Ambedkar-Philosophy of Hinduism

AMBEDKAR'S PHILOSOPHY OF HINDUISM AND CONTEMPORARY CRITIQUES
PROF. M. M. NINAN
Célestin Bouglé, in his essay on the caste system in India, published in 1908, observed the British frequently
asserting they had no interest in modifying the caste system in India. The Englishman's motto, claimed Bouglé,
was to administer its Indian colony by preserving its customs, caste system, and with a minimum of
security or justice or governance. Bouglé acknowledged in his essay the empirical evidence of intermingling
between Indians as observed on Indian Railways and the mass adoption of te-rain (Bouglé's colorful emphasis for
train as pronounced in India). Bouglé used the empirical census facts noted by Risley and the direct observation of
mutual acceptance of Indians for Indians on its te-rains to conclude that the historical caste system within 20th
century Indian society was fundamentally changing, and that this change was irreversible. British rule, without
wanting to, was triggering fundamental social changes in India. The lower castes were becoming officials, the
Brahmins were leaving religious occupations and becoming policemen and farmers, and the three pillars of the
caste system according to Bouglé—hereditary occupation, social hierarchy and exclusionary repulsion—were
crumbling. Bouglé identified the cause for these changes to be economic progress, industrialization and career
mobility inside India between 1880 and 1905. He believed that British rule, without intending to, had accelerated the
natural demise of the caste system in India.
During the British East India Company's rule, caste differences and customs were accepted, if not
encouraged, the British law courts disagreed with discrimination against the lower castes.[better source needed]
Corbridge concludes that British policies of divide and rule of India's numerous princely sovereign states, as well as
enumeration of the population into rigid categories during the 10 year census, contributed towards the hardening of
caste identities.
Terminology during British Rule
The nature of caste, its definition, its characteristics and its effect on social mobility within Indian society during
British colonial rule was a subject of confusion and controversy. In a review published in 1944, Kosambi noted that
almost every statement made by anyone about caste system in India may be contradicted.
Herbert Risley, the colonial ethnographer, noted in 1915 that there are many misconceptions about India's caste
system. For example, he disagrees with "the proposition by Sir Henry Yule that Indian people are so superstitious
that no one of a higher caste can eat or drink with those of a lower caste." In Risley's experience, social mores
within people of India on eating and drinking with other sections and castes of its society were unlike those claimed
by Yule, rather they were fluid and transitory.
Risley further notes that, according to his 1901 Census Report on India, only 8 to 17 percent of Brahmins were
involved in a religious occupation, only 8 percent of one Shudra sub-caste commonly assumed to be dedicated to
leather work was actually involved in leather work, and less than 50 percent of several sub-castes were involved in
their traditional occupations. Rest were involved in occupations such as farming or laborers. Castes, particularly the
lower castes were changing their occupations with time and need, observed Risley; and once they changed their
occupation, they would evolve into their own social group. Barbers became or were becoming confectioners,
204