Indian Materialism

BY DR. K. B. KRISHNA, M.A., PH.D. (Harvard) ^l

Why did not the Indian scholars take to the study of Indian materialism?

The subject of Indian Materialism has not attracted the attention of Indian scholars save one.² The few books that we have on this subject are due to European initiative. It was in the year 1828 that Wilson for the first time spoke of Indian materialists almost in a casual manner.³ He calls Charvakas advocates of materialism or atheism. In the year 1837, Colebrook dealt with the subject of Hindu Materialism. On that occasion he wrote that, for want of an opportunity of consulting an original treatise on this branch of philosophy or any connected summary furnished even by an adversary of opinions professed by Lokayats, he was unable to give any sufficient account of their doctrines.⁴ After this, ‘Sarvadarsana Samgraha,’ an opposition work of the 14th century A.D., was discovered.⁵ This work gives an account of the Lokayata System⁶ from the point of view of the writer, a Vedantist. Cowell translated somewhat roughly this work in the year 1862 and published it in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal.⁷ Since his writing,⁸ Muir wrote an article on Hindu Materialists. He gave large extracts from a few later texts illustrating materialistic tenets.⁹ In 1873 Cowell contributed an Appendix to the collected works of Colebrook.¹⁰ He mostly emphasised there the theory of knowledge held by the Lokayats. We know of no other work since then till 1899. In that year Rhys Davids, the great Buddhist scholar, sketched the history of Lokayata with a different interpretation. He used this word "Lokayata" in the sense of "nature-lore," and supported this meaning by many extracts from Sanskrit and Pali sources.¹¹ This brought to light the question of Buddhist materialists.¹² This work has cleared the ground a good deal. In the same year 1899, Hillebrandt gave a short sketch of Hindu materialism. He cited Muir in his work.¹³ He did not seem to be aware of the work of Rhys Davids. Max Mueller in the same year referred to the Lokayats.¹⁴ In the year 1907 an Italian, Pizzagalli, published a work on this subject.¹⁵ This is the first systematic work published In the form of a book. The previous writers showed the way in the form of articles. In 1908 a French scholar, Suali, wrote of materials for a history of materialism in India.¹⁶ He confined himself to, and largely drew his material from, a later text of the sixth century A.D.¹⁷ This article is valuable for the large extracts he made from the text.

Not till 1916 do we again hear of any other writer on Hindu Materialis Garbe has given a brief sketch of Lokayata, not adding much to what was known already.¹⁸ Poussin gave a sketch of Hindu Materialism in the same year. He confined himself largely to Ajita Kesa Kambalin. In support of his statement he has given valuable Buddhist sources.¹⁹ Even at this stage, when the nationalist movement was at its zenith, we do not hear of any Hindu writer dealing with Materialism. Up to this time it must not be thought that there were no other European writers who referred to Materialism. There were many, ²⁰ and they referred to Indian materialism in a small manner. The next important work was by an Italian scholar, Tucci, In 1923.²¹ It is significant that some Italian scholars have taken to the study of Indian Materialism. Some others have taken the study of Culture and Political Science in ancient India.²² The next general work is that of Shastri. The date of publication is not known. He mentions Tucci. It must have been after 1923 and around 1928. He wrote an article in 1931 dealing with some aspects of materialism.²³ He is the only Hindu writer on this topic.

We see that this important phase of Hindu thought has been only casually noticed by European enquirers.²⁴ I now understand that a work on ‘Indian Materialism’ in Russian has appeared in Moscow recently. At Sun Yat Sen University, Moscow, Thalheimer gave a lecture on ‘Indian Materialism’ in 1927. (A. Thalheimer: ‘Introduction to Dialectical Materialism,’ chapter on ‘Indian Materialism.’ pp. 102-115). The omission of treatment of this phase of thought by Hindu scholars is not accidental. Why? Were the social conditions and wants of the times favourable for such a treatment? ²⁵

At the time when Hindu culture was unknown to European scholars and to Europeans in general, when missionary vilification of India was great ²⁶, came the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1784. Wilkins, Jones, and Colebrook inaugurated the new science of Sanskrit Philology. Till 1830 European scholars paid attention only to classical Sanskrit. Gradually the studies were extended to the Vedas, Upanishads and Buddhism. They came to know the oldest period of India last. The foundation of the Pali Text Society in 1881 gave a further impetus to the study of Buddhism. In 1883 and 1885, Weber made another branch of literature available, that of the Jains. By the end of the 19th century the progress of Indian studies reached its high mark.²⁷

Before the discovery of these literatures, the Indians were regarded as heathens. In the early stages research was solely confined to Philology. That the heathens produced a wonderful literature astonished the Europeans when their researches into Philology led them to study Sanskrit literature.

Philology led in turn to the development of researches in Archaeology, Epigraphy, Numismatics, Inscriptions, editions of original Texts, and so on. These in turn necessitated researches into Indian History in general. The second stage of Research in India is characterised by its emphasis on historical studies. Everything depended on the fixing of dates. Still, with a few exceptions, Indians have not yet taken to history-writing. The rise of Indian historians coincided with the rise and development of Indian Nationalism. R. C. Dutt is the father of Indian nationalist historians. At this stage European scholars themselves encouraged the Indians to take to the study of history.

The heathen stage corresponded to that when Philology did not yet dominate the field of Indian Research. When it did, it gradually led to the study of Indian history.

Another stage in the social development of India made necessary a corresponding phase of research. For years the Indians were told that they knew very little of politics, that they had no text-books on politics, that their capacity for political thinking was little. This was a direct challenge to the Nationalists. The few historical and philological researches did not enable them to counteract these derogatory remarks. At this time the Nationalist movement in India broadened from land-owning professional classes to the rising trading-merchant, usurer-industrialist classes. The objective content of their demands equally widened. The need for political research was also felt. Coinciding with this, a text on political science was discovered in Southern India in 1906.²⁸ The growth of the Nationalist movement, and the discovery of this text, gave a powerful impetus to the development of Political Research.

As a result, more Indians took to the study of Indian Political Science. Between the years 1914 and 1932, text after text on Political Science was published. Scores of works in the original have been edited on this subject. Many doctoral theses in European Universities were written on Indian Political Science. This research was a need for the Nationalist claims and it was helped by the previous philological and historical researches.

Research in India had three romances. It showed all the enthusiasm and the defects of Romanticists. The early Sanskritists showed an enthusiasm for philological research, as the Factory Inspectors showed for the working class in the nineteenth-century England. The need was felt by one class, but their demands were voiced by another class. That was the historic mission of the early Sanskritists. The later Sanskritists were aided by a few Indian scholars and together inaugurated a new era in historical research. This was a stage of collaboration. The leadership was still in the hands of Europeans. The third stage is definitely characterised by Indian studies suited to the angle ofpolitical science. It must not be thought that research did not tackle other fields. Researches into Indian Medicine, Astronomy, Surgery, and other fields were the natural outcome of"political research." The honeymoon phase ofthese stages is now over. Today research in India is on a stock-taking level, comparison-verification level, reconstruction level.

Then came another event. With the year 1880 may be dated the Indian Industrial Revolution. The processes at work may be dated as early as 1850. The development ofplantation industries is the fore-runner ofthe Indian Industrial Revolution. The development ofcapitalism, ofa colonial character, has begun. These changes wrought in social economy by this event–the shifting ofthe population, the growth oftowns, the rise ofthe Proletariat, the proletarisation ofthe Peasantry–created changes in the existing needs and values.²⁹ Such needs grew to consciousness earlier among the rising middle class than among the proletariat or the peasantry. The organisation of this consciousness took several forms. In the political sphere, it took the form of Nationalism. In the industrial sphere, it took the form ofProtectionism. In the social sphere, it took the form of Reform. The rising middle class felt the shackles of Brahminism as much as those of feudalism. Brahminism was a brake upon their free development in accordance with their new needs.³⁰ The result was a crop of reform movements all over the country. Herein lies the origin of these movements. These movements took the characteristics of the place where they originated. In Bengal, it led to the Brahmo Samaj; in the Punjab, it led to the Arya Samaj; in Bombay, it led to the Sarvajanika Sabha; in Madras, it led to Theosophy. In Bengal, the movement stood for Modernism; in Punjab, it stood for anti-Westernism in Bombay, it stood for Liberalism; in Madras, it stood for eclecticism. An analysis of these movements discloses the class and national characteristics of these movements. These movements felt the need for research as much as the general political movement. The illustrious leaders, like Ranade, Bhandarkar, Chintamani–ablest scholars of India–took to Social Research. At this stage, political research differentiated itself into other fields, particularly into social research. An enquiry into the Caste System, an enquiry into the child-marriage system–these are the topics of the social research school. But these social research scholars wore Whig pants on Indian shirts. They were more content to vegetate in reformism in negative denials rather than to display the "positive ground of Indian Sociology."³¹

So far we see that these scholars have not felt the need for a more positive interpretation of Indian culture. Research in India correctly reflected the needs of the class, the rising middle class–of which most of the researchers are composed, save the early Sanskritists who played the conscious part for the Indian middle class. Curiously at that time, the middle class was in its nascent stage.³²

Research in India has not reflected the needs of the Proletariat and the Peasantry. The Proletariat in India, in spite of the great social forces in its favour, lacks leadership, organisation, and political education. The subjective elements are weak. It has no tradition of "Emancipation groups." It has no working-class ideologies. It acquired its few "historic levels" of consciousness in its strike-struggles, in its struggles for an organisation, for its existence. The interests of the rising middle classes do not coincide, except at certain definite historical periods, with the interests of the Proletariat.³³ Naturally, the middle classes did not take to research which will aid and reflect the needs of the Proletariat. Nor is the Proletariat of village life, with no past experience of factory or mental discipline, with the inherited ground of inertia of ages, with the stamp of Brahminism and illiteracy writ large on its brow, cowed by a jobber, ³⁴ bullied by an employer, fleeced by a money-lender, squeezed by a priest, exploited by the government and its land-owning, professional, trading-merchant, usurer-industrialist class allies, the Indian proletariat is still weak. Its consciousness in also weak.³⁵ But Trade and Politics, Industry and Capital are drawing this class, which had remained sunk in apathetic indifference, into the whirl of history. With the present increase in consciousness, organisation and experience, is also seen the appearance of working class papers and magazines ³⁶ and the need for its own research.

Nor is the proletariat allowed to imbibe a ready-made ideology which suits their interests, which expresses their needs, which leads them to paths of revolutionary action. The government and its allies are in its way. Neither is the expression of their own experience of daily struggles with the ruling classes given a free scope. ‘A Communist Manifesto’ of 1848 is a taboo in India. A moderate strike leader is summarily executed for "high treason" and misdemeanour against His Majesty the King. A friend of the Soviet Union, whatever his class, is a sedition-monger. An organiser of the working class consciousness is given a prison in the Laccadive or Maldive islands. Or he is sent off the road to Mandalay.

Research in India did not reflect the needs of the Peasantry. If Civilisation has made Peasantry its pack animal, in India the peasantry is created worse than a pack animal. In Taine’s words, the Indian peasant has been "the mule" of three autocracies–the Hindu, the Moslem, and the British. He is exploited in a four-fold direction, by the Government, by the land-owner, by the money-lender, and by the village priest.³⁷ Nowhere has Priestdom taken such strong roots as in rural India. The question of the emancipation of the Proletariat and the Peasantry in India is at bottom a question of the emancipation of the Indian society from Brahminism, Feudalism and Imperialism. Here too, the interests of the rising middle classes did not coincide with the interests of the agricultural proletariat.³⁸ But the phenomenal growth of the peasant movement during the last four years and the increase in their consciousness is reflected in the appearance of Kisan publications and the need for their own political researches.

The increasing failure of the political demands of the rising middle classes, and their inability to gain further commercial successes,³⁹ hastens their movement towards socialism,⁴⁰ towards recognition of the interests of the Proletariat and the Peasantry. The pressure from above is equally balanced by pressure from below. The momentum of this pressure towards socialism–towards the recognition of the interests of the Proletariat and Peasantry–is reflected, meagre as it is, in research as well.⁴¹ This is the reason why we produced one book only on Indian Materialism.

We now see why the question of the treatment of Indian materialism by the Indian writers is not accidental. A history of materialism in India is a history of Brahminism. It is also a history of the social conditions which gave birth to Brahminism, a history of the class domination of the Brahmin class. It is a history of oppression and general reaction all round. In short it is a history of the social question in India. Consequently no class but the Proletariat and the Peasantry or its idealogues could voice this need for research. The "political research school" did not understand that every political question is at bottom a social question. The "social research school" did not understand that every social question is at bottom a political question.⁴² These two schools in twin avoided any treatment of "positive" materialist thought in India. The very researches into Artha Sastra (Hindu political science) reveal that Lokayata (Materialism) is a fore-runner of Artha Sastra.⁴³ Yet neta word has been said on Lokayata.

Read any journal of the learned or non-learned societies in India, look where you will, you are confronted with Indian political science and allied topics. But nowhere do you find references to Materialism, save in Colebrooke, Muir or Cowell.

The pioneering work of European scholars is to be commended. Muir gave us a glimpse of the possibility of reconstructing a history of Indian Materialism. Suali was ambitious but he did not go further than merely citing a later text. Rhys Davids did not go further than Buddhism. The following papers are humble attempts to meet this gap in a reconstruction of "a history of materialist thought in India."

It has been the peculiar misfortune of India to be known more by her superficialities than by her essentials. India is not a country of tigers and snakes alone. It is not all a country of saints and hermits. Nor is it "loin cloth" and "goat’s milk." Taj-Mahal, Seville Row, the white residences of Simla are not the whole of India. India did not always pray and meditate.⁴⁴ India has its teeming masses, its struggles, its history. Those who only know an ascetic India do not understand India.⁴⁵ Its masses struggled for life, groaning under the weight of oppression, rebelled, took to arms, were defeated and misled. Now and then a Buddha, a Mahavira, an Asoka, a Chaitanya came across their way. What little they gained they lost. Autocracy after autocracy broke their spines. With all this, India is not without revolutionary traditions. Leaders of democratic progressive thought were non-Brahmins. ⁴⁶ Some of her kings were of non-Kshatriya origin. ⁴⁷ The best protestant thought is from non-Brahmana castes. ⁴⁸ Even in our own generation, India’s first labour leader was a workman. ⁴⁹ Likewise, India is not wanting in materialist thinkers. Not all thought is other-worldly. Not all thought is idealistic.

Materialist thought in India is one phase of her struggles, her history. What is "materialist thought"? Broadly speaking, it is the view that upholds the primacy of matter to other things. Any attempt to define "materialism" and seek for such a thing in the history of India is not only absurd but futile. Because materialism has changed in content at every epoch in Indian history. Materialism is also the natural born son of India. ⁵⁰ Given the conditions, the classes, the ideas, and institutions of the Vedic period, materialist thought is bound to appear. Attempts to define that materialism is as old as philosophy and not older, ⁵¹ in this light, are also futile. In India it arose at definite stages of social development. The incomplete incoherent Vedic cosmologies, the hedonistic priestdom, the Vedic ceremonials and the philosophical tenets of the day led to the birth of materialism. ⁵² Materialism in the early stages of Hindu culture took the form of Naturalism. It was a protest against the Supernaturalism of the day. This took several forms at that stage. It took the form of free-thinking. It took a sceptical form–yet free-thinkers and sceptics were not materialists. Of the many negative movements against Supernaturalism, Lokayata is one. It combined in itself all the features of the free-thinking and the sceptic movements of the day.

At a later stage it became agnostic. Buddhists and Jains were agnostics. They wore materialist pants. Agnosticism led in turn to Atheism. At each stage materialism depended on the knowledge of Sciences. It made use of the then obtainable knowledge of Physics. Astronomy, Logic and Psychology. Its theory of knowledge bore all the defects of the sciences of the day.

Lokayata came to be confused with Nastikas, with all heretical movements later. Hence we have to treat Lokayata in a strictly historical sense ⁵³ without losing sight of the conditions that gave birth to it.

At another stage it came to be regarded purely as a "theory" of sensations. Sensations were regarded as the only source of knowledge. A view is held that a materialist is one who has to do with that which may be touched, handled, seen or otherwise perceived through the senses. ⁵⁴ This was viewed purely from the point of view of the "physical inquirer.

At a still later stage, it took a hedonist character.

Roughly, materialist thought in India may be divided into various phases:

I. Naturalism, against Supernaturalism, coupled with Free-thinking and Scepticism, represented by Anti-Vedins, Upanishadic and post-Upanishadic materialist thinkers.

II. Agnosticism, represented by some aspects of Buddhism and Jainism.

III. Atheism, represented by early Sankhya.

IV. Sensationalism, represented by a sect of Lokayats. One may speak of atomic or mechanical materialism here. ⁵⁵

V. Hedonism, represented by the last stage of Lokayata.

Much of the materialist thought in India is of a protestant character because it has been intensely practical and was the product of practical needs. In its protests, it has not developed its theoretical side. Knowledge of Social Sciences was weak. For want of this, most opposition writers had recourse to mysticism ⁵⁶ and useless dialectics. This weakness is represented in general in the weak theoretical works of the materialists themselves. But not all protestant thought is materialist thought. The Indian phase of materialism, because of its concrete nature, has at all times taken a stand against supernaturalism, against magic, above all against Brahmins, their practices, and their philosophical tenets.

Materialist thought in India is one branch of thought expressing the relations between men and men, men and things, conditioned by time and space, having for its starting point the world as it is, as it exists. In the words of Russell, ⁵⁷ we may regard materialism in India, historically, as a dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma. Despite the wishes of the protestants, nothing less definite than a dogma enabled them to fight the dogmas they disliked.

l This is the introductory chapter of the author’s forthcoming book. ‘History of Materialist Thought in India.’

2 Dakshinaranjan Shastri: "Charvaka System" (Indian Materialism), Calcutta, with a Foreword by B. K. Shastri.

3 H. H. Wilson: "A Sketch of the Religious Sect of the Hindus" (in Collected Works, 1862, Vol. I, p. 22.) Originally published in Asiatic Researches, Vol. XVI, Calcutta, 1828, pp. 1-136 and Vol. XVII, calcutta, l832, pp. 169-314.

4 H. T. Colebrook: "Miscellaneous Essays" 1837, Vol. I, p. 402.

5 E. B. Cowell: "The Charvaka System of Philosophy" (in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal Vol. XXXI, 1862, p. 371)

6 Madhavacharya: "Sarvadarsana Samgraha" translated by E. B. Cowell and A. C. Gough, 1882, chapter I, pp. 2-11.

7 E. B. Cowell opcit. pp. 371-390 (This was published later as a pamphlet)

8 Cowell, opcit. p. 374.

9 J. Muir: "Indian Materialists" (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, New Series, 1862, article XI, pp. 299-320,) Muir read the paper on Saturday, 14th December, 1861.

10 E. B. Cowell, "On the Charvaka Sect" (Appendix C in H. T. CoLebrook: "Miscellaneons Essays" Vol. I. 1873, Ed. by E. B. Cowell) pp. 456-460.

11 T. W. Rhys Davids: "Dialogues of Buddha," 1899. Oxford, Part 1. 160-172. See pages 14, 110, 139 for Lokayata.

12 Digha Nikaya I-52, 55.

Samyutta Nikaya III-307.

Majjhima Nikaya I-515.

Rhys Davids: "Dialogues of Buddha" pt. I. p. 73.

13 A. Hillebrandt: "Alt-Indien" (Kulturgeschichtliche Skizzen, Breslau, 1899. IX, "Materialisten Und Skeptiker." pp. 168-178).

14 Max Mueller: "Six Systems of Indian Philosophy" 1899, pp. 123-137.

15 A. M. Pizzagalli: "Nastika Carvaka e Lokayatika" (contributa alla storia del materiolismo nell India antica) Pisa, 1907.

16 L. Suali: "Materiaux pour servir a L’histoire du Materialisme Indien" (in, Le Museon. Vol. IX, 1908, pp. 277-298.)

17 Saddarsana Samuchchaya by Haribhadra (528 A.D.) Ed. by L. Suali, Calcutta, 1905, Bibliotheca Indica, with Gunaratna’s Commentary

18 R. Garbe: "Lokayata" (in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. VIII, 1916, p. 138.)

19 L. De La Vallee Poussin: "Indian Materialism" (in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. VIII. 1916, pp.493-4.)

20 See, for a complete bibliography of writers who referred to Materialism casually, in my forthcoming book.

See also J. N. Farquhar: "An Outline of the Religious Literature of India" Oxford, 1920, p. 371 (gives a small bibliography)

In 1923 P. Masson-Oursel also gave a small bibliography. See at the end of "An Outline of Lokayata," for reference

21 G. Tucci: "Storia del Materialismo Ind" 1923.

22 Those who read Indian journals are familiar with the articles of Tucci and Pizzagalli on a variety of topics. Pizzagalli has written another work, "Aspetti E Problemi Della Curlta Indiana," Milano, 1927. He dealt on another aspect of Hindu materialism in "Sulla Setta Degli Svabhavavadinah" in Reale Instituto lombardo di scienzee, Lettere XLVI (1913) 104.

C. Formichi has written other works. "La Pensee Religieuse de L’Inde Avant Bouddha," 1930, and "Asvagosha Poeta del Buddhismo," Bari, 1912. (For Svabhavikas, see p. 231.)

G. B. Botazzi: "Precursori di Viccolo Machiavelli in India ed in Graecia Kautilya, e Thucydide," Pisa, 1914.

C. Formischi: "Pensiero e Azione nell’India Antica" (in Revista Italiana di Sociologia Roma)

C. Formischi: "The Hindus and their Political Science," Bologna, 1899. (In Italian)

23 D. Shastri: "The Lokayatikas and Kapilakas" (in The Indian Historical Quarterly edited by N. N. Law, 1931, pp. 125-137. An exception is to be made if we take also Chintamani as a writer on Lokayata. T. R. Chintamani: "A Note on the Charvaka System," (in The Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, 1927, Vol. I, pp. 387-8). It is a very superficial note.

24 E. B. Cowell: "The Charvaka System of Philosophy," opcit. p. 389. The European inquirers consist of four nations–English, French, German, and Italian.

25 See K. Kautsky, "Communism in Central Europe at the time of the Reformation," 1897, p. 19. "That knowledge thrives is due not merely to definite previous conditions which scientific investigation first renders possible, but also to certian wants which urge on scientific research."

26 Cf. Macaulay’s judgment of the literatures of India and Arabia: T. B. Macaulay: "Minute on Education," 1834. "I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. . . ." (quoted in E. Thompson and G. T. Garrat: "Rise and Fulfillment of British Rule in India." 1934. p. 661.)

27 See A. A Macdonell: "India’s Past;’ 1927, pp. 235-273.

28 R. Shama Sastry discovered Kautalya’s "Artha Sastra." He later translated it into English in 1915.

29 The Shifting of the population:

Report of the Royal Commission on Labonr in India 1931, cmp, 3883. p. 14 ff.

Ibid, p. 270. "During the last 50 years there has been a constant drift into the cities and towns."

Alexander Murray: "Labour," p.291.

The Growth of Towns:

Alexander Murray "Labour," P. 291 (in Modern India) edited by J. Cummings. 1931. D. R. Gadgil: "The Industria1 Evolution of India." pp, 158-172.

The Rise of the Proletariat:

The emergence of the Indian proletariat may be dated from 1880: Royal Commission on Labour. p. 6: Total number of factories 2,451: Average daily number employed 1,166.000.

R. K. Das: "The labour movement in India" 1923, pp. 3-6.

The Proletarisation of the Peasantry:

Royal Commission on Labour opcit. p. 14 et seq.

For the creation of a class of landless labourers, see D. R. Gadgil. "The Industrial Evolution of India in recent times," 1924, p. 163.

30 Michael O’Dwyer: "India as I Knew It" (1885-1925) 1925. p. 64.

"The Arya Samaj Reform Movement. . .which has taken such deep root among the educated Hindus in the Punjab, recognises the (defects) in the Hindu Social System, especially as it is a bar to that political advance that so many of them contemplate.

31 B. K. Sarkar: "Positive ground of Hindu Sociology" 1914. This work is a good instance of nationalist history-writing, and is the product of national agitation in India on the eve of the break of the World Imperialist War.

32 H. Dodwell: "A Sketch of the History of India." (1858-1918), 1925, pp. 6-7.

See also E. Thompson and G. T. Garrat: "Rise and Fulfillment of British Rule in India" 1934. p. 541. "By l884. . . .a new professional class had come into existence."

33 Royal Commission on Labour opcit. pp. 339-341.

(See the analysts of the class and race composition of the employers and employed, p. 340.)

34 Royal Commission on Labour opcit. pp. 23-24.

35 Compare the remarks of F. Engels: "The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844" translated by F. K. Wischnewtzky 1892. pp. 2-4. (These aptly apply to the Indian workers. His remarks of the agricultural proletariat of this period also apply aptly to the agricultural proletariat of India today, pp. 5-6.)

For the Indian proletariat see Margaret Read: "The Indian Peasant Uprooted" 1931 (A graphic summary of the Royal Commission on Labour, 12 volumes).

36 Like ‘National Front,’ ‘New Indian Literature’ and various other papers in Indian languages.

37 He a mere victim of Social Economy. See Indian Taxation Enquiry Report. Vol I, pp. 363-4 (1928)

R. Fox: "The Colonial Policy of British Imperialism" 1933, pp. 42-46.

38 R. Mukerjee: "The limits and potentialities of agriculture:" (in India Analysed Vol. III, p. 216) "it is the old conflict between the urban industrialist and the rural classes in which the former is gaining the upper hand...."

Vera Anstey: "The Economic development on India." 1929. p. 159.

V. E. L. Price: "Indian Legislature Economics" 1921. p. 4

V. H. L. Calvert: "Wealth and welfare of the Punjab" p. IV.

39 Compare the political defects of the German middle class of l848 and their apparent commercial successes with that of the Indian middle classes. The parallel is interesting. See F. Engels: "Revolution and Counter-Revolution." 1933. pp. 12-13.

40 F. Engels: "Revolution and Counter-Revolution" 1933. pp. 25-26. Cf. The German middle class of 1848. "They sought to obtain by every possible means the support of the working class of the town and of the peasantary....and it is well known that there was hardly a single prominent political character who did not proclaim himself a socialist." The same is true with the Indian National Congress which adopted an outward show of Socialism to meet the demands of the proletariat and the peasentry.

41 ‘K. Kautsky: "Communism in Central Europe." p.19. "Not every community and social class feels the need for deeper investigation into the real connection between things in nature and society even if the necessary previous conditions are present." Only that class whose interests need such deep investigation feels that necessity. See J. S. Huxley: "Science and Social Needs."

42 Blanqui wrote: "The social question cannot be earnestly and effectively discussed till after the next energetic and irrevocable solution of the political question." Quoted in B. Bax. P.60.

43 B. C. Law: "A Short Account of the Wandering Teachers" (in Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1918. Vol. 14. New Series pp. 402-403.)

B. Barua: "Pre-Buddhistic Philosophy" p. 339. "Kama and Artha are ways of life–Lokaatra." Kautalya: "Artha Sastra" I. I.

44 Max Mueller: "A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature" 1860. pp. 18-25. He familiarised the idea of the other-worldliness of Hindus. But he admits (p. 25) that later Aryans came to be aware of the external world around them.

45 Tucc opcit. p. 35

Other Italian writers like Botazzi and Formichi also repudiate the other worldliness of Hindus. See B. K. Sarka: "Positive ground of Hindu Sociology" p. 185 ff. "Not all Hindu literature addresses itself to renunciation and mysticism and that human energism as wall as utilitarianism have had powerful exponents in Hindu Philosophy." "Hindu Materialism is exhibited in Religion, logic, metaphysics and ethics." (These quotations are from Formichi) Botazzi also holds similar views refuting Chiapelli who thinks that the Oriental is used neither to science, nor to art, nor to liberty.

46 Garbe: "Indian Philosophy" opcit. p. 85.

47 According to Vishnu and other Puranas (Histories), the Kshatriya race came to an end with Maha Padma, the last Kshatriya king, and after him, "the Kings of the Earth were of Sudra origin."–Vishnu Pnrana IV. 24.

Chandtagupta is regarded as a Sadra (4th caste). (See Cambridge History of India, Vol. I, p. 470. and follow the references.) See also Shama Sastry: "Evolution of Indian Polity," p. 140

48 Like that of Lingayatsa: or Reddis, in the modern period.

49 R. K. Das: "The Labour Movement in India." 1923, pp. 14-17. Lokhanday organised "Bombay Mill Hands Association" in 1890. He organised a paper "Dinabandhu" (Friend of the Poor). This was the first labour journal in India.

50 Cf. Marx and Engels: "Die Heilige Familie," Frankfurt, A.M. 1845, pp. 201-204, quoted in Engels "Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, Introduction." p. 13, where they say Materialism is the natural born son of Great Britain.

51 Cf. F. A. Lange: "The History of materialism," 1925 Edition. p. 3.

52 Cf. F. A. Lange, opcit. p. 3-4.

At all stages, materialism in India was an open and immediate attack on Brahminic religion.

Cf. Ibid. Second Book, fourth section, p. 292.

For Cosmologies of the Vedas:

P. S. Deshmukh: "Religion in Vedic Literature," 1933, 325-331.

Priests:

Rig Veda, I, 126, 1-3 (Dana Stuti gift-land),

For Sacrifice:

See A. C. Clayton: "The Rig Veda and Vedic Religion" 1913. pp. 104-136.

53 Max Weber: "The Prorestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" translated by T. Parsons, chap. II Methodology. He prefers "provisional descriptions to conceptual definitions." p. 47.

54 C. Cohen: "Materialism restated" 1927. p. 24.

55 Cf. Leslie Stephen: "An Agnostic’s Apology" pp. 129-130.

56 Lokayata: "belonging to the world of sense" see R. Garbe "Lokayata" opcit. p. 138.

57 K. Kautsky: "Communism in Central Europe in the time of the Reformation" trans, by Mulliken, 1897. p. l8. "One of the radical reasons for the tendency towards mysticism was the ignorance of the great masses of people."

58 Bertrand Russell: Introduction to Langes’ Materialism, opcit. P. xi