ninemsn 833 Hinduism tells everyone to worship God according to his own faith or Dharma, and so it lives at peace with all the religions. That being my conception of Hinduism, I have never been able to reconcile myself to untouchability. I have always regarded it as an excrescence. It is true that it has been handed down to us from generations, but so are many evil practices even to this day. I should be ashamed to think that dedication of girls to virtual pros- titution was a part of Hinduism. Yet it is practised by Hindus in many parts of India. I consider it positive irrelngion to sacrifice goats to Kali and do not consider it a part of Hinduism. Hinduism 2 is a growth of ages. The very name, Hmduism, was given to the religion of the people of Hindnsthan by foreigners. There was no doubt at one time sacrifice of animals was offered in the name of religion. But it is not religion, much less is it Hindu religion. And so also it seems to me, that when cow-protection became an article of faith with our ancestors, those who persisted in eating beef were exeommunioated. The civil strife must have been fierce. Social boycott was applied not only to the recaloitrants, but their sins were visited upon their children also. The practice which had pro- bably its origin in good intentions hardened into usage, and even verses crept in our sacred books glving the practice a permanence wholly undcserved and still less justified, Whether my theory is correct or not, un- touchahility is repugnant to reason and to the instinct of mercy, pity or love. A religion that establishes the worship of the cow cannot possibly countenance or war. rant a cruel and inhuman boycott of human beings. And I should be content to be torn to nieces rather than dis. 53
