggle in seinem bekannten Buch mit Titel „Denn sie wissen nicht,
was sie glauben“ zum Ausdruck bringt.
Was ist also Hinduismus?
Zunächst ein wichtiger
Grundsatz: „Solange Du Deine Pflicht tust, ist es egal, ob Du an 10.000 Götter,
an einen oder an keinen Gott glaubst!“.
Dem gegenüber steht der
christliche Glaubensgrundsatz: „Nicht durch Deine guten Taten, sondern durch
die Gnade Gottes wirst Du selig!“.
Ist Hinduismus überhaupt
eine Religion oder vielleicht eine Weltanschauung?
Wenn man Hinduismus
verstehen will, muss man sich von der eurozentrischen und christozentrischen
Betrachtungsweise trennen. Auch wenn man konfessionsfrei, Agnostiker oder
Atheist ist, hat sich eine gewisse Betrachtungsweise in unserem Gehirn
eingenistet, die kulturspezifisch ist.
Wodurch unterscheidet sich
Hinduismus von den alttestamentarischen Religionen? Welches sind die besonders
wichtigen Merkmale?
Zunächst einmal gab es
keinen einzelnen Religionsstifter. Die etwa zweitausendjährige Geschichte des
Hinduismus hat immer wieder weise Männer hervorgebracht, die mit ihren
Ansichten dem Hinduismus neue Facetten hinzufügten. Deswegen existieren im
Hinduismus auch keine von Gott festgelegten, unumstößlichen Wahrheiten, die
bis in die Ewigkeit ihre Gültigkeit haben sollen und untastbar und unveränderbar
sind. So steht z.B. in der Bibel: „Es darf nicht etwas weggelassen werden und
es darf nichts hinzu gefügt werden!“
„Wenn Du ein Gebot
gebrochen hast, hast Du damit die restlichen neun anderen auch gebrochen“.
Im Hinduismus gibt es keine
einheitlichen Ansichten - auch keinen Kanon oder Buch, wie die Bibel oder der
Koran - die die Glaubensgrundsätze für die Hindus festlegen. Deswegen gab es
auch nie ein Konzil, wie das von Nicäa im
Jahre 387, wo diese Ansichten als
allgemeinbindend festgelegt wurden.
Es existiert also kein
allgemeingültiges Glaubensbekenntnis.
Deswegen ist auch kein
hierarchisches System wie die Kirche vonnöten, um die Durchsetzung der
Glaubensgrundsätze zu überwachen. Jeder Tempel agiert autark und regelt seine
Angelegenheiten selbst.
Die übergroße Mehrheit der
Hindus glaubt an Karma und an Wiedergeburt. Diese besagen, dass man je nach
seinen guten oder schlechten Taten in einer entsprechenden Kaste oder Tierform
wiedergeboren wird, um irgendwann Erlösung zu finden und im Nichts, bzw. in der
großen Weltenseele Brahman aufzugehen, wo dann eine persönliche Entität nicht
mehr besteht. Das ist mit der christlichen Vorstellung vom Jüngsten Tag nicht
vereinbar, die besagt, dass alle Menschen an einem Tag auferstehen und vom
himmlischen Richter beurteilt oder verurteilt werden. Je nach Gottesspruch kann
man dann als persönliche Entität die Freuden des Himmels genießen oder muss
bis in alle Ewigkeit die Qualen der Hölle erleiden.
Aber nicht alle Hindus
glauben an Kastenwesen oder Karma.
Mahatma Gandhi hat die
sogenannten Unberührbaren als Gotteskinder bezeichnet und diesen Bann damit
aufgehoben. Auch im Zeitalter der Industrialisierung und Globalisierung verliert
der Kasten- und Karmaglaube immer mehr an Bedeutung. Die atheistischen Hindus
glauben an so etwas ohnehin nicht.
Damit komme ich zum
Atheismus im Hinduismus.
Im Hinduismus gab es große
weise Männer und Frauen, die Atheisten waren und als solche respektiert wurden.
So bricht sogar dem Gott Krischna kein Zacken aus der Krone, wenn er den
Atheisten Kapilmuni als den Größten unter den weisen Männern bezeichnet. Es
gab eine große Atheisten-Bewegung, die als Lokayata bezeichnet wird. An den Höfen
großer Könige wurden öffentliche Diskussionen zwischen Atheisten und Deisten
geführt. Diese Schule war vom 6. Jahrhundert vor unser Zeitrechnung bis ins
Mittelalter lebendig, wurde aber von den gottesgläubigen Brahmanen - also der
Priesterklasse, die um ihre Macht bangte - fast vollständig eliminiert. Ihre Bücher
wurden vernichtet. Das erinnert mich an die Verbrennung der Bibliothek von
Alexandria im Jahre 391 durch die katholische Kirche.
Hindus betrachten den
Buddhismus als einen Teil des Hinduismus, und Buddhismus ist bekanntlich eine
atheistische Religion. Aber darauf komme ich später zurück. Die Mehrzahl der
Hindus ist polytheistisch eingestellt. Die polytheistischen Religionen sind in
der Regel toleranter als die monotheistischen. Wenn man nämlich an tausende Götter
glaubt, ist ein weiterer nur willkommen. So gibt es Hindutempel, in denen sogar
ein Bildnis von Christus hängt. Auch die Schriften des Korans werden ausgelegt.
Mahatma Gandhi sprach jeden Abend vor einer großen Menschenversammlung
Abendgebete verschiedener Religionen aus, auch christliche und islamische.
Meine Damen und Herren!
Können Sie sich so etwas in
einer christlichen Kirche vorstellen? Dabei redet die Kirche doch andauernd über
den Dialog der Religionen.
Auch bei den alten Griechen
existierten mehrere Glaubensgemeinschaften, die friedlich miteinander lebten.
Die griechische Religion war ebenfalls polytheistisch. Die Monotheisten erlauben
sich diesen Luxus der Toleranz nicht. Es steht nämlich geschrieben: „Ich bin
Gott, Dein HERR. Du sollst keine fremden Götter neben mir haben“.
Oder Jesus sprach: „Ich
bin der Weg und die Wahrheit! Wer meine Worte hört und mir nicht folgt, bei dem
wird Heulen und Zähneklappern sein!“
So kann man viele
Bibelstellen zitieren, um zu belegen, dass sich die Intoleranz hier zuhause fühlt.
Beim Koran ist es
gleichfalls nicht anders.
Missionieren unter Andersgläubigen
ist dem Hinduismus fremd, schon alleine wegen der Einstellung: „Solange Du
Deine Pflicht tust, ist es egal was Du glaubst“.
Ich denke, ich habe damit
die wichtigsten Unterschiede erfasst.
Was ist aber der Hinduismus
dann?
Dazu ist zuerst ein kurzer
Ausflug in die Entstehungsgeschichte des Hinduismus angezeigt.
Vor etwa 4.000 Jahren
wanderten indogermanische Nomaden in Indien ein und wurden im Indusgebiet
sesshaft. Als Nomaden hatten sie nicht viele Götter nötig. Mit der
fortschreitenden Entwicklung der Landwirtschaft und dem allmählichen Entstehen
einer Städtekultur und der damit einhergehenden Berufsvervielfältigung, wurden
zu diversen Zwecken neue Gottheiten gebraucht. Gleiches ist im Christentum zu
beobachten, wo Heilige und Schutzengel das Patronat für verschiedene
Berufszweige, Katastrophen, Wünsche etc. übernahmen. Im Laufe der Zeit wurden die vielen mächtigen Götter durch
andere Götter ersetzt. Diese Periode wird als Vedismus bezeichnet. Vedas waren
die ersten heiligen Bücher der Inder. Für die vielen Götter benötigte man
auch eine Vermittlerklasse – also Priester –, die im Hinduismus als
Brahmanen bezeichnet wurden. Da sie ein Monopol auf die Göttervermittlung
hatten, war ihre Autorität sehr groß. Als Widerstand gegen diese Machtfülle
entstanden etwa 500 Jahre v.u.Z. atheistische Religionen, wie Buddhismus und
Jainismus, die sich vom Wesen ziemlich ähneln. Diese Periode wird als
Brahmanismus bezeichnet, die Periode danach als Hinduismus.
Der Übergang geschah natürlich
nicht von heute auf morgen, sondern war ein allmählicher. Die alten Lehren, in
welcher Form auch, lebten dabei weiter.
Die Unterteilung in
Brahmanismus und Hinduismus wurde
von westlichen Experten eingeführt. Die Hindus halten nicht viel davon. So
wurden die heiligen Bücher, die um diese Zeit entstanden, auch weiter als
heilig betrachtet. Der Übergang vollzog sich also nicht so abrupt, wie z.B. bei
den alttestamentarischen Religionen.
Woher kommt die Bezeichnung
Hinduismus?
Der Fluss Indus heißt in
der indischen Sprache Sindhu. Die Eroberer aus dem persischen Raum hatten mit
dem Laut „S“ gewisse Ausspracheschwierigkeiten und machten aus Sindhu Hindu.
Die Weltanschauung der am Fluss lebenden Menschen wurde dann Hinduismus genannt.
An dieser Stelle eine kurze
Zusammenfassung der Ursprünge und Geschichte des Hinduismus.
Westliche Experten
unterscheiden drei allmählich ineinander übergehende Perioden: Vedismus vor
4.000 Jahren, wo die als Heilige Bücher angesehenen Vedas eine große Rolle
spielten, dann Brahmanismus, wo die Priesterklasse eine große Machtfülle besaß,
und schließlich Hinduismus, wo verschiedene Glaubens- und philosophische
Systeme friedlich nebeneinander existieren. Die Hindus selbst machen diese
Unterschiede nicht, da das Gedankengut der vedischen und brahmanischen Zeit
heute noch aktuell ist.
Wie sehen also die
Weltanschauungen der Hindus heute aus?
Zunächst die sechs
althergebrachten Denksysteme. Das wird allerdings ziemlich spezifisch. Ich werde
aber versuchen, mich dabei kurz zu fassen. Sollten einige an dieser Stelle
abschalten wollen, können sie das Gesagte zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt, wenn
ihr Interesse und Neugier wieder erwacht sind, in meinem Manuskript nachlesen.
Welches sind nun diese
Denksysteme?
1. Samkhya - auf
intellektuelles Wissen gestützt.
2. Yoga - auf die
Beherrschung der Sinne und inneren Kräfte gestützt.
3. Vaisheshika - der
experimentelle und auf sinnliche Erfahrung gestützte Standpunkt.
4.Nyaya - der
logische und auf Dialektik gestützte Standpunkt.
5. Vedanta - gestützt
auf die metaphysische Komponente.
6. Mimamsa - in wörtlicher
Bedeutung „die kritische Erörterung und Lösung eines Problems durch Überlegung“.
Einige der überlieferten
Systeme sind insoweit atheistisch, als sie die Existenz eines Schöpfergottes
leugnen. Aber anders als der Atheismus des Westens, ist der indische Atheismus
nicht notwendigerweise areligiös. Der indische Atheist kann zu einem oder
mehreren Göttern beten, die er als einen Teil des Weltalls - nicht als Herr und
Schöpfer außerhalb des Universums - betrachtet.
Die meisten Denker des
Hinduismus gehen, trotz der Verschiedenheit ihrer Ansichten, von einigen übereinstimmenden
Grundvorstellungen, wie Karma, Wiedergeburt, Befreiung und der Einheit hinter
aller Vielfalt, aus. Sie teilen auch die Annahme einer fortschreitenden
Entfaltung der Welten und Weltsysteme bis hin zu ihrer Auflösung. Für sie ist
unsere Erde nur ein winziges Pünktchen in der unbegreiflichen Weite des Raumes,
und das menschliche Leben ist nur ein mikroskopischer Tropfen im Ozean der
kosmischen Zeit. Im Rahmen immer wiederkehrender kosmischer Perioden wachsen
Kulturen und verfallen wieder, biologische Arten erscheinen und verschwinden,
große Nationen erheben sich und vergehen, Religionen steigen auf, blühen eine
Zeit lang und welken dann dahin. Zeiten der Barbarei und des Krieges wechseln ab
mit Zeiten des Wohlstandes und des Friedens. Diese weite Sicht ermöglicht dem
indischen Denker eine distanzierte Lebensauffassung und die Einsicht in die
relative Bedeutungslosigkeit und Vergänglichkeit aller Dinge und Lebewesen.
Diese Art von Auffassung steht natürlich im absoluten Widerspruch zu den
heliozentrischen und anthropozentrischen Ansichten des Christentums, nach denen
die Erde und der Mensch der Mittelpunkt des Kosmos sind.
Das Wort für Philosophie in
Sanskrit heißt „Darshana“, was mit „Sehen“, „Wahrheitsschau“ oder
„Gesichtspunkt“ gleichgesetzt werden kann. Deswegen sind schon vor mehreren
tausend Jahren die unterschiedlichsten Denkschulen entstanden; davon, wie
bereits erwähnt, auch einige atheistische.
Schon in früheren Zeiten
war es üblich, dass Philosophen regelmäßige öffentliche Diskussionen mit den
Angehörigen anderer Schulen führten. So konnte sich keines der großen Systeme
isoliert vom anderen entwickeln. Diese geistige Offenheit und Lernbereitschaft
erklärt die Toleranz gegenüber anderen Standpunkten und die ausformulierten
und spitzfindigen Lehrsätze in weiten Bereichen der indischen Philosophie.
Obwohl diese orthodoxen Systeme
nicht alle zur gleichen Zeit
entstanden sind, blieben sie über Jahrhunderte ohne Rivalität nebeneinander
lebendig, und auch im modernen Indien haben sie ihre Anhänger.
(Keiner sagte: „Willst Du
nicht mein Bruder sein, so schlage ich Dir den Schädel ein.“)
Ich kann diese sechs
orthodoxen Systeme hier nicht ausführlich behandeln. Das würde den uns heute
gestellten Rahmen sprengen. Aber wenn die Ausführungen einen Sinn machen
sollen, muss ich doch einiges erwähnen, was für Manchen strapaziös sein mag.
Zunächst die Samkhya-Schule.
Es ist System des
dualistischen Realismus, im Gegensatz zu monoistischen Upnishaden, die während
des Brahmanismus entstanden sind und von einer Weltseele ausgehen. Nach der
Samkhya-Schule gibt es ein Geist- und ein Materie-Prinzip. Das letztere heißt
„Prakriti“, wörtlich die Natur oder Materie. Vom psychologischen Standpunkt
aus ist es in den einzelnen Lebewesen als Intellekt, einer Entwicklungsstufe der
Materie, präsent. Diese beiden Prinzipien sind ewig. Diese Vorstellung kommt
ohne Schöpfergott aus, weil die Natur die angemessene Ursache der
Weltentstehung ist.
Die zweite Schule ist die
Vaishashika.
Diese ähnelt in manchem
Aspekt dem Buddhismus, Jainismus und dem griechischen Atomismus. Sie geht von
der Vorstellung aus, dass alles auf der Welt – bis auf die Seele - sich aus
verschiedenen Kombinationen von Atomen zusammensetzt, also aus ungeschaffenen,
unsichtbaren, ewigen Einheiten, die zurückbleiben, wenn ein Gegenstand auf
seine kleinsten Bestandteile zurückgeführt wird. Also auch hier ist ein
Weltenschöpfer nicht notwendig, obwohl er später sekundär, durch eine Hintertür,
eingeführt wurde. Dieser Schöpfer hat aber keine Ähnlichkeit mit dem
christlichen Schöpfer, der ja alles schuf, auch die Materie. In dieser Lehre
ist aber die Materie ewig. Ewig ist auch die Weltenseele, die aus der
bestehenden Materie immer wieder neue Welten entstehen lässt.
Auch Mimamsa ist ein
atheistisches Denksystem und heißt wörtlich: „Lösung der Probleme durch Überlegungen“.
Nach dieser Lehre ist die Welt ewig. Sie hat immer bestanden. Es gibt nur einen
endlosen Vorgang des Entstehens und des Sterbens. Es gibt so viele Seelen, wie Körper.
Das Bewusstsein gehört nicht wesensmäßig zur Seele. Es entsteht nur, wenn die
Seele mit einem Körper verbunden ist.
Nyaya ist ein System des
logischen Realismus. Es ist eine Philosophie für das Leben. Es benutzt die
Logik, um das Wahre vom Falschen zu unterscheiden. Gott wird in diesem System
nicht genannt.
Auf die beiden letzten
Systeme, Vedanta und Yoga, möchte ich hier nicht eingehen. Sie sind zu
umfangreich und ein Sammelsurium von verschiedenen Systemen, in denen Monismus,
Dualismus, Deismus und vieles Andere vorkommt.
Trotz dieser aufgeklärten
philosophischen Systeme tummeln sich im Hinduismus tausende Götter. Die große
Mehrzahl der Hindus ist göttergläubig, obwohl das nicht zwingend ist. Um das
zu begreifen, müssen wir uns mit dem Thema „Die Wege der Erlösung“
befassen.
Erlösung bedeutet im
Hinduismus die Befreiung aus dem Zyklus der Wiedergeburt. Grob gesehen kann man
die Wege dahin in fünf Hauptgruppen aufteilen. Diese sind:
1. Weg der magischen Riten.
2. Weg der
leiblich-seelischen Übungen – nämlich Yoga.
3. Weg der Werke, oder
Karma, die die Wiedergeburt in einem höheren oder niederen Lebewesen bestimmen.
4. Weg der Gottesliebe und
Anbetung.
5. Weg des Wissens, der
Erkenntnis und Einsicht.
Ich gehe nur auf die letzten
beiden ein, da sie für uns eher wichtig sind. Zunächst der Weg des Wissens. Er
ist der schwierigste. Die Menschen haben unterschiedliche intellektuelle Kapazitäten.
Dieser Weg sei für intellektuell Hochstehende bestimmt, so sagte es bereits
Gott Krischna im Bhagwat-Gita. Die große Masse aber sei geeignet für
Gottesliebe und Gottesanbetung, da konsequentes Nachdenken sehr anstrengend ist.
Ich glaube, diese Erkenntnis
beschränkt sich nicht nur auf Hinduismus, sondern hat Gültigkeit in allen
Kulturkreisen. Wir brauchen ja nur das Verhalten unserer Mitmenschen zu
beobachten und zu analysieren. Trotz Widersprüchen, logisch nicht haltbarer
Annahmen, suchen viele Menschen Trost und Erlösung bei einem hypothetischen
Gott. Vielleicht kennen einige von Ihnen das Buch „Pfaffenspiegel“. Darin
fragt der Autor Otto von Corvin im Jahre 1844, wie es wohl kommt, dass
ungeachtet offensichtlicher Fälschungen, Irreführungen, unhaltbarer Annahmen,
Widersprüche, Grausamkeiten, Ungerechtigkeiten usw. so viele Menschen gläubig
sind? Er selbst gibt dann die Antwort und erklärt dieses Phänomen mit der
Dummheit und Denkfaulheit der meisten Menschen. Die Zeiten haben sich aber geändert!
Der heutige Mensch fragt
viel häufiger nach dem Wieso und Warum. Er akzeptiert nicht mehr bedingungslos
die Antworten von Autoritäten wie Papst, Bischof oder Kaiser. Der blinde
Glauben an die Worte in der Heiligen Schrift schwindet. Die Zahl der
Konfessionslosen nimmt zu. Die Zahl der Menschen, die zwar aus verschiedenen Gründen
Mitglieder der Kirche sind, aber mit der Kirche nichts am Hut haben, nimmt
ebenfalls zu. Die Gottesdienste sind nicht gut besucht. Eigenartigerweise werden
die Kirchen eher von Frauen heimgesucht, obwohl die Bibel mit frauenfeindlichen
Zitaten übersät ist. Wie sagte doch Franz Buggle: „Denn sie wissen nicht,
was sie glauben!“.
Ich komme nun zum Schluss.
Vielleicht noch eine kurze Bemerkung über das Thema „Heilige Kuh“. Als die
nomadischen Indogermanen vor etwa 4.000 Jahren in Indien sesshaft wurden und
Landwirtschaft betrieben, war der Bedarf an Zugtieren sehr groß. Stiere und
Ochsen waren sehr gefragt, ebenso die Kuh, die Milch lieferte. Also mussten
diese Tiere geschont werden. Schlaue Dichter kürten die Kuh zum Lieblingstier
vom Gott Krischna, die damit heilig gesprochen wurde. Die Ursache ist längst
vergessen, die Wirkung aber geblieben. Ähnliche Phänomene sind bei allen
Religionen zu finden.
Meine Damen und Herren!
Ich bin auf die vielfältige
Götterwelt der Hindus und die beiden Epen, Mahabharata und Ramayana, die etwa
400 Jahre v.u.Z. entstanden sind, nicht eingegangen. Wenn Bedarf danach besteht,
erzähle ich mehr darüber in der Diskussion. Für Hindus haben sie eine enorme
Bedeutung. Viele halten sich noch heute an diese Richtlinien, die in diesen Büchern
erwähnt sind. Der Gott Vishnu nimmt darin eine Menschengestalt an, um die Welt
vom Bösen zu befreien. In Mahabharata ist es der Gott Krischna und im Ramayana
Rama. Allerdings sind auch hier viele Widersprüche vorhanden. So besaß der
Gott Krischna mehr als tausend Frauen und hatte freie sexuelle Beziehungen zu
den Dorf-Frauen, wovon viele verheiratet gewesen sein dürften. In Ramayana wird
für die Monogamie plädiert. Aber den Durchschnitts-Hindu-Gläubigen stört das
wenig, er denkt nicht nach, sondern glaubt.
Sie sehen, meine Damen und
Herren, Hinduismus ist ein Sammelsurium von unterschiedlichsten Denk- und
Glaubenssystemen. Auch heute gibt es die widersprüchlichsten Auffassungen und
Aussagen. So sprach sich z.B Mahatma Gandhi für sexuelle Enthaltsamkeit aus, während
Rajnish eine freie sexuelle Entfaltung empfiehlt. Die einen glauben an einen
Gott, andere wiederum an mehrere Götter oder an gar keinen Gott. Da es aber
keine festen Vorschriften gibt, ist ein Wandel mit der Zeit, auf Grundlage der
Flexibilität, möglich. So wird Hinduismus wahrscheinlich länger existieren
als dogmatisch festgelegte Religionen, die sich Denkkonzessionen nur im
begrenzten Rahmen erlauben können. Allerdings wird der Hinduismus in 500 Jahren
mit dem Hinduismus von heute oder dem vor drei- oder viertausend Jahren nur noch
wenig gemeinsam haben. Die Bezeichnung, das Wort Hinduismus könnte gleich
bleiben, aber der Inhalt wird ein völlig anderer sein. Hinduismus ist wie ein
Gefäß, das Wasser, aber auch Wein enthalten kann. Das Glas bleibt, der Inhalt
muss aber nicht derselbe sein.
Auf Grund dieser Erkenntnis
habe ich folgende deterministische Regeln aufgestellt:
1. Alle Religionen haben
sich irgendwann einmal überlebt und vergehen wieder.
2. Dogmatische Religionen
verschwinden eher, als dogmatisch nicht festgelegte.
3. Je dogmatischer eine
Religion ist, desto schneller wird sie eingehen.
4. Das Verschwinden der
Religionen wird schneller vonstatten gehen, als man denkt, da die Rate der
gesellschaftlichen Veränderungen sich zunehmend beschleunigt.
5. Dogmatische Religionen
werden an ihren eigenen Waffen sterben. Als Beispiel hierfür stehen die
christliche Sexual-Moral und weitere Verbote, die die Natürlichkeit der
Menschen unterdrücken.
V. J. Patel, 1.4.2006
Hinduismus
Der Begriff Hindu kommt von den Persern die so die am anderen Ufer des Indus
lebenden Menschen beschrieben. Moderne Hindus ziehen den Begriff Sanatana Dharma
zur Beschreibung ihrer Religion vor. Dies kann mit "Ewiges Leben" übersetzt
werden. Manche Hindus glauben, daß ihr heiliges Gesetz nur in Indien praktiziert
werden kann. Die Überquerung des Kalapani, des schwarzen Ozeans, glauben sie,
würde sie unrein und unfähig zum Leben als Hindus machen. Andere teilen diese
Ansicht nicht. In den letzten hundert Jahren sind viele Hindus hauptsächlich aus
wirtschaftl. Gründen aus Indien abgewandert. Die Gemeinschaft der ca. 1 400 000
000 erstreckt sich heute von Ostafrika bis Kanada, von Europa bis in die U.S.A.
Trotz einer gr. Vielfalt innerhalb ihrer Religion teilen die meisten Hindus
einen Grundbestand an Vorstellungen und anerkennen traditionelle Wege zur
Erkenntnis der letztgültigen Wirklichkeit. Die meisten Hindus anerkennen die
Autorität der alten Schriften, als Weden bekannt, die gesellschaftliche
Viergliederung und die Berufsgruppen, Kasten oder Dschatis genannt, die sich
erst später bildeten. Sie glauben, daß ihr Leben von Samsara regiert wird, was
wie im Buddhismus übersetzt einen Kreislauf von Geburt, Tod und Wiedergeburt
bedeutet. Weiters glauben sie, daß die Seele (Atman) bis zu ihrer Erlösung (Mokschar)
wiedergeboren wird. Der allumfassende Geist und die letztgültige Wirklichkeit,
der christl. Vorstellung eines unkörperl. Geistes näher als einer
personifizierten Gottheit, ist Brahman. Er bestimmt die Geburt, Wachstum,
Verfall und Erneuerung und gibt somit dem Weltall Ordnung und Rhythmus. Das
höchste Ziel eines Hindus ist es, Mokschar, die pers. Befreiung von Samsara zu
erlangen. Dies kann durch Dharma erreicht werden. Dies bedeutet in diesem
Zusammenhang als Befolgung eines hl. Gesetzes, was die Ausführung bestimmter
Rituale (Gebete, Kult) und ein moralisches Verhalten sich selbst der Familie und
der Gesellschaft gegenüber erfordert. Darüber hinaus anerkennen Hindus eine
Anzahl bestimmter traditionelle Wege zur Befreiung. Der Weg der Hingabe (Bhakti)
erfordert keine fachmännische Hilfe eines Priesters oder Gurus (geistl.
Lehrers), und ist die einfachste Weise, die Einheit der Seele zu erfahren. Der
Weg des Handelns (Karma) fordert von den Hindus, sich selbstlos Gedanken zu
machen um zu handeln. Der einfachste Weg dies zu erreichen besteht darin, einen
Beruf zu ergreifen, der sowohl der Gesellschaft als auch dem Einzelnen nützt.
Der Weg der Erkenntnis (Dschinana) muß von einem Guru erlernt werden, der aus
den hl. Schriften das Wesen Brahmans, Atmans und des Universums, so wie den
Platz des Menschen darin Erklären kann. Ein klares Verstehen diese alten Wissens
führt zur Sprengung der an die materielle Welt bindenden Fesseln und zur
Erlangung der Freiheit.
Eine weitere Möglichkeit die Seele zur Befreiung zu führen ist Yoga. Yoga ist
auch im Westen bekannt, vor allem Hatha - Yoga, das danach trachtet, durch acht
Stadien der körperlichen Übung den höheren Bewußtseinszustand (Samadi) zu
erreichen und Ratscha - Yoga, das Körperhaltung, Atemkontrolle, Konzentration
und Meditation betont.
Die Hindus messen der Reinheit eine gr. Bedeutung bei - sowohl körperliche
Sauberkeit und geistl. Wohlergehen. Vegetarisches Essen ist bei Hindus besonders
beliebt, weil es frei von als verunreinigend geltendem Blut ist. Dem selben
Impuls entspringt auch die Verehrung der Kuh, gepaart mit dem wirtschaftl.
Nutzen des Tieres.
Das Kastensystem
Für Millionen von Hindus ist das Kastensystem gesellschaftlicher Gliederung das wichtigste. Die Kaste beeinflußt den politischen Weg, die Wahl des Ehepartners, die Nahrung und andere Belange. Das Wort "Kaste" kommt vom portugiesischen "casta", das Rasse und Art bedeutet. Die Hindus anerkennen vier große gesellschaftliche Kategorien, Warnas (Farben), die in zahllose Berufsgruppen unterteilt sind. Die vier Warnas sind in der Reihenfolge:
Brahmanen (Priester,
Geistesarbeiter)
Kschatrijas (Herrscher, Verwalter, Krieger)
Waischas (Bauern, Kaufleute)
Schudras (Handwerker)
Um 1000 v.u.Z. wurde dieser 4-fachen Gliederung eine fünfte Gruppe hinzugefügt, nämlich die Menschen, die gezwungen wurden, die unreinen Tätigkeiten, wie das Gerben von Leder oder die Entfernung toter Tiere, auszuführen. Diese Nichtarier lebten in speziellen Bereichen, weit entfernt von den Ariern. Sogar heute noch gibt es diese Form der Absonderung. Früher wurde diese fünfte Gruppe "die Unberührbaren" genannt, im 20. Jahrhundert nannte der große Hindureformer Mahatma Ghandi sie "Kinder Gottes". Doch sie ziehen es heute vor, sich "Unterdrückte" zu nennen.
Ab etwa 300 v.u.Z. entwickelten sich Berufsgruppen. Mit der Zeit brachten diese
unverwechselbare Bräuche und strenge Regeln hervor, die die Heirat zwischen und
das Essen mit angehörigen anderer Kasten verboten. Heute gibt es Tausende
Berufsgruppen.
Im modernen Indien beruht die Handhabung der Kasten hauptsächlich auf dem vorher
erwähnten Punkt der rituellen Reinheit. Hindus glauben, sie können durch Kontakt
und von einem Mitglied einer unteren Kasten gekochtem Essen verunreinigt werden.
Heutzutage ist die Diskriminierung aufgrund von Unberührbarkeit seit 1950
illegal, die "Unberührbaren" haben durch reservierte Ausbildungs- und
Arbeitsplätze bessere Möglichkeiten erhalten. Doch trotz der offiziellen
Versuche, eine gerechte Gesellschaft zu schaffen, bleibt die Kaste wichtig,
besonders bezüglich der Ehe auf dem Land, wo diese Diskriminierung andauert.
Die Durchbrechung des Kreislaufes
Obwohl die
Kastenzugehörigkeit eines Menschen während seines Lebens nicht verändert werden
kann, kann der Wechsel in eine andere Kaste bei einer zukünftigen Wiedergeburt
geschehen. Dies hängt vom Karma eines Menschen ab. Das bedeutet einerseits
"Handeln", andererseits auch "die guten oder schlechten jeder geistigen oder
körperlichen Tätigkeit". Mit anderen Worten: Jede Seele kann im Laufe einer
Reihe von Leben das Ziel der Befreiung (Mokka) erreichen, in dem sie den Samsara
- Kreislauf durch pflichtbewußte , selbstlose Handlungen durchbricht.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Der folgende Aufsatz beschreibt den Sinneswandel in der Kastenfrage, den Indiens
Freiheitskämpfer und Staatsoberhaupt Gandhi durch machte.
HOW GANDHI CAME TO BELIEVE
CASTE MUST BE DISMANTLED BY INTERMARRIAGE
Mark Lindley
.
Many a colleague of Gandhi's observed that he was greater than his
writings would suggest. He himself said that they should be cremated with his
body because there was a grave risk that people would swear by them.*1 [To find
the footnote, search ahead for "*1".] He also said, in 1945, that as a
seeker after truth he had many times in his life found himself in the wrong and
therefore changed.*2 In this article I would like to trace, mainly from evidence
in the writings, how his ideas about varna and intermarriage changed gradually
over the years. The biggest changes in this regard took place in his 60s and
70s, when most people's opinions become ossified.
Not very long after returning for good from South Africa, Gandhi had
proposed to reduce the castes to the four varnas, while nonetheless maintaining
inherited vocations:
[1] 1920: "I believe that caste has saved Hinduism from
disintegration. But like every other institution it has suffered from
excrescences. I consider the four divisions alone to be fundamental, natural and
essential. The innumerable sub-castes are sometimes a convenience, often a
hindrance. The sooner there is fusion, the better...." One of my
correspondents suggests that we should abolish the caste [system] but adopt the
class system of Europe - meaning thereby, I suppose, that the idea of heredity
in caste should be rejected. I am inclined to think that the law of heredity is
an eternal law and any attempt to alter that law must lead us, as it has before
led [others], to utter confusion.... If Hindus believe, as they must believe, in
reincarnation [and] transmigration, they must know that Nature will, without any
possibility of mistake, adjust the balance by degrading a Brahmin, if he
misbehaves himself, by reincarnating him in a lower division, and translating
one who lives the life of a Brahmin in his present incarnation to Brahminhood in
his next. (C, XIX, 83f)
[2] 1920: "The beauty of the caste system is that it does not base
itself upon distinctions of wealth-possessions. Money, as history has proved, is
the greatest disruptive force in the world.... Caste is but an extension of the
principle of the family. Both are governed by blood and heredity. Western
scientists are busy trying to prove that heredity is an illusion and that milieu
is everything. The... experience of many lands goes against the conclusions of
these scientists; but even accepting their doctrine of milieu, it is easy to
prove that milieu can be conserved and developed more through caste than through
class.... As we all know, change comes very slowly in social life, and thus, as
a matter of fact, caste has allowed new groupings to suit the changes in lives.
But these changes are [as] quiet and easy as a change in the shape of the clouds.
It is difficult to imagine a better harmonious human adjustment. " Caste
does not connote superiority or inferiority. It simply recognizes different
outlooks and corresponding modes of life. But it is no use denying the fact that
a sort of hierarchy has been evolved in the caste system, but it cannot be
called the creation of the Brahmins. When all castes accept a common [religious]
goal of life, a hierarchy is inevitable, because all castes cannot realize the
ideal in equal degree." (C, XIX, 174ff)
[3] 1921-22: "I believe that if Hindu society has been able to
stand, it is because it is founded on the caste system.... A community which can
create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization....
" To destroy the caste system and adopt the Western European social system
means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is
the soul of the caste system. [The] hereditary principle is an eternal principle.
To change it is to create disorder.... It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin
is to be changed into a Shudra and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin. The
caste system is a natural order of society.... I am opposed to all those who are
out to destroy the caste system." (A, IX, 275f)
[4] 1926: "In accepting the fourfold division I am simply accepting
the laws of Nature, taking for granted what is inherent in human nature and the
law of heredity.... [But] it is not possible in one birth entirely to undo the
results of our past doings." (C, XXIX, 410f) So ugly did he find
Western-style competition that he would prohibit anyone who acquired a skill
other than his "hereditary" one from earning a living by the new one:
[5] 1925: "There is no harm if a person belonging to one varna
acquires the knowledge or science and art specialized in by persons belonging to
other varnas. But as far as the way of earning his living his concerned, he must
follow the occupation of the varna to which he belongs, which means he must
follow the hereditary profession of his forefathers. " The object of the
varna system is to prevent competition and class struggle and class war. I
believe in the varna system because it fixes the duties and occupations of
persons.... Varna means the determination of a man's occupation before he is
born.... In the varna system no man has any liberty to choose his occupation."
(A, IX, 277) From the mid-1920s on, he would complement this by downplaying the
idea (set out at the end of Reading 2 that "a hierarchy is inevitable":
[6] 1925: "For me there is no question of superiority or inferiority.
A Brahmin who regards himself as a superior being born to look down upon the
other castes is not a Brahmin. If he is first [in status] he is so by right of
[spiritual] service." (C, XXVI, 289)
[7] 1927: "In [my] conception of the law of varna no one is superior
to any other.... A scavenger has the same status as a Brahmin." (C, XXXV,
260) In 1931, he met Ambedkar, and
an incipient influence seems evident already in some nuances and new points in
the following statements:
[8] 1931: "I do not believe in caste in the modern sense. It is an
excrescence and a handicap on progress. Nor do I believe in inequalities between
human beings. We are all absolutely equal. But equality is of souls and not
bodies.... We have to realize equality in the midst of this apparent inequality.
Assumption of superiority by any person over any other is a sin against God and
man. Thus caste, in so far as it connotes distinctions in status, is an evil.
"I do however believe in varna which is based on hereditary
occupations. Varnas are four to mark four universal occupations - imparting
knowledge, defending the defenceless, carrying on agriculture and commerce, and
performing service [to other humans] through physical labor. These occupations
are common to all mankind, but Hinduism, having recognized them as the law of
our being, has made use of it in regulating social relations and conduct.
Gravitation affects us all whether one knows its existence or not. But
scientists who knew the law have made it yield results that have startled the
world. Even so has Hinduism startled the world by its discovery and application
of the law of varna.*3
"[Yet] according to my definition of varna there is no varna in
operation at present in Hinduism. The so-called Brahmins have ceased to impart
knowledge. They take to various other occupations. This is more or less true of
the other varnas." (C, XLVI, 302)
[9] 1932: "My own opinion is that the varna system has just now
broken down. There is no true Brahmin or true Kshatriya or Vaishya. We are all
Shudras, i.e. one varna. If this position is accepted, then the thing becomes
easy. If this does not satisfy our vanity, then we are all Brahmins. Removal of
untouchability does mean root-and-branch destruction of the idea of superiority
and inferiority." (C, LI, 199f)
[10] 1932: "No matter what was the position in ancient times, no one
can nowadays go through life claiming to belong to a high class. Society will
not willingly admit any such claim to superiority, but only under duress. The
world is now wide awake.... " When it is suggested that everyone should
practice his father's profession, the suggestion is coupled with the condition
that the practitioner of every profession will earn only a living wage and no
more.... The lawyer or doctor ought by practicing his profession to earn only a
living wage. And such was actually the case formerly....
"Boys [between 9 and 16 years of age] should be taught their parents'
avocation in such a way that they will by their own choice obtain their
livelihood by practicing the hereditary craft. This does not apply to the girls....
[From] 16 to 25..., every young person should have an education according to his
or her wishes and circumstances." (C, L, 233)
Ambedkar did not welcome such arguments:
[11] 1933, Ambedkar: "There will be outcastes as long as there are
castes, and nothing can emancipate the outcaste except the destruction of the
caste system." Gandhi:
"Dr. Ambedkar is bitter. He has every reason to feel so.... [Yet] I do not
believe the caste system, even as distinguished from varnashrama, to be an 'odious
and vicious dogma'. It has its limitations and defects, but there is nothing
sinful about it, as there is about untouchability, and if [untouchability] is a
by-product of the system, it is only in the same sense that an ugly growth is of
a body, or weeds of a crop." (T, III, 192f).
Gandhi admitted that his ideal of a varna system with everyone enjoying
equal economic and social status probably had no historical warrant:
[12] 1934, Interviewer: "Do you not think that in ancient India
there was much difference in economic status and social privileges between the
four varnas?"
Gandhi: "That may be historically true. But misapplication or an
imperfect understanding of the law must not lead to the ignoring of the law
itself. By constant striving we have to enrich the inheritance left to us."
(C, LIX, 319).
The contrast between Gandhi's and Ambedkar's views was heightened by
their respective relations to the new Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal, dedicated to
promoting a casteless Hinduism. Gandhi told its secretary:
[13] 1932: "If eradication of castes means the abolition of varna I
do not approve of it. But I am with you if your aim is to end the innumerable
caste distinctions." (C, LI, 264)
Yet Ambedkar and the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal between them apparently caused
the tone of Gandhi's statements to change somewhat more. In 1935 Gandhi said:
[14] 1935: "Caste Has To Go. Varnashrama of the shastras is today
nonexistent in practice. The present caste system is the very antithesis of
Varnashrama. The sooner public opinion abolishes it the better.
"...Prohibition there is [in varnashrama] of change of one's hereditary
occupation for purposes of gain. The existing practice is therefore doubly wrong
in that it has set up cruel restrictions about interdining and intermarriage and
tolerates anarchy about choice of occupation....
"The most effective, quickest and the most unobtrusive way to destroy caste
is for reformers to begin the practice with themselves and, where necessary,
take the consequences of social boycott. The change will be gradual and
imperceptible." (C, LXII, 121f) In 1936 the Mandal invited Ambedkar to
preside at their annual convention. However, upon seeing the typescript of his
proposed presidential address, in which he not only outlined a comprehensive
program of Hindu reform including the selection of priests by state examinations
rather than by heredity, but also implied that he would probably leave Hinduism
altogether, they asked him to modify the text. He refused; they cancelled the
convention; and his speech was published independently. Here is a brief excerpt:
[15] 1936, Ambedkar: "The mass of people [in India have] tolerated
the social evils to which they have been subjected... [because they] have been
completely disabled for direct action on account of this wretched system of
chaturvarnya. They could not bear arms and without arms they could not rebel.*4
...They could receive no education, [so] they could not think out or know the
way to their salvation.... Not knowing the way of escape and not having the
means of escape, they became reconciled to eternal servitude, which they
accepted as their inescapable fate...." (A, I, 63)
Gandhi invited Ambedkar to express his views in Harijan. Ambedkar
declined but Gandhi called attention to them anyway, and commented:
[16] 1936: "Dr. Ambedkar... has quoted chapter and verse in proof of
his... indictment. ...No Hindu who prizes his faith above life itself can afford
to underrate the importance of this indictment.... [Yet there are] flaws in [it]....
" Caste has nothing to do with religion. It is a custom whose origin I do
not know.... Varna [has] nothing to do with castes. The law of varna teaches us
that we have each one of us to earn our bread by following the ancestral calling....
The essence of Hinduism is contained [however] in its enunciation of the one and
only God as Truth and its bold acceptance of ahimsa as the law of the human
family. " I am aware that my interpretation of Hinduism will be disputed by
many besides Dr. Ambedkar. That does not affect my position. In my opinion the
profound mistake that Dr. Ambedkar has made in his address is to pick out [1]
texts of doubtful authenticity and value and [2] the state of degraded Hindus
who are no fit specimens of the faith.... Judged by the standard applied by Dr.
Ambedkar, every known living faith will probably fail [to be found worthy of
acceptance]." (C, LXIII, 135 and 153f)
Ambedkar responded with a virtuoso display of academic and barrister-like
disputation. It is almost a pity merely to print the following long extracts;
they ought rather to be delivered by a powerful actor in a dramatic setting:
[17] 1936, Ambedkar: "The first point made by the Mahatma is that
the texts cited by me are not authentic. I confess I am no authority on the
matter. But... the texts cited by me are all taken from the writings of... a
recognized authority on the Sanskrit language and on the Hindu shastras.... The
masses... are too illiterate to know the contents of the shastras. They have
believed what they have been told, and what they have been told is that the
shastras do enjoin as a religious duty the observance of caste and
untouchability. "...The saints... did not preach that all men were equal.
They preached that all men were equal in the eyes of God*5 - a very different
and a very innocuous proposition which nobody can find difficult to preach or
dangerous to believe in.... [Moreover,] the masses have been taught that a saint
might break caste but the common man must not.... " That religion should be
judged not by its worst specimens but by its best is true enough, but does it
dispose of the matter? I say it does not. The question still remains - why the
worst number so many and the best so few. To my mind there are two conceivable
answers to this question: (1) that the worst by reason of some original
perversity of theirs are morally uneducable and are therefore incapable of
making the remotest approach to the religious ideal; or (2) that the religious
ideal is a wholly wrong ideal which has given a wrong moral twist to the lives
of the many, and that the best have become best in spite of the wrong ideal - in
fact by giving to the wrong a twist, a turn in the right direction. Of these two
explanations I am not prepared to accept the first.... To my mind the second is
the only logical and reasonable explanation unless the Mahatma has a third
alternative to explain why the worst are so many and the best so few. If the
second is the only explanation then obviously the argument of the Mahatma that a
religion should be judged by its best followers carries us nowhere except to
pity the lot of the many who have gone wrong because they have been made to
worship wrong ideals. "...The Mahatma seems to me to suggest... that Hindu
society can be made tolerable and even happy without any fundamental change in
its structure if all the high-caste Hindus can be persuaded to follow a high
standard of morality in their dealing with the low-caste Hindus. I am totally
opposed to this kind of ideology. I can respect those of the caste Hindus who
try to realize a high social ideal in their life. Without such men India would
be an uglier and a less happy place to live in than it is. But nonetheless
anyone who relies on an attempt to turn... caste Hindus into better men by
improving their personal character is in my judgement wasting his energy and
hugging an illusion. Can personal character make the maker of armaments a good
man, i.e. a man who will sell shells that will not burst*6 and gas that will not
poison? If it cannot, how can you expect personal character to make a man loaded
with a consciousness of caste a good man, i.e. a man who would treat his fellows
as his... kinsmen and equals? As a matter of fact, a Hindu does treat all those
who are not of his caste as though they were aliens, who could be discriminated
against with impunity and against whom any fraud or trick may be practiced
without shame. This is to say that there can be a better or a worse Hindu, but a
good Hindu there cannot be. This is not because there is anything wrong with his
personal character. In fact what is wrong is the entire basis of his
relationship to his fellows.... "...Does the Mahatma practice what he
preaches? One does not like to make personal reference in an argument which is
general in its application. But when one preaches a doctrine and holds it as a
dogma, there is a curiosity to know how far he practices what he preaches....
The Mahatma is a Bania by birth. His ancestors had abandoned trading in favor of
ministership which is a calling of the Brahmins. In his own life, before he
became a mahatma, when occasion came for him to choose his career he preferred
law to scales. On abandoning law he became half saint and half politician. He
has never touched trading which is his ancestral calling. His youngest son...
has married a Brahmin's daughter and has chosen to serve a newspaper magnate.
The Mahatma is not known to have condemned him for not following his ancestral
calling. It may be wrong and uncharitable to judge an ideal by its worst
specimens. But surely the Mahatma as a specimen has no better and if even he
fails to realize the ideal then the ideal must be an impossible ideal quite
opposed to the practical instincts of man....
"Why does the Mahatma cling to the theory of everyone following his or her
ancestral calling? He gives his reasons nowhere [nowadays; but]... years ago,
writing on caste versus class in his Young India, he argued [Reading 2] that the
caste system was better than the class system on the ground that caste was the
best possible adjustment of social stability. If that be the reason why the
Mahatma clings to the theory of everyone following his or her ancestral calling,
he is clinging to a false view of social life.... Stability is wanted, but not
at the cost of change when change is imperative.... Adjustment is wanted, but
not at the sacrifice of social justice. Can it be said that the adjustment of
social relationship on the basis of caste, i.e. on the basis of each to his
hereditary calling, avoids those two evils? I am convinced that it does not. Far
from being the best possible adjustment, I have no doubt that it is of the worst
possible kind inasmuch as it offends against both the canons of social
adjustment - namely fluidity and equity. "...I must admit that the vedic
theory of varna as interpreted by Swami Dayanand and some others is a sensible
and an inoffensive thing. It did not admit birth as a determining factor in
fixing the place of an individual in society. It only recognized worth. The
Mahatma's view of varna... makes nonsense of the vedic varna [and] makes it into
an abominable thing. [Vedic] varna and caste are two very different concepts.
Varna is based on the principle of each according to his worth, while caste is
based on the principle of each according to his birth. The two are as distinct
as chalk from cheese.... If the Mahatma believes as he does in everyone
following his or her ancestral calling, then most certainly he is advocating the
caste system and in calling it the varna system he is... causing confusion....
"Does he regard [his concept of hereditary] varna as the essence of
Hinduism? One cannot as yet give any categorical answer. Readers of his article
on 'Dr. Ambedkar's Indictment' will answer 'No'. In that article he does not say
that the dogma of varna is an essential part of the creed of Hinduism. Far from
making varna the essence of Hinduism, he says [Reading 16], 'The essence of
Hinduism is contained in its enunciation of one and only God as truth and its
bold acceptance of ahimsa as the law of the human family.' But readers of his [other]
article... will say 'Yes.' In that article he says [Reading 43] , '...I do not
know how a person who rejects caste, i.e. varna, can call himself a Hindu.' Why
this prevarication? Why does the Mahatma hedge? Whom does he want to please? Has
the saint failed to sense the truth? Or does the politician stand in the way of
the saint? The real reason why the Mahatma is suffering from this confusion is
probably to be traced to two sources. The first is the temperament of the
Mahatma. He has almost in everything the simplicity of the child with the
child's capacity for self-deception. Like a child he can believe in anything he
wants to believe. We must therefore wait till such time as it pleases the
Mahatma to abandon his faith in [hereditary] varna as it has pleased him to
abandon his faith in caste. The second course of confusion is the double role
which the Mahatma wants to play - of a mahatma and a politician. As a mahatma he
may be trying to spiritualize politics. Whether he has succeeded in it or not,
politics have certainly commercialized him. A politician must know that society
cannot bear the whole truth; if he is speaking the whole truth, it is bad for
his politics. The reason why the Mahatma is always supporting caste and varna is
because he is afraid that if he opposes them he will lose his place in politics.
Whatever may be the source of this confusion, the Mahatma must be told that he
is deceiving himself and also deceiving the people by preaching caste under the
name of varna. " The Mahatma says that the standards I have applied to test
Hindus and Hinduism are too severe.... [However,] my quarrel with Hindus and
Hinduism is not over the imperfections of their social conduct. It is much more
fundamental. It is over their ideals." (A, I, 87-92)
The immediate effect upon Gandhi of this brilliant and aggressive
argument does not seem to have been decisive. Late in 1936 he argued at length
in Harijan (C, LXIV, 86ff) that his ideal Bhangi would do sanitation work and
thus "possibly even excel" a Brahmin in rendering service.
Meanwhile, a younger opponent of caste and varna, Gora, who had been
disowned by his own (Brahmin) caste in 1928, and a few years later was dismissed
from his job as a college biology teacher for saying that the idea of divine
creatures was untrue, began to walk to villages on weekends and during school
vacations, speaking out against superstitions, caste and economic inequality. In
due time he became a full-time social worker and published freely the views he
had been expounding all along, among them:
[18] 1949, Gora: "This thorn-bush [caste] is in our path. It is
useless to argue about who put it there, why, and when; the whole thing is
against the interest of the people and we must simply remove it." (S, 17/iv)
Gandhi heard about Gora's social work in the early 1940s and invited him
to Sevagram when they were released from detention in 1944. He found him
courteous, free of fanaticism, and hard-working. Gandhi's view of caste now
moved closer to that which Gora shared with Ambedkar. One day after writing a
letter (C, LXXX, 221) to a Harijan disciple of Gora's, Gandhi completed a
lengthy preface to a new edition of a little book of his from the 1920s,
Varnavyavastha, which had extolled his ideal varna system. In the new preface,
entitled "Key to My Writings," he argued that everyone was now in the
same, service-performing varna:
[19] 1945: "I do not have the time to read this book again. I do not
even wish to. I have many other things to do. " In my opinion a man daily
moves either forward or backward. He never stands still. The whole world is
moving and there is no exception.... " Where are the four varnas of the
Gita today?... There prevails only one varna today, that is, of 'Shudras', or,
you my call it, 'Ati-Shudras'.... If I can bring round the Hindu society to my
view, all our internal quarrels will come to an end.... " A man should
consider himself not the owner of his property but its trustee... for the
service of society. He will accept only that much for himself as he has earned
with his [physical] labor. If that happens, no one will be poor and no one rich.
In such a system, all religions will naturally be held equal. Therefore all
quarrels arising [today] out of religion, caste and economic differences will be
ended. " This is the swaraj of my dreams. I yearn for that. I want to live
for the attainment of it. I am devoting every breath of my life to that effort.
" The reader is therefore requested to discard anything in this book which
may appear to him incompatible with my views given above." (C, LXXX, 222ff)
Reading 9 (1932) includes an all-in-one-caste idea, and Gandhi mentioned
it several times during the Harijan-uplift tour.*7 The change discussed below in
his attitude toward intermarriage meant that he now took the idea far more
seriously. It had initially come to him from considering an argument which he
had heard soon after returning from South Africa to India:
[20] 1927: "I remember in 1915 the Chairman at the Social Conference
in Nellore suggesting that formerly all were Brahmins, and that now too all
should be recognized as such and that the other varnas should be abolished. It
appeared to me then, as it appears to me now, as a wierd suggestion. It is the
so-called superior that has to descend from his heights, if the reform is to be
peaceful." (C, XXXV, 262f)
A clear statement of Gandhi's latter-day view of caste - namely, that his
cherished ideal of varna must be given up altogether in order to eradicate
untouchability - is in the following remark to Gora's prospective son-in-law,
who had been born an "untouchable":
[21] 1946: "You should become like Ambedkar. You should work for the
removal of untouchability and caste. Untouchability must go at any cost."
An American visitor described Gandhi's view now as follows:
[22] 1946 (as reported): "He said he was trying to create a
classless and casteless India. He yearned for the day when there would be only
one caste and Brahmins would marry Harijans. 'I am a social revolutionist,' he
asserted. 'Violence is bred by inequality, non-violence by equality." (F,
425)
As to when that day - a classless and altogether casteless India - might
come, his own hope would be to see it dawn within fifty years:
[23] 1946: [Q.] "In your recent correspondence... you have said that
caste ought to go root and branch if untouchability is to be completely
eradicated.*8 Then, why do you not make anti-untouchability work part of a wider
crusade against the caste system itself? If you dig out the root, the branches
will wither by themselves." [A.] " It is one thing for me to hold
certain views and quite another to make my views acceptable in their entirety to
society at large. My mind, I hope, is ever growing, ever moving forward. All may
not keep pace with it. I have therefore to exercise the utmost patience and be
satisfied with hastening slowly.... I am wholly in agreement with you in
principle. If I live up to 125 years, I do expect to convert the entire Hindu
society to my view." (C, LXXXV, 24)
He said that to have abolished "all distinctions of class and caste"
(in the Indian National Army) was Subhas Chandra Bose's "greatest and
lasting act".*9
Yet with all this, and notwithstanding his realization that "when
all became casteless..., monopoly of occupations would go" (C, LXXXVI,
484), he might still sometimes - with hedging expressions like "more or
less" and "generally" - say that a person who because of an
abnormal talent has mastered an occupation other than "the one he is born
in" should nevertheless earn his living by "his hereditary occupation"
and not by the new one:
[24] 1947 (as reported): "[The] vocational organization of society,
held Gandhi, may be vertical and competitive, or horizontal and coperative.
Under the former, remuneration is ...on the basis of the law of supply and
demand; in the latter all occupations... are paid equal wages... [and] a person
will choose an occupation, not because of the personal prospects it offers, but
because he has a special skill or aptitude for it. And since skills and
aptitudes generally follow the line of heredity more or less, the average person
in the normal course would, if there were no inequalities of remuneration to
lure him away from it, tend to follow the occupation he is born in.... Would
that mean that one would be debarred form changing his hereditary occupation, if
he felt a special urge? 'No,' said Gandhiji, 'not so long as one does not depend
on it [the new occupation] for one's living'. Such cases will naturally be few.
Thus Buddha was [by heredity] a ruling prince, Socrates a sculptor, St. Paul a
tent-maker. Yet Buddha became the Enlightened One, Socrates the prince of
philosophers and St. Paul an apostle; but none of them regarded their calling as
a means of livelihood." (P, I, 541f)
Had Ambedkar commented on this, he would surely have mentioned the lack
of evidence that the Buddha earned his keep exclusively by being a king, St.
Paul by making tents and Socrates by sculpting - or that any society pays equal
wages to all. Gandhi admitted this latter point:
[25] 1947: "Indian society may never reach the goal [equal wages for
all] but it is the duty of every Indian to set his sail towards that goal and no
other if India is to be a happy land." (C, LXXXVII, 10)
* * *
A good summary of Gandhi's attitude, until his last years, toward
intermarriage is in the following remarks of 1919:
[26] 1919: "Interdining [and] intermarrying, I hold, are not
essential for the promotion of the spirit of democracy.... But as time goes
forward and new necessities and occasions arise, the custom regarding...
interdining and intermarrying will require cautious modifications or
rearrangements." (C, XIX, 83f)
In his ashram, interdining with "untouchables" was a corellary
to their acceptance in 1915 as members. But for a long time Gandhi took a
different stance in regard to Hindu practice at large, and in this regard he was
in the early 1920s outspoken against interdining, and intermarriage:
[27] 1921: "Hinduism reached the highest limit of self-restraint. It
is undoubtedly a religion of renunciation of the flesh so that the spirit may be
set free.... Prohibition against interdining and intermarriage is essential to a
rapid evolution of the soul. But this self-denial is no test of varna." (C,
XXI, 247)
[28] 1925, Correspondent: "I was surprised to read in a recent
article [your] repudiation of intermarriage between touchables and untouchables...."
Gandhi: "I have repeatedly expressed my view of caste and
intermarriage.... I cannot picture to myself a time when all mankind will have
one religion. As a rule there will, therefore, be the religious bar; people will
marry in their own religion.... The caste restriction is an extension of the
same principle. It is a social convenience.... I am opposed to untouchability
because it limits the field of service. [But] marriage is not an act of service."
(C, XXVI, 285)
By 1928, however, he clearly preferred people to marry across subcaste
lines within the same varna. He attended reluctantly the wedding in that year of
his son Ramadas and Nirmala, whom he found personally acceptable but who was of
the same subcaste; and this was the last such wedding he attended.*10 Three
marriages which he later blessed between people in different subcastes of his
own varna were those of Rukshmani and Banarasilal (1929), Madalasa and
Srimannarayan (1937), and Sharda and Gorhandas (1939).*11 None of these were
love matches, and this was, for him, a positive feature. In the late 1920s his
son Devdas and a Brahmin girl fell in love; they had to wait for five years
before marrying.*12 And when in 1947 Gandhi's nephew Kanu wanted to marry a
Brahmin girl, Abha, with whom Gandhi was well acquainted and of whom he approved,
he asked them first to live apart for a year (which they did).
His views in the early 1930s were as follows:
[29] 1931: "When Hindus were seized with inertia, abuse of varna
resulted in... unnecessary and harmful restrictions as to intermarriage and
interdining. The law of varna has nothing to do with these restrictions. People
of different varnas may intermarry and interdine. These restrictions may be
necessary in the interest of chastity and hygiene. But a Brahmin who marries a
Shudra girl or vice versa commits no offence against the law of varna." (C,
XLVI, 302)
[30] 1932: "The ashram will not help to arrange a marriage between
members of the same subcaste, and everyone is encouraged to seek his mate
outside his own subcaste." (C, L, 213)
He had in 1929 advised a 22-year-old man not in the ashram to insist to
his parents that he would marry outside the subcaste, or else marry a widow,
rather than accept against his conscience a match with a nine- or ten-year-old
girl within the subcaste:
[31] 1929: [Q.] My parents want me to be married this very year....
Child-marriage is the rule [and] in my case... girls of nine or ten years of age
only are available [within our sub-caste].... I am... 22 years of age. My
parents will not hear of my marrying a widow or outside my caste. What am I to
do in the circumstances?' [A.] "...It has been my experience that when a
grown-up boy or girl takes up a just and right position and adheres to it with
absolute firmness,... the parents, when once they realize that the resolution of
their children is absolutely unalterable,... get reconciled to it. ...My advice...
is to refuse to be a party to the... sin of marrying a child-girl.... Consider
it a virtue to marry [instead] outside [your] sub-caste or to marry a widow,
subject to the necessary limitations." (C, XXXVIII, 431f)
In those days, even more extreme examples of taking a child-bride for the
sake of marrying in one's caste were at issue:
[32] 1936, Correspondent: "I draw your attention with great shame to
the article 'Surfeit of child-marriages.'... These weddings took place in our...
Chaturvedi caste. It is the misfortune of our caste that girls of 2, 2 and 3
years of age are given in marriage.... It must be pointed out that we, the
Chaturvedi community, consider ourselves the highest Brahmins. We consider it a
sin to eat food cooked even by other Brahmins."
Gandhi: "What else can the marriages... be called than monstrous?...
When scriptures are quoted in their favor, the difficulties multiply. However,
satyagraha can become a sure means of overcoming all kinds of tyranny." (C,
XLII, 439)
The general religious climate was such that when Gandhi was planning in
1932 his Harijan-uplift campaign, he took great care to assure people that he
would not campaign for intermarriage or interdining:
[33] 1932: "I should never dream of making this reform [interdining
and intermarriage], however desirable in itself it may be, part of an all-India
reform [against untouchability] which has been long overdue. Untouchability, in
the form we all know it, is a canker eating into the very vitals of Hinduism.
Dining and marriage restrictions [merely] stunt Hindu society. I think the
distinction is fundamental." (T, III, 180f)
[34] 1932: "I am glad to find that temples in your part of the
country are being opened to Harijans. The removal of untouchability does not
necessarily include interdining and intermarriage, but it is open to anyone to
dine or marry among Harijans. In other words, Harijans should have the same
status as the rest of the Hindus in all matters. (C, LI, 237)
[35] 1932: "Mixing up the two problems would jeopardize the success
of both. For this reason intermarriage and interdining with untouchables are not
an integral feature of removal of untouchability; but their practice is not
against religion either." (C, LI, 264)*13
Ten years later he would say: [36] 1942: "When I said that removal
of untouchability did not include the removal of restrictions on interdining and
intermarriage, I had the general Hindu public in mind, not the Congress workers
or Congressmen. These have to abolish untouchability from every part of their
life." (C, LXXV, 207)
Meanwhile someone in 1933 had remarked that the tone of Gandhi's
statements on interdining and intermarriage had changed quite perceptibly since
the early 1920s:
[37] 1933: "A correspondent who is a diligent student of my writings
finds it difficult to reconcile my recent writings about intercaste dining and
intercaste marriage and [my] corresponding writings of some years ago.... [Yet]
the mode of life in the ashram in 1921 was absolutely the same as it is now.
Therefore my practice has undergone no change. I still believe that restriction
imposed by oneself upon interdining and intermarriage is an act of renunciation
of the flesh [and therefore good]. There is one word that perhaps I would change
if I was writing the article of 1921 [see Reading 26] today. Instead of 'prohibition',
I should... say, 'self-imposed restriction against intermarriage and interdining
is essential for a rapid evolution of the soul'." (C, LV, 61)
Now the Jat-Pak-Todek Mandal and Ambedkar led him further. In the second
of the following passages, he went so far as virtually to apply to the taboos
against interdining and intermarriage an idea which he had for years been
applying to untouchability: that Hinduism must shed the evil or else be
abandoned:
[38] 1935: "It must be left to the unfettered choice of the
individual as to where he or she will marry or dine. If the law of varnashrama
was observed [with regard to hereditary occupation], there would naturally be a
tendency, so far as marriage is concerned, for people to restrict the marital
relations to their own varna." (C, LII, 121)
[39] 1936, Correspondent (from the Mandal): "For all practical
purposes, in Hindu society caste and varna are... the same thing, for the
function of both of them is... the same, i.e. to restrict intercaste marriages
and interdining.... When you advocate your ideal of [varna] they find
justification for clinging to caste.... To seek the help of the shastras for the
removal of untouchability and caste is simply to wash mud with mud."
Gandhi: "If caste and varna are convertible terms and if varna is an
integral part of the shastras which define Hinduism, I do not know how a person
who rejects caste i.e. varna can call himself a Hindu.
"[Yet] if the shastras support caste as we know it today in all its
hideousness, I may not call myself or remain a Hindu, since I have no scruples
about interdining or intermarriage." (C, LIII, 225f)
Ambedkar saw that intermarriage would be the structural antidote to the
religiously administered social poison that was causing that "hideous"
degradation and alienation in modern India:
[40] 1936, Ambedkar: "The real remedy is intermarriage. Fusion of
blood can alone create the feeling of being kith and kin, and unless this
feeling... becomes paramount, the separatist feeling - the feeling of being
aliens - created by caste will not vanish.... "...The Hindus observe caste
not because they are inhuman... [but] because they are deeply religious [and]
their religion... has inculcated this notion of caste." (A, I, 67f)
It seems to me that this point should be recalled when considering the
significance of the reservation system. That was a strong, steroid-like medicine,
that is, with harmful side-effects and wanting to be withdrawn gradually when
the organism has won the upper hand over the poison - against which
intermarriage must be the long-range prophylaxis.
In 1937 Gandhi hinted at the possibility of advocating inter-varna
marriages, in the course of discussing with some members of the Gandhi Seva
Sangh a proposal that they "give a place to Harijans in their homes,
receive Harijans in the same way as they would receive others, seek
opportunities to eat with them... [and] bring up some Harijan children:"
[41] 1937, Vallabhbhai Patel: "This proposal justifies the fear of
the sanatanists.... From removal of untouchability you want to proceed step by
step to intermarriage." (Laughter)
Gandhi: "For ordinary people, removal of untouchability is enough.
But, for you, mere touch is not enough. You must continue to proceed further....
" The Hindu masses still follow quite a few restrictive practices in the
matter of inter-dining and intermarriage. [And] even I have followed certain
restrictions in this [latter] regard. That is why I have not spoken to the
masses about these.
"But if I suggest to you that you should go to the extent of inter-dining
and intermarrying with Harijans I would not be violating truth.... You have
really not much control in the matter of intermarriage. You should certainly not
bring compulsion on your children in this matter. Interdining is a different
matter. If your mother says that it is irreligion, you must tell her that you
would take the food cooked by her as well as by an untouchable, and it would not
matter that you were forsaken by her on that account." (C, LXV, 134f)
In 1940 he publicly approved of a high-caste Hindu lad who married a
Harijan girl after overcoming the reluctance of their parents:*14
[42] 1940, Correspondent: "Shri Radhamadhab Mitra married a Harijan
girl on 4th March last, strictly according to Hindu rites with Brahmin priests,
and the ceremony was attended by about one thousand people of all castes and
communities. Radhamadhab is aged about 25. When he was a student he organized a
Harijan boys' football team. During your epic fast for Harijans, Radhamadhab
with some of his friends lived in a Harijan village, and during that period he
and his friends promised to marry Harijan girls. His friends forgot their
promise but Radhamadhab carried it out. When the proposal for marriage with a
Harijan girl was first made, all the relatives and friends used all sorts of
pressure to dissuade Radhamadhab from his resolve. When he first consulted me, I
depicted a very dark future before him.... There was opposition from the bride's
relatives who were afraid of oppression from higher castes and also of divine
punishment. But ultimately they agreed. ..."We tried our utmost to secure
the attendance of as many high-class people as possible, and thank God we could
get what we wanted.... Just imagine several hundred of high-caste people sitting
together with an equal number of Harijans... and receiving betel from the father
of the bride." Gandhi: "I congratulate Shri Radhamadhab on his courage
in breaking through the rock of caste superstition. I hope his example will be
copied by other young men. May the union prove happy. I would advise Shri
Radhamadhab to arrange for proper education of his wife, who, I understand, has
not received any scholastic training." (H, 22/vi, 173)
In 1940 there took place in Gandhi's immediate circle, and with his
approval, an inter-varna marriage between G. Ramachandran, a Shudra woman, and
Dr. Saundaram, a Brahmin, and also one between and a Harijan woman (Indumeti)
and a high-caste Hindu (Dr. A. G. Tendulkar, President of the Goa Congress).*15
These were love-matches, as was also perhaps that of Radhamabhab and his bride (since
they braved opposition from her family as well as his); so Gandhi's approval may
have been tinged with a wistful longing - hinted at in Reading 41 - for his
cherished ideal of marriage due less to personal attraction than to dedication
and discipline. How could those values be combined with the new values of
intercaste marriage?
Notwithstanding this problem, by mid-1945 he felt that at some future
time it would become very important for caste-Hindus generally to marry Harijans:
[43] 1945: "If... castes and sub-castes as we know them disappear -
as they should - we should [then] unhesitatingly accord the highest importance
to marriages between Ati-Shudras and caste-Hindus." (C, LXXX, 77)
- and he would tell even non-members of the ashram that he could bless no
weddings between members of the same subcaste:
[44] 1945: "If the marriage is in the same community do not ask for
my blessings, however deserving the girl may be. I send my blessings if she is
from another community." (C, LXXX, 99)
Meanwhile, Gora and his wife in their social work with Harijans were
often asked, in the early 1940s, "Although you are helping us and saying 'We
are all human', would you really have your children marry people like us?"
Their response was positive*16 and when they came out of prison in 1944 they
began to consider who, among the young Harijan men who had joined in their work,
might be a suitable match for their eldest child, then 16. Within a few months
they had a young man in mind and asked their daughter if she was inclined to
become engaged and would be willing to marry him. She concurred; they consulted
him; he was astonished but accepted the idea. Gora wrote about it to Gandhi, who
replied:
Gandhi determined, through a series of personal meetings, that it was not
a love match but was motivated by dedication to social justice, and that there
was no trace of compulsion or reluctance in either family.*17
Gora wrote to Gandhi:
Gandhi replied:
[47] 1946: "Though there is a resemblance between your thought and
practice and mine superficially, I must own that yours is far superior to mine."
(G, 52; C, LXXXIII, 390) (As far as I know, he never praised anyone else quite
so strongly and succinctly.) He vowed thereafter to attend only weddings between
Harijans and members of a varna, and a hint of this was published at the time,
albeit not in Harijan:
[48] 1946: [Q.] "Does the Congress program for the abolition of
untouchability include interdining and intermarriage with Harijans?" [A.]
"So far as I know the Congress mind today, there is no opposition to dining
with Harijans. But speaking for myself, I have said that we have all to become
Harijans today or we will not be able to purge ourselves completely of the taint
of untouchability. I, therefore, tell all boys and girls who want to marry that
they cannot be married at Sevagram Ashram unless one of the parties is a Harijan.
I am convinced that there is no real difficulty in this. All that is needed is a
change of outlook." (The Hindustan Standard, 5/i)
The following exchange appeared in Harijan:
[49] 1946, Correspondent: "Educated [Harijan] girls can be counted
on the fingers of one hand. If they marry caste Hindus they will, as a rule, be
cut off from their own society and ...not be able to work for the uplift of
their Harijan sisters from within. If Harijan girls are to marry caste Hindus it
should be on condition that the couple will devote their lives to the service of
the Harijans.*18 Otherwise, educated Harijan girls should be encouraged to marry
educated youths of their own community."
Gandhi: "It is certainly desirable that caste Hindu girls should select
Harijan husbands. I hesitate to say that it is better. That would imply that
women are inferior to men. I know that such [an] inferiority complex is there
today. For this reason I would agree that at present the marriage of a caste
girl to a Harijan is better than that of a Harijan girl to a caste Hindu. If I
had my way I would persuade all caste Hindu girls coming under my influence to
select Harijan husbands." (H, 7/vii, 212f)
Gandhi's search for truth had thus led him to champion, in regard to
marriage, the logical concomitant of the all-in-one-caste idea, contrary to his
teaching of the 1920s and early '30s that prohibition or at least self-imposed
restriction against intermarriage was essential to a rapid evolution of the soul.
Gandhi's view of inter-religious marriage also changed over the years,
though to a lesser extent.
In the 1920s he prevented his son Manilal from marrying a Moslem girl
(and found a Hindu wife for him*19):
[50] 1926: "You are of course a free man; so I cannot force you to
do anything. But I write to you as a friend. "What you desire is contrary
to dharma If you stick to Hinduism and Fatima follows Islam, it will be like
putting two swords in one sheath.... What should be your children's faith? ...It
is adharma if Fatima agrees to conversion just for marrying you.... "Nor is
it in the interests of our society to form this relationship. Your marriage will
have a powerful impact on the Hindu-Moslem question. Intercommunal marriages are
no solution to this problem. You cannot forget, nor will society forget, that
you are my son. "If you enter into this relationship, you may not be able
to render any service. I fear you may no longer be the right person to run
Indian Opinion [which Manilal had been editing ever since Gandhi had left South
Africa]. "It will be impossible for you, I think, after this to come and
settle in India. "I cannot ask Ba's permission.... Her life will be
embittered for ever. "In proposing this marriage you have thought only of
momentary pleasure.... I want you to get out of your infatuation.... May God
show you the right path." (C, XXX, 229f) In the early 1930s his view began
to soften:
[51] 1931: "[As for] marriage outside one's religion... so long as
each [partner] is free to observe his or her religion, I can see no moral
objection to such unions. But I do not believe that these unions can bring peace.
They may follow peace. I can see nothing but disaster following any attempt to
advocate Hindu-Moslem [marital] unions so long as the relations between the two
[religions] remain strained. That such unions may be happy in exceptional
circumstances can be no reason for their general advocacy." (C, XLVI, 303)
[52] 1932: "If anybody asks my opinion, I would say that marriage
between persons following different faiths was a risky experiment.... I do not
advocate marriages between persons of different faiths as I advocate inter-caste
marriages because I desire the disappearance of sub-castes. I would not agitate
against such marriages either. This is an issue on which every man and woman
should think and decide for himself or herself. There cannot be a uniform law
for all. " (C, XLIX, 478)
In 1996 the only surviving member of his family from the next generation
did not recall his having ever attended an inter-religious marriage.*20 However,
Gandhi ventured in 1945 to suggest, though not yet in print, that
inter-religious marriages might entail "no difficulty":
[53] 1945: "Where parents are wise, there should be no difficulty
even between persons of different religions. Do we not look upon all religions
as equal? ...The offspring may choose either religion. The couple of our
conception will give the children liberal education in that regard. In my view
this should be quite easy." (C, LXXX, 77f)
And then, toward the end of his life, he argued that the marriage laws of
the Republic of India should provide for non-religious weddings in order to
"clear the way for inter-religious marriages":
[54] 1947: [Q.] "You advocate intercaste marriages. Do you also
favor marriage between Indians professing different religions?... If so, what
form should the marriage ceremony take?" [A.] "Although he [Gandhi]
had not always held that view, he had long come to the conclusion that
inter-religious marriage was a welcome event whenever it took place. Marriage in
his view was a sacred institution. Hence there must be mutual friendship, either
party having equal respect for the religion of the other. There was no room in
this for conversion. Hence the marriage ceremony could be performed by the
priests belonging to either faith. But this could come about only when the
communities had shed mutual emnity and cultivated equal regard for all religions
of the world." [Q.] "Was not the institution of civil marriage a
negation of religion and did it not tend to laxity in faith? [A.] "He did
not believe in civil marriages, but he welcomed the institution of civil
marriage as a much-needed reform to clear the way for inter-religious marriages."
(L, I, 558; C, LXXXVII, 11f)
Although I am from the West, this story does not tell me that Indians
should copy Westerners.*21 Instead, the salient meaning of the story is that
even though Gandhi was often slow to change:
[50] 1931, Romain Rolland: "He is a patient man, tenacious in his
ideas; when he believes they are right, he needs repeated and decisive
experiments before he will give them up." (R, 535)
-nonetheless he was still willing, in his last years, to learn from
experience and from honest people, such as Ambedkar and Gora, who because of
their own devotion to truth disagreed with him in one way or another (Ambedkar
in his politics, Gora in his evaluation of the idea of inherited karma; of
course the disagreement must have the non-violent character which is a hallmark
of any genuine search for truth). As long as Gandhi lived, he would, I believe,
have continued to grow in this way, such was his epoch-making devotion to moral
truth in our social relations, like that of a research scientist to natural
truth as something to be pursued incessantly and in collaboration with other
members of the discipline. So, those responding to Gandhi's call to be fellow
seekers:
[51] 1940: "Let Gandhism be destroyed if it stands for error.... You
are no followers, but fellow students, fellow pilgrims, fellow seekers, fellow
workers." (H, 2/iii, 23).
-should look back to him as he did to Mohammed, the Buddha and Jesus when
he said:
[52] 1934: "In the teachings of each prophet... there was a
permanent portion and there was another... suited to the needs and requirements
of the times." (C, LIX, 319)
FOOTNOTES:
*1. H, 1/v/1937, 93 (C, LXV, 89).
*2. G, 44.
*3. Other societies had traditional occupations and social regulations
without limiting cate gorically a young man's vocational choice. In Confucian
China he would enter govern ment service by doing well in written examinations
with the candidates' identities con cealed from the evaluators. In Medieval and
Renaissance Europe he could be apprenticed to someone in a different occupation
from that of his father if it suited him better.
*4. A traditionalist could reply that India might thus indeed lose wars
but at least would not stop tending her crops for the sake of military
mobilization.
*5. See the first paragraph of Reading 8.
*6. A rare instance of this during World War II is depicted in the
"Oscar"-award-winning film (1993), "Schindler's List."
*7. See for example T, III, 196.
*8. "Caste must go if we want to root out untouchability." (C,
LXXXI, 24f)
*9. C, LXXXVI, 383f; see also LXXXVII, 372; LXXXIX, 459 and XC, 484f.
*10. Interview with Nirmala Gandhi (January 1996).
*11. D, 77. Interview with Madalasa Narayan (January 1997). C, LXVIII,
391.
*12. C, XXXV, 339f; D, 102.
*13. See also C, LI, 176, 188, 199, 206, 231, 241, 248, 264 and 269.
*14. From a letter he had received, Gandhi published excerpts, which are
here further abbreviated.
*15. C, LXXV, 447 and LXXVII, 396.
*16. Their concept of morality was to do what you say and say what you do
(G, 45). [45] 1946: "I have your letter. I like it.... I am prepared to get
the marriage performed in the Sevagram Ashram.... [Since] Manorama is 17 years
old.... I suggest that she should wait for two years." (G, 47; C, LXXXI,
432f)
*17. To see if Manorama was under duress he had her interviewed by a
Telugu-speaking, Brahmin, who told her (in order to test her) that it was a poor
idea as there would be many difficulties and Arjun Rao was penniless. But she
was unequivocal: "We are working for social equality and the eradication of
untouchability." [46] 1946, Gora: "Side by side with the mixing up [of
people born into different castes], an attempt also might be made to discourage
the use of labels of caste and creed which raise imaginary barriers between man
and man. Not only should the practice of untouchability go, but the Harijan
should not be allowed to continue a Harijan.... Similarly the Hindu and Moslem
differences might be solved by discarding the labels. Such an attempt will no
longer keep the form of communal harmony, but it would lead to the growth of one
humanity.... Though a powerful personality like Gandiji might harmonize
communities for a while, when the personal influence weakened, the communities
would clash again. So a permanent solution of communal differences is the growth
of [the] one-humanity outlook rather than communal harmony." (G, 51; C,
LXXXIII, 440f)
*18. Roughly speaking it may be said that the two kinds of marriage
described here between Harijan-born girls and Brahmin-born boys are illustrated
by (1) the marriage in 1933 of Gandhi's adopted daughter, Lakshmi, and Maruti
(see C, LIII, 288f, 325, 358 and 438), and (2) the one in 1960 of the Telugu
poet Joshua's daughter, Hemalata, and Gora's eldest son, Lavanam.
*20. Nirmala Gandhi, interview, 23/1/1996. In South Africa in 1905,
however, Gandhi had sponsored the civil marriage of Millie Graham, a Christian,
and H. S. L. Polak, a Jew. According to Gandhi they had a common religion of
ethics. (See E, Part IV, Ch. 22, and P, 11-14.)
*19. C, XXXIII, 55f, 73f ,78, 83f, 103f, 130ff, 145f, and 148.
*21. Western family-life and class-structure are no ideal models. The
common American, cream-first curd-later style of courtship, for example, arouses
unrealistic expectations in the marriage - which is a pity, because contentment
in the long run is often due less to one's actual conditions than to whether
they measure up to one's initial hopes.
WORKS CITED (AND THE ABBREVIATIONS FOR THEM USED HERE):