The necessity of social reform for political progress faces challenges, with critics divided into political

reformers and Socialists. Originally, the National Congress and the Social Conference worked in
tandem, addressing political and social weaknesses respectively. However, a rift emerged, creating a
divide between a 'political reform party' supporting the Congress and a 'social reform party'
supporting the Social Conference. The debate centered on whether social reform should precede
political reform. Eventually, the political reform party, led by Mr. Tilak, gained dominance, leading to
the decline and eventual disappearance of the Social Conference. The prevailing view, exemplified by
Mr. W. C. Bonnerji's speech, dismissed the need for social reform before political reform. However,
those advocating social reform question this perspective, emphasizing the interconnectedness of
social and political progress, exemplified by issues like the treatment of untouchables.

Under Maratha rule, untouchables faced severe discrimination, including restrictions on public
spaces, attire, and even carrying brooms to avoid polluting Hindus. Later instances, like the Balais'
persecution and caste-based mandates in Gujarat, underscored ongoing discrimination. In Chakwara,
a violent attack on untouchables for consuming ghee exemplified deep-seated biases. Despite such
realities, the political reform party, led by Mr. Bonnerjee, prevailed over the social reform party,
attributed to the latter's focus on family-oriented reforms rather than challenging the caste system.
This victory, however, is deemed limited, emphasizing the need for political and social reforms to be
interlinked. The argument echoes Ferdinand Lassalle's perspective on constitutions aligning with
prevailing social forces, acknowledging the intricate relationship between political and social
transformations.

During Maratha rule, untouchables faced severe discrimination, exemplified by restrictions on public
spaces and demeaning practices. Later instances, such as the oppression of the Balais in Central India
and the Kavitha incident, illustrate continued discrimination and social restrictions imposed by high-
caste Hindus. In Chakwara, a violent attack occurred when untouchables dared to consume ghee,
revealing deeply ingrained prejudices. Mr. Bonnerjee's stance, asserting fitness for political power
despite social inequalities, is challenged by the argument that one class is unfit to rule another. The
Social Conference's defeat in advocating for social reform is attributed to its focus on high-caste
Hindu family issues rather than challenging the caste system. The victory of the political reform party
over the social reform party highlights the limited progress and the need to recognize social forces in
shaping political constitutions, echoing Ferdinand Lassalle's perspective.

The Communal Award in India, allocating political power based on social classes, signifies the
undeniable link between political constitution and social organization. Critics dismissing its
significance argue it results from an unholy alliance, but this view is challenged by examining
instances like Irish Home Rule and the historical context of Rome. The Ulstermen's refusal to be ruled
by Southern Ireland, mirroring a Caste-based social problem, illustrates the intricate connection
between social and political issues. Drawing from Rome's history and global examples, the argument
asserts that political revolutions are often preceded by social and religious revolutions. This pattern is
evident in India, where political changes followed religious and social reforms led by figures like
Buddha, Shivaji, and Guru Nanak. The emancipation of the mind and the soul is a necessary
preliminary for the political expansion of the people.

Socialists, both in India and Europe, prioritize economic reform, emphasizing equalization of property
as the fundamental solution. However, the argument questions the Socialists' premises, highlighting
the multifaceted nature of power. It argues that social status and religion are equally potent sources
of authority, challenging the notion that economic power alone prevails. Examples from Rome and
Plebians' history illustrate how religious beliefs influenced political outcomes. The fallacy lies in
assuming Europe's current economic dominance reflects India's reality. The critique extends to the
Socialist contention that equalizing property is the sole reform, prompting a crucial question: Can
economic reform truly occur without addressing the underlying social order? The passage concludes
by quoting a Socialist acknowledging the imperative of social equality for realizing the socialist ideal.

The essential question for a Socialist goes beyond professing belief in equality; it is whether they
tolerate one class systematically oppressing another. Economic reform, necessitating a proletarian
revolution, depends on unity. The proletariat's unity hinges on a shared spirit of equality, fraternity,
and justice. Mere assurances against caste discrimination are insufficient; genuine unity requires
eradicating caste distinctions within the proletariat. Even if a revolution occurs, a Socialist state in
India cannot function without confronting deep-seated social prejudices. The unavoidable truth is
that, for Socialists, social reform is fundamental — a prerequisite for achieving their revolutionary
and egalitarian ideals. Political and economic reforms are impossible without addressing the
pervasive monster of caste.

Caste, often defended as a division of labour, extends beyond that to become a division of labourers,
marked by a harmful gradation. Unlike natural aptitudes, this system is not spontaneous; it infringes
upon individual choice and social efficiency. The stratification of occupations, inherent in the Caste
System, obstructs adaptation to industry changes, contributing significantly to unemployment.
Moreover, it lacks the flexibility of choice, leading to aversion and a desire to evade certain
occupations, diminishing efficiency. As an economic organization, Caste subordinates natural abilities
to social norms, resulting in a system that stifles individuality and impedes progress.

Caste is criticized for being more than a division of labor; it's a hierarchy of laborers, not based on
natural aptitudes but on social status. This rigid system restricts individual choice, preventing people
from pursuing careers aligned with their abilities. Unlike flexible societies, the Caste System obstructs
adaptation to changing industries, leading to unemployment. The occupations assigned by Caste
often lack appeal, causing aversion and inefficiency. This system, rooted in predestination, harms
economic organization by subordinating natural abilities to social rules, hindering both hearts and
minds from being invested in work.

Caste, defended for preserving racial purity, faces criticism as pure races don't exist. Ethnologists
note India's mixed races. Caste emerged post this mix, making racial distinctions within it illogical.
Caste doesn't demarcate races; it's a social division within the same race. If Caste were eugenic, sub-
castes should be too, but sub-castes are sub-divisions of one race. The ban on intermarriage lacks
eugenic purpose. Interdining restrictions are also unscientific. Scientifically, Caste's eugenic claim is
baseless, requiring knowledge of heredity beyond current understanding. Judged by its physical
outcome, the Caste System hasn't produced a robust race, exposing its flaws and origins in social
arrogance, not eugenics.

Caste, far from fostering efficiency or racial improvement among Hindus, has instead disorganized
and demoralized them. The notion of Hindu society is a myth; it's essentially a collection of castes
lacking a unified identity. Castes operate independently, without a sense of affiliation, often
segregating themselves. The absence of a "consciousness of kind" hinders the formation of a
cohesive Hindu society. Despite shared habits and customs, true society arises from shared
possessions, requiring communication and common activity. The Caste System obstructs this by
inhibiting common endeavors, preventing Hindus from developing a unified life and a collective
consciousness. This disintegration, not unity, defines the impact of caste on Hindu society.

The Caste System's most detrimental aspect is its pervasive anti-social spirit. While Hindus criticize
isolated groups for their exclusivity, they overlook that this spirit thrives within their own caste
divisions. Caste literature often promotes hatred by attributing noble origins to one caste and ignoble
ones to others. This divisive attitude isn't confined to castes alone but extends to sub-castes,
exemplified by Brahmin sub-divisions fostering animosity. The anti-social spirit arises when groups
prioritize their interests over interaction with others, creating a fragmented society. This
phenomenon persists as each caste seeks to protect its own interests, leading to a society of warring
factions rather than a unified whole. Additionally, the Caste System perpetuates grudges, preventing
forgiveness and solidarity by keeping the memory of past feuds alive. Eg

Caste obstructs the progress of India's aboriginal tribes, numbering over 13 million, keeping them in
a primitive, uncivilized state and, in some cases, leading them to criminal pursuits. Despite living
amidst civilization, these tribes remain in a savage state. Hindus, due to caste preservation, neglect
efforts to civilize or integrate them. The caste system prevents Hindus from embracing the
aborigines, fearing the loss of their caste. This neglect poses a potential danger as unreclaimed
savages might become adversaries if converted by non-Hindus. Caste, therefore, stands as a barrier
to uplifting and incorporating these tribes.

Higher castes in Hinduism actively obstructed lower castes from advancing culturally. In instances like
the Sonars and Pathare Prabhus in Maharashtra, attempting to adopt Brahmin customs faced
Brahmin opposition. Sonars, adopting Brahmin attire and salutation, were prohibited by Brahmin
authorities, including the East India Company's President. Similarly, Pathare Prabhus' attempt to
discontinue widow remarriage faced Brahmin opposition. This deliberate suppression reveals a stark
contrast to criticisms of Islamic and Christian spread, highlighting Hindu reluctance to share
intellectual and social heritage, portraying meanness surpassing the perceived cruelty of other
religions.

Hinduism ceased to be a missionary religion due to the emergence of the Caste System, incompatible
with conversion. The problem of finding a caste for converts hinders the process. Castes,
autonomous and exclusive, bar newcomers. As long as Caste endures, Hinduism can't be a
missionary religion. Additionally, Caste undermines mutual support, trust, and fellow-feeling among
Hindus. The associated mode of life in Sikh and Muslim communities fosters solidarity, but among
Hindus, caste divisions create isolation. The indifference of Hindus, often mistaken for tolerance,
stems from the Caste System, hindering cooperation for collective well-being. Caste acts as a barrier
to both missionary efforts and unified social action.

Caste, a formidable obstacle to reform, obstructs individual expression within groups. The group's
tolerance and fairness determine the reform's fate, as intolerance stifles dissent, leading to reform's
demise. Caste's authority to excommunicate, tantamount to social death, deters Hindus from
challenging its barriers. In the quest for societal companionship, individuals, fearing
excommunication, often surrender their independence to caste norms. Castes exploit this
vulnerability, ensuring strict adherence to their codes. Caste, acting as a conspiratorial tool, becomes
a potent weapon wielded by the orthodox to persecute reformers and annihilate reform initiatives,
emphasizing its resistance to change.

Caste's impact on Hindu ethics is deplorable, extinguishing public spirit, charity, and opinion. Loyalty
centers solely on one's caste, eroding sympathy for others. Virtue and morality succumb to caste
restrictions, neglecting the deserving. Leadership recognition hinges on caste affiliation, rendering
merit appreciation obsolete. Morality becomes tribal, exemplified by blind allegiance to one's caste,
fostering treason against the country in the name of caste interests.

My ideal envisions a society rooted in Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. Embracing Fraternity implies a
mobile and interconnected society, facilitating the conscious exchange of diverse experiences and
interests. Social endosmosis, akin to democracy, embodies varied points of contact and shared
communication, fostering an attitude of respect and reverence toward fellow human beings. This
ideal aspires for an associated living, transcending government structures to embody a democratic
ethos in every facet of societal interaction.

Objections to Liberty are minimal when viewed as the right to free movement, life, and property.
However, supporters of Caste resist the liberty to choose one's profession, perpetuating a form of
societal slavery. True liberty extends beyond legal freedom to encompass the right to benefit from
one's skills and choose a profession autonomously. Objecting to this liberty confines individuals to
prescribed callings, mirroring a coercive societal structure, even without legal slavery, as seen in the
Caste System. Embracing comprehensive liberty dismantles such constraints and promotes individual
autonomy.

The concept of equality, though contentious, serves as a governing principle despite acknowledging
inherent human inequalities. While acknowledging disparities in physical heredity, social inheritance,
and individual efforts, the question arises: should we treat individuals unequally simply because they
are unequal? The individualist might argue for unequal treatment based on effort, but extending this
inequality to birth, education, and inherited privileges results in the selection of the privileged, not
the able. Equality is indispensable, not only for the fair development of individual potential but also
for practical governance, as statesmen, dealing with vast numbers, lack the time and knowledge for
equitable distinctions. Despite its fallacies, equality offers a pragmatic approach to navigate the
complexities of politics.

[The Arya Samajists' "Chaturvarnya" retains the old bad caste labels]

[1:] But there is a set of reformers who hold out a different ideal. They go by the name of the Arya
Samajists, and their ideal of social organization is what is called Chaturvarnya, or the division of
society into four classes instead of the four thousand castes that we have in India. To make it more
attractive and to disarm opposition, the protagonists of thousand castes that we have in India. To
make it more attractive and to disarm opposition, the protagonists of Chaturvarnya take great care to
point out that their Chaturvarnya is based not on birth but on guna (worth). At the outset, I must
confess that notwithstanding the worth-basis of this Chaturvarnya, it is an ideal to which I cannot
reconcile myself.

[2:] In the first place, if under the Chaturvarnya of the Arya Samajists an individual is to take his place
in the Hindu Society according to his worth, I do not understand why the Arya Samajists insist upon
labelling men as Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. A learned man would be honoured without
his being labelled a Brahmin. A soldier would be respected without his being designated a Kshatriya.
If European society honours its soldiers and its servants without giving them permanent labels, why
should Hindu Society find it difficult to do so, is a question which Arya Samajists have not cared to
consider.
[3:] There is another objection to the continuance of these labels. All reform consists in a change in
the notions, sentiments, and mental attitudes of the people towards men and things. It is common
experience that certain names become associated with certain notions and sentiments which
determine a person's attitude towards men and things. The names Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and
Shudra are names which are associated with a definite and fixed notion in the mind of every Hindu.
That notion is that of a hierarchy based on birth.

[4:] So long as these names continue, Hindus will continue to think of the Brahmin, Kshatriya,
Vaishya, and Shudra as hierarchical divisions of high and low, based on birth, and to act accordingly.
The Hindu must be made to unlearn all this. But how can this happen, if the old labels remain, and
continue to recall to his mind old notions? If new notions are to be inculcated in the minds of people,
it is necessary to give them new names. To continue the old names is to make the reform futile. To
allow this Chaturvarnya based on worth to be designated by such stinking labels as Brahmin,
Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, indicative of social divisions based on birth, is a snare.