Seven shackles

Free mingling in schools

Of all the legal rights secured by the untouchables, the most effective is the right of their children to mingle freely in schools.  This right should be enforced by the untouchables ahead of the right to free access to lakes and wells.  If children are taught to forget notions of touchability and untouchability in school, the next generation, by sheer force of habit, will fully and easily accept the Mahar-Bhangi as being as touchable as the Dhobi (*washer caste)!  (1935, Hindutvache panchapran or The Spirit of Hindutva, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol.3, p. 82)

The prohibition to pursue certain occupations led to castes and sub-castes

It is the demon of prohibition to pursue certain occupations that led to the emergence of four thousand castes and further sub-castes from the original four varnas.  Those who weave vertically formed one caste, those who weave horizontally formed another!  (1935, Hindutvache panchapran or The Spirit of Hindutva, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol.3, p. 68)

Look at England and America

If you want to see the benefits of merit-based freedom to pursue any occupation, look at present-day England and America.  All lingering doubts about the possible ill-effects of violating caste-based prohibition of certain occupations will then vanish.  You will feel immensely confident that if at all; the nation will show all-round progress especially as far as national strength, enterprise, wealth, efficiency, art and potential are concerned.  (1935, Hindutvache panchapran or The Spirit of Hindutva, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol.3, p. 71)

Prohibition of pursuing certain occupations has largely vanished

The breaking down of the prohibition to pursue certain occupations has nearly killed caste distinction.  Its very foundation has become weak.  Merit-based freedom to pursue any occupation has become so deep-rooted as to make one forget caste distinction!  (1935, Hindutvache panchapran or The Spirit of Hindutva, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol.3, p. 70)

Where is the prohibition of pursuing certain occupations strictly followed?

If the prohibition to pursue certain occupations is still followed anywhere to the letter, it is on the one hand here among the untouchable Bhangis (* Balmikis- traditional scavengers) and on the other among the Brahmin priests.  No one from another caste wants to do scavenging and no one is allowed to become a priest.  Therefore, these two castes seem to have a sort of monopoly over these two occupations.  (1935, Hindutvache panchapran or The Spirit of Hindutva, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol.3, p. 72)
 

Occupation according to quality and aptitude

Every Hindu child who is given primary education on an equal practical and religious footing shall pursue his occupation as per the quality and aptitude that is manifest later…Each one shall be Hindu by caste, to each his own occupation.  (1935, Jatyuchchedak nibandha or essays on abolition of caste, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol.3, p. 410)

Every Hindu has the right to perform Vedic rites

Every Hindu should have an equal right to read, learn and if he so desires; to undergo and perform Vedic rites.  Priesthood is not the exclusive birthright of any one caste.  Anyone who attains the qualification of Hindu priesthood may become a priest.  (1935, Jatyuchchedak nibandha or essays on abolition of caste, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol.3, p. 480)

It is false to state that an entire caste is not entitled to the Vedas

When we teach the Gayatri mantra (*perhaps the most important of all Vedic mantras recited originally by the rishi Vishvamitra.  Recited by Hindus at sunrise, noon and sunset, it may be literally translated as: “We meditate upon the supreme effulgence of the Divine Solar Creator that he may inspire our intelligence!”) to Brahmin boys who are eight years old, their diction is faulty.  Nine out of ten Brahmins do not understand the meaning of the Vedic mantras in their lifetime.  Why do you (the traditionalists) give them (the right to recite) Vedic mantras when are ignorant of their meaning and significance?  If the untouchables learn, they too can produce an Ambedkar who is capable of teaching the Vedas with their meaning.  Irrespective of whether an individual is a Brahmin or Mahar, he has a right (to the Vedas) if he is well trained in the rituals.  But to contend that an entire caste is unfit and incapable of performing rituals or acquiring knowledge, that even if a Mahar acquires knowledge and purity, he has no claim to the Vedas simply because his father was an untouchable is plain charlatanism.  Such a contention causes the followers of the Vedas to shrink and deals a deathblow to religion.  (1931, Ratnagiri Hindu sabheche prativrutta or report of the Ratnagiri Hindu sabha, p 64)

When and why did the prohibition of crossing Attock (*a town in erstwhile northern Hindusthan, now part of Pakistan) come about?

When Hindu kingdoms beyond the river Sindhu (*Indus) fell to the Muslim onslaughts and the polity started to convert Hindu-Parsis and other non-Muslims to the fanatical religion under pain of extreme torture, the prospect of crossing the river Sindhu became tantamount to renouncing one’s religion.  At that time, the Smritis had to include a temporary emergency injunction that the land beyond the river Sindhu should be considered a mlechchasthan (* lit:  land of the barbarians) and that crossing the river Sindhu is sinful for a Hindu.  (1963, Sahaa soneri paane or Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol.4, p. 753)

There was no prohibition of seafaring when the prohibition of crossing the river Sindhu was brought in force

…Emperors like Rajendra Chola who ruled over the eastern, western and southern maritime borders and flaunted the title of ‘Trisamudreshwar’ (‘Lord of the Three Seas) were followers of the Vedic religion.  (1963, Sahaa soneri paane or Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol.4, p. 754)

What is the possible explanation for the prohibition of seafaring?

…It is possible that the Hindus who crossed the three seas encountered fiends who forcibly made them Muslim or Christian.  At that time, there was no Hindu maritime power left that could save them from this calamity.  In such circumstances, some of our leaders must have been forced to issue an injunction prohibiting Hindus from crossing the seas.  This decision must have been taken with the best interests of Hindu society at heart.  (1963, Sahaa soneri paane or Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol.4, p. 755-756)

Why did our brave kings not invade foreign countries?

Just as the Arab Muhammad bin Qasim invaded Sind, why did the Hindu ruler Dahir not invade Arabia?  If Mahmud Ghaznavi looted Somnath, why could you not take over Mecca?  It was primarily due to this prohibition of going abroad, of seafaring, of interdining!  We did not go to Arabia and Portugal for fear of making Hindusthan unclean but in the process brought Arabia into Hindusthan; turned Parshuram kshetra (*lit: land of Parshuram, the sixth incarnation of Lord Vishnu; Parshuram supposedly hailed from Konkan, hence in this instance Parshuram kshetra means Goa) into Portugal!  (1933, Uttarkriya drama, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol.7, p. 659)

Where did our fleet of ships drown?

We foolishly decided that caste and religion get corrupted not just for our life but also for that of our coming generations the moment we eat food or drink water from the hands of someone from another caste and  bound ourselves with the prohibition of interdining.  When we decided that a Hindu sins if he crosses the seas or goes abroad, we withdrew the support to our extensive empires across the seas and thus enabled the non-Hindus there to swallow those Hindu kingdoms and colonies.  Thousands of Hindu soldiers, priests, traders, those massive trading vessels, those fleets drowned suddenly.  Where do you think they drowned?  In a sea storm?  No, they drowned in less than a teaspoon of ritual water used in puja (worship)!  (1934, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol.3, p. 734)

Where did the Hindus falter?

…even when the exceptional circumstances that led the Hindus to enforce prohibition of crossing the Sindhu river or Attock changed and the military strength of a valorous Peshwa or a Ranjit Singh was enough to cross the same Attock and invade Afghanistan or Iran, this suicidal religious superstition of the Hindus persisted.  (1963, Sahaa soneri paane or Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol.4, p. 756)