Shahu Chhatrapati: A Great Enlightened Monarch

Published in the Chhatrapati Shahu : the Pillar of Social Democracy, of Maharashtra, 1994-95 SHAHU :

AN

ENLIGHTENED MONARCHby Bal

Government

Patil

Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other, are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils- no, nor the human race, as I believe,- and then only will this our state have a possibility of life and behold the light of day. Plato’s Republic Thus did Plato in the noblest flight of his philosophical speculation formulate and utopian vision of an ideally administered State which the kings and emperors in the endless annals of history have striven in vain to attain. It is moot question of history why they fell short of this noble quest. Was it because their enlightenment did not keep pace with the beatific vision?

Plato himself has provided a clue to the solution of this apparently insoluble conundrum by means of the brilliant allegory of the ignorant and unenlightened humanity tethered and imprisoned in a dark underground den or tunnel with a mouth open towards sight which the unfortunate inmates cannot see because their legs and necks are so chained that they are prevented from turning round their necks.

As further visualized by Plato the prisoners who have been there from their childhood, have above and behind them a blazing fire at a distance; and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way with a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show puppets.

Men are seen passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials which appear over the wall. And these strange prisoners can see only their own shadows or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the den because they could not see anything but the shadows as they were never allowed to move their heads.

Reality or truth for such prisoners would be nothing but a shadow play. But supposing one of the prisoners is released and is able to turn his neck round and look towards the light he would be bewildered by the glare at first, sees the reality in a new perspective and yet persist in his illusion of shadows until he comes to the mouth of the tunnel and out and sees the sun and the world of substance and shadows, and thus is able to disabuse his mind of the weird error of shadows.

That is the dawn of human enlightenment. The prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun and the journey upwards in the den or tunnel is the progress of pilgrim’s soul into intellectual and enlightened consciousness. Thus Plato brings home the acme of his metaphysical insight that the philosopherkings who will make possible the establishment of the ideal State are to be not only seasoned men of action in the world of Government, but also saints who have achieved a religious vision of the supreme good.

I have taken the liberty of delineating the Platonic image of the cave because I think, its allegory of the mankind as groping its way from the darkness of ignorance to the light of knowledge, has a compelling relevance to the social and educational renaissance set in motion in Maharashtra and eventually in India by such stalwarts of social, religious and administrative reform, as Mahatma Phule, V.R. Shinde, Shahu Chhatrapati, Dr. Ambedkar and Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil.

Shahu was an ideal ruler in the Platonic category of philosopher kings. He was not a professional philosopher, but nevertheless he had an weltan-shauung – a worldview- in the real sense of the term, because by conviction he treated the lowliest and the despised on equal terms and gave them a place in the sun by deliberate social, educational, religious and administrative measurers.

This Platonic quest of enlightment has no doubt its counterpart in the Upanishadic pursuit of tamaso ma jyotirgamaya, but unfortunately this noble quest of knowledge In India was confined by rigid requirements of priestcraft to the superior caste of Brahmins. While the Brahmins could pursue enlightenment to their heart’s content, a section of the society which was relegated to the most despised quarters was forever condemened to ignorance, degradation and utter deprivation in the social scale of values.

Basic Split in Gitaistic Philosophy

This basic split in the Hindu philosophical thinking gave it a schizoid personality. The Upanishads in their metaphysical flights of speculative contemplation on the nature and destiny of man went on to postulate the monistic universe- sarvam idam khalu Brahman- but when it stepped out of this monistic universe, a meticulously cultivated metaphysical cocoon into the hard human reality, the followers of this philosophy had no compunction in treating a section of their fellow beings as worse than beasts. And this was most evident in the treatment meted out to the Shudras or untouchables.

I think the Gitaistic philosophy of Lok Samgraha too could not offer a way out of this anomalous situation created by the Janus-like operation of the Hindu philosophy and its distortionary social effects through the centuries. Even the

highest philosophy of nishkama karma could not but deteriorate into self centred activity concerned pre-eminently with the individual emancipation rather than social fellowship.

I refer here to the Verse V 14 in the Gita which says that the sovereign self does not create for the people agency, nor does he connect acts with their effects. It is nature that works out these, Thus nature is made the sole detemining factor of creation: न कतृृतव न

ं

कमाििलोकसय सृजित पभु :|

न कमृफल संयोगम सवभावसतु पवतृते

It places not only the contemplation of the fruits of action outside the purview of human judgment, but also the very human action itself, because in a universe dominated by Nature man is necessarily a puppet utterly incapable of initiating any action of his own.It does not matter here whether he renounces the fruits of this action or not. The question does not arise.

Whatever altruistic interpretation the Gita may be amenable to or the metaphysical and philosophical consolation, it has given to the suffering humanity-again severely demarcated between high caste and low caste- one cannot but observe, that it could not gain positive social currency, because scripturally the society was already demarcated into rigid castes, debarring the lowest even from entering the presence of the higher castes.

In a casteist atmosphere the teaching of the Gita- its gospel of Lok Samgraha, a could at best remain an instance of double think incapable of translating itself into a socially oriented ethic. In this context Dr. Schweitzer’s comment that Hinduism in its early stages did not possess this active ethic and that, what has occurred in modern India e.g. poverty, disease and famine can be laid directly to this lack of an ethic in those early stages is understandable.

I am pointing out to these philosophical shortcomings in order to make clear the formidable difficulties and antagonisms Shahu had to tackle in his quest to give an egalitarian deal to his subjects at the dawn of the twentieth country. There is another aspect of the Gitaistic philosophy of action which does not seem to me quite acceptable. Somehow its tone appears to put a self righteous premium on the fruits of action so imperiously repudiated.

In fact, the very act of renunciation sounds like a rationalization, and to put it a bit harshly, an hypocritical arrogation of the fruits of action so renounced, of course, impliedly. An activist interpretation was conspicuously lacking till the advent of the Nineteenth country when Vivekanand came “to the demoralized Hindu

mind like a tonic” as characterized by Jawaharlal Nehru.

My Note on Gita to Dr.A.L. Basham

It is in this context that I gave a note to Dr. A.L. Basham, the distinguished scholar of ancient Indian history and culture and author of The Wonder that Was India. (Professor of the Department of Oriental Civilization, School of Oriental Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, Austrialia) when he delivered his Heras Memorial Lecture for the year 1964, at the Heras Institute of India History and Culture, at St. Xavier College, Bombay. In response to my note Dr. Basham recast his third lecture on Religious life in Ancient India and a reference to the same, appears in the published version of the lectures entitled Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture (Asia).

My note was as follows:

“The Hindu view of salvation with all the secondary emphasis on the conscientious carrying out of the duties attendant upon the three subsidiary goals of dharma, artha and kama- piety, pleasure and profit- had the sole effect of turning one’s attention from the problems of this life. Individual became concerned with his salvation, his attainment of moksa by shedding away all the karmic mundane coil, and social fellowship was all forgotton “Such an inculcation, though admittedly perhaps not intended-one can exonerate the Hindu view of salvation from such an implicit assumption, because what it meant on its positive side was an escape from the self-centred life , a release into a fuller and wider consciousness Here and Now, (Cf. Platonic and Upanishadic conceptions ) had the undesirable effect of cultivating a studied indifference to and negation of this life as merely an illusion to be wondered at, got exasperated by, but never to be challenged.

“The negative side of the eminently noble view of salvation only flourished, making the individual blind to everything else- and of course, very, honourably too – and concentrate in an ivory tower of the ascetic deal, musing with an immense self complacent feeling on the utter hopelessness and the vacuity of all human endeavour.

“The consequent lack of the development of a practical and social and secular ethic did indeed have grave repercussions on the subsequent evolution of the Indian history. India did remain shackled in medieval times, till late in the nineteenth century and it would not be unfair to say that even now this traditionbound worldview is the chief obstacle in the way of the emergence of a modern way of life, embodying humanistic social principles of State policy. How far do you think this criticism is valid?

“My point is that in ancient India the ascetic ideal gained an upper hand out of all proportion and relegated everything else to the background. It created an overall climate of worldweariness crystallized in an attitude that life is no doubt an intolerable burden to be borne, but it is not given us to question why it is so? We can only wait and pray.”

“Was this not natural consequence of placing too great an emphasis on the other worldly goals? And did it not result into an socially apathetic ethic? To say this, is not to deny that Hindu view of life is not elastic enough to admit of such an all embracing ethic, but the fact remains that somehow too individualistic an interpretation negated its inherent strength.

“It is true that Bhagwad Gita asked one to give up the fruits if action themselves. But nevertheless, one is unable to make out the ethical content of the action- individual or social- so eulogized. One is constrained to say that the Gitaistic view of action does not go beyond the individual performance of duties towards the attainment of one’s salvation.

“And moreover , there is another difficulty. You may act in a disinterested spirit, and renounce the fruits of action, but the point is whether you have acted at all. Dr. Radhakrishnan has interpreted this philosophy to mean that the question is not what shall I do to be saved , but in what spirit shall I do ? Detachment of spirit and not renunciation of the world is, what is demanded from us. Action done in a disinterested spirit does not bind or sully the soul”….

“But this leaves the question unanswered: How such concern got itself translated in some tangible action as distinguished from merely individual efforts for his metaphysical welfare? Did it transcend into the social sphere around him? What exactly are the implications of ancient Indian view of life- Negative or Positive, and how did such a view react on life around?”

In response to my above note Dr. Basham writes in his abovementioned book: “I have decided to recast , this lecture in the light of a remarkable document (above note ) which was handed to me yesterday, by a young man who attended my first two meetings and was apparently impressed by my emphasis on the essential individualism of ancient Hindu thought. This very interesting note gives a personal and pessimistic view of the classical Indian attitude to life and its author concludes: ‘ With a request for your kind consideration of this aspect in your lecture on religious thought.’ So I have revised the notes of this lecture and perhaps some of my remarks may give an implicit answer, if not a direct one, to the writer of this very interesting, sincere and eloquently written document.”

Dr.Basham’s Response

In the course of this lecture Dr. Basham reverting to my question says: “As a further example of specious generalization, I may mention the idea especially widespread In the West in the last century, of India as a fundamentally unhappy land, where a rigid social systems is clamped down upon wretched, poverty-stricken millions, and where cruel irrational religion has encouraged the masses to maintain superstitions and often positively evil practices. This view of India is evidently still, that of some Indians, for it seems to be at the back of the mind of the gentleman who handed me the little document. Formerly, in the West it was much propagated by missionaries returning from India, but nowadays it is more often spread by rationalists and Marxists among the Indians themselves. This picture of the religious life in India may contain a small element of truth, but as a broad generalization it is positively false.”

With all the scholarship and great learning that Dr. Basham has brought to bear upon, in his elucidation of the ancient Indian culture. I am constrained to say that this interpretation suffers on account of the fact that it leaves out of consideration the grievous plight to which the untouchables have been reduced through centuries of systematic, cruel oppression and persecution.

Dr. Basham attributes the opinion expressed by me, to missionaries and this brings me to the decisive influence exercised ( whatever the deleterious effects of their unthinking proselytisation activities in India) by certain noble missionaries in medicine, in giving a modern, secular outlook to Shahu Chhatrapati as shown by Mr. P.B. Salunkhe, the Chief Editor of the Shahu Memorial Volume(Marathi) in his very illuminating article ‘Maharaja and Missionaries.’

I have no hesitation in saying that Mr. Salunkhe’s assessment of Shahu’s social reform task and its genesis, in tracing down its inspiration to the humane and medical mission carried on by Dr. Wanless and Dr. Vail at the Miraj Medical Mission Centre, throws an unique light on how Shahu’s reformist thought was decisively moulded.

Shahu’s Radical Transformation

Shahu confesses as quoated in Dhananjay Keer’s biography Shahu Chhatrapati: A Royal Revolutionary when laying the foundation of a Maratha hostel at Nasik:

“I confessed at one time I was conservative and upholder of orthodoxy and believed in the perpetuation of the caste system. The idea, that thereby I was obstructing the progress of others, never occurred to me I even felt it dangerous to my religion to preside over public meetings of other castes. But the reasons in the two cases are as distant as the poles.To preide over caste meetings was to me in early days an irreligious act. I do not like to preside over them because I fear that thereby I am committing the sin of strengthening the caste feelings.”

What caused this radical transformation if Shahu’s thought ? Shahu had deep faith in Vedic religion as Mr. Salunkhe notes, but he also made skillful use of the Satya Shodhak, Prarthana Samaj and Theosophical Society to bring about the religious and social revolution of his conception. But the lion’s share in this transformation belongs to Dr. Wanless’s self–less, secular medical mission. Dr. Wanless and Dr. Vail had adopted the aim of serving the suffering humanity without distinction of caste, religion or sect. and this had an exemplary effect on Shahu’s mind says Mr. P.B. Salunkhe and I am strongly inclined to agree with him.

Mr. Salunkhe has given a historical account of the good Samaritan work done by missionaries in India from the Portuguese Father Stephen who loved Marathi as intensely as Dnyaneshwar. White the high castes maintained education as their monopoly, the missionaries opened schools and carried on the holy task of educating the poor, backward and down trodden . What was distinctive about Dr. Wanless’s medical mission was that he believed in voluntary conversion.”I never forced Christianity upon anyone. Christianity must be change in the heart. It must come from within.”

Shahu had abiding trust in Dr. Wanless as his personal physician who described his first impression of Shahu in this inimitable manner:”He is the only man I ever saw who could diminish the size of an elephant.” Shahu once even wanted to learn first aid and wrote to Dr. Vail:

“I should like to have lessons in ambulance. Could you kindly send me some simple notes on the subject? After I have mastered them I would like to go through a practical course with you at Miraj.” Had Shahu been a commoner there is not doubt that with all his native passion to ameliorate the lot of the poor he would surely have mastered the craft of the medicine and who knows, might have become a medical missionary of the stature of Dr. Albert Schweitzer.

As Mr. Salunkhe explains: “ Shahu noticed the efforts made by Dr. Wanless and Dr. Vail to treat untouchables like human beings. This made such a deep impression on Shahu’smind that not only did he change his own manner of treating but also attempted to abolish by law the discriminatory and prejudical treatment meted out to the untouchables in schools, dispensaries and Government service by the high caste people in his State.”

In his Ordinance proclaiming eradication of untouchability in Government aided hospitals Shahu declared:

Government and

“Charitable institutions are meant for poor people and even the poorest untouchable human being has a right to be treated on a footing of equality. His Highness earnestly hopes that his medical staff will follow the good example set by the foreigners, especially by the American Mission at Miraj.”

In another Ordinance Shahu said:

“Be informed that all public building, charity houses, State houses, public government inns and river watering places, public wells etc. no defilement, on account of any human being, is to be taken account of just as in Christian buildings and at public wells. And as Dr. Wanless and Dr. Vail in the American mission, treat all with same love, so also here they are to be treated as not esteeming any unclean.”

As Mr. Salunkhe points out this was the first administrative attempt in India for the eradication of untouchability . and rightly did Dr. Wanless compliment it in his autobiography: “I had never heard of such a proclamation in the history of a native State during my thirty six years in India, nor had known of it in Indian history.”

When Dr. Wanless asked Shahu whether he had a lot of trouble in enforcing these regulations Shahu said: “No end of trouble. A few days ago a large group of my people came to me demanding that I inform them as to where and upon whose authority. I have issued these new administrative regulations. We have been unable ourselves to discover any authority in our Shastras (Scriptures) for these rules of conduct, they said”.

Shahu told them: “I informed them that I first discovered these rules of behaviour in the American Mission Hospital at Miraj. I have seen them in operation for several year and I determined that it would be a fine thing for my State, if the administration could be conducted upon the same principles.”

This is the secret and spring source of the inspiration of the great task of emancipation of the oppressed and depressed people accomplished by Shahu. Its quality of enlightement of a determined assault on entrenched orthodoxy, superstition, priestcraft and ritualism can be only compared and explained with reference to the great Platonic image of the journey from darkness to light given at the outset.

Shahu’s

Anti-Casteist Reforms

As rightly summed up by Mr. Y.B. Chavan in his preface to the Shahu Memorial Volume (Marathi): “Mahatma Jotirao Phule was a pioneer passionate thinker in Maharashtra for the eradication of untouchability. But Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj was the only person who afterwards made determinded efforts for the eradiction of untoucability consciously, systematically in all fields, administrative as well as

non-administrative. Some well-meaning persons had even suggested to him that he should use his instruments for the benefit of his castemen. But it is important to note that this ruler emerged in that period , who brushed them aside by telling them emphatically that the depressed in the society must be ensured justice first and implemented accordingly.”

As regards the anti-casteist onslaught by Shahu, it is explained that the incredible refusal of the royal priest to perform the Vedic ceremonics and telling him that he did so because the Maharaja and his ancestors were Shudras and not Ksatriyas deeply hurt the royal pride and that is why he pitted himself against the entire superior caste.

There is no doubt that the spark in Shahu’s quest for equality and an equitable deal for the depressed, was ignited powerfully by the Vedokta episode as the eminent novelist Mr. V. S. Khandekar points out in his tribute to Shahu ‘People’s King’ in Shahu Memorial Volume (Marathi). But if the royal pride was hurt by this insolent casteist refusal, one cannot understand why it should cause chagrin. On the contrary, I think, it was definitely an instance of adding insult to an injury. If Shahu reacted severely against this religious obscurantism, it was a matter of just retaliation, the only wonder is that he was as restrained as he actually was in appointing a committee and getting the matte thrashed out.

As Mr. Justice G.N. Vaidya points out in his Chhatrapati Shahu Memorial lecture, Series 4 at the Shivaji University in 1973: Shahu Chhatrapati: A Ruler and a Revolutionary: “As stated above all this controversy sounds not only fantastic in the modern times, but ridiculous.” Yet one cannot forget that it did bring to the surface the obscurantist views of militant nationalist leader like Lokmanya Tilak in social reform matters, who as Mr. Dhananjaya Keer notes, was conventional, rigid and orthodox and told the untouchables that be would dine with them if they won Swaraj!

However, this crucial religious episode in Shahu’s life and his relentless crusade against Brahmanism and casteist obscurantism brought to the fore the persistent and almost eternal division of the Hindu Society into the so-called touchables and untouchables. All the Hindu scriptures whatever their vaunted spirit of altruism, universal tolerance and vasudhtaiva kutumbakam (world as a family) were curiously split, as I explained earlier, with the fundamental defect relegating a part of their society to hatred, excommunication and worse.

Untouchables and Hindu Sciptures

This is evident from the saying in Brihaspati Smriti: “ A shudra, teaching the people of religion or uttering the words of the Veda or insulting a Brahmin, shall be punished by cutting out his tongue.” And Manu Smriti said: A Brahmin may take possession of the goods of the shudra with perfect peace of mind for, since nothing at all belongs to this shudra as his own, he is one whose property may be

taken away by his master” (Chapter XX, sutras 4-6) “Indeed, an accumulation of wealth should not be made by a shudra, even if, he is able to do so, for the sight of mere possession of wealth by a shudra injures a Brahmin.”

शकतेनािि शुदेि न कायो धनसंचय:| शुदोिि धनमासाद बाहिानवे बाधते ||

And thus Manu Smriti went on to eternally condemn the shudras in these amazingly inhuman lines:

चाडालशविचाना तु बििगामात पितशय:| अििाताशरच कतृवया धनमेषा शगदृभम्|५१| काषिायसमलंकार् :ििरवरजया च िनतयश:||५२|| न तै समयमनिवचछेत िुरषो धमृमाचरन् वयविारो िमतसतैषा िववाि सदश ृ ै ||५३||

Meaning: Chandala, Shwapaca etc should live on the outskirt of village. They should not be allowed to keep vessels with them. Dogs and donkeys alone can be their wealth. Clothes on dead bodies are their reiments. They should eat out of broken mud pots, wear iron ornaments and roam about usually. Others should not keep contact with them. They should have marriages among themselves.

One is amazed that any learned man called Manu should have laid down these lines calmly in Sanskrit – the tongue of the Gods- and thus defiled it with such patently inhuman sentiments. The rules revel a amazingly perverse and diseased mentality and that these injunctions should have been solemnly sanctified and followed as the word of god-given laws through centuries, shows the incredible capacity of the admittedly capacious Hindu mind to swallow almost anything.

The utter vacuity, the unmatched stupidity and sheer obscurantism of these customs

is made clear when one sees that if some of these untouchables are converted either as Muslims of Christians they immediately become entitled to the touchable presence of The Hindu! One need no longer be surprised why Shahu reacted in categorical manner and why Dr. Ambedkar apostatized from Hinduism and became a Buddhist.

Remarkable light is thrown in this context on the hidebound casteist attitude held strangely by Lokmanya Tilak. As related by Keer “ When Tilak told Shahu that as Chhatrapati he had the right to Vedic ritual but not as a Maratha. Shahu asked Tilak if a Mohammedan were to be ruler and called himself a Chhatrapati, could he give him the right of the Vedic ritual?

Tilak replied that it was for the Brahmins of the time to decide the point. The dodge was that if he ceased to be a Chhatrapati he was not entitled to Vedic rituals, and that the Ghatge family was a Shudra.”

Contradiction in Hindu Scriptures

But evidently there is a lot of confusion and contradiction in the Hindu scriptures about who can be called a shudra and a Brahmin because one finds the same Manu Smriti laying down:

जनमना जायते शुद् :संसकारात् ििज उचयते| वेदाभयािस भवेििप: बह जानाित बाहि:| ||५||

That is, one becomes a shudra by birth by culture dvija (consider the etymological meaning of dvija as twice born in the verse of from ignorance to enlightenment ) one who studies Vedas becomes a vipra or learned and a knower of Brahma, brahmin.

A similar interpretation one comes across in Mahabharata Shanti Parva A.189, when Bhrigu Rishi explaining what makes Brahmin, Ksatria, Vaisya, Shudra etc. says:

सतयम दानमथा$दोह: आनुशंसय त

ं

िाघृ :|िा

तिशरच दशृयते यत स बाहि इित समृत:||४||

कतघं सेवते कमृ वेदाधययनसंगत:| दानादानयृितसतु स वै कितय उचयते ||५||

िवशतयातुिशुभशरच कृषयादानरित : शुिच:| वेदाधययनसंिन: स वैशय इित संिित्:||६||

सवृभकरितिनृतयम सवृकमृ करो$शुिच| तयकतवेदसतवनाचार् : स वै शुद: इित समृत:||७||

शुदे चैतद भ

ृ

व

ल लकंि|िजेतवचचनिवदते

न वै शुदो भवेचछू दो बाहिोबाहिो न च ||८||

Meaning :He alone is called a Brahmin who is truthful, charitable not unfriendly, kindhearted, humble and hater and ascetic. He is a ksatriya who abides by Ksatra activities and studies Vedas, is generous. One who husbands cattle, ploughs farm is learned in Vedas, pure and charitable is a Vaisya. One who eats everything, does everything, is dirty, has forsaken Vedas and is accustomed to bad conduct is a Shudra. If a Shudra is devoid of these signs and a Brahmin is also devoid of his signs, then that Shudra is not a Shudra and Brahmin not Brahmin.

What is important to note is that one who forsakes Vedas is to be called a Shudra which conclusively proves that during Mahabharata period at any rate Shudras were entitled to study Vedas and thus be called Brahmins. Nor was this confined to Shudras. Even the most despised and lowly sections of the society like Chandalas and Mangs could elevate themselves by proper culture to become Brahmins as per the examples given below in Bhavishya Mahapurana:

आचार मनुितषठनतो वयासािदमुिनसतमा:| गभाधानािद संसकार कलािरििता: सफुटम् ||२०||

िवपोतमा: िशंय पंापता: सवृलोकनमसकृता :| बिवा: कथयमाना ये कितिचतान िनबोधत||२१||

जातो वयाससय कैवतया : शिाकयाश िराशर:| शुकया: शुक: किादारणयसतथोलुकया:सुतो$भवत् ||२२||

मृगीजो$थषृशुंगो$िि विसष गििकातमज्:| मंदिालो मुिनशेषो लािवकाितमुचयते||२३||

माडवयो मुिनराजसतु मंडुकीगभृसंभव :| बिवो$नये$िि िवपतव पापता ये िूवृवद ििजा:||२४||

ििरिि गभृसंभूत: ऋषयशृ%गो मिामुिन:| तिसया बाहिो जात: संसकारसतेन कारिम्||२५||

शिािकगभृसंभुत: ििता वयाससय िािथृव| तिसया बाहिो जात: संसकारसतेन कारिम्||२६

Meaning: Vyasa etc. Munis who were born without the benefit of pre-natal ritual become worthy of people’s respect and good Brahmins. There are many such (though born low who rose to be high) Examples of some of these are: See Vyasa was born of Kaivarta (fisherman ). Parashara of Shwapaka (Chandala) , Shuka of Shuki, Kanada of Uliki, Rishyashring of Harini, Vasishtha of Ganika Mondapala of Lavika, Mandavya from Manduki. Thus many people born low became Vipras, because culture is the chief factor. Parashar born of Chandala woman became a Brahmin through penance because culture is decisive.

Mahabharata too emphasizes good conduct alone as a cause of Brahmanatva:

न जाितनृ कुलम तात न सवाधयाय : शुत न

ं |च

कारिािन ििजतवसय वृतमेतसय कारिम्||३९||

Yudhishthira tells Nahusha king: Caste, clan, study, errecitation, none of these is a causative factor of Dvijatva, but good conduct alone is. The same sentiment, that deeds and not birth make a man what he is, one finds in the heterodox faiths of Jainism and Buddhism, which protested against the Vedic ritualism in Hinduism

Mahavira and Buddha

Mahavira declared in a trenchant saying in Uttaradhyayana Sutra: “Nobody becomes a Sramana by shaving his head, nor does a man become a Brahmana by reciting Om. One is not hailed as muni by residing in the forest or becomes an ascetic by wearing grassclothes. One becomes a Sramana by a sense of equality, a Brahmin by chastity a muni by knowledge and an ascetic by penance. Man becomes a Brahmin, Ksatriya or Sudra by his deeds only.”

And Buddha said: “Not by birth one becomes an outcaste, not by birth does one become a Brahmin , by deeds alone one becomes an outcaste, by deeds one becomes a Brahmin .” Again “ If any man, whether he be learned or not, considers himself so great, as to despise other men, he is like a blind man holding a candle- blind himself he illuminates others” (Dhammapada).

The Hindu scriptural sayings on what constitutes a Brahmin are so clear, rational, logical and sensible in character and the denigratory injunctions are so decidedly uncouth, crude and inhuman in tone that one cannot doubt that these latter must have been interpolations and perhaps do not belong to the genuine text. But even then the casteist havoc wrought by these sayings has been incalculable, the debilitating effects of which have still tethered our society to slavish orthodoxy like prisoners in the Platonic dungeon. And Shahu’s achievement was truly a heroic feat of enlightenment because it shook off this chain of centuries of casteim.

The controversy about Shahu’s royal geneology being Ksatriya or Shudra was also a matter considered when his illustrious ancestor Shivaji’s coronation was held. As the story is told in Dr. Ambedkar’s original thesis Who Were the Shudras? Shivaji too had to face opposition from his Brahmin ministers principal among whom was his Prime Minister Moropant Pingle, who along with other Sardars considered Shivaji to be Shudra. However, Gaga Bhatt, a renowned Brahmin from Benares solved all difficulties and the coronation was performed.

Ksatriya Royalty : Pre-Aryan Culture

As regards the royalty being Ksatriya there is another convincing interpretation which comes from a Soviet Ethnologist , Mme. Dr. N. Guseva, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Senior Scientific Worker of the Institute of Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences USSR and Jawaharlal Nehru Prize Winner, as propounded in her book Jainism. In this ethnographic study of Jainism Dr. Guseva has given a leaned account of the genesis of Ksatriyas in ancient India and how the classcaste distinctions developed.

Her main points are that before the advent of the Aryans in India, the pre-Aryan population knew iron, knew the handicraft of melting iron by hand, making iron tools, that they were the decendants of the Indus Valley and Harappa peoples, and that they were constantly referred to by the Aryans as their enemies, asuras in Vedic literature. Therefore, Dr. Guseva says, “it is possible to subscribe with certainty to the view of almost al the contemporary scholars that the culture of the pre-Aryan population was, in a significant degree, higher than the culture of the Aryan.”

Secondly, while Vedic Aryans had monopolized the knowledge of Vedic mantras, hymns and whole cultic ritual complex known as Brahminism, which represented the later stage of Vedic social relations, wherein the head of the family was invested with the right of performing sacrificial rituals, and thus later traditionally Brahminism came to monopolise all religious rituals, that is, priestcraft.

The Ksatriyas, meaning the martial caste of the Indian society, managed republicsJanapadas or Ganas. The etymology of the word Ksatriya or ‘Ksatra’ will show that it signifies in Sanskrit ‘killer’, ‘cutter’, ‘distributor’ from the stem ‘Ksad’to kill, to carve meat, to divide, to distribute food and also sometimes to give shelter. Ksatri also means charioteer, driver, of the harness. The word ‘Ksatra’ signifies strength, might, power, domination.

Dr. Guseva suggests that there were three distinct lines in the genealogical notes and tables. One line desends from great father by the name of Manu Chakshusha and two lines from great father by the name Manu-Vaivaswata. The descendent rulers

from Manu-Chakshusha were in the non-Aryans, from Manu Vaivaswata two lines of Aryan kins came: solar and lunar dynasties. There were mutual marriages and a process of assimilation went on by which those who were not Ksatriyas by birth, were adopted in the category of Vratya- Ksatriyas, i.e. Ksatriyas by vow, to be the local chiefs and heads of kinships, whom the Aryan Ksatriyas were compelled to acknowledg as members of their own caste. Eventually the priestly prohibitions of the Brahmins became religious dogmas and during the Mahabharata period there was in evidence rigid caste stratification and even the dominant position of Ksatriya warriors came to yield before them.

As noted by Dr. Guseva,” Brahmins became the professional and the sole votary of the cult, spiritual leaders and mentors of members of all other castes.” More importantly this led to “the spiritual domination of the Ksatri, the Patriarch of the family-kingroups of the past and the independent position of the Ksatriyawarrior in military democratic republics later on, was replaced by their dependence on Brahmins, not only in religious culture matters but also in the affairs of State administration, in the questions of war and peace, in the distribution of surplus products, in a word , in all aspects of social and productive life.”

This is corroborated as succinctly put by Mr. Justice G.N. Vaidya in his inaugural speech delivered at Nanded District Lawyers’ Conference on ‘Justice and JudgesThen and Now’ comprising a masterly survey of Justice, law and legal institutions in India from Mohenjo Daro to the present day: “ The king and each man and woman had to have faith in Dharma- eternal;- (Sanatana) and immutable law and order to be followed. It is divine and not human. A king and Brahmin deeply learned in Vedas were to uphold the moral order in the world. King is master of all , except the Brahmins. Brahmins are exempted from taxes. Despotism of the king was thus controlled by the wisdom or foolishness of the priestly class. Justice and law was what they thought to be Dharma-“maximum freedom for them to exploit all others.”

Jain & Buddhist Challenge to Brahmin Suprememacy

However the Brahmin supremacy was not secured without struggle with the monarchs. It is noteworthy as pointed out by Dr. Guseva, that it is during this struggle, that a new heterodox religious temper was born in ancient India challenging the supremacy of Brahmins and that the progenitors of new faiths like Jainism, Buddhism and Bhagwatism belonged to the Republican, Ksatriya clans. As Dr.Guseva puts it:

“Precisely in the north-eastern regions, not only caste-class struggle took place but also ethnical movements, directed against the march of the Aryan masses. And precisely here on the borders of the world of the Brahmins, new, anti-Brahminic faiths were to become the ideological banner of this struggle and these movements.

“It is considered that earlier than all the other religions of that kind, arose Bhagvatism (from the word ‘Bhagwat’ or Bhagvan’-God) i.e. the creed which proposes to set apart the Vedic polytheism , pantheon and to worship the individual supreme God Krishna, was pronounced as the incarnation of the God Visnu.According to the opinion of the scholars of Indian religion, both these Gods came in Aryan polytheism from the pre-Aryan peoples of India.”

Dr. Guseva regards Krishnaism as a “clearly an example of the rise of antibrahmanic cult in the non-Brahmanic and clearly non-Aryan environment. Here Krishnaism merits attention as a religion similar to Jainism in its origin.”

Dr Guseva traces the geneology of Krishna to Satwata clan, a branch of Yadava people settled in the Vindhya mountains. These Satwata people are relegated to South India along with Nishads in the Aitareya-Brahmana (see Ethnography of Ancient India by R. Shafer) She therefore, thinks that the Brahmana did not reckon them amongst Aryans.

Further as Krishna descended directly from the branch of Satwatas, AndhakaVrishni, one has ground to consider Andhakas as Aitareya as i.e. Dravidian people because in the opinion of Mr. B.C. Law in his India As Described in Early Texts of Buddhism and Jainism the word “Andhaka’ in Pali is used in the same sense as the word ‘ Andhra’. Vincent Smith concurs with this view.

As described by Dr. Guseva: “In the Brahmanic literature and in the epic Mahabaratha it is said. Krishna’s uncle Kansa was indeed an incarnation of a demon and that is why the Gods endowed Krishna with the strength to kill him. Such an interpretation can be easily understood as an attempt on the part of the Brahmins to ‘Aryanise’ the image of goodness of one who had been the object of wide reverence. In Bhagvatism the prince Krishna , was apparently only a semi-Aryan Ksatriya by origin and did not simply grow in the non –Aryan environment of rural settlement.. As is known that Krishna’a father carried him across Jamuna. Jamuna apparently served in that region as the border between the Aryan and the nonAryan, settlements.”

It is thus,” Bhagvatism started spreading from Mathura as propaganda of the belief in one of the indigenous Gods of local and non – Aryan settlement and as an expression of anti-Aryan, anti-Brahaman and anti caste movement. This movement must invariably have developed and did develop in the environment of pre Aryan settlement which was in overwhelming majority in the position of low, oppressed castes.” Therefore, Dr. Guseva concludes: “from the pattern of legend about Krishna, who, after seizing the throne became the head of the ruling Ksatriya king and later became famous as the greatest of the Ksatriyas, it is clearly seen how non-Aryan warriors and leaders could have historically been reckoned and were undoubtedly reckoned in the cast of Ksatriyas and how the inclusion of local cults in the system of Brahmanism came about.”

Dr.Ambedkar’s ‘Who Were the Shudras?

How snugly this finding corroborates Dr. Ambedkar’s thesis in Who were the Shudras ? In this book Dr. Ambedkar propounds the thesis that the Shudras were originally “one of the Aryan communities of the solar race.” (cf.Dr. Guseva’s hypothesis about two Manus genealogies above) who later came to be degraded by the Brahmans, who heaped such disabilities on the Shudras as cited from the Manu Smriti above as have no parallel in the world. He proves this by the comparison of the Brahmanic law with the Roman law.

Under the Roman law there was distribution of rights and disabilities according to communal distinction of several categories of men such as Patricians, and Plebians, Freeman and Slaves and Citizens and Foreigners. But these conditions were not fixed forever so as to perpetuate the disabilities.

As Dr. Ambedkar points out the Roman law was always ready “to remove the conditions to which these disabilities were attached as is evident in the case of the Plebian the Slaves, the Foreigners and the pagans.”

Thus one can see, Dr. Ambedkar tells us, what mischief the Dharma Sutras and the Smritis have done in imposing the disabilities upon the Shudras”. As put in an inimitably poignat manner by him.

“The imposition of disabilities would not have been so atrocious if the disabilities were dependent upon conditions and if the disabled had the freedom to outgrow those conditions. But it tries to fix the conditions by making an act which amounts to a breach of those conditions to be a crime involving dire punishment. Thus the Brahmanic law not only seeks to impose disabilities but also to make them permanent.

“One illustration will suffice. A Shudra is not entitled to perform Vedic sacrifices as he is not able to repeat the Vedic Mantras. Nobody would quarrel with such a disability . But the Dharma Sutras do not stop here. They go further and say that it will be a crime for a Shudra to study the Vedas or hear it being pronounced and if he does commit such a crime, his tongue should be cut or molten lead should be poured into his ear. Can anything be more barbarous than preventing a man to grow out of his disabilities?”

I have cited Dr.Ambedkar’s view at length to bring out the brutally discriminatory nature of the Brahmanic law. There was rule of law in ancient India but it was essentially rooted in Dharma, and the Law of Dharma as laid down in various Smritis (regardless of other countervailing injunctions about true Brahmins cited above found in the self same scriptures and Puranas) we must remember, was confined in the unalterable, casteist, straitjacket. The doctrine of

sovereignty in the Indian context, if at all there was one, was always subject to this overriding Brahmanic superiority: the Brahmns were always above the law.

Shahu:Iconoclastic Reformer-Ruler of Modern India

I regard Shahu as a fearless inconoclast ruler modern India produced and his crusade against this age old stigma of casteism as a high watermark in the social reformist struggle which was pioneered by Mahatma Phule. Shahu appeals to me as a true secularist, republican and a modern ruler in the real Platonic tradition because he was concerned above all with making enlightenment a public property and denounce ignorance a a curse. Shahu was in the real sense of the term a builder of modern India because he set people on a modernist quest.

Laying the foundation stone of the Maratha hostel at Nasik Shahu laid bare his inner most thoughts on caste system:

“Caste enmity is an old disease. Parshuram’s act on annihilating the Ksatriyas and the Peshwa’s act of bringing non-Brahmins to ruin are nothing but the reflection of enmity. What else can be the reason for Brahmins to regard Shivaji and the Maratha warriors, who secured to them their tufts and threads, as Shudras? To abolish caste enmity , we must first abolish the caste systems.

“It would be the happiest day of my when we cease to reckon men low because of their birth. Disbelieving as I do in the caste system, I have gone agaist it in public. But my efforts have not succeeded in dislodging it from its ancient moorings; it has found its way among those who are around me… If the Brahmins choose to hate me in return for the love I bear them, it would be treachery to myself and to my cause not to pay them in their own coin… Pardon me for plain speaking I say we must never slacken the efforts we are making to dethrone. Brahmanism to enthrone the Indian Nation.’

One finds Dr. P.B. Gajendragadkar , Chairman of the Law Commission echoing the same sentiment in a categorical manner when he says: “Without secularism no community can come to terms with modernism and unless the whole of the Indian community comes to terms with modernism, obscurantism and fanaticism will continue to pose a grave danger to our democratic way of life.”

The sternness of Shahu’s observation might make one think that Shahu hated Brahmans. But nothing could be farther from truth, Shahu himself was very much aware of his calumny and he confronted it will all the moral fervour at his command, convinced of the innate justness of his struggle against the suppression of the depressed masses. As Keer puts it: “Shahu did not hate the Brahmins as individuals , he would not have kept them in his service.”

Shahu’s mind is best revealed in this regard in his observation in a letter to a friend: “I have got a reputation of being misunderstood, as I am the enemy of the articulate.” I think this utterance of Shahu is the most characteristic of the man and the ideals the pursued. Shahu was an angry ruler, impatient for urgent reform and uplift of the depressed masses and hence he initiated bold social religious, legislative and administrative measures in consonance with his policy of ‘immediatism’ to give a fair deal to the underprivileged .

Shahu’s determined stand against casteism naturally caused consternation amongst the vested casteist interests. They began a campaign of hatred and calumny against him and even the British Government was misled which tried to pull him up. As Mr. Justice Vaidya observes in his Shahu lecture:

“But the Maharaja fearlessly replied that even if he were deposed from the throne of Kolhapur, he would continue to serve the backward and depressed classes in the country. He had a tough mind for his critics and a tender heart for the backward classes, characterised by incisive thinking , realistic appraisal and decisive judgment.”

Shahu’s championing of the cause of the depressed can be only understood and properly appreciated in the context of his earnest concern for Indian unity and secularism as it is understood today in our Constitution. Shahu’s speech as the President of the Depressed Class Conference at Nagpur on May 30,1919 throws light in this regard:

“We are all Indians, “Shahu said,” countrymen and brethren, all Indian subject irrespective of our Varna, religion. Religion may be a personal matter and it cannot be an obstacle to national question. In this respect only, I think, religion is less important than the national cause. Just as all roads starting from different angles reach a big city, so all religions lead us to God, in short religion is a path leading to God. Why should then of different religions hate one another?

“I think Shahu here speaks as a modern secularist thinker far ahead of the times he lived in Shahu was an intelligent, far seeing and prophetic ruler. He was not anti – Brahmin but anti-caste. He opposed the evil generated by the systems. The spirit in which Shahu championed the cause of the downtrodden minorities can be best understood in words of Dr. Ambedkar:

“Unfortunately for the minorities in India, Indian nationalism has developed a new doctorine which may be called the divine right of the majority to rule the minorities according to the wishes of the majority. Any claim for sharing of power by the minorities is called communalism , while the monopolising of the whole power by the majority is called nationalism.”

As a social and administrative reformer Shahu had a unique vision which is as modern as today:” The proportion of prosperity of the nation would depend.” Shahu said at the Nagpur Conference, “upon the removal of the caste systems. The real remedy for abolishing the caste system is intermarriage, endogamy ! Brahmin papers opposed the Patel Bill which aims at legalising inter caste marriages. They have no objection to men and women having inter-caste illegitimate connections but they are opposed to legal marriages. If marriages are performed under the Registration Act there would be a check on those young, married men who marry a second time in foreign countries and push Indian wives into the pit of widowhood.”

Shahu’s Support for Weaker Sections

The theory that inspired Shahu to support the weaker sections of society was the one of strong and weak horses living in one paddock, free in the compound with a heap a grass on one side and a tank of water on the other. In this situation the young and the strong horse naturally got the better of the weaker ones. Shahu pointed out that this method did not suit even the beasts and hence his conviction that weaker sections should be given special discriminatory opportunities.

It was in this spirit that Shahu inititated and implemented his reforms whether in social, administrative, legal or education fields calculated to give the weak and the downtrodden a place in the sun and wipe out the age-old stigma. He was also an innovator in labour, agriculture and co-operative matters.

Addressing a meeting of the labour and backward classes on November 24, 1918 Shahu said congratulating the workers on forming the Union: “In England capital and labour were two classes and their interests clashed. It would be a golden day in Indian history when the suppressed and exploited classes would get an opportunity to raise their heads. Because the Indian capitalists have followed the western capitalists principles of exploitation, the condition of labour in the country had become precarious. To improve their lot, labour must organize temselves and make great efforts and sacrifices.”

Exhorting them to cultivate the habit of working in an orderly manner and start co-operative credit societies in their chawls and factories Shahu further said:

“As in England, trade unions must be established here and all must know their own rights. The capitalist class consists chiefly of Brahmins and Vaisyas. Unless they are kept under control the conditions of labour will hardly improve. The word labour is not disrespectful. Although I am on the throne of Kolhapur. I feel proud to call myself a soldier , farmer or labourer.”

It is no wonder therefore to see Shahu’s friend , guru and guide Sir Stuart Fraser give him the hansome compliment: “No Indian Prince has from the first displayed a more great hearted sympathy with every class of his subjects, realizing that he is equally the father of the low-caste and the high-caste, of the Mohammedans, and of the Christian, as well as of the Hindus.”

Shahu had no illusions about the difficulties in his mission in the accomplishment of which he had staked his royalty, because he was determined to fill the leaderless void of the cause of the depressed. “It is no doubt.” He said.” A thankless duty to work in the interests of the dumb millions. They are too ignorant to be able to express their gratitude for it, or even appreciate it. But the duty has to be performed at considerable self-sacrifice, only in a spirit of chivalry with the sole object of helping the helpless, weak, ignorant, downtrodden bulk of our people here.”

ं ले गाजले तयािस मििे जो आिुले Thus in the true spirit of the saying of Tukaram जे का रज -uplifting suppressed and oppressed-Shahu carried on his social mission, in which was the uplift of the whole society, by giving opportunities to the lowest.

A great reformer as Shahu was in giving the oppressed classes their humane due as withnessed in his order to the medical department in his State to treat untouchables as gentlemen, he was also a constitutional and administrative innovator. His Hindu Code Bill passed in October 1920 anticipated, as Justice Vaidya point out, all the social changes in the next fifty years by removing discriminations between the higher and lower classes by making every Hindu equal before the law.

Shahu’s Educational Reforms

Great, pioneering and versatile as Shahu’s accomplishments have been, which entitle him to be called a renascent ruler in modern Brithish India, I think , his most radical contribution was in the field of education and the sound economic view he held on the role of education as a real instrument of the removel of backwardness and promoter of equality. In this Shahu was in my opinion , a great thinker whose views have been corroborated in the economic thought of the eminent Nobel Prize winning economist Gunnar Myrdal in his Asian Drama.

In his concern for the education among the backward classes, Shahu had to fight the Brahman obscurantism. At the time of Shahu’s accession to the throne the percentage of the educated among various castes and religion; was: Brahmins 79.1 per cent, Marathas 8.6 per cent, Kunbis 1.5 per cent, Muslim 7.5 per cent, and Jains and Lingayats 10.6 per cent. During his tenure Shahu deliberately pursued a policy of giving representation to various elements in a proportionate manner.

This can be judged by the fact that while in 1994, 60 of the 71 officers in the Government department were Brahmins, in 1922 the last year of his reign of the 95 offiers in that department 36 were Brahmins, 59 were non-Brahmins. In the private department 46 of the 53 servants were Brahmins in 1894, whereas in 1922 Brahmins were 43 and the non-Brahmins were 109 in addition to which there were servant from the depressed clases.

Shahu’s philosophy of education was that of Mahatma Phule. Phule had pioneered education for the humbler classes with the basic belief in the egalitarian impact of education. Phule had said in 1873 in Slavery recognizing the crucial importance of education in eradicating caste distinctions:

“We know perfectly well that the Brahmin will not descend from the self-raised high pedestal and meet his Kunbi and low caste brethren on an equal footing without a struggle. Even the educated Brahmin, who knows his exact position and how he has come by it, will not condescend to acknowledge the errors of his forefathers and willingly forgo the long cherished false notions of his own superiority. At present, not one has had the real courage to do what only duty demands and as long as this state of matter continues sect distrusting and degrading sect, the conditions of the Shudras will remain unaltered and India will never advance in greatness and prosperity.”

Phule’s prophetic reading of the caste monopoly in religious and educational matters was exemplified in the battle waged by Shahu in the Vedokta episode. “I am opposed,”Shahu said.” To continue and retain their unjust and despicable and inhuman hold and superiority over others in religious and social matters. I am not opposed to those who are advanced in education.

Hence to free the suppressed classes from their age-old thralldom Shahu introduced compulsory primary education in Kolhapur. However he was careful to insist that the teaching of the three ‘R’s should be co-ordinated with the ancestral occupation of the villagers, namely, farming. “A village school”, Shahu said,”will generally be provided with a small farm to create pride in physical labour. Our boys should understand the dignity of labour.”

Shahu never believed in infiltration theory in education, Shahu’s rejoinder to Kesari’s editorial calling for airy school buildings is remarkable because it echoes prophetically the truth of the economic and social justice which we are anxious to implement with a constitutional pledge.

Shahu said: “ The Kesari’s argument to extend the school building airy before making education compulsory would irritate any honest to a few until all are served with bread’ is the principle of the Party. In India 90 per cent people are starving while 10 per cent

and to make them person. ‘No cake British Labour are feasting.

Those who urge that ghee be provided to those who are feasting before any condiments are served to those who are starving, strangely betrayed their anxiety to the masses. I fail to understand how people are not ashamed to give expression to such damnable utterances in newspapers in public, that Legislative Councils are not places for the Lingayats and the Jains to exhibit their skills in holding the grocer’s pair of scales or for the farmers to show their skill in ploughing.”

How uncannily economic this utterance sounds today when we find that an eminent economist Prof. Gunnar Myrdal strongly propounds in his great study Asian Drama That the “control of education is the mot fundmental monopoly element in an inequalitarian social stratification.” Institutional and social reform as a condition precedent for economic and political reform is the thesis of Myrdal. Shahu had acted upon the same premises as early as at the dawn of the 20th century and we could still take an instructive lesson from Shahu’s great concern for ‘immediatism ‘ to deal with such social evils as untouchability and educational backwardness.

It is in this context, that I feel that the great utterance of Shahu at the All India Conference of the Untouchable Classes at Nagpur on February 16,1922 needs to e studied by everone concerned with administration and the implementation of our most urgent socio-economic and legal programmes as adumbrated in the 20 Point Economic Programme, Shahu said:

“ I am convinced that these peoples are not devoid of natural ability . What they are in need of is the opportunity. If proof be wanted there is not paucity thereof. The eminence to which Matang, Tuk, Parashar, Vasishtha., Chokhamela were raised and other sages who were born in low communities sufficiently bears out the above statement. Not long before, we find even in advanced country like England people were granted the diploma of Barrister merely by dining a certain number of days in the inns of court. Even men, non matriculated Indian, availed themselves of this opportunity . But these dinner barristers were deemed fit to conduct cases in any court of law, and it will be admitted this class has produced many noteworthy lawyers. Our high class people feel it disrespectful to raise the status as I have done by giving diplomas to the members of the untouchable community, but this is a mistake. To wait for equality of treatment till their educational qualifications are raised, cannot be preferred to the policy of immediate action to end the fearless and thoughtless social tyranny which cannot be matched anywhere on his earth. Immediatism is the only successful way, that is my firm belief. I do not wish to follow the way of those reformers who would delay indefinitely an action in favour of social because that gives offence to the older folks. The enlightened mind of the country is agreed on the evils of the caste systems. The only question is who should begin the work of abolition.”

How far-seeing Shahu’s conception of immediatism was in educational reform and innovation in legal systems by giving practicing diplomas to deserving untouchables , can be seen by the fact that the London ‘ Observer’ in its editorial ‘Wings on the Green’(February 15,1976) commented on an MP’s demand in the British Parliament” to end the monopoly of lawyers as advocates and allow a party to be represented by anyone, competent to help him, present his case. The editorial said : “Many people in Britan, perhaps most, regard the law as an enemy

rather than a friend. That ought to worry lawyers, politicians and rest of us, since respect for the rule of law goes to the heart of a democratic society… For Britain has at present a legal systems which often looks as anachronistic as its wigs and gowns: a systems in which solicitors are plentiful in well to do areas and inaccessible in less fashionable districts: in which the law appears suited only to the property rights of the middle class, but oblivious of the new problems of the poorer and less well educated people…Sooner rather than later, the legal system must be made to appear less like a bastion of privilege, more like a defender of us ali.”

Shahu strove not only to make the legal systems but the entire paraphernalia of the social religious and administrative systems “ less like a bastion of privilege and more like defender of ” all the commonally.That was the secret of his enlightened crusade which places him in the true Platonic tradition of Philosopher King as outlined by me at the outlet.

Shahu became a ruler by adoption but he was at the same time a militant social reformer by temperament and choice because he was a proletarian at heart. Aove all, Shahu was born fighter and fought many battles not on the actual battlefield as his fore-fathers had done but on intellectual, social , religious and political, because he believed that “In the twentieth century it had been an acknowledged principle of the world that the way of progress and prosperity is not bloodshed and revolution but a peaceful revolution” addressing the third All India Conference of the Untouchables of February 19,1922 at Delhi.

If Shahu was a royal revolutionary, the great merit of the revolution wrought by him was that it was peaceful and unique because it was achieved in the straitjacket of colonial framwork and vehement social and religious opposition. What Shahu sought to accomplish was no less than an upheaval of the obscurantist social and religious institution entrenched and nurtured for centuries.

It is the brief candle that burn Chhatrapati’s

the brightest , and looking to Shahu

tenure as the ruler of the erstwhile Kolhapur State in the last decade of the 19th century and first two decades to the twentieth, one can see that not only did he burn brightest but it at both ends by his ceaseless quest for the amelioration of the despised classes, in his all too brief span of life of just 48 years.

He was a man, take him for all in all I shall not look upon his like again. Hamlet, Act I , Sc. ii .

____________________________________