Chapter 1 Philosophy of Hinduism - Page 57

44 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Thus Hinduism far from encouraging spread of knowledge is a gospel of darkness.

Taking these facts into consideration Hinduism is opposed to the conditions in which liberty can thrive. It is therefore denial of liberty.

III

Does Hinduism recognize Fraternity?

There are two forces prevalent in Society. Individualism and Fraternity. Individualism is ever present. Every individual is ever asking “I and my neighbours, are we all brothers, are we even fiftieth cousins, am I their keeper, why should I do right to them” and under the pressure of his own particular interests acting as though he was an end to himself, thereby developing a non-social and even an antisocial self. Fraternity is a force of opposite character. Fraternity is another name for fellow feeling. It consists in a sentiment which leads an individual to identify himself with the good of others whereby “the good of others becomes to him a thing naturally and necessarily to be attended to like any of the physical conditions of our existence”. It is because of this sentiment of fraternity that the individual does not “bring himself to think of the rest of his fellow-creatures as struggling rivals with him for the means of happiness, whom he must desire to see defeated in their object in order that he may succeed in his own.” Individualism would produce anarchy. It is only fraternity which prevents it and helps to sustain the moral order among men. Of this there can be no doubt.

How does this sentiment of Fraternity of fellow feeling arise? J. S. Mill says that this sentiment is a natural sentiment.

“The social state is at once so natural, so necessary, and so habitual to man, that, except in some unusual cicumstances or by an effort of voluntary abstraction he never conceives himself otherwise than as a member of a body; and this association is riveted more and more, as mankind are further removed from the state of savage independence. Any condition, therefore, which is essential to a state of society, becomes more and more an inseparable part of every person’s conception of the state of things which he is born into, and which is the destiny of a human being. Now, society between human beings, except in the relation of master and slave, is manifestly impossible on any other footing than that the interests of all are to be consulted. Society between equals can only exist on the understanding that the interests of all are to be regarded equally. And since in all states of civilisation, every person, except