The ultimate source of this wonderful system is the Veda, but the Hindu also accepts an immemorial custom as transcendant law, contending that such acceptance is approved in the sacred scripture and in the codes of divine legislators. In the Mahabharat we read: "Reasoning is not reliable; the Vedas differ from one another; and there is no sage whose doctrine can be safely accepted; the true rule of law is not easy to be known; the ways of venerable persons are, therefore, the best to follow." The Hindus have for centuries been governed by their own laws, which they regard not as the edicts of a political sovereign, nor as the enactments of a human legislature, but as the immutable commands of the Supreme Being of the universe. With such reverence have these laws been regarded that no Hindu king of whom we have any historical record ever dared to repeal, alter or modify one of them. For the past century such progress as Hindu law has made is due entirely to the action of the British courts in India. As we called attention to in the chapter on Mohammedan law, there are four distinct systems of jurisprudence in India, all in full operation and effect. Two of these systems, the English law created by the British Parliament and Anglo-Indian law created by the legislative councils, are territorial in jurisdiction, while the others, namely, the Hindu law and the Mohammedan law, are purely personal. That is to say, the Hindu and Mohammedan systems of law apply respectively to Hindus and Mohammedans, and to no one else. At the beginning of British rule in India the government of the East India Company gave the native inhabitants of the country the privilege of being governed by their own laws in matters relating to marriage, inheritance and religious usages. In the regulations promulgated by Warren Hastings in 1772, and since in the various civil acts and charters establishing the law courts, the rule is expressed that in cases relating to marriage, inheritance, succession and religious usages the Hindu law shall apply to the Hindus. The Privy Council decided in the leading case of Abraham v. Abraham that under the regulations and acts a Hindu is a man by both birth and religion a Hindu. In the case of Raj Bahadur v. Bishen Dayal, Mr. Justice Straight said: "If we are correct in our view that the status of a Hindu or Mohammedan under the first paragraph of Section 24, Act VI., of 1871, to have the Hindu law made the 'rule of decision,' depends upon his being an orthodox believer in the Hindu or Mohammedan religion, the mere circumstance that he may call himself or be termed by others a Hindu or Mohammedan, as the case may be, is not enough." CASTE.--The idea of caste or class distinction so completely permeates every religious and secular institution of India that one cannot understand Hindu law without having in mind the principal features of this social system.