The traditional understanding of dharma is compatible with the contemporary understanding of the human rights because Mahatma Gandhi, as a politician, stressed the need for every person to fight the social injustice in Indian. According to Gandhi, doing away with conflicts and tensions was a sacred duty of every Indian. But, on the other side, unlike the contemporary understanding of the human rights, which fights for the equality of each and every human being, Mahatma Gandhi only insisted on the unity of the Hindu and Muslims. He did not insist on the removal of untouchability among the Indians. It is such a difference that makes the traditional practices of Hindu different from the contemporary social justice and human rights concerns in India. The human rights organizations in India today, fights for the social justice and human rights of every citizen regardless of the caste. The caste system is therefore not very important as was the case in the traditional Hindu system whereby people were segregated based on their castes and as such, other people had to rise up and fight for the rights of this unprivileged people in the society. As in the contemporary Indian society, the idea of the untouchables is a gone past and people are nowadays treated with due respect as human beings.
Ambedkar’s activist movement to fight for the rights of the untouchables who had been denied access to the public water supply was won when he opted to fight a ten year court case which he won rather than take to the streets. The contemporary social justice and human rights organizations in India also use the same methods to fight for the rights of the oppressed in India. The mass action used by a group of several thousand people is still used in the contemporary India to fight for people’s rights. The 1929 attempt by the untouchables to gain entry to the Parvati temple was a good example of how people can use mass action to fight for their rights. The techniques and inspiration used in the mass action were clearly drawn from the teachings of Gandhi and Ambedkar who were not even present at the time of the demonstrations. Just like the traditional understanding of human rights and social justice fought for the rights of the minority people in the society, the contemporary society in India and all over the world has continued to fight for the rights of the minorities and the oppresses people who have been subjected to inhuman treatment.
The traditional understanding of the human rights and social justice exhibited by Ambedkar, who stressed that just as much it was not good enough for one country to rule over another, was not also good enough for one class to rule over another class. This traditional understanding of the equality of the depressed classes with the other classes is similar to the current understanding of the human rights because they all fight for the equality of all human beings regardless of the caste or class one comes from. Gandhi’s fasting as a way of expressing dissatisfaction because of creating separate voting blocks within the Hindu community is up to now used in the contemporary society to fight against social injustice and for basic human rights in India. Using fasting as a way of fighting social evils complies with the contemporary concerns in which people in India and anywhere in the world has used to push for their rights.
The formation of the All India Anti-Untouchability League by Gandhi on September 30, 1932 ensured that the group becomes devoted towards removal of untouchability among the people of India. This is reminiscent of the contemporary society where different organizations and movements are formed to fight for social justice and human rights. The notion of ethics is exhibited through Gandhi’s use of peaceful persuasion as a means of securing access to the schools, temples, roads and public wells by the Depressed Classes. The traditional Hindu organization, just like human rights organization in the contemporary world, aimed at achieving social reforms for the minority groups in India.
Unlike the Harijan Sevak Sangh, a traditional organization fighting for the Rights of the Depressed Untouchables, the contemporary human rights organization does not bar any of its members or other people from marrying people from different classes. The marriage of Gandhi’s son to Rajagopalacharia (a Madrasi Brahman) was heavily criticized by people who accused him of turning good Untouchables into malcontents. The contemporary society treats everyone equally unlike in India where people were initially treated according to the class they came from.The Hindu Ethics, therefore, exists among the Hindus because they believed that no Untouchable could convert from any other religion to another. The Hindu people had strong belief that any religion that did not originate in India can not provide continuity. It is this fact that the Hindu Ethics prohibited the its people against conversion to Islam and Christianity which were both condemned and thought to be foreign (Easwaran 243).
Gandhi drew a lot of inspiration during his years in South Africa from Bhagavad Gita and from Leo Tolstoy’s writings. As a socio-political activist, Gandhi learnt the techniques and concepts of non-violence and dis-obedience from the Bhagavad Gita which helped him to arrange the Indian Ambulance Corps that served in the UK and the western front. Just like Gandhi and Ambedkar, Bhagavad Gita also deals with issues of non-violence and violence and the duties of individuals to the community. Following the advice of Lord Krishna, people were supposed to step from their current carnage and act with detachment for the establishment of a new and international human politics.
After the First World War, Gandhi reflected on the lessons learnt from Bhagavad Vita concerning mass action politics. He explored how violence and non-violence were greatly intimate with each other and his commentaries on Gita were clear attempts to ponder about moral action based on compulsion and ignorance.
Unlike the contemporary understanding of human rights and social justice which condemn killings and use of non-violence, the modern western tradition of political thoughts argue that violence is an essential and consultative feature. These traditional thoughts upheld that killings and violence should be regulated and therefore the political landscape had an enormous effect on Gandhi which made him to be an anti-political thinker.
Gandhi’s personal relationship with the Gita confirms his deep religious Hindu heritage. Although he tirelessly worked to ensure that the conditions of the untouchables were uplifted, he did not speak out against system of caste which was rampant in the Hindu social system and therefore put himself at odds with Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar who was the leader of the low caste. Gandhi interpreted Hinduism through Gita and referred to it as being inclusivit and Universalist. Unlike Gandhi, Ambedkar changed the untouchable low caste name to Dalits which implied “oppressed”, he denounced the inhuman and institutionalized Hindu system and led the Dalits to convert to Buddhism. The Gita was chosen by Gandhi as a catalyst for freedom movement. Ambedkar’s idea of foreignness is revealed in the act of touching the Bhagavad Gita.
There is continuity of the silent destruction and reconstruction of the caste system in India. The Hindu Ethics does exist and they believe that a religion should not be judged by its worst specimens, but for the best that it has produced and this is the standard which can be used to aspire and improve it. The Hindu ethics also believe that disregard and greed is what has enslaved them and not the caste system. The Hindu ethics claim that caste is the experiment of man or the social adjustment done in the Indian society and which, when proved to be successful could be offered to the rest of the world to curb social disintegration and heartless competitions among human beings (Gandhi 14). In essence, Hindu ethics exists, but based on the contemporary judgment, the negative ethics should be discontinued because they are against the social justice and human rights, while the positive ones, which appreciate the social justice and the rights of human beings, should be universally accepted and appreciated.
The contemporary concerns about caste are different with the traditional approach of caste in which the Hindus believed that one’s caste is determined by birth because in the contemporary societies, people are born equally and therefore the issue of the four caste system as exhibited in the traditional Hindu understanding does not arise at all. The traditional Hindu understanding that the Lord God did not create human beings with the qualities of either inferiority or superiority complies with the contemporary concerns about the understanding of human rights and social justice. As in the contemporary understanding of the Human rights, in India, the traditional Hindu understanding that of all mankind and all lives should be upheld comply with each other. The Hindu traditional understanding that equality can only be established if the living equality between man and man and man and the whole creation is restored complies with the contemporary understanding of social justice and human rights (Zelliot 206).
The Hindu ethics also does not regard untouchability as being a sin but Gandhi condemned untouchability and he believed that untouchability was not part of Hinduism and if it was, then it was not for him. The Hindu traditional belief that someone can be regarded to be untouchable just because of his or her birth clashes with the contemporary understanding of the social justice and human rights which hold a strong belief that everyone is born equally before the eyes of God and therefore should be accorded equal treatment by everyone everywhere. Unlike the traditional understanding of the notion of ethics in which people fought for other people’s rights based on to their religions, contemporary human rights movements or organizations fight for people’s rights regardless of their religious stands. The Hindu understanding thought of untouchability as a sanction of religion unlike the contemporary understanding which views untouchability as being the device of Satan (Mukherjee109).
In conclusion, the Hindu traditional notions of ethics which respected the human rights and gave room for social justice have been upheld by the contemporary society. However, some traditional notions which segregated human beings according to their religion or caste have been discontinued and therefore have not been upheld in the contemporary understanding of the social rights and justice. Traditional understanding which were beneficial to everyone and treated every human being equally has therefore fitted with the contemporary understanding of human rights and understanding. The texts therefore give good examples of the differences and similarities between the traditional Hindu society and the contemporary understanding of human rights and social justice.
Works Cited
Ambedkar B.R. “What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables”. Bombay: Thacker and Co Ltd, 2006.
Easwaran, Eknath. “The Bhagavad Gita”. Toronto: The Blue Mountain Center of Meditation, 2007.
Gandhi, Mahatma. “The Caste Must go and the Sin of Untouchability.” New Delhi: The Navajivan Trust, 1964.
Mukherjee, Rudrangshu “The Creed of Non-Violence”. New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2004.
Zelliot, Eleanor. “Caste in History”. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000.