Despite numerous social movements since the nineteenth century in various parts of India, including the states of Bengal, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, Humanism as a way of life has not taken root in India: it is not a living force here.

Caste and religion play a major role in the social and cultural life of Indian society. Both are interdependent, as the hierarchical system of caste has been sanctified by the scriptures of the Hindu religion, which has always been controlled by the Brahmins at the top of the caste hierarchy. Caste and religion wield absolute control over the social and cultural life of the masses.

They promote ignorance and blind faith, and are primarily responsible for the social slavery of the Hindus, leaving little space for rational thinking, the scientific search for truth or individual freedom – the essence of Humanism.

Muslims may claim to be caste-free but Muslims gathering under the banner of Pasmanda Muslim Mahaz call themselves Dalit Muslims. They demand jobs reserved for the Scheduled Castes or Dalits, because all positions of influence have been occupied by the upper caste Muslims. They complain of discrimination by high caste Muslims within their own community.

As far as illiteracy, ignorance and blind faith are concerned, Muslims are far worse placed than Hindus. Most Muslim parents, particularly from poor families, continue to send their children to Koranic schools, which deny them modern scientific education, and thus perpetuate ignorance, fanaticism and unemployment, keeping them languishing in poverty.

One positive effect of Western civilisation noticeable by the end of the nineteenth century was the inspiration in more intelligent people of a desire for reform and a general aspiration for social and cultural reorganisation. This gave rise to introspection, self-examination, an interest in historical research and studies, rationalism and scientific criticism. As a result, many bold reformers attempted to change the course of social development by breaking the stagnant social order dependent on a caste-based hierarchical system and a long-standing tradition of blind faith.1

“The basis of the Hindu tradition, customs, laws, caste system, untouchability, etc. is the Brahmanical religion. It furnishes a moral sanction to all cultural and social aspects of Hindu life on the basis of transcendental values. The desired reform, therefore, required a drastic criticism of the Hindu religion itself.”2 wrote Mahatma Jyotirao Phule.

In the south the anti-Brahmin movement started by E.V. Naicker Ramaswamy (Periyar) derived its strength from the philosophy of Humanism and even today the followers of Periyar, especially in the state of Tamil Nadu, while rejecting the Brahmanic religion, follow the broad guidelines of Humanism. Mahatma Jyotirao Phule and Dr. Ambedkar, both belonging to the depressed sections, untouchables or Dalits, were also Humanists. They were joined by M.N. Roy who advocated the development of a renaissance movement and worked for the promotion of human rights, scientific investigation, rational thinking and a Humanist view of life through his magazines The Marxian Way, later changed to The Humanist Way, and Independent India, later changed to The Radical Humanist. He called the caste system “an ugly relic of the past”, and believed that it should be eradicated while retaining and promoting the Humanistic values of the past. In fact all of them agreed that the caste system should go and individual freedom should be established; that it was essential that far-reaching social changes should take place in the country before a democratic political regime could be established. All of them were also of the opinion that modern education was the foundation of the reforms they advocated. M.N Roy believed that a philosophical revolution was necessary for that. He asked, “Can a social revolution take place before a philosophical revolution has disrupted the authority of traditional values? The history of Europe has answered the question in the negative. There a philosophical revolution heralded an era of political and social upheavals.”3

It is our fundamental right to criticise authority. Given societal violation of human rights, we must also criticise religious scriptures, divinities, avatars, prophets, saints,gurus and of course the holy loafers of our time. The scriptures and the divinities may prescribe, but we should have the right to question them.

Not many Hindus would openly question the “absolute truth” reportedly contained in the Vedas, the Gita, or the great Puranas, or even the Manusmriti (in which Manu first propounded the hierarchical system of caste dividing the Hindus into higher and lower castes). Most Hindus accept Chaitanya and Ramkrishna as avatars or divine incarnations.

No Muslim can dispute the authority of the Koran or the Prophet (hence the hounding of Taslima Nasreen first from Bangladesh, her own country, and more recently from West Bengal and then India). Few Christians will question the authority of the Bible. M.N. Roy was prepared to criticise scriptural authority. He rejected the Karma theory as enunciated in the Gita, which contains a monologue delivered by Lord Krishna to Arjuna. In Chapter 4, Lord Krishna says, “four Varnas (castes) were created by me, according to their innate aptitudes and tendencies and the action they perform.” The “Sudras” (the lowest castes consisting of carpenters, weavers, barbers, washer men and tanners of leather and shoemakers) are assigned the duty of serving the other three Varnas to meet their needs. None of them may transgress the limits of their Varnas in general, but the Sudras were absolutely forbidden to transgress their duties, which would invite punishments if they dared do so. M.N. Roy also rejected the transmigration of the soul, heaven and hell and rebirth, because these doctrines require believers to live as ascetics, accepting whatever return they happen to receive for their labour without question.

Many Indian intellectuals maintain that religious people like Gandhi, who desired and worked for the abolition of untouchability and emancipation of the Scheduled Castes (Dalits), are also Humanists even though they continue to follow the religion which sanctions and supports the hierarchical social order. However, people belonging to Scheduled Castes consider Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, and not Gandhi, as their leader and emancipator, and they too claim the Humanist mantle. This question must be decided once for all, as religion has always remained an insurmountable stumbling block in the way of achieving an egalitarian, equitable and Humanist social order. Indian society is still highly caste-ridden, and the political leadership has only increased the chasm dividing the so-called upper, lower and other backward castes from one another, and Hindus from Muslims.

Politicians incite caste and communal tension to the detriment of society when it suits their narrow political ends. Without such divisive political tactics, society would have achieved a greater cohesion on its own because of the need for co-operative interaction in day-to-day economic and social life. The spread of education among all sections of society, which has been neglected from lack of political will, would have led to economic prosperity and further eroded religious fanaticism and caste barriers.

Even socialists of all hues have concentrated on achieving political power yet where they have been in power nothing has been done to promote a socialist society free from economic and social disparities. In search of economic prosperity, the Ambedkarites have concentrated on securing and protecting job reservations, and the social aspect of the problem has been lost sight of. The Radical Humanist movement started by M.N. Roy, which had a huge following at one time, is a diminishing force with the passing away of one leader of the movement after another (see obituary of S. N.Ray on page 32 – Ed.), in spite of its sound egalitarian and Humanist ideology and a programme for empowerment and social cohesion. Inter-caste marriages, which have started taking place mostly in metropolitan and big cities, have made little difference to the social structure, as they are mainly within caste groups rather than between upper-caste and lower-caste individuals. Such rare cases as do occur invite strong reactions from families and the community, often resulting in social boycotts, suicides and murders. Similar reactions are noticed in response to intermarriage between Hindus and Muslims, with the added result of communal tension and riots.

People working for the establishment of a Humanist social order in India still have miles to go before they achieve their goal. It will remain distant unless the movement can attract many more recruits and inspire increased social activism.

1 Jyotirao Phule – Rebel and Rationalist by Tarkateertha Laxman
Shastri Joshi, Selections from The Marxian Way and The Humanist Way
edited by R.M. Pal, p. 93.
2 ibid, pp. 94-95.
3 ibid., The Caste System by M.N. Roy, p. 222.

Editor of PUCL Bulletin, Dr. R.M. Pal is a former editor of The Radical Humanist and former President of Delhi State People’s Union of Civil Liberties.

Mr. Mahi Pal Singh is a human rights activist and President and General Secretary of the Delhi State branches of the Indian Radical Humanist Association and People’s Union for Civil Liberties respectively.