INTRODUCTION The word ‘Caste’ is originally derived from the Latin word Castus, which means chaste and pure. From ancient times the Indian society was divided into Jatis or small groups which are distinct from classes. Due to the complexity of Jatis, the Portuguese who came to India gave the name castas, referring to the pure/impure divide. Thus the word caste came into being in the Indian society. The translation of the terms Varna and Jati into caste seems obscures the real difference between them. Varna refers to the social division believed to have been characteristic of the Indo-Iranian roups.
In the earliest writings of these groups we cannot find any traces of caste system. When these people entered India they were divided into a number of tribes, each having its own chief. But there was no clear cut distribution of various functions in the community to distinct persons. Every householder performed more than one function and even priestly function was not considered hereditary during that period. In the later course of time society was divided into different classes due to the complexity prevailing.
The problem of caste system, which I think, is basically ecause the ‘upper class’ people created the moral laws of the society based on their sensitive faculty rather than creating them from the moral faculty. John Stuart Mill rightly says that. “our moral faculty supplies us only with general principles of moral Judgments; it is a branch of our reason, not of our sensitive faculty, and must be looked to for the abstract doctrines of morality, not for the perception of it in the concrete. ” The higher class people used only their sensitive faculty to establish morals in the society.
This had a bad impact on the people. When religion becomes a ubjective factor, it loses its very essentials and more or less each person can form his own ‘religion’ in this realm. Therefore depending only on the sensitive faculty will surely pave way for unhappiness among the members of the society at large, since one person’s ideas, emotions, approaches, etc. , are different from the other. This underlines the basic expression that each person is unique. One of the factors that contributed to increase the rigidity of the caste system was “the difference among the various groups in their occupations. Later these groups organized themselves for raft purposes under panchayats. The primary responsibility of the panchayat was to settle all kinds of disputes and questions connected with the craft. Later these panchayats assumed powers not only in the matters of crafts but also concerning different aspects of the social life of the people. “Thus intermarriage, table- fellowship, etc. were absolutely prohibited, and the idea that each group was an entirely separate entity became stronger than ever. In this short paper I Just want to show some of the preference utilitarian traits existing among the so called ‘upper lass’ members of the society, which gradually prevents the growth of the society. As human beings it is natural to have several preferences and opinions. But unless these preferences are conceived for the betterment and progress of the society, it will only lead to the disintegration and breaking down of the society at large. 1 . SOME THEORIES WHICH IDENTIFIES THE PREFERENCES OF THE SELF 1. 1 . preference Utilitarianism have been accounted for being the main problem in speculative thought.
This has created most gifted intellects and divided them into schools carrying vigorous warfare against one another. And no one yet seems to be unanimous on the topic. According to John Stuart Mill: It is true that similar confusion and uncertainty and, in some cases, similar discordance exist respecting the first principles of sciences, not excepting that which is deemed the most certain of them- mathematics, without much impairing, generally indeed without impairing at all, the trustworthiness of the conclusions of those sciences.
The classical understanding of utilitarianism or the principle of utility is as Mill describes: Although the non existence of an acknowledged first principle has made ethics not so much a guide as a consecration f men’s actual sentiments, still, as men’s sentiments, both of favor and of aversion, are greatly influenced by what they suppose to be the effects of things upon their happiness, the principle of utility, or, as Bentham latterly called it, the greatest happiness principle, has had a large share in forming the moral doctrines even of those who most scornfully reject its authority.
In classical utilitarianism right actions are those actions that maximize pleasure and minimize pain. The interests of the beings may be carefully selected based on future projects. The beings here are ational. But preference utilitarianism promotes actions that fulfill the interests of those beings involved. It involves all sentient beings, even those living solely in the present. Since what is good or right depends solely on individual preferences, for preference utilitarians, there can be nothing that is in itself good or bad.
Here the source of both morality and ethics in general is according to the subjective preferences. Preference utilitarianism therefore can be distinguished by its acknowledgement that every person’s experience of satisfaction is unique. The reference utilitarians argue that the consequences to be promoted are those which satisfy the preferences of the maximum number of beings. In other words, the more people get what they want, the better, from a moral point of view, the world is.
The more people’s desires are frustrated, the worse the world is. It is only morally right to frustrate the preferences of others if by doing so, we enable more beings to satisfy their preferences. Actions should not be Judged on their simple pain and pleasure outcomes, but on how they affect the interests or the preferences of the beings involved. 1. 1 . 1. Preference Utilitarianism According to Peter Singer Singer’s ethical theory can be summarized as an action is right if it maximally furthers the interests of those affected in it.
This theory also entails several other claims that the interests of all beings who have demonstrable interests should be considered, regardless of species; that no interests have more weight than any others; that only entities who have demonstrable interests can be factored into the ethical calculus, regardless of their species. While dealing with the preference utilitarian theory of Singer we can have several conclusions. First of all this is a consequentialist theory in which the moral value of an action lies in this historical effects and in them alone. There is no transcendental values which can be attached to this.
Rather to say more precisely it is a utilitarian theory where “the utilitarian will judge lying bad in some circumstances and good in others, depending on its consequences. ” Secondly his theory operates at two levels; one in which general is the everyday intuitive level where one operates according to the established moral rules, seeing them as guidelines. In the second level we are thinking philosophically nd we operate at the more reflexive level where we consciously assess the established moral rules to see in what circumstances they do balance the interests of those who are concerned.
Also it is to be noted that for Singer only the interests ofa being can be included into the ethical discussion and should be given equal weight in them. Thus the interests of a normal humanbeing are more wide ranging than those of a fish or a mouse and so the interests of human beings have greater relevance and importance in the ethical discourses. That means for Singer, a beings nterests should be weighed according to that beings concrete properties, and not according to its belonging to some abstract group such as a species or a set of possible beings.
Singer has a serious concern with the intrinsic values. For him something is of intrinsic value if it is good or desirable in itself. On contrast there is instrumental values in which a value is considered as a means to some other end or purpose. For example our own happiness is of intrinsic value while on the other hand money is only of an instrumental value for us. In connection to this we have to consider the moral status of the non-human animals. According to the dominant western view many people hold that non-human natural world has value only or predominantly insofar as it benefits human beings.
But according to Aristotle’s justification of slavery, even non-human individuals have pain, miseries and sufferings as humans have. Some may say that the reasoning ability of humans make the group distinct from others. But to say, even dogs, pigs and other mammals are better able to reason than new born babies. Yet we confer basic rights to all humans and not to other beings. A pain is pain according to its durability and intensity, but it s not based on the intellectual abilities of the being.
Now the question is whether the intrinsic values go beyond the sentient being? While dealing with this problem we have to face a conflict between values that appear to be incommensurable. On the one hand, the preservation of endangered species and of those ecosystems that remain relatively unaffected by the impact of modern civilization and on the other hand, the suffering and death that will be inflicted on sentient creatures in order to eliminate the effect they are having on the environment. Here we are having a clash of values of different kinds.
In order to overcome this conflict Singer suggests a solution which protects the environment while minimizing harm to individual animals. He concludes his discussion by saying that those who find value beyond sentient beings can only give plausible answers to these questions. Singer proposes a number of arguments for the promotion of preference utilitarianism. In his book Practical Ethics he deals with this topic vividly. In order to give the practical ethics a sound basis he tries to show that ethical reasoning is possible.
For this he argues that the ethical statements are not objective. If it has an objective aspect then the universalistic prescriptivism falls. In order to prove this he sees the origin of the ethical action in an altruistic behavior, which is based on genes and once the genes are coded for the altruistic behavior, then such behavior has positive survival value for the bearers of those genes. This genetic altruism is also related with the cultural developments ofa particular society.
Further he argues that this type of a human reasoning that arose out of limited, biologically based altruism, thereby seriously impugning the objective standing of moral claims. Some of the positive eatures of the preference utilitarian theory or the practical ethics proposed by Singer are as follows; first of all it is a consistent theory which articulates well the philosophical ideas with which he operates. Secondly Singer in a well manner depicts the practical and intellectual flaws in the absolutist versions of the sanctity of life ethics.
Thirdly he reminds us that we need to consider the consequences of our actions and policies if we are to do Justice to the realities of personal existence. The total utilitarian theory cannot be a considered as a version of the preference utilitarian theory suggested by Singer. In the case of an infant who is diagnosed as a haemophiliac, we cannot say that euthanasia can be defended. Because the infant can be expected to have a life that is worth living. His life can be expected to contain a positive balance of happiness over misery.
To kill him would deprive him of this positive balance of happiness. But in the case of the total version of utilitarianism, we have to ask that whether the death of the haemophiliac infant would lead to the creation of another being who would not otherwise have existed. In other words we can ask that will the parents have another child whom they would have if the aemophiliac child lives? A preference utilitarian is not concerned so much with pain and pleasure rather his emphasis is on satisfying as many of the preferences as possible.
That means the end is neither pleasure nor of other specific values, but is maximizing the satisfaction of desires or preferences, whatever their objects. On this view, individuals are happy to the extent they achieve and maintain an integrated satisfaction of their preferences. To conclude we can say that preference utilitarianism is the view that morally right actions and institutions maximize ggregate preference satisfaction and minimize aggregate preference frustration or denial. For a preference utilitarian it is not the right that matters but to what extent preferences are fulfilled.
For example if a policy of affirmative action violates Brahmin people’s rights to equal treatment but produces beneficial results for the whole of India in the long run, such as increasing the number of Dalit doctors and lawyers or reducing poverty among the untouchables, then there is no reason to worry even about the fghts. 1. 1. 2. Problems ofa Preference Based Morality To say, there exist several problems within a preference based morality. A way to avoid these problems is to have a theory of formation of autonomous preferences.
Again whether to have or not to have preferences depend on the way in which the preferences are formed and maintained in the course of time. But in the case of formation or maintenance of preferences, we can have only little reliable information. For this we have to consider two cases. First of all we have to realize that past experiences typically form preferences about one’s way of life. Secondly, our preferences may change as a result of subtle influences not subject to critical control. Let us now have a discussion on these two conditions.
With regard to the first premise we can say that if the environment does not support to have a critical evaluation of the preferences, we cannot have autonomous preferences. If the environment is not god then the individual cannot have a chance for the selection of their conception of good. The environment in which we currently are is influenced by time the getting out of the current atmosphere will only increase the dilemma, since that action will again violate many of our current preferences. In the given state of knowledge it is difficult to say that whether any individual preferences are formed ith respect to any demands of autonomy.
So movement to a Just environment may itself violate the kind of preference it is meant to support. With regard to the second premise there arises a problem of seduction. An example is provided with regard to this. Suppose there are two bundles of goods namely x and y, where x is preferred to y. Now some seductive (small) changes are made on x so to say to make a new bundle namely rl . Now rl is preferred to x. The same process is again continued to make rl into r2. Finally after n changes y is preferred to rn. Therefore we can say that even hough the changes were seductive they can change a system.
This same logic can be applied in the case of a person too. The minute changes to his personality, in the course of time, will alter the person. The seductive changes may enhance or decrease the critical skills of the person. Peter Singer’s position have been challenged by many different groups concerned with that they see as an attack upon human dignity. These arguments are from the advocates for disabled people to right to life supporters and people who challenge his efforts to supplant the central role of religion from ethical debate.
These people argue that Singer is in no position to Judge the quality of life of the disabled people. Some others claim that Singer’s utilitarian ideas lead to eugenics. The support of Singer for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to value disabled other children and adults to be valued less. Proponents of other ethical theories would on the other hand claim that his conclusions show that utilitarianism may lead to eugenics or infanticide in certain circumstances. 1. 2.
Psychological Egoism Psychological egoism is the empirical doctrine that the determining motive of every action is a desire for one’s own welfare. It is psychological because it states a belief about human motivation and egoism because it claims that all human motives are self regarding. On this view, even though all actions are regarded as self- interested actions, the egoist readily points out that people usually try to conceal the determining motives for their actions because such concealment is usually in their self-interest.
There should not happen a confusion between “a psychological egoist, who is someone who holds a certain view of human motivation, with a person whose every act is self-regarding and who is therefore selfish. ” Psychological egoism is true nly if nobody ever does anything that is not self-regarding. Also we must not make the falsehood of supposing that psychological egoism is a theory of what sort of person we ought to be, or of how we ought to conduct our lives. There exists an ambiguity in the notion of satisfaction. We say that a desire is satisfied, in fact, we get what we want.
This does not necessarily mean that we are satisfied, for we might not find any value in the thing we wanted when we get it. And even if we are satisfied, that does not necessarily mean that we have a feeling of satisfaction, if by that we mean a rush, a buzz or a high. . “BRAHMA” SCHOOL OF THOUGHT ON THE ORIGIN OF CASTE SYSTEM In the previous section I was trying to show, what does the concept of preference utilitarianism mean and what all are its implications. It is a wide area of discussion which the present realm of philosophy is seriously considering.
Several Having this idea in mind let me proceed to the idea of the evolution of caste system, proposed by the Brahma school of thought. The ‘Brahma’ school of thought gave primacy to Brahmans in the origin of caste system. The original form of thought of this school can be found explained by the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad- 1 . This original thought in the text can be considered as without affected by any of the distortions later happened to the thinking pattern of the school. When we undergo a detailed study on the ‘Brahma” school of thought, we can have some conclusions as mentioned below.
Firstly, all people were considered as one class and that is of Brahmans until the social differentiation took place. There was a single community without internal groups and strata. All were individuals and all were alike. A group of individuals has to be different from others in some trait or other, if it has to be treated as a group. This early situation teaches the identification which one claims when he says, ‘I am Brahman’. This characteristic has nothing to do with the social role he plays as teacher, trader etc. , or the position he holds.
The second phase of the development of the idea of caste system can be found in the line where the first social differentiation took place when a few ‘awakened’ individuals, who were later called as devas and a vast community of ‘unawakened’ individuals who were later called as manushyas arise. The awakened few who were following the policy of ‘enlightened self-interest’, set aside the ‘ignorant’ or the unawakened individuals of heir capabilities. The so called awakened individuals were devas or the nobles. But there is a problem in naming the noble class as a selfish group.
So one should avoid this temptation to call devas and nobles as selfish individuals. Thus at this point we can have the opinion that the first social differentiation- Devas vis-?¤-vis Manushyas- happened as a result of the mentality of some individuals, who claim to be the awakened group, for their preferences or well being in the society. In the next phase the patriciate began to thrive as a parasite on the commonality and in their worst orm turned into Asuras, utilizing forced labour of men as Dasyus. The Brahman cadre which rose from the masses as a cadre of awakened individuals refused to be used as dasas or servants by any one.
At that time only the Devas (nobles) had Dasas to serve them. It was said to be that the caste system with its ranking device of the four varnas was a creation of the Brahmans to ensure race purity or rather the purity of the colour of their skin. The whole system of four varnas had taken such deep roots in the period when the Brahmana works were composed. We can see several Vedic passages saying that this division was extended to even Gods. As a result Agni and Brhaspati were considered as Brahmanas among the Gods, Indra, Varuna, Soma, Yama were Ksatriyas among the Gods, Maruts and Visve Devas were Vis and Pusan was the Sudra.
A sort of caste system based on birth and occupation did prevail in many countries in ancient times, for example in Persia, Rome, and Japan. But in all these countries it hardly ever made any approach in rigour and complexity to the caste system that is prevailing in India. In all other countries the whole idea of caste system in a way disappeared and declined in the course of time. But in India it got ramified into divisions and sub-divisions. “No unanimity seems possible as to the several causes and circumstances which led in India alone in the evolution of the stupendous structure of caste. 3. Understanding Caste System: Ambedkar the ancestors of the people in India were a mixture of Aryans, Dravidians, Mongolians and Scythians. All these races came from various directions with different cultures, centuries ago and they all elbowed their entry into the country by fighting with the Dravidians who were the original inhabitants of the subcontinent and after long spell f fghts and conflicts, they settled down as peaceful neighbors. Thus there arises a common culture that is running across the subcontinent.
This Indo-Aryan society which was formed with the amalgamation of various races had been practicing caste based graded inequality for over 2,000years. But initially the Indo-Aryan society governed by the Chaturvarnya system lived happily. Let us now see the Chaturvarnya system. The constitution of society prescribed by the Purusha Sukta is known as Chaturvarnya. Verses 11 an12 of Purusha Sukta falls in one category and the rest of the verses fall in another category. Verses other than 11 and 12 are regarded as of having academic interest. Nobody relies upon them.
But it is quite different with regard to verses 11 and 12. Because in its primary face these verses do no more than explain how the four class namely Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras arose from the body of the Creator. But the fact is that these verses are not understood as being merely explanatory of a cosmogony, rather they are treated as containing a mandatory injunction from the Creator to the effect that society must be constitute on the basis of four classes mentioned in the Purusha Suktas. Later many law givers have repeated the theme of Purusha Sukta and reiterated its sanctity.
All the oppositions and interpretations came to an end by Manu, the architect of the Hindu society. ‘ He did two things, first of all he enunciated afresh the ideal of the Purusha Sukta as a part of divine injunction and secondly he placed Vedas as the as the only and ultimate sanction of Dharma. He also gave a degree of divinity and infallibility to the social ideal of Chaturvarnya, which it did not have before. Let us now go back for a while to see the social condition in the beginning stage of the Chaturvarnya system, hich governed the Hindu society.
According to it, Brahmins should cultivate knowledge and guide the people; Kshatriyas should bear arms and fght if the tribal society existing then was attacked from outside; the Vaishyas should engage in trade and the Sudras should serve the other castes by building their homes and doing such other things which are needed to be done so that they could live together happily. Another thing to be noted is that it was wort h and not birth that determined one’s position in life when the Chaturvarnya system was prevailing. In that case there was no bar on acquisition of Vedic knowledge.
Even a Sudra then could learn the Vedas and thus become a Brahmin and if he could excel in martial arts, he could become a Kshatriya, the situation was in other way also, if a born Brahmin was not well-versed in Shastras, he is forfeited from the right to belong to the Brahmin Varna. From the above mentioned discussion it is in a way clear to our mind that the whole Chaturvarnya system was essentially a class system, in which individuals could change their class, when they are qualified and therefore classes did change their personnel.
The change from class to caste happened when at some point of time in he history of the Hindus, the priestly class socially detached itself from the rest of the body of the people and through a closed-door policy became a caste by itself. Ambedkar is even saying that this class system as such is more or less is of no use. classes is the de facto condition of every society, nevertheless no society has converted this de facto state of affairs into a de Jure connotation of an ideal society, except the scheme of Purusha Sukta where the real is elevated to the dignity of an ideal.
Secondly, no community has given the de facto state of class composition, a egal effect by accepting tit as a de Jure connotation of an of an ideal society, again exception is the Purusha Sukta where an attempt was made to give reality to the ideal by invoking the sanction of law. Thirdly, all societies have accepted class composition as natural other than the scheme of Purusha Sukta, where it is not only natural and ideal, but also regards it as sacred and divine. Fourthly, the number of classes has never been a matter of dogma in any other society except in Purusha Sukta, where the division of society into four classes is a matter of dogma.
Fifthly, no ociety has an official gradation between classes, except the Purusha Sukta, where a permanent warrant of precedence among the different classes was laid down and fixed, which neither time nor circumstances can either alter. Further proceeding, Ambedkar says that Purusha Sukta is not only unique in its content but also it is extra ordinary and is full of riddles. His studies lead to the conclusion that the cosmogony set out in the Purusha Sukta is not the only cosmogony which comes in Rig Veda.
The 72nd hymn of the 10th Mandala of the Rig Veda also sets out a cosmogony. But in fact both are fundamentally different in both principle and content. The former explains creation as being was born of non-being and the latter ascribes creation to a being called Purusha. Another thing is that Purusha Sukta starts the cosmogony with the creation of donkeys, horses, etc. and at the point of the creation of man, surprisingly; it explains the origin of classes in the Aryan society than ofa pure discussion of the creation.
Also Ambedkar points out several examples where Purusha Sukta contradicts Rig Veda. Coming back to the earlier discussion on the Chaturvarnya system, where it was worth not the birth which decides one’s caste, an example for this we can see the unity existed between each classes even in Mahabharata were a Sudra King namely Suda, was served by the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas. The whole problem of discrimination in a way started when during the Mauryan period, Ashoka ascended the throne of Magadha and Buddhism became the state religion.
At that time Brahmins had to suffer the greatest blow to their power and the prestige and they suffered this in silence. Later when Pushyamitra ascended to the throne and overthrew Buddhism and reestablished Brahminism in ts place; and Manusmriti, which accorded Brahmins the highest position, was promulgated as a code of laws. Gradually, the priestly class detached itself socially from the rest of the people and became a separate and elitist entity, enjoying the royal patronage and powers to rule the lives of other castes.
A word of Manusmriti is suitable and cannot be avoided in this discussion. Law-giver Manu accepts the Purusha theory without questioning it. He holds the view that the four Varnas were created from the limbs of the creator and in order to protect this, different duties and occupations were assigned to different Varnas. Further Manu proclaims that it is better to do only one’s own duties than of the other. In other words his theory discourages the freedom of choice of the occupation and in this regard Shudras’ duty is only to serve the other three Varnas.
But earlier this was not the condition, even were ministers and were almost equal to the Brahmins in number. They were not poor and lowly. But they were rich. Ambedkar also tries to establish the fact that Sudras were Kshatriyas. Sudras were originally part of the Kshatriya clan and were well versed in the martial arts. Ambedkar also found that originally only three Varnas omprised the Indo-Aryan tribal society. Due to tribal rivalries there were frequent clashes between Brahmins and Kshatriyas and in these encounters Brahmins had to face failure since they were not the martial tribe.
However, in order to wreak vengeance of the oppressors, the priestly class of Brahmins stopped performing Upanayana ceremony for some sections of Kshatriyas whom they regarded as their enemies. Gradually, the number of Kshatriyas who had not been sanctified by the Upanayana ceremony as ordained by the Vedas grew so large that they came to be identified as Shudras, who were not purified by religious Mantras and were forced to o menial Jobs. In the same text Ambebkar presents a catalogue of the pretensions putforth by the Brahmins.
As a summary of them we can say that the cardinal principles of the philosophy of Brahminism are graded in equality between the classes, complete disarmament of the Sudras and the untouchables, complete prohibition of the education to the Sudras, ban on the untouchables in occupying the places of power and authority, ban on acquiring property and the complete subjugation and suppression of women. A word on the division of society into three classes by Plato will be appropriate in this discussion.
According to Ambedkar the division of the society on the basis of Chaturvarnya was as erroneous as the division of society into three classes in Plato’s Republic. For Plato men fall by nature into three classes. The criticism to Plato’s Republic is also the criticism which must apply to the Chaturvarnaya system too. The chief criticism to Plato’s idea is that his idea of lumping of individuals into a few sharply marked off classes is a very superficial view of man and his powers. The modern science has also proved this.
Modern science says that the utilization of the qualities of individuals are incompatible with their ratificatio by classes, since the qualities of individuals are so variable. This is why the initial four classes have become four thousand classes today. For Ambedkar the laws of Manu are the most infamous code of law regarding social rights. Also from the above discussions we can say that Ambedkar considered the Chaturvarnya system as the most degrading system of social organizations. From the above discussions it is made clear that Chaturvarnya system is related to Varna and caste is much more owed to Manusmriti.
While in the speech prepared by Ambedkar for the 1936 Annual Conference of the Jat-Pat-Mandal, he made a clear cut distinction etween Varna and Caste. According to him both are two different concepts. He says, “varna is based on the principles of each according to his worth- while Caste is based on the principle of each according to his birth. ” One of the defenses of caste system is that, it is but another name for the labour, and the division of labour is a necessary feature of the civilized society then it is argued that there is nothing wrong in the caste system.
Ambedkar puts forth three main criticisms against this disposition of the defenders of caste system. First of all, it is not merely division of labour but it is lso a division of labourers. A civilized society surely needs division of labour but there is no civilized society where division of labour is accompanied by a natural hierarchy in which the division of labourers is graded one above the other. This cannot be seen in any other country than in India. Thirdly division of labour is not spontaneous or is not based on natural aptitudes.
Social and individual efficiency requires, us to develop the capacity to develop competency to choose and to make our own career. This principle is in a way violated in the caste system, where one erson is selected not on the basis of trained original capacities, rather on that of the social status of the parents. Caste system will not allow Hindus to take occupations where they are wanted, if they do not belong to them by heredity. Still now also there are many occupations in India which are regarded as degraded by Hindus on account of the people who are engaged in them.
Therefore we can say that caste system is a harmful institution for the societal development, since it involves “the subordination of man’s natural power’s and inclinations to the urgencies of societal rules. Another defense for caste system is that the object of caste system is to preserve the purity of race and blood. Ambedkar has a reply to this in his speech. Now ethnologists are of the opinion that men of pure race exist nowhere and there has been a mixture of all races in all parts of the world.
He says: “as a matter of fact caste system came into being long after the different races of India had commingled in blood and culture. ” He also says that there are immense of nonsense talked about heredity and eugenics in defense of caste system. If caste is eugenic then there should not happen the uprisings of sub-castes. Even bar on the intermarriage or inter-dining between sub castes cannot be for the purpose of maintaining race purity. Even if intermarriage can do something, what about inter dining. How can inter dining can cause mixture of blood or race in any ways?
In the conclusion of this discussion Ambedkar is of the opinion that “… caste has no scientific origin and that those who are attempting to give it an eugenic basis are trying to support by science what is grossly unscientific. ” To conclude, the defending positions of caste system are not really the worth ones. The defenders are in a way promoting a social system hich embodies arrogance and selfishness of a perverse section of the Hindus who were superior enough in social status to set it in fashion and who had authority to force it on their inferiors.
For Ambedkar an ideal society is a society which is based on liberty, equality and fraternity. In such a society there should be many interests consciously communicated and shared. It will be a mobile society. There should be channels for conveying a change taking place in one part to other parts. For him fraternity is another name for democracy, which is not merely a form of government ut is primarily a mode of associated living of conjoint communicated experience.
Here each person has liberty to choose one’s own profession. If one objects to this liberty, it is a kind of slavery. One may say that people must be treated unequal since they are unequal with regard to physical heredity, social inheritance and regard of one’s own efforts. Ambedkar says that in the first two aspects there should not be unequal selection because such selection would only lead to the selection of privileged and not the appropriate ones. But there can be unequal treatment on the third aspect.