Answer to (Why I Am Not a Hindu By Ramendra Nath) (English)

8/8/2019 Answer to (Why I Am Not a Hindu By Ramendra Nath) (English)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/answer-to-why-i-am-not-a-hindu-by-ramendra-nath-english 1/11

Answer to Why I Am Not a Hindu

By A Hindu Woman

I

First, I wish to make clear that I have no quarrel with Mr. Ramendra Nath fordeclaring that he is not a Hindu. He has listed four reasons for declaring why he isnot a Hindu:

1. "I do not believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas and all that goesby the name of Hindu scriptures, and therefore in avatars and rebirth."

2. "I do not believe in the varnashram dharma or varna-vyavastha either in thesense in which it is explained in Hindu dharma shastras like Manusmriti or

in the so-called Vedic sense."3. "I do not believe in the Hindu taboo of not eating beef."

4. "I disbelieve in idol-worship."

As it happens, I am fully in agreement with the above statements. I do not believein the existence of any God or soul. Therefore the question of scriptures as divinerevelations, rebirth and avatars is moot. I do not believe in the caste-system. I haveeaten beef. Again, since I do not believe in God the question of worshippinganything--idols or otherwise--is moot. Nevertheless, I still call myself a Hindu.

However that is a completely separate matter.Mr. Ramendra Nath has discussed in length why he rejects the Vedas as infallible.Since I have no disagreement with him on these grounds, I am skipping it.

He next attacks " varna-vyavastha or varnashram dharma." If it had been a simpleexposure of the evils of this system, again there would be no problem. But what Iessentially find troubling is that he does not present a balanced appraisal. Herejects emphatically the story in the Vedas that the Brahmins are created fromGod's mouth, the Kshatriyas from his arms, Vaishyas from his thighs and Shudras

from his feet--plainly this story appeared later to account for a reality that wasalready present. He dismisses evidence that originally it was nothing more than afunctional division which ultimately hardened into a rigid system backed by thereligious authority of the Brahmins and the military might of Kshatriyas assomething unimportant to the issue at hand. After all, today the Hindu socialsystem functions quite well in the metropolises where the rules of purity andimpurity regarding caste are no longer important. Also when he discusses the evils

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/a_hindu_woman/

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ramendra_nath/index.shtml

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ramendra_nath/hindu.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ramendra_nath/hindu.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ramendra_nath/index.shtml

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/a_hindu_woman/



from which Hinduism has traditionally suffered, he ignores the good that is inHindu Dharma as well. In particular his criticisms against Manusmriti orManusamhita is one-sided. Above all he ignores the entire picture to concentrateon certain negative aspects only. To put it plainly, I think his account is biased.

II

Ramendra Nath charges that Ram kills Sambuka, a Shudra, because he wasperforming tapasya or ascetic exercises which are the province of Brahmins alone.Certainly the story is there. But what he does not mention is that the story belongsto Uttarkanda (lit. "later chapter"). Along with the story of Rama's adventure,every child is also taught that this chapter was added much later and that Valmiki'sRamayana ends with Rama's coronation. In Valmiki's Ramayana itself, we havetwo very important stories: that of Guhak and Sabari. Guhak is a Nishada king of Sringaverpur who is described as Rama's friend as dear as life, with whom Ramastays while going to the forest (Ayodhyakandya, chaps. 50-52). Shabari was apractitioner of asceticism. Rama's first question on meeting her was, "Have youconquered all that disrupts tapasya? Has your tapasya increased?"; from her handsRama accepted food and her soul ascended to heaven (Aranyakanda, 74).Nishadas are an 'uncivilized' forest-tribe who include the Chandalas among them.Shabari is the feminine of shabar , the hunter community. Manusmriti states thatNishadas are the offspring of Brahmin male and Shudra female (an obviousafterthought)--they are what we call today 'untouchable'. The shabars aredesignated simply as 'mlechha,' completely outside Vedic/Hindu society, yet

Shabari performs perfect tapasya and goes to heaven blessed by the avatar. Thestory has often been offered as proof that neither birth nor gender is important inperforming tapasya and going to heaven. The apparent contradiction betweenRama's behaviour towards them and towards Sambuka need not puzzle anyone; theSambuka story was clearly added later to strengthen Brahmin hegemony. Myquestion here is why does Ramendra Nath ignore these points which are known toany ordinary Hindu? The answer became clear when I looked at his citations. Hewas simply quoting from another person's work rather than from the Ramayanaitself. Apparently he had not bothered to read the text he is criticizing.

Next Ramendra Nath speaks of a certain episode in Mahabharata. Certainly thestory of Ekalavya is true. Because he was a Nishada, Drona refused to teach him.The text explicitly states that being nishada he was ' asprishya ' (untouchable) and itis never allowable that he should be put on a par with the general populace.Obviously social stratification has taken place since Ramayana. When Ekalavyalearnt on his own, Drona made him cut off his finger. However, Ramendra Nathplaces undue emphasis on the fact that Arjuna is his Khastriya student. Drona



asked for this terrible sacrifice because he did not wish anyone to exceed hisfavourite Arjuna, who had promised to give him whatever Drona desiredmaterially. Caste here had nothing to do with it.

More importantly, Ramendra Nath ignores those portions of this epic whichobviously belong to earlier stratas and which show a far more humanitarian stance.The grandmother of both Kauravas and Pandavas (of whom Arjuna is one) is onlya fisherwoman. She had a liaison with a Brahmin (which did not make the latter anoutcaste) and gave birth to an illegitimate son who became a sage himself and thewriter of Mahabharata. If she wants to marry into a respectable wealthy family, tobe a fisherwoman who ferries passengers on a boat and who has a bastard child isdefinitely a handicap yet today even in developed countries. Nevertheless, shemarries a Kshatriya king, her sons become kings and she is never reproachedbecause of her sexual misconduct. How could such miscegenation and its placid

acceptance by the population (which includes Brahmins) have been possible unlessthe varnavyavastha in ancient times was very much a fluid system?

We also have the story of Dharmabyadh. A Brahmin had gained power to work miracles by his penance and became arrogant because of this. When a womanseems to ignore him, he becomes enraged. But the woman demonstrates thatmerely by carrying out faithfully her duties as a housewife she had gained evengreater power; she tells him that only a man who controls his sensual instincts,never hates another person, thinks of all human beings as his own [kin], tells thetruth always, and never wanders towards unrighteousness--is acknowledged as a

Brahmin by the gods. He is then sent to a meat-seller known as Dharmabyadh tolearn what dharma is, as he is ignorant of it. The meat-seller says, "I follow myancestors' livelihood; I tend to the elderly; I always speak the truth; I never showhatred for anyone; I give to charity as far as I am capable; I never speak ill of anyone; I eat the leavings of the gods, guests and servants [I eat after all these haveeaten]."It is these simple things that has elevated a meat-seller above the powerfulBrahmin (Vanaparva, 205-213).

Yuddhistira (the son of the God of Justice) is asked what is the cause of being aBrahmin. He declares that neither birth nor learning makes a Brahmin, that only

proper conduct does. Even a Brahmin learned in four Vedas cannot be consideredas a Brahmin if his conduct is evil. [However it must be noted that performingproper rituals is also included in the passage as the mark of a Brahmin (Vanaparva,312).] In another place he is asked by a serpent who a true Brahmin is. He answers,"The person in whom resides truth, charity, forgiveness, courtesy, rejection of cruelty, austerity, is a Brahmin." The serpent argues that the Vedas have givenevery varna their dharma or law. "Therefore truth, charity, forgiveness, non-



violence, rejection of cruelty, and compassion based on Vedas is noticed even inShudras. If even in Shudras these symptoms of Brahamandharma appear, thenShudras too can be Brahmins." Yuddhistira's answer is, "In many Shudrassymptoms of Brahmin appear, and among many of the twice-born, symptoms of Shudras appear. Therefore it is not that to be born in a Shudra family makesone a Shudra or that to be born in a Brahmin family makes one a Brahmin.The persons in whom such behaviour [the qualities mentioned above]ordained by Vedas appear are Brahmins and those in whom they do notappear are Shudras " (Vanaparva, 180). From such episodes it is obvious that theideal was a high one and low castes were honoured by society if they werevirtuous. Critics would say that the reality does not often match the ideal. True. Butwhere is the paradise on earth where there is no discrimination on the basis of class, irrespective of the law? I do not see why varnavyastha should be singled outwith special virulence. It is simply that some countries have made greater progress

in doing away with systems like feudalism (which was held to be reflection of cosmic hierarchy) and slavery (backed by the story of Noah and his sons) whileIndia is starting to catch up.

Ramendra Nath argues that Gita too teaches every caste to do their Dharma.Certainly if in these "enlightened" times a soldier like Arjuna would refuse to fighton the battlefield when the war has begun, the government would punish him andhe would be called "deserter" and "traitor." Again Shankar is pointed out assupporting the caste-system. This is essentially true. But why does Mr. RamendraNath slight the entire Bhakti and Tantric traditions in both North and south India?Did not the practitioners of these traditions, many of them Brahmins themselves,try to do away with caste? In such movements, outcaste teachers and Brahminstudents were common.

III

Next, Mr. Ramendra Nath--like many others--attacks Manusamhita. What all thesecritics do is to imply that the entire book was written by one man. Yet research hasproved that many verses were added to the main text throughout later ages andother verses left out or edited to bring it in line with contemporary thought. (The

interested reader can look up the works of G. Buhler, P. V. Kane, and MaxMuller.) The result is that it is cris-crossed with contradictions.

Now let us take a close look at the book. Each of the verses he quotes declaring theinferiority of Shudras and dominance of Brahmins, do exist. Yet he also skipsverses that directly contradict those verses. "If a woman or lower (Shudra andyounger) person performs goodly ceremonies [holy or good works], then the



Brahmachari must join them with enthusiasm" (2:223). "The Shudra who devoid of jealousy engages himself in honest work receives honour in this life and heaven inthe next" (10:128). (Of course another verse has been added immediately aftersaying that Shudras cannot accumulate wealth because a rich Shudra might despiseBrahmins.) "A wife, jewels, knowledge, dharma [religion/duty], rules of purity,good advice, vocational skills, can be received by everyone from everyone else[irrespective of caste or family]" (2:240). "A devout person can [I use 'can', but it isactually in the imperative mood] accept even the best knowledge from Shudras;accept ultimate truth from outcastes like chandalas; an excellent wife even fromlow families" (2:238). Nothing can be more amusing for a social historian than tosee how Medhatithi, a Brahmin commentator (c. A.D. 900) tries to explain awaythis verse. He argues that " shubham [holy, best, pure] vidya [knowledge]" refersto logic, magic formulas and singing and dancing. Similarly " param [ultimate,best] dharma " is redefined as knowledge of local geography and customs. Never

mind that Mahabharata also defines--on the basis of Manu--'param dharma' asknowledge of moksha/liberation which can be acquired from anybody. Medhatiti'sargument is that since low castes are not eligible for religious knowledge theycannot teach anything. Obviously the upper castes were anxiously trying to imposehegemony over lower castes. Again, the verse stating that "he [the Brahmin] whostudies from a Shudra teacher or teaches a Shudra student" cannot officiate infuneral ceremonies (3:156) offers evidence that Shudras were teachers, a fact thatthe Brahmins wished to change. The rules and later condemnations regardingmarriages between castes offer proof that for a long time it had not hardened.

Incidentally, may I ask how the terrible punishments inflicted on Shudras can bereconciled with marriages between castes, both anuloma and pratiloma, division of property among children born of such 'miscegenation,' rule that in distress aBrahmin might serve a Shudra as a servant, or that a Brahmin householder mustfeed his Shudra servants first, if he has any? There is a distinction between whatsome men would like society to be and the social reality. For example, LouisDumont observed that power did not automatically reside in the hands of anyspecific community. The caste that actually owned land in a region enjoyed actualpower; in many cases such power and property lay in the hands of the Shudras.

Though the Brahmins were the priests they were actually dependant on the Shudrasfor their favour. Surely Mr. Ramendra Nath knows that there are thousands of Brahmin families whose only means of subsistence is being priests of low-castefamilies?

Like Mr. Ramendra Nath, I too cannot help it that an objective reading exposeshow the caste system degenerated. He accuses that untouchability and allowingmen of one caste to become priests alone is peculiar to Hinduism. But apartheid



was peculiar to the rational democratic white Christian races, as was the Holocaustpeculiar to the industrialized Nazi Germany. In neither case had it been claimedthat these two factors represent the sole face of Western culture. So once again,why is varna-vavyastha presented as proof that Hinduism is intrinsically evil,instead of realizing that untouchability is simply the result of human love of powerand not integral to Hinduism itself?

Now we come to women. Yes, Manusamhita does have these verses that paintwomen as evil and deny them any freedom. But again we see how other verses,remnants of earlier times, paint a different picture. There is a whole portion callednaribandana (Praise of women) where it is insisted (3:55-62) that only a housewhere women are respected and made happy is favoured by the gods and that--where women are treated badly--all worship and ceremonies are in vain. There areverses such as, "Mother is a thousand times holier [can also be read as worthy of

obedience] than the father" (2:145). "It is better that a daughter should live at hometill death rather than be given to an unworthy husband; After menstruation, a girlshould wait for three years and then choose her own husband; If a girl at propertime should select a husband herself, then she is not to be blamed" (9:89-91). "Anyrelative [including a husband] who uses stridhan [lit. property of woman which isboth liquid cash and land, here a wife's], vehicles and animals given for the wife toride or a wife's clothes [and ornaments] for himself, is a sinner who falls [intohell]" (3:52). I can give other verses as examples.

Again Mr. Ramendra Nath charges that a widow cannot marry. Nothing arouses

my ire more than this statement. An illiterate villager might be forgiven forbelieving this since this is the reality in many places, but an educated Hindu wouldknow better. These verses, of a later origin, hold out inducements to widows not toremarry--such a course would hardly have been necessary if widows neverremarried. " The woman who abandoned by her husband or left a widowmarries of her free will another man, is punurbhu and the son of such a union iscalled pounorbhava" ; "If a wife who is still a virgin, or a wife who has left herhusband to consort with another man returns to her husband's home, then [another]ceremony of marriage can take place" (9:195-196). Insistence in numerous versesthat a Brahmin who is a second husband or son of a woman's second marriageshould not be allowed to perform religious ceremonies merely prove thatremarriages were frequent. "While the mother is alive, if there is a dispute betweenthe son of the [first] husband and between a pournorbhava or a golok (bastardborn after the husband's death) regarding property, then each son will receive theproperty that belongs to his biological father" (9:191). "If the husband goes toforeign lands for holy purposes, the wife will wait for 8 years; if he goes to studyor earn fame she will wait for 6 years; if he goes for pleasure then she will wait for



three years--after that she will marry again [alternative explanation, she will goaway somewhere else to support herself" (9: 76). Moreover the commentatorMadhavacharya declares, "Manu has ordained, if the husband is missing, dead, hasbecome an ascetic, impotent, or outcast, then the second marriage of woman islawful according to the shastras." Again this verse is present in Naradasmriti,which is stated to be a collection of more important verses of Manu. Not sosurprisingly, this verse cannot be found in the relatively modern edition of Manuwe have today. Ramendra Nath is strangely ignorant of history of his own countryif he does not know that Vidyasagar persuaded the British authorities to pass thewidow-remarriage bill by proving that it is enjoined in the shastras.

Mr. Ramendra Nath also gets excited while heaping scorn on the notion thatHinduism is tolerant. Perhaps it has escaped his attention that Hinduism isconsidered not tolerant socially as such, but from the religious point of view. It is a

religion that does not declare that it has the sole monopoly on truth nor does it tryto impose its gods on other cultures by force. That is what is defined as religioustolerance. Manusamhita certainly has many harsh things to say about nastikas , butthey are limited to denunciations. What did Hindus, Mr. Ramendra Nath, actuallydo to disbelievers in this physical life? Usually nothing. Buddha lived andpreached peacefully. So did Mahavira. The worst that some of them suffered wasostracism. But as Ramendra Nath himself acknowledges (4:30), though rationalistsand freethinkers are not to be treated respectfully, they can be given food,according to Manusamhita. For some reason Mr. Ramendra Nath seems to think that a devout believer in God and afterlife should welcome a disbelieverworshipfully ( arcchana ) as proof of his humane attitude, yet in the same breath hedenies that there is any human value attached to the injunction that even hellbounddisbeliveers are to be fed. Considering the way Semitic religions have dealt withunbelievers and apostates in the past (and do so even today), indeed "such is thegenerosity of Hindu dharma."

Above all I find Mr. Ramendra Nath's focus on Manusamhita puzzling. The Britishin an attempt to codify law focused exclusively on Manusamhita. But why shouldan educated Hindu do so? There are nineteen other dharmashastras all held to be of equal importance. He ignores Arthashastra, the secular manual for Hindukingdoms. He ignores that every region had its own particular laws and everycommunity in it had its own set of customs which even the king was forbidden tooverride. He ignores that often in villages--even today--the shastras are only ahallowed name; if they routinely consult any texts, those are the Ramayana andMahabharata and often the two epics are retold differently to suit that particularregion. Unlike the Bible, there is no text that forms the basis of Hindu law. Thesimple result is that society varied from place to place and age to age. Yes, class-



system based on birth is wrong. Yes, the ugly face of caste is encountered daily inmany places in India. But the picture he presents is one of absolute stratification,with the cruel Brahmins trampling down the helpless Shudras for thousands of years. This picture is very biased. In the first place, the Brahmins are not like theclergy of church; only a certain percentage actually enjoys real power and wealth.Secondly, from reading Mr. Ramendra Nath's article, no one would have any ideaof the low-caste royal dynasties like Mundas, Chandellas, Nandas, Gurjjaras,Senas, the rule of the Lingyat community, the rise of the Alvars, or the elevation of Reddies and Jats to the warrior caste. Shivaji was a Shudra landowner who dreamtof creating a Hindu empire (with all that it implies to him ) and brought the Mughalempire to its knees; he kept Brahmin ministers. A 1345 inscription of Reddi kingsread, "With death of Ksathriyas [by the Muslims], duty of defending cows andBrahmins fell to Shudras." It was the Shudras who drove away the Musliminvaders and reestablished Brahmanical educational institutes. If the Shudras,

treated as Mr. Ramendra Nath assumes followers of Manu treated them, say and dothis after gaining power (and when the Brahmins were at their nadir), thenobviously the Brahmins are a superior race who deserve to rule over a spinelessinferior caste.

IV

Just as Mr. Ramendra Nath concentrates on Manusamhita alone among thedharmashastras, so too he concentrates on Gandhi alone. Apparently Gandhi is tobe taken as the representative of Hindu society at large. Gandhi had supported

varnashrama . But Gandhi had also said, ( The Collected Work of Mahatma Gandhi ,Vol. LXII, p. 121).

1. "I believe in varnashrama of the Vedas, which in my opinion is based onabsolute equality of status notwithstanding passages to the contrary in thesmritis and elsewhere."

2. "Every word of the printed works passing muster as `Shastras' is not, in myopinion, a revelation."

3. "The interpretation of accepted texts has undergone evolution and is capableof indefinite evolution, even as the human intellect and heart are."

4. "Nothing in the shastras which is manifestly contrary to universal truths andmorals can stand."

5. "Nothing in the shastras which is capable of being reasoned can stand if it isin conflict with reason."



Again, Vivekananda the monk came from a conservative family of the nineteenthcentury and fiercely advocated doing away with untouchability. He even declaredthat doing social service is more important than worshipping God, because theformer is true worship. Rabindranath Tagore's family was orthodox and he himself was very devout; yet he declared that though the caste-system has become integralto Hindu society it must be done away with. There were as many Hindus whoattacked the caste-system as those who tried to defend it. Similarly, theShankaracharya of Puri recently declared that women have no right to learnSanskrit or read Vedas. The head priest at Jagganath temple, on the other hand, hasstarted training women priests--yet both are pious Hindus. Why then is there theassumption that all believing Hindus are retrograde?

Mr. Ramendra Nath grieves that the upper castes are not reconciled to losing theirpower. That generalization is too sweeping. Some are not, but the present

generation has grown up accepting it. There is still resistance, but is there anyreason to think that the situation will not improve? Even in England, full-fledgeddemocracy did not spring up miraculously with Magna Carta. The very fact he isable to write an article such as this and post it on the Internet is proof that Hindusociety has undergone a sea-change. Again in speaking of agitations againstreservation policy for untouchables, he does not give the full picture. Major factorsin that agitation had been economics and competence. Many untouchables havebecome rich by means of affirmative policies and government aid. There is asubstantial body of untouchables and lowcastes who have now become middle-class and many who have become legislators. However, they insist on theirchildren enjoying the same advantages they had enjoyed. But if they have becomerich, is it not unfair for their children to take advantage of the policies meant fortheir poorer brethren? Again, why in reverse discrimination shall the desperatelypoor of other castes be deprived of government help and seats in educationalinstitutions while those who have become rich demand more advantages andmoney? This has led to the extremely ridiculous situation of uppercaste peoplechanging their surnames by deed-poll and bribing officials to declare themuntouchables. More, those who have made it to the top now hog every post andthen lobby to pass laws for their own advantage so that the benefits no longer

trickle down to those who really need them. Recently, members of the Daliteducated community themselves said that the reservation policy is not working; apolitical party based on backward votes immediately expelled those members whohad dared to utter such heresy. That is why those who agitated against widening of the affirmative net were students--it is their future that is being jeopardized in thename of social justice. The people of India wish for a fairer affirmative policy--onethat is based on poverty; the poor alone should get preferential treatment.



About moksha, karma and avatarvada I have nothing to say on rational grounds.However once again, it appears that the two Hindu epics need defending on moralgrounds. Rama is an avatar, but nowhere it is said that all his behaviour is perfect.In particular, Mr. Ramendra Nath singles out his notorious treatment of Sita--hemakes her undergo ordeal by fire to prove her purity. But what also needsrecapitulating is how the 'higher authorities,' so to speak, react to this. The soul of Dasaratha, father of Rama, descends from heaven and begs Sita, "Do not be angry;forgive my son for having abandoned you" (Yuddhyakandya, 120). Moreimportantly Brahma appears and gives a long speech. The gist of it is that sinceRama is lord of all, why is he ignoring this terrible event? He is God, so why he ismeting out injustice to Sita? (Yuddhykandya, 118). Rama's answer is that heknows himself only to be a man, not a god. Since the Creator himself declaresRama's deed is a sin, I do not see why the ordinary Hindu would face a moraldilemma here and go on insisting Rama did no wrong. The case is the same with

Krishna. Many explanations have been given for his behaviour, but all of themhave one thing in common--it is acknowledged that he did wrong and humanbeings must not follow his ways. Most telling is the evidence of Mahabharataitself. After the war is over, Gandhari--the only perfectly virtuous human--cursesKrishna for the evils he had committed; as her relatives and friends had beendestroyed [deceitfully by Krishna's advice], so too Krishna's family would bedestroyed and he himself will die a horrible death (Striparva, 25). The cursecomes true . Dharma or moral law of the universe would not allow it to beotherwise. In other words God incarnate is accountable to man --even an avatarmust be punished.

Mr. Ramendra Nath also simply omits all positive aspects of Hinduism. He makesno mention of the philosophies, logic systems, mathematical contributions, music,temples, poetry, teachers and reformers, or the heroes and heroines in myth andhistory. He simply makes no attempt to explain the Hindu world-view or dharma(in the secular sense). Nor does he give a full picture of Hindu history. Anyonereading his article would get the impression that no decent man can call himself aHindu. (On the other hand I too can quote only favourable verses and examplesand give the impression that Hinduism is flawless).

If Mr. Ramendra Nath had rejected Hinduism on rational grounds, then this answerneed not have been written. If he had balanced the good, the bad and the ugly andthen declared, "You have been judged and found wanting", again this presentarticle would not have a leg to stand on. Let me repeat, it is the one-sided picture of Hindu culture that I protest.



It is only right that a culture's worst excesses be condemned, but it is only equitablethat its highest ideals and what it has achieved also be considered. By writing insuch a superficial manner, he denies a Hindu any pride in his heritage. Mr.Ramendra Nath would not allow anyone to admire Rama as a human being, norYuddhisthira or Gandhari; enjoy the philosophy and symbolism; be proud of eitherhigh caste or low caste leaders and teachers, or of reformers who came from Hindusociety itself--or even how Buddhism, Jainism, Zorastrianism and Judaism havebeen protected by the Hindu community. Above all, he makes it seem as if reformand Hinduism are inherently incompatible. Gandhi said, "My belief in the Hinduscriptures does not require me to accept every word and every verse as divinelyinspired .... I decline to be bound by any interpretation, however learned it may be,if it is repugnant to reason or moral sense" ( The Collected Work of MahatmaGandhi , The Publication Division, Government of India, Vol. XXI, p. 246). YetGandhi was only following Hindu law. Every shastra and epic states that no age is

identical to other ages, therefore the law of every age must be different. Dharmachanges from age to age depending on circumstances. It is this that has allowedHinduism to withstand ravages or war and time, constantly remoulding itself tosurvive.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/a_hindu_woman/answertohindu.html

Documents

Answer to (Why I Am Not a Hindu By Ramendra Nath) (English)